The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

gctest50

Turbohymac wrote: »

It's absolutely amazing all those who want change has actually already been born .. their either very sad in their existing lives but I bet if the clock was turned back they would hope that their parents wouldn't terminate their chance of life when they were pre 12 weeks unborn.. for some of us citizens who has had years of uphill battles with failed ivf etc . We actually look a bit more positive to giving every life the chance it deserves. We all have opinions but it's sad to imagine just how little value has now been placed on human life

IVF ? works a little too well sometimes and you might be needing multiple fetal reduction to save the pregnancy

PopePalpatine

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

Genuine question...what groups from the no campaign have no religious motivation behind their stance?

Maybe there's one on that ****ty Reddit clone, who think Western civilisation began dying with women's suffrage? After all, they share a common fascination with The Spooky Billionaire Jew. :pac:

JDD

I had to google whist drive.

I think we can safely say that there will be more pro-life voters in the 75+ age group than the 18-35 age group. Having said that, I think there are more pro-choice voters in the 75+ age group than people think.

B0jangles

I think I posted before that a couple of weeks ago my mother was at her weekly bridge game and was delighted and surprised to report that everyone there was loudly pro-choice - this was a group of mostly women, ranging in age from 50-90.

applehunter

In contrast, hearing from a good source that the tiddlywinks game in the GAA club has a repeal majority.

#parlourgames4repeal

B0jangles

applehunter wrote: »

In contrast, hearing from a good source that the tiddlywinks game in the GAA club has a repeal majority.

#parlourgames4repeal

Is this just a big joke to you?

I would have thought that whatever your point of view on abortion, the topic itself deserves to be treated with a bit of respect.

kylith

2 of the most vehemently pro-choice people I know conceived through IVF. They don’t see why someone else should suffer so they could have a baby.

January

I've friends with fertility issues who are pro choice. They don't believe women should be forced to continue a pregnancy just because they cannot get pregnant.

_Dara_

applehunter wrote: »

In contrast, hearing from a good source that the tiddlywinks game in the GAA club has a repeal majority.

#parlourgames4repeal

Don’t be sore. You brought up anecdotal evidence in the first place. Maybe you now realise how pointless anecdote is?

applehunter

_Dara_ wrote: »

Don’t be sore. You brought up anecdotal evidence in the first place. Maybe you now realise how pointless anecdote is?

There is a lot of pigeon holing on this thread.

applehunter

Big movement in Bookies in favour of Repeal in the last 3/4 days.

Gone from 8/15 to 1/5

Think the Claire Byrne show poll showed no narrowing of the gap so maybe based on this.

https://twitter.com/KeithMillsD7 doing some sterling work on this.

It wasnt me123

garbo speaks wrote: »

I'm involved in a group that will be offering free lifts to and from polling stations for pensioners from nursing homes and other pensioners in and around our area who might otherwise not be able to travel to vote. The feedback against repeal has been overwhelming in the nursing homes we have already visited. I really think that the elderly vote will sink this referendum, so here's hoping they all get a chance to come out and vote.

That's great, I work with the elderly and they love an auld day out.

I hope you are Garda checked; have written authority by the person concerned to take them anywhere; have insurance as a taxi; have authority of the home to wander in and out putting people in cars; I hope you have helpers as elderly can be unsteady on their feet; I hope you are a trained carer as there are ways you can hold / support an elderly person without giving them any soft tissue/muscle/bone injury; I hope they are compos mentis as if not, you won't be allowed to influence their vote - you can only help people who are verbal and able to convey their personal request - people with dementia are unable to vote as they have no cognizant understanding of what they are voting for.

They will enjoy the spin so fair dues - but how pathetic that you have to drag elderly people out to make a point.

Shame on you

Yer Da sells Avon

Turbohymac wrote: »

for some of us citizens who has had years of uphill battles with failed ivf etc . We actually look a bit more positive to giving every life the chance it deserves.

I have a close relative who has endured several failed rounds of IVF, but remains steadfastly opposed to forcing other people to remain pregnant against their will. Because she's capable of empathy. And if there's one thing I've noticed about anti-choice people, it's that they display zero empathy for their fellow human beings.

Turbohymac

Hi.& thanks for all the replies within 30 minutes just to put things straight. Ivf for 6 years was our only option BUT this
Did not work either. Main point I was making is the very large divide between people who still value life . And the new generation that simply want an abort app on their phones & drone delivery of required advice & medication to terminate another life.. not here to offend anyone else this is simply my opinion but I honestly don't think that many people in favour of abortion on demand actually realises just how others people value life having been through many options. Its being used as a quick fix but this will have lasting negative effects for many at a later stage in their personal lives & we all know their decisions & actions cannot be reversed /repaired .

