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.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » Exactly. You are minimising the negative effects of the 8th.
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'll say the same thing to you then - step away from the drama.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Lovely soundbite and all but where is your proof of that?
end of the road wrote: » no he isn't. this is a complete lie. re-read his posts.
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.
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!
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.
NuMarvel wrote: » In other words, the 8th puts women's lives at risk. By jove, I think we've finally hit common ground!
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.
end of the road wrote: » you either haven't, or are twisting them to suit what you wanted them to say. whichever it is, your claim is inaccurate and i haven't made up anything .
Joeytheparrot wrote: » You are embarassing yourself now
Bannasidhe wrote: » Seriously? That's your response?
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.
thee glitz wrote: » There's no real proof (necessary) except people saying that they would vote to repeal the 8th, but wouldn't if it meant abortion on demand.
One eyed Jack wrote: » As blithe and dismissive as your own, yes, that is my response. I wouldn't have considered your first post a dramatic performance, but it was your reply to mine suggesting I was being dramatic when I responded to you in kind, that had me think if anyone is being dramatic here, it sure as hell ain't me. You're only getting back what you gave out in the first place, so if you're going to be dismissive, you shouldn't be surprised and should expect the same in return. I've been civil even when you interpreted my posts with malicious intent, but my patience wears thin when you're constantly at it. I'm not upset by that, I'm not angry about it, I'm not stroppy about it, or any of the other many characteristics you might try and imply. I'm just tired. That's all. I'm tired and I'm wore out and I thought it wasn't too much to expect a bit of human decency and understanding goes both ways. I was wrong. Clearly you're under the impression that it only goes one way. I don't see much point in us continuing this conversation then, and with that said, I'll bow out for now.
One eyed Jack wrote: » It's in the Irish Constitution which acts as a guiding document for Irish society so of course you and everyone else and even those yet to be born are affected by it. I can, I just did, and I'll likely do it again. How you choose to interpret what I say is entirely up to you. 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.
end of the road wrote: » the reality however is that the unborn even in it's first few weeks is above an ant, given that it will likely develop if not stopped, into a complex human person.
uptherebels wrote: » Please explain to me, how as a 30 year old male the 8th affects me.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I don't see much point in us continuing this conversation then
One eyed Jack wrote: » The 8th has a positive effect on her right to life before she's even born though?
end of the road wrote: » that's rich. we have had a couple of pro-choicers on here doing nothing but making up things about other individuals on this site.
Bannasidhe wrote: » So you are admitting the 8th puts women's lives in danger and you want situation to continue unless the government dismisses the recommendations of the Citizen's Assembly and brings in a more restrictive regime than they proposed? Once again we see a so called 'pro-lifer' using women's lives to further their agenda.
NuMarvel wrote: » Plus, a more restrictive regime would still put most women's lives at risk because it would only benefit a smaller number of women, meaning the remainder would continue to exposed to the risks of a general abortion ban.
thee glitz wrote: » I don't care much for the CA - what's this thread called and why anyway? Apparently, they voted one way, but the proclaimed 'result' was something else due to the farcical way it was determined. I also don't buy your concern for women's lives being any greater than mine - would you accept the possibility of legislating for abortion on demand being kicked 10 years down the road if it meant an end to women dying due the 8th?
thee glitz wrote: » What risks, what are you comparing?
uptherebels wrote: » When people call you a nimby in relation to abortion it is because as you have said before that your support for the right to life is limited by geography.
eviltwin wrote: » It says everything that some people are more concerned with the fate of individuals yet to be conceived than actual women and girls.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Loving how you keep ignoring the posts I write to you, put take pot shots at other posts I make to other people. Dodge much?
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » It is not above an ant in terms of sentience, brain power, experience and a developed brain however. To put one above the other you have to look at what one is, and what the other MIGHT be in the future. Hardly comparing like with like there are you.
end of the road wrote: » oh no i'm not. you made a claim about a poster. that claim was false. when pointed out to you by that poster and myself that your claim was false, you continued to make the claim.
mrkiscool2 wrote: » Lol, EOTR getting on his high horse about a claim being false when he has made a few false claims himself and has never admitted any of them were false, cause fcuk the truth getting in the way of his narrative.
