The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

pleas advice · 22-05-2018 11:02PM

munsterlegend wrote: »

The yes side should they win on Friday which is likely are hardly going to be celebrating in a gay marriage referendum manner.

i wouldn't bet on it, I can see there being plenty of celebrations, no matter how crass

captbarnacles · 22-05-2018 11:03PM

DarkScar wrote: »

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

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.

One is illegal. The other is illegal.
You say one illegal thing is a personal choice. You refuse to answer as to why the other isn't.
Let me guess "because it's obvious..."
We'll just agree you can't answer and move on then. Fine.

Moronic.

One is a personal choice because it is your body.

DOS · 22-05-2018 11:03PM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Brilliant! Delighted with that. Harris played a blinder.

We're you watching 'The Field' Lloyd?

I agree Harris was excellent in it.

robarmstrong · 22-05-2018 11:04PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

We can trust them to tell the truth about suicide ideation (77 cases since the 2013 act). But we can't trust them to tell the truth about rape - yes appears to say.

Cake and eat it.

Where do we say that? Hmm?

Where does the Yes side say we can't trust women when it comes to rape?

Cupcake_Crisis · 22-05-2018 11:05PM

storker wrote: »

Yes it's illegal. And that's precisely the point. There also the fact that not many people come up against a situation in their lives that they feel can be resolved by bombing an old folks home.

I would absolutely love for the original poster to explain to me quite how their life/body/health could be irreparably damaged/altered by NOT being able to bomb an old folks home.

freshpopcorn · 22-05-2018 11:05PM

joe40 wrote: »

A wee question for no voters of a certain age. How did you vote in the '92 referenda, suicide as risk to life, right to travel and right to info.
Just out of curiosity, obviously no one has to answer and tbh don't expect any

My aunt voted No in 1983. Yes to both referendum in 1992 and this time is not voting! Despite giving out about the access to abortion for years!

storker · 22-05-2018 11:06PM

DarkScar wrote: »

And if they do think they have a reason? Do you really think nobody has a reason when they commit a crime?
According to you if a criminal "has a reason" then you have to respect their personal choice to break the law.

No because they're killing fully formed, born human beings and not incompletely formed, unborn fetuses.

Also, from a purely utilitarian point of view, if murder was allowable, society would break down into anarchy very quickly. Abortion does not have this effect, not matter how much some people would like to imagine that it does.

sReq | uTeK · 22-05-2018 11:06PM

DarkScar wrote: »

One is illegal. The other is illegal.
You say one illegal thing is a personal choice. You refuse to answer as to why the other isn't.
Let me guess "because it's obvious..."
We'll just agree you can't answer and move on then. Fine.

one is currently illegal....: you realize this is a debate about changing the legality of such an issue???

also yes it’s very much illegal so illegal in fact we changed the law to allow women to fly to the uk to
make it legal.

psst it’s illegal here but don’t worry, we will openly and in full view bury our head in the sand
and watch you board ferry or plane with your child
alone with no support system in place when you return and you can have your abortion in a foreign
land.

but hey we won’t see it here so it’s grand.

Pathetic

if you truly want to make abortion illegal every single pregnant women should be assed before traveling abroad as there is the “potential”
of an abortion. but hey that would be MADNESS

RobertKK · 22-05-2018 11:07PM

Calina wrote: »

I am not saying that. But if you did trust women you would not be dancing a fandango about this. You would shut up and allow women to make decisions in their best interest.

But I am not, someone else brought rape up, then they are talking about women proving it - not me, I have not talked about proof, why don't you ask your fellow yes supporters this as they appear to not trust women. They put themselves in knots to justify unrestricted abortion for any reason at all being needed for rape.

antiskeptic · 22-05-2018 11:07PM

munsterlegend wrote: »

Anyway thankfully any legislation in Ireland will be limited to 12 weeks save for certain circumstances.

If you don't mind a contrary view, I think this is a little naive.

If (under the new "restrictive" legislation) a women is 18 weeks along can't get an abortion here and she wants one, she will get one in England.

How long, do you think, before the bring-em-home-where-we-can-look-after-them-here argument is dusted off and re-presented to us.

Only it won't be us. This time: no Constitutional obstacle.

Cast Iron Protection. I think not. This is how it works: prise it open with however thin a wedge you can. Then keep pushing.

22-05-2018 11:07PM

DOS wrote: »

We're you watching 'The Field' Lloyd?

I agree Harris was excellent in it.

Hiya DOS maybe I missed your answer or you missed the question, but how do you feel about some of your bishops support for repeal?

DarkScar · 22-05-2018 11:09PM

captbarnacles wrote: »

Moronic.

One is a personal choice because it is your body.

Imbecilic.
It's only a personal choice if you believe there is only one person involved.

Calina · 22-05-2018 11:10PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Calina wrote: »

I am not saying that. But if you did trust women you would not be dancing a fandango about this. You would shut up and allow women to make decisions in their best interest.

But I am not, someone else brought rape up, then they are talking about women proving it - not me, I have not talked about proof, why don't you ask your fellow yes supporters this as they appear to not trust women. They put themselves in knots to justify unrestricted abortion for any reason at all being needed for rape.

Would you physically restrain a rape victim from having an abortion, Robert?

From the above it appears you understand the nature of being raped nor of being pregnant.

robarmstrong · 22-05-2018 11:10PM

RobertKK wrote: »

But I am not, someone else brought rape up, then they are talking about women proving it - not me, I have not talked about proof, why don't you ask your fellow yes supporters this as they appear to not trust women. They put themselves in knots to justify unrestricted abortion for any reason at all being needed for rape.

Who appears to not trust women Robert?

Yes voters trust women quite immensely.

You seem to shame them with nothing but drivel and nonsense that oozes out of your posts about those seeking abortions.

Don't pretend like you trust women, everybody here sees right through you, you just lie, lie and lie again.

Childish behaviour from a grown man.

DarkScar · 22-05-2018 11:12PM

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

one is currently illegal....: you realize this is a debate about changing the legality of such an issue???

The way you're asking if I realise it sounds suspiciously like you just cottoned on to this yourself.
Elective abortion here is currently illegal, yup. What's your point? Legal things are legal? Illegal things are illegal?
Er, thanks for that but I'm good.

captbarnacles · 22-05-2018 11:12PM

While it is in your body and dependent on you it has no rights that supercede yours. Imo.

RobertKK · 22-05-2018 11:12PM

Calina wrote: »

Would you physically restrain a rape victim from having an abortion, Robert?

From the above it appears you understand the nature of being raped nor of being pregnant.

I don't know where you think I would.

All I see is Yes saying we need unrestricted abortion to cover things like rape, rather than saying we could limit abortion and trust women when they look for an abortion when they say they have been raped.

DarkScar · 22-05-2018 11:13PM

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

if you truly want to make abortion illegal every single pregnant women should be assed before traveling abroad as there is the “potential”
of an abortion. but hey that would be MADNESS

"Assing" women would indeed be madness. Not sure why you're proposing it yourself to be honest.

DOS · 22-05-2018 11:13PM

DubInMeath wrote: »

Hiya DOS maybe I missed your answer or you missed the question, but how do you feel about some of your bishops support for repeal?

Having read my posts I think it's fairly obvious how I'd feel!

We can exercise individual conscience though.

Now that's answered I presume you think you've scored some major point.

As the poster oldbutnotwise said today, he's an atheist, but you don't need religion to know right from wrong.

Faugheen · 22-05-2018 11:14PM

Calina wrote: »

RobertKK wrote: »

Calina wrote: »

I am not saying that. But if you did trust women you would not be dancing a fandango about this. You would shut up and allow women to make decisions in their best interest.

But I am not, someone else brought rape up, then they are talking about women proving it - not me, I have not talked about proof, why don't you ask your fellow yes supporters this as they appear to not trust women. They put themselves in knots to justify unrestricted abortion for any reason at all being needed for rape.

Would you physically restrain a rape victim from having an abortion, Robert?

From the above it appears you understand the nature of being raped nor of being pregnant.

He has already said they deserve to get the treatment here if they want to, but that he'll be voting no anyway to deny it to them.

Hellrazer · 22-05-2018 11:15PM

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.

Now youre twisting what I said to suit your argument. I said being pro choice does not make me pro abortion or even "pro allowing abortion"

How can something that isn't even an entity yet have a choice? If the mother chooses to end a pregnancy then that's her choice. That comes before a bunch of cells that aren't even capable of choosing yet.

Again you are thinking its ok to control women. And again Ill say it. No one has the right to overrule a womans choice of what she wants to do with her body.

That's what this referendum is about--choice. Removing an article in law that will allow a woman chose what she wants do with her reproductive health. And if she chooses a termination then she should as a citizen of this country be allowed to seek that medical procedure here and not have to travel abroad to receive that treatment.

AfterLife · 22-05-2018 11:16PM

https://twitter.com/FintanOToolbox/status/998947413095264257?s=19

A Pro life booth with an Alt Right flag at the GPO today. Good to see they're not hiding their allegiances at least.

robarmstrong · 22-05-2018 11:16PM

DOS wrote: »

Having read my posts I think it's fairly obvious how I'd feel!

We can exercise individual conscience though.

Now that's answered I presume you think you've scored some major point.

As the poster oldbutnotwise said today, he's an atheist, but you don't need religion to know right from wrong.

I'd genuinely like to know how you'd feel. Do you believe that they are letting go of their beliefs and as such - lessening the grip they have on their own faith? (as faith being a big part in opposing abortion).

RobertKK · 22-05-2018 11:17PM

robarmstrong wrote: »

Who appears to not trust women Robert?

Yes voters trust women quite immensely.

You seem to shame them with nothing but drivel and nonsense that oozes out of your posts about those seeking abortions.

Don't pretend like you trust women, everybody here sees right through you, you just lie, lie and lie again.

Childish behaviour from a grown man.

You have a problem with me for weeks, you are bitter and twisted the way you have to do posts like the above. Then you think you act like a grown man...

RobertKK · 22-05-2018 11:19PM

Hellrazer wrote: »

Now youre twisting what I said to suit your argument. I said being pro choice does not make me pro abortion or even "pro allowing abortion"

How can something that isn't even an entity yet have a choice? If the mother chooses to end a pregnancy then that's her choice. That comes before a bunch of cells that aren't even capable of choosing yet.

Again you are thinking its ok to control women. And again Ill say it. No one has the right to overrule a womans choice of what she wants to do with her body.

That's what this referendum is about--choice. Removing an article in law that will allow a woman chose what she wants do with her reproductive health. And if she chooses a termination then she should as a citizen of this country be allowed to seek that medical procedure here and not have to travel abroad to receive that treatment.

If you vote yes you are voting to allow unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks.

DarkScar · 22-05-2018 11:19PM

storker wrote: »

No because they're killing fully formed, born human beings and not incompletely formed, unborn fetuses.

Ah, so one second before a full term birth it isn't completely formed and is still a foetus. It magically metamorphs into a baby by they miraculous power of passing through a cervix.
That's about as logical as claiming it becomes a human being the instant the egg meets the sperm to be honest.

storker wrote: »

Also, from a purely utilitarian point of view, if murder was allowable, society would break down into anarchy very quickly. Abortion does not have this effect, not matter how much some people would like to imagine that it does.

You don't actually make any case here that it isn't murder, just that people don't mind it. So if you kill people and nobody minds then it isn't murder. Convoluted...

omerin · 22-05-2018 11:19PM

Some really good discussions over the last couple of days on both radio and tv, generally well informed speakers that articulated their positions well. For me personally it's a no, I can't square the circle that is the 12 week timeline and hope that this referendum fails and that the politicians on all sides relook at it again and draft another proposal.
If it does fail I think Harris should resign, he's failed already on the trolley crisis, waiting lists, management of the HSE and cervical smears ....
By the way my signature refers to his handling of the case of a child from Cork who required cannibis oil for her condition and not for anything else, although he is a smug git

DOS · 22-05-2018 11:20PM

robarmstrong wrote: »

I'd genuinely like to know how you'd feel. Do you believe that they are letting go of their beliefs and as such - lessening the grip they have on their own faith? (as faith being a big part in opposing abortion).

No. They are religious. They are following their conscience. I disagree with them. But like you I respect your right to your opinion on this issue.

Cupcake_Crisis · 22-05-2018 11:20PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't know where you think I would.

All I see is Yes saying we need unrestricted abortion to cover things like rape, rather than saying we could limit abortion and trust women when they look for an abortion when they say they have been raped.

Perhaps women don’t want to be discussing the details of their rape and just want to quietly get a termination and do the best to move on.

antiskeptic · 22-05-2018 11:20PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Arulkumaran has also clarified claims around Savita’s death, saying that the Eighth Amendment was a major factor. He refuted claims that sepsis was the only cause of her death, as has been claimed by some during the course of the referendum debate.

I’ll just leave this here! Although I’m quite certain there is no one on the planet, including those who attempted to push the propaganda about her death bring due only to medical misadventure, who truly believed that her death was not caused by the 8th Amendment.

Do the ‘8th doesn’t harm women’ crowd have anything to add?

I’m sure they probably think they know better than this man!

1. This man didn't come to this conclusion when part of a team of 7 who compiled the HSA report he put his name to.

2. The report didn't comment on the 8th at all. In so far as it focused on anything, it focused on the legislation. Insofar as the legislation was implicated, you had to scroll down to Recommendation 4b to find the first reference to it.

3. The Prof. in a solo capacity has decided to rearrange the conclusions of the report he chaired to elevate not only the legislation, but the Constitution, from a minor to a major factor. One wonder why that didn't happen during the report. Perhaps because he wasn't operating in a solo capacity

4. The Prof. has never practiced in Ireland. His conclusions about the "chilling" effect of the law in Savita's time derive from testimony given him by medics subject to an investigation in which someone died. With all due respect, the medics are going to be looking for anything but them, to hang blame on.

5. The Prof. practices in the UK and sits on the British Medical Council. Britain has liberal abortions laws and the Prof. like anyone else, is likely to hold a personal view on what constitutes a fitting abortion regime. That he airs that view gives it no more weight than any other senior medic who holds a view. There are no shortage of senior medics on either side but in the Irish context, 5 of the most senior obstetricians have lambasted the idea of the 8th being to blame. Maybe you've just got a post-colonial obsequiousness going on there.

The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Comments