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

joe40 · 19-05-2018 12:33PM

robp wrote: »

swampgas wrote: »

I'd like to ask a few questions to anyone who is against repealing the 8th because they don't like the proposed legislation allowing for "on request" terminations up to 12 weeks.

1. Surely most women who want an "on request" termination right now can just travel, as guaranteed by the constitution? How does keeping the 8th, with all the problems it causes, change that?

2. How many weeks would you accept instead of 12? It's easy to say 12 weeks is "too much". Please specify how many weeks you would accept, and please explain why.

3. If your partner/sister/daughter told you they had a crisis pregnancy and were going to take abortion pills, would you report them to the Gárdaí?

I'm trying to figure out if some people just want the constitutional and legislative ban on abortion there as some kind of public sign that "we don't approve of abortion in this country" but really don't want to see anyone actually prosecuted.

Swamp gas, the 14 year jail term was introduced by prochoice FG/Lab against the advice of prolife campaign. Prolife people have always argued women are victims here and my own personal experience would reinforce that view.

Igotadose wrote: »

Correlation isn't causation, which is what Hotblack posted.

Secular decrease - what's that mean? There are religious abortions versus secular ones? A decrease in abortion rates overall, is likely due to availability and improved contraception, seems simple enough.

Secular has several meanings. In stats secular means a widespread trend.

That is a complete fudge. The constitution says that our laws must protect the unborn
Therefore if it is a crime there must be a punishment. That is blatantly obvious.

Anything else is just hypocrisy.

Sofiztikated · 19-05-2018 12:33PM

robp wrote: »

Swamp gas, the 14 year jail term was introduced by prochoice FG/Lab against the advice of prolife campaign. Prolife people have always argued women are victims here and my own personal experience would reinforce that view.

Secular has several meanings. In stats secular means a widespread trend.

If the constitution says for the state to defend and vindicate as far as practicable, do you agree with a punishment?

robp · 19-05-2018 12:35PM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

If the constitution says for the state to defend and vindicate as far as practicable, do you agree with a punishment?

Traditionally abortions were done by doctors so the woman didnt actually kill so it is not straight forward. Plenty of laws act as deterrents without having to be used.

Ave Sodalis · 19-05-2018 12:35PM

robp wrote: »

You dont even though the endgame of your argument. Normally in the Netherlands infants are protected like everywhere else, however, in the name of 'choice' prochoice doctors and philosophers and lawyers developed a protocol to abort infants where their life was deemed to be not worth living due some kind of serious illness but not terminal illnesses without risk of facing charges. Its called the groningen protocol and it is not theory. It has allowed the death of infants, not many but even one is repulsive. Undoubtedly prochoicers will defend it or try to down play. The dark dogma of choice knows few limits. Once again, prochoicers been proven wrong.

That is not abortion, has nothing to do with abortion and is not what this referendum is about...

What exactly have "prochoicers" been proven wrong on?

Sofiztikated · 19-05-2018 12:38PM

robp wrote: »

Traditionally abortions were done by doctors so the woman didnt actually kill so it is not straight forward. Plenty of laws act as deterrents without having to be used.

Name 3 assault type laws that have no punishment.

Zubeneschamali · 19-05-2018 12:38PM

robp wrote: »

the 14 year jail term was introduced by prochoice FG/Lab against the advice of prolife campaign. Prolife people have always argued women are victims here and my own personal experience would reinforce that view.

The 14 year jail sentence is necessary because of the 8th - if the sentence is not comparable to a murder sentence, the state would be failing to protect and vindicate the unborns equal right to life.

Don't agree with it? Repeal the 8th, then we can change it.

This is not just my opinion, BTW, this is the legal advice from the Attorney General. Several TDs tried to change the punishment to a token fine, and this is what the AG told them.

robp · 19-05-2018 12:39PM

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

That is not abortion, has nothing to do with abortion and is not what this referendum is about...

What exactly have "prochoicers" been proven wrong on?

:pac::pac::pac::pac:
Nothing to do with abortion?
:pac:

It is called culture of death...

Sofiztikated · 19-05-2018 12:40PM

robp wrote: »

You dont even though the endgame of your argument. Normally in the Netherlands infants are protected like everywhere else, however, in the name of 'choice' prochoice doctors and philosophers and lawyers developed a protocol to abort infants where their life was deemed to be not worth living due some kind of serious illness but not terminal illnesses without risk of facing charges. Its called the groningen protocol and it is not theory. It has allowed the death of infants, not many but even one is repulsive. Undoubtedly prochoicers will defend it or try to down play. The dark dogma of choice knows few limits. Once again, prochoicers been proven wrong.

In 2005 a review study was undertaken of all 22 reported cases between 1997 and 2004.[7] All cases concerned newborns with spina bifida and hydrocephalus. In all cases, at least 2 doctors were consulted outside the medical team. In 17 of 22 cases, a multidisciplinary spina bifida team was consulted. All parents consented to the termination of life; in 4 cases they explicitly requested it. The mean time between reporting of the case and the decision concerning prosecution was 5.3 months. None of the cases led to prosecution. The study concluded that all cases of active termination of life reported were found to be in accordance with good practice

January · 19-05-2018 12:40PM

robp wrote: »

You dont even though the endgame of your argument. Normally in the Netherlands infants are protected like everywhere else, however, in the name of 'choice' prochoice doctors and philosophers and lawyers developed a protocol to abort infants where their life was deemed to be not worth living due some kind of serious illness but not terminal illnesses without risk of facing charges. Its called the groningen protocol and it is not theory. It has allowed the death of infants, not many but even one is repulsive. Undoubtedly prochoicers will defend it or try to down play. The dark dogma of choice knows few limits. Once again, prochoicers been proven wrong.

You cannot abort an infant.

Please provide a source for your claims.

Ave Sodalis · 19-05-2018 12:41PM

robp wrote: »

:pac::pac::pac::pac:
Nothing to do with abortion?
:pac:

It is called culture of death...

Drawing false parallels does not make it so.

What exactly has the "prochoicers" been proven wrong on?

Sofiztikated · 19-05-2018 12:43PM

robp wrote: »

:pac::pac::pac::pac:
Nothing to do with abortion?
:pac:

It is called culture of death...

Or helping people in **** circumstances.

Ave Sodalis · 19-05-2018 12:45PM

January wrote: »

You cannot abort an infant.

Please provide a source for your claims.

The Groningen Protocol is a thing. It provide euthanasia for children under the age of 1 who are born with hopeless and unbearable suffering (such as Hydrocephalus or Spina Bifida). It goes through extensive review before it's granted, and it's very rare.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the referendum, or abortion and is in no way relevant.

Zubeneschamali · 19-05-2018 12:49PM

robp wrote: »

Its called the groningen protocol and it is not theory. It has allowed the death of infants, not many but even one is repulsive.

That's euthanasia, rob, that's not until 2020 after abortion this year and unisex toilets next year.

January · 19-05-2018 12:49PM

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

The Groningen Protocol is a thing. It provide euthanasia for children under the age of 1 who are born with hopeless and unbearable suffering (such as Hydrocephalus or Spina Bifida). It goes through extensive review before it's granted, and it's very rare.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the referendum, or abortion and is in no way relevant.

Oh, I knew it was a thing. I wanted the OP to provide a source for his outlandish claims that you can abort infants, knowing full well that they couldn't.

Nutters.

Grayson · 19-05-2018 12:55PM

Just her wrote: »

You say that as if it's some great get out of jail free card. It will actually become conscious in a couple of weeks if you don't go out of your way to end it's life. If you miscarry why would you go for abortion. I posted this all before.

What part would you me to address? You were replying to another poster not me. Is it that part about if you agree with contraception that you have no option but to agree with abortion. You just throw that in to get away from the actual subject of abortion

No. You're saying it as a get out of jail free card. You say it will develop into a human being. When you say that you're actually kinda admitting that it isn't right now. It doesn't matter that it will be, what matters is what it is right now. An acorn may grow into an oak but an acorn isn't an oak right now.

As for the rest, do you think the morning after pill and the contraceptive pill should be banned since they prevent implantation. At the point of implantation the blastocyst has been developing for a few days.
By your definition it is a human being since it will develop into a person if nothing stops it from doing so.

sightband · 19-05-2018 12:56PM

January wrote: »

Oh, I knew it was a thing. I wanted the OP to provide a source for his outlandish claims that you can abort infants, knowing full well that they couldn't.

Nutters.

of course you did, you were just testing the OP eh

kylith · 19-05-2018 12:57PM

January wrote: »

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

The Groningen Protocol is a thing. It provide euthanasia for children under the age of 1 who are born with hopeless and unbearable suffering (such as Hydrocephalus or Spina Bifida). It goes through extensive review before it's granted, and it's very rare.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the referendum, or abortion and is in no way relevant.

Oh, I knew it was a thing. I wanted the OP to provide a source for his outlandish claims that you can abort infants, knowing full well that they couldn't.

Nutters.

Love the way that he phrased it to make it sound like it was something a woman could just decide because she didn’t like the hair colour, or something, rather than to avoid prolonging the suffering of seriously ill babies with no hope of recovery.

January · 19-05-2018 01:00PM

sightband wrote: »

of course you did, you were just testing the OP eh

No, not testing. The OP claimed that women could abort infants in the Netherlands.

It wasn't true though, was it?

Grayson · 19-05-2018 01:05PM

robp wrote: »

You dont even though the endgame of your argument. Normally in the Netherlands infants are protected like everywhere else, however, in the name of 'choice' prochoice doctors and philosophers and lawyers developed a protocol to abort infants where their life was deemed to be not worth living due some kind of serious illness but not terminal illnesses without risk of facing charges. Its called the groningen protocol and it is not theory. It has allowed the death of infants, not many but even one is repulsive. Undoubtedly prochoicers will defend it or try to down play. The dark dogma of choice knows few limits. Once again, prochoicers been proven wrong.

I'd never heard of that protocol. Just googled it, it's interesting reading. For everyone else here it is in wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_Protocol

If you google it there's a lot of legal and ethical articles about it.

It's certainly an interesting and controversial topic. It's probably worthy of a whole thread. However it's not abortion.

Bannasidhe · 19-05-2018 01:06PM

robp wrote: »

Normally in the Netherlands infants are protected like everywhere else, however, in the name of 'choice' prochoice doctors and philosophers and lawyers developed a protocol to abort infants where their life was deemed to be not worth living due some kind of serious illness but not terminal illnesses without risk of facing charges. Its called the groningen protocol and it is not theory. It has allowed the death of infants, not many but even one is repulsive. Undoubtedly prochoicers will defend it or try to down play. The dark dogma of choice knows few limits. Once again, prochoicers been proven wrong.

So you are talking about euthanasia?

It's not quite what you are implying is it?

Although technological developments have provided tools for dealing with many consequences of congenital anomalies and premature birth, decisions regarding when to start and when to withhold treatment in individual cases remain very difficult to make. Even more difficult are the decisions regarding newborns who have serious disorders or deformities associated with suffering that cannot be alleviated and for whom there is no hope of improvement....

In the Netherlands, as in all other countries, ending someone's life, except in extreme conditions, is considered murder. A life of suffering that cannot be alleviated by any means might be considered one of these extreme conditions. Legal control over euthanasia in newborns is based on physicians' own reports, followed by assessment by criminal prosecutors. To provide all the information needed for assessment and to prevent interrogations by police officers, we developed a protocol, known as the Groningen protocol, for cases in which a decision is made to actively end the life of a newborn. During the past few months, the international press has been full of blood-chilling accounts and misunderstandings concerning this protocol...

