The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Cupcake_Crisis · 23-05-2018 08:47AM

gmisk wrote: »

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

If they had of wheeled John Waters out last night I’d have raced home to watch it!! Considering he can’t even have a reasoned debate with someone on the same side.

Overheal · 23-05-2018 08:48AM

Yeah I’m all fairness it is only after the fetus reaches 12 weeks that it even has what would be considered brain activity - that is, brain waves detectable by EEG. Implying it could be happy (especially prior to the end of 12 weeks) seems like a leap.

munsterlegend · 23-05-2018 08:48AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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.

Have we any idea of the percentages of 12 weeks old unborn in the womb that make it to birth? Obviously it would be a guess but my understanding is that at that time most people tell close ones they are actually pregnant.

Billy86 · 23-05-2018 08:48AM

Cabaal wrote: »

Neither had i, just came across it on broadsheet.ie

Apparently she pulled this challenge nonsense several times, he called her bluff and she runs.......except now she claims she didn't run
:rolleyes:

You couldn't make this stuff up,

Between this and the no side opting out of tonights debate, it suggests the no side is in freefall and can't come to any further agreements on their positions.

I think they know they've lost this but we need to make sure we all get out and vote yes!

Its standard from this "new right" movement if the last few years. Shout loud and often, scurry back into your hole when challenged. When the challenger leaves, scuttle back out and complain about the challenger "silencing" you and how you "showed them!" by hiding, though you totally weren't hiding, you just needed to check in in the dinner in the oven.

Wash, rinse, repeat when challenged again, because their leaders know they have nothing go stand by. They just need to keep the followers on board by appealing entirely to emotion with not only disregard but open disdain for the facts.

gmisk · 23-05-2018 08:49AM

Malaya Red Sandlot wrote: »

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.

I think you must have.

Patricia Casey basically IMO downplayed mental health, and she was rightly taken to task, Fidelma and the no doctor who said "the 8th protects me".....utter unmitigated disasters.

Dont even get me started on Michael Healy Rae on Tonight lol

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 23-05-2018 08:51AM

gmisk wrote: »

I think you must have.

Patricia Casey basically IMO downplayed mental health, and she was rightly taken to task, Fidelma and the no doctor who said "the 8th protects me".....utter unmitigated disasters.

Dont even get me started on Michael Healy Rae on Tonight lol

She didn't downplay mental health. She queried the figures claiming mental health as the reason they needed an abortion. I thought the reply to that was weak, to be honest.

gmisk · 23-05-2018 08:51AM

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

If they had of wheeled John Waters out last night I’d have raced home to watch it!! Considering he can’t even have a reasoned debate with someone on the same side.

I think John Waters is probably going to be kept well away from any interviews after that podcast performance with Dunphy.

Zubeneschamali · 23-05-2018 08:52AM

Reaction to Prime Time seems to be completely reversed from the Claire Byrne debate. After that one No supporters claimed a clear win, and Yes supporters complained about the moderation, the audience, the rules etc.

This time the roles are reversed: Yes supporters are jubilant while No are complaining about RTE, Maria Steen, doctors on the Yes but not the No panel etc. etc.

Ave Sodalis · 23-05-2018 08:54AM

munsterlegend wrote: »

Have we any idea of the percentages of 12 weeks old unborn in the womb that make it to birth? Obviously it would be a guess but my understanding is that at that time most people tell close ones they are actually pregnant.

From what I can find:

Up to 50% of pregnancies miscarry in the first four weeks, typically before a woman is aware that she has conceived. Of the 50% that progress beyond 4 weeks, there is a significant further rate of miscarriage heavily influenced by the age of the woman. A 30 year-old has approximately a 10% chance of miscarriage, whereas at the age of 40, the rate is at least 35% and increases steeply thereafter each year to 75% from the age of 45.

https://www.rcpi.ie/faculties/obstetricians-and-gynaecologists/repeal-the-eighth-amendment-info-for-the-public/

So it seems it varies by luck and age.

gmisk · 23-05-2018 08:54AM

Malaya Red Sandlot wrote: »

She didn't downplay mental health. She queried the figures claiming mental health as the reason they needed an abortion. I thought the reply to that was weak, to be honest.

That is definitely not the way it came across at all.
She seemed to really be downplaying mental health.

How do you think Fidelma did? That was a barnstorming appearance!
At least she didnt bring up her made up hairdressers story I suppose...

F - Lets legislate for FFA etc!
(despite that not really being an option, this has been repeated over and over)

would you vote for it?

F- Blank smile

F- I would have to look at it
:rolleyes:

Cupcake_Crisis · 23-05-2018 08:57AM

gmisk wrote: »

That is definitely not the way it came across at all.
She seemed to really be downplaying mental health.

How do you think Fidelma did? That was a barnstorming appearance!
At least she didnt bring up her made up hairdressers story I suppose...

F - Lets legislate for FFA etc!
(despite that not really being an option, this has been repeated over and over)

would you vote for it?

F- Blank smile

F- I would have to look at it
:rolleyes:

Fidelma made a holy show of herself on the tonight show. It was painful to watch at one point.

seamus · 23-05-2018 08:58AM

Malaya Red Sandlot wrote: »

She didn't downplay mental health. She queried the figures claiming mental health as the reason they needed an abortion. I thought the reply to that was weak, to be honest.

That's a generous way of describing it. Her statement was that the majority of abortions in the UK were carried out on the mental health grounds, and this is evidence that it is being abused; i.e. that women are just making stuff up to get abortions.

Patricia Casey is a fully-fledged officer of the Iona Institute and has been saying the same thing for years.

That someone who calls themselves a psychiatrist would rubbish claims of mental ill-health in such a blanket manner is nothing short of disgusting. The woman shouldn't be allowed practice. Her personal beliefs are at odds with the best interests of her patients.

Overheal · 23-05-2018 08:58AM

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

From what I can find:

https://www.rcpi.ie/faculties/obstetricians-and-gynaecologists/repeal-the-eighth-amendment-info-for-the-public/

So it seems it varies by luck and age.

Yeah so I saw this old fella on Facebook, over 81 years old, Australian, donated blood over 1000 times because he has antibodies needed to produce “anti-D” which prevents a woman’s white blood cells from attacking the embryo and causing it to miscarry. Fascinating stuff altogether, but yes point being miscarriage can happen startlingly often - he was credited as contributing to treatment in over 2.5 million pregnancies over the last several decades. Without the treatment... that is a lot of natural miscarriages! And that’s only one vector of many for miscarriages.

Cabaal · 23-05-2018 08:59AM

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

Fidelma made a holy show of herself on the tonight show. It was painful to watch at one point.

I'd like to thank her for her time and refusal to give an answer,

She helped change people's minds to yes because they realised no matter what alternative proposals are created people like her will be against them

Ave Sodalis · 23-05-2018 09:01AM

Overheal wrote: »

Yeah so I saw this old fella on Facebook, over 81 years old, Australian, donated blood over 1000 times because he has antibodies needed to produce “anti-D” which prevents a woman’s white blood cells from attacking the embryo and causing it to miscarry. Fascinating stuff altogether, but yes point being miscarriage can happen startlingly often - he was credited as contributing to treatment in over 2.5 million pregnancies over the last several decades. Without the treatment... that is a lot of natural miscarriages! And that’s only one vector of many for miscarriages.

What a lovely thing he did!

Raucous · 23-05-2018 09:01AM

Neither side has won my vote. The no side offer no solution to women hosting a threat to their lives and it's seemingly a case of 'too bad' for victims of rape and incest.

While the yes side pushed it beyond 'choice' for those wishing to end a pregnancy for 'lifestyle' reasons and are in reality demanding convenience. Why should they have go to England they say. For the same reason I have no 'right' to the convenience a local tattoo removal clinic.

Zubeneschamali · 23-05-2018 09:02AM

gmisk wrote: »

F - Lets legislate for FFA etc!
(despite that not really being an option, this has been repeated over and over)
would you vote for it?
F- Blank smile
F- I would have to look at it

I think it's great that she demonstrated that point. We all know that you could take the very thinnest slice, the very hardest cases. Just rape. just FFA. Whatever.

Propose a referendum, and the very same people would be against it. Every last one of them.

"Doctors and women would lie and pretend it was a case of FFA to give abortion on demand!". We know they would say this, because they are saying it right now in todays debate, putting 6 months on posters for this very reason.

"The unborn didn't rape anyone, why punish the innocent?" We know they would, because they are saying it right now. Toibin was repeatedly challenged on this last night and flubbed it.

Cabaal · 23-05-2018 09:03AM

Raucous wrote: »

Neither side has won my vote. The no side offer no solution to women hosting a threat to their lives and it's seemingly a case of 'too bad' for victims of rape and incest.

While the yes side pushed it beyond 'choice' for those wishing to end a pregnancy for 'lifestyle' reasons and are in reality demanding convenience. Why should they have go to England they say. For the same reason I have no 'right' to the convenience a local tattoo removal clinic.

New account, 3 posts, and this is one of them.

So you'l either note for or vote no so we can continue to force women to travel and fail to support them in ireland?

Billy86 · 23-05-2018 09:03AM

Raucous wrote: »

Neither side has won my vote. The no side offer no solution to women hosting a threat to their lives and it's seemingly a case of 'too bad' for victims of rape and incest.

While the yes side pushed it beyond 'choice' for those wishing to end a pregnancy for 'lifestyle' reasons and are in reality demanding convenience. Why should they have go to England they say. For the same reason I have no 'right' to the convenience a local tattoo removal clinic.

Genuine question - is tattoo removal illegal in Ireland and if so, under what basis?

Edit - never mind, I googled it and there are tattoo removal places all over Dublin. I'm not sure I get your point as it seems you have every right to tattoo removal in Ireland and options you could go to literally today should you feel compelled?

Overheal · 23-05-2018 09:05AM

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

What a lovely thing he did!

Indeed. Here’s the fella

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/world/australia/australian-blood-donor.html

gmisk · 23-05-2018 09:06AM

Cabaal wrote: »

I'd like to thank her for her time and refusal to give an answer,

She helped change people's minds to yes because they realised no matter what alternative proposals are created people like her will be against them

Its just like marriage equality
People like her said no to civil partnerships, and campaigned against them.

Civil Partnerships come in

Same sex couples want the right to marry

Sure you have civil partnerships! we gave you that be happy with it!

I honestly dont think people are fooled by this nonsense anymore on the whole.

....... · 23-05-2018 09:06AM

This post has been deleted.

Just her · 23-05-2018 09:07AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Because someone didn't agree with you doesn't mean they have missed the core of your point. Sure I could say you've missed the core of my point for that matter.

gmisk · 23-05-2018 09:07AM

Billy86 wrote: »

Genuine question - is tattoo removal illegal in Ireland and if so, under what basis?

It isnt illegal at all.
I know people who have had it done in Dublin.

Overheal · 23-05-2018 09:07AM

Raucous wrote: »

Neither side has won my vote. The no side offer no solution to women hosting a threat to their lives and it's seemingly a case of 'too bad' for victims of rape and incest.

While the yes side pushed it beyond 'choice' for those wishing to end a pregnancy for 'lifestyle' reasons and are in reality demanding convenience. Why should they have go to England they say. For the same reason I have no 'right' to the convenience a local tattoo removal clinic.

It’s a lot more serious than tattoos. You can remove or cover a tattoo at any time, there is no element of crisis whereas a pregnancy has numerous medical complications associated with it not the least of which might be miscarriage for instance. Now saying that if you got a tattoo and an infection from it there’s no law prohibiting you from seeking treatment at a clinic or hospital.

munsterlegend · 23-05-2018 09:11AM

Raucous wrote: »

Neither side has won my vote. The no side offer no solution to women hosting a threat to their lives and it's seemingly a case of 'too bad' for victims of rape and incest.

While the yes side pushed it beyond 'choice' for those wishing to end a pregnancy for 'lifestyle' reasons and are in reality demanding convenience. Why should they have go to England they say. For the same reason I have no 'right' to the convenience a local tattoo removal clinic.

I am voting for the status quo to remain. I voted for gay marriage and divorce but I would not equate the issues here in any way to those. They/we are adults making free choices about ourselves. Here there is a little foetus/unborn baby who at 12 weeks has a very high percentage chance of making it into the world yet for some reason some don't believe they are worthy of any protection. Oh let's disregard England and Scotland our closest cultural neighbours where abortion has sky rocketed since introduced as that doesn't suit the narrative. Simon Harris was happy to talk about Portugal last night but when Scotland abortion rates were mentioned he completely ignored it.

nozzferrahhtoo · 23-05-2018 09:12AM

Just her wrote: »

Because someone didn't agree with you doesn't mean they have missed the core of your point. Sure I could say you've missed the core of my point for that matter.

Then you will be overjoyed, I trust, to find on a re-read of my post that I did not predicate the evaluation that you have missed the point on you disagreeing with me.

I predicated it on something entirely different which is that referring to something as an attribute of my argument that is absolutely not an attribute of my argument, and is in fact precluded as an attribute of my argument by what my argument actually is........... strongly indicates you have misunderstood my argument.

Absolutely NOTHING to do with whether you actually agree with the argument itself or not at all.

cournioni · 23-05-2018 09:15AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Are you for a lawless society? Freedom and choice of the unborn is taken away with what is currently being proposed.

freshpopcorn · 23-05-2018 09:15AM

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

According to Twitter Simon Harris was fantastic in the debate last night? Is that right? I hadn’t a lot of faith in him tbh.

I saw the start of Simon Harris and he was a lot better than I was expecting. I think most people were expecting him to be disastrous.
On my facebook pages Yes said they were brilliant No said they were brilliant.

ArmaniJeanss · 23-05-2018 09:15AM

Raucous wrote: »

Neither side has won my vote. The no side offer no solution to women hosting a threat to their lives and it's seemingly a case of 'too bad' for victims of rape and incest.

While the yes side pushed it beyond 'choice' for those wishing to end a pregnancy for 'lifestyle' reasons and are in reality demanding convenience. Why should they have go to England they say. For the same reason I have no 'right' to the convenience a local tattoo removal clinic.

Clearly this is a Yes vote for you then?

A No Vote gets you nothing you want as the rape/incest scenario stays exactly as is, probably for another generation.
A Yes Vote handles these issues but unfortunately goes further than you want however you will have the opportunity to shape the legislation on a continual on-going basis in discussion with your TDs.

It may not be a palatable decision for you, but it's a relatively clear cut one?

The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Comments