The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

.......

This post has been deleted.

Sofiztikated

RobertKK wrote: »

That is like saying a woman who lost a child has to be shielded from society because she will see children and it will remind her of own child.

So no compassion for her, and the 1 in 4 pregancies that end in miscarraige, (a higher real number that your made up and disproven 1 in 5) and not answering a fair question.

Who did you say wasn't engaging in the debate?

NuMarvel

I see Robert's got the Wednesday morning shift. Who's scheduled for this afternoon?

RobertKK

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I know. But you inadvertently made a great point. Care to address it?

Yes, people are too sensitive and feel the need that society should shield them away from reality, which aids ignorance in general society.

nozzferrahhtoo

RobertKK wrote: »

Your argument is why a group of ethicists in Oxford University said infanticide should be allowed as the born baby has the same understandings as an unborn baby.

It has nothing to do with "understanding". At 12 weeks the fetus does not even have the faculty of consciousness, sentience or understanding at all. It is not about relative levels of understanding. It is about the presence of the faculty involved in the first place.

You might do well to cite the ethicists you speak of therefore as either they do not know what they are talking about AT ALL or you are misrepresenting what they actually said.

Citations are a wonderful thing. For example here is me actually citing the direct views of Ethical Philosopher Peter Singer:

"Seems like several people want me to answer this question, so the short answer, though, is that I don't think the embryo or fetus should be regarded as having a right to life. That's because, although I agree with opponents of abortion that the fetus is a living being of the species Homo sapiens I don't think that mere species membership gives a being a right to life. As a result, I don't think there is anything wrong with abortion unless the abortion is carried out so late in pregnancy that the fetus might feel pain during the procedure. (That is unlikely to be earlier than 20 weeks - the overwhelming majority of abortions are performed much earlier than this.)"

Now you know how a citation works, maybe you will try one?

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

Your argument is why a group of ethicists in Oxford University said infanticide should be allowed as the born baby has the same understandings as an unborn baby.

that may well be their argument but it is not mine. how about you respond to my argument?

.......

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes, people are too sensitive and feel the need that society should shield them away from reality, which aids ignorance in general society.

so you have no issue showing graphic images to young children?

AtomicHorror

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes, people are too sensitive and feel the need that society should shield them away from reality, which aids ignorance in general society.

That doesn't address what I asked...

RobertKK

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Maybe ask a question so I don’t have to search.

There are a lot of people currently on the repeal shift working here at the moment...

kylith

RobertKK wrote: »

First of all I am sorry to hear about the miscarriages.

If abortion is fine, then what is offensive about aborted babies? Do they look too human?

Do you think it's appropriate to show pictures of medical waste to children? Is it ok to show them excised tumours? Eyeball surgery?

I have vivid memories from my childhood of the anti abortion posters often displayed around college green. As an adult it doesn't bother me, as a child the images of dissected foetuses gave me nightmares.

Even last year at the march for repeal there were large images of dissected foetuses prominently displayed by counter-protesters. Do you think that these images are appropriate in public areas?

Triceratops Ballet

I guarantee if there were repeal posters of Savita on the streets, repeal would be accused of "disgracefully using the image of a dead woman to further an agenda of baby killing" or some such nonsense

Timberrrrrrrr

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes, people are too sensitive and feel the need that society should shield them away from reality, which aids ignorance in general society.

So children should be shown beheading video's

RobertKK

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you have no issue showing graphic images to young children?

I grew up in a farm. You are exposed to a lot of stuff that city people would feel their children need to be shielded from.
Cows and heifers have natural abortions and that didn’t affect me seeing them as a child as it is a part of nature which one can’t control.
I was a child old enough to remember the 1983 referendum, the images then did not have a negative effect on me.

.......

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

I grew up in a farm. You are exposed to a lot of stuff that city people would feel their children need to be shielded from.
Cows and heifers have natural abortions and that didn’t affect me seeing them as a child as it is a part of nature which one can’t control.
I was a child old enough to remember the 1983 referendum, the images then did not have a negative effect on me.

good for you. it didn't bother you so why should anybody else be bothered, is that it? your lack of empathy for parents of very young children is contemptible.

RobertKK

kylith wrote: »

Do you think it's appropriate to show pictures of medical waste to children? Is it ok to show them excised tumours? Eyeball surgery?

I have vivid memories from my childhood of the anti abortion posters often displayed around college green. As an adult it doesn't bother me, as a child the images of dissected foetuses gave me nightmares.

