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 all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
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
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
The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)
Comments
-
To me the only difference between an abortion at 12 weeks and one at say 8 months, is the distress and pain for the potential life, and for the mother. But I don't think one is morally worse than the other, just more traumatic.
Well I would say that is no small difference given there IS no distress and pain for the fetus at 12 weeks. At all. The lights are off and no one is home. You will cause no more stress and pain in the world from terminating a fetus than you will from taking a hammer to a mannequin.
The reason one is morally worse than the other is that one would be killing an actual sentient entity. The other is not. Saying one is not worse than the other is basically like saying jabbing needles into a dog is no worse than jabbing them into an amoeba.Have a read of this to see the baby's development at 12 weeks: Tell me that's not a human life?
No one is saying it is not "human life" in terms of taxonomy and biological function however. They are saying it is not "Human life" in terms of person-hood and sentience as it has neither. Just because structures have formed and autonomic responses make some of them flap about or clench, that does not make it a "human" in any sense we should actually have concern for.I know you probably won't though because most on the repeal side are afraid to confront what they're actually campaigning for.
Yet you will find that I not only have seen 1000s of those images, I have the knowledge to know exactly what I am looking at too. I do not need to "confront" anything. I know the images AND the biology and detail behind them very intimately indeed. And I assure you there is nothing in EITHER those images or that knowledge that gives me any moral pause regarding abortion at 12 weeks.
The morality of an action is not based on what that action LOOKS like either. I do not particularly like looking at pictures of heart bypass surgery either as it is gory and bloody and unpleasant. That does not make heart bypass surgery immoral though.
So no, I do not think mere images are going to succeed for you where rational argument and debate is clearly failing.Some people have lives and I don't have time to reply to everything.
Despite being on the forum 5 yeas LESS than me you have around 400% MORE posts than me. So no I do not buy that cop out at all. You have been systematically ignoring my posts and points, and I think that is clear to everyone.I mean I got a loads of people quoting me, I am not going to reply to all and especially not long winded posted that are divided up like the above.
Says you while actually responding to that post above
You are contradicting your own canard here now.I did answer one of those questions you asked but you missed it.
Link?freshpopcorn wrote: »Yes but if this happens in debates I can see there being trouble! Can you?
Perhaps but it depends how we deal with it. For example on this very thread a user was banned for making claims about the quantities of repeal camp wanting no limits abortion, but refusing to back up that claim in any way.
It was not even a PERMban. The user was told they COULD post on the thread again if only they would try to back up the claim. Said user, for obvious reasons, never returned. Because the claim simply could not be backed up. And they knew it as well as we did.
So if someone is making a SIMILAR claim, only specifically about TDs rather than the repeal camp as a whole..... then I think it fair and consistent that such claims be treated with the same level of "Conversational intolerance" (as Sam Harris would call it) and evidence be demanded of them in general. And excuses for not affording that evidence not tolerated or pandered to.
There is going to be a LOT of lies and misrepresentation and scaremongering (alas from both sides I am sure) in the coming months. And the onus is on ALL of us not to let it slide, and to call it out, at every turn until either the claimant A) Runs away (common) or
admits "Yes you are right, I have absolutely no evidence AT ALL to offer to back up this narrative" (much less common) or C) actually presents the evidence for their claims (not as common as I would like).
I do not think we can have a sane debate on any issue, but less one this emotive, if we do not hold stringently and stridently to SOME level of shared truth and reality and substantiation. Even if that means calling out people who are on our "side" and will be voting how we want them to. I am a firm believer in cleaning up ones own house, before checking for dust on the sideboards in anyone else's.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
Perhaps but it depends how we deal with it. For example on this very thread a user was banned for making claims about the quantities of repeal camp wanting no limits abortion, but refusing to back up that claim in any way.
It was not even a PERMban. The user was told they COULD post on the thread again if only they would try to back up the claim. Said user, for obvious reasons, never returned. Because the claim simply could not be backed up. And they knew it as well as we did.
So if someone is making a SIMILAR claim, only specifically about TDs rather than the repeal camp as a whole..... then I think it fair and consistent that such claims be treated with the same level of "Conversational intolerance" (as Sam Harris would call it) and evidence be demanded of them in general. And excuses for not affording that evidence not tolerated or pandered to.
There is going to be a LOT of lies and misrepresentation and scaremongering (alas from both sides I am sure) in the coming months. And the onus is on ALL of us not to let it slide, and to call it out, at every turn until either the claimant A) Runs away (common) or admits "Yes you are right, I have absolutely no evidence AT ALL to offer to back up this narrative" (much less common) or C) actually presents the evidence for their claims (not as common as I would like).
