The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Sofiztikated

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

I'm fully aware abortion is not a form of contraception, I also understand the terms contraception and birth control are used by some people synonymously.

I'm also fully aware that no form of contraception is no 100% effective but the birth control pill is 99% effective. So are you really arguing over 1%. Unless you are extremely unlucky, then there is no reason why you should get pregnant if you don't want to.

Despite the fact that I'm not on trial and although some posters seem to think that they own this thread where you have to agree with the status quo to post here, I've already stated that I'm in favour of abortion in certain circumstances.

What I still don't understand is and the reason I haven't fully made up my mind:

1. the day after the the 8th is repealed, how will the healthcare issues be addressed?

2. By repealing the 8th amendment, what would have changed that Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act doesn't already address.

https://www.vox.com/2014/9/19/6418767/birth-control-pills-effectiveness-how-to-use-common-questions

In the real world, the pill is 91% effective. So for every 100 women, 9 could become pregnant, through no fault of their own.

So how marginal do you deem it to be OK?

robarmstrong

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

I'm also fully aware that no form of contraception is no 100% effective but the birth control pill is 99% effective. So are you really arguing over 1%. Unless you are extremely unlucky, then there is no reason why you should get pregnant if you don't want to.

There is a reason you get pregnant if you don't want to, contraceptive failure. that 99% only applies if it's used correctly, which again, is another topic for debate.

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Despite the fact that I'm not on trial and although some posters seem to think that they own this thread where you have to agree with the status quo to post here, I've already stated that I'm in favour of abortion in certain circumstances.

You're on "trial" because you seem to only have an issue with the pro-choice argument and when pushed on it, you've ignored points made and facts showing the pro-life campaign is intentionally spreading manipulated facts, statistics and incorrect statements, so naturally, you've aroused suspicious due to the "I'm just asking questions guys", you seem to just shirk away from any questions addressed to the pro-life campaign.

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

What I still don't understand is and the reason I haven't fully made up my mind:

1. the day after the the 8th is repealed, how will the healthcare issues be addressed?

2. By repealing the 8th amendment, what would have changed that Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act doesn't already address.

1. It will change the procedures that doctors take to perform abortion in Ireland, right now, it's incredibly restrictive, for one - mental health isn't really properly addressed, if it was, women wouldn't be travelling abroad for abortions, ectopic pregnancies are also not covered AFAIK in the current 8th legislation.

2. PLDPA doesn't readily address mental health, as I previously stated, if the 8th amendment did what it was meant to do, women wouldn't be travelling abroad, plain and simple.

kylith

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

It's not for me to say if they should have sex or not, but if they are and they don't plan on having any more children then I suggest they use a form of "birth control" which on the balance of probability will prevent them from ever having any unwanted children.

Ok, let’s remove the marginal cases:
A woman is married/in a committed, stable relationship. Her family is complete, she is 100% sure she does not want more children. As no form of contraception, even sterilisation, is infallible would you recommend that that couple does not have sex until the woman has finished menopause?

Yes. Or. No.

nozzferrahhtoo

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

I'm also fully aware that no form of contraception is no 100% effective but the birth control pill is 99% effective. So are you really arguing over 1%.

I guess the new recruits are being told to ignore The Nozzferrahhtoo when they spread the party-line on this forum given the entire cohort started doing it at the same time, but you really can not avoid the request to show the workings on this.

Firstly 1% is the "perfect usage" statistic not the actual "typical usage" one that we apply in the real world. So it is misleading and disingenuous to use that figure in the first place.

However even if we use your cherry picked and distorted figure.... the fact remains that 1% of a large number is a large number. Throwing out 1% because it sounds small is a propaganda move, not an honest statistical one. Even with a 1% failure rate we would still have a significant number of unplanned pregnancies.

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

the day after the the 8th is repealed, how will the healthcare issues be addressed?

This has been answered for you by multiple users already. I am baffled by this new "no" approach of sending all their recruits on here to ask questions periodically that have been answered directly before. You asked, it was answered, you are simply asking again.

But AGAIN the repeal of the 8th is not the solution to the issues raised. It is the opening of the door to the possibility of dealing with the issues raised. The removal of the 8th allows us to deal with that legislation, and that is the next step. You are demanding of the first step in an entire process, results and solutions that that step is never going to provide.

frag420

May I suggest that when a new pro birth person joins in asking all the usual questions that we just reply with an "asked and answered" stock reply and just ignore them...

