The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

nullzero · 23-05-2018 07:36AM

Just her wrote: »

Why do you say scaremongering? Do you think it doesn't happen?

Anything that can't be dismissed out of hand is Scaremongering.

gmisk · 23-05-2018 07:37AM

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

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?

I think that poster might have watched the purge films and thought they were documentaries...

nozzferrahhtoo · 23-05-2018 07:39AM

Just her wrote: »

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.

That is a common narrative we see in discourse quite often. When someone fails utterly to rebut an argument, or find a fault with it, they just start to pretend the other person is not open to being wrong. A move I suspect merely makes them feel better about their failure to interact meaningfully with the discussion.

The simple fact is however I could not be more open to being wrong. On any subject, anywhere, at any time. The very definition of open mindedness requires that people be open to changing their position if and when the arguments, evidence, data or reasoning suggests they should.

I am just not being offered any of that at this time. As I said the sole form exception to my position appears to take is this idea that we should pretend points of concern from the future should be treated as if they are in the present. But no explanation as to why we should make that move. IF there is another rebuttal to my position being offered that is not described by that summary, I have simply not seen it.

Cabaal · 23-05-2018 07:39AM

Python Desk wrote: »

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

Would you legally allow a person to legally travel to commit genocide?

We legally allow women to travel for abortions so again your comparison is a red herring and is flawed....again!,

Do you think women should be banned from doing so? Perhaps we can put them in homes instead...we'll call them...mother and baby homes.

Worked out so well in the past, nothing can go wrong!
:rolleyes:

Overheal · 23-05-2018 07:42AM

Again, if you want to claim abortion is a substantial threat to a woman’s reproductive system you’re going to have to provide evidence. It’s been peddled around for so long it’s reached myth status from everything I’ve read from reliable sources that have investigated the claim

https://jezebel.com/5667742/do-multiple-abortions-actually-harm-your-ability-to-conceive

The lie is very often scaremongered into women at crisis centers which are notoriously abundant in the US - and guess what, are probably already abundant in Ireland and will continue to be abundant after this referendum either result

Just her · 23-05-2018 07:42AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not putting them in the same category though, now am I? It is the people using thoughtless phrases like "perfectly healthy life" who are doing so because such a phrase includes all other flora and fauna on this planet.

The point being that it is not that it is life, nor that it is healthy, that is the actual focus of their concerns, even though they are pretending it is.

What I am "hoping" is that people can be compelled to dig down on what their arguments and values ACTUALLY are, rather than use meta-words that bypass it. Because what I find is that when people actually do unpack their terms, they find that their values lie far away from where they pretend they do.

You do seem overly concerned with predicting what my next post will contain than with responding to what the current or previous posts actually contained though. You might invest some introspection into determining why that might be.

I've introspected. It didn't take long. It's because rather than answer my points, I believe, you pick out a little word somewhere in my post and make a whole post about it.

I can only speak for myself, but if I was to use the term perfectly healthy life, or life, it's because I'm not allowed on here to say babies. Perfectly healthy baby. Anyway we are only going to go around in circles again. Flora fauna paper and vegetables aren't anything to do with this debate.

No one's pretending what there values are, they are what they are whether we agree with them or not.

You tell us what that focus of our concerns is, seeing as we are all pretending and you know know our minds better than we do

Cupcake_Crisis · 23-05-2018 07:43AM

According to Twitter Simon Harris was fantastic in the debate last night? Is that right? I hadn’t a lot of faith in him tbh.

Just her · 23-05-2018 07:43AM

Overheal wrote: »

Nope. Source? Frequency? Severity? Statistics?

So you said scaremongering without actually knowing any facts yourself?

nozzferrahhtoo · 23-05-2018 07:43AM

Just her wrote: »

Why do you say scaremongering? Do you think it doesn't happen?

I think the accusation of scare mongering has two parts.

The first is that while complications with such procedures do happen, they are statistically very rare. So to bring them up at all in order to influence anything appears to have an emotive agenda and little more.

The second is that a persons agenda and narrative can be exposed when they do something in one context they do not do in any other. Statically ANY procedure has a risk of side effects. So why are we not going to every thread on every procedure pointing this out? Hell even contraception comes with many risks of side effects. Especially oral methods such as the pill. But pretty much no one appears to be using that as an argument against contraception.