....There are, however, circumstances in which, despite all measures taken, suffering cannot be relieved and no improvement can be expected. When both the parents and the physicians are convinced that there is an extremely poor prognosis, they may concur that death would be more humane than continued life. Under similar conditions, a person in the Netherlands who is older than 16 years of age can ask for euthanasia. Newborns, however, cannot ask for euthanasia, and such a request by parents, acting as the representatives of their child, is invalid under Dutch law. Does this mean that euthanasia in a newborn is always prohibited? We are convinced that life-ending measures can be acceptable in these cases under very strict conditions: the parents must agree fully, on the basis of a thorough explanation of the condition and prognosis; a team of physicians, including at least one who is not directly involved in the care of the patient, must agree; and the condition and prognosis must be very well defined. After the decision has been made and the child has died, an outside legal body should determine whether the decision was justified and all necessary procedures have been followed.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp058026

Just her · 19-05-2018 01:09PM

Grayson wrote: »

No. You're saying it as a get out of jail free card. You say it will develop into a human being. When you say that you're actually kinda admitting that it isn't right now. It doesn't matter that it will be, what matters is what it is right now. An acorn may grow into an oak but an acorn isn't an oak right now.

As for the rest, do you think the morning after pill and the contraceptive pill should be banned since they prevent implantation. At the point of implantation the blastocyst has been developing for a few days.
By your definition it is a human being since it will develop into a person if nothing stops it from doing so.

Last time I replied to you some one reported me and I got a warning for saying you were patronising me. Ive answered your question in a previous post, I think it may have disappeared because I can't find it now either, but I don't feel I can respond anymore without incurring a ban, sorry

19-05-2018 01:12PM

sightband wrote: »

of course you did, you were just testing the OP eh

Your posts display quite an attitude sightband, could you address the issues bring discussed rather than making digs at people?

FingerDeKat · 19-05-2018 01:13PM

Just her wrote: »

Last time I replied to you some one reported me and I got a warning for saying you were patronising me. Ive answered your question in a previous post, I think it may have disappeared because I can't find it now either, but I don't feel I can respond anymore without incurring a ban, sorry

You're responsible for what you post and no one else.

Buford T. Justice XIX · 19-05-2018 01:15PM

Whiplash85 wrote: »

Jesus wept you are a pain in the hole

Mod note: Whiplash85, don't post in this thread again.

Buford T. Justice

Annasopra · 19-05-2018 01:18PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

My daughter was telling me her boyfriend was saying that he doesn't like the way the Yes side are treating No voters, and may vote No as a result.

The little weasel.

Same crap as 3 years ago lol

Annasopra · 19-05-2018 01:20PM

meeeeh wrote: »

It's not about the respect, it's a belief that conversation should not be limited. Why do you think some topics should not be part of conversation and why should they be limited? What else you think shouldn't be discussed in this debate? Should we maybe not have the referendum because it upsets some people, real people?

It's not "conversation" - it is (ab)using people with disabilities to score a point.

Just her · 19-05-2018 01:20PM

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Mod note: Whiplash85, don't post in this thread again.

Buford T. Justice

Why is it not ok for me to call some one out on being patronising, but a category moderator is allowed to call posters nutters?

Tipperary animal lover · 19-05-2018 01:23PM

just drove into cork and back from mallow, there's a beautiful copper statue of an elk up on a hill as you drive along been there years, as I passed it today I seen it has been defaced on both sides of it with With black spray paint TÁ, I'm so disappointed, I know there's assholes on both sides but this but never taught the yes side would sink this low, what a shame

Annasopra · 19-05-2018 01:23PM

meeeeh wrote: »

You mean sacrificing women who had abortions for the cause? That's seriously inhumane and I refuse to believe it's the only way to persuade people to repeal the 8th.

Eh? Pro lifers are pretty much sacrificing all women for their cause

Buford T. Justice XIX · 19-05-2018 01:28PM

Just her wrote: »

Why is it not ok for me to call some one out on being patronising, but a category moderator is allowed to call posters nutters?

Mod note: As has been said numerous times on this site, if you have a problem with a post, report it and move on.

If you have a query on moderation, PM a mod/cmod with your query. Any discussion of moderation on thread derails the thread, as is going on now.

TAKE IT TO PM!

Any more of this and a thread ban will follow. That goes for all posters regardless of persuasion or position.

Buford T. Justice.

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

Comments