The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

There's a very interesting video, fictional, but it's a good glimpse at the dilemma facing people in the situation of being pregnant and not wanting the baby.
https://youtu.be/TUbIV-KRlJg

NuMarvel wrote: »

She's categorically not being mocked for her decision. She's being challenged on her statements about what influenced her decision.

Maybe you should follow your own advice and produce a counter argument that makes sense, instead of stooping to misrepresenting people's comments.

OK, no confrontation necessary, I wasn't referring to you or anyone on here.
I was referring to the video posted and DR Evil inserted.
I regard that as mocking a serious subject.
No offence to anyone here intended.

pitifulgod

ForestFire wrote: »

Maybe it was something that was hard for her to say at the time, even if she only thought about it herself and told nobody, and even harder now, as she has a toddler beside her.

Do you know many women going around talking about their kids and how they contemplated abortion.

We may never know what her exact thoughts at the time. There may be some truth in it or not.

But do you believe this choice or deilema has been faced by other women?

And you'll find a large proportion of women don't regret their abortions. It's not an easy choice for anyone to make, as many seem to like to portray it as an alternative to contraception. I do believe that women are perfectly capable of making the decision themselves without the state intervening.

People need to watch the Supreme Court appeal. Just saying.

ForestFire

NuMarvel wrote: »

The video is about becoming pregnant in college. But even though she doesn't even hint at it anywhere at all in the 6 minutes she's talking you're still saying that she "probably" thought about having an abortion. Riiiight :rolleyes:

I'm a great believer in someone's first reaction being their most honest one. This is the earliest reaction we have to her talking about her pregnancy scare and she doesn't mention abortion in any way shape or form. There's certainly nothing here to make anyone believe that "the time it took to plan an abortion in England" is the reason she didn't have one.

Maybe it was something that was hard for her to say at the time, even if she only thought about it herself and told nobody, and even harder now, as she has a toddler beside her.

Do you know many women going around talking about their kids and how they contemplated abortion.

We may never know what her exact thoughts at the time. There may be some truth in it or not.

But do you believe this choice or deilema has been faced by other women?

Edward M wrote: »

Ah well continue on with the discrediting.
Can't you find a video of a student that had an abortion or wanted one?

I have no need to look for one because, to the best of my knowledge, none of them are putting themselves forward as spokespeople for campaigns about constitutional provisions and making contradictory claims on the subject.

NuMarvel wrote: »

The video is about becoming pregnant in college. But even though she doesn't even hint at it anywhere at all in the 6 minutes she's talking you're still saying that she "probably" thought about having an abortion. Riiiight :rolleyes:

I'm a great believer in someone's first reaction being their most honest one. This is the earliest reaction we have to her talking about her pregnancy scare and she doesn't mention abortion in any way shape or form. There's certainly nothing here to make anyone believe that "the time it took to plan an abortion in England" is the reason she didn't have one.

Ah well continue on with the discrediting.
Can't you find a video of a student that had an abortion or wanted one?

Edward M wrote: »

The point of my posts on this are simple.
This poor girl is being ridiculed because of her decision, mocked even, but her experience has seemed to change, or at least strengthen her beliefs perhaps.
Instead of trying to ridicule her and her decision, produce a counter argument that make sense.
No need to ridicule anyone to prove a point, just make people aware that not everyone has the same advantages as her.

She's categorically not being mocked for her decision. She's being challenged on her statements about what influenced her decision.

Maybe you should follow your own advice and produce a counter argument that makes sense, instead of stooping to misrepresenting people's comments.

Edward M wrote: »

She expressed her fears, she didn't say it of course, but probably, or at least maybe, abortion was thought of and having to travel if that was her decision.
The video there is about college, not abortion anyway.

The video is about becoming pregnant in college. But even though she doesn't even hint at it anywhere at all in the 6 minutes she's talking you're still saying that she "probably" thought about having an abortion. Riiiight :rolleyes:

I'm a great believer in someone's first reaction being their most honest one. This is the earliest reaction we have to her talking about her pregnancy scare and she doesn't mention abortion in any way shape or form. There's certainly nothing here to make anyone believe that "the time it took to plan an abortion in England" is the reason she didn't have one.

Akrasia wrote: »

If she had an abortion, her life would be different and her child would never have existed.

The exact same situation she would have been in if she had used contraception or if the contraception she did use hadn't have failed.

This whole 'I have a baby now therefore abortion is wrong' is a stupid argument, especially from the kinds of people who are opposed to sex outside of marriage. (if they had all had unprotected sex outside of marriage, there would be way more precious babies around today for us all to dote over)

Having a baby is (should be) an enormous decision, one that profoundly affects the parents, but also, the baby being brought into the world. You shouldn't have a puppy if you're not in a position to look after a dog, you shouldn't be forced to have a baby on the principle that you'll grow to love it after it's born. (and if you don't, sure you can always have it adopted or something)

The point of my posts on this are simple.
This poor girl is being ridiculed because of her decision, mocked even, but her experience has seemed to change, or at least strengthen her beliefs perhaps.
Instead of trying to ridicule her and her decision, produce a counter argument that make sense.
No need to ridicule anyone to prove a point, just make people aware that not everyone has the same advantages as her.

NuMarvel wrote: »

The inclusion or lack of the pro choice side wouldn't make a difference to the court's decision. The PLC have to show they are impartial, that they have the relevant expertise, and that they would raise significant issues that wouldn't be raised in their absence. If they meet that criteria, then they're in. If they don't, they're not.

Of course, those are the facts of the matter. If their application is rejected, the PLC won't let things like facts get in the way.

I do not agree with you. But it is not up to me or you either.

The decision to be made by the SC involves deportations, but could have other implications. That is why the State is objecting to the PLC being involved.

There should be no involvement by either side in this important judgment. The law has to be seen to be impartial. I cannot see that happening if PLC are allowed in. It would also be so patronising to the judges of the SC.

But again, I have no idea how it will pan out, just my views on the matter.

NuMarvel wrote: »

Well, here she is, about 6 months after her daughter was born talking about dealing with a pregnancy in college. It's clear that the pregnancy was a crisis at the time she found out she was pregnant, but she doesn't mention anything about even thinking about an abortion, never mind planning one. She says herself that her first reactions were about looking after the baby when it comes, who'll look after it, what will her parents think, etc.

I don't expect her to spend the entire video talking about abortion, but considering the video is aimed at students who become pregnant in college, and she's staunchly pro-life in later appearances, I'm surprised she didn't make some reference to "thinking about travelling" or something like that.

But, nothing. Just the usual reactions you'd expect from a teenager who suddenly finds out they're pregnant.

Just the usual reactions?
So wanting an abortion would be unusual?
She expressed her fears, she didn't say it of course, but probably, or at least maybe, abortion was thought of and having to travel if that was her decision.
The video there is about college, not abortion anyway.
But tbf, she sounds like she had great support, a lot of young girls and women wouldn't have that, I could just as easily see a young girl explaining she had no choice but to abort and believing them too and seeing their choice as perhaps the best for them too.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I don't see how they could claim bias if refused, where the pro choice side are not a feature.

But it is not up to me is it.

The inclusion or lack of the pro choice side wouldn't make a difference to the court's decision. The PLC have to show they are impartial, that they have the relevant expertise, and that they would raise significant issues that wouldn't be raised in their absence. If they meet that criteria, then they're in. If they don't, they're not.

Of course, those are the facts of the matter. If their application is rejected, the PLC won't let things like facts get in the way.

Akrasia

Edward M wrote: »

But she doesn't say she didn't consider abortion either.
At that time she couldn't legally have one here, her only option would have been to travel.
I think her point is that if it was just a matter of going to a local doctor or clinic, she may well have aborted in the short term, but, whether she looked in to travel or not, by the time she had a chance for any of this to happen she changed her mind perhaps.
Nice insertion of "Dr Evil" there, that's a bit ridiculous too, of course discredit her at all costs by mocking her, that's just great.

If she had an abortion, her life would be different and her child would never have existed.

The exact same situation she would have been in if she had used contraception or if the contraception she did use hadn't have failed.

This whole 'I have a baby now therefore abortion is wrong' is a stupid argument, especially from the kinds of people who are opposed to sex outside of marriage. (if they had all had unprotected sex outside of marriage, there would be way more precious babies around today for us all to dote over)

Having a baby is (should be) an enormous decision, one that profoundly affects the parents, but also, the baby being brought into the world. You shouldn't have a puppy if you're not in a position to look after a dog, you shouldn't be forced to have a baby on the principle that you'll grow to love it after it's born. (and if you don't, sure you can always have it adopted or something)

Water John

But it would add to the narrative of, not trusting judges, politicians et al. Que, reason to have 8th in the Constitution, but we'll await.

NuMarvel wrote: »

They'll certainly make claims of bias and being silenced if their application is refused, but they'd be laughed out of court if they lodged some kind of legal appeal against the referendum result on the basis. It'd be up there with the lads who claimed Valentine's day stamps and CCTV in polling stations invalidated the marriage equality referendum.

I don't see how they could claim bias if refused, where the pro choice side are not a feature.

But it is not up to me is it.

Water John wrote: »

Interesting to see the Pro Life Campaign seek to become involved in the Supreme Court Case. They reckon, they cam be of help to the Judges in reaching their conclusions on the 'unborn' question. Most of the reasoning seems to be, political, on their submission.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/supreme-court-to-rule-on-pro-life-campaign-application-1.3382398

does that mean if the Judges refuse their involvement, that they may seek to use that as evidence of a State bias?

They'll certainly make claims of bias and being silenced if their application is refused, but they'd be laughed out of court if they lodged some kind of legal appeal against the referendum result on the basis. It'd be up there with the lads who claimed Valentine's day stamps and CCTV in polling stations invalidated the marriage equality referendum.

Water John wrote: »

I would presume the odds are it application would be rejected. So we'll see, after Wed, how it's played.

Yep, I am watching it closely myself. I think I would be a bit miffed if the PL are allowed in. But I hope the learned judge will know that he does not need hand holding at this stage of his legal career.

Still..... who knows?

Water John

I would presume the odds are it application would be rejected. So we'll see, after Wed, how it's played.

Edward M wrote: »

We should do a fat check on whether she planned it or not, I often plan things in my head that never see the time of day.:)

Well, here she is, about 6 months after her daughter was born talking about dealing with a pregnancy in college. It's clear that the pregnancy was a crisis at the time she found out she was pregnant, but she doesn't mention anything about even thinking about an abortion, never mind planning one. She says herself that her first reactions were about looking after the baby when it comes, who'll look after it, what will her parents think, etc.

I don't expect her to spend the entire video talking about abortion, but considering the video is aimed at students who become pregnant in college, and she's staunchly pro-life in later appearances, I'm surprised she didn't make some reference to "thinking about travelling" or something like that.

But, nothing. Just the usual reactions you'd expect from a teenager who suddenly finds out they're pregnant.

Water John wrote: »

Interesting to see the Pro Life Campaign seek to become involved in the Supreme Court Case. They reckon, they cam be of help to the Judges in reaching their conclusions on the 'unborn' question. Most of the reasoning seems to be, political, on their submission.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/supreme-court-to-rule-on-pro-life-campaign-application-1.3382398

does that mean if the Judges refuse their involvement, that they may seek to use that as evidence of a State bias?

Not unless pro choice groups are excluded too. Otherwise many will think their presence without a counter balance might have swayed things if the SC backs their view.

I think the pro choice are keeping out of this just in case pro life are allowed in.

Anyway the case is not about abortion at all, it is about the status of an unborn child in relation to a right to remain/deportation orders. And the judge said that would be the basis of the case nothing else.

January wrote: »

I didn't watch to the end of the video not that I didn't watch the video.

Well if you watch to the end, its 36 seconds, it cuts her off mid sentence too.
Now I didn't see the interview at all except for your link, but once I saw the bould Dr inserted I felt it was just unfair.

Bannasidhe

markodaly wrote: »

I never knew that people who lean pro-choice are able to reads peoples minds and intentions. Quite a gift you have there.

Rather than waiting for me to read your mind howabout you answer this?
Or would you prefer to continue making snarky remarks in a frankly pathetic attempt at deflection?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Can you explain how it is possible to give 'rights' to what the State itself does not consider a person without stripping the rights of an actual living, breathing, citizen?

The longer you snark the more obvious it becomes you don't have an answer.

January

Edward M wrote: »

January wrote: »

When asked if she didn't have a problem with abortion so she says 'oh I'm not saying I would have' she's implying women have loads of time to change their mind but wouldn't if the 8th was repealed. The claim on the side of the truck says 'the time it took to plan an abortion in England is the time I needed to change my mind' she never planned an abortion in England, therefore, she didn't need the time to change her mind. The claim is false.

Also, I didn't make the video and didn't even see the Dr. Evil thing at the end...

We should do a fat check on whether she planned it or not, I often plan things in my head that never see the time of day.:)
You posted a video without actually seeing it? That's blind faith for ya.
But she sounds like someone who before she had her child would certainly have been pro choice. I would say her situation is being exploited by the pro life side too, but ridiculing her by mocking her is also wrong IMO.

I didn't watch to the end of the video not that I didn't watch the video.

Water John

Interesting to see the Pro Life Campaign seek to become involved in the Supreme Court Case. They reckon, they cam be of help to the Judges in reaching their conclusions on the 'unborn' question. Most of the reasoning seems to be, political, on their submission.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/supreme-court-to-rule-on-pro-life-campaign-application-1.3382398

does that mean if the Judges refuse their involvement, that they may seek to use that as evidence of a State bias?

January wrote: »

When asked if she didn't have a problem with abortion so she says 'oh I'm not saying I would have' she's implying women have loads of time to change their mind but wouldn't if the 8th was repealed. The claim on the side of the truck says 'the time it took to plan an abortion in England is the time I needed to change my mind' she never planned an abortion in England, therefore, she didn't need the time to change her mind. The claim is false.

Also, I didn't make the video and didn't even see the Dr. Evil thing at the end...

We should do a fat check on whether she planned it or not, I often plan things in my head that never see the time of day.:)
You posted a video without actually seeing it? That's blind faith for ya.
But she sounds like someone who before she had her child would certainly have been pro choice. I would say her situation is being exploited by the pro life side too, but ridiculing her by mocking her is also wrong IMO.

January

When asked if she didn't have a problem with abortion so she says 'oh I'm not saying I would have' she's implying women have loads of time to change their mind but wouldn't if the 8th was repealed. The claim on the side of the truck says 'the time it took to plan an abortion in England is the time I needed to change my mind' she never planned an abortion in England, therefore, she didn't need the time to change her mind. The claim is false.

Also, I didn't make the video and didn't even see the Dr. Evil thing at the end...