The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Mr. CooL ICE

horseburger wrote: »

That a human created by two separate humans, is not a human?

Human can be both a noun and an adjective. Why can't you accept this?

Human as a noun can be used for the man and woman that created the fetus, but not the fetus itself. Human as an adjective can be used to describe the fetus, but also could describe the man and woman that created.

It's like you are trying to play the semantics game but don't understand the fundamentals.

ELM327

Dole Scrounging Vegan Crossfitter wrote: »

Human can be both a noun and an adjective. Why can't you accept this?

Human as a noun can be used for the man and woman that created the fetus, but not the fetus itself. Human as an adjective can be used to describe the fetus, but also could describe the man and woman that created.

It's like you are trying to play the semantics game but don't understand the fundamentals.

Don't worry.
From my observation the no side is largely populated by people who don't understand the fundamentals. It's a pity there cant be a fact checker exam before being allowed to vote.

kylith

horseburger wrote: »

You know what I meant though, surely?

A living being that starts life in the womb of a female human being, as a result of the joining of a human male sperm and human female egg, can't really be described as anything other than human.

Where has anyone described it as not human? It’s not a human _being_ as outlined in my post that you quoted.

To keep insisting that it is is to try to pass your option off as fact, which is dishonest of you.

AnneFrank

Save The 8th.

blanch152

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I think there is a difference in pacing in this thread, a lot of posters here like myself, have been thinking about this issue for a long time, so they have already listened to the arguments for and against and come to a conclusion.
I think people who have never considered the issue prior to the last few months/last year or are further behind on that thought process and it probably seems like the rest of us are all gung ho on choice without thinking, but trust me, it's been well considered.

I was born the year of the 8th amendment and I've been pro choice since I was in school. We were shown a video of an abortion, we had plenty of talks, I've had plenty of time to consider both sides. To a certain extent I can understand why people might be "pro-life" on a religious basis but I wholeheartedly disagree. I don't personally need to make further consideration on the topic.

I agree with you to a large extent. There are many people of my generation who voted Yes in 1983 who have come to a different view over a long period of time, based on experience, events like the X case, changing social mores, and changing availability of technology such as the abortion pill, as well as being part of a more tolerant and diverse society and for many of them their view now is that the 8th should be repealed.

At the same time there are those of that generation whose personal experience has been more limited, never experienced a crisis pregnancy in their family, thankfully never dealt with an abuse or rape incident, still hold to a more traditional way of life etc. and whose views haven't changed.

However, the sheer number of people of my generation who are going to vote repeal tells me there is a good chance that this will pass.

Shadowstrife

^ This.

SusieBlue

AnneFrank wrote: »

Save The 8th.

Are you going to keep dropping in with that, as you have done a few times now, or do you have anything constructive to add to the conversation?

nozzferrahhtoo

horseburger wrote: »

I cannot understand how people can try and argue that it isn't human.

horseburger wrote: »

I've been watching discussions about abortion this last number of months, and can understand arguments on both sides.

So you can not understand the CORE argument many people on the pro choice side are offering yet in the next breath you tell us that you can understand the arguments on both sides?

So basically your posts have stopped even being INTERNALLY consistent instead of simply inconsistent with the people you had been replying to.

horseburger wrote: »

Are most people in this thread just leaning towards the perspective of repeal, do you reckon, or can they understand the perspectives of those that have concern about abortion?

I think I understand the perspective of those against repeal AND those against abortion. The two things are not the same.

1) The perspective of those against repeal so far seem to be based solely on the concern that they are against abortion. Leaving the question of abortion aside, I have seen ZERO arguments against repeal in and of itself. No arguments about it's implications or effects on general law, or maternity care or anything like that. They ONLY appear to bring up the implications it has on the topic of abortion. Their concern is solely that this change will open up legislation to allow abortion. If they have any other argument or position against repeal, I simply have not seen it yet.

2) The perspective of those against abortion appears to be based on values we all share. That is A) Human Rights and protecting the rights of the most vulnerable in our society..... in this case "babys". The issue for me is such people seem to not just have, but sometimes consciously maintain and defend, a complete ignorance as to the philosophy behind what rights are, what they are for, how they work, and where why and how they are actually applied. They simply do not want to know why applying such concepts a a sentience devoid blob of human biological matter is simply an incoherent position with no philosophical or scientific basis outside mere appeals to taxonomy. Their heart is in the right place (wanting to protect rights and protect the vulnerable) but it is misplaced and misdirected (incoherent about where to apply it and on what basis).

If i am missing anything in the anti repeal position then I would more than welcome someone of a minimum threshold of coherence and honesty to explain it to me. Someone who actually wants to engage in the conversation in good faith and not what we have seen displayed here.

horseburger wrote: »

That a human created by two separate humans, is not a human?

Which, as has been explained to you multiple times.... true to form and prediction you JUST ignored it all over again...... is not at all what people are claiming or saying.

I would genuinely love to climb into your head for the half a second it would take for me to find out what YOU believe you achieve in maintaining...... this blatantly and transparently..... the tactic of feigning ignorance on this point..... pretending day in and day out over multiple posts that you have not had something explained/answered for you when in fact it has been done by MULTIPLE Users and some of them.... myself included..... MULTIPLE times.

Clearly you think this dishonest and egregiously blatant and fetid little move gains you something. But I am genuinely and wholly ignorant as to what you believe that might be. So dishonest and blatant a move is it that it erodes and destroys any credibility anything else you say might garner. SO whatever you think you are gaining must be quite something. I would genuinely love to know.

The only theory I have working at the moment (without going down the more obvious route of suggesting trolling or "poe" and other such things) is that while this lie is not convincing anyone else.... you have actually managed to convince yourself of it. Which would be, from the perspective of the psychologist in me, really interesting.

NuMarvel

AnneFrank wrote: »

Save the 8th

AnneFrank wrote: »

Save The 8th.

Repeat it all you want, but you're going to have to do more than just parrot a slogan if you want to convince people.

horseburger

baylah17 wrote: »

It can
It can be described and is described as a fetus.
You had the definition of a Human Being already Bertie so why keep asking the same question over and over?

If not a human foetus, then what?

A canine foetus?

A feline foetus?

A plant based foetus?

A motor car foetus?

A tractor foetus?

A tomato foetus?

A tree foetus?

This item in the Guardian uses the term "human foetus" with reference to a news item about the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

I presume since the article uses the term "human foetus" that the College recognizes that term.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jun/25/human-foetus-no-pain-24-weeks

Are they wrong?

Will you shout at them that they are wrong?

Isn't it understood that when issue like "fetal awareness" and "fetal pain" is discussed by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, that they are referencing humans?

https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/news/joint-rcogfsrh-statement-on-the-proposed-lowering-of-the-abortion-time-limit-from-24-weeks-to-20-weeks/

Why are you calling me Bertie?

NuMarvel

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I must admit that I sometimes get the feeling that I am talking to a parrot.

Or maybe a sea lion?

SusieBlue

horseburger wrote: »

If not a human foetus, then what?

A canine foetus, a feline foetus? A plant based foetus.

A motor car foetus?

A tractor foetus?

This item in the Guardian uses the term "human foetus" with reference to a news item Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

I presume since the article uses the term "human foetus" that the College recognizes that term.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jun/25/human-foetus-no-pain-24-weeks

Are they wrong?

Will you shout at them that it is wrong?

Isn't it understood that when issue like "fetal awareness" and "fetal pain" is discussed by the college, that they are referencing humans?

https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/news/joint-rcogfsrh-statement-on-the-proposed-lowering-of-the-abortion-time-limit-from-24-weeks-to-20-weeks/

Why are you calling me Bertie?

You're like a broken record.

ELM327

horseburger wrote: »

If not a human foetus, then what?

A canine foetus, a feline foetus? A plant based foetus.

A motor car foetus?

A tractor foetus?

This item in the Guardian uses the term "human foetus" with reference to a news item Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

I presume since the article uses the term "human foetus" that the College recognizes that term.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jun/25/human-foetus-no-pain-24-weeks

Are they wrong?

Will you shout at them that it is wrong?

Isn't it understood that when issue like "fetal awareness" and "fetal pain" is discussed by the college, that they are referencing humans?

https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/news/joint-rcogfsrh-statement-on-the-proposed-lowering-of-the-abortion-time-limit-from-24-weeks-to-20-weeks/

Why are you calling me Bertie?

It is a human fetus.
In the same way that this is a human opinion.
It is not a Human fetus, in the same way that my opinion is not a Human, it is human.

Do you understand the difference between noun and adjective?

I do see some plant based fetuses on the no side alright, crusty old men who have no right to tell Irish women what to do with their bodies.

horseburger

kylith wrote: »

Where has anyone described it as not human? It’s not a human _being_ as outlined in my post that you quoted.

