The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Ash.J.Williams

Da Boss wrote: »

A lot of people here seem to be of the opinion that abortion is a “right”. It’s not! Nobody has the right to end the life of another

They do every where else

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

you can do what you like, as long as you don't kill the unborn unless your life is in danger or the baby can't be carried to term. it's ultimately as simple as that. there are plenty of things within the 8th that are problematic hence we are having the referendum. the referendum isn't simply about abortion on demand, but abortion on demand is something that is going to make a number of voters to decide to vote no to repeal.



no it's not part of her body, it's simply surviving within her body. she is in full control of her body, she just cannot kill the unborn inside her bar extreme circumstances.

She's obviously not in full control of her body if she has to allow another human being (by your argument) full use of her organs. Nobody else has to do that, not even to keep someone alive.

You can keep repeating that she doesn't have a right to refuse, but that is nothing more than your own opinion. Oh and the Catholic Church's, which of course is just a funny coincidence.

Consonata

splinter65 wrote: »

No no no you don’t.
A baby is from birth only.
Are you telling me that it’s only “my body my choice” for 12 weeks?!?
Please please stop , that’s just ridiculous.
If people want abortions because no one has the right to tell a woman what she can do with her own body then why does it suddenly stop being her right at 12 weeks?!?
That is simply outrageous! Patriarchy at its very worst!
I am interested in campaigning for abortion on demand with no time limits. You simply cannot tell an adult woman that she has no control over what she does with her body at any time, for any longer.
If a man was told something similar there would be war.
Anyone interested in joining me should PM me and we will see if we can get a movement started.

Are you being deliberately disingenuous for the sake of making a point about arbitrary time limits?

I note that you have completely ignored the point about the babies viability during the pregnancy. You're treating it as a black or white issue when it really isn't. It's a spectrum. The baby isn't a just a baby at birth anymore than it is one at conception.

.......

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It was the referring to themselves in the third person that caught my eye. Most curious behaviour.

Consonata

end of the road wrote: »

no it's not part of her body, it's simply surviving within her body. she is in full control of her body, she just cannot kill the unborn inside her bar extreme circumstances.

I don't understand how you can fit this into your frame of the world, and not be for criminalizing Irish people going abroad for an Abortion.

Could you please elaborate on this properly.

end of the road

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Nope, it isn't. It doesn't fulfill the condition of being able to carry out homeostasis, which is one of the essential things that quantifies whether something is life or not. Whether you want to believe in science or not, a fetus cannot perform homeostasis itself until week 17 and therefore cannot be considered life until then.

it can be considered life as it is living. homeostasis is only one of the aspects that determine life.

volchitsa wrote: »

She's obviously not in full control of her body if she has to allow another human being (by your argument) full use of her organs. Nobody else has to do that, not even to keep someone alive.

You can keep repeating that she doesn't have a right to refuse, but that is nothing more than your own opinion. Oh and the Catholic Church's, which of course is just a funny coincidence.

it's not my opinion, it's the state's via society, that she has no right to kill the unborn. the fact the catholic church may share the same view as me is not my concern, given that i'm not a follower of any religion.

Consonata wrote: »

I don't understand how you can fit this into your frame of the world, and not be for criminalizing Irish people going abroad for an Abortion.

Could you please elaborate on this properly.

sure. the unborn is a separate entity. it has rights including the right to life. the state has a duty to protect that life as much as it can, however there are limits as to what it can do. it can't stop people from traveling abroad, and it would need evidence of an abortion to bring a successful prosecution, the likely hood of gathering sufficient evidence to allow such prosecution being small.

.......

This post has been deleted.

eviltwin

Travel is one thing but importing tablets is another and while it might not be feasible to challenge those going to the UK, it's entirely possible to charge women with attempted murder if they order illegal pills.

But I don't think anyone wants that's do they? There doesn't seem to be any demand for it anyway.

That's why it's hard to take the pro life position seriously.

Consonata

end of the road wrote: »

sure. the unborn is a separate entity. it has rights including the right to life. the state has a duty to protect that life as much as it can, however there are limits as to what it can do. it can't stop people from traveling abroad, and it would need evidence of an abortion to bring a successful prosecution, the likely hood of gathering sufficient evidence to allow such prosecution being small.

Abortion clinics would have records of who gets an abortion. It would be the easiest thing in the world to check the database of people who obtain an abortion and match it to the defendant.

What other difficulties would there be?

splinter65

volchitsa wrote: »

She's obviously not in full control of her body if she has to allow another human being (by your argument) full use of her organs. Nobody else has to do that, not even to keep someone alive.

