The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

crustybla

Dear Boards,

Thank you so much for the ignore button.

Your friend,

Crusty.

Ken.

crustybla wrote: »

Dear Boards,

Thank you so much for the ignore button.

Your friend,

Crusty.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056553774

Read this thread on how to 'total ignore' someone with some nice scripts from 28064212.

Zubeneschamali

mohawk wrote: »

If I was a cynical person I might be inclined to think that some are trying to do some good old-fashioned scare mongering using lies.

"Hello Divorce, bye-bye Daddy!".

"It's really about gay adoption!".

"Sure people will be marrying cats and dogs next".

"Conscription for the EU army will follow, mark my words".

Hannibal_Smith

Where are the 24 weeks coming from? That link provided above says 12 weeks?

Blazer

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Where are the 24 weeks coming from? That link provided above says 12 weeks?

just scaremongering by the nutcases.

Great to see Bertie popping in every now & then, posting rubbish, not answering a single question put to him & then dissappearing again.
Was a poster not banned for doing that a couple of weeks ago?

PhoenixParker

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Where are the 24 weeks coming from? That link provided above says 12 weeks?

Bertie is trying to argue that threat of serious harm (the proposed Irish legislation) is the same as risk of injury (that used in the English legislation).

He asserts that they are materially the same in law when this is clearly not the case.

There is a big difference between "injury" and ""serious harm"
A paper cut is an injury a stab wound is serious harm.

There is a big difference between "risk" and "threat"
Anyone who's done a risk assessment knows that literally everything is a risk, threat suggests there needs to be a very strong chance the risk will occur.

There's a risk of injury when I chop vegetables with a sharp knife. It would take someone pointing the knife at me with intent before there's a threat of serious harm.

Zubeneschamali

Don't forget that we are dealing here with the Irish Medical establishment, who could, ever since the X case judgement in 1992, have performed abortions here by falsely claiming the mothers life was at risk.

For some reason, they never did that, yet Bertie thinks they will falsely claim there is a threat of serious harm to flighty-headed young wans who feel like an abortion during their lunchbreak at 24 weeks for no reason at all.

It is nonsense.

PhoenixParker

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Don't forget that we are dealing here with the Irish Medical establishment, who could, ever since the X case judgement in 1992, have performed abortions here by falsely claiming the mothers life was at risk.

For some reason, they never did that, yet Bertie thinks they will falsely claim there is a threat of serious harm to flighty-headed young wans who feel like an abortion during their lunchbreak at 24 weeks for no reason at all.

It is nonsense.

In some cases they have refused to perform abortions when the mothers life was at risk from the constitionally allowed suicide risk, instead we have an account of extended delay and a baby being delivered by c-section and a separate account of teenager being committed for psychiatric treatment.

RobertKK

After conception:
Heartbeat at 24 days
Regular vascular system at 30 days
Skeleton is complete at 42 days
Brainwaves at 43 days


Allow to be killed at up to 84 days without restrictions.

That is what we are voting to allow or not allow.

RobertKK

RobertKK wrote: »

After conception:
Heartbeat at 24 days
Regular vascular system at 30 days
Skeleton is complete at 42 days
Brainwaves at 43 days


Allow to be killed at up to 84 days without restrictions.

That is what we are voting to allow or not allow.

There was a heartbeat when i was approx 7 or 8 weeks pregnant. With an eptopic pregnancy, that would have killed me, instead I had to undergo needless surgery because Of The 8th.
What's your point?

ProfessorPlum

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Where are the 24 weeks coming from? That link provided above says 12 weeks?

Scaremongering.

But at least he’s dropped his ‘we’ll have unrestricted abortion up to birth’ line.
Maybe with a few more reads of the policy document he might properly understand it.

bertieinexile wrote: »

The proposed Irish law provides an on request model up to 12 weeks.
As you say, the law in england, as written, doesn't provide an on request model at all.
But the law in england as interpreted and improperly used (the mental health exception) does amount to an on request model up to 24 weeks.
The proposed Irish law will provide the same opportunity for improper use without any time limit at all.
The only difficulty in comparing the proposed Irish regime with the regime in england is that under the Irish it will be even easier and more straightforward to request an abortion than it currently is in england. And, in practice, the law wouldn't provide any time limits.

ProfessorPlum

RobertKK wrote: »

After conception:
Heartbeat at 24 days
Regular vascular system at 30 days
Skeleton is complete at 42 days
Brainwaves at 43 days


Allow to be killed at up to 84 days without restrictions.

That is what we are voting to allow or not allow.

Seems Robert has also upped our proposed term limits to 14 weeks!
(Not that it would bother me tbh - it’s still a reasonable limit imo)

PhoenixParker

RobertKK wrote: »

After conception:
Heartbeat at 24 days
Regular vascular system at 30 days
Skeleton is complete at 42 days
Brainwaves at 43 days


Allow to be killed at up to 84 days without restrictions.

That is what we are voting to allow or not allow.

12 weeks pregnant isn’t 84 days after conception it’s between 60 and 70.

Hannibal_Smith

RobertKK wrote: »

After conception:
Heartbeat at 24 days
Regular vascular system at 30 days
Skeleton is complete at 42 days
Brainwaves at 43 days


Allow to be killed at up to 84 days without restrictions.

That is what we are voting to allow or not allow.

Freedom of choice for a woman to be allowed decide what should happen to her body, thats what I'll be voting for tbh. You vote for what you like.

nice_guy80

Oh look

Save the 8th campaign muddying the waters by constantly shifting the argument
12 weeks
Now 24 weeks

Same as their posters comparing us with the UK (btw they are everywhere)

Any sign of a few repeal posters?

BabysCoffee

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Freedom of choice for a woman to be allowed decide what should happen to her body, thats what I'll be voting for tbh. You vote for what you like.

I'd say there is plenty of people who feel like this too Hannibal

Including footballer Richard Sadlier.......

https://www.thesun.ie/news/2412879/richie-sadlier-referendum-on-the-eighth-amendment-is-about-handing-back-a-basic-human-right-to-women/

PhoenixParker

BabysCoffee wrote: »

I'd say there is plenty of people who feel like this too Hannibal

Including footballer Richard Sadlier.......

https://www.thesun.ie/news/2412879/richie-sadlier-referendum-on-the-eighth-amendment-is-about-handing-back-a-basic-human-right-to-women/

That's worth quoting in full. It's beautifully put.

Nobody ever told me I should do it, or even suggested I should do it, but a visit to the doctor wouldn’t be possible if someone stopped it from happening.

I never thought about how important it was until recently, but now I realise it’s fundamental to the success of every appointment.

When I go to the doctor, I close the door behind me before saying a word about why I’m there.

Nobody in the waiting room gets to listen in, nevermind join in. Nobody passing by the surgery gets to wander in and give their tuppence on whatever choices I must make. Nobody from the local school, church or pub get to be a part of the conversation.

When I go to the doctor, I close the door behind me because it’s private, it’s nobody’s business but mine.

I’ve never had to make that case to anyone about my own medical well-being, but people who expect others to respect their own privacy should do likewise themselves.

That’s the main reason why I’ll be voting yes to repeal the Eighth Amendment.

The upcoming referendum is about a lot of things to a lot of people. For me, it’s about handing back a basic human right to pregnant women in the Republic of Ireland.

It’s about giving them access to safe, legal abortion services if they need them. And it’s about staying out of their business after that.

I don’t have a list of scenarios that are acceptable to me for others to end a pregnancy, nor do I have any views on the circumstances of how a woman gets pregnant.

I don’t tie myself in knots trying to decide when life begins, and I don’t bring religion or faith into my thinking on this issue at all.

I certainly don’t think a woman should be forced to remain pregnant against her will, nor do I think she should have to leave the country for the medical treatment.

And quite apart from any of that, the reality which many people are reluctant to face is that Ireland has an abortion rate comparable with other countries in which it is legal.

The Eighth Amendment hasn’t prevented women accessing abortion services, it just puts their health at greater risk because it forces them to travel.

I’m sure some people will wonder why I’m getting involved in a campaign like this.

Maybe they’re thinking a former footballer should stay away from issues as contentious or as sensitive as this — stick to giving views about matches and the performance of referees and leave the more serious business to others.

Maybe some are thinking it’s not a man’s place to even have a view on this issue.

That’s how I feel about it too, which is why I’m voting yes to give women the choice.

It’s not a religious issue either. People will cast their vote for deeply personal reasons and I’m sure everyone honestly believes they have right on their side.

But many people are still undecided on how they’re going to vote, or whether they even should have a voice in this discussion at all.

If you’re one of those and you don’t have a firm opinion yet yourself, just hand the decision-making back to the person that’s pregnant.

dudara

That’s really nicely & simply articulated. Very rational. Well done to him

applehunter

He doesn't acknowledge the rights of the unborn once in the article.

dudara

He’s not trying to. He’s not making this emotional or contentious. He’s leaving it be a private matter, which I also believe it needs to be. This gives everyone the freedom to deal with it according to their own beliefs and emotions.

swampgas

applehunter wrote: »

He doesn't acknowledge the rights of the unborn once in the article.

Because the rights of the born are more important, perhaps?

The only way to give rights to the unborn is to take rights away from the born person in whose uterus the unborn is located.

volchitsa

applehunter wrote: »

He doesn't acknowledge the rights of the unborn once in the article.

Maybe that's nobody has actually explained why the unborn should ever take priority over the pregnant woman's human rights.

If you can make a convincing case for that, then the question of how to find a satisfactory compromise to allow that to happen.

But prolifers always seem to skip swiftly over that step with a bit of handwaving about fertilization or heartbeats or whatever.

PhoenixParker

applehunter wrote: »

He doesn't acknowledge the rights of the unborn once in the article.

The only right of the unborn that could be of relevance is a right to life

But there is good solid case history across the medical spectrum that says my right to my body trumps your right to life.

You may need a blood donation, I don't need a reason not to give blood. I may have caused the injury that means you need blood, doesn't matter.
You may need a kidney. I don't need a reason not to give my kidney.

While the fetus needs a uterus, why is a woman obliged to give hers?

Why should the rights of a fetus exceed those of a living human?

applehunter

PhoenixParker wrote: »

The only right of the unborn that could be of relevance is a right to life

But there is good solid case history across the medical spectrum that says my right to my body trumps your right to life.

You may need a blood donation, I don't need a reason not to give blood. I may have caused the injury that means you need blood, doesn't matter.
You may need a kidney. I don't need a reason not to give my kidney.

While the fetus needs a uterus, why is a woman obliged to give hers?

Why should the rights of a fetus exceed those of a living human?

Richie Sadlier doesn't address any of these points.

It's a complex issue with balancing rights.

He just says its a private decision.

I'd be shocked if anyone to do with Second Captains/Off the Ball were anything but for repeal. All the people on those shows think the same.

erica74

Over the past week LOADS of "1 in 5 pregnancies in the UK end in abortion" posters have gone up around Waterford. It makes me so angry, lying on their quest to deny women their right to choose.

applehunter

It is 1 in 5 AFAIK.

It's a shocking statistic.

Hannibal_Smith

erica74 wrote: »

Over the past week LOADS of "1 in 5 pregnancies in the UK end in abortion" posters have gone up around Waterford. It makes me so angry, lying on their quest to deny women their right to choose.

Same in Dublin...some of them with pictures of babies sleeping as the background pic. My son asked me why people wanted to kill babies. I obviously explained this was not what the referendum was about. Funny enough I managed to explain it to him in such a way that explained both sides. When he told me he agreed with how I see it, I said that was probably because I was his mum and for now he believes I'm right, but whatever way he viewed it was okay by me. It's all about choice at the end of the day.

applehunter

From a factcheck on thejournal.ie (another pro repeal media outlet)

http://www.thejournal.ie/yes-to-life-life-institute-8th-amendment-abortion-leaflet-facts-3058066-Nov2016/

reubenreuben

applehunter wrote: »

It is 1 in 5 AFAIK.

It's a shocking statistic.

#

This is Ireland not the UK.

Pointless posters