Bad beat/Moaning/Venting thread - Mammy told me not to come.

[Guest]

On a tangent I do think most of us are on the wrong side of history when it comes to killing animals for food, myself included!

This is a position I've only recently come to also hold. I've been listening to lots of Sam Harris, I like him but I can understand that he's not for everyone.

He's quite adamant that the way in which we look at previously held positions, for example slavery (I think thats the example he used), is the way posterity will look at us and our farming of animals.

[Keane]

Lay it on us then.

I thought I already did! If you believe that a viable zygote is a baby with the same rights as a baby that lives outside a womb you should think abortion is wrong in almost all situations. And then you have a moral obligation to defend the 'baby' who is obviously in no position to defend itself.

I don't agree with it at all but the one follows from the other in a logical way. It's contingent on believing the right to life trumps all others of course. It's also a view where you probably have to believe in objective morality ie be religious.

It's obviously a view where you have to eschew the idea of secularism. It's as far from my bag as you can get but I can't really see how anything else could be consistent with a sincerely held Christian world view for example.

[Keane]

I should probably have said Catholic rather than Christian there actually!

[Denny Crane]

Haven't looked at it in any depth but yes is about 1/100 right now if those polls are in any way accurate.

According to the Kelly criterion your optimal bet is about 94% of your capital,

[Denny Crane]

This is a position I've only recently come to also hold. I've been listening to lots of Sam Harris, I like him but I can understand that he's not for everyone.

He's quite adamant that the way in which we look at previously held positions, for example slavery (I think thats the example he used), is the way posterity will look at us and our farming of animals.

It is amusing how many people get so righteous considering their views are just a function of the age they were born in. Every so often I try to think of things that we fully accept now that will be viewed like that. Animals is the easy one. But there's things we don't even really consider now that will change.

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Keane]

This is a position I've only recently come to also hold. I've been listening to lots of Sam Harris, I like him but I can understand that he's not for everyone.

He's quite adamant that the way in which we look at previously held positions, for example slavery (I think thats the example he used), is the way posterity will look at us and our farming of animals.

I think that 'wrong side of history' line I got from rounders or denny or someone on here that was the first time I really thought about it.

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Denny Crane]

Just need Bill Gates to perfect growing it in the lab

[Wombatman]

I thought I already did! If you believe that a viable zygote is a baby with the same rights as a baby that lives outside a womb you should think abortion is wrong in almost all situations. And then you have a moral obligation to defend the 'baby' who is obviously in no position to defend itself.

I don't agree with it at all but the one follows from the other in a logical way. It's contingent on believing the right to life trumps all others of course. It's also a view where you probably have to believe in objective morality ie be religious.

It's obviously a view where you have to eschew the idea of secularism. It's as far from my bag as you can get but I can't really see how anything else could be consistent with a sincerely held Christian world view for example.

But a zygote is not a baby. You can extrapolate consistently based on an initial irrational assumption, and while you line of thinking my be solid, your conclusion will most likely be irrational.

Should the laws governing the production and consumption of Poitín now apply to spuds?

Are you saying Christians who have had abortions are insincere in their faith? Where exactly in Christine doctrine (Old or New) does it prohibit abortion?

[Kayroo]

Are you saying Christians who have had abortions are insincere in their faith? Where exactly in Christine doctrine (Old or New) does it prohibit abortion?

The sixth commandment?

[Wombatman]

The sixth commandment?

Born -> Alive -> Kill -> Die

Have to be born first I'm afraid.

During the second reading of the Preservation of Infant Life Bill 1928 to 1929, Lord Atkin said:

As the noble and learned Lord has explained, the gap is that, whereas the mother of a child who kills it after it has a separate existence is guilty of what was the crime of murder and is now the lesser offence of infanticide, yet, if she kills the child in the actual course of delivery or within such a short time afterwards that it has not had and cannot be proved to have had a separate existence, it is not an offence.

[Hectorjelly]

on the other hand all this shite of its my body from the yes side is tipping me to vote no.

