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

seamus

alaimacerc wrote: »

Up this coming week. There's been a preliminary ruling on a (whale) fishing exercise by one of the applicants.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/abortion-referendum-challenger-fails-in-bid-to-get-voter-registers-1.3539229

Some brief sleuthing has revealed that Captain Ahab Mr. Byrne, is in fact a member of Youth Defence, aka Cathal O'Broin, who also briefly published a catholic/nationalist magazine with a former provo.

So like Ms. Jordan, really just a catholic extremist who needs to challenge the referendum but has no basis for it.

Mr Tracey who withdrew his application doesn't seem to have any "priors", maybe he saw what he believed was a genuine issue, but decided it wasn't worth pursuing.

[Deleted User]

recedite wrote: »

Is there any other topic in which people with such diametrically opposite views can both claim the high moral ground?

Not sure how you figure these are comparable.
One is a very accurate description of your position.

Your argument of "just in case" is just hot air given how you refuse to actually stand behind it.
It is anti-egalitarian and misogynistic.

Your camp is involved in shocking tactics and propaganda, like for instance the other post you quote

Again, do you believe the morning after pill is murder, like you buddies believe it is?
And why?

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

Is there any other topic in which people with such diametrically opposite views can both claim the high moral ground?

Is there another other topic in which one of the sides asserts "the high moral ground" anything like so stridently, but is so brazenly slipshod in actually doing anything to coherently argue it?

alaimacerc

seamus wrote: »

Mr Tracey who withdrew his application doesn't seem to have any "priors", maybe he saw what he believed was a genuine issue, but decided it wasn't worth pursuing.

Could be a rotating cast of "fronts", if one wants to be a little paranoid about it.

[Deleted User]

alaimacerc wrote: »

Is there another other topic in which one of the sides asserts "the high moral ground" anything like so stridently, but is so brazenly slipshod in actually doing anything to coherently argue it?

Or how one side can claim they are on the moral high ground when they:
- Lie about their own position.
- Use racist arguments.
- Describe graphically their own fantasy version of what they supposedly believe is a baby being chopped up in a place where people have shared their stories of going through the real version of such procedures.
- Constantly ignore points and questions they find too difficult or too inconvenient for their agenda.

This is just what I can remember from the last few dozen pages.
Forgetting anything?

alaimacerc

King Mob wrote: »

Forgetting anything?

Probably, but no harm. It'll doubtless start up again soon enough.

smacl

King Mob wrote: »

This is just what I can remember from the last few dozen pages.
Forgetting anything?

Suggestion that the rights of pregnant women can and should be be ditched rather than offend the abstract philosophical or religious position of conservative hard-liners, many of whom are men who will never have to deal with a similar problem first hand.

[Deleted User]

King Mob wrote: »

This is just what I can remember from the last few dozen pages.
Forgetting anything?

Oh forgot:
The idea that the people who support the idea of removing the 8th were like antebellum slave plantation owners. Among various other accusations.

recedite

King Mob wrote: »

Again, do you believe the morning after pill is murder, like you buddies believe it is? And why?

No. My understanding of "murder" is that the victim has to be already born, and not involved in a threat against the perpetrator.
The perp must have done the crime intentionally and in a premeditated way.

So there are lots of other kinds of killings with other names such as manslaughter, lawful homicide (eg self defence, or a lawful shooting by a Garda) and of course abortion. These are all special circumstances.
Why are you obsessed with the one word "murder"?

What kind of crime do you think happened here, was it a minor assault on a woman, or did some kind of killing occur?

[Deleted User]

recedite wrote: »

No. My understanding of "murder" is that the victim has to be already born, and not involved in a threat against the perpetrator.

That's a rather pathetic, pedantic dodge of my question.
I'm not asking about the law. I'm asking you your own personal position.
And I'm not asking about the legal definition.

Do you think that using the morning after pill is the same as killing a person?
Do you think that there's a difference morally?

recedite

King Mob wrote: »

Or how one side can claim they are on the moral high ground when they:
- Lie about their own position.
- Use racist arguments.
- Describe graphically their own fantasy version of what they supposedly believe is a baby being chopped up in a place where people have shared their stories of going through the real version of such procedures.
- Constantly ignore points and questions they find too difficult or too inconvenient for their agenda.

This is just what I can remember from the last few dozen pages.
Forgetting anything?

You are forgetting that all of the above is bull$hit.
And whats more, this kind of unfounded defamation against other posters is considered to be a very low "debating" tactic.

recedite

King Mob wrote: »

That's a rather pathetic, pedantic dodge of my question.
I'm not asking about the law. I'm asking you your own personal position.
And I'm not asking about the legal definition.

