The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

horseburger wrote: »

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.

robarmstrong wrote: »

As someone who's "on the fence" -

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

Nah, sick of the deflection. You've been dismissing people left right and centre, sure you only done it a few moments ago to someone else, you aren't getting away that easily.

You don't feel inclined to engage with any discussions regarding the ongoings and shortcomings of the pro-life campaign, you are absolutely obsessed with the supposed issues with the pro-choice campaign, the sheer amount of effort you go to in just trying to discredit it is ridiculous, you're very clearly not "on the fence" or "just asking questions", you've come in here with a very nasty agenda and now that you've been caught, you don't want to fess up. Nobody on this thread will engage with you (most likely) until you comment on the PLC with the same amount of enthusiasm that you have to make comments and find issues on the pro-choice campaign.

darced wrote: »

I just watched some videos of an actual abortion, grim stuff. I find it hard to believe anyone who is pro-abortion can watch that and feel comfortable with their stance. I was always against abortion anyway but then again truth be told I'll not be having one either so I might just sit this one out.

I had a colonoscopy this week, the pictures and procedure is horrible. Medical procedures often look horrible. Also before 12 weeks is not a surgical procedure.

garbo speaks wrote: »

I really hope that those who will vote yes will be able to sleep with themselves if this referendum is passed.

Nah ill be sleeping with all the loose women who won't be afraid to get pregnant once they can get millions of abortions on demand.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

One mad thing about this thead is that virtually every poster on the pro-life side has been in favour of abortion in some case or other which the 8th prohibits. Rape, incest FFA ...

(Not counting the mad lads like yerman in favour of abortion up to birth but voting to save the 8th for economic reasons!!)

you know you could be right , but i'm being asked to repeal the 8th and told that proposed legislation will be 12 weeks and the rest.
Essentially a strict 8th to an almost free for all..that's a huge leap.
The situation is going to have many people stuck in the middle as it were.

But I can't morally accept the proposed legislation, so I'll vote no to retain the 8th.

If there was a better choice I may say otherwise but I can't get over the morality that it's a procedure to end a life.

baylah17 wrote: »

If so then it's that posters first

He won't engage with me because I "dismissed" him.

Feel free to poke him with

robarmstrong wrote: »

As someone who's "on the fence" -

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

til you get a response though, if he won't reply to me he'll have to reply to someone.

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

A large portion of your annoyance can be alleviated however in changing what you think that argument is to what the argument actually is. And while the ACTUAL argument might still annoy you, we can hope it will annoy you less.

The difference is no one is saying that it has as much LIFE as a fetus. They are saying it has as much SENTIENCE as a fetus (that is to say:none).

Imagine a continuum of sentience. At the top end we could place the sentience of the average human male. At the bottom end we could place a rock. Then we could place things on that continuum.

Dolphins and chimps would be up towards our end of it. Dogs further down. The common house fly way down. And so on. Toe nails will be down at the rocks.

The fetus at 12/16 weeks could only be placed down where the toe nails and rocks are. The lights simply are not on, and no one is home. And even the light fittings are still be installed because most of the wiring is not even done yet either.



Actually that IS what we do when we work with the trauma of miscarriage at certain stages. Now of course we do not do it as directly or crassly as you describe here. But that is essentially what we work towards through a slower incremental methodology of empathy and understanding and education. We try to alleviate their grief and suffering by divesting them from some of the narratives that are the source of that suffering.

I can go into this more if you like, but simply google scholar papers on grief counselling with respect to miscarriage, and the concepts of "Loss of a baby" versus "Loss of a pregnancy" and the Swanson model. It is well documented.



Rather than a push away of those thoughts it is an open acknowledgement of them AND their implication. When one realizes it is a potential rather than an actual.... one then is forced to question why we apply the concerns of an actual to a potential. No one is pushing those thoughts away at all therefore.... rather they are following them openly and honestly to their conclusions.



Quite easily. We are as Terry Pratchett would say not really "Homo Sapien" (the wise ape) but actually "Pans Narrans" the story telling chimp. We parse our life through stories and narratives. And these often run parallel to reality. so we can acknowledge what a fetus ACTUALLY IS in one hand while investing ourselves emotionally in the stories we tell about that fetus in our life narratives. One does not have to forget what a fetus actually is in order to become emotionally invested in what it can become.

But our own emotional investment in what it can become should never be projected on to others. Least of all by forcing them to continue with an unwanted pregnancy that they are not invested in like we are or would be.

Thanks for this Nozzferrahhtoo

Every time you post I learn something new

This post has been deleted.

garbo speaks wrote: »

Soon, having an abortion will be a must have like the latest handbag or fashion accessory. Shame on these people.

Wow, I’ve nearly reached the merry old age of 40 and I’ve never had an abortion. Must put that on the bucket list.

