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; } } }

Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Ozymandius2011

This is for people who have already voted in the referendum. How did you vote? I voted yes.

Mod: This thread is little more than a survey about how you voted. Please don't the ins and outs of abortion.

Mod: This is not a reiteration of the previous 8th threads. If you were threadbanned from those, you are not threadbanned here.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Fighting Tao

sabat wrote: »

In my original post I stated that I would like a ban on gender tests in the womb.

But Ireland is not a gender biased country so it would make no difference.

sabat

Fighting Tao wrote: »

But Ireland is not a gender biased country so it would make no difference.

No Eastern European, Chinese or South Asian people here?

Outlaw Pete

Overheal wrote: »

You occasionally just straight post and endorse the study, where it is "as if they are trying to speak" with your main thrust being they are mouthing in response to auditory stimuli. Not that much of a stretch to conclude that you agree they are responding the the auditory stimuli with mouth movements, as the researchers say, "as if to speak" or to communicate back to the auditory stimuli.

Eh, no 'stretch' needed, Overheal.

Of course I agree with the researchers that the fetuses in the study responded to auditory stimuli with mouth movements. Never suggested otherwise. Why would I. What nozz has said though is entirely different. He has said, repeatedly, that I misinterpreted them:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

.. he interpreted looking LIKE "trying to speak" as pretty much being the fetus ACTUALLY trying to speak.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The user who posted it took this to mean the fetus looked like it was ACTUALLY trying to speak.

All bullshit of course, which is why he (nor you) can link to a post which would be indicative of my having wrongly inferred that the fetuses were "actually trying to speak" as opposed to just merely looking “as if they were trying to speak” as the researcher had said and that I, precisely quoted at the time.

Here is a post from me back then in fact and it's quite clear I did not interrupt the study as has been suggested:

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The study found that playing music intravaginally activated brain circuits that stimulate language and communication, which then manifested as vocalization movements.

And here's an extract from that study:

Fetuses at 16–39 weeks of gestation respond to intravaginally emitted music (IVM) with repetitive (mouthing) MT and (tongue expulsion) TE movements not observed with (abdominal music) ABM. Our findings suggest that neural pathways participating in the auditory–motor system are developed as early as gestational week 16.

Fetuses aged > 16 weeks in the three stimulus groups had a similar baseline status, but a significant increase in fetal activity, mouthing, and tongue expulsion was found in the intravaginally emitted music (IVM) group only. In this group, (mouthing) MT movements were observed in 86.7% (n = 26/30) of fetuses, and (tongue expulsion) TE in 46.6% (n = 14/30).

Our hypothesis is that music elicits a response which manifests as vocalisation movements, as music stimulates brain circuits responsible for language and communication.

Once the inner ear is fully formed, an auditory stimulus with rhythm and melody received through the cochlea would activate the most primary centres of the brain stem in the area that controls social behaviour, and which elicit vocalisation.

A group of cells called the inferior colliculus detects sound. If these cells perceive the sound as harmonic and associate it with music, they become stimulated and activate the nerves responsible for moving the mouth, the jaw and the tongue for vocalising (the phase prior to language).

Now it's quite clear that nozz concocted this whole nonsense about my having misinterpreted the study to mean that fetuses in the womb were actually trying to talk and the reason he did so is quite obvious. He did so because the research he was presented with didn't fit in with his preferred narrative, which is of course: that fetuses up to 24-28 weeks gestation are just merely 'human shaped blobs of biological matter':

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We are talking about a blob of biological matter here.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I see no more reason to feel any moral or ethical concern for a human shaped fetus than I do a human shaped mannequin in Pennys.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I see something vaguely human shaped that ALL of our science on the subject says is an empty shell

And so his attempts at deflection are quite understandable, given that the study showed developing fetuses (as earlier as 16 weeks) could react via movement to music being played. A point at which that's a point he considers developing fetuses to be nothing more than 'human shaped blobs of biological matter'. Hard to marry the two in even the most misguided of minds.

But then, Overheal, sure you're not adverse to saying some pretty ridiculous things yourself now tbf:

Overheal wrote: »

To kill something is to stop it from being alive. An unborn thing is not yet alive.

But sure look, I'm long past the point at being surprised at some of the things the militantly prochoice come out with. All I hope for these days is not to have them putting words in my mouth. You'd think what with them being such big believers in body autonomy and all, that's the last thing they'd be doing. :P

[Deleted User]

sabat wrote: »

No Eastern European, Chinese or South Asian people here?

What has a persons original nationality or that of their parents got to do with the issue in your opinion?

sabat

DubInMeath wrote: »

What has a persons original nationality or that of their parents got to do with the issue in your opinion?

Because these are the cultures that find it acceptable to get rid of girls.

Outlaw Pete

end of the road wrote: »

i agree but for me the battle was never about whether abortion is moral or justified in all cases, it was about which specific cases it should be allowed and where it shouldn't, and where abortion would go in general. the no campaign did try on that score but not hard enough. it's a battle still worth fighting IMO.

i think there should be no compromise in terms of what we call abortion on demand. i'm happy for that to be faught against in some form as i believe it's still worth fighting against. the no campaign would need to not fight against abortions where medically necessary though.

+1 Well said.

I think the prolife movement in general also needs to move away from some of those who are only opposed to abortion on religious grounds. Almost everyone I know who voted No is an atheist and would have voted Yes but for the 12 weeks without restriction. There was some emphasis on that but just not nearly enough.

Fighting Tao

sabat wrote: »

Because these are the cultures that find it acceptable to get rid of girls.

When in their own countries they do due to the particular circumstances, and it is probably a major reason why some of them move to Ireland. They don't want to be oppressed any longer! Basically, here we don't care if people have girls or boys.

What evidence do you have that they will only want to have boys while living in Ireland?

Captain Obvious

Fighting Tao wrote: »

I am looking for one little (truthful) fact that would make me say...Hmm..they might be onto something here.

But you don't really disagree on facts. It's philosophy you differ on, namely, when a life begins.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is a line we hear often in debate, where the person who can not make a good point instead launched assumptions and assertions that the other side are not likely to change their position.

Rather than make such assumptions however, I prefer to try and ask them what they require to change their position. How is their position falsifiable. Do they even know themselves?

You will rarely, I hope never, find me merely declaring to them that I know them better than they know themselves, and I know they are not open to having their position change. Not even by washing it down with diluting qualifiers like "dont sound".

I for one know EXACTLY what it would require to change my position on abortion. It is simply a two step process:

1) Come up with a new or existing term, like "Human Life" and offer a definition of the chosen term that offers a coherent and defensible basis for affording anything that fits that definition.... rights.

2) Show that a fetus at, say, 10 weeks (by which the vast majority of abortions occur) fits the definition offered in 1).

Simples. That is all that it would require to change my position and I am MORE than open to changing my position. The simple fact however is that no one is doing 1, and certainly absolutely no one is doing 2.

People simply don't agree on it. What makes a human is a philosophical question at the end of the day.

Fighting Tao

Captain Obvious wrote: »

But you don't really disagree on facts. It's philosophy you differ on, namely, when a life begins.

People simply don't agree on it. What makes a human is a philosophical question at the end of the day.

So why were the No side throwing around "facts" like there was no tomorrow?

gctest50

Fighting Tao wrote: »

So why were the No side throwing around "facts" like there was no tomorrow?

Because they had nothing else

Some had too much sunk into it

No solution after 30 years ? gtfo

[Deleted User]

sabat wrote: »

Because these are the cultures that find it acceptable to get rid of girls.

And we're supposed to be a country of driunk devout Catholic wife beaters in some people's minds doesn't mean it's true for all of us, why would it make it true for all of them

Fighting Tao

gctest50 wrote: »

Because they had nothing else

Some had too much sunk into it

No solution after 30 years ? gtfo

I know. It was a campaign of lies and lack of emotion for women (sentient beings). However, the Yes side won because their side was based on facts and real emotion for women.

nozzferrahhtoo

Just her wrote: »

No not at all, we've been around in circles with it already, as you definitely know. If anyone else has any interest they can read the old posts. They won't be hard to find.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

People simply don't agree on it. What makes a human is a philosophical question at the end of the day.

See what I mean though? We get a lot of people pretending arguments were made that were not, or that people will not change their minds who patently will if given the arguments.

The arguments simply are not forthcoming. It is not that people are not there to have their minds changed. It is that there are no arguments available to change them with!

meeeeh

sabat wrote: »

Because these are the cultures that find it acceptable to get rid of girls.

Ok since you are on a roll about this I presume you can tell us which Eastern European countries do that. I come from a country people without basic geographical knowledge consider Eastern European ( they can be identified by constant use of term Eastern European) and I didn't come accross any research that would confirm your statement.

sabat

meeeeh wrote: »

Ok since you are on a roll about this I presume you can tell us which Eastern European countries do that. I come from a country people without basic geographical knowledge consider Eastern European ( they can be identified by constant use of term Eastern European) and I didn't come accross any research that would confirm your statement.

https://www.economist.com/europe/2013/09/21/gendercide-in-the-caucasus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-selective_abortion#Caucasus

Loafing Oaf

meeeeh wrote: »

Ok since you are on a roll about this I presume you can tell us which Eastern European countries do that. I come from a country people without basic geographical knowledge consider Eastern European ( they can be identified by constant use of term Eastern European) and I didn't come accross any research that would confirm your statement.

This guy is his main source of information:

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

What nozz has said though is entirely different. He has said, repeatedly, that I misinterpreted them

And you have. That is the point. Again: The reason I say it is because of the totally unjustified leaps of (non) reason you made from the study including:

1) "You don't think that the Spanish study which found that 16 week old fetuses moved in response to music implies some level of awareness?" (it implies no such thing at all, even a little)

2) "That is much different than a "blob of biological matter" moving it's muscles and/or nerves after they have been stimulated." (It is not, that is EXACTLY what the study showed. A biological entity responding with muscular movements to a stimulus.)

You are using that study to build implications that are simply not warranted from what the study shows. That is what you are misrepresenting. And because you are reticent about answering questions about what you think the study says, and why you think it, it is left appearing that an over reaction to the line about "speaking" is the sole factor in your judgement.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Now it's quite clear that nozz concocted this whole nonsense about my having misinterpreted the study to mean that fetuses in the womb were actually trying to talk

Again, that is not at all what I have been saying. What I have been saying, and I explained this to you twice yesterday, is that you are reacting to the study AS IF you think that. Not THAT you think that, but your responses to that study track with those you would expect from someone who thinks that. This is a different thing entirely from what you are pretending I have been saying.

But as I said you have been wilfully and entirely reticent about discussing the study in any meaningful way since, which would have been a more effective and mature way to clarify your understanding of it, and reactions to it. But you have simply dodged every question asked of you about it. What do you think it is actually saying. What do you think it actually means. Why do you think it relevant to a conversation about abortion when abortion mostly occurs by 10 weeks. And so forth.

And I suspect the sole reason you do not answer that, is because you know as well as I do it HAS no relevance and the statements about awareness and responses to stimulus you made in relation to it are nonsense not supported by the study in even the smallest way.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

And so his attempts at deflection are quite understandable, given that the study showed developing fetuses (as earlier as 16 weeks) could react via movement to music being played. A point at which that's a point he considers developing fetuses to be nothing more than 'human shaped blobs of biological matter'. Hard to marry the two in even the most misguided of minds.

Except the two "marry" perfectly well. Responses to a stimulus in no way indicate any of the things about a fetus that you appear to want them to indicate. They are responses to stimulus, nothing more. Even Bacteria and plants respond to stimulus. A response to stimulus in any living entity simplz is not remarkable.

The fact that does not "marry" with your narrative is that none of the responses indicate any level of "awareness" at all. The lights simply are not on, there is simply no one home. And your issue with me in relation to that study is solely and wholly because I point that simple fact out. Because it is a fact you simply do not want to acknowledge about the reality of human fetal development. There is NO evidence of sentience and consciousness in a fetus at 24 weeks and there is CERTAINLY no evidence of it at 10 when in fact the majority of abortions actually occur.

Fighting Tao

sabat wrote: »

https://www.economist.com/europe/2013/09/21/gendercide-in-the-caucasus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-selective_abortion#Caucasus

The Caucasus is not Eastern Europe and there is a tiny number of people from the Caucasus in Ireland.

Anyway, have you found evidence that the minority of this minority practice the same beliefs in Ireland yet?

meeeeh

Fighting Tao wrote: »

The Caucasus is not Eastern Europe and there is a tiny number of people from the Caucasus in Ireland.

It's border region but since they are not part of EU and there is no free travel I doubt there are many in Ireland.

nullzero

Neyite wrote: »

No, it wasn't a joke. I was explaining to someone who will never experience a pregnancy as a result of rape what it might be like finding out you are carrying your rapists baby.

A pregnancy is parasitic. A parasite is an organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense. That's what happens during pregnancy like it or not. The baby will get the nutrients first and the mother gets whatever is left over the extent of which is too long to list here but to give you three easy ones, the pregnancy is capable of softening ligaments, dental decay, and eyesight deterioration.

Not all parasites are gross. Mistletoe is lovely for example.

This seems to have gone under the radar a little, as stated earlier a parasite is an organism of a different species to its host.
It appears that following posters agree(seeing that they thanked the above post) that a human fetus developing inside a human woman is a parasite; bootpaws, Cupcake_Crisis, doomshine, fxotoole, iguana, LorelaiG, SusieBlue, wench.

Can we reach a consensus on this? Is a human fetus a parasite? Or is it as science would stipulate not a parasite?

sabat

Fighting Tao wrote: »

The Caucasus is not Eastern Europe and there is a tiny number of people from the Caucasus in Ireland.

Anyway, have you found evidence that the minority of this minority practice the same beliefs in Ireland yet?

The Caucasus is in Europe; wikipedia also mentions a growing problem in the Balkans. What's your problem with my suggested law? Why not pre-empt the possibility of this becoming an issue and send out a message that it's unacceptable?

iguana

RasTa wrote: »

Are the holding up the posters wearing Repeal shirts?

gctest50

nullzero wrote: »

This seems to have gone under the radar a little, as stated earlier a parasite is an organism of a different species to its host.
It appears that following posters agree(seeing that they thanked the above post) that a human fetus developing inside a human woman is a parasite; bootpaws, Cupcake_Crisis, doomshine, fxotoole, iguana, LorelaiG, SusieBlue, wench.

Can we reach a consensus on this? Is a human fetus a parasite? Or is it as science would stipulate not a parasite?

True, we need a new word - something like say marasite

"Can't wait to deliver this marasite, the heat is killing me"

nullzero

gctest50 wrote: »

True, we need a new word - something like say marasite

"Can't wait to deliver this marasite, the heat is killing me"

Thanks for addressing the question with the same nonsensical post from earlier on.

Wrongway1985

iguana wrote: »

Are the holding up the posters wearing Repeal shirts?

It's a parody of them they read - Reveal

nullzero

Perhaps a new poll on whether or not a fetus is a parasite would be a good idea.
What do you think bootpaws, Cupcake_Crisis, doomshine, fxotoole, iguana, LorelaiG, SusieBlue, wench?

tretorn

It doesnt actually matter whether a foetus is sentient or whether it comes with a PHD in its little hand when its born.

This is like saying a seven year old isnt as developed as a seventeen year old so therefore not really human.

When you abort a foetus you abort all the potential that human has to offer, you are aborting someone who will be your son or daughter exactly the way the children you dont abort are. Your living children are parasites the same way as your unborn children are, if you want to call someone dependent on you a parasite.

Why not just say the foetus is a human being in the making but sometimes its best not to let it live, thats the truth of the matter and denying the life you are taking its humanity and its uniqueness wont take away from that.

This is called accepting the consequences of decisions you make, ie being mature.

nozzferrahhtoo

tretorn wrote: »

This is like saying a seven year old isnt as developed as a seventeen year old so therefore not really human.

No it is not like saying that AT ALL in fact. But this is a common error. The difference is, however, quite large.

In your example you are talking about two difference instances of human sentience, that of a pre-teen and that of a teen.

When people are talking about the fetus they are talking about the complete ABSENCE of that faculty however.

So you are talking about two different statuses of sentience, while they are talking about the absence or presence of it at all.

To pretend those two things are "like" each other therefore, is simply an error. As if I was talking about the fruit bowl being empty, and rather than acknowledge it to be empty you start telling me about the difference between apples and oranges.

fxotoole

nullzero wrote: »

Perhaps a new poll on whether or not a fetus is a parasite would be a good idea.
What do you think bootpaws, Cupcake_Crisis, doomshine, fxotoole, iguana, LorelaiG, SusieBlue, wench?

Surely you mean baby, not fetus, right?

gctest50

nullzero wrote: »

gctest50 wrote: »

True, we need a new word - something like say marasite

"Can't wait to deliver this marasite, the heat is killing me"

Thanks for addressing the question with the same nonsensical post from earlier on.

Placental neurokinin B (NKB) contains phosphocoline and that's also uses by the parasitic nematode worm to avoid attack from the immune system of the host