The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

RobertKK

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

No, I just think in a debate when you close off voices like this - it is like book burning so people can’t read something that others have deemed others shouldn’t read. That is the repeal shield. It is there for people with closed minds and who believe minds should be closed to opposing opinion.

RobertKK

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

Please follow your own advice then.

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

No, I just think in a debate when you close off voices like this - it is like book burning so people can’t read something that others have deemed others shouldn’t read. That is the repeal shield. It is there for people with closed minds and who believe minds should be closed to opposing opinion.

can't read? you mean don't want to read? who wants to read the constant stream of ****e from the anti-choice crowd? they repeat themselves ad nauseum and never engage honestly.

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

No, I just think in a debate when you close off voices like this - it is like book burning so people can’t read something that others have deemed others shouldn’t read. That is the repeal shield. It is there for people with closed minds and who believe minds should be closed to opposing opinion.

The repeal shield is to block out pro-life trolls, not genuine campaign discussions.

Timberrrrrrrr

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.

Ah stop Robert you're embarrassing yourself now.

How many posters have we had who have asked a question, had that question answered and then 3 days later ask the SAME question again?

Or how many have asked a question then reworded the question to ask again?

Ask yourself this, why have so many anti-repeal posters been thread banned for soapboxing?

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

Please follow your own advice then.

where have i misstated the opinions of others?

Triceratops Ballet

Hector Savage wrote: »

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!!

Because that would mean admitting they're wrong and it is just about power and control

kylith

RobertKK wrote: »

No, I just think in a debate when you close off voices like this - it is like book burning so people can’t read something that others have deemed others shouldn’t read. That is the repeal shield. It is there for people with closed minds and who believe minds should be closed to opposing opinion.

AIUI one has to install repealshield, which means that far from being ‘like a bookburning’ Which would stop other people from reading something it’s more like deciding you personally don’t want to read certain books filled with hateful bile, lies, and abuse.

horseburger

ELM327 wrote: »

I don't know nor care who Patricia Lohr is.
Don't care about down's syndrome (If I was told as a female I was having a DS child I'd think long and hard about termination too)
Don't know what your point is about sex selection either (I don't think that's the correct term anyway).

This boils down to, a woman wants a medical procedure, and is her doctor allowed to provide it. I say yes and it's not my business why are you even asking. You say no. Can you not see the incredulous hilarity of that.

Do yourself a favour, go read the stories on the "In her shoes" facebook page. These are real stories submitted by real women who have been affected by the 8th amendment. I know they publish real stories because the friend I referred to previously has had her story published there.
I read a great comment on one, it said "if you're not in tears reading this then you are not a human". And I agree.
Listen to those who the 8th amendment affects, not some pie in the sky morality that you want to impose on everyone. The kicker is... the friend who had the termination... she was staunchly pro life beforehand.

Why don't you care that she is experienced in the procedure that you say you want made available, and that she detailed information relevant to the referendum to both the Citizens' Assembly and Oireachtas Committee.

Dr Patricia Lohr is Medical Director of BPAS who can be contacted at www.abortion.ie and www.bpas.co.uk

Wouldn't it strengthen your argument if you knew who she is?

If you are in approval of abortion you can still consider the question on whether it is acceptable that if one ground for abortion is not approved for procedure, that the abortion can be approved on another ground, not originally requested.

She conceded in response to Peter Fitzpatrick that if an abortion is requested under the ground of sex selection, that it is possible that if sex selection is not a ground in a particular jurisdiction, that the abortion could be approved under another ground that is approved.

Considering BPAS have registered a website www.abortion.ie, which suggests that it has an interest in the outcome of the referendum and subsequent legislation, doesn't the issue of the grounds approved for abortion, call into question the reliability of the assertion by Ivana Bacik in the discussion on Prime Time, on 18th January 2018, that I referenced, where she said that Down's Syndrome was not considered as an approved category for abortion?

Maria Steen responded by citing Germany as an example, with reference to Down's Syndrome cases of abortion in Germany, where there is no ground for an abortion for a particular disability, but that the abortion in the case of Down's Syndrome, could be carried out on a ground that was not originally requested. Maria Steen stated that abortions in the case of Down's Syndrome were taking place in Germany under mental health grounds.

https://www.rte.ie/news/player/prime-time/2018/0118/

Here is the address given by Dr Patricia Lohr, Medical Director of BPAS, to the Citizens' Assembly:

RobertKK

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

can't read? you mean don't want to read? who wants to read the constant stream of ****e from the anti-choice crowd? they repeat themselves ad nauseum and never engage honestly.

I was reading a lot of sh1te from the anti-life side and not replying to it and you think they engage with honesty.
When it comes to killing life, I am anti-choice as the woman is deciding to end a life that isn’t her own when she has an intentional abortion and in most cases the unborn life is healthy and the mother is healthy, but that life is viewed as choice rather than it being a totally unique life.
But you and people like you won’t engage honestly with that. It is clear in the media that the repeal side treat the unborn like the elephant in the room and simply want to focus on the woman as if the other life doesn’t exist at all.

