The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yet we do it all the time. In our medical industry we do it in the billions. In protecting our growing vegetables we do it in the millions. In eating vegetable we do it in massive numbers. Our meat industry does it with wild abandon. Even the production of paper kills perfectly healthy life.

So while you can protest all you like about killing "perfectly healthy life"..... it seems that it is not those three words.... either separately OR together...... that is actually the focus of your moral and ethical concerns.



It is an option and a choice. Why pretend it is being offered as "the" solution?

Oh dear, will you please stop putting vegetables and paper into the same category as an unborn child. There is no comparison. The reason, I venture, that the poster called the foetus 'life' is because we seemingly aren't allowed call them babies or children on here. Of course you are waiting, can I say hoping, or is that going to warrant a full page explanation of the word hope, to get your sentient argument in again.

Python Desk wrote: »

If someone believes it's wrong to kill the unborn then the solution is not killing the unborn. Don't have the abortion then.

People will still have that choice!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Deflection. And irrelevant. I reply to who I reply to. How, why, when or in what numbers is nothing to do with you. However if it puts potential paranoia to rest the reason I saw YOUR post was because I was checking your recent posts to see if you had yet gotten around to replying to my last reply to you.



And if you re-read my post you will find A) I never suggested it was and nothing I just said to you is based on, or requires that, it was.

You were discussing the use of the word "Murder" in general, and my response to it is based on questioning the use of it and what that use actually achieved (which is nothing, except to make the speaker look like they do not know, or care, what words actually mean).

I would suggest the reason the moderators have an issue with the word murder is because people are using it (erroneously) to make an already emotive and divisive subject MORE emotive and divisive. Which is probably more informative and accurate a narrative than the "it gets the no side banned" one you are peddling.

Also I don't even know, although I wouldn't wish to presume what everyone is thinking, but are the yes posters even on board with you on that one. I've seen them speak of difficult choices. I will go ahead and presume no one thinks throwing a vegetable or piece of paper on the bin is a difficult choice.

Python Desk wrote: »

Are you saying that theft, murder, sexual assault, fraud and tax evasion should be legalised so people can choose to commit those crimes?

Still this red herring? I’ll jist refer you to my last reply to you. Ty

Python Desk wrote:

Are you saying that theft, murder, sexual assault, fraud and tax evasion should be legalised so people can choose to commit those crimes?

Are you saying that theft, murder, sexual assault, fraud, and tax evasion are all legal in the majority of developed countries, and that these things all have an Irish constitutial right to travel to do?

Python Desk wrote: »

Some people think it's heartbreaking to kill the unborn, they could say similar, "how can anyone justify this".

Your forgetting to love both

It would appear that we are witnessing the construction of the grandest strawman boards has ever seen.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Deflection. And irrelevant. I reply to who I reply to. How, why, when or in what numbers is nothing to do with you. However if it puts potential paranoia to rest the reason I saw YOUR post was because I was checking your recent posts to see if you had yet gotten around to replying to my last reply to you.



And if you re-read my post you will find A) I never suggested it was and nothing I just said to you is based on, or requires that, it was.

You were discussing the use of the word "Murder" in general, and my response to it is based on questioning the use of it and what that use actually achieved (which is nothing, except to make the speaker look like they do not know, or care, what words actually mean).

I would suggest the reason the moderators have an issue with the word murder is because people are using it (erroneously) to make an already emotive and divisive subject MORE emotive and divisive. Which is probably more informative and accurate a narrative than the "it gets the no side banned" one you are peddling.

Whatever the reason, we aren't allowed to use the word. Therefore the reason the poster gave that the word isn't used on here because noone thinks it's murder could be misleading.

The reason and the only reason I didn't answer your post is because it was going nowhere, in my opinion anyway. I don't feel there is anything more to I can say that I haven't said already, honestly I feel that you have invested so much in your viewpoint that you aren't open to being wrong. Just my opinion.

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Oh this poster is still claiming he's voting yes.

...seriously?

Edward M wrote: »

If saving the eighth means its OK to let women suffer abhorrently, and the unborn baby also perhaps, so you can justify not having abortion then I feel that's a bit sadistic.

Also it's as he/she likes to say ethically and morally reprehensible

Python Desk wrote:

If genocide was legal in another country should we make it legal?

But it's not...

Just her wrote: »

Also I don't even know, although I wouldn't wish to presume what everyone is thinking, but are the yes posters even on board with you on that one.

Seemingly more irrelevant deflection here. What if they are? How is this relevant? However since you ask, I think many are and many are not. There are people who agree with my position on abortion of a 12 week old fetus not being morally problematic.... they just do not agree with the path that led me to that conclusion.

Perhaps after the vote is past, more of them will be inclined to explain the substance of their disagreement. I would welcome it. I suspect they will be more coherent in their critique of my positions than the two or three "no" posters who have attempted to undermine it have been.

Just her wrote: »

I've seen them speak of difficult choices. I will go ahead and presume no one thinks throwing a vegetable or piece of paper on the bin is a difficult choice.

Every medical intervention, required or chosen, should be a difficult choice. Whether medical or surgical no one should be taking the choice to engage with such interventions lightly. They have real world effects, physically, mentally, emotionally.

The SOLE agenda in mentioning things like vegetables, paper, and meat is to point out that there is more nuance under what mediates our moral and ethical concerns than things merely being alive and being healthy. It is an attempt to make people espousing those words to explore what it is they ACTUALLY value.

And I do that because it seems when you do finally compel people to dig down on where their values actually lie.... they quickly end up listing attributes and focal points that simply are not applicable to the fetus.

At which point they do one of two things. They EITHER realize their position is baseless and acknowledge that or simply run away......... OR they start appealing to attributes it WILL have and attempt to declare, based on nothing but assertion by fiat........ that we should bring those concerns forward in time to the present.

Python Desk wrote: »

Edward M wrote: »

Another heartbreaking story on Ireland am now, FFA, doctors said go to england to end it!
How can anyone justify this?

Some people think it's heartbreaking to kill the unborn, they could say similar, "how can anyone justify this".

Tbh I wonder how many people's view of this change when they find themselves on an edge case.

I personally think it is heartbreaking that some people feel the need to interfere in the tragedies of other people's lives on a blanket ban basis. Abortion is a human tragedy and needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis. A blanket ban based on not allowing it at all is removed from the humanity of the tragedy. It is cold and authoritarian and responds to the needs of people who put their principles above the humanity of other people and hide behind awh the babies.