The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Bridge93 · 23-05-2018 10:57AM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Yeah but Adrian Kennedy and that Dickson tool :mad:

Haha I know yeah I'm not saying listen, I'm certainly not. Just if anyone feels they can tough it out

Hotblack Desiato · 23-05-2018 10:58AM

pleas advice wrote: »

I'd say it was planted there

Is that why the eejit holding it was dressed as a shrub?

Billy86 · 23-05-2018 10:58AM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Yeah but Adrian Kennedy and that Dickson tool :mad:

Is that show STILL going? I don't know that I've listened to it since around first year. Is it still 3 relentless hours of "I'm not a scumbag YOU'RE THE SCUMBAG!!" back and forth?

Mr. CooL ICE · 23-05-2018 10:59AM

jjmcclure wrote: »

An here come the raging feminazis who will do what ever they want just because I wont have any man tell me what to do.

Mod: Less crap like this, please. It adds nothing to the debate

Hotblack Desiato · 23-05-2018 11:00AM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The same people campaigning for a No vote now were opposed to the 2013 POLUPA; they were for removing suicide as a reason for abortion in 2002 and 1992; they were against the right to travel and information in 1992. If NO was the result on Friday and we came back in five years with some magical constitutional contorting on Rape and FFA they would damn well oppose that too.

I bet you they were also against Marriage Equality and Divorce while you're at it. **** the whole lot of them: they'll say anything to uphold their cold absolutist moralism.

Yes they were and they also opposed the MAP even though they now say it should remove any need for abortion

Going back to the 80s and 70s the same crowd and/or their parents* were campaigning strongly against contraception, unmarried mothers allowance as it was called then, it wouldn't surprise me if they campaigned against making marital rape a crime.

* The so-called "pro-life" movement in Ireland is all led by a handful of families, most of whom are related to each other by blood or marriage.

LuckyLloyd · 23-05-2018 11:01AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

What was the general feeling as the the debate last night?

Good/bad? Was it done properly, both sides held to account etc?

I didn't get to see it and just wondering

Well organised and run, moderators did a decent job of querying responses, etc on both sides. Couldn't accuse the set up of any particular bias.

retro:electro · 23-05-2018 11:01AM

Billy86 wrote: »

The journal is currently showing: https://www.google.ie/amp/www.thejournal.ie/abortion-poll-red-c-sunday-business-post-4023304-May2018/%3famp=1

56% yes
27% no
17% undecided
3% refuse to answer

As encouraging as this is, I wouldn’t put it past No voters to lie in polls and say they’re voting Yes in order to instill a sense of complacency in the Yes campaign. Every single Yes vote matters! Friday can’t come soon enough for me.

gmisk · 23-05-2018 11:02AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

What was the general feeling as the the debate last night?

Good/bad? Was it done properly, both sides held to account etc?

I didn't get to see it and just wondering

I thought it was balanced, gave pretty much equal representation from Yes and No side.
Miriam did not take any BS I thought at points she was pretty rough on Simon Harris.

The yes side were excellent, Simon Harris especially which I wasnt expecting.

A few foot in mouth moments from Fidelma (despite only speaking for about 30 seconds) and the No doctor (the 8th protects me.....thats alright then). I also felt the psychologist in the no side was fairly disrespectful to people with mental health issues.

Zubeneschamali · 23-05-2018 11:03AM

cournioni wrote: »

Freedom and choice of the unborn is taken away with what is currently being proposed.

The unborn we are talking about don't have freedom or choice now. They have no agency at all - they don't even have a brain to think with.

We can't take away things they don't have.

iguana · 23-05-2018 11:07AM

Water John wrote: »

There is talk of, open adoption. This is where there are no chinese walls between the sets of parents. Has a place. Many would be more comfortable with that option, I think.

On average 14 Irish women have an abortion every day. There are 600 applicants for adoption in Ireland. Say that those applicants wanted an average of 3 babies each. That's less than half of the abortions in one year accounted for. Then what? Over 5,000 babies a year into foster care, in our already struggling foster care system? Do we start sending some of them to prospective adoptive parents abroad and set up orphanages for the rest? The numbers just don't add up. If all of the unwanted pregnancies were carried to term, the end result would be thousands and thousands of unwanted children every year who would grow up without a fraction of the love and individual support children need to thrive. It would also mean that all the children already in the foster care system, children who have suffered from abuse and neglect, would be less likely to find support and care.

Abortion isn't the nicest idea in the world. I get it, I have ovarian endometrioma which, until the growths were removed, means my immune system treated all of my earliest pregnancies as invaders resulting in miscarriage. But abortion of an embryo has to be preferable to thousands of unwanted children. Especially considering that abortion can ensure a better mental health outcome for the woman and leaves her strong enough to be the mother her child deserves if and when she does decide to have a family or in a better place to keep giving her existing children the time and energy they are used to.

nozzferrahhtoo · 23-05-2018 11:07AM

jjmcclure wrote: »

Grow up and look at the reality of the situation, abortion for lifestyle reasons is wrong, you can call it morality but I would also attach a little bit of scientific fact about what abortion is destroying.

I am intricately informed and aware of pretty much every step of the human gestation process. By all means tell me what exists scientifically in a 12 week old fetus that you are specifically hanging Moral Value Judgements off.

Hotblack Desiato · 23-05-2018 11:08AM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Well organised and run, moderators did a decent job of querying responses, etc on both sides. Couldn't accuse the set up of any particular bias.

Totally unlike the shambles last week, far better run, people were allowed speak for the most part

And the outcome was totally different too, which is not unrelated to the above.

Did feel that Miriam overstepped the mark a few times with Harris, interrupting him unnecessarily, or parroting very emotive No-language back at him instead of asking a question in a neutral way.

Just her · 23-05-2018 11:08AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you mean the foetus that lacks sentience?

Yeah I don't agree with this sentience argument but even if you did, the foetus is going to gain this valued sentience in a short space of time, the abortion is coming in just before someone had judged it non sentient. If you really value sentience so much you would be advocating for the baby on the verge of it. Who can say the exact time and day the little baby will gain it.

pleas advice · 23-05-2018 11:09AM

NuMarvel wrote: »

A question about the thread poll:
Who are the 6 people who think turnout will be less than 10%??

The 'atari jaguar' option

ohnonotgmail · 23-05-2018 11:10AM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Yes they were and they also opposed the MAP even though they now say it should remove any need for abortion

Going back to the 80s and 70s the same crowd and/or their parents* were campaigning strongly against contraception, unmarried mothers allowance as it was called then, it wouldn't surprise me if they campaigned against making marital rape a crime.

* The so-called "pro-life" movement in Ireland is all led by a handful of families, most of whom are related to each other by blood or marriage.

Yeah it was the same crowd who protested when the Virgin Megastore started selling condoms. The thrill of buying condoms for the first time. Not that i had much use for them at the time.

....... · 23-05-2018 11:10AM

This post has been deleted.

Nettle Soup · 23-05-2018 11:11AM

Watched the Prime Time debate on RTE Player again.

Harris was outstanding. He did an almost perfect debate.

jjmcclure · 23-05-2018 11:11AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am intricately informed and aware of pretty much every step of the human gestation process. By all means tell me what exists scientifically in a 12 week old fetus that you are specifically hanging Moral Value Judgements off.

"At 12 weeks a baby's reflexes kick in: His fingers will soon begin to open and close, toes will curl, and his mouth will make sucking movements. He'll feel it if you gently poke your tummy – though you won't feel his movements yet"

Sounds like a living being to me. Keep your head in the sand if you wish.

ohnonotgmail · 23-05-2018 11:11AM

Just her wrote: »

Yeah I don't agree with this sentience argument but even if you did, the foetus is going to gain this valued sentience in a short space of time, the abortion is coming in just before someone had judged it non sentient. If you really value sentience so much you would be advocating for the baby on the verge of it. Who can say the exact time and day the little baby will gain it.

We can say for certain that it doesnt have it at 12 weeks.

iguana · 23-05-2018 11:12AM

Just her wrote: »

Yeah I don't agree with this sentience argument but even if you did, the foetus is going to gain this valued sentience in a short space of time, the abortion is coming in just before someone had judged it non sentient. If you really value sentience so much you would be advocating for the baby on the verge of it. Who can say the exact time and day the little baby will gain it.

They absolutely won't gain it anywhere close to 10 weeks gestation. They aren't even close to the verge of it. It's not a "who can say" issue. We know for a fact that they don't have the necessary neural synapses and they won't for quite some time after the cut off point for medical abortion.

Frank Bullitt · 23-05-2018 11:13AM

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Watched the Prime Time debate on RTE Player again.

Harris was outstanding. He did an almost perfect debate.

Im doing the same myself now, he really is playing a blinder.

Sherlock is probably happy she bailed on this, she would have been mauled.

Nettle Soup · 23-05-2018 11:15AM

Gintonious wrote: »

Im doing the same myself now, he really is playing a blinder.

Sherlock is probably happy she bailed on this, she would have been mauled.

Peadar was destroyed. The fact that he voted against Protection of Life During Pregnancy 2013 completely undermined him. He was flapping by the end.

....... · 23-05-2018 11:16AM

This post has been deleted.

Cupcake_Crisis · 23-05-2018 11:17AM

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Watched the Prime Time debate on RTE Player again.

Harris was outstanding. He did an almost perfect debate.

I just spoke to my Mam about it there, she watched it and was thoroughly impressed by Harris. The debate has swayed her from a solid no to a soft yes. I’m looking forward to catching up on it myself now.

jjmcclure · 23-05-2018 11:18AM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Interesting comparison. What does slime mold have the potential to develop into?

joe40 · 23-05-2018 11:18AM

I haven't had a chance to post this morning, but I would just like to say that I thought primetime last night was very good.
The difference between last night and the CB live show was stark, and although RTE will never admit it, this shows that they realise the CB live show was very flawed.
Was there any reason given why Cora Sherlock pulled out?
Simon Harris did very well (as did Peadar Toibin in fairness although I fundamentally disagree with him)
It was a pity that the Consultant obstetrician was not able to debate for the yes since Cora pulled out.
There was an obstetrician on TV3 show that was brilliant.
For me it is the gynaecologist and obstetricians working in this field that will sway the undecided or "No" voters that aren't fully entrenched in their views. Theirs is the most compelling argument for people who claim to have sympathy for the hard cases, but want to logic and reason.

Zubeneschamali · 23-05-2018 11:18AM

rgace wrote: »

We are voting to remove any rights for a foetus from the constitution, so what reasoning is there for preventing a termination after 12 weeks?

Would this leave the legislation open to a challenge in the courts?

No. The state is quite entitled to protect the unborn in legilsation for the common good, even without an explicit Constitutional right to life for the unborn.

See the period 1937-1983 for an example, where we had the current Constitution without a right to life and the 1861 law criminalising abortion.

ohnonotgmail · 23-05-2018 11:19AM

jjmcclure wrote: »

Interesting comparison. What does slime mold have the potential to develop into?

you keep going on about potential as if it is the be all and end all. If you stand on a caterpillar would you say you killed a potential butterfly?

SusieBlue · 23-05-2018 11:20AM

jjmcclure wrote: »

"At 12 weeks a baby's reflexes kick in: His fingers will soon begin to open and close, toes will curl, and his mouth will make sucking movements. He'll feel it if you gently poke your tummy – though you won't feel his movements yet"

Sounds like a living being to me. Keep your head in the sand if you wish.

These are involuntary reactions due to the nervous system and reflexes kicking in.

If babies were fully formed humans at week 12 why do they hang around the womb till week 40, if everything is in perfect working order?

nozzferrahhtoo · 23-05-2018 11:20AM

Just her wrote: »

Yeah I don't agree with this sentience argument but even if you did, the foetus is going to gain this valued sentience in a short space of time

The relevance of which I have been questioning every time you trot it out. It is entirely clear that you hold this position, but I have not yet seen you actually argue for this position other than assertion of it.

Just her wrote: »

If you really value sentience so much you would be advocating for the baby on the verge of it.

That is not at all the requirement you want to pretend it is. Nothing about valuing sentience requires that we instantiate more of it. That is an ideal YOU are building into it, but is not actually there.

Rather it is the freedoms, choices and well being of existing sentience that is the focus of that moral system. None of which requires we create more. It just requires respect and protections for existing cases of it.

In fact there is an entire movement of people who believe we should not be instantiating any more of it at all, and that it is positively immoral to do so. They are known as "Anti Natalists".

I think their arguments can be rebutted with some input of effort, but their arguments highlight the fact that a deference to existing sentience in no way requires a goal to produce more of it.

Just her wrote: »

Who can say the exact time and day the little baby will gain it.

At this time we can not, but we are not required to for the reasons I have explained to you a number of times. All we need to know is when it is NOT there, not when it will be.

The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Comments