Cop yourself on. I’m immensely thankful that I’ve never found myself in that situation, having to make that choice. I wouldn’t envy anyone who found themselves trying to make such a big decision.

robarmstrong wrote: »

Nah, sick of the deflection. You've been dismissing people left right and centre, sure you only done it a few moments ago to someone else, you aren't getting away that easily.

You don't feel inclined to engage with any discussions regarding the ongoings and shortcomings of the pro-life campaign, you are absolutely obsessed with the supposed issues with the pro-choice campaign, the sheer amount of effort you go to in just trying to discredit it is ridiculous, you're very clearly not "on the fence" or "just asking questions", you've come in here with a very nasty agenda and now that you've been caught, you don't want to fess up. Nobody on this thread will engage with you (most likely) until you comment on the PLC with the same amount of enthusiasm that you have to make comments and find issues on the pro-choice campaign.

I never made any comment defending campaigners of the "pro-life campaign".

There are numerous different groups campaigning on both sides of the argument.

I asked questions in relation to arguments for and against abortion.

I posted items to back up points I was making. I got criticized for posting videos, many of which were debates which included speakers representing both sides of the issue of abortion.

Humorously enough, I got criticized for including video links of debates which included speakers for and against.

Those criticizing me didn't even notice that many of the videos I referenced included arguments for abortion. You can't have a debate without the views of both sides being outlined.

One poster who would agree with Patricia Lohr's stance on abortion said that they "didn't know or care" who she was.

Anyone who has been reading up in the debate on the referendum, would know who she is, since she addressed both the Citizens' Assembly and Oireachtas Committee.

Doesn't the fact that this poster, didn't know who Patricia Lohr is, suggest that that poster hasn't spent too much time considering arguments for and against?

Then a poster moaned and argued that Patricia Lohr is from the UK, and that I should not have referenced what she said, because in this poster's view, Patricia Lohr of BPAS, is irrelevant to Ireland's abortion laws.

This poster obviously doesn't know that BPAS registered the www.abortion.ie website, that links to www.bpas.co.uk.

It certainly seems clear to me that BPAS has a business interest in the repealing of the 8th amendment, and subsequent legislation in Ireland.

Despite arguments for abortion being expressed in videos of the debates that I included in my posts, with spokespersons arguing for, and against abortion, posters advocating repeal of the 8th amendment still moaned that they wouldn't watch the videos.

Some moaned on the basis that they read the thread on their phones. What am I supposed to do about the fact that they decide to use a phone, instead of something else with a wider screen?

Since the vast majority of the comments in the thread are pro repeal, it is obvious that there will be more pro repeal comments made, so as a result, more questions that can be asked of posters who advocate repeal of the 8th amendment.

One of these questions I asked was about the contradiction in claims by Ivana Bacik, that abortion will not be approved for cases of Down's Syndrome, compared to what Patricia Lohr - who is endorsed by Ivan Bacik in the way that Ivana Bacik included a video on youtube of Patricia Lohr at the Oireachtas Committee, but omitted the question answer session including Peter Fitzpatrick's questions - stated, with regard to cases of abortion on the original ground of sex selection, being carried out under another ground. Maria Steen stated that in Germany, abortion in cases of Down's Syndrome, are approved under mental health grounds, because abortion on the ground of disability is not approved.

I never mentioned anything in defence of groups that are campaigning for a no vote.

I asked questions, in relation to the fact that the Oireachtas Committee has stated, that it cannot be certain that the recommendations in the Committee Report will be implemented verbatim.

Considering that, we cannot be sure, of the grounds, under which abortion will be approved, in legislation enacted following the referendum, if there is a yes vote.

You just assumed, by the way you claimed that I don't mention "shortcomings" of the "pro-life campaign" that I agreed with everything stated by the various groups that argue for a no vote.

I wouldn't have bothered including videos of debates on abortion, that include speakers from both sides of the argument, if I was as intolerant of one side in the debate, as you suggest.

tretorn wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/woman-who-died-after-abortion-was-discharged-despite-vomiting-inquest-told-1.3467432

Oh my good god, is this what awaits us, the murder of five month old developing human beings.

How can we make sure if the Eighth is repealed that this doesnt happen in Ireland.

That woman had a child at home waiting for her mu to come back.

How was that Doctor and those nurses not struck off.

Keeping the 8th makes it harder to protect women from this, not easier. Because if we keep the 8th, women will keep traveling abroad, and Irish authorities and the Irish people will have no input and no control over what happens if a mistake is made again.

ELM327 wrote: »

He can say what he wants but that's only one doctor.
It does not reflect the reality.

Are you John McGuirk?

Also he said "Also speaking at the event, Prof Eamon McGuinness, a former chairman of the Institute of Obstetrics 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."


That doesn't say it's legal. Or that there are no other occasions here a termination is necessary.