'GAA Athletes for a No Vote'

[Mourne Red]

How to stump a save the 8ther - Hypothetical Question


If you could choose only one, would you save 1,000 viable human embryos or one child in a burning building?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

I've seen that smugly posted before - the fact is these sorts of issues have been stumping everyone forever. It does raise interesting points, no doubt, but there are similar questions repealers may find it similarly stumping to answer, like, when does life start, or why they bother to congratulate someone who announces a pregnancy, or indeed commiserate with someone who has a miscarriage?

It seems to me the difference in whether it is a life or not comes down largely to whether it is wanted or not, and that to me seems a very inconsistent position indeed.

What makes us human is our ability to feel pain, and that starts at the 12-14 week milestone in pregnancy from what I have read......

The theories about what 'makes us human' have been postulated on for thousands of years. You've just picked out one characteristic among many for your argument.

Yes just like the pro-lifers pick out there own characteristics?? Its not going to affect a pro-lifers life if the abortions get passed is it? No.. if they are pro-life they won't have one, if a pro-choicer wants the law passed for them to have an abortion then why shouldn't they have it? It's about deciding what you want yourself.

To re work a quote from the Simpsons "Abortions for some and miniature Tri-colours for the rest"

[Tubberman]

One of the most vexing things for me re Mickey Harte's group is that they obviously put a lot of thought into how they could maximise the perception that this was a 'GAA' group, without actually being in technical breach of any rules (that I can see at least).
The name, the location for the launch, the deliberate blurring of the lines between their position and the strategic vision of the association etc.
It's incredibly cynical stuff.

I think you have to try and put yourself in Mickey Harte's shoes here to try and understand his thought processes. My sense would be that Mickey, as a devout Catholic, will regard the legalization of abortion as tantamount to allowing the murder of the innocents. In such circumstances, he will use whatever influence he has to try and affect that decision. In that context, his concern for the issue around the blurring of the lines regarding the use of the GAA's name will carry zero weight.

By the way, I wonder will those 'Gaels' on here, who decry Mickey's intervention, on the basis of him coming from a different jurisdiction, consider their membership of the GAA on the basis that it has as its basic aim "the strengthening of the National Identity in a 32 County Ireland through the preservation and promotion of Gaelic Games and pastimes"?

Their position flies in the face of the spirit of that aim.

Harte coming from outside the 26 counties has nothing to do with anything, so let's put that one to bed. We've had a president from Belfast, and Martin McGuinness and Dana ran last time.

There's a glaring inconsistency that the No side never answer. If they believe that abortion truly does constitute "murder", why can't any of them answer whether they think women who have abortions are committing murder, and should be locked up in prison for such?

Presuming the No campaigners think all murders should be punishable by imprisonment, like.

Between 1980 and 2016, 170,000 Irish women travelled abroad to have abortions.

Are these 170,000 women therefore "murderers"?

I think that's an assumption on your behalf.

It's a talking point regularly used by the No side Tubberman. Whether they've spent enough time thinking about what it means and taken the idea to its logical conclusion is another matter.

Is it? I haven't heard the word 'murder' used in any debate so far, although I try to avoid a lot of them as it feels like it's the same thing being rehashed over and over again.

I will more than likely vote No, but it's not because I consider abortion to be murder.
For the record, I support the option of abortion for fatal foetal abnormalities, rape, incest.
My main problem is that if the 8th amendment is repealed, then any govt could allow abortion up to any gestational period without any public say in the matter. That's a principle I'd be very uncomfortable with.

[Syferus]

One of the most vexing things for me re Mickey Harte's group is that they obviously put a lot of thought into how they could maximise the perception that this was a 'GAA' group, without actually being in technical breach of any rules (that I can see at least).
The name, the location for the launch, the deliberate blurring of the lines between their position and the strategic vision of the association etc.
It's incredibly cynical stuff.

I think you have to try and put yourself in Mickey Harte's shoes here to try and understand his thought processes. My sense would be that Mickey, as a devout Catholic, will regard the legalization of abortion as tantamount to allowing the murder of the innocents. In such circumstances, he will use whatever influence he has to try and affect that decision. In that context, his concern for the issue around the blurring of the lines regarding the use of the GAA's name will carry zero weight.

By the way, I wonder will those 'Gaels' on here, who decry Mickey's intervention, on the basis of him coming from a different jurisdiction, consider their membership of the GAA on the basis that it has as its basic aim "the strengthening of the National Identity in a 32 County Ireland through the preservation and promotion of Gaelic Games and pastimes"?

Their position flies in the face of the spirit of that aim.

Harte coming from outside the 26 counties has nothing to do with anything, so let's put that one to bed. We've had a president from Belfast, and Martin McGuinness and Dana ran last time.

There's a glaring inconsistency that the No side never answer. If they believe that abortion truly does constitute "murder", why can't any of them answer whether they think women who have abortions are committing murder, and should be locked up in prison for such?

Presuming the No campaigners think all murders should be punishable by imprisonment, like.

Between 1980 and 2016, 170,000 Irish women travelled abroad to have abortions.

Are these 170,000 women therefore "murderers"?

I think that's an assumption on your behalf.

It's a talking point regularly used by the No side Tubberman. Whether they've spent enough time thinking about what it means and taken the idea to its logical conclusion is another matter.

Is it? I haven't heard the word 'murder' used in any debate so far, although I try to avoid a lot of them as it feels like it's the same thing being rehashed over and over again.

I will more than likely vote No, but it's not because I consider abortion to be murder.
For the record, I support the option of abortion for fatal foetal abnormalities, rape, incest.
My main problem is that if the 8th amendment is repealed, then any govt could allow abortion up to any gestational period without any public say in the matter. That's a principle I'd be very uncomfortable with.

Unless you're exclusively talking about PG-rated TV debates you'll hear it very very regularly. There's plenty of off-colour stuff on both sides. The implication of treating an embryonic fetus as a full human means by its definition abortion becomes murder so it's an ever present part of the No side argument.

[omaghjoe]

How to stump a save the 8ther - Hypothetical Question


If you could choose only one, would you save 1,000 viable human embryos or one child in a burning building?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

I've seen that smugly posted before - the fact is these sorts of issues have been stumping everyone forever. It does raise interesting points, no doubt, but there are similar questions repealers may find it similarly stumping to answer, like, when does life start, or why they bother to congratulate someone who announces a pregnancy, or indeed commiserate with someone who has a miscarriage?

It seems to me the difference in whether it is a life or not comes down largely to whether it is wanted or not, and that to me seems a very inconsistent position indeed.

What makes us human is our ability to feel pain, and that starts at the 12-14 week milestone in pregnancy from what I have read......

The theories about what 'makes us human' have been postulated on for thousands of years. You've just picked out one characteristic among many for your argument.

Yes just like the pro-lifers pick out there own characteristics?? Its not going to affect a pro-lifers life if the abortions get passed is it? No.. if they are pro-life they won't have one, if a pro-choicer wants the law passed for them to have an abortion then why shouldn't they have it? It's about deciding what you want yourself.

To re work a quote from the Simpsons "Abortions for some and miniature Tri-colours for the rest"

According to Evolutionary genetics what makes us human is our DNA which is formed at conception

That unborn human is unable to communicate their choice but let every other form of life the likelihood is that want to survive

[Jinxy]

Lads, where do university GAA clubs fit in here?
https://twitter.com/ul_gaa/status/715165663078252544
Breaking the rules or not?

[Mourne Red]

How to stump a save the 8ther - Hypothetical Question


If you could choose only one, would you save 1,000 viable human embryos or one child in a burning building?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

I've seen that smugly posted before - the fact is these sorts of issues have been stumping everyone forever. It does raise interesting points, no doubt, but there are similar questions repealers may find it similarly stumping to answer, like, when does life start, or why they bother to congratulate someone who announces a pregnancy, or indeed commiserate with someone who has a miscarriage?

It seems to me the difference in whether it is a life or not comes down largely to whether it is wanted or not, and that to me seems a very inconsistent position indeed.

What makes us human is our ability to feel pain, and that starts at the 12-14 week milestone in pregnancy from what I have read......

The theories about what 'makes us human' have been postulated on for thousands of years. You've just picked out one characteristic among many for your argument.

Yes just like the pro-lifers pick out there own characteristics?? Its not going to affect a pro-lifers life if the abortions get passed is it? No.. if they are pro-life they won't have one, if a pro-choicer wants the law passed for them to have an abortion then why shouldn't they have it? It's about deciding what you want yourself.

To re work a quote from the Simpsons "Abortions for some and miniature Tri-colours for the rest"

According to Evolutionary genetics what makes us human is our DNA which is formed at conception

That unborn human is unable to communicate their choice but let every other form of life the likelihood is that want to survive

But Mickey is a devote holy joe?! he doesn't believe in evolution, he believes God created the earth and everything that inhabits it.....

[Jinxy]

Rule 1.11 of the Official Guide states: 'The Association shall be non-party political. Party political questions shall not be discussed at its meetings, and no Committee, Club, Council or representative thereof shall take part, as such, in any party political movement. A penalty of up to twenty four weeks suspension may be imposed for infringement'.
Now, we're into interesting territory here, what constitutes party politics?
Is this rule fit for purpose or should it be re-worded to provide greater clarity?

[omaghjoe]

How to stump a save the 8ther - Hypothetical Question


If you could choose only one, would you save 1,000 viable human embryos or one child in a burning building?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

I've seen that smugly posted before - the fact is these sorts of issues have been stumping everyone forever. It does raise interesting points, no doubt, but there are similar questions repealers may find it similarly stumping to answer, like, when does life start, or why they bother to congratulate someone who announces a pregnancy, or indeed commiserate with someone who has a miscarriage?

It seems to me the difference in whether it is a life or not comes down largely to whether it is wanted or not, and that to me seems a very inconsistent position indeed.

What makes us human is our ability to feel pain, and that starts at the 12-14 week milestone in pregnancy from what I have read......

The theories about what 'makes us human' have been postulated on for thousands of years. You've just picked out one characteristic among many for your argument.

Yes just like the pro-lifers pick out there own characteristics?? Its not going to affect a pro-lifers life if the abortions get passed is it? No.. if they are pro-life they won't have one, if a pro-choicer wants the law passed for them to have an abortion then why shouldn't they have it? It's about deciding what you want yourself.

To re work a quote from the Simpsons "Abortions for some and miniature Tri-colours for the rest"

According to Evolutionary genetics what makes us human is our DNA which is formed at conception

That unborn human is unable to communicate their choice but let every other form of life the likelihood is that want to survive

But Mickey is a devote holy joe?! he doesn't believe in evolution, he believes God created the earth and everything that inhabits it.....

I hadn't realised this was purely about you forming an opinion about the issue based on what you believe Mickey Harte believes. But for the record Id guess he does believe in evolution like the Catholic church.

Anyway you can reply to my point anytime 

[Mourne Red]

How to stump a save the 8ther - Hypothetical Question


If you could choose only one, would you save 1,000 viable human embryos or one child in a burning building?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

I've seen that smugly posted before - the fact is these sorts of issues have been stumping everyone forever. It does raise interesting points, no doubt, but there are similar questions repealers may find it similarly stumping to answer, like, when does life start, or why they bother to congratulate someone who announces a pregnancy, or indeed commiserate with someone who has a miscarriage?

It seems to me the difference in whether it is a life or not comes down largely to whether it is wanted or not, and that to me seems a very inconsistent position indeed.

What makes us human is our ability to feel pain, and that starts at the 12-14 week milestone in pregnancy from what I have read......

The theories about what 'makes us human' have been postulated on for thousands of years. You've just picked out one characteristic among many for your argument.

Yes just like the pro-lifers pick out there own characteristics?? Its not going to affect a pro-lifers life if the abortions get passed is it? No.. if they are pro-life they won't have one, if a pro-choicer wants the law passed for them to have an abortion then why shouldn't they have it? It's about deciding what you want yourself.

To re work a quote from the Simpsons "Abortions for some and miniature Tri-colours for the rest"

According to Evolutionary genetics what makes us human is our DNA which is formed at conception

That unborn human is unable to communicate their choice but let every other form of life the likelihood is that want to survive

But Mickey is a devote holy joe?! he doesn't believe in evolution, he believes God created the earth and everything that inhabits it.....

I hadn't realised this was purely about you forming an opinion about the issue based on what you believe Mickey Harte believes. But for the record Id guess he does believe in evolution like the Catholic church.

Anyway you can reply to my point anytime 

Just like you can reply to the question I originally posted? Good lad

[omaghjoe]

How to stump a save the 8ther - Hypothetical Question


If you could choose only one, would you save 1,000 viable human embryos or one child in a burning building?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

I've seen that smugly posted before - the fact is these sorts of issues have been stumping everyone forever. It does raise interesting points, no doubt, but there are similar questions repealers may find it similarly stumping to answer, like, when does life start, or why they bother to congratulate someone who announces a pregnancy, or indeed commiserate with someone who has a miscarriage?

It seems to me the difference in whether it is a life or not comes down largely to whether it is wanted or not, and that to me seems a very inconsistent position indeed.

What makes us human is our ability to feel pain, and that starts at the 12-14 week milestone in pregnancy from what I have read......

The theories about what 'makes us human' have been postulated on for thousands of years. You've just picked out one characteristic among many for your argument.

Yes just like the pro-lifers pick out there own characteristics?? Its not going to affect a pro-lifers life if the abortions get passed is it? No.. if they are pro-life they won't have one, if a pro-choicer wants the law passed for them to have an abortion then why shouldn't they have it? It's about deciding what you want yourself.

To re work a quote from the Simpsons "Abortions for some and miniature Tri-colours for the rest"

According to Evolutionary genetics what makes us human is our DNA which is formed at conception

That unborn human is unable to communicate their choice but let every other form of life the likelihood is that want to survive

But Mickey is a devote holy joe?! he doesn't believe in evolution, he believes God created the earth and everything that inhabits it.....

I hadn't realised this was purely about you forming an opinion about the issue based on what you believe Mickey Harte believes. But for the record Id guess he does believe in evolution like the Catholic church.

Anyway you can reply to my point anytime 

Just like you can reply to the question I originally posted? Good lad

I wasn't replying to your original question I was merely correcting a subsequent point you made.... but Ok then....

The child, as you can tell for sure if its alive, and the embryos are not in an environment that will allow them to grow. And the latter reason is where if you are using it as an analogy to the abortion debate is where it becomes a false one as a child  in utero is in such an environment.

Now over to you...

[Mourne Red]

How to stump a save the 8ther - Hypothetical Question


If you could choose only one, would you save 1,000 viable human embryos or one child in a burning building?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

I've seen that smugly posted before - the fact is these sorts of issues have been stumping everyone forever. It does raise interesting points, no doubt, but there are similar questions repealers may find it similarly stumping to answer, like, when does life start, or why they bother to congratulate someone who announces a pregnancy, or indeed commiserate with someone who has a miscarriage?

It seems to me the difference in whether it is a life or not comes down largely to whether it is wanted or not, and that to me seems a very inconsistent position indeed.

What makes us human is our ability to feel pain, and that starts at the 12-14 week milestone in pregnancy from what I have read......

The theories about what 'makes us human' have been postulated on for thousands of years. You've just picked out one characteristic among many for your argument.

Yes just like the pro-lifers pick out there own characteristics?? Its not going to affect a pro-lifers life if the abortions get passed is it? No.. if they are pro-life they won't have one, if a pro-choicer wants the law passed for them to have an abortion then why shouldn't they have it? It's about deciding what you want yourself.

To re work a quote from the Simpsons "Abortions for some and miniature Tri-colours for the rest"

According to Evolutionary genetics what makes us human is our DNA which is formed at conception

That unborn human is unable to communicate their choice but let every other form of life the likelihood is that want to survive

But Mickey is a devote holy joe?! he doesn't believe in evolution, he believes God created the earth and everything that inhabits it.....

I hadn't realised this was purely about you forming an opinion about the issue based on what you believe Mickey Harte believes. But for the record Id guess he does believe in evolution like the Catholic church.

Anyway you can reply to my point anytime 

Just like you can reply to the question I originally posted? Good lad

I wasn't replying to your original question I was merely correcting a subsequent point you made.... but Ok then....

The child, as you can tell for sure if its alive, and the embryos are not in an environment that will allow them to grow. And the latter reason is where if you are using it as an analogy to the abortion debate is where it becomes a false one as a child  in utero is in such an environment.

Now over to you...

You wouldn't because a child is life and embryos are not? Also viable environment - some mothers have inhospitable wombs which the baby won't survive but are being made to go to full term? This is what an abortion is for as it isnt a viable environment. As you have said in your reply they wont survive.

Also the Genes thing, I am looking at it from a moral perspective that if something feels pain then it is alive, in case of 12 weeks cut off the fetus won't feel pain. Some may argue that it should be before the heart forms which I believe is around the 6 weeks milestone(unsure) but in terms of birth complications I don't know if they are visible at that point.

[westbound]

Maybe it's time to move this away from the GAA thread!

[tippabu]

There seems to be alot more no posters down this way so far, even the ads on YouTube and Facebook are mostly no ones. I hope the yes side aren't taking things for granted. You'd always expected the no side to be much more in you're face and stronger in their campaign though

Really? I'm in the north but all I've seen on social media etc are 'yes' advocates. Wouldn't like to see what would happen anyone who made a 'no' post, on my feed anyway!

It's all the paid ads and stuff on social media that's no voting. Hasn't been a whole lot from people on my Facebook but what there is is people sharing yes posts, don't think I've seen someone share a no vote one.

[Jinxy]

Maybe it's time to move this away from the GAA thread!

+1000
It's giving me a headache.

[thewobbler]

Yeah, move it out.

By the way, Twitter and Facebook would have had you convinced that Brexit was for slaughtering.

Problem is social media is full of young people who are quick to click "like", but are unable to make their way to a voting booth.