Are you likely to get an abortion?

[dobby]

Are you likely to get an abortion?

If you got your missus pregnant and she wanted an abortion but you didn't want her to it'd be cool for her to.go ahead?

[dobby]

There's so many variables at play, it's not as simple as yes or no imo. There could be cases argued for either side which makes it a hard choice.

[Theresa]

we made it official due to some more new information that actually now has everyone really quite scared. As it turned out other people had individual stories that are emerging and all add up to something worrying. So hr is going to officially handle, probably get doctors involved and ring previous employments to see if theres anything there, and our fingerprints are nowhere to be seen, hopefully.

Group head spoke to him today before we had chatted to him, and started trying to be concilitory assuming this was just overwork that caused it. Asked him what specifically num2 had said to cause this.

Guy goes to group head: well I'll give you one example. But there's loads. I was up in the coffee room and I hear num2 saying 'Norway, Norway'.

Group head goes: what does that mean: Norway, Norway?

Guy goes (looking at my group head as if he's an idiot): well he obviously wants to send me to Norway.


Man, the whole thing is really fucking sad, but its also really fucking potentially dangerous. So hopefully hr are on the ball.

Just read all those posts.

I had a similar situation happen with one of my colleagues. Im not sure if I mentioned it here before. Chap was very very overworked. Used to go to the pub after work and work until the early hours with his laptop and pints.

Used to come into work the next day high as a kite to blunt the hangover.

One day... he just snapped. Like... stopped making sense. We were talking about getting a task finished by end of day and he went off telling me a story about how he was throwing rocks at elephants from his Porsche. (doesn't have a porsche, we don''t live near elephants, he did have access to rocks I guess).

Awkward lols tbh.

We left the office with him, just went for a walk around downtown talking away to him. More gibberish. It was scary. Like half his thoughts were formulating and the other half just random words, thoughts, memories.

Reported it to HR and the handled it awfully. Sent him home, were going to let him drive himself. Didnt even inform his family. Myself and a buddy dropped him off at his place and waited til his missus got there.

Chap was out of work for 6 weeks. Mental breakdown.

He's fine now. Good dude.

[Hectorjelly]

If you got your missus pregnant and she wanted an abortion but you didn't want her to it'd be cool for her to.go ahead?

lol. If you are capable of asking a question like that you should not be voting.

[CHDad]

There's so many variables at play, it's not as simple as yes or no imo. There could be cases argued for either side which makes it a hard choice.

Vote Maybe.

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Raoul Duke III]

If you got your missus pregnant and she wanted an abortion but you didn't want her to it'd be cool for her to.go ahead?

Ask yours and report back your findings.

Have the suitcase packed, just in case.

[Kayroo]

Born -> Alive -> Kill -> Die

Have to be born first I'm afraid.

During the second reading of the Preservation of Infant Life Bill 1928 to 1929, Lord Atkin said:

As the noble and learned Lord has explained, the gap is that, whereas the mother of a child who kills it after it has a separate existence is guilty of what was the crime of murder and is now the lesser offence of infanticide, yet, if she kills the child in the actual course of delivery or within such a short time afterwards that it has not had and cannot be proved to have had a separate existence, it is not an offence.

Let me just be completely clear on this one. You asked where in Christian teachings it prohibited abortion and I pointed you to the root of that teaching. Christians believe life begins at conception. Which, to my mind, is wrong. However, that was not your question. I'm not a Christian by the by.

[Kayroo]

Keane's point makes perfect sense. There's clearly a valid no side argument, that for the moment of conception there's a potentially valid human there and that should be protected.

As Keane then went on to say, that argue can then be broken down and attacked.

But we can't say it's not a valid moral argument just because we ourselves don't agree with the particular moral sentiment.

This, and the post that inspired it, are 100% correct.

[Solksjaer!]

A bit disconcerting that kayroo went from abortions to killing animals for food. I bet he was disappointed to learn Kebabs has no Babs in it .

I'm on me Joe holiers for the vote but when I read the 'it's her body' point I switch off.

