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

Just her

Calina wrote: »

I want people to have the freedom to live their lives. That is why the 8th has to go.

Leaving it there suggests you are good for freedom for men, unborn children of indeterminate sex but not born females. Their freedom to live is limited by the 8th amendment.

The unborn children of indeterminate sex as you call them would be approximately 50 per cent male and 50 per cent female. No one is ending the lives of men or born females with this referendum.

antiskeptic

SireOfSeth wrote: »

That’s not what we’re voting on. Pointless question imo.

The whole country must have gotten the wrong end of the stick then. How'd that happen.



What do you think of the "every one else is doing it" tack Yes has been taking

circadian

Esmeralda Inexpensive Balloonist wrote: »

Couldn't go literally five minutes without goofing on your "I was going to vote yes, but..." fib? Come on.

It's right there in the username leaniona

wexie

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I've been wondering if there have been any discernible unusual traffic patterns alright.

Any of the MODS like to comment?

Just her

bubblypop wrote: »

something that has never existed does not have the capability to know what they are missing or that they miss anything.
If my mother had aborted me, I would never have become a living person, I would not know what life was, I couldn't miss it.
Similarly, we cannot miss that which does not nor has never existed.
an embryo of less than 12 weeks, should not have any rights to life above those of its mother. I prefer to vote that the living breathing existing woman, be given an opportunity to live her life as she would wish.

If you were to shoot someone in the back of the head unexpectedly they would not have the capability then either to know what they were missing. I don't believe anyone's life should be decided on who would miss them either. It's not about having rights to life above the mother in reality though, it's about ensuring the baby has no right to life.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Igotadose

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't want anyone to die, either. I would include the unborn in that "anyone", though.

Savita Halappanavar died. The women on this thread that talk about delayed cancer treatment nearly died. The one on 'in her shoes' talking about having to move to Australia in order to continue her treatment for cystic fibrosis, would have been gravely ill at best if not dead. The one in the Irish Times article who also got sepsis like Savita H., nearly died.

I don't want anyone to die either. The eighth increases the probability that innocent women will die, because they might be pregnant. It *may* cause an uptick in abortions in Ireland. May. And, even if it stays, the number of abortions will stay the same, as women will go to England.


The story you gave of your friend whose partner aborted without his agreement, obviously wasn't prevented by the 8th amendment. All it did (assuming this was someone in Ireland - direct question, was it?) was force them to go abroad.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Hotblack Desiato

For the record George Soros is NOT funding "the Yes campaign"

Together for Yes got no money from him.

Abortion Rights Campaign (which are one of the groups in T4Y) got ~40k from him last year but returned it.

Amnesty got ~100k but they are not part of the Together for Yes campaign. SIPO have asked them to return the money. Amnesty are disputing this in the courts, so they cannot spend this money unless and until the court rules in their favour, which if it happens will be long after the campaign is over.

So not a red cent spent in the Yes campaign has come from George Soros.

Can we put this in the FAQ??

Hotblack Desiato

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

To be able to hold it together, one has to have it together...

I feel sorry for him in a way, something mentally went very badly off the tracks for him some years ago and he's never got over it, he's getting worse in fact.

.......

This post has been deleted.

SireOfSeth

antiskeptic wrote: »

The whole country must have gotten the wrong end of the stick then. How'd that happen.



What do you think of the "every one else is doing it" tack Yes has been taking

I think the only one who got the wrong end of the stick is you. Suggest you read up. Title of this thread might give you a clue as to what we are voting on. That is, removal (or not) of the 8th Amendment to our Constitution.

gmisk

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

4pm GMT is what time US? There is a definite pattern.....


Wow John Waters.....honestly....what a clown!
Him and John Mc Guirk have done the Yes campaign a massive favour.

We are talking about slaughter up to and past birth...and he doesnt believe in the pill....come on!

Just her

SusieBlue wrote: »

What makes you worthy of having an input on someone else's actual life?
What makes you think you are entitled to take choice away from another woman?

I just don't believe in ending another human beings existence

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

In other news, I'm happy to learn it wasn't just a bunch of men putting up the sign on Ben Bulben, there were women involved too. In a tea and sandwich capacity, of course. That's our favourite thing, apart from having babies.

www.newstalk.com/AMP/Giant-No-sign-appears-on-side-of-Benbulben-in-Co-Sligo

ohnonotgmail

circadian wrote: »

It's right there in the username leaniona

they're not even bothering to hide it anymore.

SireOfSeth

Just her wrote: »

I just don't believe in ending another human beings existence

Are you happy to force a women to stay pregnant against her wishes?

SusieBlue

Just her wrote: »

If you were to shoot someone in the back of the head unexpectedly they would not have the capability then either to know what they were missing. I don't believe anyone's life should be decided on who would miss them either. It's not about having rights to life above the mother in reality though, it's about ensuring the baby has no right to life.

Tell that to the born children of women who have died or had their health significantly compromised because of the 8th.

Babies in the womb will still be protected as they were prior to '83.
Crimes committed against women that cause them to miscarry will be prosecuted.
Premature babies will still get the best of care.
We as a society don't want to change that.
We aren't going to let babies born 6 weeks early die on a hospital bed with no intervention.
We aren't going to shrug and say "oh well" if a woman is stabbed in the stomach, causing her baby to die.

We want to remove an amendment that states the unborns right to life is equal to its mother. That's what this is about.

ohnonotgmail

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

For the record George Soros is NOT funding "the Yes campaign"

Together for Yes got no money from him.

Abortion Rights Campaign (which are one of the groups in T4Y) got ~40k from him last year but returned it.

Amnesty got ~100k but they are not part of the Together for Yes campaign. SIPO have asked them to return the money. Amnesty are disputing this in the courts, so they cannot spend this money unless and until the court rules in their favour, which if it happens will be long after the campaign is over.

So not a red cent spent in the Yes campaign has come from George Soros.

Can we put this in the FAQ??

George lent me a fiver last week. should i report myself to sipo?

wexie

gmisk wrote: »

4pm GMT is what time US? There is a definite pattern.....

Depends on where really, but whenever I need a colleague in the US as a rule I wouldn't ring them before 3pm (9am on the east coast).

So 4pm would about correspond to the time they've had a cuppa tea, checked emails and are settled in for a day of trolling :mad:

ohnonotgmail

SireOfSeth wrote: »

Are you happy to force a women to stay pregnant against her wishes?

they answered that already and seem to see it as collateral damage.

nozzferrahhtoo

Deleted User wrote: »

Abortion on demand, up to 12 weeks, is total anathema for someone who believes in the right to life.

Given I believe in the right to life too, your statement here is false on it's very face. The only ACTUAL difference between someone like you, and someone like me is actually WHEN and WHY we think that right comes into play.

So yea, lets pocket the implications that Pro Choice people like myself do not believe in the right to life shall we?

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not arguing for enforced pregnancy. I'm asking why the wishes of a woman should automatically override the rights/wishes of the father, and the right to life of the unborn.

We do not legislate for "wishes". We legislate for "rights". So let's leave wishes out of it. The problem here is you are not clear what "rights" you think the father does or should have, or indeed why you believe he does or should have them.

Deleted User wrote: »

The reality is, abortion removes the choice of two of the three people involved

No the reality is that you are declaring the existence of "people" where there is, in fact, no people.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm arguing that if fathers are equally responsible for the creation of a child, should that not automatically give them rights over whether that child dies?

You are not "arguing" that at all, you are asserting it, which is the problem. You are not suggesting why he should have any such right. If you plant a seed on my land you do not have any rights over the tree that grows either. Nor should you. If you think a father should have such a right, I am all ears as to WHY you think so.

What makes you think nothing will change if I vote "No".
There is absolutely nothing to stop any Government from holding another referendum. Hint: Nice, and Lisbon.

Deleted User wrote: »

Basic human etiquette does not help a man who wants to keep his child.

My point exactly! Nor should it!

Deleted User wrote: »

There have been cases in the American courts where parents have disagreed about IVF embryos. It would take a very heartless person not to sympathise with the parent who desperately wants to raise those babies, and is willing to assume all responsibility for them - only to be left grieving when that is not allowed.

Then take that up with people who HAVE no sympathy for them. I am here discussing what peoples rights should and should not be. If they are disenfranchised by that then I certainly have sympathy for them. But I do not let mere sympathy get in the way of reason and law. Nor should I.

Deleted User wrote: »

Have you ever spoken to a man, face to face, after his child has been aborted? I have - and I can only describe it as gut-wrenching. I wonder if it happened to someone you know, would you be quite so blasé about it?

More often than you know, and probably more often than most people you know. But I still stand by my words. And you have not shown me any reason I should not stand by them. You are basically trying a very weak appeal to emotion here, on the crass and false assumption I have never felt those emotions or witnessed them.

Deleted User wrote: »

As a matter of interest, I'm not obliged to provide scientific proof to humour you. I haven't read the entire thread, you may have offered what you consider to be scientific proof. I'm not a scientist.

You are not OBLIGED to offer any proof for anything really. But it should be noted and highlighted when you have not, can not, or will not do so. Because this is, after all, a debate and discussion. And if you can only assert and soap box your nonsense and then refuse to back up or substantiate it in ANY way..... then a flag should be planted firmly in that fact for all to see.

Deleted User wrote: »

However, I will say that I do not consider sentience to be a valid reason to deny someone's humanity.

Why not? If the definition of X is Y and Z, then something without Y and Z is simply not X. This is basic linguistic logic. Sentience is the very core of what makes us a "person", the very core of what "humanity" means in every sense outside the realm of biological taxonomy. If something does not meet the very definitions of a word, then you can not label it with that word and come out looking sane.

What attributes do YOU think constitute the definition of "Humanity" then?

Deleted User wrote: »

Neither do I accept inability to feel pain.

Great. Nor do I. I have had the good fortune to meet two adults in my life time who simply can not feel pain due to a relatively rare condition. I do not consider them less human because they feel no pain. In fact I am confused why you even bring Pain into it when I did not.

Deleted User wrote: »

If that were the case, inability to prove conscious thought would be grounds to deny life - and again, there have been cases where people who were in a coma for extended periods, and were believed to be brain dead, who regained consciousness, and were found to have been aware of their surroundings during the coma.

That is not a problem for me. A coma patient HAS the faculty of consciousness. Maybe it is not working, it is damaged, it is off line.... but it is THERE.

A 12/16 week old fetus however simply does not have it. So this is simply not comparable with a coma patient in terms of affording one rights and the other not.

Deleted User wrote: »

Equally, is someone who is not feeling pain to be regarded as having no rights. Where would that leave someone who requires high levels of pain medication, but who can continue living normally after, say, 6 months?

STILL an entity with the faculty of sentience. Are you seeing a pattern in my answers yet? All the issues you listed having with aspects of IVF, Stem Cell research, termination of a fetus at 10 months are all the same thing........ and all similarly without substance.

Deleted User wrote: »

I've had three miscarriages. Each loss felt like an actual loss of a baby - not a loss of potential life.

And something "feeling like" does not make it so. You are basing too many arguments on what things FEEL like, and almost none based on any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning. We can not legislate for feelings or even imagination. Nor should we.

SusieBlue

Just her wrote: »

I just don't believe in ending another human beings existence

Even at the expense of the health of the woman carrying it?
Even though you are making these decisions for women whose lives and circumstances you don't know, and never will?

Just her

Oh my God, rookie question here, can anyone tell me how to get back to the last page I was looking at before I posted. Everytime I reply to someone Im scrolling back through 20 pages to answer the next person

gmisk

Esmeralda Inexpensive Balloonist wrote: »

In other news, I'm happy to learn it wasn't just a bunch of men putting up the sign on Ben Bulben, there were women involved too. In a tea and sandwich capacity, of course. That's our favourite thing, apart from having babies.

www.newstalk.com/AMP/Giant-No-sign-appears-on-side-of-Benbulben-in-Co-Sligo

Women know your place!


Also one of them said
"It's a cry from the mountain to save Ireland's babies, because no-one is listening."


Source?
How many mountains are crying?
How many cry in Britain?
Do people not listen to mountains?

wexie

Just her wrote: »

Oh my God, rookie question here, can anyone tell me how to get back to the last page I was looking at before I posted. Everytime I reply to someone Im scrolling back through 20 pages to answer the next person

I don't think you can really, easiest way (I think) is to go to your own profile and then click on where it says 'show all your posts' and just go the the last one

Reati

Esmeralda Inexpensive Balloonist wrote: »

In other news, I'm happy to learn it wasn't just a bunch of men putting up the sign on Ben Bulben, there were women involved too. In a tea and sandwich capacity, of course. That's our favourite thing, apart from having babies.

www.newstalk.com/AMP/Giant-No-sign-appears-on-side-of-Benbulben-in-Co-Sligo

I'v been staying out of this as much as possible that line shows the mindframe of many of those involved.

"Mr Banks said that around 20 people had been working on the sign since 4am today. It was put up by men and there were women there as well, he said, making tea and sandwiches."

nozzferrahhtoo

Just her wrote: »

Oh my God, rookie question here, can anyone tell me how to get back to the last page I was looking at before I posted. Everytime I reply to someone Im scrolling back through 20 pages to answer the next person

Yes if you QUOTE them while you are replying to them, then there will be a tiny icon beside their name which will bring you back to the post you were replying to at the time.

Try it in this very post, you will see it just beside your name in my post here. Tiny little blue arrow thing.

Another option is when you are hitting the QUOTE button to reply to someone, hold the CTRL button on your keyboard as you click. This will open your reply in a new window. So you simply wont have the issue.

kylith

Deleted User wrote: »

The reality is, abortion removes the choice of two of the three people involved

Except that a foetus is incapable of having an opinion. Which brings it to a stalemate. Why should the man, who is least effected by the pregnancy, get the deciding vote.

wexie

kylith wrote: »

Except that a foetus is incapable of having an opinion. Which brings it to a stalemate. Why should the man, who is least effected by the pregnancy, get the deciding vote.

And why do so many people just assume that the man involved isn't a loving caring partner who wants the best for the woman in his life and therefor respects her wishes?