The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Triceratops Ballet · 19-04-2018 04:57PM

AnneFrank wrote: »

I do take your point, but i won't be lobbying it's just not something i would do personally, but if it was tweaked i would vote yes.
Just not on demand for 12 weeks i just couldn't do it for my own reasons.
But going by all the polls the yes side should win hands down anyway

There is no guarantee the yes side will win, most yes campaigners aren't as confident of that as you are. It will come don to individual votes and it could be your vote that makes the difference to those families who have to make that trip.

SusieBlue · 19-04-2018 04:59PM

AnneFrank wrote: »

I do take your point, but i won't be lobbying it's just not something i would do personally, but if it was tweaked i would vote yes.
Just not on demand for 12 weeks i just couldn't do it for my own reasons.
But going by all the polls the yes side should win hands down anyway

I think you need to see past yourself and your own morals and realise the dangerous situations you are putting other people in just for the sake of having society live by your beliefs.
Its about so much more than just you or me.

I accept what you're saying about on demand, and while I don't agree, I do see your point.
I just think its selfish to vote No to put a stop to the type of abortion you don't agree with, knowing it will make people whose circumstances you actually support suffer.

If you agree in cases in FFA then you should be voting Yes. FFA should not be collateral damage to stop "bad" abortions you don't agree with.

Zubeneschamali · 19-04-2018 05:02PM

AnneFrank wrote: »

I do take your point, but i won't be lobbying it's just not something i would do personally, but if it was tweaked i would vote yes.

Myself, two weeks ago:

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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".

Yeah_Right · 19-04-2018 05:02PM

AnneFrank wrote: »

I just don't think that is right.
If the 8th was to be replaced with just ffa or rape then yes i would totally vote yes, but my conscience simply will not allow me to vote for on demand abortion up to 12 weeks.

How would you determine rape?

AnneFrank · 19-04-2018 05:02PM

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

There is no guarantee the yes side will win, most yes campaigners aren't as confident of that as you are. It will come don to individual votes and it could be your vote that makes the difference to those families who have to make that trip.

True, or if the no side wins maybe it can be tweaked to get it through.
But honestly i do believe it will win i just wish the debate could be civilized.
I honestly believe shouting people down irrationally will turn people off voting either way.

Triceratops Ballet · 19-04-2018 05:06PM

AnneFrank wrote: »

True, or if the no side wins maybe it can be tweaked to get it through.
But honestly i do believe it will win i just wish the debate could be civilized.
I honestly believe shouting people down irrationally will turn people off voting either way.

if no wins nothing can be tweaked, things have to stay exactly as they are. The 8th amendment bars the way to making any legislation even in cases of FFA.

There can only be legislation for these cases if yes wins

captbarnacles · 19-04-2018 05:07PM

AnneFrank wrote: »

I would agree with some of your points yes, but not in what is being put to us if we repeal. I just don't think that is right.
If the 8th was to be replaced with just ffa or rape then yes i would totally vote yes, but my conscience simply will not allow me to vote for on demand abortion up to 12 weeks. That's just my view, but i'm sure the yes side will win anyway

Irish women can travel to England if they can afford it and have the right circumstances. Irish women can order pills online and no-one wants them prosecuted for doing it.

How does your conscience square with these realities?

RobertKK · 19-04-2018 05:08PM

Martina1991 wrote: »

In a Microbiology lab, growing bacterial cultures takes 24-48 hours, maybe longer depending on the bacteria. There is no way of telling the bacteria to grow faster.

Identifying an antibiotic that would have been effective for Savita couldn't have been sped up and was not bad hospital care.

Yes, but it had been known for years before that in healthcare, that travelling to India lead to a specific heightened e coli threat - one that she had acquired.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2715591/

Zubeneschamali · 19-04-2018 05:17PM

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

if no wins nothing can be tweaked, things have to stay exactly as they are. The 8th amendment bars the way to making any legislation even in cases of FFA.

I think the idea of the "Love to vote repeal but..." people is that we would concoct another abomination of an amendment to replace the 8th which would somehow allow abortion for rape, incest and FFA but ban abortion if it's just because the office tottie fancies a Chardonnay with her lunch.

The Citizen's Assembly considered and rejected this idea.

Martina1991 · 19-04-2018 05:41PM

RobertKK wrote:

Yes, but it had been known for years before that in healthcare, that travelling to India lead to a specific heightened e coli threat - one that she had acquired.

You're quoting an American study from 11 years ago.
There are thousands of studies and articles published every year. How can every doctor in our Irish hospitals be up to date with every emerging theory.

blanch152 · 19-04-2018 05:46PM

AnneFrank wrote: »

True, or if the no side wins maybe it can be tweaked to get it through.
But honestly i do believe it will win i just wish the debate could be civilized.
I honestly believe shouting people down irrationally will turn people off voting either way.

This is a nonsensical argument.

Even if the legislative proposal is tweaked, it can be changed the following week.

What some NO voters don't seem to understand is that there is no guarantee that there will be any change following the referendum. Once the amendment is removed from the Constitution, the existing limited rules around abortion apply until such time as the Dail votes to change them. It is quite possible, maybe even probable, that there will be an election before the abortion laws are changed. That gives everybody the chance to vote for the party that brings the abortion laws they want.

Essentially, all a yes vote does, is create an option for change.

Annasopra · 19-04-2018 05:46PM

AnneFrank wrote: »

Ganging up on and harassing me and others of a different view will only weaken whatever agenda you wish to push.

Noone is ganging up to harass you!

blanch152 · 19-04-2018 05:47PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think the idea of the "Love to vote repeal but..." people is that we would concoct another abomination of an amendment to replace the 8th which would somehow allow abortion for rape, incest and FFA but ban abortion if it's just because the office tottie fancies a Chardonnay with her lunch.

The Citizen's Assembly considered and rejected this idea.

The reason they did so was threefold - first, it would create another legal abomination, second it exposed more women to poor healthcare and third, it didn't deal with the modern reality of the abortion pill.

Annasopra · 19-04-2018 05:47PM

bubblypop wrote: »

Ahh sure we will be out & about sleeping with everyone, without any contraception because we will be able to run in at lunchtime & get a quick abortion.

Go way ye wife swapping sodomites ;-)

nozzferrahhtoo · 19-04-2018 06:36PM

AnneFrank wrote: »

If the 8th was to be replaced with just ffa or rape then yes i would totally vote yes

Could you explain to me how you imagine a system working where we offer abortion in cases of rape. What would be the procedure to apply for it and attain one exactly?

AnneFrank wrote: »

But honestly i do believe it will win i just wish the debate could be civilized.

Then MAKE it civilised by leading from example. For example some people (myself included) have replied to your posts politely and maturely. You simply ignored those people/posts.

What is civilised about THAT exactly? Or do you feel the rule to act with any level of decorum is one you are allowed call for, but are exempt from? Because that is unfortunately how it appears from your actions.

If it makes you feel any better I more and more suspect it will not pass a yes vote. Which worries me given the last 20 or so predictions I have made for elections in and outside of Ireland were 100% correct. I would hope my streak is coming to an end however and I call this one wrong.

nozzferrahhtoo · 19-04-2018 06:36PM

RobertKK wrote: »

It is probably that way for the women in the UK who are on the 7th, 8th or 9th abortion.

And how many people IS that exactly? Last statistics I read were of 85 procedures out of the 189,574 performed in 2010. 85 people in a population of 63 million people (UK 2010). Hardly the stuff of nightmares. And there is absolutely no details on WHY those women sought abortions. You and the Daily mail both pretend it supports the "abortion as contraception" narrative. You have no evidence for that at all. There could be any number of reasons for those women to seek that many abortions. Including by women who actually WANT To be pregnant and have a child.

RobertKK wrote: »

Between 30% and 34% of abortions are repeat abortions.

That is a completely different statistic however. The first thing you mention was women who were on the 7th or more abortion. You are now citing a statistic related to women on 2 or more. A massively different thing.

Were you hoping that if you mentioned the two statistics close enough together, people would get the idea that 34% of women have 7 or more abortions? Because that is certainly the KIND of thing you would do given your usual MO of distortion and dodge.

horseburger · 19-04-2018 06:38PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Go way ye wife swapping sodomites ;-)

You are chronologically incorrect in using that phrase with regard to the referendum on the 8th amendment, either now, or in 1983.

That phrase was used in 1995, shortly after the result of the divorce referendum.

If you had bothered to look this up before trying to be a smart ass, you would know that.

A recent article in Joe.ie, about campaigns for abortion provision, throughout the 1980s, incorrectly suggested that that phrase had been used in 1983.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/how-wife-swappin-sodomites-won-the-right-to-remarry-1.2070412

https://comeheretome.com/2012/07/29/una-bean-mhic-mhathuna-40-years-of-reactionary-politics/

https://comeheretome.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/screen-shot-2012-07-29-at-18-35-13.png

https://www.joe.ie/life-style/story-of-the-8th-how-right-wing-catholic-groups-staged-a-remarkable-political-coup-614595

robarmstrong · 19-04-2018 06:42PM

horseburger wrote: »

You are chronologically incorrect in using that phrase with regard to the referendum on the 8th amendment, either now, or in 1983.

That phrase was used in 1995, shortly after the result of the divorce referendum.

If you had bothered to look this up before trying to be a smart ass, you would know that.

A recent article in Joe.ie, about campaigns for abortion provision, throughout the 1980s, incorrectly suggested that that phrase had been used in 1983.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/how-wife-swappin-sodomites-won-the-right-to-remarry-1.2070412

https://comeheretome.com/2012/07/29/una-bean-mhic-mhathuna-40-years-of-reactionary-politics/

https://comeheretome.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/screen-shot-2012-07-29-at-18-35-13.png

https://www.joe.ie/life-style/story-of-the-8th-how-right-wing-catholic-groups-staged-a-remarkable-political-coup-614595

ICYMI -

robarmstrong wrote: »

As someone who's "on the fence" -

What are your comments about the shortcomings of the pro-life campaign?

horseburger · 19-04-2018 06:45PM

robarmstrong wrote: »

ICYMI -

Why do you care anyway?

Annasopra · 19-04-2018 06:45PM

RobertKK wrote: »

You have the patience of an angry bull.

I don't expect an apology as I don't think you are that type when wrong to admit, as I answered another poster while you were posting that crap.

Let me post it again: The former chairman of the royal college of obstetricians and Gynaecology at the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, said no Irish doctor would ever fail to intervene to save the life of a pregnant woman - even if that risked the life of her unborn child.

Yes

And Professor Louise Kenny said the opposite. That the 8th clearly puts womens lives in danger.
A professor of obstetrics and a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist said this.

robarmstrong · 19-04-2018 06:47PM

horseburger wrote: »

Why do you care anyway?

Because for someone who's "on the fence" you've come in here and attempted over and over and over to nitpick any and everything on the pro-choice campaign and you flat out refuse to mention anything about the pro-life campaign and any negative connotations from that side.

Answer the question.

robarmstrong wrote: »

As someone who's "on the fence" -

What are your comments about the shortcomings of the pro-life campaign?

Why are you refusing to engage?

pitifulgod · 19-04-2018 06:50PM

horseburger wrote: »

You are chronologically incorrect in using that phrase with regard to the referendum on the 8th amendment, either now, or in 1983.

That phrase was used in 1995, shortly after the result of the divorce referendum.

If you had bothered to look this up before trying to be a smart ass, you would know that.

A recent article in Joe.ie, about campaigns for abortion provision, throughout the 1980s, incorrectly suggested that that phrase had been used in 1983.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/how-wife-swappin-sodomites-won-the-right-to-remarry-1.2070412

https://comeheretome.com/2012/07/29/una-bean-mhic-mhathuna-40-years-of-reactionary-politics/

https://comeheretome.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/screen-shot-2012-07-29-at-18-35-13.png

https://www.joe.ie/life-style/story-of-the-8th-how-right-wing-catholic-groups-staged-a-remarkable-political-coup-614595

Imagine most on here are fully aware of that fact. However many of those who opposed divorce also campaigned for the eighth. The control of women was pretty central to both.

Annasopra · 19-04-2018 06:51PM

horseburger wrote: »

You are chronologically incorrect in using that phrase with regard to the referendum on the 8th amendment, either now, or in 1983.

That phrase was used in 1995, shortly after the result of the divorce referendum.

If you had bothered to look this up before trying to be a smart ass, you would know that.

A recent article in Joe.ie, about campaigns for abortion provision, throughout the 1980s, incorrectly suggested that that phrase had been used in 1983.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/how-wife-swappin-sodomites-won-the-right-to-remarry-1.2070412

https://comeheretome.com/2012/07/29/una-bean-mhic-mhathuna-40-years-of-reactionary-politics/

https://comeheretome.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/screen-shot-2012-07-29-at-18-35-13.png

https://www.joe.ie/life-style/story-of-the-8th-how-right-wing-catholic-groups-staged-a-remarkable-political-coup-614595

Meh. Same people. Same attitudes.

horseburger · 19-04-2018 06:53PM

robarmstrong wrote: »

Because for someone who's "on the fence" you've come in here and attempted over and over and over to nitpick any and everything on the pro-choice campaign and you flat out refuse to mention anything about the pro-life campaign and any negative connotations from that side.

Answer the question.

Why are you refusing to engage?

Why do you want to know?

You haven't engaged in discussion on the points I made - on the contradiction of what Ivana Bacik said, on grounds for abortion, with regard to what Patricia Lohr said, regarding grounds for abortion.

horseburger · 19-04-2018 06:54PM

pitifulgod wrote: »

Imagine most on here are fully aware of that fact. However many of those who opposed divorce also campaigned for the eighth. The control of women was pretty central to both.

Blah blah blah

Discodog · 19-04-2018 06:54PM

I am amazed that the Referendum Commission have no control over the content of posters. It's like Brexit - lies lies & more lies.

robarmstrong · 19-04-2018 06:55PM

horseburger wrote: »

Why do you want to know?

You haven't engaged in discussion on the points I made - on the contradiction of what Ivana Bacik said, with regard to what Patricia Lohr said, regarding grounds for abortion.

Because others have already engaged with your "points".

It's funny how all of your "points" are negatively geared towards the pro-choice but you never have anything to mention about the pro-life side from a negative standpoint, why is that?

You've been asked in this thread, numerous times for your opinion on the pro life campaign and each and every single time you've deflected or ignored it.

Answer it.

robarmstrong wrote: »

As someone who's "on the fence" -

What are your comments about the shortcomings of the pro-life campaign?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 19-04-2018 06:57PM

horseburger wrote: »

Why do you want to know?

You haven't engaged in discussion on the points I made - on the contradiction of what Ivana Bacik said, with regard to what Patricia Lohr said, regarding grounds for abortion.

What's your opinion on the pro life campaign?

You're motivated enough about highlighting what you see as the repeal campaign's shortcomings to write replies hundreds of words long, with hours of video. You've no vested interest in disparaging the repeal campaign because you're on the fence. You've considered the whole debate carefully.

So scrape together 50 words on the PLC.

pitifulgod · 19-04-2018 07:00PM

horseburger wrote: »

Blah blah blah

That's a mature and well thought out response.

horseburger · 19-04-2018 07:08PM

robarmstrong wrote: »

Because others have already engaged with your "points".

It's funny how all of your "points" are negatively geared towards the pro-choice but you never have anything to mention about the pro-life side from a negative standpoint, why is that?

You've been asked in this thread, numerous times for your opinion on the pro life campaign and each and every single time you've deflected or ignored it.

Answer it.

You don't seem to think - by the way you dismiss what I said, by insinuating that it isn't a relevant to consider the exchange between Peter Fitzpatrick and Patricia Lohr, and the interview with Maria Steen and Ivana Bacik - that it is an important issue.

If you dismiss me in that way, as you have done now, and earlier in the thread, I feel no inclination to engage with you.

Remember though, if you're canvassing, that your apparent dislike-ability might not do you any favours.

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Comments