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

RobertKK wrote: »

A woman who had an abortion said in her case the rape was worse than the abortion.

I think most women would say that.

EDIT: I think Robert ninja-edited that post, it now reads:

A woman who had an abortion said in her case the abortion was worse than the rape

OK, so he is talking about the same case as earlier. A better summary might be:

A woman who, as a child, had an abortion without her knowledge or consent said it was worse than the rape.

Why is there no poll?

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes some would and some wouldn't.
I edited my post as I got it the wrong way around, as my mind is on the disgusting remarks made by another poster.

Like me pointing out you don’t give a **** what happens to minorities in the United States?

Igotadose wrote: »

He's on the record as endorsing Trump, the poster-child for "hating minorities is o.k." in the US, so I have to agree. Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas.

No matter how horrible it might seem.

Really?

I wanted Trump to win as Hillary Clinton is a 100% signed up warmonger who wanted to escalate the Syrian war with no-fly zones, regime change and all the other failed crap she supported and which caused hundreds of thousands of dead people.
Maybe I care about lives, that I was happy when Trump said the wars America had fought were stupid.
There is even talk that if talks go well with North Korea, that the US could reduce the number of troops in South Korea - a war that is likely to technically end under the current president, he has too much scandal though, but Hillary would have been bringing back the man into the white house who took advantage of Monica Lewisnsky an she is the person who is paying for it - she said very recently she was uninvited to a conference because Bill Clinton was attending. Then people go on about Hillary when she walked all over women who accused Bill of rape and affairs, because power matters more than what is right.
The fact remains they were two awful candidates, and even a really awful candidate could beat Hillary because she was no great shakes herself.

Defunkd wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

Where are all the "No" voters?



I'll ask the same question I asked earlier and would value a response from some "No" voters.
If Britain bans abortions for non-British people would you still vote no? Be honest!.

I think you underappreciate RKK's interaction with you and others on this forum. When a person posts a pro-life post, you can be sure that 5 other pro-abortion posters are going to reply, with questions aplenty and all want answers. Given how few posts are without thinly-veiled insults/aggression/accusation of outright lying, you (collectively) should be fortunate that anyone is willing to engage with you.


This thread is an epitome of an echo-chamber.


And i'd ban abortion in Britain too.

Thanks for you response.
It still doesn't explain why there are so few "No" voters posting. I'll accept that they will be outnumbered but that is simply due to the fact there are so few.
If "No voters have belief in their convictions, and trust in their arguments why aren't more on here.
I think it is an emotional response many people have to this question, but not one that can stand up to logic or scrutiny. They're not without sympathy so find it difficult to argue for a "No" vote but keep still keep a bit of humanity.

Obviously if you are coming from a religious point of view, or if you hold the opinion that abortion is basically murder, then no amount of argument to the contrary will have any bearing.

I just find it strange that there is less argument/discussion on this thread from potential "No" voters that have less entrenched views.

RobertKK wrote: »

But would this change with a Yes? I ask this as how do you know if the hospital is not more concerned about being sued if something happened the baby? We see the big payouts of a hospital make when an error during delivery happened and the baby is affected?
We see how the health service fight people even when clearly in the wrong.
I don't view you as selfish, did you ask why your heart rate was viewed as less important than the baby, the 8th amendment does not say the unborn life supercedes your life.

The story I posted wasn't me, it was a woman who chose to share her story on Facebook and give her name.

This woman felt like 'a vessel without a voice'. She was on the verge of cardiac arrest throughtout her second pregnancy and in her labour. Her concerns were totally ignored because the baby was fine.

Where was the 'Love Both' in that situation? Her life hung in the balance and her care was secondary to the baby despite the baby being healthy throughout the pregnancy.

She did not want to die. She did not want to leave her children without a mother. Yet that could easily have happened because her life was not a priority.

ELM327 wrote: »

Disgusting.
How DARE you try to use the cervical smear issues to your sides gain.
You vile, VILE little man.

I wonder if it was you that put the disgusting poster at a school in kilcock? Manipulative and shocking, it's right up your street.

For those who claim the yes side is not acted upon by the moderation team, I received a warning for this post.

Probably fair to say that anyone not affected by the cervical smear issues perhaps doesn't appreciate the gravity of the situation. Another situation where women's lives are being put at risk by Ireland.

joe40 wrote: »

.

