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 Trois

1150151153155156201

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    aloyisious wrote: »
    What do you define as very good/serious reasons? Is recedite in agreement with you that there are good reasons for abortion?

    Or more precisely, is recedite in agreement with endy that recedite thinks there are good reason! Since the roadster's entire post seemed to purport to ventriloquise him.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    a threat to the mother's life, a risk of permanent serious injury or disability, FFA, where the baby will not live to term.

    How big a respective threat and risk? How serious an injury or disability?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7 Augustine John


    It is the sheer scale and number of abortions in countries like the Uk that concerns me . In our post religious world I think we need to stop and think about a few things . Every time a couple have sex there is a possibility that they will create a new life . I agree that no woman ever takes an abortion lightly but how often do people take sex lightly ? We all need a good sex life but is recreational "Ibiza " type sex a good or wise thing at the end of the day ? Is the rampant availability of every conceivable type of pornography good or healthy for our society ? Behind every abortion there is a man . Behind a lot of crisis pregnancies there is a man who didn't want to know . A man who didn't take his responsibility and decided to leave a woman on her own.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,721 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    a threat to the mother's life, a risk of permanent serious injury or disability, FFA, where the baby will not live to term.
    But is that murder or not? Why did you lie?
    Why are you ignoring this point?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,279 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    King Mob wrote: »
    But is that murder or not? Why did you lie?
    Why are you ignoring this point?


    because it's irrelevant to the discussion. and when it's irrelevant to the discussion, then i will not discuss it so not to drag the thread off topic.

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,721 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    because it's irrelevant to the discussion. and when it's irrelevant to the discussion, then i will not discuss it so not to drag the thread off topic.
    Finally...

    And no it's not irrelevant to the discussion when you yourself keep bringing up how you think that people are ignoring stuff or burying their head in the sand.
    It's hypocritical.

    It's also not irrelevant because your position is undermined by they fact that you're willing to twist and abandon your beliefs if you think it's advantageous.

    So again, why did you say abortion wasn't murder and then lied about saying it was multiple times?
    Is abortion murder, yes or no?

    I am not going to let this pass until you grow a spine and own up to your dishonesty directly.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,794 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    because it's irrelevant to the discussion. and when it's irrelevant to the discussion, then i will not discuss it so not to drag the thread off topic.

    As has been pointed out to you before you conveniently consider any point you can't or don't want to answer as it undermines your agenda as being irrelevant.
    What's hilarious is that you think people can't see right through you.


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,522 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    It's annoying how he is constantly allowed to do this over the years, persistently copies/paste lies in every thread then avoids/dishes any questions when pulled up about his lies.

    Sort of like Trump does really, spreads lies and misinformation but never has to answer for it


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,349 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    recedite wrote: »
    In that case, I can only say you are wrong.

    Sure, I agree you are right. You CAN "only" say it. You certainly have not substantiated it, so only saying it does indeed appear to be all you can actually do.

    And I think a large portion of the reason for that inability comes from the fact that sentences like this one.....
    recedite wrote: »
    Even a boxer who has been knocked out for 60 seconds has been unconscious for that amount of time.

    .... are strong indicators you do not quite even understand what it is you are having said to you.Because that sentence makes my point for me, and in no way rebuts it. So let me repeat the point for you:

    A boxer who is knocked UNconscious does not LACK consciousness. It is still there. It's level of operation has changed. The difference I, and others, are explaining to you is between entities that lack the faculty ENTIRELY.... and those who have it but are operating at different levels.

    For example a Recedite that is asleep and a Recidite that is awake and thinking...... both have the same faculty of consciousness. They are simply operating differently in each case. But they are both equally THERE.

    A fetus at 10 weeks gestation however, not so. The faculty is not there, has never been there, and is a distinct period of time from ever being there. It simply is not comparable to boxers and coma patients. It is like comparing a completely empty garage......... to a garage that has a car that has it's motor running or not running. You can talk all you like about whether a car is more a car when the engine is running, or somehow stops being a car, or as much a car, when the engine stops. But such a conversation would be ENTIRELY different to one where the car simply is not there at all.
    recedite wrote: »
    You have the burden of proof the wrong way round there.

