The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

thee glitz

gctest50 wrote: »

thee glitz wrote: »

Nope to which/both? Ignore and deflect from what? That's a bit rich anyway unless you've already advised if you'd prioritise securing abortion availability where medically required over otherwise. Not that you'd be alone in that.

Why protest so much when you don't even have a uterus ?

Concern for the protection of life of those threatened with being aborted. It would be more fitting to ask why those without a uterus are pro-choice.

thee glitz

thee glitz wrote: »

Concern for the protection of life of those threatened with being aborted. It would be more fitting to ask why those without a uterus are pro-choice.

Maybe it's because we don't have a problem with women being equal and having a say in how they are treated medically?

thee glitz

DubInMeath wrote: »

So you said if required to prevent women from dying it (the 8th) needs to go, your provided with one of the many articles regarding the how due to the 8th Savita Halappanavar was denied an abortion that would have saved her life and suddenly no it's not a reason because it's just a story in a newspaper.

I'm not going to take a story in a paper as evidence that having had an abortion done would have saved a woman's life, less so that a change in the law is necessary, much less again that a liberal regime is required.

Do you think the proposed legislation is no looser than required to prevent a reoccurrence?

I'll say one thing about your posts they show how the pro life side say one thing and when shown evidence they deny it's evidence because it doesn't suit your agenda.

'Evidence'. Are you convinced that the 8th needs to be repealed to prevent another Savita case, so pushing for the tightest legislation possible to ensure that it is, or for something else?

gctest50

thee glitz wrote: »

I'm not going to take a story in a paper .......

all about you

thee glitz

thee glitz wrote: »

I'm not going to take a story in a paper as evidence that having had an abortion done would have saved a woman's life, less so that a change in the law is necessary, much less again that a liberal regime is required.

Do you think the proposed legislation is no looser than required to prevent a reoccurrence?



'Evidence'. Are you convinced that the 8th needs to be repealed to prevent another Savita case, so pushing for the tightest legislation possible to ensure that it is, or for something else?

Your just strawmanning at this point.

pleas advice

DubInMeath wrote: »

The recommendation is that access for 12 weeks should not be restricted due to reasons, not 12 weeks access for no reason.

I think the actual wording will be 'without specific indication' ...

Billy86

Anecdotal stories about abortion don't interest the pro life crowd now it seems. That is genuinely funny.

volchitsa

thee glitz wrote: »

I'm not going to take a story in a paper as evidence that having had an abortion done would have saved a woman's life,

The man who chaired the investigation into her death says the same thing, so it has to be asked what evidence you would accept?

NuMarvel

thee glitz wrote: »

Maybe a bit, ye. No-one suggested how that may be possible in the constitution. Ideally it would be, and not result in a mess. Then many uncomfortable with abortion on request / demand would be more inclined to vote to repeal (amend). Something it's been said that I've no interest in doing, but which isn't true.

I think we've established in this and other threads that the reason no one has suggested how it may be possible in the constitution to provide for abortion on the grounds of FFA, rape, etc, is because it's not possible to do it properly. Plenty of posters have said it should be done this way, but no one's been able to say how it could be done properly.

The attorney general back in 1983 was dead set against the 8th amendment, because he could foresee it would cause more problems than it would solve. He knew that the constitution wasn't the right place to deal with the issue, and his recommended alternative, while not without its own problems, was much more straight forward and would have avoided many of the issues the 8th has created. This is just part of his legal advice at the time:

"The overall reason, which crops up in almost every facet of any attempted solution is that the subject matter of the amendment sough is of such complexity, involves so many matters of medical and scientific, moral and jurisprudential expertise as to be incapable of accurate encapsulation into a simple constitution-type provision."

I think trying to include grounds for complex issues like rape or FFA, would be equally "incapable of accurate encapsulation into a simple constitution-type provision." Which would explain why not a single politician or lawyer hasn't proposed something like this as an alternative.

Repeal really is the only way we can deal with these properly. And if people are opposed to some of the legislation that is proposed to follow afterwards, they can lobby politicians when it's being debated, and at every general election afterwards to get it changed.

Madscientist30

thee glitz wrote: »

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ok

So you can at least agree that the 8th needs to go because of the hard cases?

I find the hard cases to be, well, hard...

If required to prevent women dying, then it needs to go.

How hard does a case need to be though? Could you give some examples of reasons where according to you women should NOT be allowed to have an abortion in the first 12 weeks. Specific examples of cases or stories, not just the catch-all "lifestyle reasons" that some pro-lifers have mentioned here. What are the specific individual situations you would be saying no to from your Council of Elders position? I havent seen anything specific at all from the pro-life side, just dark mutterings about "on demand" and "for no reason".

Edward M

Ah now, getting this under my pint and her G&T might be a bit ott.
I wonder how many pubs and hotels will run with this idea?
Will they be paid to use them or will it just be pro life owners?
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/antirepeal-group-launches-beer-mat-campaign-36779504.html

Madscientist30

Edward M wrote: »

Ah now, getting this under my pint and her G&T might be a bit ott.
I wonder how many pubs and hotels will run with this idea?
Will they be paid to use them or will it just be pro life owners?
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/antirepeal-group-launches-beer-mat-campaign-36779504.html

Not a bit surprised by this, their whole campaign is about shoving fake or misleading pictures in peoples faces anyway they can, hoping people are too thick to actually question them. Even with all of their tactics being roundly exposed as fake or discredited they just keep doing the same thing.

Annasopra

thee glitz wrote: »

I find the hard cases to be, well, hard...

If required to prevent women dying, then it needs to go.

Whats hard about them? What about rape, incest, ffa?

Sofiztikated

Edward M wrote: »

Ah now, getting this under my pint and her G&T might be a bit ott.
I wonder how many pubs and hotels will run with this idea?
Will they be paid to use them or will it just be pro life owners?
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/antirepeal-group-launches-beer-mat-campaign-36779504.html

I don't see many going for it, tbh.

swampgas

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Whats hard about them? What about rape, incest, ffa?

They're hard cases for many pro-lifers because of the internal conflict it brings them. In one compartment of their brain they believe that abortion is always wrong, and possibly a crime against god, in another compartment they have some limited empathy for people who need abortions. On top of that they genuinely believe themselves to be more moral/ethical than pro-choicers, so they really don't want to admit that maybe abortion is okay in some cases, and they don't want to admit that the pro-choicers might actually have the moral high ground.

So we see a constant pattern of evasion, sophistry and whataboutery, which is down to their own inability to process the information available to them, because admitting that they need to change their minds on this issue would be too painful.

Yeah_Right

Just been catching up on the past few days of this thread. Wow there are a lot of posts!! Sorry but I want to revisit RobertKK's post about Ronaldo only being here because his mum didn't have an abortion. Once I got past the "well duh, we're all only here because our mum's didn't abort us" I started thinking a bit more deeply about it.

I would like to apologise to humanity because I have potentially let some great human beings slip through my fingers. Literally. Left others to die in condoms or be swallowed. I'm sorry. We should only be ejaculating when procreating!!
Then again they'd be my offspring so chances are they would have been lazy, alcoholic nutters with an unhealthy obsession for rugby... yeah maybe it was a good thing.

<snip>
Mod note:Not in the least bit funny. Please stop!

Buford T. Justice

Annasopra

swampgas wrote: »

They're hard cases for many pro-lifers because of the internal conflict it brings them. In one compartment of their brain they believe that abortion is always wrong, and possibly a crime against god, in another compartment they have some limited empathy for people who need abortions. On top of that they genuinely believe themselves to be more moral/ethical than pro-choicers, so they really don't want to admit that maybe abortion is okay in some cases, and they don't want to admit that the pro-choicers might actually have the moral high ground.

So we see a constant pattern of evasion, sophistry and whataboutery, which is down to their own inability to process the information available to them, because admitting that they need to change their minds on this issue would be too painful.

Ok. But what about people like thee glitz who support repeal but not 12 weeks. I am trying to unpack this a bit here to get behind it.

Zubeneschamali

thee glitz wrote: »

The appetite for unrestricted abortion law is a fair bit higher here than I previously thought.

The pro-life crew were clearly taken completely by surprise when the Citizen's Assembly recommended no restrictions up to 12 weeks, and have been saying ever since that the public will never go for it.

I think they are just completely out of touch, like yourself.

Zubeneschamali

Edward M wrote: »

Ah now, getting this under my pint and her G&T might be a bit ott.

If I get one of those in a pub, I will bring it to the barman, tell him to fold it twice and shove it up his hole.

And then I will leave and never return.

swampgas

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ok. But what about people like thee glitz who support repeal but not 12 weeks. I am trying to unpack this a bit here to get behind it.

Thee Glitz, as far as I can tell, doesn't want to vote for something that might lead to "sinful" abortions, you know where young slappers have abortions for no reason. Because this might be a sin. And as such Thee Glitz is prepared to throw women who he thinks really are justified in having terminations (FFA for example) under the bus, all the while blaming the government for putting forward a referendum and proposed legislation that he personally doesn't like.

IMO obviously. Thee Glitz can speak for himself of course, but the constant evasion is getting wearisome.

ohnonotgmail

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ok. But what about people like thee glitz who support repeal but not 12 weeks. I am trying to unpack this a bit here to get behind it.

do you actually believe that?

Zubeneschamali

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ok. But what about people like thee glitz who support repeal but not 12 weeks. I am trying to unpack this a bit here to get behind it.

Thee Glitz and lots of other prolifers just like to sound reasonable by saying "I'd love to vote Repeal but...". No matter what is proposed, there will always be a "....but ... so I have to vote the way the Bishop says." at the end.

It's like all the "I have no problems with the Gays, some of my friends own pink shirts, but..." people in the SSM referendum, who were always voting No to SSM regardless, because the Vatican said it was "a defeat for Humanity".

amdublin

In the divorce referendum it was "hello divorce goodbye daddy" scaremongering.

In the marriage equality referendum "children need a mammy and daddy" insults to families of all different shapes and sizes

None of the above emerged btw. After divorce and ssm were passed life continued, the sky did not fall down.

And here we go again.

I hope repeal will pass. Not much will change. Irish abortions take place every day either in a different country or in bedrooms via pills without proper medical care. After the referendum these same abortions will happen but in our own country and with proper safe healthcare.

Repeal the 8th.

Triceratops Ballet

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If I get one of those in a pub, I will bring it to the barman, tell him to fold it twice and shove it up his hole.

And then I will leave and never return.

I can't see many pubs going for it tbh, surely publicans value their profits? I would be highly unimpressed with any establishment I saw these in.
I think only hardline anti choicers would see them as a good idea, they certainly can't be appealing to those on the fence. Happy to let save the 8th waste their vast bounties of cash on senseless ideas tho!

NuMarvel

Madscientist30 wrote: »

Not a bit surprised by this, their whole campaign is about shoving fake or misleading pictures in peoples faces anyway they can, hoping people are too thick to actually question them. Even with all of their tactics being roundly exposed as fake or discredited they just keep doing the same thing.

Thing is, it's only one No campaign group behind these types of tactics; Save the 8th, aka Youth Defence. But it's going to make the campaign harder for the LoveBoth campaign from the PLC, because the public in general aren't going to be that interested in drawing distinctions between the two groups.

In the long run, these tactics will hurt the overall No campaign, because they're not going to find traction with anyone other than those already voting No and they have significant potential for turning off undecideds or soft Yes votes.

Bannasidhe

thee glitz wrote: »

The numbers show that Irish women (or women giving Irish addresses) have abortions done in England or Wales in much lower numbers than women from there. The numbers claimed to take abortion pills here don't nowhere near make up the difference, not sure how they have stats on that admittedly.

6,000 abortion pills seized by Revenue in 10 years up to May 2017. It is impossible to know how many got through.
http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-pill-use-in-ireland-3892752-Apr2018/

Women are believed to be getting pills delivered to address' in NI to circumvent Revenue checks.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/number-of-abortion-pills-seized-by-irish-customs-declines-1.3059156

Edward M

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If I get one of those in a pub, I will bring it to the barman, tell him to fold it twice and shove it up his hole.

And then I will leave and never return.

And that'd be your prerogative, but the poor lad or lass, i noticed you said barMAN, behind the bar probably just doing his job.
Personally I'd just push it aside and pay no heed, no matter which side had a mat out.
Just interesting point here, anyone on Facebook might know, my lad, 24, was telling me that the last week or so he's been getting a lot of pro life suggestions for shares and likes?

zedhead

Edward M wrote: »

And that'd be your prerogative, but the poor lad or lass, i noticed you said barMAN, behind the bar probably just doing his job.
Personally I'd just push it aside and pay no heed, no matter which side had a mat out.
Just interesting point here, anyone on Facebook might know, my lad, 24, was telling me that the last week or so he's been getting a lot of pro life suggestions for shares and likes?

Ive been getting that a lot too. I suspect its location based - i never get them when I check facebook in work but as soon as I get home it is the top of my feed. Between that and the horrible leaflets coming in the door and the posters on the road on the drive home it puts me in a great mood for the evening......

Joeytheparrot

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Whats hard about them? What about rape, incest, ffa?

Not an issue and not grounds for one according to their previous posts.

Zubeneschamali

Edward M wrote: »

And that'd be your prerogative, but the poor lad or lass, i noticed you said barMAN, behind the bar probably just doing his job.

Sure, and he can relay the message to his jackass boss.