Do you think that using the morning after pill is the same as killing a person?
Do you think that there's a difference morally?

You really are a UNCIVIL WORD DELETED aren't you. The very first word of mine that you quoted there was "NO".

[Deleted User]

recedite wrote: »

You are forgetting that all of the above is bull$hit.
And whats more, this kind of unfounded defamation against other posters is considered to be a very low "debating" tactic.

Which parts do you think are bull****? I'm happy to back up any of these points if you'd like.

You used racist propaganda, then ran away from it.
Endoftheroad lied about their own position, then refuses to own up when they've been caught out.
Antiskeptic wrote gory fanficition of babies being cut up in a lame attempt to shock people.

[Deleted User]

recedite wrote: »

You really are a gob$hite aren't you. The very first word of mine that you quoted there was "NO".

Ok. So why not?
What's the difference?

How about after the embryo is implanted. Is abortion then the same as killing a person?
How about 1 week?
12 weeks?

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

You are forgetting that all of the above is bull$hit.
And whats more, this kind of unfounded defamation against other posters is considered to be a very low "debating" tactic.

How can it be defamation when it is true?

smacl

recedite wrote: »

You are forgetting that all of the above is bull$hit.
And whats more, this kind of unfounded defamation against other posters is considered to be a very low "debating" tactic.

recedite wrote: »

You really are a gob$hite aren't you. The very first word of mine that you quoted there was "NO".

Complaining about poor debating tactics followed by calling someone a gob$hite? Seriously? Post reported.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

You really are a UNCIVIL WORD DELETED aren't you. The very first word of mine that you quoted there was "NO".

None of that language or you’ll be carded.

Mark Hamill

More from the court cases against the referendum result -
According to Charles Byrne (2nd applicant), just campaigning against the 8th could be seen as an infringement of the right to life that’s already established in the Constitution and therefore was against the law.

alaimacerc

Mark Hamill wrote: »

More from the court cases against the referendum result -
According to Charles Byrne (2nd applicant), just campaigning against the 8th could be seen as an infringement of the right to life that’s already established in the Constitution and therefore was against the law.

Thanks, saved me from posting almost exactly the same thing!

Another spoofer trying to argue that the Yes campaign "lacked credibility"(!) Is the emergency projection psychologist on duty.

The predictable "oh, there are hundreds of thousands of irregularities, of which we have no actual evidence, so you'll have to give us, notorious filibusterers that we are, lots and lots or extra time".

And two people from Leitrim trying to play tag-team, leading to an immediate recourse to the Supreme court. Before we've had judgement from the HC on anything, indeed. Couldn't the one just write the other a large cheque?

Bottom of the barrel stuff. The barrel beneath the one we started in.

alaimacerc

King Mob wrote: »

How about after the embryo is implanted. Is abortion then the same as killing a person?
How about 1 week?
12 weeks?

Those would all be "other kinds of killing", according to my of reccy's earlier response. Whether this is simply stating that he uses the term "murder" in line with the criminal law (unlike other anti-abortion types here, and elsewhere), or is expressing some personal belief in a different status for each class of entity, was far from clear.

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

What kind of crime do you think happened here, was it a minor assault on a woman, or did some kind of killing occur?

Under what possible interpretation could it ever being taken to be a "minor" assault, given the facts presented? On the face it it, ABH at least, quite apart from any offence committed under the PoLDPA.

Breezily minimising serious cases of violence on women is likely not a "good look" for the No's, strategically speaking. Being all about concern for them, isn't that the preferred messaging?

"Some kind of killing" doesn't seem to be a helpful category. Your dinner likely involved "some kind of killing". Spermicides involve "some kind of killing" -- clue is right there in the derivation of the word. Perhaps the question is better, is in in the same category (either legally or philosophically) as murder, i.e. what one might broadly call homicide?

And the legal answer is clearly "no". (Some US states do have statutes that would differ on that, but they do that not by changing the common-law definition of "person", which would almost certainly be struck down by constitutional review, but simply by extending the scope of the offence to cover non-persons, which is something they have legal competence to do.)

Philosophically, that of course depends where you're taking your instruction from.

[Deleted User]

alaimacerc wrote: »

Those would all be "other kinds of killing", according to my of reccy's earlier response. Whether this is simply stating that he uses the term "murder" in line with the criminal law (unlike other anti-abortion types here, and elsewhere), or is expressing some personal belief in a different status for each class of entity, was far from clear.

Which is weird, cause he was arguing that the unborn had and should have 100% human rights.

Yet it seems like there's a difference between an unborn baby and a human to him still.

I wish people on the no side would just be direct about their beliefs instead of dodging questions when they know they're in a corner.

alaimacerc

Some interesting background on one of the litigants. http://www.rabble.ie/2013/09/26/anti-choice-behind-fr-iggys-downfall/

alaimacerc

King Mob wrote: »

Which is weird, cause he was arguing that the unborn had and should have 100% human rights.

Should have taken that High Court case for embryonic citizenship, bank accounts, privacy, etc, while he still had the chance!

aloyisious

Mark Hamill wrote: »

More from the court cases against the referendum result -
According to Charles Byrne (2nd applicant), just campaigning against the 8th could be seen as an infringement of the right to life that’s already established in the Constitution and therefore was against the law.

Hmmm, and he didn't state a case against the AG, the Govt and Ireland for conspiring against the constitution and the unborn by way of them bringing the abortion referendum to the people?

alaimacerc

aloyisious wrote: »

Hmmm, and he didn't state a case against the AG, the Govt and Ireland for conspiring against the constitution and the unborn by way of them bringing the abortion referendum to the people?

So he's going for the full-scale Republic of Gilead model? Can't ever be changed, because he and god say so?

aloyisious

He also took issue with Varadkar’s statement that if a ‘Yes’ vote didn’t prevail, women could face a 14-year jail term; and another statement which compared the UK laws on abortion with what the government’s draft legislation had provided for.

Ist statement by Leo is factually correct, as our existing legislation allow's for such a prison term against any woman or person for an illegal abortion.

The 2nd reason stated in the petition seem's strange, as that is exactly what proponents for the NO side did comparison-wise, asking that what was happening under UK law not come here, making direct reference to our Govt's legislation. Maybe it is something Leo said, similar but different.

Well, whoopie-do, something some-one said had an effect on others. He does know that there was a massive advertising campaign by the NO side to persuade others on what way to vote, doesn't he?

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

Antiskeptic wrote gory fanficition of babies being cut up in a lame attempt to shock people.

Was there something in what I wrote that wasn't true? I take it you looked at the video showing a writhing (or perhaps it was only 'wriggling') fetus that would fit in your palm? Or do you suppose that when fishing around for the "No.1" abortionists actually refer to it as a head?

I worked in the food industry for years. I had occasion to see the device used to eviscerate a chicken on a continuously running line. A remarkable feat of engineering, on insertion, it works its way down through the chicken a-snipping and a-cutting and extracts the entrails in a sausage-like fashion, each organ dangling from the one above. This to allow further mechanical processing (separating out, for example, the chicken liver for the pate industry)

I also had occasion, in my thirties believe it or not, to see a real, live farm chicken running around where my old man lived.

I never looked at the food industry in quite the same light again. When you see a row of 1 tonne tubs of raw chicken wings entering the production line and imagine just how many chickens it would take to produce that tub (and watch spillages being scooped by the shoveful into the bin). And know something about the "protein growing" process (for that is how beef, pork, chicken and fish are considered in the industry) - which contrasts utterly from the intrinsic dignity of what I saw running around on the farm. Well, let's say it changes things a bit. It's not to say I wouldn't eat chicken, but you are changed.

Changed by the reality of what goes on. Rather than living where you appear to want to live. In a sanitized, cleanly packaged fantasy

*BTW. If you are a animal protein-consumer, it might be of interest to know that the adulteration level involved in protein growing is Chicken > Pork > Beef (in descending order of adulteration). Chicken (that is, the cheap type) is to be avoided: it's completely bastardised at every stage in the process, being the most boostable of 'em all. Fish? Well I'd stay away from the farmed stuff - simply because it's not as established (and thus regulated) as the others.

antiskeptic

Interesting to read the latest hoo-haa in The Guardian (not exactly a bastion of conservative values).

This supreme court judge is retiring in the US. Which gives Trump a chance to stack the court more conservatively. With a further 'liberal' judge aged 95 (or was that 85), it would seem another opportunity might well arise.

The talk involved the threat to democracy and the suppression of human rights (in that Roe vs. Wade might be in jeopardy).

Is it not simply the case that whatever the power base is defines what's right (might is right). If, for example, the rights of the unborn in the US come to the fore (because of a conservative leaning in the supreme court) and the right to choice wanes, then so be it. It was probably a swing the other way which saw Roe vs. Wade herald in abortion on demand there.

How can the democratic process only work when liberalists hold the reins?

aloyisious

Now this is what I call advertising and I like the cheek of the NO campaigner who stuck one of the NO campaign's small sticky labels on a Taxi trade Co's advertisement on a Dublin Bus, even though I was against the campaign and it's intent.