The Dilemma of the Undecideds in the abortion referendum

AnneFrank

blanch152 wrote: »

Sentient, conscious, aware women who are your daughters, your sisters, your nieces, your cousins, your partners, your friends, their friends and all the women you know and love. That poster isn't thinking about that.

I am, all you have mentioned above start in the womb in case you didn't know.
All life, all children should be cherished.

AnneFrank

blanch152 wrote: »

Depends on whether you routinely tell the truth in posts. If you do, then you are around 40.

Routinely and around, pretty broad strokes

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

AnneFrank

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

way to miss the point, you must be seriously older than me if you had trouble understanding my post.

listermint

AnneFrank wrote: »

Exactly like i did before, how will you if no wins ?

Too many women voting for that to happen.

.......

This post has been deleted.

AnneFrank

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

divert divert divert.
Nice try.

AnneFrank

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Really

fergus1001

AnneFrank wrote:

Exactly like i did before, how will you if no wins ?

I'll have a California cheese burger for the Craic

(Simpsons refference)

AnneFrank

listermint wrote: »

Too many women voting for that to happen.

Need i remind you thousands of women are voting no, just like thousands of men are voting yes.
I agree the yes side is a strong fav, but it's not over till it's over

SusieBlue

AnneFrank wrote: »

way to miss the point, you must be seriously older than me if you had trouble understanding my post.

Before I reply, are you genuinely concerned about that you are being misunderstood, or is this another passive aggressive ageist remark?

I feel the need to clarify, seeing as you usually deny deny deny when confronted about these kind of snippy posts.

blanch152

AnneFrank wrote: »

Routinely and around, pretty broad strokes

I was being nice.

A quick search using the search function for "age" in your posts, throws up a post where you claim to be the same age as an OP, check the thread, the OP was 32, the post was 8 years ago, around 40. Took less than 10 seconds, no snooping required.

A second glance (1 second) at the other forums you have posted in, and the conclusion you were likely male was also formed. Could check the tone and tenor of a handful of those posts and be definitive about it in less than 20 seconds if I wanted.

So around 40 and male was the conclusion of less than 12 seconds of a search, but based on real evidence, and probably took me longer to write this post. The caveat of whether you routinely tell the truth was to cover me if you don't, as there are some posters who have different ages depending on what they say.

Getting back on topic, what would you do if your niece was faced with a Savita situation?

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue

blanch152 wrote: »

I was being nice.

A quick search using the search function for "age" in your posts, throws up a post where you claim to be the same age as an OP, check the thread, the OP was 32, the post was 8 years ago, around 40. Took less than 10 seconds, no snooping required.

A second glance (1 second) at the other forums you have posted in, and the conclusion you were likely male was also formed. Could check the tone and tenor of a handful of those posts and be definitive about it in less than 20 seconds if I wanted.

So around 40 and male was the conclusion of less than 12 seconds of a search, but based on real evidence, and probably took me longer to write this post. The caveat of whether you routinely tell the truth was to cover me if you don't, as there are some posters who have different ages depending on what they say.

Getting back on topic, what would you do if your niece was faced with a Savita situation?

I noticed this too. Most people presume him to be a woman and he doesn't correct them. I suppose its his basis for "plenty of women are voting no!!".

ArthurDayne

AnneFrank wrote: »

I am, all you have mentioned above start in the womb in case you didn't know.
All life, all children should be cherished.

To be honest Anne -- I've been reading a lot of your posts and, while I don't expect people to write theses, they always seem to be undeveloped posts . . . a couple of lines where you seem to just repeat mantras rather than develop an actual point.

It's easy to say things like "all life, all children should be cherished" and that sounds great. But how far does your cherishing of children go when, say, you are dealing with a 15 year old girl who has been raped and impregnated by her uncle? How much do you cherish that child when you're forcing them to undergo the severe physical and mental trauma of pregnancy induced via incestuous rape?

You can repeat mantra and dogma all you want. But for too long this slavish devotion to dogma has overcome our ability as a society to fully appreciate and deal with the complexities of matters like this.

I hope today we finally overcome the dogma on abortion -- and if not today then the fight shall go on.

Amirani

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure what special contribution an cardiologist has to make.

Doctors receive very generalised training prior to specialising and would still have quite strong knowledge of various branches of medicine.

I actually know of a cardiologist SHO that wrote their thesis on the diagnosis of foetal illnesses, so they sometimes would know quite a lot.

AnneFrank

blanch152 wrote: »

I was being nice.

A quick search using the search function for "age" in your posts, throws up a post where you claim to be the same age as an OP, check the thread, the OP was 32, the post was 8 years ago, around 40. Took less than 10 seconds, no snooping required.

A second glance (1 second) at the other forums you have posted in, and the conclusion you were likely male was also formed. Could check the tone and tenor of a handful of those posts and be definitive about it in less than 20 seconds if I wanted.

So around 40 and male was the conclusion of less than 12 seconds of a search, but based on real evidence, and probably took me longer to write this post. The caveat of whether you routinely tell the truth was to cover me if you don't, as there are some posters who have different ages depending on what they say.

Getting back on topic, what would you do if your niece was faced with a Savita situation?

jeez stalker alert, i'm not into whataboutery or the one hardcase everyone mentions, that was actually the fault of the nurses and Dr's looking after her, not the 8th

AnneFrank

ArthurDayne wrote: »

To be honest Anne -- I've been reading a lot of your posts and, while I don't expect people to write theses, they always seem to be undeveloped posts . . . a couple of lines where you seem to just repeat mantras rather than develop an actual point.

It's easy to say things like "all life, all children should be cherished" and that sounds great. But how far does your cherishing of children go when, say, you are dealing with a 15 year old girl who has been raped and impregnated by her uncle? How much do you cherish that child when you're forcing them to undergo the severe physical and mental trauma of pregnancy induced via incestuous rape?

You can repeat mantra and dogma all you want. But for too long this slavish devotion to dogma has overcome our ability as a society to fully appreciate and deal with the complexities of matters like this.

I hope today we finally overcome the dogma on abortion -- and if not today then the fight shall go on.

yawn, hardcase argument.

AnneFrank

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I wish.

.......

This post has been deleted.

ArthurDayne

AnneFrank wrote: »

yawn, hardcase argument.

Perhaps you can clarify some simple questions then:

Should a 15 year old who has been impregnated by rape perpetrated by her uncle be forced to undergo pregnancy? Yes or No.

If not, do you think there is a contradiction between your views that we should 'cherish the unborn child' in an adult pregnancy induced by consensual sex, but not 'cherish the unborn child' when the pregnancy is one of a child who has been raped?

I presume that, as someone who is clearly confident of your view, you can answer these questions with consummate ease.

.......

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's not a rebuttal. That's just you disagreeing with doctors about what is and isn't a healthcare issue.

I notice you didn't deal with questions on what constitutes a life.




Beware, if you quote "science says", you're really only pointing to your philosophical decision to be guided, to large degree, by science.

antiskeptic

bleary wrote: »

The problem from my reading was no guidelines existed because internationally they would terminate the pregnancy. In no other country would a woman be left with a ruptured membrane for a week while doctor's discussed the constitution and if she was close enough to dying to do something

No need to move country. Just move down to Dr. Hayes hospital.

If Dr. Hayes doesn't wait until the fetal heart stops then there is a reason why he doesn't. His perception (and he hasn't been struck off or taken to court) is that fetal heartbeat isn't an impediment.

That the medical council didn't declare on that isn't the fault of the 8th.

antiskeptic

blanch152 wrote: »

You like to classify problems and put them into rigid constructs. That is why you favour constitutional provisions on the unborn. Unfortunately, that simply isn't the way the world works.

Better said, I like to break problems down into components. I like to understand the relative important of each component. Then I begin to assemble my view.

An example would be the 8th killing Savita. I breakdown, I come to understand, I reassemble. And conclude, rigidly (in the context of coming to a decision in a particular time), that it didn't.

No constitutional provision, other than the one proposed by the government, can deal with the hard cases. It is only legislation, passed after the referendum, that can deal with the hard cases.

I'm not inclined to agree. You might not be able to adjust the 8th, but that doesn't mean you can't scrub it and come up with a new amendment which allows for exceptions.

Assuming you get a 60/40 yes under the current proposal and an 80/20 split for a difficult case proposal (since many are torn by the on-demand element), the focus ought to have been on whether this possible or not.

Investigation of whether or not has been lost amidst the thousand and one areas of discussion brought about by this referendum.

No accident.

antiskeptic

AnneFrank wrote: »

Exactly like i did before, how will you if no wins ?

I'll give it 5 years until (s)he's out campaigning for a further liberalisation in the law to bring home the women, still excluded from home abortions by Irish law, who are still going to England for abortions

antiskeptic

Amirani wrote: »

Doctors receive very generalised training prior to specialising and would still have quite strong knowledge of various branches of medicine.

I actually know of a cardiologist SHO that wrote their thesis on the diagnosis of foetal illnesses, so they sometimes would know quite a lot.

Given the 8th has been positioned as a central villain, it would take somebody working in and around it to have a view.

Anyway, as I said, the decision to cite this as a medical issue isn't validated by doctors claiming it is. Health is indeed involved, but so too is ethics, spirituality, law, philosophy, social (as in societal) welfare. Etc.

We're going to be killing life. That a woman be looked after better than she is being now, is but one element of it.

Zubeneschamali

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They will disappear just like they did after the SSM referendum, <poof>


So to speak.