The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Just her · 23-05-2018 08:29AM

average_runner wrote: »

One question I like to ask the No group. Your campaign is all about protecting the baby in the womb and I agree with that while the baby is alive or can survive while born and not in agony, but you don't mention anything about protecting the mother when the baby is not alive in the womb or protecting the mother and her children she is already a mother to. Can you explain why?

The reason why I am voting Yes is to protect the mother when she needs the protection. I originally wasn't going to vote. I believe the people who just want abortion for non medical reasons will just go to the UK anyhow.

I am a male also if that actually matters.

I'm not sure fully understand your question, about protecting a mother when her baby is not alive in the womb, do you mean a miscarriage? And protecting the children she is already a mother to, do you mean for economic reasons they might consider an abortion.
I'm very sorry if I've misunderstood.

I suppose the way I see it there are two sides in an abortion. One that can't speak for themselves and will die in an abortion. I try to speak up for them as they have no voice in this.

nullzero · 23-05-2018 08:29AM

Overheal wrote: »

I haven’t insulted you at all, have I? You can clear this up with me in PM of you like; personally I think it’s unfair to keep derailing the thread, much less calling other people cretins et all behind a water thin veneer of “qualifying language.” Questions about the reality of Jesus Christ should be directed to the Christianity forum. Meanwhile, I was still wondering what hard evidence you were using to make generalizing claims (with or without “qualifying language”) about the risk to reproductive health of women who undergo abortions: specifically, which abortion procedures, how long the gestation is, etc etc etc.

You posted a picture of goal posts being moved when I had used considered language to make my earlier point.
If you can't grasp the context of something perhaps you shouldn't comment on it.

defrule · 23-05-2018 08:29AM

neonsofa wrote: »

Voting for human rights (whether you believe that involves just the foetus or the woman or whatever else) is not quite the same as the chore of cleaning your room.

It’s not but it’s the behaviour I’m trying to illustrate that might happen.

Cupcake_Crisis · 23-05-2018 08:30AM

gmisk wrote: »

What is she claiming?
Where was she?

Ah im not sure I give a toss at this stage, she has made herself a laughing stock.

I would love to know why she didn’t show up. Perhaps she knew she was out of her depth.

....... · 23-05-2018 08:31AM

This post has been deleted.

neonsofa · 23-05-2018 08:32AM

defrule wrote: »

It’s not but it’s the behaviour I’m trying to illustrate that might happen.

I understand what you were trying to say but I disagree with that.

cournioni · 23-05-2018 08:32AM

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

So your solution is force a woman to birth them and then put them in a system that doesnt work?

My solution is to avoid killing a healthy living being if at all possible, to give it the chance at life.

Why should the unborn baby pay the price (in this case where we are talking about career and economic reasons) with its life just because the woman decided against it?

gmisk · 23-05-2018 08:32AM

Python Desk wrote: »

If someone breaks the law then they should be punished accordingly.

So yeah 14 years for importing abortion pills?
Cool sounds fair...:rolleyes:

Cupcake_Crisis · 23-05-2018 08:32AM

Python Desk wrote: »

If someone breaks the law then they should be punished accordingly.

So yes, you do think women should be jailed for 14 years for taking abortion pills. Thank for clearing that up.

pleas advice · 23-05-2018 08:33AM

Cabaal wrote: »

We must respect her CHOICE that she CHOOSE not to appear on RTE, it would be unfair for her to be forced to appear on RTE against her will. Equally it would be wrong for RTE to go to court to force her to appear on RTE.

She had a choice and she choose not to appear, we must respect this.

Remember when she used to carry around a podium challenging Harris to a debate? .....thats what makes this so much funnier

pleas advice wrote: »

..

....... · 23-05-2018 08:33AM

This post has been deleted.

defrule · 23-05-2018 08:33AM

neonsofa wrote: »

I understand what you were trying to say but I disagree with that.

I have no problem with that.

Overheal · 23-05-2018 08:33AM

defrule wrote: »

I’m thinking it’s like cleaning your room. You don’t do it on a good sunny day. You go out, sunbathe, picnic, beach etc...

The good weather will fuel the feel good factor that will reinforce the thought “ah sure, we’ll be grand, I’ll hardly make a difference if I stay out on this beach.”