So intent and relevance do appear to suggest the agenda is to scare monger.

Overheal · 23-05-2018 07:44AM

Just her wrote: »

So you said scaremongering without actually knowing any facts yourself?

Derped yourself there. See my above post.

But also, it’s your burden of proof. You want to claim it’s a threat to women’s reproduction. It’s up to you to prove and quantify the claim.

gmisk · 23-05-2018 07:45AM

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

According to Twitter Simon Harris was fantastic in the debate last night? Is that right? I hadn’t a lot of faith in him tbh.

I am not a fan of his at all...he was excellent..he knew his stuff and spoke with a lot of passion as well, he wiped the floor with Peader Tóibín.

Cabaal · 23-05-2018 07:45AM

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

According to Twitter Simon Harris was fantastic in the debate last night? Is that right? I hadn’t a lot of faith in him tbh.

To be honest, i didn't have faith in him before it either. But he handled himself very well and was well able for Tobin. it's changed my view of the man as I didn't think he was able for debates and talks before. I said it lastnight in this thread, I was wrong about the man.

Billy86 · 23-05-2018 07:46AM

cournioni wrote: »

Adoption? Foster care? There are plenty of loving people who do not have the ability to procreate who would give up everything to have the ability to have a child.

Foster carers? Adoptive parents? With all respect, do you have any idea how much of a crippling shortage of those that there are and historically always have been in Ireland? Neither are a workable solution so you would need to come up with something else.

Zubeneschamali · 23-05-2018 07:46AM

Just her wrote: »

The no side aren't allowed to say it's murder and are risking a ban here if they do

Abortion isn't murder with the 8th in place, it is a whole different crime. Back before the 8th in 1982, we had the 1861 act, and it wasn't murder then either.

Now, if you would like to argue that it should be murder, go ahead and try.

nullzero · 23-05-2018 07:47AM

Overheal wrote: »

Again, if you want to claim abortion is a substantial threat to a woman’s reproductive system you’re going to have to provide evidence. It’s been peddled around for so long it’s reached myth status from everything I’ve read from reliable sources that have investigated the claim

https://jezebel.com/5667742/do-multiple-abortions-actually-harm-your-ability-to-conceive

The lie is very often scaremongered into women at crisis centers which are notoriously abundant in the US - and guess what, are probably already abundant in Ireland and will continue to be abundant after this referendum either result

I didn't say that complications are a common occurrence. In your rush to be right you brushed right past the qualifying language I used.

PhoenixParker · 23-05-2018 07:48AM

Python Desk wrote: »

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

I keep seeing this and similar statements thrown around.

We constantly rework our laws to improve their effectiveness and reduce overall harm.

When we do that we look at what's happening in Ireland, how other countries handle that in their legislation, what their outcomes are and what the outcomes would likely be in an Irish context.

With genocide, we don't have genocide, they don't have genocide, all good.
With say drug laws there are absolutely things to look at and consider.

With abortion & the 8th, what's happening in Ireland is 3500 women per year accessing abortion in the UK, an unknown other number using pills or a UK address. No counselling pre or post, no aftercare, no quality control of very strong prescription medication.

We have women's healthcare during wanted pregnancies compromised and doctor's hands tied. Traumatic situations compounded by a bad clause in the constitution.

So yes we look at what other countries are doing and we see what can be done to reduce harm.

We also look at reality which includes the impact that how other countries do things has on what happens here. We've done it with the travel and information amendments.

It's not some crazy ridiculous idea, it's normal bog standard practice.

Overheal · 23-05-2018 07:48AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I think the accusation of scare mongering has two parts.

The first is that while complications with such procedures do happen, they are statistically very rare. So to bring them up at all in order to influence anything appears to have an emotive agenda and little more.

The second is that a persons agenda and narrative can be exposed when they do something in one context they do not do in any other. Statically ANY procedure has a risk of side effects. So why are we not going to every thread on every procedure pointing this out? Hell even contraception comes with many risks of side effects. Especially oral methods such as the pill. But pretty much no one appears to be using that as an argument against contraception.

So intent and relevance do appear to suggest the agenda is to scare monger.

And mind you that’s statistically rare to have any sort of complication (eg. Some scarring) and that can even then not substantially harm your ability to reproduce - it would have to be *a lot* of scarring, from techniques that are no longer practiced.

Cupcake_Crisis · 23-05-2018 07:48AM

gmisk wrote: »

I am not a fan of his at all...he was excellent..he knew his stuff and spoke with a lot of passion as well, he wiped the floor with Peader Tóibín.

Cabaal wrote: »

To be honest, i didn't have faith in him before it either. But he handled himself very well and was well able for Tobin. it's changed my view of the man as I didn't think he was able for debates and talks before. I said it lastnight in this thread, I was wrong about the man.

Twitter is in love with him atm. I’ll have to catch up later.

nozzferrahhtoo · 23-05-2018 07:49AM

Just her wrote: »

I've introspected. It didn't take long. It's because rather than answer my points, I believe, you pick out a little word somewhere in my post and make a whole post about it.

If you feel there is a point you have made that I have not dealt with then by all means point to it. Otherwise you are merely engaged in "spaghetti at the wall" tactics where you merely fling vague accusations in the hope they will stick, without actually validating any of them.

Just her wrote: »

I can only speak for myself, but if I was to use the term perfectly healthy life, or life, it's because I'm not allowed on here to say babies. Perfectly healthy baby. Anyway we are only going to go around in circles again. Flora fauna paper and vegetables aren't anything to do with this debate.

I do not think you are the arbiter of what is relevant to the debate, or peoples arguments in it. The reason they ARE relevant, despite your pretense to the contrary, is because clearly we are morally A-ok with ending life all the time.

Therefore if someone wants to suggest one particular life or group of life is the exception to that, and that we should morally or ethically not be allowed to choose to end it.......... then there is an onus on them to construct an argument as to why that is.

I can do that. Happily. I can create an argument against the ending of particular groups of life. The issue is that NOTHING in that argument applies in any way to a 10 week old fetus.

Just her wrote: »

You tell us what that focus of our concerns is, seeing as we are all pretending and you know know our minds better than we do

I have, multiple times. Unfortunately you have decided to ignore several such posts. But that does not mean they did not occur.

Just her · 23-05-2018 07:49AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is a common narrative we see in discourse quite often. When someone fails utterly to rebut an argument, or find a fault with it, they just start to pretend the other person is not open to being wrong. A move I suspect merely makes them feel better about their failure to interact meaningfully with the discussion.

The simple fact is however I could not be more open to being wrong. On any subject, anywhere, at any time. The very definition of open mindedness requires that people be open to changing their position if and when the arguments, evidence, data or reasoning suggests they should.

I am just not being offered any of that at this time. As I said the sole form exception to my position appears to take is this idea that we should pretend points of concern from the future should be treated as if they are in the present. But no explanation as to why we should make that move. IF there is another rebuttal to my position being offered that is not described by that summary, I have simply not seen it.

You've had plenty of rebuttal, just none your are prepared to accept, I'd only be repeating myself over and over and you still wouldn't accept it. I feel just fine about my interactions with you, truly. It's not my fault if you won't take my point.

I don't need a definition of open-minded ness, I just don't believe you really are.

Zubeneschamali · 23-05-2018 07:49AM

Just her wrote: »

Oh a charming post

I am not trying to charm No voters, I am trying to beat them.

Overheal · 23-05-2018 07:49AM

nullzero wrote: »

I didn't say that complications are a common occurrence. In your rush to be right you brushed right past the qualifying language I used.

_Kaiser_ · 23-05-2018 07:49AM

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

According to Twitter Simon Harris was fantastic in the debate last night? Is that right? I hadn’t a lot of faith in him tbh.

I wouldn't be a fan - of him or his party tbh - but I was very impressed with him last night.

He was prepared, able to articulate his points, and able to counter the arguments made to him.

As I said last night, I think Miriam crossed into badgering him a few times (which is inexcusable for a host/moderator imo) but he stayed calm and polite throughout.

The No speakers seemed disorganised, tried to drag all sorts of unrelated issues into it to score points, and did themselves more harm than good.

