Repeal the 8th (Second Thread)

Conor_Myers

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
1,018
That seems a bit odd TBH - how could convincing people not be relevant to the discussion when there has just been such a massive rejection of your view of the subject? If it were me, I would think it urgent to consider why my views had been so resoundingly rejected, to see whether I had got something wrong somewhere.
The referendum is over. Those discussions weren’t about the rights and wrongs of abortion or about convincing people. That ship has sailed.

Of course I am happy to discuss any aspect of abortion but in an orderly fashion not with someone butting into other discussions before those debates have concluded.

You're making my point for me here. Would you care to hazard a guess as to why prolifers just don't care about IVF embryos being destroyed, to the extent that most people don't even think of them when discussing protection of the unborn?
I already gave a reason - in 9 months an embryo will still be an embryo - it’s not the same as actively preventing a baby from being born - that said if there are practical options that would avoid that dilemma they should be explored.
Now you tell me - If it’s the slam dunk you seem to think it is why weren’t prochoicers bringing it up in the debates?

This seems to be a variant of the "it's natural" argument, but we intervene to help or to hinder nature all the time. If you had a cancer, I don't imagine you would be impressed by a doctor who refused to intervene actively because it was unnatural, would you?
No it isn’t. Short of forced implantation what do you suggest? Banning ivf would eliminate the dilemma but then parents would be denied the opportunity of having a child. Other options would reduce the chances of success - i’m Not a cheerleader for ivf but perhaps society views the dilemna of unused embryos as acceptable to be able to give people the opportunity to have children they otherwise couldn’t.

Well no, the law could require that a couple undergoing IVF should first agree to have all the fertilised eggs implanted or donated to someone else who will have them implanted. If they don't agree they don't have IVF. Just like if they don't pay their medical bills.


Could you explain why you think that please? Clearly, and preferably in steps.

Because it seems completely incomprehensible to me that someone can ground their objection to a first trimester abortion for a raped child in a belief that a new life begins at fertilisation, but that allowing destruction of IVF embryos, or practices like multi-foetal reduction, do not completely contravene this belief.
My position is that it is wrong to intervene to end a human life except in life and death situations.

You finding examples where the law permits destruction of embryos doesn’t Change that - there are reasons why the moral dilemma of the disposal of unused embryos is considered acceptable for the greater good of allowing people to be parents who otherwise couldn’t.

There are clear distinctions between the treatment of frozen embryos that will still be frozen embryos years from now and the deliberate ending of a pregnancy that would result in a baby in 9 months.
 


Telstar 62

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
26,604
BBC News - Essex baby's spine 'repaired' in the womb. :smile:

Can’t be true.

In the 8th Referendum, we were told that there is no baby in pregnancy,
but rather just a bunch of cells.

And the Yes camp claimed to be the one with science on its side!!! :roflmao:
 

MsDaisyC

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2017
Messages
4,634
BBC News - Essex baby's spine 'repaired' in the womb. :smile:

Can’t be true.

In the 8th Referendum, we were told that there is no baby in pregnancy,
but rather just a bunch of cells.

And the Yes camp claimed to be the one with science on its side!!! :roflmao:
I hope she got pain relief.
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
33,904
The referendum is over. Those discussions weren’t about the rights and wrongs of abortion or about convincing people. That ship has sailed.
Right. And repeating the same arguments as though those past discussions had never happened is therefore pointless. Not just because the referendum is over, but because the arguments didn't convince anyone who wants already convinced, so they aren't going to convince anyone now. You're acting like the discussion never happened, as though you think you just need to tell enough people and they will believe you. But we know they didn't, so why would they suddenly do so now?

My pointing this out to you is just as valid a reply as indulging you by playing your pointless game of let's pretend the arguments haven't been thrashed out already.

Of course I am happy to discuss any aspect of abortion but in an orderly fashion not with someone butting into other discussions before those debates have concluded.
Lol. This is a discussion thread, nobody is "butting in", because you're not having a private conversation.
I reacted to what was being said. That's how it works.

I already gave a reason - in 9 months an embryo will still be an embryo - it’s not the same as actively preventing a baby from being born - that said if there are practical options that would avoid that dilemma they should be explored.
And I explained why that logic doesn't work in a society where we use contraception, drive cars and fly planes, operate for cancer etc. Or indeed use IVF - maybe those people just weren't meant to have babies?

