The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Ken. · 14-04-2018 12:44PM

Cheers Sofi.

Zerbini Blewitt · 14-04-2018 12:49PM

B0jangles wrote: »

Horrible, horrible stuff - Imagine saying such implacably cruel things directly to a person who's actually experienced having a child with a FFA? .

I've noticed that there is a common tendency among these types to adopt a very mild, sweet, calm voice - maybe it helps distract the listener from the awfulness of what is being said?

Breda O'Brien does exactly the same thing.

Yes, I agree.

I find this sweetness & light style deeply obnoxious (especially given the topic in this interview).

Hopefully on 25th May the electorate will put this cruel, dystopian hypocrisy in the rubbish bin - which is the only place ideas like this belong.

petalgumdrops · 14-04-2018 12:51PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

With respect, it was available to you, but would have required you to travel.
As it currently is available to women who have an absolute certain diagnosis as long as they can travel.

A NO vote will continue to force women to either continue with a pregnancy in which there is no possible good outcome or endure that heartbreaking journey.

Why on Earth would anyone want to inflict that on someone who is already suffering?

So you're saying that I should have travelled then? Imagine a pro life group coming on here and saying "oh sure the option was available to you to travel you just "choose" not to" I'm sorry but your comment is completely disrespectful and with complete disregard to my situation. Like I said this referendum seems to be a case of " trusting and supporting women.... if it suits my narrative"

If you read any of my posts you would see that I don't think we should even be voting on ffa they shoulf be available a long time ago and government coulf have legislated for this.

I agree with so many aspects of repeal but like another poster said at the beginning these proposals just go over a line that I personally am not comfortable with. I hope this doesn't insult those who are 100% voting yes but some yes voters really beat down any concerns undecided or no voters have, they emotionally target, abuse and refuse to see that there are other points of view that are valid. (Pro life are guilty of this too) People are allowed to have concerns, we are allowed to question, to choose something that we are comfortable with. I have seen very little respectful debating as a whole. The gender bias in the campaign from some yes supporters is shocking. I get challenged because I don't agree with the government having the power to change limits. Accused as someone that is being undemocratic that if I don't like how democracy works I should jog on... yet let a man dare express concerns and suddenly he has no say anyway as he can't have a baby. If people want to respect the principles of democracy - respect all of those principle men have a vote and by such are entitled to have an opinion - at least on polling day anyway.

Shadowstrife · 14-04-2018 01:00PM

I must polish my resume for applying for a job at CVS.

See, some levity.

petalgumdrops · 14-04-2018 01:05PM

Conspectus wrote: »

Mod-Ok folks, This has been a fairly good thread for the last week or 2 but the personal jibes are starting to reappear. We don't want to ban people but if it comes to it we will (We here at AH towers are equal opportunities mods, we don't ban one side or the other, we ban asreholes)

Please be civil to each other. After this vote is over no matter what way it turns out we all still have to live on this little rock.

If I came in here saying the 8th forced me to travel to England to have a termination do you think I would be getting the same reaction from posters?

Respect mods jumping in but to be told by a poster that I had the choice to travel I just didn't take it is so absolutely disgusting. If I said that to someone here who travelled and had an abortion I would be rightly abused.

Bannasidhe · 14-04-2018 01:08PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

So you're saying that I should have travelled then? Imagine a pro life group coming on here and saying "oh sure the option was available to you to travel you just "choose" not to" I'm sorry but your comment is completely disrespectful and with complete disregard to my situation. Like I said this referendum seems to be a case of " trusting and supporting women.... if it suits my narrative"

If you read any of my posts you would see that I don't think we should even be voting on ffa they shoulf be available a long time ago and government coulf have legislated for this.

I agree with so many aspects of repeal but like another poster said at the beginning these proposals just go over a line that I personally am not comfortable with. I hope this doesn't insult those who are 100% voting yes but some yes voters really beat down any concerns undecided or no voters have, they emotionally target, abuse and refuse to see that there are other points of view that are valid. (Pro life are guilty of this too) People are allowed to have concerns, we are allowed to question, to choose something that we are comfortable with. I have seen very little respectful debating as a whole. The gender bias in the campaign from some yes supporters is shocking. I get challenged because I don't agree with the government having the power to change limits. Accused as someone that is being undemocratic that if I don't like how democracy works I should jog on... yet let a man dare express concerns and suddenly he has no say anyway as he can't have a baby. If people want to respect the principles of democracy - respect all of those principle men have a vote and by such are entitled to have an opinion - at least on polling day anyway.

I absolutely did not say you should have travelled. What you decided to do or not do is completely your decision.

I said you had the option to get a termination by travelling. Which is completely different.

I then questioned why anyone would wish to force a woman who has a confirmed diagnosis of a FFA to either continue with the pregnancy or travel. That is what a NO vote is calling for. It may be an unintended consequence but so was the treat of detention in the X Case all those years ago.

The Constitution is not the place for clauses that have unintended consequences especially when those consequences are well flagged beforehand.

The government CANNOT legislate to terminate a FFA pregnancy while the 8th is in place unless they have a specific referendum to allow terminations in the case of FFA - then maybe one for rape/incest victims/cancer patients etc etc.

I have absolutely no idea why the rest of your post is aimed at me. I expressed no opinion on men voting (I happen to think they should have a voice too), never called anyone undemocratic, haven't been abusive...

Ironic that you seem to be accusing me off all sorts in a rant about people being attacked for expressing an opinion.

Madscientist30 · 14-04-2018 01:15PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

volchitsa wrote: »

It's wonderful that everything was fine in the end, petal gumdrops, but I don't understand what difference you think the 8th made?

You're not seriously suggesting that you would have had a termination without the confirmation, are you?
Nor what difference the 8th made to that decision anyway?

If you collected data on ffa you will see that a CVS has been used to terminate on the basis of ffa. CVS collects placental cells that are ***in most cases*** a match for DNA of a baby but placental mosasacisms do happen. I'm not sure if you are suggesting that all ffa should need an CVS and an amnio to teterminate for a ffa

Say this was different and I came here after my CVS and told you I had to travel to England to terminate my baby would you be saying the 8th had no affect on me at all. No you would use my story to higlight the narrative that the 8th has deterimental consequences for women. (It of course does) but I find it disrespectful to assume that the 8th can't have any positive outcomes at all. My son is proof of that. Yet it is being overlooked that yes I did want to terminate based on CVS but I did not bave the option. You seem to assume my son is here due to choice not because I did not have access to a termination.

I am very glad that everything turned out well for you and your family. But you said you were not in a position to travel. That means that if the amnio had confirmed at 20 weeks that it WAS FFA (and I'm very happy for you that it was an error) because of the 8th you would have had absolutely no choice but to carry the pregnancy to term, regardless of what you wanted to do, even though you yourself have stated you wanted a termination. By voting to keep the 8th, you are saying that other women in your position who cannot afford to travel and who are not as lucky as you were to get the good news at 20 weeks that their baby was in fact fine will have to carry the pregnancy to full term. I cannot imagine how it feels to be a woman in that position. But you have been and you stated you wanted a termination if the baby had FFA. So why would you deny anybody else the same? In the heartbreaking debate linked above the mother says that Liverpool hospital routinely confirms again any diagnosis before proceeding with a termination so it seems unlikely that termination would just have happened without further tests.

Ave Sodalis · 14-04-2018 01:16PM

Bannasidhe wrote:

I have absolutely no idea why the rest of your post is aimed at me. I expressed no opinion on men voting (I happen to think they should have a voice too), never called anyone undemocratic, haven't been abusive...

The poster has been doing that the whole time. Acting reasonable but if you don't agree with her 100% that the 8th should be saved because it definitely was the reason her child survive, then she starts twisting what you say, and getting ratty and personal at what she accuses you of saying. To be honest, I'm not bothered replying to the poster anymore.

petalgumdrops · 14-04-2018 01:20PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I absolutely did not say you should have travelled. What you decided to do or not do is completely your decision.

I said you had the option to get a termination by travelling. Which is completely different.

I then questioned why anyone would wish to force a woman who has a confirmed diagnosis of a FFA to either continue with the pregnancy or travel. That is what a NO vote is calling for. It may be an unintended consequence but so was the treat of detention in the X Case all those years ago.

The Constitution is not the place for clauses that have unintended consequences especially when those consequences are well flagged beforehand.

The government CANNOT legislate to terminate a FFA pregnancy while the 8th is in place unless they have a specific referendum to allow terminations in the case of FFA - then maybe one for rape/incest victims/cancer patients etc etc.

I have absolutely no idea why the rest of your post is aimed at me. I expressed no opinion on men voting (I happen to think they should have a voice too), never called anyone undemocratic, haven't been abusive...

Ironic that you seem to be accusing me off all sorts in a rant about people being attacked for expressing an opinion.

You said... with respect you had the option to travel... Imagine me using that as an excuse not to repeak the 8th. There would be uproar.

If I have to clarify the second part of my post wS not directly aimed at you but a general observation then I'm sorry I can't help you

petalgumdrops · 14-04-2018 01:26PM

bubblypop wrote: »

That must have been a terrible time for you, and it is great everything worked out well.
but with respect, I think your baby is alive thanks to you. You & the doctors.

Absolutely I do believe that the doctors acted in relation to the 8th. My baby was fine but I did have a placental abnormality as confirmed by the cvs which was monitored throughout. My baby was at risk of miscarriage/stillbirth and when the placenta stopped functioning my labour was induced early.

14-04-2018 01:35PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

If I came in here saying the 8th forced me to travel to England to have a termination do you think I would be getting the same reaction from posters?

Respect mods jumping in but to be told by a poster that I had the choice to travel I just didn't take it is so absolutely disgusting. If I said that to someone here who travelled and had an abortion I would be rightly abused.

I think you are picking people up wrongly, because Of The 8th amendment, termination was not an option to you, in this country.
People are not suggesting that you should have travelled, they are saying that you chose not to. That you yourself made that decision. The government or the constitution didn't make it for you. You chose not to go & thankfully everything worked out well for you & your baby.

But you made the choice, you saved your baby.

Bannasidhe · 14-04-2018 01:35PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

You said... with respect you had the option to travel... Imagine me using that as an excuse not to repeak the 8th. There would be uproar.

If I have to clarify the second part of my post wS not directly aimed at you but a general observation then I'm sorry I can't help you

'Option to' is not the same as 'should have' - not in any possible universe.

What you did was completely misrepresent what I wrote.
You also responded to a MOD post about being polite by referencing what you, falsely, claim I had said.

Your rant contained no indication that is was not aimed at me - the poster you quoted and were directly responding to.

Your passive aggressive lack of apology speaks volumes.

petalgumdrops · 14-04-2018 01:50PM

bubblypop wrote: »

I think you are picking people up wrongly, because Of The 8th amendment, termination was not an option to you, in this country.
People are not suggesting that you should have travelled, they are saying that you chose not to. That you yourself made that decision. The government or the constitution didn't make it for you. You chose not to go & thankfully everything worked out well for you & your baby.

But you made the choice, you saved your baby.

What qualifies you say that I choose to continue my pregnancy? Are you aware of all of my circumstances?

petalgumdrops · 14-04-2018 01:55PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

'Option to' is not the same as 'should have' - not in any possible universe.

By that admission everyone has the "option" to travel.

Ave Sodalis · 14-04-2018 01:56PM

Petalgumdrops, what are you actually hoping the outcome of this referendum will be?

NuMarvel · 14-04-2018 01:57PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

So you're saying that I should have travelled then?

No one is telling you what you should have done. The whole point of pro choice is that it is up to the woman what she chooses to do, including continuing with the pregnancy if she wants.

You're pretty much pro choice yourself, because you've said yourself many times a woman should be allowed to have the choice of having an abortion in the case of FFA.

petalgumdrops wrote: »

If you read any of my posts you would see that I don't think we should even be voting on ffa they shoulf be available a long time ago and government coulf have legislated for this.

Once more; we can't legislate for FFA while the 8th is in place. Politicians tried and were told by the attorney general that it would be unconstitutional.

petalgumdrops wrote: »

People are allowed to have concerns, we are allowed to question, to choose something that we are comfortable with. I have seen very little respectful debating as a whole.

You're allowed to question things, but it's a bit rich to complain about the lack of a respectful debate when you're ignoring the answers you're getting.

Case in point, you saying that FFA could be legislated for without the need for another referendum. That's simply not the case and the reasons have been explained. Yet rather than engage with that discussion, you ignore it and just repeat your assertion later on, as if it's fact.

Ken. · 14-04-2018 01:59PM

Mod-Just a heads up, robarmstrongs thread ban has been lifted. Please don't report him when he starts posting again.

Martina1991 · 14-04-2018 01:59PM

petalgumdrops wrote:

What qualifies you say that I choose to continue my pregnancy? Are you aware of all of my circumstances?

What qualifies "pro life" supporters to force women to continue with their pregnancies.
Are they aware of every woman's circumstances?

Bannasidhe · 14-04-2018 01:59PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Bannasidhe wrote: »

'Option to' is not the same as 'should have' - not in any possible universe.

By that admission everyone has the "option" to travel.

I have no intention of continuing to engage with a poster who blatantly misrepresented what I said and not only hasn't the curtsy to apologise but continues to twist my words.

Try your disingenuous tactics on someone else. I'm not playing. This is too serious an issue.

NuMarvel · 14-04-2018 02:06PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Absolutely I do believe that the doctors acted in relation to the 8th.

There's a video only a page or two back of an Irish pregnant woman saying that after receiving a confirmed diagnosis of FFA, she talked with her doctor here in Ireland about the option of having an abortion overseas.

The 8th doesn't stop doctors saying abortion is an option when it's a FFA. What it stops is them being able to continue taking care of their patient when a woman decides to have an abortion, and it stops them being able to refer their patient to a doctor overseas in the normal way.

14-04-2018 02:12PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

What qualifies you say that I choose to continue my pregnancy? Are you aware of all of my circumstances?

Well that's fair enough, if you are a refugee or an illegal immigrant in this country then I apologise.

But if that is the case surely you can see how unfair it is?

petalgumdrops · 14-04-2018 02:19PM

Martina1991 wrote: »

What qualifies "pro life" supporters to force women to continue with their pregnancies.
Are they aware of every woman's circumstances?

You would need to ask a profile supporter that question. I was specifically told in this forum that I choose not to travel that the 8th had no impact whatsoever on my situation is that because to state that perhaps the 8th has at some point had a positive impact would to set seeds of doubt

petalgumdrops · 14-04-2018 02:32PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

No one is telling you what you should have done. The whole point of pro choice is that it is up to the woman what she chooses to do, including continuing with the pregnancy if she wants.

You're pretty much pro choice yourself, because you've said yourself many times a woman should be allowed to have the choice of having an abortion in the case of FFA.

Once more; we can't legislate for FFA while the 8th is in place. Politicians tried and were told by the attorney general that it would be unconstitutional.

You're allowed to question things, but it's a bit rich to complain about the lack of a respectful debate when you're ignoring the answers you're getting.

Case in point, you saying that FFA could be legislated for without the need for another referendum. That's simply not the case and the reasons have been explained. Yet rather than engage with that discussion, you ignore it and just repeat your assertion later on, as if it's fact.

On a point of voting what would you suggest No/undecided voters do if they are at odds with one particular aspect of repeal?

volchitsa · 14-04-2018 02:33PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

volchitsa wrote: »

It's wonderful that everything was fine in the end, petal gumdrops, but I don't understand what difference you think the 8th made?

You're not seriously suggesting that you would have had a termination without the confirmation, are you?
Nor what difference the 8th made to that decision anyway?

If you collected data on ffa you will see that a CVS has been used to terminate on the basis of ffa. CVS collects placental cells that are ***in most cases*** a match for DNA of a baby but placental mosasacisms do happen. I'm not sure if you are suggesting that all ffa should need an CVS and an amnio to teterminate for a ffa

Say this was different and I came here after my CVS and told you I had to travel to England to terminate my baby would you be saying the 8th had no affect on me at all. No you would use my story to higlight the narrative that the 8th has deterimental consequences for women. (It of course does) but I find it disrespectful to assume that the 8th can't have any positive outcomes at all. My son is proof of that. Yet it is being overlooked that yes I did want to terminate based on CVS but I did not bave the option. You seem to assume my son is here due to choice not because I did not have access to a termination.

I still don't really see your point - nobody would ever have terminated your pregnancy without your agreement. The fact that some people have terminated on the basis of the same test doesn't prove that your test results were as clearcut as theirs, and anyway even if they were, what difference does the 8th make? A woman in England would be just as entitled to ask for a second opinion as you were.

You seem to be saying that if you had been in England you would have terminated without a second opinion - that's not been my experience of being pregnant in a country where abortion was available. IMO doctors are just as careful as they are in Ireland, maybe more so because the woman's consent is genuinely needed, unlike Ireland.

petalgumdrops · 14-04-2018 02:34PM

bubblypop wrote: »

Well that's fair enough, if you are a refugee or an illegal immigrant in this country then I apologise.

But if that is the case surely you can see how unfair it is?

Why are prochoice groups stating that not every woman has the financial means to travel then?
This doesn't hold up to the fact you mention illegal immigrants/refugees

amdublin · 14-04-2018 02:38PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Why are prochoice groups stating that not every woman has the financial means to travel then?
This doesn't hold up to the fact you mention illegal immigrants/refugees

Is this not a fact? "Not all women have the financial means to travel

It seems clear to me. Unless I'm misunderstanding the question?

gctest50 · 14-04-2018 02:41PM

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

Just came across this PrimeTime “debate” in 2013 between a women who had anencephaly detected in her pregnancy and Dr Berry Kiely (long time in PLC).
I saw this at the time it was broadcast and was not well & speechless for the rest of the evening.

I think this demonstrates the almost limitless depths of depravity & inhuman cruelty that can result from ideological beliefs not based on reason.
Or in other words, the beliefs of the average vocal pro-life (forced-birther).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXTEt3KSrYw

It looks like Dr, Berry Kiely there is keen to open a network of perinatal hospices

Lock them away, take their money until they deliver their baby with ffa

Sounds familiar that

Nice little money maker that, and they could bombard them with pure-in-heart stuff

horseburger · 14-04-2018 02:45PM

Madscientist30 wrote: »

A foetus is biologically human, that has already been said numerous times throughout the thread. It is not, though, a human being. A human being is defined as a man, woman or child. A foetus does not become a child until it is born. I'm not sure why you keep mentioning this "human" thing. Can you explain why you feel it is so important to continue to develop non-sentient human foetuses to ensure they are born, against the will of the woman carrying the foetud and regardless of the consequences? Do you have any proposals to alleviate the suffering and misery this would cause for many many people? Or do we not need to consider that because.....ehhhh.....it's human like. There is nothing at all behind your argument. Not one pro-lifer here has STILL ever answered the question about the fertility clinic on fire. Will you answer it?

If the issue is the question about whether it is right of wrong to end human life, why is it ok to end the life of a human foetus, but not a human man, woman or child?

The foetus is human, and is growing and developing at an earlier stage of human life cycle, just the same as anyone who is just born, is growing and developing at an earlier stage of human life cycle, compared to a 2 year old child or 20 year old person.

amdublin · 14-04-2018 02:46PM

You guys I went on my first canvass today!

Great group and great having done it. If you can join a local group I'd encourage you to Go For It!

Overall:
The majority positive yes!
A lot of doors unopened though
A lot of people (non nationals) not registered to vote - but positive
A small amount of undecided
One or two absolute No's and who were wise to all the no tricksy ways of twisting things - do you support the death sentence because that's murder just like abortion, why do you support abortion so

I feel good it will be pass. But it will be close. Cannot get complacent. Need to get out and have those conversations.

Please get out and canvass if you can

horseburger · 14-04-2018 02:48PM

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Never?

You then went on to try and justify that so don't tell me it was just a question and so you still have to answer my question.

That last part is just distraction and in no way relevant.

And I am asking you why not?

As is manslaughter. And yet, there would be at least a criminal investigation if a mothers actions led to the accidental death of a born child.

I am asking you. Why do YOU think it's not considered negligence when it's a human being affected.

No, because I know the answers. The answer is because a foetus is not considered a person. It's not considered a human.

Not one single time did I say that you cannot discuss the arguments for or against abortion. Not once.

First of all, he's American.

Second of all, he's talking about 20 weeks pregnancy which is NOT relevant. It is NOT suction. It is a pill.

Thirdly, he completely disregards the women who want an abortion and are happy with that decision. He has a complete disregard for genuine reasons for having an abortion.

He is not a balanced pro-life advocate when he completely ignores what's actually going to happen and talks about stuff that isn't going to happen in order to scare people. Funny enough, most of the pro-life campaign is like that.

I already answered you about the issue of miscarriages. My understanding is that miscarriages are an unfortunate unintended occurrence.

In fairness to Anthony Levatino, he seems to be talking in a way, where his perspective on the fundamental question about abortion, has changed.

So because Anthony Levatino is American, his perspective on the issue doesn't matter?

By that logic, the opinions of the people from outside Ireland - who spoke at the Citizens Assembly and Oireachtas Committee - don't matter.

There is no assurance that the recommendations of the Oireachtas Committee would be the legislation enacted. So as it stands there is nothing definite that abortion not being legislated for, for just 12 weeks without restriction.

Anthony Levantino and David Alton both made the point that when legislation was first introduced in other areas, that it later became available for less restrictive circumstances than originally intended.

What is a foetus if it is not human. If a foetus is not human, what else can grow in the womb of a human woman, as a result of the union of a human male sperm and human female egg?

How on earth can you suggest that a foetus is not human.

I said you seem to have a problem with me considering the arguments for and against.

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Comments