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 the Fourth

robindch

...continuing on from previous threads on abortion (abortion part 1, part 2 and part 3).

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

recedite

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Except it didn't continue, because as a quick thread search shows, EOTR never posted in that thread again. There was never a discussion involving EOTR about that claim. Not in AH, or in even this thread, despite him continuing to read the AH thread (as evidence by him still thanking posts) and continuing to post here.

It makes no difference whether or not EOTR ever posted there again. The discussion continued.
Why are you getting upset over it now, in a different forum, a year later?

Mark Hamill

recedite wrote: »

But the discussion did continue. Because in the after hours forum, posting controversial and/or unsupported opinions is the norm.

And then other people can either respond or ignore the comment, but they move on immediately.

Except it didn't continue, because as a quick thread search shows, EOTR never posted in that thread again. There was never a discussion involving EOTR about that claim. Not in AH, or in even this thread, despite him continuing to read the AH thread (as evidence by him still thanking posts) and continuing to post here.

recedite

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Leaving aside the semantic arguments to the other posters taking them on, the problem actually is that EOTR made that claim very nearly a year ago, was called out on it the same day, but never once defend themselves with your argument here. Or any argument at all. If they had done that, then the discussion could have continued, maybe over semantic points but continue none the less.

But the discussion did continue. Because in the after hours forum, posting controversial and/or unsupported opinions is the norm.

And then other people can either respond or ignore the comment, but they move on immediately.

Mark Hamill

Turtwig wrote: »

I want to emphasise a word here:

EOTR stated he did not believe that all abortion is murder. Indeed, even in Catholicism there are times when abortion is acceptable. Ectopic pregancies for one.

However, in the instances where abortion is morally questionable to his/her view of ethics it's considered murder. This isn't a morally inconsistent opinion. It's one I heavily disagree with but if you consider a foetus the same as an adult person then it's not that much of a leap to suggest killing one is the equivalent of killing the other.

Leaving aside the semantic arguments to the other posters taking them on, the problem actually is that EOTR made that claim very nearly a year ago, was called out on it the same day, but never once defend themselves with your argument here. Or any argument at all. If they had done that, then the discussion could have continued, maybe over semantic points but continue none the less.

robindch

Folks - I believe we're all agreed that the use of the word "murder" in the context of abortion generates more heat than light and does not lead to civil discussion.

Future posts which use, or refer, to the word in the disjunctive context in which it's been used of late will be deleted and the posters who post them may be carded or banned.

Cabaal

I find it amusing for all the debate, EOTR seems incapable of posting himself.
Instead he's relying on recedite to post for them and thanking posts like there's no tomorrow, its like a school yard thing and is fairly tragic.

I'm sure end of the road is well capable of using a keyboard and explaining what he did or did not mean.

We're all adults I assume and well capable of speaking for ourselves?

volchitsa

Turtwig wrote: »

I want to emphasise a word here:

EOTR stated he did not believe that all abortion is murder. Indeed, even in Catholicism there are times when abortion is acceptable. Ectopic pregancies for one.

However, in the instances where abortion is morally questionable to his/her view of ethics it's considered murder. This isn't a morally inconsistent opinion. It's one I heavily disagree with but if you consider a foetus the same as an adult person then it's not that much of a leap to suggest killing one is the equivalent of killing the other.

It doesn't have to be, but in practice it is when you look at current prolife (stated) views.

An example : child sex abuse is still child sex abuse when westerners travel to poor countries to abuse children there, even if their laws have a much lower age of consent. Reports of child marriage for instance talk about children in Yemen etc being married but in Yemen that's perfectly legal. Why try to stop Yemeni children being married in Yemen but not object to Irish abortions in England?

Yet Irish prolifers (allegedly) don't even want to stop Irish women from travelling for abortions in the first place.

Compare that to the uproar when Ali Selim used the 8th amendment travel exception to suggest that Muslim families would be allowed to travel abroad to have FGM for their daughters. IIRC he even had to withdraw the comment.

Borders don't make a difference when something is genuinely perceived as a crime, whether or not it's legal in that country.

