The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

robarmstrong

horseburger wrote: »

I would have thought peoplepro-life individuals with no factual counterclaims who try to argue against logic are pulling the piss.

FYP

Zubeneschamali

horseburger wrote: »

Was there something you expected me to say in response to you talking about your appendix?

You are very concerned about the fate of a fetus because it is human and alive.
You are entirely unconcerned about the fate of my appendix, which is also human and alive.

Evidently you think there is some other quality the fetus has which makes it worthy of concern beyond simply being human and alive. Perhaps you could explain.

Sofiztikated

horseburger wrote: »

As I already stated, one of the cases would be where there no chance of any kind of length of life after birth, like anencephaly.

Why though? Why would one abortion be different to another? Surely one human being is equal to another human being?

And what of the human being that that bares it?

What about the woman that has undergone multiple knee surgeries, and the effect a pregnancy has on her body meaning she might end up crippled?

The one trying to get an education to escape poverty?

Potential human being < Current human bring.

Triceratops Ballet

bertieinexile wrote: »

Deleted post.

I had to check the date on this post because I thought I was reading a post from a few days ago.

Why are you talking about Australia?

bertieinexile wrote: »

Deleted post.

90% of people with DS will be eliminated really?
Talk about a fanciful twisting of the truth, can you link me to the details of this proposed genocide?

Mr. CooL ICE

horseburger wrote: »

Don't get too technical now!:)

What spelling of foetus do you prefer?

Is a fetus different to a foetus?

Mod: Enough of this nonsense. This line of argument is serving no purpose other than to derail the thread.

Stop with the 'human' argument. Refer to this post. Perhaps a primary school English textbook if you're still confused.



Everyone else, stop referencing horseburger's use of the 'human' argument. Otherwise, you will be adding to the thread derailment.

AnneFrank

Ush1 wrote: »

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

It's ok though, as long as you agree with them.

Wombatman

bertieinexile wrote: »

Deleted post.

Would reducing the incidence of ds births to zero not be a good thing?

NuMarvel

One thing about posters: they're are an important part of the campaign, but talking to people is key to a Yes win. Over 13,000 people donated to the crowdfunding; if they all just convinced 5 undecided or No people to vote yes before the referendum, that's 65,000 people. Referendums have been won and lost on far less.

Posters are all well and good, but don't get complacent by thinking the more posters that are up, the more likely people will vote Yes.

horseburger

darem93 wrote: »

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.

Can I ask you since you mentioned Cavan.

Did you think that Niamh Smyth TD Fianna Fáil, when she spoke about the issue of the Eighth Amendment, spoke sincerely, when she raised concerns about abortion, when she spoke on Tonight with Matt and Ivan on TV3 recently?

Is she anti-woman?

I thought she spoke sincerely on this clearly very contentious issue, where there are certain pro choice groups, who are every bit as hostile to opposing views, as certain pro life groups.

AnneFrank

horseburger wrote: »

Can I ask you since you mentioned Cavan.

Did you think that Niamh Smyth TD Fianna Fáil, when she spoke about the issue of the Eighth Amendment, when she raised concerns about abortion, when she spoke on Tonight with Matt and Ivan on TV3 recently?

Is she anti-woman?

I thought she spoke sincerely on this clearly very contentious issue, where there are certain pro choice groups, who are every bit as hostile to opposing views, as certain pro life groups.

Look how many are in this thread, such a one sided discussion because you'll be shouted down for having a differing view, Unfortunately i think it will pass, but it could be closer than people think.

Mr. CooL ICE

AnneFrank wrote: »

Look how many are in this thread, such a one sided discussion because you'll be shouted down for having a differing view, Unfortunately i think it will pass, but it could be closer than people think.

Where are people being shouted down for having a different view?

People are being shouted down for constantly posting lies and/or absolute gibberish

AnneFrank

Case in point.

Ave Sodalis

AnneFrank wrote:

Look how many are in this thread, such a one sided discussion because you'll be shouted down for having a differing view, Unfortunately i think it will pass, but it could be closer than people think.

Shouted down? Who has been shouted down?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but everyone else is entitled to have an opinion on that opinion. You cannot expect to come onto a discussion forum and not discuss anything. Or is it a case that because most people on this thread are pro-choice, majority of them should shut up and keep silent to even it up a bit?

Also, can you see the difference between a single sentence post made by someone who is otherwise actively involved in a thread, or one made by someone who just shows up to make a single sentence post?

Mr. CooL ICE

bertieinexile wrote: »

Everybody will have access up to 24 weeks for Down Syndrome and best indicators are we would have a 90% rate of abortion of people with Down Syndrome

Mod: bertieinexile, do not post in this thread again.

Reason: Ignoring direct mod instruction here and here.

Mr. CooL ICE

AnneFrank wrote: »

Case in point.

Please elaborate

nozzferrahhtoo

AnneFrank wrote: »

I'm not trying to convince anyone, either will i try shout down everyone else in this thread with a different opinion.

Hardly. In the last month you have 2 posts on this thread and both of them were identical and both of them were a one liner.

You have basically not expressed anything TO shout down. You are just playing the standard victim card people play when they are disagreed with. Which is simply to portray disagreement or dissent as if it is hostile, an attack, an affront or an offence.

This is a DISCUSSION site. If you post an opinion and a number of people are disagreeing with you, that is not "Shouting you down". The phrase to "Shout someone down" means to prevent them from speaking or getting their points across at all by drowning them out with noise. The great thing about on line forums is no one can do that. They can reply to your post, but they can not shout loud enough to prevent you from posting it.

Coming into a discussion and debate forum, and getting haughty when people discuss and debate though is about as sensible and meaningful as going into a pub and complaining that people there keep offering you alcohol.

You want to save the 8th, I am all ears as to why. Do you have any reasons or reasoning for this other than that which I covered in the middle of the three sections of this post here? Or did I pretty much cover your position there?

bertieinexile

SNIP

Banned.

Zubeneschamali

bertieinexile wrote: »

Deleted post.

In a recent post, I showed that the UK figures applied here would actually mean the elimination of 66% of babies with Down Syndrome, not 90% as claimed.

But this is a really weird argument - if abortion is not OK, what has DS to do with it? If it is murder, a crime, a sin or whatever, I don't see how a DS diagnosis makes it better or worse.

And if abortion is OK without a DS diagnosis, how is it not OK with? It's completely illogical.

I think it is an effort to get people to somehow associate abortion with discrimination/prejudice against people with DS.

January

You think you know all the reasons why women should be able to access abortion in their home country, then out of the blue a fact like this hits you in the face and you have to take a step back and realise your privilege.

https://twitter.com/TFYEastCork/status/985336217599381504

ELM327

horseburger wrote: »

Don't get too technical now!:)

What spelling of foetus do you prefer?

Is a fetus different to a foetus?

Trying to make you feel more at home as an american.

robarmstrong

bertieinexile wrote: »

Deleted post.

I know you're threadbanned, and rightly so.

It actually took you here https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106739313&postcount=5244

I'm sorry I disappointed you Bertie, you disappointed me as well, there I was, preparing myself for a good intellectual discussion but instead it was derailed by your consistent deflection and misinterpretations of statements followed by the inevitable "what I'm saying is right" part.

You're wrong about abortion on demand on up to 24 weeks, you've been proven wrong on that.

You then made an even bolder claim regarding DS abortions without (most likely) reading that the figure stems from pre-natal diagnoses of DS. 90% of DS children are not in fact, aborted, as 64% of these cases are only diagnosed pre-natally (before they are born, so 36% are diagnosed after they're born).

I think I'm doing a stellar job for the pro-choice crowd to be quite honest bertie, but they don't need my help, as individuals like you give them all the fuel and ammunition they need.

'til next time son.

Trasna1

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In a recent post, I showed that the UK figures applied here would actually mean the elimination of 66% of babies with Down Syndrome, not 90% as claimed.

But this is a really weird argument - if abortion is not OK, what has DS to do with it? If it is murder, a crime, a sin or whatever, I don't see how a DS diagnosis makes it better or worse.

And if abortion is OK without a DS diagnosis, how is it not OK with? It's completely illogical.

I think it is an effort to get people to somehow associate abortion with discrimination/prejudice against people with DS.

Presumably because it feels like eugenics. I guess it's the idea that people aren't wanted because they are not perfect enough, rather than for another reason like ffa.

It is obviously much harder to argue the moral grounds for abortion if the reason for doing so is on the grounds of disability, no more than gender.

captbarnacles

bertieinexile wrote: »

....even more nonsense.....

