The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

captbarnacles

swampgas wrote: »

If Savita Halappanavar hadn't been affected by the 8th the statistics would look even better. Whatever the stats are right now, repealing the 8th can only make them better.


If an abortion has the same moral value anywhere, and abortion is already de facto legal for elective abortions for those with the means to travel, then surely there is no value to restricting where those abortions occur?

If an abortion is going to happen anyway, why do you care where it occurs?

Surely, from a moral perspective, your energy would be better spent campaigning for the UK to ban abortion again?

After the referendum is passed I am fully confident Prolifers will try and stop Irish women using Englands system instead of our more restrictive system.

That or they will forget about it and we will hear no more protests from them about abortion ever. Who knows?

England and Wales stats for anyone who hasn't read them

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/679028/Abortions_stats_England_Wales_2016.pdf

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

robarmstrong

bertieinexile wrote: »

Again it hasn't been unanimously agreed that it's 12 weeks.
I have laid out the argument here that what we are voting on is abortion on demand up to 24 weeks.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106660318
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106698935

And here are some links to posts presenting counterarguments to that, which the poster hasn't eventually given up on.





If you want to deny that we are voting on abortion on demand up to 24 weeks please add something to that list.
All we need is a link to a post where this killer counterargument was made.

It seems fair to say that, in the end, the entire pro choice claim that Harris's schedule doesn't allow abortion on demand up to 24 weeks comes down to language.
The uk, where they have abortion on demand on "mental health" grounds, speaks of risk of injury
Our proposed laws talk of threat of serious harm.

1 Marie Stopes clinics, who don't give a toss what the law in england says, will be responsible for interpreting that difference
2 In Australia, states where the wording was the even more extreme "threat of serious danger" - and where almost all abortions were caried out on this ground - had abortion rates among the highest in the developed world.

Thanks robarmstrong for the opportunity your post gave me to put this up again.

I'm going to ask this very, very simply.

Have you got any facts, or proof, or evidence to back up your claim that there will be abortion on demand up to 24 weeks pending the repealing of the 8th amendment? Let me remind you that the Oireachtas has a written proposal of unrestricted abortion of up to 12 weeks, can you back up your claim with any facts?

Nettle Soup

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I know some SSM opponents that lied and told people they voted Yes after they saw the result and the general happiness.

bertieinexile

DubInMeath wrote: »

No abortion on demand up to 24 weeks, you've said this multiple times and you've been shown to be lying each time.

As said previously and you quoted the following article as support for this opinion, but no where in the article does it state this

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

Your just repeating your false statement at this point

This is bizarre. Maybe its just getting a bit late.

Another poster asked why I had originally said that, theoretically at least, the earliest government proposals would have allowed abortion on demand on mental health grounds up to term.

I posted the link above which says that it was only at a later date (and after I had made that claim) that the government restricted the mental health grounds so they would just apply up to viability ~ 24 weeks.

The rest of the article deals almost exclusively with how the law would apply to the third trimester - after 24 weeks/viability.

It might be time for at least one of us to go to bed

ohnonotgmail

bertieinexile wrote: »

This is bizarre. Maybe its just getting a bit late.

Another poster asked why I had originally said that, theoretically at least, the earliest government proposals would have allowed abortion on demand on mental health grounds up to term.

I posted the link above which says that it was only at a later date (and after I had made that claim) that the government restricted the mental health grounds so they would just apply up to viability ~ 24 weeks.

The rest of the article deals almost exclusively with how the law would apply to the third trimester - after 24 weeks/viability.

It might be time for at least one of us to go to bed

your memory is very selective. you repeated ad nauseum that the proposed legislation would allow abortion on demand up to 24 weeks.

robarmstrong

bertieinexile wrote: »

This is bizarre. Maybe its just getting a bit late.

Another poster asked why I had originally said that, theoretically at least, the earliest government proposals would have allowed abortion on demand on mental health grounds up to term.

I posted the link above which says that it was only at a later date (and after I had made that claim) that the government restricted the mental health grounds so they would just apply up to viability ~ 24 weeks.

The rest of the article deals almost exclusively with how the law would apply to the third trimester - after 24 weeks/viability.

It might be time for at least one of us to go to bed

Did you even read some of the articles you've linked?

Head 7: Early pregnancy (12 weeks)
7. (1) It shall be lawful to carry out a termination of pregnancy in accordance with this Head
where a medical practitioner certifies, that in his or her reasonable opinion formed in good
faith, the pregnancy concerned has not exceeded 12 weeks of pregnancy.
(2) It shall be necessary for 72 hours to elapse between the time of the certification referred to
in subhead (1) and the termination of pregnancy being carried out.
(3) The medical practitioner referred to in subhead (1) shall make such arrangements as he or
she shall deem to be necessary for the carrying out of the termination of pregnancy as soon as
may be after the period referred to in subhead (2) has elapsed but before the pregnancy has
exceeded 12 weeks of pregnancy.
(4) For the purposes of this Head, ―12 weeks of pregnancy‖ shall be construed in
accordance with the medical principle that pregnancy is dated from the first day of a
woman’s last menstrual period.

Absolutely no mention whatsoever here of anything after 12 weeks, in fact it seems to me that it's pretty much set in stone that bar exceptional circumstances no abortion happens after 12 weeks.

(2) Where the review committee has completed its review of the relevant decision and is
satisfied that in its reasonable opinion formed in good faith—
(a) (i) there is a risk to the life of, or of serious harm to the health of, the pregnant
woman,
(ii) the foetus has not reached viability, and
(iii) it is appropriate to carry out the termination of pregnancy referred to in Head
4(1) in order to avert that risk, or
(b) there is present a condition affecting the foetus that is likely to lead to the death of
the foetus either before birth or shortly after birth

Nothing mentioning this "up to 24 week abortion" nonsense you're spouting out.

Viability is still a debatable topic however, as there have been babies born at 21 weeks, so......

Maybe go to bed there like a good lad bertie, I can't keep proving you wrong all night son.

bertieinexile

robarmstrong wrote: »

I'm going to ask this very, very simply.

Have you got any facts, or proof, or evidence to back up your claim that there will be abortion on demand up to 24 weeks pending the repealing of the 8th amendment? Let me remind you that the Oireachtas has a written proposal of unrestricted abortion of up to 12 weeks, can you back up your claim with any facts?

I'm going to answer very simply. We had a fairly long debate about this while you were away (and I for one missed having you around) and the argument you are looking for is summarised in the first link in the post you are responding to.

Here it is again
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106660318

Here is where attempted counterarguments were dealt with
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106698935

Good to have you back rob

ohnonotgmail

bertieinexile wrote: »

I'm going to answer very simply. We had a fairly long debate about this while you were away (and I for one missed having you around) and the argument you are looking for is summarised in the first link in the post you are responding to.

Here it is again
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106660318

Here is where attempted counterarguments were dealt with
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106698935

Good to have you back rob

so you are still repeating your same ****e based on a poor understanding of basic english?

BTW did you ever get around to answering JDDs question?

bertieinexile

bertieinexile wrote: »

This is bizarre. Maybe its just getting a bit late.

Another poster asked why I had originally said that, theoretically at least, the earliest government proposals would have allowed abortion on demand on mental health grounds up to term.

I posted the link above which says that it was only at a later date (and after I had made that claim) that the government restricted the mental health grounds so they would just apply up to viability ~ 24 weeks.

The rest of the article deals almost exclusively with how the law would apply to the third trimester - after 24 weeks/viability.

It might be time for at least one of us to go to bed

And again no where does it state that there will be abortion on demand up to 24 weeks.

bertieinexile

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

your memory is very selective. you repeated ad nauseum that the proposed legislation would allow abortion on demand up to 24 weeks.

Aw for the love of god.
1 Early post by me "proposed legislation would allow abortion on demand up to term"
2 Government changes position to restrict mental grounds to "only up to viability~24 weeks"
3 Later posts by me (and yes, ad nauseum) "proposed legislation would allow abortion on demand up to 24 weeks"

Bedtime guys!

horseburger

amdublin wrote: »

Did we watch the same video??

From the 16m mark you've Maria Steen with a very raised voice.

Brid Smith does not make a personal remark.
She states a fact about Maria Steen behaviour on the show:
- In the midst of 16m-18m approx Maria Steen admonishes vincent.
- At the end of this Brid states "she is trying to tell you how to run -your show vincent".

Kate O Connell does not join in because that's how debates should be. Have you ever heard of one voice at one time.

It is my opinion you have misrepresented what was in this video.

My initial thought was that I won't be watching any more videos you post.
But maybe I will and will fact check it against the comments you post about it.

At the 13 minute mark in the discussion, Bríd Smith was sneering at what Caroline Simons stated, in her answer to Vincent Browne and at the 15 minute mark she sneered at Maria Steen's quite reasonable question asking if Bríd Smith and Kate O'Connell consider that what is growing in the womb is human being.

I thought Maria Steen's point at the 20 minute mark was a fair point, that with reference to her daughter, that what is growing in the womb is a separate life "from the first moment of her being".

Brid Smith avoided the question Maria Steen asked as to why it is ok for someone to choose to end the life of another person.

This issue, of whether it is right - that one human can decide that another human in the womb ends - was discussed with regard to the general question about abortion, and not with regard to abortion in certain circumstances, for example when a fatal foetal abnormality / life limiting condition is diagnosed, or when the life of the mother is at risk.

Maria Steen made the argument at the 16 minute mark, with reference to intervening when a pregnant woman's life is at risk, that the Eight Amendment "takes a moderate approach. What is says is not that you may never intervene, if for instance there is a serious risk to the life of the mother, such that the baby and the mother will die, then intervention is allowed". She added that "that is very different from directly and intentionally taking aim, if you like, at the child, so as to kill that child, as opposed to trying to save the mother's life and if as a consequence the baby dies, then nobody is going to blame that doctor".

Later on in the discussion - at the 30 minute mark in the video, Bríd Smith claimed that Maria Steen, and others who advocate against abortion, do not take an interest in resolving other societal issues, for example homelessness and inequality. Maria Steen responded to that later in the debate, at the 36 minute mark in the video.

Interestingly Kate O'Connell intervened to defend Bríd Smith in this particular section, but not earlier, when Bríd Smith made a very poor argument, when Bríd Smith stated that what's in the womb, only becomes human, when it is born.

Kate O'Connell could have intervened to back Bríd Smith up, at this particular section of the debate on the question of the humanity of the entity being aborted, because they are in agreement on the question to repeal the Eight Amendment, but I guess because they are political adversaries on most other issues, she didn't mind Bríd Smith coming across poor, in her reply.

If I wanted to misrepresent what was debated in the video, I wouldn't have included a link to the full video. If I wanted to misrepresent the discussion, I wouldn't have included the link to the youtube video at all.

Here it is on the TV3 Player. It was broadcast on 6th July 2017:

https://www.tv3.ie/3player/show/41/128607/0/Tonight-with-Vincent-Browne

robarmstrong

bertieinexile wrote: »

I'm going to answer very simply. We had a fairly long debate about this while you were away (and I for one missed having you around) and the argument you are looking for is summarised in the first link in the post you are responding to.

Here it is again
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106660318

Here is where attempted counterarguments were dealt with
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106698935

Good to have you back rob

"attempted counterarguments were dealt with"

Hold on there son, your opinion isn't fact. What's written in the proposal you're happy to keep sharing a link to (which I'm not even sure if you've actually read it or not) does not support your claims of "abortion on demand up to 24 weeks".

You've been telling porky pies left right and centre and passing off your opinion is fact and bertie, that's very, very bold.

Tell me exactly where in any Government proposals regarding the repealing of the 8th there is mentions of unrestricted abortion of up to 24 weeks, and I'll tell you exactly where, why and how you are so utterly, utterly wrong.

I'm more than happy to sit here and dissect your entire argument piece by piece but unfortunately you don't seem to have one.

captbarnacles

bertieinexile wrote: »

<wa

He asked for some facts? all you have linked to is your opinion of what will happen?

pleas advice

robarmstrong wrote: »

Tell me exactly where in any Government proposals regarding the repealing of the 8th there is mentions of unrestricted abortion of up to 24 weeks,

were there any in the UK proposals in '67?

robarmstrong

pleas advice wrote: »

were there any in the UK proposals in '67?

Are we in the UK?

Fred Swanson

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Unfortunately some keep coming back

Joe McCarroll on the SSM

https://brandsmareview.wordpress.com/2015/08/05/issue-137-march-april-2014/

ohnonotgmail

pleas advice wrote: »

were there any in the UK proposals in '67?

Did you just completely make up the post you pretended to quote?

captbarnacles

DubInMeath wrote: »

Unfortunately some keep coming back

Joe McCarroll on the SSM

https://brandsmareview.wordpress.com/2015/08/05/issue-137-march-april-2014/

I made it two paragraphs. Cliff notes?

bertieinexile

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you are still repeating your same ****e based on a poor understanding of basic english?

BTW did you ever get around to answering JDDs question?

I did
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106723447&postcount=4799

Love to hear what you think.

robarmstrong

captbarnacles wrote: »

I made it two paragraphs. Cliff notes?

Angry homophobic individual with a doctorate still mad that them meddlin' gays are allowed to marry!

ohnonotgmail

bertieinexile wrote: »

I did
https://www./vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106723447&postcount=4799

Love to hear what you think.

jeez that took a long time to say absolutely nothing of substance.

Ave Sodalis

pleas advice wrote: »

were there any in the UK proposals in '67?

Are you aware that if you press the little arrow beside the name of the quoted person, it'll take you to that post?

pleas advice

just to throw in a curveball that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere yet, would a diagnosis of a serious disability in the fetus, but not fatal, qualify as being capable of causing 'serious harm to the (mental) health of the pregnant woman' if the pregnancy was brought to term?

robarmstrong

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Are you aware that if you press the little arrow beside the name of the quoted person, it'll take you to that post?

To be fair I've often done that myself, I'm assuming it was just an error on pleas advice's part which I'm sure he/she will rectify.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

mohawk

When I read the opinions of the Pro-Lifers it makes me wonder if they place any value on parenting.

Becoming a parent is a big responsibly and should not be entered into lightly. When you have an unplanned pregnancy you have to be very honest with yourself and really examine yourself and your life to determine if you are capable of being a parent. My own mother had me when she was too young to cope back in the 80's. She resents me as she feels she would of had a better life if she didn't have me. She was not ready to become a mother and I paid the price. I am not unique in this I have friends whose mothers feel the same towards them.

I was only out of college a few years when I became pregnant with my son. Not ye established properly career wise or financially. I thought through all my options and decided that yes even though it would be tough that I would continue with the pregnancy. It is tough.....money is a constant worry. If I had remained child free I would probably have my own house by now, go on holiday every year. It was my choice to become a mother and I wouldn't change it for the world.

robarmstrong

pleas advice wrote: »

just to throw in a curveball that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere yet, would a diagnosis of a serious disability in the fetus, but not fatal, qualify as being capable of causing 'serious harm to the (mental) health of the pregnant woman' if the pregnancy was brought to term?

That's actually a good question, to be brutally honest it would all depend on the doctor's opinion and judgement.

Me personally? I would imagine yes, it would but as I'm not a medical professional I wouldn't be suitably qualified to answer that question.

I'd highly recommend you ask that question to the doctors for choice twitter, though.

Ave Sodalis

robarmstrong wrote: »

To be fair I've often done that myself, I'm assuming it was just an error on pleas advice's part which I'm sure he/she will rectify.

Out of genuine curiosity, how does that happen? You'd have to copy text, delete the text that's there and then put the text you copied into the quote boxes... from what I can see