[dobby]

lol. If you are capable of asking a question like that you should not be voting.

You could always answer the question instead of giving snide comments.

Ask yours and report back your findings.

Have the suitcase packed, just in case.

I have asked her. She said that in the extreme cases mentioned like rape or threat to life etc that it's 100% the woman's choice (for obvious reasons) but if you're married or in a LTR the partner should be consulted so wouldn't completely be the woman's choice in that case.

Going by HJ reasoning, if a couple get pregnant and the woman decides she wants an abortion but her partner wanted a child, she could just say tough shit my body my choice and go ahead with an abortion. Doesn'tseem right.

[jack90210]

You could always answer the question instead of giving snide comments.



I have asked her. She said that in the extreme cases mentioned like rape or threat to life etc that it's 100% the woman's choice (for obvious reasons) but if you're married or in a LTR the partner should be consulted so wouldn't completely be the woman's choice in that case.

Going by HJ reasoning, if a couple get pregnant and the woman decides she wants an abortion but her partner wanted a child, she could just say tough shit my body my choice and go ahead with an abortion. Doesn'tseem right.

There is definitely an element of snidness and superiority on the repeal side in some quarters (not necessarily on here). Could cost them votes.

[Emmet]

It is a perfectly logical conclusion that the 8th is a good and reasonable idea if;

• You believe that any conception is deserving of a right to life
• You believe that the right to life is absolute, and therefore refuse to allow any legislature to add condition and nuance around it.
• You are willing to accept the ramifications that this has for society, as a cost worth bearing to uphold the above.

These beliefs are (widely?) held, and these beliefs can (and probably should) be challenged, but I think it is fair to say that if someone does currently hold these beliefs, then they are absolutely entitled to consider the 8th amendment as something worth keeping.

[Emmet]

There is definitely an element of snidness and superiority on the repeal side in some quarters (not necessarily on here). Could cost them votes.

That this might well be true does not make it any less ridiculous.

Donegal says no is always mad.

[mocata]

Anyone in the market for bluetooth headphones these have had a hefty price drop. Still huge dough but for the usage i get out of them its closer to value than what i paid.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B074ZRG5...tukdeals062-21

Had my first ever sleep on a USA flight thanks to them amd fancy travel pillow.

[Kayroo]

A bit disconcerting that kayroo went from abortions to killing animals for food. I bet he was disappointed to learn Kebabs has no Babs in it

Have read this a few times. Still no idea what it means.

There is definitely an element of snidness and superiority on the repeal side in some quarters (not necessarily on here). Could cost them votes.

Both sides have messaging problems to be fair. But taking the worst parts of either part of a debate as reflective of the substance does neither side any justice. There's actually a really substantive and important debate to be had about these issues but we always lose that opportunity to the shouty types on both sides.

[ArmaniJeans]

There is definitely an element of snidness and superiority on the repeal side in some quarters (not necessarily on here). Could cost them votes.

I think that's little more than an easy copout for people who were going to vote No anyway.
A sizeable part of the No campaign is based on God being on their side, anyone supposedly on the fence has surely got to regard that as a more snide/superior attitude than some D4 feminist media-wannabee being annoyingly shrill.

[jack90210]

I think that's little more than an easy copout for people who were going to vote No anyway.
A sizeable part of the No campaign is based on God being on their side, anyone supposedly on the fence has surely got to regard that as a more snide/superior attitude than some D4 feminist media-wannabee being annoyingly shrill.

Its also a cop-out on the other side to just paint everyone on the other side as Bible bashers.

[RichieM]

So the proposed legislation will specify Downs as a medical reason for abortion?

My understanding is that individual medical cases will be deferred to the doctors and exactly what calls into this will be under the scope of the medical council.

This is much better as it will offer consistency rather than potentially changing with each new govt or need to appease some independents.

As far as I can tell downs would fall into this category and the probability is they would allow for later terminations in this case.