Bertie appears to be debating a completely different referendum to the one in May.

You cannot diagnose DS after 12 weeks afaik hence you could not get a termination here for DS so you know what will happen? women who decide after getting a definite diagnosis they cannot cope with this will go to England to obtain a termination and this you and all other prolifers have no objection to!!

amdublin

January wrote: »

You think you know all the reasons why women should be able to access abortion in their home country, then out of the blue a fact like this hits you in the face and you have to take a step back and realise your privilege.

https://twitter.com/TFYEastCork/status/985336217599381504

Gosh not something you'd think about at All, agree

*adds to my list of why I'm voting Yes to repeal the 8th

NuMarvel

Trasna1 wrote: »

Presumably because it feels like eugenics. I guess it's the idea that people aren't wanted because they are not perfect enough, rather than for another reason like ffa.

It is obviously much harder to argue the moral grounds for abortion if the reason for doing so is on the grounds of disability, no more than gender.

Well, to bring us back on topic, the proposed Irish law won't include disability as grounds for abortion, and it won't be covered by other grounds for practical reasons. In reality, women who wish to access abortion because of disability will continue to travel to the UK or elsewhere.

seamus

Some friendly advice for anyone who may not be aware (and this goes for both the pro and anti repeal side);

If you see something on social media that you don't like, then don't engage it. Don't add a reaction, don't comment, don't share it so you can be angry.

Any and all interactions are a good thing for the post. The network's algorithm says that this is something that people want to see, and it ranks it higher up peoples' newsfeeds, whether they want to see it or not. Facebook doesn't care whether you like or hate a post, it doesn't care that you're fighting ignorance by correcting it, it only cares that it has engaged your attention. And it will show you more of the same, and it will show your network more of the same.

If you really need to add a reaction to share with your own network, screenshot the offending post, and post that image to your feed. If someone shares something you don't like, the most effective thing you can do is block it. This tells the software not to show you more of the same and by extension to not show it to your network.

This is how the cambridge analytica stuff spread; by exploiting the fact that hysterical posts grab the attention of everyone and spread faster than factual posts. Facebook makes money not by showing you stuff you like, but by showing any posts to as many people as possible.

Shadowstrife

^ Maybe stay off FB entirely. The only thing I find it useful for is to find out if Irish friends abroad are alive during a terrorist attack

Trasna1

NuMarvel wrote: »

Well, to bring us back on topic, the proposed Irish law won't include disability as grounds for abortion, and it won't be covered by other grounds for practical reasons. In reality, women who wish to access abortion because of disability will continue to travel to the UK or elsewhere.

But as we discussed earlier, the proposed law is irrelevant. There will be no constitutional limitation on the grounds for abortion.
We are not voting on the legislation.

NuMarvel

seamus wrote: »

Some friendly advice for anyone who may not be aware (and this goes for both the pro and anti repeal side);

If you see something on social media that you don't like, then don't engage it. Don't add a reaction, don't comment, don't share it so you can be angry.

Any and all interactions are a good thing for the post. The network's algorithm says that this is something that people want to see, and it ranks it higher up peoples' newsfeeds, whether they want to see it or not. Facebook doesn't care whether you like or hate a post, it doesn't care that you're fighting ignorance by correcting it, it only cares that it has engaged your attention. And it will show you more of the same, and it will show your network more of the same.

If you really need to add a reaction to share with your own network, screenshot the offending post, and post that image to your feed. If someone shares something you don't like, the most effective thing you can do is block it. This tells the software not to show you more of the same and by extension to not show it to your network.

This is how the cambridge analytica stuff spread; by exploiting the fact that hysterical posts grab the attention of everyone and spread faster than factual posts. Facebook makes money not by showing you stuff you like, but by showing any posts to as many people as possible.

I've started doing something along those lines; liberal use of the mute or block buttons, and if I'm sharing something, I screenshot it. And with screenshots of lies/bunkum/nonsense, I crop out the author as well so the attention is focused on the message than the messenger.

Wombatman

January wrote: »

You think you know all the reasons why women should be able to access abortion in their home country, then out of the blue a fact like this hits you in the face and you have to take a step back and realise your privilege.

https://twitter.com/TFYEastCork/status/985336217599381504

Totally behind a yes vote but this is stretching things a little. Most people don't understand any type of sign language so it makes little difference. British sign language is also used here.