Eh I’m not convinced. That sounds like personal speculation not anything discerned from actual informatics. There’s a lot of it out there at that. Generally speaking rain reduces turnout, which is generally seen as good for conservative bases/those which benefit from low turnouts (high turnouts usually being comprised of younger or more progressive bases). Bad weather will have more impact as well on moderates than hardliners - eg. If you’ve been undecided but you were planning to cast a vote, bad weather will be more likely to dissuade you from going vs. someone who has been more invested in seeing the issue won in their favor.

Example source https://weather.com/wunderground/news/news/weather-and-the-election

Good weather will likely not have any discernible impact on the vote either way, I mean unless it’s that lovely smell the roses type weather then who knows it may boost turnout - speculation on my part

nozzferrahhtoo · 23-05-2018 08:34AM

Just her wrote: »

I suppose the way I see it there are two sides in an abortion. One that can't speak for themselves and will die in an abortion. I try to speak up for them as they have no voice in this.

The issue with phrasing of that nature is that it contrived to suggest there is something there that should have a voice, but somehow it is precluded exercising it.

The rhetoric of "Can not speak for themselves" build a narrative that there is someone there to do the speaking, they just are unable.

The reality is that at something like 12 or 16 weeks gestation there is NO ONE there in the first place. It is not that they can not speak for thsemves, it is that there is no one there to even apply such a concept to.

The reality is you are not speaking "UP" for them as you claim...... rather you are literally speaking FOR them. You are projecting your concerns and your opinions on to them vicariously and acting like you are speaking on their behalf rather than your own.

ohnonotgmail · 23-05-2018 08:35AM

Python Desk wrote: »

That is your opinion, other people believe the unborn deserves consideration.

Consideration, certainly. But not on an equal basis to the woman carrying it.

neonsofa · 23-05-2018 08:35AM

cournioni wrote: »

My solution is to avoid killing a healthy living being if at all possible, to give it the chance at life.

Why should the unborn baby pay the price (in this case where we are talking about career and economic reasons) with its life just because the woman decided against it?

The baby still pays the price if it is raised in a household that can't afford it. Saying this as someone who continued with a crisis pregnancy that I couldn't afford btw. I'm still playing catch up, despite all the wonderful support I had. If i didn't have that support I can't even imagine the life myself and my child would have right now. I wouldn't have continued with the pregnancy if that had been the case though. For that exact reason.

nozzferrahhtoo · 23-05-2018 08:35AM

cournioni wrote: »

Why should the unborn baby pay the price (in this case where we are talking about career and economic reasons) with its life just because the woman decided against it?

Because one is a sentient agent with concerns, well being, freedoms and a choices, and the other is not. And it is the curtailing of the freedoms, choices and well being of such agents in deference to non-agents that requires the justification. Not the other way around.

Cupcake_Crisis · 23-05-2018 08:35AM

cournioni wrote: »

My solution is to avoid killing a healthy living being if at all possible, to give it the chance at life.

Why should the unborn baby pay the price (in this case where we are talking about career and economic reasons) with its life just because the woman decided against it?

But how do you propose to enact your solution? It’s ok to scream abortion is murder, but if you’re going to do that at least advocate a functioning solution. The one that’s in place doesn’t work, the supports aren’t there.

defrule · 23-05-2018 08:37AM

Overheal wrote: »

Eh I’m not convinced. That sounds like personal speculation not anything discerned from actual informatics. There’s a lot of it out there at that. Generally speaking rain reduces turnout, which is generally seen as good for conservative bases/those which benefit from low turnouts (high turnouts usually being comprised of younger or more progressive bases). Bad weather will have more impact as well on moderates than hardliners - eg. If you’ve been undecided but you were planning to cast a vote, bad weather will be more likely to dissuade you from going vs. someone who has been more invested in seeing the issue won in their favor.

That’s exactly what it is, my personal speculation.

Based on my thoughts that people are lazy and easily swayed by other things.

Overheal · 23-05-2018 08:38AM

nullzero wrote: »

You posted a picture of goal posts being moved when I had used considered language to make my earlier point.
If you can't grasp the context of something perhaps you shouldn't comment on it.

That’s not personal abuse, it’s critcising your argument as requiring special “fig-leaves” as one prolific poster here might say. More commonly known as special goalposts.

Still waiting on quantification for you qualifiers on that argument, at that. As in, source evidence?

Ineedaname · 23-05-2018 08:39AM

gmisk wrote: »

What is she claiming?
Where was she?

Ah im not sure I give a toss at this stage, she has made herself a laughing stock.

Well reading between the lines on twitter it seems she was pulled by the no side. Matt Cooper tore her to shreds during the week so it wouldn't surprise me.

Safe to say the No side are imploding.

Just her · 23-05-2018 08:39AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The issue with phrasing of that nature is that it contrived to suggest there is something there that should have a voice, but somehow it is precluded exercising it.

The rhetoric of "Can not speak for themselves" build a narrative that there is someone there to do the speaking, they just are unable.

The reality is that at something like 12 or 16 weeks gestation there is NO ONE there in the first place. It is not that they can not speak for thsemves, it is that there is no one there to even apply such a concept to.

The reality is you are not speaking "UP" for them as you claim...... rather you are literally speaking FOR them. You are projecting your concerns and your opinions on to them vicariously and acting like you are speaking on their behalf rather than your own.

They have no voice, no choice. My concern is that they should be allowed live.

Are you telling us now that the unborn are happy to be aborted and shouldn't have anyone speaking against aborting them?

Cupcake_Crisis · 23-05-2018 08:40AM

defrule wrote: »

That’s exactly what it is, my personal speculation.

Based on my thoughts that people are lazy and easily swayed by other things.

Nah, not in a referendum this important. People are coming home from all corners of the earth to vote. A bit of weather won’t stop them once they get here.

Overheal · 23-05-2018 08:40AM

defrule wrote: »

That’s exactly what it is, my personal speculation.

Based on my thoughts that people are lazy and easily swayed by other things.

I mean I might agree more on an issue that they are less related toward but this is women and the unborn which affects virtually everyone in some personal way or another, unlike same sex marriage say which we all might have opinions on but may not have any personal connection or affiliation to anyone connected directly to the issue.

nozzferrahhtoo · 23-05-2018 08:41AM

Just her wrote: »

They have no voice, no choice. My concern is that they should be allowed live.

Are you telling us now that the unborn are happy to be aborted and shouldn't have anyone speaking against aborting them?

No I am telling you that at 12/16 weeks the very concepts of "voice" "choice" "happy" and so on do not even apply at all. And I am concerned the language you use to describe them is contrived in a fashion that suggests they do.

If you think I am saying the "unborn" is "happy" or "unhappy" in ANY sense then you have missed the core of what I am saying entirely.

Zubeneschamali · 23-05-2018 08:42AM

Just her wrote: »

Are you telling us now that the unborn are happy to be aborted and shouldn't have anyone speaking against aborting them?

At 12 weeks the unborn are neither happy nor unhappy. They have no developed brains to think happy or unhappy thoughts. There is nobody home, just the potential to maybe develop into someone.

ohnonotgmail · 23-05-2018 08:43AM

Just her wrote: »

They have no voice, no choice. My concern is that they should be allowed live.

Are you telling us now that the unborn are happy to be aborted and shouldn't have anyone speaking against aborting them?

they are not capable of being happy.

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 23-05-2018 08:45AM

I must have been watching a different debate to some people on here. I thought Simon Harris was waffly and woolly, and kept falling back on emotive words and statements when he had nothing substantial to back up his arguments. Likewise I felt Patricia Casey was factual and measured and really knew what she was talking about, whereas again the psychiatrist advocating for a 'Yes' vote didn't come across convincingly at all.

Ashbourne hoop · 23-05-2018 08:45AM

jjmcclure wrote: »

So that everyone knows. Amnesty International is backing YES. I stopped my 10 year plus monthly donation to them when I realised.

Spread the word no side.[/QUO

Can't have came as a surprise to you, they've been campaigning on it for years now.

gmisk · 23-05-2018 08:46AM

Ineedaname wrote: »

Well reading between the lines on twitter it seems she was pulled by the no side. Matt Cooper tore her to shreds during the week so it wouldn't surprise me.

Safe to say the No side are imploding.

How long before John McGuirk starts calling people "psychotic b#tches" again I wonder?

The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Comments