The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Annasopra

applehunter wrote: »

George Soros is indirectly trying to change our constitution. Media seem to be ok with this.

At least Chuck Feeney is actually of Irish heritage.

Anytime I see George Soros mentioned I reckon it's a paid bot.

glic71rods46t0

Nettle Soup wrote: »

In many ways I wish the referendum was configured so that votes from women were weighted higher.
It impacts them a lot more.

Why stop there. Using your logic you could limit the voting to women of child bearing years - impacts them the most

applehunter

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Anytime I see George Soros mentioned I reckon it's a paid bot.

What does that mean?

a robot?

glic71rods46t0

WhiteRoses wrote: »

No sane person uses abortion as a means of contraception.

Anyone who suggests so clearly has no knowledge of what the procedure involves, because if they did they would know no woman would go through with it unless they had no other option - let alone multiple times as a means of contraception.

The fact that you don’t trust women is pretty disgusting and speaks for itself but hey ho, it is your CHOICE to feel that way and who am I to deprive you of that?

You are right about it being my opinion but the good thing about being pro choice is that I’m actually not forcing my opinion on anyone, or on society as a whole.
Have an abortion, don’t have an abortion. Everyone has their own choice and opinion and is free to live their lives and make their own decisions as they see fit.
It’s to pro-life side that are forcing their opinions and beliefs on everyone.

I’m not arrogant enough to believe that my opinion speaks for society as a whole.
I trust other women.
Maybe you should do that too.

Thats a shocking misrepresentation of what I posted and quite dishonest. You need to recalibrate your moral compass - it's way off course

Spanish Eyes

q9214n5louyt3p wrote: »

Why stop there. Using your logic you could limit the voting to women of child bearing years - impacts them the most

I would favour that, because that is the reality. Men on the other hand are not safe until they are boxed!

But democracy means that you and others beyond childbearing years will always have a say and that is good too. I think!

If male, you will never have to face such a decision. Will you?

applehunter

Podge_irl wrote: »

How?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/amnesty-international-ordered-to-return-donation-from-billionaire-george-soros-1.3320638

SusieBlue

q9214n5louyt3p wrote: »

Thats a shocking misrepresentation of what I posted and quite dishonest. You need to recalibrate your moral compass - it's way off course

Sorry, which bit did I misunderstand? The bit about not trusting women or the bit about fearing women would use abortion as a means of contraceptive?

glic71rods46t0

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Sorry, which bit did I misunderstand? The bit about not trusting women or the bit about fearing women would use abortion as a means of contraceptive?

I think you understood me very well and chose to misrepresent my post - I've called you out on it. I think most reasonable people will call your post for what it is - disingenuous

NuMarvel

RobertKK wrote: »

It will be most likely the big business abortion providers who will move in fill the void if the 8th amendment is replaced.

After nearly 50 years of Irish people going to them, I suppose it would make a nice change for them to come to us.

q9214n5louyt3p

q9214n5louyt3p wrote: »

Thats a shocking misrepresentation of what I posted and quite dishonest. You need to recalibrate your moral compass - it's way off course

How so? You talked about women using abortion in lieu of contraception, those were your exact words. So to claim otherwise is pure deflection.

glic71rods46t0

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I would favour that, because that is the reality. Men on the other hand are not safe until they are boxed!

But democracy means that you and others beyond childbearing years will always have a say and that is good too. I think!

If male, you will never have to face such a decision. Will you?

I think you are contradicting yourself there in your first two paragraphs!
Regarding your last point ...Never have to face such a decision? One can't rule out medical advances in these gender fluid times!

SusieBlue

q9214n5louyt3p wrote: »

I think you understood me very well and chose to misrepresent my post - I've called you out on it. I think most reasonable people will call your post for what it is - disingenuous

Nope, sorry. I responded to what I saw in front of me.

I was being sincere in my reply. I didn’t misrepresent anything.

If you are making claims of me being disingenuous you’re going to back it up and explain how.

Ave Sodalis

q9214n5louyt3p wrote: »

I think you understood me very well and chose to misrepresent my post - I've called you out on it. I think most reasonable people will call your post for what it is - disingenuous

I actually don't see what was misrepresented either. I think you may need to clarify

glic71rods46t0

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Nope, sorry. I responded to what I saw in front of me.

I was being sincere in my reply. I didn’t misrepresent anything.

If you are making claims of me being disingenuous you’re going to back it up and explain how.

I simply don't believe your claim of sincerity.

swampgas

q9214n5louyt3p wrote: »

That is your opinion. There are other opinions on the matter though. Some might not share your trust of other women using abortion in lieu of contraception.

Basically, you think that women can't be trusted, and might have abortions in a way that you find unacceptable, immoral, or unethical. You don't trust women when it comes to really important decisions about their own bodies and lives - do the women in your life know this too?

Because the constitution and law apply to them also.

.

SusieBlue

q9214n5louyt3p wrote: »

I simply don't believe your claim of sincerity.

Not entertaining this, it isn’t clear at all what you mean which is why two other people have asked besides myself.

So either explain what your problem is or let it go.

SusieBlue

swampgas wrote: »

Basically, you think that women can't be trusted, and might have abortions in a way that you find unacceptable, immoral, or unethical. You don't trust women when it comes to really important decisions about their own bodies and lives - do the women in your life know this too?

Because the constitution and law apply to them too.

I came to the exact same conclusion but apparently I took him up wrong and am being disingenuous - go figure.

Spanish Eyes

This thread on a very polarising issue doesn't appear in the first few pages of ALL Posts.

And there are four months to go.

Either people have made their minds up or some are keeping their powder dry until nearer polling day. I dunno.

Either way, on a platform like this it doesn't seem to be generating the debate that I expected, warts and all!

But it is early days I suppose. I hope to be abroad without wi fi for a few weeks prior to the vote. I will come back to vote of course, my vote is precious, but I am not looking forward to the awfulness that may come just before that, and it will.

Maybe it won't though if here is anything to go by at this stage. Fatigue can set it.

WhiteRoses

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Not entertaining this, it isn’t clear at all what you mean which is why two other people have asked besides myself.

So either explain what your problem is or let it go.

Seems pretty typical of the tactics used by the pro-birthers.

glic71rods46t0

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Not entertaining this, it isn’t clear at all what you mean which is why two other people have asked besides myself.

So either explain what your problem is or let it go.

I don't give a hoot about you "not entertaining" it.

Sofiztikated

applehunter wrote: »

Soros has never come up in these arguments tbh. These arguments are more fundamental than that.

The media have a duty to report on it and be robust in their job. People in their day to day lives do not have the time to investigate this stuff. That is why we are supposed to have a fourth estate.

And your view on ultraconservative, religious right funding of the ProLife crowd?

SusieBlue

q9214n5louyt3p wrote: »

I don't give a hoot about you "not entertaining" it.

Well stop complaining and making vague statements so then?
I have no problem discussing any issues you might have with my post.
But I have no intention of coaxing the reason you’re upset out of you.
So seeing as it’s clear you aren’t willing to tell me what your issue is, we’ll just have to drop the issue so as not to derail the thread. Your call.

glic71rods46t0

Flying Fox wrote: »

Seems pretty typical of the tactics used by the pro-birthers.

Misrepresentation is a tactic of both sides in this debate - ironically you are misrepresenting the tactic as typical of only one side

glic71rods46t0

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Well stop complaining and making vague statements so then?
I have no problem discussing any issues you might have with my post.
But I have no intention of coaxing the reason you’re upset out of you.
So seeing as it’s clear you aren’t willing to tell me what your issue is, we’ll just have to drop the issue so as not to derail the thread. Your call.

Where did I say I was upset? You must be so used to misrepresenting others you can't help yourself!

SusieBlue

q9214n5louyt3p wrote: »

Where did I say I was upset? You must be so used to misrepresenting others you can't help yourself!

As I said if you aren’t willing to discuss and explain the ‘misrepresenting’ and my ‘disingenuity’ then it’s best to just drop it.

Spanish Eyes

Too early to peak I think. People will become bored and fed up and will have made their minds up anyway.

I will ignore Iona, pro abortion, anyone and everyone. I do not need lecturing to me at this stage of my life so they can all just go and feck off really.

I am bored already. It is an individual decision. But of course we are not capable of making that on our own anymore. Feck that.

Annasopra

applehunter wrote: »

What does that mean?

a robot?

Pretty much

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/will-eighth-amendment-vote-be-manipulated-online-1.3297594?mode=amp

http://metro.co.uk/2017/10/21/brexit-twitter-bots-posted-65000-messages-then-vanished-after-eu-referendum-7016396/

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/anti-abortion-group-hires-kanto-agency-that-pushed-brexit-hfnklf3kk

The Pro Life campaign has hired Kanto who have links to Cambridge Analytica. These guys will be infiltrating social media with millions of disruptive bots.

glic71rods46t0

WhiteRoses wrote: »

As I said if you aren’t willing to discuss and explain the ‘misrepresenting’ and my ‘disingenuity’ then it’s best to just drop it.

No. Anyone can look at my post and yours - I'm happy with that

dr.fuzzenstein

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Pretty much

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/will-eighth-amendment-vote-be-manipulated-online-1.3297594?mode=amp

http://metro.co.uk/2017/10/21/brexit-twitter-bots-posted-65000-messages-then-vanished-after-eu-referendum-7016396/

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/anti-abortion-group-hires-kanto-agency-that-pushed-brexit-hfnklf3kk

The Pro Life campaign has hired Kanto who have links to Cambridge Analytica. These guys will be infiltrating social media with millions of disruptive bots.

That is the death of online discussion.

Billy86

applehunter wrote: »

Then if comes to light that multi-billionaire George Soros is funding one the main repeal groups. But, not only that, in doing so he is breaking irish law. Sounds like a juicy story to me.[Media blackout for 4 days.

Podge_irl wrote: »

How?

applehunter wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/amnesty-international-ordered-to-return-donation-from-billionaire-george-soros-1.3320638

Poster complains about George Soros.

Poster claims media will not report on negative stories about George Soros.

Poster then links to the highest profile newspaper in the country running a negative story on George Soros to try and prove this.

Poster no doubt sees any of the irony in this, nor the fact they have successfully defeated their own argument with exactly zero assistance.

Billy86

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Pretty much

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/will-eighth-amendment-vote-be-manipulated-online-1.3297594?mode=amp

http://metro.co.uk/2017/10/21/brexit-twitter-bots-posted-65000-messages-then-vanished-after-eu-referendum-7016396/

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/anti-abortion-group-hires-kanto-agency-that-pushed-brexit-hfnklf3kk

The Pro Life campaign has hired Kanto who have links to Cambridge Analytica. These guys will be infiltrating social media with millions of disruptive bots.

I don't see bots particularly being effective on the boards.ie format - much more worthwhile it to check the Ireland reddit page (or Twitter) as their layout is far more vulnerable. Typically most threads there seem to have 30-100 posts. Keep an eye out for ones popping up all over the place there with 2,000+ over the coming months.

Also, sensationalist fake news on Facebook feeds - it plays a huge role in Trump's election and the Brexit vote, both times steered by Cambridge Analytica, if they're involved in this it is an absolute certainty they will go hard on that.

SusieBlue

q9214n5louyt3p wrote: »

No. Anyone can look at my post and yours - I'm happy with that

Me too. I wasn’t the only one who was unclear about what your issue is so if you are happy to leave it so am I.

applehunter

Billy86 wrote: »

Poster complains about George Soros.

Poster claims media will not report on negative stories about George Soros.

Poster then links to the highest profile newspaper in the country running a negative story on George Soros to try and prove this.

Poster no doubt sees any of the irony in this, nor the fact they have successfully defeated their own argument with exactly zero assistance.

No irony.

It's the paper of record.

It wasn't on their front page.

The other papers were trailing behind.

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

More accurately, in the UK they are suffering from a shortage of doctors, full stop.

https://www.ft.com/content/a3a52be8-8e3a-11e7-a352-e46f43c5825d
In the next three years Britain’s cash-strapped National Health Service will be spending £100m in an effort to find 5,000 new doctors. In other words, each doctor needed to plug growing staffing shortages will cost £20,000 in fees to recruitment agencies.

Even then, there will be shortfalls. Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, indicated earlier this year that the UK needed more like 11,500 doctors by 2020 to meet the demands of a seven-days-a-week NHS — one in which staff are as available at weekends as they are on weekdays. That the current supply-demand gap is of this magnitude speaks volumes about the gulf between government ambitions and reality.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/05/make-access-to-abortion-easier-uks-top-obstetrician-demands

Holdups were now so common, shortages of doctors trained in abortion care so widespread, and the process of obtaining pills so time-consuming and user-unfriendly that women’s access to early abortion was “at crisis point”.

Stuckforcash

Has anyone any links to a reasoned debate on this topic? As in one without shouting and strawman arguments. Cheers.

applehunter

We don't know what we are voting on yet. At least the repeal side are certain of their views!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volgograd

Annasopra

applehunter wrote: »

We don't know what we are voting on yet

We have a fairly good idea

1 Remove this

3° the state acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right. this subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the state and another state. this subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the state, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.

2 Add something like; The Oireachtas shall have to power to legislate on abortion and this legislation can be subject to court challenge

3 Draft legislation will be prepared to accompany the question above that will allow unrestricted abortion upto 12 weeks and abortion after 12 weeks in cases of FFA and threat to life of the Mother

JC01

applehunter wrote: »

We don't know what we are voting on yet. At least the repeal side are certain of their views!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volgograd

To be fair I think both "sides" are certain of there views, just one is far more willing to discuss and debate them.

Peregrinus

Stuckforcash wrote: »

Has anyone any links to a reasoned debate on this topic? As in one without shouting and strawman arguments. Cheers.

Sadly, no.

As long as the discussion is framed in terms of arguments from human rights - the "right to life" versus the "right to bodily integrity" - what you basically have is two irreconcilable viewpoints, neither of which can be objectively validated by any empirical evidence. Rights-based arguments tend towards absolutism, since how can you compromise in the defence of human rights? So that debate lead inexorably to stalemate, and stalemate breeds shouting and strawman arguments.

The only way to have a reasoned discourse is to reframe the discussion. If the starting point is (a) both views are held by significant sections of the community; (b) both views are entitled to a similar degree of respect; and (c) there is no basis on which either view can claim priority over the other, then you can go on to do some fresh thinking about what a legal/public policy framework that acknowledges and accommodates both views would look like. But that's the diametric opposite of the simplistic binary discourse which a referendum encourages, so right now is not a very promising time to look for such a discourse.

Akrasia

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Too early to peak I think. People will become bored and fed up and will have made their minds up anyway.

I will ignore Iona, pro abortion, anyone and everyone. I do not need lecturing to me at this stage of my life so they can all just go and feck off really.

I am bored already. It is an individual decision. But of course we are not capable of making that on our own anymore. Feck that.

This is why i lose faith in democracy. A once in a generation opportunity to shape the direction of Irish society and people get 'bored' and switch off before the campaign even starts.

Go back to facebook, there are pictures of cats you haven't awwwwd at yet.

ELM327

brendanwalsh wrote: »

I personally think abortion is disgusting. The description of surgical abortion really makes me feel uncomfortable and the pictures I have seen online of litttle babies chopped into pieces is disturbing. I would have no qualms for a person to get abortion if they were raped or the child had a disease incompatible with life. But abortion on demand is something I will have to vote against.

Those pictures are of fetuses not of "little babies".
Why is rape any different? The potential child knows not whether it is a rape victim's unwanted consequence or a miracle child tried for for years. And even if it could know, it would not have the ability to do so until many more weeks of gestation had passed.
The end result is the same. It's a cluster of cells that has the potential to become a child. Like the head of a spermatozoa, like an implanted fertilized ovum.

All of these are potentially human... but none of these are human as they do not possess sentience.

In Ireland we are looking at the possibility of abortion up to 12 weeks. Surgical abortions are not necessary until after 12 weeks, So surgical abortions, all these photos you saw from militant probirth groups, are sadly - like the downs syndrome argument - an irrelevant red herring.
QED


(TLDR - if you are ok with abortion in any circumstance then why not the others).

pitifulgod

applehunter wrote: »

We don't know what we are voting on yet. At least the repeal side are certain of their views!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volgograd

We've been given a draft of the preferred wording. It's far more fit for purpose than the actual 8th amendment. So we do have a good idea of what we'll be voting on.

nozzferrahhtoo

Stuckforcash wrote: »

Has anyone any links to a reasoned debate on this topic? As in one without shouting and strawman arguments. Cheers.

Megathreads like this one are good. The one downside however is there are many debates happening at the same time. You just have to do the work and follow the threads of them yourself and filter out the white noise. Trust me though, after a little practice this gets rather easy to do.

We did used to have a debate forum on boards.ie though. Where two users could pit themselves together without any replies from other users (on another forum I moderate we do this with TWO threads. One for the two combatants, and another for everyone else to comment in parallel on the main event).

I wonder if now would be a time to resurrect something of this sort? Maybe have a thread where 1 or more people from each "side" are only allowed post. And people can choose for their own side who they think the most rational and reasons and coherent and civil speakers have been so far to put in that cage?

I guess anyone who finds it interesting as an idea, petition your local moderator

nozzferrahhtoo

RobertKK wrote: »

I think a lot of doctors in Ireland will not want to facilitate abortions. It will be most likely the big business abortion providers who will move in fill the void if the 8th amendment is replaced.

I see no evidence that your imaginary future will come to pass. But let us imagine for the purposes of argument that it does.

So what?

If abortion is happening who cares WHO is providing it?

As with any business we will have to ensure they conform to certain regulations of course. But nothing new there.

So what's the problem in your imaginary world there? I am not seeing it.

q9214n5louyt3p wrote: »

No. Anyone can look at my post and yours - I'm happy with that

Yep and I have done. And I am not seeing what the issue is either. The user appears to have responded directly to what you actually wrote. And other users, myself included, are not seeing the misrepresentation. In fact no one else has registered seeing it, except you.

Common Decorum in Discourse would suggest that the most mature and rational move to make at that juncture is to stop screeching "misrepresentation" at people and instead stop and point out what you DID mean, what the user fallaciously replied to, and how the two differ exactly.

That is, after all, how conversation works. And this is, after all, a forum for conversation.

nozzferrahhtoo

brendanwalsh wrote: »

I personally think abortion is disgusting. The description of surgical abortion really makes me feel uncomfortable and the pictures I have seen online of litttle babies chopped into pieces is disturbing.

Try watching heart bypass surgery or cesarean section sometime. You will realize a few things very quickly such as:

1) Generally surgery is disturbing to watch or hear described.
2) How pleasant a procedure is or looks says NOTHING About its morality.
2) Medical abortion up to 12 weeks has nothing to do with surgery anyway.

So if you are voting against a system of abortion up to 12 weeks because the surgery disturbs you then you are voting the wrong way for the wrong reasons. Almost no abortions in that period of time will be surgical ones. They will be obtained legally through the simple use of pills.

brendanwalsh wrote: »

I would have no qualms for a person to get abortion if they were raped or the child had a disease incompatible with life. But abortion on demand is something I will have to vote against.

Unfortunately there is no way to GIVE that option to women who were raped WITHOUT abortion on demand. So if you want women who are raped to be able to obtain abortion pills legally....... then you have to vote for abortion for all.

Why? Stop to think about it for a moment. How would you ascertain eligibility for it? Your options are:

1) The woman has to secure a conviction for rape. What if the guy is found innocent but is not actually innocent? What of the sheer length of time rape convictions can take? What about women who want to put the rape behind them and not prosecute it. They just want to draw a line under it and move on as best they can? NOT WORKABLE.

2) The woman merely has to accuse the rape. What if a woman really wants an abortion? This would be an incentive to create false accusations for rape. And false rape accusations, even when dropped or found innocent, destroy lives. Because swaths of the public have this ignorant nonsense "No smoke without fire" attitude to it. NOT WORKABLE.

3) Simply take the woman's word for it she was raped. Well there you have abortion on demand. Because anyone woman who wants abortion just has to CLAIM she was raped.

So if you genuinely have concerns for women who were raped, as I do too, then I am sorry to say that opening up abortion for any woman for 12 weeks of gestation is probably the only way you can turn than concern into a reality.

Zubeneschamali

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

3 Draft legislation will be prepared to accompany the question above that will allow unrestricted abortion upto 12 weeks and abortion after 12 weeks in cases of FFA and threat to life of the Mother

Not quite. The Committee said:
The Committee is of the view that no differentiation should be made between the life and the health of the woman. This is consistent with the evidence from medical experts made available to the Committee regarding the difficulty medical professionals have in defining where a threat to health becomes a threat to life.

Ash.J.Williams

Stuckforcash wrote: »

Has anyone any links to a reasoned debate on this topic? As in one without shouting and strawman arguments. Cheers.

No

Zubeneschamali

Stuckforcash wrote: »

Has anyone any links to a reasoned debate on this topic? As in one without shouting and strawman arguments. Cheers.

Have you read the report of the Citizen's Assembly and the Oireachteas Committee? They cover the issues pretty well.

q9214n5louyt3p

q9214n5louyt3p wrote: »

Misrepresentation is a tactic of both sides in this debate - ironically you are misrepresenting the tactic as typical of only one side

Telling an outright lie and then playing the victim when someone questions it. That's not a tactic I've seen from the pro-repeal side, whose argument is based around actual medical facts. When those facts were presented to the citizens assembly and the oireachtas committee, a significant majority were in favour of abortion being available with a 12 week limit. It's just common sense. So the pro birthers will do everything they can to deflect from the facts and try to make up their own.

Annasopra

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Have you read the report of the Citizen's Assembly and the Oireachteas Committee? They cover the issues pretty well.

Thats true. Reasoned and calm.