You can keep repeating that she doesn't have a right to refuse, but that is nothing more than your own opinion. Oh and the Catholic Church's, which of course is just a funny coincidence.

You’ve won me over.
Tell me what to do with my organs, would ya?
As soon as the dates announced I’m going door to door campaigning for Repeal on the platform “my body my choice”
And when I say “my body my choice” I mean it 100% not this mealy mouthed “12 weeks” nonsense.
Women need control over their bodies from the cradle to the grave, and not just for 12 weeks of the pregnancy, 40+!
No, I’m going to demand that people vote to repeal and any subsequent amendments until we have abortion on demand till term.
I know that’s hardly possible outside China. Or Russia. Or N Korea. Or some other places.
But we led the world in SSM, why not women’s rights!
I’ll tell anyone who argues that they are sexist misogynistic woman hating fascists, brainwashed by the RCC (even the Muslims. And the Jews.).
This softly softly approach just isn’t working.
We need to show them we mean business

Consonata

splinter65 wrote: »

You’ve won me over.
Tell me what to do with my organs, would ya?
As soon as the dates announced I’m going door to door campaigning for Repeal on the platform “my body my choice”
And when I say “my body my choice” I mean it 100% not this mealy mouthed “12 weeks” nonsense.
Women need control over their bodies from the cradle to the grave, and not just for 12 weeks of the pregnancy, 40+!
No, I’m going to demand that people vote to repeal and any subsequent amendments until we have abortion on demand till term.
I know that’s hardly possible outside China. Or Russia. Or N Korea. Or some other places.
But we led the world in SSM, why not women’s rights!
I’ll tell anyone who argues that they are sexist misogynistic woman hating fascists, brainwashed by the RCC (even the Muslims. And the Jews.).
This softly softly approach just isn’t working.
We need to show them we mean business

You really do have arguing in bad faith to a fine art. :rolleyes:

splinter65

Consonata wrote: »

Abortion clinics would have records of who gets an abortion. It would be the easiest thing in the world to check the database of people who obtain an abortion and match it to the defendant.

What other difficulties would there be?

You do realize that patient confidentiality applies to abortion clinics?

splinter65

Consonata wrote: »

You really do have arguing in bad faith to a fine art. :rolleyes:

I.Am.Deadly. Serious.
I have a pussy hat, a Repeal the 8th jumper, and I will not stop till I’ve knocked on every door.

January

Just so everyone knows, no pro choice person would speak the way splinter up there is speaking. There's a militant anti choicer right there.

volchitsa

splinter65 wrote: »

You’ve won me over.
Tell me what to do with my organs, would ya?
As soon as the dates announced I’m going door to door campaigning for Repeal on the platform “my body my choice”
And when I say “my body my choice” I mean it 100% not this mealy mouthed “12 weeks” nonsense.
Women need control over their bodies from the cradle to the grave, and not just for 12 weeks of the pregnancy, 40+!
No, I’m going to demand that people vote to repeal and any subsequent amendments until we have abortion on demand till term.
I know that’s hardly possible outside China. Or Russia. Or N Korea. Or some other places.
But we led the world in SSM, why not women’s rights!
I’ll tell anyone who argues that they are sexist misogynistic woman hating fascists, brainwashed by the RCC (even the Muslims. And the Jews.).
This softly softly approach just isn’t working.
We need to show them we mean business

Strawmanning the other side's argument because you can't defend your own is dishonest.

Democracy doesn't mean a right to dump an unpopular politician at any time, there are rules and limits. Same with a right to abortion. If the woman has effectively had that right for, say, 12 weeks, and chose not to avail of it, then she's in the same position as constituents of an unpopular politician : it's not undemocratic to say it's too late now.

And it's not anti choice to expect a woman to avail of that choice within a limited time.

splinter65

volchitsa wrote: »

Strawmanning another argument because you can't defend your own is dishonest.

Democracy doesn't mean a right to dump an unpopular politician at any time, there are rules and limits. Same with a right to abortion. If the woman has effectively had that right for, say, 12 weeks, and chose not to avail of it, then she's in the same position as constituents of an unpopular politician : it's not undemocratic to say they just have to wait.

What if I don’t even know I’m pregnant till, say 16 weeks?

Consonata

splinter65 wrote: »

What if I don’t even know I’m pregnant till, say 16 weeks?

