The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Just her

storker wrote: »

That would indeed be illogical. Please show me where I said it. The debate is about abortion up to 12 weeks, so the above is irrelevant. But it's good to see that at least you're not one of those claiming that life begins at conception.



Not convoluted at all. It's a simple enough concept. It's not murder because the law says it's not murder and a very large number of people would say that it's not murder too. In fact, I haven't even heard that many people on the No side claim that it's murder either, so I think we can be pretty clear that...it's not murder.

The no side aren't allowed to say it's murder and are risking a ban here if they do

cournioni

erica74 wrote: »

No, prochoice for every woman to do what she chooses. I support every woman who chooses an abortion and every woman who chooses to have a baby and every woman who chooses to put her child into foster care and every woman who chooses whatever is right for her.

Why is choice so hard for you to grasp?

You can trust every woman just as much as you can every man.

Some will choose for the right reasons, others will choose for the wrong reasons. It’s the ones who choose for the wrong reasons I’d be concerned about.

pleas advice

Overheal wrote:

Don’t care to pretend to know where you came in at, but I just saw you throwing around the pro-abort label at someone, so I’m just going to throw the bull**** label at that excuse here.

Have the courage of your convictions like, we're all pro choice, depending on the issue

Overheal

Just her wrote: »

The no side aren't allowed to say it's murder and are risking a ban here if they do

That’s because it isn’t.

erica74

cournioni wrote: »

You can trust every woman just as much as you can every man.

Some will choose for the right reasons, others will choose for the wrong reasons. It’s the ones who choose for the wrong reasons I’d be concerned about.

And what are "the wrong reasons"? I don't think I have the right to tell any woman that her reason is "right" or "wrong" but I want every woman to have the choice to decide for herself.

BarleySweets

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I have actually spoken to priests about this stuff in the last few weeks. I think if your a God parent and sponsor. You have to lead the kid in a church like way. I don't really think John could do it. It's just how I understand things anyway.

Can’t be too hard, sure one of the lads on here yesterday said himself: “you don’t need religion to know right from wrong”. And he was the one preaching that Irish society was doomed because we’ve rejected Christ yet he foresees great things for Ireland if we reconnect with Christianity, particularly his Protestant sect (can’t remember which particular one he represents, he rattled off a few during the day).

nullzero

cournioni wrote: »

You can trust every woman just as much as you can every man.

Some will choose for the right reasons, others will choose for the wrong reasons. It’s the ones who choose for the wrong reasons I’d be concerned about.

Hang on a minute, you can't go around in this thread making sense, you either agree with repeal or you get badgered.

The notion of "trust women" as if trusting somebody predicated solely on their gender is something we should all get behind, "trust men" is just as ridiculous. I wouldn't trust most people to cross the road safely, people make stupid decisions all the time, boiling things down to trust over simplifies a complex issue.
One thing I truly hope is in place should repeal happen is that proper supports are in place for women who do have terminations and later regret them, their mental health had better be catered for and not forgotten about in a haze of HSE bureaucracy.

nullzero

erica74 wrote: »

And what are "the wrong reasons"? I don't think I have the right to tell any woman that her reason is "right" or "wrong" but I want every woman to have the choice to decide for herself.

That's extremely reductive.
Say a woman's partner pressures her to have an abortion, that is the wrong reason, choice is a weak argument. I think we clearly need a whole raft of education around the topic of abortion and all options that are open to women. Women are no more omnipotent than men, we all need guidance and help at times.

pleas advice

Overheal wrote: »

That’s because it isn’t.

That's begging the question though, it's not murder because the law doesn't say it is. And the fetus isn't a person because it doesn't have a PPS Number...

Cabaal

cournioni wrote: »

You can trust every woman just as much as you can every man.

Some will choose for the right reasons, others will choose for the wrong reasons. It’s the ones who choose for the wrong reasons I’d be concerned about.

One person's "wrong reason" is another persons right reason.

If you spoke to Cora Sherlock from the no campaign she'd say its wrong for a 12 year old pregnant to have a abortion..

If you spoke to Tobin on the debate lastnight he'd claim its OK for a 17 year older or younger to have an abortion....but its NOT OK for anyone older to have an abortion. (Rather an odd outlook as he claimed a fetus is equal to the women).

In all rape or incest cases the women should be allowed to have an abortion in my view.

Personally in an ideal world I'd like to see no abortions, but then we don't live in an ideal world and we never will. Its better to trust women then treat them like criminals and neglect them

cournioni

erica74 wrote: »

And what are "the wrong reasons"? I don't think I have the right to tell any woman that her reason is "right" or "wrong" but I want every woman to have the choice to decide for herself.

Perfectly healthy lives being taken away for money and career reasons.

I think we do have a right to tell someone what is right and wrong. They’re called laws.

Just her

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If No wins we'll wait for some older voters to die and then run the same proposal again. There will probably be another Savita/abcxy case in that time which will get us some undecideds and grind down the No voters some more.


The No side are on the back foot, Yes will win in the end.

Oh a charming post, waiting and hoping for people to die , is this what yes voters are thinking? Doesn't seem like there is any respect for human life before or after birth in your post

DarkScar

Moiratat wrote: »

So you believe its murder then? So thousands of women are wandering around Ireland who have had abortions, should we worry because they are murderers? Should they be locked up? Should a girl who was raped but took pills be sentences 14 years? Should I go to prison? Am I a murderer?

Emotional garbage to be perfectly honest, same sh1te you'll moan about the No campaign doing.
A foetus becomes a human at some stage in the womb, unless you think passing through a cervix is a miracle of some sort? Sounds kinda religious to me.
If you want to invent new words for killing humans be my guest. We already have one though, whether it's difficult for you refuse to say it or not.
It's not an elephant because I'm calling it a mouse.

pleas advice

Cabaal wrote: »

Personally in an ideal world I'd like to see no abortions, but then we don't live in an ideal world and we never will. Its better to trust women then treat them like criminals and neglect them

There it is again, 'trust women', it's a nonsense phrase. Trust women to have an abortion if she wants one, it misses the whole point of the debate, totally

DarkScar

Python Desk wrote: »

Lets make murder, theft and rape legal then, let people choose.

Won't be answered. They'll distract with travel or some guff.

NuMarvel

Cabaal wrote: »

You know what I find interesting,

Youth Defence has existed in Ireland for years, it is the largest pro-life organisation in Ireland...but yet it hasn't campaigned for a no vote in this ref, they have no posters at all (are they seen as too toxic???)

Anyway, their Facebook page has existed for years and years and it has 82k likes,
By comparison, the In her shoes - women of the eighth Facebook page has existed for around 7 months, it has 101k likes.

That's seriously impressive and it really shows the momentum behind the yes campaign and the reach they've gotten in just a few months,

They're behind the Save the 8th group. They have the same address in Gardiner Place, and have the same founder, Niamh Ui Bhriain. I've seen some of their canvassers wearing t-shirts with the Youth Defence website address as well.

It wasnt me123

RobertKK wrote: »

Rob Armstrong is now on my ignore list, so he can post all the crap he wants about me now unhindered.

I've just asked for both of you to be banned because you are like kids in a playground. You said.... He said ..... no I didn't, yes you did etc etc ad nauseam

I don't agree with your position RobertKK and I think you are selective in the way you post but I also don't agree with the constant nit picking against you.

IMO, if you don't agree with a poster and they refuse to engage / debate, put them on ignore and eventually / hopefully they will disappear.

cournioni

Cabaal wrote: »

One person's "wrong reason" is another persons right reason.

If you spoke to Cora Sherlock from the no campaign she'd say its wrong for a 12 year old pregnant to have a abortion..

If you spoke to Tobin on the debate lastnight he'd claim its OK for a 17 year older or younger to have an abortion....but its NOT OK for anyone older to have an abortion. (Rather an odd outlook as he claimed a fetus is equal to the women).

In all rape or incest cases the women should be allowed to have an abortion in my view.

Personally in an ideal world I'd like to see no abortions, but then we don't live in an ideal world and we never will. Its better to trust women then treat them like criminals and neglect them

One persons wrong reason is somebody else’s right reason? That’s like the old “one persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter” saying that they use to absolve murderers from their crimes. I don’t like it and I think you shouldn’t use it.

We all have our views on abortion, but let’s not kid ourselves, if the Repeal vote passes it will be abused by people who will abort for the wrong reasons.

Overheal

Python Desk wrote: »

One could argue genocide sucks, but let people choose if they want to commit it.

There you go with the red herrings again. We aren’t discussing genocide.

tigger123

cournioni wrote: »

Perfectly healthy lives being taken away for money and career reasons.

I think we do have a right to tell someone what is right and wrong. They’re called laws.

Forcing someone to be pregnant is unacceptable.

Just her

Overheal wrote: »

That’s because it isn’t.

The poster was saying that the no side weren't calling it murder on here so no one thought it was murder, but they are risking a ban if they do.

Calina

Just her wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If No wins we'll wait for some older voters to die and then run the same proposal again. There will probably be another Savita/abcxy case in that time which will get us some undecideds and grind down the No voters some more.


The No side are on the back foot, Yes will win in the end.

Oh a charming post, waiting and hoping for people to die , is this what yes voters are thinking? Doesn't seem like there is any respect for human life before or after birth in your post

There is none for women on the no side given that a major rationale is that women will go often and have abortions like they are smarties, or between haircuts and ski holidays.

It seems yo me if the no side has respect for human life it is limited to human life that does not exist yet. Once born, they don't seem to matter and if they are women, forget about it, they are not to be trusted or respected.

DarkScar

pleas advice wrote: »

That's begging the question though, it's not murder because the law doesn't say it is. And the fetus isn't a person because it doesn't have a PPS Number...

And we don't have abortion because the law says so... amazing how you are allowed to disagree with the law when you don't think it's right but "it's the law!" is trotted out when you do agree.

erica74

cournioni wrote: »

Perfectly healthy lives being taken away for money and career reasons.

I think we do have a right to tell someone what is right and wrong. They’re called laws.

And what about the mother who may not be "perfectly healthy"?
What other reasons are "wrong"?
So you'd rather women give up a career or career progression to have a baby they don't want or to have a baby they can't afford?

Well we're talking about abortion, we're not talking about legalising stealing or murdering or robbing cars or the other nonsense being thrown around so let's stick to the actual subject at hand and not venture off into "other laws", which are totally irrelevant.

Just her

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

I've just asked for both of you to be banned because you are like kids in a playground. You said.... He said ..... no I didn't, yes you did etc etc ad nauseam

I don't agree with your position RobertKK and I think you are selective in the way you post but I also don't agree with the constant nit picking against you.

IMO, if you don't agree with a poster and they refuse to engage / debate, put them on ignore and eventually / hopefully they will disappear.

That'll be another no poster banned then, even if the yes poster gets banned with him as it says in the opening post, it's 20 to one on here. Couldn't you just debate instead of looking to get people banned? The biggest kid in the playground is the one that goes telling tales

erica74

Python Desk wrote: »

Lets make murder, theft and rape legal then, let people choose.

The topic is abortion, not murder, theft, rape, abortion. I can't understand why you are having such problems sticking to the topic of the upcoming referendum.

pleas advice wrote: »

There it is again, 'trust women', it's a nonsense phrase. Trust women to have an abortion if she wants one, it misses the whole point of the debate, totally

It is actually the whole point of the debate, totally. "Trust women to have an abortion if she wants one" that is the debate summed up.

cournioni wrote: »

One persons wrong reason is somebody else’s right reason? That’s like the old “one persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter” saying that they use to absolve murderers from their crimes. I don’t like it and I think you shouldn’t use it.

We all have our views on abortion, but let’s not kid ourselves, if the Repeal vote passes it will be abused by people who will abort for the wrong reasons.

So you'd rather women give up their education pursuits, career progression, have babies they don't want, babies they can't afford? Sounds ideal.

cournioni

tigger123 wrote: »

Forcing someone to be pregnant is unacceptable.

Killing a perfectly healthy life is unacceptable.

nozzferrahhtoo

Just her wrote: »

The no side aren't allowed to say it's murder and are risking a ban here if they do

The word "Murder" has a very specific meaning though so I question your motivation in even wanting to use that word. What does it achieve other than to show yourself to be someone who does not know what words you use even mean?

"murder" specifically means to kill unlawfully. If abortion is legalized then BY DEFINITION a legal abortion is not and can not be "murder".

So using that word will achieve nothing other than you essentially saying "Look at me, I like to use words without even seemingly understanding what they even mean".

And I can only assume that is not the message you wish to convey.

Just her wrote: »

Oh a charming post, waiting and hoping for people to die , is this what yes voters are thinking? Doesn't seem like there is any respect for human life before or after birth in your post

Wow you just imported the word "hoping" yourself in order to change what the user said from a mere observation to a value statement..... and then judged him for what YOU imported. How is that honest?

Without modifying what the user said using your value laden language, what the user ACTUALLY said is perfectly coherent. IF a vote goes a certain way, and IF the demographics of that vote suggest that the vote was significantly skewed by the older generations........... then it is very much warranted to suggest the vote should be revisted when those older generations have died off as we can assume a probability that the result of the vote is no longer representative of the will of the people.

Just her

Calina wrote: »

There is none for women on the no side given that a major rationale is that women will go often and have abortions like they are smarties, or between haircuts and ski holidays.

It seems yo me if the no side has respect for human life it is limited to human life that does not exist yet. Once born, they don't seem to matter and if they are women, forget about it, they are not to be trusted or respected.

Can't say I've seen the posts about Smarties haircuts and ski holidays but the rationale I believe is the belief that abortion will become more commonplace should it be legalised here.

Overheal

cournioni wrote: »

Perfectly healthy lives being taken away for money and career reasons.

I get that. But I also get that a teen may be better off getting an abortion now, going to college, become a top earner, settle down with someone and then choose to have three kids later when it’s right to. I’ve seen that scenario play out before as well. The alternative being ditch college and have the kid, never earn much more than the minimum wage - seen that too. Not going to argue which is morally better that’s up to the beholder but I would at least say it should be up to the woman to make that choice.