Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Absolam

oscarBravo wrote: »

It was my statement, and I thought it was clear that it was a question of whether or not the person undergoing the procedure should be proud or ashamed of it. I'm pretty sure the consultant who carried out my trabeculectomy was very proud of it; he did a superb job. But that wasn't my point, any more than the question of whether a parent should be proud of having their child mutilated was my point. But you managed to find a tiny chink in my point into which to drive a wedge of irrelevancy in order to drag the discussion onto a pointless tangent, so I guess that's something for you to be proud of.

To be fair, it wasn't me that went on a tangent (certainly no more than your tangent about what people should be proud of); that was MrPudding getting excited about FGM. I only answered your point, and I think I did cover what you say you thought was clear with my other examples; notwithstanding MrPs obsessing over FGM being a medical procedure, you may well think it's neither something to be proud of, nor something to be ashamed of undergoing breast augmentation, rhinoplasty, circumcision or sterilisation, but that doesn't mean those who do so don't, or that people won't have an opinion on that. In fact, you probably wouldn't need to look terribly hard to find some women who are proud to be circumcised, and others who are ashamed of it.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm glad you cleared up this point: but a medical procedure performed by someone who is not a medical practitioner is not likely to actually be a medical procedure.

You mean... exactly like I said about 23 hours ago? I'm not sure why you think you needed a 'but' in that...

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Again the quibbling. If you check your post above, number 2823, from which I took your sentence (part of a reply from you to robdon) you will observe that you put the 'but' in it.

What's to quibble? That I needed it in my sentence to qualify the preceding part of the sentence is fairly obvious, but since it doesn't qualify the preceding part of yours, I'm not sure why you think you needed it, particularly given that what you said doesn't bear on what you quoted.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

That is about the worst argument I've seen here. Pure and utter drivel.

Yeeesss... the very fact that you think it's an argument says everything really. And you were doing so well with the looking up words too...

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

argument
Sound's like it could describe a debate as well, don'cha think?

Your ability to look up words is certainly improving, no doubt
Your comprehension of sentences however... obviously still needs work. Your smilies are increasing though... so it's good to know it's not getting you down :pac:

robdonn

aloyisious wrote: »

Was it a typo when you included the letters ts and the apostrophe between them as you typed the second (it's) into your sentence above, or did you mean to use the letters (Im) and the apostrophe between them instead?

OK, I'm calling on Godwin's Law now and calling you both grammar nazis.

So, how about that topic, eh?

Absolam

Looks like aloyisious decided to delete his posts, so I guess that's an end to it for now

aloyisious

@Moderators: I've been scrolling back through the past few pages to delete any of my off-topic verbals with an O/P and see that the edit icon is not visible on them. I want to free up available posting-space to give the thread a longer life. How do/can i edit-access those posts to delete them?

robdonn

aloyisious wrote: »

@Moderators: I've been scrolling back through the past few pages to delete any of my off-topic verbals with an O/P and see that the edit icon is not visible on them. I want to free up available posting-space to give the thread a longer life. How do/can i edit-access those posts to delete them?

You don't need to delete your posts, this is the third generation of this thread (still annoyed that we didn't call it the third trimester) and when it fills up we will simply start a fourth.

aloyisious

I was/am trying to break the lure :-)

Cabaal

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/06/14/meanwhile-in-the-dail-15/

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/742712972729036800

https://twitter.com/MaryERegan/status/742717112116973569

So if thats the case surely the pro-life should be happy to hold a ref on the matter?

frostyjacks

Cabaal wrote: »

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/06/14/meanwhile-in-the-dail-15/

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/742712972729036800

https://twitter.com/MaryERegan/status/742717112116973569

So if thats the case surely the pro-life should be happy to hold a ref on the matter?

Why waste our money holding a referendum on something that we know will be rejected, and has already been put to the people not that long ago? There's people dying on the street, and abortionists would rather taxpayers money be used to indulge their little fantasies. No thanks.

Delirium

frostyjacks wrote: »

Why waste our money holding a referendum on something that we know will be rejected, and has already been put to the people not that long ago? There's people dying on the street, and abortionists would rather taxpayers money be used to indulge their little fantasies. No thanks.

How do you know it would be rejected when all polls that I've seen suggest the opposite?

Strange that you'd decry that people are dying on the street while ironically supporting a scenario that potentially increases that which you decry, i.e. women that may die from trying extreme measures to abort the pregnancy due to it not being available to them in Ireland.

frostyjacks

frostyjacks wrote: »

Why waste our money holding a referendum on something that we know will be rejected, and has already been put to the people not that long ago? There's people dying on the street, and abortionists would rather taxpayers money be used to indulge their little fantasies. No thanks.

Come again?

PopePalpatine

Deleted User wrote: »

Come again?

The Church thinks in centuries, don't you know?

robdonn

Deleted User wrote: »

Come again?

Waste of semen.

aloyisious

robdonn wrote: »

Waste of semen.

Splutters...................

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

So if thats the case surely the pro-life should be happy to hold a ref on the matter?

Why? What would the benefit be?

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

Cabaal wrote: »

So if thats the case surely the pro-life should be happy to hold a ref on the matter?

Why? What would the benefit be?

Bragging rights?

Absolam

Ah, that seems.... worthwhile? Actually, maybe not. Probably best not to

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

Ah, that seems.... worthwhile? Actually, maybe not. Probably best not to

There is always the Back to the Future approach...

What are ya, some kind of chicken?!?

Absolam

I think Cabaal has reserved that particular argument to himself on A&A....

Pherekydes

Absolam wrote: »

Why? What would the benefit be?

To show that they support democracy instead of a small cabal of powerful men in a foreign state having a stranglehold over Irish life.

Absolam

Pherekydes wrote: »

To show that they support democracy instead of a small cabal of powerful men in a foreign state having a stranglehold over Irish life.

Those can't possibly be the only available options, can they? Surely we can just ignore any foreign cabals (I mean, I know I do on a regular basis with no ill effects), vote in elections and suchlike to show we support democracy (sounds terribly American, perhaps we should invade a couple of countries as well, just to prove how much we support democracy?) and that way we don't need to encourage the possibility of killing people here. That seems far more sensible!

Pherekydes

Absolam wrote: »

Those can't possibly be the only available options, can they? Surely we can just ignore any foreign cabals (I mean, I know I do on a regular basis with no ill effects), vote in elections and suchlike to show we support democracy (sounds terribly American, perhaps we should invade a couple of countries as well, just to prove how much we support democracy?) and that way we don't need to encourage the possibility of killing people here. That seems far more sensible!

Were we talking about a referendum to repeal the 8th? Why all the whataboutery re elections and America?

Not sure what you mean by "killing people".

Absolam

Pherekydes wrote: »

Were we talking about a referendum to repeal the 8th? Why all the whataboutery re elections and America?
Not sure what you mean by "killing people".

We were indeed, I asked what the benefit to the pro life side was in a referendum, and you offered the notion it would show support for democracy. Saying that that sounds very American doesn't really qualify as whataboutery in my opinion (though you're free to say why you feel it does). I think you probably are sure what I mean by killing people... I think you'd just like to dispute it

Cabaal

The question is, why must we replace it with anything. The text didn't exist before as it was added as a sub-section to section 3 of Article 40 so if we have a ref we can vote to just remove it.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/06/15/a-referendum-to-repeal-the-8th-wouldnt-pass/

Enda says...

My view is that if we were to decide to have a referendum to repeal the eighth amendment in October, it would not be passed. I will explain why.

There needs to be a real discussion here. If we are going to attempt to remove this from the Constitution, people will want to know what we intend to replace it with. I have had problems with this genuine question.

With respect, I do not accept from the Deputy that we should make a rush to judgment in this instance.

The UN committee’s verdict in this sensitive and distressing case is non-binding. It is not like the European court. It speaks for the distress caused to this good woman. As the Deputy knows, another case is being processed.

It is right and proper for us to follow the route of having a properly selected citizens’ assembly that is able to do its business of reflecting on the eighth amendment and what it might mean.

The assembly will consider what changes, if any, should be made to the eighth amendment and how they might be made.

If we are to ask people to vote on this issue, at least we should be able to tell them what will replace the eighth amendment if they vote for its removal. People need to know the options and the consequences.

I genuinely believe people have a right to be able to discuss these things. This matter divided Irish society for over 30 years. I ask the Deputy to believe me when I say it is not a question of a lack of courage.

It is a question of understanding that the entire population has a responsibility and a role in this regard. It is not as simple as saying that a referendum should be held to take out the eighth amendment without saying what it will be replaced with.

Taoiseach Enda Kenny speaking during Leaders’ Questions yesterday.

Pherekydes

Absolam wrote: »

We were indeed, I asked what the benefit to the pro life side was in a referendum, and you offered the notion it would show support for democracy. Saying that that sounds very American doesn't really qualify as whataboutery in my opinion (though you're free to say why you feel it does). I think you probably are sure what I mean by killing people... I think you'd just like to dispute it

Explicitly, what benefit is it to the anti-choice side to support the holding of a referendum? Some posters seem to suggest that the anti-choice view might be bolstered in a referendum. So surely they would support holding one?

You'll have to be explicit about what you mean by "killing people", I'm afraid.

Is that beyond you?

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

and that way we don't need to encourage the possibility of killing people here. That seems far more sensible!

I'm also with Pherekydes on this, what are you on about people being killed? Nobody is looking for people to be killed.

The only people that could be killed here are women be it by putting their life's at risk or by pushing them into such a desperate situation that they feel they must end their life.

Perhaps you could go into more details in relation to what you mean?

Enda could, in the days following a referendum (assume the 8th is repealed), move to enact legislation resulting in almost exactly the same legal situation and put that to a Dáil vote.

All that would change from a legal perspective, is that instead of requiring the people to be involved with difficult, nuanced and changeable legislation, we would give that power to our elected representatives, whom we empower with our vote.

This notion that we should put difficult legislation into our Constitution is nonsense. There is no need to 'replace' the 8th with anything.