The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Edward M

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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

And its it's a female, same response, shove it up her hole too?

January

To be fair I wouldn't even bother saying anything to a bar man/woman if I saw one of these in a pub I'd be going straight for the manager with a view to speaking to the owner.

frag420

Edward M wrote: »

And its it's a female, same response, shove it up her hole too?

As with the referendum we would like to offer her a choice so she can have it stuffed in either hole...her choice!!

Billy86

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.

What do you expect? It's all they've ever known, and until recently they've never had to actually argue their points with a sizable opposition who have the power the cause change (e.g. force a referendum).

It really is stunning how carbon-copied this approach of theirs is from the SSM referendum.

Billy86

January wrote: »

To be fair I wouldn't even bother saying anything to a bar man/woman if I saw one of these in a pub I'd be going straight for the manager with a view to speaking to the owner.

I'd be more inclined to take a picture of the beer mat, make a poster with it stating something like "Visit [Pub Name] and this is what you can expect to see looking back at you every time you go to lift your drink", print out a few hundred copies and stick them up all around the area the pub was in.

Triceratops Ballet

Billy86 wrote: »

I'd be more inclined to take a picture of the beer mat, make a poster with it stating something like "Visit [Pub Name] and this is what you can expect to see looking back at you every time you go to lift your drink", print out a few hundred copies and stick them up all around the area the pub was in.

or just whack it up on instagram job done

.......

This post has been deleted.

ForestFire

Why is there a constant need to categorize people and sides in to 2 groups (And if your in either group you are responsible for everything said by this group), when in fact their are many different levels to this and that is why this issue is so complicated.

Whatever other peoples views are, they should be respected, because there is not a definite scientific fact on where life begins. Each side and person has a different definition of this , from Sentience to implantation to fertilisation.

And yes, this then needs to be balanced with the rights, welfare and life of the woman on the other side.

So I would guess most people are in fact pro life at a certain stage of pregnancy, and most people are pro choice at certain stages also?
(Of course there are a minority that maybe fully pro choice or pro life regardless)

For example, no one is suggesting termination from 26 weeks on, where there is an 80-90% chance of survival for the baby from this stage.

In these case the solution would be to, continue (low risk to woman) or to end the pregnancy, by pre-term delivery (Low risk to Baby).

Even in this case we are putting some risk on the baby or woman, in favor on the other, who is deemed to have a greater need. So we acknowledge there is a right to life of the baby and the woman, but certain cases also this involves putting this right at risk.

For some people the same can be said for a fetus at 12 weeks. They want to acknowledge (Because they believe it is life) the right to life of the fetus, but also understand that in certain circumstance this life and right needs to be put at risk over the mothers (In this case 100% risk).

However they may not agree to have an open policy, as they still deem the fetus is a life that needs to have a justification to risk/end its life. (And I know there are complications about this and how it can be done)

If they believe that a fetus is in fact life then to them its the same considerations as a baby at 26 weeks or 36 weeks? and the risks of each life needs to be balance as best as possible, but also that to save one life we may need to end the other is also a valid outcome.

To take it a step forward again some people believe life starts at implantation and beyond this there needs to be a valid reason to end this life.

Others again belief that there are no circumstances where you can choose, but I would guess this is a small minority.

I guess my point is that we all have our individual beliefs on life, and this will dictate how we view the balance between blastocyst /embryo/Fetus/baby and the Woman rights at the various stages.

Unfortunately there is never going to be full agreement, and that is why we will have this vote to determine the majority views of the people and what we as a country will accept as the correct path forward.

Zubeneschamali

ForestFire wrote: »

(Of course there are a minority that maybe fully pro choice or pro life regardless)

Yes, and only the fully pro-life minority actually support the 8th. Everyone else supports some sort of abortion regime which requires that we repeal the 8th.

Which is why the savethe8th and Youth Defence folks are trying to baffle everyone with bullsh!t to disguise this fact.

Laneyh

zedhead wrote: »

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......

sponsored ads on Facebook can target certain demographics
but the other way it is suddenly reaching you in because of the Facebook algorithim
Someone in your friend circle will have reacted to some pro-life content
They may have reacted negatively to it but the algorithim just registers there was a response to it.
If you don't want to see stuff like that you need to click hide post, eventually Facebook will stop showing it to you.

