The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

SusieBlue

De Bild wrote: »

It might be your womb but you don't own the baby inside it.

Who owns it then? Who is legally responsible for it?

I am. My body. My life. My choice. None of your business.

De Bild

kylith wrote: »

Not an answer. In my opinion, and in that of the law of the land, abortion is not murder. Why should your opinion trump that?

Right will always trump wrong. It's nothing to do with religion. It's a point of view shared by lovers of humanity.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

uptherebels

De Bild wrote: »

Do you need to be quoted all the opinion polls that went down the swaney? Em Trump, Brexit..

At any rate that poll is way more balanced than here.

do you need to be quoted all the opinion polls that were accurate?

So you conced your in the minority then?

more balanced than here? you mean more balanced than the 99% TO 1% that you claimed, which might just be a little innaccurate;)

De Bild

WhiteRoses wrote: »

BECAUSE HE SAID SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Shouting and hysterics with exclamation marks are an example of an argument lost.

De Bild

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No misogyny, i love women.

You can't compete with me intellectually so i wouldn't even start.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

De Bild

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Diddums??

Only a twat speaks like that.

ohnonotgmail

De Bild wrote: »

Shouting and hysterics with exclamation marks are an example of an argument lost.

you do realise the post was satire?

Boom_Bap

De Bild wrote: »

Diddums??

Only a twat speaks like that.

Don't post in this thread again

SusieBlue

De Bild wrote: »

Right will always trump wrong. It's nothing to do with religion. It's a point of view shared by lovers of humanity.

Abortion is legal in pretty much every progressive country in the world.

Forcing someone who doesn’t want to be pregnant to be pregnant shows zero humanity and compassion and is extremely wrong.

And the only person that suffers in such situations is the innocent child.

SusieBlue

De Bild wrote: »

Killing unborn babies... Very progressive.

Aren’t you banned? Bye now.

kylith

De Bild wrote: »

Right will always trump wrong. It's nothing to do with religion. It's a point of view shared by lovers of humanity.

Who said anything about religion?

It's only your opinion that you are right and I'm wrong. I disagree with you. I think that what is wrong is to force a woman to go through a 9 month gestation and painful delivery when she doesn't want to. I think that it is wrong that in this country, in this day and age, the wellbeing of a woman is worth less than the life of a foetus that doesn't even have a brain. I think it is wrong that women can be forced to have procedures that aren't in their best interest (fallopian tube removal in the case of ectopic pregnancies that could be managed medically) and are against medical best practise (ARMs).

Why should your opinion that a 12 week foetus is more important than a living woman trump my opinion that that woman should have the ultimate say about what is allowed to happen to and in her body?



(Was typing and didn't realise he was banned, sorry.)

Boom_Bap

Please stop replying to De Bild, they are thread banned.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Water John wrote: »

I'll need to get out my fishing rod, with all the red herrings in this pond.
Meanwhile a good clarification on abnormality diagnosis from real experts.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/obstetricians-and-gynaecologists-release-statement-to-inform-repeal-debate-1.3372248

Statement from Down Syndrome Ireland as well.

This morning (January 23rd), an article appeared in the Irish Times highlighting the fact that a pro-life lobby group called Love Both is using an image of a little girl with Down syndrome on campaign pamphlets which are being distributed to households. This has come on top of a number of references appearing in the media over the past few days where campaigners on both sides of the debate are using people with Down syndrome to present their views.

This is very disrespectful to both children and adults with Down syndrome and their families. It is also causing a lot of stress to parents. People with Down syndrome should not be used as an argument for either side of this debate.

Down Syndrome Ireland believes that it is up to each individual to make their own decision about which way to vote in the upcoming referendum.

We are respectfully asking both sides of the campaign debate, all political parties and any other interested groups to stop exploiting children and adults with Down syndrome to promote their campaign views.

We would also like to remind campaigners on both sides of the debate that people with Down syndrome listen to the news and read media articles, including social media content. We ask that the tone of the debate is respectful towards all people with disabilities.

As always, Down Syndrome Ireland will continue to support people with Down syndrome and their families throughout Ireland. If you require any support, please contact us on 01- 4266500.

Edward M

Not being pro choice, I think its clear to all though that DS can't be diagnosed, with certainty anyway, at or before 12 weeks.
But if it is legislative law that applies after the referendum then certain conditions and illnesses could be legislated for by future govts, and indeed time limits increased as to when abortions can take place.
I think once a procedure is put in place it is often then exploited by populist opinion rather than perhaps common sense.
I'd like to know from some pro choice posters on here, what would be the maximum allowed time they would like to see implemented and if and for what reasons they would choose later abortions to be allowed, including incidents of any particular defect from what is classed as a "normal healthy" birth.

.......

This post has been deleted.

strandroad

Edward M wrote: »

I'd like to know from some pro choice posters on here, what would be the maximum allowed time they would like to see implemented and if and for what reasons they would choose later abortions to be allowed, including incidents of any particular defect from what is classed as a "normal healthy" birth.