If the limit is 12 weeks then that is unfortunate, however to not know until week 16 isn't common, considering that 90% of abortions happen within the 12 week limit.

volchitsa

splinter65 wrote: »

I.Am.Deadly. Serious.
I have a pussy hat, a Repeal the 8th jumper, and I will not stop till I’ve knocked on every door.

Like that Iona girl who was photographed at the last pro choice March wearing some deliberately provocative allegedly pro choice slogan.

Lying for Jesus, right?

captbarnacles

splinter65 wrote: »

You do realize that patient confidentiality applies to abortion clinics?

Oh ffs. If the Irish authorities wanted the evidence they could get it and Irish people absolutely can be prosecuted for what they do abroad.

splinter65

volchitsa wrote: »

Like that Iona girl who was photographed at the last pro choice March wearing some deliberately provocative allegedly pro choice slogan.

Lying for Jesus, right?

All I know is I will be going door to door representing the women of Ireland who have been bullied and brutalised by the men in the dresses and the pointy hats too long.
“My Body, My Choice”. Short and snappy.
Sure it’s been said on boards so many times that men shouldn’t even be allowed to vote.
And I’ve even read that any woman over child bearing years shouldn’t be allowed to vote either.
Apparently it’s not relevant to democracy when it’s not affecting everyone.
Here’s where I heard it!
That’ll come in useful when some irrelevant male tries to tell me I’m wrong.

Consonata

splinter65 wrote: »

All I know is I will be going door to door representing the women of Ireland who have been bullied and brutalised by the men in the dresses and the pointy hats too long.
“My Body, My Choice”. Short and snappy.
Sure it’s been said on boards so many times that men shouldn’t even be allowed to vote.
And I’ve even read that any woman over child bearing years shouldn’t be allowed to vote either.
Apparently it’s not relevant to democracy when it’s not affecting everyone.
Here’s where I heard it!
That’ll come in useful when some irrelevant male tries to tell me I’m wrong.

I mean, I query whether arguing in bad faith is allowed in this forum. This poster clearly isn't taking the discussion seriously and is only here to strawman the pro-choice side.

splinter65

Consonata wrote: »

I mean, I query whether arguing in bad faith is allowed in this forum. This poster clearly isn't taking the discussion seriously and is only here to strawman the pro-choice side.

That little flag to the right of each post allows you to report a post you think is breaking forum rules.
But don’t worry, I’m closing out and unfollowing the thread.
But thank you all for the inspiration, gleaned from many hundreds of pro choice posts I’ve read over many threads.
As Liam Gallagher says in every Tweet, as you were.

Da Boss

Martina1991 wrote: »

Are you of the opinion that the state should tell a women what to do with her body.

Nobody has the right to tell someone else what to do in their life.

Well if nobody has the right to tell someone else what to do with their body why are u then hypocritically proposing that u kill and destroy the body of an unborn! That’s interfering with someone else’s body

end of the road

eviltwin wrote: »

Travel is one thing but importing tablets is another and while it might not be feasible to challenge those going to the UK, it's entirely possible to charge women with attempted murder if they order illegal pills.

But I don't think anyone wants that's do they? There doesn't seem to be any demand for it anyway.

That's why it's hard to take the pro life position seriously.

i have said already myself that while we have laws in relation to drugs, anyone importing illegal abortion pills should be treated the same as any other illegal drug importer..

volchitsa wrote: »

Strawmanning the other side's argument because you can't defend your own is dishonest.

Democracy doesn't mean a right to dump an unpopular politician at any time, there are rules and limits. Same with a right to abortion. If the woman has effectively had that right for, say, 12 weeks, and chose not to avail of it, then she's in the same position as constituents of an unpopular politician : it's not undemocratic to say it's too late now.

And it's not anti choice to expect a woman to avail of that choice within a limited time.

it's not fully pro-choice either though.

Da Boss

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You have no right to dictate what I do with my womb.
My body, my life, my choice. It may not be legal here (yet) but it wouldn’t stop me doing what I want with MY body if I deemed it to be necessary.

Laws are required in a society to retain a orderly society . Laws are made to benefit the wider population. If an abortion affected just you it would be fine and perfectly acceptable but it doesn’t as it affects the child temporarily residing in your womb. An abortion would deny the defenseless child the ultimate gift of a life! If you want a abortion cos ur child is unplanned or unwanted, just cop on and use a condom simple as that!!!

eviltwin

end of the road wrote: »

i have said already myself that while we have laws in relation to drugs, anyone importing illegal abortion pills should be treated the same as any other illegal drug importer...

If I import an illegal drug for the specific intention of killing someone and I then proceed to kill that someone, the importation element of the process is the least important is it not?

Surely you'd want to see that person charged with murder, after all, sourcing a drug, ordering it, waiting for delivery, then using the drug shows a clear intent. There's many women who have spoken out publically about taking these pills. They shouldn't be that difficult to track down. Why aren't pro life advocates demanding they face justice. After all an unborn child is as equal as as any of us.

One eyed Jack

....... wrote: »

I see the EOTR bot is back with the endless contradictory NIMBY posts and non engagement in any reasonable discussion.

Such a lot of buzzing noise.

volchitsa wrote: »

Strawmanning the other side's argument because you can't defend your own is dishonest.

....... wrote: »

Your whole post is more endless repitition and contradiction. Yammer yammer yammer goes the bot.

Consonata wrote: »

You really do have arguing in bad faith to a fine art. :rolleyes:

Consonata wrote: »

I mean, I query whether arguing in bad faith is allowed in this forum. This poster clearly isn't taking the discussion seriously and is only here to strawman the pro-choice side.

Lads ye're in no position to complain about non-engagement in any reasonable discussion, strawmanning, dishonesty because you're unable to defend your own argument, endless repetition, arguing in bad faith, etc, etc, when you've all been engaged in exactly the same thing throughout this thread.

I fully expect any snappy retort will accuse me of same, which is just what I'd expect from anyone who has no interest in civil discussion and just wants to browbeat anyone who disagrees with them into submission.

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

This is prompted from something on the politics forum thread (but isn’t appropriate to there)

I was just thinking today about one formerly powerful section of the community who might find it hard nowadays to make their voice heard in this national debate.

This would be the segment of people who think that women should be shamed and/or outcast and/or punished for engaging in recreational sex – i.e. the punishment being: to endure a pregnancy against her will.

A fine upstanding stance, no?

This cohort of ‘simple’, plain ‘decent’ people is not very audible at the moment. Why is that? For full disclosure - some of my close family members would be in this group, so I’m just thinking out loud!

Anyway regrettably, these people seem to either half-heartedly argue some other tangential point or stay silent in this debate!!

Could they be muted & cursed by the existence of a better educated electorate or maybe the age of enlightenment being hundreds of years ago!

I just don’t know the reason for the silence when they were a deafening cacophony in decades past?

If this is you, I for one want to hear your voice in this debate. Please Sir/Madam come thee out from the shadows, present yourself and tell us proudly - why punishing women for sex is still the right way to go about things.

This is one of the problems with an authoritarian ego, you assume that people will recognise you as an authority to which they should feel the need to justify themselves. They don't, and that's why you won't hear.from them, because they don't recognise you as having any authority over them.

uptherebels

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Lads ye're in no position to complain about non-engagement in any reasonable discussion, strawmanning, dishonesty because you're unable to defend your own argument, endless repetition, arguing in bad faith, etc, etc, when you've all been engaged in exactly the same thing throughout this thread.

I fully expect any snappy retort will accuse me of same, which is just what I'd expect from anyone who has no interest in civil discussion and just wants to browbeat anyone who disagrees with them into submission.

Ya i've noted before on here, how you don't like people disagreeing with you.

As for being accused, well if the shoe fits:rolleyes:

One eyed Jack

uptherebels wrote: »

Ya i've noted before on here, how you don't like people disagreeing with you.

How long did it take you to figure that out? I could have saved you the trouble and told you straight out I don't like people disagreeing with me. That however doesn't give me a license to treat anyone like dirt simply because I disagree with them. I'll still respect you in the morning

As for being accused, well if the shoe fits:rolleyes:

It doesn't mate, not by a long shot, and that's the fun thing about authoritarianism and feeling brave when you're part of the mob. In order for anyone to respect your authorita, you have to first ensure compliance through making them feel they have something to feel guilty about. Then comes the subjugation and condemnation from the mob because nobody wants to be an outlier.

It's the very same offline, and that whole "formerly powerful section of the community" that another poster urged to "come out of the shadows" and present themselves? I don't know is that poster living in the real world at all when it's blatantly obvious all around them that women are, as they put it "shamed and/or outcast and/or punished for engaging in recreational sex".

Notwithstanding the fact that their point had very little to do with what they referred to as "the national debate" on abortion, they seemed to miss the multitude of threads in just AH alone that shame, outcast and seek to punish women for engaging in casual sex, and the thing is, most of the condemnation comes from other women. I don't know about you but I'm all for women being free to express their sexuality! I could point to numerous recent examples of the phenomenon, but y'know, for now at least I've better things to be doing.