Even last year at the march for repeal there were large images of dissected foetuses prominently displayed by counter-protesters. Do you think that these images are appropriate in public areas?

What is wrong with natural biology?
Your argument is like children shouldn’t go to London, Paris and elsewhere in Europe as a suicide bomber might strike and a child would be exposed to body parts, because it is the body parts that are offensive, rather than the cause of the body parts being seen.

NuMarvel

RobertKK wrote: »

I grew up in a farm. You are exposed to a lot of stuff that city people would feel their children need to be shielded from.
Cows and heifers have natural abortions and that didn’t affect me seeing them as a child as it is a part of nature which one can’t control.
I was a child old enough to remember the 1983 referendum, the images then did not have a negative effect on me.

Considering you said you were searching for images of aborted foetuses only a few posts back, I'm not so sure about that.

.......

This post has been deleted.

robarmstrong

NuMarvel wrote: »

Considering you said you were searching for images of aborted foetuses only a few posts back, I'm not so sure about that.

Doesn't post a genuine picture of an aborted fetus.

Can't understand why people consider it graphic and offensive.

RobertKK

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

good for you. it didn't bother you so why should anybody else be bothered, is that it? your lack of empathy for parents of very young children is contemptible.

You want a world without reality.

kylith

RobertKK wrote: »

Here is what an unborn looks like at 12 weeks, you see no humanity in this...

RobertKK wrote: »

I was going to use an image of a real 12 week old that was miscarried but decided against it so used a similar plastic image instead.

Just had a google of a 12 week miscarriage and I would put money on the fact that you did not use that image because far from looking like that plastic doll it actually looks like a cross between the Asgard from SG1, the albino Alien/human hybrid from Aliens, and a nightmare. It's skin is translucent, it's head is significantly larger, it has zero fat, and it looks a lot less 'baby' like than that doll.

circadian

RobertKK wrote: »

What is wrong with natural biology?
Your argument is like children shouldn’t go to London, Paris and elsewhere in Europe as a suicide bomber might strike and a child would be exposed to body parts, because it is the body parts that are offensive, rather than the cause of the body parts being seen.

That's quite the leap.

I grew up in the North during The Troubles. I witnessed the aftermath of several bombings, including one that killed a family member. As a child, I seen a man dying after being hit in the face with a rubber bullet, his face mangled.

There is absolutely no way I would want my children to experience this. Not even remotely.

Just like I wouldn't want them to see images of abortions or any other surgery for that matter.

What exactly is wrong with shielding my children from images that are graphic and completely unnecessary?

RobertKK

NuMarvel wrote: »

Considering you said you were searching for images of aborted foetuses only a few posts back, I'm not so sure about that.

I would be reported by people here and maybe thread banned because people here would go nuts as reality is too much for them and to appease people I might be sacrificed.

optogirl

RobertKK wrote: »

You want a world without reality.

As opposed to ignoring the fact that 12 Irish women a day are travelling for abortion services, countless others are ordering pills online and risking their own lives to do so, that parents with FFA diagnoses for their pregnancies are having to travel to deal with same, that rape victims including CHILDREN are being forced to carry a pregnancy through to term. That is the reality.

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

You want a world without reality.

I want a world without people who think it is ok to frighten young children. Same old story though. the anti-choice crowd dont give a monkeys what happens to a child once it has been born.

.......

This post has been deleted.

kylith

RobertKK wrote: »

What is wrong with natural biology?
Your argument is like children shouldn’t go to London, Paris and elsewhere in Europe as a suicide bomber might strike and a child would be exposed to body parts, because it is the body parts that are offensive, rather than the cause of the body parts being seen.

What on earth are you talking about?

A million-to-one terrorist attack is the equivalent of anti-repeal groups plastering shopping areas and main streets with graphic imagery where they can't not be seen?

Are you seriously for real?

RobertKK

circadian wrote: »

That's quite the leap.

I grew up in the North during The Troubles. I witnessed the aftermath of several bombings, including one that killed a family member. As a child, I seen a man dying after being hit in the face with a rubber bullet, his face mangled.

There is absolutely no way I would want my children to experience this. Not even remotely.

Just like I wouldn't want them to see images of abortions or any other surgery for that matter.

What exactly is wrong with shielding my children from images that are graphic and completely unnecessary?

Why exactly is abortion offensive?

ohnonotgmail

I have to say RobertKK is play an absolute blinder this morning. He is doing the repeal side a huge favour with his posts. So much so i would nearly suspect he was a poe.