Thanks to all the above is simply my own personal opinion &experience. Feel free to pm me but I've now got my point out there & others need to air their valued opinions so I will not continue to post .

applehunter

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

I have a close relative who has endured several failed rounds of IVF, but remains steadfastly opposed to forcing other people to remain pregnant against their will. Because she's capable of empathy. And if there's one thing I've noticed about anti-choice people, it's that they display zero empathy for their fellow human beings.

Would you go as far as saying they show psychopathic traits?

Pherekydes

applehunter wrote: »

https://twitter.com/KeithMillsD7 doing some sterling work on this.

For once the repealers will agree with you! Keith Mills is having a great impact with the undecideds!

Yer Da sells Avon

applehunter wrote: »

Would you go as far as saying they show psychopathic traits?

Nope. Displaying zero empathy doesn't mean you're not capable of it.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

applehunter wrote: »

There is a lot of pigeon holing on this thread.

I have not seen much of it really. Or at least most people who have been pigeon holded have done it openly to themselves and made it very clearly what hole they see themselves fitting in.

I am however not quite sure which hole you occupy. These are two quotes from you.....

applehunter wrote: »

Pro choice posters like myself

applehunter wrote: »

Where is your humanity? I think that an abortion is the killing of an unborn child.

.... rather than pigeon hole you I wonder if you could merely by invited to expound on any contradictions people might imagine those two sentences hold? And your position of calling people "abortionists".

When you call yourself pro choice, what definition exactly are you using to do that?

And on what basis do you presume to suggest that people having a different position to you on this subject indicates a missing "humanity"? I trust you realize agreeing with you is not an attribute of "Humanity"?

applehunter wrote: »

The fact that 1/5 children are being killed is a shocking statistic. It's no wonder there have been mathematicians out today trying to disprove it.

I see no reason to disprove it if it is in fact true. But I am not sure how true it is as quite often those statistics include figures that are more than a little misleading. For example the conflation of abortion by choice with abortion by some unavoidable medical necessity in order to enlarge the figures is something I have seen in the past.

So it would certainly pay to unpack the figures a lot more than the cursory level your link to a fact checking website bothered to do.

applehunter wrote: »

Abortion is wrong. It is the killing of an innocent life.

We end life all the time. If you used paper, medicine, or ate vegetables or meat any time recently you yourself had a hand in it. And that life was "innocent" too. So why doing so here suddenly makes abortion wrong is unclear. Perhaps you can expound on this.

What I suspect is you are merely grasping at phrases like "innocent life" in an opportunistic fashion rather than a relevant one. It is a pretty and emotional little phrase on paper, but the moment you unpack it it turns out to be empty.

amdublin

Turbohymac wrote: »

And the new generation that simply want an abort app on their phones & drone delivery of required advice & medication to terminate another life.. .

What a dreadful thing to say.

And not true. Who the heck wants this???

I've just donated again in a direct response to this post.
Trust women
Repeal the 8th

.......

This post has been deleted.

Hannibal_Smith

Turbohymac wrote: »

And the new generation that simply want an abort app on their phones & drone delivery of required advice & medication to terminate another life

Yeah down with freedom to choose.

gmisk

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ah come on! We arent all millionaires!

bertieinexile

Martina1991 wrote: »

bertieinexile wrote:

No wonder Marie Stopes phone women at home who have decided not to have an abortion, and offer them a new appointment.

Ah the Daily Mail.
One of the finer scientific publications.

The allegations centre on Marie Stopes International and have come to light in a damning report by the official watchdog, the Care Quality Commission.
According to the report, staff felt 'encouraged' to ensure women went through with abortions because it was 'linked to their performance bonus'.
Inspectors found evidence of a policy – in place across all 70 Marie Stopes clinics in the country – whereby staff were told to call women who had decided not to have an abortion, and offer them a new appointment.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4998810/Britain-s-largest-abortion-clinic-paid-staff-bonuses.html

amdublin

gmisk wrote: »

Ah come on! We arent all millionaires!

I'm down to fivers now... And only a few donations left in me at this stage.

But if repeal passes it will be a small price to pay for autonomy over my own body and mind

nozzferrahhtoo

Turbohymac wrote: »

It's absolutely amazing all those who want change has actually already been born

IF that amazes you then there has been a logical circuitry failure somewhere at the level of your brain. After all when was the last time you have seen someone not born "want" something.

Turbohymac wrote: »

.. their either very sad in their existing lives but I bet if the clock was turned back they would hope that their parents wouldn't terminate their chance of life when they were pre 12 weeks unborn..

A 12 week old fetus does not "want" anything any more than a rock or a table leg does. There is no one there to do any wanting in the first place.

Turbohymac wrote: »

for some of us citizens who has had years of uphill battles with failed ivf etc . We actually look a bit more positive to giving every life the chance it deserves.

Which is 100% a declaration of your own biases AND the reasons you hold that bias, and 0% a relevant point to make on the morality or utility of abortion.

Further your inability to do something (in this case to conceive naturally) places NO ONUS at all on others who can to do it on your behalf. There are likely many many people in wheelchairs that would love to get up and play a "normal" game of football too. But their inability to do it does not mean I should be expected to against my desires.

Turbohymac wrote: »

We all have opinions but it's sad to imagine just how little value has now been placed on human life

That is EXACTLY the opposite of what pro choice people are doing however. They are very much placing value on human life. They are just explicit over exactly WHAT it is they value and WHY they value it.

And it turns out that the vast majority of what it is we actually value in human life happens to be EXACTLY the things a fetus at 12 weeks of gestation lacks. Not just slightly lacks, but ENTIRELY lacks in any way.

So no, you do not get to pretend that us having a different set of standards of what we value about human life means we somehow do not value human life at all.

Doing that means nothing more than you are intent on distorting terminology to demean others, rather than engage with them with even a modicum of intellectual rigor or honesty.

Turbohymac wrote: »

I honestly don't think that many people in favour of abortion on demand actually realises just how others people value life having been through many options.

Or perhaps it is merely you who do not realize that just because you value something you can not even explain the basis of your value for, other than that you have been denied it yourself, does not translate onto any moral obligations in us at all. You are welcome to value what you want, but us not valuing it exactly the same way or for the same reasons is not a lack on our part. At all. Even a little bit.

Rather what we have done is sit down and ask ourselves what we value and why, and ask ourselves if some of the things we have previously valued actually warrant that value in the first place. And generally a fetus at 12 weeks appears to have no other basis for value other than screeching words like "Human" at it.

bertieinexile

I'm glad we have got to discussing how widely held your view of personhood is nozzferrahhtoo.

First though

Most of us do not see other people as people based on biological factors, but on sentience factors.

But your definition of the minimal requirements for sentience - and therefore for the first emergence of rights and first call on our ethical concern - is biological. The existence of regular waves in fetal brain activity.

And

I campaign for abortion up to and including week 16.

But right now we have a yes no referendum on abortion on demand up to 24 weeks. If you want to campaign in this referendum these are the only two options you can campaign on.


Like I say I'm glad we've got to the point of discussing how widely held your views may be.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote:

I do not believe you are in a position to declare what "most people think". Have you conducted a study? Have you asked "most people"? I doubt it. I think you just enjoy, on numerous occasions, imagining what "many" or "most" people think in a way that wholly suits you. This is far from the first time I have had to call you on that move.

However I suspect if you bothered to conduct an actual study you will find "most people" actually do think that way. Or even if they do not explicitly, they still ACT on it.

So unable are you to rebut the positions I hold, that the sole response open to you seems to be to mischaracterize it with little phrases like this, or by inventing "most people" and declaring to know what they think. Neither of which is impressive or supporting any level of credibility for you in general.

And there you go again. You speak for YOU. All the other people you claim to speak for, or to know what they think, you appear to have simply invented to argument ad populum your own positions to...... well to yourself I guess because no one else appears to have bought into it yet.

Perhaps they are! But merely asserting or suggesting they are is not going to reveal that. Nor is imagining some "most people" agreeing with you that they are.

Yet is it not funny, and telling, that you continue to A) not actually rebut my arguments just moan about me having made them and claim that the majority of my "followers" as you put it do not agree with me despite my posts being thanked and yours not. This just tells me one thing.... you would be better rebutting my points directly, rather than moaning about them or fantasising what you WANT to believe others think about them.

So what do "most people" think?
Well let's put it to a test.

I showed you video of a 23 week old premature baby in an incubator.
https://youtu.be/2RQ8ks-UH0E?t=22s
I told you he is now a healthy 3 year old. You can even look up the parents account on youtube and see video of him playing.

Your definition of the minimum requirement for sentience, and the first hint of a right to life, is regular fetal brain activity. The child in the incubator in those pictures wouldn't have that.

You say

You are asking me about an entity at 22 weeks. It is outside the purview of my position therefore. However if a mother in the UK decided, after it's removal from her womb not to put it on life support and to let it die..... like we do with adult patients when we turn their life support off for example...... then I would not be losing any sleep over it.

Call me Al, crustybla, DubInMeath, Fizzlesque, frag420, January, PopePalpatine, Simi, swampgas and Yeah_Right all thanked you for that.

Like I said let's put the question of how popular your view is to the test.

Are any of Call me Al, crustybla, DubInMeath, Fizzlesque, frag420, January, PopePalpatine, Simi, swampgas or Yeah_Right ready to back you up in the idea you shouldn't lose sleep over someone taking the life of that child hooked up to tubes in that incubator.

Is there any pro choice poster on here with a reasonably long posting history ready to back you up?

Or do "most people" find your position untenable, nozzferrahhtoo? And does that allow us to conclude that, for most of us at least, one of your starting premises was also untenable.

Anyone on the pro choice side? Just a one or two line post saying you wouldn't lose sleep over the taking of that life in the incubator?
If we hear nothing let's assume you disagree with nozzferrahhtoo and you wouldn't support taking the life of that child.

Let's check back on this in 24 hours.

kylith

Turbohymac wrote: »

Hi.& thanks for all the replies within 30 minutes just to put things straight. Ivf for 6 years was our only option BUT this
Did not work either.

so you created and smdestroyed many embryos. Why didn’t you adopt?

Main point I was making is the very large divide between people who still value life

I value life. When a living person is telling me that they can’t afford to raise i child, I value what they’re saying. When a living person says they’re having a miscarriage and the hospital can’t do anything to speed things along, I value them. When a living person tells me that they’ll have to get the body of the baby they wanted shipped back from the UK by courier because it has FFA and the Irish hospital tells them it’s that or carry to term and watch it die, I value them. Why don’t you?

. And the new generation that simply want an abort app on their phones & drone delivery of required advice & medication to terminate another life..

Do you actually not have the faintest idea what’s involved in an abortion? It’s not a day at the beach, you know. Agonising pain, massive bleeding, clots the size of a fist; all over a period of days. This nonsense about ‘lunchtime abortions is just that: nonsense.

ELM327

bertieinexile wrote: »

I'm glad we have got to discussing how widely held your view of personhood is nozzferrahhtoo.

First though
But your definition of the minimal requirements for sentience - and therefore for the first emergence of rights and first call on our ethical concern - is biological. The existence of regular waves in fetal brain activity.

And
But right now we have a yes no referendum on abortion on demand up to 24 weeks. If you want to campaign in this referendum these are the only two options you can campaign on.


Like I say I'm glad we've got to the point of discussing how widely held your views may be.



So what do "most people" think?
Well let's put it to a test.

I showed you video of a 23 week old premature baby in an incubator.
https://youtu.be/2RQ8ks-UH0E?t=22s
I told you he is now a healthy 3 year old. You can even look up the parents account on youtube and see video of him playing.

Your definition of the minimum requirement for sentience, and the first hint of a right to life, is regular fetal brain activity. The child in the incubator in those pictures wouldn't have that.

You say
Call me Al, crustybla, DubInMeath, Fizzlesque, frag420, January, PopePalpatine, Simi, swampgas and Yeah_Right all thanked you for that.

Like I said let's put the question of how popular your view is to the test.

Are any of Call me Al, crustybla, DubInMeath, Fizzlesque, frag420, January, PopePalpatine, Simi, swampgas or Yeah_Right ready to back you up in the idea you shouldn't lose sleep over someone taking the life of that child hooked up to tubes in that incubator.

Is there any pro choice poster on here with a reasonably long posting history ready to back you up?

Or do "most people" find your position untenable, nozzferrahhtoo? And does that allow us to conclude that, for most of us at least, one of your starting premises was also untenable.

Anyone on the pro choice side? Just a one or two line post saying you wouldn't lose sleep over the taking of that life in the incubator?
If we hear nothing let's assume you disagree with nozzferrahhtoo and you wouldn't support taking the life of that child.

Let's check back on this in 24 hours.

I change your argument to:

I showed you video of a 23 hour old semen in a fridge.
I told you he is now a healthy 3 year old. You can even look up the parents account on youtube and see video of him playing.

Now do you see how ridiculous you are being?

Anyone on the pro choice side? Just a one or two line post saying you wouldn't lose sleep over the taking of that life in the incubator?
If we hear nothing let's assume you disagree with nozzferrahhtoo and you wouldn't support taking the life of that child.

Let's check back on this in 24 hours.

I agree with the post, I would not lose sleep over it.