Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

robarmstrong

robindch wrote: »

Look folks, I realize it's Christmas time and the levels of both casual alcohol and fists may be a few inches higher than normal, but there's still no point in losing the run of oneself here on A+A, Anglo-Saxon wise.

Thanking youze.

// wishing you and yours a happy Festivus

Maybe if the issue regarding a certain poster and their substandard level of posting/attempts at discussion happened to previously addressed when it was raised in the feedback thread several times people wouldn’t be “losing the run of oneself here”.

If a particular poster is allowed to continuously drag the levels of discussion down with constant deflection, dishonesty and drivel, it’s perfectly natural for those trying to engage in honest, valuable discussion to get frustrated.

But again, nothing will be done I reckon.

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

nope, it was a mistype. nothing more.

Again a mistype is a misspelling or a typo. A strawman is where you change what someone said into something entirely different because it is easier to reply to, or you want to move the goal posts. You want to pretend you did the former when it was blatantly the latter, fine. But no one but yourself seems to be buying it. Especially given how many times I have pulled you up on that exact MO before.

end of the road wrote: »

no but the fact they are still doctors would be enough proof for me and for the rules that they have provided the best care possible.

Argument from authority fallacy from you there. You have offered no evidence or argument that they offered the best care possible. So you just pretend that their being doctors does that for you.

The problem for your fallacy is you also have a cherry picking fallacy here. In that many doctors came out during the referendum debates to say the exact opposite of the tripe you are pedalling here. Which means that apparently their being doctors only proves your position when they agree with your position. When they do not, suddenly their being doctors does not matter any more.

Cake and eat it stuff from you there as usual.

end of the road wrote: »

religion has nothing to do with this for many.

Great but who are you telling? Did someone claim otherwise? Did someone claim that it was something to do with religion for everyone? Not clear here what your point here is, or to what you think you are directing it. Not even clear YOU know either of those things. But I will repeat my point as it was before you sidestepped it in this way. Religious nonsense aside, I see no argument why a non-person should be given medical preference over and actual person. Withholding treatment from a PERSON in deference to a THING is not "best medical care" by any means and you certainly have not argued as to how or why it might be.

end of the road wrote: »

i am satisfied that both mother and baby receive the best possible care from the vast majority of doctors

You might want to show your workings and data and evidence on this evaluation then. Because right now it appears to be an assertion made solely because it fits your anti abortion agenda. Since you have apparently evaluated the "majority" of cases you must have some workings or a data set we can view.

end of the road wrote: »

i provided arguments as to why an unborn human being should have an equal right to life as a born human being

Not that I have seen, anywhere, ever. In fact EVERY time I ask you for such arguments you do the above: Claim you have presented them before. I never seem to get a link to them, a citation of them, a quote, a repetition, or even a glimpse of them. Just claims over and over and over and over that you already put them out there somewhere.

In fact the only thing I recall you spewing out was some weird view that there is some "right to become sentient". Yet ever time I have pulled you up on substantiating that claim you have run away from the conversation entirely.

So perhaps rather than claims you have provided arguments you might instead provide the arguments? If arguments exist let us know what they are. This thread certainly has not thrown up any, what with it's "ooo my knees go funny cause it has a tongue that moves around when we play music and that makes me think it might be talking" types going around.

end of the road wrote: »

you did not wish to except those arguments, for which i can do no more.

Yeah funny I do not accept assertions that you call arguments. Wonder why that might be?

end of the road wrote: »

incorrect it's anti-AOD and not anti-choice. if she was anti-choice then she would be against anyone being able to choose to do anything which is not the case.

You are redefining what the phrase "anti choice" means in order to pretend it is not anti choice. No one using the phrase "anti choice" is claiming it means "being able to choose to do anything" except you.

Claiming X is not X because X means something different to you personally that it does to the people using X, is one of your weaker dodges and distortions.

Hotblack Desiato

robindch wrote: »

Look folks, I realize it's Christmas time and the levels of both casual alcohol and fists may be a few inches higher than normal, but there's still no point in losing the run of oneself here on A+A, Anglo-Saxon wise.

Thanking youze.

// wishing you and yours a happy Festivus

I refer my learned friend to the obscenity case taken against Virgin Records and the Sex Pistols:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollocks#Obscenity_court_ruling

Perhaps the best-known use of the term is in the title of the 1977 punk rock album Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols. Testimony in a resulting prosecution over the term demonstrated that in Old English, the word referred to a priest, and could also be used to mean "nonsense". Defence barrister John Mortimer QC and Virgin Records won the case: the court ruled that the word was not obscene.

A word which means nonsense and refers to a priest : someone somewhere had a sense of humour

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcPDHkX1qWA

Hotblack Desiato

aloyisious wrote: »

The use of terms like AOD in the same sentence as anti-choice, ala "I'm anti-abortion on demand but not anti-choice" is - IMO - a covert use of free speech toward denying pregnant women the right to abortion services at all here.

