The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

david75 · 25-03-2018 05:47PM

bertieinexile wrote: »

She actually said she was devastated when she heard about her child's condition.
Then there is the point in the story at which she has to give up hope.
If you were able to change "Liverpool" above to "Dublin" how much difference would it make to the terrible emotional trauma she has been courageous enough to describe. What does she keep saying is the source of her upset?

What have the first three got to do with travel? And for the last one think about the huge trauma she describes and then ask of what relative importance is it if she has to travel to and from a hospital in Dublin or one in Liverpool.

The thing I really don't understand about all of the responses above is that you all say you feel great empathy and understanding for a woman who unequivocally and deeply believes that she had a child, a living human being, in her womb. I just don't get how you can then switch on other occasions to talking about the fetus being a clump of cells without any humanity or right to life.

You seem to have entirely missed the whole point of this referendum just in the bolded point above. Stop with the lame sideshow. I’d like to think it’s beneath you.

captbarnacles · 25-03-2018 05:48PM

Silly woman professing to know how she feels. Bertie knows what's really bothering her.

The prolifers can't disguise their contempt for women even when they try.

captbarnacles · 25-03-2018 05:51PM

bertieinexile wrote: »

volchitsa wrote: »

You can't have read it properly.
Did you see where she said she assumed she would be offered the choice of induction at the hospital where she was being looked after, and was devastated when told that she couldnt?

I get the impression you dismiss that as unimportant, but it is crucial. For lots of reasons, I don't even know where to start, if you really can't see how many awful things there are there.

She actually said she was devastated when she heard about her child's condition.
Then there is the point in the story at which she has to give up hope.

I asked was there even 1% chance and I was told 0% chance of survival. We were brought into a tiny room then.
I thought they would tell me I would be started or they were going to give me a C section, never in my life did I think they would tell me I have to continue with the pregnancy until he dies inside me or make it to full term, or go to Liverpool to get induced. I just remember standing up and feeling my world turn upside down.

If you were able to change "Liverpool" above to "Dublin" how much difference would it make to the terrible emotional trauma she has been courageous enough to describe. What does she keep saying is the source of her upset?

ProfessorPlum wrote:

Read back over her story again, this time without your blinkers and try to see at which point this woman’s awful situation could have been (or was) improved, even if only by a tiny amount.

The kind hearted man who hugged her.

The sonographer who wouldn’t take her money.

Some of her family members being with her while she waited to deliver.

Not having to travel to a foreign country to deliver her child, and not having to bring his remains back in the boot of her car.

What have the first three got to do with travel? And for the last one think about the huge trauma she describes and then ask of what relative importance is it if she has to travel to and from a hospital in Dublin or one in Liverpool.

The thing I really don't understand about all of the responses above is that you all say you feel great empathy and understanding for a woman who unequivocally and deeply believes that she had a child, a living human being, in her womb. I just don't get how you can then switch on other occasions to talking about the fetus being a clump of cells without any humanity or right to life.

See? The geography isn't really bothering her so shipping the problem to England is fine because then we can pretend Irish women don't have abortions.

AudreyHepburn · 25-03-2018 05:53PM

As I have said before I will vote to repeal simply because I don’t believe I have the right to tell another woman how to live her life.

That heing said the attitude of a lot of pro choices really doesn’t sit well with me. You simply can’t claim to be about choice if you then make a point of shooting down anyone who comes out as pro life. Unfortunately this seems to be the line a lot of pro choices are taking.

Both sides of the debate are important and need to be heard. Johnson’s st because you disagree with someone’s stance does not make them a bad person nor dies make their points invalid.

bertieinexile · 25-03-2018 05:53PM

david75 wrote: »

David Quinn showing his and the pro life campaigns true colours
Unbelievable. Literally

https://twitter.com/rmcg2799/status/977859809222504448?s=21

Ok that's just too perfect.
This is almost the Platonic Ideal of "Fake News".

I read David Quinns article referred to in the tweet above. He is being sneered at because of the headline "Fake news isn't all bad if the message is seen to be right". The tweeter seems to think it represents David Quinn's own opinion.
In fact it is his characterisation of how mainstream media and politics feels about people getting their news from social media. He starts off referencing how impressed they were when the Obama campaign were the first to do exactly the same thing as Cambridge Analytica has now done.
Hence "Fake news isn't all bad if the message is seen to be right".

But you get it as tweet from someone else who has got the story completely wrong and you pass it on here. Now if only there was a phrase to describe that...

Achasanai · 25-03-2018 05:54PM

bertieinexile wrote: »

The thing that comes through most strongly in that account is that this woman feels that she was carrying a child in her womb, her child, another human being.

Wow, that's mad. Not the first thing that came to my mind (which was the horrific situation that she found herself in).

bertieinexile wrote: »

She actually said she was devastated when she heard about her child's condition.
Then there is the point in the story at which she has to give up hope.
If you were able to change "Liverpool" above to "Dublin" how much difference would it make to the terrible emotional trauma she has been courageous enough to describe. What does she keep saying is the source of her upset?

What have the first three got to do with travel? And for the last one think about the huge trauma she describes and then ask of what relative importance is it if she has to travel to and from a hospital in Dublin or one in Liverpool.

I think empathy is the key here, something that is missing in your initial response to the article (that I quote above). Travelling to Liverpool means being away from your family, your friends, your home, all the small comforts that might make the situation a little bit more bearable. To have to go through with what she did, and then have to make arrangements to travel to a foreign country on top of that? Again, empathy will help you to understand why so many (including herself) found this a kick in the teeth.

bertieinexile wrote: »

The thing I really don't understand about all of the responses above is that you all say you feel great empathy and understanding for a woman who unequivocally and deeply believes that she had a child, a living human being, in her womb. I just don't get how you can then switch on other occasions to talking about the fetus being a clump of cells without any humanity or right to life.

This is an absolutely bizarre argument. Our empathy for somebody can only be dependent on how they view their pregnancy? Our empathy is for the woman in the situation. That you don't even see that says for more about your argument than anything else.

Achasanai · 25-03-2018 05:57PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

That heing said the attitude of a lot of pro choices really doesn’t sit well with me. You simply can’t claim to be about choice if you then make a point of shooting down anyone who comes out as pro life. Unfortunately this seems to be the line a lot of pro choices are taking.

Do you think those on the save the eight side are doing the same? Maybe even on this very page?

david75 · 25-03-2018 05:58PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

As I have said before I will vote to repeal simply because I don’t believe I have the right to tell another woman how to live her life.

That heing said the attitude of a lot of pro choices really doesn’t sit well with me. You simply can’t claim to be about choice if you then make a point of shooting down anyone who comes out as pro life. Unfortunately this seems to be the line a lot of pro choices are taking.

Both sides of the debate are important and need to be heard. Johnson’s st because you disagree with someone’s stance does not make them a bad person nor dies make their points invalid.

Anyone’s vote being influenced cos they don’t like the attitude of one side or another? Probably doesn’t deserve a vote.

I’m going to deny women the healthcare they need here cos I don’t like the tone in posts I read on the internet.

Jaysis.

Get the other side to stop lying and misleading and your see a much more reasonable and rational debate.

ForestFire · 25-03-2018 06:08PM

david75 wrote: »

Anyone’s vote being influenced cos they don’t like the attitude of one side or another? Probably doesn’t deserve a vote.

I’m going to deny women the healthcare they need here cos I don’t like the tone in posts I read on the internet.

Jaysis.

Get the other side to stop lying and misleading and your see a much more reasonable and rational debate.

Where in this post did the poster say her vote was being influenced?

She even made the point to reaffirm that she will vote repeal, and was raising a seperate issue.

I think people need to start reading post more thoughly, to make sure they don't miss understand, she said.. ..

I will vote repeal

AudreyHepburn · 25-03-2018 06:08PM

Achasanai wrote: »

Do you think those on the save the eight side are doing the same? Maybe even on this very page?

I’m sure some of them are and while it’s not right the difference is they aren’t claiming to be pro choice.

AudreyHepburn · 25-03-2018 06:11PM

david75 wrote: »

Anyone’s vote being influenced cos they don’t like the attitude of one side or another? Probably doesn’t deserve a vote.

I’m going to deny women the healthcare they need here cos I don’t like the tone in posts I read on the internet.

Jaysis.

Get the other side to stop lying and misleading and your see a much more reasonable and rational debate.

I am going to point out again clearly that I am PRO CHOICE. I will vote to REPEAL. I never said otherwise.

I was taking issue with those claiming to be pro choice who then abuse and shout down the pro life side.

There are lies and misleading statements on both sides of the debate and to claim otherwise is at best woefully naive.

_Dara_ · 25-03-2018 06:12PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I am going to point out again clearly that I am PRO CHOICE. I will vote to REPEAL. I never said otherwise.

I was taking issue with those claiming to be pro choice who then abuse and shout down the pro life side.

There are lies and misleading statements on both sides of the debate and to claim otherwise is at best woefully naive.

So why only take issue with one side if both sides are at it?

pitifulgod · 25-03-2018 06:13PM

bertieinexile wrote: »

Ok that's just too perfect.
This is almost the Platonic Ideal of "Fake News".

I read David Quinns article referred to in the tweet above. He is being sneered at because of the headline "Fake news isn't all bad if the message is seen to be right". The tweeter seems to think it represents David Quinn's own opinion.
In fact it is his characterisation of how mainstream media and politics feels about people getting their news from social media. He starts off referencing how impressed they were when the Obama campaign were the first to do exactly the same thing as Cambridge Analytica has now done.
Hence "Fake news isn't all bad if the message is seen to be right".

But you get it as tweet from someone else who has got the story completely wrong and you pass it on here. Now if only there was a phrase to describe that...

The Obama campaign was transparent in terms of how it used social media. Cambridge Analytica claimed data was for one purpose and then used it for something entirely different, illegally doing so in the process. So the contrast does not work.

david75 · 25-03-2018 06:14PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I am going to point out again clearly that I am PRO CHOICE. I will vote to REPEAL. I never said otherwise.

I was taking issue with those claiming to be pro choice who then abuse and shout down the pro life side.

There are lies and misleading statements on both sides of the debate and to claim otherwise is at best woefully naive.

I got that. I’ve yet to see any lies from the repeal campaign.

I can show you a litany from the pro life campaign though.

AudreyHepburn · 25-03-2018 06:14PM

_Dara_ wrote: »

So why only take issue with one side if both sides are at it?

Because only one side is trying to claim to be something it isn’t.

I don’t particularly like some of the tactics being used by the Pro Life side but at least they don’t try to hide what they are.

AudreyHepburn · 25-03-2018 06:18PM

david75 wrote: »

I got that. I’ve yet to see any lies from the repeal campaign.

I can show you a litany from the pro life campaign though.

Clearly you didn’t - I said nothing about my vote being influenced and clearly stated my stance on the debate.

You don’t have to agree with me but being deliberately obtuse about it helps no one.

david75 · 25-03-2018 06:27PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Clearly you didn’t - I said nothing about my vote being influenced and clearly stated my stance on the debate.

You don’t have to agree with me but being deliberately obtuse about it helps no one.

Presenting irrefutable facts isn’t being obtuse. Something the pro life campaign can’t penetrate so they continue to endlessly spin lies and nonsense. Self defeating and self destructive but they have previous on this. .

BabysCoffee · 25-03-2018 06:28PM

I beg any anti-choicer to try justify the death of this lady who had to travel for an abortion. What a way to die in a taxi.

One wonders what would have happened if they didn't have to take time to explore options and save up for the procedure because it couldn't be carried out in Ireland.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/dublin-woman-who-travelled-to-london-for-an-abortion-died-from-extensive-internal-blood-loss-29437862.html

Love both......or in this case Love Neither because both are now dead

neonsofa · 25-03-2018 06:30PM

Just some snippets from the article posted by david75

david75 wrote: »

I thought they would tell me I would be started or they were going to give me a C section, never in my life did I think they would tell me I have to continue with the pregnancy until he dies inside me or make it to full term, or go to Liverpool to get induced. ....
If I continued with the pregnancy I would have to keep going to Dublin weekly for scans, just to see if his heart stopped beating, so I was just waiting for my baby to die. Everyone knew I was pregnant. I hated bumping into anybody, people asking when am I due, I got to the stage were I wouldn’t leave the house.

We got the money together and decided we would go to Liverpool, I just couldn’t do it. I felt so depressed and sad, it was like I was grieving and my child wasn’t even dead yet.
Everything was booked. We had to go back to the rotunda for my final scan in Ireland, they were hoping his heart would of stopped beating so I wouldn’t have to travel and have him at home, how horrible to be even told that, but there he was his heart beating away not knowing what was ahead.

Just myself and my partner traveled to Liverpool, our family wanted to come to support us, to be there, but I was having none of it. I knew they couldn’t miss work, but I was feeling so punished, punished for nobody being able to meet our little boy. It was such a horrible feeling felt so lonely and low and so so scared.

We were blessed to have an aunty living in Liverpool, I say she was like an angel, she and her husband helped us so much. I couldn’t imagine having to go over and stay in a hotel. ....

I carried him for 4 weeks known he was going to die and it was hell.

We left on Saturday and travelled home by boat. We were told his tiny white coffin had to be in the boot of the car for the journey home, it was awful but I was just thankful I could get my baby home. I wouldn’t have been able to leave with out him. Leaving the hospital with empty arms and an aching heart was bad enough.

Repeal the 8th so women don’t have to travel, don’t have to bring there baby home on a boat in the middle of the night in a boot of a car. I always feel so much was taken away from me. I would of loved my other sisters and my family to meet my son but they couldn’t, my home country let me down, let my son down and took so much away from us.”

Since people are just ignoring the woman's words and accusing people of applying an agenda to the woman's story.

Her own words explain the relevance. She is fairly explicit about how the 8th amendment caused her additional pain.

Remaining in Dublin meant she'd have to wait for her baby to die. Something she, and many other women shouldn't have to do.

Travelling meant she had to factor in who is available to travel with her. It impacts on the availability of the support network for the couple.

If she hadn't had family over there she would have had to arrange (while greiving) a hotel and pay for that and other expenses incurred while staying there and travelling. She even says how the 4 weeks carrying him was hell. Those 4 weeks could have been spent mourning their loss and her body recovering in the comfort of her home.

She then (and I can't believe I have to explicitly state this after a grieving mother already did so in such an eloquent way) had to bring her baby home in the boot of her car.

Maybe you should start actually listening to what she is saying instead of thinking you know better.

Seems that is a hard habit to break for some.

volchitsa · 25-03-2018 06:40PM

The idea of having to hold yourself together in a public space like an airport, going through check-in, possibly being asked if you're there for a holiday or for work, sitting waiting to board, while trying to look normal when your heart is really broken, in a way that is far worse and deeper than over any romantic breakup - just thinking of that alone makes me quite upset reading it.

david75 · 25-03-2018 06:44PM

volchitsa wrote: »

The idea of having to hold yourself together in a public space like an airport, going through check-in, possibly being asked if you're there for a holiday or for work, sitting waiting to board, while trying to look normal when your heart is really broken, in a way that is far worse and deeper than over any romantic breakup - just thinking of that alone makes me quite upset reading it.

And the flight home

baylah17 · 25-03-2018 07:06PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

_Dara_ wrote: »

So why only take issue with one side if both sides are at it?

Because only one side is trying to claim to be something it isn’t.

I don’t particularly like some of the tactics being used by the Pro Life side but at least they don’t try to hide what they are.

Eh yes they do
They claim to care about women but are willing to accept this states murder of Savita and others as a worthy price
They lie about biology using pictures of 30 week old get feotuses to represent 10 week old feotuses
They lie about repealing the 8th equating to the genocide of Downs Syndrome unborn
They are by and large small minded scum who still excuse Tuam and it's like as society's fault
Halocaust deniers and the flat earth society have more credibility than the anti choice anti woman brigade

RobertKK · 25-03-2018 07:13PM

david75 wrote: »

broken after reading this.

......

Only came back for one post.

When I posted a story about a family member who was told her unborn wouldn't live past birth, you said you didn't believe me or care.
When the outcome of the story suits, you then pretend to be all compassionate and caring.
I'm not debating this, just stating a fact, because I am still angry with what you posted and you didn't have the decency to apologise for.

B0jangles · 25-03-2018 07:15PM

Boundless, shameless hypocrisy Robert.

david75 · 25-03-2018 07:23PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Only came back for one post.

When I posted a story about a family member who was told her unborn wouldn't live past birth, you said you didn't believe me or care.
When the outcome of the story suits, you then pretend to be all compassionate and caring.
I'm not debating this, just stating a fact, because I am still angry with what you posted and you didn't have the decency to apologise for.

Robert. I still don’t believe you. You’re a perpetual source of total bollox as evidenced in your last post in the trump thread. Which you ran away from when endless better qualified boards members ran your nonsense out. You post lies as fact. You have given nobody any solid ground to believe a word you say.
And I say that with kindness.
As to your anger, I still don’t care or believe you. But you don’t care or believe my points either. Make a good point With a factual basis and I’ll be with you all the way.

None of this is an insult. I’m not insulting you. I’m describing your posts.

RobertKK · 25-03-2018 07:28PM

B0jangles wrote: »

Boundless, shameless hypocrisy Robert.

One would know it wasn't your relation that someone said they didn't care about when I told my story. I am saying nothing about the story he posted, I couldn't read it when I saw the rubbish about being broken, why care about one story, and then tell another person they didn't believe or care when it was about a pregnancy where the unborn was not suppose to live?
But you wouldn't say those same words to David who your words should be applied to.

RobertKK · 25-03-2018 07:29PM

david75 wrote: »

Robert. I still don’t believe you. You’re a perpetual source of total bollox as evidenced in your last post in the trump thread. Which you ran away from when endless better qualified boards members ran your nonsense out. You post lies as fact. You have given nobody any solid ground to believe a word you say.
And I say that with kindness.
As to your anger, I still don’t care or believe you. But you don’t care or believe my points either. Make a good point With a factual basis and I’ll be with you all the way.

Case in point, you proved my argument.

bertieinexile · 25-03-2018 07:33PM

BabysCoffee wrote: »

I beg any anti-choicer to try justify the death of this lady who had to travel for an abortion. What a way to die in a taxi.

One wonders what would have happened if they didn't have to take time to explore options and save up for the procedure because it couldn't be carried out in Ireland.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/dublin-woman-who-travelled-to-london-for-an-abortion-died-from-extensive-internal-blood-loss-29437862.html

Love both......or in this case Love Neither because both are now dead

This is the Aisha Chithira case.

It seems like much more of a problem for the pro choice side

She travelled to London for an abortion of a 22-week foetus at a Marie Stopes clinic in Ealing on January 21st, 2012.
She became unwell after the mid-afternoon abortion, but was later discharged by the clinic. She then took a taxi to a friend’s house in Slough in Berkshire, but suffered serious internal bleeding and cardiac arrest. An ambulance was called but she could not be revived.

The doctor and two nurses were tried for manslaughter. They were acquitted.

The travel had nothing to do with it.
It's a difficulty for those who claim supervised surgical abortion is completely safe and that Marie Stopes clinics provide aftercare to the highest standards.

david75 · 25-03-2018 07:33PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Case in point, you proved my argument.

Thread derailment. Pm me if you want this conversation. Don’t pollute the discussion with your personal issues.

Hint. You’re upset about your nephew and somehow using him as an argument but you haven’t mentioned his mother hardly at all and it’s all about you.

ProfessorPlum · 25-03-2018 07:40PM

bertieinexile wrote: »

This is the Aisha Chithira case.

It seems like much more of a problem for the pro choice side.

Really?

I’d say the greatest problem is for her husband, child and family.

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Comments