The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

thee glitz wrote: »

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ok

So you can at least agree that the 8th needs to go because of the hard cases?

I find the hard cases to be, well, hard...

If required to prevent women dying, then it needs to go.

How hard does a case need to be though? Could you give some examples of reasons where according to you women should NOT be allowed to have an abortion in the first 12 weeks. Specific examples of cases or stories, not just the catch-all "lifestyle reasons" that some pro-lifers have mentioned here. What are the specific individual situations you would be saying no to from your Council of Elders position? I havent seen anything specific at all from the pro-life side, just dark mutterings about "on demand" and "for no reason".

Edward M wrote: »

Ah now, getting this under my pint and her G&T might be a bit ott.
I wonder how many pubs and hotels will run with this idea?
Will they be paid to use them or will it just be pro life owners?
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/antirepeal-group-launches-beer-mat-campaign-36779504.html

Not a bit surprised by this, their whole campaign is about shoving fake or misleading pictures in peoples faces anyway they can, hoping people are too thick to actually question them. Even with all of their tactics being roundly exposed as fake or discredited they just keep doing the same thing.

Edward M wrote: »

Ah now, getting this under my pint and her G&T might be a bit ott.
I wonder how many pubs and hotels will run with this idea?
Will they be paid to use them or will it just be pro life owners?
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/antirepeal-group-launches-beer-mat-campaign-36779504.html

I don't see many going for it, tbh.

Just been catching up on the past few days of this thread. Wow there are a lot of posts!! Sorry but I want to revisit RobertKK's post about Ronaldo only being here because his mum didn't have an abortion. Once I got past the "well duh, we're all only here because our mum's didn't abort us" I started thinking a bit more deeply about it.

I would like to apologise to humanity because I have potentially let some great human beings slip through my fingers. Literally. Left others to die in condoms or be swallowed. I'm sorry. We should only be ejaculating when procreating!!
Then again they'd be my offspring so chances are they would have been lazy, alcoholic nutters with an unhealthy obsession for rugby... yeah maybe it was a good thing.

<snip>
Mod note:Not in the least bit funny. Please stop!

Buford T. Justice

thee glitz wrote: »

The appetite for unrestricted abortion law is a fair bit higher here than I previously thought.

The pro-life crew were clearly taken completely by surprise when the Citizen's Assembly recommended no restrictions up to 12 weeks, and have been saying ever since that the public will never go for it.

I think they are just completely out of touch, like yourself.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ok. But what about people like thee glitz who support repeal but not 12 weeks. I am trying to unpack this a bit here to get behind it.

Thee Glitz, as far as I can tell, doesn't want to vote for something that might lead to "sinful" abortions, you know where young slappers have abortions for no reason. Because this might be a sin. And as such Thee Glitz is prepared to throw women who he thinks really are justified in having terminations (FFA for example) under the bus, all the while blaming the government for putting forward a referendum and proposed legislation that he personally doesn't like.

IMO obviously. Thee Glitz can speak for himself of course, but the constant evasion is getting wearisome.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ok. But what about people like thee glitz who support repeal but not 12 weeks. I am trying to unpack this a bit here to get behind it.

Thee Glitz and lots of other prolifers just like to sound reasonable by saying "I'd love to vote Repeal but...". No matter what is proposed, there will always be a "....but ... so I have to vote the way the Bishop says." at the end.

It's like all the "I have no problems with the Gays, some of my friends own pink shirts, but..." people in the SSM referendum, who were always voting No to SSM regardless, because the Vatican said it was "a defeat for Humanity".

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If I get one of those in a pub, I will bring it to the barman, tell him to fold it twice and shove it up his hole.

And then I will leave and never return.

I can't see many pubs going for it tbh, surely publicans value their profits? I would be highly unimpressed with any establishment I saw these in.
I think only hardline anti choicers would see them as a good idea, they certainly can't be appealing to those on the fence. Happy to let save the 8th waste their vast bounties of cash on senseless ideas tho!

thee glitz wrote: »

The numbers show that Irish women (or women giving Irish addresses) have abortions done in England or Wales in much lower numbers than women from there. The numbers claimed to take abortion pills here don't nowhere near make up the difference, not sure how they have stats on that admittedly.

6,000 abortion pills seized by Revenue in 10 years up to May 2017. It is impossible to know how many got through.
http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-pill-use-in-ireland-3892752-Apr2018/

Women are believed to be getting pills delivered to address' in NI to circumvent Revenue checks.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/number-of-abortion-pills-seized-by-irish-customs-declines-1.3059156

Edward M wrote: »

And that'd be your prerogative, but the poor lad or lass, i noticed you said barMAN, behind the bar probably just doing his job.
Personally I'd just push it aside and pay no heed, no matter which side had a mat out.
Just interesting point here, anyone on Facebook might know, my lad, 24, was telling me that the last week or so he's been getting a lot of pro life suggestions for shares and likes?

Ive been getting that a lot too. I suspect its location based - i never get them when I check facebook in work but as soon as I get home it is the top of my feed. Between that and the horrible leaflets coming in the door and the posters on the road on the drive home it puts me in a great mood for the evening......

Edward M wrote: »

And that'd be your prerogative, but the poor lad or lass, i noticed you said barMAN, behind the bar probably just doing his job.

Sure, and he can relay the message to his jackass boss.

Billy86 wrote: »

I'd be more inclined to take a picture of the beer mat, make a poster with it stating something like "Visit [Pub Name] and this is what you can expect to see looking back at you every time you go to lift your drink", print out a few hundred copies and stick them up all around the area the pub was in.

or just whack it up on instagram job done

Why is there a constant need to categorize people and sides in to 2 groups (And if your in either group you are responsible for everything said by this group), when in fact their are many different levels to this and that is why this issue is so complicated.

Whatever other peoples views are, they should be respected, because there is not a definite scientific fact on where life begins. Each side and person has a different definition of this , from Sentience to implantation to fertilisation.

And yes, this then needs to be balanced with the rights, welfare and life of the woman on the other side.

So I would guess most people are in fact pro life at a certain stage of pregnancy, and most people are pro choice at certain stages also?
(Of course there are a minority that maybe fully pro choice or pro life regardless)

For example, no one is suggesting termination from 26 weeks on, where there is an 80-90% chance of survival for the baby from this stage.

In these case the solution would be to, continue (low risk to woman) or to end the pregnancy, by pre-term delivery (Low risk to Baby).

Even in this case we are putting some risk on the baby or woman, in favor on the other, who is deemed to have a greater need. So we acknowledge there is a right to life of the baby and the woman, but certain cases also this involves putting this right at risk.

For some people the same can be said for a fetus at 12 weeks. They want to acknowledge (Because they believe it is life) the right to life of the fetus, but also understand that in certain circumstance this life and right needs to be put at risk over the mothers (In this case 100% risk).

However they may not agree to have an open policy, as they still deem the fetus is a life that needs to have a justification to risk/end its life. (And I know there are complications about this and how it can be done)

If they believe that a fetus is in fact life then to them its the same considerations as a baby at 26 weeks or 36 weeks? and the risks of each life needs to be balance as best as possible, but also that to save one life we may need to end the other is also a valid outcome.

To take it a step forward again some people believe life starts at implantation and beyond this there needs to be a valid reason to end this life.

Others again belief that there are no circumstances where you can choose, but I would guess this is a small minority.

I guess my point is that we all have our individual beliefs on life, and this will dictate how we view the balance between blastocyst /embryo/Fetus/baby and the Woman rights at the various stages.

Unfortunately there is never going to be full agreement, and that is why we will have this vote to determine the majority views of the people and what we as a country will accept as the correct path forward.