The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Zubeneschamali

January wrote: »

I don't think it's extreme in supporting parents in withdrawing life support of that's what the wish to do.

At 23 weeks, 4 out of 5 will die anyway. 30% of survivors will have major disability - blindness, cerebral palsy, severe mental issues.

I would not argue with parents who decide not to try it.

ProfessorPlum

bertieinexile wrote: »

Maybe this is just the very extreme end of the pro choice view.

Is there any other pro choice poster on here ready to agree that you shouldn't lose sleep over someone taking the life of that child hooked up to tubes in that incubator.

I am fascinated by what response we will have had by tomorrow afternoon.

It’s not an ‘extreme pro choice’ view. In fact it has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion, or this debate.

It’s the ‘standard medical practice’ view.
If you knew anything at all about the care of extremely preterm neonates you might understand why.
If you’d ever set foot inside a NICU and seen what the care of these babies entails you might understand why.

Timberrrrrrrr

bertieinexile wrote: »

For those joining us late...

I put up a video of a 23 week old premature baby.
https://youtu.be/2RQ8ks-UH0E?t=22s
I said he is now a healthy 3 year old. You can even look up the parents account on youtube and see video of him playing.

nozzferraahhtoo said that
I asked how much support there was for that view among the pro choice posters on here

And I am shocked that
ELM327 (thanked by captbarnacles), Poster ...., (thanked by erica74), Professor Plum, (thanked by baylah17, January, Madscientist30, SusieBlue) and January (thanked by baylah17, ProfessorPlum) have all said they agree.












nozzferrahhtoo was thanked for his original statement by
Call me Al, crustybla, DubInMeath, Fizzlesque, frag420, January, PopePalpatine, Simi, swampgas and Yeah_Right

So far January is the only one of those we have heard from (DubInMeath is away)

Maybe this is just the very extreme end of the pro choice view.

Is there any other pro choice poster on here ready to agree that you shouldn't lose sleep over someone taking the life of that child hooked up to tubes in that incubator.

I am fascinated by what response we will have had by tomorrow afternoon.

I have no problem with that

I do have a problem with you naming & attempting to shame posters for thanking nozzferrahhtoo's post though.

captbarnacles

He's shaming no-one but don't quote his nonsense because it gives it oxygen it doesn't deserve.

Hellrazer

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

It’s not an ‘extreme pro choice’ view. In fact it has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion, or this debate.

Exactly and using the issue of premmie babies to push a pro life agenda is ****ing disgraceful and is a typical pro life propaganda tactic.As is putting pictures of babies in incubators on posters.

It’s the ‘standard medical practice’ view.
If you knew anything at all about the care of extremely preterm neonates you might understand why.
If you’d ever set foot inside a NICU and seen what the care of these babies entails you might understand why.

Ive been there.My wifes waters broke at 22 weeks and managed to hold on until 28.Our daughter was born at 28 weeks and just 2lb.Shes now 20.

Guess what?We are still both pro choice and had we been told at 22 weeks there wasn't any hope we would probably have wished for a way to end the suffering that my wife went through for those extra 6 weeks.

Heres a post that I made a year ago in response to someone bringing premature babies into the argument.
I still stand by it today.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=103337536&postcount=980

Timberrrrrrrr

captbarnacles wrote: »

He's shaming no-one but don't quote his nonsense because it gives it oxygen it doesn't deserve.

Which is why I said attempting to shame:)

Reati

pleas advice wrote: »

ads are based on search / browsing history...

Not being smart but seen as I've little to no interest in the 8th amendment and this thread is the extent of my browsing history on the topic due to the fact it was top of trending when I saw the ad (and given I have do not track set and addins to block tracking) that's I doubt it's the case. I'd actually guess it's demographic targeting for my age profile, gender and IP location.

Still my point is valid. They have bought up a **** ton of impressions and that is not cheap on such a generic scale. It's interesting with all the talk of election interference these days to see who is funding and buying all those impressions. I'd beat a dime you'd see a few American interests buying them up.

NuMarvel

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Kinda shows the disparity in financing, from the get go, the No posters were up and all over the country the morning after their campaign went "live", whereas Repeal posters are still rare, and relies on crowdfunding.

It's been that way for years really. The anti-repeal side has always had the money for professionally designed flyers and posters, and in enough quantities to hand out to everyone at all their marches. The pro choice side on the other hand has always relied on marches and supporters doing their own posters, which is reflective of its grass roots origins.

This picture sums it up nicely, because something tells me the gentleman in the picture didn't make that sign at home.

circadian

The emotional manipulation and attempted guilt tripping from some in this thread is vile. It's completely dishonest and you're using others misery, hypothetical or not, to further your own agenda. I honestly find it hard that you actually care about those people you're using to try and pull heart strings.

No better than the pricks around the place with graphic images of aborted fetuses, wearing bodycams and provoking negative responses from people to use in their propaganda.

I sincerely hope the majority of people in this country are capable of critical thinking and can make a decision, either yes or no, without basing it on this horse****.

circadian

Reati wrote: »

Not being smart but seen as I've little to no interest in the 8th amendment and this thread is the extent of my browsing history on the topic due to the fact it was top of trending when I saw the ad (and given I have do not track set and addins to block tracking) that's I doubt it's the case. I'd actually guess it's demographic targeting for my age profile, gender and IP location.

Still my point is valid. They have bought up a **** ton of impressions and that is not cheap on such a generic scale. It's interesting with all the talk of election interference these days to see who is funding and buying all those impressions. I'd beat a dime you'd see a few American interests buying them up.

They've hire kan.to a company headed by a former Cambridge Analytica employee and all round right wing cockwomble.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-abortion-fake-news-firestorm-heading-our-way-1.3440927?mode=amp

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

circadian wrote: »

The emotional manipulation and attempted guilt tripping from some in this thread is vile. It's completely dishonest and you're using others misery, hypothetical or not, to further your own agenda. I honestly find it hard that you actually care about those people you're using to try and pull heart strings.

No better than the pricks around the place with graphic images of aborted fetuses, wearing bodycams and provoking negative responses from people to use in their propaganda.

I sincerely hope the majority of people in this country are capable of critical thinking and can make a decision, either yes or no, without basing it on this horse****.

Very important point for the next few weeks folks. If you're out and about and especially if you're wearing repeal gear, keep your shít together. Do not get provoked.

captbarnacles

One of the posters attempting the guilt tripping has quite a posting history on forums but I'm not glad I read them because now I feel ill.

That poster should not sit in moralistic judgement on anyone ever and it was crystal clear that there is no real concern for children, just for the Catholic Church to hold sway.

NiceyNice

Has anyone a link to the (I think) Joe.ie video which shows how the 8th amendment came to pass? Can't find it.

swampgas

bertieinexile wrote: »

[...]
I am fascinated by what response we will have had by tomorrow afternoon.

Speaking of responses ... you might provide one of your own, as you said you would, to this question by JDD:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106695485&postcount=3986

JDD wrote:

Bertieinexile, pleas advise, you’re both online, you might answer my question.

During my last pregnancy it was suspected I had placenta accretia (google it). Very luckily, in the end, I did not. However, I was informed that should I get pregnant again, I would have a 70% chance of it occurring.

Statistics on placenta accretia are hard to come by as it is historically a rare complication latterly on the rise. From my own research and from the discussions with my consultant I was told the condition has a 7% mortality rate, a 30% chance of permanent injury to my non-uterus internal organs and an 80% chance I would lose my uterus.

As a result I had a tubal ligation. But no contraceptive is a fail safe. What do YOU advise as my current course of action:

A. Refrain from having sex with my husband until go through the menopause;

B. Have sex with my husband but, should my contraception fail, accept that I would have a 1 in 20 chance of dying, and a 1 in 5 chance of suffering a serious life debititating injury should I bring the pregnancy to full term.

Bear in mind that I have three young children who would be left without a mother if the 1 in 20 chance came to pass.

Your beliefs mean my choice has to be A or B.

bertieinexile wrote:

I am looking forward to answering that JDD.
I want to do it justice.
I just don't seem to have as much time as a lot of people here for posting.

Soon as I can.

You seem to have no problem writing reams when it suits you, and you seem pretty articulate, will we have a reply from you by the end of the week?

bertieinexile

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You have been corrected on this several times but still continue to post it.

You are incorrect. Wrong. This is your unsubstantiated opinion, not fact.

If you continue to post this despite being corrected multiple times I will have to start reporting your posts to the mods for soapboxing.

thanked by amdublin, baylah17, blanch152, borderlinemeath, Eponymous, erica74, gmisk, Hannibal_Smith, Joeytheparrot, kylith, Martina1991, nozzferrahhtoo, pwwillia, Simi, Sofiztikated, swampgas, Timberrrrrrrr, Virgil°, WinnyThePoo, _Dara_
[/QUOTE]

We have had a discussion about the fact that a yes vote would lead to abortion on demand up to 24 weeks.
There has been plenty of lengthy back and forth about the reasons for that.

In anticipation of that discussion being forgotten about I collected the important points together in a post so there wouldn't be any need to go back over them again. We can just refer back.
To this post.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106660318&postcount=3481

tl;dr
The legislation outlined in the Scheme would be passed almost immediately.
The financial incentive for Marie Stopes and other clinics to come here would be irresistable.
Whatever legal argument could be made about the distinction between the uk's "risk of injury" and our proposed "threat of serious harm" to the mental health of the mother as grounds for abortion from 12 to 24 weeks
would be ignored by Marie Stopes, just as they currently ignore what the uk legisaltion says about mental health grounds.

Show me one post that refutes that argument in a way that I haven't answered.

A few have tried to counter this. While it is clear where they want to get to (being able to say the schedule strongly restricts abortions after 12 weeks) they have tried a number of different paths and none so far have been successful.

Objection on political grounds
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106618836&postcount=3036

Objection on legal wording grounds
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106630405&postcount=3257

Objection on grounds that Marie Stopes wouldn't have an interest in coming here
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106666305&postcount=3541

Objection on grounds that it wouldn't make financial sense for Marie Stopes to come here.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106686564&postcount=3753




The argument that won't go away - because it is the government's main argument that abortions after 12 weeks would be restricted - is that there is a big difference between our proposed language covering mental health grounds and what they have in the uk and that would be enough to ensure a more restrictive outcome here.
The uk has abortion on demand up to 12 weeks because the language talks of a "risk of injury" to the mental health of the mother, it is said.
We will have only very restricted access to abortion from 12 to 24 weeks because our language talks of a "threat of serious harm" to the mental health of the mother. The government says.
(And no attempt to address the fact that it will be Marie Stopes interpreting this language and deciding what constitutes a threat of serious harm.)

It has also been claimed on here that doctors would take that difference in language so seriously, and know exactly what that distinction came down to in practice, that abortion here from 12 to 24 weeks would be very restrictive.

With language like that you certainly wouldn't get abortion on demand. No way. Not with that kind of language. "Serious Harm". It's that language that ensures there's nothing to worry about.

If you think about it, Harris and his advisers wouldn't have come up with this language out of the blue.
Surely, if we look, there must be some other country out there which has tried this kind of language before.
Somewhere we could get to see how it worked out.
And yes there is! ...Australia .
I'll see your "threat of serious harm" to the mental health of the mother and I'll raise you a threat of "a serious DANGER" to the mental health of the mother. How's that for restrictive?
And so now we have a chance to see if this language works!
Does it severely restrict the number of abortions that can be carried out.
Does it? Does it?!!!
Does it F**k!
In Australia, when almost every abortion was carried out on this legal ground of serious danger to the mental health of the mother, they had abortion rates among the highest in the developed world.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28294293

---

Australian abortion laws vary by state. In Victoria and Queensland between 1969 and 2008 almost all abortions were carried out on the grounds described above following the Menhennitt ruling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Davidson
Australian abortion statistics are much less reliable than in the UK. It might be argued that the true rate in those states was closer to the UKs 20% rather than being among the highest rates in the developed world. But the reality is unavoidable.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/australia/ab-aust-vic.html
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/australia/ab-aust-qld.html




fruitcake, could you please show this post to your husband who's worried about the law allowing abortions beyond 12 weeks. As erica47 says let's "contribute to the education of people who may not be fully informed on the topic and the FACTS around abortion". I'd really love to know what he thinks.

Haven't forgotten, JDD.

amdublin

Misael Echoing Horse wrote: »

Very important point for the next few weeks folks. If you're out and about and especially if you're wearing repeal gear, keep your shít together. Do not get provoked.

Agree completely.

Plus online.
Here on boards. On Facebook. On Twitter (especially Twitter!)

Don't get provoked. Don't engage with the provokers.

We've waited 35 years for this, stay focussed, stay calm.

Trust women
Repeal the 8th

BabysCoffee

NiceyNice wrote: »

Has anyone a link to the (I think) Joe.ie video which shows how the 8th amendment came to pass? Can't find it.

No video but is it this article you are referring to? https://www.joe.ie/life-style/story-of-the-8th-how-right-wing-catholic-groups-staged-a-remarkable-political-coup-614595?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=onsite_share

KaneToad

circadian wrote: »

They've hire kan.to a company headed by a former Cambridge Analytica employee and all round right wing cockwomble.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-abortion-fake-news-firestorm-heading-our-way-1.3440927?mode=amp

I don't get it?? Why shouldn't they hire whoever they think will advance their cause?

baylah17

bertieinexile wrote: »

....... wrote: »

bertieinexile wrote:

But right now we have a yes no referendum on abortion on demand up to 24 weeks.

You have been corrected on this several times but still continue to post it.

You are incorrect. Wrong. This is your unsubstantiated opinion, not fact.

If you continue to post this despite being corrected multiple times I will have to start reporting your posts to the mods for soapboxing.

thanked by amdublin, baylah17, blanch152, borderlinemeath, Eponymous, erica74, gmisk, Hannibal_Smith, Joeytheparrot, kylith, Martina1991, nozzferrahhtoo, pwwillia, Simi, Sofiztikated, swampgas, Timberrrrrrrr, Virgil°, WinnyThePoo, _Dara_

We have had a discussion about the fact that a yes vote would lead to abortion on demand up to 24 weeks.
There has been plenty of lengthy back and forth about the reasons for that.

In anticipation of that discussion being forgotten about I collected the important points together in a post so there wouldn't be any need to go back over them again. We can just refer back.
To this post.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106660318&postcount=3481

tl;dr
The legislation outlined in the Scheme would be passed almost immediately.
The financial incentive for Marie Stopes and other clinics to come here would be irresistable.
Whatever legal argument could be made about the distinction between the uk's "risk of injury" and our proposed "threat of serious harm" to the mental health of the mother as grounds for abortion from 12 to 24 weeks
would be ignored by Marie Stopes, just as they currently ignore what the uk legisaltion says about mental health grounds.

Show me one post that refutes that argument in a way that I haven't answered.

A few have tried to counter this. While it is clear where they want to get to (being able to say the schedule strongly restricts abortions after 12 weeks) they have tried a number of different paths and none so far have been successful.

Objection on political grounds
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106618836&postcount=3036

Objection on legal wording grounds
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106630405&postcount=3257

Objection on grounds that Marie Stopes wouldn't have an interest in coming here
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106666305&postcount=3541

Objection on grounds that it wouldn't make financial sense for Marie Stopes to come here.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106686564&postcount=3753




The argument that won't go away - because it is the government's main argument that abortions after 12 weeks would be restricted - is that there is a big difference between our proposed language covering mental health grounds and what they have in the uk and that would be enough to ensure a more restrictive outcome here.
The uk has abortion on demand up to 12 weeks because the language talks of a "risk of injury" to the mental health of the mother, it is said.
We will have only very restricted access to abortion from 12 to 24 weeks because our language talks of a "threat of serious harm" to the mental health of the mother. The government says.
(And no attempt to address the fact that it will be Marie Stopes interpreting this language and deciding what constitutes a threat of serious harm.)

It has also been claimed on here that doctors would take that difference in language so seriously, and know exactly what that distinction came down to in practice, that abortion here from 12 to 24 weeks would be very restrictive.

With language like that you certainly wouldn't get abortion on demand. No way. Not with that kind of language. "Serious Harm". It's that language that ensures there's nothing to worry about.

If you think about it, Harris and his advisers wouldn't have come up with this language out of the blue.
Surely, if we look, there must be some other country out there which has tried this kind of language before.
Somewhere we could get to see how it worked out.
And yes there is! ...Australia .
I'll see your "threat of serious harm" to the mental health of the mother and I'll raise you a threat of "a serious DANGER" to the mental health of the mother. How's that for restrictive?
And so now we have a chance to see if this language works!
Does it severely restrict the number of abortions that can be carried out.
Does it? Does it?!!!
Does it F**k!
In Australia, when almost every abortion was carried out on this legal ground of serious danger to the mental health of the mother, they had abortion rates among the highest in the developed world.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28294293

---

Australian abortion laws vary by state. In Victoria and Queensland between 1969 and 2008 almost all abortions were carried out on the grounds described above following the Menhennitt ruling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Davidson
Australian abortion statistics are much less reliable than in the UK. It might be argued that the true rate in those states was closer to the UKs 20% rather than being among the highest rates in the developed world. But the reality is unavoidable.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/australia/ab-aust-vic.html
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/australia/ab-aust-qld.html




fruitcake, could you please show this post to your husband who's worried about the law allowing abortions beyond 12 weeks. As erica47 says let's "contribute to the education of people who may not be fully informed on the topic and the FACTS around abortion". I'd really love to know what he thinks.

Haven't forgotten, JDD.

More lies misrepresentations reflections and claptrap brought to you by #vote no # womencannotbetrusted

The broken record keeps playing the same scratchy tune lol

REPEAL THE 8th
Trust women

thee glitz

pleas advice wrote: »

ads are based on search / browsing history...

Potentially anything you do online, or that anyone you're 'connected' to does.

frag420 wrote: »

You actually counted people’s thanks...really?

Get a life or get laid but do something other than geeking about on people’s posts!

I'm not sure who's counting thanks here, but developing a way to scale it would be good practice. Lots of people make a tidy living from extracting and aggregating information from online sources, leaving plenty of time to also have a life and get laid.

Ave Sodalis

thee glitz wrote: »

I'm not sure who's counting thanks here

Eh...

thee glitz wrote: »

One poster had 18 comments in this thread alone one day.

Edit to add, I know you say comments and it's Bertie who's counting thanks but it's still eyebrow raising

crustybla

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I have no problem with that

I do have a problem with you naming & attempting to shame posters for thanking nozzferrahhtoo's post though.

I'm glad he/she noticed I thanked Nozz's post. I saw the quote only because Nozz is not on my ignore list. A lot of posts here are intelligent and informative whilst others...ignore button.

Trasna1

There is a bit of back and forth here about 24 weeks. I understood the proposal was for 12 weeks and no reason would have to be given i.e. "on demand" forgive the use of the phrase.

Where is 24 weeks coming from? The legislation?

In any case, what is in the legislation I would have thought is almost irrelevant since that is not what the vote is about

circadian

KaneToad wrote: »

I don't get it?? Why shouldn't they hire whoever they think will advance their cause?

I agree but if I was paying someone to advance my cause, I'd like to know how they're doing it.

Pushing graphic images into the public space on the internet without request and most likely running a social media campaign based on false or misleading information would be a red flag for me, personally.

I would want an honest and up front campaign for my cause. I wonder if the Save the 8th campaign are aware that it could very much be run like Brexit/Trump and other campaigns filled with lies, misrepresentation and fear mongering.

gctest50

thee glitz wrote: »

I'm not at all - there's a similar thread here somewhere where I've at least 120 posts. I don't think anyone's got that many here yet, not far off though.

If you're interested in more than a handful of users (and I'm not specifically interested in any), it's quicker to automate it.

As I hinted at, I'm currently studying analytics.

And in a thread titled "The 8th Amendment Part 2"

and being on the "Pro-Life" side


you couldn't work out what was meant by PLC ?

hmmm

thee glitz wrote: »

........

What hasn't been debunked is the PLC side insisting that we don't need to repeal as the health care and assistance that these women receive is fine as long as another child is brought into the world.

What's PLC if not a college course? We can probably do better than the 8th but who's got the palatable solution?

_Dara_

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Edit to add, I know you say comments and it's Bertie who's counting thanks but it's still eyebrow raising

This is setting off alarm bells. Someone who was banned from the thread was also preoccupied with the amount of thanks posts received. Curiouser and curiouser.

NiceyNice

Thanks a mill. That will more than do. They made a video too but this is great.

BabysCoffee wrote: »

No video but is it this article you are referring to? https://www.joe.ie/life-style/story-of-the-8th-how-right-wing-catholic-groups-staged-a-remarkable-political-coup-614595?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=onsite_share

mohawk

For the Repeal side it is so important to get women's stories out there. The In Her Shoes Facebook page has been excellent but does it reach enough people? Some of the stories are really hard to read.

For anyone undecided or unsure go read the stories. These are are sisters, daughters, mothers, friends, coworkers. We know these women.

Trasna1

circadian wrote: »

I agree but if I was paying someone to advance my cause, I'd like to know how they're doing it.

Pushing graphic images into the public space on the internet without request and most likely running a social media campaign based on false or misleading information would be a red flag for me, personally.

I would want an honest and up front campaign for my cause. I wonder if the Save the 8th campaign are aware that it could very much be run like Brexit/Trump and other campaigns filled with lies, misrepresentation and fear mongering.

To be quite honest both campaigns are being run in a "win at all costs" way. Both sides are recruiting overseas voters of questionable eligibility to come back. Both sides have substantial funding from outside the state, PL are scaremongering on what will be let happen and PC are countering with what is in the legislation, but we're not voting on that. And most annoyingly both sides are exceptionally adept at shouting down the other.

I don't think it's fair for one side to take a "holier than thou" attitude when it comes to behaviour of either campaign so far. They both stink.

Ave Sodalis

Trasna1 wrote: »

There is a bit of back and forth here about 24 weeks. I understood the proposal was for 12 weeks and no reason would have to be given i.e. "on demand" forgive the use of the phrase.

Where is 24 weeks coming from? The legislation?

In any case, what is in the legislation I would have thought is almost irrelevant since that is not what the vote is about

The 24 weeks is coming from absolutely nowhere except Bertie trying to muddy the waters. It hasn't been suggested anywhere except in his posts, which for some reason, he's presenting as fact.

The legislation is pretty much irrelevant to the referendum