ELM327

horseburger wrote: »

Why don't you care that she is experienced in the procedure that you say you want made available, and that she detailed information relevant to the referendum to both the Citizens' Assembly and Oireachtas Committee.

Dr Patricia Lohr is Medical Director of BPAS who can be contacted at www.abortion.ie and www.bpas.co.uk

Wouldn't it strengthen your argument if you knew who she is?

If you are in approval of abortion you can still consider the question on whether it is acceptable that if one ground for abortion is not approved for procedure, that the abortion can be approved on another ground, not originally requested.

She conceded in response to Peter Fitzpatrick that if an abortion is requested under the ground of sex selection, that it is possible that if sex selection is not a ground in a particular jurisdiction, that the abortion could be approved under another ground that is approved.

Considering BPAS have registered a website www.abortion.ie, which suggests that it has an interest in the outcome of the referendum and subsequent legislation, doesn't the issue of the grounds approved for abortion, call into question the reliability of the assertion by Ivana Bacik in the discussion on Prime Time, on 18th January 2018, that I referenced, where she said that Down's Syndrome was not considered as an approved category for abortion?

Maria Steen responded by citing Germany as an example, with reference to Down's Syndrome cases of abortion in Germany, that if no ground for an abortion for a particular disability, that the abortion could be carried out on a ground that was not originally requested. Maria Steen stated that abortions in the case of Down's Syndrome were taking place in Germany under mental health grounds.

https://www.rte.ie/news/player/prime-time/2018/0118/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7pYz8NLANI

Here is the address given by Dr Patricia Lohr, Medical Director of BPAS, to the Citizens' Assembly:

More spam links.


I form my own opinions, not needing any internet videos for validation.
She is from the UK and is irrelevant.

You talk about regulation this, syndrome that. But abortion should be freely available for any woman once her doctor is in agreement. It's a private medical concern and is nothing to do with me. Unless it's my partner in which case I would expect to be consulted, but again as it's her body that has to endure the pregnancy she gets the casting vote!

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

I was reading a lot of sh1te from the anti-life side and not replying to it and you think they engage with honesty.
When it comes to killing life, I am anti-choice as the woman is deciding to end a life that isn’t her own when she has an intentional abortion and in most cases the unborn life is healthy and the mother is healthy, but that life is viewed as choice rather than it being a totally unique life.
But you and people like you won’t engage honestly with that. It is clear in the media that the repeal side treat the unborn like the elephant in the room and simply want to focus on the woman as if the other life doesn’t exist at all.

the questions you ask have all been answered on this thread and the one that preceded it. multiple times.

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

But you and people like you won’t engage honestly with that. It is clear in the media that the repeal side treat the unborn like the elephant in the room and simply want to focus on the woman as if the other life doesn’t exist at all.

All we do is engage honestly.

We don't treat the unborn like the elephant in the room, and we certainly don't treat the unborn like they don't exist at all.

Getting a bit desperate now Robert.

ELM327

RobertKK wrote: »

I was reading a lot of sh1te from the anti-life side and not replying to it and you think they engage with honesty.
When it comes to killing life, I am anti-choice as the woman is deciding to end a life that isn’t her own when she has an intentional abortion and in most cases the unborn life is healthy and the mother is healthy, but that life is viewed as choice rather than it being a totally unique life.
But you and people like you won’t engage honestly with that. It is clear in the media that the repeal side treat the unborn like the elephant in the room and simply want to focus on the woman as if the other life doesn’t exist at all.

the questions you ask have all been answered on this thread and the one that preceded it. multiple times.

Timberrrrrrrr

RobertKK wrote: »

But you and people like you won’t engage honestly with that. It is clear in the media that the anti repeal side treat the woman like the elephant in the room and simply want to focus on the fetus as if the other life doesn’t exist at all.

Here's your post seen from my side of the fence.

ELM327

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the questions you ask have all been answered on this thread and the one that preceded it. multiple times.

+1
I propose this text as the one we should use to deal with the anti-choice bots

RobertKK

kylith wrote: »

AIUI one has to install repealshield, which means that far from being ‘like a bookburning’ Which would stop other people from reading something it’s more like deciding you personally don’t want to read certain books filled with hateful bile, lies, and abuse.

Are you claiming that people can’t simply choose to be book burners even when most of the 8,000 people blocked by repeal shield are not rude or hateful people?
Is it ok for the repeal side to be telling lies which are accepted, and you don’t have the ignorance on the retain side of a shield...

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the questions you ask have all been answered on this thread and the one that preceded it. multiple times.

ELM327 wrote: »

the questions you ask have all been answered on this thread and the one that preceded it. multiple times.

ELM327 wrote: »

+1
I propose this text as the one we should use to deal with the anti-choice bots

LOL

RobertKK

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Here's your post seen from my side of the fence.

So you are saying you are unable to debate and had to use my post, edit it because it was so good, you felt you needed to use it for your side, because your own arguments are not strong enough.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Triceratops Ballet

RobertKK wrote: »

I was reading a lot of sh1te from the anti-life side and not replying to it and you think they engage with honesty.
When it comes to killing life, I am anti-choice as the woman is deciding to end a life that isn’t her own when she has an intentional abortion and in most cases the unborn life is healthy and the mother is healthy, but that life is viewed as choice rather than it being a totally unique life.
But you and people like you won’t engage honestly with that. It is clear in the media that the repeal side treat the unborn like the elephant in the room and simply want to focus on the woman as if the other life doesn’t exist at all.

How are those supporting an appeal engaging dishonestly? by talking about the 8th amendment as being about more than abortion? I've said it once and I'll say it a million times if I have to. My vote would be on repeal even if there was no move to legislate for abortion. If abortion were still going to be illegal and the jail term was going to be increased I'd still vote to repeal, because this is about so much more than abortion and pretending it's not is dishonest.

Anti repealers want to make the debate all about abortion because they think that's the easier case to make "won't somebody think of the children" because it's not quite as easy to look a woman in the face and tell her you don't care about her healthcare when she's pregnant as it is to wax poetical about the 1000's of lives being "saved" (which of course aren't being saved at all they're just all in England so our hands are clean)

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

Are you claiming that people can’t simply choose to be book burners even when most of the 8,000 people blocked by repeal shield are not rude or hateful people?

some people have decided to remove a lot of noise from what they read. why is that a problem for you?

RobertKK wrote: »

Is it ok for the repeal side to be telling lies which are accepted, and you don’t have the ignorance on the retain side of a shield...

the retain side dont need a shield for that.

nozzferrahhtoo

RobertKK wrote: »

But you and people like you won’t engage honestly with that.

Take my posts for example. Posts you have systematically dodged, ignored and refused to engage with in fact.

How have I NOT dealt with the issue you describe, the issue of ending life in the womb? How were the posts I have made (numerous at this stage) not dealing with that issue honestly?

I think you see what you want to see, and ignore what does not fit the picture you want to paint of those you disagree with.

Ave Sodalis

RobertKK wrote: »

Are you claiming that people can’t simply choose to be book burners even when most of the 8,000 people blocked by repeal shield are not rude or hateful people?
Is it ok for the repeal side to be telling lies which are accepted, and you don’t have the ignorance on the retain side of a shield...

What lies? Now the repeal side are telling lies? Stones in glass houses...

RobertKK

ELM327 wrote: »

the questions you ask have all been answered on this thread and the one that preceded it. multiple times.

I give opinion and people question it.
maybe you should tell them what to do.

horseburger

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

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

You seem unwilling to consider different aspects relating to repealing the amendment, some of which I referenced, including the issue of the grounds of abortion that are approved, and the issue mentioned by Dr Patricia Lohr of BPAS, about abortion on the basis of foetul sex, being approved under a different ground.

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

So you are saying you are unable to debate and had to use my post, edit it because it was so good, you felt you needed to use it for your side, because your own arguments are not strong enough.

no they were quite clearly demonstrating how much of a nonsense your argument is.

Timberrrrrrrr

RobertKK wrote: »

So you are saying you are unable to debate and had to use my post, edit it because it was so good, you felt you needed to use it for your side, because your own arguments are not strong enough.

No Robert that's not what I am saying at all.

What I'm saying is your argument is the same as mine it's just you value a clump of cells over a living breathing woman whereas I value the living breathing woman over a clump of cells.

I edited your post because it shows that while you believe one thing, by changing a word or 2 it can also apply to the repeal sides beliefs.

kylith

RobertKK wrote: »

Are you claiming that people can’t simply choose to be book burners even when most of the 8,000 people blocked by repeal shield are not rude or hateful people?
Is it ok for the repeal side to be telling lies which are accepted, and you don’t have the ignorance on the retain side of a shield...

Are you claiming that someone personally choosing that they do not want to see is the same as stopping other people from seeing it?

What lies have the repeal side told?

Some stuff the anti-repeal side have been caught doing: using fake doctors, a fake nurse, handing out signs with fascist logos to unknowing teenagers at repeal rallies, using anti-repeal plants with revolting slogans at repeal rallies so they can photograph them and misrepresent the repeal side, lying about what is involved in an abortion at 12 weeks, lying about the terms of the referendum, putting graphic poster outside schools and in places where children are likely to see them, not reporting where funding comes from, inflating numbers at anti-repeal rallies, and illegally not putting supplier information on posters.

robarmstrong

kylith wrote: »

Are you claiming that someone personally choosing that they do not want to see is the same as stopping other people from seeing it?

What lies have the repeal side told?

Some stuff the anti-repeal side have been caught doing: using fake doctors, a fake nurse, handing out signs with fascist logos to unknowing teenagers at repeal rallies, using anti-repeal plants with revolting slogans at repeal rallies so they can photograph them and misrepresent the repeal side, lying about what is involved in an abortion at 12 weeks, lying about the terms of the referendum, putting graphic poster outside schools and in places where children are likely to see them, not reporting where funding comes from, inflating numbers at anti-repeal rallies, and illegally not putting supplier information on posters.

They never ever acknowledge this, I've put it forward for those supposedly "on the fence" posters who seem to have an issue with only the pro-choice campaign conveniently and they just ignore any and everything the pro-life campaign has done.