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

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Options
1…241242244246247…334

Comments

  • Options
    #7292
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    end of the road wrote: »
    the no side were truthful and factual throughout the campaign.
    The evidence suggests otherwise.

    “We’re talking about wholesale slaughter, potentially up to the moment of birth and possibly even past it." - John Waters.

    http://www.thejournal.ie/john-waters-eamon-dunphy-4018829-May2018/


  • Options
    #7293
    Loafing Oaf
    Registered Users Posts: 16,153 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    end of the road wrote: »
    oh absolutely i believe it's a possibility. i would never rule out such happening.

    But when have pro-choice people ever engaged in such activities? By contrast you have ICBR already protesting outside maternity hospitals (admittedly not actually harassing anyone as far as we know), presumably in anticipation that abortions under the new regime will be carried out at such venues. Obviously no-one can predict the future with certainty but saying "it's doctors who don't provide the service who would be more likely to receive protests designed to intimidate and harass" seems to completely defy common sense.

    Oh btw hats off to Peregrinus and Nozz, up with the lark debating this arcane subject at great length. It takes me at least half an hour to compose any post longer than a paragraph so I'm always amazed at people who can reel off this kind of stuff...:)


  • Options
    #7294
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Yea the lies on a group and individual level were hard to swallow sometimes when they got seriously egregious and blatant. But of course it is easier for people to distance themselves from the individuals.

    Claiming not to have used the term "murder" on a forum where people have multiple times quoted multi posts of them having used the term "Murder" crosses a line in lying for me though. Lying when people might buy the lie is one thing. Lying while metaphorically standing beside the truth in black and white clearly readable text though? Thats just treating the audience like the gullible non thinking idiots one apparently thinks they are.

    For me the worst individual lie I experienced through the entire campaign though, which crossed the line from mere lying to pathological and outright evil...... was the user of another forum who took the pictures of a still born fetus..... that the suffering and grieving parents had offered the news paper in good faith to help raise awareness about still birth........ and openly claimed that the photos were of the result of an abortion.

    Some people are liars. Others are just actually evil. And it takes a special kind of person to abuse and misuse photos like that for their own agenda.


  • Options
    #7295
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,735 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Well, this comes back to a point I made earlier; most abortions are not sought for medical reasons. So, while a GP has a duty of care to a patient, does that duty extend to meeting the patient's non-medical needs?

    Whether or not to have an abortion is clearly the decision of the pregnant woman in these cases, not the GP. Once that decision has been made the need to implement it is medical. So yes, she clearly does have a medical need.


  • Options
    #7296
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,031 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    robindch wrote: »
    The evidence suggests otherwise.

    “We’re talking about wholesale slaughter, potentially up to the moment of birth and possibly even past it." - John Waters.

    http://www.thejournal.ie/john-waters-eamon-dunphy-4018829-May2018/


    in relation to the up to birth and past it comment, he's talking about long term possibilities, including child euthanasia i'd imagine. they aren't possibilities that i see happening myself, but i can see why he would bring them into the discussion, to remind people that once we open the door to abortion on demand, it may likely lead to further campaigns for more liberal laws in relation to the taking of life in certain circumstances, circumstances where the individual who's life is being taken may not have a choice in the matter.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7297
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    end of the road wrote: »
    in relation to the up to birth and past it comment, he's talking about long term possibilities, including child euthanasia i'd imagine.

    Lying his head off, in other words, when speaking about the 8th amendment which had exactly nothing to do with euthanasia.


  • Options
    #7298
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    end of the road wrote: »
    in relation to the up to birth and past it comment, he's talking about long term possibilities, including child euthanasia i'd imagine. they aren't possibilities that i see happening myself, but i can see why he would bring them into the discussion, to remind people that once we open the door to abortion on demand, it may likely lead to further campaigns for more liberal laws in relation to the taking of life in certain circumstances, circumstances where the individual who's life is being taken may not have a choice in the matter.
    So lets say that a member of the Yes side was arguing that retaining the 8th was the first step in creating a misogynist dictatorship where women are forced to be breeders...
    Would this be a reasonable position also? Or would you call that a lie?

    What about the lie you most recently told where you denied that you referred to abortion is murder?
    Do you stand by that denial? Do you stand by the assertion that abortion is murder.
    Which was the lie here?


