The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

kylith · 18-04-2018 10:11AM

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

Or, more likely, people get sick of answering the same questions over and over.

I donmt think it’s a bad idea. We could put some FAQs in the first post and then newcomers to the thread could check that and see if their query has been answered without having to trawl through thousands of posts.

ohnonotgmail · 18-04-2018 10:11AM

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

Perhaps we have just got tired of answering the same questions ad nauseum from posters pretending to be on the fence? Why should we engage with people who are dishonest?

captbarnacles · 18-04-2018 10:11AM

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

Everyone has who has asked questions has been answered. It's when they choose to ignore the answers and ask the same question again it becomes pointless.

robarmstrong · 18-04-2018 10:12AM

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

How on earth did you make that leap?

We're more than happy to engage and answer questions, the problem is multiple people who have been threadbanned come in under the guise of being "undecided" and bizarrely, only seem to pick at the pro-choice campaign whilst completely ignoring the shortcomings of the pro-life campaign.

Do you not find that suspicious, no?

Ave Sodalis · 18-04-2018 10:15AM

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

Yes, that's it exactly. It's all one big plot that you and Tickers have figured out. Us repeal people are only interested in taking over the AH referendum thread, nothing else. You got us! Our thread domination plot has been revealed. We would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling anti-repealers!

seamus · 18-04-2018 10:15AM

RobertKK wrote: »

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 "repeal shield" account really just blocks paid trolls and those whose opinion on the matter is already settled.

Discussing the issue with those who've demonstrated that their agenda is to repeat their own point ad nauseum and without willingness to change, is a waste of time. And it actually unintentionally gives them a platform to continue to repeat their nonsense.

It's why a large chunk of this thread is on ignore for me. As soon as it becomes clear that a poster is ignoring what's being said to them or asked of them, I put them on ignore.

18-04-2018 10:17AM

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.

what was wrong with all the replies to these questions you got last night?
it has been answered & explained to you many times.

applehunter · 18-04-2018 10:19AM

seamus wrote: »

The "repeal shield" account really just blocks paid trolls and those whose opinion on the matter is already settled.

Discussing the issue with those who've demonstrated that their agenda is to repeat their own point ad nauseum and without willingness to change, is a waste of time. And it actually unintentionally gives them a platform to continue to repeat their nonsense.

It's why a large chunk of this thread is on ignore for me. As soon as it becomes clear that a poster is ignoring what's being said to them or asked of them, I put them on ignore.

Triceratops Ballet · 18-04-2018 10:24AM

horseburger wrote: »

You seem to think that on this issue, that if someone changes their mind on circumstances where they consider abortion should be available, that they have to then completely dismiss every aspect of the opposing position on abortion.

The central issue on the opposing position on abortion, seems to me, to be about the fundamental issue of whether it is right or wrong to end an innocent human life.

For example in the case of rape, it is argued if a woman becomes pregnant through rape, that if the woman carries on with the pregnancy, that the child, is not responsible for the crime that was committed by the man that raped the woman. In this scenario, it is argued that what justifies the ending of the innocent life of the child that would otherwise come into being if the pregnancy is continued.

The Irish Times item is about a meeting that was due to be held last September which would have included women were victims of rape, who became pregnant.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/anti-abortion-and-pro-choice-groups-claim-venues-cancelling-events-1.3237141

There is a group named Unbroken, which highlights this issue.

Here is a piece written by Rebecca Kiessling, who was conceived in rape.

https://unbrokenireland.org/stories/Rebecca/

https://unbrokenireland.org/

Is it not possible to understand the perspective of both sides?

I said I started watching numerous different debates on youtube etc, on this issue, when it became clear over the last six months that there would be a referendum on the issue.

I'll start off by telling you you're wasting your time posting video links in your responses to me, I've told you, I've been considering this issue since I was 16/17 that's 18 years, I don't need to watch your debates. I understand the issue, I've been in a position of being terrified that I'd have to go to England on my own as a teenager, I'm lucky it didn't happen to me, but some of my friends have had to go.

I understand (to a point) the anti abortion stance, I understand they have concerns, but I fundamentally disagree with them.

Nobody here is suggesting that all victims of rape should have abortions, nobody is suggesting any women should have abortions if they don't want to. Women should have the right to choose. You're right a child of rape bears no responsibility for the crimes of it's scumbag father, but the victim of rape also bears no responsibility for it and in not allowing her to choose what she can or can not bear you are actually forcing responsibility for his actions on to her.

At the end of the day the repeal of the 8th amendment will change nothing for the anti abortion crowd, but will change a lot for the women affected by the 8th, which is every single woman in this country who has or will become pregnant

Triceratops Ballet · 18-04-2018 10:27AM

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?

You do know Irish women currently have abortions for economic reasons right?

Can you tell me of any campaigns in existance to improve services to stop this being the case? Have you written to your local TD about it maybe?

ohnonotgmail · 18-04-2018 10:28AM

applehunter wrote: »

what an important contribution to the thread.

RobertKK · 18-04-2018 10:28AM

So you guys are saying you are all talk here, but if you were on a canvass you wouldn’t answer questions because you answered someone else before...yet the rest of us have to read the repeal people here saying the same thing over and over again to each other when they agree with one another, but that is somehow different. I think people on the repeal side really would like a repeal shield in this thread at times.

Triceratops Ballet · 18-04-2018 10:30AM

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.

Well this is horsesh1t! so take your pill and if you wish hard enough it'll be 100% effective.
Are you currently on the contraceptive pill, do you believe that is a realistic expectation?

ohnonotgmail · 18-04-2018 10:30AM

RobertKK wrote: »

So you guys are saying you are all talk here, but if you were on a canvass you wouldn’t answer questions because you answered someone else before...yet the rest of us have to read the repeal people here saying the same thing over and over again to each other when they agree with one another, but that is somehow different. I think people on the repeal side really would like a repeal shield in this thread at times.

nope that is not what people replied to you. try to read the replies again.

RobertKK · 18-04-2018 10:31AM

seamus wrote: »

The "repeal shield" account really just blocks paid trolls and those whose opinion on the matter is already settled.

Discussing the issue with those who've demonstrated that their agenda is to repeat their own point ad nauseum and without willingness to change, is a waste of time. And it actually unintentionally gives them a platform to continue to repeat their nonsense.

It's why a large chunk of this thread is on ignore for me. As soon as it becomes clear that a poster is ignoring what's being said to them or asked of them, I put them on ignore.

The repeal shield is blocking anyone they come across who simply support the retain side. Nothing more, nothing less and its aim is to provide the people who use it an ignorance to what is being discussed on the other side.

ELM327 · 18-04-2018 10:32AM

RobertKK wrote: »

The repeal shield is blocking anyone they come across who simply support the retain side. Nothing more, nothing less and its aim is to provide the people who use it an ignorance to what is being discussed on the other side.

Is literacy an issue?
It's been clearly explained above why the same bots are not being answered when they ask the same questions purporting to be on the fence.

ohnonotgmail · 18-04-2018 10:34AM

RobertKK wrote: »

The repeal shield is blocking anyone they come across who simply support the retain side. Nothing more, nothing less and its aim is to provide the people who use it an ignorance to what is being discussed on the other side.

you're just pissed because they blocked you "for no reason".

RobertKK · 18-04-2018 10:34AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

nope that is not what people replied to you. try to read the replies again.

I don’t have to give a reply that you want me to give, I will give my own opinion, just as you did.

robarmstrong · 18-04-2018 10:36AM

RobertKK wrote: »

I don’t have to give a reply that you want me to give, I will give my own opinion, just as you did.

So by that logic, we don't have to give answers that pro-lifebots want us to give?

ohnonotgmail · 18-04-2018 10:36AM

RobertKK wrote: »

I don’t have to give a reply that you want me to give, I will give my own opinion, just as you did.

you are entitled to your opinion. you are not entitled to misstate the opinions of others.

Hector Savage · 18-04-2018 10:36AM

Listening to Sean O Rourke here ... absolutely heart wrenching.
So so so sad what this couple went through.

The 8th HAS TO BE REPEALED !!!

Jesus how can people not see the sense in this!!

RobertKK · 18-04-2018 10:37AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you're just pissed because they blocked you "for no reason".

No, I just think in a debate when you close off voices like this - it is like book burning so people can’t read something that others have deemed others shouldn’t read. That is the repeal shield. It is there for people with closed minds and who believe minds should be closed to opposing opinion.

RobertKK · 18-04-2018 10:39AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you are entitled to your opinion. you are not entitled to misstate the opinions of others.

Please follow your own advice then.

ohnonotgmail · 18-04-2018 10:40AM

RobertKK wrote: »

No, I just think in a debate when you close off voices like this - it is like book burning so people can’t read something that others have deemed others shouldn’t read. That is the repeal shield. It is there for people with closed minds and who believe minds should be closed to opposing opinion.

can't read? you mean don't want to read? who wants to read the constant stream of ****e from the anti-choice crowd? they repeat themselves ad nauseum and never engage honestly.

robarmstrong · 18-04-2018 10:40AM

RobertKK wrote: »

No, I just think in a debate when you close off voices like this - it is like book burning so people can’t read something that others have deemed others shouldn’t read. That is the repeal shield. It is there for people with closed minds and who believe minds should be closed to opposing opinion.

The repeal shield is to block out pro-life trolls, not genuine campaign discussions.

Timberrrrrrrr · 18-04-2018 10:40AM

RobertKK wrote: »

So you guys are saying you are all talk here, but if you were on a canvass you wouldn’t answer questions because you answered someone else before...yet the rest of us have to read the repeal people here saying the same thing over and over again to each other when they agree with one another, but that is somehow different. I think people on the repeal side really would like a repeal shield in this thread at times.

Ah stop Robert you're embarrassing yourself now.

How many posters have we had who have asked a question, had that question answered and then 3 days later ask the SAME question again?

Or how many have asked a question then reworded the question to ask again?

Ask yourself this, why have so many anti-repeal posters been thread banned for soapboxing?

ohnonotgmail · 18-04-2018 10:40AM

RobertKK wrote: »

Please follow your own advice then.

where have i misstated the opinions of others?

Triceratops Ballet · 18-04-2018 10:40AM

Hector Savage wrote: »

Listening to Sean O Rourke here ... absolutely heart wrenching.
So so so sad what this couple went through.

The 8th HAS TO BE REPEALED !!!

Jesus how can people not see the sense in this!!

Because that would mean admitting they're wrong and it is just about power and control

kylith · 18-04-2018 10:44AM

RobertKK wrote: »

No, I just think in a debate when you close off voices like this - it is like book burning so people can’t read something that others have deemed others shouldn’t read. That is the repeal shield. It is there for people with closed minds and who believe minds should be closed to opposing opinion.

AIUI one has to install repealshield, which means that far from being ‘like a bookburning’ Which would stop other people from reading something it’s more like deciding you personally don’t want to read certain books filled with hateful bile, lies, and abuse.

horseburger · 18-04-2018 10:47AM

ELM327 wrote: »

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.

Why don't you care that she is experienced in the procedure that you say you want made available, and that she detailed information relevant to the referendum to both the Citizens' Assembly and Oireachtas Committee.

Dr Patricia Lohr is Medical Director of BPAS who can be contacted at www.abortion.ie and www.bpas.co.uk

Wouldn't it strengthen your argument if you knew who she is?

If you are in approval of abortion you can still consider the question on whether it is acceptable that if one ground for abortion is not approved for procedure, that the abortion can be approved on another ground, not originally requested.

She conceded in response to Peter Fitzpatrick that if an abortion is requested under the ground of sex selection, that it is possible that if sex selection is not a ground in a particular jurisdiction, that the abortion could be approved under another ground that is approved.

Considering BPAS have registered a website www.abortion.ie, which suggests that it has an interest in the outcome of the referendum and subsequent legislation, doesn't the issue of the grounds approved for abortion, call into question the reliability of the assertion by Ivana Bacik in the discussion on Prime Time, on 18th January 2018, that I referenced, where she said that Down's Syndrome was not considered as an approved category for abortion?

Maria Steen responded by citing Germany as an example, with reference to Down's Syndrome cases of abortion in Germany, where there is no ground for an abortion for a particular disability, but that the abortion in the case of Down's Syndrome, could be carried out on a ground that was not originally requested. Maria Steen stated that abortions in the case of Down's Syndrome were taking place in Germany under mental health grounds.

https://www.rte.ie/news/player/prime-time/2018/0118/

Here is the address given by Dr Patricia Lohr, Medical Director of BPAS, to the Citizens' Assembly:

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Comments