nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

PopePalpatine

I didn't know whether to post this here or in the Sanctimony of Pro-Lifers thread in t'udder forum - a BBC article on Paraguay's "epidemic" of child pregnancies. Paraguay only allows for abortion if the mother's life is at risk. On average, two girls aged 14 and under become pregnant in Paraguay every day.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

pleas advice

Pherekydes wrote: »

But it doesn't involve another being. Unless we have different definitions of the word 'being', as in human being?

human entity, developing human fetus, parasitic clump of cells, whatever you want to call it... (although i don't know of another case that involves a 'clump of cells' being regulated by law)

Overheal

King Mob wrote: »

Ah...
It's the Chinese he's after.

As long as I can have a go at the Greeks.

There’s only two kinds of people I hate: those who are intolerant of other cultures, and the Dutch.

pauldla

King Mob wrote: »

Ah...
It's the Chinese he's after.

As long as I can have a go at the Greeks.

How long, I wonder, before he realizes he might be a tad outnumbered in that confrontation?

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

OK, here's the thing animals do not mimic or resemble human behaviour. They are the same behaviours. An elephant examining its teeth in the mirror is showing intelligence, consciousness and self awareness.

Well here is the thing, displaying the same behavior does not make it the same behavior if the explanations, roots, and reasons for it are different. That said though, nothing you are saying here is a challenge for my position because I do believe that such animals that display higher levels of sentience and self-awareness, for that very reason, get afforded more of our moral and ethical concern than animals that do not.

And that is what I have been saying ALL ALONG. That moral and ethical concern scales with the sentience a species is cable of. Which begs the question why we afford any moral and ethical concern to things that lack that faculty entirely. Such as a fetus at 10 weeks gestation.

recedite wrote: »

Much more than a human infant could show in fact. Yet we ascribe more rights to the human infant. What I am saying, and what you refuse to accept, is that we give those rights to the infant on the basis that it is human being, a close relative to ourselves. Our species, in a purely taxonomic sense.

And what I am saying, and what you refuse to accept, is that such an infant is an instance of human sentience and should be afford the rights, and moral and ethical concerns, we would afford any member of that species. From the moment it becomes a sentience member of that species.

So it is you, not I, that is equivocating over varied levels of sentience within a species. Without offering any justification why that is a valid, useful, or defensible move to make. I would have no less concern for an infant of the human species than I would for an adult with mental issues that curtail their level of sentience either.

So the fact you might want to argue an adult elephant has an OPERATIONAL level of sentience beyond a human infant, is not at all a challenge, issue, or speed bump of any kind of the position I actually hold on the matter.

recedite wrote: »

Also I might add that the earthworm is sentient, because unlike a rock it feels. Which makes a mockery of your "human rights for sentient beings" argument.

Except it does the exact opposite of make a mockery of it, it fits EXACTLY and neatly into my claim that our concern for a species scales proportionately with the level of sentience that species is capable of. So I very much would have more moral and ethical concern for such an earthworm, than I would for a rock or a 10 week old fetus. Because, as you say, the earth worm has a level of sentience, however small. The rock and fetus, do not.

recedite wrote: »

It was pointed out by another poster that you started using the word "sentience" 8 or 9 years ago to replace the word "consciousness" which you had been using previously.

The relevance of which neither you nor he was able to point out. And the truth of which you have not verified either. The actual truth is that A) I have been using BOTH words for a very long time, as anyone who spent 5 minutes on the search function here could verify and

that the differences between the two words (none of which you, he, or his retreated cohort ever listed or mentioned by the way) are in no way relevant to my positions or arguments on the thread and C) Appeals to a position I held or did not hold a decade ago say nothing about the positions that I hold NOW and reference to them is nothing but sheer desperation. I would not have the lack of decorum and gall to hold you to account for positions you held that long ago.

So how about you worry about what words you use in your posts, and I will worry about mine, until such time as you can actually show the words I use are inaccurate.

recedite wrote: »

if you are trying to exclude both the animals and the human foetus. Unfortunately it might also mean that people in a coma or with a severe brain damage lose their human rights, but you'll be nearly there with it.

The distinction is irrelevant given a 10 week old fetus has NEITHER of these things. It lacks the faculty entirely in fact, which makes appeals to compa patients also irrelevant. Because once again you are making appeals to equivocation between differing operational levels of that faculty, while my position is based on the presence, or absence of the faculty at all. So you are spectacularly failing to address my position due to challenging it on points that it is not, and has never been, mediated on in the first place.

smacl

Rather good article in the Irish Times on brain development and earliest possible emergence of conciousness from a scientific perspective;

IT wrote:

The very beginnings of our higher brain structures only start to appear between weeks 12 and 16. Crucially, the co-ordinated brain activity required for consciousness does not occur until 24-25 weeks of pregnancy. We cannot say when consciousness first emerges, but it cannot rationally be called before the end of the second trimester at 24 weeks of pregnancy.

In my opinion, the notion put forward by some on this thread that there is a possibility of sentience at 12 weeks is a misguided article of religiously inspired faith that ranks right up there with 'every sperm is sacred' in terms of nonsense. To build on this that a first trimester foetus should have the same rights as a pregnant woman is both deeply misogynistic and barbaric.

kylith

A friend has told me that there were bibles in her polling station and that when she enquiries about them she was told that they had been delivered from the sheriff’s office so that people who don’t have ID can swear an oath. Has anyone come across this? It can’r Be right, can it? And is just asking for voter fraud.

nozzferrahhtoo

smacl wrote: »

In my opinion, the notion put forward by some on this thread that there is a possibility of sentience at 12 weeks is a misguided article of religiously inspired faith

Which is likely why we have seen it, on this very thread, actually defended with religious rhetoric too. The whole "prove the negative" narrative that we so often see from Theists (you can not prove there is no god) we have seen on this thread used to claim that we can not prove the 12 week old fetus is NOT conscious.

When even non-theists turn to theistic fallacy to protect the remnants of theistic thought..... then we have gone full circle.

Zubeneschamali

kylith wrote: »

A friend has told me that there were bibles in her polling station and that when she enquiries about them she was told that they had been delivered from the sheriff’s office so that people who don’t have ID can swear an oath. Has anyone come across this? It can’r Be right, can it? And is just asking for voter fraud.

Perfectly normal.

If you are allergic to Bibles, you can "affirm" without one.

kylith

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

kylith wrote: »

A friend has told me that there were bibles in her polling station and that when she enquiries about them she was told that they had been delivered from the sheriff’s office so that people who don’t have ID can swear an oath. Has anyone come across this? It can’r Be right, can it? And is just asking for voter fraud.

Perfectly normal.

If you are allergic to Bibles, you can "affirm" without one.

Really? So I could walk into a polling station, say I’ve lost my ID, have a sneaky look at the list in front of them to pick a name, stick my hand on a bible and vote? What’s to stop someone doing that 50 times?

Zubeneschamali

kylith wrote: »

Really? So I could walk into a polling station, say I’ve lost my ID, have a sneaky look at the list in front of them to pick a name, stick my hand on a bible and vote? What’s to stop someone doing that 50 times?

I very much doubt you could do it even once. The officials are not idiots.

kylith

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I very much doubt you could do it even once. The officials are not idiots.

I’m sure they’re not, but it just seems crazy open to abuse. Surely no ID should mean no vote?

nozzferrahhtoo

OT but interesting side point that just jumped into my head unbidden from the above exchange is that that one interesting thing about fraud, deception, misdirection and so forth is that NOT being an idiot often makes people MORE prone to such things.

When doing magic tricks for example, especially ones with a mentalism bent to them, I tend to gravitate towards the MOST intelligent seeming people to do them as they are the easiest to fool and misdirect and distract. It is the real dumb asses that can often be the hardest to manipulate.

Zubeneschamali

kylith wrote: »

Surely no ID should mean no vote?

Citizens have a right to vote.

nozzferrahhtoo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Citizens have a right to vote.

Reminds me of a conversation I had about 10 years ago about a client who was visiting our dublin office and UK office. He was told he had to have a particular ID with him to travel, but we saw that due to Shengen or whatever this was not so.

So we rang up and asked why he needs this ID all of a sudden when the law says he does not. Their answer was something like "We know citizens have a right to travel without that ID, but we need that ID to establish they are such a citizen".

Forget the details now as it was 10 years ago, but I remember our collective jaws hitting the floor as this sentence came out of the speaker phone.

Zubeneschamali

More on swearing:

The returning officer or presiding officer may, and if so required by a personation agent present in the polling station shall, administer to any person when he applies for a ballot paper, but not afterwards, an oath or (in the case of any person who objects to taking an oath on the ground that he has no religious belief or that the taking of an oath is contrary to his religious belief) an affirmation in the following form:

“I swear by Almighty God (or — do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm — as the case may be) that I am the same person as the person whose name appears as AB on the register of Dáil electors now in force for the constitutency of……….and that I have not already voted at this election, and that I had attained the age of eighteen years on……….(date of coming into force of the register)”;

And if such person refuses to take the oath or make the affirmation he shall not be permitted to vote.

If you take the oath and the officers don't believe you, you can be arrested on the spot.

kylith

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

kylith wrote: »

Surely no ID should mean no vote?

Citizens have a right to vote.

Of course they do, but isn’t there a requirement to prove identity? It just seems so open to abuse. All you need is a believable attitude and the name of someone who hasn’t voted yet.

seamus

kylith wrote: »

Of course they do, but isn’t there a requirement to prove identity? It just seems so open to abuse. All you need is a believable attitude and the name of someone who hasn’t voted yet.

To a certain extent it's easier to just register a non-person (e.g. someone deceased) than to try and spoof yourself at the station as someone who hasn't voted yet.

We're still a small country so someone who made such a song-and-dance about swearing identity would not be forgotten easily.

Our registration system is a mess, I agree. But there's always a fine balance to be struck about ensuring people can cast votes and ensuring the integrity of the register. If getting into the station to cast a vote is difficult, then it's easy to suppress voters.

The best system is probably one where abuse may occur, but only on a really inconsequential level. For example, how much damage can a single determined person really do? How many fraudulent votes can they realistically cast in a single day? If you imagine 15 mins per polling station including time to travel, then that's 60 votes they can cast, assuming they hit no snags. Realistically that's someone who needs 60 pieces of ID, 60 fake addresses (one in each station), and a rock solid game plan.

How much effort would it be to try and co-ordinate a large number of such people without getting caught?

It's not perfect but the scope for fraud is relatively small.

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Reminds me of a conversation I had about 10 years ago about a client who was visiting our dublin office and UK office. He was told he had to have a particular ID with him to travel, but we saw that due to Shengen or whatever this was not so.

So we rang up and asked why he needs this ID all of a sudden when the law says he does not. Their answer was something like "We know citizens have a right to travel without that ID, but we need that ID to establish they are such a citizen".

Forget the details now as it was 10 years ago, but I remember our collective jaws hitting the floor as this sentence came out of the speaker phone.

Interestingly, Ireland and the UK (for a short while anyway), are part of the EU but not part of the Shengen area. I've had a few European colleagues surprised by this in the past.

aloyisious

kylith wrote: »

Really? So I could walk into a polling station, say I’ve lost my ID, have a sneaky look at the list in front of them to pick a name, stick my hand on a bible and vote? What’s to stop someone doing that 50 times?

Im my area the electorate have numbered booths for the different neighbourhoods. The booths in the school are in classrooms [two per room] from 01 to 20 and upwards. The clerks there check your name against the electoral register for that booth's neighbourhood and "biro" a line through it so it's one-use only before giving you your voting paper. To commit fraud you'd have to visit different booths/rooms using different names from different neighbourhoods with different clerks and have knowledge of names on the neighbourhood lists. The chances of succeeding would decrease expotentially [esp if the real voter had been in earlier and the name "biro'd", and the chance of being caught the reverse. There's the station officer and assistants walking around keeping an eye on things.

Re your last, your right, a person with a brass neck and with the odds in their favour of being believable and not challenged for I/D could succeed if the biro had not yet been used. As in the case of a TD's election agent in Dublin [think it was Donnybrook] he didn't succeed as he was too well known, was challenged in a station and arrested, charged and found guilty, he'd got a ballot paper for an area different to the one where he'd voted earlier in the day. He was a two-address person.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

Interestingly, Ireland and the UK (for a short while anyway), are part of the EU but not part of the Shengen area. I've had a few European colleagues surprised by this in the past.

Ireland and the UK are part of the CTA which precedes the EU.

How long that continues is a matter for the EU to decide.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

How long that continues is a matter for the EU to decide.

I'm not an expert in EU law, but I'd imagine that the future of the CTA - insofar as it has a significant, complete, reliable and functional basis in Irish and UK law (which it does not) - is up to the UK and Ireland, not the EU.

smacl

robindch wrote: »

I'm not an expert in EU law, but I'd imagine that the future of the CTA - insofar as it has a significant, complete, reliable and functional basis in Irish and UK law (which it does not) - is up to the UK and Ireland, not the EU.

Same. I think the only reason Ireland is not part of the Shengen area is to maintain the CTA. Just back in from London yesterday, and the CTA really only effects North / South travel and ferry passengers. You need a passport coming into Dublin from the UK via Dublin Airport. Anyway, back in time to vote

pauldla

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

OT but interesting side point that just jumped into my head unbidden from the above exchange is that that one interesting thing about fraud, deception, misdirection and so forth is that NOT being an idiot often makes people MORE prone to such things.

When doing magic tricks for example, especially ones with a mentalism bent to them, I tend to gravitate towards the MOST intelligent seeming people to do them as they are the easiest to fool and misdirect and distract. It is the real dumb asses that can often be the hardest to manipulate.

That put me in mind of a colleague who was asked to leave a Scientology ‘assessment’ (or whatever it’s called). By his own admission he was particularly dumb that morning and just couldn’t process the questions. I wish I could remember some of the exchanges, they were very funny.

mcmoustache

Hitman3000 wrote: »

LoveBothDrogheda Twitter page has put out a call for volunteers to act as security at polling stations to check ID. Hopefully someone will point out to them that voter intimidation is illegal and only the polling officer or clerk cam seek ID. Seems the No campaign has an issue with democracy.

https://twitter.com/LoveBothDrog/status/999978070999273474

Overheal

mcmoustache wrote: »

https://twitter.com/LoveBothDrog/status/999978070999273474

https://twitter.com/lovebothdrog/status/999079080875188225?s=21

I’ll get my coat

mcmoustache

Overheal wrote: »

https://twitter.com/lovebothdrog/status/999079080875188225?s=21

I’ll get my coat

To be fair, this is the modern online experience. There are so many lunatics online that píss-takers are hard to spot.

Loafing Oaf

mcmoustache wrote: »

https://twitter.com/LoveBothDrog/status/999978070999273474

Thar page really nails the art of parody in being just that bit more demented than the real thing. Although anyone who read this post and didn't twig...

After watching #CBLive last night I thought there was something strange about Mary Lou Mcdonald. I stayed up all night and spoke with an american man who explained she may be a 'reptillian'. Watch @RealAlexJones You Tube which explains this

aloyisious

It seem's the turn-out in Mayo is up. The good weather may have an effect on the turn-out.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

I'm not an expert in EU law, but I'd imagine that the future of the CTA - insofar as it has a significant, complete, reliable and functional basis in Irish and UK law (which it does not) - is up to the UK and Ireland, not the EU.

Member states of the EU don't get to decide on their relationships with states outside the EU.

Brussels looks after that for them. "Our" negotiator at the moment is M. Barnier, a Frenchman.

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

Member states of the EU don't get to decide on their relationships with states outside the EU.

Brussels looks after that for them. "Our" negotiator at the moment is M. Barnier, a Frenchman.

The UK has not actually left the EU yet. Mr Barnier is the EU negotiator with the UK since Dec 2016 before it's departure fron the EU next year. Mr Barnier also said that the UK will have to comply with any new EU laws brought in over the next few years.

Thank's for the mention of the EU and Uk, btw, it makes for new horizons.

The apparent poll results are surprising, I thought the result might have been a lot closer between the two sides and considered the chance that the NO side could have won.