The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

v638sg7k1a92bx

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Yes. I don't want children. I never want children. I am not allowed to get my tubes tied in case I "change my mind". No contraception is 100% effective. The very thought of having children makes me feel sick, due to personal reasons. Carrying a child to term and giving it away would probably end up being the death of me. If I fell pregnant now, one way or another, I will not stay pregnant.

Making abortion illegal does not stop abortions.

So in that case, you consider it a form of contraception?

dudara

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Is that what repealing the 8th essentially doing???

Surely it's a minority of people who require/want an abortion let alone cases where there is a risk to health/life?

In the grand scheme of things, the number of women who will ever want an abortion (for whatever reason) is a minority. Thankfully most pregnancies are welcomed and treated with joy. Unfortunately there are a mintory of cases where it is not wanted, or needs to be terminated for medical reasons. We need to acknowledge that these cases exist and allow choice. It’s far too complex to legislate for by exception

Triceratops Ballet

Ticklers what's your argument for keeping the 8th, why make the argument to keep it and add more amendments?

dudara

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Let me ask you, if the woman wasn't raped, in a bad relationship, completed her education and was well off? Would you still be in favour of abortion?

I would be in favour of her having a choice and choosing her own destiny. Whatever that may be

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

So in that case you're giving an exceptional case to prove a rule you don't actually want to defend.

This nugget has been coming up frequently ever since it dawned on pro-life people that getting people to say "I'm in favour of abortion on request" isn't some kind of checkmate. If you're against "no access to abortion" and in favour of "access to abortion without discrimination as to the reason", then you somehow aren't allowed to talk about the people who the majority of people agree should be allowed access. It's a nonsense, nothing argument.

And you're no bertie or horseburger btw, they kept up a bit of plausible deniability for a couple pages at least. Although the shorter posts are appreciated fam.

v638sg7k1a92bx

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Would I be in favour of women deciding if they wish to be pregnant?

Absolutely.

Women already have that choice, repealing the 8th is not going to change that.

Rjd2

Has there been any polls in the last week or so regarding this? Can't seem to find any.

January

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Women already have that choice, repealing the 8th is not going to change that.

Can you explain this comment

Ave Sodalis

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

So in that case, you consider it a form of contraception?

No.

I am actively taking contraception. In fact, myself and my partner use three forms if you must know. This is in order to not have to have an abortion. However, being realistic, not even that is 100% effective.

Triceratops Ballet

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote:

Women already have that choice, repealing the 8th is not going to change that.

How do they have that choice?

gctest50

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

So in that case, you consider it a form of contraception?

Safety net

why do we have them on scaffold ? shouldn't be dropping stuff

NuMarvel

Rjd2 wrote: »

Has there been any polls in the last week or so regarding this? Can't seem to find any.

Nothing published lately, but I saw a journalist say she was surveyed by IPSOS Mrbi yesterday, so there might be one coming up in the next week or so.

robarmstrong

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Women already have that choice, repealing the 8th is not going to change that.

Contraception isn't 100% effective, a woman using the pill or other contraceptives who falls pregnant due to the contraceptive failing does not choose to be pregnant, don't be so narrow minded.

v638sg7k1a92bx

Misael Echoing Horse wrote: »

This nugget has been coming up frequently ever since it dawned on pro-life people that getting people to say "I'm in favour of abortion on request" isn't some kind of checkmate. If you're against "no access to abortion" and in favour of "access to abortion without discrimination as to the reason", then you somehow aren't allowed to talk about the people who the majority of people agree should be allowed access. It's a nonsense, nothing argument.

And you're no bertie or horseburger btw, they kept up a bit of plausible deniability for a couple pages at least. Although the shorter posts are appreciated fam.

It's not a checkmate, I just don't see the reason for the healthcare facade. It just clouds and confuses the issue further. If your in favour of abortion on request then just say so instead of taking the imaginary victim who has been raped or terminally ill and say "this is all abortions".

Ave Sodalis

Rjd2 wrote: »

Has there been any polls in the last week or so regarding this? Can't seem to find any.

I'm not sure but the poll on this thread is being reset next week if that's any use?

Rogelio Tinkling Cue

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Women already have that choice, repealing the 8th is not going to change that.

explain how please?

Ave Sodalis

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

It's not a checkmate, I just don't see the reason for the healthcare facade. It just clouds and confuses the issue further. If your in favour of abortion on request then just say so instead of taking the imaginary victim who has been raped or terminally ill and say "this is all abortions".

You can't do both? People can have more than one reason. Reading something like In Her Shoes can really make you realise the impact the 8th has.

Triceratops Ballet

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote:

It's not a checkmate, I just don't see the reason for the healthcare facade. It just clouds and confuses the issue further. If your in favour of abortion on request then just say so instead of taking the imaginary victim who has been raped or terminally ill and say "this is all abortions".

There is no facade we're voting on the 8th amendment not abortion.

The proposed legislation is just proposed it hasn't passed the government could fall before it gets a chance, the pro life lobby can lobby for change. The 8th has to go because its a farce

v638sg7k1a92bx

bubblypop wrote: »

explain how please?

Birds and bees.

Rogelio Tinkling Cue

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

It's not a checkmate, I just don't see the reason for the healthcare facade. It just clouds and confuses the issue further. If your in favour of abortion on request then just say so instead of taking the imaginary victim who has been raped or terminally ill and say "this is all abortions".

the 8th amendment is not about abortion.
if it is repealed then leglisation will be enacted to cover abortion.
repeal is about so much more, maybe if you actually read the issues facing womens healthcare you might see that.

the 8th should be repealed even if abortion was not an option after.

Rogelio Tinkling Cue

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Birds and bees.

that is not an explanation.

Triceratops Ballet

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote:

Birds and bees.

What do you mean by that?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

It's not a checkmate, I just don't see the reason for the healthcare facade. It just clouds and confuses the issue further. If your in favour of abortion on request then just say so instead of taking the imaginary victim who has been raped or terminally ill and say "this is all abortions".

Nobody has said that that is all abortions. And feel free to read back through my posts in this thread, in probably a slim majority of them I've explicitly said I'm in favour of abortion on request. You may have noticed plenty other people weren't exactly coy about it just there either, there is no facade.

The 8th amendment affects every pregnant woman in Ireland. It most cruelly affects rape victims, people with an FFA diagnosis, and other marginal cases. These cases illustrate most clearly what a bad piece of law it is. People don't like them being brought up, because while having pro-choice or pro-life views re: abortion on request is a more ambivalent question, most people are agreed that these cases are morally unacceptable. Supporting the retention of the 8th amendment means that these cases are acceptable collateral damage to a person. So we get "Oh shut up about those and stop pretending to care about them".

January

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Birds and bees.

So you're saying if you don't want a baby then don't have sex basically?

gctest50

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Women already have that choice, repealing the 8th is not going to change that.

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Birds and bees.

So abstain then ? Is that what you are suggesting ?


Simple question just needs a Yes/No answer

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

Hmm something something abstain ............... sounds familiar


,

ohnonotgmail

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Birds and bees.

didn't take too long for the condescending pro-lifer to emerge.

Bannasidhe

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Women already have that choice, repealing the 8th is not going to change that.

Really?
What choice did the raped asylum seeker have?

I don't think you understand what "choice" means.

swampgas

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Women already have that choice, repealing the 8th is not going to change that.

Not all women have a choice.

Is having an FFA pregnancy a choice? Married the wrong bloke, poor stock was he?
Getting pregnant through rape is a choice? Chose a skirt that was too short?

Straight question: should a child raped by her father and made pregnant be barred from having an abortion? Please feel free to explain your thinking. Because the 8th says no abortion permitted.

Edit: winding my neck back in a bit - Rogelio Tinkling Cue, I may have mixed you up with another poster.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Oh look, some lies, again.

Any people who are super seriously for real completely on the fence but find the Repeal campaign off putting so they probably won't vote but they're totally not already very pro-life care to weigh in on this latest entry in a long long series of dishonest and despicable behaviour from Love Both et al? Loads of ye I bet

v638sg7k1a92bx

January wrote: »

So you're saying if you don't want a baby then don't have sex basically?

Kathy Newman much?

What I'm saying is that people choose whether or not to be sexually active and that carries inherent risks.