I mean, fine if that's your reason for not having an abortion, just to be clear. Not fine if that's your reason for stopping someone else from having one.

Now you tell me - If it’s the slam dunk you seem to think it is why weren’t prochoicers bringing it up in the debates?
Really? That's your best argument here - that we're not allowed to bring any new arguments ever to this debate??

(Maybe because it could have been seen as a possible distraction in official referendum debates, as it risks people wandering off into discussions about the rights and wrongs of IVF law, and not what to do about the 8th amendment. But this is not the referendum, we're not time-limited as referendum debates are.)

No it isn’t. Short of forced implantation what do you suggest? Banning ivf would eliminate the dilemma but then parents would be denied the opportunity of having a child. Other options would reduce the chances of success - i’m Not a cheerleader for ivf but perhaps society views the dilemna of unused embryos as acceptable to be able to give people the opportunity to have children they otherwise couldn’t.
I already explained: no need to ban IVF, it could be just a condition they signed up for, like they agree to pay any bills for frozen storage etc. Embryos to be implanted unless donated to someone who intends to have them implanted. And Irish clinics would undertake not to implant more than two or three embryos (done to increase the chances of implantation of one) because they would no longer have the possibility of multi foetal reduction available to them if multiple embryos implant.

perhaps society views the dilemna of unused embryos as acceptable to be able to give people the opportunity to have children they otherwise couldn’t.
I'm not asking about "society" - we know that society is happy enough with legalizing abortion, so why would they object to destroying surplus IVF embryos?

No, I'm pointing out that if prolifers' opposition to abortion were really based on wanting to protect all human life, it seems odd - to be polite about it - that for decades none of them cared enough to protest about the wholesale slaughter of embryos going on in IVF clinics. They want to protest outside hospitals, but not a whisper about IVF clinics.

That IVF leads to extra human lives is no more an argument for sacrificing some human lives in the process than you would justify sacrificing one person for their organs to save four or five people.

Either all human life is equally valuable or it's not. Your opposition to abortion is that embryonic human life is valuable - except when we want to sacrifice it to increase the success rate of IVF procedures, right?

That's crazy - but it's a common Irish prolife view.

My position is that it is wrong to intervene to end a human life except in life and death situations.
And also when IVF clinics need to keep their success rates up for advertising purposes.

You finding examples where the law permits destruction of embryos doesn’t Change that - there are reasons why the moral dilemma of the disposal of unused embryos is considered acceptable for the greater good of allowing people to be parents who otherwise couldn’t.
On our overcrowded planet where children die from easily treatable diseases, and where most fertile couples spend significant effort and money ensuring that they don't have children for much of their reproductive life, how exactly is it a good thing for society as a whole to then put significant resources into helping a few couples who are naturally infertile to have children?

And that's without needing to justify killing embryos in the process. That's a separate question.

And yet you were happy to try to dismiss the issue as irrelevant to objections to abortion (it's not) and now you're trying to brush it off as "killing but acceptable because it's in the common good.". It's not, it's an individual life style choice. if you were being consistent about your "nature" argument, wouldn't you be against IVF for making infertile people reproduce? Can't be good for humanity long term, surely?

There are clear distinctions between the treatment of frozen embryos that will still be frozen embryos years from now and the deliberate ending of a pregnancy that would result in a baby in 9 months.
Of course, but not in terms of the nature of that embryo. Which is of course the basis for your opposition to abortion isn't it?

But perhaps you can explain how exactly a frozen embryo is less human than one that has occurred through a woman being raped in an alleyway? Or indeed having consensual drunken sex without contraception?

Is your objection to abortion based on the humanity of the embryo, or isn't it?
 

Conor_Myers

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
1,018
Right. And repeating the same arguments as though those past discussions had never happened is therefore pointless. Not just because the referendum is over, but because the arguments didn't convince anyone who wants already convinced, so they aren't going to convince anyone now. You're acting like the discussion never happened, as though you think you just need to tell enough people and they will believe you. But we know they didn't, so why would they suddenly do so now?

My pointing this out to you is just as valid a reply as indulging you by playing your pointless game of let's pretend the arguments haven't been thrashed out already.
You really seem to have a comprehension problem.

