Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Hotblack Desiato

tretorn wrote: »

The facts are 46 per cent of sixty four per cent who voted were in favour of repealing the 8th.

You're just outright making stuff up now. 66.4% of those who voted were in favour. Not 46%.

A substantial number of people who didnt vote did so because they couldnt bring themselves to vote for what they knew would happen.

As above. You're just making this up. It's an entirely unsubstantiated opinion you are trying to pass off as fact. In reality you have no idea what were the viewpoints or motivations of those who didn't vote. Logic suggests that those opposed to abortion would have been highly motivated to come out and vote against it.

Abortion of healthy babies up to twelve weeks and then pressure would start to extend that time to twenty weeks, please dont waste your time saying this wont happen, it will within five years.

Rather optimistic of you I'd say, but yes hopefully we will reach a point where no woman needs to travel to the UK. The current law is still quite restrictive. I'm fully in favour of abortion being available for diagnosis of disability, for instance.

A third of the forty six per cent who vited said NO.

Yet more nonsense. The turnout was 64% not 46%.

This large vite against is an indication of how concerned people are for the unborn, not all of us think they have the same worthless value as table legs.

The "large" vote against was in reality far smaller than most commentators expected. It was far smaller than most of the Yes campaigners expected. Many No campaigners still thought they had a chance of winning, until the exit polls appeared. It wasn't even close.

Acosta

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

RTE has an obligation to be balanced. Privately owned media do not. they publish in accordance with public opinion. and your 9:1 is way out. there were plenty of pro-life opinion pieces in the print media, the irish times in particular.

There was still plenty of anti abortion opinion pieces in most of the papers in the run up to the referendum.

I still see the faceless, nameless supporters of the crazy gang on social media blaming the media more than anyone else for the Yes win last year. That isn't true and even if there was a media bias against the anti abortion side, which there wasn't, nobody did the anti abortion argument more damage than those campaigning for No with all the lies and horrible behaviour from the likes of Mullen.
The moment people not generally associated with Youth Defence or Iona decided to row in behind their campaign only a couple of years after they made a holy show of themselves in the marriage equality referendum it was over for them.
The vast majority of Irish people have their number.

They did such a bad job that I wouldn't at all be surprised if NO would have polled higher if they hadn't campaigned at all, or left it to the clergy.

ohnonotgmail

Acosta wrote: »

There was still plenty of anti abortion opinion pieces in most of the papers in the run up to the referendum.

I still see the faceless, nameless supporters of the crazy gang on social media blaming the media more than anyone else for the Yes win last year. That isn't true and even if there was a media bias against the anti abortion side, which there wasn't, nobody did the anti abortion argument more damage than those campaigning for No with all the lies and horrible behaviour from the likes of Mullen.
The moment people not generally associated with Youth Defence or Iona decided to row in behind their campaign only a couple of years after they made a holy show of themselves in the marriage equality referendum it was over for them.
The vast majority of Irish people have their number.

They did such a bad job that I wouldn't at all be surprised if NO would have polled higher if they hadn't campaigned at all, or left it to the clergy.

It certainly didn't help their campaign that practically everybody on the No campaign is just very unlikable.

Odhinn

tretorn wrote: »

People wanted FFA to be dealt with but they didnt want abortion on demand. They knew by voting to Repeal the 8th the tiny number of babies with FFA could e terminated if this is what the parents wanted. We heard interminably from parents who wanted to choose abortion for babies with FFA but rarely did we hear from parents who wouldnt choose abortion under any circumstances, this would be the vast majority of women.

By not going out to vote a person who didnt want an abortion up to twelve weeks no questions asked wasnt going to be counted in the jubilant landside victory the Repeal camp are screeching about. Within the forty six per cent who voted to Repeal are huge numbers who are very unhappy with unrestricted abortion up to twelve weeks and are furious that abortion is free without any regards to income limits. They voted YES because they were given no other option as to how to deal with FFA but to say forty six per cent of the electorate are thrilled with the outcome is simplifying matters. People have accepted the inevitable which is maternity hospitals performing thousands of abortions annually and soon the pressure will come on to increase the time limit for abortions.

If I was to suggest that all dog rescue centres should close down and all unwanted puppies should be terminated at birth the animal lobby would hunt me down, we care more about puppies with big eyes that we care about the unborn of our own species, truly the lunatics have control of the asylum.

A remarkable piece of empathy for humanity, particularily from somebody who has stated they wouldn't ever get into a taxi with a black driver.

.......

Odhinn wrote: »

A remarkable piece of empathy for humanity, particularily from somebody who has stated they wouldn't ever get into a taxi with a black driver.

Or touch a house that backs onto social housing with a barge pole.

nozzferrahhtoo

tretorn wrote: »

Repeal are huge numbers who are very unhappy with unrestricted abortion up to twelve weeks and are furious that abortion is free without any regards to income limits.

Amazing that given the claimed large numbers of such people, I have magically managed not to meet a single one of them seemingly. Who or where are these people you speak of. Aside from yourself and this unverifiable clique around you that is?

tretorn wrote: »

People have accepted the inevitable which is maternity hospitals performing thousands of abortions annually and soon the pressure will come on to increase the time limit for abortions.

Again with that crystal ball of imagination of yours. Claiming to know what the future holds when you can not even accurately evidence your claims of what the present holds. Very odd indeed.

I do not think anyone has to "accept the inevitable" abortions however. You can take that road if you like. I however, along with many people I met on the pro choice side AND the anti choice side have instead realized that both sides now have a common goal. To reduce to as close to zero as possible, by any ethical means we can find, the number of abortions that actually occur.

Why not hop on that ride and fight with us rather than screech ineffectually against us?

tretorn wrote: »

If I was to suggest that all dog rescue centres should close down and all unwanted puppies should be terminated at birth the animal lobby would hunt me down

Isn't it remarkably interesting however how your analogy here demands that you do not compare like with like. For example abortion in our country would mostly be of the FETUS in GESTATION before 12 WEEKS. And you compare this to what..... puppies after birth.

Why is it, do you think, you do not compare born babies with born puppies? Or early fetal puppies with early fetal humans? I think I know why. I think you do too. I doubt you will be first to admit it however.

Similarly where does "close down animal shelters" come from? What are you making that analogous to? Is someone suggesting closing down all the orphanages, or maternity hospitals, or childrens hospices or what? To call your analogy forced and tenuous would be to bestow remarkable compliments to it.

tretorn wrote: »

we care more about puppies with big eyes that we care about the unborn of our own species, truly the lunatics have control of the asylum.

I would certainly care more for an actual sentient agent, like a puppy, than a complete non-sentient entity like a 12 week old fetus yes. I can, unlike your shrill approach above, actually explain WHY too. But that would just be more text for you to dodge and ignore wouldn't it?

tretorn

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Amazing that given the claimed large numbers of such people, I have magically managed not to meet a single one of them seemingly. Who or where are these people you speak of. Aside from yourself and this unverifiable clique around you that is?



Again with that crystal ball of imagination of yours. Claiming to know what the future holds when you can not even accurately evidence your claims of what the present holds. Very odd indeed.

I do not think anyone has to "accept the inevitable" abortions however. You can take that road if you like. I however, along with many people I met on the pro choice side AND the anti choice side have instead realized that both sides now have a common goal. To reduce to as close to zero as possible, by any ethical means we can find, the number of abortions that actually occur.

Why not hop on that ride and fight with us rather than screech ineffectually against us?



Isn't it remarkably interesting however how your analogy here demands that you do not compare like with like. For example abortion in our country would mostly be of the FETUS in GESTATION before 12 WEEKS. And you compare this to what..... puppies after birth.

Why is it, do you think, you do not compare born babies with born puppies? Or early fetal puppies with early fetal humans? I think I know why. I think you do too. I doubt you will be first to admit it however.

Similarly where does "close down animal shelters" come from? What are you making that analogous to? Is someone suggesting closing down all the orphanages, or maternity hospitals, or childrens hospices or what? To call your analogy forced and tenuous would be to bestow remarkable compliments to it.



I would certainly care more for an actual sentient agent, like a puppy, than a complete non-sentient entity like a 12 week old fetus yes. I can, unlike your shrill approach above, actually explain WHY too. But that would just be more text for you to dodge and ignore wouldn't it?

Oh my God, I feel sick.

nozzferrahhtoo

For any reasons you can actually explain for once, or are throw away non-remarks all you can spew today?

Appeals to a deity do fit the profile though, Ill give you that. Given your heavy reliance on the ENTIRELY unsubstantiated today.... you might as well bring a deity into the mix too.

end of the road

SusieBlue wrote: »

200 GPs signing up just 3 working days into the year is an amazing achievement, you’re only fooling yourself by saying otherwise.

Your whole post is just a load of projection about you and your experiences and your opinions about abortion, which aren’t relevant to anyone except yourself.

That’s why we chose to give women their own choice, so they could use their own experiences and opinions to make an informed decision.

Your opinion on whether it’s shameful or acceptable doesn’t concern me, because you, a stranger on the internet, have no relevance in my life.
You need to accept that and move on.

Frankly you just summed up every single thing wrong with the No mentality, your post came across as patronising, judgmental and self important.
It still astonishes me that you and many of your ilk feel that your opinion is so superior that you should be entitled to impose it on all the rest of us, even if we don’t agree with you.

The legislation was proposed and available long before the referendum and Repeal still won by a landslide.
This is what the people wanted.

incorrect, repeal of the 8th was what the people wanted. many of those will have wanted abortion on demand but others won't have. the belief that it is wrong to kill an unborn human being except in extreme circumstances is ultimately superior to the belief that it is okay to kill an unborn human being for any reason as it is about insuring high standards of care for humanity as a whole. ultimately if one does not wish to be judged for having an abortion on demand then they shouldn't kill their unborn.

smacl wrote: »

A woman who is pregnant and chooses not to have a baby is not a mother. A foetus is not a baby, as most people in this country are clearly aware.

a woman who is pregnant is a mother whether she chooses to be or not, for the duration that her unborn remains alive and inside her, as she is mothering them. a fetus is a human being and will be a baby long before birth. when addressing a pregnant woman about her baby for example, you don't ask how is the fetus, but how is the baby. i can't imagine asking her how is the fetus would go down well.

Calina

All abortion is on demand. Anyone who tries to imply it isn't is basically trying to identify deserving cases and undeserving cases. They are morally judging people.

They do not actually have that right. But an abortion for FFA is as on demand as any other.

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

you don't ask how is the fetus, but how is the baby. i can't imagine asking her how is the fetus would go down well.

So what? You are talking about how people USE language rather than what the words actually MEAN. They can be very different things and you know it.

For example I knew a guy who started saving for a car. The day he started saving he took out a Euro and said "This is my car". Until the day he got the car he wanted, he called that Euro his car. When he finally bought the car he transferred all the money but that euro, and then paid the last euro in cash.

Did he ACTUALLY think the coin was a car? Did he feck. No, he called the coin a car because of what it represented in his personal narrative. We call a woman's fetus a "baby" for much the same reason. That does not make it a baby any more than it made his coin a car. We do not contradict a woman calling her fetus a baby because there is no benefit to doing so, and she is not misusing that word to feed any political or moral agenda.

As I schooled you on before in one of the MANY posts you ran away from however, we quite often can make the distinction between fetus and baby for many women. Such as in cases of miscarriage when the distinction between baby and fetus is actually a useful one, and the false narratives around the misuse of the word "baby" actually become harmful to the woman by causing her pain or exacerbating her pain. Then we can contradict a woman calling fetus a baby because there IS benefit to doing so.

I am sorry for you that "baby" does not mean what you want it to. I am sorry dictionaries are not your friend. I am sorry that the only way you can back up your own misuse of a word is to appeal to other peoples misuse of it. And I am not sorry that I am not actually sorry about any of that.

Gael23

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/economist-defends-position-as-tweet-on-planned-abortion-in-drogheda-described-by-minister-as-pretty-darn-despicable-896081.html
Massive breach of patient confidentiality here. Amazes me that these things still happen

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

incorrect, repeal of the 8th was what the people wanted. many of those will have wanted abortion on demand but others won't have. .

But you've been provided data to show that that isn't the case.
You have repeatedly refused to back up your assertion with anything.

Again you guys are a small, sad minority who make themselves more and more irrelevant and unpalatable the more you lie, distort and generally be distasteful.

PopePalpatine

Gael23 wrote: »

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/economist-defends-position-as-tweet-on-planned-abortion-in-drogheda-described-by-minister-as-pretty-darn-despicable-896081.html
Massive breach of patient confidentiality here. Amazes me that these things still happen

You have too much faith in the forced-birthers.

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

incorrect, repeal of the 8th was what the people wanted. many of those will have wanted abortion on demand but others won't have. the belief that it is wrong to kill an unborn human being except in extreme circumstances is ultimately superior to the belief that it is okay to kill an unborn human being for any reason as it is about insuring high standards of care for humanity as a whole. ultimately if one does not wish to be judged for having an abortion on demand then they shouldn't kill their unborn.



a woman who is pregnant is a mother whether she chooses to be or not, for the duration that her unborn remains alive and inside her, as she is mothering them. a fetus is a human being and will be a baby long before birth. when addressing a pregnant woman about her baby for example, you don't ask how is the fetus, but how is the baby. i can't imagine asking her how is the fetus would go down well.

How many of the 64% of the people who voted for the removal of the 8th amendment did so in the knowledge that to do so would mean the Govt and the Oireachtas would be able to pass the legislation making abortion legal here but still went ahead and voted YES in the referendum?

Are you in some sort of denial of the intent of the 64% knowledgeable vote when they voted YES or do you think the 64% did not understand the wording of the referendum ballot paper question?

Hotblack Desiato

66.4%. Just saying

end of the road

aloyisious wrote: »

How many of the 64% of the people who voted for the removal of the 8th amendment did so in the knowledge that to do so would mean the Govt and the Oireachtas would be able to pass the legislation making abortion legal here but still went ahead and voted YES in the referendum?

Are you in some sort of denial of the intent of the 64% knowledgeable vote when they voted YES or do you think the 64% did not understand the wording of the referendum ballot paper question?

neither. i believe that apart from the bare repeal of the 8th and allowence of the politicians to be able to legislate for abortion, people would likely have had their own intentions of what they wanted when voting yes. it was the government who in my view sneakily took advantage and decided to take a yes vote as a mandate for AOD rather then having a vote on the specific legislation separately to the repeal of the 8th.

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

]

neither. i believe that apart from the bare repeal of the 8th and allowence of the politicians to be able to legislate for abortion, people would likely have had their own intentions of what they wanted when voting yes. it was the government who in my view sneakily took advantage and decided to take a yes vote as a mandate for AOD rather then having a vote on the specific legislation separately to the repeal of the 8th.

Again, you've been provided evidence that that is not true.
And again you refuse to back any of that up with anything other than conspiracy theories plucked out of the air.

robindch

Mod:

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Don't let the door bang you in the ass on the way out.

No need for that kind of language - thank you.

King Mob wrote: »

Again, evidence please or this will be dismissed as a lie.

As I explained in a recent PM to somebody on this forum, one poster cannot claim that a second poster is lying since a claim of lying implies an intent to deceive on the part of the second poster, and no person other than the second poster themselves can ever know the intent the second poster had at the moment the claim was made.

robindch

Mod:

tretorn wrote: »

Most people in Ireland do not support abortion [...]

King Mob wrote: »

Cool. Evidence?

smacl wrote: »

You're clearly wrong, as shown by the exit poll conducted after the referendum into attitudes to abortion.

tretorn wrote: »

It is factually incorrect to say most people in Ireland wanted abortion.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

As per the forum charter do you have anything to back that up apart from your opinion?

@tretorn - welcome to the Atheism and Agnosticism forum. As you may not have had time to read the forum charter, you might want to take a look at it here and especially, the recent update regarding claims which are made without supporting evidence.

Anyhow, let's cut to the chase. You've claimed that "most people in Ireland do not support abortion", but have provided no evidence to support this claim. A number of posters have called you out upon this and, in line with the forum charter, you should provide this evidence to support this claim within a day or two so that the evidence can be judged and the claim marked as sustained or unsustained. If you don't provide evidence to sustain the claim after a few days at most, then your friendly moderator will note that you've failed to sustain the claim. Any further instances of that claim from you or any other poster might result in some moderatorly action.

@tretorn - over to you.

pauldla

This popped up on my feed recently. Might be useful...?

robindch

^^^ That one's been around for a few years - best I can say is what it says there - quite a lot of people seem to conflate "rational discussion" and "sermon".

pauldla

robindch wrote: »

^^^ That one's been around for a few years - best I can say is what it says there - quite a lot of people seem to conflate "rational discussion" and "sermon".

*narrows eyes* you got any evidence for that there statement....? *hand slowly reaches for holster*

.......

end of the road wrote: »

i believe that apart from the bare repeal of the 8th and allowence of the politicians to be able to legislate for abortion, people would likely have had their own intentions of what they wanted when voting yes.

Got anything to back that up???

We knew what we were voting on. We had a majority yes. There is no evidence that people had their own intentions of what they wanted when they voted yes - except what you continuously make up.

robindch

pauldla wrote: »

*narrows eyes* you got any evidence for that there statement....?

Indeed I do Not only my fading memory, but the more reliable evidence from a google image search which places the image back to 2010 and 2011, then a period of several years when it dropped out of sight, then a second lease of life starting a few months ago.

pauldla wrote: »

*hand slowly reaches for holster*

No need to - put down the gun and have a beer

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

neither. i believe that apart from the bare repeal of the 8th and allowence of the politicians to be able to legislate for abortion, people would likely have had their own intentions of what they wanted when voting yes. it was the government who in my view sneakily took advantage and decided to take a yes vote as a mandate for AOD rather then having a vote on the specific legislation separately to the repeal of the 8th.

With reference to the statements of the senators who opposed both the referendum and the resultant legislation, memory tells me that they saw that train coming down the tracks if a YES vote won in the referendum. My memory also tells me that the Govt had made IT clear publicly to all who could and would hear in the months before the referendum that it would bring in abortion legislation if there was a YES vote. I don't see anything sneaky in that.

It's important to remember the main opposition party openly agreed with the Govt pre-referendum publicity on it's abortion legislation. The truth was there for those with eyes to see and ears to hear. Your bit about a separate vote on the abortion legislation sounds remarkably like those from Dev's grandson and the Galway University senator. Legislation is for the Oireachtas to decide and vote on.

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

neither. i believe that apart from the bare repeal of the 8th and allowence of the politicians to be able to legislate for abortion, people would likely have had their own intentions of what they wanted when voting yes. it was the government who in my view sneakily took advantage and decided to take a yes vote as a mandate for AOD rather then having a vote on the specific legislation separately to the repeal of the 8th.

Ah yes the old make it up as you go along ploy
Tell me, what is the machanism for voting on specific legislation?

amcalester

uptherebels wrote: »

Ah yes the old make it up as you go along ploy
Tell me, what is the machanism for voting on specific legislation?

Usual nonsense from End O, the people voted by a huge majority to allow the government legislate for abortion. The Government even published details of what the legislation would look like.

The people voted in favour of allowing the government pass legislation, the government does and you have people like End O saying they acted sneakily.

I wonder what was actually sneaky about it, specifically?

Though, I know it'll be feelings and believes rather than specifics so whats the point in even asking.

uptherebels

amcalester wrote: »

Usual nonsense from End O, the people voted by a huge majority to allow the government legislate for abortion. The Government even published details of what the legislation would look like.

The people voted in favour of allowing the government pass legislation, the government does and you have people like End O saying they acted sneakily.

I wonder what was actually sneaky about it, specifically?

Though, I know it'll be feelings and believes rather than specifics so whats the point in even asking.

I know that certain posters like to ignore questions when their poorly thought out positions are subject to scrutiny, but it is important to keep asking, so that others are aware and hopefully dont get misguided by false or misleading information.
(The above is a general comment and not directed at any specific poster)

Bredabe

uptherebels wrote: »

I know that certain posters like to ignore questions when their poorly thought out positions are subject to scrutiny, but it is important to keep asking, so that others are aware and hopefully dont get misguided by false or misleading information.
(The above is a general comment and not directed at any specific poster)

This is very true, I have a few acquaintances who believed that they were voting to remove the 8th which would let emergencies terminations take place and at some unspecified date a ref about what the leftover legislation would look like. Then again, these ppl were getting their info from one source only and because if fed into their thinkings, never questioned it.
I love how the 8th was designed to tie the hands of women and HCP's at the time and that design now forced exactly what it was designed to prevent to happen.