Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 728 of 733 FirstFirst ... 228628678718724725726727728729730731732 ... LastLast
Results 7,271 to 7,280 of 7330

Thread: Repeal the 8th (Second Thread)

  1. #7271
    Witch petaljam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    The Coven
    Posts
    31,330
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Conor_Myers View Post
    I donít understand how your points about miscarriages or women traveling are in any way relevant to the point at hand which is that it is not extremism for any group to seek to have their views reflected in law.
    Seeking to have one's extremist views put into the law is extremist. Removing human rights from women in favour of rights for foetuses is now seen as extremist in secular societies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conor_Myers View Post
    So i didnít put words in you mouth - I asked if either of two interpretations were whT you meant - if itís something else please explain.
    I did, several times. Try reading what it says.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conor_Myers View Post
    Your points arenít relevant to whether or not it is extremism for a group to seek to have what they consider to be weak and vulnerable protected by the law.
    Already explained. Puppies are weak and vulnerable, but any rights we give them are strictly subordinated to the rights of people, ie we don't seek to give puppies legal rights that conflict with people's human rights.

    Whereas you want to remove women's rights to give rights to foetuses : you need to show why you think foetuses should have these conflicting rights to women. "I think they are weak and vulnerable" isn't enough to allow you to remove women's rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conor_Myers View Post
    Yes we have now moved to a situation where as asociety we have decided that the unborn donít warrant any protection but my only point here is that there is nothing extreme in the prolife position seeking to have protection in law for the unborn. The fact that the electorate rejected it is neither here nor there.
    You've ignored the fact that I have no problem with the unborn being given rights, what I'm asking you to do is explain why you think those rights should be allowed come into conflict with the woman's human rights.

    You still haven't done that.

    And the point about the electorate having rejected it is that we are no longer in a situation where these issues are barely mentionable : a full and frank discussion was had and your views were resoundingly rejected.

    I'm not saying you have to change your mind because of that vote, just pointing out that people are not going to change their minds about this if the extent of your argument is to keep repeating the same assertions over and over. The idea that people are all a bit stupid or ill informed and that that is why they voted to repeal is delusional.
    KOBO

  2. #7272
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    998
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by petaljam View Post
    Seeking to have one's extremist views put into the law is extremist. Removing human rights from women in favour of rights for foetuses is now seen as extremist in secular societies.



    I did, several times. Try reading what it says.



    Already explained. Puppies are weak and vulnerable, but any rights we give them are strictly subordinated to the rights of people, ie we don't seek to give puppies legal rights that conflict with people's human rights.

    Whereas you want to remove women's rights to give rights to foetuses : you need to show why you think foetuses should have these conflicting rights to women. "I think they are weak and vulnerable" isn't enough to allow you to remove women's rights.


    You've ignored the fact that I have no problem with the unborn being given rights, what I'm asking you to do is explain why you think those rights should be allowed come into conflict with the woman's human rights.

    You still haven't done that.

    And the point about the electorate having rejected it is that we are no longer in a situation where these issues are barely mentionable : a full and frank discussion was had and your views were resoundingly rejected.

    I'm not saying you have to change your mind because of that vote, just pointing out that people are not going to change their minds about this if the extent of your argument is to keep repeating the same assertions over and over. The idea that people are all a bit stupid or ill informed and that that is why they voted to repeal is delusional.
    I'm not sure why you are seeking to reopen the referendum debate with me. My point was simply in response to the suggestion that prolifers are entitled to their point of view but that it is somehow out of order for them to seek to have unborn human life protected by the law.

    I'm merely stating that it is part of any normal functioning society to have legislation to protect the weak and vulnerable. It is upto society to decide what categories of humanity (don't think anyone was discussing non-human life in this context) warrant protection. In our case the electorate has recently overwhelmingly rejected the notion that unborn human life is worthy of protection (well upto 12 weeks anyway) but has decided that there is protection of varying levels after 12 weeks.

    So while I might think it doesn't go far enough it is still legislation that protects what society has deemed worthy of some level of protection - so the idea that seeking to have protection for unborn human life included in legislation is by defininition extremist simply doesn't hold true.

  3. #7273
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    5,827
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Conor, do you consider your views to be mainstream?

  4. #7274
    Witch petaljam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    The Coven
    Posts
    31,330
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Conor_Myers View Post
    I'm not sure why you are seeking to reopen the referendum debate with me.
    I'm not. Pointing out that these issues were thoroughly discussed and your view rejected as unconvincing is not trying to reopen the debate,

    Quote Originally Posted by Conor_Myers View Post
    My point was simply in response to the suggestion that prolifers are entitled to their point of view but that it is somehow out of order for them to seek to have unborn human life protected by the law.
    Yes, because we have had that discussion and their point of view was examined and found to be deeply flawed. So, because this would entail a reduction in the rights of women, it is offensive of you to continue to ignore women's rights as though this major objection had no importance to you.

    When you can explain why exactly women's rights can legitimately be removed to protect the embryo even though IVF embryos have no right to protection, then you can expect your views to be listened to more favourably.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conor_Myers View Post
    I'm merely stating that it is part of any normal functioning society to have legislation to protect the weak and vulnerable. It is upto society to decide what categories of humanity (don't think anyone was discussing non-human life in this context) warrant protection. In our case the electorate has recently overwhelmingly rejected the notion that unborn human life is worthy of protection (well upto 12 weeks anyway) but has decided that there is protection of varying levels after 12 weeks.

    So while I might think it doesn't go far enough it is still legislation that protects what society has deemed worthy of some level of protection - so the idea that seeking to have protection for unborn human life included in legislation is by defininition extremist simply doesn't hold true.
    You are ignoring (and we all know why) that the protection of the unborn per se is not the problem, it is the corresponding removal of rights for women that prolifers require that is the sticking point.

    So unless you engage with this point, you are not even trying to reopen the referendum debate, you are trying to behave as though it didn't happen.

    And self delusion is rarely a good point of departure for convincing sceptics.
    KOBO

  5. #7275
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    998
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buchaill Dana View Post
    Conor, do you consider your views to be mainstream?
    Which "views" are you referring to?

    That human life begins at conception? Yes pretty much everyone accepts that.

    That unborn human life warrants protection from conception? No - based on the referendum result upto 2/3 rejected that.

    That unborn human life warrants some protection after 12 weeks? Yes - that seems to be accepted by most.

    That a human being conceived by rape is just as much a human being as one conceived in a loving environment? A bit trickier - after birth yes I think - but prior to birth definitely not. Obviously very emotive with genuine views on both sides held in good faith.

    That all human life no matter how sick or how loved or how difficult its life is going to be deserves their chance at that life? Again probably not but a very emotive area where the prolife view, while valid, can seem to make very distressing cases even worse for those involved.

    None of these are easy and the reality is that there are competing rights in often very difficult and distressing scenarios and I think an attempt has to be made to balance those rights.

  6. #7276
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    5,827
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    No, pretty much everyone doesnt. Thats what the church teach.

    I think we have our answer as the rest stems from that.

  7. #7277
    Witch petaljam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    The Coven
    Posts
    31,330
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Conor_Myers View Post
    Which "views" are you referring to?

    That human life begins at conception? Yes pretty much everyone accepts that.
    If they do, then perhaps the sticking point is what one concludes from that?

    Because it's clearly not true that "pretty much everyone" thinks that the MAP or selective destruction of IVF embryos should be considered as being anything like the death of a person. In fact almost nobody does, including, it seems, the majority of prolifers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conor_Myers View Post
    That unborn human life warrants protection from conception? No - based on the referendum result upto 2/3 rejected that.
    Which makes your belief extreme, right? As in, on the fringes of what most people believe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conor_Myers View Post
    That unborn human life warrants some protection after 12 weeks? Yes - that seems to be accepted by most.
    But that's not what you believe. You think 11 weeks is exactly the same as 12 or 13 or 30 weeks, right?
    So you're not being entirely frank and honest here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conor_Myers View Post
    That a human being conceived by rape is just as much a human being as one conceived in a loving environment? A bit trickier - after birth yes I think - but prior to birth definitely not. Obviously very emotive with genuine views on both sides held in good faith.
    More disingenuous twisting of views going on here - it's not because other people believe that at all, it's because they cannot envisage that a woman pregnant from rape should be forced to continue that pregnancy if she doesn't wish to.

    It's got literally nothing to do with the status of the embryo conceived through rape, that would be frankly bizarre - because if that were so then there is no reason why birth should change its status. After all, the rape would still have happened.

    It is about people's beliefs that the embryo does not and cannot have the same consideration as a living person, whether that is the pregnant woman or a person conceived by rape. Someone who has been born.

    If you think that being born via a rape makes a person worth less than someone else, then that is a very extreme opinion.

    And if you think that being conceived via a rape does the same but that birth ends that distinction then how is that compatible with the prolife view that fertilisation is the essential point?

    Quote Originally Posted by Conor_Myers View Post
    That all human life no matter how sick or how loved or how difficult its life is going to be deserves their chance at that life? Again probably not but a very emotive area where the prolife view, while valid, can seem to make very distressing cases even worse for those involved.
    Why only "see to make" - do you think that forcing someone to remain pregnant in such a case may actually be for their own good in the end?

    IMO - and that of most people I suspect - it is not the prolife view you have enunciated ("everyone deserves a chance at life") that is what makes these distressing cases even worse, it is the belief that they are so self evidently right about this that they are entitled to force those beliefs on the people involved. That is what makes it distressing - being forced to obey someone else's beliefs dictated from on high when they are not the ones going though the tragedy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conor_Myers View Post
    None of these are easy and the reality is that there are competing rights in often very difficult and distressing scenarios and I think an attempt has to be made to balance those rights.
    Balance which rights please?
    You have - yet again - failed to consider the rights of the pregnant woman, so how can you talk of balancing the unborn's rights against rights you refuse to acknowledge or enumerate?
    KOBO

  8. #7278
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    998
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buchaill Dana View Post
    No, pretty much everyone doesnt. Thats what the church teach.

    I think we have our answer as the rest stems from that.
    Are you suggesting that human life beginning at conception is not a "mainstream" view? By mainstream I mean a scientific fact accepted by pretty much everyone except yourself and Lumpy Talbot.

  9. #7279
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    5,827
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Conor_Myers View Post
    Are you suggesting that human life beginning at conception is not a "mainstream" view? By mainstream I mean a scientific fact accepted by pretty much everyone except yourself and Lumpy Talbot.
    I am. Its not even a minority scientific view. Its a religious view.

  10. #7280
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    998
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by petaljam View Post
    If they do, then perhaps the sticking point is what one concludes from that?

    Because it's clearly not true that "pretty much everyone" thinks that the MAP or selective destruction of IVF embryos should be considered as being anything like the death of a person. In fact almost nobody does, including, it seems, the majority of prolifers.
    Absolutely it is - that is the whole basis for the controversy about abortion. There are two humans involved and what is the fairest approach to balancing those competing rights,

    Quote Originally Posted by petaljam View Post
    Which makes your belief extreme, right? As in, on the fringes of what most people believe.
    If you want to define extreme as a minority view you can do that. I would describe it more as an unpopular view at present.

    Quote Originally Posted by petaljam View Post

    But that's not what you believe. You think 11 weeks is exactly the same as 12 or 13 or 30 weeks, right?
    So you're not being entirely frank and honest here.
    Clearly I made a mistake trying to answer the Buachaill's question as fully as possible. Both himself and yourself seem more interested in leaping on aspects of the response to reinforce your own prejudices about prolifers than consider the response in the spirit it was intended.

    I included that on the scale of views regarding abortion to demonstrate that "some" protection for the unborn is a mainstream view.

    Only someone looking to manufacture dishonesty would interpret it as you have.

    Quote Originally Posted by petaljam View Post


    More disingenuous twisting of views going on here - it's not because other people believe that at all, it's because they cannot envisage that a woman pregnant from rape should be forced to continue that pregnancy if she doesn't wish to.

    It's got literally nothing to do with the status of the embryo conceived through rape, that would be frankly bizarre - because if that were so then there is no reason why birth should change its status. After all, the rape would still have happened.

    It is about people's beliefs that the embryo does not and cannot have the same consideration as a living person, whether that is the pregnant woman or a person conceived by rape. Someone who has been born.

    If you think that being born via a rape makes a person worth less than someone else, then that is a very extreme opinion.

    And if you think that being conceived via a rape does the same but that birth ends that distinction then how is that compatible with the prolife view that fertilisation is the essential point?
    Again clearly more interested in leaping to accusations than reading what is actually written.

    What you describe are the reason trying to find a balance between competing rights is difficult. There is no difference between a child conceived through rape or one conceived through a loving relationship yet many people favour the availability of abortion (ending that life) in rape cases but not otherwise. In their view the distress to the rape victim justifies ending that life even though that life is innocent of any crime.

    Again it's what are the implications of the unborn being human life and when is it acceptable to end that life.
    Quote Originally Posted by petaljam View Post

    Why only "see to make" - do you think that forcing someone to remain pregnant in such a case may actually be for their own good in the end?

    IMO - and that of most people I suspect - it is not the prolife view you have enunciated ("everyone deserves a chance at life") that is what makes these distressing cases even worse, it is the belief that they are so self evidently right about this that they are entitled to force those beliefs on the people involved. That is what makes it distressing - being forced to obey someone else's beliefs dictated from on high when they are not the ones going though the tragedy.
    Sorry but the implications of "everyone deserves a chance at life" are that they have to be given that chance by virtue of their own humanity - and no one is suggesting that that is going to be easy for anyone.

    But again it comes down to the implications of the unborn being human life.

    No one is infallible in any of this but everyone has a duty to put forward what they believe to be in the common good - and very often laws strike a balance between competing rights and there are differing views as to whether those laws go too far on one side or the other.

    As a society we have recently decided that most of my views are not shared by the majority but I don't accept that it is extremism to want to protect unborn human life in those circumstances.

    Quote Originally Posted by petaljam View Post

    Balance which rights please?
    You have - yet again - failed to consider the rights of the pregnant woman, so how can you talk of balancing the unborn's rights against rights you refuse to acknowledge or enumerate?
    Of course I am considering the rights of the pregnant woman - if I'm talking about balancing rights who else's rights could I be referring to?

    In actual fact it is prochoicers who ignore completely the rights of the unborn and pretend that there are no competing rights at all. This allows them then to pursue their favoured line that prolifers must be motivated by misogyny, religious fanaticism or some other malevolent intent.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •