The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

DarkScar · 22-05-2018 06:56PM

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

No. Just no. Read the report.

I said be specific. Too complicated? Which part blames the 8th?
You have a CTRL, C and V on your keyboard, right?

DarkScar · 22-05-2018 06:58PM

A lot of people are struggling here so I'll throw ye a bone

"The investigation team is aware that clinical circumstances can and have arisen in Ireland
where a termination of pregnancy is an appropriate and necessary clinical step in the
medical treatment and care of a patient. "

Anybody else care to quote the report or are just going to promise me it says something or other until the cows come home?

circadian · 22-05-2018 06:58PM

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Off topic but I recently learned of this couple that are both atheist but decided to baptise their 1st baby for family/school reasons. They were uncomfortable about it but they went to the priest to explain their case. They essentially said they were not Catholic and would never go to mass but still wanted their child baptised. To their surprise the priest said that he would have no problem doing so as long as the parents promised to live their lives in the ethos of Jesus i.e. be good, love your neighbour, turn the other cheek etc etc. They agreed and it was done deal.

Basically Rome just wants numbers to report at this point.

It's a shame that people need to do this in this day and age. I recently discovered that the Unitarian Church on Stephens Green do a non denominational baptism and will also perform a "welcoming ceremony" if you don't want to have your child baptised. All welcome. While I'm an atheist the more I see of this particular church the more I appreciate their contribution to society.

antiskeptic · 22-05-2018 07:01PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

It's not only sailed, it's circumnavigated the globe, has pulled back into dock, and the crew are incredulous that people are still trying to ignore what doctors and professors have said.

Which doctors and professors do you mean. They exist on both sides of this particular discussion.

At least one of those professors has no experience in this jurisdiction. His assessment of the (compartively minor, according to the investigative team he headed up and whose report he put his name to) part played by the law was based on the testimony of doctors being questioned about their actions (or inactions) in relation to the death of someone.

"They would say that, wouldn't they" would the normal suspicion, were it not for this darn referendum

Hardly Grade 1 stuff.

It wasnt me123 · 22-05-2018 07:01PM

munsterlegend wrote: »

Not surprised really. She was by far the best speaker on Claire Byrne live and wouldn't be surprised if Simon Harris is pressing for her not to be on either behind the scenes

I heard on the radio that RTE didn't want Maria Steen as she was on last week's show and they wanted a completely different panel.

Overheal · 22-05-2018 07:02PM

DarkScar wrote: »

I'm sure they've said a lot of things that aren't in the report. Aw, don't want to talk about the actual report all of a sudden?
What does the report say? You have read it, right?

And the Challenger Disaster report said NASA did the best job it could, totally unavoidable, etc.

But that didn’t stop Richard Feynman, who sat on the commission, from speaking out.

So what do we really believe about Challenger’s demise today?

Hurrache · 22-05-2018 07:05PM

RobertKK wrote: »

So TV3 using the Journal.ie as a fact checker and the same owners as boards, Boards who currently are advertising Vote Yes with a together for Yes ad....

They're actually audited and verified as an independent fact checking organisation, no conspiracy.
https://www.poynter.org/international-fact-checking-network-fact-checkers-code-principles

munsterlegend · 22-05-2018 07:08PM

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

I heard on the radio that RTE didn't want Maria Steen as she was on last week's show and they wanted a completely different panel.

I think that's their position alright though Peter Boylan was on the late late and Clare Byrne live. He was shocking on Clare Byrne live. I really am on
the fence in this debate. I am totally against the act of abortion personally but should I give others the choice rather than travel abroad or use an unsupervised pill? It's a tough one but I think I will vote no ultimately.

antiskeptic · 22-05-2018 07:09PM

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

No. Just no. Read the report.

No mention of the law in the summary. Law (not the constitution) referenced (not blamed) in the 2nd causal (medical mess as first). Look at the law at recomendation 4b.

4b tells you a bit about where the law stands as a place to think of pointing the finger. And 4b doesnt even condemn the law.

"Look at everything. Including the law" is the conclusion at the end

Note that a doctors cobfusion about the boundaries of the law says more about medical guidelines than the law. Its not as if every doctor has been confused

gmisk · 22-05-2018 07:11PM

munsterlegend wrote: »

I think that's their position alright though Peter Boylan was on the late late and Clare Byrne live. He was shocking on Clare Byrne live. I really am on
the fence in this debate. I am totally against the act of abortion personally but should I give others the choice rather than travel abroad or use an unsupervised pill? It's a tough one but I think I will vote no ultimately.

You said you were voting yes earlier?
Can I ask what changed your mind?
I wouldn't let one debate influence you too much tbh.
I would recommend watching back tv3 tonight's they had a few shows and actually let people speak on the topic unlike thar Claire Byrne shouting match.

jjmcclure · 22-05-2018 07:11PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And I know many women who simply do not believe that they are 'ending a life' in the same way that your spurious and emotive example of a third party being allowed to choose to end the life of an elderly person.

Your beliefs around when a life begins, are your own and you should not be trying to impose them on anybody.

Many people will have different views on this, and honestly my own are conflicted to some extent. However from the point the fetus is identifiable as a human being in the womb it can't be disputed that this is life. Fingers, toes, beating heart etc.

Still no Pro-Choice voter has fully answered my hypothetical scenario from before. Simply because they can't.

munsterlegend · 22-05-2018 07:13PM

gmisk wrote: »

You said you were voting yes earlier?
I wouldn't let one debate influence you too much tbh.

I meant debate as in yes/no question,not a tv debate. Where did I say I would vote yes?

antiskeptic · 22-05-2018 07:14PM

Hard luck Darkstar. Valiant effort. ☺

gmisk · 22-05-2018 07:14PM

munsterlegend wrote: »

I meant debate as in yes/no question,not a tv debate. Where did I say I would vote yes?

Ah apologies I could be confusing you with another poster.

PhoenixParker · 22-05-2018 07:18PM

Your analogy of euthanizing elderly parents is materially different. Your elderly parents can be cared for by any competent person.
A fetus is on a life support machine operated only by the woman it's attached to.

If you were sitting by your parents bed for weeks hand operating their ventilation with no way of calling in assistance would anyone call you a murderer for stopping?

FingerDeKat · 22-05-2018 07:19PM

munsterlegend wrote: »

but should I give others the choice rather than travel abroad or use an unsupervised pill? It's a tough one but I think I will vote no ultimately.

You give 2 reasons to vote yes and then decide to vote no???

ohnonotgmail · 22-05-2018 07:20PM

jjmcclure wrote: »

Many people will have different views on this, and honestly my own are conflicted to some extent. However from the point the fetus is identifiable as a human being in the womb it can't be disputed that this is life. Fingers, toes, beating heart etc.

Still no Pro-Choice voter has fully answered my hypothetical scenario from before. Simply because they can't.

is this the brilliant hypothetical that you think has us all stumped?

You aren't choosing between chocolate or vanilla ice cream, tayto or walkers, you are choosing to end a life. I know the pro-choice lobby don't accept that, but it can't be denied that its a life. Should we be able to choose euthanasia for our elderly parents because the are casing unspecified mental health issues (such as stress) to us? Someone earlier argued that they "didn't know any woman who grieved the same way over a miscarriage as they would over a child" I know at least two who do, every day!

jjmcclure · 22-05-2018 07:21PM

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Your analogy of euthanizing elderly parents is materially different. Your elderly parents can be cared for by any competent person.
A fetus is on a life support machine operated only by the woman it's attached to.

If you were sitting by your parents bed for weeks hand operating their ventilation with no way of calling in assistance would anyone call you a murderer for stopping?

Very poor analogy!

BTW thats not the analogy I was speaking about. Its in my first post.

You suggest that for 9 months of "inconvenience" termination is justified. Anyone can look after the child when it is born.

circadian · 22-05-2018 07:22PM

Hurrache wrote: »

They're actually audited and verified as an independent fact checking organisation, no conspiracy.
https://www.poynter.org/international-fact-checking-network-fact-checkers-code-principles

Aye but George Soros something something.

bridster007 · 22-05-2018 07:22PM

jjmcclure wrote: »

Many people will have different views on this, and honestly my own are conflicted to some extent. However from the point the fetus is identifiable as a human being in the womb it can't be disputed that this is life. Fingers, toes, beating heart etc.

.

I have never seen a pregnant woman going around holding belly talking about her "Foetus" or how her "Foetus" kicked last night. Always "my baby", but now some want to deny this.

It wasnt me123 · 22-05-2018 07:23PM

munsterlegend wrote: »

I think that's their position alright though Peter Boylan was on the late late and Clare Byrne live. He was shocking on Clare Byrne live. I really am on
the fence in this debate. I am totally against the act of abortion personally but should I give others the choice rather than travel abroad or use an unsupervised pill? It's a tough one but I think I will vote no ultimately.

I got the opinion that he was sick of stating the facts only to have no-one listen. In fairness, he is well qualified to state medical facts into womens health etc. I'd believe him before I'd believe Maria Steen.

I don't think its a tough decision at all, but then I've lived in both the UK and Australia that have abortion. I am at a lost to understand all this hand wringing. Abortion is not compulsory, you don't have to have one.

But why some randomer thinks they should have a say in the medical treatment of my teenage daughter is beyond me. I am lost for words (after typing loads of them). Why anyone, apart from the doctors, should have a say in anyones medical treatment/body autonomy is nuts IMO. Its none of my business what you do, why do you care what I do? Its not like you are going to have to feed, clothe and educate the child when its born. In fact you will never even know if I have a child.

Why should a randomer restrict my body autonomy?

ohnonotgmail · 22-05-2018 07:24PM

jjmcclure wrote: »

Very poor analogy!

BTW thats not the analogy I was speaking about. Its in my first post.

You suggest that for 9 months of "inconvenience" termination is justified. Anyone can look after the child when it is born.

A man and his pregnant partner are traveling in a car, the woman is three months pregnant. At a cross roads their car is hit side on by a lorry and the woman and unborn child are killed instantly.

How many lives does the husband mourn for??

3 lives but 2 people. does that answer your question?

PhoenixParker · 22-05-2018 07:24PM

jjmcclure wrote: »

Very poor analogy!

You suggest that for 9 months of "inconvenience" termination is justified. Anyone can look after the child when it is born.

Pregnancy is not merely an inconvenience nor is childbirth. Anyone can look after a child once it's born but adoption has it's own problems and in many cases isn't even possible (e.g. married couples with other children).
Childcare costs nearly €1000 pm.

ohnonotgmail · 22-05-2018 07:24PM

bridster007 wrote: »

I have never seen a pregnant woman going around holding belly talking about her "Foetus" or how her "Foetus" kicked last night. Always "my baby", but now some want to deny this.

nobody has denied this.

It wasnt me123 · 22-05-2018 07:25PM

jjmcclure wrote: »

.......

You suggest that for 9 months of "inconvenience" termination is justified. Anyone can look after the child when it is born.

I know, lets give them all to the RCC to mind and protect, that would be a great idea wouldn't it. Oh errrr............... may be not anyone then.

Ken. · 22-05-2018 07:26PM

Mod-Dark Scar's thread ban and forum ban lifted(in a minute). A few posts including mine removed. I read a few posts a bit ar$eways and got the wrong end of the stick.

jjmcclure · 22-05-2018 07:26PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

3 lives but 2 people. does that answer your question?

Ehhh, not really 3 lives? He survived. But you are right, 2 people died.

antiskeptic · 22-05-2018 07:27PM

Overheal wrote: »

And the Challenger Disaster report said NASA did the best job it could, totally unavoidable, etc.

But that didn’t stop Richard Feynman, who sat on the commission, from speaking out.

So what do we really believe about Challenger’s demise today?

Feynman threatened to remove his name from the Rogers Commision report unless his own findings - which were at odds with the wider Commission whitewash were included.

And so they were - at appendix F

Here, you're talking about the chair of the HSE report. The very 'Rogers' himself

If he says something that contradicts or alters the report then you take the report.

Recommendation 4b (look at the law) can't just become recommedation 1 (repeal the 8th). Prof or no.

ohnonotgmail · 22-05-2018 07:27PM

jjmcclure wrote: »

Ehhh, not really 3 lives? He survived. But you are right, 2 people died.

i misread. So 2 lives and 1 person.

bridster007 · 22-05-2018 07:27PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

nobody has denied this.

Well I've met plenty Yes people who object to using the word baby or child in conjunction with abortion. They say its not a child or baby until born. That's how they are rationalising it.

The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Comments