The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

gctest50 · 21-04-2018 06:16PM

gctest50 wrote: »

3 years since your last post ( SSM referendum )

Do you just "tell it like it is" for referendums ?]

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

I do yeah..dig deep much?

Some people get paid for that sort of thing - posting in voting and referendum threads

Some sad sacks do it for free - eventually dawns on them they were absolutely r∅de

Zubeneschamali · 21-04-2018 06:17PM

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

Just telling it as it is.

A quick peek at your posting history shows you telling it like it was all over the SSM referendum, too.

Inquitus · 21-04-2018 06:22PM

Toastytoes wrote: »

Cos that’s exactly what happens if a woman goes to her go to request the abortion pill. There’s loads of crushing, grinding, hoovering.

No camp peddling lies, what a shocker!

You were in the no camp for the marriage equality vote too. How are things back there in the dark ages?

The NO camp is utterly dishonest in this referendum, the posters, the materials. It's quite shocking to see the level of lies and deceit they are willing to ply us with on this one, at least it has shocked me.

Smertrius · 21-04-2018 06:26PM

you say ireland is free country there is no free will when you say no to this

Zerbini Blewitt · 21-04-2018 06:30PM

pleas advice wrote: »

Do you trust women from England and Wales? Where there is more than one abortion for every four live births.

So, implied in your question:- abortion is an aberration that can somehow be stamped out! If so, this is a straightforward denial of human nature!

Regardless of any other way of looking at the whole abortion issue (as covered already here):- The genie never was in the bottle in the first place, in any country – ever!!

Most pregnant people who don’t want to be pregnant will find a way to terminate ASAP regardless of laws (e.g. they’ll use coat-hangers if that’s the only option left).
They always have throughout history and (for the foreseeable future) they always will, because it is the NORM. It’s well documented.

So draconian restrictions (like the 8th) only means more degradation, suffering and/or death for these unfortunate women.

It's like denying that deafness exists and then bringing in a law that says: “giving a person (who complains that they can’t hear much) a hearing aid shall be punishable by a 14 year prison sentence”.

Thus, the entire anti-choice position, at its core, comes across as a nature-denying fantasy.

Inquitus · 21-04-2018 06:39PM

Current bookies odds as we close in on polling day:

Smertrius · 21-04-2018 06:43PM

if child girl (someone under 18 ) get pregnant and you want her to keep up the pregnancy and she could die during childbirth or baby could die in mother womb.

thee glitz · 21-04-2018 06:50PM

BarleySweets wrote: »

He told you why already: due to the 8th, Irish doctors are bound to protect the life of the unborn over and above giving accurate information to the pregnant woman.

You've quoted my short and simple post, but apparently misread / haven't understood it.

In Rob’s wife’s case, even if they know she’s going to miscarry, they won’t tell her

No -

Rob wrote:

we were told no, she does not qualify to have an abortion as technically there was no FFA nor was there a threat to her health.

BarleySweets wrote:

That pain and plight is avoidable, but medical help is denied for her due to the 8th.

Would you prioritise abortion being made available for someone in this situation over general availability?

robarmstrong · 21-04-2018 06:54PM

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

I just don't agree with KILLING BABIES

robarmstrong wrote: »

I'd like your opinion on what I went through, I'd just like to hear your thoughts.

As previously stated my partner has a heart-shaped uterus and a medically diagnosed weak womb (there's a scientific medical name for it and I am sorry but it just escapes me right now!), basically, all of our miscarriages happened because the baby implanted in the "wrong spot" so to speak. I don't know if I should actually name the hospitals or not but we were told no, she does not qualify to have an abortion as technically there was no FFA nor was there a threat to her health.

If you're unsure of how it goes it's this - baby implants in an area that does not have enough room to support the growth of it, and it's amniotic sac, so when it reaches a certain size, it will rupture, so each and every single one of our previous pregnancies has been a gamble as to where they'd implant.

Do you think we should have been denied an abortion in those circumstances, knowing full well that even though that baby was healthy (technically) they would not survive past a certain point due to my partners medical issue?

So what's your opinion on the above? Gonna shame me for looking for an abortion?

Huntergonzo · 21-04-2018 07:00PM

Abortion is really a case of where people draw the line, I would have a serious issue with killing babies, but then again I'd say most of us do, however I don't consider a fetus a baby. I would put more value on the life of a fully grown woman than a growing life which is totally dependent on it's mother. And if a woman needs a late term termination, that should be at the discretion of the doctors, no woman in dire need of an abortion should be denied by an archaic law.

You often hear anti-abortionists claiming that 'life begins at concecption' but is this even true? I mean I'm speaking from a position of ignorance here but surely that isn't technically the case, aren't sperm and eggs also alive? I mean 2 dead things don't come together to form a live thing or am I wide of the mark?

And surely this also means that anti-abortionists are staunchly against both ejaculation and women's periods.....I mean both events results in the loss of potential life, a monumental loss in some cases.

Just calling for consistency!

pleas advice · 21-04-2018 07:07PM

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Abortion is really a case of where people draw the line, I would have a serious issue with killing babies, but then again I'd say most of us do, however I don't consider a fetus a baby. I would put more value on the life of a fully grown woman than a growing life which is totally dependent on it's mother. And if a woman needs a late term termination, that should be at the discretion of the doctors, no woman in dire need of an abortion should be denied by an archaic law.

You often hear anti-abortionists claiming that 'life begins at concecption' but is this even true? I mean I'm speaking from a position of ignorance here but surely that isn't technically the case, aren't sperm and eggs also alive? I mean 2 dead things don't come together to form a live thing or am I wide of the mark?

And surely this also means that anti-abortionists are staunchly against both ejaculation and women's periods.....I mean both events results in the loss of potential life, a monumental loss in some cases.

Just calling for consistency!

yes, you are well wide of the mark, a biologically separate human life begins at conception.

baylah17 · 21-04-2018 07:09PM

pleas advice wrote: »

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Abortion is really a case of where people draw the line, I would have a serious issue with killing babies, but then again I'd say most of us do, however I don't consider a fetus a baby. I would put more value on the life of a fully grown woman than a growing life which is totally dependent on it's mother. And if a woman needs a late term termination, that should be at the discretion of the doctors, no woman in dire need of an abortion should be denied by an archaic law.

You often hear anti-abortionists claiming that 'life begins at concecption' but is this even true? I mean I'm speaking from a position of ignorance here but surely that isn't technically the case, aren't sperm and eggs also alive? I mean 2 dead things don't come together to form a live thing or am I wide of the mark?

And surely this also means that anti-abortionists are staunchly against both ejaculation and women's periods.....I mean both events results in the loss of potential life, a monumental loss in some cases.

Just calling for consistency!

yes, you are well wide of the mark, a biologically separate human life begins at conception.

Nope
Not at all

nozzferrahhtoo · 21-04-2018 07:10PM

pleas advice wrote: »

yes, you are well wide of the mark, a biologically separate human life begins at conception.

Do you know the technical details of things like stem cell research and ivf and so forth? Or any other cutting edge biological sciences? Because there is very little unusual about us creating "biologically separate" entities with human DNA, fiddling around with them, and even destroying them.

What is it about a strand of DNA, even a partially unique one (actually the level of difference between one person's DNA and the next is not huge), that stimulates your obviously well meant moral and ethical concerns? And why do you think someone like myself and the many other pro choice people do not have that reaction? Clearly we are not ALL psychopaths. So perhaps there is a difference there that is open to introspection, discourse and reason.

Huntergonzo · 21-04-2018 07:11PM

pleas advice wrote: »

yes, you are well wide of the mark, a biologically separate human life begins at conception.

But are sperm and eggs not alive no?

If they're dead then fine I'll hold my hand up.

Huntergonzo · 21-04-2018 07:12PM

baylah17 wrote: »

Nope
Not at all

Yes, ah yes, be positive :-)

amdublin · 21-04-2018 07:13PM

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Abortion is really a case of where people draw the line, I would have a serious issue with killing babies, but then again I'd say most of us do, however I don't consider a fetus a baby. I would put more value on the life of a fully grown woman than a growing life which is totally dependent on it's mother. And if a woman needs a late term termination, that should be at the discretion of the doctors, no woman in dire need of an abortion should be denied by an archaic law.

You often hear anti-abortionists claiming that 'life begins at concecption' but is this even true? I mean I'm speaking from a position of ignorance here but surely that isn't technically the case, aren't sperm and eggs also alive? I mean 2 dead things don't come together to form a live thing or am I wide of the mark?

And surely this also means that anti-abortionists are staunchly against both ejaculation and women's periods.....I mean both events results in the loss of potential life, a monumental loss in some cases.

Just calling for consistency!

