The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

ohnonotgmail

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

As opposed to the condescending posts by others about how intelligent they are and the deep south and Northern Ireland. Give me a break.

i think you are reading a different thread to everybody else.

.......

This post has been deleted.

v638sg7k1a92bx

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

you don't believe that people should have the right of self determination, that they should have a right to choose what they want to do with their lives? would you be happy if your name was picked form a hat and you were forced into a life not of your own choosing?

The right to self determination! This is getting ridiculous.

v638sg7k1a92bx

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Keep having children just because your contraception has failed? You do realise that it is 99% effective.

SusieBlue

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Keep having children just because your contraception has failed? You do realise that it is 99% effective.

You do realise you're completely wrong?

The poster you just quoted actually knows some very impressive statistics on the effectiveness of contraception, I'm sure she'll post them shortly for you. You might learn something.

v638sg7k1a92bx

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Greater health risks are not immediate risks to your life. Based on your rational nobody would ever have children because of increased inherent risk.

January

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Your poor granny pregnancy and birth is so hard, my whole tummy is numb from my belly button down, from having two cesareans. It's not fun!

January

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Keep having children just because your contraception has failed? You do realise that it is 99% effective.

Yeah, do some research.

I've had two contraceptive failures in 14 years, one I choose to go ahead with the pregnancy and one I didn't.

SusieBlue

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Greater health risks are not immediate risks to your life. Based on your rational nobody would ever have children because of increased inherent risk.

It should be up to the woman whether she is wiling to take those risks, not you.

Its fine to make statements like that when you aren't the one facing the risks.
You have no idea of the circumstances women find themselves in with their health, where pregnancy can be gravely dangerous.
The onus should be on her to make that choice, not society.

BarleySweets

kylith wrote: »

Actually, no. As 'virginity' is dependant on PiV sex a lesbian could easily have a virgin birth, or a heterosexual couple if, as Scrubs put it, there was an airstrike on an outlying region.

Well I stand corrected! I didn’t realize gender or PiV-ness had anything to do with it, always thought losing ones virginity just meant two people -of different or same gender- having sex together. Thanks!

horseburger

captbarnacles wrote: »

Ready to answer some questions yet?

Are you going to vote yes/no and what restrictions would you like to see in place if it is passed?

I guess you are one of the people, as described by Ian O'Doherty.

Ian O'Doherty on the Pat Kenny show today made an interesting observation,
about the way that certain advocates for a yes vote use tactics that alienate
voters - who are undecided and see both sides of the argument - from
voting yes.

He stated:

"I remember having
dealings with some of the hardcore pro life groups when I was starting out as a
journalist and they were the worst people in the world, right. A lot of
the pro life people that I was used to, were the ones that were really peddling
moral superiority. They were really obnoxious. They had some nasty tactics
on how they dealt with journalists and stuff like that".

He
added that

"it really saddens me, as somebody who would consider
themselves reluctantly - I'm not on any side - but I would be pro choice, that I
see some of the, real sort of bigotry, and sneering intolerance that is coming
from some of the pro choice campaigners, as if the assumption that, anybody who
is pro life, is automatically a religious fundamentalist - I know Atheist pro
lifers".

He added

"it's the sneery condescention,
against a lot of people on the pro life side that is actually the best
marshalling tactic that the pro life people have themselves".

In the discussion Peadar Toibin TD Fianna Fáil, spoke of how many voters
would be supportive of legislation to allow abortion, in circumstances that are
not currently permitted, for example anencephaly.

He added that
many voters have an extreme difficulty supporting a proposal that will permit
abortion with no restriction for the first three months.

Catherine
Noone spoke using the euphemism 'termination of a pregnancy'.

Why
didn't Pat Kenny seek clarification from her, on whether she was using this
phrase to reference births, or abortions, considering that a birth of a child
coincides with the ending of a pregnancy, just the same as a pregnancy ends when
an abortion is carried
out?

https://www.newstalk.com/listen_back/13240/44204/20th_April_2018_-_The_Pat_Kenny_Show_Part_3/

Triceratops Ballet

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

The right to self determination! This is getting ridiculous.

So you think it's perfectly just then that someone be actively forced to live a life that they don't want against their will. If we pull your name out of the hat to go down the mines you'll just accept that?

I note you ignored my other reply about how being pregnant impacts on the rights of a pregnant woman.

Here it is in case you want to tell me how "wrong" I am :rolleyes:

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

you think carrying a baby puts no limitations on you?

If you can be denied medical treatment because you are pregnant your rights are being impacted on
If you are forced to have a medical procedure you don't want because you are pregnant your rights are being impacted on
If you are raped and become pregnant you are forced to pay a price for a situation you did not ask to be in and are in through no fault of your own
The right to life of the unborn interferes with womens rights in all of those situations.

Should the 8th be retained, what would you say to a couple who are forced to travel for a termination?

zedhead

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Greater health risks are not immediate risks to your life. Based on your rational nobody would ever have children because of increased inherent risk.

No people weigh up benefits and risks and decide for the situation they are in.

For someone who wants a child, the benefits outweigh the risks.

For someone who does not want to be pregnant for whatever reason, the risks outweigh the benefits.

So we advocate for their choice.

Kk333

January wrote: »

No, my life is not at immediate risk but why should I have to keep having children just because my contraception has failed?

Get your fella to get the snips. Hey George snip snip.

January

Kk333 wrote: »

Get your fella to get the snips. Hey George snip snip.

That's not 100% effective either you know.

BarleySweets

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Greater health risks are not immediate risks to your life. Based on your rational nobody would ever have children because of increased inherent risk.

What kind of world do you actually live in?!

Triceratops Ballet

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Greater health risks are not immediate risks to your life. Based on your rational nobody would ever have children because of increased inherent risk.

but that's not what you asked, you asked:

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

How does a baby in a woman's, who did not choose to be there, impact on anyone else's rights?

kylith

BarleySweets wrote: »

Well I stand corrected! I didn’t realize gender or PiV-ness had anything to do with it, always thought losing ones virginity just meant two people -of different or same gender- having sex together. Thanks!

Virginity refers only to penetration of vagina by penis. You can get pregnant whether sperm goes in by turkey baster or, how to put this...., seepage.

v638sg7k1a92bx

kylith wrote: »

Have a read of the last 2 words of January's post there.

Should the children she already has be condemned to a life of poverty because she cannot afford to care for another child?

As I said, causation and co-relation is not the same thing. Just because a woman is pregnant does not automatically mean that the children will be condemned to poverty. There are numerous causes of poverty which I'm sure you already know.

zedhead

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

As I said, causation and co-relation is not the same thing. Just because a woman is pregnant does not automatically mean that the children will be condemned to poverty. There are numerous causes of poverty which I'm sure you already know.

But in her specific situation it would mean that. Her finances allowed her to provide for the family she had, not an extra person.

Again the idea is that there is not a one size fits all experience to pregnancy. Everyones situation is different. Which is why the decision is between the woman and her doctor. Nobody else.

kylith

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

As I said, causation and co-relation is not the same thing. Just because a woman is pregnant does not automatically mean that the children will be condemned to poverty. There are numerous causes of poverty which I'm sure you already know.

If one is already in straitened circumstances then another mouth to feed can of course tip ones family into poverty. Do you not think that other people know whether or not they can afford a(nother) child better than you do?

nozzferrahhtoo

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

But you have accepted that it is a life and I assume that you accept that it is wrong to end somebody else's life

Well firstly it is nice to see you are not ignoring and dodging ALL my posts. You finally deigned to reply to one.

However in your appraisal of my position you have failed to make a distinction which I just explained to you in the post you are replying to. Which is odd.

YOU are saying "somebody". There IS no somebody there. I explained that, yet here you are once again asking about "somebody else's life".

In a 12/16 week old fetus there is no somebody there, except in YOUR imagination.

January

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

As I said, causation and co-relation is not the same thing. Just because a woman is pregnant does not automatically mean that the children will be condemned to poverty. There are numerous causes of poverty which I'm sure you already know.

I had the children I could afford, if I had another child it would have stretched us too far and we wouldn't have been able to afford to feed or clothe them adequately, let along pay for their school uniforms, school books, expenses like getting them to and from their many hospital, eye clinic, dentist, speech and language, occupational therapy, physio therapy appts, afford glasses for them all (they all wear them) every year. I could go on.

That's without getting into luxuries such as extracurricular activities and days out.

So yes, we couldn't afford another child, so I had an abortion. Basic family planning 101, if you can't afford a child don't have one.

.......

This post has been deleted.

BarleySweets

horseburger wrote: »

I guess you are one of the people, as described by Ian O'Doherty.

Ian O’Doherty complaining about other people acting morally superior?

Is that the same Ian O’Doherty who said on record that Muslims are never going to fit into Irish culture and shouldn’t be welcomed? The same guy who said the gay marriage referendum was a litmus test for the future of Ireland as a nation to scare listeners into voting against it?

v638sg7k1a92bx

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

So you think it's perfectly just then that someone be actively forced to live a life that they don't want against their will. If we pull your name out of the hat to go down the mines you'll just accept that?

I note you ignored my other reply about how being pregnant impacts on the rights of a pregnant woman.

Here it is in case you want to tell me how "wrong" I am :rolleyes:

I'm not sure what you're referring to but those don't appear to be "rights".

pitifulgod

horseburger wrote: »

I guess you are one of the people, as described by Ian O'Doherty.

Ian O'Doherty thrives on creating outrage and being outraged. Eg this is him on marriage referendum.
https://m.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/if-it-wasnt-a-matter-of-conscience-id-vote-no-just-to-annoy-the-chattering-classes-31158259.html

.......

This post has been deleted.

v638sg7k1a92bx

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Just more confabulation. As your doctor and the dog in the street will tell you. Unless you are extremely unlucky there is no reason why you should get pregnant if you don't want to.

.......

This post has been deleted.