The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

end of the road wrote: »

it's not scaremongering. Boulevardier has made nothing up. a large element of the pro-choice want unrestricted abortion right up to term and they will push hard for that.

Stop making things up! I've already asked you what you mean by good numbers. You've given nothing to back it up. Now I'll ask you what you mean by large element...will you answer that? Where are you getting your information from?

captbarnacles

Name one case where a healthy pregnancy was aborted at late term Canada or England.

A termination of pregnancy at that stage is a surgical removal.

Martina1991

end of the road wrote:

it's not scaremongering. Boulevardier has made nothing up. a large element of the pro-choice want unrestricted abortion right up to term and they will push hard for that.

Prove it.

I think you'd find it hard to find one poster from this thread saying they'd like to see unrestricted abortion up to term.

I certainly wouldn't. Post 26 weeks a fetus has a good chance of surviving.

I think a 12 week limit is reasonable as it gives the potential mother time to make an informed decision.

Bannasidhe

end of the road wrote: »

it's not scaremongering. Boulevardier has made nothing up. a large element of the pro-choice want unrestricted abortion right up to term and they will push hard for that.

Proof that a large element or retract.

If you do neither than you most certainly are scaremongering.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It is scaremongering. Even you yourself calling them extremists proves it. The posts from Boulevardier suggesting that abortion upto full term would be legislated for and that pro choice groups favour such legislation is complete and utter scaremongering drivel. Boulevardier is making stuff up and you are jumping into back him up!!!

it's not scaremongering. Boulevardier has made nothing up. a large element of the pro-choice want unrestricted abortion right up to term and they will push hard for that.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The confusion/wilfull misunderstanding is a deliberate attempt to scaremonger and muddy the waters. Nothing else.

I'd actually be in favour of it myself, not that I think there's a hope in hell. Just pointing out where it's probably coming from.

I mean you never know, people might actually be that hard of reading rather than deliberately misrepresenting things.

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

I think the confusion or wilfull misunderstanding about full term/third trimester abortions is coming from the fact that some pro choice individuals and groups are in favour of something similar to the Canadian model, where there are no legal restrictions in place regarding when a pregnancy can be terminated, as long as a doctor or doctors sign off on it.

Obviously babies are routinely being ripped from the womb and torn to shreds on the due date in Canada, because that's how women and doctors reacted.

The confusion/wilfull misunderstanding is a deliberate attempt to scaremonger and muddy the waters. Nothing else.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

I think the confusion or wilfull misunderstanding about full term/third trimester abortions is coming from the fact that some pro choice individuals and groups are in favour of something similar to the Canadian model, where there are no legal restrictions in place regarding when a pregnancy can be terminated, as long as a doctor or doctors sign off on it.

Obviously babies are routinely being ripped from the womb and torn to shreds on the due date in Canada, because that's how women and doctors reacted.

end of the road wrote: »

sadly it's not scaremongering. such extremists exist. i don't get the thinking behind it myself but then again i don't get the thinking in relation to wanting unrestricted abortion full stop.

It is scaremongering. Even you yourself calling them extremists proves it. The posts from Boulevardier suggesting that abortion upto full term would be legislated for and that pro choice groups favour such legislation is complete and utter scaremongering drivel. Boulevardier is making stuff up and you are jumping into back him up!!!

mrkiscool2

Da Boss wrote: »

Good to see more tds , according to the independent at least, are pro life than pro choice.

Don't know where you are getting those facts from but here is an actual poll. Of the half that responded, half are in favor of repeal with unrestricted access to week 12.

Kurtosis

Da Boss wrote: »

Good to see more tds , according to the independent at least, are pro life than pro choice.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Da Boss

Good to see more tds , according to the independent at least, are pro life than pro choice.

end of the road wrote: »

i can understand simply wanting to repeal the 8th itself and no more. i would personally like to vote to repeal it myself but i can't due to the likely hood of abortion on demand being legislated for.

On what basis would you like it repealed? Take out the possible legislative changes after. What would your reasons be for repealing the 8th?

Itssoeasy

Even Michael Healy Rae is given a different opinion to others but you can't say he's trying to give his honest opinion.

HandsomeBob

Have to say fair play to Colette Kelleher. Summed up my feelings nicely in the subject.

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Have you got a link? I'd be interested in reading the thoughts behind it.

I don't understand how you can't understand the thinking behind wanting the 8th repealed. It has been explained so many times to you throughout the thread. But hey ho, you can only explain to those willing to listen.

i can understand simply wanting to repeal the 8th itself and no more. i would personally like to vote to repeal it myself but i can't due to the likely hood of abortion on demand being legislated for.

Itssoeasy

I'm happy that the speakers in the Dail so far from all parties and none bar Ruth coppinger have tried to be positive. Was Catherine Connolly ever a member of a political party ? I know she's an indepedent but I've always been very impressed with any speeches she has given in the Dail. Jesus even mick Wallace is trying to address the 8th amendment committee report. The world is gone mad.

nozzferrahhtoo

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Have you got a link? I'd be interested in reading the thoughts behind it.

I have only talked with three people EVER who think women should be able to terminate the pregnancy up to term. And of those three, three of them were on this forum. And of those three, one of them seems to have done a COMPLETE about turn on the issue and gone to the opposite extreme of claiming women should not have any abortions in this country, and the unborn should have a right to life, and the women themselves should get no social welfare of any kind. Figure that out if you can.

So it is hard to take any of them seriously. Especially when I asked all three of them what exactly the termination would entail, and what implications it would have for the fetus at each stage.... and none of the three answered. Though one of them did go on for awhile about how much he imagined Hilary Clinton agreed with him.

So I too am skeptical about what a "good number" actually means. Because really, it seems to be statistically a non-existent number. Statistically there really is no one calling for this at all, let alone a "good number".

end of the road wrote: »

sadly it's not scaremongering. such extremists exist. i don't get the thinking behind it myself but then again i don't get the thinking in relation to wanting unrestricted abortion full stop.

Have you got a link? I'd be interested in reading the thoughts behind it.

I don't understand how you can't understand the thinking behind wanting the 8th repealed. It has been explained so many times to you throughout the thread. But hey ho, you can only explain to those willing to listen.

Bannasidhe

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And a number of pro-life people would be in favour of strapping a pregnant girl (yes girl) to a bed for 9 months and forcing her to give birth to an unwanted child

Thankfully the idiots on both sides (forced pregnancy to birth/unrestricted abortion to full term) are in the tiny minority.

end of the road wrote: »

sadly it's not scaremongering. such extremists exist. i don't get the thinking behind it myself but then again i don't get the thinking in relation to wanting unrestricted abortion full stop.

As Timberrrrrrrr pointed out - extremists exist on both side but are in the minority. Sadly, it's a reality that we have already had a young pregnant rape victim force fed when she went on hunger strike and a brain dead woman kept alive against the express wishes of her family. Your extremists are already being extreme, our extremists are keyboard warriors who no one - including the vast majority of pro-choice supporters - will ever allow to decide anything.

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

What would you consider to be a good number? I'm not sure ive heard anyone wanting this. Sure what is it, week 26 the baby can survive outside the womb? So the baby isn't dependent on the mother for life any longer, so what would even the thinking behind it be? I would imagine it's nothing more than scaremongering.

sadly it's not scaremongering. such extremists exist. i don't get the thinking behind it myself but then again i don't get the thinking in relation to wanting unrestricted abortion full stop.

Timberrrrrrrr

end of the road wrote: »

unfortunately it's not nonsense. a good number of pro-choice want unrestricted abortion up to term.

And a number of pro-life people would be in favour of strapping a pregnant girl (yes girl) to a bed for 9 months and forcing her to give birth to an unwanted child

Thankfully the idiots on both sides (forced pregnancy to birth/unrestricted abortion to full term) are in the tiny minority.

end of the road wrote: »

unfortunately it's not nonsense. a good number of pro-choice want unrestricted abortion up to term.

What would you consider to be a good number? I'm not sure ive heard anyone wanting this. Sure what is it, week 26 the baby can survive outside the womb? So the baby isn't dependent on the mother for life any longer, so what would even the thinking behind it be? I would imagine it's nothing more than scaremongering.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No. This is utter nonsense. No pro choice campaigners want unrestricted abortion upto full term.

unfortunately it's not nonsense. a good number of pro-choice want unrestricted abortion up to term.

mrkiscool2

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

To be fair people arguing for this are in a tiny minority and not allied to any serious group at all on this issue. Pro choice campaigners are simply not looking for full term abortions. It is bunkum and drivel suggesting they are.

I fully agree they are in the minority but I think it's wrong to say no-one is arguing for it. We have to, as the pro-choice side, acknowledge that argument and thoroughly reject it!

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

That's also wrong. Had a very frustrating discussion on a Breda O'Brien article on Facebook with people who think women should have abortion to term. There are people who believe it should be to term, which is madness.

To be fair people arguing for this are in a tiny minority and not allied to any serious group at all on this issue. Pro choice campaigners are simply not looking for full term abortions. It is bunkum and drivel suggesting they are.