I do not think we can have a sane debate on any issue, but less one this emotive, if we do not hold stringently and stridently to SOME level of shared truth and reality and substantiation. Even if that means calling out people who are on our "side" and will be voting how we want them to. I am a firm believer in cleaning up ones own house, before checking for dust on the sideboards in anyone else's.
This article says that certain parties support abortion with no limits.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/abortion-legislation-party-positions-448614.html
They were TD's linked to these partied who I herd speak about the issue in clips on the news/primetime/etc and I felt it could do damage to the campaign if they did a lot of public speak on the issue!0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »And as I said, including with my thought experiment about an AI, I see no reason why a process places any moral onus on us to allow it, or help it to, complete. It is not mere processes we afford moral and ethical concern to.
A good starting point is to go back to basics on it. Ask yourself what rights, morals, ethics are even FOR. What do they DO? What is their function?
So far I have not met a single person who has given me any answer to that other than to say that rights and morals are for mediating the actions of sentient entities towards the well being and rights of other sentient entities.
Nothing about processes. The idea we have moral regard for processes is just not a "feeling" I can share without something more solid in terms of reasoning or philosophy to suggest I should. And as such I think that while I feel you are going to vote the correct way, you are going to suffer a little needlessly for doing so.Zubeneschamali wrote: »I don't see why the fact that the process has started puts any moral obligation on anyone to see the process through.
Again, I'm not saying there's a moral onus to seeing it through, if I thought there was, I would be pro-life. I'm literally just arguing against the idea that because the foetus is in an earlier stage of development that abortion is any less preventing (using this term rather than 'ending') a life, than doing so right before birth, or even after birth (at which point it's ending the life, not preventing) and as such, I don't/can't use the argument of 'it's not a life' to support the right to abortion. I can't dismiss the 'potential' element the way others do and apply different degrees of morality to cessation of a life due to the stage of development it's at. That distinction is only relevant for painless abortion for the life, and for not ending up in jail for murdering a baby :pac: That's all.
I'm not really arguing a course of action, I'm just focusing on one aspect of how I feel and discovering that apparently nobody else feels the same (except my mother hehe).
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
freshpopcorn wrote: »This article says that certain parties support abortion with no limits.
Well although it is great to see someone go for option 3 out of the 3 options I details, I would prefer to hear things from the horses mouth than second hand reported in a news paper myself. "I heard some clips" leaves me in a position where I can not hear the clips. Which is a shame.
However looking down the list in that link you have provided I am looking for the "certain parties" you mention. Let me work out which ones they might be:Fianna FáilNo position on the circumstances where terminations are supported.
Ok so it is not them then clearly.Greens: Favours a referendum and to repeal the Eighth Amendment. Members have mixed views on circumstances.
So not them either. But uselessly vague here so who knows.Fine Gael: Position is not decided.
Or them for the same reason.Social Democrats: allow for abortion on a range of grounds.
They do not say enough here to say if it is them or not. Potentially could be this party then, but that potential is based on what they do NOT say here, not what they do. "Range of grounds" simply says nothing about WHEN they think terminations should occur, and says pretty much nothing about what those grounds are.Independent Alliance: No specific position taken by each of the five TDs
So not them either.Independents4Change: Supports repealing the Eighth. Agrees with assembly recommendations, and that abortion is provided before 12 weeks and for a range of circumstances.
Certainly not them then as it is quite clearly stated, unlike any other party, what their believe on the limits are.Rural Independents: Differing views. TD Mattie McGrath yesterday said he did not support abortions in any circumstances.
Again vague but doesn't sound like them either. Though clearly it is NOT Mattie you are speaking of.PBP-Solidarity: Pro-choice, saying it is a woman’s decision. Abortions as early as possible and as late as necessary, but no specified circumstances.
Again a "what is not said" potential here for it to be them. But "late as necessary" is open to a RANGE of interpretations as it is using the word NECESSARY here. As in, not no limits abortion, but abortions in cases of necessity. So it does not SOUND like it is them either. And in fact that is exactly my position. I think abortions purely by choice should have a time limit, but abortions related to actual necessity should exceed that limit. That is not, however, "no limits abortion". Quite the opposite.Labour: Supports repealing the Eighth and allowing for terminations in cases of rape, incest and fatal foetal abnormalities.Sinn Féin: Favours a referendum. Terminations should be allowed for rape, incest, and fatal foetal abnormalities.
So not them either. And actually the "in cases of rape" appeals to be unworkable nonsense. I would have expected these two parties to have their thinking caps on and notice that. Shameful. Unless, of course, they have found a way to make it workable where I and others have failed for many years. In which case I take it back, and I can not WAIT to hear their proposal(s)! I genuinely have no idea, maybe I just lack imagination, how to make "abortion for rape" workable and coherent.
Summary:
Your link is not showing ANY party identifying with "certain parties support abortion with no limits". I am not seeing ONE, let alone the plural (you said parties not party). What am I missing exactly? 0 -
Again, I'm not saying there's a moral onus to seeing it through, if I thought there was, I would be pro-life. I'm literally just arguing against the idea that because the foetus is in an earlier stage of development that abortion is any less preventing (using this term rather than 'ending') a life, than doing so right before birth
Well if you are speaking of "life" purely in the sense of basic biology then yes, terminating a fetus is no less ending/preventing a life than terminating a -1 Day old Baby. Nor, for that matter, is it any less than killing a cow for steak or chopping down a tree for paper. That is all "ending life".
If we go beyond pure biology though and use a more robust and rounded definition of "life" then the difference is termination of fetus is preventing one from coming into being while terminating a cow or -1 Day old baby is actively ENDING one. Which is, I am sure you will note, very different indeed.
So you CAN use the "not ending a life" argument. You just have to be very specific about which of the many meanings of "life" you are using. One wonderful and beautiful but ALSO problematic thing about language.... especially English Language I suspect.... is that one word can mean many things in many contexts.
Take the word "sport" for example. It can mean bare knuckle cage match mixed martial arts violence. It can also mean lawn bowling. The link between the two aside from the word "sport" is.... well.... little more than breathing I guess.
Words are variable and contextual. And it pays in deep debates to be cognizant of their form in any given move.I can't dismiss the 'potential' element the way others do and apply different degrees of morality to cessation of a life due to the stage of development it's at.
But we are not doing that either. It has nothing to do with the "stage of development" so much as it has to do with Attributes present or absent. The very attributes that mediate moral and ethcal concern are wholly absent in a 12 week old fetus. Nothing to do with "stages" and everything to do with viewing the entity as it is now, what it is now, in this moment and time. Nothing to do with stages that come before, or after, this moment.
If you list the attributes that mediate moral and ethical concern, everything on that list is simply not there.I'm not really arguing a course of action, I'm just focusing on one aspect of how I feel and discovering that apparently nobody else feels the same (except my mother hehe).
I think more people feel the same than you think. You are just (relatively) unique in being in the "yes" camp while feeling it. The "potential" argument has been used by many pro-choice people and.... in the cases of some users I can not mention due to moderator actions.... it has pretty much been exclusively their ENTIRE argument.
So you are not alone in the feeling it seems by far, just relatively alone in where you are standing while having it
Not sure that will alleviate any negative feelings either. Man I suck at this. 0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Summary:
Your link is not showing ANY party identifying with "certain parties support abortion with no limits". I am not seeing ONE, let alone the plural (you said parties not party). What am I missing exactly?
When ever I heard TD's from especially PBP-Solidarity I always felt they spoke similarly to the above line and I feel if they speak a lot in the coming weeks they might damage the campaign they appeal to liberal. Stick to people like Leo and Simon as much as possible and they should be less issues!0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »But we are not doing that either. It has nothing to do with the "stage of development" so much as it has to do with Attributes present or absent. The very attributes that mediate moral and ethcal concern are wholly absent in a 12 week old fetus. Nothing to do with "stages" and everything to do with viewing the entity as it is now, what it is now, in this moment and time. Nothing to do with stages that come before, or after, this moment.
If you list the attributes that mediate moral and ethical concern, everything on that list is simply not there.
So you are not alone in the feeling it seems by far, just relatively alone in where you are standing while having it
Not sure that will alleviate any negative feelings either. Man I suck at this.
Yup, I getcha. And I completely agree that 'in this moment' the foetus is not a person, has no rights, is essentially an amoeba. But I just can't dismiss that, with time, it will change hehe. I mean, some scientists would argue that our perception of time as 'passing' is not true, and all times are equally real. In which case, the foetus is simultaneously an amoeba and a child and an adult and a person. That's kind of how I think of it.
Although, it's also true that if all times are equally real, then a foetus that is aborted never had the capacity to become a person, as it already was not!
This is what my brain is like. It's a stressful place. :pac:0 -
-
-
-
And to me, the fact of it becoming a person if you don't intervene with an abortion, IS a rational thing to consider.
But for something to be rational, a rational argument has to be possible for it. But this is what has not happened. Calling it rational does not make it rational. Something is only rational when demonstrated to be so. And you yourself call it more a "feeling" than something you can adumbrate the rationality for. It might FEEL rational, but that does not qualify.
Whereas, for contrast, I can quite clearly (and, I am informed, at quite nauseating length ) lay out the exact rationales behind the positions I hold and why I hold them. Nothing I present (so far) has been based on "Da Feelz" as those younger than me are wont to say. 0 -
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »But for something to be rational, a rational argument has to be possible for it. But this is what has not happened. Calling it rational does not make it rational. Something is only rational when demonstrated to be so. And you yourself call it more a "feeling" than something you can adumbrate the rationality for. It might FEEL rational, but that does not qualify.
Whereas, for contrast, I can quite clearly (and, I am informed, at quite nauseating length ) lay out the exact rationales behind the positions I hold and why I hold them. Nothing I present (so far) has been based on "Da Feelz" as those younger than me are wont to say.
To me, it is rational to consider the consequences of action or inaction, before acting. And the consequences here are the difference between life and death. I do have feelz tho. :pac:0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
pleas advice wrote: »I wonder will there be an opt out allowed for GPs, perhaps on religious or ethical grounds?
It seems so and I hope so. I hate this idea.... though I see in many cases why we have it..... that people who own a PRIVATE business should be COMPELLED to engage in any given business transaction. Be it affording abortion pills to women, or baking cakes for homosexuals. My deep feelings and rationale on that has always been that if you own and run your own business, it should be ENTIRELY up to you A) Who you deal with and Why you choose to deal or not deal with them.
But in the case of people who do NOT make cakes for homosexuals or serve pills to women for reasons of unsubstantiated nonsense like gods or personal bias..... I reserve the right to vote with my feet, invite others to follow my footsteps, for us all to go elsewhere....... and for us to enjoy the mirth and schadenfreude involved in watching a bigot go out of business and so forth.
However if some GP was, for example, working for the State I would NOT hope to have him/her/them allowed to opt out. That is not your own business, it is the states, and you should do the job you were hired for in my view. I no more think a GP working for the state should be allowed opt out than I think a man hired by a butcher should be let show up on the first day and declare "By the way I am Muslim so I will not be touching or working with your pork in any way, sowwy'boucha". Both should be fired instantly if they refuse to do the work they were hired to do in my view.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
voting with your feet and shutting down bigotted businesses works when public attitudes to the discriminated group are positive, but in areas where the prevailing attitude is prejudice, then refusing to serve people for x personal reason could be seen as a positive reason by their customer base while a liberal inclusive business owner might suffer.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »It seems so and I hope so. I hate this idea.... though I see in many cases why we have it..... that people who own a PRIVATE business should be COMPELLED to engage in any given business transaction. Be it affording abortion pills to women, or baking cakes for homosexuals. My deep feelings and rationale on that has always been that if you own and run your own business, it should be ENTIRELY up to you A) Who you deal with and Why you choose to deal or not deal with them.
But in the case of people who do NOT make cakes for homosexuals or serve pills to women for reasons of unsubstantiated nonsense like gods or personal bias..... I reserve the right to vote with my feet, invite others to follow my footsteps, for us all to go elsewhere....... and for us to enjoy the mirth and schadenfreude involved in watching a bigot go out of business and so forth.
However if some GP was, for example, working for the State I would NOT hope to have him/her/them allowed to opt out. That is not your own business, it is the states, and you should do the job you were hired for in my view. I no more think a GP working for the state should be allowed opt out than I think a man hired by a butcher should be let show up on the first day and declare "By the way I am Muslim so I will not be touching or working with your pork in any way, sowwy'boucha". Both should be fired instantly if they refuse to do the work they were hired to do in my view.
This is the reason why it is illegal to refuse to serve members of the travelling community in a shop or bar. Travellers have not got a lot of public sympathy amongst large sections of the Irish public.
If it was allowed to discriminate then you would have the vast majority of bars refusing service, and the few bars who allow them, being seen as 'traveller pubs' and losing a lot of their customer base.
If it was allowed to discriminate against gay people in wedding cakes, hotel venues you could see christian groups organising boycotts of the shops and suppliers who are facilitating the gay weddings, especially in smaller towns and villages in more insular parts of Ireland.
I think any GP should be obliged to give their patient medical advice that suits their needs, not the religious views of the GP. When you're a professional you operate under a license which has conditions attached, that you abide with the laws and regulations in your industry and follow best practice and behave in your clients best interests with honesty and good faith.
GPs shouldn't be allowed to refuse to prescribe contraception to cancer patients (for example) because they're catholic. And they shouldn't be allowed to refuse to prescribe abortion pills to women experiencing crisis pregnancy or couples who have a diagnosis of fetal abnormalities who decide that they do not wish to carry that pregnancy to term.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement