The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Hannibal_Smith · 18-04-2018 08:06AM

horseburger wrote: »

I don't consider that economic grounds is a good reason for ending a life.

I say this because economic issues are related to the policies implemented through government policy.

Services and government policy should be improved to help families rather than the government policy dictating to families that they have to change their circumstances.

This issue was raised in the recent documentary by Sally Phillips, where she was asked about what prospects her son would have, upon her death.

She replied that abortion wasn't the answer, that the answer was an improvement in care and services.

I think what she was saying could be stated in response to Brid Smith, in the episode of Vincent Browne on TV3 on 6th July 2017, where Brid Smith seemed to suggest that economic and social situations in terms of inequality in services and financial circumstances are reasons to have abortions.

To keep joeytheparrot satisfied, I wont include the two links to the discussion, so if you want to see it you'll have to peruse youtube and the tv3 page.

But Sally Phillips made that choice for herself. It's all well and good to say economic reasons aren't good enough. But how can you make that call for someone else? Another kid for us would mean childcare that was too expensive, me leaving work and being unable to sustain the three of them. Paying the mortgage on one salary would mean nothing left.

You can't get financial issues resolved by government in 9 months. During the crash when people were losing their houses, imagine bringing another child into that and what it would mean for your family.

How quickly people are forgetting, in recent times, financial reasons aren't just a matter of choosing Heinz tomato ketchup over dunnes own brand, it really was a matter of keeping a roof over your head. That still hasn't been resolved for a lot of people. And you say it's not a good enough reason to have an abortion?

Annasopra · 18-04-2018 08:07AM

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

But there is no guarantee that you will get the legislation you're in favour of after the 8th has been repealed.

No. There is no guatantee. But in order to get there the 8th needs to be repealed.

Anymore whataboutery?

January · 18-04-2018 08:08AM

horseburger wrote: »

I don't consider that economic grounds is a good reason for ending a life.

I say this because economic issues are related to the policies implemented through government policy.

Services and government policy should be improved to help families rather than the government policy dictating to families that they have to change their circumstances.

This issue was raised in the recent documentary by Sally Phillips, where she was asked about what prospects her son would have, upon her death.

She replied that abortion wasn't the answer, that the answer was an improvement in care and services.

I think what she was saying could be stated in response to Brid Smith, in the episode of Vincent Browne on TV3 on 6th July 2017, where Brid Smith seemed to suggest that economic and social situations in terms of inequality in services and financial circumstances are reasons to have abortions.

To keep joeytheparrot satisfied, I wont include the two links to the discussion, so if you want to see it you'll have to peruse youtube and the tv3 page.

Ok so the government should just give me a bigger house a bigger car and more money to have another child? Right

horseburger · 18-04-2018 08:19AM

January wrote: »

Ok so the government should just give me a bigger house a bigger car and more money to have another child? Right

No I'm not saying that. I'm saying that services should improve.

Wouldn't suggesting that people should have abortions on the basis of economic circumstances, result in more inequality, in terms of demographics and society and various family services available to familes, because you'd then be arguing that it'd be acceptable that families in more affluent areas have more children than families in areas that are less affluent?

For example if there are childcare services that are privatized, wouldn't they be more inclined to set up businesses in more affluent areas?

Does the government hand out cars? I thought that was the banks did that to encourage people taking mortgages with those banks?

horseburger · 18-04-2018 08:20AM

amdublin wrote: »

Fine. Don't have an abortion yourself.

Someone else's choice is their choice alone.

great response.

ELM327 · 18-04-2018 08:26AM

horseburger wrote: »

No I'm not saying that. I'm saying that services should improve.

Wouldn't suggesting that people should have abortions on the basis of economic circumstances, result in more inequality, in terms of demographics and society and various family services available to familes, because you'd then be arguing that it'd be acceptable that families in more affluent areas have more children than families in areas that are less affluent?

For example if there are childcare services that are privatized, wouldn't they be more inclined to set up businesses in more affluent areas?

Does the government hand out cars? I thought that was the banks did that to encourage people taking mortgages with those banks?

It could be argued that private childcare's extortionate prices are unconstitutional as well as "the state should do everying in its power to avoid a woman having to work in the workforce due to economic necessity at the neglect of her duties in the home".

But I digress, this is not about economics. This is about an individual's right to bodily integrity.
I hear often "why should a woman who is raped be allowed to have an abortion, it's not the child's fault". Well why should the woman have a pregnancy enforced on her for 9 months? It wasnt her decision to be raped.

I couldnt pass up this remark, so please accept it for the jovial nature it is delivered in: Ironically, for someone called horseburger, you do come out with some horsesh1t at times.:pac::pac::pac::pac::D:D:D:D:D

pitifulgod · 18-04-2018 08:28AM

horseburger wrote: »

great response.

Retaining the eighth will not prevent abortions. They will still occur. It's basically like blocking your eyes and pretending they aren't happening. You're just putting far more mental strain on people having them. Also endangering women Eg if a woman wants an experimental cancer treatment. She can't have it if pregnant. All the Masters of The Rotunda support repeal, they've seen the negative rather than the supposed positive effect it has.

horseburger · 18-04-2018 08:30AM

ELM327 wrote: »

It could be argued that private childcare's extortionate prices are unconstitutional as well as "the state should do everying in its power to avoid a woman having to work in the workforce due to economic necessity at the neglect of her duties in the home".

But I digress, this is not about economics. This is about an individual's right to bodily integrity.
I hear often "why should a woman who is raped be allowed to have an abortion, it's not the child's fault". Well why should the woman have a pregnancy enforced on her for 9 months? It wasnt her decision to be raped.

I couldnt pass up this remark, so please accept it for the jovial nature it is delivered in: Ironically, for someone called horseburger, you do come out with some horsesh1t at times.:pac::pac::pac::pac::D:D:D:D:D

The issue of economics was brought into the discussion by someone else. If you think economics is not relevant, reply to the person that mentioned it, the person to whom I responded.

Because if you think the issue isn't economics and some people who are calling for repeal think economics is the issue, perhaps it might be worth discussing that there are disagreements in the various arguments given for voting on the issue.

amdublin · 18-04-2018 08:33AM

pitifulgod wrote: »

All the Masters of The Rotunda support repeal, they've seen the negative rather than the supposed positive effect it has.

The Master of Holles Street supports it too

NuMarvel · 18-04-2018 08:34AM

horseburger wrote: »

No I'm not saying that. I'm saying that services should improve.

What services? How should they be improved? What's your evidence base for believing your proposed improvements would reduce the rate of abortion?

pitifulgod · 18-04-2018 08:35AM

horseburger wrote: »

The issue of economics was brought into the discussion by someone else. If you think economics is not relevant, reply to the person that mentioned it, the person to whom I responded.

Because if you think the issue isn't economics and some people who are calling for repeal think economics is the issue, perhaps it might be worth discussing that there are disagreements in the various arguments given for voting on the issue.

There are multiple reasons including economic. Yep there are ways to reduce the number via economic improvements. However there are still plenty of other reasons. Some people simply don't want to have children, others aren't in a place in life where they want to currently have children at that point in time. All reasonable reasons.

horseburger · 18-04-2018 08:35AM

pitifulgod wrote: »

Retaining the eighth will not prevent abortions. They will still occur. It's basically like blocking your eyes and pretending they aren't happening. You're just putting far more mental strain on people having them. Also endangering women Eg if a woman wants an experimental cancer treatment. She can't have it if pregnant. All the Masters of The Rotunda support repeal, they've seen the negative rather than the supposed positive effect it has.

I am quite aware of that.

But it would increase the abortions on the basis of grounds given, would it not?

An abortion on a particular ground might not be permitted, but that particular request for an abortion, could be categorised under another ground.

This was detailed by Patricia Lohr of BPAS at the Oireachtas committee.

Here is a post I wrote in the other thread, but it is relevant in discussing, the circumstances and grounds given, for when abortion is approved:

The wording that will replace the current wording will not give an indication as to what will be covered in practice by new legislation, as I understand it.

I suggest this with reference to this article by Sarah Bardon in the Irish Times, that quotes a comment made on behalf of the Oireachtas Committee that states that there is no certainty that what is recommended by the Oreachtas Committee, will be exactly what is recommended.

The article includes the lines:

"Members say they cannot compel the Government to accept their recommendations".

"Members of the Oireachtas[/URL] Committee on the Eighth Amendment have insisted they cannot compel the Government to accept their recommendations".

"The committee published its 40 page report on Wednesday outlining the decisions taken by members and the rationale for them.
The proposals include repealing the Eighth Amendment, which places the life of the unborn on an equal footing to the mother, and permitting abortions up to 12 weeks".