  • Options
    #7299
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,031 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    King Mob wrote: »
    So lets say that a member of the Yes side was arguing that retaining the 8th was the first step in creating a misogynist dictatorship where women are forced to be breeders...
    Would this be a reasonable position also? Or would you call that a lie?

    it's a ridiculous comparison as if there was any plan to create a misogynist dictatorship where women are forced to be breeders., there would be large scale evidence of it before the 8th would be introduced. even then the 8th couldn't be a step in that process as it was impossible for it to enforce women becoming breeders.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #7300
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    end of the road wrote: »
    it's a ridiculous comparison as if there was any plan to create a misogynist dictatorship where women are forced to be breeders., there would be large scale evidence of it before the 8th would be introduced. even then the 8th couldn't be a step in that process as it was impossible for it to enforce women becoming breeders.
    Yea, I know. The other scenario, the one you provided was just as silly.
    If someone on the proposed this on the repeal side, you'd be calling it a lie.
    But because it's on your side, it's a perfectly reasonable scenario.

    You have also dodged the question I asked:
    What about the lie you most recently told where you denied that you referred to abortion is murder?
    Do you stand by that denial? Do you stand by the assertion that abortion is murder.
    Which was the lie here?

    You may continue dodging it, but that would just be proving how dishonest you are.


  • Options
    #7301
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,031 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Lying his head off, in other words, when speaking about the 8th amendment which had exactly nothing to do with euthanasia.

    no, he wasn't lying, as he didn't state these possibilities would come to fruition, rather that they were more possible to happen once people open the door to allowing the ending of life for any reason.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7302
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users Posts: 13,344 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    The No side told zero lies during the referendum.

    Anything they said that was demonstrably false or exaggerated was clearly not meant to apply to this campaign/vote, but was just a pointer to what might happen in the future. Any other interpretation is therefore false and is itself a lie.

    I hope this clears it up and prevents a thousand as yet unconceived multi-quotes.


  • Options
    #7303
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,319 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    end of the road wrote: »
    no, he wasn't lying, as he didn't state these possibilities would come to fruition, rather that they were more possible to happen once people open the door to allowing the ending of life for any reason.


    But that in itself is a lie. There is no connection between allowing abortion and child euthanasia. What even is child euthanasia?


  • Options
    #7304
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    ArmaniJeanss wrote: »
    The No side told zero lies during the referendum.

    On mature reflection, I am happy to agree with that. The last thing I want is for them to learn from the campaign they just ran - I'd like them to be equally ineffective next time out.


  • Options
    #7305
    Calina
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    end of the road wrote: »
    it's a ridiculous comparison as if there was any plan to create a misogynist dictatorship where women are forced to be breeders., there would be large scale evidence of it before the 8th would be introduced. even then the 8th couldn't be a step in that process as it was impossible for it to enforce women becoming breeders.

    The 8th amendment specifically forced women to remain pregnant. The treatment of women in assorted laundries and m&b homes whose children were taken from them? Women compelled to leave jobs on marriage and you, you think women weren’t treated as breeders.


  • Options
    #7306
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,031 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Calina wrote: »
    The 8th amendment specifically forced women to remain pregnant.

    yes it prevented them from killing their unborn in ireland except in exceptional circumstances. there was nothing wrong with that, it was simply extending the rule of law to the unborn.
    Calina wrote: »
    The treatment of women in assorted laundries and m&b homes whose children were taken from them? Women compelled to leave jobs on marriage and you, you think women weren’t treated as breeders.

    while those particular issues were wrong they have nothing to do with the 8th. if you want to argue that they contributed to an ideal of women being breeders then they would have legs compared to arguing that the 8th contributed to such an ideal.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #7307
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    end of the road wrote: »
    in relation to the up to birth and past it comment, he's talking about long term possibilities, including child euthanasia i'd imagine.
    The constitutional referendum repealed the 8th amendment which guaranteed the "right to life of the unborn".

    I think most people would accept that even Mr Waters should be able to distinguish between "unborn" and "born".

    Therefore at least, he uttered a falsehood. And presuming he can make the distinction above, then he was knowingly dishonest - ie, a liar.


  • Options
    #7308
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #7309
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,031 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.


    of course there were issues with the act but it's aim was certainly 100% right.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #7310
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    end of the road wrote: »
    of course there were issues with the act but it's aim was certainly 100% right.
    So, to you, is abortion murder?

    Do you think that no one is noticing the fact you've dodged the questions?
    Do you think that anyone hasn't seen that you yourself are a bald faced liar?

    Why do you expect anyone to believe you when you say the no side never told lies?


  • Options
    #7311
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7312
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,031 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    no, i believed it should stay and i voted for it to stay, simply on the basis that it was the only way that the unborn's life would remain protected given the legislation proposed by the government wasn't willing to do that up to 12 weeks. i was always clear however that i was a reluctant no voter and that if the government had proposed legislation for abortion in medically necessary cases only, that i'd vote to repeal.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #7313
    uptherebels
    Registered Users Posts: 1,587 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    end of the road wrote: »
    no, i believed it should stay and i voted for it to stay, simply on the basis that it was the only way that the unborn's life would remain protected given the legislation proposed by the government wasn't willing to do that up to 12 weeks. i was always clear however that i was a reluctant no voter and that if the government had proposed legislation for abortion in medically necessary cases only, that i'd vote to repeal.

    Except it didn't protect anything as there was constitutional protection for women to travel specifically to obtain an abortion. all it did was compromise the medical care of pregnant women. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly .but (willful) ignorance is bliss.

    And anytime you want to give us an alternative to twelve weeks for rape victims I'm all ears. I eagerly await your deafening silence


  • Options
    #7314
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,031 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    uptherebels wrote: »
    Except it didn't protect anything as

    well yes it did. how many unborn were protected due to the 8th will never be known but i believe it did protect some unborn lives.

    uptherebels wrote: »
    there was constitutional protection for women to travel specifically to obtain an abortion.

    there wasn't. there was constitutional protection against the 8th preventing a pregnant woman from traveling.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #7315
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    end of the road wrote: »
    well yes it did. how many unborn were protected due to the 8th will never be known but i believe it did protect some unborn lives.
    So you're back to claiming abortion is murder?


  • Options
    #7316
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #7317
    uptherebels
    Registered Users Posts: 1,587 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    end of the road wrote: »
    well yes it did. how many unborn were protected due to the 8th will never be known but i believe it did protect some unborn lives.




    there wasn't. there was constitutional protection against the 8th preventing a pregnant woman from traveling.

    It's the same thing.
    No comment on the alternative to twelve weeks? I wonder why! Plenty of no voters keep harping on about an alternative but none ever seem to have any suggestions on one.


  • Options
    #7318
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,031 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    because i believe it did protect some. no law protects everybody.
    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    it wasn't up to me to do so, i'm not a politician.
    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    i didn't ignore it. from what i could see the "facts" and "evidence" were opinion only so i wasn't going to change my viewpoint on the basis of them. there were plenty on the yes side posting endlessly about the topic as well.
    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    i will never respect any law that allows the taking of life of others against their will.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #7319
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,319 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    end of the road wrote: »
    because i believe it did protect some. no law protects everybody.



    it wasn't up to me to do so, i'm not a politician.



    i didn't ignore it. from what i could see the "facts" and "evidence" were opinion only so i wasn't going to change my viewpoint on the basis of them. there were plenty on the yes side posting endlessly about the topic as well.



    i will never respect any law that allows the taking of life of others against their will.


    what "will" does a 12 week old foetus have?


  • Options
    #7320
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7321
    uptherebels
    Registered Users Posts: 1,587 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    end of the road wrote: »
    because i believe it did protect some. no law protects everybody.



    it wasn't up to me to do so, i'm not a politician.



    i didn't ignore it. from what i could see the "facts" and "evidence" were opinion only so i wasn't going to change my viewpoint on the basis of them. there were plenty on the yes side posting endlessly about the topic as well.



    i will never respect any law that allows the taking of life of others against their will.

    But surely someone who wants the unborn protected could suggest some viable solutions, unless they know there aren't any and may e don't want to admit it?
    Again you seem confused, when you make claims with no evidence, that is opinion. When your opinion is countered with evidence, those are facts. You weren't going to change your opinion for any reason at all.
    That's ok no one needs your approval as they have the approval of the majority.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement