The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

uptherebels · 22-12-2017 04:18PM

end of the road wrote: »

technically she is importing illegal drugs so should be done for that. illegal drugs are illegal drugs after all, and one doesn't know what is within them.

if we go on this thread, it's a couple of individuals who are pro-abortion who are the extremists. engaging in personal attacks, twisting what people say, telling those who disagree with them what they think when they don't think it.
those of us who are against abortion on demand on the other hand, debate in a civil manner as while we know this is an imotive debate, we know that abuse and attacks, twisting and the rest, are not going to work in getting our point across.

you don't debate though. You make people on the other side feel like their beating their heads against a wall so they give up. Then you pat yourself on the back telling yourself you have won the debate.
People asking you to answer questions you repeatedly dodge, not just in this thread but in many others is not a personal attack.
People pointing out that you are a nimby after you have yourself admitted to being one, is not a personal attack.
Liking comments from other anti choicers where they have willfully misinterpreted medical reports to try and add some sort weight to your argument, other than will someone think of the children, where you nor they have seem to have read the actual report.... what was that about twisting?

Loafing Oaf · 22-12-2017 04:23PM

Edward M wrote: »

https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/big-split-in-fine-gael-on-abortion-as-varadkar-to-study-report-over-break-36426735.html

That headline is missing a crucial qualifier: 'Big spilt in FG over abortion - according to Peter Fitzpatrick.'

PeterParker957 · 22-12-2017 04:32PM

end of the road wrote: »

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Let's just get one thing straight here, don't dare put words in my mouth. I have made my position more than clear on a number of threads now, but I now see I was flogging a dead horse by even replying to you at all.

i didn't put words in your mouth. i understand this is an imotive topic, but you need to give up the personal attacks and lies about people. none of us on the pro-life side have done it to you and we expect the same treatment back.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I believe in a woman making a choice for herself. I believe it's between her and her doctor. I trust my fellow female citizens to make the right choice for their circumstances. I don't believe a woman should go through the trauma of an unwanted pregnancy. I don't believe a child should be brought into the world unwanted, into a life of neglect and abuse.
I believe that when it is YOU who is pregnant, EOTR, or your partner, then you can push all your notions about the unborn into the mix and make your own mind up. But until then it has nothing to do with you.

it has everything to do with me as.
1. i'm going to be asked to vote on repealing the 8th, so it has been made my business.
2. society has a duty to protect life, and when a woman engages in an abortion, that is effecting another life. i believe the state is right to not allow the practice within it bar extreme circumstances.
i also believe in a woman being able to make a choice for herself. however when it effects the right to life then that choice needs to be curtailed, just like in any case where someone's choices effect others right to life.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

And to clarify, the reason I refuse to engage with you is not because I think you are right (???), it is because you are full of contractions and NIMBYisms, you just rant your opinion over and over again as if it's fact despite several intelligent posters pointing out flaws in your logic over the course of severel threads.

this has never happened, and as i said the personal attacks and lies needs to stop.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

It is of course your CHOICE to post in that style and I won't take that choice away from you, but I will refuse to reply to your posts because I don't wish to engage with someone with such dedicated disregard for other people's viewpoints.

you won't engage because you know deep down that what i have said is right and the truth. that is why people engage in personal attacks toards those of us on the pro-life side, because deep down we all know that killing the unborn is wrong.

No personal attacks from the "pro birth and couldn't give two sh**es after that" side????

You seriously need to rethink that. It's ALL you do.

I went to a woman's clinic in Liverpool (not for anything pregnancy related) but had to run a gauntlet of placards, protesters and regular calls of "fcking baby killing bitch".

I saw pregnant woman and girls traumatised by the abuse theywere subjected to. It was abhorrent.

So don't come here with the idea thst you're nothing more than a pink "love both" umbrella and happy thoughts.

I've seen the actual reality

ohnonotgmail · 22-12-2017 04:47PM

PeterParker957 wrote: »

No brain stem, no person.

Brain stem formed 15-18 weeks gestation typically.

Thought we needed a bit of science over the fluffy nonsense.

doesnt seem to stop them posting on boards

end of the road · 22-12-2017 05:11PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

doesnt seem to stop them posting on boards

boards isn't going to be a pro-abortion echo chamber.

emo72 · 22-12-2017 05:28PM

end of the road wrote: »

boards isn't going to be a pro-abortion echo chamber.

EOTR is Pro life. I didn't see that coming. This conversation is all pointless anyway. The old guard is fading. The sooner this referendum is done the better. Abortion will be available then.

EOTR are you going to reply with your classic "you're wrong"?

end of the road · 22-12-2017 05:41PM

emo72 wrote: »

EOTR is Pro life. I didn't see that coming. This conversation is all pointless anyway. The old guard is fading. The sooner this referendum is done the better. Abortion will be available then.

EOTR are you going to reply with your classic "you're wrong"?

no as none of us know how the referendum will ultimately go. it is unlikely to be a repeat of the ssm referendum however.
there is a lot more people against abortion on demand, or abortion full stop, in this country then some would think and it's nothing to do with religion or conservatism in a large amount of cases.

uptherebels · 22-12-2017 05:49PM

end of the road wrote: »

no as none of us know how the referendum will ultimately go. it is unlikely to be a repeat of the ssm referendum however.
there is a lot more people against abortion on demand, or abortion full stop, in this country then some would think and it's nothing to do with religion or conservatism in a large amount of cases.

any sources for any of that?

emo72 · 22-12-2017 05:53PM

end of the road wrote: »

no as none of us know how the referendum will ultimately go. it is unlikely to be a repeat of the ssm referendum however.
there is a lot more people against abortion on demand, or abortion full stop, in this country then some would think and it's nothing to do with religion or conservatism in a large amount of cases.

Well if you're so sure then you won't mind the referendum?

I actually do think it's going to be a repeat of the SSM referendum. Looking back we'll wonder what we were even thinking trying to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies and their health. Roll on the referendum.

end of the road · 22-12-2017 06:02PM

emo72 wrote: »

Looking back we'll wonder what we were even thinking trying to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies and their health.

if it was simply about that then the vote for repeal would be a resounding yes. however, unfortunately it's not just about that, but about abortion on demand. preventing abortion on demand within the state isn't telling someone what they can do with their body, it's telling them that they cannot cary out an action that brings death upon another human being. that is where the difference exists.
so that is why the referendum may not be a repeat of the ssm referendum, because there is a large number of people who disagree with abortion on demand.

eviltwin · 22-12-2017 06:08PM

end of the road wrote: »

if it was simply about that then the vote for repeal would be a resounding yes. however, unfortunately it's not just about that, but about abortion on demand. preventing abortion on demand within the state isn't telling someone what they can do with their body, it's telling them that they cannot cary out an action that brings death upon another human being. that is where the difference exists.
so that is why the referendum may not be a repeat of the ssm referendum, because there is a large number of people who disagree with abortion on demand.

Don't talk rubbish. No one knows what we are going to vote on, the wording has yet to be discussed let alone confirmed.

I imagine we will just be asked to repeal or retain. If we repeal it will then fall to government to legislate. I won't try and second guess the government but at the very least I can see legal abortion in cases of FFA and rape and incest.

....... · 22-12-2017 06:16PM

This post has been deleted.

end of the road · 22-12-2017 06:26PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

untrue. baseless allegations. all you are doing by throwing personal attacks is insuring those in the pro-life movement who are quite extreme stick more to their views.
it's water off a duck's back to me as i'm perfectly content with my view and how i'm going to vote in the referendum.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i will never support abortion on demand on the island of ireland. the only time i am willing to accept abortion is in the case where there is a threat to life or where the baby cannot be caried to term.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It is. Our constitution currently dictates what a woman can and can't do with her body. That's completely unacceptable.

to an extent it does and i have said i disagree with that, and if repealing the 8th was just about that then i would vote yes to repeal. however it's not about that, but more about allowing abortion on demand, so i cannot support that.
prohibiting abortion on demand isn't dictating what a woman can and can't do with her body. it's dictating that she cannot take the life of the unborn as the irish state recognises the right to life of the unborn bar extreme circumstances. it can't practically stop someone from procuring an abortion on demand abroad but it can refuse to provide it within the state as the state has no duty to provide it as it's not a right.

mrkiscool2 · 22-12-2017 06:33PM

end of the road wrote: »

untrue. baseless allegations. all you are doing by throwing personal attacks is insuring those in the pro-life movement who are quite extreme stick more to their views.
it's water off a duck's back to me as i'm perfectly content with my view and how i'm going to vote in the referendum.

i will never support abortion on demand on the island of ireland. the only time i am willing to accept abortion is in the case where there is a threat to life or where the baby cannot be caried to term.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha this is amazing. You do realise you contradicted yourself in the same post, right? You say that the poster describing you as a "Not in my back yard" kind of guy is untrue and baseless, then you proceed to say you don't want abortion on demand in Ireland. You do realise that is completely hypocritical, right?

PopePalpatine · 22-12-2017 06:43PM

uptherebels wrote: »

any sources for any of that?

Probably somewhere he wipes with toilet paper.

uptherebels · 22-12-2017 06:46PM

end of the road wrote: »

untrue. baseless allegations. all you are doing by throwing personal attacks is insuring those in the pro-life movement who are quite extreme stick more to their views.
it's water off a duck's back to me as i'm perfectly content with my view and how i'm going to vote in the referendum.

i will never support abortion on demand on the island of ireland. the only time i am willing to accept abortion is in the case where there is a threat to life or where the baby cannot be caried to term.

to an extent it does and i have said i disagree with that, and if repealing the 8th was just about that then i would vote yes to repeal. however it's not about that, but more about allowing abortion on demand, so i cannot support that.
prohibiting abortion on demand isn't dictating what a woman can and can't do with her body. it's dictating that she cannot take the life of the unborn as the irish state recognises the right to life of the unborn bar extreme circumstances. it can't practically stop someone from procuring an abortion on demand abroad but it can refuse to provide it within the state as the state has no duty to provide it as it's not a right.

Debating means being open to having your mind changed. So you say your here to debate but not to actually changing your mind. Kinda contradictory... but you haven't contradicted yourself in all your years on boards.:rolleyes:
Baseless allegations? your posting history is blenty to base those opinions on.

Loafing Oaf · 22-12-2017 07:13PM

end of the road wrote: »

so that is why the referendum may not be a repeat of the ssm referendum, because there is a large number of people who disagree with abortion on demand.

No-one's disputing that. However, if the government embraces the committee's recommendations, Yes campaigners will be hoping that a large proportion of those who up till now only agreed with abortion in 'exceptional circumstances' will buy into the position adopted by the majority of the committee that legislation for abortion specific to those circumstances, especially for rape/incest, is unworkable, and that if you want women to have access to abortion in such cases, you'll have to vote for abortion on demand (within term limits).

end of the road · 22-12-2017 07:37PM

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

No-one's disputing that. However, if the government embraces the committee's recommendations, Yes campaigners will be hoping that a large proportion of those who up till now only agreed with abortion in 'exceptional circumstances' will buy into the position adopted by the majority of the committee that legislation for abortion specific to those circumstances, especially for rape/incest, is unworkable, and that if you want women to have access to abortion in such cases, you'll have to vote for abortion on demand (within term limits).

of course. which is why it is important that those who are against abortion on demand yet who would agree with it in extreme cases don't fall into the trap. because legislation to allow abortion in extreme circumstances but not on demand is workible and would be best for the country as it would allow for necessary abortion but would not allow unnecessary abortion.
i do think most people who would be against abortion on demand won't fall into the trap that the yes campaigners want.

Hotblack Desiato · 22-12-2017 07:45PM

splinter65 wrote: »

No. The maker of , the distributor of, the sender of, the abortion pills.

But these pills have uses which are currently legal in Ireland.

Edward M wrote: »

A life has been formed though, a human life at that.
I think that is a person, that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

What about all those frozen embryos though? Are they persons? Do they have a right to be born and how would you bring that about?

The Supreme Court has ruled (even with the 8th in place) that they are not and have no right to be born.

Loafing Oaf · 22-12-2017 07:50PM

end of the road wrote: »

of course. which is why it is important that those who are against abortion on demand yet who would agree with it in extreme cases don't fall into the trap. because legislation to allow abortion in extreme circumstances but not on demand is workible and would be best for the country as it would allow for necessary abortion but would not allow unnecessary abortion.
i do think most people who would be against abortion on demand won't fall into the trap that the yes campaigners want.

If the referendum is voted down, do you believe the government will come back in a year or two offering one on 'limited liberalisation' of abortion? Is it not much more likely that the whole issue will be put into cold storage for at least ten years. Do you believe the majority of those who favour abortion in exceptional circumstances but not on demand would choose that option over full liberalisation next year?

up for anything · 22-12-2017 07:58PM

end of the road wrote: »

i will never support abortion on demand on the island of ireland. the only time i am willing to accept abortion is in the case where there is a threat to life or where the baby cannot be caried to term.

Grand job. Let us have your address and we'll send you all the unwanted babies to raise or perhaps you know of a bit of space in a sewage tank some place.

end of the road · 22-12-2017 07:59PM

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

If the referendum is voted down, do you believe the government will come back in a year or two offering one on 'limited liberalisation' of abortion? Is it not much more likely that the whole issue will be put into cold storage for at least ten years.

yes i would agree that if there is a no vote it likely will be left for a number of years.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Do you believe the majority of those who favour abortion in exceptional circumstances but not on demand would choose that option over full liberalisation next year?

i'm unsure if a majority would or not, i don't know, but i would reccan quite a number may choose that option over full liberalisation. i would never vote for full liberalisation of abortion myself under any circumstances as i just cannot agree that abortion on demand should be allowed. i would really like for the government to guarantee that only abortion in extreme circumstances would be legislated for so that i could vote yes to repeal.

frag420 · 22-12-2017 08:04PM

EOTR, while you are available can I ask you again for the third time....

If there was a number you could call where you could grass up women( your sister, mother, cousin, aunt. colleague, neighbour etc) who you knew or suspected were going abroad to have a termination or you knew or suspected they were procuring abortion pills online to bring about a termination...

Would you use it to grass up these women to save the potential babies? Also please note that when you do call you will have to give your name and PPS number so you will be identifiable but hey, that should not matter if you’re saving potential life eh!?

So what say you?

....... · 22-12-2017 08:07PM

This post has been deleted.

Loafing Oaf · 22-12-2017 08:13PM

end of the road wrote: »

i would really like for the government to guarantee that only abortion in extreme circumstances would be legislated for so that i could vote yes to repeal.

To focus on the most intractable issue, do you have any ideas on how legislation for abortion specific to cases of rape and incest might be drawn up in practice. Are you aware of any jurisdiction where this has even been attempted. AFAIK, no witnesses to the committee made even a back-of-the-envelope suggestion as to how this might be done. The overwhelming consensus was that if you want to provide abortion access for rape victims, you have to legalise 'without restriction' (ip to whatever term limit).

end of the road · 22-12-2017 08:28PM

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

To focus on the most intractable issue, do you have any ideas on how legislation for abortion specific to cases of rape and incest might be drawn up in practice. Are you aware of any jurisdiction where this has even been attempted.

sadly no to both questions. i actually am a bit uncomfortable in supporting abortion in those cases as it's not the fault of the baby who their father is .

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

AFAIK, no witnesses to the committee made even a back-of-the-envelope suggestion as to how this might be done. The overwhelming consensus was that if you want to provide abortion access for rape victims, you have to legalise 'without restriction' (ip to whatever term limit).

if that is the case then that is very unfortunate. sadly i would have to vote no in those circumstances.

ToddyDoody · 22-12-2017 08:29PM

Anyone else feel this issue is really none of their business.

end of the road · 22-12-2017 08:41PM

ToddyDoody wrote: »

Anyone else feel this issue is really none of their business.

if it's none of our business then there is no need for a referendum. those who want the referendum have made it everyone's business whether they like it or not.

captbarnacles · 22-12-2017 08:59PM

end of the road wrote: »

sadly no to both questions. i actually am a bit uncomfortable in supporting abortion in those cases as it's not the fault of the baby who their father is .

if that is the case then that is very unfortunate. sadly i would have to vote no in those circumstances.

You know who is really uncomfortable in those cases? The pregnant woman. Your petty foibles are meaningless in comparison.

end of the road · 22-12-2017 09:06PM

captbarnacles wrote: »

You know who is really uncomfortable in those cases? The pregnant woman. Your petty foibles are meaningless in comparison.

the baby doesn't deserve to be killed because of what happened. it's not it's fault or the mother's fault.

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Comments