The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Mr.H

Topgear on Dave wrote:

I registered last year (moved from my old address in another county) and have recieved two voting cards with another for a woman who hasnt lived here in years.

I received a polling card at my mother's address. Haven't lived there or been registered there in ten years at least. I also have one in my new house. It's ridiculous that they can mess this up. I wonder how many others got multiple cards.

antiskeptic

Monkey09 wrote: »

I will be voting no in the referendum. There are two lives to be considered here. Of course, if the woman's life is at risk, she deserves the correct medical care even if it would cost the life of the baby. That is the current position in Ireland. It is disappointing to see the yes side saying that the 8th risks women's lives.

To be fair, there is and was a question over the legislation back then.

Being wrung for all it's worth now, granted, but a genuine question.

gmisk

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'd imagine the 'newly registered' will belong to this cohort. And it the sharp drop is an ongoing trend ...

The polls dont really hold up that sharp drop do they though?


Yes No Undecided

56% 27% 17%


I would think the younger people signing up would be overwhelmingly Yes voters but we will see.

antiskeptic

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you think that the 3k+ women currently going to the UK are doing that because?

Largely "lifestyle"

antiskeptic

gmisk wrote: »

The polls dont really hold up that sharp drop do they though?


Yes No Undecided

56% 27% 17%


I would think the younger people signing up would be overwhelmingly Yes voters but we will see.

Try rereading the post. And finding yourself an up to date poll rather than something old published new.

Mr.H

ohnonotgmail wrote:

Talk to who you like. I'll keep on pointing out your lies.

You haven't pointed to any lies. Go ahead point one lie out. Just one. A real lie. Not something you claim is a lie.

AtomicHorror

antiskeptic wrote: »

Largely "lifestyle"

And with that you dismiss the pain, fears and sadness of thousands. Oh but "love both".

.......

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue

antiskeptic wrote: »

Largely "lifestyle"

I can't bear to see this "lifestyle" "convenience" "social abortion" crap trotted out.

Anyone who makes such claims clearly has NO IDEA what is involved with seeing through a pregnancy and raising a child.
They genuinely mustn't have a notion.

Its actually infuriating. They wouldn't be long having some compassion if they specifically were the ones going through the trauma.

juanjo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Largely "lifestyle"

Like changing your haircut and going for coffee and pastries to that trendy popup café?

ohnonotgmail

Mr.H wrote: »

You haven't pointed to any lies. Go ahead point one lie out. Just one. A real lie. Not something you claim is a lie.

I refer you to posts #2 and #13 in this thread.

robarmstrong

antiskeptic wrote: »

Largely "lifestyle"

Having a termination on grounds of issues with mental health is "lifestyle" to you, is it?

It's a different thought than your ridiculously laughable attempt of bringing Nazi Germany into it and parroting Lebensraum.

Tell me how you think 3k+ women abort due to lifestyle choices without coming across as someone who has no respect for women seeking abortions for reasons you will not ever know the depth of or understand, please.

BattleCorp

http://theliberal.ie/liam-neeson-who-has-no-vote-here-has-told-irish-people-they-have-to-vote-yes-in-the-abortion-referendum/

The Liberal have been posting plenty of articles like the one above. Another similar one referenced Bob Geldof and claimed that he was demanding people vote yes yet don't publish any quotes backing up their claim.

One might almost think that the Liberal were in the pay of the no campaign.

Mr.H

amcalester wrote:

Fair enough and I don't want to keep arguing the point so I'll leave it at this but it's a risk to life not serious health risk, a subtle but important distinction.

Completely agree. My words may have been rushed and not carefully considered.

SusieBlue wrote:

Anyone who makes such claims clearly has NO IDEA what is involved with seeing through a pregnancy and raising a child. They genuinely mustn't have a notion.

I know one girl in particular who has had an abortion because it just didn't suit her lifestyle. The same girl doesn't like condoms because they don't feel great. She also doesn't want to be on the pill or use a bar. She is a long time friend of mine and I love her to bits. But she is a complete idiot. Use no protection means it's only a matter of time. This is the wrong use of abortion. Might be OK to some people and I am OK with that point of view. But that's where my slight reservations come from.

Leroy42

antiskeptic wrote: »

Largely "lifestyle"

I don't understand what that means.

Do you mean that having an abortion is seen as something to do, the latest trend, or that they wish to maintain their current lifestyle and a child would get in the way?

Timberrrrrrrr

antiskeptic wrote: »

Largely "lifestyle"

Your continued use of words like lifestyle and cohort is pretty sickening to be honest. You obviously have very little empathy for women in a difficult position and come across as someone who sees women as mere possessions.

Zubeneschamali

Mr.H wrote: »

My words may have been rushed and not carefully considered.

And 100% untrue.

gmisk

antiskeptic wrote: »

Try rereading the post. And finding yourself an up to date poll rather than something old published new.

Thats from 10-16th may.
Can you send me a link to yours? Thanks

SusieBlue

Mr.H wrote: »

I know one girl in particular who has had an abortion because it just didn't suit her lifestyle. The same girl doesn't like condoms because they don't feel great. She also doesn't want to be on the pill or use a bar. She is a long time friend of mine and I love her to bits. But she is a complete idiot. Use no protection means it's only a matter of time. This is the wrong use of abortion. Might be OK to some people and I am OK with that point of view. But that's where my slight reservations come from.

Do you think a girl like her would be responsible and mature enough to provide a stable, loving, nurturing upbringing to a child?
Do you think it would be in the best interests of the child to force a woman that irresponsible and unwilling into motherhood?

I await your reply with anticipation. Because there isn't much pro-life or LoveBoth about forcing a situation like that on an innocent baby.

I think abortions like that are of miniscule proportions and am perfectly ok with them. People that reckless shouldn't be trusted with children.

Mr. CooL ICE

BattleCorp wrote: »

One might almost think that the Liberal were in the pay of the no campaign.

Hey, leave TheLiberal alone. They have a dedicated team of staff who are not afraid of free speech and there is no room for groupthink...





...apparently.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Calina

Mr.H wrote: »

amcalester wrote:

Fair enough and I don't want to keep arguing the point so I'll leave it at this but it's a risk to life not serious health risk, a subtle but important distinction.

Completely agree. My words may have been rushed and not carefully considered.

SusieBlue wrote:

Anyone who makes such claims clearly has NO IDEA what is involved with seeing through a pregnancy and raising a child. They genuinely mustn't have a notion.

I know one girl in particular who has had an abortion because it just didn't suit her lifestyle. The same girl doesn't like condoms because they don't feel great. She also doesn't want to be on the pill or use a bar. She is a long time friend of mine and I love her to bits. But she is a complete idiot. Use no protection means it's only a matter of time. This is the wrong use of abortion. Might be OK to some people and I am OK with that point of view. But that's where my slight reservations come from.

And you think some poor child should suffer this as a parent?

It is easy to condemn 3000 women on the back of one case, isn't it?

As a general note, it is very easy to condemn people for 'lifestyle' decisions when it isn't your life at play.

seamus

BattleCorp wrote: »

The Liberal have been posting plenty of articles like the one above. Another similar one referenced Bob Geldof and claimed that he was demanding people vote yes yet don't publish any quotes backing up their claim.

One might almost think that the Liberal were in the pay of the no campaign.

The Liberal is run by the brother of Cora Sherlock, who is one of the leaders of the No campaign.

It is a mouthpiece for Catholic conservatives and racists, and gets most of its content from plagiarising other sites and regurgitating press releases.

I wouldn't even give it the benefit of a link tbh.

AtomicHorror

Mr.H wrote: »

I know one girl in particular who has had an abortion because it just didn't suit her lifestyle. The same girl doesn't like condoms because they don't feel great. She also doesn't want to be on the pill or use a bar. She is a long time friend of mine and I love her to bits. But she is a complete idiot. Use no protection means it's only a matter of time. This is the wrong use of abortion. Might be OK to some people and I am OK with that point of view. But that's where my slight reservations come from.

Lots of people do legal things for stupid reasons, or even for unkind and cruel reasons. Do we ban all actions that can be done with either an agreeable or disagreeable motive because we disagree with the motive in some given instances?

It is not for the law to police people's motives. We can leave that to society. There's plenty of vocal judgement voiced and I doubt that will end soon. Consequences of actions are what matters, not intentions behind them.

Mr.H

ohnonotgmail wrote:

I refer you to posts #2 and #13 in this thread.

And again I have pointed out that yes the actual reason was risk to serious illness. While I have accepted that my words were not carefully written and agree that it is likely it means serious risk of illness could result in death, it is also fair to say it was not an immediate risk of death. Which has been My point all along. I have not changed that stance. My point is that you do not have to be half dead or on deaths door to have a termination.

None of that is me lying.

Calina

Mr.H wrote: »

ohnonotgmail wrote:

I refer you to posts #2 and #13 in this thread.

And again I have pointed out that yes the actual reason was risk to serious illness. While I have accepted that my words were not carefully written and agree that it is likely it means serious risk of illness could result in death, it is also fair to say it was not an immediate risk of death. Which has been My point all along. I have not changed that stance. My point is that you do not have to be half dead or on deaths door to have a termination.

None of that is me lying.

Risk of _death_ due to serious illness I believe you have been informed with the actual legislation cited on more than obe occasion. Please stop leaving out the risk of death bit in order to suggest the legislation is looser than it actually is. You trivialise the cases of the women concerned.

Zubeneschamali

Mr.H wrote: »

And again I have pointed out that yes the actual reason was risk to serious illness.

No, it really isn't. It is a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman’s life from a physical illness.

Not risk of illness, not risk of serious illness.

Loss of life.

volchitsa

Mr.H wrote: »

Completely agree. My words may have been rushed and not carefully considered.



I know one girl in particular who has had an abortion because it just didn't suit her lifestyle. The same girl doesn't like condoms because they don't feel great. She also doesn't want to be on the pill or use a bar. She is a long time friend of mine and I love her to bits. But she is a complete idiot. Use no protection means it's only a matter of time. This is the wrong use of abortion. Might be OK to some people and I am OK with that point of view. But that's where my slight reservations come from.

Just the one? Is this someone in Ireland? If so, it's a particularly expensive refusal to use contraception - are you really saying she would go off to the UK every few months and pay for abortions rather than use contraception? Or is there some other reason?
After all, you must be very close to her to know all this.

OTOH as a random anecdote it sounds very like "I met a man with two pints and he said"

ohnonotgmail

Mr.H wrote: »

And again I have pointed out that yes the actual reason was risk to serious illness.

Risk to serious illness is not the actual reason. it is a poor paraphrasing of the actual reason so that it fits inside a table.

Mr.H wrote: »

While I have accepted that my words were not carefully written and agree that it is likely it means serious risk of illness could result in death, it is also fair to say it was not an immediate risk of death. Which has been My point all along. I have not changed that stance. My point is that you do not have to be half dead or on deaths door to have a termination.

None of that is me lying.

You haven't accepted anything at all. You are still arguing about the reason.

There is nothing likely about it all. it is very clear

when there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the woman arising from a physical illness

The fact that you still wont admit this despite it being pointed out to you several times is proof of the lie. Correcting a mistake after it being pointed out once is one thing. Still not accepting it after multiple times is a deliberate lie.

ohnonotgmail

apparently this is latest stunt by the No campaign. They are handing these out to children in Greystones