The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

retired00

david75 wrote: »

The same three people banned from the thread thanking his posts. And they’ve been banned from the others also apart from the one in the Christianity forum.

Work from there.

if we all keep reporting the pro-lifers we can get them perma-banned
then we win

baylah17

retired00 wrote: »

david75 wrote: »

The same three people banned from the thread thanking his posts. And they’ve been banned from the others also apart from the one in the Christianity forum.

Work from there.

if we all keep reporting the pro-lifers we can get them perma-banned
then we win

Did you rereg just to make that one post?
Very sad and not even worth reporting

captbarnacles

applehunter wrote: »

I think a lot of the talk/words deflects from the reality of what abortion actually is.

If the fetus was an amorphus mass of cells it would make no difference to my vote but that it would make a difference to yours should give you pause for thought.

Would a blastocyst make it onto the PLC placards? you are now giving equal rights to a fetus because it is vaguely humanoid shaped which is really nonsense.

_Dara_

retired00 wrote: »

if we all keep reporting the pro-lifers we can get them perma-banned
then we win

Hey noob, hope you enjoy boards! o/

Oldtree

retired00 wrote: »

if we all keep reporting the pro-lifers we can get them perma-banned
then we win

Do "We" win a medal? I only report odious posts, and I do mean really odious.

retired00

Oldtree wrote: »

Do "We" win a medal? I only report odious posts, and I do mean really odious.

we have a saying in east germany
report your neighbour who thinks wrong,
then when he goes to gulag you can have his appartment

applehunter

captbarnacles wrote: »

If the fetus was an amorphus mass of cells it would make no difference to my vote but that it would make a difference to yours should give you pause for thought.

Would a blastocyst make it onto the PLC placards? you are now giving equal rights to a fetus because it is vaguely humanoid shaped which is really nonsense.

Thanks for proving my point.

This may sound logical in your brain but would not persuade many to vote for your point of view as it is cynical and full of big fancy words.

Whereas a picture of a dead baby or indeed of a dying mother is much more powerful.

Oldtree

Oldtree wrote: »

Do "We" win a medal? I only report odious posts, and I do mean really odious.

If its cash what's the chances of it being in non-sequential small notes, I'm having a little trouble with the taxman at the moment.

applehunter

applehunter wrote: »

Thanks for proving my point.

This may sound logical in your brain but would not persuade many to vote for your point of view as it is cynical and full of big fancy words.

Whereas a picture of a dead baby or indeed of a dying mother is much more powerful.

Images and misinformation are indeed tools used by the prolife side.

The images they place on their literature are often further along the gestation period that they claim to be.

The media and false information such as increased risk of certain cancers that they offer in the rogue crisis pregnancy centers that they run are an issue. However they could be seen as topics for another thread, and certainly in relation to their pregnancy centres, stricter regulation from the government.

Oldtree

retired00 wrote: »

we have a saying in east germany
report your neighbour who thinks wrong,
then when he goes to gulag you can have his appartment

Are you feeling a bit put upon?

applehunter

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

The pictures of dead babies you lot are so fond of have absolutely nothing to do with the upcoming referendum.

I'd say you are on the wrong thread.

This is the 8th Amendment thread.

Zubeneschamali

swampgas wrote: »

So if a rape victim looks you in the eye and says I don't want your support, I don't want to be pregnant, I'm not interested in adoption, then what?

Off to godless England with her, the hussy!

erica74

NuMarvel wrote: »

Simon Harris spoke in the Seanad tonight about the proposed legislation in the event of a Yes vote. No bombshells or surprises, but it's good to get more detail. Some of his comments are below:

On the 12 weeks, without specific indication
"a medical practitioner would have to certify that he/she is of the reasonable opinion, formed in good faith, that the pregnancy concerned has not exceeded 12 weeks. A period of 72 hours would have to elapse between certification and the termination being carried out."

Risk to life and health
"Two medical practitioners would have to certify that in their reasonable opinion (a) there is a risk to the life or of serious harm to the health of the pregnant woman, (b) the foetus has not reached viability and (c) the termination of pregnancy is appropriate to avert the risk."

"This requirement to certify that the foetus has not reached viability is an effective ban on later term abortions. Such a ban does not exist in other countries, like the UK."

As an aside, I think this is the first time it's been said that the risk to health must be of one of "serious harm".

FFA
"Should a referendum on Article 40.3.3 be passed, the Government would propose to permit termination of pregnancy on the grounds of a condition which is likely to lead to death before or shortly after birth.

In these cases, two appropriate medical practitioners, as opposed to just one as was proposed in the Joint Oireachtas Committee report, would be involved in the assessment, recognising that these complex medical cases are currently managed by multidisciplinary teams."

There's more in the article about emergencies, reporting, penalties, and other issues, but I think I captured the main points above.

Really just bumping this up so everybody can have a good read of the important points.

I think what they're proposing is still quite restrictive. Under the "risk to life and health" they're saying the foetus must not be viable. What's the definition of "viable" in this scenario? Does "viable" mean capable to live unaided outside of the womb? I'd be concerned that if the 12 weeks have lapsed and a woman then finds herself in a situation that she can no longer continue with her pregnancy, it may be difficult to have an abortion if the foetus is "viable".
I thought we were getting unrestricted up to 12 weeks and for the health of the woman or foetus up to 25 weeks or did I imagine that?

Edward M

erica74 wrote: »

Really just bumping this up so everybody can have a good read of the important points.

I think what they're proposing is still quite restrictive. Under the "risk to life and health" they're saying the foetus must not be viable. What's the definition of "viable" in this scenario? Does "viable" mean capable to live unaided outside of the womb? I'd be concerned that if the 12 weeks have lapsed and a woman then finds herself in a situation that she can no longer continue with her pregnancy, it may be difficult to have an abortion if the foetus is "viable".
I thought we were getting unrestricted up to 12 weeks and for the health of the woman or foetus up to 25 weeks or did I imagine that?

Really we don't know what we will end up with.
We don't get to decide that, the oireachtad do.
Given the reluctance of some of them even to vote for a referendum there are no guarantees what the final legislation will be.
Sinn Fein haven't said that they will support even the 12 week limit.
Half of FF TDs voted against the referendum.
I'd say even after the referendum is passed, if it is, there is no certainty of what will actually replace it.

Annasopra

Edward M wrote: »

Really we don't know what we will end up with.
We don't get to decide that, the oireachtad do.
Given the reluctance of some of them even to vote for a referendum there are no guarantees what the final legislation will be.
Sinn Fein haven't said that they will support even the 12 week limit.
Half of FF TDs voted against the referendum.
I'd say even after the referendum is passed, if it is, there is no certainty of what will actually replace it.

You are right. There is no certainty.

What we can be certain is that the 8th amendment will be removed and replaced with a clause allowing the Oireachtas to legislate.

Edward M

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

One of the reasons I like Boards over other internet forums is because they have posting standards, regardless of the topic.

Not sure why you feel justified giving a snide comment?

Personally, I've never reported a post, let them say what they like, if its stupid it shows and actually weakens their argument.
There have been accusations of ganging up on posters on here already, just a few posts ago one choice poster said to another, I'll report this post, will you do it too.
Its funny to look at others throwing hizzy fits over certain posts, I always think my truth surely isn't theirs and leave it at that.

Annasopra

Edward M wrote: »

Personally, I've never reported a post, let them say what they like, if its stupid it shows and actually weakens their argument.
There have been accusations of ganging up on posters on here already, just a few posts ago one choice poster said to another, I'll report this post, will you do it too.
Its funny to look at others throwing hizzy fits over certain posts, I always think my truth surely isn't theirs and leave it at that.

Yeah I didnt think that was appropriate. Understandable though given that this thread has attracted a large number of rereg accounts, of trolling, of shilling, of offensive posting, of blatant attempts to undermine repeal by pretense of supporting it while espousing opposition.

Edward M

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Yeah I didnt think that was appropriate. Understandable though given that this thread has attracted a large number of rereg accounts, of trolling, of shilling, of offensive posting, of blatant attempts to undermine repeal by pretense of supporting it while espousing opposition.

But will that not just bring the banned poster back as another re reg?

dudara

Edward M wrote: »

But will that not just bring the banned poster back as another re reg?

Some will re-register, even though it’s against site rules. Some won’t. Just something we have to deal with. If you believe someone is trolling or is a re-reg, please report them, and we can look into it.

Ave Sodalis

Edward M wrote:

Personally, I've never reported a post, let them say what they like, if its stupid it shows and actually weakens their argument. There have been accusations of ganging up on posters on here already, just a few posts ago one choice poster said to another, I'll report this post, will you do it too. Its funny to look at others throwing hizzy fits over certain posts, I always think my truth surely isn't theirs and leave it at that.

Good for you, I've only reported the ones with personal abuse. However, I can also acknowledge that the poster was dragging down the standard of the thread, whilst contributing nothing and not engaging in discussion. Posters who have done that in other threads on other topics have been banned from the thread for doing it too. It's nothing to do with his stance on the referendum and I would hope that if someone on the pro-repeal side was posting in the same manner, they would also be removed. You can report away at posts, but that doesn't mean there will be a mod action against them. In this case, the poster was deemed to be not contributing to the point of trolling. Maybe not a troll in himself, but 50 posts of soundbite and no discussion is a bit much, to the point of being considered against Boards standards, which I think is fair.

Before you start crying bias, the mod in question has banned people from both sides of the discussion.

NuMarvel

erica74 wrote: »

Really just bumping this up so everybody can have a good read of the important points.

I think what they're proposing is still quite restrictive. Under the "risk to life and health" they're saying the foetus must not be viable. What's the definition of "viable" in this scenario? Does "viable" mean capable to live unaided outside of the womb? I'd be concerned that if the 12 weeks have lapsed and a woman then finds herself in a situation that she can no longer continue with her pregnancy, it may be difficult to have an abortion if the foetus is "viable".

He goes into that in a bit more detail in the article. As he sees it, viability is "the point in a pregnancy at which, in the reasonable opinion of a medical practitioner, the foetus is capable of sustained survival outside the uterus" He also talks about what doctors would consider in making their decisions on a case by case basis, in consultation with the woman.

erica74 wrote: »

I thought we were getting unrestricted up to 12 weeks and for the health of the woman or foetus up to 25 weeks or did I imagine that?

I don't think a 25 week term limit was mentioned before. The Assembly supported up to 22 weeks for health grounds, and the Committee didn't include term limits in their recommendations, saying it could be decided in consultation with best medical practice when legislation was being drafted.

Annasopra

Edward M wrote: »

But will that not just bring the banned poster back as another re reg?

I dont understand your point. I said it is understandable that posters would get annoyed and report due to the large number of rereg accounts, trolls, shills and accounts that claim to support repeal while undermining it.

erica74

NuMarvel wrote: »

He goes into that in a bit more detail in the article. As he sees it, viability is "the point in a pregnancy at which, in the reasonable opinion of a medical practitioner, the foetus is capable of sustained survival outside the uterus" He also talks about what doctors would consider in making their decisions on a case by case basis, in consultation with the woman.



I don't think a 25 week term limit was mentioned before. The Assembly supported up to 22 weeks for health grounds, and the Committee didn't include term limits in their recommendations, saying it could be decided in consultation with best medical practice when legislation was being drafted.

Ah thanks, it must have been the 22 weeks I was thinking of. So does that mean we may get up to 22 weeks for the health of the woman or baby?

Annasopra

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Before you start crying bias, the mod in question has banned people from both sides of the discussion.

Exactly. This narrative of pro choice people bullied off the thread is just laughable nonsense.

nozzferrahhtoo

applehunter wrote: »

I think a lot of the talk/words deflects from the reality of what abortion actually is.

Yes! It does! Words like "baby" and "unborn child" and "murder" are very much in the business of deflecting the reality of what abortion actually is.

Because what abortion actually is, is the termination of a fetus a significant period of time before it attains any of the attributes that meaningfully and justifiably anchor our moral and ethical concern, and concept of "rights".

So distracting from what "abortion actually is" is very much the main and often sole MO of the anti choice speaker. And we very much should resist that. Not just to the benefit of those who should have the right to seek abortion, but also those affected by the fall out of such narratives. Such as women suffering needlessly elevated levels of grief and suffering in the face of a miscarriage for example.

These false narratives and deflections are harmful, both in AND out of the context of abortion. And we very much should call out these deflections, and those peddling them, as the blood of such needless suffering is very much on their hands. And clearly they do not have the capacity to feel the shame they very much should feel in light of that.

NuMarvel

erica74 wrote: »

Ah thanks, it must have been the 22 weeks I was thinking of. So does that mean we may get up to 22 weeks for the health of the woman or baby?

I think 22 weeks is what it will be in practice, but in the legislation, the term limit will be viability.

This has some similarity to the Netherlands, where the on request model allows abortions up to viability, but in practice most doctors don't carry them out after 22 weeks. Obviously, our health grounds would be far more stringent than their on request model (and I'm only saying that to make sure anti-repeal posters don't twist my words to say I'm equating the two).

BTW, I should add that in regards to the unborn, it looks like there's no term limit where it's a fatal abnormality (i.e. likely to cause death before or shortly after birth). This is similar to most other countries, because in many cases these conditions are diagnosed after viability. If a FFA is diagnosed the woman will have the choice of terminating the pregnancy, or continuing it to term, as decided by the woman and her doctors.

January

erica74 wrote: »

Ah thanks, it must have been the 22 weeks I was thinking of. So does that mean we may get up to 22 weeks for the health of the woman or baby?

Risk or threat to the health/life of the mother will still be catered for outside of viability it will result in termination of pregnancy, where a birth takes place and baby is treated accordingly if they are still premature.

seamus

NuMarvel wrote: »

I think 22 weeks is what it will be in practice, but in the legislation, the term limit will be viability.

This has some similarity to the Netherlands, where the on request model allows abortions up to viability, but in practice most doctors don't carry them out after 22 weeks. Obviously, our health grounds would be far more stringent than their on request model (and I'm only saying that to make sure anti-repeal posters don't twist my words to say I'm equating the two).

BTW, I should add that in regards to the unborn, it looks like there's no term limit where it's a fatal abnormality (i.e. likely to cause death before or shortly after birth). This is similar to most other countries, because in many cases these conditions are diagnosed after viability. If a FFA is diagnosed the woman will have the choice of terminating the pregnancy, or continuing it to term, as decided by the woman and her doctors.

The "health of the woman or baby" grounds will likely be unlimited in scope. It doesn't make sense that a woman at 22 weeks with a serious condition can get a termination, but a woman at 28 weeks the same serious condition, can't.

The main difference is that medical professionals will be legally bound to provide life-saving care to a foetus beyond viability, but it will be a call for the doctor to make before that.

Foetuses will not be "killed" or "euthanised" before the procedure.

david75

I didn’t know this

It's important to remember that a foetus lacks the neuro-anatomical architecture to feel pain until around the 26th week of development. Worldwide, the usual cut-off point for abortion is 24 weeks.

For much of its history, the Catholic Church taught that a foetus only becomes a person when infused with a soul at ‘quickening’ – when the mother feels the child moving in the womb. In 1591, Pope Gregory XIV decreed that quickening occurs at 166 days, or almost 24 weeks.

In an ideal world, there would never be a need for abortion. In an ideal world, every pregnancy would be desperately wanted and every yearned-for baby would thrive from conception. Sadly, though, we don’t live in an ideal world.

Sofiztikated

applehunter wrote: »

I think a lot of the talk/words deflects from the reality of what abortion actually is.

The ones that make light of the situation, and claim that people will be running around, having 2 abortions a day, and claiming pregnancies are a mere inconvenience is the PLC.

Some of the people here have been through pregnancies, easy and hard ones, have been through miscarriage, have been through abortions, and can still separate emotion from logic and reasoning.