Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

1…144145147149150…332

Comments

  • #4382
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,620 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    end of the road wrote: »
    most people who are against abortion on demand are concerned for both. that is why we support abortion when necessary but don't when it isn't, meaning that where the baby does have a genuine effect on the mother it's life can be terminated. it doesn't mean we agree with the act, but we understand it's necessary as it would cause an unacceptible outcome in the form of death or permanent disability.

    Except that's not what you do.
    You support abortion for medical reasons and all others you would rather they don't, but you don't care if they do a coat hanger job or travel to England.
    So you can sit on your moral high horse and say "There's No Abortion (on demand) in Ireland!" You don't give a flaming fart for those women.
    Since you don't support capturing women who want to abort and chain them to a bed forcing them to have their baby all I get is the very unsavoury wiff of a hypocrite.

    As for the clump of cells debate:
    EOTR has his views and others have a different view. Will we just leave it there please?
    In the end the votes decide, but whatever the outcome, you cannot FORCE someone to change their mind, will you please just agree to disagree?
    This endless back and forth about this point is very tedious and can't be resolved.


  • #4383
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    end of the road wrote: »
    i haven't dodged anything.

    Except the MULTIPLE posts on this thread from me, that you have simply dodged. We are not talking about one point or one post here. We are talking about an ongoing demonstrably consistent MO where you ignore posts I write to you, wait a few hours or days, then take pot shots at a post I have written to someone else.
    end of the road wrote: »
    in the future, the human being unborn life will be sentient and have experience

    A) You do not know that. Many fetuses simply do not survive.
    B) So we are agreed, it is NOT a sentient agent now. You just imagine it being in the future.
    C) You are stll not comparing like with like. You refuse to compare two things now, rather you have to take one now, and one you imagine in the future, so the comparison gives what YOU want it to give.


  • #4384
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    end of the road wrote: »
    if there was no chance of abortion on demand being legislated for, there would have been huge support from the pro-life movement.

    I have read many, many times from the pro-life crew that fetuses are babies, fuill stop. No killing them just because their dad is a rapist, no killing them because their dad is their grandad too, and the one about the little baby who the mother was told by evil doctors would never live who grew up to win the Nobel Prize, the Eurovision and an all Ireland hurling medal.

    So even with an unworkable wording for FFA, rape and incest only, the Pro-Life movement would have fought it tooth and nail, just as they wanted to keep travel and information illegal, just as they tried to remove the suicide exception, twice.

    And these were not handfuls of votes, they were 30+ percent of the electorate.


  • #4385
    thee glitz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,294 ✭✭✭thee glitz


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    So even with an unworkable wording for FFA, rape and incest only, the Pro-Life movement would have fought it tooth and nail, just as they wanted to keep travel and information illegal, just as they tried to remove the suicide exception, twice.

    I guess they'd be fairly against opening up the possibility of abortion on demand any time soon. Or is there anything to be said for polling the people?


  • #4386
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    thee glitz wrote: »
    I guess they'd be fairly against opening up the possibility of abortion on demand any time soon. Or is there anything to be said for polling the people?

    Or we could have a Referendum....


  • Advertisement
  • #4387
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    thee glitz wrote: »
    I guess they'd be fairly against opening up the possibility of abortion on demand any time soon.

    Or any other kind of abortion. That is kind of their thing.


  • #4388
    thee glitz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,294 ✭✭✭thee glitz


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Or we could have a Referendum....

    Yes - that's what I was referring to.

    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Or any other kind of abortion. That is kind of their thing.

    Do you think they represent sizeable proportion of the people here, or maybe you're not well placed to answer that?


  • #4389
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,620 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Or any other kind of abortion. That is kind of their thing.

    The anti abortion side had to concede on abnormalities, rape, incest, right to information, right to travel and risk of suicide.
    They simply shrug their shoulders now and pretend they're alright with all of that, but in reality would rather detain women and chain them up, forcing them to have their babies.
    For all the united front they put up, putting even "Ulster Says No" to shame, they were pushed back every single time.
    The fact that they shrug their shoulders when it comes to the fact that women travel abroad to have abortions shows that they are happy to take a deeply hypocritical stance and they don't give a flying fcuk about them or any other women.
    As we have seen on this thread they are reduced to saying "no we weren't" and "no it's not", while they maintain an air of moral superiority and simply plow on as if everything is going exactly their way. It's called Bunker Mentality.
    They know this is the last line in the sand, the last battle, the final retreat, after they had to concede inch by inch after decades of bitter fighting tooth and nail, but this is endgame.
    They know they're playing Comical Ali when they say everything is going as planned for them.
    For some reason all my posts have been met with deafening silence from the No camp, I won't engage in their silly semantics and hair splitting and I'm looking past an agenda, which they are unable to, so they can't argue on anything outside theirs.


  • #4390
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,494 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    I notice as well now EOTR supports abortion where there in the case the child may be disabled.

    no, i don't.
    i was referring to the case where carying the baby to term may cause permanent disability to the mother, something i have been clear about throughout the thread.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #4391
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,223 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    end of the road wrote: »
    no, i don't.
    i was referring to the case where carying the baby to term may cause permanent disability to the mother, something i have been clear about throughout the thread.

    Indeed. You continuously opine about how you support abortion in extreme circumstances. At the end of the day though you don't because you continuously put fetuss before womens lives. I think Bannasidhe really summed up your stance quite well when referring to another poster.
    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. :(

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Advertisement
  • #4392
    Loafing Oaf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    but in reality would rather detain women and chain them up, forcing them to have their babies.

    they are happy to take a deeply hypocritical stance

    I don't see how these can both be true for the same person or group. I believe the latter rather than the former has long been the reality for most Irish pro-lifers, as demonstrated in the right-to-travel referendum.


  • #4393
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,494 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Indeed. You continuously opine about how you support abortion in extreme circumstances. At the end of the day though you don't because you continuously put fetuss before womens lives.

    i support abortion in extreme circumstances. i have been clear and consistent about it in the thread. that means ultimately that i don't put the unborn before women's lives, given that the threat to the mother's life is one such case where i support abortion.
    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    I think Bannasidhe really summed up your stance quite well when referring to another poster.

    no, no she didn't.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #4394
    pitifulgod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭pitifulgod


    end of the road wrote: »
    i support abortion in extreme circumstances. i have been clear and consistent about it in the thread. that means ultimately that i don't put the unborn before women's lives, given that the threat to the mother's life is one such case where i support abortion.



    no, no she didn't.

    Do you view mental health grounds to be legitimate grounds for an abortion out of interest?


  • #4395
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,494 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    pitifulgod wrote: »
    Do you view mental health grounds to be legitimate grounds for an abortion out of interest?

    i'm not 100% sure on that one but i would possibly be toards the no side

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #4396
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,223 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    end of the road wrote: »
    i support abortion in extreme circumstances.

    But you dont really because you view preventing abortion in extreme circumstances as necessary in order to prevent so called "abortion on demand". Collateral damage.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #4397
    Montgolfier
    Closed Accounts Posts: 879 ✭✭✭Montgolfier


    I think everyone who votes to keep the 8th should have to take in an orphan or two. As a man I believe a woman has the right to do with her body his she pleases. Just like every trans gender, drug addict and sexual orientation.


  • #4398
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    But you dont really because you view preventing abortion in extreme circumstances as necessary in order to prevent so called "abortion on demand". Collateral damage.

    Extreme circumstances which are hard to really define.


  • #4399
    thee glitz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,294 ✭✭✭thee glitz


    There are none so blind as those who will not see, or am I missing something?
    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: »
    that is why we support abortion when necessary but don't when it isn't
    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    Except that's not what you do.
    You support abortion for medical reasons
    end of the road wrote: »
    i was referring to the case where carying the baby to term may cause permanent disability to the mother, something i have been clear about throughout the thread.
    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    You continuously opine about how you support abortion in extreme circumstances. At the end of the day though you don't because you continuously put fetuss before womens lives.

    end of the road wrote: »
    i support abortion in extreme circumstances.
    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    But you dont really because you view preventing abortion in extreme circumstances as necessary


  • #4400
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,494 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    But you dont really

    i do
    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    you view preventing abortion in extreme circumstances as necessary in order to prevent so called "abortion on demand". Collateral damage.

    i don't as we have abortion in extreme circumstances availible in ireland already.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Extreme circumstances which are hard to really define.

    not really, i gave some examples of what i believe to be extreme circumstances where i am okay with abortion being availible.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #4401
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,223 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    thee glitz wrote: »
    There are none so blind as those who will not see, or am I missing something?

    What I am saying is that EOTR prioritises banning abortion "on demand" over and above all else. The result of that support of banning abortion "on demand" means that abortion in various extreme circumstances cannot be legislated for. So saying he supports abortion in extreme circumstances is completely hollow words.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Advertisement
  • #4402
    thee glitz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,294 ✭✭✭thee glitz


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    I watched the whole vote. It was very clear. Each proposal was clearly made, any clarifications sought were provided, then the vote on that particular proposal was not only taken - they had a vote as to whether they would vote.
    No apparent discrepancy at all - the resulting report reflected the vote.
    Glad to clear that up.

    I remember thinking it a bit odd at the time that more of the CA voted for abortion availability after 12 weeks than only to that time, but then recommending only to then. As above, I'm not too concerned about the CA anyway, particularly as it's probably not representative of the overall population.
    thee glitz wrote:
    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?
    Bannasidhe wrote:
    And what? :confused:

    I'm trying to gauge the extent of prioritising ensuring women don't die for lack of an abortion vs general availability on demand.

    NuMarvel wrote: »
    The risks you referred to as being present in the current situation minus whatever ones might be mitigated by the alternative you'd propose in lieu of the Committee's recommendations.

    What I said was
    thee glitz wrote: »
    I guess reference could be made to burden imposed by the continued protection of life.

    I note that you weren't replying to my post, but to this obtuse misrepresentation of what I said by Bannasidhe.

    I offered a very general proposal (and I don't see that anyone else has offered anything), having implied that I'm not well placed to draft / interpret constitutional law. So there's not necessarily any risks that mightn't be mitigated under what I proposed.


    I don't see any replies to this either :(
    thee glitz wrote: »
    How would you feel if Leo said that the legislation that would follow repealing the 8th would allow abortion on demand up to 26 weeks?


  • #4403
    thee glitz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,294 ✭✭✭thee glitz


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    What I am saying is that EOTR prioritises banning abortion "on demand" over and above all else.

    Nothing wrong with that - a position that will save many lives.

    The result of that support of banning abortion "on demand" means that abortion in various extreme circumstances cannot be legislated for.

    It only does so to the extent that extreme circumstances can't be allowed for by the constitution without doing so for all cases (any reason / no reason).

    So saying he supports abortion in extreme circumstances is completely hollow words.

    I don't believe it is, but can appreciate why you might think so. All it would take is a little constitution creativity to allow for abortion where necessary (the specifics to be determined by legislation), but not just because.


  • #4404
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    thee glitz wrote: »
    What I said was

    What you said was that not repealing the 8th puts women's live in danger.

    It follows that a proposal that would maintain some or many of the effects of the 8th would carry more risks than a proposal that would carry none of the effects of the 8th.
    thee glitz wrote: »
    I don't see any replies to this either :(

    I missed it, so I'm happy to answer it now; I wouldn't have a problem with that. The majority of women who access abortion do it within the first trimester (92% in Britain, higher in other European countries), so in effect, there would be little or no difference to the current proposal of up to 12 weeks.


  • #4405
    thee glitz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,294 ✭✭✭thee glitz


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    What you said was that not repealing the 8th puts women's live in danger.

    It follows that a proposal that would maintain some or many of the effects of the 8th would carry more risks than a proposal that would carry none of the effects of the 8th.

    Removing the protection afforded by the 8th completely would carry huge risks for the unborn. The risks I'd allow run are those posed by the unavailability of abortion on demand, whatever they are... not recognising the supposed risk of suicide as sufficient.

    I missed it, so I'm happy to answer it now; I wouldn't have a problem with that. The majority of women who access abortion do it within the first trimester (92% in Britain, higher in other European countries), so in effect, there would be little or no difference to the current proposal of up to 12 weeks.

    I appreciate your reply, but what I asked was about the proposal to implement such legislation, not the implication of doing so. A proposal to legislate for later availability would bring a greater risk of none at all.


  • #4406
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    thee glitz wrote: »
    Removing the protection afforded by the 8th completely would carry huge risks for the unborn.

    We know that thousands of women already have abortions every year through travel, pills, or other means. How many more abortions would happen under your proposals compared to the status quo? And how many more abortions would happen under the Committee's proposals compared to yours?
    thee glitz wrote: »
    The risks I'd allow run are those posed by the unavailability of abortion on demand, whatever they are... not recognising the supposed risk of suicide as sufficient.

    Whatever they are? How can you decide what risks are acceptable if you don't even know what the risks are?
    thee glitz wrote: »
    I appreciate your reply, but what I asked was about the proposal to implement such legislation, not the implication of doing so. A proposal to legislate for later availability would bring a greater risk of none at all.

    I can see your logic there. Just as well the Assembly and Committee recommended a middle ground option that still means the majority of women can access abortion without jeopardising support for repeal.


  • #4407
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,620 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    So business as usual.
    The no side is perfectly OK with women traveling for abortions, they just don't want to sully this green isle with this dirty business.
    So they can export the problem, whilst sitting smug on their moral high horse.
    The hypocrisy of it all stinks to high heaven, because it is pretty clear that they don't give a flying fcuk about those women and their deafing silence on these points speaks volumes.
    Your time to stick your head in the sand is over and you know it's over.
    This is your last hurrah, soon sense will prevail, it is only a matter of time.


  • #4408
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,223 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    thee glitz wrote: »
    Nothing wrong with that - a position that will save many lives.

    And yet the reality is womens lives are endangered by it. But as Bannasidhe said earlier women are just collateral damage to save fetuss

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #4409
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,494 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    And yet the reality is womens lives are endangered by it. But as Bannasidhe said earlier women are just collateral damage to save fetuss


    again this is inaccurate.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #4410
    captbarnacles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,972 ✭✭✭captbarnacles


    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    So business as usual.
    The no side is perfectly OK with women traveling for abortions, they just don't want to sully this green isle with this dirty business.
    So they can export the problem, whilst sitting smug on their moral high horse.
    The hypocrisy of it all stinks to high heaven, because it is pretty clear that they don't give a flying fcuk about those women and their deafing silence on these points speaks volumes.
    Your time to stick your head in the sand is over and you know it's over.
    This is your last hurrah, soon sense will prevail, it is only a matter of time.

    Not only export! they also blithley ignore that Irish women are having abortions in Ireland but unsafe ones with no medical support.

    It's crystal clear from this thread that the pro-lifers don't care about women only about maintaining the pathetic facade of Ireland being anti abortion.


  • Advertisement
  • #4411
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    end of the road wrote: »
    i don't as we have abortion in extreme circumstances availible in ireland already.

    Yes, but not because the pro-life movement were in favour of it.

    We have it because they made a balls of the wording of the 8th and legalized abortion by accident.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement