Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sparhafoc said:For overturning the 8th and choosing liberty over irrational privilege.
Dragan Glas said:Greetings,
Indeed, and it's about time.
I spent the best part of 5 hours getting up to Dublin to vote (my registration cards were sent to the family home rather than my current address) to play my part in the highest percentage for repeal returned by a constituency: 78%.
Needless to say, the Church is already saying it will protest "abortion clinics".
[1973? It was 1983 when the abortion ban was introduced. Or are you referring to something else, Gnug?]
Kindest regards,
James
Sparhafoc said:For overturning the 8th and choosing liberty over irrational privilege.
thenexttodie said:Sparhafoc said:For overturning the 8th and choosing liberty over irrational privilege.
What does the killing of unborn babies have to do with liberty?
A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).[1]
Aside from being an informal fallacy depending on usage, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.[2] The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, he will admit to having a wife and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.[2] The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious.[2] Hence the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other. For example, the previous question would not be loaded if it were asked during a trial in which the defendant had already admitted to beating his wife.[2]
Sparhafoc said:So what does this have to do with liberty?
Well, in pre-scientific ages, we didn't use facts or reason to establish the merit, subjective or legal value of an action. We used interpretation of doctrine purportedly decreed by a magical human-like being in the sky.
In most civilized nations, that is no longer a tenable basis on which to confer legal legitimacy.
Unfortunately, in some nations (typically theocracies) these religious beliefs, wholly lacking in any serious factual basis, are still given undue power and privilege over the freedoms of other members of society, for example those who do not subscribe to those religious beliefs.
As such, freeing people from the restraints imposed by fantasy contentions about the diktats of magical sky men equates quite clearly to an increase in liberty over uninspected, unearned, and imposed religious privilege.
Of course, liberty doesn't and can't actually cause other people to be constrained, and this case proves satisfactory in that respect. No True Believer (tm) is obliged to terminate their foetus if they elect not to on any grounds including their religious beliefs. They possess exactly the same freedoms they possessed before, but now everyone else has the freedom to act in line with their own conscience.
thenexttodie said:You just told me in another thread that it is wrong for me to call unborn babies "unborn babies" and then said we need people who are willing to kill them because it will result in us having more liberty.
Sinn Féin delegates have voted to change the party's position on abortion at a conference in Belfast.
Members comprehensively backed a leadership motion stating that women should have access to abortions within "a limited gestational period".
The party can now support a law due to be brought before the Irish parliament, which is expected to allow abortions within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.
More than 20 Sinn Féin branches had called for a free conscience vote.
The decision comes shortly after a referendum in the Republic of Ireland removed a constitutional amendment which effectively outlawed abortion.
Previously Sinn Féin had backed making terminations available in circumstances like fatal foetal abnormality, rape or sexual abuse.
However, the party will now back a policy put forward by the Sinn Féin leadership that is broadly in line with the new Irish law, which is expected to make abortion available to women within the first 12 weeks of their pregnancies.
Sinn Féin's Stormont leader Michelle O'Neill opened the debate and told delegates: "No-one is saying members can't have a conscience and you're entitled to have your viewpoint respected, but there is a difference between personal views and our role as legislators."
Exit polls are suggesting that the Republic of Ireland has voted to scrap the country's laws on blasphemy.
The poll shows that 71% of voters surveyed indicated they voted yes to removing the reference to blasphemy from the Irish Constitution.