Obviously if you are coming from a religious point of view, or if you hold the opinion that abortion is basically murder, then no amount of argument to the contrary will have any bearing.
.

Not really, look at patrickSTARR, he came into the thread giving it the usual prolife rhetoric, and was countered with the reality of what's actually happening. He went off, had a chat with his wife, and came to the conclusion that pro Repeal had merits, and is now leaning to a yes vote.

RobertKK wrote: »

We need a birth rate above replacement rate. It is fact.
Legalised abortion normalises it and leads to increased rates of abortion before it plateaus, and Europe is facing an existential crisis with birth rates below replacement rate.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/let-s-talk-about-the-link-between-immigration-and-low-reproduction-rates-1.2926375

Abortion is not helping society, governments need to do far more for pregnant women to turn the population crisis around.

Abortion is pretty much irrelevant to this argument though. If it had any merit, it would mean banning contraception - now that would increase the birth rate significantly.

Should we?

RobertKK wrote: »

We need a birth rate above replacement rate. It is fact.
Legalised abortion normalises it and leads to increased rates of abortion before it plateaus, and Europe is facing an existential crisis with birth rates below replacement rate.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/let-s-talk-about-the-link-between-immigration-and-low-reproduction-rates-1.2926375



Abortion is not helping society, governments need to do far more for pregnant women to turn the population crisis around.

Robert, banning abortion won't fix this. Supporting women and not destroying their careers and pensions might. Ypu want women to have more children? Provide non bankrupting childcare and don't penalise women economically for being mothers.

Calina wrote: »

RobertKK wrote: »

We need a birth rate above replacement rate. It is fact.
Legalised abortion normalises it and leads to increased rates of abortion before it plateaus, and Europe is facing an existential crisis with birth rates below replacement rate.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/let-s-talk-about-the-link-between-immigration-and-low-reproduction-rates-1.2926375



Abortion is not helping society, governments need to do far more for pregnant women to turn the population crisis around.

Robert, banning abortion won't fix this. Supporting women and not destroying their careers and pensions might. Ypu want women to have more children? Provide non bankrupting childcare and don't penalise women economically for being mothers.

Plus cut the cost of housing by at least half.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In fairness, although they like to say women should have been responsible and not gotten pregnant, the anti-abortion crew are not really behind contraception either.

They prefer the "no-sex until marriage and then one child a year until an early death" model leaving the poor widower to marry another young woman and do it again.

This is the only way to breed up a European army to beat off the coming Muslim hordes in the Final Battle before the Rapture.

Or something, I always doze off before they get that far.

Mrsmum wrote: »

Regarding cancer, I really could pull loads of articles to say a woman can be treated during pregnancy but I accept there will always be exceptions. Cancer to my mind directly puts your life at risk and I can't see where the 8th in its actual wording prevents treatment. Doctors need to be given a directive as to what 'as far as practicable' means because if people are dying of cancer from non treatment then their interpretation is crap. It's a get out clause and rightly so for such situations if ever I heard one.

The following is another extract on the In Her Shoes FB page from a woman living with cancer.

"The first person to mention fertility in any detail with me was a woman. I then asked her what would happen if I did get pregnant, and she said, "well, we don't know our patients' feelings about pregnancy so we can't really comment" I pointed to my "Repeal the 8th" badge on my bag, and she agreed to tell me.

If I get pregnant, my treatment stops. My chemotherapy cocktail would kill a foetus, so they can't legally allow that. I can't have scans, as there's a risk to the foetus. I can't travel for an abortion as I'm high-risk for surgical complications, but obviously I can't have one here. And after all that, my foetus would probably have major abnormalities and probably wouldn't survive long after birth. So, in her words, "we wait and hope for a miscarriage"

I don't have time to wait. I have a serious life-threatening disease. The odds are already stacked against me, but I fight against them every day. I shouldn't have to lie so I can have scans. I shouldn't have to put my relationship with my partner on hold for fear that I get pregnant. I have received excellent care so far, but my country and its health service should not equate my life with that of a foetus. I should have full access to safe, legal, supervised abortion if necessary.
I want to see my children grow up.
I want to grow old with my husband.
I want to be a part of my family and friends' lives.
MY LIFE MATTERS.
I WANT TO LIVE."

These stories are from real women.
The people actually effected by the 8th.
These are the people we should be listening to when making our decisions in how to vote.