    Considering you offered a theist based argument to me about the presence of sentience and consciousness in the fetus, and then ran away from the discussion when you were called on it..... I have to doubt your pedestal from which you choose to admonish others on the subject of the burden of proof.

    Because you got it EXACTLY backwards when you suggested that I had to in some way prove that it was NOT present in a 10 week old fetus, rather than the onus being on you to show it is. (Links to discussion available on request).


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,349 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    I don't agree with everything Pope Francis says but I think he is right when he says that abortion is a symptom and part of our " throw away society " .

    Quite the opposite for me. Abortion for me is a sign that our society is just adding nuance, consideration, philosophy, thought, specifics and detail to questions of value.

    It is the result of people exploring the simple questions about WHAT it is we value and WHY we value it and WHICH implications flow from those conclusions.

    For example I believe that rights, morality and ethics should be solely in the business of considering the freedoms and well being of sentient agents.

    A pregnant woman is such an agent. A 10 week old fetus is not. As such I see no reason to curtail the choices, freedoms and well being of the former in deference to the latter.
    It is the sheer scale and number of abortions in countries like the Uk that concerns me

    Why? Why is scale important? If abortion is murder, or immoral then even ONE should be a concern. However if you can not show abortion to be murder or immoral (and lets face it no one, including yourself, has done so on this thread) then what matter if it happens once, 100 times or 100000?

    I think the scale is a concern too, I must add. I am just wondering if your reasoning for being concerned is as clear as my own. So I am not disagreeing with you as to why scale is a concern, just wondering WHY you think it is.
    I agree that no woman ever takes an abortion lightly but how often do people take sex lightly ?

    That is a valid concern however, and one that I think we can address in many ways. I think one of those ways is more comprehensive, extensive and wide ranging sexual education and philosophy in schools. And EARLIER in the curriculum too. I think we bring sex education to children much later than we should be.

    Interestingly however the people who seem most to disagree with earlier AND more comprehensive sex education in schools are the people who are also against abortion. A weirdness I have no explanation for other than a few ideas bordering on conspiracy theory at this time.
    Is the rampant availability of every conceivable type of pornography good or healthy for our society ?

    That conflates too useful questions. That of the wide availability of it (which I think is a good thing in most ways, though I think people should be paying for their porn more often)..... and that of the content of it (much of which is good and much of which is not).
    Behind every abortion there is a man . Behind a lot of crisis pregnancies there is a man who didn't want to know . A man who didn't take his responsibility and decided to leave a woman on her own.

    Which is only ONE of the MANY narratives that occur around crisis pregnancy and abortion. Why you feel the need to focus on one of the multitude of narratives and attitudes that occur around abortion and crisis pregnancy, specifically that of a disinterested man........ is as yet unclear but it is certainly red flagging the existence of a narrative here that you intend to push.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,522 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    This is what pro-life people want in Ireland when it comes to GP's and pharmists

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44591528
    An Arizona woman has said she was left "in tears and humiliated" after a staff member at US pharmacy chain Walgreens refused to give her prescription medication to end her pregnancy - even though her doctor had said she would ultimately have a miscarriage.
    "I left Walgreens in tears, ashamed and feeling humiliated by a man who knows nothing of my struggles but feels it is his right to deny medication prescribed to me by my doctor," she wrote.
    Ms Mone said she was sharing her story as she didn't want other women to endure similar experiences when they were "vulnerable and already suffering".


    Yep....they love women.


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,522 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    I don't agree with everything Pope Francis says but I think he is right when he says that abortion is a symptom and part of our " throw away society " .

    So what were mother and baby homes then?
    A symptom of our tolerance and care towards women and children?

    What about the dumping of born baby's into a septic tank, was that the church "caring" (in the mafia sense) for baby's?

    The church is in no position to comment on what is moral or no.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    because it's irrelevant to the discussion. and when it's irrelevant to the discussion, then i will not discuss it so not to drag the thread off topic.

    It's relevant to the discussion when some anti-abortion types assert that it's exactly the same as murder; whereas others, that however much of a sad it gives them, it shouldn't even be a criminal offence. Be nice to know what position it is we're being asked to deal with.

