Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

1…34689…60

Comments

  • #252
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    robarmstrong wrote: »
    My definition does not matter nor does EOTR's definition.
    I'm afraid it does - since the two of you can't or won't agree on what exactly you're talking about, it's again the pointless shadow-boxing I mentioned above.
    robarmstrong wrote: »
    We were not asked to vote for abortion on demand. [...] This is factually incorrect, his interpretation of what is written on ballot paper is not fact, it his opinion and should be highlighted as an opinion rather than a fact with solid foundation.
    As above, the facts are more nuanced than the simplistic picture you paint.

    Finger in the air, and noting that the question is meaningless, and accepting that people will answer a meaningless question despite not realizing or not caring that it's meaningless - I'd say that a good ten or fifteen percent of the population would answer "Yes" to the question "Did you vote for abortion-on-demand in last year's referendum?".
    robarmstrong wrote: »
    If it is soap-boxing as you've mentioned, can this be actioned please.
    Any poster claiming in future that "the referendum was a vote for abortion-on-demand" will be dealt with in line with the forum charter.


  • #253
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,307 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Now that there is a mod active at the same time as can you substantiate your claim that there was an expectation of a separate vote on legislation?

    i don't believe i stated there was an expectation of a separate vote on legislation.


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok.
    So given your previous statements, you believe that harassment starts at "screaming in people's faces" and than anything below that is not harassment.
    Is that a fair summation?

    to be fair i didn't say it started at simply screaming in someone's face, rather i used screaming in someone's face as a good example of what could reasonably be classed as harassment.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Is there any point between the screaming in faces and handing out leaflets where something isn't harassment, but also is not acceptable behavior?
    Or is everything below harassment acceptable?

    certainly there will be a point. but it won't be simply protesting or handing out information as i see it.

    King Mob wrote: »
    And just as an aside, what do you believe the goal of the tasteless non-harassment is?

    I and others believe that the goal is to make it more difficult to get an abortion by intimidation and shame.
    It's my opinion that this is the real point of the protests outside clinics
    It's my opinion that this is the real reason why anti-abortionists are opposed to exclusion zones, as they would lose a tactic they use to make it more difficult for women to get abortions.


    i don't believe they would lose the tactic. sure, it would be illegal, but i think protests would continue regardless.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #254
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,587 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    end of the road wrote: »
    yes that is correct. however, the government decided to drive through their legislation upon a vote to repeal the 8th, rather then giving us a separate vote on it. that is how people more or less voted for AOD.
    end of the road wrote: »
    i don't believe i stated there was an expectation of a separate vote on legislation.


    .

    you used the exact words "separate vote". it is right there.


  • #255
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    robindch wrote: »
    I'm afraid it does - since the two of you can't or won't agree on what exactly you're talking about, it's again the pointless shadow-boxing I mentioned above.As above, the facts are more nuanced than the simplistic picture you paint.

    Finger in the air, and noting that the question is meaningless, and accepting that people will answer a meaningless question despite not realizing or not caring that it's meaningless - I'd say that a good ten or fifteen percent of the population would answer "Yes" to the question "Did you vote for abortion-on-demand in last year's referendum?".Any poster claiming in future that "the referendum was a vote for abortion-on-demand" will be dealt with in line with the forum charter.

    It really isn't.

    Poster A claims we were asked to vote for abortion on demand.

    Poster B posts up exactly what we were asked for on the ballot paper and provides the actual ballot paper, nowhere on this paper were we asked anything pertaining to the term "abortion on demand".

    Why on earth are you defending this? This is absolutely farcical at this stage.

    My definition does not matter, EOTR's definition does not matter.

    We were not asked to vote for "abortion on demand", we were specifically asked to vote for

    ?width=581&version=4029344
    If the referendum is passed, this would allow the existing Article 40.3.3 – which contains the Eighth Amendment (right to life of the unborn), 13th Amendment (right to information about seeking a termination), and 14th Amendment (right to travel for a termination) – to be replaced with the line:

    Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy.

    This is not my definition, this is not EOTR's definition, this is the electorate definition of what we were voting on.

    Can you please accept that there is absolutely no mention of the terminology "abortion on demand" in the ballot paper, that there is absolutely no request of us voting to allow or disallow "abortion on demand", and can you please ask EOTR to provide proof (not his ascertains, not his opinion, not his interpretation) that we were asked to vote for/against abortion on demand.

    Can you please do this? If not, can I request a CMod to mediate this?


  • #256
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,307 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    DubInMeath wrote: »
    I provided a link to ETOR showing that the level of harassment is increasing especially since 2097, I haven't seen his rebuttal with evidence to the contrary.

    because i never stated that it increased or decreased. what i stated is that i personally believe there may not be as much harassment going on as may be stated and i explained why i believed my opinion in later posts. that does not mean that the level whatever it may be can't increase.
    DubInMeath wrote: »
    I also provided a link disputing his claim that the people who are actually attacking clinics and doctors are lone unorganized individuals. I'm still waiting on a rebuttal with evidence.

    i don't think i said they were loan unorganised individuals. i am sure i stated that there were fringe individuals and groups. such i believe can be organised. what my point was is that i personally don't believe that these groups and individuals are a representation of the pro-life movement as a whole. perhapse the post wasn't clear to that fact for which i appologise.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #257
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,747 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    robindch wrote: »
    I'm afraid it does - since the two of you can't or won't agree on what exactly you're talking about, it's again the pointless shadow-boxing I mentioned above.As above, the facts are more nuanced than the simplistic picture you paint.

    Finger in the air, and noting that the question is meaningless, and accepting that people will answer a meaningless question despite not realizing or not caring that it's meaningless - I'd say that a good ten or fifteen percent of the population would answer "Yes" to the question "Did you vote for abortion-on-demand in last year's referendum?".Any poster claiming in future that "the referendum was a vote for abortion-on-demand" will be dealt with in line with the forum charter.

    Could you provide me with the names of the C-mods for this forum please.


  • #258
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,587 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Could you provide me with the names of the C-mods for this forum please.

    Big Bag of Chips, bluewolf, Faith, Neyite, Pat Mustard


  • #259
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,307 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    you used the exact words "separate vote". it is right there.

    yes but not as you are claiming.
    your claim seems to be that i stated it in that i was suggesting there was an expectation of a second vote. i did not claim there was an expectation of a second vote.
    hope that clears things up for you.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #260
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    I believe that they genuinely see it as murder , a position I do not agree with but I believe deep down that they genuinely see it that way.

    I believe their protests are an attempt to have women change their minds at the last minute and 'see the light' , I think they are opposed to exclusion zones for the same reason anyone opposes not being able to advertise / be around anything, convenience and targeted footfall. If they have to go 100 meters away then they need two / three groups to cover every way in or out of a premises and get maximum coverage. As I illustrated above, these protests are incredibly small and they just don't have the people power to effectively make everyone pass them if theres an exclusion zone.

    Most in these groups believe theyre doing 'the lords work' saving 'babies' from murder so will ofcourse fight to have every mind changed that they can.

    I don't think these are very effective, and I doub't theres much evidence to suggest that a 70 year old woman handing out a leaflet saying god bless you, or her husband shouting 'murderers' at a building has ever changed a womans mind , but similarly I don't think theres much evidence to suggest that this kind of action has intimidated women from going to have an abortion.

    Given ETOR and Splinter 65 starting before the referendum that our abortion situation would become the same as the U.K. it may well be that the level of harassment increases to the levels there

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/08/anti-abortion-activists-harassing-women-at-uk-clinics-during-lent

    The groups from the U.S.that the groups here and the U.K. are receiving funding and tactics from are linked to numerous cases of harassment world wide, groups like Human Life International

    https://www.coloradoindependent.com/2008/08/12/fanning-the-radical-anti-abortion-flames-in-colorado/


  • #261
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Could you provide me with the names of the C-mods for this forum please.
    They're listed at the bottom of the forum entry page:

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=614

    As ohno points out, that's Big Bag of Chips, bluewolf, Faith, Neyite, Pat Mustard.


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,587 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    end of the road wrote: »
    yes that is correct. however, the government decided to drive through their legislation upon a vote to repeal the 8th, rather then giving us a separate vote on it. that is how people more or less voted for AOD.
    robindch wrote: »
    They're listed at the bottom of the forum entry page:

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=614

    As ohno points out, that's Big Bag of Chips, bluewolf, Faith, Neyite, Pat Mustard.

    I have reported the last two replies to me by EOTR. Can i expect something to be done about them?


  • #263
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    robarmstrong wrote: »
    This is absolutely farcical at this stage.
    I agree it's farcical - both sides are playing rhetoric, however one side doesn't like being called out on it.


  • #264
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    robindch wrote: »
    I agree it's farcical - both sides are playing rhetoric, however one side doesn't like being called out on it.

    So you chose to completely ignore my post requesting input from you on numerous occasions only to post that?

    That’s farcical, that is absolutely ridiculous and just below-par behavior from a moderator.

    Disgraceful.


  • #265
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    DubInMeath wrote: »
    Given ETOR and Splinter 65 starting before the referendum that our abortion situation would become the same as the U.K. it may well be that the level of harassment increases to the levels there

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/08/anti-abortion-activists-harassing-women-at-uk-clinics-during-lent

    The groups from the U.S.that the groups here and the U.K. are receiving funding and tactics from are linked to numerous cases of harassment world wide, groups like Human Life International

    https://www.coloradoindependent.com/2008/08/12/fanning-the-radical-anti-abortion-flames-in-colorado/

    a very good article there, cheers.

    Activists in Birmingham and Leicester are handing out leaflets with graphic images of foetuses and which suggest that having a termination is harder to overcome than rape and that women who have abortions are more likely to kill themselves.
    Women in Cardiff have been delaying abortion appointments because they do not want to face the protesters, who have been accused of intimidating women by carrying cameras.
    A protester in Manchester has been trying to show women models of foetuses in an attempt to prevent them from having abortions, and demonstrators in Leicester constructed a display of foetus dolls portraying different stages of development.
    Demonstrators have called women visiting a clinic in Manchester “murderers”, and one protester became “verbally aggressive” when told by police not to approach people.

    Ok so theres a lot of protest and some harassment thrown in there, obviously these women 'delaying' abortions arent changing their minds so these protests are fruitless it would seem. Overall I think this article paints it as less of a serious problem than some would like to imagine , but nobody can condone bringing cameras to take womens pictures or becoming verbally aggressive.

    The leaflets , models , pictures as much as I disagree with them are similar to any other protest.


  • #266
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,587 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    robarmstrong wrote: »
    So you chose to completely ignore my post requesting input from you on numerous occasions only to post that?

    That’s farcical, that is absolutely ridiculous and just below-par behavior from a moderator.

    Disgraceful.

    I reported that post by Robindch. Hopefully a cmod will do something.


  • #267
    splinter65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    Odhinn wrote: »
    ....so you admit that there was no "opt out" clause for protestants, liberal catholics, non believers etc.





    You've evidence of this?

    Yes. Where is our Taoiseachs statement on the carnage in Sri Lanka ?


  • #268
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    robarmstrong wrote: »
    So you chose to completely ignore my post requesting input from you on numerous occasions only to post that? That’s farcical, that is absolutely ridiculous and just below-par behavior from a moderator. Disgraceful.
    You might like to consider taking a break from your keyboard for a while - that kind of post doesn't really advance anybody's position.


  • #269
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,587 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    robindch wrote: »
    You might like to consider taking a break from your keyboard for a while - that kind of post doesn't really advance anybody's position.

    we could all say the same to you.


  • #270
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    robindch wrote: »
    You might like to consider taking a break from your keyboard for a while - that kind of post doesn't really advance anybody's position.

    Does your post advance a position whatsoever? I requested your input several different times in that post and asked you several questions and instead of addressing any you just simply decided to post a smart remark and gloss over the issue.

    I won’t be having a break from my keyboard for a while, at least not here anyways.


  • Advertisement
  • #271
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    The thread is closed for review and to allow tempers to cool down.


  • #272
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Thread re-opened following review, discussion and agreement amongst forum moderators and catmods regarding the content of this thread and the activities of posters here and what needs to happen to improve the standard of discussion.

    An update has been posted here which describes the changes which have been made, and the changes which will be coming down the line shortly.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110052903&postcount=1548


  • #273
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,587 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    recedite wrote: »
    The above is a good example of soapboxing; repeating the same opinion ad nauseum.

    As for the point you were making, an amendment whose primary effect is to remove entirely the constitutional right to life of a group which formerly enjoyed it, leads to an "open season" on that group. That could be called "abortion on demand". Then suggesting ”Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancies...” means that the abortion may be limited at some subsequent stage, but in the intervening period there are no actual constitutional restrictions at all.
    Its all a bit pedantic, and its a moot point at this stage anyway because the subsequent legislation setting the limits has been enacted.

    Only if you are attempting to continue the scaremongering that took place before the vote.


  • #274
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,525 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    https://www.broadsheet.ie/2019/04/30/eamonn-for-brussels/

    Just because the 8th has been repealed, doesn't stop the lies

    479075.jpg

    I find it fitting he uses a picture of Mother Theresa, she was a cruel bitch of a women who wanted people to suffer for their god and who also lied.


  • #275
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    He really should have gotten someone to proof read his leaflet, he inadvertently claims that abortion destroys breast cancer.

    Surely that's a good thing, if true.


  • #276
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,357 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Worse than that. Apparently they found higher rates of breast cancer in "Aborted women". Which seems a great trick.


  • Advertisement
  • #277
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    This is the same Eamonn Murphy who ran that bogus HSE type website?


  • #278
    Igotadose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,093 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    eviltwin wrote: »
    This is the same Eamonn Murphy who ran that bogus HSE type website?

    Yep, one and the same. The loony is strong in that one.


  • #279
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Describing abortion as murder is not just using your own language. Murder has a well defined meaning. Abortion does not meet that definition.
    Well that's a start. The next bit is where you (or the person who uses the term) cites bits of legislation or dictionary definitions or whatever, to explain why. Otherwise you (or they) could be construed as just "soapboxing".


  • #280
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    recedite wrote: »
    Well that's a start. The next bit is where you (or the person who uses the term) cites bits of legislation or dictionary definitions or whatever, to explain why. Otherwise you (or they) could be construed as just "soapboxing".

    Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being.

    For abortion to be murder, it has to be the the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

    Seeing as abortion is legal in Ireland, it is not the unlawful killing of one human being by another, it is not unlawful.

    Also, seeing as the unborn have had the "right to life" removed from them, it further pushes them (in my opinion) from the remit of "human being", at least in the eyes of the law in Ireland.

    Next please.


  • #281
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    I tell you what. I can provide you with any number of definitions that show that abortion does not meet the definition of murder. Show me one from a recognised source that does the opposite and then i will engage with you. If a mod asks me to show my definitions i will be happy to do so but until then i will not engage with somebody attempting to bog discussion down in well understood terms.
    That's not how you would resolve this kind of thing.
    FWIW I dont believe abortion is technically murder, but I was posting this as an example in the feedback thread to show how to fix things.


    Your reply is an example of why things are so fooked up.
    And now look what you've done, you've got both of us thrown out of the feedback thread into this zombieland thread :(

    I'm outa here...


  • Advertisement
  • #282
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    [...] There are words used that have well understood meanings but one side continues as if there is still debate about their meaning.
    Whether or not abortion amounts to "murder" is the very core of the discussion concerning abortion. One side says it's not murder, and sometimes provides some reasoning to support this opinion. The other side says it is, and sometimes provides some reasoning to support this opinion.

    Forum moderators are not going to adjudicate on whether it is or not - that is for people involved in the discussion to debate.

    It would certainly help the discussion move forward, instead of in circles, if pro-choice and anti-abortion posters made a genuine effort to find common ground instead of sniping at each other and using words which have no agreed meaning or context.


  • #283
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    robindch wrote: »
    Whether or not abortion amounts to "murder" is the very core of the discussion concerning abortion. One side says it's not murder, and sometimes provides some reasoning to support this opinion. The other side says it is, and sometimes provides some reasoning to support this opinion.

    Forum moderators are not going to adjudicate on whether it is or not - that is for people involved in the discussion to debate.

    It would certainly help the discussion move forward, instead of in circles, if pro-choice and anti-abortion posters made a genuine effort to find common ground instead of sniping at each other and using words which have no agreed meaning or context.

    Although it is at the very core of the discussion concerning abortion, murder is defined as the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

    In countries where abortion is legal, this removes the "unlawful" aspect. It removes the unborn's right to life also, leaving their status as a human being in the eyes of the law quite vague.

    It is not, however, murder. At least in the eyes of the countries (including this one) laws to reflect as such. It's simply become an emotive baton to hit people with in the debate that is generally thrown out when there can be no coherent argument to follow.


  • #284
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Mod:
    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    the meaning of murder is plain.
    Since pro-choice and anti-abortion posters obviously disagree on the meaning of the word "murder", why not try to seek out an agreed definition, then see if abortion - however that is defined - meets that definition?

    .


  • #285
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    recedite wrote: »
    [...] this zombieland thread [...]
    The thread wasn't dead - just resting.


  • #286
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    robindch wrote: »
    Since pro-abortion and anti-abortion posters obviously disagree on the meaning of the word "murder", why not try to seek out an agreed definition, then see if abortion - however that is defined - meets that definition?

    To clarify, the sides are pro-choice & pro-life.

    I am anti-abortion but pro-choice due to personal reasons involving my partner & any female members of my family.

    Both sides "disagree" on the meaning of the word murder because one side in particular distorts it to suit their agenda. Which is fine, but does not make it true.

    Again, it falls under the remit of the interpretation of a term. However because "murder" is lawfully defined and has a clear definition in the eyes of the law as the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another, removing the unborn's right to life and legalizing abortion essentially removes the unlawful killing aspect of the argument.


  • #287
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    robarmstrong wrote: »
    Again, it falls under the remit of the interpretation of a term.
    Indeed. That is exactly my point. The two sides don't agree, therefore both sides continue to speak past each other.
    robarmstrong wrote: »
    However because "murder" is lawfully defined and has a clear definition in the eyes of the law as the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another, removing the unborn's right to life and legalizing abortion essentially removes the unlawful killing aspect of the argument.
    Which would all be fine, if the pro-choice and anti-abortion sides both agreed when human life begins, and obviously they don't and neither side has demonstrated much interest in the 30,000-odd posts in this thread in coming to a common understanding.

    For the avoidance of doubt, here's the anti-abortion view of when life begins (see here):
    Pro Life Campaign wrote:
    Do you believe that life beings at conception?

    Yes
    Therefore, the anti-abortion side holds that since life begins at birth, and that a pregnant woman therefore holds a full and complete human life within her, any premeditated act which terminates that pregnancy amounts to "murder" - though "murder" in a moral sense, not a legal sense.

    Legally, in Ireland, abortion is not murder since - by implication, though not by definition - human life begins at birth. Anti-abortionists believe that the moral assertion that human life begins at conception outweighs the legal position which implies otherwise, hence they refer to abortion as murder. Whether you believe that's right or not comes down to whether you believe that moral considerations outweigh legal ones, or legal outweighs moral. Pro-choice appear, at least now, to believe now that legal outweighs moral, while anti-abortion, at least now, seem to believe that moral outweighs legal.

    I'm not taking sides in any of this, all I'm doing is pointing out that neither side is agreeing terms of reference or definitions - hence all the fire, heat and smoke in the abortion debate as people try to bludgeon each other to death with their own preferred, but splendidly undefined and disjunctive, terms.


  • #288
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Nonsense. Just pure nonsense. Murder is illegal killing. Abortion is legal now in this country so abortion cannot be murder. To suggest otherwise is just rubbish.
    The post just above this one explains in precise, exacting detail why other people might disagree with you.

    I suggest you take up this disagreement with people who hold anti-abortion views.


  • #289
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    robindch wrote: »
    Indeed. That is exactly my point. The two sides don't agree, therefore both sides continue to speak past each other.Which would all be fine, if the pro-choice and anti-abortion sides both agreed when human life begins, and obviously they don't and neither side has demonstrated much interest in the 30,000-odd posts in this thread in coming to a common understanding.

    For the avoidance of doubt, here's the anti-abortion view of when life begins:

    https://prolifecampaign.ie/main/portfolio/detail/when-does-life-begin/

    Therefore, since life begins at birth, and that a pregnant woman therefore holds a full and complete human life within her, any premeditated act which terminates that pregnancy amounts to murder.

    Legally, in Ireland, abortion is not murder since - by implication, though not by definition - human life begins at birth. Anti-abortionists believe that the moral assertion that human life begins at conception outweighs the legal position which implies otherwise, hence they refer to abortion as murder. Whether you believe that's right or not comes down to whether you believe that moral considerations outweigh legal ones, or legal outweighs moral.

    I'm not taking sides in any of this, all I'm doing is pointing out that neither side is agreeing terms of reference or definitions - hence all the fire, heat and smoke in the abortion debate as people try to bludgeon each other to death with their own preferred, but splendidly undefined and disjunctive, terms.

    Robin, with respect you are still failing to get the discussion and the points mentioned, even above you manage to contradict yourself and you’re not really contributing anything in relation to the “murder” angle either.

    Legality is factual, it is factual to state that abortion is not the unlawful premeditated killing of a human being. (In countries that have legalized abortion anyways!)

    A moral viewpoint simply cannot outweigh a legal standpoint or fact. I’m sorry but it can’t it absolutely cannot, it is farcical to suggest otherwise. A belief does not overrule a fact, an interpretation of a term does not change the definition of a term. If you think murder is abortion you are factually incorrect to assume that. If you tell me that you feel, morally, abortion is murder, I’d be more inclined to discuss it with you as I know you are coming towards me with an opinion, a view. You are not presenting it as a fact as it is not a fact (at least not in the eyes of the law).

    I asked you a question in relation to this earlier in the thread and you didn’t respond, though with the posts being moved it may have ended up in the Feedback thread.


  • #290
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    robarmstrong wrote: »
    you’re not really contributing anything in relation to the “murder” angle either.
    I beg to differ. I am pointing out in exacting detail one major disagreement in the two sides of the abortion debate. There are many other disagreements.
    robarmstrong wrote: »
    A moral viewpoint simply cannot outweigh a legal standpoint or fact. I’m sorry but it can’t it absolutely cannot, it is farcical to suggest otherwise.
    I suggest that you take up the issue with anti-abortioninsts who believe otherwise.


  • #291
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    Robin this is getting beyond a joke now. You attempted to outline a position and explain it so and I have stated why your statement does not help either side in discussion.


  • Advertisement
  • #292
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    robarmstrong wrote: »
    You attempted to outline a position and explain it so and I have stated why your statement does not help either side in discussion.
    I have outlined not one position, but two positions. I have clarified why the two sides disagree. The post is not intended to "help either side", but to point out where disagreement arises.

    It's up to posters taking part in this discussion to tease this disagreement out.


  • #293
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    robindch wrote: »
    I have outlined not one position, but two positions. I have clarified why the two sides disagree. The post is not intended to "help either side", but to point out where disagreement arises.

    It's up to posters taking part in this discussion to tease this disagreement out.

    The disagreement arises because the pro-life proclaim that their moral view of the definition of what qualifies as murder is fact when it is not fact.

    When abortion is legal, it removes the “unlawful premeditated killing of a human being”. That is law, that is legal definition.

    A moral definition does not become factual as morals go hand-in-hand with beliefs, which are opinions and viewpoints.

    I believe abortion is taking a human life as I’ve outlined in previous incarnations of abortion discussion threads, but I voted to legalize it for personal issues concerning my partner. Whilst I do believe abortion is taking a life, my opinion or my moral view does not give me the right to contradict what is written down in law. The unborn unfortunately do not have the right to life, so as it is, the act of abortion in Ireland does not qualify as murder, or killing, or any other deviation of the above.


  • #294
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    robarmstrong wrote: »
    The disagreement arises because the pro-life proclaim that their moral view of the definition of what qualifies as murder is fact when it is not fact.
    If, as I have pointed out already, you believe that legal frameworks outweigh moral ones, then yes, you'll believe that's true.

    If, as many (most, all?) anti-abortionists believe, moral frameworks outweigh legal ones, then you won't believe that's true.

    I can't really say it more simply than that and suggest - again - that you take up the point with an anti-abortionist.


  • #295
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    I give up at this stage, utterly pointless.


  • #296
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,082 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Does fantasy equate reality, if one really really believes it does?

    We're way off into Never-Never Land at this stage.

    In Cavan there was a great fire / Judge McCarthy was sent to inquire / It would be a shame / If the nuns were to blame / So it had to be caused by a wire.



  • #297
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,082 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    recedite wrote: »
    As for the point you were making, an amendment whose primary effect is to remove entirely the constitutional right to life of a group which formerly enjoyed it, leads to an "open season" on that group. That could be called "abortion on demand".

    Strangely enough, there was no 'abortion on demand' or 'open season on the foetus' prior to 1983, how do you explain that in the light of your above post in the feedback thread?

    In Cavan there was a great fire / Judge McCarthy was sent to inquire / It would be a shame / If the nuns were to blame / So it had to be caused by a wire.



  • #298
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    robindch wrote: »
    If, as I have pointed out already, you believe that legal frameworks outweigh moral ones, then yes, you'll believe that's true.

    If, as many (most, all?) anti-abortionists believe, moral frameworks outweigh legal ones, then you won't believe that's true.

    I can't really say it more simply than that and suggest - again - that you take up the point with an anti-abortionist.

    But the legal framework does outweigh the moral one, that shouldn't even be up for discussion. We're not in Saudi Arabia, where they are one and the same, murder has a very clear definition in Irish law and abortion does not meet the criteria.

    Allowing people use that phrase because they may believe it is murder is exactly what's wrong with this thread, a belief (particularly one that has been shown to be wrong) can't have the same weight of argument as a fact.

    Post have been shown to be untrue (at best, dishonest at worst) and you are bending over backwards to avoid actually moderating the discussion.


  • #299
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,525 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    recedite wrote: »
    an amendment whose primary effect is to remove entirely the constitutional right to life of a group which formerly enjoyed it, leads to an "open season" on that group. That could be called "abortion on demand".

    Despite what pro-life groups like to think the 8th amendment never actually made a fetus = to for example a 1 month old baby in law by any stretch.

    If a women had an abortion she "might" have gotten some time in jail (no women ever did), it didn't matter if she pre-planned the abortion to the very last detail. Time and time again we heard the extremely well funded NO side in the 2018 referendum say they didn't want any women jailed.

    So its murder, but you don't want anyone jailed??, thats a strange sort of murder.
    :rolleyes:

    By comparison if a women pre-planned the murder of a 1 month old baby she would very likely be tried for murder. At the very she would be arrested and charged.

    Additionally, abortion pill providers were not in anyway jailed or even fined under law. These people were well known and documented and yet nobody wanted them prosecuted...including the side that wanted the 8th to remain.

    During the ref Channel 4 did a documentary where they followed one such provider in Waterford, from the documentary it was easy to work out what estate and house she lived in. Yet the very active pro-life groups in Waterford never once called for her to be arrested or charged with anything.

    Its evident pro-life groups and people are using the term murder in a meaningless manner and always have, its only been used as a emotive word and nothing more.
    :rolleyes:


  • #300
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,800 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    robindch wrote: »
    However, the anti-abortion side disagree about when life begins, and in so doing, make the case that it is murder.

    But murder is explicitly defined as unlawful premeditated killing, so abortion clearly does not meet this definition, any more than a militant vegan stating meat is murder. On the one hand you're not willing to allow a post to be referred to as bigoted yet on the other you entertain a clear misuse of an another emotive term. So women who have had an abortion may be called murderers yet we cannot refer to that assertion as bigoted?


  • Advertisement
  • #301
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    smacl wrote: »
    But murder is explicitly defined as unlawful premeditated killing, so abortion clearly does not meet this definition, any more than a militant vegan stating meat is murder.
    And as above, the anti-abortion side will refer to the law of god, they will disagree about the point at which life starts, and you're back again at their own square one - that abortion is murder (in a religious context, where there is such thing as "god's law", and where life is held to begin at conception).

    Again, this isn't my point of view, but it is the point of view of the anti-abortion side and that's how it's argued.

    And that's why I think the use of the term "murder" in abortion debates is useless if not downright unacceptable as there is no common agreement amongst the sides taking part in the discussion as to what it is, and how it arises, and how dependent it is upon context - a point I made nine months ago:
    robindch wrote: »
    I would suggest that both sides could do better than to concern themselves with the use of a single emotive term "murder", since it does not make for a peaceful or worthwhile discussion.
    smacl wrote: »
    On the one hand you're not willing to allow a post to be referred to as bigoted yet on the other you entertain a clear misuse of an another emotive term.
    Referring to another poster as "bigoted" impugns the character of the other poster, so it violates the "civil discussion" rule. It's not all that different from an anti-abortion poster calling a pro-choice poster "a murderer" - yes, it might make sense in an anti-abortion context, but it also impugns their character.
    smacl wrote: »
    So women who have had an abortion may be called murderers
    No, they cannot be - it's not civil discourse.
    smacl wrote: »
    yet we cannot refer to that assertion as bigoted?
    At that point, the levels of context and implication are hard to trace unambiguously, so I would imply avoid any use of the term "bigot" and related terms, as the charter suggests.


Advertisement