The key item to note is that it won’t be a forced abortion in downs cases but will be open to discussion with the parents. I am not sure if I would want to go ahead knowing the struggle that a profound disability causes for families. This gets worse as parents age. My wife works with severely disabled children and some of it is incredibly tough. It would be a very tough discussion for us to have.

The question is if people should be free to have that descision. In my opinion yes. I know that something as monumental in my life I would want to consider rather than having a poorly worded and heavily catholic influenced piece of legislation deciding for me.

[Keane]

You could always answer the question instead of giving snide comments.

I have asked her. She said that in the extreme cases mentioned like rape or threat to life etc that it's 100% the woman's choice (for obvious reasons) but if you're married or in a LTR the partner should be consulted so wouldn't completely be the woman's choice in that case.

Going by HJ reasoning, if a couple get pregnant and the woman decides she wants an abortion but her partner wanted a child, she could just say tough shit my body my choice and go ahead with an abortion. Doesn'tseem right.

I find it hard to believe there are many women out there who would come home to their partner and say 'I'm pregnant, I'm having an abortion, I don't give a toss what you think, I'm off to the airport'. I don't think I know anyone who would act like that, I can't really imagine it?

I would guess if you press your girlfriend a bit more about it and get to 'what if I want to keep the baby and you don't' she's going to end up with the position that it's ultimately her decision. I can't really get on board with the idea that if my partner was pregnant and didn't want the baby but I did, that the right thing there is for me to have the casting vote.

[Emmet]

Its also a cop-out on the other side to just paint everyone on the other side as Bible bashers.

Are there many non-religious figureheads / reasons behind the pro-amendment argument? There certainly wasn't in 1983.

[Raoul Duke III]

You could always answer the question instead of giving snide comments.



I have asked her. She said that in the extreme cases mentioned like rape or threat to life etc that it's 100% the woman's choice (for obvious reasons) but if you're married or in a LTR the partner should be consulted so wouldn't completely be the woman's choice in that case.

Going by HJ reasoning, if a couple get pregnant and the woman decides she wants an abortion but her partner wanted a child, she could just say tough shit my body my choice and go ahead with an abortion. Doesn'tseem right.

That's something to be resolved within the context of an adult relationship.

So; imagine this.

1. The referendum passes and the government enacts legislation allowing abortion on demand up to 12 weeks
2. You and Mrs Dobby are happily shacked up
3. Mrs Dobby discovers she is 8 weeks pregnant
4. She decides she wants an abortion
5. You say you want her to have the baby

What possible role is there for the State here?

[jack90210]

Are there many non-religious figureheads / reasons behind the pro-amendment argument? There certainly wasn't in 1983.

This isn't 1983.

[ArmaniJeans]

Its also a cop-out on the other side to just paint everyone on the other side as Bible bashers.

Agreed, I was merely pointing out (as Kayroo also did) that there are extreme objectionables on both sides.
Anyone who claims to be on the fence but being turned towards No because of some vocal Yes side twatishness is very dubious imo, and appear to be turning a convenient blind eye to the equivalent faults of the No side.

[Emmet]

This isn't 1983.

For many it's a valid point of reference. I accept that we could also simply discount it. So

Are there many non-religious figureheads / reasons behind the pro-amendment argument?

[jack90210]

For many it's a valid point of reference. I accept that we could also simply discount it. So

Are there many non-religious figureheads / reasons behind the pro-amendment argument?

I'm not involved in the campaign I just hear what I hear on radio etc and to me its irrelevant whose behind it. I have heard Declan Ganley and John McGuirke mentioned and I am not aware of either been regarded as "religious figureheads". It would appear from the outside the pro-amendment side are purposely keeping the church out of it.

[Keane]

What's with the persistence of the 'getting the boat' iconography? Pretty sure must of them would fly these days.

In many cases where a woman decides to abort a baby that was wanted for health reasons or that had FFA they get the boat because they have to bring the remains home in a shoebox in the boot of the car.

