The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

_Dara_ · 30-04-2018 02:55AM

^^^^ You... haven’t done your research, have you? I wouldn’t be “With all due respect”ing anyone there, Kev. A little knowledge truly is a dangerous thing.

Rape and incest are two of many reasons why repealers want the 8th repealed.

30-04-2018 03:01AM

as of now i think every person with the time, energy and intellect to debate professionally-undecided virgin boards.ie accounts on this topic should be engaged in any of the following productive activities instead:

- writing/tweeting rte and the irish times asking them why they will not acknowledge that the no campaign has been conducted dishonestly, callously, viciously, with mysterious resources of dubious provenance, with underhand tactics, with fake/anonymous/misrepresentative actors both online and in real life, in their advertising, their posters, their online activities

- writing, tweeting rte and the irish times to ask them where is the investigative journalism into the resourcing and strategy of the no organisations and why the repeated uncovering of ruses, lies, scams and fraud in both conduct and financing is not front page news as conspiracy in the build up to an important national referendum

-writing, tweeting rte and the irishtimes to ask them where the editorial function is evidenced in merely reporting with 50/50 balance the views of both sides of this issue given the fundamental lack of substance in the arguments of one side and fundamentally subversive and ugly approach taken and proven to be taken by that side

the station of the state and the paper of record are disgracefully remiss in their function and duty and we should be screaming it from the rooftops

HonestKevin · 30-04-2018 03:01AM

_Dara_ wrote: »

Rape and incest are two of many reasons why repealers want the 8th repealed.

What's wrong with a child that was conceived as a result of incest? No one has power over how they were conceived.

I guess they are not "respectable".

_Dara_ · 30-04-2018 03:06AM

HonestKevin wrote: »

What's wrong with a child that was conceived as a result of incest? No one has power over how they were conceived.

Well, nobody has power over any conception, whatever that means. A conception is a sperm and an egg liking the look of each other. Who’d have power over it?

Do you need to see Homer Simpson’s re-enactment of the moment of conception? It could help you.

30-04-2018 03:09AM

HonestKevin wrote: »

What's wrong with a child that was conceived as a result of incest? No one has power over how they were conceived.

are you an advocate of forcing a rape victim to carry the issue of rape to term?

also you should not type child if you mean foetus. as far as i know- which is 100% certain- theres no proposal to abort children.

welcome to boards.ie by the way.

which as far as im concerned can include itself in the list of remiss organisations noted above in how it deals with re-regs & bots, the insistence that clear professional troll accounts be treated as if they are good-faith real people, etc etc etc

shame shame shame tbh

HonestKevin · 30-04-2018 03:10AM

I think children who were conceived as a result of incest are entitled to redress after this referendum for the way they have been spoken about for the last 24 months.

Hopefully pro-repeal people will take as much of an interest in them as they have of children from mother and baby homes.

_Dara_ · 30-04-2018 03:10AM

Here you go, Kevster. Hope it helps!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOLBP3eMjQE

Yer Da sells Avon · 30-04-2018 03:49AM

HonestKevin wrote: »

We have been constantly told about rape and incest over the last 24 months as one of the main reasons why we need to bring in abortion. We have been told we need to deal with "these" children.

Children conceived as a result of incest weren't conceived in a "respectable" way. And we don't allow children in this country who were not conceived in a "respectable" way. Of course, all the people on the pro-repeal side were conceived in a "respectable" way. So they know best.

Nice to know that 2018 Ireland consists of children who were conceived in a "respectable" way and those conceived in an "unrespectable" way. What a progressive Ireland we live in.

Nobody, apart from you, has singled out rape and incest. You are the only one talking about children being conceived in a "respectable" or "unrespectable" way. People seeking the repeal of the 8th Amendment simply want women to have a choice about their own bodies, regardless of how they got pregnant.

HonestKevin · 30-04-2018 04:02AM

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Nobody, apart from you, has singled out rape and incest. You are the only one talking about children being conceived in a "respectable" or "unrespectable" way. People seeking the repeal of the 8th Amendment simply want women to have a choice about their own bodies, regardless of how they got pregnant.

Why have pregnancies as a result of incest been specifically brought up by the pro-repeal side throughout this campaign as a reason why we need abortion in Ireland? I've noticed that they have never given a reason for this.

If they are trying to make the point that some children as a result of incest are disabled (most children as a result of incest are healthy) then this is blatant discrimination against disabled people.

Or is the reason simply that they don't like the idea of "these" children. Like 1950's Ireland didn't like the idea of children conceived out of wedlock. 2018 Ireland doesn't like the idea of children conceived as a result of incest. These children aren't "respectable". And we don't allow children who are not "respectable" in this country, now do we.

_Dara_ · 30-04-2018 04:13AM

Incest hasn’t been mentioned that much and it’s usually in the context of rape. Wanting to abort a foetus conceived in rape hasn’t nothing to do with discrimination.

I might as well be typing boopity beepity schmoopity schmoop for all it matters.

Anyhoo, these posts will be gone tomorrow so there’s that.

Yer Da sells Avon · 30-04-2018 04:16AM

HonestKevin wrote: »

Why have pregnancies as a result of incest been specifically brought up by the pro-repeal side throughout this campaign as a reason why we need abortion in Ireland? I've noticed that they have never given a reason for this.

If they are trying to make the point that some children as a result of incest are disabled (most children as a result of incest are healthy) then this is blatant discrimination against disabled people.

Or is the reason simply that they don't like the idea of "these" children. Like 1950's Ireland didn't like the idea of children conceived out of wedlock. 2018 Ireland doesn't like the idea of children conceived as a result of incest. These children aren't "respectable". And we don't allow children who are not "respectable" in this country, now do we.

Most of the those whom I've seen bringing up rape and incest are on the anti-repeal side, but are willing to make exceptions for 'hard cases' like rape and incest or fatal fetal abnormalities.

HonestKevin · 30-04-2018 04:17AM

_Dara_ wrote: »

Incest hasn’t been mentioned that much and it’s usually in the context of rape. Wanting to abort a foetus conceived in rape hasn’t nothing to do with discrimination.

I might as well be typing boopity beepity schmoopity schmoop for all it matters.

Anyhoo, these posts will be gone tomorrow so there’s that.

Imagine there is someone who was conceived as a result of rape viewing this thread. You are saying it would have been ok to abort them as an unborn child but not yourself. You were conceived in a "respectable" way and they were not conceived in a "respectable" way.

That's discrimination no matter how you try to disguise it. You are "respectable" and they are not.

_Dara_ · 30-04-2018 04:21AM

HonestKevin wrote: »

Imagine there is derpy derpy derpity derp.

Nah. You’re grrraaaaand.

Oh but I’m actually okay with the idea of myself being aborted. I’d be none the wiser. Don’t construct an argument based on an assumption. Lil pro tip from me to you.

erica74 · 30-04-2018 06:41AM

HonestKevin wrote: »

We have been constantly told about rape and incest over the last 24 months as one of the main reasons why we need to bring in abortion. We have been told we need to deal with "these" children.

Children conceived as a result of incest weren't conceived in a "respectable" way. And we don't allow children in this country who were not conceived in a "respectable" way. Of course, all the people on the pro-repeal side were conceived in a "respectable" way. So they know best.

Nice to know that 2018 Ireland consists of children who were conceived in a "respectable" way and those conceived in an "unrespectable" way. What a progressive Ireland we live in.

What are you actually talking about?

Children conceived as a result of incest weren't conceived in a "respectable" way.

Are you trying to say that is a subjective view?

HonestKevin wrote: »

What's wrong with a child that was conceived as a result of incest? No one has power over how they were conceived.

I guess they are not "respectable".

If a girl or woman is raped by a family member and becomes pregnant as a result, she should have every option and support available to her here in Ireland.

