The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Trasna1 · 24-05-2018 12:41AM

P_1 wrote: »

But you bet your backside it will be plastered all over social media.

The social media demographic that will react to this is already lost for the No campaign.

24-05-2018 12:42AM

DOS wrote: »

Another one

Anyone who'd say 'well said' to that post...

Based on what you've been posting you got off lightly I'd say

DOS · 24-05-2018 12:46AM

DubInMeath wrote: »

Based on what you've been posting you got off lightly I'd say

My posts have been civil. Not like the cowardly bully boys who can't accept the No sides view and then talk of choice!!

Goodnight and God Bless.

Dave_The_Sheep · 24-05-2018 12:54AM

TallyRand wrote: »

Hmmmm, the longitudinal study referenced in this paper http://200.16.86.38/uca/common/grupo54/files/new_zealand_abortion_study.pdf contradicts your post

Except it doesn't. What the poster you replied to claimed was (emphasis mine):

This longitudinal cohort study observed 956 women semiannually for 5 years. Eight days after seeking an abortion, women who were denied an abortion reported significantly more anxiety symptoms and lower self-esteem and life satisfaction, but similar levels of depression, as women receiving abortions; outcomes improved or remained steady over time.

The study you quote is from NZ, Christchurch, between the ages of 15-25, to be precise. If you skim, the abstract, I can see why you might come to the conclusion you've made, but when you read it, that's not the case.

The study results were that 14.6% of reported pregnancies from the group sought and obtained an abortion (at least once - when you include multiples, I think that increases to 21%). However the results are based on three groups:
a) women who did not become pregnant.
b) women who became pregnant but did not have an abortion.
c) women who became pregnant but did have an abortion.

Nowhere does it mention women who became pregnant and were denied an abortion. What the study you quote says is that pregnant women who had an abortion were likely to show more signs of mental effects (such as depression, drug use, stress and other mental health issues) as compared to pregnant women who did not have an abortion (implication mine, who wanted to continue their pregnancy).

It's not hard to understand why that might be the case. Women who had an unwanted pregnancy and had an abortion vs those who (again, my implication) did want a to have a pregnancy and didn't have an abortion would obviously be affected more mentally. Abortion is not a picnic to be entered into lightly, nor do women do that.

If you wanted to compare, then you'd need a study that compared women who were denied an abortion to those who were allowed one to those who continued pregnancy but didn't want an abortion. In short, this study doesn't show that abortion alone causes these mental health effects.

In fact, the study you quoted says itself:

It could be proposed that our results reflect the effects of unwanted pregnancy on mental health rather than the effects of abortion per se on mental health. The data available in the study was not sufficient to explore these options.

Credit to them for making that disctinction.

To be facetious, the group of women who showed the least effects of mental distress were those who never became pregnant during the course of the study. So if I was to misrepresent the study in the same way you are, I'd go with "pregnancy causes mental health issues". That would be irrelevant and silly though, much like what you said.

DOS · 24-05-2018 12:55AM

BarleySweets wrote: »

You genocide preaching ****wit. Piss off with your fear of asterisked words; just yesterday you were preaching fire and brimstone unless we all repent and submit to your modern-day, bastardized version of a religion that was invented 2,000 years ago to control a group of rowdy desert-dwelling clans. Who the **** do you think you are to try to call me out like that?

You know what your problem is? You’re while ideology is based on fear. You are a man afraid of life. Every one of your posts and proclamations drips with your fear and it’s frankly pathetic to read such bull**** in 2018.

Things you are afraid of in 2018:
- church attendance declines
- societal downfall due to the above
- feminists
- white genocide due to abortions
- foreigners
- the fact that you’re a walking contradiction “I firmly believe you all need to worship my religion piously and I expect you to all take my word that my religion is best and will save our society and prevent a genocide on our lovely whites; oh but nevermind the fact that none of the leadership of my religion echo my concerns and consider me and my ilk to be fundamentalist nutjobs. I’m right and you’re wrong. QED.”

Oh and it’s BarleySweets you nazi ****.

Oh and I'm not a man. I'm very happy with my life anyway.

You don't seem to be a happy camper going by that post.

