The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

freshpopcorn · 22-05-2018 10:42PM

One thing I'm looking to about this debate is over I can onto Twitter and type in my local town name and I'll get mainly match results, local news, etc. Not the Together For Yes page!

22-05-2018 10:42PM

RobertKK wrote: »

You are pro-allowing abortion if you are for allowing it, it is not a choice if one life has no choice, that is not pro-choice when only one party has a choice of life.
You may view life as disposable, that is a choice.

And your forcing those rape victims to carry to term by voting no.

Itssoeasy · 22-05-2018 10:42PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes side say we need the unrestricted 12 weeks to cover things like rape, that says the Yes side don't trust women to tell the truth about rape.

Where have they said this ? Ive heard the yes side say that women don't report rape.

RobertKK · 22-05-2018 10:44PM

robarmstrong wrote: »

No, it really doesn't, it just means we don't want women to be subjected to a rape panel which one of your pro-life buddies mentioned before.

Stop telling lies Bob, it's getting childish, from the Miss P debacle, to crap about Savita, to weird conspiracies about this forum being paid to be pro-choice, give it a rest, you're a grown ass man.

Maybe you want rape panels, I never mentioned rape panels.
Why can't we just trust women who say they were raped?

You bring up Miss P because the moderation here is so bad they do nothing about it.

DarkScar · 22-05-2018 10:44PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

EVERY other law? Clearly you dont know what you are talking about. Ireland has several extra-territorial laws on its books.

Million year old extra-judicial hangovers from UK law, seemingly never once used, aren't very convincing I'm afraid. Do try again.

robarmstrong · 22-05-2018 10:44PM

freshpopcorn wrote: »

One thing I'm looking to about this debate is over I can onto Twitter and type in my local town name and I'll get mainly match results, local news, etc. Not the Together For Yes page!

Jaysus, never thought anyone would be looking forward to going onto twitter. :P

joe40 · 22-05-2018 10:44PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

So if your mother, sister, aunt or someone close to you found themselves in a pregnancy because of rape and wanted a termination, would you say to her that you don't want them to have that here?

Yes or no answer please.

I don't want the laws that government plan on bringing in.
You use rape as it is convenient for your argument, you would not use the case of a woman who maybe had an affair behind her husband's back and got pregnant and use abortion as a mean to cover it up as it wouldn't suit the argument you want to evoke.
The constitution could have been changed to limit it to things like rape, but the proposed law covers things like the above which is far away from rape.
So Yes but not under what the government is proposing, so I will vote No.

We have had the 12th , 13th and 14th amendment already to make the 8th workable, and you want more changes.
The irony is any change would also be opposed by the people on the no side

ohnonotgmail · 22-05-2018 10:44PM

RobertKK wrote: »

You are pro-allowing abortion if you are for allowing it, it is not a choice if one life has no choice, that is not pro-choice when only one party has a choice of life.
You may view life as disposable, that is a choice.

again you talking nonsense. I want women women to have the choice of an abortion if required but i hope that nobody ever needs one.

sReq | uTeK · 22-05-2018 10:44PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

The Yes side says we need the 12 week period to cover things like rape, because the experts in the field, i.e. rape crisis centres, say that asking rape victims to justify themselves or to convince someone to access abortion will re-victimise and re-traumatise those victims.

Which I've pointed out a number of times before in previous threads.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD....can you stop with your logic. Can you not think of the no side over there........

ohnonotgmail · 22-05-2018 10:45PM

DarkScar wrote: »

Million year old extra-judicial hangovers from UK law, seemingly never once used, aren't very convincing I'm afraid. Do try again.

Nope. A lot more than that. Which you would know if you had a clue what you were talking about.

EagererBeaver · 22-05-2018 10:45PM

Healy Rae only jumping on having thoroughly assessed the mood in his rural constituency. He'll be back to prioritising different rural drink driving limits and talking to fairies who wreck the roads come Monday morning.

DarkScar · 22-05-2018 10:45PM

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

Sorry i’ve lost you the Iraq war debate is over that way. Try and stay on topic good lad

Couldn't answer the question so distraction. Fair enough. That's your right.

GingerLily · 22-05-2018 10:46PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Itssoeasy wrote: »

When have people on the yes side said women can't be trusted ? I've not heard that point made I have to be honest.

Yes side say we need the unrestricted 12 weeks to cover things like rape, that says the Yes side don't trust women to tell the truth about rape.

No it says that women shouldnt have to report a rape if they need an abortion. It means that women in crisis pregnancy will access health care sooner, sooner then they might be able to discuss the rape - it can take years for some women to actually be able to talk about it

Calina · 22-05-2018 10:46PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Itssoeasy wrote: »

When have people on the yes side said women can't be trusted ? I've not heard that point made I have to be honest.

Yes side say we need the unrestricted 12 weeks to cover things like rape, that says the Yes side don't trust women to tell the truth about rape.

No it does not. It recognises the difficulty in getting a rape charge proven in the time frame concerned.

One thing is clear. You don't trust women at all.

RobertKK · 22-05-2018 10:46PM

DubInMeath wrote: »

And your forcing those rape victims to carry to term by voting no.

