8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1

ELM327 · 07-05-2018 02:29PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I saw it as a more a general opinion on women, which one can apply to men just as equally.

For all the men who get abortions too?
Come off it.

Sofiztikated · 07-05-2018 02:29PM

Moiratat wrote: »

My child was healthy, I was healthy. If my abuser did not have money to afford travel, he would have harmed me and my baby and if somehow we both survived that harm, my child would have had nothing, as I had nothing, we would have been homeless and my siblings would have suffered as there would have been no one to help my mother out of her addiction or to help them from the depression they had as children, it would've been very likely at least one of them would have committed suicide. All because I couldn't have afforded the travel. My case is not a hard case, do you know how the feeling of discovering you are pregnant and there is no chance of your child ever living a good life? Many girls in Ireland do, and it is exacerbated by the eighth forcing these girls to either take pills or go abroad or if they can't afford travel to have their child and live every day struggling and hating themselves for getting pregnant. These girls being healthy women with healthy babies but no means to care for them or uncontrollable situations they might be in.

Robert keeps banging on about the hard cases. We've given him countless examples of everyday women and the effect the 8th has on them.

Rob and his wife's struggles to bring a child to term.
Your abuse.
My wife's missed miscarriage.
That new posters dealings with adoption.
January's decision to have an abortion to continue support to her existing family.
The countless In Her Shoes stories.

But he'll continue to spout dribble, and say no, and judging people for their reasons.

RobertKK · 07-05-2018 02:29PM

January wrote: »

Again, giving the name of the diagnosis that your nephew has isn't looking for his medical information. You made a whole load of assumptions in that post about the poster who had a child who she adopted, saying she doesn't have to reply is a red herring. Don't make assumptions about other people and their experiences.

You just look for arguments sometimes.

amcalester · 07-05-2018 02:31PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I saw it as a more a general opinion on women, which one can apply to men just as equally.

Outside of any context I’d agree, some people are nice and some aren’t.

But in the context of not trusting women, the right to an abortion being abused, women claiming depression to access abortion after 12 weeks etc, I think it’s pretty clear what he meant.

Sofiztikated · 07-05-2018 02:31PM

RobertKK wrote: »

You just look for arguments sometimes.

She's not wrong though.

Billy86 · 07-05-2018 02:34PM

It seems this is getting some attention on US TV as well.

Sofiztikated · 07-05-2018 02:37PM

Billy86 wrote: »

It seems this is getting some attention on US TV as well.

Been posted already.

Making yer man Barrett travel to London was a wee touch of genius. Comedy Central has toned Jim Jeffries down a bit, but he hasn't lost any wit.

Richard Hillman · 07-05-2018 02:38PM

bubblypop wrote: »

And what type of women have abortions, in your opinion?

Some nice women, some bad women

Billy86 · 07-05-2018 02:40PM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Been posted already.

Making yer man Barrett travel to London was a wee touch of genius. Comedy Central has toned Jim Jeffries down a bit, but he hasn't lost any wit.

Apologies, hadn't seen it until it popped up on my FB feed a half hour or so back. Just noticed it's about 2-3 weeks old when I checked there.

mohawk · 07-05-2018 02:41PM

Mrsmum wrote: »

I'm really not getting drawn into the crazy dramatics around here so don't think it's gonna happen folks. Consider this my answer to all like minded replys. Jeez even poor Joey the parrot quickly realised you better not say a thing the mob don't like and he was on the same side and actually I thought he made a reasonable point.
I am saying that of course medical personnel here have to check if a patient is pregnant before administering treatment. That's common sense for the medical people to cover their legal asses like that same as they do in every country because when push comes to shove they would very quickly be sued if the treatment they gave a woman harmed her foetus. On a previous post someone said she regularly lies to them so therefore they'd be mad to just believe someone if the treatment is such that it would harm a foetus.

Possibly my post you are referring to and I didn't say I regularly lie. I have said I have lied about my last period to get treatment in the past. I lied because I knew I definitely, definitely 100% wasn't pregnant. I did it because if you are honest and say no period for 2 months but I know I am not pregnant as have not had sex in forever. They don't believe you. Especially annoying if you are seeing a Doctor who knows you have a messed up cycle.

I understand perfectly why medical professionals ask the question. They are correct to do so. We don't test new drugs on pregnant women so we mostly don't know if a drug causes harm to a foetus. I agree perfectly with asking the question. If I am asked are you pregnant and I say there isn't a chance then I should be believed. If I thought I could possibly be pregnant then I would say so.

Speaking to my female friends quite a number of them have done similar.

RobertKK · 07-05-2018 02:41PM

Moiratat wrote: »

My child was healthy, I was healthy. If my abuser did not have money to afford travel, he would have harmed me and my baby and if somehow we both survived that harm, my child would have had nothing, as I had nothing, we would have been homeless and my siblings would have suffered as there would have been no one to help my mother out of her addiction or to help them from the depression they had as children, it would've been very likely at least one of them would have committed suicide. All because I couldn't have afforded the travel. My case is not a hard case, do you know how the feeling of discovering you are pregnant and there is no chance of your child ever living a good life? Many girls in Ireland do, and it is exacerbated by the eighth forcing these girls to either take pills or go abroad or if they can't afford travel to have their child and live every day struggling and hating themselves for getting pregnant. These girls being healthy women with healthy babies but no means to care for them or uncontrollable situations they might be in.

You say you would be harmed, what is healthy about being harmed?

Are people stuck in a cycle when it comes to people in general who are stuck in a life of never having a good life which you refer to? I know people may not want to leave their community, their family, their friends but if their life is going to be bad, what is done to try and change it? This refers to men as well, it is not about pregnant women.

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Robert keeps banging on about the hard cases. We've given him countless examples of everyday women and the effect the 8th has on them.

Rob and his wife's struggles to bring a child to term.
Your abuse.
My wife's missed miscarriage.
That new posters dealings with adoption.
January's decision to have an abortion to continue support to her existing family.
The countless In Her Shoes stories.

But he'll continue to spout dribble, and say no, and judging people for their reasons.

Hard cases make bad law. It should be more nuanced, I listened to some of in her shoes stories, one was 'I wanted to keep the baby, I was 37, I so wanted to have the baby...' her partner didn't and despite a good job, she aborted. I'm sorry but that does nothing to encourage me to vote Yes.

People on the Yes side can stay in denial if they think 12 weeks unrestricted is good, it is what could lose you the referendum.

Sofiztikated · 07-05-2018 02:43PM

gmisk wrote: »

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/48c4b944-4f02-11e8-9812-5f003d09c84c
Yet more dirty tricks from the no side

*cricket noises*

You'll hear nowt from No posters regarding this.

RobertKK · 07-05-2018 02:43PM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

She's not wrong though.

She is wrong in my opinion and since it involved an issue that is personal to me, that is more important than what you think is right or wrong.

Billy86 · 07-05-2018 02:43PM

RobertKK wrote: »

People on the Yes side can stay in denial if they think 12 weeks unrestricted is good, it is what could lose you the referendum.

So basically like how gay adoptions could lose the same sex marriage referendum back in 2015 then.

RobertKK · 07-05-2018 02:44PM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

*cricket noises*

You'll hear nowt from No posters regarding this.

An article that is hidden behind a subscription?

pitifulgod · 07-05-2018 02:45PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I saw it as a more a general opinion on women, which one can apply to men just as equally.

We don't tend to judge the character of men when it comes to medical treatment.

swampgas · 07-05-2018 02:51PM

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Some nice women, some bad women

How bad would a man have to be before you think the state should remove his access to healthcare?

And would it be okay to deny healthcare to all men just because of a few bad apples?

Sofiztikated · 07-05-2018 02:54PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Hard cases make bad law. It should be more nuanced, I listened to some of in her shoes stories, one was 'I wanted to keep the baby, I was 37, I so wanted to have the baby...' her partner didn't and despite a good job, she aborted. I'm sorry but that does nothing to encourage me to vote Yes.

People on the Yes side can stay in denial if they think 12 weeks unrestricted is good, it is what could lose you the referendum.

We've given you nuance, we've given you minute detail, we've given you facts, figures and statistics. But its never enough.

You say hard cases makes bad law, but where I'm looking from, the bad law is already there. And it looks like every case is a hard case, when presented to you.

And to be honest, a couple making a decision to have a child or not is their business. But of course it would be so much better if she went on to have that child, and he left her. I thought babies need a mammy and a daddy, based on your stance in SSM referendum.

And what do you have to say about yet more lies from the No side?

PlaneSpeeking · 07-05-2018 02:54PM

mohawk wrote: »

Mrsmum wrote: »

I'm really not getting drawn into the crazy dramatics around here so don't think it's gonna happen folks. Consider this my answer to all like minded replys. Jeez even poor Joey the parrot quickly realised you better not say a thing the mob don't like and he was on the same side and actually I thought he made a reasonable point.
I am saying that of course medical personnel here have to check if a patient is pregnant before administering treatment. That's common sense for the medical people to cover their legal asses like that same as they do in every country because when push comes to shove they would very quickly be sued if the treatment they gave a woman harmed her foetus. On a previous post someone said she regularly lies to them so therefore they'd be mad to just believe someone if the treatment is such that it would harm a foetus.

Possibly my post you are referring to and I didn't say I regularly lie. I have said I have lied about my last period to get treatment in the past. I lied because I knew I definitely, definitely 100% wasn't pregnant. I did it because if you are honest and say no period for 2 months but I know I am not pregnant as have not had sex in forever. They don't believe you. Especially annoying if you are seeing a Doctor who knows you have a messed up cycle.

I understand perfectly why medical professionals ask the question. They are correct to do so. We don't test new drugs on pregnant women so we mostly don't know if a drug causes harm to a foetus. I agree perfectly with asking the question. If I am asked are you pregnant and I say there isn't a chance then I should be believed. If I thought I could possibly be pregnant then I would say so.

Speaking to my female friends quite a number of them have done similar.

I tried to lie and say I was a gay woman and therefore could not be pregnant. Didn't work and i didn't feel great.

But I was desperate.

Sofiztikated · 07-05-2018 02:57PM

RobertKK wrote: »

She is wrong in my opinion and since it involved an issue that is personal to me, that is more important than what you think is right or wrong.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

The irony of you posting that is just delicious.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

January · 07-05-2018 02:57PM

RobertKK wrote: »

You just look for arguments sometimes.

No Robert Ive actually never looked for an argument from you or anyone else in any of the threads that have come up about repeal. What I have done is uncovered your untruth and judgement time and time again. That's not looking for an argument.

It's OK for you to belittle and judge my experience with abortion but not OK for me to question when you tell a story about your nephew being diagnosed with a heart condition. Double standards much.

Sofiztikated · 07-05-2018 03:02PM

RobertKK wrote: »

An article that is hidden behind a subscription?

Facebook has shut down an anti-abortion page that was posing as an extreme pro-choice group in the run-up to this month’s referendum.

The page cited the case of Alfie Evans, the British toddler with a degenerative brain disease who died on Saturday after his parents fought a legal battle to take him to Italy for treatment. “That’s why abortion is so important so that women are spared the heartbreak of having kids like Alfie #repealthe8th #herbody #herchoice”, the post said.

It comes amid calls for greater transparency on social media and online advertising. In recent weeks, pages run by anti-abortion activists have paid to boost social media posts presented as facts. The online advertisements are unregulated and do not appear to be linked to registered…

There's the first 3 paragraphs, which you would have been able to see as well.

PhoenixParker · 07-05-2018 03:04PM

is
Hard cases make bad law. It should be more nuanced, I listened to some of in her shoes stories, one was 'I wanted to keep the baby, I was 37, I so wanted to have the baby...' her partner didn't and despite a good job, she aborted. I'm sorry but that does nothing to encourage me to vote Yes.

People on the Yes side can stay in denial if they think 12 weeks unrestricted is good, it is what could lose you the referendum.

The 8th amendment didn't stop her making that decision. The story really highlights just how useless the 8th is as a tool to stop abortion.

The proposed legislation includes talking to a doctor and waiting three days. That chance to talk and think could well have been key to changing her mind.

There are a dozen things we can do to get women to choose options other then abortion like paying maternity leave at a rate above €235 for 26 weeks.

Retaining the 8th is, as the story illustrates, not one of them.

BabysCoffee · 07-05-2018 03:04PM

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Some nice women, some bad women

Are the really bad women the ones who have 2 abortions?

The Legend Of Kira · 07-05-2018 03:06PM

January wrote: »

https://www.facebook.com/ROSALimerick/videos/185621482084641/?sk=h_chr

It's not about religion tho'...

For some people it would be. They have a few public rosary rallies organised in different parts of the country to coincide with the referendum over the next week.

https://www.isfcc.org/rosary-rally

RobertKK · 07-05-2018 03:10PM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

We've given you nuance, we've given you minute detail, we've given you facts, figures and statistics. But its never enough.

You say hard cases makes bad law, but where I'm looking from, the bad law is already there. And it looks like every case is a hard case, when presented to you.

And to be honest, a couple making a decision to have a child or not is their business. But of course it would be so much better if she went on to have that child, and he left her. I thought babies need a mammy and a daddy, based on your stance in SSM referendum.

And what do you have to say about yet more lies from the No side?

Most abortions are not what are posted about in this thread. People go for the hard cases.

Do people want to debate the marriage referendum again? I congratulated the Yes side when they won, I was not bitter which Yes will be if they lose in this referendum. I will not congratulate Yes if they win this referendum, as I don't condone killing human life needlessly which unrestricted abortion will allow.
The people who compare this referendum to the marriage referendum are going to be wrong.
What did sicken me on the day the marriage referendum was won is how a section of people on twitter on that very day moved onto abortion being next as if the two were comparable.

RobertKK · 07-05-2018 03:12PM

January wrote: »

No Robert Ive actually never looked for an argument from you or anyone else in any of the threads that have come up about repeal. What I have done is uncovered your untruth and judgement time and time again. That's not looking for an argument.

It's OK for you to belittle and judge my experience with abortion but not OK for me to question when you tell a story about your nephew being diagnosed with a heart condition. Double standards much.

You are a liar to say that, nothing more, nothing less.

I never personally discussed your experience, where have I discussed your actual abortion?
More lies.
You apologised to me for posting lies before when you falsely attributed something to me, then you went back and looked and saw I was correct.

PlaneSpeeking · 07-05-2018 03:13PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Sofiztikated wrote: »

We've given you nuance, we've given you minute detail, we've given you facts, figures and statistics. But its never enough.

You say hard cases makes bad law, but where I'm looking from, the bad law is already there. And it looks like every case is a hard case, when presented to you.

And to be honest, a couple making a decision to have a child or not is their business. But of course it would be so much better if she went on to have that child, and he left her. I thought babies need a mammy and a daddy, based on your stance in SSM referendum.

And what do you have to say about yet more lies from the No side?

Most abortions are not what are posted about in this thread. People go for the hard cases.

Do people want to debate the marriage referendum again? I congratulated the Yes side when they won, I was not bitter which Yes will be if they lose in this referendum. I will not congratulate Yes if they win this referendum, as I don't condone killing human life needlessly which unrestricted abortion will allow.
The people who compare this referendum to the marriage referendum are going to be wrong.
What did sicken me on the day the marriage referendum was won is how a section of people on twitter on that very day moved onto abortion being next as if the two were comparable.

They are directly comparable.

I'm denied my right to healthcare because I am woman of a certain age.

My friend was denied the right to marry the man he loves because he a gay man.

Both are due to someone else's morality and their attempts to push that morality onto others.

ELM327 · 07-05-2018 03:14PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Most abortions are not what are posted about in this thread. People go for the hard cases.

Do people want to debate the marriage referendum again? I congratulated the Yes side when they won, I was not bitter which Yes will be if they lose in this referendum. I will not congratulate Yes if they win this referendum, as I don't condone killing human life needlessly which unrestricted abortion will allow.
The people who compare this referendum to the marriage referendum are going to be wrong.
What did sicken me on the day the marriage referendum was won is how a section of people on twitter on that very day moved onto abortion being next as if the two were comparable.

They are similar, they are both human rights issues, as determined by the European Court of Human Rights. Both were issues where Ireland transgressed the rights of a minority - in SSM it was homosexuals and now it's women's right to healthcare and to the same rights to autonomy that we grant to corpses.

You and your ilk are dying out.
If this is not passed, we'll have a second referendum and outlaw misrepresentation, lies, doctored photos, and scaremongering. Not to mention a ban on outside interference.
That would render a near 100-0 yes win. If people were voting on the issue at hand.

ELM327 · 07-05-2018 03:15PM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

They are directly comparable.

I'm denied my right to healthcare because I am woman of a certain age.

My friend was denied the right to marry the man he loves because he a gay man.

Both are due to someone else's morality and their attempts to push that morality onto others.

+1
I think the last line really stands out as what we want here.
DO we want Devalera's Ireland of 1937, or a constitution that recognises an Ireland that grants the same rights to all of its citizens, regardless of creed, gender, sexuality, or anything else?

#togetherforYES

PS - on the gay marriage issue, I was of a similar viewpoint of RobertKK before the referendum, as mentioned before. But, while I may not like the idea of 2 men being together. What bloody business is it of mine? If they want to be (un)happy together who am I to stop them?
Should I try to regulate how/when Robert has intercourse with his husband/wife? No. It's not my business, end of.

8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1

Comments