uptherebels wrote: » Not like anti choices to make it up as they go along!
Joeytheparrot wrote: » I have read them. Stop making stuff up.
NuMarvel wrote: » Bann asked glitz for proof. The unsupported opinion of another poster who then has to qualify his opinion with conditional conjunctions isn't proof. It's probably the exact opposite of proof.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Lovely soundbite and all but where is your proof of that?
NuMarvel wrote: » In other words, the 8th puts women's lives at risk. By jove, I think we've finally hit common ground!
One eyed Jack wrote: » I don't know why you refer to anti choicers as I've said I am neither pro-choice nor anti-choice as the labels mean nothing to me, but I formed that opinion given the number of pregnant women and women who have given birth since the inception of the 8th amendment, and the number of women who have been negatively affected by the existence of the 8th amendment, as a subset of those women.
uptherebels wrote: » Doesn't affect me as I can't get pregnant😉
You can't say something as being definite and then say it's only your opinion, consequently there is no way to interpret it as anything other than as an unstubstantiated statement of fact.
Even if it is only your opinion surely there is some evidence that you used to form that opinion? Not like anti choices to make it up as they go along!
end of the road wrote: » because as said by me, there are many who disagree with abortion on demand, and on the grounds of it being likely that it would be legislated for, we wouldn't vote to repeal. if there is enough of us and the vote is caried then the problems still exist. however if there was no chance of abortion on demand being legislated for, there would have been huge support from the pro-life movement.
end of the road wrote: » no he isn't. this is a complete lie. re-read his posts.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » Exactly. You are minimising the negative effects of the 8th.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I'll say the same thing to you then - step away from the drama.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Step away from the drama. You have said, several times, that you are aware that the 8th has had a negative impact on some women's health and well-being but that, for you, that is outweighed by the benefits of having the 8th in place. You may not like how others interpret your statements but I am not the only one who thinks this is how you feel. A vote to retain the 8th in it's current form is a vote to retain the current situation. It is a vote which says that some women will die but that is a necessary 'evil' in order to protect the unborn. What is that if not an acceptable amount of collateral damage for a perceived 'greater good'? You may not like it put that bluntly but the reality is there is nothing complex or nuanced about that. It is what has been happening for over 30 years.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I've never denied that the 8th amendment affects more than just pregnant women who want an abortion. It affects every single person living in this country, including those yet to be born. I have claimed that the number of women who have been negatively affected by the 8th amendment is negligible in terms of the number of women who have been pregnant and have given birth in this country since the inception of the 8th amendment. I would never claim anything as fact as that's solely my opinion, so if you interpreted what I said as claiming it was fact, you really shouldn't have.
thee glitz wrote: » Promoting abortion on demand as being the result of repealing the 8th is also putting women's lives in danger, by making it less likely to pass.
Bannasidhe wrote: » A vote to retain the 8th in it's current form is a vote to retain the current situation. It is a vote which says that some women will die but that is a necessary 'evil' in order to protect the unborn. What is that if not an acceptable amount of collateral damage for a perceived 'greater good'?
Spanish Eyes wrote: » Since up to now we have turned a blind eye to the thousands of women who go to Britain or elsewhere to terminate, I often wonder at the lack of extremism in those countries that provide the service in Europe (many of whom are Catholic) about the issue. I often wonder if the same level of debate applied when abortion was introduced in Italy/Spain say for example, or was it democracy in action or something. Never hear a peep now about any country in Europe that provides abortion apart from Malta and Ireland. What is the reason for the acceptance everywhere else do you think?
One eyed Jack wrote: » Must you really read malicious intent into everything I write? Can you not possibly imagine that for most people they would be terribly conflicted by an issue that for them is incredibly complex and isn't just a matter of looking at an issue only from one perspective? The people you're arguing with are also born, living, breathing human beings who are also impacted by the decisions of others, who themselves are born, living, breathing human beings, and not the caricatured, devoid of any human empathy, monsters or people who haven't the intellectual capacity to have thought about this issue, that you and others seem so fond of painting them out to be, simply because they don't see the world the same way you do.
uptherebels wrote: » Again you have any evidence to support this claim? As you have been shown that the 8th affects more pregnant women than just those who want an abortion. Your very good at making claims and portraying them as fact but very poor at actually providing any evidence of such claims.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Perhaps it's because I don't agree with some of the posters here that pregnancy is solely just a women's healthcare issue, or a women's medical care issue, or however they choose to frame it, and in doing so attempt to minimise the fact that pregnancy isn't just solely a women's healthcare or women's medical care or women's issue. It's very much like the way the 8th amendment is a Constitutional issue, and that's why it's not only pregnant women who get to vote on whether it is repealed or not. Even at that, I wouldn't be too certain that were it only pregnant women were allowed to vote on the issue, that they would vote the way some posters here would want them to vote. I'm not at all minimising the negative effects of the 8th amendment, I'm weighing the negative effects of it's existence against the potential negative effects of it's removal. I am therefore acknowledging the negative effects, but for me they do not outweigh the potential negative effects of it's removal. I hope that makes my position clearer, as I'm certain I can't be any clearer, and if you still think I'm minimising the negative effects of the 8th amendment, then you're only looking at one side of the story and minimising the potential negative effects of the removal of the 8th amendment in order to do so.
Zerbini Blewitt wrote: » Isaac burke (a self-identified Christian anti-choicer) keeps appearing on my youtube ads. He is complaining his group has been bullied & silenced in NUI, Galway for 4 years Is this the start of the flow of “keep the 8th money” from the US or maybe his parents are paying for this?
c.p.w.g.w wrote: » I was asking, because i don't know exactly what the current situation is... I would of thought that gathering all the information is important before voting... I'm all for abortion on demand(well all for people having the option of getting it done in Ireland), but i think the time limit is very important. The government haven't confirmed anything yet, or if they did i have missed it
Bannasidhe wrote: » This reads to me that essentially you believe that those already born, breathing, living, women who are impacted - in some cases dying - because of the 8th are merely collateral damage in some ethical battle to 'save' potential living, breathing, people. Any women (or girl) who is 'of child bearing age' in Ireland could be the next victim but that is a necessary step... That is awful.
One eyed Jack wrote: » The reason I used the word potential with regards to the 8th amendment Joey is because of the many, many women who have been pregnant and who have given birth since the inception of the 8th amendment, a negligible amount of those women will have been negatively affected by it's existence. That's not downplaying it's negative effects, it's an acknowledgement that the negative effects are often over-stated by opponents to the 8th amendment.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » I do interpret it that way. It is very very clear for all to see.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » The truth is at every opportunity you can you are trying to completely minimise to the point of almost denial that the 8th amendment has many negative effects and implications on womens healthcare. I am not sure why you are getting upset when peoole highlight tgis.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I'm not Joey, but if you choose to interpret anything I've said that way, then there's nothing I can do about that.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I was going to let your last effort go, but after seeing you of all people complain about anyone using personal attacks? You've done little else throughout this entire thread! :pac: Like this for instance - Where did I make any such claim first of all? Secondly, whether you think I'm ignorant of what you call "the factual reality" (which is really just your opinion and therefore not in any way factual), is literally just that - your opinion, informed by your own bias, and that's why when you accuse me of this - I have to remind you yet again that you don't get to determine how I make my arguments, nor do you get to determine what perspective I make my arguments from, nor do you get to determine what I should and shouldn't consider relevant in the context of the 8th amendment, nor do you get to determine that I should have to make my arguments to suit your argument, nor do I nor anyone else have to answer any of your questions, nor do I nor anyone else have to justify themselves to you, nor do I nor anyone else even owe you the courtesy of taking you seriously. In short, you have far more in common with the authoritarian egotists you despise, than you have anything in common with the people you claim to advocate for. You might want to examine your own attitude before you start complaining about the attitudes of others and how they're doing the pro-choice side any favours, because you sure as hell aren't.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » In other words you are minimising the effects. As I said you are tying yourself up in knots to say "No I am not saying X". The truth is you are saying very clearly. You are repeatedly at every step minimising the negative effects and implications of the 8th amendment. Dressing them up as "potential" suggests exist. They do. You really are tying yourself in so many nonsense knots here.