[Emmet]

I'm not involved in the campaign I just hear what I hear on radio etc and to me its irrelevant whose behind it. I have heard Declan Ganley and John McGuirke mentioned and I am not aware of either been regarded as "religious figureheads". It would appear from the outside the pro-amendment side are purposely keeping the church out of it.

You should become more aware.

David Quinn isn't a priest either before you try that angle.

[SatNav]

Anyone in the market for bluetooth headphones these have had a hefty price drop. Still huge dough but for the usage i get out of them its closer to value than what i paid.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B074ZRG5...tukdeals062-21

Had my first ever sleep on a USA flight thanks to them amd fancy travel pillow.

I got them here. Got more discount I think when I signed up

https://www.eglobalcentral.eu/#/product/22207

Brill headphones tbf

[jack90210]

You should become more aware.

Where were they ordained?

Do inform me of their religious figurehead status then.

[Emmet]

predictable and predicted

Lets get pedantic though if you'd like. I asked for a non-religious figurehead, not a non 'religious figurehead'.

Which of Declan Ganley, Cora Sherlock, Breda O'Brien, Niamh Uí Bhriain, Orla O'Connor or any of the others who are involved in coordinating the pro-amendment argument are coming at it from a non-religious perspective?

Any of these ladies making arguments based outside of religion?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/pro-life-feminists-protest-against-referendum-plans-1.3419862

[RichieM]

You could always answer the question instead of giving snide comments.



I have asked her. She said that in the extreme cases mentioned like rape or threat to life etc that it's 100% the woman's choice (for obvious reasons) but if you're married or in a LTR the partner should be consulted so wouldn't completely be the woman's choice in that case.

Going by HJ reasoning, if a couple get pregnant and the woman decides she wants an abortion but her partner wanted a child, she could just say tough shit my body my choice and go ahead with an abortion. Doesn'tseem right.

It’s a medical procedure and so the same way you couldn’t force her to have chemo you can’t force this legally.

Morally I don’t see how you could do this.

Finally practically, if you forced your partner to carry your child against her wishes how solid is you relationship beforehand that you couldn’t discuss this and how solid would it be afterwards.

It is such a rare situation that in a proper relationship this would be an issue. If the mother wants nothing to do with the father than should he have a stake in it?

For me it’s not really debatable but for some it’s a concern. If your sister was in this situation and some guy was forcing her to carry a child in court how do you imagine you would feel?

[ArmaniJeans]

In many cases where a woman decides to abort a baby that was wanted for health reasons or that had FFA they get the boat because they have to bring the remains home in a shoebox in the boot of the car.

Also an issue with the price of immediate flights, as we know Ryanair flights are more expensive when you book just a few days beforehand.
Once the abortion decision has been reached I think people try to get it done within days, so it may often be a choice between a €50 boat and a €300 flight.

[eamonhonda]

Going by HJ reasoning, if a couple get pregnant and the woman decides she wants an abortion but her partner wanted a child, she could just say tough shit my body my choice and go ahead with an abortion. Doesn'tseem right.

So a couple are actively using contraception and woman gets pregnant. She said she is having an abortion as she doesn't want it. You think the man has a right to say no, you carry that baby in your body for 9 months because I want it? Come on that ridiculous.
Women must carry the baby therefore they ultimately get the choice on whether to keep it or not.
But to Keanes point I don't know anybody that wouldn't sit down and talk it through with their partner first.
And if it's a case where the man is an ultra conservative, must keep the baby in any case religious nut or something, that's something he should bringing up before he enters a sexual relationship, because it's pretty fucking important and he should find someone with similar values.

[jack90210]

predictable and predicted

Lets get pedantic though if you'd like. I asked for a non-religious figurehead, not a non 'religious figurehead'.

Which of Declan Ganley, Cora Sherlock, Breda O'Brien, Niamh Uí Bhriain, Orla O'Connor or any of the others who are involved in coordinating the pro-amendment argument are coming at it from a non-religious perspective?

Any of these ladies making arguments based outside of religion?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/soci...lans-1.3419862

I don't think it matters whose is running the campaign and I doubt you care whose running the repeal campaign either and I am sure if I spent 5 minutes on it I could find a few interesting characters on that side too.

My initial point was that in my view the repeal side comes across as superior and snide and it will put people off - "our body our choice" been the perfect example.

Noted that you didn't answer anything about the so called religious figurehead status of the two mentioned previously.

But I am done with this conversation.

[Solksjaer!]

Have read this a few times. Still no idea what .

Dont worry Keith .
Been getting reactions like this since my mental breakdown in the 90s waiting for a taxi in Leeson St.

[Solksjaer!]

So a couple are actively using contraception and woman gets pregnant. She said she is having an abortion as she doesn't want it. You think the man has a right to say no, you carry that baby in your body for 9 months because I want it? Come on that ridiculous.
Women must carry the baby therefore they ultimately get the choice on whether to keep it or not.
But to Keanes point I don't know anybody that wouldn't sit down and talk it through with their partner first.
And if it's a case where the man is an ultra conservative, must keep the baby in any case religious nut or something, that's something he should bringing up before he enters a sexual relationship, because it's pretty fucking important and he should find someone with similar values.

Bollox

[Emmet]

I don't think it matters whose is running the campaign and I doubt you care whose running the repeal campaign either and I am sure if I spent 5 minutes on it I could find a few interesting characters on that side too.
My initial point was that in my view the repeal side comes across as superior and snide and it will put people off - "our body our choice" been the perfect example.
Noted that you didn't answer anything about the so called religious figurehead status of the two mentioned previously.
But I am done with this conversation.

I certainly did. I didn't suggest that the Popes and cardinals were the mainstay of the pro-amendment 'side', I said that the arguments and figureheads of the pro-amendment campaigns were all religious. Declan Ganley and John McGuirke are not religious men?

Its also a cop-out on the other side to just paint everyone on the other side as Bible bashers.

Doesn't seem like a cop out if the only arguments being made are based on religious foundations only? All of the people involved at the coordination level of the pro-amendment campaign are vociferously religious, and are proud of that.

If there are non-religious arguments to be made, let us hear them. I don't think that it is at all unfair to assert that the messages promoting the 8th in 1983 and in 2018 are all coming from religious base.

Where are the non 'bible basher' arguments and people?

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Keane]

This twitter thread has forced me to leave my desk twice as I can't stop guffawing.

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[oleras]

Had my first ever sleep on a USA flight thanks to them amd fancy travel pillow.

Tell me more on the fancy flight pillow.

I have tried the memory foam, the beads and the cushion and cant get any to work.

[eamonhonda]

If you need a constitutional amendment to keep your family intact it's probably not the strongest relationship there is.

Imagine serving the missus with the constitution with the 8th amendment highlighted when she tells you in tears she wants the unwanted baby aborted.
"Not under my roof, now you carry that baby for 9 months like a good girl. Read that chapter on women's role in the home if ya don't know what to do for the next while."

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Solksjaer!]

many moons ago) A guy I know got his girlfriend preggers. He was ecstatic and so was she. It was nearing the 12 week mark, she asked him why he didn’t propose yet . He said meh and she said, marriage or the pregnancy ends. He said gtfo are you kidding, we are only in our early 20s. Row breaks out . She refuses to talk about it and becomes uncontactable for a while. She flies to Birmingham and aborts the until recently ‘much wanted’ kid. The bloke meanwhile is getting more and more worried and calls to her house (for the umpteenth). Big smile , hey, btw I got rid of the baby. BIG SCENES. Shocked and devastated the guilt ridden bloke never lays eyes on her again. Her body I suppose. On the one hand she didn’t want a baby without a church wedding and on the other she had no problem aborting it to prove it. This is not an argument to keep the outdated 8th amendment, it’s an argument that there are other parties involved in an abortion and not just the ‘it’s MY BODY’ tedious lamenters.

[pokerhand]

There's zero non religious arguments in favour of retaining 8th.

Isn't it a moral argument, not just religious argument? Thought Emmet explained that pretty well.