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

Sofiztikated

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Given the choice between saving my wife and saving her unborn "child", I will choose her every time, no hesitation, no question.

Because their rights to life are not equal, no matter what the 8th pretends.

This is where I stand.

I actively want children. But in a situation where its a choice between

A) my wife alive, healthy and happy (given a level of happiness seeing as she just terminated a pregnancy that we both want)

Or

my wife in poor health, or worse, and a child to look after?

I'd pick A every time. Now, my wife might have different ideas, and she might choose option B, but that's between us. Not to be decided by someone who wants to "save all babbies."

Overheal

reubenreuben wrote: »

Where I am living, a small village. There were a balance of yes and no posters up around the place yesterday.

Today, all the yes posters are gone, replaced with more no posters.

This reflects badly on the no campaigners.

Do we live in a democracy or not?

And what does it have to do with britain anyway , majority of the posters blabbering on about england this and britain that and how bad it is over there.
It's about Ireland isn't it??

You’d almost have to do a night patrol to catch them in the act.

Ave Sodalis

Sofiztikated wrote: »

This is where I stand.

I actively want children. But in a situation where its a choice between

A) my wife alive, healthy and happy (given a level of happiness seeing as she just terminated a pregnancy that we both want)

Or

my wife in poor health, or worse, and a child to look after?

I'd pick A every time. Now, my wife might have different ideas, and she might choose option B, but that's between us. Not to be decided by someone who wants to "save all babbies."

I think this is the biggest thing that cournioni is missing. Many abortion occur by people who very much want children, who even wanted the current pregnancy. However, due to a wide variety of circumstances, it wasn't to be.

Overheal

cournioni wrote: »

Again, a complicated one. I am all for freedom of travel, but I am not in favour of someone taking anothers life unnecessarily. There would need to be no grey areas in order for me to agree with it.

Why ALL of the focus on the woman rather than the include both parents and the child by the way? The whole point of the 8th amendment is to protect the childs rights too, are you in favour of taking their rights away?


But you did compare it to an STI. It is a human life. Think about that. People need to show some accountability for their actions rather than resorting to taking the life of another.

Even if it is unwanted, there are options of adoption, foster care etc. I know plenty of people who have adopted and been adopted and they have lived perfectly normal lives. I am concerned that if the 8th Amendment is repealed, similar lives would not exist.

To answer your question, if I have sex and I have a child on the way, I would do my utmost to see that it lives the best life it possibly can, whether the mother is in my life or not.

But as a moderator what you deal in is the “grey area” - when it is impossible to write a forum charter for every circumstance and scenario, how possible do you really think it will be to take all the grey area out of an issue as complex as human reproduction?

The unborn will still have rights under the Protection of Life of During Pregnancy Act 2013. It is inaccurate to equivocate the repeal of the 8th with a repeal of the rights of the unborn.

You can espouse personal responsibility ad infinitum but the truth is even with the best planning and most responsible people, rape still happens and contraception still fails. It doesn’t help that there are barriers to seeking contraception, either. The 8th only exports the problem, while causing women to undergo wasteful medical tests every time they seek treatment because of the slightest possibility they may have fallen pregnant between the car door and the front door.

Neyite

cournioni wrote: »

Exactly, like I have explained before, I am undecided about certain things. Rape being one of them.

However, the Yes side are completely ignoring the right to life of the child from what I can see.

cournioni wrote: »

And what about the child?

cournioni wrote: »

I said the taking of a healthy life is wrong in the extreme.

Do you see your contradictions there? A rapist's baby is still a healthy life, it's an innocent victim created during the crime of it's father. Why is that life acceptable to extinguish but the one that was conceived during a one night stand is more worthy of life?

If you examine your conscience further you may find that you are 'ok' with a 9 year old rape victim getting a termination, or a married woman with aggressive cancer, or a woman who's FFA diagnosis means the child will suffer trauma and a traumatic death during childbirth so the kinder thing is to stop the heart gently and induce delivery so the baby feels no pain.

So it's not really about the sanctity of human life then, but more about the comeuppance of the woman, her morals and whether she is chaste enough to 'deserve' her abortion.

Overheal

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The charitable explanation for your comment is that you do not realise the context of this photograph.
The uncharitable is that you are a being a complete cretin and are knowingly mocking a rape victim.

Either way, your comment is appalling.

For illustrating the reality of rape? Fully aware of the context. Ta. Folks need to stop pretending that pregnancy can only ever be about the irresponsibility of women; That’s the appalling comment.

frag420

cournioni wrote: »

This is the thing that leaves most people undecided and everyone’s opinion is different on it.

Personally, I believe that there is enough contraception out there in order for people stop pregnancy without the need for taking away the life of a perfectly healthy unborn. People need to be responsible for their own actions without resorting to taking life away from another living being.

Firstly no contraception in 100% foolproof, you know this so stop being obtuse!!

Now to your second point on responsibility...

There has been a lot of talk about responsibilities around enjoying sex, if you play then you pay regardless if you used all available protection.

We all know that sex is natural, its there for pleasure and its there for procreation! Personally I use it for pleasure and its damn awesome, love it!!

With this in mind would the Pro-Life lobby be in favour of promoting ANAL SEX as a way for people to enjoy sex without the fear of getting pregnant?

So I ask you Cournioni, Thee Glitz, RobertKK and others...would you help promote ANAL SEX as a valid PRO LIFE way to decrease abortions in Ireland while not ruining peoples sex lives!?

Now you may think I am joking here but I am deadly serious, should you not be promoting and advocating alternative ways for people to enjoy sex instead of trying to curtail their natural carnal urges, if not for you then for the potential lives that could be saved!

One in the stink instead of the pink could be your motto, you could chant it outside the maternity hospitals!

#PROLIFEINYOURBUM

SusieBlue

cournioni wrote: »

Why? What is wrong with equality?

So you are saying that if your wife discovered she was pregnant while going through cancer treatment, and her treatment was stopped, you'd be happy for that to be the case, because the unborn zygote is of equal worth to her?
You would be happy for her to gamble her life to gestate a pregnancy, and you wouldn't even entertain the idea of an abortion so she could continue treatment?

And you're saying that if your frightened 15 year old daughter came you you terrified and devastated, pregnant after her first experience with her boyfriend, you would be insisting she embrace motherhood and would not allow her have an abortion? Even though it would undoubtedly affect her education and future opportunities, not to mention the fact she does NOT want a baby?

Because that's exactly the reality you are forcing onto other families. You might think they are "hard cases" and be rare occurrences but they aren't. They are happening every single day to born, living people.
People who are loved and cared about and who would be sorely missed if they passed away.

I should not be deemed to be of equal worth and value to a pre >12 week old fetus unless I choose to be.
I am worth more than the contents of my womb and my healthcare should not be compromised because of it.

Overheal

<12*

Dressing gown

Hypothetical silly thought for you. We are in the future. A foetus can now be aborted without harm. You are in a hospital. It is on fire and you are the only person there. There is a 12 week old foetus hooked up to a life support machine. And there is a 1 day old baby. You can only save one. Who do you save? Do you have to think about it? Are they really equal?

never_mind

Going on my first T4Y canvass tonight and am bricking it.

SusieBlue

Overheal wrote: »

<12*

I ALWAYS mix those two up

optogirl

never_mind wrote: »

Going on my first T4Y canvass tonight and am bricking it.

Thank you so much x

gmisk

never_mind wrote: »

Going on my first T4Y canvass tonight and am bricking it.

Fair play thats terrific!
I wish I had the confidence to go on one.

I have a few friends who have been on them and they have found them not too scary as all , you are paired with someone which helps a lot.

January

never_mind wrote: »

Going on my first T4Y canvass tonight and am bricking it.

You will do amazing

erica74

cournioni wrote: »

Why not?

Well actually, if we're talking about "equality", right now there is also no equality, a pregnant woman's life is not equal to that of her foetus, the foetus takes priority. Why is that?

AtomicHorror

Really can't understand the offensive posters tactic from the No camp- is there really a belief there that this will be an effective approach? Considering they seem to be mostly linked to faith-based organisations, what can be the moral or logical argument for this approach?

It's baffling to me.

Grayson

never_mind wrote: »

Going on my first T4Y canvass tonight and am bricking it.

Throwing bricks through windows is never going to make you any friends. Although they might vote the way you want in case you come back again

volchitsa

never_mind wrote: »

Going on my first T4Y canvass tonight and am bricking it.

Lots and lots of good luck and positive thoughts for you, I'm not in Ireland so can't take part and I really wish I could help with this, but I just can't.

So again lots of thanks from me for making the effort! We need this to pass!

Bannasidhe

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Really can't understand the offensive posters tactic from the No camp- is there really a belief there that this will be an effective approach? Considering they seem to be mostly linked to faith-based organisations, what can be the moral or logical argument for this approach?

It's baffling to me.

It worked in '83.

Mind you, they have toned it down a bit - This is a SPUC (Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child) leaflet from back then. Reading some of the No comments here this view still appears to be held by some.

AtomicHorror

never_mind wrote: »

Going on my first T4Y canvass tonight and am bricking it.

Fair play- that's something to be proud of. Good luck!

.......

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue

Just saw a post on facebook by the president of the Christian Solidarity Party.

It reads:

Tomorrow the CSP launches its "Save the 8th" drive. We are targeting obstreperous young ladies wearing Repeal t-shirts who do not realise what they are letting themselves in for. Wish us luck!

obstreperous
adjective
noisy and difficult to control.

I mean....Where to even start with that pile of crap? Are the No side happy to stand behind a campaign that is proudly declaring they are setting out to target women they deem to be difficult to control?
Disgusting, disgraceful, misogynistic comments. No place in 2018 for rubbish like that.

nozzferrahhtoo

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It worked in '83.

Mind you, they have toned it down a bit - This is a SPUC (Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child) leaflet from back then. Reading some of the No comments here this view still appears to be held by some.

This popped up on my Feeds too at some point:

Ave Sodalis

SusieBlue wrote: »

Just saw a post on facebook by the president of the Christian Solidarity Party.

It reads:


obstreperous
adjective
noisy and difficult to control.

I mean....Where to even start with that pile of crap? Are the No side happy to stand behind a campaign that is proudly declaring they are setting out to target women they deem to be difficult to control?
Disgusting, disgraceful, misogynistic comments. No place in 2018 for rubbish like that.

I am so very tempted to buy a repeal tshirt now, and walk around with it. At least I'd know that while they are harassing me, they're not harassing someone who it could actually mentally harm.

Ave Sodalis

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/mother-might-still-be-alive-but-for-eighth-amendment-gynaecologist-1.3493958

I have no doubt that someone on the No side will try and twist this story and say the 8th wasn't at fault.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Sofiztikated

Another glossy Love Both leaflet through the door.

This one had ****e about politicians doing nothing for adoption services, and how it can be made better.

Well **** right off, there was one crowd standing in the way of the Children's referendum, the marriage referendum, and it wasn't people that advocated access to abortion.

The ****ing neck.

reubenreuben

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It worked in '83.

Mind you, they have toned it down a bit - This is a SPUC (Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child) leaflet from back then. Reading some of the No comments here this view still appears to be held by some.

Holy Mary!

erica74

SusieBlue wrote: »

Just saw a post on facebook by the president of the Christian Solidarity Party.

It reads:


obstreperous
adjective
noisy and difficult to control.

I mean....Where to even start with that pile of crap? Are the No side happy to stand behind a campaign that is proudly declaring they are setting out to target women they deem to be difficult to control?
Disgusting, disgraceful, misogynistic comments. No place in 2018 for rubbish like that.

So they're "targeting" women wearing Repeal jumpers, rather than "targeting" the public and voters with facts and rationality.