Stonedpilot · 24-05-2018 01:00AM

DOS wrote: »

Oh and I'm not a man. I'm very happy with my life anyway.

You don't seem to be a happy camper going by that post.

That is one unhinged post DOS.

Be very careful with someone that much off their rocker especially as a woman.

nullzero · 24-05-2018 01:02AM

Stonedpilot wrote: »

That is one unhinged post DOS.

Be very careful with someone that much off their rocker especially as a woman.

Trust women.

DOS · 24-05-2018 01:06AM

spookwoman wrote: »

BarleySweets don't rise to Dos he's not worth it and just trying to goad you into getting banned

Barley Sweets posted one of the most outrageous posts on here and is well able to get banned on his own.

Have a lot of you Yes posters no moral fibre and simply back one another up because you're on the same side regardless of the vile language??

All the worst attributes you ascribe to the No side are visible on the Yes side here.

Choice?? We can't even say which side we're voting on and why.

DOS · 24-05-2018 01:08AM

Stonedpilot wrote: »

That is one unhinged post DOS.

Be very careful with someone that much off their rocker especially as a woman.

Very, very angry post. He did the same to Bellabella earlier.

ittakestwo · 24-05-2018 01:21AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No, I don't admit that. After 35 years of living with the 8th all I can say it has been an unmitigated disaster. It has caused widespread confusion in medical circles. It directly led to abortions being legalised in certain circumstances - which set a precedence for legal abortion in Ireland. It has merely exported the problems for foreign solutions. It has negatively impacted on many women's health in ways which limits their chances to conceive again - or indeed survive to raise their existing children.
It also leads to a great deal of stress for pregnant women which can affect the development of a foetus. Being pregnant is hard enough - even when it's a very wanted pregnancy - without the additional fear of "what will happen to me if something goes wrong?!?!?"

But logically if part of your thinking is that there are people here now who wouldn't be here but for the 8th it follows on that there would also be people here who aren't here if we banned contraception.

I don't get how anybody can argue that the 8th does not give the unborn more a legal right than if it was not there.... I know somebody can go abroad but in this jurisdiction they have a legal right no mater how far along it is. If we remove the 8th the unborn wont have a legal right up till 12 weeks.

But to be unborn there has to be an existence. The 8th amendment cant protect something that is not there. So I don't have a problem with people using contraception as there is no existence and nothing that can be protected by law.

Hotblack Desiato · 24-05-2018 01:25AM

Deleted User wrote: »

What's EWTN?

Eternal Word Television Network.

I don't imagine you were actually watching that, it was a joke. I can't imagine many other media outlets would be claiming there is a swing to No in the last couple of days, they sh@t the bed last night and tonight basically.

gctest50 · 24-05-2018 01:26AM

TallyRand wrote: »

Hmmmm, the longitudinal study referenced in this paper

http://200.16.86.38/uca/common/grupo54/files/new_zealand_abortion_study.pdf

contradicts your post

nope - no it doesn't

anyway, i still think your internet is broken

TallyRand wrote: »

http://200.16.86.38/uca/common/grupo54/files/new_zealand_abortion_study.pdf

Hotblack Desiato · 24-05-2018 01:28AM

Isn't it great when someone gives a source with an IP address in it.

The old dotted quads. Harks back to the aul days when every node on the internet was trusted...

gctest50 · 24-05-2018 01:32AM

Course

http://200.16.86.38

goes to

http://uca.edu.ar/es

Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina

not that there is anything wrong with that

same dotted quad linky shows up in letter by SPUC ( Society for the Protection of Unborn life) letter

https://www.spuc.org.uk/~/media/Files/Open-Letter-to-Michael-Gove-230512.ashx?la=en

Wrongway1985 · 24-05-2018 01:40AM

ittakestwo wrote: »

I don't get how anybody can argue that the 8th does not give the unborn more a legal right than if it was not there.... I know somebody can go abroad but in this jurisdiction they have a legal right no mater how far along it is. If we remove the 8th the unborn wont have a legal right up till 12 weeks

Over a thousand women having terminations HERE per year...how did the 8th protect those unborn? It is in law that to carry out a termination comes with a criminal sentence. Nobody is pursuing these "criminals"...thats a sham law to me.

ittakestwo · 24-05-2018 02:14AM

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

Over a thousand women having terminations HERE per year...how did the 8th protect those unborn? It is in law that to carry out a termination comes with a criminal sentence. Nobody is pursuing these "criminals"...thats a sham law to me.

OK. I presume you are referring to the morning after pill? I can never see the law going after a person who took the morning after pill.

_Dara_ · 24-05-2018 02:16AM

ittakestwo wrote: »

OK. I presume you are referring to the morning after pill? I can never see the law going after a person who took the morning after pill.

No, abortion pills, illegally imported.

gctest50 · 24-05-2018 02:25AM

ittakestwo wrote: »

I don't get how anybody can argue that the 8th does not give the unborn more a legal right than if it was not there.... I know somebody can go abroad but in this jurisdiction they have a legal right no mater how far along it is. If we remove the 8th the unborn wont have a legal right up till 12 weeks.

.......

ittakestwo wrote: »

I don't get how anybody can argue that the 8th does not give the unborn more a legal right than if it was not there....

.......

In reality, it doesn't - if a woman in Ireland is well enough, has money and time

It's right there in your own post :

ittakestwo wrote: »

...........

. I know somebody can go abroad but in this jurisdiction they have a legal right no mater how far along it is.

.......

Even if she has the money, it still couldn't be further from ideal if it tried.

She needs to be here with her chosen doctor

gctest50 · 24-05-2018 04:31AM

.

Ronan Mullen : Saoirse you deserve love and respect regardless of what you have done

https://twitter.com/NaomiOhReally/status/999440104644136961

From 1996 to 2001, Mullen worked in the Communications Office of the Archdiocese of Dublin and appeared as a spokesperson for the Archdiocese and Cardinal Desmond Connell.

Cardinal Connell was later found to have covered up numerous instances of child sex abuse

gctest50 · 24-05-2018 05:10AM

Potential voter intimidation :

https://twitter.com/LoveBothDrog/status/999014874939297793

freshpopcorn · 24-05-2018 05:22AM

Mod NoteBarleySweets Don't post here again!

Addle · 24-05-2018 05:22AM

What right has any side to check IDs?!

dudara · 24-05-2018 05:24AM

^^ For real? Surely that can’t be allowed?

Addle · 24-05-2018 05:26AM

Anyone who allows someone other than an election official to check their ID is a fool.

Edward M · 24-05-2018 05:56AM

Polling stations are pretty official, anyone other than the properly appointed staff start looking for IDs they would be removed fairly quickly.

Atlantic Dawn · 24-05-2018 05:58AM

Any non official tool looking to check my ID when I go to vote will get a thump in the face.

HandsomeBob · 24-05-2018 06:00AM

gctest50 wrote: »

.

Ronan Mullen : Saoirse you deserve love and respect regardless of what you have done

https://twitter.com/NaomiOhReally/status/999440104644136961

From 1996 to 2001, Mullen worked in the Communications Office of the Archdiocese of Dublin and appeared as a spokesperson for the Archdiocese and Cardinal Desmond Connell.

Cardinal Connell was later found to have covered up numerous instances of child sex abuse

He really did clinch it for a Yes vote, what an utter clown. Can only imagine the Yes Canvassers were just wishing such a clanger was dropped earlier in the campaign, as there would be a lot less undecided.

I never saw Steen debate before but she seemed hesitant from the off and lacked fluency. She was poor based on what I heard about her. To her small credit Kenny did become a flustered wreck in his determination to come across as a firm moderator and in doing so I do feel he was a bit heavy handed with her. However she was so poor it didn't really make a difference.

Less said about said other clown the better.

Hande hoche! · 24-05-2018 06:01AM

Follow up tweet.

https://twitter.com/LoveBothDrog/status/999445981233057792

freshpopcorn · 24-05-2018 06:01AM

I'm thinking of setting up a little table out the polling station and charging every €5 to get in and if you don't have ID I'll charge you double!

Hande hoche! · 24-05-2018 06:03AM

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I'm thinking of setting up a little table out the polling station and charging every €5 to get in and if you don't have ID I'll charge you double!

You'll want to sell exorbitantly priced snacks and drinks too.

The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Comments