Anyone opposed to "abortion on demand" is by definition anti-choice. "Pro-choices-which-I-agree-with-but-not-other-choices" is not pro-choice.

robindch

robarmstrong wrote: »

But again, nothing will be done I reckon.

So long as no posts are reported for offences within the remit of the forum charter, then yes, you're correct as nothing can be done. I note you've reported two posts this year and both were non-specific.

If you can take the time to report posts which can be actioned according to the forum charter, especially the recent rule regarding truth-claim adjudication, then the forum mods will be able to take more focussed action.

Happy christmas all!

aloyisious

Being the day it is today, seasonal cheers to all under the sky today.

robarmstrong

robindch wrote: »

So long as no posts are reported for offences within the remit of the forum charter, then yes, you're correct as nothing can be done. I note you've reported two posts this year and both were non-specific.

If you can take the time to report posts which can be actioned according to the forum charter, especially the recent rule regarding truth-claim adjudication, then the forum mods will be able to take more focussed action.

Happy christmas all!

Yeah somehow I doubt that, but continue to ostrich knowing full well that people don't report the posts because as previously, nothing happened to the poster in particular.

So instead of proactively taking any action you sit back and go "ah shur look lads nobody has reported anything I'll just leave it so!", when the posts are pointed out and highlighted to you, you still fail to actually do anything about them.

Great moderation there.

robindch

Mod: robarmstrong has received what I believe is the first card handed out in this form for incivility on Christmas day.

robarmstrong

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again a mistype is a misspelling or a typo. A strawman is where you change what someone said into something entirely different because it is easier to reply to, or you want to move the goal posts. You want to pretend you did the former when it was blatantly the latter, fine. But no one but yourself seems to be buying it. Especially given how many times I have pulled you up on that exact MO before.



Argument from authority fallacy from you there. You have offered no evidence or argument that they offered the best care possible. So you just pretend that their being doctors does that for you.

The problem for your fallacy is you also have a cherry picking fallacy here. In that many doctors came out during the referendum debates to say the exact opposite of the tripe you are pedalling here. Which means that apparently their being doctors only proves your position when they agree with your position. When they do not, suddenly their being doctors does not matter any more.

Cake and eat it stuff from you there as usual.



Great but who are you telling? Did someone claim otherwise? Did someone claim that it was something to do with religion for everyone? Not clear here what your point here is, or to what you think you are directing it. Not even clear YOU know either of those things. But I will repeat my point as it was before you sidestepped it in this way. Religious nonsense aside, I see no argument why a non-person should be given medical preference over and actual person. Withholding treatment from a PERSON in deference to a THING is not "best medical care" by any means and you certainly have not argued as to how or why it might be.



You might want to show your workings and data and evidence on this evaluation then. Because right now it appears to be an assertion made solely because it fits your anti abortion agenda. Since you have apparently evaluated the "majority" of cases you must have some workings or a data set we can view.



Not that I have seen, anywhere, ever. In fact EVERY time I ask you for such arguments you do the above: Claim you have presented them before. I never seem to get a link to them, a citation of them, a quote, a repetition, or even a glimpse of them. Just claims over and over and over and over that you already put them out there somewhere.

In fact the only thing I recall you spewing out was some weird view that there is some "right to become sentient". Yet ever time I have pulled you up on substantiating that claim you have run away from the conversation entirely.

So perhaps rather than claims you have provided arguments you might instead provide the arguments? If arguments exist let us know what they are. This thread certainly has not thrown up any, what with it's "ooo my knees go funny cause it has a tongue that moves around when we play music and that makes me think it might be talking" types going around.



Yeah funny I do not accept assertions that you call arguments. Wonder why that might be?



You are redefining what the phrase "anti choice" means in order to pretend it is not anti choice. No one using the phrase "anti choice" is claiming it means "being able to choose to do anything" except you.

Claiming X is not X because X means something different to you personally that it does to the people using X, is one of your weaker dodges and distortions.

Will eotr attempt to address the bolded in particular? As I do believe it's outlined in the "charter" that he must do so and failure to do so will result in appropriate moderator action, correct?

Igotadose

A reason to celebrate at Midnight: https://www.rte.ie/news/health/2018/1231/1019710-hospital-trolleys/

Helpline opens tonight. I wonder when the hatebothers start trying to spam it. Hopefully that's being anticipated.

An_Toirpin

Igotadose wrote: »

A reason to celebrate at Midnight: https://www.rte.ie/news/health/2018/1231/1019710-hospital-trolleys/

Helpline opens tonight. I wonder when the hatebothers start trying to spam it. Hopefully that's being anticipated.

A dark day for human rights.

Timberrrrrrrr

An_Toirpin wrote: »

A dark day for human rights.

A great day for womens rights.

An_Toirpin

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

A great day for womens rights.

Unless they are little women.

uptherebels

An_Toirpin wrote: »

A dark day for human rights.

Only if you dont like pregnant women having rights

end of the road

An_Toirpin wrote: »

A dark day for human rights.

a dark and sad day yes. however if there is any comfort for us, it will be that one day this wrong will be undone. who knows when that day will be, we may not even be around to see it, but we have to believe that it will come. it did for many other things that went against the human rights of people, and we should believe that the same will happen for the unborn.

uptherebels wrote: »

Only if you dont like pregnant women having rights

that isn't true. being against abortion being availible for any reason does not make the person being against it, dislike pregnant women having rights.

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

a dark and sad day yes. however if there is any comfort for us, it will be that one day this wrong will be undone. who knows when that day will be, we may not even be around to see it, but we have to believe that it will come. it did for many other things that went against the human rights of people, and we should believe that the same will happen for the unborn.



that isn't true. being against abortion being availible for any reason does not make the person being against it, dislike pregnant women having rights.

It is when a woman has less right because she is pregnant
You never gave us your alternative to 12 weeks on request

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

a dark and sad day yes. however if there is any comfort for us, it will be that one day this wrong will be undone. who knows when that day will be, we may not even be around to see it, but we have to believe that it will come. it did for many other things that went against the human rights of people, and we should believe that the same will happen for the unborn.



that isn't true. being against abortion being availible for any reason does not make the person being against it, dislike pregnant women having rights.

You dont want her to have control over her own body so you are against women having rights over themselves.

end of the road

uptherebels wrote: »

It is when a woman has less right because she is pregnant
You never gave us your alternative to 12 weeks on request

i did though, abortion where the mother's life is under threat is what i believe to be the alternative, i don't believe 12 weeks for any reason is needed.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You dont want her to have control over her own body so you are against women having rights over themselves.

again this is incorrect and i have explained this, that i am satisfied a woman already has full control over her body and has had in this country for a couple of decades. so therefore your claim that i am against women having rights over themselves is false because for it to be true, i would have to believe that she had no or not all rights over her body before AOD became availible and believe that to be fine.

Bredabe

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Unless they are little women.

By the time their gender is expressed, they would be past the abortion period here anyway. So your statement is misleading.

The fetal week at which gender is accepted in the medical community is at wide variants with the non medical one.

Bredabe

end of the road wrote: »

a dark and sad day yes. however if there is any comfort for us, it will be that one day this wrong will be undone. who knows when that day will be, we may not even be around to see it, but we have to believe that it will come. it did for many other things that went against the human rights of people, and we should believe that the same will happen for the unborn.


Yes we know, we know that there are plenty of ppl who would deny pregnant people choice and that organisations will be working to make sure it happens. However there will as always have been people who will work to make sure women are allowed their rights to bodily autonomy. I am keeping a close eye on the ones who are trying to get into power for as long as it will take.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

i did though, abortion where the mother's life is under threat is what i believe to be the alternative, i don't believe 12 weeks for any reason is needed.



again this is incorrect and i have explained this, that i am satisfied a woman already has full control over her body and has had in this country for a couple of decades. so therefore your claim that i am against women having rights over themselves is false because for it to be true, i would have to believe that she had no or not all rights over her body before AOD became availible and believe that to be fine.

You have certainly asserted this ad nauseum. Endless assertion does not make it fact.

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

i did though, abortion where the mother's life is under threat is what i believe to be the alternative, i don't believe 12 weeks for any reason is needed.



again this is incorrect and i have explained this, that i am satisfied a woman already has full control over her body and has had in this country for a couple of decades. so therefore your claim that i am against women having rights over themselves is false because for it to be true, i would have to believe that she had no or not all rights over her body before AOD became availible and believe that to be fine.

No you haven't because you keep conveniently leaving out victims of rape.

As for the second part remind me what happened when a woman goes for cancer treatment and is pregnant?

Loafing Oaf

Bredabe wrote: »

Yes we know, we know that there are plenty of ppl who would deny pregnant people choice and that organisations will be working to make sure it happens. However there will as always have been people who will work to make sure women are allowed their rights to bodily autonomy. I am keeping a close eye on the ones who are trying to get into power for as long as it will take.

I wouldn't worry. The pro-lifers are finished as a political force in Ireland. Look how opposition to divorce and same-sex marriage evaporated completely as soon as those referendums passed.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Megan and Harry were delighted to find she was pregnant... at 13 weeks.

NSAman

Forgive my ignorance on the matter and minutia ... from what I am getting this is “free” abortion?

uptherebels

e1vwdgzy4l9uom wrote: »

Megan and Harry were delighted to find she was pregnant... at 13 weeks.

Your point is?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Like free condoms in schools and colleges. No sense of personal responsibility. That would be too much.
By the way, why have a vending machine when they will be given out for free?
Why not an open basket at the school door?

ohnonotgmail

e1vwdgzy4l9uom wrote: »

Like free condoms in schools and colleges. No sense of personal responsibility. That would be too much.
By the way, why have a vending machine when they will be given out for free?
Why not an open basket at the school door?

What exactly is your point?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

What exactly is your point?

You think it's a good idea to distribute free condoms in schools and colleges?

uptherebels

e1vwdgzy4l9uom wrote: »

You think it's a good idea to distribute free condoms in schools and colleges?

Of course, why would it be a bad idea?