The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

ohnonotgmail

AnGaelach wrote: »

Was Jesus compassionate about the money lenders who had families to feed and bills to pay?

you are comparing pregnant women and money lenders? Just call the women sluts and be done with it.

AnGaelach

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Except we have an explicit policy of giving them food stuffs/providing services rather than cash. If you continue to think otherwise, you're a troglodyte.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't care if we subsidise teeth cleanings, hip replacements, heart transplants.

Killing something that I consider a human life isn't just a "medical procedure".

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yeah, I forgot that the Government subsidises citizens to get abortions.

AnGaelach

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you are comparing pregnant women and money lenders? Just call the women sluts and be done with it.

I'm comparing women who want to murder their baby to money lenders in that they don't deserve compassion, sure.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

AnGaelach

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sure that's basically the same thing as the State paying them to get an abortion so!

Why are you trying to stretch this out as far as you can? You're going away and beyond the limits of logical assumptions.

AnGaelach

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I know right, imagine deliberately trying to obfuscate someone's point and misrepresenting it to make it seem like they hate all women.

AnGaelach

AnGaelach wrote: »

Yeah, I forgot that the Government subsidises citizens to get abortions.

Well in certain circumstances in Ireland abortion is permitted, & seeing as all maternity care is free, then yes your taxes are already going towards abortions

ohnonotgmail

AnGaelach wrote: »

I know right, imagine deliberately trying to obfuscate someone's point and misrepresenting it to make it seem like they hate all women.

nobody said you hate all women. Just the ones who are pregnant and dont want to be.

eviltwin

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Years ago I worked for a domestic violence service and we had many women using money from the CWO to pay for abortions.

Anyone who thinks tax payers money doesn't fund abortion is sadly wrong

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

AnGaelach

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ah yes, because obviously social welfare's entire goal is to subsidise abortions. You're stretching every sort of statement under the sun to justify yourself. You'd win gold in the Olympic if they had a category for mental gymnastics.

AnGaelach

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'd recommend reading the post I was replying to.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Consonata

AnGaelach wrote: »

Ah yes, because obviously social welfare's entire goal is to subsidise abortions. You're stretching every sort of statement under the sun to justify yourself. You'd win gold in the Olympic if they had a category for mental gymnastics.

And you'd be the man moving the goalposts during the game :pac:

AnGaelach

Consonata wrote: »

And you'd be the man moving the goalposts during the game :pac:

'Tis better than murdering the goalie :P

AnGaelach

AnGaelach wrote: »

Ah yes, because obviously social welfare's entire goal is to subsidise abortions. You're stretching every sort of statement under the sun to justify yourself. You'd win gold in the Olympic if they had a category for mental gymnastics.

And yet you fail to acknowledge that taxpayers money already fund abortion in this country.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Outlaw Pete

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

eviltwin wrote: »

Years ago I worked for a domestic violence service and we had many women using money from the CWO to pay for abortions.

Anyone who thinks tax payers money doesn't fund abortion is sadly wrong

lol. What a nonsense argument.

Lots of dole money gets pissed up against the wall each and every week, so what... should that then mean that we just give anyone on the dole that wants beer a free crate of cans whenever they want one? By your logic it does.

eviltwin

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

lol. What a nonsense argument.

Lots of dole money gets pissed up against the wall each and every week, so what... should that then mean that we just give anyone on the dole that wants beer a free crate of cans whenever they want one? By your logic it does.

I wasn't making an argument there

Murrisk

AnGaelach wrote: »

And the grounds of my opposition to both scenarios are different. I oppose methadone clinics because they're still highly addictive substances and the efficiency of using them to wean people off heroin is questionable. I oppose abortion because it involves the killing of what I believe to be a human life.

Simply seeing opposition to something and thinking it's the same grounds for both highlights a complete lack of nuance.

If you like.

Outlaw Pete

eviltwin wrote: »

I wasn't making an argument there

I meant to include two quotes in that post (which I've edited now and done so) but give me a break... you're not one bit "confused" as to which argument I was referring to.

Your comment was supporting the argument made by the poster which you quoted... the argument that abortion services are accessed using money women have received from social welfare.. remember now? Or are you still confused.

ohnonotgmail

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I meant to include two quotes in that post (which I've edited now and done so) but give me a break... you're not one bit "confused" as to which argument I was referring to.

Your comment was supporting the argument made by the poster which you quoted... the argument that abortion services are accessed using money women have received from social welfare.. remember now? Or are you still confused.

so you misquoted and it is the other posters fault?

eviltwin

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I meant to include two quotes in that post (which I've edited now and done so) but give me a break... you're not one bit "confused" as to which argument I was referring to.

Your comment was supporting the argument made by the poster which you quoted... the argument that abortion services are accessed using money women have received from social welfare.. remember now? Or are you still confused.

I wasn't making an argument. I was backing up another posters claim with my anecdotal experience. What any of that has to do with your subsequent post I don't know. Something to do with giving alcohol to people on welfare, no idea what it's got to do with anything.

AnGaelach

bubblypop wrote: »

And yet you fail to acknowledge that taxpayers money already fund abortion in this country.

Taxpayers money funds social welfare, which some people to use to travel for an abortion. That is not it's reason d'etre.

AnGaelach

AnGaelach wrote: »

Taxpayers money funds social welfare, which some people to use to travel for an abortion. That is not it's reason d'etre.

No taxpayers pay for maternity care in hospitals, given that abortion is allowed in this country, in certain circumstances, then taxpayers pay for that.

AnGaelach

bubblypop wrote: »

No taxpayers pay for maternity care in hospitals, given that abortion is allowed in this country, then taxpayers pay for that.

Abortion is allowed when there's a threat to the life of the mother - which I already understand and can agree with. Failing to understand nuance is your problem.

AnGaelach

AnGaelach wrote: »

Abortion is allowed when there's a threat to the life of the mother - which I already understand and can agree with. Failing to understand nuance is your problem.

So you don't have a problem with your taxes funding abortion so.
Good.

njs030

AnGaelach wrote: »

Abortion is allowed when there's a threat to the life of the mother - which I already understand and can agree with. Failing to understand nuance is your problem.

Which is also the case in England.
Doctors have to agree there is risk to the physical or mental health of the woman if the pregnancy continues.

So you would agree with that?

Outlaw Pete

eviltwin wrote: »

I wasn't making an argument. I was backing up another posters claim with my anecdotal experience.

By backing up the other user's claim with your 'anecdotal experience' you were in effect giving support to their argument... Jesus H Christ, are you really going to claim you weren't?

What any of that has to do with your subsequent post I don't know. Something to do with giving alcohol to people on welfare, no idea what it's got to do with anything.

'No idea' my arse. You know well the user made the argument that women have used social welfare money to fund abortions and that therefore arguing against the state paying for women to have abortions is pointless.... but the point is that people use dole money to fund all sorts of things: beer drinking, cigarette smoking, getting tattoos etc etc and so it's absurd to make an argument that 'Well, people spend their dole on x and so why doesn't the state officially fund x'.

You then chimed in with your "anecdotal experience" that yes, dole money does indeed fund abortions, rounding it off with the following comment:

Anyone who thinks tax payers money doesn't fund abortion is sadly wrong.

But yet you say you weren't making an argument? Ha.

Incidentally, you were making a strawman argument as the user you were alluding to never said (nor even implied) that money from the state has never been used to fund abortions... what they clearly had been saying was that they didn't believe the state should ever officially do so. Bit of a difference.

You see, the state may fund abortions unofficially but the state / tax payer funds many things unofficially...... all of which would equally as absurd were anyone to suggest the state should be funding on an official basis just because of that.

.......

This post has been deleted.

NuMarvel

AnGaelach wrote: »

Abortion is allowed when there's a threat to the life of the mother - which I already understand and can agree with. Failing to understand nuance is your problem.

How do you feel about the State paying compensation and damages to women whose human rights have been breached by our abortion laws? Because that's happened twice so far; €15,000 for Ms C in the ACB v Ireland ECHR case, and €30,000 for Amanda Mellet in the UN Human Rights Commission case.

Zubeneschamali

AnGaelach wrote: »

Abortion is allowed when there's a threat to the life of the mother.

Including the risk of suicide.

So all the brazen hussies have to do is convince the docs that they'd rather die than give birth, and then the taxpayer will pay, and you're grand with it.

AnGaelach

NuMarvel wrote: »

How do you feel about the State paying compensation and damages to women whose human rights have been breached by our abortion laws? Because that's happened twice so far; €15,000 for Ms C in the ACB v Ireland ECHR case, and €30,000 for Amanda Mellet in the UN Human Rights Commission case.

I think the Government should have refused to have let the ECHR interfere with our Constitution or public policy. We're the ones who define what our rights are, it's a power given to us by Bunreacht na hÉireann.

Consonata

AnGaelach wrote: »

I think the Government should have refused to have let the ECHR interfere with our Constitution or public policy. We're the ones who define what our rights are, it's a power given to us by Bunreacht na hÉireann.

Without the ECHR, Homosexuality would still be a crime in Ireland.

AnGaelach

Consonata wrote: »

Without the ECHR, Homosexuality would still be a crime in Ireland.

That's unsubstantiated conjecture. Do you think it was the ECHR that made Irish people vote to support the gay marriage referendum?

B_Wayne

AnGaelach wrote: »

That's unsubstantiated conjecture. Do you think it was the ECHR that made Irish people vote to support the gay marriage referendum?

It very much so had a major role in the decriminalization. The late 80s was a significantly different place to Ireland 2015. Hence the need for Norris v Ireland where we were found to breaching human rights. I'm entirely in favour of international bodies holding us to account for human rights violations.

AnGaelach

B_Wayne wrote: »

It very much so had a major role in the decriminalization. The late 80s was a significantly different place to Ireland 2015. Hence the need for Norris v Ireland where we were found to breaching human rights. I'm entirely in favour of international bodies holding us to account for human rights violations.

I'm not saying the case wasn't important. I'm drawing issue with the claim that homosexuality would "still be a crime" if it wasn't for the ECHR. There's absolutely no proof that would be the case, it's completely unsubstantiated.

Consonata

AnGaelach wrote: »

I'm not saying the case wasn't important. I'm drawing issue with the claim that homosexuality would "still be a crime" if it wasn't for the ECHR. There's absolutely no proof that would be the case, it's completely unsubstantiated.

We wouldn't have legalised it ourselves if that was what you mean. It was an extremely long process and without Robinson and Norris and international bodies such as ECHR, it would almost certainly be still illegal. The modernisation + liberalisation of Ireland came with pressure from international institutions. Need I remind you divorce was only legalised in the late 90s after a few shots of referenda.

NuMarvel

AnGaelach wrote: »

I think the Government should have refused to have let the ECHR interfere with our Constitution or public policy. We're the ones who define what our rights are, it's a power given to us by Bunreacht na hÉireann.

The State voluntarily chose to participate in both in the European Convention of Human Rights and the UN. It would be a bit rich to sign up to those organisations, declaring to abide by their rules, and then ignore decisions that don't suit us.

And were it not for the ECHR we would have never legislated for the X Case in 2013. Successive governments ignored that issue for 20 years and only started to do something once directed to do so by the ECHR after the ABC case.

Hotblack Desiato

Why is it there's an ongoing correlation between Irish language nazis, diehard catholics, and the so-called 'pro-life' position?

AnGaelach

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Why is it there's an ongoing correlation between Irish language nazis, diehard catholics, and the so-called 'pro-life' position?

Why is it there's an ongoing correlation between Anglocentric crypto-fascists, diehard feminists, and the so-called 'pro-choice' position?

Zubeneschamali

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Why is it there's an ongoing correlation between Irish language nazis, diehard catholics, and the so-called 'pro-life' position?

The 8th amendment was a Catholic one to begin with - every other Christian church in Ireland was opposed to passing the 8th in the first place, so pro-life in Ireland is of course catholic.

There is also an historic association between Catholicism and the Irish language in opposition to the Protestant Ascendancy and their English language.

And now there is the shared position of being under sustained attack from the liberal, internationalist, secular hegemony.

Samaris

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Why is it there's an ongoing correlation between Irish language nazis, diehard catholics, and the so-called 'pro-life' position?

AnGaelach wrote: »

Why is it there's an ongoing correlation between Anglocentric crypto-fascists, diehard feminists, and the so-called 'pro-choice' position?

Not really seen the correlation with the language. Or whatever a crypto-fascist is. Die-hard Catholics and pro-life is hardly surprising. Die-hard feminists is hardly surprising. Neither of those are really sensible questions. Any back-up for the language connection from either side?

(And what -is- a crypto-fascist? Is it a fascist that speaks in riddles? Is it a mythical being hunted by the crypto-zoologists? What views do they hold and why are they particularly crypted? What differs them from normal fascists? Actually, what's the definition of fascist, just to get a baseline to compare relative cryptocity?)

Annasopra

AnGaelach wrote: »

I think the Government should have refused to have let the ECHR interfere with our Constitution or public policy. We're the ones who define what our rights are, it's a power given to us by Bunreacht na h?ireann.

No. We don't. We are signatories to the UN convention on human rights and European Convention on Human rights. So human rights in Ireland are both nationally and internationally defined.

Annasopra

AnGaelach wrote: »

That's unsubstantiated conjecture. Do you think it was the ECHR that made Irish people vote to support the gay marriage referendum?

What?

Are you not aware of Norris v Ireland in the European Court of Human Rights in 1988? Seriously it is absolute nonsense to claim that as unsubstantiated conjecture.

Decriminalisation of gay male sex took place largely because the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Ireland’s laws contravened the European Convention on Human Rights in Norris v Ireland in 1988.

Hotblack Desiato

AnGaelach wrote: »

Why is it there's an ongoing correlation between Anglocentric crypto-fascists, diehard feminists, and the so-called 'pro-choice' position?

Amazing how people think that opposition to catholic orthodoxy is 'crypto-fascism'. Because allowing people to have choices they don't like is oppressing them..!

If you want an actual fascist you need look no further than Justin Barrett.

As for Anglocentric, language wise the entire globe is going Anglocentric, get over it.

AnGaelach

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What?

Are you not aware of Norris v Ireland in the European Court of Human Rights in 1988? Seriously it is absolute nonsense to claim that as unsubstantiated conjecture.

Decriminalisation of gay male sex took place largely because the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Ireland’s laws contravened the European Convention on Human Rights in Norris v Ireland in 1988.

I'm not sure if you're just misreading everything. The person claimed that without the ECHR being gay would still be a crime today. 20 years on.

I've already said the case was enormous in decriminalising homosexuality, but that does nothing to support the belief that we would still have homosexuality criminalised here. That is unsubstantiated conjecture.

Do you honestly believe if it wasn't for the ECHR that we'd have homosexuality as a crime today?

Samaris wrote: »

Not really seen the correlation with the language. Or whatever a crypto-fascist is. Die-hard Catholics and pro-life is hardly surprising. Die-hard feminists is hardly surprising. Neither of those are really sensible questions. Any back-up for the language connection from either side?

Well, it's mockery on my part.