The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

One eyed Jack

neonsofa wrote: »

How would the former part of your post be possible without the latter parts that you would abolish?

With people like kylith who exist in Irish society who are willing to provide for those people who are less fortunate than themselves. I'm assuming they do already since they use those people in their arguments.

Odhinn

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Or they could end up spending their life on social welfare because they were born to a single mother who was forced to give birth to them and did poorly in life as a result.

Whats rather more pertinent is what would be the psychological impact on a woman forced to give birth, and what effect, if any, that would have on her attitude towards the child.

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

With people like kylith who exist in Irish society who are willing to provide for those people who are less fortunate than themselves. I'm assuming they do already since they use those people in their arguments.

Are you going to offer a genuine answer or just use my question to make digs at other posters that have nothing to do with me?

.......

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack

neonsofa wrote: »

Are you going to offer a genuine answer or just use my question to make digs at other posters that have nothing to do with me?

That was a genuine answer neonsofa, it's what I do and what I've always done and why I can say that based upon my experience, kylith's and ohnonotgmail's dystopian predictions don't necessarily follow. Off the top of my head I can think of a number of women whom have been able to continue their studies, or open their own businesses, or been able to travel or do whatever it is they want with their lives, and having children hasn't been an impediment to their goals they set for themselves. If every private citizen did that, then there would simply be no need for support from the State which provides the means merely to endure the most basic standard of living.

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But that's you're assuming that she has to do all those things kylith, not me. ln my experience there's absolutely no reason why there should be any assumption of a pre-determined outcome for her. Let's imagine for a minute she would meet someone like you who might say to her "y'know what, you pursue your studies, finish your degree, do whatever it is you want to do and I'll make sure you have every opportunity to do it, and you can still raise your child if that's what you want to do!" Now things aren't all so doom and gloom as to her future prospects, are they?

FWIW btw I absolutely do not support the raising of social welfare, I would abolish it entirely if I thought it were possible. I don't support the abolition of school/college fees (but certainly I would put what fees are charged to better use, definitely a whole other thread there!), and I think we already touched on the subsidised childcare issue? Needless to say I would simply abolish it.

I’m Making no more assumptions than you are, with your idea that everyone who tingles themselves with an unplanned pregnancy will be overtaken with the desire to leapfrog up the social ladder. What’s extra laughable is tht you would also like to remove any social supports which would allow them to actually do that.

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

I’m Making no more assumptions than you are, with your idea that everyone who tingles themselves with an unplanned pregnancy will be overtaken with the desire to leapfrog up the social ladder. What’s extra laughable is tht you would also like to remove any social supports which would allow them to actually do that.

I don't assume that everyone will do that kylith, and I would draw a distinction between support from the State (which really only enables the continuation of poverty), and social support, as in support from society, which enables social mobility.

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That was a genuine answer neonsofa, it's what I do and what I've always done and why I can say that based upon my experience, kylith's and ohnonotgmail's dystopian predictions don't necessarily follow. Off the top of my head I can think of a number of women whom have been able to continue their studies, or open their own businesses, or been able to travel or do whatever it is they want with their lives, and having children hasn't been an impediment to their goals they set for themselves. If every private citizen did that, then there would simply be no need for support from the State which provides the means merely to endure the most basic standard of living.

Well then can you be more explicit please? How would a young woman who has no family support or income be able to do these things without social welfare/ low education costs and childcare subsidies?
If she now has motivation, due to her unborn baby, and she wanted to build a life for herself, how can she do this for herself without the assistance of the state in the form of childcare subsidies and income supports?

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack

neonsofa wrote: »

Well then can you be more explicit please? How would a young woman who has no family support or income be able to do these things without social welfare/ low education costs and childcare subsidies?
If she now has motivation, due to her unborn baby, and she wanted to build a life for herself, how can she do this for herself without the assistance of the state in the form of childcare subsidies and income supports?

How explicit do you need me to be like? I already said that she could do it either with kylith's help or with my help or with the help of anyone here who would use the example of this hypothetical woman in their arguments. It would be private citizens would give her an initial boost, put her in touch with the people who can and want to help her and want to see her succeed, and from there on she now has both the intellect and the ability to provide both for herself and her children. Long term then they too are also able to support their own children themselves in entering third level if that is what they choose to do.

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How explicit do you need me to be like? I already said that she could do it either with kylith's help or with my help or with the help of anyone here who would use the example of this hypothetical woman in their arguments. It would be private citizens would give her an initial boost, put her in touch with the people who can and want to help her and want to see her succeed, and from there on she now has both the intellect and the ability to provide both for herself and her children. Long term then they too are also able to support their own children themselves in entering third level if that is what they choose to do.

So she gets referred to a guidance officer who helps her apply to university and she gets a place and then.... who minds the baby? Who pays for food? Who pays for rent? For books? For gp visits? For her laptop for college? Wifi? Where does she live?
I'm not talking about who assists her in planning her life,I'm asking who makes it financially possible? Not just grants from charities but actual financial support for day to day living while she builds her life.

.......

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack

neonsofa wrote: »

So she gets referred to a guidance officer who helps her apply to university and she gets a place and then.... who minds the baby? Who pays for food? Who pays for rent? For books? For gp visits? For her laptop for college? Wifi? Where does she live?
I'm not talking about who assists her in planning her life,I'm asking who makes it financially possible? Not just grants from charities but actual financial support for day to day living while she builds her life.

I do, and I have done, and I'm assuming anyone here who uses these hypothetical women in their arguments does it. I'm not particularly fond of charities tbh because quite frankly they're usually shyte (In my experience of course, lest that need be said!).

.......

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I didn't say that.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They're all here already. You're here aren't you?

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I have no doubt you're willing to travel.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'll be honest, I find you fcuking insufferable. I still wouldn't hold that against you though, because that would be spiteful. In the same way, I wouldn't hold it against any woman simply because I find them insufferable.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You're gone off on something else there now which wasn't what I was talking about at all. You really haven't contributed much to the discussion so far, but I'm still holding out hope you might come good and make an actual point worth discussing at some stage.

eviltwin

This thread is becoming farcical. If this is the standard of the argument to keep the 8th that we'll be subjected to god help us. It swings from complete distrust of women to patronising us that we need to be protected from our bad choices. Typical it's two men coming out with this sexist drivel. As a woman who has had an abortion I can say, in my experience, they are both talking through their holes.

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I do, and I have done, and I'm assuming anyone here who uses these hypothetical women in their arguments does it. I'm not particularly fond of charities tbh because quite frankly they're usually shyte (In my experience of course, lest that need be said!).

You paid 190 per week in childcare fees? 70 in travel costs? 900 per month in rent? Etc. Etc.

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

This thread is becoming farcical. If this is the standard of the argument to keep the 8th that we'll be subjected to god help us. It swings from complete distrust of women to patronising us that we need to be protected from our bad choices. Typical it's two men coming out with this sexist drivel. As a woman who has had an abortion I can say, in my experience, they are both talking through their holes.

If you're implying that I don't trust women or that I think women need protecting from their own bad choices, then it's not me who is talking out my hole, no matter what your experience of other men is based upon, and as I said earlier I don't particularly care one way or the other if a woman has had an abortion because it's simply not a consideration for me. Neither the fact she is a woman, nor does the fact she has had an abortion lend any more weight to her argument with regard to a Constitutional issue, so your individual experience of having had an abortion is just that, and doesn't trump anyone's argument.

You're still entitled to think I'm talking out my hole though, as is your prerogative.

.......

This post has been deleted.

end of the road

eviltwin wrote: »

This thread is becoming farcical. If this is the standard of the argument to keep the 8th that we'll be subjected to god help us. It swings from complete distrust of women to patronising us that we need to be protected from our bad choices. Typical it's two men coming out with this sexist drivel. As a woman who has had an abortion I can say, in my experience, they are both talking through their holes.

again this is false. the argument is simply about protecting the unborn from being killed. there is no distrust of women, no wanting to protect them from their bad choices as we have all made a bad choice in our lives, and no sexist drivel either.

pilly

One eyed Jack wrote: »

pilly I'll answer this one.





pilly I'm never willing to contemplate all things being equal in any circumstances because they never are. That's just not something I've ever experienced and I can only base my opinions on my experience and what evidence I have available to me. That's one of the reasons I find statistics in social studies can be notoriously unreliable because they are generally used to lobby one position over another, and will present an overall picture to support the basis of whatever idea it is they're putting forward.

Now, with that said, I don't even need to contemplate all things being equal to see that women in some cases believe it is not best for them to have a child or not to have a child simply because she doesn't want to. You'll get no quarrel with me on that score, and I've already said as much that I would do what I could for a woman in that situation.

What seems to be causing some people here great difficulty is what I would be prepared to do at an individual level, and what I would or wouldn't be prepared to support at a societal level. I have to be absolutely clear here - I have no issue at an individual level with any woman who would want an abortion because she wants to terminate her pregnancy, at any point for any reason. That is entirely her prerogative and I would and have supported women who have made that decision for themselves.

At societal level - it's an entirely different matter, because then it's not simply a matter of our personal morality as individuals, but a matter of social morality, in other words - ethics, and in that respect, I would not support any moves towards introducing more liberal policies in relation to abortion in Irish society. I don't see that as 'exporting the problem' as some posters here have put it. I see those women as choosing of their own volition either import pills or go abroad to avail of abortion in another jurisdiction. I don't support the importation of pills in the first place, and I don't support the idea of women going abroad to avail of abortion in another jurisdiction, but if that is what they choose to do, I won't pass judgement on them for doing so, but I would help them in any way I could. I would never attempt to stop them or attempt to change their minds, because that only introduces further confusion when they are already distressed.

It's not about me, it's about them making a decision for themselves, and to introduce my personal opinion of abortion as a social issue at that point is simply cruel. Many of my friends are aware of my stance, and they are also aware that I have never passed judgement upon them, and for the poster earlier who said he has never talked to women about these things, I personally don't find that all that unusual, nor do I think my own experiences of talking to women about these issues are in any way unusual either.





I wouldn't say 'forced', I would say more likely coerced. I do know some women who feel they were forced into having an abortion, and I know women who feel they were forced into having children, whether that be either through a combination of circumstances or more often by the people in their lives at the time. I don't pretend to sympathise or empathise with these women simply because I don't know what it was like for them in those circumstances, but I will always do my best to help them in any way I can to alter their circumstances themselves so they don't have to feel like they will ever be in that position again.

2. I do not, and I never have. That's simply not true. When I said that, I was speaking in terms of the assumption that group of people actually want to have children, but for whatever reasons, the main factors being socioeconomic factors, whether it be family, support network or lack thereof, employment circumstances and so on (in fact the last factor I would consider is solely the financial factor, because that's always going to be affected by increasing inflation and recessions and booms and so on), they don't feel they are in a position to have children or to maintain a family.

My argument that it's better for people (generally, whether they be poor or wealthy) is not solely based upon their current socioeconomic status as individuals, but is based upon the ability of their children and future generations to be able to generate wealth independently and as a group. One of the ways in which this happens is through raising expectations of the next generation, and it is the parents of the previous generation who influence these raised expectations, ergo - children grow up with raised expectations and set higher standards for themselves than the previous generation.

3. No, and that's not what I said, because that would be silly. That's probably how ohnonotgmail read it too, which is why they determined it to be the densest thing they'd ever read (clearly they've never been exposed to some of my better work :pac:). I don't for a minute think that people who don't have children have no motivation to get on in life, in fact they are likely to be the group who imagines themselves to be at the pinnacle of life, winning at life even, while looking down upon people who are struggling with children. The fact is that they are two completely different lifestyle choices, and there are far more people in the developed world who have children and aren't struggling, than those who have children and are.





What gives me the right to want the best for my granddaughter as opposed to a complete stranger whom I have no relationship whatsoever? I don't see the inherent hypocrisy you appear to imagine is present in that scenario. Why would the welfare of other women enter that scenario as though I should view the welfare of complete strangers as equal to that of my own granddaughter? I'm thinking it through and I don't believe for a minute anyone would elevate considerations for the welfare of complete strangers to the same level as that of their family members or people they care about in their immediate circles. There's no hypocrisy in saying that the 8th amendment would apply equally to my granddaughter as it would anyone else in Irish society. Having the means to be able to ensure a better quality of life for my granddaughter while other people can not provide the same standard for their granddaughters as I can is not hypocrisy, and it doesn't mean I don't care about the welfare of other people either. As I have made the point many times already - it's not an either/or situation, and that's why I don't engage in thought experiments where all things are assumed to be equal because that kind of thinking simply has no basis in reality.

So many words, so little said. I can't even.........

One eyed Jack

neonsofa wrote: »

You paid 190 per week in childcare fees? 70 in travel costs? 900 per month in rent? Etc. Etc.

Ahh, you want me to be that explicit?

No neonsofa, that I'm afraid isn't going to happen. I've been polite and civil in answering your questions up to this point and now I think with respect we're done here.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you're implying that I don't trust women or that I think women need protecting from their own bad choices, then it's not me who is talking out my hole, no matter what your experience of other men is based upon, and as I said earlier I don't particularly care one way or the other if a woman has had an abortion because it's simply not a consideration for me. Neither the fact she is a woman, nor does the fact she has had an abortion lend any more weight to her argument with regard to a Constitutional issue, so your individual experience of having had an abortion is just that, and doesn't trump anyone's argument.

You're still entitled to think I'm talking out my hole though, as is your prerogative.

I'm just going by your posts. You said yourself you believe having babies will help people aspire to more. Well what about women like me who already had kids, who already were doing okay and who just didn't want to be pregnant?

I don't think your a sexist dinosaur, I know you well enough to know you have respect for women and I know you don't judge people which is why your anti repeal stance is so difficult to understand.

Ken.

Mod- One eyed Jack do not post in the thread again. Reason-Personal abuse

Da Boss

eviltwin wrote: »

This thread is becoming farcical. If this is the standard of the argument to keep the 8th that we'll be subjected to god help us. It swings from complete distrust of women to patronising us that we need to be protected from our bad choices. Typical it's two men coming out with this sexist drivel. As a woman who has had an abortion I can say, in my experience, they are both talking through their holes.

I agree this is farcical, the reason being though however is that you and your like don’t even consider the arguments that don’t agree with yeer agenda, yee just dismiss them as rubbish despite the fact there were many valid points made. The arrogance of the pro choice contingent won’t help their cause:)

Loafing Oaf

http://www.eveningecho.ie/oneaday/Billy-Kelleher-Abortion-referendum-process-being-undermined-by-Taoiseach-66d84f90-f12a-47f0-aba4-a14abd27cfa9-ds

The process of setting up an abortion referendum is being undermined by the Taoiseach, according to Fianna Fáil’s health spokesperson.

Billy Kelleher says Leo Varadkar needs to show leadership by declaring his position on repealing the Eighth Amendment.

Physician, heal thine own party leader.:p

nozzferrahhtoo

Da Boss wrote: »

I agree this is farcical, the reason being though however is that you and your like don’t even consider the arguments that don’t agree with yeer agenda, yee just dismiss them as rubbish despite the fact there were many valid points made. The arrogance of the pro choice contingent won’t help their cause:)

You will have to help me find what "valid points" you are referring to. The Anti Choice side appear to have either made up nonsense they could not support so far on the thread, or ignored direct questions and posts entirely.

The only arguments I have seen them try and construct have been either rebutted entirely, or were never substantiated in the first place. The ones I recall are:

• Things that potentially could be sentient, should have some right to become sentient. This is an argument only one person has asserted and then consistently refused to back up in any way. Further that person was unable to explain why one thing that COULD be sentient gets this right, but other things that COULD be sentient don't.
  
• Poor people will somehow stay poor, or the divide will be even bigger between rich and poor, if abortion is allowed. Again only one user espoused this, but did not give any evidence for it. He claimed it happened before, but was unable to name where, give examples, show figures, or answer any questions on it.
  
• Women will somehow be coerced, even forced, into having abortions if abortions become an option. Again only one user espousing this, could give no examples of it, referred to no country where it happens at all let alone with any consistency, and supported it with nothing but some vague reference to people getting vaccinated.
  
• Allowing abortion will somehow erode or hamper our value of human life. This is the worst of the arguments because it does the exact opposite. Being pro choice values the parts of human life worth actually valuing. Sentience and well being. It recognizes the worth of a human PERSON above that of a non-sentient blob of meat.

Other than those "points" and a few other more minor but blatant assertions, I can genuinely not recall "valid points" being made by the anti choice contingent in the 4500+ posts on the thread that have not been roundly and wholly rebutted. If you feel I have somehow missed some, then rather than declare they are being "just dimissed"..... actually point me to them and I will evaluate them openly and honesty for you. Assuming, of course, they are there and you even want them considered at all.