The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

nozzferrahhtoo

Thirdfox wrote: »

while we can make compromises and get even 99.9% of cases right, the 0.1 or 0.0001% of cases where an innocent person dies because of a flaw in the system is reason enough to me to justify my absolute opposition to allowing the state to sanction murder against its own citizens

As I said though, in the biological sciences we have literally no reason to even beginning to SUSPECT that there is sentience or consciousness in play until at least week 22. But in fact there is good reason not to expect it until later. There is no one scientific fact to this effect, but a host of corroborating ones. I offer a single example here however:

"K.J.S. Anand, a researcher of newborns, and P.R. Hickey, published in NEJM say "intermittent electroencephalographic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks. "

The vast majority of abortions by choice, like in the 98% area, happen in or before week 16. This is a 6-10 week buffer, which in terms of biological development is so large that even the "0.00001%" you wrote above is simply not going to occur. Some individuals in our species develop faster than others, no denying that. But THAT much faster? That would be somewhat miraculous.

Caution is always healthy, I grant you that. But caution against the machinations of miracle.... is probably over kill?

Thirdfox wrote: »

I would hope that the pro-choice side equally realise while some on the pro-life side are rooted in dogmatic religious grounds for opposing abortion, many others have thought long and hard on their stance

I will have to take your word for it as I have not been able to tease out ANY such arguments from the anti-choice campaigners in over 2 decades of trying.

It started when I set aside an entire day to go and sit and talk with the people who used to hang out outside Central Bank in Dublin with the stalls and pictures of dead fetuses. I was undecided about abortion at that point so wanted to hear their side. And I was happy to sit there for hours, if needs be, to find out what it was.

Alas after 10 minutes of............ "Look at the pictures man!" "Have you seen the pictures?" "The pictures show abortion dude" "the pictures! the pictures!"............. I realized I was not going to get anything "thought long and hard" from that source.

Since then the "arguments" I have heard against abortion can be summarized as:

1) I am emotionally against it, therefore no one should have one.
2) Sentient entities have rights, the fetus will be sentient some day, so lets give it those rights in advance.
3) "Just coz"
4) Abortion is a liberal thing and I hate liberals
5) God puts the soul into the zygote at conception.
6) All life needs to be protected, except the ones I happen to want to eat, paint on, or get between me and my crops.
7) I do not like the reasons some people have for wanting an abortion, therefore no abortion.
8) The term "unborn child" must mean something, therefore I am against abortion (Christopher Hitchens weirdly espoused this one).

If you can find anything in that list that required "long and hard" thought then I must have missed it. If there is anything missing from the list, I have missed that too.

kylith

splinter65 wrote: »

A 20+ weeks gestation unborn baby is not a baby?!? What is it then?

And how many abortions are performed at that point? Less than 1%. And always in tragic circumstances.

The VAST majority of abortions are done by 16 weeks, well before viability, sentience, and the ability to feel pain.

Do you think that it is better for a woman to take medication to induce abortion without medical supervision, and knowing that if the fact that she has done so has come to light, for example if she needed medical attention, she could be charged and spend years in prison? Do you think it is better for women to go to back-street abortionists?

Not allowing women to access abortion encourages both those outcomes, as well as meaning that Irish women who have to get the money and arrange transport and accommodation have later-term abortions than they would if they could remain in Ireland. The illegality of abortion in Ireland pushes women wishing to terminate closer to that 'a 20 week fetus is a baby' window that some people find so abhorrent.

Zubeneschamali

Thirdfox wrote: »

while we can make compromises and get even 99.9% of cases right, the 0.1 or 0.0001% of cases where an innocent person dies because of a flaw in the system is reason enough to me to justify my absolute opposition to allowing the state to sanction murder against its own citizens

If I believed abortion was murder, I too would defend the 8th. In fact, I would be campaigning to make the 8th stronger by passing the 12th, rescinding the 13th and 14th, and bringing in legal changes to reflect that abortion is murder. That means women returning from England after an abortion would be locked up for life.

Fortunately, the number of people who really believe that (as opposed to using it as a slogan) is tiny, probably at the level of people who believe the pope is false and only the Latin Mass is real.

Belfast

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

A Zygote will eventually become sentient too if not miscarried or aborted. Is a zygote also of equal value to a born, sentient woman who is carrying it? Can you truthfully say that you think a fused sperm and egg is of the same value as an actual person?

not accord to the 8th amendment.

The unborn right to life is conditional on the right to life of the mother.

also the unborn can be taken out of the jurisdiction for a termination.

those assisting adults being removed for the jurisdiction for termination are not protected by law. like the case below

First person to be prosecuted for assisting suicide in Ireland describes experience on Late Late Show

A carer who became the first person in Ireland prosecuted for assisting suicide has talked about her relationship with her deceased friend and the times she faced questioning from gardaí.
Tallaght woman Gail O’Rorke was charged over the booking of flights to Switzerland between March 10 and April 20, 2011 for MS sufferer Bernadette Forde, 51, to travel to the Dignitas clinic.
Ms Forde, a former employee with Guinness in Dublin, died at her home in Morehampton Mews, Donnybrook, Dublin 4 on June 6, 2011.
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/first-person-to-be-prosecuted-for-assisting-suicide-in-ireland-describes-experience-on-late-late-show-775494.html

Zubeneschamali

tigger123 wrote: »

I love the way they voted and the quit the committee. Surely if they perceive the committee to be biased, they would have quit a long time ago.

I like this line: “Despite our efforts, and our reservations expressed from the outset, the committee failed to do its job."

They were not there in good faith, they always planned to reject any outcome bar the Roman Catholic Church line.

Belfast

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well when driving a car it could by you killed, someone else, or both. But the point is that we take risks in pretty much everything we do every day. Eating could choke you, falling down stairs could kill or maim or cripple you, socializing could infect you. And on and on and on.

Sex is only one of the many things that could have negative consequences. And life is about balancing desire with risk, and making informed decisions. And when it goes wrong, it is about mediating between options on how to move forward. And abortion is, and should be, and option given it is a choice made BY a sentient agent to increase their well being, and it is a choice made ABOUT a non-sentient entity that no one on this thread has argued coherently for giving rights to.

if I understand you correctly the right to life should be based on being sentient.
at what point do humans becomes sentient?
what point are they no longer sentient?

Zubeneschamali

Belfast wrote: »

at what point do humans becomes sentient?
what point are they no longer sentient?

To illustrate the first question, think about the second.

When someone suffers a brain injury, they sometimes end up in a state where they are alive in the sense that their heart is beating, their lungs breath in and out, but there is no higher brain activity at all.

We call that brain death, and commonly turn off life support and cut them up for spare parts.

There in that hospital bed is a unique human life, and we terminate it.

nozzferrahhtoo

Belfast wrote: »

if I understand you correctly the right to life should be based on being sentient. at what point do humans becomes sentient? what point are they no longer sentient?

We do not have enough knowledge at this time to point to an EXACT time that humans become sentient. In fact from all my reading of the subject I believe there is no one moment it happens.

Rather it is like trying to find the point where red turns into orange on a rainbow. You can point to places you are sure are red, and places you are sure are orange, but you will never find a transition point.

For the purposes of abortion however I do not think we need to know when a fetus BECOMES sentient (Orange), but when it is not (Red). We can not find a transition point, but we CAN point to the rainbow and say "This is red".

And 98%ish of abortions by choice happen WELL within that red zone. A zone where not just most, but everything we know about human consciousness and sentience at this time tells us sentience is simply not there.

Hoboo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

the Roman Catholic Church line.

So anyone who doesn't wish to repeal or amend the 8th is Roman Catholic or following RC doctrine? M'kay. :rolleyes:

Zubeneschamali

Hoboo wrote: »

So anyone who doesn't wish to repeal or amend the 8th is Roman Catholic or following RC doctrine? M'kay. :rolleyes:

Yes, as I have repeatedly pointed out, every other Christian Church in Ireland in 1983 was opposed to passing the 8th, it is a sectarian piece of Catholic dogma.

You can see a picture of the statement from the Irish Council of Churches on the subject here.

The Council is made up of:

The Antiochian Orthodox Church,
The Church of Ireland,
The Greek Orthodox Church in Britain and Ireland,
The LifeLink Network of Churches,
The Lutheran Church in Ireland,
The Methodist Church in Ireland,
The Moravian Church (Irish District),
The Non-subscribing Presbyterian Church of Ireland,
The Presbyterian Church in Ireland,
The Religious Society of Friends,
The Rock of Ages Cherubim and Seraphim Church, (Eternal Sacred Order of Cherubim and Seraphim)
The Romanian Orthodox Church in Ireland,
The Russian Orthodox Church in Ireland,
The Salvation Army (Ireland Division).

[p.s. you are talking with people who voted in that referendum. A little less eye-rolling might be in order]

Hoboo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, as I have repeatedly pointed out, every other Christian Church in Ireland in 1983 was opposed to passing the 8th, it is a sectarian piece of Catholic dogma.

You can see a picture of the statement from the Irish Council of Churches on the subject here.

The Council is made up of:

The Antiochian Orthodox Church,
The Church of Ireland,
The Greek Orthodox Church in Britain and Ireland,
The LifeLink Network of Churches,
The Lutheran Church in Ireland,
The Methodist Church in Ireland,
The Moravian Church (Irish District),
The Non-subscribing Presbyterian Church of Ireland,
The Presbyterian Church in Ireland,
The Religious Society of Friends,
The Rock of Ages Cherubim and Seraphim Church, (Eternal Sacred Order of Cherubim and Seraphim)
The Romanian Orthodox Church in Ireland,
The Russian Orthodox Church in Ireland,
The Salvation Army (Ireland Division).

[p.s. you are talking with people who voted in that referendum. A little less eye-rolling might be in order]

Reread what I said.

MrPudding

Thirdfox wrote: »

The same reason I imagine people don't have problems with letting people talk about marijuana usage despite it being illegal here in Ireland.

If "murder" is legal elsewhere in the world then unfortunately no, you wouldn't be able to stop a murderer talking about his legal experiences in Ireland. You would be able stop him if he commits a "murder" here in Ireland though.

So I don't see why you would be confused about the issue here.

Well, that is just wrong. The reason they are not arrested is that, irrespective of what you think, an abortion is not considered murder. Simple as that. Even where a person breaks the law here and procures an abortion, that is still not murder.

It is not just that abortion isn't considered murder in the jurisdiction that it took place, but also that it is that abortion is not considered, in law, to be murder here.

There are a number of acts that can be committed in a country where that act is legal, but one can be prosecuted in one's home country. Not sure in Ireland, but in the UK bribery and having sex with children is a criminal offence, even where those acts are committed in another jurisdiction where they may be legal.

We get that you think abortion is murder, but the law doesn't.

MrP

Zubeneschamali

Hoboo wrote: »

Reread what I said.

Yes, those people are toeing the Roman Catholic line on fetuses.

Perhaps you are also unaware that Holles St. had (until recently) a Catholic Ethos meaning save the baby first, where the Rotunda had a Protestant ethos meaning save the woman first.

Historically, this difference is based on the importance of baptism in saving babies from Limbo, which may read like fairy tale nonsense to lots of non-religious folks (and even a lot of Catholics these days since Limbo has been closed, apparently), but this nonsense had the real effect of killing women.

Still kills a few today.

kylith

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

To illustrate the first question, think about the second.

When someone suffers a brain injury, they sometimes end up in a state where they are alive in the sense that their heart is beating, their lungs breath in and out, but there is no higher brain activity at all.

We call that brain death, and commonly turn off life support and cut them up for spare parts.

There in that hospital bed is a unique human life, and we terminate it.

IDK if you can do that if they haven't signed an organ donor form.*

Funny how you can't use the organs from a corpse to keep sentient, suffering people alive without their consent, but you can force a sentient, living woman to use her entire body to keep alive an insentient fetus that is incapable of suffering.

*Has that now been changed to the saner 'opt out' system?

Hoboo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, those people are toeing the Roman Catholic line on fetuses.

Perhaps you are also unaware that Holles St. had (until recently) a Catholic Ethos meaning save the baby first, where the Rotunda had a Protestant ethos meaning save the woman first.

Historically, this difference is based on the importance of baptism in saving babies from Limbo, which may read like fairy tale nonsense to lots of non-religious folks (and even a lot of Catholics these days since Limbo has been closed, apparently), but this nonsense had the real effect of killing women.

Still kills a few today.

Have I missed something or were people on the committee openly saying 'as per our RC beliefs and doctrine'? (I stand corrected and appalled if they did) Or are they forming their own opinion from their education, experience or personal beliefs. You can have similar or same opinions as the RC, and not toe the line of the RC. Thats like saying everyone who wishes to repeal the 8th is following Church of Ireland doctrine.

Zubeneschamali

Hoboo wrote: »

Have I missed something or were people on the committee openly saying 'as per our RC beliefs and doctrine'? (I stand corrected and appalled if they did)

Of course they didn't say that out loud.

MrPudding

Sweetemotion wrote: »

I wouldn't trust my brakes if I knew I did something that might make them fail...

You mean using them? Using them might make them fail. That is the point.

MrP

Hoboo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Of course they didn't say that out loud.

So they weren't toeing the RC line. To toe the line is to accept the authority, policies, or principles of a particular group, especially unwillingly.. Unless they have openly referred to their stance being directly attributed to RC doctrine it is wrong to say so.

My point is it is wrong/insulting to use the RC whip on people who don't wish to repeal the 8th, just because the RC holds the same or similar beliefs.

Zubeneschamali

Hoboo wrote: »

My point is it is wrong/insulting to use the RC whip on people who don't wish to repeal the 8th, just because the RC holds the same or similar beliefs.

Even though ONLY the RC church, of all christian churches, holds similar beliefs?

Even when the people in question are actually members of the RC church?

Even when they vocally supported the unpopular RC church line in the same sex referendum?

And as to insulting, we are talking about Ronan Mullen and Mattie McGrath here, I would find it hard to say anything worse about them than they have said in their own words.

Doctor Jimbob

I find it insulting when I have to listen to Mattie McGrath.

keano_afc

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Even though ONLY the RC church, of all christian churches, holds similar beliefs?

Even when the people in question are actually members of the RC church?

Even when they vocally supported the unpopular RC church line in the same sex referendum?

And as to insulting, we are talking about Ronan Mullen and Mattie McGrath here, I would find it hard to say anything worse about them than they have said in their own words.

To be honest its juvenile and ignorant to think only members of the RC church are in favour of retaining the right to life.

Hotblack Desiato

No. But you can't overlook that they are RCs and taking the strict orthodox RC line.

Zubeneschamali

keano_afc wrote: »

To be honest its juvenile and ignorant to think only members of the RC church are in favour of retaining the right to life.

No, it isn't. I gave a list of Christian churches above who opposed passing the 8th. That list includes every Christian church in Ireland at the time except the RC church.

I see that the Reformed Presbyterian church also support the 8th, and there are several of them in the Republic, but they are a tiny group.

meanwhile the RC bishops:

Her is the Catholic Church telling the Government not to hold a referendum as recently as last August.

Here is the Church of Ireland a year ago:

‘While the Church of Ireland has consistently expressed the view that abortion should be confined to situations of strict and undeniable medical necessity, it has also since 1983 publicly questioned the wisdom of addressing such complex moral problems by means of amendments to the Constitution.

‘Indeed unfolding events and a range of tragic human cases over the past three decades have demonstrated the deficiencies of the constitutional approach. However, we would wish to emphasise that to review or question the value of the Eighth Amendment at this time is not by implication to call for easy access to abortion. Rather, it is to suggest that those complex and hopefully rare situations in which medical necessity might require termination of pregnancy would be more suitably addressed through nuanced legislation. The Church of Ireland offers its good wishes and prayers to the Assembly in its weighty duty of striving to find a way forward in this sensitive matter, so that the rights of both mothers and the unborn may be duly balanced and careful reflection may take place regarding the place of the Constitution in addressing complex moral and social matters.’

The Muslims and Jews likewise say abortion is permissible in certain circumstances, and not the ones the 8th accidentally allowed.

seamus

nice_guy80 wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/pro-life-tds-quit-eighth-amendment-committee-in-protest-464494.html

throwing the toys out of the pram

This was always going to be the outcome. Following the recommendations of the constitutional convention, the Iona Institute and their mouthpieces and associates like Ronan Mullins knew that one way or another there was going to be a referendum to repeal the 8th.

They are not interested in a discussion. They don't care what medical best practice is, or what the best outcomes are for mothers and children. They have the line of the RC church and there is nothing anyone can say that will waver them from it.

All they have been doing on the committee is noisemaking and dramatics, in preparation for the legal challenges they will launch if the referendum passes. The pro-life side deliberately refused to attend the committee to give evidence. They storm out in protest when democratic votes don't go their way.

What they are doing is creating a victimisation narrative. They are going to spend months and months playing the poor mouth, claiming that they were "not allowed" to speak at the committee, that it was "biased" and that the "unborn was not given a voice". Because they stacked it up that way by refusing to engage with it.

Ronán Mullins is probably the most dishonest, disingenuous, disgusting individual I have personally witnessed in Irish life. This is the same man who unapologetically defended child abusing priests, now claiming to be standing up for the rights of the unborn.

Anyone who voted for him in NUI elections should be ashamed of themselves.

Edward M

The RC church and its public reps will toe the line and oppose any legislation that gives a right to abortion, probably of any description.
Though the churches influence is weaning and the amount of people not practicing any religion people are rising, people still have consciences based on early teaching and here in Ireland that still leaves a lot of catholic derived morals and beliefs.
Its easy to stigmatise the church for its beliefs, but it openly flouts these beliefs and it still expects its followers to toe this line
The problem is really ,that despite what we might like to think, that people even voting with their consciences alone might still oppose any abortion change

Thirdfox

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, it isn't. I gave a list of Christian churches above who opposed passing the 8th. That list includes every Christian church in Ireland at the time except the RC church.…

I'm agnostic leaning to atheist and come from a country that is athiest in nature and I don't support abortion.

It is ignorant to suppose all people who do support the 8th to be Roman Catholic or even religious. All it takes is one example (myself) to disprove your statement. And while I suspect many of the people who support the 8th may be religious, I'm quite sure I'm not a unique case of being agnostic and supporting it.

ohnonotgmail

Thirdfox wrote: »

I'm agnostic leaning to atheist and come from a country that is athiest in nature and I don't support abortion.

It is ignorant to suppose all people who do support the 8th to be Roman Catholic or even religious. All it takes is one example (myself) to disprove your statement. And while I suspect many of the people who support the 8th may be religious, I'm quite sure I'm not a unique case of being agnostic and supporting it.

all the organisations who support the 8th do so from a religios perspective. A roman catholic religious perspective. you are very much an outlier.

Zubeneschamali

Thirdfox wrote: »

I'm agnostic leaning to atheist and come from a country that is athiest in nature and I don't support abortion.

As I noted, the other Christian churches do not "support abortion", but they opposed the 8th amendment.

NuMarvel

Thirdfox wrote: »

I'm agnostic leaning to atheist and come from a country that is athiest in nature and I don't support abortion.

It is ignorant to suppose all people who do support the 8th to be Roman Catholic or even religious. All it takes is one example (myself) to disprove your statement. And while I suspect many of the people who support the 8th may be religious, I'm quite sure I'm not a unique case of being agnostic and supporting it.

The original comment wasn't about all people, it was about members of the Committee. As far as I'm aware, the 3 members who voted against any change in the law are Roman Catholic.

seamus

Thirdfox wrote: »

And while I suspect many of the people who support the 8th may be religious, I'm quite sure I'm not a unique case of being agnostic and supporting it.

You might find this useful: https://twitter.com/AtheistsFor8th

However, I would caution that there is no information about who runs the account (i.e. no actual organisation called "Atheists for 8th"), and the feed consists almost exclusively of retweets from pro-life sources, many of them with a religious slant. Go back far enough and you'll see support for Katie Ascough who is associated to the Iona Institute.

So it's almost certainly a sock puppet being run by a religious organisation, but worth a start if you want to find relatable discussion.

Thirdfox

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

all the organisations who support the 8th do so from a religios perspective. A roman catholic religious perspective. you are very much an outlier.

So you support my statement that it is indeed ignorant to state that all those who support the right to life are members or adherents of the RC faith?

But I see this is just a repeat of the X case sniping earlier in the thread - the bickering over semantics doesn't help the actual issue to hand. It's an emotive issue issue already without people like Z here coming out with blanket statements which are patently false. Equally I can just ignore these meaningless statements in the first place because at the end of the day it's no skin off my nose.

Zubeneschamali

Thirdfox wrote: »

It's an emotive issue issue already without people like Z here coming out with blanket statements which are patently false. Equally I can just ignore these meaningless statements in the first place because at the end of the day it's no skin off my nose.

My statement is not false, and apparently you cannot ignore it.

Odhinn

Thirdfox wrote: »

So you support my statement that it is indeed ignorant to state that all those who support the right to life are members or adherents of the RC faith?

.

Thats not what was being stated. The RC, in its official capacity, representing itself, wanted the legislation. The rest of the churches on that committee didn't.

Thirdfox

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

My statement is not false, and apparently you cannot ignore it.

Quote: keano_afc
To be honest its juvenile and ignorant to think only members of the RC church are in favour of retaining the right to life.


No, it isn't. I gave a list of Christian churches above who opposed passing the 8th. That list includes every Christian church in Ireland at the time except the RC church.

∆ the statement above isn't false? Then I must be unknowingly a secret RC member, despite never being baptised or believing in the existence of a god(s)? Besides the noodly-holiness of the FSM of course.

ohnonotgmail

Thirdfox wrote: »

So you support my statement that it is indeed ignorant to state that all those who support the right to life are members or adherents of the RC faith?

But I see this is just a repeat of the X case sniping earlier in the thread - the bickering over semantics doesn't help the actual issue to hand. It's an emotive issue issue already without people like Z here coming out with blanket statements which are patently false. Equally I can just ignore these meaningless statements in the first place because at the end of the day it's no skin off my nose.

Ignorant. absolutely not. you need to read things in context. the original post referred to all the members of the committee who supported the 8th. Clearly you were too quick trying to score cheap points to spot that.

keano_afc

Odhinn wrote: »

Thats not what was being stated. The RC, in its official capacity, representing itself, wanted the legislation. The rest of the churches on that committee didn't.

There are plenty of people who support the 8th amendment who are neither RC or a member of the other churches on that committee. I'm one of them. That list means absolutely nothing to me.

Odhinn

keano_afc wrote: »

There are plenty of people who support the 8th amendment who are neither RC or a member of the other churches on that committee. I'm one of them. That list means absolutely nothing to me.

He specially referred to Churches, in their official capacity, on a committee.....

Widdershins

Edward M wrote: »

The RC church and its public reps will toe the line and oppose any legislation that gives a right to abortion, probably of any description.
Though the churches influence is weaning and the amount of people not practicing any religion people are rising, people still have consciences based on early teaching and here in Ireland that still leaves a lot of catholic derived morals and beliefs.
Its easy to stigmatise the church for its beliefs, but it openly flouts these beliefs and it still expects its followers to toe this line
The problem is really ,that despite what we might like to think, that people even voting with their consciences alone might still oppose any abortion change

Yep, I'm one of those. Not religious but now anti abortion. In no small part due to the incredibly immature attitudes of public spokeswomen for abortion legislation. It's not an issue to take lightly and instagram posing in Repeal jumpers does nothing for their credibility, who is going to take their cue from teenagers who clearly haven't considered and weighed up the facts?

If medical (tablet form) abortion is ever up for vote I might vote for it. I now have reservations about the incredible mendacity of the abortion lobby, who want a 'foot in the door' and a path the expanded abortion 'rights'. They've been recorded admitting as much.

Zubeneschamali

Widdershins wrote: »

If medical (tablet form) abortion is ever up for vote I might vote for it.

The referendum will be next May or June, I believe.

Thirdfox

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Ignorant. absolutely not. you need to read things in context. the original post referred to all the members of the committee who supported the 8th. Clearly you were too quick trying to score cheap points to spot that.

Who's keeping tabs on points? Who's winning? If we were face to face in a room you probably won't be snide enough to say what you said to my face but the anonymity of the internet allows people to get all worked up over very little.

Why did I post in the first place? Because I see some (not all) posters here quite often self-congratulating themselves for being so high minded and casting off the shackles of the Catholic church in this echo chamber. Just as I see some bizarre guy talking about the pull out method a few posts back.

I posted again despite stating I'm out to correct a frame of mind I see quite often in these debates - that the people who support the 8th are either old, religious or socially conservative. I'd class myself as none of those 3.

@seamus - I don't do twitter (perhaps I am old after all ) and I don't know how involved I want to get on such a referendum campaign - maybe I can set up the first non-religious support the 8th organisation and see if maybe I am truly unique after all. People probably won't ever change their minds based on internet posts but I did have some meaningful conversations on thread and in PM with LirW at least. More light than heat...

ohnonotgmail

Thirdfox wrote: »

Who's keeping tabs on points? Who's winning? If we were face to face in a room you probably won't be snide enough to say what you said to my face but the anonymity of the internet allows people to get all worked up over very little.

I was pointing out your failed attempt at cheap point scoring. because that is all it was.

Thirdfox wrote: »

Why did I post in the first place? Because I see some (not all) posters here quite often self-congratulating themselves for being so high minded and casting off the shackles of the Catholic church in this echo chamber. Just as I see some bizarre guy talking about the pull out method a few posts back.

you do realise that guy was on the "pro-life" side, right?

Thirdfox wrote: »

I posted again despite stating I'm out to correct a frame of mind I see quite often in these debates - that the people who support the 8th are either old, religious or socially conservative. I'd class myself as none of those 3.

as i said earlier that makes you very much an outlier. take a look at a "pro-life" rally and tell me the people attending dont fit into one if not all of those groups.

NuMarvel

Widdershins wrote: »

Yep, I'm one of those. Not religious but now anti abortion. In no small part due to the incredibly immature attitudes of public spokeswomen for abortion legislation. It's not an issue to take lightly and instagram posing in Repeal jumpers does nothing for their credibility, who is going to take their cue from teenagers who clearly haven't considered and weighed up the facts?

Yeah, campaigners in jumpers have no credibility whatsoever

Thirdfox

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I was pointing out your failed attempt at cheap point scoring. because that is all it was.



you do realise that guy was on the "pro-life" side, right?



as i said earlier that makes you very much an outlier. take a look at a "pro-life" rally and tell me the people attending dont fit into one if not all of those groups.

It seems to me that Z still holds on to the view that all people who oppose abortion must be religous in some manner. I'm not trying to "score points" as you state (and if I were it wouldn't be cheap ) but like I said I'm trying to prevent people from espousing the ignorant (yes and I do mean that) view that all those who oppose abortion are religious. It is open to Z to correct the statement if s/he so wishes and not for you to infer what his statements mean.

I included that guy for balance - though I have no idea if s/he is actually pro-life or just a troll.

I don't attend rallies because I'm generally too busy and find them less useful for enacting change. I'm usually quite politically inactive (beyond considering the issues in the privacy of my own home). But yes I'm sure if we're only looking at rallies to judge what kind of people are pro-life then many will apparently be religious (though aren't the religious Irish hypocritical in using contraceptives when the RC are against them - or has that stance changed - I have no idea because I don't follow their news too closely). I would think that there are others like me out there who aren't "motivated" enough to rally for a cause (because I find rallies silly for influencing change) but still hold anti-abortion opinions (which, because they are not dogma based, are open to being changed).

Just following on from Seamus's post I did do a quick search on secular pro-life organisations and found a few (none are Irish):
http://www.prolifehumanists.org/secular-case-against-abortion/

http://www.secularprolife.org

And one which looks at abortion from a humanist and non-religious view (neither advocating pro or anti abortion):
https://humanism.org.uk/humanism/humanism-today/humanists-talking/humanist-discussion-on-abortion/

So obviously there are people who are secular and hold anti-abortion beliefs - I think the wiki article even puts some polling numbers on it 25%(?) of secular people - and if it is 25% then that's certainly not an "outlier" number:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Pro-Life

nozzferrahhtoo

Widdershins wrote: »

Not religious but now anti abortion. In no small part due to the incredibly immature attitudes of public spokeswomen for abortion legislation.

I tend to vote based on what I think is morally and ethically right thing to do, not because I want to stick it to someone who's personality subjectively irks me.

Widdershins wrote: »

It's not an issue to take lightly

Like by basing your position on peoples personalities rather than the relevant arguments about the issue itself, for example?

ohnonotgmail

Thirdfox wrote: »

It seems to me that Z still holds on to the view that all people who oppose abortion must be religous in some manner. I'm not trying to "score points" as you state (and if I were it wouldn't be cheap ) but like I said I'm trying to prevent people from espousing the ignorant (yes and I do mean that) view that all those who oppose abortion are religious. It is open to Z to correct the statement if s/he so wishes and not for you to infer what his statements mean.

I included that guy for balance - though I have no idea if s/he is actually pro-life or just a troll.

I don't attend rallies because I'm generally too busy and find them less useful for enacting change. I'm usually quite politically inactive (beyond considering the issues in the privacy of my own home). But yes I'm sure if we're only looking at rallies to judge what kind of people are pro-life then many will apparently be religious (though aren't the religious Irish hypocritical in using contraceptives when the RC are against them - or has that stance changed - I have no idea because I don't follow their news too closely). I would think that there are others like me out there who aren't "motivated" enough to rally for a cause (because I find rallies silly for influencing change) but still hold anti-abortion opinions (which, because they are not dogma based, are open to being changed).

Just following on from Seamus's post I did do a quick search on secular pro-life organisations and found a few (none are Irish):
http://www.prolifehumanists.org/secular-case-against-abortion/

http://www.secularprolife.org

And one which looks at abortion from a humanist and non-religious view (neither advocating pro or anti abortion):
https://humanism.org.uk/humanism/humanism-today/humanists-talking/humanist-discussion-on-abortion/

So obviously there are people who are secular and hold anti-abortion beliefs - I think the wiki article even puts some polling numbers on it 25%(?) of secular people - and if it is 25% then that's certainly not an "outlier" number:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Pro-Life

none of those sites or stats are irish. the traditional dominance of the catholic church make the irish situation different.

Widdershins

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I tend to vote based on what I think is morally and ethically right thing to do, not because I want to stick it to someone who's personality subjectively irks me.



Like by basing your position on peoples personalities rather than the relevant arguments about the issue itself, for example?

Yeah and what's the difference between you, and me, when I replied to say I would vote with MY conscience irrespective of what the church's position is?

I tend to take into account when the campaigning proponents of a vote are not trustworthy. This will affect future outcomes and future legislation. Their manner, lack of gravitas and inability to calmly articulate facts, doesn't inspire confidence. They will continue to push for more permissive laws and that goes against my conscience and my wishes. I'll thank you to respect that as I respect others vote.

I don't have to justify my vote to you by the way.

Thirdfox

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

none of those sites or stats are irish. the traditional dominance of the catholic church make the irish situation different.

I'd argue the dominance of the Catholic church is well and truly over looking at church attendance levels (from what I hear) and the fact that pretty much every Irish person uses contraceptives. Also - transubstantiation...I'd suggest most Catholics are actually Protestants on that stance alone

And I had stated already in my post that none are Irish - I wasn't suggesting that they were but rather pointing to the existence of non-religious opposition to abortion. And actually, if we were to compare religious-ness of a country I'd have thought that the US would be much more religious than Ireland nowadays - both from a "faithful" African-American and Latino community and remaining white Protestants.

ohnonotgmail

Widdershins wrote: »

Yeah and what's the difference between you, and me, when I replied to say I would vote with MY conscience irrespective of what the church's position is?

I tend to take into account when the campaigning proponents of a vote are not trustworthy. This will affect future outcomes and future legislation. Their manner, lack of gravitas and inability to calmly articulate facts, doesn't inspire confidence. They will continue to push for more permissive laws and that goes against my conscience and my wishes. I'll thank you to respect that as I respect others vote.

I don't have to justify my vote to you by the way.

so you give more weight to who is saying it rather than what is said? weird.

nozzferrahhtoo

Widdershins wrote: »

I tend to take into account when the campaigning proponents of a vote are not trustworthy.

Which I also tend to do, by fact checking their claims and testing their veracity. Not by judging whether I personally find them mature people or not.

YMMV of course, but I do not vote on important issues based on the personalities of people promoting them. Especially if it is an issue I presume to go around telling people not to "take lightly", because I can think of few ways that one COULD take it lighter.

Widdershins wrote: »

I don't have to justify my vote to you by the way.

Then you will be over joyed, I am sure, to find that nowhere did I ever suggest you do??

Widdershins

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you give more weight to who is saying it rather than what is said? weird.

No. You'd have to completely ignore my concerns about their motives to think that. And focus on what suits you. Which of course you did. Predictably.