Also, don't comment on the relevant pages

This is the same for anything you might be viewing on Facebook
e.g. if you go on to Conor McGregor's page to slag him off you might start seeing MMA ads , supplements and gym ads

interesting you don't see them on Facebook in work

zedhead

Laneyh wrote: »

sponsored ads on Facebook can target certain demographics
but the other way it is suddenly reaching you in because of the Facebook algorithim
Someone in your friend circle will have reacted to some pro-life content
They may have reacted negatively to it but the algorithim just registers there was a response to it.
If you don't want to see stuff like that you need to click hide post, eventually Facebook will stop showing it to you.

Also, don't comment on the relevant pages

This is the same for anything you might be viewing on Facebook
e.g. if you go on to Conor McGregor's page to slag him off you might start seeing MMA ads , supplements and gym ads

interesting you don't see them on Facebook in work

Oh I know all that and I do hide them and flag them as inappropriate for me, but I still seem to see it from other prolife groups.
I just found it unusual that the algorhythim may take into account the current location. It may not, it may be time based or something else. Just something I noticed.

gctest50

Report posters on power/ public lighting poles


https://www.esb.ie/contact

The ESB says that posters on electricity poles will be removed and that it may have to interrupt electricity supply to do so.

Billy86

Well Facebook just confessed most of their 2bn users data has been compromised so the exact source could be anything, really.

nozzferrahhtoo

bertieinexile wrote: »

Here's what a 24 week old child in the womb actually looks like.

Irrelevant. What it "looks like" is not as important as what it actually is. Discuss that, rather than rely on pictures you wish/hope will do your work for you.

bertieinexile wrote: »

Here's a child delivered at 23 weeks who's now a happy and healthy 3 year old.

Again, relevance? You really appear to be relying solely on arguments from emotion rather than bringing any intellect to bear on the discussion at all. In fact I can only assume that the advances in our technology will continue to the point we will have 3 year olds running around that were removed from the womb at 12 weeks, forget 23. Or perhaps even 3 year olds running around that were never at any point in an actual womb at all. But the relevance of this to your point or the thread is not apparent OTHER than my suspicion that the emotions triggered by 3 year olds in us is something you want to transfer to the fetus in an attempt to manipulate the emotions of those to whom you have ZERO intellectual arguments to offer.

bertieinexile wrote: »

I'm not trying to make nozzferrahhtoo look bad.

Good, because you would fail. There is nothing "bad" about what I said.

bertieinexile wrote: »

Even nozzferrahhtoo sounds reluctant. You'd have to. You'd need to be psychotic to be fully on board for that.

Reluctant to do what exactly? As I said there is no good reason to think a 24 week old fetus is sentient and so I lose no sleep when they are aborted really. However I balance my beliefs about abortion with many other aspects of reality, including the fact that the near totality of choice based abortion happens in or before week 16. I therefore aim for 16 weeks in my rhetoric. But I would not complain if abortions were brought into Ireland at 12 or 20 weeks either. Later abortions concern me however for other reasons such as the stark increase in complications for the mother. Both in the short and long term.

Incrementally after 24 weeks we get more and more grey about the possibility of sentience having come on line.

So really it is not clear why, during my absence, you decided to bring me into this diatribe at all. You clearly think you have a point to make on the thread in this post but I genuinely am not seeing what it is. But, unless I missed it which can happen, you do not appear to have deigned to reply to my last post to you. And this shift from talking with me to talking ABOUT me is more than a little suspect.

nozzferrahhtoo

ForestFire wrote: »

Whatever other peoples views are, they should be respected, because there is not a definite scientific fact on where life begins. Each side and person has a different definition of this , from Sentience to implantation to fertilisation.

The problem is they are all valid and correct. Depending on the context.

The issue then is often not one of "where life begins" is. Rather it is one of deciding which context is actually relevant to abortion and why.

Abortion at the end of the day APPEARS to come down to whether or not the fetus has any rights. Or whether there is any reason to afford it moral and ethical concern.

And when one explores what rights are, where they come from, what they are for, what they do and so forth then there is a short list of things that comes up. Sentience being the main and possibly only one. There is a reason why we have moral and ethical concern for insects over rocks. For mammals over insects. And for people over all of them. It is sentience.

There is a reason too why things you list like "implantation" and "fertilisation" are not concerns anywhere else they occur. The last paper you wrote on killed a tree. A tree produced by fertilisation. The last burger we are came from an animal killed. An animal that was implanted. Amazing, is it not, how entirely unimportant implantation and fertilisation is in any other context. Why is that, ask yourself. The answer is illuminating and informative on the subject of abortion and of rights.

Quite simply, there is no basis on offer on this thread as to why an individual entity, any single individual entity, should illicit moral and ethical concern from us if it entirely lacks the faculty of sentience. Why things like implantation is deemed to be important never seems to get explained. Just asserted, and asserted loudly. And that too is illuminating and informative as to the complete dearth of intellect in play behind much (most? All?) of the anti abortion narratives we see here.

ForestFire

I don't think trees are animals are relevant to the discussion on human life and a bit dismissive to be honest.

But I'm not disagreeing with you, as you said yourself it's a 'grey' area for you after 20 weeks.

For some people this grey area is 12 weeks and others something even earlier.

So while I don't agree with you about 20 weeks or someone else about embryo stage, I respect that is your belief.

For me personally I'm not even sure how many weeks I would believe or be comfortable with, as to where life really starts. The earlier the better for abortion but obviously, there is also a practical element, that the pregnancy needs to be confirmed, 4 to 6 weeks, time to think, appointments and the procedure itself.

12 is actually about my upper limit to be honest, and probabley a week or 2 too far, but as there are only 2 options in this vote I will probabley have to accept 12 weeks as the best option/compromise for all concerned based on what I know and understand now.

I would not like to see it go beyond 12 weeks, except in certain cases as FFA etc. Or new more conclusive scientific evidence if there will ever be any.

I'm also not sure there is a need to go beyond 12 weeks? As this should be time enough to decide if it is required?

PhoenixParker

ForestFire wrote: »

I don't think trees are animals are relevant to the discussion on human life and a bit dismissive to be honest.

But I'm not disagreeing with you, as you said yourself it's a 'grey' area for you after 20 weeks.

For some people this grey area is 12 weeks and others something even earlier.

So while I don't agree with you about 20 weeks or someone else about embryo stage, I respect that is your belief.

For me personally I'm not even sure how many weeks I would believe or be comfortable with, as to where life really starts. The earlier the better for abortion but obviously, there is also a practical element, that the pregnancy needs to be confirmed, 4 to 6 weeks, time to think, appointments and the procedure itself.

12 is actually about my upper limit to be honest, and probabley a week or 2 too far, but as there are only 2 options in this vote I will probabley have to accept 12 weeks as the best option/compromise for all concerned based on what I know and understand now.

I would not like to see it go beyond 12 weeks, except in certain cases as FFA etc. Or new more conclusive scientific evidence if there will ever be any.

I'm also not sure there is a need to go beyond 12 weeks? As this should be time enough to decide if it is required?

It's probably not needed but your posts does sound like you believe 12 weeks pregnant = the possibility of knowing about the pregnancy for 12 weeks, and I've seen it before either as ignorance or wilful misleading.

Positive pregnancy tests are possible at 4 weeks pregnant.
12 weeks pregnant is max 8 weeks of knowing.
For an unintended pregnancy 6 weeks is more likely.

volchitsa

ForestFire wrote: »

I don't think trees are animals are relevant to the discussion on human life and a bit dismissive to be honest.

But I'm not disagreeing with you, as you said yourself it's a 'grey' area for you after 20 weeks.

For some people this grey area is 12 weeks and others something even earlier.

So while I don't agree with you about 20 weeks or someone else about embryo stage, I respect that is your belief.

For me personally I'm not even sure how many weeks I would believe or be comfortable with, as to where life really starts. The earlier the better for abortion but obviously, there is also a practical element, that the pregnancy needs to be confirmed, 4 to 6 weeks, time to think, appointments and the procedure itself.

12 is actually about my upper limit to be honest, and probabley a week or 2 too far, but as there are only 2 options in this vote I will probabley have to accept 12 weeks as the best option/compromise for all concerned based on what I know and understand now.

I would not like to see it go beyond 12 weeks, except in certain cases as FFA etc. Or new more conclusive scientific evidence if there will ever be any.

I'm also not sure there is a need to go beyond 12 weeks? As this should be time enough to decide if it is required?

12 weeks seems to have become the norm in most of Europe, except of course the UK, so I don't see why there would be any pressure to increase that subsequently.

Unless of course there was some evidence of prolife medical personnel blocking womem in some way, to get them past 12 weeks. I would actually have some concern that that might happen.

ForestFire

PhoenixParker wrote: »

It's probably not needed but your posts does sound like you believe 12 weeks pregnant = the possibility of knowing about the pregnancy for 12 weeks, and I've seen it before either as ignorance or wilful misleading.

Positive pregnancy tests are possible at 4 weeks pregnant.
12 weeks pregnant is max 8 weeks of knowing.
For an unintended pregnancy 6 weeks is more likely.

Can you please read all of my post.

I said specifically said for practical reasons that-

'Confirm pregnacy 4 to 6 weeks'

So that leave 8 to 6 weeks to have the option of abortion, with the proposed 12 weeks.

thee glitz

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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.

We'll have to wait to see if the recommendation of the CA is actually representative of public opinion. In some way, I agree with it - let's see if there's an appetite for 12 weeks no questions asked abortion. More importantly though, the proposed legislation will turn some, probably many, away from voting to repeal, and does us all a disservice.

There's no good reason why opinion on circumstances where there seems to be much agreement can't be assessed and addressed independently of 12 week (and possibly later) rules.

PhoenixParker

ForestFire wrote: »

Can you please read all of my post.

I said specifically said for practical reasons that-

'Confirm pregnacy 4 to 6 weeks'

So that leave 8 to 6 weeks to have the option of abortion, with the proposed 12 weeks.

No you said the significantly more ambiguous:

there is also a practical element, that the pregnancy needs to be confirmed, 4 to 6 weeks, time to think, appointments and the procedure itself.

It is not clear whether 4 to 6 weeks is to confirm pregnancy or the time to think.
Hence my need to clarify.

volchitsa

volchitsa wrote: »

12 weeks seems to have become the norm in most of Europe, except of course the UK, so I don't see why there would be any pressure to increase that subsequently.

Unless of course there was some evidence of prolife medical personnel blocking womem in some way, to get them past 12 weeks. I would actually have some concern that that might happen.

Believe they will be required to refer the patient to another doctor, similar as what happens when they don't want to prescribe contraception for moral reasons.
The potential for problems there is the fact that nearly all GPs are refusing to take new patients and in that case I'm wondering if hospitals will take such referrals.

ForestFire

PhoenixParker wrote: »

No you said the significantly more ambiguous:


It is not clear whether 4 to 6 weeks is to confirm pregnancy or the time to think.
Hence my need to clarify.

Well it's to confirm pregnancy was what I meant.

But even if it was 'time to think' it still does not suggest anything like 12 weeks, like you said I suggested?

volchitsa

ForestFire wrote: »

Can you please read all of my post.

I said specifically said for practical reasons that-

'Confirm pregnacy 4 to 6 weeks'

So that leave 8 to 6 weeks to have the option of abortion, with the proposed 12 weeks.

You know that for the first two (counted) weeks of a pregnancy the woman isnt actually pregnant at all right? And the very earliest a pregnancy can be identified is the first day of a missed period - which for many women is something of a movable feast. So saying they have 8 weeks to dcide is really pushing it, I dont think it's reasonable to think many women will even suspect, never mind know, they are pregnant at that stage unless they have been obsessively counting the days.

IOW that happens for women who are actively trying to get pregnant. But then they also often also spend a fortune on pregnancy tests. Someone who doesnt want to get pregnant (again) because they are short of money for example isnt going to be buying multiple pregnancy tests either!

So much more like four weeks of actually being aware she is pregnant, at most.

That said, it seems to be sufficient time in other countries, so I think a couple of weeks probably is enough, as long as there are no deliberate delaying tactics being used, as I said.

thee glitz

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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.

Like what? I'm not listening to any bishop btw, but sure whatever you get-off on...

ForestFire

volchitsa wrote: »

You know that for the first two (counted) weeks of a pregnancy the woman isnt actually pregnant at all right? And the very earliest a pregnancy can be identified is the first day of a missed period - which for many women is something of a movable feast. So saying they have 8 weeks to dcide is really pushing it, I dont think it's reasonable to think many women will even suspect, never mind know, they are pregnant at that stage unless they have been obsessively counting the days.

IOW that happens for women who are actively trying to get pregnant. But then they also often also spend a fortune on pregnancy tests. Someone who doesnt want to get pregnant (again) because they are short of money for example isnt going to be buying multiple pregnancy tests either!

So much more like four weeks of actually being aware she is pregnant, at most.

That said, it seems to be sufficient time in other countries, so I think a couple of weeks probably is enough, as long as there are no deliberate delaying tactics being used, as I said.

Again I never said 8 weeks?

I said 6 to 8 weeks.

So you think it could be even as low as 4 weeks? That's fine but try not to miss quote me.

So I guess for this reason you see no possibilty to reduce the 12 weeks?

Again that's fine for me also as things currently stand.

thee glitz

swampgas wrote: »

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.

Nope, not interested in sins or sinners.

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.

Well I would support abortion availability in the case of FFA. But that doesnt even particularly matter as I'm just 1 voter. And it doesn't at all matter when the proposed legislation is much looser than that. I don't think I'm being unreasonable in suggesting that the proposed law be tight and if the referendum passes there's appetite for more that it be addressed.

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

Yes, IYO - I appreciate you stating that.

I asked a question earlier and I think only one person addressed it. An important one to me, so I'm not too upset about being thought of as evasive. I've made loadsa comments on this site, including here, and somewhat to the detriment of my real-world commitments.

PhoenixParker

ForestFire wrote: »

Again I never said 8 weeks?

I said 6 to 8 weeks.

So you think it could be even as low as 4 weeks? That's fine but try not to miss quote me.

So I guess for this reason you see no possibilty to reduce the 12 weeks?

Again that's fine for me also as things currently stand.

Your original post does not mention 8 weeks or 6 to 8 weeks at all.
I wasn't attacking you, merely clarifying for the benefit of anyone reading how pregnancies are dated.

I have both online and in real life happened upon people who think 12 weeks pregnant = knowing you're pregnant for 12 weeks. Let's face it, many schools are not good at covering the topic.

In the context of discussing the 12 week limit and how established a pregnancy is, something your post did, I think it's important to always be crystal clear.

NuMarvel

thee glitz wrote: »

We'll have to wait to see if the recommendation of the CA is actually representative of public opinion. In some way, I agree with it - let's see if there's an appetite for 12 weeks no questions asked abortion. More importantly though, the proposed legislation will turn some, probably many, away from voting to repeal, and does us all a disservice.

There's no good reason why opinion on circumstances where there seems to be much agreement can't be assessed and addressed independently of 12 week (and possibly later) rules.

A No vote can't be taken as being indicative of the level of support for the 12 weeks proposal. It can only be taken as what it is; how people voted. More research would be needed to establish why they voted the way they did.

In any case, even if the 12 weeks wasn't included in the proposed legislation, the No campaigners would be saying the same thing they're saying now. It's the thin end of the wedge, it'll lead to abortion up to birth, etc, etc, etc. And their claims would have more credence, because the government would have to explain why they're ignoring the main recommendation of both the Assembly and the Committee. It would really look like they were trying to pull one over on the people by holding it back for another time.

By proceeding on the basis of the recommendations of two sets of people who have examined the issue, they're being upfront on what's proposed to follow, which neuters some of the arguments of the No side. And if people don't like some of the proposed legislation, they can still campaign and lobby against it, as they can with any legislation.

The Assembly and the Committee show that when people hear all the facts, they support the 12 week proposal. If you're worried about the referendum not passing, then you need to start talking to people and giving them the facts. Because that's the surest way to address the problems you think people might have with it.

amdublin

Seriously billy is the photo of some kids needed?? Who are they even??

Leave that to the pro life side I reckon