Hey welcome to this discussion! You raise some very valid points

pleas advice · 21-04-2018 07:17PM

Huntergonzo wrote: »

But are sperm and eggs not alive no?

If they're dead then fine I'll hold my hand up.

they are 'alive' but they are not distinct human life, I mean, its basic biology...

Huntergonzo · 21-04-2018 07:19PM

amdublin wrote: »

Hey welcome to this discussion! You raise some very valid points

Thank you, I'm just trying to understand the logic of anti-abortionists.......no luck so far.

dudara · 21-04-2018 07:20PM

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Abortion is really a case of where people draw the line, I would have a serious issue with killing babies, but then again I'd say most of us do, however I don't consider a fetus a baby. I would put more value on the life of a fully grown woman than a growing life which is totally dependent on it's mother. And if a woman needs a late term termination, that should be at the discretion of the doctors, no woman in dire need of an abortion should be denied by an archaic law.

You often hear anti-abortionists claiming that 'life begins at concecption' but is this even true? I mean I'm speaking from a position of ignorance here but surely that isn't technically the case, aren't sperm and eggs also alive? I mean 2 dead things don't come together to form a live thing or am I wide of the mark?

And surely this also means that anti-abortionists are staunchly against both ejaculation and women's periods.....I mean both events results in the loss of potential life, a monumental loss in some cases.

Just calling for consistency!

To explore some of this further...

What about fertilised embryos as developed during IVF?
Morning after pill which prevents a fertilised egg from implanting
If abortion is wrong, why not call to prosecute and sentence women who have abortions?
Etc

The anti-choice side has just as many grey or fuzzy areas of logic as the pro-choice side, but they do not explore the grey areas or try to balance their priorities. If they did that, I believe their arguments would be more consistent and therefore compelling.

BTW, I have decided to no longer refer to the “No” campaign as “pro-life”. It is conferring them with a sense of greater moral superiority than they actually possess. Many people on the pro-choice side equally value human life.

For me it’s “pro-choice” or “anti-choice” or simply “Yes” / “No” from now on.

Huntergonzo · 21-04-2018 07:23PM

pleas advice wrote: »

they are 'alive' but they are not distinct human life, I mean, its basic biology...

But then, you're ending life by ejaculating (when not for procreation) and menstruating, surely you're against both these things no? I mean it would be pretty hypocritical if you weren't!!!

As a matter of interest, do you believe a fetus (such as those printed on No posters around Ireland) is a baby?

Smertrius · 21-04-2018 07:25PM

The anti-choice side has just as many grey or fuzzy areas of logic as the pro-choice side, but they do not explore the grey areas or try to balance their priorities. If they did that, I believe their arguments would be more consistent and therefore compelling.

BTW, I have decided to no longer refer to the “No” campaign as “pro-life”. It is conferring them with a sense of greater moral superiority than they actually possess. Many people on the pro-choice side equally value human life.

For me it’s “pro-choice” or “anti-choice” or simply “Yes” / “No” from now on.[/QUOTE] sometimes the pills or condemns dont work and woman is pregnant because the pills or condemns didn't work and her boyfriend dumbs her because she is pregnant

pleas advice · 21-04-2018 07:28PM

circadian wrote: »

Why wouldn't someone trust women from England and Wales? Is there an inherent need for distrust?

you'd need to ask those who keep asking us to 'trust women'

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

...Neither of which this thread is about. Firstly the fetus is not a baby. Secondly "on demand" is not exactly what happens. Rather people request an abortion and perhaps they are given one. They may not.

leaving aside the fetus / baby question, under what circumstances would a woman be refused an abortion under the proposed legislation, where it will be allowed without any reason being given?

gctest50 · 21-04-2018 07:28PM

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Thank you, I'm just trying to understand the logic of anti-abortionists.......no luck so far.

Wetware bots more-or-less maybe :

our brains rapidly and automatically process opinions we agree with as if they are facts

https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/04/20/our-brains-rapidly-and-automatically-process-opinions-we-agree-with-as-if-they-are-facts/

Huntergonzo · 21-04-2018 07:29PM

dudara wrote: »

To explore some of this further...

What about fertilised embryos as developed during IVF?
Morning after pill which prevents a fertilised egg from implanting
If abortion is wrong, why not call to prosecute and sentence women who have abortions?
Etc

The anti-choice side has just as many grey or fuzzy areas of logic as the pro-choice side, but they do not explore the grey areas or try to balance their priorities. If they did that, I believe their arguments would be more consistent and therefore compelling.

BTW, I have decided to no longer refer to the “No” campaign as “pro-life”. It is conferring them with a sense of greater moral superiority than they actually possess. Many people on the pro-choice side equally value human life.

For me it’s “pro-choice” or “anti-choice” or simply “Yes” / “No” from now on.

Yes the term 'Pro-Life' has been hijacked by anti-abortionists and not only is it completely irrelevant to the abortion debate, it's also revoltingly smug.

We're all pro-life aren't we, I mean the direct opposite to that is anti-life.....in which case we'd be dead, and hence not having this conversation.

Huntergonzo · 21-04-2018 07:36PM

gctest50 wrote: »

Wetware bots more-or-less maybe :

our brains rapidly and automatically process opinions we agree with as if they are facts

https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/04/20/our-brains-rapidly-and-automatically-process-opinions-we-agree-with-as-if-they-are-facts/

That makes sense, but I'm not blaming anti-abortionists for me not understanding them, that's a failing on my behalf.

But that's why I'm asking questions, to try and understand their point of view....so far I'm seeing inconsistencies though, can't make sense of them yet.

RobertKK · 21-04-2018 07:40PM

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Yes the term 'Pro-Life' has been hijacked by anti-abortionists and not only is it completely irrelevant to the abortion debate, it's also revoltingly smug.

We're all pro-life aren't we, I mean the direct opposite to that is anti-life.....in which case we'd be dead, and hence not having this conversation.

Pro-Life is pro the life of the mother and her unborn.
Anti-choice is anti the right to kill the unborn just because you can.
Pro-choice is it is up to the woman whether she lets her unborn live or not.

Blahblah2012 · 21-04-2018 07:41PM

Huntergonzo wrote: »

That makes sense, but I'm not blaming anti-abortionists for me not understanding them, that's a failing on my behalf.

But that's why I'm asking questions, to try and understand their point of view....so far I'm seeing inconsistencies though, can't make sense of them yet.

abortionist = noun derogatory
noun: abortionist; plural noun: abortionists
a person who carries out abortions.

thee glitz · 21-04-2018 07:41PM

BarleySweets wrote: »

You can pretend that your vote has any meaning you like. It’s really simple, I even explained it in really easy to understand language but I’ll try again, as I said in the post you replied to: those abortions will happen whether you vote Yes or No. All your No vote will achieve is causing hassle for the women involved, because they need to travel to a foreign country as opposed to discussing their situation with their own local doctor in an Irish clinic.

Really simple, but it's you, again, who fails to understand.

Your No vote saves no babies and prevents no abortions and if you think it will you are only codding yourself.

That's not even the point, but I suggest you have no evidence for this anyway?

You are not being asked to endorse abortion in this referendum. You are being asked to allow women who are currently legally bound to avail of a service in a foreign country, to avail of that service here in Ireland.

Women aren't legally bound to go to a foreign country for anything. If you think that voting to repeal the 8th isn't endorsing abortion then hopefully someone will explain it to you while I despair.

Regarding addresses, who would bother giving their Irish address in a foreign country for a matter such as this? We all know dozens of people that live and work in the UK, if you could check in that kind of detail you’ll find friends using local UK addresses. Not that it’s any of your business.

OMG the hassle of giving your address over someone elses! Also, because of the discounts they get.

As for well entitled to make decisions for ourselves - LOL - why don’t you offer the women of Ireland this courtesy?!

Because many want to terminate human lives for no good reason.

splinter65 · 21-04-2018 07:46PM

Huntergonzo wrote: »

But then, you're ending life by ejaculating (when not for procreation) and menstruating, surely you're against both these things no? I mean it would be pretty hypocritical if you weren't!!!

As a matter of interest, do you believe a fetus (such as those printed on No posters around Ireland) is a baby?

Can you explain this for me? An unfertilised egg is not a human being. A sperm that has not fertilized an egg is not a human being. An egg that has been fertilized by a sperm is a human being.
Are you agreed?
If so, then what is your point?

Huntergonzo · 21-04-2018 07:47PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Pro-Life is pro the life of the mother and her unborn.
Anti-choice is anti the right to kill the unborn just because you can.
Pro-choice is it is up to the woman whether she lets her unborn live or not.

Pro-life is pro-life though, we're all pro-life.....otherwise we'd be dead.

Pro-choice is the right to choose.

Anti-choice is against the right to choose.

Why can't we keep it straight forward, pro and anti choice?

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Comments