The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

_Roz_

Jim Ellis wrote: »

We are all just "clumps of cells"..

Have a read of this to see the baby's development at 12 weeks:



Tell me that's not a human life?

Google image search for aborted 12 week old fetus. I know you probably won't though because most on the repeal side are afraid to confront what they're actually campaigning for. Instead the campaign is masked with love heart graphics as if it's something noble or brave to abort a baby.

Not gonna lie, I know what they look like and it does make me sad. But what matters to me is more that the reflexes are just that - reflexes, and no real pain is felt by the foetus during the abortion. That doesn't make it right, but it's important to know that if someone is going to do it, that the foetus will know nothing about it at 12 weeks and earlier.

Jim Ellis

_Roz_ wrote: »

Not gonna lie, I know what they look like and it does make me sad. But what matters to me is more that the reflexes are just that - reflexes, and no real pain is felt by the foetus during the abortion. That doesn't make it right, but it's important to know that if someone is going to do it, that the foetus will know nothing about it at 12 weeks and earlier.

That's not a logical argument.
If I killed you in your sleep using a painless method, is that morally right? Just because someone can't feel pain and/or is not conscious does not justify killing them.

Billy86

freshpopcorn wrote: »

It's how they've spoken on the matter over the years!

I asked already, maybe you specified it to another poster and I missed it... which TDs are you talking about? Like which actual specific ones. If you're saying it's based on "how they've spoken on the matter over the years" you won't have any problem pointing out the exact ones you are referencing.

Please don't try to hide behind being worried about slander, by the way.

Zubeneschamali

freshpopcorn wrote: »

If these people state that in the future that they are will support abortion with no limit or choice. I think they could damage the campaign.

During the SSM campaign, we heard from a lot of people who were totally in favour and had nothing at all against the gays, but just wished they would tone it down, not be in everyone's face, just be cool and act like normal people for a little while until it got passed.

In other words, step into the closet for a while so that the straight people can handle things.

But it is a transparent ploy - concern trolling it's called. And here you are doing it in this campaign. Yes campaigners should pull their punches. Don't sound "too liberal". Settle for FFA, rape and incest. Don't risk losing by saying what you have been saying FOR 35 FúCKING YEARS SINCE THIS SH!T STARTED!

Well, no. I am in favour of no term limits, Canada style. It is a matter for the woman and her doctors, not the law. And you can stick your "concern" for the campaign, because I don't believe for a moment that you want Yes to win.

Ave Sodalis

Jim Ellis wrote: »

We are all just "clumps of cells"..

Have a read of this to see the baby's development at 12 weeks:



Tell me that's not a human life?

Google image search for aborted 12 week old fetus. I know you probably won't though because most on the repeal side are afraid to confront what they're actually campaigning for. Instead the campaign is masked with love heart graphics as if it's something noble or brave to abort a baby.

That's not human life. That's potential and, as pointed out earlier, one that often naturally fails even after this point. All cells are multiplying at this point, they have been since day one. Science and medicine do not consider a foetus as life at this stage.


(PS I know what a foetus looks like at 12 weeks, and I'm willing to bet so does a lot of people here...)

circular flexing

Jim Ellis wrote: »

Google image search for aborted 12 week old fetus. I know you probably won't though because most on the repeal side are afraid to confront what they're actually campaigning for. Instead the campaign is masked with love heart graphics as if it's something noble or brave to abort a baby.

I won't go look them up because they are totally irrelevant to the debate.

Zubeneschamali

Jim Ellis wrote: »

Google image search for aborted 12 week old fetus.

Have a look at a video of someone having their appendix removed. Live human tissue being cut out and thrown away like trash! Blood everywhere! Gross!

Or pretend we are adults here, and know a bit about the subject, please.

_Roz_

Jim Ellis wrote: »

That's not a logical argument.
If I killed you in your sleep using a painless method, is that morally right? Just because someone can't feel pain and/or is not conscious does not justify killing them.

I differentiate between morally and practically, as I explained in my earlier discussion with another poster.

For me, the existing life takes precedence over the potential life at that moment in time. Ergo, right to abortion. And practically speaking, the sooner the better, so the foetus feels nothing. Morally, I disagree that just because it's a 'potential life' rather than an 'actual life' that interrupting the process with abortion is totally okay. I see it as preventing a life (rather than ending one, and that's why its morally for me not as bad as killing an existing person. Preventing completion of a person does not equal killing an existing person, but I do think it's more morally significant than many pro-choicers.)

freshpopcorn

Billy86 wrote: »

I asked already, maybe you specified it to another poster and I missed it... which TDs are you talking about? Like which actual specific ones. If you're saying it's based on "how they've spoken on the matter over the years" you won't have any problem pointing out the exact ones you are referencing.

Please don't try to hide behind being worried about slander, by the way.

I've stated my opinion on the matter and you can accept it if you want. It there in the posts.

Timberrrrrrrr

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I've stated my opinion on the matter and you can accept it if you want. It there in the posts.

So it's just your opinion that some TD's may be in favour? Why not post interviews/links to radio broadcasts or newspaper articles where they have expressed this (in your opinion)so we can see where you are coming from and decide for ourselves?

RobertKK

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is nice to notice you are not ignoring and dodging ALL my posts. Just the ones that were talking to you directly.

But well done on entirely missing the point of the one post you did deign to respond to.....



..... given I indicated there was no reason to think anyone on the buses was voting illegally and every reason from listening to them to think they were above board.

However the side point was just that the illegal votes go both ways, so anyone moaning it influenced the final result has the onus to show a disparity between the two significant enough to have made any difference. I not only doubt you can do that, I very much doubt you even know how to begin with the statistics involved.

In other words I was not condoning the act at all. I was just claiming that moaning about it having influenced the vote, as some people are wont to do at times, would be a nonsensical approach.



Who said nothing about the "understanding" you were ACTUALLY asked about :rolleyes::rolleyes: In fact everything you cited in BOTH sections explains why they DONT have it. You are shooting your own arguments in the foot with your own quotes now :cool:



Is that because you simply ignore the majority of them without addressing or engaging at all?



By, for example, wholesale ignoring them I guess?



Not what you were asked at all. Why change history when people can scroll back in 30 seconds and SEE what is true? I have never understood lying myself, but I REALLY never understood lying about something you are pretty much literally standing beside the truth of. Here again is what you were asked and I will bold the part you are now using historical revisionism to ignore:

What argument successfully compares a 12 week old fetus with a born child in terms of the child having "understanding"?

Some people have lives and I don't have time to reply to everything.
I mean I got a loads of people quoting me, I am not going to reply to all and especially not long winded posted that are divided up like the above.
Just being honest about it, that I give replies but don't expect every quote to be replied to, I don't get paid for the time it would take, and I want to enjoy life among the serious stuff of life.
I did answer one of those questions you asked but you missed it.

freshpopcorn

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So it's just your opinion that some TD's may be in favour? Why not post interviews/links to radio broadcasts or newspaper articles where they have expressed this (in your opinion)so we can see where you are coming from and decide for ourselves?

I can't find them they were clips from prime time/rte news over the years.
Even a poster a few posts ago said they wanted Ireland to be similar to Canada and they are lots of people out there with a view like this but there aren't enough to get a referendum to pass. Any sniff that Ireland might end up like this and I think the repeal will struggle.

freshpopcorn

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, no. I am in favour of no term limits, Canada style. It is a matter for the woman and her doctors, not the law. And you can stick your "concern" for the campaign, because I don't believe for a moment that you want Yes to win.

Well you a perfectly entitled to your beliefs and I am to mine.

Zubeneschamali

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Even a poster a few posts ago said they wanted Ireland to be similar to Canada and they are lots of people out there with a view like this but there aren't enough to get a referendum to pass.

If divorce had been held up for 10 more years, the stupid 4 year limit would never have been put in, and we would be better off today. I know it would suck to be caught in the middle, but everyone else would be better off today.

Likewise, it is better to do nothing now than to pass some half-way house Rape, Incest and FFA only amendment, because if we pass nothing now, we'll get UK or Canadian rules within a decade. Pass some halfway amendment, and we'll be refighting this in 5, 10, 15 years to no purpose.

Just make it a private matter for women and their doctors and move on.

Zubeneschamali

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Well you a perfectly entitled to your beliefs and I am to mine.

Is Canada a hellhole of genocide and baby-murder?

No. Go look up the numbers - late term abortion has not jumped upwards as psycho moms are let loose to murder their children, because late term abortions are always, ALWAYS a family tragedy.

Which the law should keep its blunt nose out of.

jonnny68

Both as bad as each other, religious nutters and old culchies living in a parallel universe will vote to keep it as it is and accuse anyone who votes to repeal as a murderer, lefty freaks millennial snowflakes will castigate anyone who doesn't vote to repeal same as they did with the gay marriage referendum.

thee glitz

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

it is better to do nothing now than to pass some half-way house Rape, Incest and FFA only amendment, because if we pass nothing now, we'll get UK or Canadian rules within a decade. Pass some halfway amendment, and we'll be refighting this in 5, 10, 15 years to no purpose.

So you don't particularly care about rape, incest and FFA cases? I don't doubt that you're not alone.

Would it not be more democratic to gauge demand for some halfway house, and then see if there's a want for more?

Annasopra

freshpopcorn wrote: »

You no perfectly well there isn't evidence and that's it's just my opinion but in my opinion they are TD's out there with this view and they are fairly easy to pick out.
I am not going to name names because I'd just be told I'm slanderous/etc.
If these people state that in the future that they are will support abortion with no limit or choice. I think they could damage the campaign. The same goes for anybody involved in the campaign that might say they support abortion with no limit. The no side will essential say on that day in May when you vote to all abortion up to twelve weeks in years to come they could be no time limit.
This will make a lot of on the fence voters uncomfortable.
I don't understand why you can't understand this?

Scaremongering codswallop

freshpopcorn

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Scaremongering codswallop

Yes but if this happens in debates I can see there being trouble!
Can you?

Timberrrrrrrr

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I can't find them they were clips from prime time/rte news over the years.
Even a poster a few posts ago said they wanted Ireland to be similar to Canada and they are lots of people out there with a view like this but there aren't enough to get a referendum to pass. Any sniff that Ireland might end up like this and I think the repeal will struggle.

So no evidence at all to back up.your ridiculous cla8ms, well colour me surprised:rolleyes:

freshpopcorn

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Is Canada a hellhole of genocide and baby-murder?

No. Go look up the numbers - late term abortion has not jumped upwards as psycho moms are let loose to murder their children, because late term abortions are always, ALWAYS a family tragedy.

Which the law should keep its blunt nose out of.

Yes, I know that late term abortions don't happen that often I never said they did but it will be used by people in the Pro-life campaign in my opinion and it won't sit well with everybody.

david75

The truly scary part is the PLC have employed people to act as keyboard warrriors in Merrion square and overseas to post on every forum and comment section possible on this topic, as they did on marriage equality campaign. simply to toxify the debate and cause confusion in any undecided voters mind. Literally bottom feeding.

They’ve also hired the pr team behind brexit.

All the pro choice campaign has to do is to point that out to the Irish public for a safe win.

Annasopra

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I can't find them they were clips from prime time/rte news over the years.
Even a poster a few posts ago said they wanted Ireland to be similar to Canada and they are lots of people out there with a view like this but there aren't enough to get a referendum to pass. Any sniff that Ireland might end up like this and I think the repeal will struggle.

For someone who suposedly supports repeal almost every post is subtly attacking repeal.

Zubeneschamali

thee glitz wrote: »

Would it not be more democratic to gauge demand for some halfway house, and then see if there's a want for more?

No.

Hannibal_Smith

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I can't find them they were clips from prime time/rte news over the years.
Even a poster a few posts ago said they wanted Ireland to be similar to Canada and they are lots of people out there with a view like this but there aren't enough to get a referendum to pass. Any sniff that Ireland might end up like this and I think the repeal will struggle.

That's taking it a little put of context. The poster said it with a view to the matter being between a woman and her doctors. As was mentioned much earlier In the thread, the point of full term abortions is lost on me, when at that stage the baby can survive outside the womb. The woman will have to give birth either way?

Annasopra

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Yes but if this happens in debates I can see there being trouble!
Can you?

You are actually saying yes that you are scaremongering.

freshpopcorn

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

That's taking it a little put of context. The poster said it with a view to the matter being between a woman and her doctors. As was mentioned much earlier In the thread, the point of full term abortions is lost on me, when at that stage the baby can survive outside the womb. The woman will have to give birth either way?

Sorry I must have misunderstood the poster!

Zubeneschamali

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

For someone who suposedly supports repeal almost every post is subtly attacking repeal.

"They're in my face! I'd vote yes, but Panti Bliss!"

I've been opposed to the 8th since before the 1983 referendum for damned good reasons. I have been proven right in blood. I will not stop pointing that out because someone online is "concerned" that my views might be "too much" for the electorate.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I can't find them they were clips from prime time/rte news over the years.
Even a poster a few posts ago said they wanted Ireland to be similar to Canada and they are lots of people out there with a view like this but there aren't enough to get a referendum to pass. Any sniff that Ireland might end up like this and I think the repeal will struggle.

I actually do get what you're saying and I fear that the pro-repeal campaign are dropping the ball. I think you're getting a harder time here than you deserve, and I think you're getting a harder time on here than you would face to face with people. The online debate about this is poisonous.

I'd also personally favour the Canadian model, and I think that the TDs you're referring to favour the same, where there are no legislative barriers to terminating a pregnancy (whether that means an abortion or early delivery) at any point and where it's a decision between a pregnant woman and her doctor or doctors. But that's not the same as being in favour of late term abortions.

I'm not under any illusions though and I know that such a model is not reflective of the democratic will of the people and I accept that.

david75

Glad I’m not the only one that spotted a supposed impartial participant posing as impartial and yet a moderator

Zubeneschamali

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Sorry I must have misunderstood the poster!

You understood me perfectly, I am in favour of the Canadian system of no legal limits.

I am also in favour of people looking up the statistics to check if Canada is the late-term baby sacrificing Satan worshipping capital of the world because of this legal regime.

Hint: no. Women don't go 28 weeks and then say feck it I'm dying for a fag and a pint let's have an abortion. The whole idea is insulting to half the human race, and mortally insulting to people who find themselves in a medical situation where a late term abortion is needed.

Oh, but has your lawyer cleared it with the Dept. of Busybodies in Cheap Suits? GO F*** YOURSELVES!

Hannibal_Smith

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Sorry I must have misunderstood the poster!

You're grand. Maybe I misread it! I think let term abortions would throw most people off. But we'll know more when the wording of the referendum comes out.

drkpower

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So no evidence at all to back up.your ridiculous cla8ms, well colour me surprised:rolleyes:

Hardly ridiculous claims.

PBP/solidarity (and possibly the greens) are on record as favouring a Canadian model/no restrictions/decision entirely between patient and doctor.

Timberrrrrrrr

drkpower wrote: »

Hardly ridiculous claims.

PBP/solidarity (and possibly the greens) are on record as favouring a Canadian model/no restrictions/decision entirely between patient and doctor.

The poster has been asked to provide links to his/her claims they TD's are in favour of what they are claiming, no links have been forthcoming (something something slander excuses) so until links to said claims are provided then yes they are ridiculous.

drkpower

That took me 90 seconds. Would,you not have been better having a quick search yourself?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/abortion-legislation-party-positions-448614.html

BP-Solidarity: Pro-choice, saying it is a woman’s decision. Abortions as early as possible and as late as necessary, but no specified circumstances

Leader Eamon Ryan says abortions should be decided between a doctor and women and not specified for in legislation

Water John

The Dail has TDs across the whole spectrum of views. That doesn't mean those at either end of that spectrum, should prevail.

Zubeneschamali

drkpower wrote: »

Leader Eamon Ryan says abortions should be decided between a doctor and women and not specified for in legislation

This is not news, and not some baby-murdering collective of Satanists. It is a common sense way to get the law out of the way of doctors treating pregnant women.

What possible good can emerge from a doctor deciding a woman needs an abortion in week X, and the hospital saying "whoa, let's call in a few dozen lawyers and get a court order". Whatever value of X you pick, no. Just no.

Billy86

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I've stated my opinion on the matter and you can accept it if you want. It there in the posts.

In other words "I think politicians who I won't name, saying things that I won't say nor elaborate on whatsoever, will try to take advantage of this for the reasons that I have not given."

That's a weak line of argument at the very best.

Water John

Zube, your view will not prevail, and I think you said that yourself, already.
As I propositioned, 12 weeks will be the very most, that has a possibility of getting a Dail majority, possibly a tighter regime.

drkpower

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is not news, and not some baby-murdering collective of Satanists. It is a common sense way to get the law out of the way of doctors treating pregnant women.

What possible good can emerge from a doctor deciding a woman needs an abortion in week X, and the hospital saying "whoa, let's call in a few dozen lawyers and get a court order". Whatever value of X you pick, no. Just no.

I was really just refuting the suggestion that there is not a cohort (small maybe) of TDs who already favour a no restrictions regime. There is.

On your substantive point, I wouldn't fundamentally disagree. The likelihood of post 24 week abortions happening with no medical indication is quite unlikely.

But here's the thing:
1. That does not mean the law shouldn't address that situation; and
2. On a practical level, if that issue became part of the campaign, it is very likely to move swing voters to the anti-repeal side as - right or wrong - it will put the fear of god into them. The swing in this referendum is going to be quite tight, so everyone of those swing voters needs to be appealed to, whether that sits easily with people or not. After all, let's keep the the main thing (repealing the 8th) the main thing.

drkpower

Billy86 wrote: »

In other words "I think politicians who I won't name, saying things that I won't say nor elaborate on whatsoever, will try to take advantage of this for the reasons that I have not given."

That's a weak line of argument at the very best.

Look up billy; those politicians exist. There is logic to their argument but their argument may actually harm the repeal side.

Zubeneschamali

Water John wrote: »

As I propositioned, 12 weeks will be the very most, that has a possibility of getting a Dail majority, possibly a tighter regime.

Even if the new law is no abortion at all unless it's too late, like now, I want it out of the Constitution and into law.

The pro-life crew are quite right in one respect - once the constitutional ban is gone, their hypercatholic 1950s control womens health bullsh!t will be history.

And so will they.

freshpopcorn

Thanks for sharing drkpower. It was TD's connected to those parties I had my doubts about.(I couldn't find the article)
It's just my opinion that if people from the above parties are given to much air time especially on TV. It could damage the repeal campaign. The repeal campaign need to target those on the fence voters now or those who are a little nervous about the matter.

Billy86

drkpower wrote: »

Look up billy; those politicians exist. There is logic to their argument but their argument may actually harm the repeal side.

And I thank you for backing up your statement with something concrete. I would not however be overly concerned about PBP given that they make up 6 of the 158 seats in the Dail (and 0 of 60 in the Seanad).

drkpower

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Thanks for sharing drkpower. It was TD's connected to those parties I had my doubts about.(I couldn't find the article)
It's just my opinion that if people from the above parties are given to much air time especially on TV. It could damage the repeal campaign. The repeal campaign need to target those on the fence voters now or those who are a little nervous about the matter.

I agree but (Ruth coppinger aside) I think they are sensible enough to see the big picture. Richard Boyd Barrett for instance while I don't share his politics, I have a lot of time for, and I think he will be a moderating influence.

david75

We live in a country where the Healy Raes are consistently elected to positions outside their abilities and education and suitabilities and understanding.

The question is left hanging is this entire debate and issues at hand above the heads of many being asked to and entitled to vote on it.

Timberrrrrrrr

drkpower wrote: »

That took me 90 seconds. Would,you not have been better having a quick search yourself?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/abortion-legislation-party-positions-448614.html

BP-Solidarity: Pro-choice, saying it is a woman’s decision. Abortions as early as possible and as late as necessary, but no specified circumstances

Leader Eamon Ryan says abortions should be decided between a doctor and women and not specified for in legislation

As i said, no evidence that TD's support abortion at all/any stages of pregnancy.

freshpopcorn wrote: »

You no perfectly well there isn't evidence and that's it's just my opinion but in my opinion they are TD's out there with this view and they are fairly easy to pick out.
I am not going to name names because I'd just be told I'm slanderous/etc.
If these people state that in the future that they are will support abortion with no limit or choice. I think they could damage the campaign. The same goes for anybody involved in the campaign that might say they support abortion with no limit. The no side will essential say on that day in May when you vote to all abortion up to twelve weeks in years to come they could be no time limit.
This will make a lot of on the fence voters uncomfortable.
I don't understand why you can't understand this?

drkpower

Billy86 wrote: »

And I thank you for backing up your statement with something concrete. I would not however be overly concerned about PBP given that they make up 6 of the 158 seats in the Dail (and 0 of 60 in the Seanad).

True, in terms of legislative influence post repeal.

But if that cohort allow 'no restrictions' to be a talking point in the campaign, which the anti repeal will relish and seize upon, the damage may be done before any piece of legislation even has the chance t be debated.

Zubeneschamali

freshpopcorn wrote: »

The repeal campaign need to target those on the fence voters now or those who are a little nervous about the matter.

No, the repeal campaign is roughly 2:1 ahead because repeal is popular. They should ignore concern trolls trying to get them to aim low or water down their message.

And if they don't win, well, we have abortion on demand in England anyhow. In the Constitution, even. It is awful for the women in direct provision, prison or mental hospitals who cannot travel, and tough for women who struggle to afford the trip, bu, you know what?

Your bullsh!t half-way appease-the-hyper-catholics-who'll-oppose-it-anyhow amendment wouldn't help any of those women in any case.

drkpower

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

As i said, no evidence that TD's support abortion at all/any stages of pregnancy.

You are reading their view very different to how I do.

This isn't a secret. PBP have been clear and consistent on that point, in fairness to them.