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

Mushy · 20-05-2018 11:28AM

Logo wrote: »

erica74 wrote: »

Well you're not so don't worry about that.

Thanks for your answer but I was trying to be civil . If I vote yes then I will agree to the slaughter of children up to 6 months old without question

Well that's wrong anyway

Logo · 20-05-2018 11:29AM

January wrote: »

More lies.

Please explain. 72 hours to decide and abortion freely available up to 3 months and up to 6 months on health reasons

Akrasia · 20-05-2018 11:33AM

erica74 wrote: »

From that article

In all honesty, do the catholic church think they have any standing in lecturing people about caring for all mothers and their unborn children? The organisation is farcical at this stage.

When the Catholic church comes out in support of contraception, then they can start lecturing people on abortion.
The RC church think that women are vessels for the incubation of catholic babies.

Alan_P · 20-05-2018 11:34AM

Logo wrote: »

Please explain. 72 hours to decide and abortion freely available up to 3 months and up to 6 months on health reasons

Please excuse yourself for bringing Hitler into this debate. The question,as always, is between a woman and her doctor. Why is it any business of yours ?

kylith · 20-05-2018 11:35AM

Logo wrote: »

January wrote: »

More lies.

Please explain. 72 hours to decide and abortion freely available up to 3 months and up to 6 months on health reasons

Do you think that a woman’s health or life is worth less that a foetus?

Call me Al · 20-05-2018 11:36AM

Logo wrote: »

Please explain. 72 hours to decide and abortion freely available up to 3 months and up to 6 months on health reasons

So, just to clarify, what levels of septicemia or cancer in pregnancy do you think is ok for a woman to tolerate before they become so unhealthy they're dead?
Or is death that sweet spot for you.

Akrasia · 20-05-2018 11:38AM

Logo wrote: »

Please explain. 72 hours to decide and abortion freely available up to 3 months and up to 6 months on health reasons

Yes, health reasons, meaning that the woman's health takes priority over a developing fetus. The woman is allowed to choose whether she wants to put her own health at risk to carry the pregnancy towards a point when it is viable outside the womb, or if she thinks that the risks to her own health are too great and would prefer to end the pregnancy in consultation with her gp.

The alternative to this clause is to say to a woman 'I don't care if you suffer life long health consequences from this pregnancy, you have no choice but to carry this pregnancy to term, even if the fetus is unlikely to survive outside the womb.'

When the fetus becomes viable, then there is no longer a conflict between the health of the woman and the fetus, the fetus will be delivered and allowed to take it's chances in the neonatal ward.

January · 20-05-2018 11:38AM

Logo wrote: »

Please explain. 72 hours to decide and abortion freely available up to 3 months and up to 6 months on health reasons

You said up to 6 months for no reason. You are lying.

Before 12 weeks abortion will be available with nor restriction as to reason, as proposed by the CA and the JOC so that women who present looking for an abortion if they have been raped, or abused do not have to disclose this to the GP. Yes, they are the minority but this is the only way to provide abortions to these people without having to pressure them to report their rape/abuse. Yes, it leaves it open to women who haven't been raped/abused accessing abortion, but we've all learned that abortions happen for reasons, not no reasons, they are just personal to the woman seeking the abortion.

After 12 weeks abortion will be available in cases where there is a risk of serious harm to the health or to the life of the mother.

The government are not proposing some wishy washy legislation where anyone can go in and say 'I'm depressed, give me an abortion', they will have to be assessed by two doctors, one with a speciality in the illness the woman is presenting with and the other an obstetrician.

wexie · 20-05-2018 11:39AM

Akrasia wrote: »

When the Catholic church comes out in support of contraception, then they can start lecturing people on abortion.
The RC church think that women are vessels for the incubation of catholic babies.

And they seem to stop caring as soon as they're out of the womb :mad:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/23738fc2-560e-11e8-9871-a6b7d2d44e9e

The Catholic bishops’ child-protection body is advising priests not to inform state authorities about incidents of child abuse they hear about in the confession box, in apparent contravention of the law. Guidelines published by the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church exempts priests from passing on admissions of child abuse made in the confessional, it has emerged.

Anybody want to stand up and defend that?

Cupcake_Crisis · 20-05-2018 11:39AM

Logo wrote: »

Thanks for your answer but I was trying to be civil . If I vote yes then I will agree to the slaughter of children up to 6 months old without question

You are absolutely not voting for abortion without question up to 6 months.

The proposed legislation is 12 weeks, to obtain that you visit your GP, then there’s a window of 72 hours before anything will happen. The vast majority of terminations occur before 10 weeks.

6 months will only happen in cases of FFA or when the mothers health is in danger.

That is what you’re voting for.

Logo · 20-05-2018 11:40AM

kylith wrote: »

Do you think that a woman’s health or life is worth less that a foetus?

I thought we were voting on a referendum. I honestly can't believe that men don't matter

gandalf · 20-05-2018 11:41AM

Logo wrote: »

Please explain. 72 hours to decide and abortion freely available up to 3 months and up to 6 months on health reasons

Severe health reasons!

eviltwin · 20-05-2018 11:41AM

Logo wrote: »

I thought we were voting on a referendum. I honestly can't believe that men don't matter

Who said men don't matter?

thee glitz · 20-05-2018 11:44AM

gandalf wrote: »

Do I agree with abortion I absolutely do not, I think it is abhorrent

So vote No.

If you trust these women then there is only one logical choice on Friday and that is to repeal the 8th and trust in their choice.

Trust women what - that they'll do what suits them best? If you believe that allowing the killing of an unborn up to 12 weeks where there are no reasonable grounds to do so is abhorrent, then the thing to do is vote No. Any and all votes for Yes are someone saying that they are comfortable with that.

Cupcake_Crisis · 20-05-2018 11:44AM

Logo wrote: »

I thought we were voting on a referendum. I honestly can't believe that men don't matter

Could you answer the question you were asked?

Dressing gown · 20-05-2018 11:45AM

Logo wrote: »

I thought we were voting on a referendum. I honestly can't believe that men don't matter

Men absolutely do matter. Can you imagine how you would fee if your daughter came to you and told you she had had an abortion but didn’t tell you out of fear of you disowning her? This happens, a lot, to Irish men. Husbands watch on as their wives deteriorate to a sufficient point to enable doctors to intervene to save their pregnant wives lives. Men travel to the UK with their partners so she can end the pregnancy of their dying baby in a respectful and dignified manner. It absolutely has everything to do with men.

Logo · 20-05-2018 11:47AM

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

You are absolutely not voting for abortion without question up to 6 months.

The proposed legislation is 12 weeks, to obtain that you visit your GP, then there’s a window of 72 hours before anything will happen. The vast majority of terminations occur before 10 weeks.

6 months will only happen in cases of FFA or when the mothers health is in danger.

That is what you’re voting for.

Thanks but I do know what I'm voting for. 72 hour windows and 3 months decision times and 6 months on health reasons. To be honest I agree with you and think we should repeal the 8th. but not on Hitler's terms.

gandalf · 20-05-2018 11:47AM

Logo wrote: »

I thought we were voting on a referendum. I honestly can't believe that men don't matter

We matter but we don't carry the child. Our bodies are not distorted or put under strain carrying the child. When my wife was pregnant with our son I saw daily the pressure her body was put through. The nausia, the back strain and sleepless nights. We wanted that child, he was planned. There is no way I would expect a woman to go through that if she didn't want to.

You want to force women to give birth no matter their circumstances or the effect on their health.

You obviously don't trust the women in your life and that is pretty sad.

Neyite · 20-05-2018 11:51AM

eviltwin wrote: »

Who said men don't matter?

I *think* he's not happy that this referendum is concerning the bodies of women and female children and he's feeling left out that nobody is debating his bodily autonomy...

Cupcake_Crisis · 20-05-2018 11:52AM

Logo wrote: »

Thanks but I do know what I'm voting for. 72 hour windows and 3 months decision times and 6 months on health reasons. To be honest I agree with you and think we should repeal the 8th. but not on Hitler's terms.

If you know what you’re voting on why are you spouting lies?

And where does hitler fit in to this equation? I genuinely don’t know where you’re going with that.

gandalf · 20-05-2018 11:53AM

thee glitz wrote: »

Trust women what - that they'll do what suits them best? If you believe that allowing the killing of an unborn up to 12 weeks where there are no reasonable grounds to do so is abhorrent, then the thing to do is vote No. Any and all votes for Yes are someone saying that they are comfortable with that.

I see you selectively quoted me. I have already said that I find abortion abhorrent and in an ideal world it would not exist but we don't live in an ideal world.

I find forcing women to carry a foetus to term when they don't want a child, it effects their health, is the result of rape or incest is abhorrent and I find people who avocate this to be completely lacking any sort of empathy at all.

wexie · 20-05-2018 11:55AM

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

And where does hitler fit in to this equation? I generally don’t know where you’re going with that.

If you've no actual arguments that will stand up to scrutiny then all you can do is fling mud and screech emotive nonsense.

Cupcake_Crisis · 20-05-2018 11:56AM

Neyite wrote: »

I *think* he's not happy that this referendum is concerning the bodies of women and female children and he's feeling left out that nobody is debating his bodily autonomy...

The irony being that it doesn’t need to be debated because he is completely entitled to bodily autonomy. Some people!

gandalf · 20-05-2018 11:56AM

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

If you know what you’re voting on why are you spouting lies?

And where does hitler fit in to this equation? I generally don’t know where you’re going with that.

The poor chap hasn't heard of Godwin and appears to be garnering his "facts" from the antis posters.

ArmaniJeanss · 20-05-2018 11:59AM

Neyite wrote: »

I *think* he's not happy that this referendum is concerning the bodies of women and female children and he's feeling left out that nobody is debating his bodily autonomy...

Some sort of law change that the father has the same restrictions on medical treatment as the mother for the term of her pregnancy seems to be the obvious step down this fairly mad road.

wexie · 20-05-2018 12:00PM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Some sort of law change that the father has the same restrictions on medical treatment as the mother for the term of her pregnancy seems to be the obvious step down this fairly mad road.

To be honest I think that would be the quickest way to have this whole argument settled right quick

gandalf · 20-05-2018 12:01PM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Some sort of law change that the father has the same restrictions on medical treatment as the mother for the term of her pregnancy seems to be the obvious step down this fairly mad road.

Make men travel for vasectomies and ban masturbation with a 14 year term for overuse of Andrex

DOS · 20-05-2018 12:03PM

Just returned from my local Church of Ireland Sunday Service. Amazing to see our church overflowing outside with young and old. Our little community gathered together.

Our pastor gave a rousing sermon about the value of life from the womb to the tomb. Love for the unborn, babies, todlers, teenagers, women and men, pregnant women, the elderly, the poor and all the vulnerable in society.

It was greeted with tremendous applause.

Logo · 20-05-2018 12:05PM

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

If you know what you’re voting on why are you spouting lies?

And where does hitler fit in to this equation? I genuinely don’t know where you’re going with that.

I am trying to have a civil conversation with you. Hitler was involved in mass murder. By voting yes you too are agreeing to mass murder of innocent 6 month old children - at least Hitler's victims had some quality of life.

gandalf · 20-05-2018 12:06PM

Logo wrote: »

at least Hitler's victims had some quality of life.

The mindset of a no voter in one phrase :rolleyes:

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

Comments