The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

is says allow the government to legislate for abortion up to 12 weeks.

Legislate is not "on request".

They will "legislate" through the Dáil and all sorts of conditions will be attached. That is the nature of politics.

The headline and article does not match the question. Simple.

This post has been deleted.

You can really tell when one side is starting to lose a debate.

This post has been deleted.

tigger123 wrote: »

I said it says "on request" in the headline, which it does.

It doesn't say on demand or on request in the question.

Duh

Did you read what I typed? That is my problem with it.

They have twisted a narrative that does not exist from the poll.

The headline has no relation with the poll.

ohnonotgmail

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Bull****. It does NOT say "abortion on request" - i.e demand - in the question.

It is abortion with conditions at the most.

Read the question properly.

False reporting by the Irish Times.

is says allow the government to legislate for abortion up to 12 weeks. no mention of conditions. i think is clear who has the agenda here. and it is not the IT.

Bannasidhe

tigger123 wrote: »

I said it says "on request" in the headline, which it does.

It doesn't say on demand or on request in the question.

Nobody is saying "on demand" except you ...?

But Kermit is saying it agnostically so no agenda here k.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I have no agenda but I will call out bs media on such an issue.

That is disgraceful by the IT. Kitty Holland no doubt behind it.

The question in no way fits their conclusions.

If it was the other way with another bs poll in another outlet and false headline attached against i'd call it out equally as virulently.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Bull****. It does NOT say "abortion on request" - i.e demand - in the question.

It is abortion with conditions at the most.

Read the question properly.

False reporting by the Irish Times.

I said it says "on request" in the headline, which it does.

It doesn't say on demand or on request in the question.

Nobody is saying "on demand" except you ...?

This post has been deleted.

applehunter wrote: »

The Abortion Times.:D

Not far wrong.

Well, they are. Completely accurate. Agendas on all sides should be well known.

Loafing Oaf

Edward M wrote: »

I'd say so too. The times is a liberal paper, but looking at the questions as posed, I don't see any disputing them, that is unless the indo or rte perhaps, more conservative, come up with one disputing this one

Daily Mail a couple of weeks ago had similar findings. As conservative as it gets in a mainstream Irish media context I'd say...

tigger123 wrote: »

The headline I see on their website says "abortion on request"... where is the "on demand" part coming into it?

Bull****. It does NOT say "abortion on request" - i.e demand - in the question.

It is abortion with conditions at the most.

Read the question properly.

False reporting by the Irish Times.

applehunter

The Abortion Times.:D

Not far wrong.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

“Will you vote to change the Constitution so that the Government can legislate for abortion up to 12 weeks, or will you vote not to change the Constitution?”

Where in that question does it say "on demand"? It says "can legislate". VERY different to "on demand".

The Irish Times has used the poll falsely in it's headline. It does not say unrestricted abortion.

I guarantee if it was unrestricted it would fail and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded.

I like calling out false media bs and this is the height of it.

The headline I see on their website says "abortion on request"... where is the "on demand" part coming into it?

“Will you vote to change the Constitution so that the Government can legislate for abortion up to 12 weeks, or will you vote not to change the Constitution?”

Where in that question does it say "on demand"? It says "can legislate". VERY different to "on demand".

The Irish Times has used the poll falsely in it's headline. It does not say unrestricted abortion.

I guarantee if it was unrestricted it would fail and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded.

I like calling out false media bs and this is the height of it.

Edward M

tigger123 wrote: »

The article sets out what questions were asked; they were clear, to the point, and not in anyway leading. It's a solid poll.

I'd say so too. The times is a liberal paper, but looking at the questions as posed, I don't see any disputing them, that is unless the indo or rte perhaps, more conservative, come up with one disputing this one.
Then you could see aspersions as to the validity of either poll if there were significant differences.
But based on the question posed I see no reason to doubt the findings.

Bannasidhe

Da Boss wrote: »

I don’t mean routinely not play safe in bed, I mean a tipsy drunken one night stand for example when they won’t really be thinking very hard about the future. Like also I think everybody knows a few “ accidents “ ( don’t mean it in derogatory way ) who, if it was legally possible, would have been aborted any denied their most fundamental right, the right to life. I myself being one such example of this

Are you saying every 'accident' in the UK is aborted?
In Germany?
Sweden?

Really?

Do you have even a shred of evidence?

It's just that I know a few English 'accidents' who are hale and hearty and in their 30s.....I know they were accidents because I knew their mothers when the accidents happened (still know their mothers in fact). I was there for the discussions of options.

Their mothers made a choice.

Zubeneschamali

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I HIGHLY doubt if 12 weeks on demand was put on paper a majority would vote for it.

Odds at Paddypower today:

Change/remove the 8th: 1/6
Leave unchanged: 7/2

Loafing Oaf

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

That poll can not be right.

I HIGHLY doubt if 12 weeks on demand was put on paper a majority would vote for it.

.

Mustn't be true so...

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

That poll can not be right.

I HIGHLY doubt if 12 weeks on demand was put on paper a majority would vote for it.

It's in the Abortion Times too.

I'm agnostic on the issue so have no axe to grind.

The article sets out what questions were asked; they were clear, to the point, and not in anyway leading. It's a solid poll.

ohnonotgmail

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

That poll can not be right.

I HIGHLY doubt if 12 weeks on demand was put on paper a majority would vote for it.

It's in the Abortion Times too.

I'm agnostic on the issue so have no axe to grind.

the question they asked was quite clear

“Will you vote to change the Constitution so that the Government can legislate for abortion up to 12 weeks, or will you vote not to change the Constitution?”

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

bubblypop wrote: »

Again with the 'I was saved because of the 8th' argument.
It's ridiculous & proves nothing. Plenty of us were accidents, (I don't know why you have a problem with that word) so what? I know my mother's life would have been completely different, most probably a lot better, if she didn't have me. But she did.
Which was her choice, her choice. Nothing to do with me & if she chose differently I would never know.
Maybe you should also educate yourself on how the 8th amendment affects women's healthcare? It's not all about abortion you know.

Not to mention the fact that for every 'accident' which the woman is forced to carry against her will, a potential wanted pregnancy is sacrificed. People who might have been waiting for the right partner with whom to start a family get stuck with a crisis pregnancy instead and are deprived the choice of who to father her children.

Every time something happens, there are an infinite amount of missed opportunities that will now never be. Every time a man is too shy to talk to a girl he likes who also happened to like him too, there goes the potential for an entire gene pool worth of people that will never be born.

If my parents had chosen a different house to buy, I would never have met my wife and my 3 kids would never have been born. By my parents choosing one house over another, they caused the birth of 3 kids (plus their kids, and grandkids and their grandkids etc) but they also deprived potential other children of being born if I had met a different woman with whom to start a family.

Every single human above the age of reason makes life altering choices that decide the course of future people either being born or not born so it is silly to pick 'abortion survivors' as the only life choice that matters. Aborting a pregnancy prevents that 'person' from ever existing in exactly the same way that using contraception while having sex prevents that person from having existed. It's just as accurate to call an 'abortion survivor' a 'contraception survivor' because many crisis pregnancies are caused by failures in contraception

nozzferrahhtoo

Why did you write text in the quote from me that I never myself wrote? That is a wantonly and egregiously dishonest move of making it look like I typed things I never did.

Da Boss wrote: »

It is not a solution, IT INVOLVES KILLING A CHILD DENYING IT ITS ONLY LIFE . You Abortion is not a reasonable option, it would be morally and ethically unacceptable in these circumstances.

Have you any arguments as to why it is morally and ethically problematic other than merely outright asserting it to be so? No one is "killing a child" here. They are terminating a fetus. A fetus is not a child any more than a seed is a tree or a blue print is a house.

And I do not think your misunderstanding of what words mean, is a valid foundation for building a moral framework.

Da Boss wrote: »

Well that frightens me, the fact that you see no problem with With ending the life of another, the only one they have , just cos u can. Ur lack of morals frightens me.

That people have moral viewpoints DIFFERENT to yours, does not mean they lack any morals. To think that morals different to yours equate to no morals at all is a level of hubris and arrogance I am afraid I can not join you at. The simple fact is that I have many morals, that I can actually argue for and example. And that they differ from YOURS does not invalidate them.

We "end the life of others" all the time in our world. Welcome to reality. Our meat industry ends the life of animals all the time. Our farming industry uses pesticides that end millions of lives every year. Our paper industry kills trees. And the amount of life ended by doctors using things like antibiotics number in the billions.

So clearly "ending life" is par for the course. So if you want to suggest some particular life or lives should not be ended, you need to provide an argument for that. An argument, not a shrill assertion.

I know what I think is valuable about human life, and I know what attribute I believe confer that value. The sticking point for me is that not just some but ALL of those attributes are wholly and entirely absent in the fetus. So I see no moral or ethical dilemma in the killing of such a fetus. And shrill screams about who has no morals is not likely to be the move that illuminates any for me.

Da Boss wrote: »

It’s rather obvious that this will be the case should unrestricted abortion to 12 weeks be possible.

No it is not "obvious" at all. But the answer to the question I asked IS obvious. I asked have you any evidence for the claim. It is perfectly obvious that the answer is no. You do not. Why? Because abortion HAS been brought into countries around the world at various points throughout history and the simple fact is the claim you have made has not actually occurred in those places.

Amazing something you find so "obvious" has not actually happened, isn't it? Well no, actually it is not. It has not happened because there is no reason why it should or might.

That poll can not be right.

I HIGHLY doubt if 12 weeks on demand was put on paper a majority would vote for it.

It's in the Abortion Times too.

I'm agnostic on the issue so have no axe to grind.

Hooks Golf Handicap

I am afraid though that the #keep campaign will open the war chest & start putting up posters of 18 week aborted fetuses outside schools & the like.

Hooks Golf Handicap

tigger123 wrote: »

Didn't see that coming, but not entirely surprised either.

Michael Martin coming out as pro choice signals (to me anyway) politically which way the wind is blowing on this issue, and the poll confirms it.

There's a sizable shift towards pro choice at the moment.

People get that the real issue is the care of women.
The "no killing babies on our soil" argument just ignores the reality.

Hooks Golf Handicap

Edward M wrote: »

A clear majority for repeal and the 12 week limit according to this.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/clear-majority-backs-abortion-on-request-up-to-12-weeks-poll-shows-1.3368816?mode=amp

“Will you vote to change the Constitution so that the Government can legislate for abortion up to 12 weeks, or will you vote not to change the Constitution?”
A clear majority of all voters – 56 per cent – said they would vote in favour of the constitutional change, with 29 per cent not in favour. Fifteen per cent said they did not know or offered no opinion.
When undecided voters are excluded, 65 per cent favour repeal and abortion being allowed up to 12 weeks while 35 per cent do not.

Well that's that as far as I'm concerned, 2:1 majority like the Equality Referendum.
Any time spent further debating this issue is time just time wasted.
It's not as if some internet argument would make any of us change our minds anyway.