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

ASISEEIT · 09-05-2018 02:31PM

spookwoman wrote: »

Same thing crossed my mind I cannot imagine how that woman must have been feeling to say no more. And then have the husband run squealing to the priest, she must have felt betrayed among other things.
If that was to happen today divorce papers would be on the table the next day by any woman

Exactly how is this relevant to a debate in 2018??

zedhead · 09-05-2018 02:32PM

yourdeadwright wrote: »

No need to explain anything,
I'm not the NO crowd at all just trying to explain to people that sometimes its people that have to take responsibility ,
Just cause its good aul grand da doesn't mean its not rape ,

You don't make any sense. How would the woman take responsibility for having multiple children if she was being raped? And that rape was allowed and justified by the laws of the country she lived in.

This all started because you told someone it was her grandmothers fault not the countries fault she had more children than she wanted. She lived in a country that legally allowed her husband to have sex with her whenever he wanted, that made contraception illegal and enshrines in its constitution her place in the home as a mother . It was the attitude, laws and constitution that led her to be in the position she was.

ELM327 · 09-05-2018 02:33PM

RobertKK wrote: »

There is a strong pro-life movement in Ireland, just look at the crowd that turned out for the march in Dublin.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/huge-crowds-join-prolife-march-in-city-36691934.html

"The organisers stated" = meaningless.

I organised a "make ELM the dictator" march last weekend. As the organiser I confirm that 1 million people attended.

Look: Here they are

Zubeneschamali · 09-05-2018 02:33PM

RobertKK posts a report that 10s of thousands marched in March 2018 at the Rally for Life.

The organizers claimed 100,000.

RTé said :

In excess of 15,000 people attended the rally at Merrion Square.

There was no official estimate of how many attended the actual march

nozzferrahhtoo · 09-05-2018 02:34PM

doylefe wrote: »

1) Fair weather people who will bitch and moan about Ireland all day long coming back to push thier agenda formed by the delusion that they are more "progressive" and superior for having left Ireland.

So basically your source of disgust is the narrative YOU have invented for their motivations, not their actual motivations. Disgust yourself much?

The rest of us who are living abroad however.... whether we are allowed to vote are not..... realize that this is a change to our constitution. And the constitution of the Irish people is a concern to us all.

doylefe wrote: »

2) All interviews and articles about them, they have been yes

That would be good to hear if true. Could you offer links and citations to your sources please? I imagine I am going to enjoy reading each and every one.

doylefe wrote: »

3) Yes voters in the main are arrogant, self righteous, condescending and sanctimonious, who look down on anyone who disagrees with thier point of view, call people who want to vote no as small minded and uncivilised.

So this has nothing to do with your point about people returning to vote as you pretended, and has everything to do with your own personal hatred for yes voters as a whole.

That mask did not take long to slip really.

Zubeneschamali · 09-05-2018 02:34PM

doylefe wrote: »

3) Yes voters in the main are arrogant, self righteous, condescending and sanctimonious, who look down on anyone who disagrees with thier point of view, call people who want to vote no as small minded and uncivilised.

But you are totally on the fence yourself, we get it.

swampgas · 09-05-2018 02:34PM

doylefe wrote: »

3) Yes voters in the main are arrogant, self righteous, condescending and sanctimonious, who look down on anyone who disagrees with thier point of view, call people who want to vote no as small minded and uncivilised.

You remind me of the the anti-SSM posters complaining that they were being accused of being homophobic because they didn't want to give equal rights to gay people.

Take an honest look in the mirror. You might not be the paragon of virtue you think you are.

ELM327 · 09-05-2018 02:35PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

You can believe whatever you want, but not at the expense of me receiving substandard healthcare.
Your right to believe that stops where it interferes with my rights. It shouldn't even be up for discussion.

+1
His (and others of his ilk) should not be allowed to impose their beliefs on us.

You can believe a particularly seductive dandelion to be the supreme one true creator and leader of men on earth - and that is your right.

however you should not be able to dictate that women have less rights to autonomy than a corpse, and less standard of healthcare than a man.

Zubeneschamali · 09-05-2018 02:36PM

ASISEEIT wrote: »

Basically this debate comes down to the following- do you accept or reject fact that the life in the womb is a baby and thus worthy of prorection.

The Supreme Court rejects that "fact" today with the 8th in place, so no, that is not at all what the debate is about.

wexie · 09-05-2018 02:36PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

RobertKK posts a report that 10s of thousands marched in MArch 2018 at the Rally for Life.

The organizers claimed 100,000.

RTé said :

In excess of 15,000 people attended the rally at Merrion Square.

There was no official estimate of how many attended the actual march

Seems to be pretty consistent with how the no side approach the truth no?

Gotta give em that at least

patrickSTARR · 09-05-2018 02:37PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As I keep saying though, to the point it is starting to become my slogan.... "THAT they believe that has never been in question. WHY they believe it remains entirely opaque"

Why I believe it personally is because its a life in my eyes. I don't believe a life should be terminated if the mother and soon to be child is considered healthy.

Its a life, its precious, it shouldn't be ended because of its inconvenient.

circadian · 09-05-2018 02:38PM

wexie wrote: »

Seems to be pretty consistent with how the no side approach the truth no?

Gotta give em that at least

Consistently inconsistent.

yourdeadwright · 09-05-2018 02:38PM

zedhead wrote: »

yourdeadwright wrote: »

No need to explain anything,
I'm not the NO crowd at all just trying to explain to people that sometimes its people that have to take responsibility ,
Just cause its good aul grand da doesn't mean its not rape ,

You don't make any sense. How would the woman take responsibility for having multiple children if she was being raped? And that rape was allowed and justified by the laws of the country she lived in.

This all started because you told someone it was her grandmothers fault not the countries fault she had more children than she wanted. She lived in a country that legally allowed her husband to have sex with her whenever he wanted, that made contraception illegal and enshrines in its constitution her place in the home as a mother . It was the attitude, laws and constitution that led her to be in the position she was.

So the grand father who was raping the mother has no responsibility ?
Would you not blame the grand father for being a rapist or is Rape ok when its good aul grand da ?
My argument isn't against voting Yes , its that instead of blaming the country for everything blame the people who caused it, In this case it was the grand da,
With or with out the 8th people have to be responsible ,

ohnonotgmail · 09-05-2018 02:39PM

ASISEEIT wrote: »

Basically this debate comes down to the following- do you accept or reject fact that the life in the womb is a baby and thus worthy of prorection. Its not about whether you want the child or not. There are unwanted children in the world and we don't shoot them because of that.

Rape and fatal foetal anomalies are side issues. Pregnancies by rape are statitically small. If however you passed a law allowing abortion for just that i would support it because of the non consent issue. The rest of us humping and bumping know the consequences
There is no accepted medical term for FFA so no law could be designed to allow it but we can't slaughter others to satisty a tiny miniority. If we made laws like that we would ban a huge amount of stuff
Adoption is a real option and people should realise the law has radically changed.

The people responsible for arranging adoptions say it isn't. But you know better. The changes were in relation to allowing the courts to allow an adoption even if the mother objects.

ASISEEIT wrote: »

Its no longer a case of no contact with your child if you put him or her up for adoption

Only if the adoptive parents allow it.

ASISEEIT wrote: »

The bodily integrity argument is bull because if taken to logical conclusion would permit prostitution,self harm and heroin addiction

these things are already happening.

ASISEEIT wrote: »

I cant support anything that would allow a doctor to scrap out arms,legs and skull of a baby . End of story . 12 weeks my backside. Proposed law allows that to be extended under circumstances and we know what happened in England after 1967

You need to educate yourself on what is involved in an abortion in the first trimester. there is no scraping involved.

patrickSTARR · 09-05-2018 02:39PM

kylith wrote: »

You can believe what you like, but the law of the land says that you have to be born to be a person.

But the people of Ireland are voting based off their beliefs. So Ill vote with that in mind.

RobertKK · 09-05-2018 02:40PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

Can you please explain why a pre >12 week old zygote should have an equal right to life, as me, a living citizen?
In particular, why should its equal right to life be upheld at the expense of my health or life being at risk?

Why should I have to be dying to receive the healthcare I need?

After the eighth week of pregnancy and until birth occurs, a developing baby is called a fetus.

https://www.livescience.com/44899-stages-of-pregnancy.html

ELM327 · 09-05-2018 02:41PM

patrickSTARR wrote: »

But the people of Ireland are voting based off their beliefs. So Ill vote with that in mind.

Posts like this show why some sort of entrance exam should be introduced in order to qualify for each referendum vote.
You should have to show you read and understand the question.

Voting in this referendum on your beliefs on abortion is the wrong decision. This is not a referendum about abortion.

Irish abortions happen today, yesterday and tomorrow regardless of how you (or anyone) votes.

The irish public legalised abortion with the 12th and 13th amendments

NuMarvel · 09-05-2018 02:41PM

ASISEEIT wrote: »

Basically this debate comes down to the following- do you accept or reject fact that the life in the womb is a baby and thus worthy of prorection.

Nope. Whatever way this referendum goes, women will keep having abortions. This comes to where and how women have abortions.

Vote Yes if you think abortions should happen here, under the supervision of a person's own medical team.

Vote No if you think they should keep happening abroad or in secret, both of which mean increased risks to the health of the woman.

ELM327 · 09-05-2018 02:41PM

RobertKK wrote: »

https://www.livescience.com/44899-stages-of-pregnancy.html

So now you use science?
Are they not just called "babies" by you at all stages?

yourdeadwright · 09-05-2018 02:42PM

My argument isn't against voting Yes , its that instead of blaming the country for everything blame the people who caused it, In this case it was the grand da,
With or with out the 8th people have to be responsible, the 8th wasn't the cause of him to be a rapist ,

patrickSTARR · 09-05-2018 02:42PM

swampgas wrote: »

Please tell me why what SOME believe should be imposed on everyone?

.

Because I the life you are aborting is worth saving whether its in my body or yours. It deserves to live.

ohnonotgmail · 09-05-2018 02:43PM

RobertKK wrote: »

https://www.livescience.com/44899-stages-of-pregnancy.html

Perhaps you might actually answer the question? I'll rephrase if that helps:

Can you please explain why pre 12 week zygote/foetus should have an equal right to life, as me, a living citizen?
In particular, why should its equal right to life be upheld at the expense of my health or life being at risk?

PlaneSpeeking · 09-05-2018 02:43PM

ELM327 wrote: »

"The organisers stated" = meaningless.

I organised a "make ELM the dictator" march last weekend. As the organiser I confirm that 1 million people attended.

Look: Here they are

I for one welcome my new Elm overlord.

Frank Bullitt · 09-05-2018 02:43PM

John McGuirk is taking this well.

kylith · 09-05-2018 02:43PM

ASISEEIT wrote: »

Exactly how is this relevant to a debate in 2018??

It highlights that Irish women haven’t had a choice in reproduction possibly since Brehon law.

patrickSTARR wrote: »

Why I believe it personally is because its a life in my eyes. I don't believe a life should be terminated if the mother and soon to be child is considered healthy.

Its a life, its precious, it shouldn't be ended because of its inconvenient.

Well _I_ believe that you only get to enforce pregnancy if you are the one who is pregnant.

ohnonotgmail · 09-05-2018 02:44PM

patrickSTARR wrote: »

Because I the life you are aborting is worth saving whether its in my body or yours. It deserves to live.

why should your belief trump the wishes of the pregnant woman?

ELM327 · 09-05-2018 02:44PM

patrickSTARR wrote: »

Because I the life you are aborting is worth saving whether its in my body or yours. It deserves to live.

And any Irish woman is totally allowed and free to procure an abortion.
Perfectly legal, in accordance with the 12th and 13th amendment.

This is not an abortion referendum.

....... · 09-05-2018 02:45PM

This post has been deleted.

spookwoman · 09-05-2018 02:45PM

ASISEEIT wrote: »

Basically this debate comes down to the following- do you accept or reject fact that the life in the womb is a baby and thus worthy of prorection. Its not about whether you want the child or not. There are unwanted children in the world and we don't shoot them because of that.

Rape and fatal foetal anomalies are side issues. Pregnancies by rape are statitically small. If however you passed a law allowing abortion for just that i would support it because of the non consent issue. The rest of us humping and bumping know the consequences
There is no accepted medical term for FFA so no law could be designed to allow it but we can't slaughter others to satisty a tiny miniority. If we made laws like that we would ban a huge amount of stuff

They are not side issues to the woman who is going through these.

ASISEEIT wrote: »

Adoption is a real option and people should realise the law has radically changed. Its no longer a case of no contact with your child if you put him or her up for adoption

Have you read the thread. You have to basically put yourself down as an unfit mother to be able to put into state care. That's on record for your life, it then puts you in a position if you have other children you will be assessed and may loose them. If you have children in the future you will be monitored and may loose that as well. It take months and in that time it's put into foster care and basically lost in the system till a time when the kid is too old for most couples looking to adopt. Even then the criteria to adopt expects too much.

It still means the woman has to remain pregnant and give birth against her will!

ASISEEIT wrote: »

The bodily integrity argument is bull because if taken to logical conclusion would permit prostitution,self harm and heroin addiction

B*ll*x! Do you see men cutting their testicle off all in the name of bodily autonomy.

ASISEEIT wrote: »

I cant support anything that would allow a doctor to scrap out arms,legs and skull of a baby . End of story . 12 weeks my backside. Proposed law allows that to be extended under circumstances and we know what happened in England after 1967

This is Ireland not England and most abortions are done via pills which involved a very heavy period. Resorting to using phrases like scraping legs and arms only proves a point that you are desperate and trying to shock people.

nozzferrahhtoo · 09-05-2018 02:45PM

Another post for you to ignore and dodge

Just in case you are collecting.

ASISEEIT wrote: »

Basically this debate comes down to the following- do you accept or reject fact that the life in the womb is a baby and thus worthy of prorection.

Great. So lets have that debate then because that is EXACTLY the debate I have been having myself. Some people focus on things like the effect the 8th has on health care of all pregnant women, not just those who seek abortion. And they are MUCH better at that than I. So I have stayed out of it.

But I have focused almost entirely on this very thing you describe. So come on, let us have that discussion. The near totality of abortion, up to 98% in some countries, happen in or before week 16.

Regale me please with the arguments, evidence, data and reasoning you think supports the notion such a fetus is "a baby and worthy of protection". I am, agog. Have been in fact for 25 years.

If you do not have such arguments that is ok. No one else has in 25 years of me asking. So I would not hold it against you.

ASISEEIT wrote: »

If however you passed a law allowing abortion for just that i would support it because of the non consent issue.

I would support the INTENT of such a law, but I would not support the law given it is likely unworkable. How, for example, do you propose to ascertain whether a person qualifies for access to abortion under this criteria? How could you in both a meaningful and TIMELY manner (given the time sensitive nature of abortion) ascertain a woman was in fact raped.

Further, if you do believe such a fetus has a right to life.... why is it's rights forfeit due to a rape that was committed NOT by it, on someone who is not it? How many other scenarios do you know of where X loses primary rights because Y committed a crime on Z?

ASISEEIT wrote: »

The rest of us humping and bumping know the consequences

And people who play sport know the risks and consequences too. But we still offer them options and treatments when they get injured. Abortion is one of the possible consequences of sexual interaction. And people know that too.

ASISEEIT wrote: »

Adoption is a real option and people should realise the law has radically changed.

Explain to me how an average person realizes that option under Irish law if you would. Imagine a completely normal couple. Married and unmarried (if you could explain the differences of both) who fall pregnant against their plans. So they choose to bring the child to term and give it to adoption. What do they have to do to achieve this to your knowledge? What steps must they take, who do they go to, and what blocks or hurdles might be in place?

Because although I do not know the details myself, I have read MANY posts from MANY users on this thread suggesting it is functionally not an option at all for a healthy couple to give a healthy child up for adoption on a whim. But I plead ignorance as to the truth of that claim. Perhaps you know more than I.

ASISEEIT wrote: »

The bodily integrity argument is bull because if taken to logical conclusion would permit prostitution,self harm and heroin addiction

As far as I know we already permit some of those things, as in they are not in themselves illegal. And in fact things like prostitution SHOULD be wholly and completely legal and I have yet to see a single argument as to why it should not. So I genuinely do not know what you think your point is here.

ASISEEIT wrote: »

I cant support anything that would allow a doctor to scrap out arms,legs and skull of a baby . End of story . 12 weeks my backside. Proposed law allows that to be extended under circumstances and we know what happened in England after 1967

The majority, nay near totality, of abortion happens in or before week 12. Consistently. In just about every country. And medical abortion, which is what such abortions are, does not involve the scraping of anything. It involved the injection of pills.

That said however, if you can not formulate an argument against abortion itself..... which so far you have not....... then what has the METHOD of performing it got to do with anything in this context? To equivocate between methodologies one has to show a RELEVANT distinction between them. This you have not done.

If one method was shown to be pain free and the other method to be painful.... then you would have a relevant point for example. But at 12/16 weeks a fetus has no faculty by which to experience pain.... in that there is no one even there TO experience pain..... so that is not a mediation point of relevance.

So what do you distinguish the relevance on?

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

Comments