HonestKevin wrote: »

Imagine there is someone who was conceived as a result of rape viewing this thread. You are saying it would have been ok to abort them as an unborn child but not yourself. You were conceived in a "respectable" way and they were not conceived in a "respectable" way.

That's discrimination no matter how you try to disguise it. You are "respectable" and they are not.

Imagine a girl or woman who was raped by her brother during her childhood and had an abortion as a result is reading this thread and sees you talking about "respectable" and "unrespectable"?

Annasopra · 30-04-2018 06:49AM

Achasanai wrote: »

How do we think it will go over all though? Should we be getting worried about the polls or is this normal for this period of a campaign?

Do not be complacent. I am looking at canvass data. Far from certain.

Annasopra · 30-04-2018 06:53AM

amdublin wrote: »

It will impact my emotional well-being if repeal doesn't pass. Like I will be devastated on the day. There will be tears.

And it will take me some while to get over it.

If No wins at last they are kind of prepared for that. It will be a massive shock for us Yes side.

But I am out canvassing every week. I am hearing resounding Yes on the doorsteps.

Every yes counts on the day. Please tell your family and friends how important it is for you that they get out on the day and vote for you.

Your area (south dublin) will be a yes. It is outside Dublin that is genuinely going to bring no vote up.

amdublin · 30-04-2018 06:57AM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Your area (south dublin) will be a yes. It is outside Dublin that is genuinely going to bring no vote up.

I hear you. But no use one area saying yes unless yes overall.

I am nervous. But overall am positive that repeal will win. I think the majority of ireland wants change and compassion for women

Annasopra · 30-04-2018 06:57AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I haven't read the vast majority of this thread - nor do I intend to, since I've probably read the same thing in the 1st thread.

I'm interested in how people feel about allowing the Government to have full control over future legislation in the event of the 8th amendment being repealed?

For me, that is the ultimate question that will sway those who are undecided. It is a level of decision making that I am unwilling to give this, or any future Government, just as I was unwilling to allow that level of power in the Seanad referendum, despite being gravely unhappy at how that particular organisation is run.

Fine by my. We elect the legislature to legislate. The 8th has to go. The stories of "in her shoes" are a shame on our society. I genuinely cannot understand how anyone would vote no and continue to allow this to happen.

Hannibal_Smith · 30-04-2018 07:58AM

HonestKevin wrote: »

With all due respect, the entire pro-repeal campaign is based on discrimination. The 2 main excuses for bringing in abortion is to deal with cases of rape and incest. This is blatant discrimination against children based solely on how they were conceived.

Its like 1950's Ireland all over again. Back then we judged children based on how they were conceived (if they were conceived out of wedlock). Now we are judging children again based on how they were conceived (if they were conceived through incest or rape).

We are again creating two classes of children - those who were conceived "the right way" and those who were conceived "the wrong way".

They're not my main two reasons (not excuses) for voting for repeal. I have one reason for voting, which is to allow a woman medical treatment she chooses.

Using rape as an example of why a woman would chose abortion is not discrimination against the child. It is giving the woman, who has been through a horrific attack, a choice in whether she wants to put her body through the further trauma of pregnancy and child birth which could further exacerbate the post traumatic stress she might be battling.

There's a difference in saying, you're pregnant as a result of rape you must have an abortion and offering a woman a choice in what to do.

It's nothing like being conceived the right or wrong way. It's about the woman. In the 1950s it was the shame the woman brought on the family that was the issue also. Times haven't changed much.

ELM327 · 30-04-2018 08:03AM

This discussion about incest and the "acceptableness" of children is brought in by a newly registered poster on the NO side.
It has not been introduced by the REPEAL side and in all reality I contend it has little to nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Hannibal_Smith · 30-04-2018 08:04AM

HonestKevin wrote: »

Imagine there is someone who was conceived as a result of rape viewing this thread. You are saying it would have been ok to abort them as an unborn child but not yourself. You were conceived in a "respectable" way and they were not conceived in a "respectable" way.

That's discrimination no matter how you try to disguise it. You are "respectable" and they are not.

If I was the child conceived as a result of a rape, no I wouldn't believe I was conceived in a respectable way. Unless you think rape is a respectable act?

ELM327 · 30-04-2018 08:05AM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

If I was the child conceived as a result of a rape, no I wouldn't believe I was conceived in a respectable way. Unless you think rape is a respectable act?

There's an interesting article written by a woman who was a child conceived by rape who is pro repeal. I'll try find it.

Yeah_Right · 30-04-2018 08:11AM

HonestKevin wrote: »

Imagine there is someone who was conceived as a result of rape viewing this thread. You are saying it would have been ok to abort them as an unborn child but not yourself. You were conceived in a "respectable" way and they were not conceived in a "respectable" way.

That's discrimination no matter how you try to disguise it. You are "respectable" and they are not.

You heard it here first folks. Rape, it's just not "respectable".

Annasopra · 30-04-2018 08:21AM

Poyndexter wrote: »

Of course the proposed 12 week legislation is important in this debate and yes I disagree fully with a random 100 people that makes up the citizens assembly.

Yes the main issue I have are healthy women opting to have an abortion simply because they don’t want a child. If brought in here there is a far higher case of women making rash decisions jist like the many cases I have heard from women who deeply regret have an abortion or the near misses like the lady who spoke on the late late the other night. What we need is further support for women who find themselves in this situation. There are also options of putting your child up for adoption if they felt they couldn’t cope with raising a child for whatever reason.

So basically you dont trust women.

nozzferrahhtoo · 30-04-2018 08:54AM

pleas advice wrote: »

And deny that abortion is the killing of a living entity

I have been on this thread since day 1 and I have yet to see anyone deny that. I know what they HAVE been denying, and I know the valid reason they have been doing it. Perhaps you do not understand what it is they are ACTUALLY denying?

pleas advice wrote: »

i suppose it could be regarded as a point that a 'clump of cells' becomes an actively living thing...

pleas advice wrote: »

it is a genetically separate human entity, thats basic biology...

But many things have a heart beat and are "actively living things". And we do not afford them the rights, or concerns, you wish to afford them here. So clearly this is not the actual mediation point of your moral concerns, just the one you choose arbitrarily in retrospect to justify it.

The same thing can be said exactly about having distinct DNA. What is so special about DNA?

To explain the moral and ethical concerns we have for humans, that we do not have for other "actively living things" we have to look at the attributes that distinguish them and therefore are ACTUALLY mediating those concerns.

The issue for the "No" voter is the list of attributes that this process produces are EXACTLY the attributes a 16 week old fetus lacks.

Not slightly lacks.
ENTIRELY lacks.

And merely shouting "human" at that issue, as so many have done, only begs the very question to which an answer has been requested.

nozzferrahhtoo · 30-04-2018 08:54AM

Killester1 wrote: »

Why do you have more empathy for the woman and less for the unborn ? Just asking.

Because of what empathy actually means. "the ability to understand and share the feelings of another."

A pregnant women has feelings. A fetus at 0-16 weeks which is a COMPLETELY non-sentient agent does not. At all. How can you feel empathy for something that has no feelings? Other than vicariously that is, which you have essentially already mentioned and admitted to.

Killester1 wrote: »

Does anyone know if there is a limit to the number of abortions a person can have ??

There is very little reason to have such a limit. The Daily Mail (of course) did try to distort some statistics to make it sound like "Repeat abortions" are a thing. But a more honest look at the statistics show's that it really isn't.

It happens of course, but it is so relatively rare at a statistical level that I see little reason to consider limiting it. Nor am I sure what we would achieve by doing it. If abortion are ok, then what different does it make it 5 abortions happen in 5 women or 5 abortions happen in 3 women?

Killester1 wrote: »

The unborn deserve rights and respect too.

So they? When, why, at what stage and on what basis do you think rights should be acquired in a fetus?

Killester1 wrote: »

take responsibility for their actions and not have abortion as the fall back.

"Taking responsibility" includes considering your options and making the best one for your situation. YOU seem to think "taking responsibility" means "Do what I want you to do, or imagine I would do in your situation".

"Responsibility" does not work like that.

Killester1 wrote: »

I totally understand that. But why does abortion have to be the only solution to an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy. We need to work together on solutions. Having respect to life for both mother and the unborn is a start. .....

I am not aware of anyone saying it is the only solution, should be the only solution, or that they want it to be the only solution though.

Everyone I know is simply saying it should be one of the OPTIONS on the table. Nothing more.

The rest of what you write we all already agree with I think. We need to work together on more solutions, more options, and more support for people to make the choices they may otherwise feel are not viable to them personally.

Also let us not pretend there is a lack of respect on the other side from you here, as if this somehow divides you from them. We on the choice side also respect and cherish life love and children and all the things you likely value. We just differ as to when AND why we feel those concerns can and should come into play.

Killester1 wrote: »

What options do the YES side have to offer?

Other than abortion, all the options the YES side have to offer are identical to the ones the NO side have to offer. Why do you expect any difference between them?

Also it was not a "yes" poster who was in this thread saying not only should pregnant women not have the option of abortion..... but that they should not even be getting children's allowance or single parent allowance and such forms of social welfare.

So not only did that "no" poster not want women to have abortions, he wanted to exacerbate the financial reasons many single women even feel compelled to seek abortion in the first place.

And WHY did he want that? Wait for it, it is a doozy. Apparently unwanted pregnancy is the only way single women in the poorer social classes can be compelled to want to better themselves.

Lovely stuff huh?

But yes I repeat, what options do you think the "NO" side can offer such women that the "YES" side are not or can not? I can not think of one.

nozzferrahhtoo · 30-04-2018 08:54AM

I am afraid you will find none of the hate, vitriol, or insults in my posts that you have been looking for in the posts of others. So let's see what you do with that shall we

Poyndexter wrote: »

Just reading through a lot of the posts here and the lack of respect and understanding from some yes voters for people who vote no is appalling really. Many calling anyone who votes no as idiots stupid etc. is quite insulting to be honest. It has come to the situation where people are afraid to express they are voting no in public which does not encourage healthy debate.

I think the reality is more nuanced than you are giving credit to here. What happens on threads like this is there ARE some "yes" voters who are rude and arrogant and aggressive. But not many. The same is true of the opposite side of course. All of this "murders" and "I hope the woman who had the abortion can live with herself" kind of comments and much much worse.

And those people are letting our "yes" side down. The people who respond to every new poster with "Oh another re-reg" or "another of the ones on shift work for youth defense" and so on are not representing me or mine. They are feeding the narrative you are selling here, and that is a shame.

But what happens in cases like this thread though is that the "no" people come in here and ONLY reply to the people who act like that. So then the "yes" side seem disproportionately rude and aggressive. They contrive to willfully ignore the posts of the people who are being reasoned, patient, polite, open and honest. They work out who are the emotional, baitable ones and they target them solely. Hell RobertKK alone has ignored so many of my replies to him at this point alone, you would likely lose count even if your tried.

In fact it seems sometime over the last couple of weeks there was a contrived move to ignore all of my posts. Me being un-trollable, un-emotive and calm when discussing this issue. And suddenly, all at the same time within the space of a few hours, the entire cohort of "no" posters on here collectively stopped responding to anything I write.

Poyndexter wrote: »

I can assure you I am not anti-women, an idiot, a jesus freak or whatever insult some yes campaigners would like to call me but someone with a conscience to protect the most vulnerable in our society who are the unborn that at 12 weeks have a heartbeat and so many humane features.

The issue with that narrative of course is that the "yes" voters also want to "protect the most vulnerable in society" too. So a narrative that suggests this somehow divides you from them is unfair and disingenuous. The issue lies solely in when AND why we feel those kind of concerns should come on line. Basis it on "heartbeat" is simply arbitrary, misleading and incoherent as a basis for having moral and ethical concern for the fetus.

It is something that moves YOU emotionally, and why not given the "heart"..... despite having nothing to do with emotion really......... has become the symbol for all the most positive things about humanity like "Love". So it is understandable, even if it is nonsense, that you gravitate towards it as a point to mediate your moral concerns. But it is a baseless and harmful move to make really.

Poyndexter wrote: »

Regarding cases of ffa, rape and danger of life to mother I agree abortion should be legalised in those cases

Could you describe to me what a system would look like that would allow women who have been the victims of rape to access abortion then? How would they go about applying, verifying their eligibility and so forth in a timely fashion?

Poyndexter wrote: »

ther options such as adoption where people who can’t have children for whatever reason would be delighted to adopt a child..

Could you explain what you know of abortion law in Ireland. Maybe start by listing the situations in which a couple are NOT allowed give their child up for adoptions?

Poyndexter wrote: »

Use protection? Birth control?

And for the large quantity of situations where that fails?

lazygal · 30-04-2018 08:56AM

lazygal wrote: »

I had a conversation with one last week, while on my way Holles Street for scans and prenatal care. I explained to her that I had had a complicated pregnancy so far, and the eighth amendment only added to the stress as my consultant was upfront from the start about what she could and could not do for a woman in my circumstances solely due to the constitution. I asked her how the eighth helped me, given that I had the means to travel if the worst was confirmed, but that it caused myself and my husband untold stress not knowing how we could organise this given work and childcare and the medical side of things too. She had no answers, she tried to give me a leaflet with a young woman on it who said because there wasn't a clinic nearby she decided to stay pregnant instead of have an abortion. I told her I'm married with children, they keep pushing this 'girl in trouble' narrative which is simply untrue, but there was no attempt to explain what benefits the eighth had for someone in my situation.
I would love anyone who is going to vote to keep the eighth to explain in detail how it's helped me over the past four months of my pregnancy.

Still would like to hear from No voters on this.

Zubeneschamali · 30-04-2018 09:00AM

HonestKevin wrote: »

Why have pregnancies as a result of incest been specifically brought up by the pro-repeal side throughout this campaign as a reason why we need abortion in Ireland?.

They haven't.

There was some discussion of incest at the Citizen's Assembly, but they did not include it as a specific reason, since incest with children is covered under rape.

From their Report (which HonestKevin has naturally read):

Presence of rape ground and possible inclusion of incest

A number of Members raised the inclusion of the rape reason (reason 5) and questioned why incest was omitted from the draft Ballot Paper. The Expert Advisory Group explained that rape was included as the purpose of this Ballot Paper is to make recommendations to the Oireachtas as to the types of issues the Members would like to see included in any new legislation, not to recommend how it would be implemented. Matters of implementation would need to be considered by the Oireachtas.

With respect to incest, it was explained that the term rape covers all non-consensual sexual intercourse including sexual intercourse with a minor in the sense of statutory rape. By using the term “rape” the only category of incest omitted arises from situations of consensual sexual intercourse between adults where they are in defined family relationships. It was suggested that incest could be recorded on the Ballot Paper as a separate reason if the Members voted for it. It was generally understood however that the terminology used- pregnancy as a result of rape- covered the situations the Members wanted covered, without requiring a separate ground covering incest.

Zubeneschamali · 30-04-2018 09:03AM

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Most of the those whom I've seen bringing up rape and incest are on the anti-repeal side, but are willing to make exceptions for 'hard cases' like rape and incest or fatal fetal abnormalities.

They say they are willing, in hopes of defeating this particular amendment.

If this one is defeated and some gullible person put forward an amendment which somehow allowed just rape, incest and FFA, the same people would find a reason to vote No to that, too.

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Comments