But as I also said last night.. It's not a reality TV show. It's not about the personalities or showmanship of the speakers. It's the information and arguments they put across that matter and on those lines, the No side did badly last night I think.

Itssoeasy · 23-05-2018 07:50AM

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

According to Twitter Simon Harris was fantastic in the debate last night? Is that right? I hadn’t a lot of faith in him tbh.

Well going of this thread it seems that posters were surprised at how he did.

pleas advice · 23-05-2018 07:51AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Abortion isn't murder with the 8th in place, it is a whole different crime. Back before the 8th in 1982, we had the 1861 act, and it wasn't murder then either.

Now, if you would like to argue that it should be murder, go ahead and try.

And rape didn't happen in marriage before 1990?

Just her · 23-05-2018 07:51AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is a common narrative we see in discourse quite often. When someone fails utterly to rebut an argument, or find a fault with it, they just start to pretend the other person is not open to being wrong. A move I suspect merely makes them feel better about their failure to interact meaningfully with the discussion.

The simple fact is however I could not be more open to being wrong. On any subject, anywhere, at any time. The very definition of open mindedness requires that people be open to changing their position if and when the arguments, evidence, data or reasoning suggests they should.

I am just not being offered any of that at this time. As I said the sole form exception to my position appears to take is this idea that we should pretend points of concern from the future should be treated as if they are in the present. But no explanation as to why we should make that move. IF there is another rebuttal to my position being offered that is not described by that summary, I have simply not seen it.

We are going around in circles and I'm only going to get reported and banned for derailing the thread of this goes on

Overheal · 23-05-2018 07:51AM

Python Desk wrote: »

There is an argument to be made for those who believe abortion is immoral to make it illegal to travel for abortion. Both yes side and no side are putting their heads in the sand.

That would require another referendum.

gmisk · 23-05-2018 07:52AM

Just getting to listen to the stand (Eamon Dunphy podcast on the 8th).
Una Mullally was excellent , spoke very well with great passion.

The John waters one was an absolute Disaster! His cursing and walking out was bizarre.

nozzferrahhtoo · 23-05-2018 07:52AM

Just her wrote: »

You've had plenty of rebuttal, just none your are prepared to accept

Well exactly. I am not prepared to accept arguments from assertion, poor definition, or logical flaws. Why would or should I? I am more than prepared to accept arguments against my position that are not fallacious. None have been presented.

Just her wrote: »

It's not my fault if you won't take my point.

Well it kinda is. If you present a fallacious point, or one that is purely an assertion without substance, then it is entirely your fault if people do not accept those arguments.

I can not distill much "point" out of your posts other than the one I have already described, which is that you seem to believe that future concerns should be treated as relevant in the present. That the idea a fetus is on the path to becoming sentient means we should afford it in the present the values that that sentience would bring.

I am more than aware of the existence of that position. It is the arguments FOR That position that I seem not to be offered by anyone.

Just her wrote: »

I don't need a definition of open-minded ness, I just don't believe you really are.

Of course you don't. It serves you emotionally to pretend things like this about me without evidence. But I see no reason to make this about me. Deal with the substance of my posts, not the author of them, if you would.

erica74 · 23-05-2018 07:53AM

Python Desk wrote: »

In some ways the abortion argument has parallels with people who are horrified by the thought of eating dogs but not cows. The dogs are more visible and easy to empathise with, that doesn't many it is morally any worse to kill a dog than a cow.

Likewise, it is harder to empathise with the unborn as we can't see, feel or touch them like the mother. Therefore many people assume it is not as serious killing the unborn.

Again, eating animals has nothing to do with the referendum.

cournioni wrote: »

Adoption? Foster care? There are plenty of loving people who do not have the ability to procreate who would give up everything to have the ability to have a child.

If a woman wants an abortion, she no longer wants to be pregnant so adoption isn't an option because that means continuing with the pregnancy.

The Irish adoption and foster system has already been discussed in detail in this thread and the last.

I have great sympathy for couples who can't conceive but want children, however, I'm not willing to be a walking womb for these couples.

If you think the Irish adoption and foster system is simple, you really need to research it better.

The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Comments