The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Calina · 22-05-2018 03:14PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

DOS wrote: »

It was made one evening. I'm sure you missed a few posts. Like us all.

That would be a terrible coincidence considering i have probably posted nearly every day on all of the 4 threads so far.

I dare say DOS can provide a link to the post concerned.

As I recall though, one of the No arguments was that abodtions would swamp the GP services which were already stretched and it was pointed out that the healthcare needs of completed pregnancies and born children would exceed abortion loads.

ohnonotgmail · 22-05-2018 03:14PM

DOS wrote: »

Hypocrisy in the feigned sadness and name dropping at every opportunity.

I believe Leo Varadkar, he of the PR opportunity at any cost, ask Una McMathuna, organised Savita's parents to go public with Yes support the Sunday before the referendum for maximum effect.

They didnt suddenly decide they were against the 8th last sunday. they have been against it since they found out it existed.

DOS · 22-05-2018 03:15PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

And many people had truly horrific ones.

If a woman says she cannot offer a child a stable, loving, nurturing upbringing, I believe her. And I see no logic in forcing her to have a child she doesn't want, just to uphold someone else's moral beliefs.
Its in no ones best interests to force the alternative. Certainly not the innocent baby's.

'Certainly not the innocent baby's. Mere speculation as to what way the child's life will evolve.

Cupcake_Crisis · 22-05-2018 03:15PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Rape rooms and rape committees were the top contenders before those.

Do I want to know?

DOS · 22-05-2018 03:16PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

They didnt suddenly decide they were against the 8th last sunday. they have been against it since they found out it existed.

I agree. But I'm sure our government were involved in it's timing.

ohnonotgmail · 22-05-2018 03:16PM

Calina wrote: »

I dare say DOS can provide a link to the post concerned.

As I recall though, one of the No arguments was that abodtions would swamp the GP services which were already stretched and it was pointed out that the healthcare needs of completed pregnancies and born children would exceed abortion loads.

As sure i remember that argument about doctors being swamped and i provided the numbers myself to show it was nonsense.
But i definitely have not seen any argument that the country couldn't cope with the extra births.

Leroy42 · 22-05-2018 03:17PM

4 threads now I think and still nothing in the way of how a No vote is going to actually help with the problem that we face.

Lots of wishing the problem did not exist, lots of attempts to minimise the problem.

Lots of talk of support, help the women, caring etc, but never any actual specifics.

The current 8th has not dealt with the problem is was meant to deal with. Abortions have not stopped. Continuing with a failed policy is nothing short of crazy.

Those arguing that the governments proposed legislation is not right will have plenty of time to make that point, but have had 35 years to put forward solutions to the issues that the 8th created but never did.

ohnonotgmail · 22-05-2018 03:17PM

DOS wrote: »

I agree. But I'm sure our government were involved in it's timing.

If they are sincere in their opposition to the 8th what is your issue? Or do you think they are not sincere?

DOS · 22-05-2018 03:17PM

Calina wrote: »

I dare say DOS can provide a link to the post concerned.

As I recall though, one of the No arguments was that abodtions would swamp the GP services which were already stretched and it was pointed out that the healthcare needs of completed pregnancies and born children would exceed abortion loads.

Yes I'm going to trawl through abortion thread 3!

Zubeneschamali · 22-05-2018 03:18PM

DOS wrote: »

Hypocrisy in the feigned sadness and name dropping at every opportunity.

The whole nation was shocked when she died. It was the catalyst for finally taking action on the 8th - first passing the PoLDPA and ultimately holding this referendum. Mentioning her case is not hypocritical, and ordinary people really are genuinely sad about it.

You don't want her mentioned because ordinary, decent people feel bad about her dying here, and the obvious bafflement of Indian people at the idea that it could happen in a "developed" country.

SusieBlue · 22-05-2018 03:18PM

DOS wrote: »

'Certainly not the innocent baby's. Mere speculation as to what way the child's life will evolve.

How very pro-life of you. Born, but who cares what kind of circumstances. So long as they're born it doesn't matter. "Saving lives" and all that :rolleyes:

robarmstrong · 22-05-2018 03:18PM

DOS wrote: »

Hypocrisy in the feigned sadness and name dropping at every opportunity.

I believe Leo Varadkar, he of the PR opportunity at any cost, ask Una McMathuna, organised Savita's parents to go public with Yes support the Sunday before the referendum for maximum effect.

Feigned sadness and name dropping?

Really? You think people in this thread are feigning sadness of what she went through, how she suffered, what her husband had to cope with afterwards?

Nobody is name dropping Savita, in fact her father came out long before any "organization" took place to state his support of Savita's case being an example of the issues with the 8th amendment.

Cop on.

Calina · 22-05-2018 03:18PM

DOS wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

How is it hypocrisy - if we had repealed the 8th 10 years ago, Savita would be alive today.

Hypocrisy in the feigned sadness and name dropping at every opportunity.

I believe Leo Varadkar, he of the PR opportunity at any cost, ask Una McMathuna, organised Savita's parents to go public with Yes support the Sunday before the referendum for maximum effect.

Her name is Emma Mhic Mhathúna and frankly that you got her name wrong disgusts me.

