The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Ave Sodalis

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.

Not to mention the video they made, claiming to be from the repeal side, about how men knowing their place. It was an international site that found that one.

blanch152

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, 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/

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:

Hey, you're back, great to see. In case you missed it, here is my last post explaining to you why your expressed views on abortion mean that you should vote for repeal.

Maybe you could acknowledge that is your intention.

blanch152 wrote: »

That is a complete red herring and something that can be fixed by electing better politicians.

You have made it clear that you favour abortions in certain very limited circumstances that are not permitted by the 8th.

The only honest and decent approach is therefore for you to vote to repeal the 8th and lobby politicians for the abortion regimes you favour and vote for politicians who share your views so that they can be enacted.

Triceratops Ballet

horseburger wrote: »

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.

That's a bit condescending, you have no idea what I'm willing to consider or what I've considered in the past, you have no idea what resources I've consulted in arriving at my decision. I'm delighted for you that you're so interested in the topic and I like to see someone who's fully engaged in politics in such a way, political apathy is dangerous in a democratic society, but as i've said before I'm not interested in spending my day watching video links you post.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

It's frustrating that the now established habit of lying and cheating from the PLC isn't being highlighted more in mainstream coverage. It's clear to anyone who's following the debate, but I wonder how many people whose automatic position would be to support retention, or how many people who've been influenced by those illegal, untrue posters might reconsider if they saw it all laid out for them.

horseburger

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

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?

Indeed, and it is very sad that it occurs.

The issue is that services should change, not that people should be made feel that they have no choice but to have an abortion procedure, because of lack of services and government policy.

Triceratops Ballet

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.

you forgot pretending to be midwives while canvassing and using that position to spread misinformation

RobertKK

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

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

One big lie is that pictures of the unborn are offensive, and shouldn’t be seen by children.
Another lie is choosing to pretend there are not two lives involved.
It would not be a lie though to say repealers view life as a choice where one person can decide if the life of another continues to live or have his/her life ended, where in healthy circumstances the life is viewed as an inconvenience.

baylah17

RobertKK wrote: »

One big lie is that pictures of the unborn are offensive, and shouldn’t be seen by children.
Another lie is choosing to pretend there are not two lives involved.
It would not be a lie though to say repealers view life as a choice where one person can decide if the life of another continues to live or have his/her life ended, where in healthy circumstances the life is viewed as an inconvenience.

FACTCHECKER:
Only one PERSONS life is involved actually.

RobertKK

Misael Echoing Horse wrote: »

It's frustrating that the now established habit of lying and cheating from the PLC isn't being highlighted more in mainstream coverage. It's clear to anyone who's following the debate, but I wonder how many people whose automatic position would be to support retention, or how many people who've been influenced by those illegal, untrue posters might reconsider if they saw it all laid out for them.

Because a lot of what is regarded as lies simply isn’t so they ignore it, as concentrating on something that would negatively affect the repeal side would be harmful.

Ave Sodalis

RobertKK wrote: »

One big lie is that pictures of the unborn are offensive, and shouldn’t be seen by children.
Another lie is choosing to pretend there are not two lives involved.
It would not be a lie though to say repealers view life as a choice where one person can decide if the life of another continues to live or have his/her life ended, where in healthy circumstances the life is viewed as an inconvenience.

What? How on earth can you justify showing that to children and how is that a lie?

On the two lives: how is that a lie too?

That is a complete an utter lie. Are you being hypocritical and ironic on purpose?

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

One big lie is that pictures of the unborn are offensive, and shouldn’t be seen by children.
Another lie is choosing to pretend there are not two lives involved.
It would not be a lie though to say repealers view life as a choice where one person can decide if the life of another continues to live or have his/her life ended, where in healthy circumstances the life is viewed as an inconvenience.

Pictures of the unborn are offensive, because the pictures the PLC have used are mainly incorrect pictures, it's fine to get offended when there are blatant lies being thrown around, and no, children should not have to see what an aborted 12 week fetus looks like because children have not got the ability to vote.

Triceratops Ballet

horseburger wrote: »

Indeed, and it is very sad that it occurs.

The issue is that services should change, not that people should be made feel that they have no choice but to have an abortion procedure, because of lack of services and government policy.

Yes services should change, you'll get no argument from me on that, but since we're already in a situation where women are having abortions for economic reasons why are there no active campaigns led by the likes of McGuirk to make changes in that area, if the anti repealers would put half the effort into that that they do into defending the 8th amendment sure the government would have no choice but to act?

RobertKK

baylah17 wrote: »

FACTCHECKER:
Only one PERSONS life is involved actually.

That is you trying to evade that there are at least two lives (more if twins or more) involved.

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

Because a lot of what is regarded as lies simply isn’t so they ignore it, as concentrating on something that would negatively affect the repeal side would be harmful.

Give me a list of what "isn't lies" from the pro-life side.

The "1 in 5" has proven to be a blatant misinterpretation of statistics.

The "90% of babies with Down Syndrome" has also been proven to be a blatant misstatement of what is actually correct.

These are two I can think of straight away.

horseburger

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Yes services should change, you'll get no argument from me on that, but since we're already in a situation where women are having abortions for economic reasons why are there no active campaigns led by the likes of McGuirk to make changes in that area, if the anti repealers would put half the effort into that that they do into defending the 8th amendment sure the government would have no choice but to act?

Perhaps ask John McGuirk?

I guess he's contactable on twitter?

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

That is you trying to evade that there are at least two lives (more if twins or more) involved.

That is the entirety of pro-life trying to evade that there is a major difference between a born child and a 12 week fetus.

blanch152

RobertKK wrote: »

One big lie is that pictures of the unborn are offensive, and shouldn’t be seen by children.

That is not a lie.

Many people find them offensive, particularly parents who have lost babies through miscarriage or their friends and relations.

RobertKK wrote: »

Another lie is choosing to pretend there are not two lives involved.

When is one alive? How do you define life? How you define human as a noun or an adjective?

My large toenail clipping is bigger than a 4-week old fetus. Are there two lives involved when I clip my toenails?

Nobody is saying there are not two lives involved, they are just disagreeing over when there is two lives involved.

RobertKK wrote: »

It would not be a lie though to say repealers view life as a choice where one person can decide if the life of another continues to live or have his/her life ended, where in healthy circumstances the life is viewed as an inconvenience.

That is a lie, which makes three lies in one post.


As a repealer, I take the view that the 8th Amendment is a legal abomination, that has had to be amended twice, has caused harm to countless women, resulted in several dying, has caused the X Case, the Y Case, the C case, etc. and is not the way to regulate the issue of abortion. No matter what your view of abortion, the Oireachtas should make the appropriate laws. I don't have to be pro-abortion or anti-abortion to hold my repeal views, once they are based on those legal views.

RobertKK

robarmstrong wrote: »

Pictures of the unborn are offensive, because the pictures the PLC have used are mainly incorrect pictures, it's fine to get offended when there are blatant lies being thrown around, and no, children should not have to see what an aborted 12 week fetus looks like because children have not got the ability to vote.

You mean like in these videos:

An unborn at 8 weeks:

An unborn at 9 weeks:

An unborn at 10 weeks:

An unborn at 11 weeks:

An unborn at 12 weeks:

So you advocate that children should not be taught biology?
Are the above videos offensive, given this is what the repeal side want to be allowed to be aborted?

AtomicHorror

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.

The reason for the repeal shield has been explained to you. You didn't even acknowledge that explanation. There are vulnerable people who want to be involved in this debate, who should not have to engage with combative opponents if they don't wish to.

Please have a bit of empathy.

baylah17

robarmstrong wrote: »

That is the entirety of pro-life trying to evade that there is a major difference between a born child and a 12 week fetus.

There is a huge difference
One is a human being with full Constitutional rights
One is not

RobertKK

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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



the retain side dont need a shield for that.

Noise you call it, or ignorance is bliss is another way of looking at it.

robarmstrong

Let me put this very, very simply so you can't deflect.

Do you think that children should be shown graphic images of aborted babies?

Also - those videos? I know all about them considering the miscarriages and whatnot my partner and I have went through. Try again.

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

Noise you call it, or ignorance is bliss is another way of looking at it.

what else would you call repeating the same questions ad nauseum even after they have been answered?

RobertKK

baylah17 wrote: »

There is a huge difference
One is a human being with full Constitutional rights
One is not

Another lie, pretend the unborn lacks any humanity.

robarmstrong

robarmstrong wrote: »

Give me a list of what "isn't lies" from the pro-life side.

The "1 in 5" has proven to be a blatant misinterpretation of statistics.

The "90% of babies with Down Syndrome" has also been proven to be a blatant misstatement of what is actually correct.

These are two I can think of straight away.

@RobertKK - ICYMI

.......

This post has been deleted.

baylah17

RobertKK wrote: »

You mean like in these videos:

An unborn at 8 weeks:

An unborn at 9 weeks:

An unborn at 10 weeks:

An unborn at 11 weeks:

An unborn at 12 weeks:

So you advocate that children should not be taught biology?
Are the above videos offensive, given this is what the repeal side want to be allowed to be aborted?

I'd respond honestly but I'd be banned for calling you what you are!
So I will do what I can Ignore you.

B0jangles

Oppression is not being denied legal control over your own body.

True Oppression is being blocked on twitter.

Am I the only one whose irony meter just exploded?

Ave Sodalis

RobertKK wrote:

Another lie, pretend the unborn lacks any humanity.

It is 100% undisputable fact that the unborn does not have full constitutional protection, while a born person does. There is no possible way you can twist that into saying it's a lie.

.......

This post has been deleted.