The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

uptherebels

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I've never denied that the 8th amendment affects more than just pregnant women who want an abortion. It affects every single person living in this country, including those yet to be born. I have claimed that the number of women who have been negatively affected by the 8th amendment is negligible in terms of the number of women who have been pregnant and have given birth in this country since the inception of the 8th amendment. I would never claim anything as fact as that's solely my opinion, so if you interpreted what I said as claiming it was fact, you really shouldn't have.

Doesn't affect me as I can't get pregnant😉

You can't say something as being definite and then say it's only your opinion, consequently there is no way to interpret it as anything other than as an unstubstantiated statement of fact.


Even if it is only your opinion surely there is some evidence that you used to form that opinion? Not like anti choices to make it up as they go along!

One eyed Jack

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Exactly. You are minimising the negative effects of the 8th.

How? You keep saying that and saying I'm tying myself up in knots and I've tried to understand where you think I'm minimising the negative effects of the 8th amendment, or tying myself up in knots, but all you seem to be focussed on is what in your opinion are the negative effects of the 8th amendment.

Obviously I don't see it the same way you do, but that's because I'm not solely focused on what you see as the negative effects of the 8th amendment. One of the negative effects of the 8th amendment is that of course that some women have been subjected to horrific and inhumane treatment. That need not necessarily have happened, and it shouldn't have happened, but from my perspective, I would put that down to the medical staff rather than the 8th amendment.

Couldn't find ice in the National Maternity Hospital and had to send doctors across the road to the pub? There's just no words for that like, even if the circumstances of that case hadn't been what they were, to say that there couldn't be ice to be found in a hospital is just incredible!

I mean, look at this list of utter failures, that could have applied in any circumstances concerning a pregnant woman in the National Maternity Hospital -


He said the Thawleys were never told the operation would be carried out by a junior doctor, that he would not be supervised during the operation and that there would not even be a consultant in the hospital while the operation was carried out.

The court heard a blood sample had been taken from Mrs Thawley but was not cross-matched to check her blood type because this was not done at the hospital at weekends, meaning her blood type was not known and a supply of blood for her was not readily available. 

Mrs Thawley's Body Mass Index had not been measured, which would have shown that she was very lean and this would have had an effect on the operation.

There was a delay in contacting the consultant when it became clear there was a problem. He was not fully informed of what had happened and there was a delay while he tried to find the source of the bleeding.

There was also a delay when Mrs Thawley's blood pressure dropped as staff investigated whether there was a problem with the armband on her. There was a further delay in contacting a vascular team from St Vincent's Hospital, the court heard. 

The court was told that when a decision was taken to try to cool her brain, two doctors had to be sent to a local pub to fetch ice.


There are no words for that sort of incompetence that would have gone under the radar had the outcome of this case not been what it was.

One eyed Jack

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Step away from the drama.

You have said, several times, that you are aware that the 8th has had a negative impact on some women's health and well-being but that, for you, that is outweighed by the benefits of having the 8th in place.

You may not like how others interpret your statements but I am not the only one who thinks this is how you feel.

A vote to retain the 8th in it's current form is a vote to retain the current situation.

It is a vote which says that some women will die but that is a necessary 'evil' in order to protect the unborn. What is that if not an acceptable amount of collateral damage for a perceived 'greater good'?

You may not like it put that bluntly but the reality is there is nothing complex or nuanced about that. It is what has been happening for over 30 years.

I'll say the same thing to you then - step away from the drama.

Bannasidhe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'll say the same thing to you then - step away from the drama.

Seriously?
That's your response?

end of the road

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Exactly. You are minimising the negative effects of the 8th.

no he isn't. this is a complete lie. re-read his posts.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Lovely soundbite and all but where is your proof of that?

because as said by me, there are many who disagree with abortion on demand, and on the grounds of it being likely that it would be legislated for, we wouldn't vote to repeal. if there is enough of us and the vote is caried then the problems still exist. however if there was no chance of abortion on demand being legislated for, there would have been huge support from the pro-life movement.

Annasopra

end of the road wrote: »

no he isn't. this is a complete lie. re-read his posts.

I have read them. Stop making stuff up.

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

because as said by me, there are many who disagree with abortion on demand, and on the grounds of it being likely that it would be legislated for, we wouldn't vote to repeal. if there is enough of us and the vote is caried then the problems still exist. however if there was no chance of abortion on demand being legislated for, there would have been huge support from the pro-life movement.

Bann asked glitz for proof. The unsupported opinion of another poster who then has to qualify his opinion with conditional conjunctions isn't proof. It's probably the exact opposite of proof.

One eyed Jack

uptherebels wrote: »

Doesn't affect me as I can't get pregnant😉

It's in the Irish Constitution which acts as a guiding document for Irish society so of course you and everyone else and even those yet to be born are affected by it.

You can't say something as being definite and then say it's only your opinion, consequently there is no way to interpret it as anything other than as an unstubstantiated statement of fact.

I can, I just did, and I'll likely do it again. How you choose to interpret what I say is entirely up to you.

Even if it is only your opinion surely there is some evidence that you used to form that opinion? Not like anti choices to make it up as they go along!

I don't know why you refer to anti choicers as I've said I am neither pro-choice nor anti-choice as the labels mean nothing to me, but I formed that opinion given the number of pregnant women and women who have given birth since the inception of the 8th amendment, and the number of women who have been negatively affected by the existence of the 8th amendment, as a subset of those women.

Bannasidhe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't know why you refer to anti choicers as I've said I am neither pro-choice nor anti-choice as the labels mean nothing to me, but I formed that opinion given the number of pregnant women and women who have given birth since the inception of the 8th amendment, and the number of women who have been negatively affected by the existence of the 8th amendment, as a subset of those women.

aka the collateral damage.

thee glitz

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Lovely soundbite and all but where is your proof of that?

There's no real proof (necessary) except people saying that they would vote to repeal the 8th, but wouldn't if it meant abortion on demand.

NuMarvel wrote: »

In other words, the 8th puts women's lives at risk. By jove, I think we've finally hit common ground!

Well there are abortions carried out already, but also compelling reasons to extend the grounds of availability. Some see far more good reasons than others (any reason?), but those common to many apparently shouldn't be addressed independently of others and all. How would you feel if Leo said that the legislation that would follow repealing the 8th would allow abortion on demand up to 26 weeks?

end of the road

uptherebels wrote: »

Not like anti choices to make it up as they go along!

that's rich. we have had a couple of pro-choicers on here doing nothing but making up things about other individuals on this site.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I have read them. Stop making stuff up.

you either haven't, or are twisting them to suit what you wanted them to say. whichever it is, your claim is inaccurate and i haven't made up anything

NuMarvel wrote: »

Bann asked glitz for proof. The unsupported opinion of another poster who then has to qualify his opinion with conditional conjunctions isn't proof. It's probably the exact opposite of proof.

it is proof enough as it seems to be how quite a lot of pro-life people who i have spoken to feel about the issue.

Annasopra

end of the road wrote: »

you either haven't, or are twisting them to suit what you wanted them to say. whichever it is, your claim is inaccurate and i haven't made up anything
.

You are embarassing yourself now

ohnonotgmail

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You are embarassing yourself now

Now???

One eyed Jack

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Seriously?
That's your response?

As blithe and dismissive as your own, yes, that is my response.

I wouldn't have considered your first post a dramatic performance, but it was your reply to mine suggesting I was being dramatic when I responded to you in kind, that had me think if anyone is being dramatic here, it sure as hell ain't me. You're only getting back what you gave out in the first place, so if you're going to be dismissive, you shouldn't be surprised and should expect the same in return.

I've been civil even when you interpreted my posts with malicious intent, but my patience wears thin when you're constantly at it. I'm not upset by that, I'm not angry about it, I'm not stroppy about it, or any of the other many characteristics you might try and imply. I'm just tired. That's all. I'm tired and I'm wore out and I thought it wasn't too much to expect a bit of human decency and understanding goes both ways. I was wrong. Clearly you're under the impression that it only goes one way.

I don't see much point in us continuing this conversation then, and with that said, I'll bow out for now.

Bannasidhe

thee glitz wrote: »

Promoting abortion on demand as being the result of repealing the 8th is also putting women's lives in danger, by making it less likely to pass.

thee glitz wrote: »

There's no real proof (necessary) except people saying that they would vote to repeal the 8th, but wouldn't if it meant abortion on demand.

So you are admitting the 8th puts women's lives in danger and you want situation to continue unless the government dismisses the recommendations of the Citizen's Assembly and brings in a more restrictive regime than they proposed?

Once again we see a so called 'pro-lifer' using women's lives to further their agenda.

Bannasidhe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As blithe and dismissive as your own, yes, that is my response.

I wouldn't have considered your first post a dramatic performance, but it was your reply to mine suggesting I was being dramatic when I responded to you in kind, that had me think if anyone is being dramatic here, it sure as hell ain't me. You're only getting back what you gave out in the first place, so if you're going to be dismissive, you shouldn't be surprised and should expect the same in return.

I've been civil even when you interpreted my posts with malicious intent, but my patience wears thin when you're constantly at it. I'm not upset by that, I'm not angry about it, I'm not stroppy about it, or any of the other many characteristics you might try and imply. I'm just tired. That's all. I'm tired and I'm wore out and I thought it wasn't too much to expect a bit of human decency and understanding goes both ways. I was wrong. Clearly you're under the impression that it only goes one way.

I don't see much point in us continuing this conversation then, and with that said, I'll bow out for now.

So you have no actual response to the fact that a vote to retain the 8th essentially says dead women are collateral damage.

You prefer to make it all about you. It's not about you Jack. It's not about me. Neither of us will ever have a crises pregnancy.

This is about women's right to life and right to decide what happens their own bodies.

uptherebels

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's in the Irish Constitution which acts as a guiding document for Irish society so of course you and everyone else and even those yet to be born are affected by it.





I can, I just did, and I'll likely do it again. How you choose to interpret what I say is entirely up to you.





I don't know why you refer to anti choicers as I've said I am neither pro-choice nor anti-choice as the labels mean nothing to me, but I formed that opinion given the number of pregnant women and women who have given birth since the inception of the 8th amendment, and the number of women who have been negatively affected by the existence of the 8th amendment, as a subset of those women.

Please explain to me, how as a 30 year old male the 8th affects me.

So you know how many women were negatively affected by the 8th?

nozzferrahhtoo

Loving how you keep ignoring the posts I write to you, put take pot shots at other posts I make to other people. Dodge much?

end of the road wrote: »

the reality however is that the unborn even in it's first few weeks is above an ant, given that it will likely develop if not stopped, into a complex human person.

It is not above an ant in terms of sentience, brain power, experience and a developed brain however. To put one above the other you have to look at what one is, and what the other MIGHT be in the future. Hardly comparing like with like there are you.

nozzferrahhtoo

uptherebels wrote: »

Please explain to me, how as a 30 year old male the 8th affects me.

At a guess I expect he will say that it affected you when you were a fetus, because it gave you a right to life as an unborn.

Weirdly he also says women should have a right to terminate the pregnancy at ANY stage for ANY reason though. And he also claims that the fetus inside such a woman is something without right, because it gets these AFTER it is born and is given human rights.

If you can make sense of these contradictions, you are a better man than I.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't see much point in us continuing this conversation then

A move you often make. But if you decide to bow back in again I will repeat here a post you appear to have missed earlier:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The 8th has a positive effect on her right to life before she's even born though?

I am still curious what your interest even is in a law that protects the right to life of the unborn given you have indicated to me in the past (assuming you were not just communicating poorly) that you believe a woman should be able to have a termination of her pregnancy at any stage, for any reason.

I am very interested to hear how one can hold the position that a woman should have the right to terminate the pregnancy at any stage for any reason........ while also holding to the position the unborn should have a right to life.

You have told us "that a woman should have full control over her own body at any stage in her pregnancy.".

Is that not at odds with a law that gives a right to life to the unborn?

You have also told us that "Before it's born, it's a foetus, inside a pregnant woman, who does not want to continue her pregnancy. After it's born, it's no longer a foetus, but an individual human being upon which we confer human rights."

Is there not a contradiction in saying we confer rights after birth, but having a law that gives it rights before birth? Which is it? It can not be both!

I genuinely would like to see the connection here, because at the moment it is like reading the posts of two totally different people posting under one single user name. Perhaps a simple re-wording of your points is all that is required for me to see the missing link, but right now things appear to by entirely contradictory.

Or maybe even better, because second voices can often be clearer than one.... if someone ELSE understands how this conflict is resolved and understands OEJs position here, could you adumbrate it in your own words for me. Maybe I will understand the same point better simply made by a different person in a different way?

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

that's rich. we have had a couple of pro-choicers on here doing nothing but making up things about other individuals on this site.

When people call you a nimby in relation to abortion it is because as you have said before that your support for the right to life is limited by geography.

NuMarvel

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So you are admitting the 8th puts women's lives in danger and you want situation to continue unless the government dismisses the recommendations of the Citizen's Assembly and brings in a more restrictive regime than they proposed?

Once again we see a so called 'pro-lifer' using women's lives to further their agenda.

Plus, a more restrictive regime would still put most women's lives at risk because it would only benefit a smaller number of women, meaning the remainder would continue to exposed to the risks of a general abortion ban.

eviltwin

It says everything that some people are more concerned with the fate of individuals yet to be conceived than actual women and girls.

thee glitz

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So you are admitting the 8th puts women's lives in danger and you want situation to continue unless the government dismisses the recommendations of the Citizen's Assembly and brings in a more restrictive regime than they proposed?

Once again we see a so called 'pro-lifer' using women's lives to further their agenda.

I don't care much for the CA - what's this thread called and why anyway? Apparently, they voted one way, but the proclaimed 'result' was something else due to the farcical way it was determined. I also don't buy your concern for women's lives being any greater than mine - would you accept the possibility of legislating for abortion on demand being kicked 10 years down the road if it meant an end to women dying due the 8th?

NuMarvel wrote: »

Plus, a more restrictive regime would still put most women's lives at risk because it would only benefit a smaller number of women, meaning the remainder would continue to exposed to the risks of a general abortion ban.

What risks, what are you comparing?

Bannasidhe

thee glitz wrote: »

I don't care much for the CA - what's this thread called and why anyway? Apparently, they voted one way, but the proclaimed 'result' was something else due to the farcical way it was determined. I also don't buy your concern for women's lives being any greater than mine - would you accept the possibility of legislating for abortion on demand being kicked 10 years down the road if it meant an end to women dying due the 8th?

I watched the whole vote. It was very clear. Each proposal was clearly made, any clarifications sought were provided, then the vote on that particular proposal was not only taken - they had a vote as to whether they would vote.
No apparent discrepancy at all - the resulting report reflected the vote.
Glad to clear that up.

And what?

NuMarvel

thee glitz wrote: »

What risks, what are you comparing?

The risks you referred to as being present in the current situation minus whatever ones might be mitigated by the alternative you'd propose in lieu of the Committee's recommendations.

end of the road

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You are embarassing yourself now

oh no i'm not. you made a claim about a poster. that claim was false. when pointed out to you by that poster and myself that your claim was false, you continued to make the claim.

uptherebels wrote: »

When people call you a nimby in relation to abortion it is because as you have said before that your support for the right to life is limited by geography.

no, when people call me all sorts it's based on makey uppy nonsense and stuff i never said. my posts are twisted to mean and say what those people want them to say and to mean, in an aim to get them to fit the bogyman nonsense they have created in their heads.

eviltwin wrote: »

It says everything that some people are more concerned with the fate of individuals yet to be conceived than actual women and girls.

most people who are against abortion on demand are concerned for both. that is why we support abortion when necessary but don't when it isn't, meaning that where the baby does have a genuine effect on the mother it's life can be terminated. it doesn't mean we agree with the act, but we understand it's necessary as it would cause an unacceptible outcome in the form of death or permanent disability.

end of the road

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Loving how you keep ignoring the posts I write to you, put take pot shots at other posts I make to other people. Dodge much?

i haven't dodged anything. i actually meant to get back to you but had other things to do.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is not above an ant in terms of sentience, brain power, experience and a developed brain however. To put one above the other you have to look at what one is, and what the other MIGHT be in the future. Hardly comparing like with like there are you.

in the future, the human being unborn life will be sentient and have experience, a developed brain and brain power way above an ant. so therefore the human life comes above that of an ant.

mrkiscool2

end of the road wrote: »

oh no i'm not. you made a claim about a poster. that claim was false. when pointed out to you by that poster and myself that your claim was false, you continued to make the claim.

Lol, EOTR getting on his high horse about a claim being false when he has made a few false claims himself and has never admitted any of them were false, cause fcuk the truth getting in the way of his narrative.

Annasopra

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Lol, EOTR getting on his high horse about a claim being false when he has made a few false claims himself and has never admitted any of them were false, cause fcuk the truth getting in the way of his narrative.

This is just Panto. I notice as well now EOTR supports abortion where there in the case the child may be disabled. Another contradictory position from a so called pro life poster. Laughable really.