The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Ave Sodalis

buckwheat wrote: »

He is clearly not trolling. His opinions go against the majority (mine included) but I can't see anything that suggests he's trolling.

Why don't you argue with him instead of banning him from the thread.

If you look through his posts, he's jumping in and out with soundbite arguments, ignoring questions directed at him, and not contributing to the discussion in any shape or form. If he was actually discussing his views, your point would be valid. However, the poster is not interested in arguing his points, he just disappears until he thinks people have forgotten the questions directed towards him, and ignores any attempts to bring him back to those questions.

nozzferrahhtoo

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Indeed, and I carefully wrote something in the post you are replying to in expectation of you bringing this up. When I wrote "I have ALL the same emotions and compulsions and biology as these people. I do not need to imagine myself in their position, I AM in their position."

Meaning I am not immune to the emotional responses one can get to images of this sort. And I am more aware of such images than most on this forum for other reasons relating to my education, training and background.

But what I also said was that despite having such emotive responses myself, I go one further and bring intellect to bear on the issue too. I can divide from emotional responses in general those that are not really warranted or are being triggered falsely and in a fashion that can mislead.

But you are right, there is little we can do about this other than inform people as best we can what is ACTUALLY going on in images like that, and try to undermine false narratives and concerns that are unwarranted. And in fact I have talked at length in some posts on this very thread about how we often work with women and miscarriages in exactly that way.... to tease out and divest them of false narratives that are causing them suffering..... and separating their concepts of babies from that of a fetus.

But we are an emotive species, and run on narrative. And therefore many people simply do not want their intuitions challenged, especially challenged well.

For example I have asked time and time again of people impressed by those little toes and fingers WHY they want to have moral and ethical concern towards that fetus. And they tell me phrases without substance. "Human Life". "Baby". "Unborn Child". Even Christopher Hitchens whom I believe to have brought his larger-than-mine-by-far intellect to bear on so many subjects, seemed to shut down his brain on the topic of abortion and espouse Anti-Choice views solely on the basis of the words "Unborn Child".

So I then ask those people if I could remove their consciousness from their brain and install it in the physical equivalent of a toaster, and they retained all their previous levels of sentience, consciousness, and capacity for happiness or suffering.... would I have to have moral and ethical concern for that toaster and it's well being. And if so why, and why would I have any ethical concern for the form left behind. The responses so far to this have been A) They run away or They scream "irrelevant" and then run away.

And the reason is clear. Such challenges shine a light on EXACTLY what it is we value when we have moral and ethical concern. And it does so while pointing out that those things we ACTUALLY care about, rather than IMAGINE we care about..... are precisely the things the fetus in your little video there lacks. And this reality is, alas, one they are not prepared to accept.

But in deference to the single point you appear to be making here, I have said it before on this very thread I think..... I have predicted with confidence and accuracy many elections and events in the past years. I felt confident I knew which way elections were going to go and I was right every time. From Trump to Brexitt to SSM to scottish independence to what is going on in Spain and many more. I called them all. And this is the FIRST election where I find myself genuinely and completely unsure about it. I simply can not call it nor so I want to. I simply have no confidence in a result in either direction. I simply do not have that feeling I have had before of "I really feel I know where this is going".

Which is why I never engage with these posts or posters posturing their success before the fact on this thread. Some people on both sides are declaring victory already. And clearly ONE group of people is going to be left red faced, and the other completely forgetting what it is to be magnanimous and lording the victory over the former.



Two things here.

The first is that no, I do not think it next to impossible to snuff out those feelings using the arguments and descriptions I use. And I know this because, as I said earlier in this very post we do EXACTLY that when counselling women who have had miscarriages. And with often very good results. We lead them to a point where they realise a lot of the source of their suffering comes from narratives that are in themselves false or unwarranted. And in this way we can mediate SOME of that suffering. You can read up on this. Simply google scholar papers on grief counselling with respect to miscarriage, and the concepts of "Loss of a baby" versus "Loss of a pregnancy". It is well documented.

The second is that thankfully for the subject of abortion we do not even NEED "a definition of the beginning of human personhood" at all. We just need firm definitions of when this has NOT occurred. Which is both more relevant AND easier to pin down as a concept. When you can show personhood has not even NEARLY begun in a fetus being terminated, then when it is going to begin becomes much less a concern.



No modification or back pedal required, just a clarification as I have failed to convey to you correctly what I meant when I talked about "our young". And what I meant when I wrote "We are pretty much evolved to want to protect our young.". When I clarify this you will understand why no modification or back pedal is required.

Here I was specifically referring to children actually born. We are evolved to have emotional responses to that young. We are programmed by evolution to respond to certain sights and sounds related to youth. Physical form, vulnerability, and much more. And this is a hyper sensitive programming to the point we actually respond in this way to the youth of OTHER species too. I myself am rendered silly by baby wolves and lions.

Then along comes human science and technology and allows us to look INTO The womb during development. Something evolution simply never prepped us for. And we see in such a fetus MUCH of what would trigger us in a fully developed actual baby. And our technology accentuates that effect through things like magnification. For example in your little video link there you get very little impression of the ACTUAL size of that fetus. It is TINY in reality. But watching that video one could very easily imagine a fully grown child, replete with little and fingers and toes, in ones hands.

Worse many people are prone to taking seriously or literally the artistic license of researchers into the fetus. For example we have a user about here who read a line in a study about playing music to the fetus. In an attempt to describe what the oral movements of the fetus LOOKED LIKE the researcher said it looks like "trying to speak". The emotional and unwarranted response of the boards user to this was to react to that as if the fetus actually WAS trying to speak. But most rational actors can tell the difference between "Looks like X" and "IS X". But not everyone.

So no there is no "one of us" narratives coming off what I wrote here. Sorry to disappoint Rather I am pointing out how things like medical technology are allowing triggers we normally have for "one of us" to be accessed at stages where they are not warranted, and were never really evolved into us. And I think you were on the right track with your line "Or I'm just imagining the whole thing.". I think you are.



I would not say it allows me to leave them aside. Rather it inoculates me against false narratives taking hold in the first place that even need to be "left aside" at all. Also I think your phrasing it in that way has the effect, intentional or otherwise, of trying to straw man my position into one of bias. Like you think I am biased towards a pro-choice position and am then retrospectively "leaving anything aside" that conflicts with that.

Nothing could be further than the truth and in fact the only real bias I hold is the axiom of "Innocent until proven guilty" which I apply to concepts as well as people. In that if the termination of a fetus is to be indicted as an immoral act then it is up to those indicting it to make the case against it, not for me to somehow justify something that does not require justification at all. And if all I can do as my part of the pro-choice camp is to point out that such arguments are not forth coming then so be it. That is what I will do.

I also think rights.... and moral and ethical concern.... are in the business of mediating the actions of, and therefore the well being and freedoms of...... conscious and sentient creatures. As such it is generally TO (directly or indirectly) conscious and sentient creatures we are, and should be, affording those concerns.

The fetus at 0-16 weeks might have little toes and fingers and pull emotively at our evolutionary heart strings but when one realises this is NOT a conscious entity, it never has been one, and it is a distinct period of time away from ever being one..... one can still feel those heart strings but be inoculated against their influence. Emotion is not a bad thing, but emotion at the total expense of intellectual rigour is. Peoples moral and ethical concerns for such a fetus even in isolation is not warranted therefore..... but it is not in isolation we are considering it at all..... but in relation to the ACTUAL rights and concerns we afford to the very real and very sentient agent hosting it.

Good response to a post that seemed very personal/stalker like.
I would actually say you handed them their ass in a hat, but I'm sure we'll hear more from Bert.

Edit didn't realise the quote from swampgas was still on the clipboard. Removed it as its not in context to my reply

captbarnacles

All I got from Bert's effort was 'look at the little baby!' and 'shouldn't we all be looking at pictures to decide how to vote'.

January

January wrote: »

Take my example. Feeding my already born children took precedence over me giving birth to another child.

To add to this, I've read a number of heartbreaking stories on that facebook page, about babies who were indeed wanted but passed away or would not survive birth. There was too much uncertainty about a faint heartbeat so the women were sent away and told nothing could be done. Or cases where the women were denied required medical treatment so they might 'save the baby', and did not.

There are so many sad situations even beyond the 'abortion on demand' angle (which i have always been for anyway) just regarding women's health and wanted children, that should be dealt with

captbarnacles wrote: »

All I got from Bert's effort was 'look at the little baby!' and 'shouldn't we all be looking at pictures to decide how to vote'.

I'm often bemused at the pictures one - Should we ban open heart surgery because pictures of it might look yucky??

_Dara_

buckwheat wrote: »

Why don't you argue with him instead of banning him from the thread.

Debating with a troll is as futile as filling a hole-filled bucket with water. Why waste time and energy?

And that poster is 100% a troll. Ave Sodalis outlines above why.

applehunter

captbarnacles wrote: »

All I got from Bert's effort was 'look at the little baby!' and 'shouldn't we all be looking at pictures to decide how to vote'.

I think a lot of the talk/words deflects from the reality of what abortion actually is.

baylah17

applehunter wrote: »

captbarnacles wrote: »

All I got from Bert's effort was 'look at the little baby!' and 'shouldn't we all be looking at pictures to decide how to vote'.

I think a lot of the talk/words deflects from the reality of what abortion actually is.

What abortion actually is can best be described as a woman knowing what's best for herself in her particular circumstances and being free, within limited constraints, to make that choice.

retired00

david75 wrote: »

The same three people banned from the thread thanking his posts. And they’ve been banned from the others also apart from the one in the Christianity forum.

Work from there.

if we all keep reporting the pro-lifers we can get them perma-banned
then we win

baylah17

retired00 wrote: »

david75 wrote: »

The same three people banned from the thread thanking his posts. And they’ve been banned from the others also apart from the one in the Christianity forum.

Work from there.

if we all keep reporting the pro-lifers we can get them perma-banned
then we win

Did you rereg just to make that one post?
Very sad and not even worth reporting

captbarnacles

applehunter wrote: »

I think a lot of the talk/words deflects from the reality of what abortion actually is.

If the fetus was an amorphus mass of cells it would make no difference to my vote but that it would make a difference to yours should give you pause for thought.

Would a blastocyst make it onto the PLC placards? you are now giving equal rights to a fetus because it is vaguely humanoid shaped which is really nonsense.

_Dara_

retired00 wrote: »

if we all keep reporting the pro-lifers we can get them perma-banned
then we win

Hey noob, hope you enjoy boards! o/

Oldtree

retired00 wrote: »

if we all keep reporting the pro-lifers we can get them perma-banned
then we win

Do "We" win a medal? I only report odious posts, and I do mean really odious.

retired00

Oldtree wrote: »

Do "We" win a medal? I only report odious posts, and I do mean really odious.

we have a saying in east germany
report your neighbour who thinks wrong,
then when he goes to gulag you can have his appartment

applehunter

captbarnacles wrote: »

If the fetus was an amorphus mass of cells it would make no difference to my vote but that it would make a difference to yours should give you pause for thought.

Would a blastocyst make it onto the PLC placards? you are now giving equal rights to a fetus because it is vaguely humanoid shaped which is really nonsense.

Thanks for proving my point.

This may sound logical in your brain but would not persuade many to vote for your point of view as it is cynical and full of big fancy words.

Whereas a picture of a dead baby or indeed of a dying mother is much more powerful.

Oldtree

Oldtree wrote: »

Do "We" win a medal? I only report odious posts, and I do mean really odious.

If its cash what's the chances of it being in non-sequential small notes, I'm having a little trouble with the taxman at the moment.

applehunter

applehunter wrote: »

Thanks for proving my point.

This may sound logical in your brain but would not persuade many to vote for your point of view as it is cynical and full of big fancy words.

Whereas a picture of a dead baby or indeed of a dying mother is much more powerful.

Images and misinformation are indeed tools used by the prolife side.

The images they place on their literature are often further along the gestation period that they claim to be.

The media and false information such as increased risk of certain cancers that they offer in the rogue crisis pregnancy centers that they run are an issue. However they could be seen as topics for another thread, and certainly in relation to their pregnancy centres, stricter regulation from the government.

Doctor Jimbob

applehunter wrote: »

Thanks for proving my point.

This may sound logical in your brain but would not persuade many to vote for your point of view as it is cynical and full of big fancy words.

Whereas a picture of a dead baby or indeed of a dying mother is much more powerful.

"Why use facts when you can use emotionally manipulative images?"

Pro life campaigning 101.

The pictures of dead babies you lot are so fond of have absolutely nothing to do with the upcoming referendum. Good to know you're okay with winning votes though outright lies though.

Oldtree

retired00 wrote: »

we have a saying in east germany
report your neighbour who thinks wrong,
then when he goes to gulag you can have his appartment

Are you feeling a bit put upon?

applehunter

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

The pictures of dead babies you lot are so fond of have absolutely nothing to do with the upcoming referendum.

I'd say you are on the wrong thread.

This is the 8th Amendment thread.

Doctor Jimbob

applehunter wrote: »

I'd say you are on the wrong thread.

This is the 8th Amendment thread.

I'm well aware of what thread it is.

I'm also aware that the scaremongering pictures pro-life folk are fond of circulating have nothing to do with the referendum. I'm sure you know that too, but given you admitted you'd prefer lies to facts if it suits your argument, it's hardly surprising that you'd resort to deflection rather than addressing the point.

Zubeneschamali

swampgas wrote: »

So if a rape victim looks you in the eye and says I don't want your support, I don't want to be pregnant, I'm not interested in adoption, then what?

Off to godless England with her, the hussy!

erica74

NuMarvel wrote: »

Simon Harris spoke in the Seanad tonight about the proposed legislation in the event of a Yes vote. No bombshells or surprises, but it's good to get more detail. Some of his comments are below:

On the 12 weeks, without specific indication
"a medical practitioner would have to certify that he/she is of the reasonable opinion, formed in good faith, that the pregnancy concerned has not exceeded 12 weeks. A period of 72 hours would have to elapse between certification and the termination being carried out."

Risk to life and health
"Two medical practitioners would have to certify that in their reasonable opinion (a) there is a risk to the life or of serious harm to the health of the pregnant woman, (b) the foetus has not reached viability and (c) the termination of pregnancy is appropriate to avert the risk."

"This requirement to certify that the foetus has not reached viability is an effective ban on later term abortions. Such a ban does not exist in other countries, like the UK."

As an aside, I think this is the first time it's been said that the risk to health must be of one of "serious harm".

FFA
"Should a referendum on Article 40.3.3 be passed, the Government would propose to permit termination of pregnancy on the grounds of a condition which is likely to lead to death before or shortly after birth.

In these cases, two appropriate medical practitioners, as opposed to just one as was proposed in the Joint Oireachtas Committee report, would be involved in the assessment, recognising that these complex medical cases are currently managed by multidisciplinary teams."

There's more in the article about emergencies, reporting, penalties, and other issues, but I think I captured the main points above.

Really just bumping this up so everybody can have a good read of the important points.

I think what they're proposing is still quite restrictive. Under the "risk to life and health" they're saying the foetus must not be viable. What's the definition of "viable" in this scenario? Does "viable" mean capable to live unaided outside of the womb? I'd be concerned that if the 12 weeks have lapsed and a woman then finds herself in a situation that she can no longer continue with her pregnancy, it may be difficult to have an abortion if the foetus is "viable".
I thought we were getting unrestricted up to 12 weeks and for the health of the woman or foetus up to 25 weeks or did I imagine that?

Edward M

erica74 wrote: »

Really just bumping this up so everybody can have a good read of the important points.

I think what they're proposing is still quite restrictive. Under the "risk to life and health" they're saying the foetus must not be viable. What's the definition of "viable" in this scenario? Does "viable" mean capable to live unaided outside of the womb? I'd be concerned that if the 12 weeks have lapsed and a woman then finds herself in a situation that she can no longer continue with her pregnancy, it may be difficult to have an abortion if the foetus is "viable".
I thought we were getting unrestricted up to 12 weeks and for the health of the woman or foetus up to 25 weeks or did I imagine that?

Really we don't know what we will end up with.
We don't get to decide that, the oireachtad do.
Given the reluctance of some of them even to vote for a referendum there are no guarantees what the final legislation will be.
Sinn Fein haven't said that they will support even the 12 week limit.
Half of FF TDs voted against the referendum.
I'd say even after the referendum is passed, if it is, there is no certainty of what will actually replace it.

Annasopra

Edward M wrote: »

Really we don't know what we will end up with.
We don't get to decide that, the oireachtad do.
Given the reluctance of some of them even to vote for a referendum there are no guarantees what the final legislation will be.
Sinn Fein haven't said that they will support even the 12 week limit.
Half of FF TDs voted against the referendum.
I'd say even after the referendum is passed, if it is, there is no certainty of what will actually replace it.

You are right. There is no certainty.

What we can be certain is that the 8th amendment will be removed and replaced with a clause allowing the Oireachtas to legislate.

Edward M

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

One of the reasons I like Boards over other internet forums is because they have posting standards, regardless of the topic.

Not sure why you feel justified giving a snide comment?

Personally, I've never reported a post, let them say what they like, if its stupid it shows and actually weakens their argument.
There have been accusations of ganging up on posters on here already, just a few posts ago one choice poster said to another, I'll report this post, will you do it too.
Its funny to look at others throwing hizzy fits over certain posts, I always think my truth surely isn't theirs and leave it at that.

Annasopra

Edward M wrote: »

Personally, I've never reported a post, let them say what they like, if its stupid it shows and actually weakens their argument.
There have been accusations of ganging up on posters on here already, just a few posts ago one choice poster said to another, I'll report this post, will you do it too.
Its funny to look at others throwing hizzy fits over certain posts, I always think my truth surely isn't theirs and leave it at that.

Yeah I didnt think that was appropriate. Understandable though given that this thread has attracted a large number of rereg accounts, of trolling, of shilling, of offensive posting, of blatant attempts to undermine repeal by pretense of supporting it while espousing opposition.

Edward M

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Yeah I didnt think that was appropriate. Understandable though given that this thread has attracted a large number of rereg accounts, of trolling, of shilling, of offensive posting, of blatant attempts to undermine repeal by pretense of supporting it while espousing opposition.

But will that not just bring the banned poster back as another re reg?

dudara

Edward M wrote: »

But will that not just bring the banned poster back as another re reg?

Some will re-register, even though it’s against site rules. Some won’t. Just something we have to deal with. If you believe someone is trolling or is a re-reg, please report them, and we can look into it.

Ave Sodalis

Edward M wrote:

Personally, I've never reported a post, let them say what they like, if its stupid it shows and actually weakens their argument. There have been accusations of ganging up on posters on here already, just a few posts ago one choice poster said to another, I'll report this post, will you do it too. Its funny to look at others throwing hizzy fits over certain posts, I always think my truth surely isn't theirs and leave it at that.

Good for you, I've only reported the ones with personal abuse. However, I can also acknowledge that the poster was dragging down the standard of the thread, whilst contributing nothing and not engaging in discussion. Posters who have done that in other threads on other topics have been banned from the thread for doing it too. It's nothing to do with his stance on the referendum and I would hope that if someone on the pro-repeal side was posting in the same manner, they would also be removed. You can report away at posts, but that doesn't mean there will be a mod action against them. In this case, the poster was deemed to be not contributing to the point of trolling. Maybe not a troll in himself, but 50 posts of soundbite and no discussion is a bit much, to the point of being considered against Boards standards, which I think is fair.

Before you start crying bias, the mod in question has banned people from both sides of the discussion.

NuMarvel

erica74 wrote: »

Really just bumping this up so everybody can have a good read of the important points.

I think what they're proposing is still quite restrictive. Under the "risk to life and health" they're saying the foetus must not be viable. What's the definition of "viable" in this scenario? Does "viable" mean capable to live unaided outside of the womb? I'd be concerned that if the 12 weeks have lapsed and a woman then finds herself in a situation that she can no longer continue with her pregnancy, it may be difficult to have an abortion if the foetus is "viable".

He goes into that in a bit more detail in the article. As he sees it, viability is "the point in a pregnancy at which, in the reasonable opinion of a medical practitioner, the foetus is capable of sustained survival outside the uterus" He also talks about what doctors would consider in making their decisions on a case by case basis, in consultation with the woman.

erica74 wrote: »

I thought we were getting unrestricted up to 12 weeks and for the health of the woman or foetus up to 25 weeks or did I imagine that?

I don't think a 25 week term limit was mentioned before. The Assembly supported up to 22 weeks for health grounds, and the Committee didn't include term limits in their recommendations, saying it could be decided in consultation with best medical practice when legislation was being drafted.