Or at the very least for an emotive and as serious a topic as this is that the poster must have a certain amount of posts or time on the site (similar to certain forums) before they can come in here and troll and ruin a good debate!?

ELM327

frag420 wrote: »

May I suggest that when a new pro birth person joins in asking all the usual questions that we just reply with an "asked and answered" stock reply and just ignore them...

Or at the very least for an emotive and as serious a topic as this is that the poster must have a certain amount of posts or time on the site (similar to certain forums) before they can come in here and troll and ruin a good debate!?

I think this is a great idea.
Lets create a standard response text!

Sofiztikated

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I guess the new recruits are being told to ignore The Nozzferrahhtoo when they spread the party-line on this forum given the entire cohort started doing it at the same time, but you really can not avoid the request to show the workings on this.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Berties highlighting and fascination with who thanked what was something to do with it.

Ave Sodalis

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote:

I'm also fully aware that no form of contraception is no 100% effective but the birth control pill is 99% effective. So are you really arguing over 1%. Unless you are extremely unlucky, then there is no reason why you should get pregnant if you don't want to.

I'm actually on anti-bios at the moment so the pill is ineffective. They don't start being effective straight away again either. If you mess up one pill, you're unprotected for a week. If you miss a few, you need a full month so with two weeks of anti-bios and a month for me to be protected again, that's a long time of being unprotected. Even with other forms of protection, and a fully working pill, I could still fall pregnant. What do you suggest I do?

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote:

Despite the fact that I'm not on trial and although some posters seem to think that they own this thread where you have to agree with the status quo to post here, I've already stated that I'm in favour of abortion in certain circumstances.

Absolutely nobody has so much as indicated that they own this thread and you need a certain view point to post. Painting yourself as the victim does you no favours.

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote:

1. the day after the the 8th is repealed, how will the healthcare issues be addressed?

This has been answered before. Doctors hand's are completely tied by the 8th. According to it, the 8th gives equal life to the foetus. Without the 8th, doctors have a far wider range of heathcare they can provide that doesn't necessarily include abortion. For example, there was a woman who was wheelchair bound and in a huge amount of pain. She needed an xray but because they need to inject a stain, they had to ask if she was pregnant. She told them there was no way she was but they asked when she last had her period. It was over two weeks so she had to remake an appointment for within two weeks of a period. They wouldn't/couldn't start her road to treatment due to the tinyest risk of her being pregnant. (In Her Shoes)

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote:

2. By repealing the 8th amendment, what would have changed that Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act doesn't already address.

Safety and security. The effect of pregnancy on health, not just life. A wider range of health care. Less financial and mental stress associated with flying to a different country, and having to suffer through severe cramps on the toilet of an airplane. Cases of FFA can be given back with respect, not shipped in a courier van beside somebody's new pair of jeans. More safe abortions for those who cannot afford to travel but will have an abortion anyway. We wouldn't be pushing our problems onto a different country and pretending it's not happening.

RobertKK

frag420 wrote: »

May I suggest that when a new pro birth person joins in asking all the usual questions that we just reply with an "asked and answered" stock reply and just ignore them...

Or at the very least for an emotive and as serious a topic as this is that the poster must have a certain amount of posts or time on the site (similar to certain forums) before they can come in here and troll and ruin a good debate!?

I read repeal people say we must talk to people and answer their questions if they are not voting for repeal.
Then I read the above...it is like the repeal shield where people really just wants an echo chamber.

kylith

RobertKK wrote: »

I read repeal people say we must talk to people and answer their questions if they are not voting for repeal.
Then I read the above...it is like the repeal shield where people really just wants an echo chamber.

Or, more likely, people get sick of answering the same questions over and over.

I donmt think it’s a bad idea. We could put some FAQs in the first post and then newcomers to the thread could check that and see if their query has been answered without having to trawl through thousands of posts.

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

I read repeal people say we must talk to people and answer their questions if they are not voting for repeal.
Then I read the above...it is like the repeal shield where people really just wants an echo chamber.

Perhaps we have just got tired of answering the same questions ad nauseum from posters pretending to be on the fence? Why should we engage with people who are dishonest?

captbarnacles

RobertKK wrote: »

I read repeal people say we must talk to people and answer their questions if they are not voting for repeal.
Then I read the above...it is like the repeal shield where people really just wants an echo chamber.

Everyone has who has asked questions has been answered. It's when they choose to ignore the answers and ask the same question again it becomes pointless.

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

I read repeal people say we must talk to people and answer their questions if they are not voting for repeal.
Then I read the above...it is like the repeal shield where people really just wants an echo chamber.

How on earth did you make that leap?

We're more than happy to engage and answer questions, the problem is multiple people who have been threadbanned come in under the guise of being "undecided" and bizarrely, only seem to pick at the pro-choice campaign whilst completely ignoring the shortcomings of the pro-life campaign.

Do you not find that suspicious, no?

Ave Sodalis

RobertKK wrote: »

I read repeal people say we must talk to people and answer their questions if they are not voting for repeal.
Then I read the above...it is like the repeal shield where people really just wants an echo chamber.

Yes, that's it exactly. It's all one big plot that you and Tickers have figured out. Us repeal people are only interested in taking over the AH referendum thread, nothing else. You got us! Our thread domination plot has been revealed. We would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling anti-repealers!

seamus

RobertKK wrote: »

I read repeal people say we must talk to people and answer their questions if they are not voting for repeal.
Then I read the above...it is like the repeal shield where people really just wants an echo chamber.

The "repeal shield" account really just blocks paid trolls and those whose opinion on the matter is already settled.

Discussing the issue with those who've demonstrated that their agenda is to repeat their own point ad nauseum and without willingness to change, is a waste of time. And it actually unintentionally gives them a platform to continue to repeat their nonsense.

It's why a large chunk of this thread is on ignore for me. As soon as it becomes clear that a poster is ignoring what's being said to them or asked of them, I put them on ignore.

Rogelio Tinkling Cue

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

What I still don't understand is and the reason I haven't fully made up my mind:

1. the day after the the 8th is repealed, how will the healthcare issues be addressed?

2. By repealing the 8th amendment, what would have changed that Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act doesn't already address.

what was wrong with all the replies to these questions you got last night?
it has been answered & explained to you many times.

applehunter

seamus wrote: »

The "repeal shield" account really just blocks paid trolls and those whose opinion on the matter is already settled.

Discussing the issue with those who've demonstrated that their agenda is to repeat their own point ad nauseum and without willingness to change, is a waste of time. And it actually unintentionally gives them a platform to continue to repeat their nonsense.

It's why a large chunk of this thread is on ignore for me. As soon as it becomes clear that a poster is ignoring what's being said to them or asked of them, I put them on ignore.

Triceratops Ballet

horseburger wrote: »

You seem to think that on this issue, that if someone changes their mind on circumstances where they consider abortion should be available, that they have to then completely dismiss every aspect of the opposing position on abortion.

The central issue on the opposing position on abortion, seems to me, to be about the fundamental issue of whether it is right or wrong to end an innocent human life.

For example in the case of rape, it is argued if a woman becomes pregnant through rape, that if the woman carries on with the pregnancy, that the child, is not responsible for the crime that was committed by the man that raped the woman. In this scenario, it is argued that what justifies the ending of the innocent life of the child that would otherwise come into being if the pregnancy is continued.

The Irish Times item is about a meeting that was due to be held last September which would have included women were victims of rape, who became pregnant.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/anti-abortion-and-pro-choice-groups-claim-venues-cancelling-events-1.3237141

There is a group named Unbroken, which highlights this issue.

Here is a piece written by Rebecca Kiessling, who was conceived in rape.

https://unbrokenireland.org/stories/Rebecca/

https://unbrokenireland.org/

Is it not possible to understand the perspective of both sides?

I said I started watching numerous different debates on youtube etc, on this issue, when it became clear over the last six months that there would be a referendum on the issue.

I'll start off by telling you you're wasting your time posting video links in your responses to me, I've told you, I've been considering this issue since I was 16/17 that's 18 years, I don't need to watch your debates. I understand the issue, I've been in a position of being terrified that I'd have to go to England on my own as a teenager, I'm lucky it didn't happen to me, but some of my friends have had to go.

I understand (to a point) the anti abortion stance, I understand they have concerns, but I fundamentally disagree with them.

Nobody here is suggesting that all victims of rape should have abortions, nobody is suggesting any women should have abortions if they don't want to. Women should have the right to choose. You're right a child of rape bears no responsibility for the crimes of it's scumbag father, but the victim of rape also bears no responsibility for it and in not allowing her to choose what she can or can not bear you are actually forcing responsibility for his actions on to her.

At the end of the day the repeal of the 8th amendment will change nothing for the anti abortion crowd, but will change a lot for the women affected by the 8th, which is every single woman in this country who has or will become pregnant

Triceratops Ballet

horseburger wrote: »

No I'm not saying that. I'm saying that services should improve.

Wouldn't suggesting that people should have abortions on the basis of economic circumstances, result in more inequality, in terms of demographics and society and various family services available to familes, because you'd then be arguing that it'd be acceptable that families in more affluent areas have more children than families in areas that are less affluent?

For example if there are childcare services that are privatized, wouldn't they be more inclined to set up businesses in more affluent areas?

Does the government hand out cars? I thought that was the banks did that to encourage people taking mortgages with those banks?

You do know Irish women currently have abortions for economic reasons right?

Can you tell me of any campaigns in existance to improve services to stop this being the case? Have you written to your local TD about it maybe?

ohnonotgmail

applehunter wrote: »

what an important contribution to the thread.

RobertKK

So you guys are saying you are all talk here, but if you were on a canvass you wouldn’t answer questions because you answered someone else before...yet the rest of us have to read the repeal people here saying the same thing over and over again to each other when they agree with one another, but that is somehow different. I think people on the repeal side really would like a repeal shield in this thread at times.

Triceratops Ballet

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

I'm fully aware abortion is not a form of contraception, I also understand the terms contraception and birth control are used by some people synonymously.

I'm also fully aware that no form of contraception is no 100% effective but the birth control pill is 99% effective. So are you really arguing over 1%. Unless you are extremely unlucky, then there is no reason why you should get pregnant if you don't want to.

Well this is horsesh1t! so take your pill and if you wish hard enough it'll be 100% effective.
Are you currently on the contraceptive pill, do you believe that is a realistic expectation?

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

So you guys are saying you are all talk here, but if you were on a canvass you wouldn’t answer questions because you answered someone else before...yet the rest of us have to read the repeal people here saying the same thing over and over again to each other when they agree with one another, but that is somehow different. I think people on the repeal side really would like a repeal shield in this thread at times.

nope that is not what people replied to you. try to read the replies again.

RobertKK

seamus wrote: »

The "repeal shield" account really just blocks paid trolls and those whose opinion on the matter is already settled.

Discussing the issue with those who've demonstrated that their agenda is to repeat their own point ad nauseum and without willingness to change, is a waste of time. And it actually unintentionally gives them a platform to continue to repeat their nonsense.

It's why a large chunk of this thread is on ignore for me. As soon as it becomes clear that a poster is ignoring what's being said to them or asked of them, I put them on ignore.

The repeal shield is blocking anyone they come across who simply support the retain side. Nothing more, nothing less and its aim is to provide the people who use it an ignorance to what is being discussed on the other side.

ELM327

RobertKK wrote: »

The repeal shield is blocking anyone they come across who simply support the retain side. Nothing more, nothing less and its aim is to provide the people who use it an ignorance to what is being discussed on the other side.

Is literacy an issue?
It's been clearly explained above why the same bots are not being answered when they ask the same questions purporting to be on the fence.

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

The repeal shield is blocking anyone they come across who simply support the retain side. Nothing more, nothing less and its aim is to provide the people who use it an ignorance to what is being discussed on the other side.

you're just pissed because they blocked you "for no reason".

RobertKK

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

nope that is not what people replied to you. try to read the replies again.

I don’t have to give a reply that you want me to give, I will give my own opinion, just as you did.

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

I don’t have to give a reply that you want me to give, I will give my own opinion, just as you did.

So by that logic, we don't have to give answers that pro-lifebots want us to give?

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

I don’t have to give a reply that you want me to give, I will give my own opinion, just as you did.

you are entitled to your opinion. you are not entitled to misstate the opinions of others.

Hector Savage

Listening to Sean O Rourke here ... absolutely heart wrenching.
So so so sad what this couple went through.

The 8th HAS TO BE REPEALED !!!

Jesus how can people not see the sense in this!!