Similar to the solutions in place in France, Norway, Sweden, Czech etc - after 12 weeks, in case of what's usually described as serious/grave/incurable malformations or conditions the matter is reviewed with medical practitioners who will weight the condition against the term etc. Some countries make similar exceptions for minors as well, again subject to review and not just on request of the guardian.

Call me Al

Edward M wrote: »

Not being pro choice, I think its clear to all though that DS can't be diagnosed, with certainty anyway, at or before 12 weeks.
But if it is legislative law that applies after the referendum then certain conditions and illnesses could be legislated for by future govts, and indeed time limits increased as to when abortions can take place.
I think once a procedure is put in place it is often then exploited by populist opinion rather than perhaps common sense.
I'd like to know from some pro choice posters on here, what would be the maximum allowed time they would like to see implemented and if and for what reasons they would choose later abortions to be allowed, including incidents of any particular defect from what is classed as a "normal healthy" birth.

"Call me Al
Registered User
Quote: Edward M
[I never said if she was raped she should get an abortion, that's twice today I've been misquoted.
Twisting what I say doesent change what I said.
I said she should have the choice if she was raped.
I don't know why I feel the way I do, but a rape victim is a different case than an ordinarily induced pregnancy.]

But the developing embryo foetus baby is the same whichever way the conception happens so how can you distinguish? "



And i'd still like to know how, as someone who professes to be anti-choice, you can defend supporting one type of abortion and not another.

What makes one foetus more deserving of life and not the other?

January

Edward M wrote: »

Not being pro choice, I think its clear to all though that DS can't be diagnosed, with certainty anyway, at or before 12 weeks.
But if it is legislative law that applies after the referendum then certain conditions and illnesses could be legislated for by future govts, and indeed time limits increased as to when abortions can take place.
I think once a procedure is put in place it is often then exploited by populist opinion rather than perhaps common sense.
I'd like to know from some pro choice posters on here, what would be the maximum allowed time they would like to see implemented and if and for what reasons they would choose later abortions to be allowed, including incidents of any particular defect from what is classed as a "normal healthy" birth.

As early as possible and as late as necessary. Taking into account that the vast majority of abortions that take place after week 16 are for fetal abnormality or threat to the pregnant person's life I'm happy with there being no time limit, if the baby is viable then it will be born and given life support.

erica74

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

Statement from Down Syndrome Ireland as well.

That's interesting.
There's 2 vans that drive around and park around Waterford with huge anti choice posters displaying figures on the amount of abortions resulting from babies diagnosed with down syndrome and I always wonder do the parents of the children pictured know what their child's image is being used for.

Loafing Oaf

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

Statement from Down Syndrome Ireland as well.

Have there actually been instances of pro-repeal activists "using people with Down syndrome to present their views"? I know they're taking a principled stand that no-one should be using people with DS for propaganda purposes, but isn't it really just one side they are complaining about?

Itssoeasy

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Have there actually been instances of pro-repeal activists "using people with Down syndrome to present their views"? I know they're taking a principled stand that no-one should be using people with DS for propaganda purposes, but isn't it really just one side they are complaining about?

In the 8th Amendment committee Down Syndrome was used by the pro life senators and TD's(although some used it more than others) and used Denmark as an example.

Loafing Oaf

Itssoeasy wrote: »

In the 8th Amendment committee Down Syndrome was used by the pro life senators and TD's(although some used it more than others) and used Denmark as an example.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying, it's entirely the pro-life/anti-repeal side they're complaining about.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

It's a very carefully worded and diplomatic statement and fair play to them. But yes it's blatantly applicable to the pro-life campaign for the most part and not really to pro-repeal.

It's amazing how being a bit shouty and having annoying hair cuts is apparently enough to get people who support repeal or are on the fence to vote against it, but treating disabled children as something between a pawn and a circus animal is grand.

eviltwin

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

It's a very carefully worded and diplomatic statement and fair play to them. But yes it's blatantly applicable to the pro-life campaign for the most part and not really to pro-repeal.

It's amazing how being a bit shouty and having annoying hair cuts is apparently enough to get people who support repeal or are on the fence to vote against it, but treating disabled children as something between a pawn and a circus animal is grand.

And one of the pro life TDs, John D Walsh, wants their funding removed.

erica74

erica74 wrote: »

That's interesting.
There's 2 vans that drive around and park around Waterford with huge anti choice posters displaying figures on the amount of abortions resulting from babies diagnosed with down syndrome and I always wonder do the parents of the children pictured know what their child's image is being used for.

I try not to base my derision on personal stories preface evidence, but I love this.



http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/daughter-holding-hands-3814914-Jan2018/

Itssoeasy

eviltwin wrote: »

And one of the pro life TDs, John D Walsh, wants their funding removed.

Down Syndrome Ireland's funding ?