Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

8th Amendment

1…1516182021…65

Comments

  • #512
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,174 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Yawn. I'm not wasting 53 seconds on that.


  • #513
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,859 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Amnesty International advocating for the Abortion Industry and turning its back on the most vulnerable human life on this planet, unborn babies. An organisation in the guise of a Human Rights Defender calling for intentionally killing human life. George Orwell is alive and well.

    The arrogance of the "pro-life" movement in a nutshell: if the world's foremost human rights organisation disagrees with them, then it's not a human rights organisation.

    That's a pretty impressive refusal to even contemplate the possible validity of views other than your own.


  • #514
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    The arrogance of the "pro-life" movement in a nutshell: if the world's foremost human rights organisation disagrees with them, then it's not a human rights organisation.

    That's a pretty impressive refusal to even contemplate the possible validity of views other than your own.

    A Human Rights organisation advocating for the 'right' to intentionally take human life.

    Explain that one to me.


  • #515
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    A Human Rights organisation advocating for the 'right' to intentionally take human life.

    As you well know (but are pretending not to), no-one much beyond a subset of Christians even pretends to believe a recently implanted fertilized egg is a human life with rights equal to yours and mine.

    And the Christians pretending to don't really, either, or they wouldn't have voted for access to abortion services for Irish people and information on same.


  • #516
    cros13
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 971 ✭✭✭cros13


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    ...abortion industry.
    Black Menorca wrote: »
    ...abortion industry...
    Black Menorca wrote: »
    ...abortion industry...
    Black Menorca wrote: »
    ...abortion industry.
    Black Menorca wrote: »
    ...abortion industry...
    Black Menorca wrote: »
    ...abortion industry...
    Black Menorca wrote: »
    ...abortion industry...
    Black Menorca wrote: »
    ...Abortion Industry...

    Please stop saying nonsense like this, it's dishonest.

    Most terminations in total are now carried out by abortifacient pill which can in most cases be prescribed by the family doctor or by the local public health office. These days they usually use a drug licensed in Ireland and carried in pharmacies for the treatment of ulcers.

    Most surgical terminations worldwide are carried out in public hospitals as a normal part of basic healthcare.
    In other cases like in the case of Planned Parenthood they are charities devoted to family planning and when there is a need in the area they provide terminations as well.
    And the last major category are social businesses like Marie Stopes who provide services at cost without making a profit.
    There's 99% of your "abortion industry" in three categories...none of which make a profit.

    In fact guess where many of the charities that operate to offer assistance to Irish women accessing termination services get their money? Ordinary Irish people like me donating!
    And I'm very proud of that fact.


  • Advertisement
  • #517
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    cros13 wrote: »
    Please stop saying nonsense like this, it's dishonest.

    Most terminations in total are now carried out by abortifacient pill which can in most cases be prescribed by the family doctor or by the local public health office. These days they usually use a drug licensed in Ireland and carried in pharmacies for the treatment of ulcers.

    Most surgical terminations worldwide are carried out in public hospitals as a normal part of basic healthcare.
    In other cases like in the case of Planned Parenthood they are charities devoted to family planning and when there is a need in the area they provide terminations as well.
    And the last major category are social businesses like Marie Stopes who provide services at cost without making a profit.
    There's 99% of your "abortion industry" in three categories...none of which make a profit.

    In fact guess where many of the charities that operate to offer assistance to Irish women accessing termination services get their money? Ordinary Irish people like me donating!
    And I'm very proud of that fact.

    Nice.

    Now, can someone explain why an organisation that prides itself in defending human rights is advocating for the intentional taking of human life?

    Why doesn't Amnesty come clean and admit they're cheerleaders for the international abortion industry?


  • #518
    inocybe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 505 ✭✭✭inocybe


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Why doesn't Amnesty come clean and admit they're cheerleaders for the international abortion industry?

    Is that like International Rescue? Cool, where are the try-outs?


  • #519
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    inocybe wrote: »
    Is that like International Rescue? Cool, where are the try-outs?

    The gross failure to deflect from my question is speaking volumes about the morally defunct Amnesty International. :)


  • #520
    inocybe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 505 ✭✭✭inocybe


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    The gross failure to deflect from my question is speaking volumes about the morally defunct Amnesty International. :)

    If it's good enough for you, it's good enough for me....


  • #521
    Sheldons Brain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭Sheldons Brain


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    The arrogance of the "pro-life" movement in a nutshell: if the world's foremost human rights organisation disagrees with them, then it's not a human rights organisation.

    Amnesty formerly advocated saving life, now it advocates taking it, a complete reversal of their values. My shame is that I once donated money to them :(


  • Advertisement
  • #522
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    Amnesty formerly advocated saving life, now it advocates taking it, a complete reversal of their values. My shame is that I once donated money to them :(

    You're not alone there.

    Amnesty has been hijacked by the abortion lobby, making it a laughing stock.


  • #523
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    Underage girls being prostituted in India and women enslaved in Islamastan, yet Amnesty is prioritising privileged Westerners' access to killing their unborn daughters.

    Warped on any level.


  • #524
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,859 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    A Human Rights organisation advocating for the 'right' to intentionally take human life.

    Explain that one to me.
    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    Amnesty formerly advocated saving life, now it advocates taking it, a complete reversal of their values. My shame is that I once donated money to them :(

    I'm reminded of the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, when both men were asked what could change their mind. Nye: "evidence". Ham: "nothing".

    Amnesty International value a woman's human rights above those of a zygote. For this, you both cry "shame". Just like David Quinn crying "shame" upon hearing that children's advocacy groups refused to buy into his lies about same-sex couples being bad for children.

    Has it occurred to either of you to wonder why a human rights group would advocate for abortion?


  • #525
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,859 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Underage girls being prostituted in India and women enslaved in Islamastan, yet Amnesty is prioritising privileged Westerners' access to killing their unborn daughters.

    Warped on any level.

    "Amnesty should either conform to my personal morals or shut up."


  • #526
    Sheldons Brain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭Sheldons Brain


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm reminded of the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, when both men were asked what could change their mind. Nye: "evidence". Ham: "nothing".

    Given your views on the the marriage debate, I can see why Ham would appeal to you.
    Amnesty International value a woman's human rights above those of a zygote.

    Zygotes are not at issue here, as far as I am aware morning after pills and the like are indeed available in Ireland.
    For this, you both cry "shame". Just like David Quinn crying "shame" upon hearing that children's advocacy groups refused to buy into his lies about same-sex couples being bad for children.

    Please show me where David Quinn said same-sex couples were "bad" for children?


  • #527
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    oscarBravo wrote: »

    Has it occurred to either of you to wonder why a human rights group would advocate for abortion?

    Way to dodge the oxymoron of a human rights organisation advocating for killing unborn life.


  • #528
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    "Amnesty should either conform to my personal morals or shut up."

    Morals? Amnesty?

    Chance would be a fine thing.


  • #529
    No Voter And Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 282 ✭✭No Voter And Proud


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    "Amnesty should either conform to not killing babies/viable fetuses or shut up."
    Fixed that for you


  • #530
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,107 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Has it occurred to either of you to wonder why a human rights group would advocate for abortion?

    Good idea, lets see what examples Amnesty put forward to highlight the problem with current abortion legislation.

    Source for quotes that follow.
    The report presents testimony from women who have undergone abortions abroad, some of whom suffered miscarriages but were forced to carry a dead or unviable foetus inside them for weeks in the futile hope they could get the health care they need in Ireland. Róisín was forced to carry a dead foetus for weeks because doctors wanted to be absolutely sure there was no foetal heartbeat. She told Amnesty International:
    “I wouldn’t be inclined to trust services for women in this country at the moment.”
    Lupe, who was carrying a foetus with no heartbeat for 14 weeks, told Amnesty International she had to travel to her home country of Spain for proper medical treatment:
    “I didn’t feel safe at all…I was feeling really scared because it became clear to me, that if any complication was raised, these people would let me die.”
    Carrying a dead foetus for weeks on end??:eek: How exactly is it immoral to suggest that shouldn't happen?:confused:
    It is not just women seeking abortions who are denied access to healthcare by the focus on the foetus. Health staff refused Rebecca H., who was gravely ill, a C-section for fear that it would harm her foetus. Instead, they forced her to endure 36 hours of labour saying their job was “to look after the baby, the baby comes first”. She told Amnesty International:
    “I would fear for my life to have another child in Ireland.”
    Not able to have a c-section?? And now the woman fears for her life to have another child in Ireland :(

    Dr. Peter Boylan, an obstetrician, gynaecologist and former Master and Clinical Director of Ireland’s National Maternity Hospital told Amnesty International about the legal and ethical tightrope medical staff are forced to walk:
    “Under the [current law] we must wait until women become sick enough before we can intervene. How close to death do you have to be? There is no answer to that.”
    and a doctor stating that medical treatment may be withheld until a pregnant woman is 'sick enough'. Doesn't seem like 'best medical practices' that the pro-life people are always boasting about.

    I'd love to know how Amnesty is now immoral for stating the above is not a good way to treat pregnant women.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #531
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,859 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    Given your views on the the marriage debate, I can see why Ham would appeal to you.
    I'm at a loss as to how that made sense even inside your head.

    There's nothing whatsoever about Ken Ham that appeals to me.
    Zygotes are not at issue here...
    You might want to explain that to those who argue that a fertilised egg has precisely the same human rights as a teenage rape victim.
    Please show me where David Quinn said same-sex couples were "bad" for children?
    I'm not re-arguing the referendum with you. You lost; get over it.
    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Way to dodge the oxymoron of a human rights organisation advocating for killing unborn life.

    An oxymoron is an apparent contradiction in terms. When you find an apparent contradiction, the first thing to do is check your premises.

    Sadly - cf. Ken Ham - some people are utterly incapable of doing so.


  • Advertisement
  • #532
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Way to dodge the oxymoron of a human rights organisation advocating for killing unborn life.

    You may have confused Amnesty International with Amoebas Rights International. Amnesty defend human rights, not the rights of single-celled organisms.


  • #533
    Atlantis50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 519 ✭✭✭Atlantis50


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    You may have confused Amnesty International with Amoebas Rights International. Amnesty defend human rights, not the rights of single-celled organisms.



    Foetuses are not "Amoebas" or "single-celled organisms."


    Your ignorance is staggering, and the same can be said of those who "thanked" a serious contender for stupidest post of the year.


  • #534
    No Voter And Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 282 ✭✭No Voter And Proud


    Atlantis50 wrote: »
    Foetuses are not "Amoebas" or "single-celled organisms."


    Your ignorance is staggering, and the same can be said of those who "thanked" a serious contender for stupidest post of the year.
    Amen to that.
    Foetuses at 22-24 weeks can potentially survive outside the womb. Single celled organisms could not, and come the time of implantation, a fertilized egg spends not much time as a single cell


  • #535
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Atlantis50 wrote: »
    Foetuses are not "Amoebas" or "single-celled organisms."


    Your ignorance is staggering, and the same can be said of those who "thanked" a serious contender for stupidest post of the year.
    So you would agree with "on-demand" abortion prior to the foetal stage at approx 10 weeks?


  • #536
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,242 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The whole debate about whether or not a foetus is a human is another red herring.

    The defensive denial of human identity to the foetus by the pro-choice side pre-supposes that if the foetus were human, it would have the right to occupy another human's body. Which is spectacularly daft anyway.

    Of course it's a human. Would you tell a mother who has lost her unborn child that it wasn't a human? Get back to work, and forget those cells? Nonsense.

    The argument is about women's freedom. Why must we try to overcomplicate it?


  • #537
    Atlantis50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 519 ✭✭✭Atlantis50


    SW wrote: »
    Good idea, lets see what examples Amnesty put forward to highlight the problem with current abortion legislation.

    Source for quotes that follow.

    Carrying a dead foetus for weeks on end??:eek: How exactly is it immoral to suggest that shouldn't happen?:confused:


    Not able to have a c-section?? And now the woman fears for her life to have another child in Ireland :(



    and a doctor stating that medical treatment may be withheld until a pregnant woman is 'sick enough'. Doesn't seem like 'best medical practices' that the pro-life people are always boasting about.

    I'd love to know how Amnesty is now immoral for stating the above is not a good way to treat pregnant women.

    The "case studies" are an epic fail on the part of Amnesty International.

    The "Ms Y" case study is basically arguing that a baby that is now almost 1 year old should have been aborted instead of delivered alive by C-section.

    What kind of perverse so-called "human rights" organisation would make such a bizarre claim?

    The case of "Rebecca H" is obviously not about abortion at all.

    What a joke of a report.

    Of course, they failed to mention this:

    "A patient safety system, aimed at alerting health staff when a pregnant woman's condition is deteriorating, is not being operated properly in six out of seven maternity hospitals audited by the HSE."

    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/unit-where-savita-died-fails-safety-checks-test-30917914.html

    It's things like that, more than anything to do with the 8th Amendment, that is putting the lives of women at risk.

    A hopelessly biased joke of a report by a so-called "human rights" advocate that has clearly lost its way.


  • #538
    Atlantis50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 519 ✭✭✭Atlantis50


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    So you would agree with "on-demand" abortion prior to the foetal stage at approx 10 weeks?



    I think you need to clarify first if you believe a foetus is an Amoeba.


    There's no point in me debating with you if that is your belief.


  • #539
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Atlantis50 wrote: »
    I think you need to clarify first if you believe a foetus is an Amoeba.


    There's no point in me debating with you if that is your belief.
    From start gestation to the end of week 9 gestation, it certainly isn't an amoeba - it is, however, a multicellular diploid eukaryote (i.e Embryo) and is certainly and scientifically factually not a foetus until at least week 10 gestation.

    There is likewise no point in debating with you if you do not "believe" this scientific fact.


  • #540
    Atlantis50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 519 ✭✭✭Atlantis50


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    From start gestation to the end of week 9 gestation, it certainly isn't an amoeba - it is, however, a multicellular diploid eukaryote (i.e Embryo) and is certainly and scientifically factually not a foetus until at least week 10 gestation.

    There is likewise no point in debating with you if you do not "believe" this scientific fact.

    So you've since educated yourself since "thanking" the silly "amoeba" post.

    No I don't support abortion before 10 weeks.


  • Advertisement
  • #541
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Atlantis50 wrote: »
    So you've since educated yourself since "thanking" the silly "amoeba" post.

    No I don't support abortion before 10 weeks.
    I have not furthered my education in the past hour, no. I do however still find that glib and sarcastic post that I rightly thanked quite amusing.

    I take it that you believe a foetus exists prior to 10 weeks.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement