The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

horseburger

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The gays are in my face again!

Could you think of a slogan or a euphemism so that I might interpret, whatever it is you are actually saying?

Annasopra

applehunter wrote: »

Do you trust politicians?

Put that to a poll.

:pac:

Its kind of ironic that Pro life is building this mantra. They did the opposite in 1983; they exploited the publics trust in 1983 and they are trying to exploit thebpiblis non trust now.

Annasopra

horseburger wrote: »

Clare Daly has stated the following to The Journal

"My views on abortion are well-known so, yes we should change our laws to provide access to safe legal abortion in Ireland as part of the health service in order to protect women’s health and be human rights compliant."

http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-committee-members-3591836-Sep2017/

People Before Profit advocate an unrestrctive policy on abortion.

PBP includes Richard Boyd Barrett, Gino Kenny, BrSmith.

The People Before Profit position is stated as follows:

"supports a woman’s right to make her own decisions regarding reproduction, including the right to free, safe, and legal abortion"

https://richardboydbarrett.ie/policies/abortion-policy/

Below is a link to some advice from PBP for canvassers advocating repeal.

I don't like the way it suggests that people who might vote no in this referendum - or at the very least have concerns about the fundamental issue of abortion - might have been the same people who voted no in the 2015 marriage referendum.

I don't much like the way it makes the abortion question a religious issue:

"Either we will continue on the course set by the Marriage Equality referendum towards a freer, more enlightened and more equal society or we will take a major step backwards towards the dark ages of repression, abuse and religious bigotry from which we have only recently emerged".

I don't like the way it somewhat dismisses a concern I have on this referendum, about trusting politicians to legislate on this issue.

"It fits perfectly with what needs to be another key theme in the campaign , the need to ‘Trust Women’. The anti-choicer campaign will try to play the populist ‘dont leave it to the politicians’. They will say you can’t trust the politicians and this will have a resonance with a number of working class people. We have to counter with ‘We are NOT saying trust the politicians, we are saying “trust women”, it must be the woman’s choice".

http://www.pbp.ie/how-to-win-on-25-may/

I have a concern on that issue with regard to how public representatives very often vote on legislation, with regard to the survival of their own political career, rather than the issue they are voting on.

As an example the the then Fine Gael TD Michelle Mulherin, now Fine Gael Senator, voting in 2013 on the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill, to avoid being "booted out of the party, my party".

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/takes/dail2013071000041#N6

Did Michelle Mulherin vote to abolish the Seanad? If so, it is not hypocritical to now occupy a Seanad seat, if she campaigned to abolish the room in which that seat is located?

Even is you dislike Lucinda Creighton's politics and viewpoints, it is interesting to consider, that Lucinda Creighton would very likely be a government Minister now, if she had voted as per the government line in 2013.

Michelle Mulherin didn't approve of the 2013 Protection of Lie During Pregnancy Bill, but voted for it to retain her position and profile in Fine Gael.

I have mentioned Aodhan O'Riordain a few times with regard to his attitude that he thought the Seanad wasn't worthy of his presence.

How could anyone trust Regina Doherty to vote on any issue like this, when she is saying something now, that is the opposite of what she said in 2014, when she pretty much stated 'if women don't want to get pregnant they have contraceptives available to them'.

What didn't she know, in 2014, about abortion statistics and numbers of women travelling abroad for abortions, that she only recently became aware of?

I could well imagine that any voter who isn't sure what way to vote on 25th May - because of concerns about abortion while at the same time understanding the perspectives of those who call for abortion - wouldn't have made flippant comments like that, at any stage over the last 35 years since the 1983 referendum.

Yet she claimed recently that she was ignorant on this issue in 2014.

This item in The Irish Times from 2014, written by Mary Minihane, makes reference to an interview Regina Doherty did with Michael Reade on LMFM:

The item includes the following lines.

"Ms Doherty said she also disagreed with the pro-choice view that women in Ireland did not have determination over their own bodies".

“I genuinely and firmly believe that women already have the determination over their own bodies and that’s called contraceptives, so make the decisions before you find yourself in a position where you’re using an abortion as a form of a contraceptive afterwards.”".

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fine-gael-td-backs-colleague-s-call-for-abortion-referendum-1.1912286


She stated recently that her 2014 views were born out of "ignorance"

The February 2018 Irish Times item below states:

"Regina Doherty says her previous opposition to legalisation of abortion was ‘born out of ignorance’"

This is despite her stating in 2014, that she "genuinely and firmly" believed what she said.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/repeal-campaigners-will-not-accept-a-no-vote-says-minister-1.3430112

Solidarity (Socialist Party) includes Mick Barry, Ruth Coppinger and Paul Murphy. They argue for abortion in less restrictive circumstances than just for up to 12 weeks.

It's campaigns on changing abortion laws in Ireland is detailed here:

http://socialistparty.ie/2018/03/international-womens-day-2018-fight-abortion-rights-ireland/

In this item below, Ruth Coppinger states:

"We’d have to say the recommendations are historic, if you consider only four years ago the same parties voted for criminal sanctions against people having abortions. The hope was the D Committee would water down the unexpected recommendations of the Assembly. This was the media commentary at the time. And it did row back on later term abortions, which is a cop-out. But the 12 weeks on request is hugely significant and would cater for 92% of abortions. I think the pressure of events forced the Committee members to deal with the reality of abortion for the first time. There was nowhere left to hide"

http://socialistparty.ie/2018/01/socialist-pro-choice-td-speaks-interview-ruth-coppinger/

None of them argued for no restrictions!!!

pitifulgod

applehunter wrote: »

Do you trust politicians?

Put that to a poll.

:pac:

Here's another one, do you think the constitution is the place for legislation? To date, we've been given plenty of evidence that it is not. Literally endangered lives.

Annasopra

pitifulgod wrote: »

Here's another one, do you think the constitution is the place for legislation? To date, we've been given plenty of evidence that it is not. Literally endangered lives.

No. Of course it isnt.

nice_guy80

I trust politicians because we actually elect them every few years.
Outside of a few headcases they seem to represent the general population fairly well - slow to make decisions, they like spending money, like the sound of their own voices.

If there is a huge groundswell of opinion against abortion in the future, then the public will make legislating to stop abortions as a big election issue.

so in the future it could actually be voted off the statute books again.

Politicians - a great bunch of lads

NuMarvel

applehunter wrote: »

Do you trust politicians?

Put that to a poll.

:pac:

I absolutely trust politicians not to change abortion laws willy nilly. That's the experience internationally, and that's definitely our experience here.

But if you don't trust our legislators with abortion laws, who do you trust? Not judges or the courts I'm presuming; we only have the 8th because we were told they might find a constitutional right to abortion (which they did, but only because of the 8th). Not women or their doctors either I'd guess, based on opposition to the 2013 legislation, when we were told we women just had to "threaten" suicide and they'd be able to get an abortion up to birth.

So who is it we can trust? What body or institution of the state can we point to and say they're the ones we can trust to make the right decisions on this matter?

horseburger

bertieinexile wrote: »

Delighted to have a chance to post a pared down version of the argument that what is proposed is abortion on demand up to 24 weeks. It gives me a chance to incorporate the argument about the legal language in Australia. But most of all we are going to get the critical faculties of robarmstrong applied to the issue.



POLITICAL SITUATION

In the event of a Yes vote the proposed legislation outlined in the published General Scheme
http://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/General-Scheme-for-Publication.pdf
would be passed.

How do we know?
The Irish Times has very helpfully determined, as far as it could, how each TD would vote on abortion on demand up to 12 weeks.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/referendum-tracker

A Dail majority is 79. The Irish times has 67 in favour of abortion on demand/request up to 12 weeks plus 13 SF currently recorded as undeclared plus however many more of the other 22 undeclared TDs.
Plus every party leader is in favour.
Plus it would be getting voted on in the context of a successful referendum.
Can anyone argue that the scheme would not be adopted in the case of a yes vote?

For further analysis of the political realities see here
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106618836&postcount=3036

The published schedule would be approved.




MENTAL HEALTH GROUNDS (UK v IRELAND)

The most used grounds for abortion in england concern the mental health of the mother. (97% of cases)
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/679028/Abortions_stats_England_Wales_2016.pdf page 15 sections 2.14, 2.15

The only difference in the proposed mental health grounds for abortion here from 12 weeks to viability and the english grounds up to 24 weeks, is that our proposed law talks about
"risk...of serious harm to the (physical or mental) health of the woman"
and the english one talks about
"greater risk than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman"
And on that distinction rests all claims that there would not be abortion on demand/request up to ~24 weeks.





MARIE STOPES CLINICS WILL INTERPRET ANY "DIFFERENCE" IN THESE MENTAL HEALTH GROUNDS

The distinction between "risk of injury" and "threat of serious harm" could keep a few of our learned friends on Ormond Quay in business for ever.
But what matters is whether that distinction is going to make any difference to doctors signing certs in a Marie Stopes clinic.
The government could have written any language they liked in to this legislation but it is the staff in these clinics who will be interpreting it.

Here's what they are like

Marie Stopes was subject to 2600 complaints in 2016.


Here is how they deal with the mental health grounds

Doctors were signing off up to 60 consent forms at a time when they were meant to be making a thorough assessment. One filled in up to 26 in two minutes.


and as you can see from this link nothing has changed.

Abortions signed off after just a phonecall: How Marie Stopes doctors approve abortions for women they've never met


Here's another link

Doctors are routinely bending the law to allow women to have abortions on questionable mental-health grounds, the head of Britain’s biggest abortion provider has said.



The point that really matters - the thing that makes abortion on these grounds up to 24 weeks a crazy proposal for most of us - is that this distinction between "risk of injury" and "threat of serious harm" won't matter a damn to Marie Stopes.


Objection on grounds that Marie Stopes wouldn't have an interest in coming here
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/show...postcount=3541

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





AUSTRALIA HAD MENTAL HEALTH GROUNDS WORDING STRONGER THAN OURS

It has also been claimed 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 Harris proposes 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/poli...-aust-vic.html
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/poli...-aust-qld.html




If you want to vote Yes you must be comfortable with abortion on demand/request up to 24 weeks. Otherwise it's a No.

Have you seen these items that examine if there are risks to mental health following abortion.

The first item is a 2008 study about risks to mental health, as a result of abortion.

It is titled "Abortion and mental health disorders: evidence from a 30-year longitudinal study",

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/abortion-and-mental-health-disorders-evidence-from-a-30year-longitudinal-study/59A90CBF3A58C58B342CBCFFBBFEBD2E

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19043144

Here are some brief details from the page below:

It states it is by "Corresponding Author Professor David M. Fergusson, Christchurch Health nd Development Study, University of Otago, Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences, PO Box 4345, Christchurch, New Zealand. Email: dm.fergusson@otago.ac.nz."

Professor David M. Fergusson, Christchurch Health nd Development Study, University of Otago, Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences, PO Box 4345, Christchurch, New Zealand. Email: dm.fergusson@otago.ac.nz

"Background"
"Research on the links between abortion and mental health has been limited by design problems and relatively weak evidence".

"Aims"
"To examine the links between pregnancy outcomes and mental health outcomes".


"Method"
"Data were gathered on the pregnancy and mental health history of a birth cohort of over 500 women studied to the age of 30".


"Results"
"After adjustment for confounding, abortion was associated with a small increase in the risk of mental disorders; women who had had abortions had rates of mental disorder that were about 30% higher. There were no consistent associations between other pregnancy outcomes and mental health. Estimates of attributable risk indicated that exposure to abortion accounted for 1.5% to 5.5% of the overall rate of mental disorders".


"Conclusions"
"The evidence is consistent with the view that abortion may be associated with a small increase in risk of mental disorders. Other pregnancy outcomes were not related to increased risk of mental health problems".

There is a list of references to other studies, on the page, and there is a page with commentaries about the report.



https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/abortion-and-mental-health-disorders-evidence-from-a-30year-longitudinal-study/59A90CBF3A58C58B342CBCFFBBFEBD2E

https://www.forofamilia.org/documentos/VIDA%20-%20Aborto%20y%20salud%20mental%20Comentarios.%20Ingles.pdf

Here is another report, titled APA Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion


http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion/mental-health.pdf

This item includes the following:

"TFMHA emphasized the studies it judged to be most methodologically rigorous to arrive at its conclusions.
The best scientific evidence published indicates that among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy the relative risk of mental health problems is no greater if they have a single elective first-trimester abortion than if they deliver that pregnancy. The evidence regarding the relative mental health risks associated with multiple abortions is more equivocal. Positive associations observed between multiple abortions and poorer mental health may be linked to co-occurring risks that predispose a woman to both multiple unwanted pregnancies
and mental health problems".

"The few published studies that examined women’s responses following an induced abortion due to fetal abnormality suggest that terminating a wanted pregnancy late in pregnancy due to fetal abnormality appears to be associated with negative psychological reactions equivalent to those experienced by women who miscarry a wanted pregnancy or who experience a stillbirth or
death of a newborn, but less than those who deliver a child with life-threatening abnormalities".

"The differing patterns of psychological experiences observed among women who terminate an unplanned pregnancy versus those who terminate a planned and wanted pregnancy highlight the importance of taking pregnancy intendedness and wantedness into account when seeking to understand psychological reactions to abortion".

"None of the literature reviewed adequately addressed the prevalence of mental health problems among women in the United States who have had an abortion".

"In general, however, the prevalence of mental health problems observed among women in the United States who had a single, legal, first-trimester abortion for nontherapeutic reasons was consistent with normative rates of comparable mental health problems in the general population of women in the United States".

"Nonetheless, it is clear that some women do experience sadness, grief, and feelings of loss following termination of a pregnancy, and some experience clinically significant disorders, including depression and anxiety. However, the TFMHA reviewed no evidence sufficient to support the claim that an observed association between abortion history and mental health was caused by the abortion per se, as opposed to other factors".

https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/article_files/advisory-abortion-mental-health.pdf

Here's an item on the Guttmacher Institute page titled An Overview of Abortion Laws

https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/overview-abortion-laws

Mr. CooL ICE

And it's been said time and time again. Do you trust politicians not to change the age of consent form 17 down to something like 12?

pitifulgod

horseburger wrote: »

Have you seen these items that examine if there are risks to mental health following abortion.

The first item is a 2008 study about risks to mental health, as a result of abortion.

It is titled "Abortion and mental health disorders: evidence from a 30-year longitudinal study",

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/abortion-and-mental-health-disorders-evidence-from-a-30year-longitudinal-study/59A90CBF3A58C58B342CBCFFBBFEBD2E

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19043144

Here are some brief details from the page below:

It states it is by "Corresponding Author Professor David M. Fergusson, Christchurch Health nd Development Study, University of Otago, Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences, PO Box 4345, Christchurch, New Zealand. Email: dm.fergusson@otago.ac.nz."

Professor David M. Fergusson, Christchurch Health nd Development Study, University of Otago, Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences, PO Box 4345, Christchurch, New Zealand. Email: dm.fergusson@otago.ac.nz

"Background"
"Research on the links between abortion and mental health has been limited by design problems and relatively weak evidence".

"Aims"
"To examine the links between pregnancy outcomes and mental health outcomes".


"Method"
"Data were gathered on the pregnancy and mental health history of a birth cohort of over 500 women studied to the age of 30".


"Results"
"After adjustment for confounding, abortion was associated with a small increase in the risk of mental disorders; women who had had abortions had rates of mental disorder that were about 30% higher. There were no consistent associations between other pregnancy outcomes and mental health. Estimates of attributable risk indicated that exposure to abortion accounted for 1.5% to 5.5% of the overall rate of mental disorders".


"Conclusions"
"The evidence is consistent with the view that abortion may be associated with a small increase in risk of mental disorders. Other pregnancy outcomes were not related to increased risk of mental health problems".

There is a list of references to other studies, on the page, and there is a page with commentaries about the report.



https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/abortion-and-mental-health-disorders-evidence-from-a-30year-longitudinal-study/59A90CBF3A58C58B342CBCFFBBFEBD2E

https://www.forofamilia.org/documentos/VIDA%20-%20Aborto%20y%20salud%20mental%20Comentarios.%20Ingles.pdf

Here is another report, titled APA Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion

http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion/mental-health.pdf

https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/article_files/advisory-abortion-mental-health.pdf

Unfortunately for you, I emailed him in relation to pro life groups citing him at the time. Being misleading with studies isn't nice and that is what you are doing. The findings did not indicate abortion is harmful to mental health and more research is needed... Response from him below.

