The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Calhoun · 23-04-2017 09:06PM

Morgans wrote: »

I think its the most beautiful irony Ive come across in some time. That the OP is accusing the pro-choice/repeal activists of premature joy with the non binding recommendations from the CA given that the opening post was outlining (with a tone of glee) of how twitter was in meltdown from the repeal activists disappointed with the results of the CA 24 hours ago.

The pro-life activists seemed to think that the CA was another hurdle that the establishment was placing in the way of the overwhelming wishes of the people. Turns out that the results can only help the pro-choice cause and politics of FF/FG will need to explain to those pro-choice voters why they abandoning the recommendations of their own process. Far less leeway than previous and may in fact provide the excuse for those TDs who didnt want to declare their position previously.

I think from what has been seen online the pro-life campaign were under the impression that this would happen. There have already been some things about pro-life submission not been allowed to present ect.

FF/FG will have to also deal with the narrative of your killing a baby compared to the narrative of we are doing this to prevent another Savita case.

This is far from over im afraid, it requires a government that has backbone and if anything over the past couple of years this group have shown they dont have it.

Academic · 23-04-2017 09:15PM

May I be frank?

I think triumphalism from either side of the debate is not only distasteful but also wildly premature. Moreover it contributes nothing to the quality of the discussion.

But hey, that’s just me.

Morgans · 23-04-2017 09:29PM

Academic wrote: »

May I be frank?

I think triumphalism from either side of the debate is not only distasteful but also wildly premature. Moreover it contributes nothing to the quality of the discussion.

But hey, that’s just me.

I dont think that's particularly frank.

I think the tone in this debate especially has always been vitriolic, especially those who remember the 80s referendums. It would be great to reverse time 40 years and to have nothing but the highest quality of discourse, and its evident just how much the pro-choice activists have had to do that this is seen as a victory. They are allowed to respond in whatever way they seem fit. I dont feel the need to judge them for that.

But hey, that's just me.

23-04-2017 10:18PM

The OP:

RobertKK wrote: »

Meltdown on twitter by Repealthe8th people.

RobertKK wrote: »

But all the repeal gear, Unal Mullally's repeal the 8th book, the t-shirts, etc will have to be replaced or amended too...

Also the OP:

RobertKK wrote: »

They are non binding recommendations.

RobertKK wrote: »

That is why it is premature joy.

There are not enough :rolleyes:'s in the world....

martingriff · 23-04-2017 10:29PM

Academic wrote: »

May I be frank?

I think triumphalism from either side of the debate is not only distasteful but also wildly premature. Moreover it contributes nothing to the quality of the discussion.

But hey, that’s just me.

No you are Jack:P

Back on topic I agree the quality of debate is unfortunately lacking from a few with the moderates been shouted down. From the only the religious would vote this down to the your only want perfect non disabled people in the world. The government always knew there would be a referendum but was hoping the assembly would put a nice easy question up for the referendum. When the referendum will happen will there be 1 or 2 questions. 2. Repel yes or no.
1. Abortion for up to 12 months or reasons

23-04-2017 10:53PM

I am very much pro choice but the "repeal the 8th crowd" sicken me hole even more than Iona do :mad:

professore · 23-04-2017 10:59PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

professore wrote: »

Every time i drink I consent to ingesting alcohol but I don't consent to getting drunk. Your statement is equally logical.

Oh bloody hell. Really?

I can't even

Can't even what? If you have sex there is a chance you will get pregnant. You can't consent to getting pregnant. It either happens or it doesn't. You consent to have sex, which can cause you to get pregnant if you're female. If you make nonsensical statements expect to be called out on them.

professore · 23-04-2017 11:03PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

I was pro-life when I was younger. People do change their minds. People who have previously been pro-life may be edging towards not being pro-the-eighth in light of the cases which have been in the news the last few years.

And I'd say there are plenty of people who are in principle supportive of abortion in certain cases, but who would be susceptible to scaremongering, the 'open the flood gates' notion.

As was I, to my shame. My education and research in biology made me moderately pro-choice, my conversations with pro-choice advocates and women friends made me strongly pro-choice. People change, with the right arguments.

How do you define the difference between moderately pro choice and strongly pro choice in scientific terms?

Delirium · 23-04-2017 11:04PM

professore wrote: »

Can't even what? If you have sex there is a chance you will get pregnant. You can't consent to getting pregnant. It either happens or it doesn't. You consent to have sex, which can cause you to get pregnant if you're female. If you make nonsensical statements expect to be called out on them.

So everyone who has sex, man or woman, is consenting to having a child?????

pilly · 23-04-2017 11:07PM

Delirium wrote:

So everyone who has sex, man or woman, is consenting to having a child?????

Of course. Sure sex is only for procreation don't you know?

Stating that having sex is consenting to being pregnant is like saying stepping outside your door in the morning is consenting to being killed in an accident.

AtomicHorror · 23-04-2017 11:10PM

professore wrote: »

Can't even what? If you have sex there is a chance you will get pregnant. You can't consent to getting pregnant. It either happens or it doesn't. You consent to have sex, which can cause you to get pregnant if you're female. If you make nonsensical statements expect to be called out on them.

Ok thanks I'll watch out so. Thanks.

professore wrote: »

How do you define the difference between moderately pro choice and strongly pro choice in scientific terms?

Who gives a ****?

thee glitz · 23-04-2017 11:13PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

My stat was from the CA itself. Of course abstainers are not counted. Please stop patronising me.

A reasonable interpretation of your stat presentation is that 64% of people voted for abortion on demand. The actual result was 52% for, 29% against and 19% not giving an opinion.

AtomicHorror · 23-04-2017 11:14PM

thee glitz wrote: »

A reasonable interpretation of your stat presentation is that 64% of people voted for abortion on demand. The actual result was 52% for, 29% against and 19% not giving an opinion.

Take it up with the CA. Maybe they need a lesson in stats. I don't. Or I don't care. Whichever.

retro:electro · 23-04-2017 11:31PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I am very much pro choice but the "repeal the 8th crowd" sicken me hole even more than Iona do :mad:

I'm pro choice within reason. I feel that most of the Repeal the 8th camp are too militant and seem to want AOD up until due day- that makes me feel sick to be honest.

PopePalpatine · 23-04-2017 11:36PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I am very much pro choice but the "repeal the 8th crowd" sicken me hole even more than Iona do :mad:

May the Flying Spaghetti Monster help you if you ever dig deeper into pro-life/anti-choice activists' rhetoric.

January · 23-04-2017 11:42PM

anna080 wrote: »

I'm pro choice within reason. I feel that most of the Repeal the 8th camp are too militant and seem to want AOD up until due day- that makes me feel sick to be honest.

Because we know that AOD up until the due date doesn't mean ripping term babies from the womb and killing them.

thee glitz · 23-04-2017 11:50PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Take it up with the CA. Maybe they need a lesson in stats. I don't. Or I don't care. Whichever.

The CA gave poll results, statistics. You gave a potentially misleading interpretation of same. I don't know if you need a lesson in stats or not, but any useful analysis requires a closer look.

pilly · 24-04-2017 12:01AM

anna080 wrote:

I'm pro choice within reason. I feel that most of the Repeal the 8th camp are too militant and seem to want AOD up until due day- that makes me feel sick to be honest.

I have literally NEVER heard this view uttered.

retro:electro · 24-04-2017 12:11AM

pilly wrote: »

I have literally NEVER heard this view uttered.

I realise I've made this point before, but this is a different thread, with different posters. Some of the same points are being made over and over by many of the usual suspects. Cool of you to choose mine though.

thee glitz · 24-04-2017 12:52AM

pilly wrote: »

I have literally NEVER heard this view uttered.

Have you heard of abortionrightscampaign.ie?

Cosmicfox · 24-04-2017 01:32AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Unfortunately you're right. However, in all honesty, how much is that going to matter in this case? The issue is so contentious and such a sacred cow for people regardless of who's side they're on that I just can't imagine anybody being swayed by campaigning. Can you? Do you see a poster, a radio or TV ad, a debate etc changing anyone's pre-existing views on this? Do you see current undecideds, who IMO are the only ones who will potentially be convinced in such a manner, numbering anywhere near enough to swing the result in one direction or another?

In my view, this very simply will come down to whether the majority of the population is pro choice or not. The campaign, despite being inevitably massive, pervasive and ugly as you have predicted, will matter very little in terms of actually influencing the outcome.

I could be wrong in my assertion that on-the-fencers will be an extreme rarity in this, but I certainly can't think of a single person I know or have heard of in the media or elsewhere who hasn't had their mind made up on this for years and years, and in such a manner that nothing, not even God himself appearing in the clouds and making a declaration on the subject, would convince them to change it.

I definitely think there's people who'll change their minds. I was pro-life myself all my life until a few years ago whereas now I'd support abortion on demand until 20 weeks (and probably extreme situations after that, need more research on that area)

When all this really started kicking off I remember discussing it with a friend who was utterly disgusted with abortion for any reason. I've since seen her photos on FB campaigning to repeal the 8th. Something changed her stance

I also had a conversation with my mum and she was pro-life too, the usual the 'poor babies' thing. Then she saw a debate on TV and was so disgusted by how the pro life side acted that she did more research herself on the topic and is now pro-choice until 12 weeks.

Another girl in my family who wasn't bothered either way recently had a pregnancy scare and shocked that she found herself looking up information on abortion methods and clinics in the UK. She wasn't pregnant after all but it made her think about the subject far more seriously than ever before.

I think some people will probably be swayed on their stance in the future, but it's going to be ugly seeing what's happened so far

pilly · 24-04-2017 01:57AM

anna080 wrote:

I realise I've made this point before, but this is a different thread, with different posters. Some of the same points are being made over and over by many of the usual suspects. Cool of you to choose mine though.

That's not what I meant. I meant I have never heard anyone say they want abortion on demand up to due date

pilly · 24-04-2017 01:58AM

thee glitz wrote:

Have you heard of abortionrightscampaign.ie?

Nope

professore · 24-04-2017 06:38AM

Delirium wrote: »

professore wrote: »

Can't even what? If you have sex there is a chance you will get pregnant. You can't consent to getting pregnant. It either happens or it doesn't. You consent to have sex, which can cause you to get pregnant if you're female. If you make nonsensical statements expect to be called out on them.

So everyone who has sex, man or woman, is consenting to having a child?????

That's not what I said at all. You don't consent to get pregnant is what I said. Can you not read?

professore · 24-04-2017 06:42AM

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

I think you should not get an abortion unless you need one. In which case you better get one. I mean, seriously, if you need an abortion, you better get one. Don't f*ck around. And hurry, not getting an abortion that you need is like not taking a sh*t, that's how bad that is. It's like not taking a sh*t.

I find this offensive - but then again I find nuns murdering children offensive too. I also find people not crirically thinking - and I mean thinking, not just listening to ideological groups - about when life begins. It's not a clear cut thing.

professore · 24-04-2017 07:05AM

I've had the following thought process about abortion pretty much all my life:

Is it OK to take a human life without the consent of that life?

If it's not, then the question is when is it a human life?

11 weeks
Your baby is almost fully formed. She's kicking, stretching, and even hiccupping as her diaphragm develops, although you can't feel any activity yet.

Your baby is the size of a fig.

Source: https://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-week-by-week

Do I consider the above human life? I'd have to say yes. So I'd have to set the cutoff around 8-9 weeks. The only exceptions would be mother's life in danger, fatal fetal abnormalities or maybe rape or incest involving women under the age of consent, but really struggle even with this last one.

I really don't buy the it's a woman's body argument, as this is ideology, not fact, and is the exact same as quoting the Bible or Qur'an in support of an argument. Also don't buy the baby not being viable outside the womb argument - babies of 1 year old are not viable if you stop caring for them 24/7.

And before anyone asks, yes i have daughters and yes I feel the same way if they were in that situation.

Therefore personally I'd find it very difficult to hand this over and entrust it to bloody corrupt politicians do decide.

And also the argument about Ireland being backward on this - there were foundling hospitals all over Europe and the US up to the start of the 20th century which were basically state run infanticide centres. So just because everyone else is doing it doesn't make it right. And many countries like Germany only permit it in the first trimester, which is close to my position.

professore · 24-04-2017 07:15AM

Cosmicfox wrote: »

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Unfortunately you're right. However, in all honesty, how much is that going to matter in this case? The issue is so contentious and such a sacred cow for people regardless of who's side they're on that I just can't imagine anybody being swayed by campaigning. Can you? Do you see a poster, a radio or TV ad, a debate etc changing anyone's pre-existing views on this? Do you see current undecideds, who IMO are the only ones who will potentially be convinced in such a manner, numbering anywhere near enough to swing the result in one direction or another?

In my view, this very simply will come down to whether the majority of the population is pro choice or not. The campaign, despite being inevitably massive, pervasive and ugly as you have predicted, will matter very little in terms of actually influencing the outcome.

I could be wrong in my assertion that on-the-fencers will be an extreme rarity in this, but I certainly can't think of a single person I know or have heard of in the media or elsewhere who hasn't had their mind made up on this for years and years, and in such a manner that nothing, not even God himself appearing in the clouds and making a declaration on the subject, would convince them to change it.

I definitely think there's people who'll change their minds. I was pro-life myself all my life until a few years ago whereas now I'd support abortion on demand until 20 weeks (and probably extreme situations after that, need more research on that area)

When all this really started kicking off I remember discussing it with a friend who was utterly disgusted with abortion for any reason. I've since seen her photos on FB campaigning to repeal the 8th. Something changed her stance

I also had a conversation with my mum and she was pro-life too, the usual the 'poor babies' thing. Then she saw a debate on TV and was so disgusted by how the pro life side acted that she did more research herself on the topic and is now pro-choice until 12 weeks.

Another girl in my family who wasn't bothered either way recently had a pregnancy scare and shocked that she found herself looking up information on abortion methods and clinics in the UK. She wasn't pregnant after all but it made her think about the subject far more seriously than ever before.

I think some people will probably be swayed on their stance in the future, but it's going to be ugly seeing what's happened so far

So basically your mum was swayed by not wanting to be grouped with pro life religious types - I feel the same, they are disgraceful and irrational, but that doesn't make them totally wrong.

Your other family member was swayed by self interest - I have to say that's a very poor reason for changing your mind on something.

Aseth · 24-04-2017 07:54AM

For me it is quite clear that woman's body is her own to do what she wants with - and I do not know how anyone wants to explain (except with their own concept of morality or god or whatever) how does a woman's decision to have an abortion affects anyone else except maybe her own family? I don't see why she should even justify herself - it's not like there's a country that allows abortion till 6 month or later and we would be hard pressed to find many people even supporting it. Most countries go with 20 weeks and it's a good solution.
Anyway having a referendum would already be a big win giving each and every person a right to vote and express their opinion whatever it is.

professore · 24-04-2017 08:01AM

Aseth wrote: »

For me it is quite clear that woman's body is her own to do what she wants with - and I do not know how anyone wants to explain (except with their own concept of morality or god or whatever) how does a woman's decision to have an abortion affects anyone else except maybe her own family? I don't see why she should even justify herself - it's not like there's a country that allows abortion till 6 month or later and we would be hard pressed to find many people even supporting it. Most countries go with 20 weeks and it's a good solution.
Anyway having a referendum would already be a big win giving each and every person a right to vote and express their opinion whatever it is.

Your first sentence is factually incorrect. It's a distinct body with 50% of someone else's DNA not your body. By your logic you should be free to kill your adult children as "it's your body". It's as ridiculous and unscientific as the ancient Jewish belief that each sperm contained a fetish which simply grew inside the womb.

pjohnson · 24-04-2017 08:03AM

professore wrote: »

Your first sentence is factually incorrect. It's a distinct body with 50% of someone else's DNA not your body. By your logic you should be free to kill your adult children as "it's your body". It's as ridiculous and unscientific as the ancient Jewish belief that each sperm contained a fetish which simply grew inside the womb.

What?

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Comments