I am forcing politicians to rethink their plans and come back to the people with an alternative.

ohnonotgmail · 22-05-2018 10:47PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Maybe you want rape panels, I never mentioned rape panels.
Why can't we just trust women who say they were raped?

You bring up Miss P because the moderation here is so bad they do nothing about it.

And you think the No side would support that?

Itssoeasy · 22-05-2018 10:47PM

Well the committee did vote to not allow disabilities that aren't life limiting which Down syndrome isn't. So the committee did not recommend this in their report.

robarmstrong · 22-05-2018 10:47PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Maybe you want rape panels, I never mentioned rape panels.
Why can't we just trust women who say they were raped?

You bring up Miss P because the moderation here is so bad they do nothing about it.

What part of "your pro-life buddies mentioned" means you mentioned it?

Why can't we just trust women to be allowed to make a choice regarding the fate of their pregnancy? Don't talk about trust and women, you've already proven countless times you do not trust women with how you throw insinuations and assumptions around.

I bring up Miss P because you were caught by the bollock lying through your teeth making ridiculous assumptions about something that had facts clearly laid out for you that you chose to ignore. The moderation has nothing to do with it.

sReq | uTeK · 22-05-2018 10:47PM

the same people advocating for forcing women to carry children to full term due to rape and fatal fetal abnormalities are the ones saying we are in a nanny state.

As for professor casey, shame shame shame
on that women. As a prominent psychiatrist to state that carrying an unwanted child to full term in a rape or fatal abnormality case wouldn’t damage someone’s health... tut tut

retro:electro · 22-05-2018 10:47PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes side say we need the unrestricted 12 weeks to cover things like rape, that says the Yes side don't trust women to tell the truth about rape.

It’s to do with avoiding retraumatising victims Robert and avoid having to push them to prove that they were raped. It’s called having compassion and empathy for victims. You should try it.

DarkScar · 22-05-2018 10:48PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Nope. A lot more than that. Which you would know if you had a clue what you were talking about.

Haven't a notion have you. We're in some anti-terrorism alliances and that's about it. List a few of those Irish crimes committed overseas that we've prosecuted for there will ya.

RobertKK · 22-05-2018 10:48PM

Calina wrote: »

No it does not. It recognises the difficulty in getting a rape charge proven in the time frame concerned.

One thing is clear. You don't trust women at all.

But I am not asking for women to get a rape charge proven in the time frame concerned.
Are you saying we can't trust women to tell the truth about a rape?

22-05-2018 10:48PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I am forcing politicians to rethink their plans and come back to the people with an alternative.

Bull and you know it

Faugheen · 22-05-2018 10:49PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't want the laws that government plan on bringing in.
You use rape as it is convenient for your argument, you would not use the case of a woman who maybe had an affair behind her husband's back and got pregnant and use abortion as a mean to cover it up as it wouldn't suit the argument you want to evoke.
The constitution could have been changed to limit it to things like rape, but the proposed law covers things like the above which is far away from rape.
So Yes but not under what the government is proposing, so I will vote No.

So you would want a loved one to get the treatment they need here but you're going to vote no to deny it anyway?

Gotcha.

RobertKK · 22-05-2018 10:49PM

retro:electro wrote: »

It’s to do with avoiding retraumatising victims Robert and avoid having to push them to prove that they were raped. It’s called having compassion and empathy for victims. You should try it.

But where have I said they are asked to prove it?
We either trust women or we don't and all I see is Yes people here saying we can't trust women when it comes to rape.

ohnonotgmail · 22-05-2018 10:50PM

DarkScar wrote: »

Haven't a notion have you. We're in some anti-terrorism alliances and that's about it. List a few of those crimes committed overseas that we've prosecuted for there will ya.

Money laundering, corruption, female genital mutilation, child sex tourism. Did you not know about those? you try to come across as an expert on everything.

sReq | uTeK · 22-05-2018 10:50PM

DarkScar wrote: »

Couldn't answer the question so distraction. Fair enough. That's your right.

it wasn’t a question it was pure and utter tripe. trying to bring common ground to a bombing of an old folks home and a yes vote for abortion doesn’t warrant an answer it warrants mockery, which you subtly got.

Itssoeasy · 22-05-2018 10:50PM

Healy Rae vs Ivan Yates on PPV. Rte book it.

GingerLily · 22-05-2018 10:51PM

RobertKK wrote: »

retro:electro wrote: »

It’s to do with avoiding retraumatising victims Robert and avoid having to push them to prove that they were raped. It’s called having compassion and empathy for victims. You should try it.

But where have I said they are asked to prove it?
We either trust women or we don't and all I see is Yes people here saying we can't trust women when it comes to rape.

What do you know about the trauma a rape victim suffers- don't even pretend that you actually for them.

FrancieBrady · 22-05-2018 10:51PM

DarkScar wrote: »

Haven't a notion have you. We're in some anti-terrorism alliances and that's about it. List a few of those Irish crimes committed overseas that we've prosecuted for there will ya.

Would you be against allowing women to travel for an abortion if the freedom to travel law came up for repeal?

The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Comments