I'll repeat - the discussions I was involved in were not about the rights and wrongs of abortion - I've made my points in the past and my position is clear. If you keep butting in with the same questions you're going to get the same answers so I agree it's pointless which is why I wasn't discussing it in the first place and had no interest in thrashing out these points again.

It is you who are butting into unrelated discussions with those points and then accusing people of avoiding them.

As for IVF I've set out a clear response to that - you have decided not to accept it which is your prerogative but that doesn't mean it now falls into your category of things which have already been discussed so repeating my view somehow means I'm denying discussions ever happened.
 

Telstar 62

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
26,604
Less than 1% of abortions are following rape.

In not one case did abortion heal the survivor.

In not one case was a preborn child less valuable.

Killing an innocent child will never bring justice or restoration.

Survivors & children deserve so much better than abortion.

- Lila Rose.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
34,425
Twitter
No
In research labs on illnesses that form in vitro every day there are, according to the religious take on these things, fertilisation of eggs.

The research labs are allowed to store them for research purposes and have to at a certain limit of three weeks I think dispose of them.

By the argumentation put forward by the anti-choice side in the referendum last year that is mass murder. I have yet to see or hear of a demonstration outside an IVF clinic or medical research lab where by regulation such fertilisation, storage and disposal happens every day of the week.

Mainly because the anti-choicers know it would be daft. And they'd look bonkers.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
34,425
Twitter
No
You really seem to have a comprehension problem.

I'll repeat - the discussions I was involved in were not about the rights and wrongs of abortion - I've made my points in the past and my position is clear. If you keep butting in with the same questions you're going to get the same answers so I agree it's pointless which is why I wasn't discussing it in the first place and had no interest in thrashing out these points again.

It is you who are butting into unrelated discussions with those points and then accusing people of avoiding them.

As for IVF I've set out a clear response to that - you have decided not to accept it which is your prerogative but that doesn't mean it now falls into your category of things which have already been discussed so repeating my view somehow means I'm denying discussions ever happened.
The 'butting in' comments are just weird. It is a public discussion forum.
 

Buchaill Dana

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
12,584
"Telstar is a tedious bore. He cuts and pastes gib cliches and cartoons, outsourced, from people nobody has heard of, without reading them and spams up an already irrelevant thread"

Sean Murphy
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
34,425
Twitter
No
I suspect that now the referendum is lost there is a spiteful policy of just attempting to waste the time of people who would have voted 'yes'.

It is quite childish and to be honest there's a lot to be said for closing the thread as there is another thread dealing with the post-repeal issues.

I know our old pal Taidgh was wont to declare the landslide loss as the beginning of a turnaround but well, Taidgh was Taidgh and also thought Kim Jung-On was marvellous.
 

Conor_Myers

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
1,018
The 'butting in' comments are just weird. It is a public discussion forum.
If I'm responding to a different question from another poster and you respond to that with completely irrelevant points to that initial exchange then it is butting in. When you then start whinging that these irrelevant points are not being addressed then that's just being silly.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
34,425
Twitter
No
If I'm responding to a different question from another poster and you respond to that with completely irrelevant points to that initial exchange then it is butting in. When you then start whinging that these irrelevant points are not being addressed then that's just being silly.
If you don't want people 'butting in' then having the conversation on a public forum is probably not the right way to go. There's no rule here at all about only being allowed to respond to a point if you are being addressed directly.
 

Buchaill Dana

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
12,584
I suspect that now the referendum is lost there is a spiteful policy of just attempting to waste the time of people who would have voted 'yes'.

It is quite childish and to be honest there's a lot to be said for closing the thread as there is another thread dealing with the post-repeal issues.

I know our old pal Taidgh was wont to declare the landslide loss as the beginning of a turnaround but well, Taidgh was Taidgh and also thought Kim Jung-On was marvellous.
There is a few of them at it on the conspiraloon threads. The people are woke, we will be out of the EU in 5 years and all that. At one level, I admire ambition. But claiming catholic conservatism has bever been stronger is rather feebleminded.
 

Conor_Myers

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
1,018
If you don't want people 'butting in' then having the conversation on a public forum is probably not the right way to go. There's no rule here at all about only being allowed to respond to a point if you are being addressed directly.
Absolutely - no rule against joining in to discuss any point.

However, What we are talking about is interrupting a discussion of one issue by “responding” to it with irrelevant points relating to a completely different discussion and then whinging when people don’t want to derail their own discussion to deal with your tangents.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom