The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Annasopra

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

Is it just me and if so I'll delete the post, but say when Bertie stops posting, Robert KK comes in and when he goes out another one comes in to post. Its like they're on a roster 10 till 2 Bertie, 2 to 6 RobertKK, then Bertie is back and then..... I would block them but I'm having too much fun telling them that I don't care about their chat about UK, Canada etc, about Cristiano Ronaldo's mum - what about Peter Sutcliffes mum - whats the bet she wished she'd had an abortion - their stories are nonsensical.

Repeal all the way - and I'm predicting 70 / 30 for repeal. Bible bashers have no say in my reproductive system

I genuinely dont believe Robert and Bertie are the same person. The posting style is not the same at all. There are a lot of people in Ireland like Robert and Bertie who think pro life. I actually really wouldnt label some of the pro life people here as rereg trolls.

Annasopra

thee glitz wrote: »

Why would I need links to show that? Though there was one pro-choicer around here who expressed being a little uncomfortable with the hypocrisy of it. Would you prioritise ensuring the availability of abortion in cases where it's genuinely needed / warranted over for those who request it for no reason?

Nice to see you acknowledged and read the evidence that I provided for you.

Ave Sodalis

baylah17 wrote: »

Simples

I prefer "Dimples"

thee glitz

baylah17 wrote: »

No need to prioritise
Womans choice
A woman's right
Nobody else's business
Dimples!

No need to prioritise because the 8th is certain to be repealed?

January wrote: »

Ah that explains it. Amnesty have nothing to do with the national campaign.

Is it more of a localised campaign they're running?

DubInMeath wrote: »

Grand so you've clarified that your making statements as facts without being able to back them up?

Good to know

It's hard to back up if no-one will answer the question.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Nice to see you acknowledged and read the evidence that I provided for you.

Your evidence, that you know people who hold opinions, doesn't diminsh my point.

January

thee glitz wrote: »

Is it more of a localised campaign they're running?

No idea I haven't heard anything on repeal from amnesty in a while maybe they've dropped the issue?

Together for yes is being run by the abortion rights campaign, the coalition to Repeal the 8th amendment and the national women's Council of Ireland.

thee glitz

January wrote: »

No idea I haven't heard anything on repeal from amnesty in a while maybe they've dropped the issue?

Ye, no idea why.

Annasopra

thee glitz wrote: »

Your evidence, that you know people who hold opinions, doesn't diminsh my point.

What? You are simply dismissing expertise opinion because you have a different opinion? Or are you just nit bothered actually engaging in real discussion?

Annasopra

thee glitz wrote: »

Ye, no idea why.

I think they are running their own campaign and also challenging sipo. Why are people so het up about Soros when there is so much American and Catholic money pouring into the other side?

thee glitz

thee glitz wrote: »

It's hard to back up if no-one will answer the question.

Nope you made a statement as fact not opinion as far as you were concerned and as such if it's fact you should have evidence to back up your statement, otherwise your talking out of your hat.

Martina1991

thee glitz wrote:

Why would I need links to show that?
Would you prioritise ensuring the availability of abortion in cases where it's genuinely needed / warranted over for those who request it for no reason?

You'll need evidence around here to support your claims. A statement without proof is just an opinion.

Abortions that are truly needed should be available to those who need them.

How can a woman request an abortion "for no reason". Her reasons have nothing to do with you.

thee glitz

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What? You are simply dismissing expertise opinion because you have a different opinion? Or are you just nit bothered actually engaging in real discussion?

I'm not dismissing, or even looking for an expert opinion any more than for a personal one, just asking a question.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I think they are running their own campaign and also challenging sipo. Why are people so het up about Soros when there is so much American and Catholic money pouring into the other side?

I believe they are, ye. I'm not too bothered about the Soros money as January has assured me that the No campaign are also well funded.

Ken.

Mod-So, the poll has been going since Paddy's day. was going to wait till a 3rd thread to set a new one but not sure we'll get there. When would be a good time to reset it to just yes/no. I'm thinking 1st of may would be time enough.

Ave Sodalis

Conspectus wrote: »

Mod-So, the poll has been going since Paddy's day. was going to wait till a 3rd thread to set a new one but not sure we'll get there. When would be a good time to reset it to just yes/no. I'm thinking 1st of may would be time enough.

Would this clear the current votes, or just the don't knows of the current poll? (I'm assuming the former, but just checking)

bertieinexile

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Bertie there's a massive difference between risk of injury and serious harm. You might not believe it but they are worlds apart in legal terms and medical terms.

Anything can constitute a risk of injury, injury is a wide open all encompassing term, a scratch is an injury. And all that's required is that there be a risk, not a big risk, not a serious risk. That gives scope for any pregnant woman to use it. Pregnancy itself constitutes a risk of injury.

Threat implies the risk is high and serious harm constitutes a long lasting effect.

There is no comparison between the two.

You come across as a considerate poster, PhoenixParker, who has arrived at a lot of your views by argument and reason. (Of course we disagree on some of the fundamental principles that reason is being applied to.)

Given how important that is to you, I think, if you've looked in to it, that you'll know how ill served you are by those who've taken it on themselves to provide legal justification for what goes on in the abortion clinics in england. There are just massive yawning holes in the "reasoning" behind that legal justification.

Try this
https://www.bpas.org/get-involved/advocacy/briefings/abortion-law/

The 1967 Abortion Act took the concept of wellbeing further, by indicating that an abortion was lawful if 'the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman' (emphasis added). In 2012, medical evidence is clear that, purely on a physical level, abortion carries less risk of maternal mortality and morbidity than does childbirth.

In terms of mental health impacts, authoritative reviews of the evidence in the USA and Britain are clear that aborting an unwanted pregnancy has no adverse psychological sequelae, compared to carrying that pregnancy to term. (1)

Thus it could be argued that any abortion carried out under Section 1(1)(a) (the ground on which 98 per cent of abortions are carried out) would always be lawful, provided the authorising doctors were acting on the basis of a good faith reliance on this medical evidence base.

Like an RTE news report, it's not that easy to understand because I don't think they understand it themselves. Because there isn't much about it that makes sense.
Let's unpick it.

Continuing the pregnancy needs to present a greater risk to the woman's physical or mental health than having an abortion.
There is no greater mental risk to a woman from an abortion than from continuing the pregnancy (it is claimed).
2012 medical evidence shows (it is claimed) there is more of a physical risk - mortality and morbidity - to a woman from continuing the pregnancy than from having an abortion.
So because of this physical risk that exists in any case where the pregnancy is allowed to continue, a doctor doesn't even need to see the woman to know the conditions have been met... and we're almost there, we almost have our excuse! We just need the doctor to sign something saying that the abortion is approved because it reduces the physical risk to the woman and we're home and hosed, we have a legitimate basis and ... Damn! They all (98.7%) go and sign something saying it is actually the mental grounds their decision is based on. So near...


The real point here though is not to point a finger and say gotcha. The real point is that it shows the abortion industry in england is subject to so little enquiry, there is so little oversight, that this story has been allowed to stand. They don't even feel the need for self examination.

Marie Stopes was subject to 2600 complaints in 2016.

Doctors were signing off up to 60 consent forms at a time when they were meant to be making a thorough assessment. One filled in up to 26 in two minutes.

and as you can see from this link nothing has changed.

Abortions signed off after just a phonecall: How Marie Stopes doctors approve abortions for women they've never met

Here's another link

Doctors are routinely bending the law to allow women to have abortions on questionable mental-health grounds, the head of Britain’s biggest abortion provider has said.


The distiction between "risk of injury" and "threat of serious harm" could keep a few of our learned friends on Ormond Quay in business for ever.
But - we were talking about honest reactions a few pages back - do you honestly think that distinction is going to make any difference to doctors signing certs in a Marie Stopes clinic.
The government could have written any language they liked in to this legislation but it is the staff in these clinics who will be interpreting it.
Right now does it matter to a doctor in england, who doesn't even see the woman, that the law talks about risk of injury?
Does it matter to him, or the woman answering the phone in the clinic, what the law says?
They are people who believe the outcome - an abortion for a woman who wants it - is justified, regardless of how the law is phrased.
Would a doctor who refused to sign because he thought there was a risk of injury but not of serious harm - if that didn't already sound ridiculous -would that doctor even feel he belonged in such a place. How long would he last?

Do you honestly think if this referendum was passed the experience for a woman presenting herself at the door of a Marie Stopes clinic in Dublin would be different than if she was in Liverpool. Honestly. Honestly.

These are the people to whom a Yes vote will hand control of the actual implementation of abortion practices. All they would need to know is that the law allowed some grounds, some plausible (or implausible) excuse, and they will feel free to do what they think is right; Grant an abortion to any woman who wants it up to 24 weeks.

If you want to vote Yes you must be comfortable with abortion on demand/request up to 24 weeks. Otherwise it's a No.

thee glitz

DubInMeath wrote: »

Nope you made a statement as fact not opinion as far as you were concerned and as such if it's fact you should have evidence to back up your statement, otherwise your talking out of your hat.

A fact, based on the perception of other people's motivations? More of an observation really. I asked a question, inviting anyone to prove me wrong.

Martina1991 wrote: »

You'll need evidence around here to support your claims. A statement without proof is just an opinion.

Yes, it's my opinion, based on a rational thought process that's open to contradiction.

Abortions that are truly needed should be available to those who need them.

Right - so assuring that this is available should be a priority over those where not required.

How can a woman request an abortion "for no reason". Her reasons have nothing to do with you.

Under the proposed legislation. No reason required.

Water John

Medics in Ireland will always be conservative interpreting any law. You have no grounds for suggesting such a policy would change. That eliminates your attempt to rewrite or reinterpret the proposed new law.
But we are actually voting on the Repeal of the 8th and the Oireachtais will decide then what law is enacted.
You're both making two jumps and on top of that, spinning your own interpretation to suit your argument.
For Bertie

bertieinexile

bertieinexile wrote: »

These are the people to whom a Yes vote will hand control of the actual implementation of abortion practices. All they would need to know is that the law allowed some grounds, some plausible (or implausible) excuse, and they will feel free to do what they think is right; Grant an abortion to any woman who wants it up to 24 weeks.

If you want to vote Yes you must be comfortable with abortion on demand/request up to 24 weeks. Otherwise it's a No.

Nope

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/government-will-seek-to-ban-late-term-abortions-1.3440056

swampgas

bertieinexile wrote: »

If you want to vote Yes you must be comfortable with abortion on demand/request up to 24 weeks. Otherwise it's a No.

Completely wrong.

You would need to repeal the 13th amendment (the right to travel for an abortion) if you want to prevent women in Ireland having abortions. The Irish people seem pretty comfortable with the right to travel, so I think it's fair to say that relocating those abortions back to Ireland shouldn't be a cause for much concern.

The big problem for many pro-lifers is that they disapprove of abortion, and hate the idea of abortion being normalised in Ireland. They really don't care if abortions happen elsewhere as long as they can keep a big dirty stigma attached to it via the constitution.

I asked before Bertie, but I will try again......
Surely unrestricted access to abortion up to 12 weeks is preferable to the terrible English system, you have a problem with?

No need for anyone to make any kind of case for abortion, no need for any doctor to assess women's mental state. Straight forward no problem.
Surely that's a better system?

Ken.

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Would this clear the current votes, or just the don't knows of the current poll? (I'm assuming the former, but just checking)

It would completely reset the poll for everyone. Actually a new poll. I will take a screenshot before the old one goes away and post it for posterity.

thee glitz

thee glitz wrote: »

A fact, based on the perception of other people's motivations? More of an observation really. I asked a question, inviting anyone to prove me wrong.

This is what you said


It's easy to pretend to show concern for rape victims and/or FFA cases etc until they're distinguished from other, trivial, cases. The pretence of care for same can be verified by an inappetite to legislate for stricter laws than proposed.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106605055&postcount=2801

That reads as a statement of fact to me, if it was opinion I'm sure you have stated that its your personal opinion and you can't back it up with evidence.

Ave Sodalis

Conspectus wrote: »

It would completely reset the poll for everyone. Actually a new poll. I will take a screenshot before the old one goes away and post it for posterity.

I know it's not really that important, but I'm wondering if the 24th of April might give people a solid month to notice the change? I'm really not fussed either way though.

Also

I'm tired too, but here goes... No, I'm not saying that they dont care about them. Yes, I'm saying that they are using them to push abortion on demand. They may care about them, but not as much as they claim to, and not even necessarily
as much as some who intend voting No. The agenda is abortion on demand, stories of rape victims are a happy convenience.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106612288&postcount=2960

PhoenixParker

thee glitz wrote: »

Why would I need links to show that? Though there was one pro-choicer around here who expressed being a little uncomfortable with the hypocrisy of it. Would you prioritise ensuring the availability of abortion in cases where it's genuinely needed / warranted over for those who request it for no reason?

Do you really think that there cam ever be a situation of "no reason" for having an abortion?

Do you have children? Do you know people with children?
Any child, no matter how wanted upends every aspect of a woman's life, both during pregnancy and afterwards.

Not wanting to be pregnant is a very good reason for wanting an abortion as is not wanting to have a child. Are you so dismissive of women's hopes, dreams, lives and struggles that you can call not wanting to be pregnant no reason?

thee glitz

DubInMeath wrote: »

This is what you said


It's easy to pretend to show concern for rape victims and/or FFA cases etc until they're distinguished from other, trivial, cases. The pretence of care for same can be verified by an inappetite to legislate for stricter laws than proposed.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106605055&postcount=2801

That reads as a statement of fact to me, if it was opinion I'm sure you have stated that its your personal opinion and you can't back it up with evidence.

So what is the appetite to legislate for stricter laws than proposed around here?

baylah17

Powerd1991 wrote: »

robarmstrong wrote: »

Can't wait for this to be repealed so I can watch a few of the save the 8thers slither back into their caves and look for something else to deny their fellow citizens with.

It's 2018, it's modern times. Abortion happens in Ireland already, this will just broaden it and redefine it so that it will be more accessible (no, not abortion on demand like cretins would say, as it's already been stamped across numerous times that it will be done on a case by case basis along with nothing over 12 weeks before they pop up with the classic "they'll be able to have abortions at any time!!!111 soundbite").

It's time to allow women to have the right to control over their own bodies, grow up.

For cattle it's no later than 8 weeks b4 n abortion isnt allowed

12 weeks is late do women know a long time before 12 weeks?

#savethechildren

Wow
How low will will the anti woman regime stoop
Now they compare our wives and daughters to cattle
#itrustwomen

Sheeps

Next person to post decides my vote.

Ave Sodalis

Sheeps wrote: »

Next person to post decides my vote.

Your methods are... different... :pac:

thee glitz

thee glitz wrote: »

So what is the appetite to legislate for stricter laws than proposed around here?

What's this got to do with your statement that rape victims, FFA are a happy convenience for people wanting repeal, it would appear that you don't have much in the way of compassion for them.

Sheeps

Im such a sheep.