The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-03-2018 12:18PM

RobertKK wrote: »

All I ever said was that a diagnosis of a life limiting condition/FFA is not always black and white and then I get a load of crap for it.

Diagnoses tend to be more nuanced and not black and white either. Unless the gestation is VERY late term it is unlikely anyone ever gave the diagnosis of "about 40 hrs of life when born before he would die." before then hinting at an abortion trip to England as you claimed.

Assuming the anecdote is real and not entirely made up by you (which I dont but lets assume it anyway) it is much more likely that having spotted an anomaly in early or mid pregnancy, the doctors said things like "At this point X Y or Z could happen where X is good, Y is bad, and Z is terrible....... and if Z were to occur the even if the baby reaches birth it will not live longer than 48 hours...... so at this point you might want to consider your options including a trip to England.".

And the fact such a child reaches 10 years of age means Z did not happen. While not impossible, I simply do not buy the claim that this woman was told outright the child would not see it's third day and now suddenly it is 10 years old. Do such things happen? Yes. Are they statistically common enough that I believe it here? Not so much.

Again however the truth of your story is not relevant either way. The relevance of it is. And so far I am seeing none. The debate here is that HAVING received such a diagnosis what options and choices SHOULD be available to the pregnant woman. And your anecdote, real or not, does not address that issue at all.

So rather than playing the victim card again and lamenting the fact no one believes you, or that you falsely imagine only pro-repeal narratives are welcome here...... perhaps it would be wiser to address that relevance issue.

Sofiztikated · 26-03-2018 12:24PM

RobertKK wrote: »

All I ever said was that a diagnosis of a life limiting condition/FFA is not always black and white and then I get a load of crap for it.
I said some cases are, others aren’t and then you see Seamus above seeing it as a blatantly pro life agenda, which raises questions if one is only allowed to post pro-repeal given the crap one receives if the message doesn’t suit the narrative that others want.

I'll not be able to answer this any better than what nozzferrahhtoo did, so just read what he said, then read it again slower.

Noone is looking for mandatory abortions. If someone has a pregnancy with an abnormality of any kind, and wants to continue with it, more power to them. Every support should be available to them. That's their choice.

However, if someone doesn't want to put themselves, their family, or their mental and physical health, through that ordeal? Why is "Suck it up, and tough it out" the best option?

kylith · 26-03-2018 12:32PM

Basically, Robert, what you’re doing is saying ‘My sister made the decision to continue with the pregnancy and it turned out Ok so everyone else should have to do the same thing ’.

I’m glad it turned out well for the kid, but it turns out fcking awfully for many, many more families and it is no-one’s place to make their decisions for them.

RobertKK · 26-03-2018 12:32PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Diagnoses tend to be more nuanced and not black and white either. Unless the gestation is VERY late term it is unlikely anyone ever gave the diagnosis of "about 40 hrs of life when born before he would die." before then hinting at an abortion trip to England as you claimed.

Assuming the anecdote is real and not entirely made up by you (which I dont but lets assume it anyway) it is much more likely that having spotted an anomaly in early or mid pregnancy, the doctors said things like "At this point X Y or Z could happen where X is good, Y is bad, and Z is terrible....... and if Z were to occur the even if the baby reaches birth it will not live longer than 48 hours...... so at this point you might want to consider your options including a trip to England.".

And the fact such a child reaches 10 years of age means Z did not happen. While not impossible, I simply do not buy the claim that this woman was told outright the child would not see it's third day and now suddenly it is 10 years old. Do such things happen? Yes. Are they statistically common enough that I believe it here? Not so much.

Again however the truth of your story is not relevant either way. The relevance of it is. And so far I am seeing none. The debate here is that HAVING received such a diagnosis what options and choices SHOULD be available to the pregnant woman. And your anecdote, real or not, does not address that issue at all.

So rather than playing the victim card again and lamenting the fact no one believes you, or that you falsely imagine only pro-repeal narratives are welcome here...... perhaps it would be wiser to address that relevance issue.

I am not playing any victim, I am being called a liar. That didn’t make me a victim, it makes the person saying it uncouth.
I am not asking anyone to debate what I told, it is others who want to keep it going, I just saw some hypocrisy last night and had to respond.
People apart from me see a lot of hypocrisy around here, some say I am a hypocrite, I disagree but that is irrelevant, but there are people on the repeal side here that people see as hypocrites too.
Most people on boards don’t post on this thread as it is nasty, some of the stuff verges on bullying for not holding the right opinion. People can choose to be victims or they can take action, I take action.

kylith · 26-03-2018 12:37PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I am not playing any victim, I am being called a liar.

And you called the doctors and lawyers in the P case liars. It’s not nice, is it? Maybe in future you can be more mindful of what you say.

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-03-2018 12:40PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I am not playing any victim, I am being called a liar.

^ That entire post is playing the victim card though, even if you deny it. There is no relevant content to this debate in it. It is wholly and entirely about how victimized you feel, and you imagine others feel, by people on this thread.

The ONLY thing interesting here would be the relevance of your anecdote. Which is precisely the thing you have decided not to discuss. Before attempting to cloud that choice with the irrelevancies you just populated this last post with.

Again EVEN IF we imagine your anecdote to be true.... so what? Why should we care? All the anecdote describes is a woman who had (or should have had) options. She chose one, and it turned out great for her. Great. Now.... so what?

The ENTIRE debate here is about giving women who are pregnant more choices. So.... at best.... your anecdote is a pro-repeal one. Whether you realize it or not.

Hannibal_Smith · 26-03-2018 12:43PM

RobertKK wrote: »

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Diagnoses tend to be more nuanced and not black and white either. Unless the gestation is VERY late term it is unlikely anyone ever gave the diagnosis of "about 40 hrs of life when born before he would die." before then hinting at an abortion trip to England as you claimed.

Assuming the anecdote is real and not entirely made up by you (which I dont but lets assume it anyway) it is much more likely that having spotted an anomaly in early or mid pregnancy, the doctors said things like "At this point X Y or Z could happen where X is good, Y is bad, and Z is terrible....... and if Z were to occur the even if the baby reaches birth it will not live longer than 48 hours...... so at this point you might want to consider your options including a trip to England.".

And the fact such a child reaches 10 years of age means Z did not happen. While not impossible, I simply do not buy the claim that this woman was told outright the child would not see it's third day and now suddenly it is 10 years old. Do such things happen? Yes. Are they statistically common enough that I believe it here? Not so much.

Again however the truth of your story is not relevant either way. The relevance of it is. And so far I am seeing none. The debate here is that HAVING received such a diagnosis what options and choices SHOULD be available to the pregnant woman. And your anecdote, real or not, does not address that issue at all.

So rather than playing the victim card again and lamenting the fact no one believes you, or that you falsely imagine only pro-repeal narratives are welcome here...... perhaps it would be wiser to address that relevance issue.

I am not playing any victim, I am being called a liar. That didn’t make me a victim, it makes the person saying it uncouth.
I am not asking anyone to debate what I told, it is others who want to keep it going, I just saw some hypocrisy last night and had to respond.
People apart from me see a lot of hypocrisy around here, some say I am a hypocrite, I disagree but that is irrelevant, but there are people on the repeal side here that people see as hypocrites too.
Most people on boards don’t post on this thread as it is nasty, some of the stuff verges on bullying for not holding the right opinion. People can choose to be victims or they can take action, I take action.

The nastiness is on both sides. A poster only a few pages ago was accused of being complacent of two child murders.

....... · 26-03-2018 12:44PM

This post has been deleted.

26-03-2018 12:50PM

RobertKK wrote: »

People apart from me see a lot of hypocrisy around here, some say I am a hypocrite, I disagree but that is irrelevant, but there are people on the repeal side here that people see as hypocrites too.
Most people on boards don’t post on this thread as it is nasty, some of the stuff verges on bullying for not holding the right opinion. People can choose to be victims or they can take action, I take action.

Robert you stated earleir that the poll results tied to this thread were due to people being afraid to vote because they would be bullied for voting to retain the 8th.

I pointed out that you don't have to post in the actual thread in order to vote in the poll and that as votes are anonymous where your evidence of this statement is. I'm still waiting on your reply with the evidence supporting your statement because your making a similar statement above.

The posts so far from anyone from the prolife side have been proved to be false and some have been resulted in bans for being rereg accounts, flame bait, bullying etc.

If there was/is evidence of bullying as you state report it, but don't think that someone asking you to provide evidence not opinion as per my request doesn't constitute bullying in my opinion.

amdublin · 26-03-2018 12:52PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Most people on boards don’t post on this thread as it is nasty, some of the stuff verges on bullying for not holding the right opinion. People can choose to be victims or they can take action, I take action.

How do you know this about "most people on boards"? Have you spoken with all the people on boards to find this out?

freshpopcorn · 26-03-2018 01:11PM

I was looking around facebook to see who was into this locally and the two who are into it most are two sister in there mid twenties. One in the repeal campaign and the other in keep.

Ave Sodalis · 26-03-2018 01:12PM

amdublin wrote: »

How do you know this about "most people on boards"? Have you spoken with all the people on boards to find this out?

I would imagine that the fact that it's almost 2 thousand posts in the second part of the thread (so 12 thousand posts altogether) would be the most intimidating. I know that's what would put me off going into a thread I only had a vague interest in.

Pretty sure Robert played the victim card all through the SSM referendum discussions too, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-03-2018 01:18PM

^ Man when you have been following the thread since the start, it does not feel very long. But when I realized I have read all 12,000 posts on the entire thread life it strikes me it might be about time for me to retire from it

Hannibal_Smith · 26-03-2018 01:19PM

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I was looking around facebook to see who was into this locally and the two who are into it most are two sister in there mid twenties. One in the repeal campaign and the other in keep.

I've heard similar. I think it's going to be a close call. It came up in work the other day and a few people said they would vote to keep the 8th.

freshpopcorn · 26-03-2018 01:22PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

^ Man when you have been following the thread since the start, it does not feel very long. But when I realized I have read all 12,000 posts on the entire thread life it strikes me it might be about time for me to retire from it

To be honest I find it kind of boring and it's basically made up of the same posters.

amdublin · 26-03-2018 01:23PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I've heard similar. I think it's going to be a close call. It came up in work the other day and a few people said they would vote to keep the 8th.

I think it's going to be very close all right. I just hope it passes. I don't care about the margin.

All I want is free choice for each individual
That's all. Not a forced abortion for everyone at any stage.

Repeal the 8th

RobertKK · 26-03-2018 01:25PM

amdublin wrote: »

How do you know this about "most people on boards"? Have you spoken with all the people on boards to find this out?

It is fact most people on boards don’t post on this thread. Everyone knows it is a contentious subject.

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-03-2018 01:26PM

freshpopcorn wrote: »

To be honest I find it kind of boring and it's basically made up of the same posters.

Yea I know the feeling. Actually I have retired from the thread a number of times. Then after a few days I get somewhere between 2 and 5 PMs asking me to come back and deal with some poster or other. So then I have to spend an hour catching up on the entire thread, before attempting to take down the requested target.

RobertKK wrote: »

It is fact most people on boards don’t post on this thread. Everyone knows it is a contentious subject.

Well yes,it is a fact most people on boards do not post on this thread. But that has nothing to do with it being contentious.

Why?

Well stop for a second and think. Most people on boards do not post on most threads most of the time. Regardless of the topic or subject, every thread receives only a tiny fraction of the boards population posting on it.

So your observation is correct. Your explanatory narrative for it is fantasy.

freshpopcorn · 26-03-2018 01:26PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I've heard similar. I think it's going to be a close call. It came up in work the other day and a few people said they would vote to keep the 8th.

I haven't being surprised by people I have seen who's into the repeal campaign but have being surprised by people who are pro-life.
I think it will be close and Dublin will help to bring up the result but I can see lots of rural constituencies voting No and people being upset.

Zubeneschamali · 26-03-2018 01:26PM

kylith wrote: »

Basically, Robert, what you’re doing is saying ‘My sister made the decision to continue with the pregnancy and it turned out Ok so everyone else should have to do the same thing ’.

Not to mention the fact that people given such a diagnosis already have a constitutionally guaranteed right to end the pregnancy. They just have to do it on foreign soil at their own expense.

So how is the 8th saving lives? By hitting the poor, women on dodgy visas, women in prison or already in hospital who get such a diagnosis. Not ordinary folks like Robert's family who already have a choice, if an inconvenient, expensive and somewhat riskier choice than they would without the 8th.

Ave Sodalis · 26-03-2018 01:26PM

RobertKK wrote: »

It is fact most people on boards don’t post on this thread. Everyone knows it is a contentious subject.

Most people on Boards don't post on any one thread...

kylith · 26-03-2018 01:28PM

RobertKK wrote: »

It is fact most people on boards don’t post on this thread. Everyone knows it is a contentious subject.

Most people don’t post in most threads. I’ll wager that there’s not one thread that ‘most’ people have posted in.

26-03-2018 01:31PM

RobertKK wrote: »

It is fact most people on boards don’t post on this thread. Everyone knows it is a contentious subject.

It's a contentious subject, but can you please provide evidence as requested to back up your statements that people aren't voting on the thread poll because they will be bullied.

NuMarvel · 26-03-2018 01:34PM

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I haven't being surprised by people I have seen who's into the repeal campaign but have being surprised by people who are pro-life.
I think it will be close and Dublin will help to bring up the result but I can see lots of rural constituencies voting No and people being upset.

It'll definitely be close, no matter which way it goes. Not 1995 Divorce Referendum close, but it's not going to be a Marriage Equality Referendum landslide either. Not that I think anyone's expecting that anyway.

NuMarvel · 26-03-2018 01:36PM

RobertKK wrote: »

It is fact most people on boards don’t post on this thread. Everyone knows it is a contentious subject.

By this logic, the NOW TV thread is the most contentious thread I'm currently subscribed to. Who knew streaming TV services could be so controversial!

Mr.H · 26-03-2018 01:43PM

DubInMeath wrote:

If there was/is evidence of bullying as you state report it, but don't think that someone asking you to provide evidence not opinion as per my request doesn't constitute bullying in my opinion.

I have been told to not bother posting here. Accused of baiting. Insulted and ganged up on by pro choice. In fact I have also been fairly reported to the point where a mod closed the thread and told people to stop reporting just to get someone banned. Yet nobody was warned about it.

Yes it is very conceivable that there is bullying here from the pro choice side.

FFS I claim to be pro choice and i am still "bullied" in this thread.

Everyone seems to have a right to an opinion as long as its pro choice.....

Zubeneschamali · 26-03-2018 01:44PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

it's not going to be a Marriage Equality Referendum landslide either. Not that I think anyone's expecting that anyway.

Well, polling so far says it will be a resounding win for Yes, but it does seem to be tightening.

Zubeneschamali · 26-03-2018 01:45PM

Mr.H wrote: »

Yet nobody was warned about it.

How do you know that?

Annasopra · 26-03-2018 01:47PM

Ismisejack wrote: »

Simon Coveney was my favorite politician in the government, however his change of stance yesterday disgusts me after he previously admitted that the new abortion proposals and 12 week limit is flawed and unworkable and ultimately wrong. Shame on you Mr Coveney however he was probably shamed and bullied into changing his stance like many others my The unethical campaigns of the pro abortion contingent

Are you still refusing to answer my question?

Hannibal_Smith · 26-03-2018 01:49PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

freshpopcorn wrote: »

To be honest I find it kind of boring and it's basically made up of the same posters.

Yea I know the feeling. Actually I have retired from the thread a number of times. Then after a few days I get somewhere between 2 and 5 PMs asking me to come back and deal with some poster or other. So then I have to spend an hour catching up on the entire thread, before attempting to take down the requested target.

Why do you have to come back to 'deal with anyone in the thread? Posters on both sides seem well capable of getting their point across. If you don't want to take part in the discussion then just unfollow the thread and let others discuss it.

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Comments