To keep insisting that it is is to try to pass your option off as fact, which is dishonest of you.

More shouted and roared, than described.

It's even been stated many times too!

baylah17 wrote: »

A FETUS IS NOT A HUMAN BEING!

baylah17 wrote: »

How many times do you need it explained , a fetus is NOT a living human being.
Get over it and move on.

Ush1

SusieBlue wrote: »

Are you going to keep dropping in with that, as you have done a few times now, or do you have anything constructive to add to the conversation?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106746768&postcount=5399

Thanked by yourself?

FurtherAway

pleas advice wrote: »

epic, but kinda misses the point completely.

there is a difference between active destruction of a human life, and passive indifference

Please explain why a brain dead woman is then actively kept alive instead of simply let die because she's pregnant, but any other brain dead person (not pregnant, I mean!) would not be kept alive against the wishes of the family, regardless of how many lives could potentially depend on that.

Ave Sodalis

Ush1 wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106746768&postcount=5399

Thanked by yourself?

That poster has contributed regularly to the thread.

robarmstrong

horseburger wrote: »

Why are you calling me Bertie?

Presumably because the pair of you have strikingly similar posting styles, thought it may be just an oversight on behalf of the poster.

kylith

horseburger wrote: »

More shouted and roared, than described.

You CAN see the word ‘being’ in there, yeah?

Dude, i’m Just reporting you now because at this stage you are taking the piss.

horseburger

ELM327 wrote: »

It is a human fetus.
In the same way that this is a human opinion.
It is not a Human fetus, in the same way that my opinion is not a Human, it is human.

Do you understand the difference between noun and adjective?

I do see some plant based fetuses on the no side alright, crusty old men who have no right to tell Irish women what to do with their bodies.

Don't get too technical now!:)

What spelling of foetus do you prefer?

Is a fetus different to a foetus?

Ush1

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

That poster has contributed regularly to the thread.

Hardly contributing anything though is it?

horseburger

kylith wrote: »

You CAN see the word ‘being’ in there, yeah?

Dude, i’m Just reporting you now because at this stage you are taking the piss.

I would have thought people who try to argue against logic are pulling the piss.

Timberrrrrrrr

horseburger wrote: »

You know what I meant though, surely?

A living being that starts life in the womb of a female human being, as a result of the joining of a human male sperm and human female egg, can't really be described as anything other than human.

It's made from human DNA

It's not a human being

Seriously.....how are you nit understanding this simple explaination?

Triceratops Ballet

Ush1 wrote: »

Hardly contributing anything though is it?

what are you bringing to the table?

AnneFrank

NuMarvel wrote: »

Repeat it all you want, but you're going to have to do more than just parrot a slogan if you want to convince people.

I'm not trying to convince anyone, either will i try shout down everyone else in this thread with a different opinion.
But thanks for your permission all the same hun.

Ave Sodalis

Ush1 wrote: »

Hardly contributing anything though is it?

Erica is posting here regularly. She has given long and detailed posts on her stance, and her history. The other poster has contributed absolutely nothing except the random "Save the 8th" comments.

darem93

I was delighted to see Dublin full of Yes posters when I was up shopping yesterday. I was also there last weekend and was a bit disheartened to see the No posters by far outnumbering the Yes posters.

However on the way up from Cavan I didn't see a single Yes poster, while every town, village and even poles along the main road were covered in No posters. I think it's obvious the No side have more funding available, but I definitely think it's important the Yes side gets signs out to places outside of Dublin.

robarmstrong

bertieinexile wrote: »

Deleted post.

What happened to "Don't vote Yes unless you are comfortable with abortion on demand of up to 24 weeks"? Where did that route take you?

Also - your statement is wrong, the correct one to make is "Don't vote Yes unless you are comfortable seeing the elimination of 90% of babies prenatally diagnosed with Down Syndrome".

That is what's called an "intelligent, factual argument".

SusieBlue

Ush1 wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106746768&postcount=5399

Thanked by yourself?

Erica74 has made many intelligent, well constructed contributions to this thread and other similar ones. AnneFrank just drops in now and then to say Save the 8th, with absolutely no explanation as to why we should. Massive difference :rolleyes:

Ush1

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

what are you bringing to the table?

....pointing out dogmatism? I'm not the one who said anyone had to "bring something to the table".