The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Da Boss

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So the Catholic Church is “interfering “ you say?? Well if your against that im sure your against all other moral groups, be they religious or not, from interfering in the referendum,right? If the RCC can’t put forward their views I’m sure no other group can in the interests of fairness , or the word yee seem to love nowadays,equality

kylith

Sin City wrote: »

Even asking the question isnt going to prove anything as no matter what you say unless your in that situation you wont know what youll do

Case in point
I have a friend who doesnt believe in abortion
would argue against it at every oppurtuniy

He changed hes mind as soon as he knocked this woman up

He was booking flights to the UK as soon as he knew it and was convincing her shes not gonna have hes child

tigger123 wrote: »

Kind of illustrates the lack of empathy on the pro life side; all about the principal until it's your problem (and not someone else's), then it's all about the choice.

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/anti-tales.shtml is an interesting read; stories from workers in family planning clinics detailing some of the pro-life protesters that come in for terminations because everyone else is a slutty trollop but they made a mistake, they can't have a baby right now, it's different for them.

RDM_83 again

kylith wrote: »

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/anti-tales.shtml is an interesting read; stories from workers in family planning clinics detailing some of the pro-life protesters that come in for terminations because everyone else is a slutty trollop but they made a mistake, they can't have a baby right now, it's different for them.

Yep preach the truth!Those evil pro-life damn them, I bet if we keep saying they are not only wrong but nasty hypocrites that hate kids that will convince the bulk of the population that is sceptical about a liberal pro-choice regime to put away their concerns.

This tactic of demonization and looking down on people has been proven to work brilliantly. I mean look at how we have Hillary Clinton as US President and the UK firmly rejecting Brexit.
:-/

Seriously though it does seem like some people are trying there hardest to loose an election that should be winnable

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

end of the road

kylith wrote: »

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/anti-tales.shtml is an interesting read; stories from workers in family planning clinics detailing some of the pro-life protesters that come in for terminations because everyone else is a slutty trollop but they made a mistake, they can't have a baby right now, it's different for them.

i think we can say all of this or most of it never happened.

Hotblack Desiato

"Doesn't fit EOTR's narrative" = "Never happened"

/sigh

mrkiscool2

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Yep preach the truth!Those evil pro-life damn them, I bet if we keep saying they are not only wrong but nasty hypocrites that hate kids that will convince the bulk of the population that is sceptical about a liberal pro-choice regime to put away their concerns.

This tactic of demonization and looking down on people has been proven to work brilliantly. I mean look at how we have Hillary Clinton as US President and the UK firmly rejecting Brexit.
:-/

Seriously though it does seem like some people are trying there hardest to loose an election that should be winnable

What are you babbling on about? Both Hillary and Remain thought they were going to win, so didn't turn out to vote as they should have. Also, you can be damn sure the anti-choice side are going to be even more viscous and despicable with their tactics. I am expecting lots of pictures and probably a fake graveyard.

end of the road wrote: »

i think we can say all of this or most of it never happened.

Hahahahahahahahahaha ah amazing. As much as I would prefer you weren't anti-choice, at least you make me laugh with the things you come out with.

RDM_83 again

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

"Doesn't fit EOTR's narrative" = "Never happened"

/sigh

Complains about actual video of a person's speech being cherrypicking/strawmanning.

Anonymous statements apparently said to advocacy group that casts their opponents in a bad light.
Definitely true no doubt about it!

This stuff gets thanks on boards from the usual suspects but seriously it's just circle jerking amongst what maybe 10-20 deeply invested posters.

Martina1991

end of the road wrote:

i think we can say all of this or most of it never happened.

Un-****ing-believable

Odhinn

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

He's on a crusade. It's the hurley and slash hook against the papal halberd.




(sounds like a bit of craic, apart from all the being hacked to death thing)

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Eh? Where did I tar the entire pro-choice lobby with one brush? I didn't.

What other reason is there to post that video? The opinions of some randomer are irrelevant. But by linking them to a movement you can try to discredit that movement. This trick is as old as the hills. My side = cuddly Argentinian socialist (who happens to be the sole ruler of an authoritarian state, oops) vs. Their side = some wingnut.

I don't think at all that everyone in the pro-choice lobby, or even the majority of them for that matter, are actually anything like that particular wingnut, because the few people I do know who are pro-choice, are entirely reasonable people, perfectly capable of articulating their arguments in a respectful, non-authoritarian way that I could listen to them speak all day on the issue of abortion, or anything else they'd care to share on any issue under the sun.

Great. Which makes your decision to post that particular clip even harder to justify, unless of course your motivation was to paint the pro-choice lobby in a bad light.

HD you speak as though a person cannot change their mind? If that is so, then what has all the posturing, pontificating and evangelising in this thread and the many others which came before it been about?

You tell me. You were previously advocating a pro-choice position far in extreme of anyone else I've seen on boards. Could it simply have been an attempt to discredit pro-choice all along?

RDM_83 again

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

What are you babbling on about? Both Hillary and Remain thought they were going to win, so didn't turn out to vote as they should have. Also, you can be damn sure the anti-choice side are going to be even more viscous and despicable with their tactics. I am expecting lots of pictures and probably a fake graveyard.
.

You clearly didn't follow either campaign if you think moments like "basket of deplorables" in the US or in the UK the looking down on the English working classes by the great and the good had.

You realize that the referendum is about repealing the 8th, if you make it about abortion on demand being a right it risks support.

Like I am personally leaning towards repeal (if your bothered about it I have posted my ideal result before) but on here any hesitation about full freedom of choice up to a late limit is equated with being a member of Youth Defence, despite the fact polling has shown that this is the most bloody common opinion in the country!

volchitsa

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Like I am personally leaning towards repeal (if your bothered about it I have posted my ideal result before) but on here any hesitation about full freedom of choice up to a late limit is equated with being a member of Youth Defence, despite the fact polling has shown that this is the most bloody common opinion in the country!

Any hesitation? Really?

Can you find five different posters who have made that claim please?
I'm not asking you to go through their posts and post up the evidence, just give us the names and I'll look up some of them myself, because I have seen nothing like that on here.

Not one. But perhaps I've missed them, and you'll be able to name several who describe limited pro choice views as being akin to those held by Youth Defence.

Consonata

RDM_83 again wrote:

Like I am personally leaning towards repeal (if your bothered about it I have posted my ideal result before) but on here any hesitation about full freedom of choice up to a late limit is equated with being a member of Youth Defence, despite the fact polling has shown that this is the most bloody common opinion in the country!

I mean that seems to be a bit of a strawman.

Personally, my ideal legislation is duplicating the british limit, though I doubt that is possible in the current political climate. Yet I can perfectly understand people who want to keep the limit at 12 weeks because I was once like them, unsure about the whole decision. Regardless, even if it is 12 weeks, something like 80% of all abortions happen before that time so that is a start at least.

MrPudding

volchitsa wrote: »

Any hesitation? Really?

Can you find five different posters who have made that claim please?
I'm not asking you to go through their posts and post up the evidence, just give us the names and I'll look up some of them myself, because I have seen nothing like that on here.

Not one. But perhaps I've missed them, and you'll be able to name several who describe limited pro choice views as being akin to those held by Youth Defence.

The only poster I can recall, in any of the abortion threads, arguing for no restrictions up to a late limit or even right up to birth, was One Eyed Jack. Go figure.

MrP

volchitsa

MrPudding wrote: »

volchitsa wrote: »

Any hesitation? Really?

Can you find five different posters who have made that claim please?
I'm not asking you to go through their posts and post up the evidence, just give us the names and I'll look up some of them myself, because I have seen nothing like that on here.

Not one. But perhaps I've missed them, and you'll be able to name several who describe limited pro choice views as being akin to those held by Youth Defence.

The only poster I can recall, in any of the abortion threads, arguing for no restrictions up to a late limit or even right up to birth, was One Eyed Jack. Go figure.

MrP

Indeed.
Because of course it's actually very easy to figure out what's really going on there.

Pro life poster needs a straw man "Extreme pro choice view" which another pro life poster kindly provides.

Not like it's not transparent or anything.

volchitsa

MrPudding wrote: »

volchitsa wrote: »

Any hesitation? Really?

Can you find five different posters who have made that claim please?
I'm not asking you to go through their posts and post up the evidence, just give us the names and I'll look up some of them myself, because I have seen nothing like that on here.

Not one. But perhaps I've missed them, and you'll be able to name several who describe limited pro choice views as being akin to those held by Youth Defence.

The only poster I can recall, in any of the abortion threads, arguing for no restrictions up to a late limit or even right up to birth, was One Eyed Jack. Go figure.

MrP

Indeed.
Because of course it's actually very easy to figure out what's really going on there.

Pro life poster needs a straw man "Extreme pro choice view" which another pro life poster kindly provides.

Not like it's not transparent or anything.

volchitsa

MrPudding wrote: »

volchitsa wrote: »

Any hesitation? Really?

Can you find five different posters who have made that claim please?
I'm not asking you to go through their posts and post up the evidence, just give us the names and I'll look up some of them myself, because I have seen nothing like that on here.

Not one. But perhaps I've missed them, and you'll be able to name several who describe limited pro choice views as being akin to those held by Youth Defence.

The only poster I can recall, in any of the abortion threads, arguing for no restrictions up to a late limit or even right up to birth, was One Eyed Jack. Go figure.

MrP

Indeed.
Because of course it's actually very easy to figure out what's really going on there.

Pro life poster needs a straw man "Extreme pro choice view" which another pro life poster kindly provides.

Not like it's not transparent or anything.

end of the road

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What other reason is there to post that video? The opinions of some randomer are irrelevant. But by linking them to a movement you can try to discredit that movement. This trick is as old as the hills. My side = cuddly Argentinian socialist (who happens to be the sole ruler of an authoritarian state, oops) vs. Their side = some wingnut.



Great. Which makes your decision to post that particular clip even harder to justify, unless of course your motivation was to paint the pro-choice lobby in a bad light.



You tell me. You were previously advocating a pro-choice position far in extreme of anyone else I've seen on boards. Could it simply have been an attempt to discredit pro-choice all along?

the pro-abortion movement don't need people to help, or make attempts to discredit them, they do it all by themselves as they have a number among their own ranks doing the work for them.

MrPudding wrote: »

The only poster I can recall, in any of the abortion threads, arguing for no restrictions up to a late limit or even right up to birth, was One Eyed Jack. Go figure.

MrP

sounds like you were reading his posts in a way that suited your viewpoint because i can find nothing within them that says he wants unrestricted abortion.

thee glitz

volchitsa wrote: »

Any hesitation? Really?

Can you find five different posters who have made that claim please?
I'm not asking you to go through their posts and post up the evidence, just give us the names and I'll look up some of them myself, because I have seen nothing like that on here.

Not one. But perhaps I've missed them, and you'll be able to name several who describe limited pro choice views as being akin to those held by Youth Defence.

I'm not saying that I can identify, or that there even are, 5 posters who made that claim. What I will though, is that it's probably thought by many. Pro-repeal posters go very quiet about the prospect of repealing the 8th resulting in abortion in (further) limited cases. What most seem to want is abortion availabilty for lifestyle reasons, with special circumstances being a convenient step to further that goal but not particularly cared about themselves.

RDM_83 again

Consonata wrote: »

I mean that seems to be a bit of a strawman..

connorhal and AnGaelach would appear to have views broadly in line with majority Irish opinion, repeal but under very limited circumstances but they have been misrepresented (it's a long thread to try scroll through on mobile those two leap to mind though)
Likewise it was this post that got me posting on this thread again (we all know these threads are pointless)

tigger123 wrote: »

Kind of illustrates the lack of empathy on the pro life side; all about the principal until it's your problem (and not someone else's), then it's all about the choice.

There are at least a sizable minority of people that would consider themselves pro-life that will vote for repealing the 8th.

Consonata wrote: »

Personally, my ideal legislation is duplicating the british limit, though I doubt that is possible in the current political climate. Yet I can perfectly understand people who want to keep the limit at 12 weeks because I was once like them, unsure about the whole decision. Regardless, even if it is 12 weeks, something like 80% of all abortions happen before that time so that is a start at least.

20% of 1/4 to 1/5 of all pregnancies is still a large number if we are going of the UK data.

Personally I would be deeply opposed to adopting the UK's system, Lord Steel himself (the man who started the whole thing so no rabid pro-lifer) considers the law he helped create no longer fit for purpose due to misapplication.

I would support a German system, I would not support a limit of 12 weeks as it's likely many exceptions would be allowed and we would end up with a UK system where an apparently fairly strict needs based system allows for abortion upto 24 weeks for social issues*.
Rather a more rigorous system upto 16 weeks involving multiple appointments and pre and post councillors allows abortions that are going to happen anyway to happen safety but helps reduce rate particularly the repeat rate, Germany is pretty liberal so I don't think emulating them should be considered a pro-life/authoritarian thing to do.



BPASS's own study showed that the majority of abortions between 20-24 weeks occur for "social" reasons, people love saying that abortions in that time period mainly happens for medical reasons but that's just wishful thinking not backed up by an abortion providers own data.

volchitsa

thee glitz wrote: »

volchitsa wrote: »

Any hesitation? Really?

Can you find five different posters who have made that claim please?
I'm not asking you to go through their posts and post up the evidence, just give us the names and I'll look up some of them myself, because I have seen nothing like that on here.

Not one. But perhaps I've missed them, and you'll be able to name several who describe limited pro choice views as being akin to those held by Youth Defence.

I'm not saying that I can identify, or that there even are, 5 posters who made that claim. What I will though, is that it's probably thought by many. Pro-repeal posters go very quiet about the prospect of repealing the 8th resulting in abortion in (further) limited cases. What most seem to want is abortion availabilty for lifestyle reasons, with special circumstances being a convenient step to further that goal but not particularly cared about themselves.

So your argument is that you know what pro choice posters here really think, regardless of what they may say.

Like Dev, you can look into their hearts can you? Probably no need to have a referendum at all then, let's just ask you what people think.

volchitsa

thee glitz wrote: »

volchitsa wrote: »

Any hesitation? Really?

Can you find five different posters who have made that claim please?
I'm not asking you to go through their posts and post up the evidence, just give us the names and I'll look up some of them myself, because I have seen nothing like that on here.

Not one. But perhaps I've missed them, and you'll be able to name several who describe limited pro choice views as being akin to those held by Youth Defence.

I'm not saying that I can identify, or that there even are, 5 posters who made that claim. What I will though, is that it's probably thought by many. Pro-repeal posters go very quiet about the prospect of repealing the 8th resulting in abortion in (further) limited cases. What most seem to want is abortion availabilty for lifestyle reasons, with special circumstances being a convenient step to further that goal but not particularly cared about themselves.

So your argument is that you know what pro choice posters here really think, regardless of what they may say.

Like Dev, you can look into their hearts can you? Probably no need to have a referendum at all then, let's just ask you what people think.

MrPudding

end of the road wrote: »

the pro-abortion movement

I know you have been asked this before, but what is the pro-abortion movement. Can you point out some pro-abortion posters to me please? I am most certainly pro-choice, but i am certainly not pro-abortion, and I think that vast majority of pro-choice people are the same.

I am pretty sure you know this, as it has been pointed out to you before, but you persist in using the term pro-abortion as you think it casts pro-choice people in a more negative light. it may do that, but what it definitely does is highlight the dishonesty you use in arguing your position.

MrP

thee glitz

volchitsa wrote: »

So your argument is that you know what pro choice posters here really think, regardless of what they may say.

My point is that they don't say anything - I believe you're the first to even address my point, so I can only infer from the silence. If we had a referendum on retaining the 8th amendment vs adding a clause allowing for abortion in the case of FFA, I have no doubt that that particular case could then be legislated for. Pro-choicers are promoting their cause by highlighting special cases, while refusing to contemplate compromises which would facilitate them.

RDM_83 again

MrPudding wrote: »

I know you have been asked this before, but what is the pro-abortion movement. Can you point out some pro-abortion posters to me please? I am most certainly pro-choice, but i am certainly not pro-abortion, and I think that vast majority of pro-choice people are the same.

I am pretty sure you know this, as it has been pointed out to you before, but you persist in using the term pro-abortion as you think it casts pro-choice people in a more negative light. it may do that, but what it definitely does is highlight the dishonesty you use in arguing your position.

MrP

Those that regard abortion as fundamental right without qualification or condition and any oversight by others to a person's ability to exercise that choice up until the point of sentience.

E.g abortion up to X but you have to get assessed by specialist first =/= pro-abortion

Abortion upto X and any specialist assesment or restriction is an outrageous attack on women's freedoms = pro abortion

The pro-gun lobby in the USA doesn't focus their campaigns on more guns, they are fighting to protect what they believe is a fundamental Constitutional right that shouldn't have any restriction.
Nobody has a problem calling them pro-gun

Edit: I dislike these terms anyway as they are meaningless really considering the spectrum of views is so variable and it's pointlessly antagonistic but this would be my understanding to separate the viewpoints between needs Vs rights

end of the road

MrPudding wrote: »

I know you have been asked this before, but what is the pro-abortion movement. Can you point out some pro-abortion posters to me please? I am most certainly pro-choice, but i am certainly not pro-abortion, and I think that vast majority of pro-choice people are the same.

I am pretty sure you know this, as it has been pointed out to you before, but you persist in using the term pro-abortion as you think it casts pro-choice people in a more negative light. it may do that, but what it definitely does is highlight the dishonesty you use in arguing your position.

MrP

they are in favour of abortion on demand therefore are pro-abortion. what's the issue with pointing that out, after all they are content with their viewpoint aren't they not? stating that fact doesn't highlight any dishonesty as i'm not one bit dishonest and never have been.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

they are in favour of abortion on demand therefore are pro-abortion. what's the issue with pointing that out, after all they are content with their viewpoint aren't they not? stating that fact doesn't highlight any dishonesty as i'm not one bit dishonest and never have been.

No, they are in favour of women having a CHOICE as to whether they would like to continue with a pregnancy or terminate it, regardless of circumstances.
I haven’t seen a single poster here who is pro abortion. We are pro choice. There is a massive difference which you have neglected to notice once again.

Loafing Oaf

thee glitz wrote: »

My point is that they don't say anything - I believe you're the first to even address my point, so I can only infer from the silence. If we had a referendum on retaining the 8th amendment vs adding a clause allowing for abortion in the case of FFA, I have no doubt that that particular case could then be legislated for. Pro-choicers are promoting their cause by highlighting special cases, while refusing to contemplate compromises which would facilitate them.

If pro-choice people believe abortion on demand/request within 12 or so weeks has majority support, why should they settle for something short of that? Such legislation would facilitate abortion in FFA cases along with the other ones where women need/wish for abortions.

MrPudding

end of the road wrote: »

they are in favour of abortion on demand therefore are pro-abortion. what's the issue with pointing that out, after all they are content with their viewpoint aren't they not? stating that fact doesn't highlight any dishonesty as i'm not one bit dishonest and never have been.

I am pro-choice, but I am most certainly not pro-abortion. My preference would be that there was never another abortion.

This is the most common view, and this has been pointed out to you before. The dishonestly comes from your continued use of the phrase pro-abortion when it has been pointed out to you that there is a difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion.

I get that you world is a simple, black and white place, but you really should try to look at things with a little more nuance. Believing that a woman should have the right to an abortion in certain circumstances is not the same as being pro-abortion.

MrP

Hannibal_Smith

end of the road wrote: »

they are in favour of abortion on demand therefore are pro-abortion. what's the issue with pointing that out, after all they are content with their viewpoint aren't they not? stating that fact doesn't highlight any dishonesty as i'm not one bit dishonest and never have been.

200+ pages and you think...ooh wonder how this 'debate' had progressed...then you take a look and see this. 200+ pages later one side doesn't even understand what the other side is talking about :rolleyes:

Itssoeasy

I think the 8th ammendment will be repealed when the referendum does take place, but I don't think it will be the landslide that some think it will be.

thee glitz

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

If pro-choice people believe abortion on demand/request within 12 or so weeks has majority support, why should they settle for something short of that? Such legislation would facilitate abortion in FFA cases along with the other ones where women need/wish for abortions.

I'm not saying they shouldn't (or that they'd be correct in thinking that there is majority support for that). From my experience, they don't care any more for cases of FFA than for just because, and are willing to risk the continued unavailability of abortion is such circumstances for same.

Odhinn

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I think the 8th ammendment will be repealed when the referendum does take place, but I don't think it will be the landslide that some think it will be.

Yep. Non-voters, last minute mind changers.

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

MrPudding wrote: »

I know you have been asked this before, but what is the pro-abortion movement. Can you point out some pro-abortion posters to me please? I am most certainly pro-choice, but i am certainly not pro-abortion, and I think that vast majority of pro-choice people are the same.

I am pretty sure you know this, as it has been pointed out to you before, but you persist in using the term pro-abortion as you think it casts pro-choice people in a more negative light. it may do that, but what it definitely does is highlight the dishonesty you use in arguing your position.

MrP

they are in favour of abortion on demand therefore are pro-abortion. what's the issue with pointing that out, after all they are content with their viewpoint aren't they not? stating that fact doesn't highlight any dishonesty as i'm not one bit dishonest and never have been.

It's dishonest because nobody is pro abortion. Everyone here would be delighted if every baby was wanted and if no medical issues threatening the mother's health ever required a pregnancy to be terminated.

Being pro education means you want all children to be well educated, being pro democracy means you want all citizens to have a free vote.

Whereas there's no such thing as being pro abortion. As everyone knows, including you. So the fact that you need to portray the other side of the debate in that way can only be so as to dismiss their views without engaging.

Loafing Oaf

thee glitz wrote: »

I'm not saying they shouldn't (or that they'd be correct in thinking that there is majority support for that). From my experience, they don't care any more for cases of FFA than for just because, and are willing to risk the continued unavailability of abortion is such circumstances for same.

Children's Minister Katherine Zappone believes that only offering abortions in cases of incest, rape and fatal foetal abnormality would "do nothing at all for most women in Ireland".

If you share this view then I guess a referendum on full liberalisation of the law is a gamble worth taking.

freshpopcorn

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I think the 8th ammendment will be repealed when the referendum does take place, but I don't think it will be the landslide that some think it will be.

I am doubtful of it to be honest but it will probably pass with the help of a larger Yes vote from Urban areas lots of people will be angry with a good few areas voting no. What made me really doubtful of it was the result of the marriage referendum!

Da Boss

The government are introducing stricter drink driving laws- to saw lifes! They are taking measures to tackle climate change- which will save life’s. They are (talking of a t least) tackling homelessness- to help save life’s. They are however planning to remove a piece of legislation-the 8th amendment, which has saved more lives that anything else ever did . Without the 8th how many of us Irish would have been denied our lives we currently enjoy,all thanks to the 8th

thee glitz

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

If you share this view then I guess a referendum on full liberalisation of the law is a gamble worth taking.

It may well be. Will they say it though, or continue to push special circumstances as a particular cause of concern? Aside, having a pro-abortion Minister for Children is beyond parody.

SusieBlue

Da Boss wrote: »

The government are introducing stricter drink driving laws- to saw lifes! They are taking measures to tackle climate change- which will save life’s. They are (talking of a t least) tackling homelessness- to help save life’s. They are however planning to remove a piece of legislation-the 8th amendment, which has saved more lives that anything else ever did . Without the 8th how many of us Irish would have been denied our lives we currently enjoy,all thanks to the 8th

So you are just pro birth it seems, not pro life. Doesn’t matter what kind of life these poor children are born into, with potentially unfit parents, neglect, abuse, poverty, life limiting health conditions etc so long as they are born.

I understand your passion for ‘saving lives’ but women don’t usually go around procuring abortions as casually as buying a cup of coffee, as you like to make out.
It is in most cases a very last resort in a very sad situation.
By denying a woman her right to a termination, can you even begin to imagine what kind of conditions will be forced on her and her child? Because they literally have no other option?
It has been mentioned and admitted many times that support in this country from the government for women in these circumstances is minimal.
The resources simply aren’t there to help her or her child. So she struggles on.
Is this miserable situation honestly preferable, in your opinion?
And if you are so passionate about saving all these lives, can I ask what you do to support struggling mothers in disadvantaged situations trying their hardest to bring up their kids? Or do you not care, so long as they are born?

Loafing Oaf

thee glitz wrote: »

Will they say it though, or continue to push special circumstances as a particular cause of concern?

I don't see any incompatibility in believing that all women should have access to abortion (within term limits) and holding that such access is particularly urgent in certain cases. Therefore I don't see anything hypocritical or deceitful in focusing on 'hard cases' in the referendum campaign. If the recommendations of the committee are followed, it will be clear to any sentient person that a yes vote in the referendum is a vote for abortion on demand/request/whatever you want to call it.

end of the road

volchitsa wrote: »

It's dishonest because nobody is pro abortion. Everyone here would be delighted if every baby was wanted and if no medical issues threatening the mother's health ever required a pregnancy to be terminated.

Being pro education means you want all children to be well educated, being pro democracy means you want all citizens to have a free vote.

Whereas there's no such thing as being pro abortion. As everyone knows, including you. So the fact that you need to portray the other side of the debate in that way can only be so as to dismiss their views without engaging.

no it's because i believe if people really don't want abortion on demand, they won't allow it in their country. they would allow abortion in extreme circumstances, which i'm in favour of also even if i don't agree with the act, as it's a case of necessary evil, but they wouldn't facilitate abortion for life style reasons.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

So you are just pro birth it seems, not pro life. Doesn’t matter what kind of life these poor children are born into, with potentially unfit parents, neglect, abuse, poverty, life limiting health conditions etc so long as they are born.

at least if they are born into neglect and so on, there is a system to remove them from that neglect. absolutely it's far from perfect, but it can be improved. it's not reason to kill them instead.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I understand your passion for ‘saving lives’ but women don’t usually go around procuring abortions as casually as buying a cup of coffee, as you like to make out.
It is in most cases a very last resort in a very sad situation.
By denying a woman her right to a termination, can you even begin to imagine what kind of conditions will be forced on her and her child? Because they literally have no other option?
It has been mentioned and admitted many times that support in this country from the government for women in these circumstances is minimal.

again, a woman doesn't have a right to an abortion bar extreme circumstances. it's important to keep pointing this out. there is no such right within the state. a woman doesn't even have the right to procure abortion abroad technically, just the right to travel.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

The resources simply aren’t there to help her or her child. So she struggles on.
Is this miserable situation honestly preferable, in your opinion?
And if you are so passionate about saving all these lives, can I ask what you do to support struggling mothers in disadvantaged situations trying their hardest to bring up their kids? Or do you not care, so long as they are born?

the system can be and should be improved. we pay taxes to help women who have children who can't afford them. we can deal with the issues, we can't bring an unborn baby back to life if it's aborted.

tigger123

end of the road wrote: »

no it's because i believe if people really don't want abortion on demand, they won't allow it in their country. they would allow abortion in extreme circumstances, which i'm in favour of also even if i don't agree with the act, as it's a case of necessary evil, but they wouldn't facilitate abortion for life style reasons.



at least if they are born into neglect and so on, there is a system to remove them from that neglect. absolutely it's far from perfect, but it can be improved. it's not reason to kill them instead.



again, a woman doesn't have a right to an abortion bar extreme circumstances. it's important to keep pointing this out. there is no such right within the state. a woman doesn't even have the right to procure abortion abroad technically, just the right to travel.



the system can be and should be improved. we pay taxes to help women who have children who can't afford them. we can deal with the issues, we can't bring an unborn baby back to life if it's aborted.

"Lifestyle reasons".

Sluts and whores, eh?

thee glitz

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I don't see any incompatibility in believing that all women should have access to abortion (within term limits) and holding that such access is particularly urgent in certain cases. Therefore I don't see anything hypocritical or deceitful in focusing on 'hard cases' in the referendum campaign.

I don't see any incompatibility in that either. The hypocrisy arises when calling for abortion availability for any reason and using special circumstances to further that, while not contemplating a situation where it could be available, for example, in the case FFA without full liberalisation.

If the recommendations of the committee are followed, it will be clear to any sentient person that a yes vote in the referendum is a vote for abortion on demand/request/whatever you want to call it.

Yes - showing that they too don't value special circumstances over lifestyle choices.

Loafing Oaf

thee glitz wrote: »

while not contemplating a situation where it could be available, for example, in the case FFA without full liberalisation..

Well at the end of the day it's up to the government and not repeal campaigners what choice we get in the referendum. If, as seems increasingly likely, that choice will be between full liberalisation and no change, why waste time and muddy the waters 'contemplating' alternative proposals.

Annasopra

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I think the 8th ammendment will be repealed when the referendum does take place, but I don't think it will be the landslide that some think it will be.

I dont think anyone thinks it will be a landslide on either side.

end of the road

tigger123 wrote: »

"Lifestyle reasons".

Sluts and whores, eh?

wrong, not Sluts and whores. never

thee glitz

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

If, as seems increasingly likely, that choice will be between full liberalisation and no change, why waste time and muddy the waters 'contemplating' alternative proposals.

Because a lot of people want just change, but not full liberalisation. Framing it in such terms puts the change most want at risk.

splinter65

Fred Swanson wrote: »

He is a foreign head of state seeking to interfere in the affairs of another nation.

I thought the RCC was as good as dead in Ireland?
What are you worried about then? Surely no ones going to listen to an old man in a white dress!
He’s the leader of 1 billion + adherents of a particular religion.
Are you seriously suggesting he should be silenced?
Is that not fascism ?

splinter65

volchitsa wrote: »

It's dishonest because nobody is pro abortion. Everyone here would be delighted if every baby was wanted and if no medical issues threatening the mother's health ever required a pregnancy to be terminated.

Being pro education means you want all children to be well educated, being pro democracy means you want all citizens to have a free vote.

Whereas there's no such thing as being pro abortion. As everyone knows, including you. So the fact that you need to portray the other side of the debate in that way can only be so as to dismiss their views without engaging.

Are some people not pro the legal introduction of abortion?
I don’t see what difference it makes .
If you want abortions to be available in Ireland then are you not pro abortion?
There was no fuss about people being pro divorce.