The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

But there is no guarantee that you will get the legislation you're in favour of after the 8th has been repealed.

There is no guarantee, but with the 8th in place there is no possibility. Legislation has been proposed and I've no reason to believe it won't be the legislation put forward. It's not my ideal legislation in any case.

And also what's your point exactly?

Triceratops Ballet

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote:

But there is no guarantee that you will get the legislation you're in favour of after the 8th has been repealed.

No there isn't. That doesn't matter.
I support a repeal even if it leads to no abortion

Water John

Tickers, you do realise that is, a copy and paste line, that's been overused.
You, like all the rest of us citizens of a democratic republic, go to our elected representatives and make our views known. That how legislation is swayed.

Rogelio Tinkling Cue

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

But there is no guarantee that you will get the legislation you're in favour of after the 8th has been repealed.

but thats another issue!
the 8th has to go, anything else is anything else!

nozzferrahhtoo

bubblypop wrote: »

maybe i am being naive here!!
I tend to believe these posters that come on, then as time goes on I am not so sure.......

I try to look at it as an opportunity. IF they want to come in, or even pay or recruit people to come in, and trot out the same 4 or 5 questions, and the same 4 or 5 mantras about taking responsibility and killing human life....... then I am happy to represent the pro choice side calmly, articulately, politely and honestly and feed them the answers they seek.

5 times or 5000 times I am happy to do it between now and election day. And what happens I have noticed is that these people realising I am un-trollable and will not rise in anger or foaming at the mouth.... simply start ignoring me and focusing on the people they think are taking the bait.

Bertie ignored several of my posts before he got thread banned. Horse ignored three of mine today alone that he could not rebut or retort.

As soon as they see you are not prone to having your emotions poked they start by dodging, distorting,and then eventually ignoring and running away. They want the ones who call them trolls, shout at them, insult them, and get thread banned or carded because of them. Because then they can pretend the yes side are some angry mob of foaming mouthed bullies.

The better we represent ourselves in the face of everything from their high horsing to their feigning ignorance about things they have had explained 20 times by 15 different people.... the more they Poe their own position. And I am game if they are. I hope they do not stop. They hang themselves with every word and every move of manipulation they make while we sit back and calmly and maturely answer the challenges as they arise.

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

But there is no guarantee that you will get the legislation you're in favour of after the 8th has been repealed.

Nope there is not. They could write legislation that goes 100% AGAINST the pro choice position. But "What ifs" and crystal ball gazing should not be used to not do the right thing NOW. I will vote yes because I believe it is the right thing to do now, as a first step towards a set of ideals. I will fight the next battle when we come to it.

IF we lived our lives by the intellectually bankrupt and cowardly narrative of not doing the right thing, just in case...... well I imagine we would get nothing done.

"Mog said nothing. She did not like things to change. She liked the to be the same".

Trasna1

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

some people would say that politicians evolving their thinking would be a good thing. apparently not.

how about you answer the question i asked?

If it's genuine I have no problem with it. However if you are taking a view because you think it's the most popular/will give you a political advantage then I am somewhat more dismissive of it.

v638sg7k1a92bx

Misael Echoing Horse wrote: »

There is no guarantee, but with the 8th in place there is no possibility. Legislation has been proposed and I've no reason to believe it won't be the legislation put forward. It's not my ideal legislation in any case.

And also what's your point exactly?

What's your point exactly? You're agitating for repealing the 8th amendment on the basis of healthcare issues while simultaneously acknowledging that none of those concerns will be addressed by repealing the 8th amendment.

Why don't Pro Choicers come straight out and say that they are in favour of abortion on demand. I get it, but running a campaign based on a healthcare issue because you think that this is more palpable to a wider audience is disingenuous. I think that Pro Lifers would be better served arguing the merits of abortion on demand instead of this tactic of taking the marginal case and use that as the broad argument when regardless of whether the woman was raped they are still in favour of abortion in which case you're giving an exceptional example to prove a rule that you don't actually want to defend. Taking the marginal case of the imaginary victim who has been raped or has a cancer and saying "this is all abortions" when know that this is simply not the case.

Triceratops Ballet

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote:

What's your point exactly? You're agitating for repealing the 8th amendment on the basis of healthcare issues while simultaneously acknowledging that none of those concerns will be addressed by repealing the 8th amendment.

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote:

Why don't Pro Choicers come straight out and say that they are in favour of abortion on demand. I get it, but running a campaign based on a healthcare issue because you think that this is more palpable to a wider audience is disingenuous. I think that Pro Lifers would be better served arguing the merits of abortion on demand instead of this tactic of taking the marginal case and use that as the broad argument when regardless of whether the woman was raped they are still in favour of abortion in which case you're giving an exceptional example to prove a rule that you don't actually want to defend. Taking the marginal case of the imaginary victim who has been raped or has a cancer and saying "this is all abortions" when know that this is simply not the case.

You have misunderstood the issue on a fundamental level.

amdublin

This is a post from the In Her Shoes Facebook page today:

"Happily married with three healthy children our family was complete. We never quite found the right form of contraception however and I found myself pregnant again. After the initial shock I knew we had to seriously consider our options.

Having suffered from anxiety and post natal depression after the birth of our third child I was still having treatment and taking medication. I didn't want another baby. Neither did my husband.
We discussed it and he said it was my choice. But these were just words, when I tried to make arrangements he didn't engage. I was told if I travelled it would be alone. So without his support I felt it impossible to arrange. I ordered Pills and in my heart I knew taking them would mean the end of my marriage.

This was and remains the loneliest time of my life. It was a huge decision that I could get no help with for fear of judgement or incriminating those I asked for help. I called my psychiatrist and her first response was "you need to stop taking your meds ". The 8th Amendment seemed to surround and suffocate me. I have a lovely GP who i couldn't go and speak to because this would make us both criminals.

In the end I continued with the pregnancy, because I felt trapped than any other reason. Despite assurances from the hospital that I would be cared for by their mental health team, I seen a nurse just once before delivery and that was it.

Where are the "pro life" crowd when the babies are born. When I struggle to walk, so depressed I can't get out of bed. When this 4th child leaves me unable to care for the other 3.

I love my son very very much. He has brought so much joy to me but not all the changes have been for the better. My health has suffered terribly. As has my career and finances.
My marriage is over, he couldn't handle the pressure. Now I'm alone with 4 children. Who from the "pro-life" movement is around to help me now?

The 8th amendment is barbaric, it demeans half the population, restricts access to healthcare and ruins lives.

For all the women in Ireland"
#Repeal8th #trustwomen

Rogelio Tinkling Cue

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

What's your point exactly? You're agitating for repealing the 8th amendment on the basis of healthcare issues while simultaneously acknowledging that none of those concerns will be addressed by repealing the 8th amendment.

Why don't Pro Choicers come straight out and say that they are in favour of abortion on demand. I get it, but running a campaign based on a healthcare issue because you think that this is more palpable to a wider audience is disingenuous. I think that Pro Lifers would be better served arguing the merits of abortion on demand instead of this tactic of taking the marginal case and use that as the broad argument when regardless of whether the woman was raped they are still in favour of abortion in which case you're giving an exceptional example to prove a rule that you don't actually want to defend. Taking the marginal case of the imaginary victim who has been raped or has a cancer and saying "this is all abortions" when know that this is simply not the case.

repeal of the 8th IS a health care issue.
abortion is secondary.
i would believe that most women want repeal of the 8th amendment regardless of any abortion legislation that may come after.

oh, & just FYI, I am pro choice, but I am pro repeal first and foremost.
I dont believe anyone is hiding anything here!

nozzferrahhtoo

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

What's your point exactly? You're agitating for repealing the 8th amendment on the basis of healthcare issues while simultaneously acknowledging that none of those concerns will be addressed by repealing the 8th amendment.

So we should only do things if it fixes everything in one swoop? Is that your approach? Because alas the real world is more cruel and complex than that.

The people who want to address those issues recognise that it is a war of many battles. And repealing the 8th is the first battle in that war.

They see two choices. Keep the 8th and never address those issues adequately, or repeal it and open up the next stage of possibilities to do so.

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Why don't Pro Choicers come straight out and say that they are in favour of abortion on demand.

Unclear what you mean? The people on this thread have been VERY clear about their position on choice based abortion. I even just wrote you a whole post on the subject making it very open, honest and clear. It appears that to pedal this "Why not come out and be honest about it" line you are selling.... you are required to ignore them (and me) and anything else that does not fit that narrative.

You have entered a thread FULL of people being honest about their position on abortion, to demand they be honest about their position on abortion. Do you also tend to walk into bars and demand that the people there be honest about their desire to drink alcohol?

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

I get it, but running a campaign based on a healthcare issue because you think that this is more palpable to a wider audience is disingenuous.

Great. But given that is NOT what is happening here the sole source of being disingenuous is coming from you. YOU came in and started asking specific questions about healthcare from the start. Many people moved to answer your questions in good faith. And having ensured that everyone was talking about that specifically........ you are now acting like they are somehow being dishonest and are talking about it with a hidden agenda?

They are talking about it because YOU swayed the conversation that way. Clearly with an agenda to use their good faith against them. That is really a new low for the thread really. For shame. For. Absolute. Shame. On. You.

So not only are you going into a bar and demanding people be honest about wanting to drink alcohol, you are essentially going in and buying them all a round of alcohol free drinks, waiting until they get them, and THEN admonishing them for acting like they do not want to drink alcohol.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

What's your point exactly?

It's the very simply worded first sentence of the post that you quoted.

electro~bitch wrote: »

There is no guarantee, but with the 8th in place there is no possibility. Legislation has been proposed and I've no reason to believe it won't be the legislation put forward. It's not my ideal legislation in any case.

And also what's your point exactly?

You're agitating for repealing the 8th amendment on the basis of healthcare issues while simultaneously acknowledging that none of those concerns will be addressed by repealing the 8th amendment.

But it makes it possible for those concerns to be addressed. Those concerns cannot be addressed without repealing it. So even though "Repealing the 8th" and "addressing those concerns" are different things, they are related, and one needs to happen for the other to happen. I'm running out of ways to phrase this simply.

Why don't Pro Choicers come straight out and say that they are in favour of abortion on demand. I get it, but running a campaign based on a healthcare issue because you think that this is more palpable to a wider audience is disingenuous.

Yeah why don't they

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?

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Yup.

electro~bitch wrote: »

I am personally in favour of what's blithely referred to as abortion on demand or lifestyle abortions.

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.

January wrote: »

Yes

:rolleyes:

baylah17

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?

Absolutely.
Her business not yours mine or anyone elses.

Wrongway1985

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Why don't Pro Choicers come straight out and say that they are in favour of abortion on demand. I get it, but running a campaign based on a healthcare issue because you think that this is more palpable to a wider audience is disingenuous.

No one's preference is for abortion, people know full well this is such a drastic measure. However in whatever private matter someone finds them-self in; that should remain between them and their doctor give them all the support needed under proper medical care.

This abortion on demand babble is actually whats disingenuous, hate to break it to you but abortions happen regardless, abortion is abortion what's with the on demand tagged on at the end ever hear of tonsillectomy's on demand being uttered regularly? No

This on demand tag seems to imply that no thought is put into such a decision, do you seriously distrust a person to not know themselves what they feel is right for THEM?(not how YOU feel), Let's be real it's hardly as easy as choosing a movie on demand.

RobertKK

Watching prime time. Not enough family doctors and heading towards a 3,000 shortage of doctors. People finding it hard to get doctors to take on new patients. People having to wait to see their doctors as they find it hard to get an appointment.
Then Simon Harris and the yes side think family doctors will be at the frontline for their new shiny abortion regime, when things like free doctors visits for under 6’s already has the system in trouble.

baylah17

RobertKK wrote: »

Watching prime time. Not enough family doctors and heading towards a 3,000 shortage of doctors. People finding it hard to get doctors to take on new patients. People having to wait to see their doctors as they find it hard to get an appointment.
Then Simon Harris and the yes side think family doctors will be at the frontline for their new shiny abortion regime, when things like free doctors visits for under 6’s already has the system in trouble.

More scaremongering BS from our resident IONA spokesman!
Like every GP in the country will have queues of dirty hussies queuing up outside their door every morning looking for terminations.
Cop on FFS and stop showing yourself up.

Ave Sodalis

RobertKK wrote: »

Watching prime time. Not enough family doctors and heading towards a 3,000 shortage of doctors. People finding it hard to get doctors to take on new patients. People having to wait to see their doctors as they find it hard to get an appointment.
Then Simon Harris and the yes side think family doctors will be at the frontline for their new shiny abortion regime, when things like free doctors visits for under 6’s already has the system in trouble.

Free doctor visits for under 6 is the cause of the backlog? Call the newspapers!

Sure abortions will solve that problem then...


(kidding)

Billy86

I thought one of the issues was more abortions = less people, what with the 'one out of five pregnancies terminated' fallacy? So surely less people = less demand for doctors. And less demand for doctors = shortage of doctors goes down.

This 'no' logic seems to be stumbling over itself quite a bit.

RobertKK

baylah17 wrote: »

More scaremongering BS from our resident IONA spokesman!
Like every GP in the country will have queues of dirty hussies queuing up outside their door every morning looking for terminations.
Cop on FFS and stop showing yourself up.

Take your own advice.

baylah17

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Free doctor visits for under 6 is the cause of the backlog? Call the newspapers!

Sure abortions will solve that problem then...


(kidding)

Shure once we force abortions on all the wimmin ,wont we be euthanizing all the sick and elderly and disabled , that should free up lots of hospital beds and GP places.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Edward M

RobertKK wrote: »

Watching prime time. Not enough family doctors and heading towards a 3,000 shortage of doctors. People finding it hard to get doctors to take on new patients. People having to wait to see their doctors as they find it hard to get an appointment.
Then Simon Harris and the yes side think family doctors will be at the frontline for their new shiny abortion regime, when things like free doctors visits for under 6’s already has the system in trouble.

Lots of trouble with the system, I came across this story, from north of the border, but no abortion access, and a young woman having to face this alone probably, maybe a better system with a more open policy on abortion could help avoid situations like this.
I hope this poor girl is OK!
https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/stillborn-baby-found-in-car-boot-at-northern-ireland-hospital-36815743.html

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

I thought one of the issues was more abortions = less people, what with the 'one out of five pregnancies terminated' fallacy? So surely less people = less demand for doctors. And less demand for doctors = shortage of doctors goes down.

This 'no' logic seems to be stumbling over itself quite a bit.

From prime time.
1500 more doctors currently needed.
1500 are retiring soon.
Country is training about 180 a year with many saying they will move abroad.
So even with less under 6’s there will be far less doctors around.

baylah17

RobertKK wrote: »

From prime time.
1500 more doctors currently needed.
1500 are retiring soon.
Country is training about 180 a year with many saying they will move abroad.
So even with less under 6’s there will be far less doctors around.

Which has fcuk all to do with repealing the evil 8th or denying Irish women their rights.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

RobertKK wrote: »

From prime time.
1500 more doctors currently needed.
1500 are retiring soon.
Country is training about 180 a year with many saying they will move abroad.
So even with less under 6’s there will be far less doctors around.

It's a very pressing issue with nothing to do with repealing the 8th. The health system in this country has been outrageously mismanaged for decades and is creaking at every level. If hospitals were the proposed front line for providing abortion there'd be similarly terrible statistics about them.

nozzferrahhtoo

RobertKK wrote: »

Then Simon Harris and the yes side think family doctors will be at the frontline for their new shiny abortion regime, when things like free doctors visits for under 6’s already has the system in trouble.

This has very little to do with repealing the 8th which, as many people on this thread have explained to you, affects women who WANT to be pregnant too. Abortion is a part of this discussion, but alas you and your cohort want to make it not just the primary focus, but the sole one.

However even from a statistical perspective your nonsense here sounds like quite a desperate clutching at straws. The majority of women who find themselves pregnant go to their doctor ANYWAY....

"The Maternity and Infant Care Scheme provides an agreed programme of care to all expectant mothers who are ordinarily resident in Ireland. This service is provided by a family doctor (GP) of your choice and a hospital obstetrician. You are entitled to this service even if you do not have a medical card."

...... so if medical abortion were to come to Ireland there is little reason to expect that there would be MORE visits to such doctors than there is already. It will be exactly the same as it is now. Women going to their doctor to announce the pregnancy and consider their options going forward. There could however now be one more option on the table for SOME of them that was not there before.

So by all means explain to us how women who would have been going to their doctor ANYWAY will by seeking abortion place MORE stress on the system? Your arithmetic seems way off.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

From prime time.
1500 more doctors currently needed.
1500 are retiring soon.
Country is training about 180 a year with many saying they will move abroad.
So even with less under 6’s there will be far less doctors around.

But with 20% of potential new births being aborted as the no side want us to believe, there will be considerably less strain that with those 20% being born. This is undeniable, and is entirely the argument of the no side.

kylith

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

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

Please excuse if asked/ answered already, i’ve fallen a bit behind here.

We have a poster on here who is married, has children, and has a 5% chance of death and a 20% chance of serious impact to health if she gets pregnant. Should she not have sex with her husband until she finishes menopause, which could be 10-15 years?

NuMarvel

RobertKK wrote: »

Watching prime time. Not enough family doctors and heading towards a 3,000 shortage of doctors. People finding it hard to get doctors to take on new patients. People having to wait to see their doctors as they find it hard to get an appointment.
Then Simon Harris and the yes side think family doctors will be at the frontline for their new shiny abortion regime, when things like free doctors visits for under 6’s already has the system in trouble.

Yeah, let's keep sending them to Britain instead! Oh, wait...

One of the main UK hospitals offering abortion services to Irish women in cases of fatal foetal abnormality has scaled back access due to staffing issues.

The Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust has limited services to those between 16 and 20 weeks pregnant whose babies have been diagnosed with having a chromosome abnormality.

This period is problematic as it comes before anomaly scans are usually carried out in Ireland – generally at about 20 weeks – potentially identifying problems including structural conditions such as absent kidneys, heart defects and anencephaly.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Believe what you will but this is the first time I've participated in a conversation in this detail, on on this issue.

Carefully worded to not be technically false but you were fairly clearly pro-life two months ago judging by your posts on the first thread.

Perhaps while you're up on that fence (which you're definitely not lying about being on) you can call people disingenuous and accuse them of putting up a facade again.

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

Watching prime time. Not enough family doctors and heading towards a 3,000 shortage of doctors. People finding it hard to get doctors to take on new patients. People having to wait to see their doctors as they find it hard to get an appointment.
Then Simon Harris and the yes side think family doctors will be at the frontline for their new shiny abortion regime, when things like free doctors visits for under 6’s already has the system in trouble.

Yeah an average of 5 or 6 extra appointments per GP per year is really going to break the system. You really didnt think this through did you?