The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

smokingman · 23-05-2018 07:10AM

NuMarvel wrote: »

They're behind the Save the 8th group. They have the same address in Gardiner Place, and have the same founder, Niamh Ui Bhriain. I've seen some of their canvassers wearing t-shirts with the Youth Defence website address as well.

Aren't they the lads with ties to the Nazi parties in Germany and the US? Think I remember Justin Barret speaking at one of their conventions.

Cabaal · 23-05-2018 07:10AM

cournioni wrote: »

Killing a perfectly healthy life is unacceptable.

So your against morning after pills?...if life begins at conception they are also killing a life.

Cupcake_Crisis · 23-05-2018 07:11AM

cournioni wrote: »

You can trust every woman just as much as you can every man.

Some will choose for the right reasons, others will choose for the wrong reasons. It’s the ones who choose for the wrong reasons I’d be concerned about.

You can when it comes to their body. I couldn’t give a fiddlers what you do with your body, it doesn’t affect me, do what you want. Please extend me the same courtesy.

It wasnt me123 · 23-05-2018 07:11AM

Just her wrote: »

That'll be another no poster banned then, even if the yes poster gets banned with him as it says in the opening post, it's 20 to one on here. Couldn't you just debate instead of looking to get people banned? The biggest kid in the playground is the one that goes telling tales

But they aren't debating they are arguing and I think it derails the thead.

Debate the facts, agree or disagree but stop the name calling.

I agree with repeal, I have previously said that though I don't agree with RobertKK at least he was engaging with people, but this you said / he said is not debate and its nonsensical.

I can look for a ban if I want. If you don't agree you can engage with the mods - its called having a choice

cournioni · 23-05-2018 07:12AM

erica74 wrote: »

So you'd rather women give up their education pursuits, career progression, have babies they don't want, babies they can't afford? Sounds ideal.

So killing an unborn is the solution to this?!

To be honest, the stance you’ve taken there is exactly what I fear will happen in this country. Career choices taking precedence over life.

cournioni · 23-05-2018 07:13AM

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

You can when it comes to their body. I couldn’t give a fiddlers what you do with your body, it doesn’t affect me, do what you want. Please extend me the same courtesy.

Correction, their body and the body of the unborn.

Leroy42 · 23-05-2018 07:13AM

pleas advice wrote: »

There it is again, 'trust women', it's a nonsense phrase. Trust women to have an abortion if she wants one, it misses the whole point of the debate, totally

But who else can make the decision? Should a doctor make the call? They can't possibly know the full extend of the pain and suffering or mental anguish that she might face.

A Priest? The man? A TD?

If you are claiming that we cannot trust the woman, the person most effected by whatever decision is made, then what is the alternative?

Based on the current 8th, and if you vote no, you are saying that we should trust society as a whole, with no connection or information on that case, to make the decision

Cabaal · 23-05-2018 07:14AM

cournioni wrote: »

One persons wrong reason is somebody else’s right reason? That’s like the old “one persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter” saying that they use to absolve murderers from their crimes. I don’t like it and I think you shouldn’t use it.

We all have our views on abortion, but let’s not kid ourselves, if the Repeal vote passes it will be abused by people who will abort for the wrong reasons.

I've shown that even amongst the no campaign what one see's as a RIGHT reason is another campaigners WRONG reason.

Your comparison is laughable, mine was 100% relevant to this debate. Your comparison is whataboutery

When the no campaign can't even agree on what is a right reason is then we know that when they claim there are alternatives they are actually lying and intentionally trying to mislead the public in this country.

The no campaign will never agree or vote for any alternatives even for cases of rape.

Just her · 23-05-2018 07:14AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The word "Murder" has a very specific meaning though so I question your motivation in even wanting to use that word. What does it achieve other than to show yourself to be someone who does not know what words you use even mean?

"murder" specifically means to kill unlawfully. If abortion is legalized then BY DEFINITION a legal abortion is not and can not be "murder".

So using that word will achieve nothing other than you essentially saying "Look at me, I like to use words without even seemingly understanding what they even mean".

And I can only assume that is not the message you wish to convey.

Wow you just imported the word "hoping" yourself in order to change what the user said from a mere observation to a value statement..... and then judged him for what YOU imported. How is that honest?

Without modifying what the user said using your value laden language, what the user ACTUALLY said is perfectly coherent. IF a vote goes a certain way, and IF the demographics of that vote suggest that the vote was significantly skewed by the older generations........... then it is very much warranted to suggest the vote should be revisted when those older generations have died off as we can assume a probability that the result of the vote is no longer representative of the will of the people.

Is there a way you can flag my posts so you see them straight away to jump in or was that a coincidence? :-) if you had read all the posts including the one I replied to you would see that it was not me who introduced the word, I never have in any of my posts, as you would know if you have me flagged, I'm merely challenging the poster who said that no one on the no side thinks it's murder. Would you note agree that's it's a big leap for some one to come on here and tell us what everyone thinks?

Oh and please don't go into a whole spiel about how I've misused the word leap or something, I'm sure you know what I mean

Timberrrrrrrr · 23-05-2018 07:15AM

cournioni wrote: »

Killing a perfectly healthy life is unacceptable.

It's a 12 week fetus, how would you know if it's "perfectly healthy"?

nullzero · 23-05-2018 07:15AM

cournioni wrote: »

So killing an unborn is the solution to this?!

To be honest, the stance you’ve taken there is exactly what I fear will happen in this country. Career choices taking precedence over life.

Sadly getting an abortion for an inconvenient child and going back to have a child at a better time isn't always an option.
Abortion can result in some cases in damage to the woman's reproductive system that can occasionally be irreversible.
In all the shouting about choice and how wonderful abortion is the mechanics of abortion aren't being fully realized.

nozzferrahhtoo · 23-05-2018 07:15AM

cournioni wrote: »

Killing a perfectly healthy life is unacceptable.

Yet we do it all the time. In our medical industry we do it in the billions. In protecting our growing vegetables we do it in the millions. In eating vegetable we do it in massive numbers. Our meat industry does it with wild abandon. Even the production of paper kills perfectly healthy life.

So while you can protest all you like about killing "perfectly healthy life"..... it seems that it is not those three words.... either separately OR together...... that is actually the focus of your moral and ethical concerns.

cournioni wrote: »

So killing an unborn is the solution to this?!

It is an option and a choice. Why pretend it is being offered as "the" solution?

It wasnt me123 · 23-05-2018 07:16AM

Just her wrote: »

Can't say I've seen the posts about Smarties haircuts and ski holidays but the rationale I believe is the belief that abortion will become more commonplace should it be legalised here.

No, the belief was that women will be having abortions to fit in with holiday plans. Not so much as commonplace.

Leroy42 · 23-05-2018 07:16AM

cournioni wrote: »

So killing an unborn is the solution to this?!

To be honest, the stance you’ve taken there is exactly what I fear will happen in this country. Career choices taking precedence over life.

It is not a very nice solution, but it is a solution.

We have tried the other way for the past 35 years and it has not achieved it stated aims.

So what is the alternative. You don't agree with abortions, fine, In understand and I agree with you. But what is your solution to the issue facing us (3k+ women a year travelling to a foreign country to get abortions)

Cabaal · 23-05-2018 07:16AM

nullzero wrote: »

Sadly getting an abortion for an inconvenient child and going back to have a child at a better time isn't always an option.
Abortion can result in some cases in damage to the woman's reproductive system that can occasionally be irreversible.
In all the shouting about choice and how wonderful abortion is the mechanics of abortion aren't being fully realized.

You seem about one step away from claiming abortions cause cancer.

23-05-2018 07:17AM

pleas advice wrote: »

Pro choice for abortion. Ergo, pro abortion.

I'm pro marijuana, I wouldn't smoke it myself, but people should have the CHOICE to, if they want

That doesn't make you pro marijuana!
I'm not pro marijuana, but if they legalised it 2moro I believe anyone can smoke whatever they want.

Overheal · 23-05-2018 07:17AM

Python Desk wrote: »

Why should it be up to the woman to make the choice, should it be up to the women is she wants to commit arson, theft, sexual assault, fraud, tax evasion? Do you understand why laws exist instead of truatinf people to make the right choice?

All you do is dredge up red herrings.

All the same, each one of these red herrings you’ve dredged up are examples of things that directly harm other sovereign persons or their property.

Which I suppose leads us to the next question folks can argue for a while: does a fetus have personal sovereignty aka self-ownership? I would think not.

_Kaiser_ · 23-05-2018 07:17AM

Right, here's where I stand on this issue..

- I don't believe for a second that any woman who decides to have an abortion does so lightly, without a lot of emotional trauma and pain, and without probably second-guessing herself for possibly the rest of her life

- I don't believe anyone else has the right to let their own personal, religious or ethical beliefs dictate to her what she can and can't do in such a situation. The idea of forcing that woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy (for whatever reason it may be) to satisfy someone else's sense of "right" couldn't be more wrong

- Should we provide information about possible alternative options to her (and without the religious slant)... Absolutely! Do we have the right to pick an option for her.. Absolutely not!

- Do I think that voting Yes will lead to abortion becoming trivialised or used as a contraceptive? Not for a second! Refer to my first point above.

- Do I think that providing women who've made the decision the option of safe, supportive services here in Ireland, rather than forcing them to endure a stressful, expensive and lonely trip to the UK, is a good idea? Yes I do.

And ultimately it's that last point that's key. Regardless of how wrong you may feel it is (and that's legitimately fair enough), abortions are still going to happen even if the No vote passes on Friday.

What this vote is REALLY about is whether we want to give women the right to do this at home where they can be supported by friends, family and their GP, rather than a complete stranger in another country.

Given that reality, the choice seems obvious to me really..

nullzero · 23-05-2018 07:18AM

Cabaal wrote: »

You seem about one step away from claiming abortions cause cancer.

That is completely misrepresenting what I said.
How dare you make such a frivolous remark.

Itssoeasy · 23-05-2018 07:18AM

The 8am news on RTÉ radio 1 was strange. The No side are claiming that Cora Sherlock at no stage pulled out of the RTE prime time debate. Did anyone else hear it ?

Cupcake_Crisis · 23-05-2018 07:18AM

Python Desk wrote: »

Why should it be up to the woman to make the choice, should it be up to the woman if she wants to commit arson, theft, sexual assault, fraud, tax evasion? Do you understand why laws exist instead of trusting people to make the right choice?

Ultimately, yes it should be. And then she’ll have to deal with the consequences/aftermath of her actions.

nozzferrahhtoo · 23-05-2018 07:20AM

Just her wrote: »

Is there a way you can flag my posts so you see them straight away to jump in or was that a coincidence?

Deflection. And irrelevant. I reply to who I reply to. How, why, when or in what numbers is nothing to do with you. However if it puts potential paranoia to rest the reason I saw YOUR post was because I was checking your recent posts to see if you had yet gotten around to replying to my last reply to you.

Just her wrote: »

if you had read all the posts including the one I replied to you would see that it was not me who introduced the word

And if you re-read my post you will find A) I never suggested it was and

nothing I just said to you is based on, or requires that, it was.

You were discussing the use of the word "Murder" in general, and my response to it is based on questioning the use of it and what that use actually achieved (which is nothing, except to make the speaker look like they do not know, or care, what words actually mean).

I would suggest the reason the moderators have an issue with the word murder is because people are using it (erroneously) to make an already emotive and divisive subject MORE emotive and divisive. Which is probably more informative and accurate a narrative than the "it gets the no side banned" one you are peddling.

Overheal · 23-05-2018 07:22AM

nullzero wrote: »

Sadly getting an abortion for an inconvenient child and going back to have a child at a better time isn't always an option.
Abortion can result in some cases in damage to the woman's reproductive system that can occasionally be irreversible.
In all the shouting about choice and how wonderful abortion is the mechanics of abortion aren't being fully realized.

Scaremongering alert.

Leroy42 · 23-05-2018 07:22AM

Python Desk wrote: »

If someone believes it's wrong to kill the unborn then the solution is not killing the unborn. Don't have the abortion then.

Very true, and voting yes will not change that.

What voting yes means is that the dail will be in the position to legislate to give women a choice in certain circumstances.

tigger123 · 23-05-2018 07:22AM

cournioni wrote: »

Killing a perfectly healthy life is unacceptable.

Firstly, it's not a baby, it's a feutus with the potential to become a baby.

Second, I, as a man, have made the choice to delay having a family until I was financially and emotionally ready to do so. That is my right, and my choice.

It is entirely unacceptable to force women to become mother's if they are not ready to do so.

Timberrrrrrrr · 23-05-2018 07:22AM

cournioni wrote: »

Correction, their body and the body of the unborn.

When will you start campaigning for drinking/smoking while pregnant to be illegal? Both of these have been proven to be detrimental to the health of the unborn so surely if you care so much you should be vigorously campaigning against this? Or is it a case of thier body thier choice?

Cabaal · 23-05-2018 07:23AM

Python Desk wrote: »

Ans what will the ues campaign do to protect the unborn?

Legislation and laws, what do you think did it before 1983 or did you somehow think abortions were happening left right and centre before then legally?

What do you think does it in every other country in the world?

Ireland is the odd one out in this world by trying to use a constitution in the manner we have, its heavily flawed.

nullzero · 23-05-2018 07:23AM

Overheal wrote: »

Scaremongering alert.

So abortion never results in complications?

Read my post, the language used is measured.

Cupcake_Crisis · 23-05-2018 07:23AM

Python Desk wrote: »

Are you saying that theft, murder, sexual assault, fraud and tax evasion should be legalised so people can choose to commit those crimes?

Can you point out where I said that?

Calina · 23-05-2018 07:23AM

Just her wrote: »

Calina wrote: »

There is none for women on the no side given that a major rationale is that women will go often and have abortions like they are smarties, or between haircuts and ski holidays.

It seems yo me if the no side has respect for human life it is limited to human life that does not exist yet. Once born, they don't seem to matter and if they are women, forget about it, they are not to be trusted or respected.

Can't say I've seen the posts about Smarties haircuts and ski holidays but the rationale I believe is the belief that abortion will become more commonplace should it be legalised here.

You have not countered my point which is that the prolife lobby neither trusts nor respects females once they are born. It is all respect for human life provided it has breathed no air.

If you want to create a situation whereby it is not a commonly needed decision, Irish society has to change. The concept of pregnancy as punishment has to go. The hit to earnings, career, pension protection has to go. Motherhood is a massively important task and yet we expect women to make massive economic sacrifices to do it, we don't demand the same of fathers (and in fact we aren't very supportive of fathers as primary care givers). But we also shame women for it. Childcare arrangements in Ireland are horrifically expensive and the support for young mothers can be very location limited.

But this thread contains large strands of assertions that if women get pregnant then they just have to suck it up. That is very much pregnancy as punishment.

The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Comments