Dear ***,

Thank you for your email . To clarify the issue what our article says is that :

a) We can find no evidence abortion has positive benefits;

b) There is suggestive evidence of small harmful effects but it would be premature to draw strong conclusions,

c) Further and better research is needed before strong conclusions can be drawn about the linkages between mental health and abortion.

The problem with these findings is that they can be misused by both prolife and prochoice advocates. Prolife advocates can argue on the basis of b) that abortion is harmful . Prochoice advocates can argue on the basis of b) and c) that currently there is no credible evidence to suggest abortion has no harmful effects. The latter argument is correct but could be misleading as it implies there is strong evidence of the absence of harmful effects. However an absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence and under these conditions it behoves commenters to be cautious.

I cannot recall my remarks on Irish radio but I suspect there were along the lines that it would be misleading to interpret our findings as suggesting harmful effects for abortion.

I hope that this clarifies matters

David Fergusson

horseburger

pitifulgod wrote: »

Unfortunately for you, I emailed him in relation to pro life groups citing him at the time. Being misleading with studies isn't nice and that is what you are doing. The findings did not indicate abortion is harmful to mental health and more research is needed... Response from him below.

Why do you say unfortunately for me?

In my post, I have included two other items that differ in perspective from the one you mention and I cite text in the other items.

Ave Sodalis

horseburger wrote: »

You are now denying that you said that it was fine for BPAS to address the Citizens' Assembly and Oireachtas Committee in 2017, despite the fact that it advocated a stance as far back as 2013

Below are your posts where you said it was fine for BPAS to address both the Assembly and Committee as long as it didn't advocate a stance, despite BPAS having advocated a stance in 2013.

You also seem to be suggesting - when you stated "I said nobody outside of the country should be meddling in the referendum of that country, unless they can bring something to the table that nobody in the country can", - that BPAS can provide some form of abortion and healthcare advice that Irish doctors wouldn't be able to provide.

Then you contradict yourself by saying that BPAS can address the 2017 Citizens' Assembly and 2017 Oireachtas Committee - despite BPAS having given a stated position on abortion laws in Ireland, as far back as 2013. BPAS criticized the Irish government for not providing abortion services.

Here are the two items I referenced.

https://www.abortionrightscampaign.ie/2013/11/15/bpas-serves-notice-to-the-irish-government/

https://glykosymoritis.blogspot.ie/2013/11/ireland-bpas-serves-notice-to-irish.html#!/2013/11/ireland-bpas-serves-notice-to-irish.html

You stated of BPAS - where you were clearly unaware that in 2013 BPAS had indicated a stance on the laws in Ireland - with reference to the attendance of BPAS representatives at the 2017 Citizens' Assembly and 2017 Oireachtas Committee, that "They are perfectly allowed to have and state their opinions but I don't believe those opinions should have anything to do with a referendum at an official level".

You don't need to tell me what I said, thanks.

I'm trying but really really struggling to see how you are still coming to the conclusions that you are. Both examples you gave, I said they can have their opinion. Both example you gave, I said neither of which should be at an official capacity.
I actually have no idea how you can twist it so you can justify saying I said the opposite. None. You even quote the posts and still. I can't get over the level of gymnastics you've gone through to try and twist it.

pitifulgod

horseburger wrote: »

Why do you say unfortunately for me?

In my post, I have included two other items that differ in perspective from the one you mention.

Did you mention the fact that Fergusson study concludes more studies are needed and that his conclusions do not actually indicate abortion is harmful? It's pretty relevant.

Annasopra

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

http://jrnl.ie/3960632

horseburger

pitifulgod wrote: »

Did you mention the fact that Fergusson study concludes more studies are needed and that his conclusions do not actually indicate abortion is harmful? It's pretty relevant.

I saw the item along with the other items and included links to them.

I included the brief detail from the page about the study and then I went back and included text from the other study and was including text from that next item while you posted snidely suggesting that I had a biased motive.

It was only after I included the links and detail to the other two items that I saw your post where you attributed some kind of motive.

Quit insinuating that I was being selective.

I thought each of the items would be of interest. Clearly not to you anyway.

horseburger

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

You don't need to tell me what I said, thanks.

I'm trying but really really struggling to see how you are still coming to the conclusions that you are. Both examples you gave, I said they can have their opinion. Both example you gave, I said neither of which should be at an official capacity.
I actually have no idea how you can twist it so you can justify saying I said the opposite. None. You even quote the posts and still. I can't get over the level of gymnastics you've gone through to try and twist it.

Now you are saying that you did say what you had earlier twice denied that you said.

BPAS spoke at the Assembly and Oireachtas Committee four years after it had made statements criticizing laws in Ireland.

And you still try to suggest that they could attend the meetings from a neutral stance on the issue.

I had pointed out to you, that that BPAS had taken a stance on the issue. before you posted your reply,

horseburger

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

None of them argued for no restrictions!!!

What restriction is inherent in this statement?


"supports a woman’s right to make her own decisions regarding reproduction, including the right to free, safe, and legal abortion"

Ave Sodalis

horseburger wrote: »

Now you are saying that you did say what you had earlier twice denied what you said.

BPAS spoke at the Assembly and Oireachtas Committee four years after it had made statements criticizing laws in Ireland.

And you still try to suggest that they could attend the meetings.

Are you doing this on purpose?

pitifulgod

horseburger wrote: »

I saw the item along with the other items and included links to them.

I included the brief detail from the page about the study and then I went back and included text from the other study and was including text from that next item while you posted snidely suggesting that I had a biased motive.

It was only after I included the links and detail to the other two items that I saw your post where you attributed some kind of motive.

Quit insinuating that I was being selective.

I thought each of the items would be of interest. Clearly not to you anyway.

It's your key citation, you didn't go into any near that level of detail with other studies. You literally linked to the other ones. Eg this is from the apa report you cited and most relevant to this referendum. No?

Based on our comprehensive review and evaluation of
the empirical literature published in peer-reviewed
journals since 1989, this Task Force on Mental Health
and Abortion concludes that the most methodologi-
cally sound research indicates that among women who
have a single, legal, first-trimester abortion of an un-
planned pregnancy for nontherapeutic reasons, the rel-
ative risks of mental health problems are no greater
than the risks among women who deliver an un-
planned pregnancy. This conclusion is generally con-
sistent with that reached by the first APA task force

horseburger

pitifulgod wrote: »

It's your key citation, you didn't go into any near that level of detail with other studies. You literally linked to the other ones. Eg this is from the apa report you cited and most relevant to this referendum. No?

It was the first item I came across, not the "key" one.

I included it a post, then I included the other items. I included them in the post in the order I came across them in a search.

If anything, perhaps you could blame google for a search that brought up the item you dislike, before the other items, and quit insinuating that I was being selective.

If you don't believe me, that I added each item in that order and included the text upon seeing each item, ask the moderator to show you the chronology of my posting.

Zubeneschamali

horseburger wrote: »

Could you think of a slogan or a euphemism so that I might interpret, whatever it is you are actually saying?

Throughout the SSM marriage campaign, boards was visited by many, many posters who were not against same-sex marriage and had no problems with the gays, sure one of their friends owns a pink shirt, but sadly, they had to vote No because the yes campaign was so gay and offensive and in their face all the time.

Those people were always going to vote No, they just wanted to shift the blame for their intolerance to the other side.

Likewise here you are posting absolute walls of prolife talking points and videos while pretending that you are on the fence and now threatening to vote No if we aren't super nice to you.

You are not fooling anyone.

seamus

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

http://jrnl.ie/3960632

Dublin City Council runs the register for the DCC area. There are 31 city or county county councils in Ireland, each who make up their own rules for managing the register in their location.

Zubeneschamali

NuMarvel wrote: »

So who is it we can trust? What body or institution of the state can we point to and say they're the ones we can trust to make the right decisions on this matter?

The bishops, of course, like in the 1930s.

horseburger

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Are you doing this on purpose?

What on purpose?

Do you not consider that it is important to mention that you were clueless that BPAS had taken a definite stance on the issue, four years before the meetings that its representatives addressed in Dublin in 2017, the meetings you said it was ok for it to address as long as it didn't take a stance on the issue?

baylah17

horseburger wrote: »

Quit insinuating that I was being selective.

Your post and other posts do read as though you are being selective, because you are being selective, very selective.
Thats your perogative, but why deny it?

horseburger

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Throughout the SSM marriage campaign, boards was visited by many, many posters who were not against same-sex marriage and had no problems with the gays, sure one of their friends owns a pink shirt, but sadly, they had to vote No because the yes campaign was so gay and offensive and in their face all the time.

Those people were always going to vote No, they just wanted to shift the blame for their intolerance to the other side.

Likewise here you are posting absolute walls of prolife talking points and videos while pretending that you are on the fence and now threatening to vote No if we aren't super nice to you.

You are not fooling anyone.

If you bothered your arse to do a bit of research on my posting history on boards, you would realise from my posts that I voted yes in the marriage referendum 2015.

In my posts I argued against what people had stated against the Yes vote in 2015 about civil marriage and I compared what was argued against civil marriage in 2015, to earlier comments, made arguing against civil partnerships.

I also referenced during the marriage referendum how the argument about how the conscious clause in the case of Buella Print in Drogheda was contradictory, because the guy that asked for invitations to be printed out, were not for civil marriage, but for civil parnerships.

I'm my posts, I argued that this was a contradiction in the argument against civil marriage, because other advocates for a no vote were stating that civil partnerships were fine, but the same people had argued against civil partnerships in 2009.

In the case of Buella Print, the owners had said to the guy from the salon in Drogheda, that they opposed civil marriage for religious reasons.

The stance by the business owners didn't stand up, I argued, because they had been asked to print up civil partnership invitations.

Nice try at pigeon hole-ing , all the same.

Ave Sodalis

horseburger wrote: »

What on purpose?

Do you not consider that it is important to mention that you were clueless that BPAS had taken a definite stance on the issue, four years before the meetings that its representatives addressed in Dublin in 2017, the meetings you said it was ok for it to address as long as it didn't take a stance on the issue?

So you are doing it on purpose.

pitifulgod

horseburger wrote: »

If you bothered your arse to do a bit of research on my posting history on boards, you would realise from my posts that I voted yes in the marriage referendum 2015.

In my posts I argued against what people had stated against the Yes vote in 2015 about civil marriage and I compared what was argued against civil marriage in 2015, to earlier comments, made arguing against civil partnerships.

I also referenced during the marriage referendum how the argument about how the conscious clause in the case of Buella Print in Drogheda was contradictory, because the guy that asked for invitations to be printed out, were not for civil marriage, but for civil parnerships.

I'm my posts, I argued that this was a contradiction in the argument against civil marriage, because other advocates for a no vote were stating that civil partnerships were fine, but the same people had argued against civil partnerships in 2009.

In the case of Buella Print, the owners had said to the guy from the salon in Drogheda, that they opposed civil marriage for religious reasons.

The stance by the business owners didn't stand up, I argued, because they had been asked to print up civil partnership invitations.

Nice try at pigeon hole-ing , all the same.

I think you entirely missed his point..

horseburger

baylah17 wrote: »

Your post and other posts do read as though you are being selective, because you are being selective, very selective.
Thats your perogative, but why deny it?

Well then why don't you post videos and articles from organisations advocating a yes vote and a no vote and suggest a discussion about the points they are making.

You could, yourself, just as easily highlight particular arguments made during debates and examine and scrutinize the points made.

Here's one for example.

How does Ruth Coppinger justify - or even get away with stating to Eamon O'Cuiv in the Dáil on 7th March 2017, that a pregnant woman isn't a mother till the baby is born?

Is there any pregnant woman who wouldn't be completely insulted by that comment considering the care and nuture they provide during the pregnancy to ensure the development of the baby?

Her comment got damn all coverage or criticism in the way that it would if a male politician like Ronan Mullen or Danny Healy Rae had said it.

Why is that?

Why didn't Broadsheet or Newsworthy tweet it and write articles transcribing her comments, like they have done with other public representatives?

horseburger

pitifulgod wrote: »

I think you entirely missed his point..

No I did not, but thanks anyway.