Provide a citation for your assertion Varadkar asked Savita's parents to comment. "I believe" is not enough.

DOS · 22-05-2018 03:19PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

If they are sincere in their opposition to the 8th what is your issue? Or do you think they are not sincere?

Of course they are but I believe they were advised how to do so for maximum effect for the Yes side by our government, who are very much concerned with PR.

Calina · 22-05-2018 03:19PM

DOS wrote: »

Calina wrote: »

I dare say DOS can provide a link to the post concerned.

As I recall though, one of the No arguments was that abodtions would swamp the GP services which were already stretched and it was pointed out that the healthcare needs of completed pregnancies and born children would exceed abortion loads.

Yes I'm going to trawl through abortion thread 3!

Why not? It's your assertion to back up.

DOS · 22-05-2018 03:20PM

Calina wrote: »

Her name is Emma Mhic Mhathúna and frankly that you got her name wrong disgusts me.

Provide a citation for your assertion Varadkar asked Savita's parents to comment. "I believe" is not enough.

It's the spell check. Apologies.

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 22-05-2018 03:21PM

As a No voter, I do agree that if, hypothetically, Irish women were prevented from having abortions in the UK, it would not be enough to just nod our heads and feel delighted that we've saved all of these babies' lives.

Society does have a duty to provide properly for children whose mothers and fathers are unable or unwilling to do so, because of their circumstances. That doesn't mean passing them around from foster home to foster home, or abandoning them to institutional care, or leaving vulnerable mothers with no support and young children neglected and uncared for.

Even with the current situation, I definitely think our system of foster care and adoption is something that needs to be looked at.

RobertKK · 22-05-2018 03:21PM

Anyway everyone can see the company TV3 used as a fact checker is getting paid money to advertise for the Yes side, no conflict of interests there...

DOS · 22-05-2018 03:22PM

Calina wrote: »

Why not? It's your assertion to back up.

Stop derailing.

I take it badly to be called a liar. Take it from a genuine poster it was mentioned.

Leroy42 · 22-05-2018 03:22PM

DOS wrote: »

Of course they are but I believe they were advised how to do so for maximum effect for the Yes side by our government, who are very much concerned with PR.

So your assertion is that the Yes side used a very notable story in the public eye to help their side of the argument?

Do you think they should be hidden away or something? If they are comfortable being involved then let then.

ohnonotgmail · 22-05-2018 03:22PM

DOS wrote: »

Of course they are but I believe they were advised how to do so for maximum effect for the Yes side by our government, who are very much concerned with PR.

You believe based on what? do you have a source for that?

gctest50 · 22-05-2018 03:22PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Anyway everyone can see the company TV3 used as a fact checker is getting paid money to advertise for the Yes side, no conflict of interests there...

Where is your proof of that ?

Leroy42 · 22-05-2018 03:23PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Anyway everyone can see the company TV3 used as a fact checker is getting paid money to advertise for the Yes side, no conflict of interests there...

What fact check did they provide that was wrong?

PhoenixParker · 22-05-2018 03:23PM

I'm not sad about Savita.

I'm terrified it could happen to me.

RobertKK · 22-05-2018 03:24PM

gctest50 wrote: »

Where is your proof of that ?

Look who owns this site, and look who own the Journal .ie who is the fact checker TV3 used - Distillers Media, who are getting paid by Yes to advertise here.

DOS · 22-05-2018 03:24PM

Should Savita's tragedy be used to bring in abortion on demand. NO. The Cure would truly be worse than the poison.

All reasoned citizens must weigh this up on Friday.

Calina · 22-05-2018 03:25PM

DOS wrote: »

Calina wrote: »

Her name is Emma Mhic Mhathúna and frankly that you got her name wrong disgusts me.

Provide a citation for your assertion Varadkar asked Savita's parents to comment. "I believe" is not enough.

It's the spell check. Apologies.

Spellcheck would not replace Emma with Una.

A source for your assertion about Varadkar please.

Billy86 · 22-05-2018 03:25PM

DOS wrote: »

Hypocrisy in the feigned sadness and name dropping at every opportunity.

I believe Leo Varadkar, he of the PR opportunity at any cost, ask Una McMathuna, organised Savita's parents to go public with Yes support the Sunday before the referendum for maximum effect.

Yeah, it couldn't at all be that they don't want others needlessly dying like their daughter did. No not at all, what a crazy concept.

Meanwhile the no campaign continue to litter streets across the country both with down syndrome kids against down syndrome Ireland's wishes, and indeed of Savita herself.

Leroy42 · 22-05-2018 03:26PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Look who owns this site, and look who own the Journal .ie who is the fact checker TV3 used - Distillers Media, who are getting paid by Yes to advertise here.

What facts did they state were wrong that they did so in error?

You are basically calling a conspiracy, you might believe it to be the case, but as in most things your belief doesn't make it true.

gctest50 · 22-05-2018 03:26PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Look who owns this site, and look who own the Journal .ie who is the fact checker TV3 used - Distillers Media, who are getting paid by Yes to advertise here.

I presume you are ranting about the googlead in the middle and bottom of the page ?

That's google doing its thing - you'll be there voting and accidently tick YES so you will

The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Comments