So no, when looked at in context, it's clear that prolifers are not being frank and open about their claim to believe that abortion can ever be murder. They don't like it, sure, but they either don't really think it's murder, or they're not telling the truth about what they would really like to see happen to women who have abortions.

amcalester

Turtwig wrote: »

I want to emphasise a word here:

EOTR stated he did not believe that all abortion is murder. Indeed, even in Catholicism there are times when abortion is acceptable. Ectopic pregancies for one.

However, in the instances where abortion is morally questionable to his/her view of ethics it's considered murder. This isn't a morally inconsistent opinion. It's one I heavily disagree with but if you consider a foetus the same as an adult person then it's not that much of a leap to suggest killing one is the equivalent of killing the other.

Actually, he stated he never said all abortion is murder not that he didn't believe all abortion is murder.

There is a subtle difference because the former implies that in his previous posts there was some qualifier while the later is clear that there are cases where abortion is not murder.

But if you look at his statements no such qualifier exists.

Just this post alone is clear and concise, there is no ambiguity to his position.

end of the road wrote: »

it's an unborn baby and is murder.

So, maybe end o can explain how we are meant to interpret the above post and reconcile it back to his later post where he claimed to never have said all abortion is murder.

And, just to head this argument off at the pass, I'm aware the post doesn't contain the word ALL, but nor does it contain a limiter like most, many, majority etc.

Turtwig

I want to emphasise a word here:

i know i and most no voters on here have never said all abortion is murder

EOTR stated he did not believe that all abortion is murder. Indeed, even in Catholicism there are times when abortion is acceptable. Ectopic pregancies for one.

However, in the instances where abortion is morally questionable to his/her view of ethics it's considered murder. This isn't a morally inconsistent opinion. It's one I heavily disagree with but if you consider a foetus the same as an adult person then it's not that much of a leap to suggest killing one is the equivalent of killing the other.

Bannasidhe

recedite wrote: »

Can't discuss this anymore. You may not have noticed, but the M word has been banned. Check the newly updated forum charter.

My understanding is that it's still a draft updated charter but I am quite happy not to use that word in connection to abortion as it is not applicable in the first place.

recedite

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's not murder because you cannot murder that which has not been born yet.

Can't discuss this anymore. You may not have noticed, but the M word has been banned. Check the newly updated forum charter.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

That's an honest answer.
And we did exactly the same recently. The abortion referendum was specifically a vote to remove the right to life of the unborn (which they had previously enjoyed) and which effectively re-categorised them as subhuman.

This has already been shot down so I won't repeat why it's wrong.

recedite wrote: »

You have addressed it honestly, but I don't think you have refuted it. And BTW don't bother searching for links on nazi era Germany- that is not really the point.

Indeed it isn't, and yet you brought it in as a point of comparison, so you can't now complain when people point out the flaws in your argument.

recedite wrote: »

There is a general point of principle here. "Murder" can be thought of as something strictly technical and connected to local laws and the mood of the times. Or it can be thought of in some higher plane, connected with morality and ethics, and not restricted by the local mood or times.

Indeed. Which is why when someone says abortion is murder but insists that they don't want the women committing these murders to be punished - or even to be physically stopped from committing them, just to have a finger wagged at them for being very naughty girls, one has to wonder whether they understand what the word murder actually means.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

And we did exactly the same recently. The abortion referendum was specifically a vote to remove the right to life of the unborn (which they had previously enjoyed) and which effectively re-categorised them as subhuman.

We did not do exactly the same, at all.

The right to life of the "unborn" did not exist in our constitution until 1983.

The full range of human rights apply to al human beings. The zygote, foetus or embryo did not enjoy any human rights under the 8th amendment except for a qualified right to life (equal right to life of the mother, X case decision, 13th and 14th amendments.) It was already sub-human under the 8th amendment.

"Murder" can be thought of as something strictly technical and connected to local laws and the mood of the times. Or it can be thought of in some higher plane, connected with morality and ethics, and not restricted by the local mood or times.

The nearest thing we have to that is the universal declaration of human rights, which does not prohibit abortion.

You seem to be claiming that some sort of absolute morality exists, where is this to come from? This is a frankly bizarre claim for a non-theist to make.

Timberrrrrrrr

recedite wrote: »

As pointed out, after hours has a completely different forum charter. That's the whole point of it.
Not only that, but it is considered very poor form to hound a poster on one forum with quotes taken from another forum.

And yet EOTR never posted in that thread again after being told to provide evidence. Why do you think that was?

However, on this forum, calling someone a liar is a very clear breach of the forum charter.

The evidence is there for all to see.

And for the record, i didn't call anyone a liar.

[Deleted User]

recedite wrote: »

Yes, you're right, I fell for the sneaky sophistry there. But the implication is still clear.

What sophistry?

Any implication, is purely your opinion, I'm asking you why you spend so much time arguing against your own stated position?

.......

recedite wrote: »

Just to be clear, the statements

and here...

.. DO NOT add up to a denial that EOTR ever used the word murder.

They are perfectly reasonable statements, and I would expect nothing less from anyone posting from a pro-life perspective.

They add up to a denial that EOTR ever said abortion is murder.

Why are you nit picking this to death?

Its quite clear what EOTR does. We dont need yet another exhaustive nit pick of it.

He claimed he never said abortion is murder then he was shown 15 posts where he said just that. Thats it - its that simple.

Bannasidhe

recedite wrote: »

Just to be clear, the statements

and here...

.. DO NOT add up to a denial that EOTR ever used the word murder.

They are perfectly reasonable statements, and I would expect nothing less from anyone posting from a pro-life perspective.

It's not murder because you cannot murder that which has not been born yet.

Murder is used by the pro-birth (I do not for a second think all those who are anti-abortion are pro-life but that is a different topic) for emotive reasons -as it use of the word "baby".
Neither of these are correct.

As for "justifiable reasons" - you do not know an individual's reasons and do not get to decide what is, and is not, "justifiable".

And threats to a pregnant woman, or girl's, ("mother" is another emotive term bandied about) life may take many forms - or do you mean threat to her literally continuing to remain alive as being pregnant will cause her immediate death? In which case why not say so?

robarmstrong

What about this statement, directly contradicting the generalized phrase of "abortion is murder" -

it was claimed i was talking generally when i had used the term murder which wasn't true, and which i denied, as i hadn't stated that it was murder in general at the time.

Please tell me, how the statement of "abortion is murder", is not generalized (as it does not specify in what scenario, it is simply a blanket statement, abortion is murder). Without differentiation, it becomes generalization, no?

recedite

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Lying is perfectly reasonable to you?

Why isn't it relevant to this forum?

As pointed out, after hours has a completely different forum charter. That's the whole point of it.
Not only that, but it is considered very poor form to hound a poster on one forum with quotes taken from another forum.

However, on this forum, calling someone a liar is a very clear breach of the forum charter.

recedite

Just to be clear, the statements

i and most no voters on here have never said all abortion is murder

and here...

i stated that abortion on demand was similar to murder in that it was premeditated and caried out for no justifiable reason, however i also stated that abortion caried out due to a threat to the mother's life most certainly was not murder.

.. DO NOT add up to a denial that EOTR ever used the word murder.

They are perfectly reasonable statements, and I would expect nothing less from anyone posting from a pro-life perspective.

.......

recedite wrote: »

Like I said, its not the (non-existent) denial that vexes you, its the 15 instances of EOTR using the word "murder".

I'm done here. This is a ridiculous witch hunt, and it reflects very badly on those pursuing it.

There is no witch hunt and I believe you are simply trying to flame people with this continued line of denial.

You have been shown evidence, you dismissed it as "storm in a teacup". You then denied there WAS evidence.

These tactics are familiar.

robarmstrong

recedite wrote: »

Like I said, its not the (non-existent) denial that vexes you, its the 15 instances of EOTR using the word "murder".

I'm done here. This is a ridiculous witch hunt, and it reflects very badly on those pursuing it.

Wrong.

The usage of the term murder isn't the issue, it's the constant repetition of saying "abortion is murder" (** or similar **) then to state you (obviously not you) never said abortion is murder in general, only to be shown 15 examples where you (again, obviously not you) did in fact make the statement in general that abortion was murder.

Recedite, you asked for a denial, you got the denial, you dismissed it as being irrelevant, now you're telling us you're "done here" and that this "witch hunt" is reflecting "very badly" on those pursuing it.

You pursued evidence of a posters denial, you got the denial and you deemed it irrelevant, I would say that is just as bad a reflection, no?

SusieBlue

recedite wrote: »

Like I said, its not the (non-existent) denial that vexes you, its the 15 instances of EOTR using the word "murder".

I'm done here. This is a ridiculous witch hunt, and it reflects very badly on those pursuing it.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or can you not see the first quote, where he denies ever referring to abortion as murder and then the subsequent 15 or so posts, where he actually DID in fact refer to abortion as murder?

recedite

robarmstrong wrote: »

What difference does it make where the claim was made? The user in particular made the claim that he or most of the no side never claimed abortion was murder.

That is where he denied he said abortion was murder. I then provided his original post, along with at least 15 examples (there were well over 30) of times when he did in fact generalize that abortion was murder (did not differentiate the scenario, or mention anything specific).

Then EOTR posted this - https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108319889&postcount=8228

Tell me recedite, how many times did you see the phrase "abortion is murder" or anything similar in my 15 quoted posts of EOTR?

Like I said, its not the (non-existent) denial that vexes you, its the 15 instances of EOTR using the word "murder".

I'm done here. This is a ridiculous witch hunt, and it reflects very badly on those pursuing it.

.......

recedite wrote: »

Even if it was relevant to this forum, which it isn't.

Well as pointed out - its just one specific example.

I dont have the time or inclination to go over every instance of this behaviour from this poster, but is has been ongoing for more than 18 months at this stage.

Once - sure, storm in a teacup.

Every abortion thread the posters posts in - it becomes tedious and frustrating. And worst of all - it ends up shutting down debate because the debate becomes about the poster and not the discussion.

Id say he is delighted with himself now to have you posting so many times about him. This poster likes to generate heat, not light.

Timberrrrrrrr

recedite wrote: »

So that's it?

Talk about a storm in a teacup
It seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Even if it was relevant to this forum, which it isn't.

Lying is perfectly reasonable to you?

Why isn't it relevant to this forum?

recedite

....... wrote: »

Its the very first quote in the linked post.

i and most no voters on here have never said all abortion is murder

So that's it?

Talk about a storm in a teacup

It seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Even if it was relevant to this forum, which it isn't.

robarmstrong

recedite wrote: »

That's a link to the after hours forum, which has a completely different forum charter to here in A&A.
But regardless of that, where is EOTR's actual denial?

What difference does it make where the claim was made? The user in particular made the claim that he or most of the no side never claimed abortion was murder.

That is where he denied he said abortion was murder. I then provided his original post, along with at least 15 examples (there were well over 30) of times when he did in fact generalize that abortion was murder (did not differentiate the scenario, or mention anything specific).

Then EOTR posted this - https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108319889&postcount=8228

it was claimed i was talking generally when i had used the term murder which wasn't true, and which i denied, as i hadn't stated that it was murder in general at the time.

Tell me recedite, how many times did you see the phrase "abortion is murder" or anything similar in my 15 quoted posts of EOTR?

Timberrrrrrrr

recedite wrote: »

That's a link to the after hours forum, which has a completely different forum charter to here in A&A.
But regardless of that, where is EOTR's actual denial?

EOTR's denial

. i know i and most no voters on here have never said all abortion is murder

Its in that link, the first post in it. Do you not find it strange that EOTR was forced to stop posting in every other abortion thread due to his/her tactics?

Not banned mind you, EOTR was told not to post again until he/she could back up claims made with evidence. Not surprisingly EOTR then avoided posting in those threads. Why do you think that is?

.......

recedite wrote: »

That's a link to the after hours forum, which has a completely different forum charter to here in A&A.
But regardless of that, where is EOTR's actual denial?

Its the very first quote in the linked post. The forum is irrelevant to the point being made - this is a typical way that the poster behaves. He says something then denies he ever said it. Worse (IMO) he says he said something that he never said. He spent months claiming he had provided evidence for various claims when he never had - he knows its too difficult to prove he is lying outright on that one.

However in the linked post:
He claimed he never said abortion was murder - its the first quote.

The next 15 or so quotes are all him saying abortion is murder.

Im curious as to why you are like a dog with a bone about this - does the feedback thread not clearly state, over and over in fact, the issues with that particular posters posting style?