8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1

Overheal

Sofiztikated wrote: »

You are on record as saying we, as a country, need to keep women getting pregnant to fund future pensions.

It might be disgusting that I said it, but as a statement, I stand by it.

He said that?

What a disgusting sense of logic.

Sofiztikated

Overheal wrote: »

He said that?

What a disgusting sense of logic.

Look at his last post here.

Paranoid Bob

Martina1991 wrote: »

If I get pregnant, my treatment stops. My chemotherapy cocktail would kill a foetus, so they can't legally allow that. I can't have scans, as there's a risk to the foetus. I can't travel for an abortion as I'm high-risk for surgical complications, but obviously I can't have one here. And after all that, my foetus would probably have major abnormalities and probably wouldn't survive long after birth. So, in her words, "we wait and hope for a miscarriage"

I have to say; that is bleak.
When the best outcome you can hope for is a miscarriage it must be near impossible to retain any hope.


The system is broken. Badly broken. That sort of situation cannot be allowed to continue; it is just utterly inhumane.

gctest50

RobertKK wrote: »

We need a birth rate above replacement rate. It is fact.
Legalised abortion normalises it and leads to increased rates of abortion before it plateaus, and Europe is facing an existential crisis with birth rates below replacement rate.

...........

How many kids have you had ( roughly ) to help stop this problem ?

erica74

So abortion in Ireland will reduce birth rates? But the people who want children will still have children

SusieBlue

Robert hasn’t answered my question despite being asked 3 times so I can only assume he doesn’t have an answer because mine is a ‘hard case’.
It’s also now clear that he doesn’t give a damn about the smear test scandal and was only using it for leverage to suit his own argument.
It’s kind of pathetic but not at all surprising.

Igotadose

RobertKK wrote: »

Really?

<snip>
The fact remains they were two awful candidates, and even a really awful candidate could beat Hillary because she was no great shakes herself.

Not refuting Trump's racism, though - that's o.k. as long as the wimmins are kept preggers, do I have that right?

Note the snip would be better discussed in a politics group, including conflating Bill Clinton's behavior with Trump's viz. women. BTW, there's a new story where Trump paid 1.6 million for a playboy bunny to have an abortion? Part of one of the endless ethics scandals involving bigoted racist Trump.

pitifulgod

RobertKK wrote: »

We need a birth rate above replacement rate. It is fact.
Legalised abortion normalises it and leads to increased rates of abortion before it plateaus, and Europe is facing an existential crisis with birth rates below replacement rate.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/let-s-talk-about-the-link-between-immigration-and-low-reproduction-rates-1.2926375



Abortion is not helping society, governments need to do far more for pregnant women to turn the population crisis around.

Let's be realistic, your concern about replacement rates is in relation to their being too many backgrounds that are non western? You've said it before so why not be clear on what you mean.

The fact is, abortions happen regardless of them being available. The fact is women can be actively blocked from obtaining potentially life saving medical treatments. Facts are not convenient for you so you ignore what doesn't suit. But you'll regularly spout rubbish.

Grayson

Overheal wrote: »

He said that?

What a disgusting sense of logic.

A Japanese MP said that yesterday. He said that single women are a burden on society since someone will have to fund their retirement.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/11/single-women-a-burden-on-the-state-says-japanese-mp

Grayson

RobertKK wrote: »

We need a birth rate above replacement rate. It is fact.
Legalised abortion normalises it and leads to increased rates of abortion before it plateaus, and Europe is facing an existential crisis with birth rates below replacement rate.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/let-s-talk-about-the-link-between-immigration-and-low-reproduction-rates-1.2926375



Abortion is not helping society, governments need to do far more for pregnant women to turn the population crisis around.

Firstly extending a timeline that far is ridiculous.

Secondly it's the silliest excuse to ban abortion. It implies that if there is no moral reason to ban it we'd ban it to force women to have children so that future population levels will be higher.

JennyVin

Overheal wrote: »

What a disgusting sense of logic.

Says the man who believes a babies in the womb are not alive until they are born.

You're in no position to suggest someone's opinions are illogical I can assure you.

Babies are capable of learning in the womb.

Are you saying someone which is dead, can learn?? Yes you are.

www sciencemag.org/news/2013/08/babies-learn-recognize-words-womb

January

So, No voters... tell us again that women who have cancer are not denied treatment because of the 8th amendment?

"I've seen a number of quotations from Vote No campaigners stating that the 8th Amendment does not affect cancer care. I'd like to make people aware that this is not the case for many women. There are many types of cancer and many types of treatment, and this "cookie cutter" statement is misleading and dangerous.

Almost a year ago, I was admitted to hospital for a routine colonoscopy/endoscopy to find a qpossible stomach ulcer. I came out with a diagnosis of advanced bowel cancer, which had spread to my liver. This came completely out of the blue, I was 37, pretty healthy if a bit run down, and mother to two young children. There were no obvious signs that I had cancer, but once I was diagnosed, my care started immediately.

Before my first scan, I was asked the date of my last period. Because I was less than 10 days before my next period, there was a lot of hand-wringing and consulting with colleagues going on around me. Eventually I was told that because there was a slight risk that I could be pregnant, they couldn't do the scan. I offered to do a test, one was eventually found and the scan went ahead.

Next up was 6 months of chemotherapy, described as a "nuclear bomb" of treatment. Before it started, I was warned not to get pregnant. I laughed and said it was the last thing on my mind, but the nurse replied that it could not happen, I needed this treatment.

I quickly settled into a routine of chemo, scans and consultations. I quickly learned to lie about my period dates; they soon stopped anyway as my body began to shut down from the chemicals. There was a noticeable look of relief on the nurses' faces when I told them this. I began to wonder about the warnings to not get pregnant, and whether that had anything to do with the 8th Amendment and the foetus having an equal right to life. The Vote No side were pointing to women who were able to have treatment, even maintenance chemotherapy while pregnant, and give birth to healthy babies, but this didn't make sense to me. I could see the effect that the treatment was having on my body, and couldn't imagine going through the added strain of pregnancy. Also, I need regular scans to monitor the progress of the cancer, and have recently had major abdominal surgery to remove the main tumour after the chemotherapy finished, with more surgeries on the horizon.

I have met with many consultants, registrars and students, mostly male. The first person to mention fertility in any detail with me was a woman, a few months ago, when I mentioned that my periods had come back. When i told her i wasn't planning to have any more children as i wanted to concentrate on my treatment, she agreed that it was the right decision. I then asked her what would happen if I did get pregnant, and she said, "well, we don't know our patients' feelings about pregnancy so we can't really comment" I pointed to my "Repeal the 8th" badge on my bag, and she agreed to tell me.

If I get pregnant, my treatment stops. My chemotherapy cocktail would kill a foetus, so they can't legally allow that. I can't have scans, as there's a risk to the foetus. I can't travel for an abortion as I'm high-risk for surgical complications, but obviously I can't have one here. And after all that, my foetus would probably have major abnormalities and probably wouldn't survive long after birth. So, in her words, "we wait and hope for a miscarriage"

I don't have time to wait. I have a serious life-threatening disease. The odds are already stacked against me, but I fight against them every day. I shouldn't have to lie so I can have scans. I shouldn't have to put my relationship with my partner on hold for fear that I get pregnant. I have received excellent care so far, but my country and its health service should not equate my life with that of a foetus. I should have full access to safe, legal, supervised abortion if necessary.
I want to see my children grow up.
I want to grow old with my husband.
I want to be a part of my family and friends' lives.
MY LIFE MATTERS.
I WANT TO LIVE."

#repealthe8th

- Laura C

Overheal

SusieBlue wrote: »

Robert hasn’t answered my question despite being asked 3 times so I can only assume he doesn’t have an answer because mine is a ‘hard case’.
It’s also now clear that he doesn’t give a damn about the smear test scandal and was only using it for leverage to suit his own argument.
It’s kind of pathetic but not at all surprising.

“What’s the la la la la la cannae hear you over the sound of my world view and narrative crumbling down under the weight of all these holes in it.”

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/let-s-talk-about-the-link-between-immigration-and-low-reproduction-rates-1.2926375

Huge caveat on that article: William Reville is a major pro-life supporter.

Overheal

Grayson wrote: »

A Japanese MP said that yesterday. He said that single women are a burden on society since someone will have to fund their retirement.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/11/single-women-a-burden-on-the-state-says-japanese-mp

And by parroting it you’re just endorsing it. Nobody is under any illusion about that here.

God forbid a single woman would have the intelligence or the ability to work to support herself and save for retirement. No that’s only reserved for single men.

Grayson

JennyVin wrote: »

Says the man who believes a babies in the womb are not alive until they are born.

You're in no position to suggest someone's opinions are illogical I can assure you.

Babies are capable of learning in the womb.

Are you saying someone which is dead, can learn?? Yes you are.

www sciencemag.org/news/2013/08/babies-learn-recognize-words-womb

That's at 27 weeks according to the study. Abortion here will be legal up till 12 weeks. there's a huge difference.

Grayson

Overheal wrote: »

And by parroting it you’re just endorsing it. Nobody is under any illusion about that here.

What?

Seriously, am I missing something here?

wexie

Grayson wrote: »

What?

Seriously, am I missing something here?

I'm guessing he thinks you're someone else.

wexie

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Huge caveat on that article: William Reville is a major pro-life supporter.

Oooh look at that : https://www.irishcatholic.com/author/williamrevilleauthor/

seems aul Bill (:pac:) might perhaps have a pretty firmly established world view from which to write these articles....

JennyVin

Grayson wrote: »

That's at 27 weeks according to the study. Abortion here will be legal up till 12 weeks. there's a huge difference.

A huge difference to what? There is such a clique in here that you are jumping to defend one another even when aren't aware of the conversation which is taking place.

The member I was engaged with had said the following in a post:

Overheal wrote: »

To kill something is to stop it from being alive. An unborn thing is not yet alive. They don’t issue death certs for miscarriage.

Nothing whatsoever was said about the age of the fetus. Clearly.

wexie

JennyVin wrote: »

Nothing whatsoever was said about the age of the fetus. Clearly.

Maybe not, but most of us logical beings have already established that nobody here is talking about abortions at 27 weeks.

Well, except you that is.

Sofiztikated

JennyVin wrote: »

Says the man who believes a babies in the womb are not alive until they are born.

You're in no position to suggest someone's opinions are illogical I can assure you.

Babies are capable of learning in the womb.

Are you saying someone which is dead, can learn?? Yes you are.

www sciencemag.org/news/2013/08/babies-learn-recognize-words-womb

Last few months of pregnancy though.

At 12 weeks, which is what's proposed here, there's no system there FOR learning.

No ears, barely brain to use those ears, no spinal chord to transmit any sensory information.

JennyVin

Neyite wrote: »

Any man who votes no out of spite and hatred for women deserves to never get the ride again of any woman.

You think men will vote no out of hate and spite? And why will the women be voting no?

RobertKK

http://www.rights.ie/more-info/

The Government have published their plans for legislation and we, together with more than 175 of our colleagues in the legal profession, have signed and published a statement which makes it clear that these proposals will open the door to abortion in wide-ranging circumstances.

The reason for our conclusion is that the Government proposals provide for abortion for any reason up until 12 weeks and for abortion up until viability (that is, where a mother has carried her child for up to 6 months) for reasons so similar to the legislation in Great Britain that there is no rational basis for thinking that they would operate differently :

Legislation in Great Britain refers to a risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the mother. This Government’s draft legislation refers to a risk of serious harm to the physical or mental health of the mother. The similarity between the two is immediately obvious;
Mental Health is not defined in the proposed legislation. In Great Britain the overwhelming majority of abortions are carried out on the mental health ground;
“Serious harm” is a far more general and imprecise term than “injury” which is the basis of a legal entitlement to an abortion in Great Britain;
Under this Government’s proposed legislation, medical practitioners need only be of opinion that the carrying out of an abortion is “appropriate” and not as one might have expected, “necessary”;
The main dissimilarity between the abortion legislation in Great Britain and the Government’s proposed legislation is that, in Great Britain, the legislation is more restrictive since there is no 12 week period, as is proposed here, during which period an abortion can be carried out for any reason.

Signed :

Iarfhlaith O’Neill
Former High Court Judge and Chairman of the Referendum Commission (Lisbon Treaty)

Aindrias Ó Caoimh
Former High Court Judge and Judge of the European Court of Justice

Margaret Cordial
MSc (Int. Human Rights Law NUIG) Barrister, Solicitor Formerly with the UN High Commission for Human Rights and Advisory Counsel with the Attorney-General’s Office. Author of Circuit Court Rules : Practice and Procedure

Venetia Taylor
LL.B LL.M Barrister

Benedict Ó Floinn
MA (Oxon) Barrister
Author of Practice and Procedure in the Superior Courts, Former Member of the Education Committee of the Kings Inns and the Expert Committee on the Courts Acts

Full statement in link, but the legal people say abortion up to 6 months, as wording is similar to the English abortion law.

JennyVin

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Last few months of pregnancy though.

At 12 weeks, which is what's proposed here, there's no system there FOR learning.

No ears, barely brain to use those ears, no spinal chord to transmit any sensory information.

Are you talking to yourself? You must be.

The member posted that babies are not alive until they are born.

My link shows that is untrue. END. OF. STORY.

Defunkd

joe40 wrote: »

Thanks for you response.
It still doesn't explain why there are so few "No" voters posting. I'll accept that they will be outnumbered but that is simply due to the fact there are so few.
If "No voters have belief in their convictions, and trust in their arguments why aren't more on here.
I think it is an emotional response many people have to this question, but not one that can stand up to logic or scrutiny. They're not without sympathy so find it difficult to argue for a "No" vote but keep still keep a bit of humanity.

Obviously if you are coming from a religious point of view, or if you hold the opinion that abortion is basically murder, then no amount of argument to the contrary will have any bearing.

I just find it strange that there is less argument/discussion on this thread from potential "No" voters that have less entrenched views.

I don't think it's a case of "so few", rather 'so few willing to engage'. And given the climate in this thread, i understand why people couldn't be arsed drawing such attention.
For example, before you replied to me, 4 others chimed in with semantics, accusations that i don't know what i'm talking about (despite that same user claiming to know what everyone wants); that i'll feel differently if my brother rapes and impregnates my daughter and how i'd only hold a pro-life position until it affects me.
How the fcuk can you expect a reasonable and mature interaction with people when this is the drivel being spouted here?

Overheal

JennyVin wrote: »

Says the man who believes a babies in the womb are not alive until they are born.

You're in no position to suggest someone's opinions are illogical I can assure you.

Babies are capable of learning in the womb.

Are you saying someone which is dead, can learn?? Yes you are.

www sciencemag.org/news/2013/08/babies-learn-recognize-words-womb

It can also kick in the womb but that doesn’t mean it’s alive. Have to be born to be alive. Don’t confuse a life in the making with a living breathing thing.

JennyVin

wexie wrote: »

Maybe not, but most of us logical beings have already established that nobody here is talking about abortions at 27 weeks.

Well, except you that is.

Tell that to the member who posted ::

Overheal wrote: »

An unborn thing is not yet alive.

wexie

JennyVin wrote: »

Tell that to the member who posted ::

Show me where he said anything about abortion at 27 weeks?

At 12 weeks a foetus is not alive or sentient by any means of the imagination.

pitifulgod

RobertKK wrote: »

http://www.rights.ie/more-info/


Full statement in link, but the legal people say abortion up to 6 months, as wording is similar to the English abortion law.

And I can cite legal professionals that made similarly outrageous statements during the Marriage Referendum that remain untrue. Or the fact that we were warned in 1983 of the endless issues the eighth amendment would cause? By people such as Mary Robinson. I'm inclined to not trust the people who can't even realise the damage caused by the eighth. Eg you or the handful of solicitors Save The Eighth managed to find.