"Chair of the committee Catherine Noone[/URL] said the role of the committee should not be overestimated. Its job was to make recommendations and to be helpful to the Government, she added".

"The committee can not compel the Government or the Houses of the Oireachtas to accept its proposals, Ms Noone added".

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas-committee-on-eighth-amendment-publishes-40-page-report-1.3333670

In this Prime Time discussion between Maria Steen and Ivana Bacik, it was stated by Ivana Bacik that the Oireachtas Committee did not endorse abortion in cases of Down's Syndrome.

Maria Steen responded, by citing Germany as an example, that abortion in cases of Down's Syndrome, could be carried out under mental health grounds.

There was no response from Ivana Bacik on this issue.

https://www.rte.ie/news/player/prime-time/2018/0118/
https://www.rte.ie/news/player/2018/0118/10829055-prime-time-tool-theft-8th-amendment-debate/

In the Oireachtas Committee Patricia Lohr of BPAS spoke of permitting abortions, on grounds other than the ground that was initially requested.

In an exchange with Peter Fitzpatrick TD, she said that it is possible to permit abortions on grounds other than the ground that was initially requested.

Here is the section where Peter Fitzpatrick asked question regarding abortion on grounds of sex selection.

Here is the transcript of the exchanges between Peter Fitzpatrick and Patricia Lohr, during the Oireachtas Committee meeting on 22nd November 2017

Peter Fitzpatrick asked:

"I welcome Dr. Lohr from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service. The head of Dr. Lohr's organisation, Ann Furedi, recently spoke on television about how she feels that abortion should be available for sex selection, if a woman finds that she is expecting a baby girl but wanted a baby boy that should be grounds for an abortion. I think most people find it quite upsetting that anyone would think a baby's life should be ended simply because she is a girl. Does Dr. Lohr think that abortion should be allowed on grounds of gender so that a woman can abort a baby girl if she wants a boy instead? The name of the programme is "Loose Women". It is a daytime programme."

Patricia Lohr responded:

"I have not seen the programme."

Peter Fitzpatrick replied:

"Is Dr. Lohr familiar with the statement made on the programme?"

Patricia Lohr responded:

"I am not familiar with the exact text of the statement. What she may have been clarifying is that abortion on gender grounds is not one of the five grounds for lawful abortion in the UK. A woman may present to us stating initially that she wants to have an abortion on the basis of foetal sex. If that were the only reason she put forward to have her abortion, we would not be able to perform that lawfully. If, however, a woman presented saying, "I know my pregnancy is - pick your foetal sex - and I am at risk of exclusion from my family, domestic violence, etc.,", there may, in fact, be lawful grounds because that might risk her physical or mental health."

Peter Fitzpatrick replied:

"My question was whether Dr. Lohr thought abortion should be allowed on the grounds of gender. What does she think? Her CEO seemed to think it should be one of the grounds. She also stated on the same programme when she was talking about sex selection that it should always be down to the woman to make the decision for herself because she will live with it."

Patricia Lohr responded:

"I absolutely do agree with the position that it is for the woman to decide when and whether she is ready to parent or have a child and put it up for adoption."

Peter Fitzpatrick replied:

"I am talking about a boy or a girl. I am talking about gender selection."

Patricia Lohr responded:

"My point is that I feel that decisions about whether to continue a pregnancy should sit with the woman herself. As a doctor and knowing the risks of continuing an unwanted pregnancy, I cannot imagine compelling a woman to have and continue a pregnancy for which she is unprepared."

Here is the address by Patricia Lohr at the Oireachtas Committee.

The address by Patricia Lohr and the question and answer session is available on the Oireachtas website.

The exchange with Peter Fitzpatrick TD, commences at the 1 hour 58 minute mark:

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=37332&&CatID=127&StartDate=01 January 2017&OrderAscending=0

https://media.heanet.ie/p/20171122+Joint+Committee+on+Eighth+Amendment+of+the+Constitution/HbnSmB

Here is the transcript of the exchange between Patricia Lohr and Peter Fitzpatrick:

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/EAJ2017112200002#N240

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/committeetakes/EAJ2017112200002?opendocument#G00050

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-04-2018 08:47AM

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

I suggest they use a form of "birth control" which on the balance of probability will prevent them from ever having any unwanted children.

Unfortunately people trotting out your narrative do not tend to run the numbers on probability. They just throw out the word probability without doing, or likely understanding, the mathematics behind it.

A small probability over a large data set results in a significant outcome. So go do the math some time. Work out how many sexually active couples there are, work out how often they have sex on average. And then run that total through the probability failure rates of contraception in conjunction with fertility rates.

The resulting number of unwanted and unplanned pregnancies is the result you will get then. And it is not an insignificant number. If you are going to shout at us about probabilities then at least do the math and show your workings. You have declared it "marginal". Show those numbers and how you worked out your results.

ELM327 · 18-04-2018 08:48AM

horseburger wrote: »

The issue of economics was brought into the discussion by someone else. If you think economics is not relevant, reply to the person that mentioned it, the person to whom I responded.

Because if you think the issue isn't economics and some people who are calling for repeal think economics is the issue, perhaps it might be worth discussing that there are disagreements in the various arguments given for voting on the issue.

Economics are not the issue and have been brought into it by you.
Please stop diverting the issue. I know it's late over there in Kentucky but please try to stay with us.

horseburger wrote: »

I am quite aware of that.

But it would increase the abortions on the basis of grounds given, would it not?

An abortion on a particular ground might not be permitted, but that particular ground could be catagorised under another ground.

This was detailed by Patricia Lohr of BPAS at the Oireachtas committee.

Here is a post I wrote in the other thread, but might be relevant in discussing the circumstances of when abortion is approved:

The wording that will replace the current wording will not give an indication as to what will be covered in practice by new legislation, as I understand it.

I suggest this with reference to this article by Sarah Bardon in the Irish Times, that quotes a comment made on behalf of the Oireachtas Committee that states that there is no certainty that what is recommended by the Oreachtas Committee, will be exactly what is recommended.

The article includes the lines:

"Members say they cannot compel the Government to accept their recommendations".

"Members of the Oireachtas[/URL] Committee on the Eighth Amendment have insisted they cannot compel the Government to accept their recommendations".

"The committee published its 40 page report on Wednesday outlining the decisions taken by members and the rationale for them.
The proposals include repealing the Eighth Amendment, which places the life of the unborn on an equal footing to the mother, and permitting abortions up to 12 weeks".

"Chair of the committee Catherine Noone[/URL] said the role of the committee should not be overestimated. Its job was to make recommendations and to be helpful to the Government, she added".

"The committee can not compel the Government or the Houses of the Oireachtas to accept its proposals, Ms Noone added".

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas-committee-on-eighth-amendment-publishes-40-page-report-1.3333670

In this Prime Time discussion between Maria Steen and Ivana Bacik, it was stated by Ivana Bacik that the Oireachtas Committee did not endorse abortion in cases of Down's Syndrome.

Maria Steen responded, by citing Germany as an example, that abortion in cases of Down's Syndrome, could be carried out under mental health grounds.

There was no response from Ivana Bacik on this issue.

https://www.rte.ie/news/player/prime-time/2018/0118/
https://www.rte.ie/news/player/2018/0118/10829055-prime-time-tool-theft-8th-amendment-debate/

In the Oireachtas Committee Patricia Lohr of BPAS spoke of permitting abortions, on grounds other than the ground that was initially requested.

In an exchange with Peter Fitzpatrick TD, she said that it is possible to permit abortions on grounds other than the ground that was initially requested.

Here is the section where Peter Fitzpatrick asked question regarding abortion on grounds of sex selection.

Here is the transcript of the exchanges between Peter Fitzpatrick and Patricia Lohr, during the Oireachtas Committee meeting on 22nd November 2017

Peter Fitzpatrick asked:

"I welcome Dr. Lohr from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service. The head of Dr. Lohr's organisation, Ann Furedi, recently spoke on television about how she feels that abortion should be available for sex selection, if a woman finds that she is expecting a baby girl but wanted a baby boy that should be grounds for an abortion. I think most people find it quite upsetting that anyone would think a baby's life should be ended simply because she is a girl. Does Dr. Lohr think that abortion should be allowed on grounds of gender so that a woman can abort a baby girl if she wants a boy instead? The name of the programme is "Loose Women". It is a daytime programme."

Patricia Lohr responded:

"I have not seen the programme."

Peter Fitzpatrick replied:

"Is Dr. Lohr familiar with the statement made on the programme?"

Patricia Lohr responded:

"I am not familiar with the exact text of the statement. What she may have been clarifying is that abortion on gender grounds is not one of the five grounds for lawful abortion in the UK. A woman may present to us stating initially that she wants to have an abortion on the basis of foetal sex. If that were the only reason she put forward to have her abortion, we would not be able to perform that lawfully. If, however, a woman presented saying, "I know my pregnancy is - pick your foetal sex - and I am at risk of exclusion from my family, domestic violence, etc.,", there may, in fact, be lawful grounds because that might risk her physical or mental health."

Peter Fitzpatrick replied:

"My question was whether Dr. Lohr thought abortion should be allowed on the grounds of gender. What does she think? Her CEO seemed to think it should be one of the grounds. She also stated on the same programme when she was talking about sex selection that it should always be down to the woman to make the decision for herself because she will live with it."

Patricia Lohr responded:

"I absolutely do agree with the position that it is for the woman to decide when and whether she is ready to parent or have a child and put it up for adoption."

Peter Fitzpatrick replied:

"I am talking about a boy or a girl. I am talking about gender selection."

Patricia Lohr responded:

"My point is that I feel that decisions about whether to continue a pregnancy should sit with the woman herself. As a doctor and knowing the risks of continuing an unwanted pregnancy, I cannot imagine compelling a woman to have and continue a pregnancy for which she is unprepared."

Here is the address by Patricia Lohr at the Oireachtas Committee.

The address by Patricia Lohr and the question and answer session is available on the Oireachtas website.

The exchange with Peter Fitzpatrick TD, commences at the 1 hour 58 minute mark:

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=37332&&CatID=127&StartDate=01 January 2017&OrderAscending=0

https://media.heanet.ie/p/20171122+Joint+Committee+on+Eighth+Amendment+of+the+Constitution/HbnSmB

Here is the transcript of the exchange between Patricia Lohr and Peter Fitzpatrick:

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/EAJ2017112200002#N240

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/committeetakes/EAJ2017112200002?opendocument#G00050

Oh look, it's these links again.
Poor diddums, run out of spam have we? (FYI - diddums is a slang word used in Ireland, i don't know if ye use it over there)

horseburger · 18-04-2018 09:00AM

ELM327 wrote: »

Economics are not the issue and have been brought into it by you.
Please stop diverting the issue. I know it's late over there in Kentucky but please try to stay with us.

Oh look, it's these links again.
Poor diddums, run out of spam have we? (FYI - diddums is a slang word used in Ireland, i don't know if ye use it over there)

I already told you that I was responding to someone who argued for abortion on grounds of being able to afford raising children.

Great attempt at avoiding the issue that Patricia Lohr conceded that abortions can occur on grounds that were not initially given, but categorized under other grounds.

You don't think that issue is worthy of consideration to discuss that the Oireachtas Committee didn't endorse abortion on grounds of Down's Syndrome, but that an example was given, where Germany doesn't either, but that it occurs under mental health grounds?

You don't think, with consideration to the example, given by Patricia Lohr of BPAS, of a different ground where abortion would be approved - where the abortion is requested on the ground of sex selection - that it would be more appropriate to deal with the man who is subjecting the woman to domestic violence, rather than have an abortion, in this example, where that abortion was originally sought under sex selection?

ELM327 · 18-04-2018 09:03AM

horseburger wrote: »

Great attempt at avoiding the issue that Patricia Lohr conceded that abortions can occur on grounds that were not initially given, but categorized under other grounds.

You don't think that issue is worthy of consideration to discuss that the Oireachtas Committee didn't endorse abortion on grounds of Down's Syndrome, but that an example was given, where Germany doesn't either, but that it occurs under mental health grounds?

You don't think, with consideration to the example, given by Patricia Lohr of BPAS, of a different ground where abortion would be approved - where the abortion is requested on the ground of sex selection - that it would be more appropriate to deal with the man who is subjecting the woman to domestic violence, rather than have an abortion, in this example, where that abortion was originally sought under sex selection?

I don't know nor care who Patricia Lohr is.
Don't care about down's syndrome (If I was told as a female I was having a DS child I'd think long and hard about termination too)
Don't know what your point is about sex selection either (I don't think that's the correct term anyway).

This boils down to, a woman wants a medical procedure, and is her doctor allowed to provide it. I say yes and it's not my business why are you even asking. You say no. Can you not see the incredulous hilarity of that.

Do yourself a favour, go read the stories on the "In her shoes" facebook page. These are real stories submitted by real women who have been affected by the 8th amendment. I know they publish real stories because the friend I referred to previously has had her story published there.
I read a great comment on one, it said "if you're not in tears reading this then you are not a human". And I agree.
Listen to those who the 8th amendment affects, not some pie in the sky morality that you want to impose on everyone. The kicker is... the friend who had the termination... she was staunchly pro life beforehand.

BabysCoffee · 18-04-2018 09:10AM

horseburger wrote: »

I don't consider that economic grounds is a good reason for ending a life.

I say this because economic issues are related to the policies implemented through government policy.

Services and government policy should be improved to help families rather than the government policy dictating to families that they have to change their circumstances.

This issue was raised in the recent documentary by Sally Phillips, where she was asked about what prospects her son would have, upon her death.

She replied that abortion wasn't the answer, that the answer was an improvement in care and services.

I think what she was saying could be stated in response to Brid Smith, in the episode of Vincent Browne on TV3 on 6th July 2017, where Brid Smith seemed to suggest that economic and social situations in terms of inequality in services and financial circumstances are reasons to have abortions.

To keep joeytheparrot satisfied, I wont include the two links to the discussion, so if you want to see it you'll have to peruse youtube and the tv3 page.

Something like a mother and child scheme?

v638sg7k1a92bx · 18-04-2018 09:13AM

robarmstrong wrote: »

There it is, the mask slips. The so-called "on the fence" finally comes out.

You're making it personal now, I like it, that's a tasty recipe for a good threadbanning, so I'll keep it educational.

Abortion is not a form of contraception.

There is no form of contraception that is 100% effective other than abstinence, you really showed your true colours though with the thinly veiled "they know the risk when they have sex" argument. So much for this being your first time discussing this when someone else twigged you were on the previous thread before, eh buddy?

before the super duper educational post comes in, answer these for me like a good boy.

1. Are you pro-life or pro-choice?

2. Are you against abortion in all circumstances?

3. How come you're only going for the pro-choice argument, rather than picking at the pro-life one? Not going to acknowledge the lies and misrepresentation of facts, no?

Sure I'll throw in the educational bit anyways why not, it's late.

There are two sides to this debate, one is consistently twisting and turning all facts and figures to suit them, the other is trying to relay the actual facts across backed up by case studies which support why the 8th should be repealed (the X case, Ms Harte, the others who I'm too tired to go research as I just cannot remember them firsthand unfortunately) which show how the 8th is detrimental to women's health by forcing them to go abroad (in one case even attempting to deny the X girl from leaving the country to have an abortion at 14..) to seek medical procedures that are not made available to them at home due to the extremely strict restrictions on them.

Also, I noticed you never actually answered if you thought abortion was a form of contraception or not. All you've actually done is deflect, deflect and deflect some more.

Typical of that side of the campaign really, can't hold their ground in a reasonable, open and genuine debate so they just deflect and get louder.

I'm fully aware abortion is not a form of contraception, I also understand the terms contraception and birth control are used by some people synonymously.

I'm also fully aware that no form of contraception is no 100% effective but the birth control pill is 99% effective. So are you really arguing over 1%. Unless you are extremely unlucky, then there is no reason why you should get pregnant if you don't want to.

Despite the fact that I'm not on trial and although some posters seem to think that they own this thread where you have to agree with the status quo to post here, I've already stated that I'm in favour of abortion in certain circumstances.

What I still don't understand is and the reason I haven't fully made up my mind:

1. the day after the the 8th is repealed, how will the healthcare issues be addressed?

2. By repealing the 8th amendment, what would have changed that Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act doesn't already address.

Mr. CooL ICE · 18-04-2018 09:21AM

horseburger wrote: »

<half of youtube>

Mod: horseburger, please be wary of the fact that there are many mobile users that will be reading this thread. Posts like this cause havoc on small screens.

And on a side note; the sum total of video time in that post is 13h 22m 02s. How can you expect anybody reading your posts to spend over half a day on youtube?

robarmstrong · 18-04-2018 09:23AM

Dole Scrounging Vegan Crossfitter wrote: »

Mod: horseburger, please be wary of the fact that there are many mobile users that will be reading this thread. Posts like this cause havoc on small screens.

And on a side note; the sum total of video time in that post is 13h 22m 02s. How can you expect anybody reading your posts to spend over half a day on youtube?

Only Dole Scrounging Vegan Crossfitters would have the time to do that! :P

ohnonotgmail · 18-04-2018 09:30AM

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

I'm fully aware abortion is not a form of contraception, I also understand the terms contraception and birth control are used by some people synonymously.

I'm also fully aware that no form of contraception is no 100% effective but the birth control pill is 99% effective. So are you really arguing over 1%. Unless you are extremely unlucky, then there is no reason why you should get pregnant if you don't want to.

Despite the fact that I'm not on trial and although some posters seem to think that they own this thread where you have to agree with the status quo to post here, I've already stated that I'm in favour of abortion in certain circumstances.

What I still don't understand is and the reason I haven't fully made up my mind:

1. the day after the the 8th is repealed, how will the healthcare issues be addressed?

2. By repealing the 8th amendment, what would have changed that Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act doesn't already address.

repeal is only the first step. the vote is on repeal and legislate. you seem to keep ignoring the second part.

Sofiztikated · 18-04-2018 09:33AM

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

I'm fully aware abortion is not a form of contraception, I also understand the terms contraception and birth control are used by some people synonymously.

I'm also fully aware that no form of contraception is no 100% effective but the birth control pill is 99% effective. So are you really arguing over 1%. Unless you are extremely unlucky, then there is no reason why you should get pregnant if you don't want to.

Despite the fact that I'm not on trial and although some posters seem to think that they own this thread where you have to agree with the status quo to post here, I've already stated that I'm in favour of abortion in certain circumstances.

What I still don't understand is and the reason I haven't fully made up my mind:

1. the day after the the 8th is repealed, how will the healthcare issues be addressed?

2. By repealing the 8th amendment, what would have changed that Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act doesn't already address.

https://www.vox.com/2014/9/19/6418767/birth-control-pills-effectiveness-how-to-use-common-questions

In the real world, the pill is 91% effective. So for every 100 women, 9 could become pregnant, through no fault of their own.

So how marginal do you deem it to be OK?

robarmstrong · 18-04-2018 09:34AM

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

I'm also fully aware that no form of contraception is no 100% effective but the birth control pill is 99% effective. So are you really arguing over 1%. Unless you are extremely unlucky, then there is no reason why you should get pregnant if you don't want to.

There is a reason you get pregnant if you don't want to, contraceptive failure. that 99% only applies if it's used correctly, which again, is another topic for debate.

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Despite the fact that I'm not on trial and although some posters seem to think that they own this thread where you have to agree with the status quo to post here, I've already stated that I'm in favour of abortion in certain circumstances.

You're on "trial" because you seem to only have an issue with the pro-choice argument and when pushed on it, you've ignored points made and facts showing the pro-life campaign is intentionally spreading manipulated facts, statistics and incorrect statements, so naturally, you've aroused suspicious due to the "I'm just asking questions guys", you seem to just shirk away from any questions addressed to the pro-life campaign.

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

What I still don't understand is and the reason I haven't fully made up my mind:

1. the day after the the 8th is repealed, how will the healthcare issues be addressed?

2. By repealing the 8th amendment, what would have changed that Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act doesn't already address.

1. It will change the procedures that doctors take to perform abortion in Ireland, right now, it's incredibly restrictive, for one - mental health isn't really properly addressed, if it was, women wouldn't be travelling abroad for abortions, ectopic pregnancies are also not covered AFAIK in the current 8th legislation.

2. PLDPA doesn't readily address mental health, as I previously stated, if the 8th amendment did what it was meant to do, women wouldn't be travelling abroad, plain and simple.

kylith · 18-04-2018 09:37AM

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

It's not for me to say if they should have sex or not, but if they are and they don't plan on having any more children then I suggest they use a form of "birth control" which on the balance of probability will prevent them from ever having any unwanted children.

Ok, let’s remove the marginal cases:
A woman is married/in a committed, stable relationship. Her family is complete, she is 100% sure she does not want more children. As no form of contraception, even sterilisation, is infallible would you recommend that that couple does not have sex until the woman has finished menopause?

Yes. Or. No.

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-04-2018 09:38AM

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

I'm also fully aware that no form of contraception is no 100% effective but the birth control pill is 99% effective. So are you really arguing over 1%.

I guess the new recruits are being told to ignore The Nozzferrahhtoo when they spread the party-line on this forum given the entire cohort started doing it at the same time, but you really can not avoid the request to show the workings on this.

Firstly 1% is the "perfect usage" statistic not the actual "typical usage" one that we apply in the real world. So it is misleading and disingenuous to use that figure in the first place.

However even if we use your cherry picked and distorted figure.... the fact remains that 1% of a large number is a large number. Throwing out 1% because it sounds small is a propaganda move, not an honest statistical one. Even with a 1% failure rate we would still have a significant number of unplanned pregnancies.

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

the day after the the 8th is repealed, how will the healthcare issues be addressed?

This has been answered for you by multiple users already. I am baffled by this new "no" approach of sending all their recruits on here to ask questions periodically that have been answered directly before. You asked, it was answered, you are simply asking again.

But AGAIN the repeal of the 8th is not the solution to the issues raised. It is the opening of the door to the possibility of dealing with the issues raised. The removal of the 8th allows us to deal with that legislation, and that is the next step. You are demanding of the first step in an entire process, results and solutions that that step is never going to provide.

frag420 · 18-04-2018 09:43AM

May I suggest that when a new pro birth person joins in asking all the usual questions that we just reply with an "asked and answered" stock reply and just ignore them...

Or at the very least for an emotive and as serious a topic as this is that the poster must have a certain amount of posts or time on the site (similar to certain forums) before they can come in here and troll and ruin a good debate!?

ELM327 · 18-04-2018 09:44AM

frag420 wrote: »

May I suggest that when a new pro birth person joins in asking all the usual questions that we just reply with an "asked and answered" stock reply and just ignore them...

Or at the very least for an emotive and as serious a topic as this is that the poster must have a certain amount of posts or time on the site (similar to certain forums) before they can come in here and troll and ruin a good debate!?

I think this is a great idea.
Lets create a standard response text!

Sofiztikated · 18-04-2018 09:45AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I guess the new recruits are being told to ignore The Nozzferrahhtoo when they spread the party-line on this forum given the entire cohort started doing it at the same time, but you really can not avoid the request to show the workings on this.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Berties highlighting and fascination with who thanked what was something to do with it.

Ave Sodalis · 18-04-2018 10:01AM

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote:

I'm also fully aware that no form of contraception is no 100% effective but the birth control pill is 99% effective. So are you really arguing over 1%. Unless you are extremely unlucky, then there is no reason why you should get pregnant if you don't want to.

I'm actually on anti-bios at the moment so the pill is ineffective. They don't start being effective straight away again either. If you mess up one pill, you're unprotected for a week. If you miss a few, you need a full month so with two weeks of anti-bios and a month for me to be protected again, that's a long time of being unprotected. Even with other forms of protection, and a fully working pill, I could still fall pregnant. What do you suggest I do?

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote:

Despite the fact that I'm not on trial and although some posters seem to think that they own this thread where you have to agree with the status quo to post here, I've already stated that I'm in favour of abortion in certain circumstances.

Absolutely nobody has so much as indicated that they own this thread and you need a certain view point to post. Painting yourself as the victim does you no favours.

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote:

1. the day after the the 8th is repealed, how will the healthcare issues be addressed?

This has been answered before. Doctors hand's are completely tied by the 8th. According to it, the 8th gives equal life to the foetus. Without the 8th, doctors have a far wider range of heathcare they can provide that doesn't necessarily include abortion. For example, there was a woman who was wheelchair bound and in a huge amount of pain. She needed an xray but because they need to inject a stain, they had to ask if she was pregnant. She told them there was no way she was but they asked when she last had her period. It was over two weeks so she had to remake an appointment for within two weeks of a period. They wouldn't/couldn't start her road to treatment due to the tinyest risk of her being pregnant. (In Her Shoes)

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote:

2. By repealing the 8th amendment, what would have changed that Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act doesn't already address.

Safety and security. The effect of pregnancy on health, not just life. A wider range of health care. Less financial and mental stress associated with flying to a different country, and having to suffer through severe cramps on the toilet of an airplane. Cases of FFA can be given back with respect, not shipped in a courier van beside somebody's new pair of jeans. More safe abortions for those who cannot afford to travel but will have an abortion anyway. We wouldn't be pushing our problems onto a different country and pretending it's not happening.

RobertKK · 18-04-2018 10:07AM

frag420 wrote: »

May I suggest that when a new pro birth person joins in asking all the usual questions that we just reply with an "asked and answered" stock reply and just ignore them...

Or at the very least for an emotive and as serious a topic as this is that the poster must have a certain amount of posts or time on the site (similar to certain forums) before they can come in here and troll and ruin a good debate!?

I read repeal people say we must talk to people and answer their questions if they are not voting for repeal.
Then I read the above...it is like the repeal shield where people really just wants an echo chamber.

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Comments