The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

NuMarvel

Edward M wrote: »

More people might be pro repeal if they felt that there was going to be something else other than a 12 week limit put in place perhaps.

Haven't we covered all this before? Repeatedly?

Zubeneschamali

NuMarvel wrote: »

Haven't we covered all this before? Repeatedly?

TBH I feel we have covered everything, and most of the thread could have been replaced with: "Read the reports the legislation will be based on".

But new folks keep rocking up and joining in, so...

NuMarvel

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

TBH I feel we have covered everything, and most of the thread could have been replaced with: "Read the reports the legislation will be based on".

But new folks keep rocking up and joining in, so...

I don't mind so much when it's somebody new to the thread, what with there being 9600 posts and all.

It's when it's the same poster repeatedly making the same point that I begin to get exasperated.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Edward M

robarmstrong wrote: »

What would you suggest otherwise? Your first big scan in a maternity hospital (if you aren't in with the Early Pregnancy Unit) is the 12 week scan. Do you think reducing the weeks to let's say 8, would be more suited to those potential pro repealers?

Are you pro choice or pro life? If you're pro life that's fine, I've actually been looking forward to having an actual reasonable discussion with a pro-lifer and I can see sense in what you're saying there.

Tbf I don't have a solution, other than that legislation could be drafted some way perhaps to allow for the exceptions that need abortion medically or because of rape or incest to more easily accessed. The right of the mother to medical care despite her pregnancy that she might otherwise be denied because of the eighth.
More support for certain for unmarried mothers and low income families, a means test for childrens allowance whereby any funding saved on that should be put towards helping people who need it with childcare.
I don't have all the answers, I just find it hard to believe that anyone's best choice available is abortion where medical or abusive issues are not involved.
I also know I'm voting repeal, as you are, for different reasons obviously, I know what that will mean too, choice will win out, but I don't have to like it.

david75

....... wrote: »

The same poster repeatedly making the same 3 or 4 inconsistent, illogical and frankly contradictory points across multiple threads is even more annoying.

This is exactly the same tactics used on marriage equality. Endlessly arguing the same nonsensical and irrelevant points and ignoring the replies taking them apart.
It’s designed to exhaust you and drain your enthusiasm. Don’t let it.
Ps yes Iona do actually have people at keyboards on every page and forum possible arguing the same nonsense repeatedly ad nauseum.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Edward M

NuMarvel wrote: »

Haven't we covered all this before? Repeatedly?

We have, but will that stop a campaign from either side.
Pro and anti will roar out till the last second before the vote, both will protest after if the other wins.
Anytime you want to stop reading or posting feel free, there's an ignore option even, knock yourself out.

NuMarvel

Edward M wrote: »

We have...

So why constantly bring it up as if no one had mentioned it before?

Zubeneschamali

Edward M wrote: »

Tbf I don't have a solution

No worries, we have a good one all set to go.

neonsofa

Edward M wrote: »

More support for certain for unmarried mothers and low income families, a means test for childrens allowance whereby any funding saved on that should be put towards helping people who need it with childcare.
.

By supports do you mean financially?
Cause I can't see many people supporting that. You only have to look at threads about the dole/social welfare to see how people feel about financial supports for those parenting alone- single parents are guaranteed to get a mention in dole threads despite the fact that opfp is not the same as the dole.
Even threads that have nothing to do with social welfare have posts about it. I've seen a couple in personal issues, or even AH threads discussing different topics, where the posters just assume single mother equates to social welfare recipient. It's not malicious outright judgement,it's just a natural assumption they have.

Then there's the issue of financially incentivising young/solo parenting which people believe is currently happening- "pop sprogs out for housing/keeping the partners name off the birth cert to get social" all those myths that are regularly expressed on here.

Zubeneschamali

Edward M wrote: »

We have, but will that stop a campaign from either side.

Will it stop you is more the question.

Edward M

NuMarvel wrote: »

So why constantly bring it up as if no one had mentioned it before?

I hadn't seen any posts by robarmstrong before.
He expressing virtually the opposite train of thought to voting for repeal as me though we are both voting the same.
He is pro life he claims, but voting for choice because of what might happen to his daughter in the future.
Its a new train of thought to me so I interacted.
I'm sorry if that doesent meet your approval.

Edward M

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Will it stop you is more the question.

No:).

NuMarvel

Edward M wrote: »

I hadn't seen any posts by robarmstrong before.
He expressing virtually the opposite train of thought to voting for repeal as me though we are both voting the same.
He is pro life he claims, but voting for choice because of what might happen to his daughter in the future.
Its a new train of thought to me so I interacted.

And you interacted by... making a comment that's been well and truly addressed as if it's the first time anyone had said it. You can understand why someone might wonder why you keep doing that.

Edward M wrote: »

I'm sorry if that doesent meet your approval.

Oh, can the passive aggressiveness. I'm asking questions about what seems like odd behaviour to me. But feel free to take your own advice, and anytime you want to stop reading or posting feel free, there's an ignore option even, knock yourself out.

Edward M

NuMarvel wrote: »

And you interacted by... making a comment that's been well and truly addressed as if it's the first time anyone had said it. You can understand why someone might wonder why you keep doing that.



Oh, can the passive aggressiveness. I'm asking questions about what seems like odd behaviour to me. But feel free to take your own advice, and anytime you want to stop reading or posting feel free, there's an ignore option even, knock yourself out.

Your post didn't cover robarmstrong and me, I explained to him my position, I wasn't aware if he he'd read mine, if you look back you'll see he even invited it.
No agression, even passively, just pointing out the options.
I have more wit than to be aggressive with an anonymity.

JDD

The fact is that there is no workable solution for legalizing abortions in case of rape or incest. If you are restricting abortions, you can only restrict it to cases where the mother's life or physical (as opposed to mentai) health is significantly at risk. Even then that would be a grey area. Pregnancies in women over 40, or those who have had children already, often result in health issues that permanently compromise their quality of life.

pilly

Edward M wrote: »

Same as people think you can't be pro repeal and anti choice perhaps.
More people might be pro repeal if they felt that there was going to be something else other than a 12 week limit put in place perhaps.

I know you keep saying this Edward but it's not going to happen so it's quite tiresome.

Edward M

pilly wrote: »

I know you keep saying this Edward but it's not going to happen so it's quite tiresome.

And I have acknowledged that pilly, I know what's going to happen.
But you're all right of course, I have made the point, so I will leave it there for a while.
My point has been made no more often than most others though.

pilly

Edward M wrote: »

And I have acknowledged that pilly, I know what's going to happen.
But you're all right of course, I have made the point, so I will leave it there for a while.
My point has been made no more often than most others though.

Your post was not a response to robarmstrong though so please don't try to make it out like it was.

It was just a random post that I would make a guess you've made at least 10 times on here.

There's is not one point that I've made that number of times.

david75

There’s an ad for a film called cock blockers appearing just above.

Someone on boards admin has a warped sense of humour

Cally Caleigh

JDD wrote: »

The fact is that there is no workable solution for legalizing abortions in case of rape or incest. If you are restricting abortions, you can only restrict it to cases where the mother's life or physical (as opposed to mentai) health is significantly at risk. Even then that would be a grey area. Pregnancies in women over 40, or those who have had children already, often result in health issues that permanently compromise their quality of life.

It's a shame for people like me who know the complications the 8th amendment causes and the positives of repealing it to replace with legislation. I don't believe the constitution is the place for such a complex legal issue.
But replacing with legislation that allows 12-week unrestricted is a step too far for me, having done research on how much the fetus at 12 weeks has physically developed.
Obviously something had to change for cases of fatal fetal abnormality, or where the mother's life would be in danger by not aborting (hypertension, septic miscarriage, etc). And I would vote to repeal if that was the extent of the replacement text. But it's not. So I guess it's a no from me.

Ave Sodalis

Cally Caleigh wrote: »

But replacing with legislation that allows 12-week unrestricted is a step too far for me, .

The constitution will not have the 12 week restriction specified

Cally Caleigh

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

The constitution will not have the 12 week restriction specified

I know..

Bannasidhe

Cally Caleigh wrote: »

It's a shame for people like me who know the complications the 8th amendment causes and the positives of repealing it to replace with legislation. I don't believe the constitution is the place for such a complex legal issue.
But replacing with legislation that allows 12-week unrestricted is a step too far for me, having done research on how much the fetus at 12 weeks has physically developed.
Obviously something had to change for cases of fatal fetal abnormality, or where the mother's life would be in danger by not aborting (hypertension, septic miscarriage, etc). And I would vote to repeal if that was the extent of the replacement text. But it's not. So I guess it's a no from me.

Then you are voting for women being force-fed. For brain dead women to be kept 'alive' artificially. For women with cancer to be refused treatment.For unregulated pills being bought on the internet.

Because obviously if you are voting no than you are voting for things to stay exactly as they have been. Is that really what you want?

Ave Sodalis

Cally Caleigh wrote: »

I know..

Then I don't understand why you are voting no to repeal? You can campaign for different restrictions, or even complete restriction after the 8th is repealed.

Sierra Eire

Can someone explain to me how abortion is a "women's rights" issue?

david75

All this is answered in this thread if you take time to look through and read.

Ave Sodalis

Sierra Eire wrote: »

Can someone explain to me how abortion is a "women's rights" issue?

Before anyone replies to this person, can I just point out that the only other post they have is about how they believe in the death penalty and beatings?

Cally Caleigh

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Then I don't understand why you are voting no to repeal? You can campaign for different restrictions, or even complete restriction after the 8th is repealed.

I think we have our wires crossed.
If I am not mistaken, the draft legislation proposed by government contains a line allowing 12 week unrestricted abortions..
This will be debated in the Houses of the Oireachtas, not by members of the public. There will be no public vote on that particular issue, it's not necessary as the constitution will already be changed.
Since when do the government listen to members of the public on legislative bills?
Look at the blasphemy law amended into Defamation Act 2009 as an example. Making blasphemy an indictable offense. This was definitely against public will and if put to public vote would not have been introduced.

Sierra Eire

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Before anyone replies to this person, can I just point out that the only other post they have is about how they believe in the death penalty and beatings?

How is that relevant? I support the death penalty *GASP* for convicted criminals. I am against a death penalty (abortion) for innocent, unborn babies.

SusieBlue

‘I agree with it in X, Y, and Z cases but not A, B or C.
So because I want to stop people from doing something I don’t want them to, I’m going to vote no.
Even if it means the cases of X, Y and Z will suffer and potentially die, I don’t care, because my feelings and opinions on A, B and C are more important than those women’s lives.’

That sums up the selfishness and arrogance in a lot of posts in the last few days.
If you are ok with it in cases of FFA or rape, you are ok with it full stop.
A life is a life and all that.
You can’t just pick and choose when it’s a life when it suits.
You can’t proudly declare you’re voting No in the name of saving da baybeez and then in your next post say your ok with it in cases of rape.
It’s a total contradiction.

And this isn’t aimed at anyone in particular, just summing up my feelings on a lot of similar posts over the last week or so.

Ave Sodalis

Cally Caleigh wrote: »

I think we have our wires crossed.
If I am not mistaken, the draft legislation proposed by government contains a line allowing 12 week unrestricted abortions..
This will be debated in the Houses of the Oireachtas, not by members of the public. There will be no public vote on that particular issue, it's not necessary as the constitution will already be changed.
Since when do the government listen to members of the public on legislative bills?
Look at the blasphemy law amended into Defamation Act 2009 as an example. Making blasphemy an indictable offense. This was definitely against public will and if put to public vote would not have been introduced.

“Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancies.”


This is what is will replace the 8th if the referendum passes.

Sierra Eire wrote: »

How is that relevant? I support the death penalty *GASP* for convicted criminals. I am against a death penalty (abortion) for innocent, unborn babies.

Oh so a new poster who makes a fairly inflammatory post as his first post, just so happens to stumble across a thread riddled with re-regs and trolls for their second post which asks a most likely loaded and hypothetical question giving the wording of it?

Oldtree

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Oh so a new poster who makes a fairly inflammatory post as his first post, just so happens to stumble across a thread riddled with re-regs and trolls for their second post which asks a most likely loaded and hypothetical question giving the wording of it?

Proper prissy little thing rattling their cage
Sierra Eire, Irish America perhaps?

swampgas

Cally Caleigh wrote: »

I think we have our wires crossed.
If I am not mistaken, the draft legislation proposed by government contains a line allowing 12 week unrestricted abortions..
This will be debated in the Houses of the Oireachtas, not by members of the public. There will be no public vote on that particular issue, it's not necessary as the constitution will already be changed.
Since when do the government listen to members of the public on legislative bills?
Look at the blasphemy law amended into Defamation Act 2009 as an example. Making blasphemy an indictable offense. This was definitely against public will and if put to public vote would not have been introduced.

So because the democratic process isn't perfect you think the best thing is to keep the truly horrendous 8th amendment in place?

To paraphrase Lord Farquaad, "Some women may die, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make ...".

The 12 week limit is reasonable. If you're not happy with it then the better option would be to lobby your TD for a shorter limit, explaining the reasons why you think it should be shorter.

pilly

david75 wrote:

It’s so laughable and transparent all these re-regs. Asking the same questions to kick it all off again.

david75 wrote:

It’s not working lads. Move on.

I think people need to start ignoring it tbh.

Blatant shills

Ave Sodalis

Oldtree wrote: »

Proper prissy little thing

Me? Did that come across a little bit blunt? Sorry, got angry about an unrelated thing a short while ago and I guess I'm not quite back to tolerance levels yet. That was me making a conscious effort to tone back the post. I think I need to stay away from the internets for a few hours!

Sierra Eire

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Oh so a new poster who makes a fairly inflammatory post as his first post, just so happens to stumble across a thread riddled with re-regs and trolls for their second post which asks a most likely loaded and hypothetical question giving the wording of it?

I am not a "re-reg". This is my first account on this site and I use my username on every website I use. Try googling it. I can't find anything trollish about my question in this thread.

I find it ridiculous that a number of pro-abortion people cry "women's rights!!!" even though healthy little unborn girls are the majority of abortion victims. If you think I am a troll for not buying this "women's rights" pro-abortion argument then you are naive.

Oldtree

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Me? Did that come across a little bit blunt? Sorry, got angry about an unrelated thing a short while ago and I guess I'm not quite back to tolerance levels yet. That was me making a conscious effort to tone back the post. I think I need to stay away from the internets for a few hours!

Not you! I pressed the wrong button on phone and hadn't finished post. Here it is again, finished and in all its glory (and perhaps slightly clearer)

Oldtree wrote: »

Proper prissy little thing rattling their cage
Sierra Eire, Irish America perhaps?

david75

Sierra Eire wrote: »

I am not a "re-reg". This is my first account on this site and I use my username on every website I use. Try googling it. I can't find anything trollish about my question in this thread.

I find it ridiculous that a number of pro-abortion people cry "women's rights!!!" even though healthy little unborn girls are the majority of abortion victims. If you think I am a troll for not buying this "women's rights" pro-abortion argument then you are naive.

SO you’re worried about healthy little unborn girls rights, but don’t give a damn about women’s rights.

Riiiiight.

Find a new argument



Edit-I just googled your username. Damn. Involved in some serious stuff. But not a racist?

Edward M

WhiteRoses wrote: »

‘I agree with it in X, Y, and Z cases but not A, B or C.
So because I want to stop people from doing something I don’t want them to, I’m going to vote no.
Even if it means the cases of X, Y and Z will suffer and potentially die, I don’t care, because my feelings and opinions on A, B and C are more important than those women’s lives.’

That sums up the selfishness and arrogance in a lot of posts in the last few days.
If you are ok with it in cases of FFA or rape, you are ok with it full stop.
A life is a life and all that.
You can’t just pick and choose when it’s a life when it suits.
You can’t proudly declare you’re voting No in the name of saving da baybeez and then in your next post say your ok with it in cases of rape.
It’s a total contradiction.

And this isn’t aimed at anyone in particular, just summing up my feelings on a lot of similar posts over the last week or so.

Of course you can differentiate, and our man made laws do differentiate on many things, like intent and cause and justification, even for homicide.
Very few laws we have have only one eventual outcome and mitigation can be had for a lot of them.

Ave Sodalis

Sierra Eire wrote: »

I am not a "re-reg". This is my first account on this site and I use my username on every website I use. Try googling it. I can't find anything trollish about my question in this thread.

I find it ridiculous that a number of pro-abortion people cry "women's rights!!!" even though healthy little unborn girls are the majority of abortion victims. If you think I am a troll for not buying this "women's rights" pro-abortion argument then you are naive.

When you use emotive wording like that, it makes me think that you don't actually care about the answer to your question, that it doesn't matter what people tell you... you're just going to join the dozens of other first time posters on the pro-life side (you can't see how that's not even a little bit suspicious?) who believe they are right and that is that, often followed by claims of bullying or having their free speech stamped out if anyone even thinks about disagreeing with them. It's a repetitive cycle. The question itself if not trollish (just very clear where you're going to go with it) but a huge amount of new posters on this thread are.

I have absolutely no interest in googling your username, and I cannot fathom why/how that would prove anything.

Oldtree wrote: »

Not you! I pressed the wrong button on phone and hadn't finished post. Here it is again, finished and in all its glory (and perhaps slightly clearer)

Not to worry!

Oldtree

Sierra Eire wrote: »

I am not a "re-reg". This is my first account on this site and I use my username on every website I use. Try googling it. I can't find anything trollish about my question in this thread.

I find it ridiculous that a number of pro-abortion people cry "women's rights!!!" even though healthy little unborn girls are the majority of abortion victims. If you think I am a troll for not buying this "women's rights" pro-abortion argument then you are naive.

I guess we are naive then. You first post seems to indicate that you think prison is inhumane but killing someone isn't. Bizarre logic, deffo somthing wrong with you. By the way there's no death penalty here in Ireland under the law, unless you break into someones house, attack them and and they happen to have a half a garden shears handy.

Sierra Eire wrote: »

I don't agree with sending people to prison. Prison is inhumane as it is. I believe in the death penalty, fines and beatings - depending upon the crime.

david75

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

When you use emotive wording like that, it makes me think that you don't actually care about the answer to your question, that it doesn't matter what people tell you... you're just going to join the dozens of other first time posters on the pro-life side (you can't see how that's not even a little bit suspicious?) who believe they are right and that is that, often followed by claims of bullying or having their free speech stamped out if anyone even thinks about disagreeing with them. It's a repetitive cycle. The question itself if not trollish (just very clear where you're going to go with it) but a huge amount of new posters on this thread are.

I have absolutely no interest in googling your username, and I cannot fathom why/how that would prove anything.



Not to worry!

Check out his charming YouTube channel. Swastikas and Nazi videos ahoy

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfC0sIGuXx55iEuep-86Svw

SusieBlue

Sierra Eire wrote: »

I am not a "re-reg". This is my first account on this site and I use my username on every website I use. Try googling it. I can't find anything trollish about my question in this thread.

I find it ridiculous that a number of pro-abortion people cry "women's rights!!!" even though healthy little unborn girls are the majority of abortion victims. If you think I am a troll for not buying this "women's rights" pro-abortion argument then you are naive.

What about the women carrying the pregnancy, what about her rights? Her rights (as a living person) should supersede that of a potential person.

As someone very wise said earlier in the thread, you are looking at the uterus so hard you can’t see the woman attached to it.

Oldtree

david75 wrote: »

Check out his charming YouTube channel. Swastikas and Nazi videos ahoy

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfC0sIGuXx55iEuep-86Svw

No thank you, but thank you for the warning.

pitifulgod

david75 wrote: »

Check out his charming YouTube channel. Swastikas and Nazi videos ahoy

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfC0sIGuXx55iEuep-86Svw

Ya I was a tad concerned when Hitler seemed to fill up all the results...

Sierra Eire

WhiteRoses wrote: »

What about the women carrying the pregnancy, what about her rights? Her rights (as a living person) should supersede that of a potential person.

As someone very wise said earlier in the thread, you are looking at the uterus so hard you can’t see the woman attached to it.

If a woman's life is in danger because of the pregnancy, I would be OK with abortion in that case.

But the pro-abortion agenda in this country will legalise on-demand abortion.

Ave Sodalis

david75 wrote: »

Check out his charming YouTube channel. Swastikas and Nazi videos ahoy

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfC0sIGuXx55iEuep-86Svw

:rolleyes:

Okay, I bit and googled it... https://plus.google.com/106944670544413788191

So Nazi and Swastika videos, calling people ******s, and have a childish public argument with some other youtuber, and you're not a troll? Is this your Twitter? https://twitter.com/CommunistRalph

If it is, interesting in August you posted "It's funny how many people get upset at the stuff they are not forced to do..."

Sierra Eire

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

If it is, interesting in August you posted "It's funny how many people get upset at the stuff they are not forced to do..."

That isn't my Twitter account, please stick to the abortion discussion. But if you must harass me on Twitter, go after me on my @DaveCullenCF account. Thanks.