    And of course, when some people try to pull off running with the hare, and hunting with the hounds, and get caught out badly.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    I agree that no woman ever takes an abortion lightly but how often do people take sex lightly ?

    I think this is a clear-cut case of what advocates of reproductive rights have been saying for a long time. Abortions laws have very little indeed to do with the inalienable rights of blastocysts. It's all about sitting in judgement on other people's lives. Other people's sex lives, triply so.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    I don't agree with everything Pope Francis says but I think he is right when he says that abortion is a symptom and part of our " throw away society " .

    Thus we should do what any doctor would do... completely ignore the underlying "disease", and set about criminalising the "symptom"?

    Not sure you've really thought this metaphor through, as a line of argument.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,296 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    That is a valid concern however, and one that I think we can address in many ways. I think one of those ways is more comprehensive, extensive and wide ranging sexual education and philosophy in schools. And EARLIER in the curriculum too. I think we bring sex education to children much later than we should be.

    Interestingly however the people who seem most to disagree with earlier AND more comprehensive sex education in schools are the people who are also against abortion. A weirdness I have no explanation for other than a few ideas bordering on conspiracy theory at this time.

    Probably the ancient view that sex is God's plan for procreation solely and teaching kids on how to deal with situations where two people feel horny, have a quick shag and walk away from each other afterwards without considering the possible consequences and take precautions is not part of the bigger plan. Failure to use their willpower to control a base instinct is all their's. The fact that children engage in risky learning ventures is not of interest to the people with such views as they think sex education knowledge is dangerous and against the plan.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,296 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    It is the sheer scale and number of abortions in countries like the Uk that concerns me . In our post religious world I think we need to stop and think about a few things . Every time a couple have sex there is a possibility that they will create a new life . I agree that no woman ever takes an abortion lightly but how often do people take sex lightly ? We all need a good sex life but is recreational "Ibiza " type sex a good or wise thing at the end of the day ? Is the rampant availability of every conceivable type of pornography good or healthy for our society ? Behind every abortion there is a man . Behind a lot of crisis pregnancies there is a man who didn't want to know . A man who didn't take his responsibility and decided to leave a woman on her own.

    On the basis that having sex is a natural instinct for humans, would you agree that humans should practice safe sex not merely to avoid STD's but also the more than likely after effect that that sexual encounter will produce a pregnancy [wanted or not] AND would you have any objection to children being taught proper sex education, incl pregnancy-avoidance measures, in a classroom forum rather than one learned, with avoidable results, behind the changing rooms?

    Do you support, or refuse to support, proper sex education in schools to children in order to reduce the abortion figures you are concerned about? It's a telling factor that x amount of the Irish females going to the UK for abortions are not women but also school-age early teenage girls.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    This post has been deleted.

    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


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    ...I'm reminded of the sense you get of mechanical warfare: brute machinery dispensing with humans. Abortion staff talking about having to count the limbs to ensure all has been evacutated - before flushing the bits down the sink. Or the picture of a writhing baby, neatly fitting in the abortionists palm, being prodded at as a soldier would prod at mortally wounded enemy.
    - how medical abortions appear to sanitize the process. Yet the brutality merely switches mechanical warfare for chemical warfare. Detaching the embryo from the uterus wall prior to flushing it out. For all the talk of pills and GP led services, the best advice to someone obtaining this kind of abortion appears to be "don't look" at what comes out.
    smacl wrote: »
    .... a veritable fart in a hurricane compared to a woman's rights to bodily autonomy. The more I read the pro-life argument, the more I come to the conclusion that it is primarily driven by anti-egalitarian sentiment and is deeply misogynistic. The lack of compassion is astounding, as displayed by continued use of shock tactics outside maternity hospitals.
    A juxtaposition of two opposite points of view.

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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,721 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,721 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    King Mob wrote: »
    Forgetting anything?

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


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,721 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,721 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭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".


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,721 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,721 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,573 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,789 ✭✭✭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.

    tenor.gif


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    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.

    tenor.gif

    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,721 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭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!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,296 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    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.

    tenor.gif

    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,296 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,296 ✭✭✭✭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.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement