The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

BarleySweets

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I always thought Muslims considered abortion to be haram (not sure on the spelling) or forbidden. Unless the father or husband decided it was necessary in which case the woman doesn't have choice.

Not everything is haram in Islam lol

But no, you had it wrong. According to the Koran, if a choice has to be made between the life of a mother or her unborn baby, the Koran dictates that every effort must be used to save the mother’s life. This guarantees abortion in cases where women develop life-threatening issues related to their pregnancy for all Muslims. (The religion has no guidance on abortions in any other situation, which leaves it up to personal/community interpretation).

So you tend to find that conservative & pious Muslims will limit abortion to only being available when absolutely necessary with more tolerance for wider availability for abortion as the people/community become less strictly religious.

Regarding male consent: As with conservative/pious populations of pretty much any faith, this conservatism comes tagged along with a healthy dose of patriarchy too, leading to a lot of religiously strict countries requiring male consent for all sorts of aspects a a woman’s life (not just for abortion). It’s not like these populations are singularly pious however, common sense prevails. The male consent requirements would be laws or rules, and as with all laws and rules, they only apply if someone reports a breach so you’ll likely find a situation where unspoken access to abortion is available to pretty much everyone who has the means. Totally illegal, technically, but as long as nobody gets caught, who cares, eh? People look out for each other no matter what god they pray to. EDIT: Just wanted to add that the fundamental experiences of women across the world is similar regarding abortion in a strict country. Irish women looked out for each other in exactly the same way regarding abortion, be it backroom-abortions or traveling to England: information and funds shared among friends to help a friend in need.

Sofiztikated

Back to the bare bones of it, the 8th is unfit for purpose.

It causes undue harm, it didn't do what it was supposed to, and did what it was supposed to prevent.

Whatever your position on prolife/prochoice, it needs to be repealed.

BarleySweets

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Back to the bare bones of it, the 8th is unfit for purpose.

It causes undue harm, it didn't do what it was supposed to, and did what it was supposed to prevent.

Whatever your position on prolife/prochoice, it needs to be repealed.

Agreed. I find it hard to believe anybody could disagree with this!

Billy86

I can't find the post but I believe someone asked this morning or last night if AH was representative of the general public with regards to the poll results thus far.

In 2015 for SSM the 'yes' vote AH poll was 9% higher than the actual results (71% vs 62%), which is somewhat interesting as despite how much the 'no' crowd in 2018 have been trying to push the narrative that "this one is different, far less people will favour access to abortions than favoured SSM", on AH 'yes' to repealing the 8th is actually polling higher than SSM was in 2015 (73% vs 71%).

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057426700

Zerbini Blewitt

A neutral text based discussion platform like this really is kryptonite to the forced-birth side of this maternal healthcare abomination (& abortion) amendment issue.

On TV or radio they can talk 90 to the dozen and still sound plausible to people not familiar with the history of this (reason v 10th century theocracy) debate stretching back…since forever.

Here however…it’s different.

On today’s evidence alone, if it was a boxing match – not only would the referee stop the fight in the first round but the forced-birther (p-l) participant would be taken out of the ring in a stretcher, straight into a hospital intensive care unit.

It’s pitiful really...

ohnonotgmail

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

A neutral text based platform like this really is kryptonite to the forced-birth side of this maternal healthcare abomination (& abortion) amendment issue.

On TV or radio they can talk 90 to the dozen and still sound plausible to people not familiar with the history of this (reason v 10th century theocracy) debate stretching back…since forever.

Here however…it’s different.

On today’s evidence alone, if it was a boxing match – not only would the referee stop the fight in the first round but the forced-birther (p-l) participant would be taken out of the ring in a stretcher, straight into a hospital intensive care unit.

It’s pitiful really...

Annasopra

thee glitz wrote: »

Do you not think it's interesting or relevant that the Minister for Children (and that's an appointment beyond satire) is proposing a measure to increase the birth rate in the face of a referendum that would likely lead to more abortions if passed?

Has it not crossed your mind to consider, maybe address, any post before dismissing it?

All of the available evidence shows that a more liberal abortion regime does not cause an increase in abortions.

horseburger

robarmstrong wrote: »

One is real, the other is a completely inaccurate representation of what the real fetus looks like.

Look at those two photos, are you telling me that RobertKK was posting a factual picture by saying "this is what an unborn 12 week fetus looks like"? Are you telling me that you do not see massive, significant differences between the two?

I don't give a toss about your pro-life mantra spiel, I'm asking you a question and you are avoiding giving definitive answer.

You're purposefully deflecting here, is RobertKK's image an accurate representation of the actual 12 week fetus image I posted, yes or no?

Answer the question I am asking you, definitively, examine the two pictures, tell me your findings.

I already said to you that it doesn't really impact on the issue of abortion, if both images are fake.

If you are arguing that the model is an inaccurate representation of the size of the foetus, which it might be, it doesn't impact on the debate, because no matter if both images are an inaccurate representation, abortion still involves the ending of life, regardless of the stage of its human life cycle deveopment.

If you are saying that it is ok to end the life of a foetus at an earlier stage of pregnancy, but not at a later stage, why would that be?

The life of the foetus will still be ended, so I don't really see why - if abortion is advocated - it is more acceptable to end its life on the basis that it is at an earlier stage of development than later.

What exactly are you hoping I will say?

Annasopra

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.

Not at all.

There are posters here who come in. They ask questions. The questions get answered. They ask again. They get answered again. They ask again. Its a way of responding to trollish behaviour so that the trolls dont get fed and other posters dont waste time.

robarmstrong

horseburger wrote: »

I already said to you that it doesn't really impact on the issue of abortion, if both images are fake.

If you are arguing that the model is an inaccurate representation of the size of the foetus, which it might be, it doesn't impact on the debate, because no matter if both images are an inaccurate representation, abortion still involves the ending of life, regardless of the stage of its human life cycle deveopment.

If you are saying that it is ok to end the life of a foetus at an earlier stage of pregnancy, but not at a later stage, why would that be?

The life of the foetus will still be ended, so I don't really see why - if abortion is advocated - it is more acceptable to end its life on the basis that it is at an earlier stage of development than later.

What exactly are you hoping I will say?

So more deflection, grand I expected as much.

It has everything to do with the debate if people are posting such images (the false one Robert uploaded) to sway undecided voters.

But again, avoid the question and continue your whole "I'm on the fence but only seem to have issues with the pro-choice" mantra.

Annasopra

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.

If I was canvassing and someone asked me a question I would answer it. If that person kept asking the question repeatedly after I had answered it numerous times I would then move on on the basis that A) the person is clearly refusing to listen to what I have said the person is refusing to acknowledge anything I said C) the person is obviously trying to waste my time at doors.

robarmstrong

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

If I was canvassing and someone asked me a question I would answer it. If that person kept asking the question repeatedly after I had answered it numerous times I would then move on on the basis that A) the person is clearly refusing to listen to what I have said the person is refusing to acknowledge anything I said C) the person is obviously trying to waste my time at doors.

Honestly, don't even bother your time with him, he does nothing but lie, get called out on it and then run away.

Couldn't even accept his earlier false claim regarding a picture of what an "unborn 12 week fetus" looked like, instead just went full on deflection with the rest of his buddies who can't and won't give a definitive answer on the accuracy of said image in comparison with an ACTUAL photo of a REAL 12 week fetus.

NuMarvel

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

All of the available evidence shows that a more liberal abortion regime does not cause an increase in abortions.

Even the Iona Institute said this earlier today.

"Abortion rates are not CAUSED by legal regime, in one way or another"

https://twitter.com/ionainstitute/status/986621523569102848

Annasopra

RobertKK wrote: »

It is not a lie that in certain cases the unborn can be aborted up to the point of viability in the proposed legislation, which would be near the 6 month period.

Yes

The Government’s proposal is that abortion will be available

On request up to 12 weeks, subject to a 3-day waiting period;
Up to viability of the foetus: where two doctors certify that there is a risk to the life of the pregnant woman;
Up to viability of the foetus: where two doctors certify that there is a risk of serious harm to the health of the pregnant woman;
Where two doctors certify that there has been a diagnosis of ‘fatal foetal anomaly’;
When needed in an emergency.

thee glitz

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

All of the available evidence shows that a more liberal abortion regime does not cause an increase in abortions.

Is there evidence of this - pre and post a liberal abortion regime, or going the other way? Comparably much fewer women getting abortions done in England or Wales give Irish addresses than UK ones.

Yeah_Right

BarleySweets wrote: »

Not everything is haram in Islam lol

.... Edited by Yeah_Right. Long post...

: information and funds shared among friends to help a friend in need.

Interesting stuff. The reason I thought it was haram (thanks for confirming the spelling) was because a Muslim friend has been saying it on FB to promote saving the 8th. Haven't commented on his posts but I might have to now. Thanks.

My comment about fathers and husbands being in charge was a crack at places like Saudi Arabia, Turkey etc. that have misogynistic laws in regards to rape, marriage, infidelity, women in public.

Ken.

Mod- All this mention of shift change and people being paid to post stops now. Any more and it'll be a thread ban.

Martina1991

I made the mistake of commenting under a couple of pro life fb posts.

It just makes my blood boil seeing the same lines and lies thrown out over and over.

I'm in a thick mood now and my bf thinks I'm thick with him :pac:

baylah17

Somebody really ought to explain the difference e between trolling and canvassing to the forced birther mob.

Annasopra

thee glitz wrote: »

Is there evidence of this - pre and post a liberal abortion regime, or going the other way? Comparably much fewer women getting abortions done in England or Wales give Irish addresses than UK ones.

Have you looked at Switzerland? They had a referendum in 2002. They introduced legislation very similar to our proposed legislation and their numbers of abortions are quite low.

thee glitz

baylah17 wrote: »

Somebody really ought to explain the difference e between trolling and canvassing to the forced birther mob.

Use of the term 'forced birther' could be considered a bit trolly, forgive me, please, if that wasn't your intention. Most of a pro-choice persuasion don't seem to be making arguments based on the physical, or otherwise, toll(s) incurred during childbirth. Anecdotally, women seem more open to further births than men to repeat kicks in the stones. The equivalent would be something like 'recreational abortionists'.

Ave Sodalis

thee glitz wrote: »

Anecdotally, women seem more open to further births than men to repeat kicks in the stones.

Completely off topic and probably being used as a form of distraction but I'll bite. Women are more open to multiple births due to a massive rush of hormones that essentially makes the brain associate childbirth with a positive, despite the massive amount of pain, in order for females of all species to have more offspring. For many animals, and assuming once for humans too, reproducing is the basic reason for existence. The higher the intelligence, the less necessary it gets but we never lost the physical effects. Men getting kicked in the stones, also produces a rush of hormones and nerve signals that essentially do the opposite of birth hormones, but for much the same reason.


TL:DR, nature likes reproduction and does what it can to protect that function.

thee glitz

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Have you looked at Switzerland? They had a referendum in 2002. They introduced legislation very similar to our proposed legislation and their numbers of abortions are quite low.

I'm just quoting wikipedia here but

The Swiss abortion rate dropped from around 12 per thousand in the 1970s, when data first became available, to around 8 in the 1990s. It has remained stable at around 7 during the 2000s. In 2013 the rate had dropped still further to 6.4 per 1000. This remarkably low rate compared to countries such as the UK (17.5), France (15) or the U.S. (16) has been attributed to a low rate of unwanted pregnancies due to widespread sex education, wide use of contraception (including morning-after pills available without prescription) and Switzerland's relatively high socioeconomic level.

jimmycrackcorm

baylah17 wrote: »

Hello Divorce Goodbye Daddy
Lol

For one of my siblings that turned out to be very true.
Far from a LOL it is for a father who's sons were used as pawns in the divorce battle.

blanch152

horseburger wrote: »

I already said to you that it doesn't really impact on the issue of abortion, if both images are fake.

If you are arguing that the model is an inaccurate representation of the size of the foetus, which it might be, it doesn't impact on the debate, because no matter if both images are an inaccurate representation, abortion still involves the ending of life, regardless of the stage of its human life cycle deveopment.

If you are saying that it is ok to end the life of a foetus at an earlier stage of pregnancy, but not at a later stage, why would that be?

The life of the foetus will still be ended, so I don't really see why - if abortion is advocated - it is more acceptable to end its life on the basis that it is at an earlier stage of development than later.

What exactly are you hoping I will say?

I have been looking but I can't see from your posts whether you have acknowledged that your view that abortion in limited circumstances not currently permitted by the 8th means that you must vote for repeal.

I have asked you this question twice already but have yet to see a response. You keep posting as if you are undecided but the reality of your views requires a vote for repeal.

blanch152 wrote: »

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.

BarleySweets

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Interesting stuff. The reason I thought it was haram (thanks for confirming the spelling) was because a Muslim friend has been saying it on FB to promote saving the 8th. Haven't commented on his posts but I might have to now. Thanks.

My comment about fathers and husbands being in charge was a crack at places like Saudi Arabia, Turkey etc. that have misogynistic laws in regards to rape, marriage, infidelity, women in public.

Yeah, sure strict religious adherence and mysoginynistic/patriarchal laws go hand in hand unfortunately. No need to look at far flung exotic lands for proof of that: Ireland from independence to 2018 is all the proof we need! Or even the laws that the religious right cling to in the USA, for a familiar but still foreign example.

I’m loathe to hand out advice but please don’t go commenting at that guy just because someone on boards told you he’s wrong. I’m no fan of Catholicism but if someone from a different religion tried to educate me on the ins and outs of Catholicism I wouldn’t be too interested in anything they have to say. In saying that, if anyone else wants to live by their religion, as long as they’re not forcing it on anyone else, let them live how they want I say.

Issues like this are tough to interpret for anyone of any religion but even more so for Muslims because it’s holy book isn’t as specific when listing what is ok and what is not ok. So go easy on the fella, there’s no point in getting bogged down in ecumenical arguments over a referendum that he has no influence on whatsoever.

I’m not saying he has no idea about his own religion but, for regular people, it’s a pretty tricky religion to figure out. For example, in Islam, things that are haram are forbidden. Right, that sounds similar to what Christians would consider sins, yeah? But it’s a bit more tricky for Muslims because in the Bible, sins are explicitly stated in plain language leaving very little room for interpretation or confusion.

Whereas in the Koran, a lot of it is written in a kind of poetry as opposed to being written in plain language, so while certain things are explicitly stated to be haram (like eating pork), a lot of issues are not explicitly described, leaving the actual judgement open to their interpretation of what is written. So if they’re conservative, they tend to lean towards the patriarchal interpretations which then influences their followers to lean the same way and eventually pass laws that reflect that viewpoint.

This means that different sects of Islam will have different views on what is and isn’t allowed depending on how their scholars interpreted the same passages. If the meaning was explicitly stated, then there’s no difference but if it’s written in vague descriptions, then the scholar is open to spin the meaning in ay way he chooses. This leads to a situation where different sects can believe totally different things about the same issue.

Have a look at the wiki article on Islamic views on abortion if you want to see just how confusing these kinds of issues can be: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_abortion

To me, this article seems to have been written by people with conservative views who, while trying to be truthful and avoid lying about the issue, wish to obfuscate the description of the issue in such a way to influence the reader to believe that Muslims should condemn any notion of abortion. The intro paragraphs are full of vague, dense language strongly hinting that abortion is just not acceptable whereas hidden towards the end of that paragraph is the truth: “No Muslim-majority country bans abortion in the case of the mother's life being at risk. [4] Other reasons that are permitted by certain[citation needed] Muslim-majority countries include preserving a woman's physical or mental health, foetal impairment, cases of incest or rape, and social or economic reasons.”

Totally confusing for a lay reader to follow but an indication for us outsiders of the hurdles that ordinary Muslims have to work with to get a straight answer from their local experts on religious matters.

There’s a BBC article linked on that page too which is even worse because it was written and published by the fecking BBC, the one place regular folk can usually turn to to get solid facts about an issue. Similar to the wiki article, it’s full of contradictions and obfuscations. Hilariously, the first sentence is contradicted immediately by the second sentence. If something is stated as being forbidden by a religion, yet all flavors of the religion allow it under certain circumstance... then how can that thing be considered to be forbidden?

BarleySweets

horseburger wrote: »

I already said to you that it doesn't really impact on the issue of abortion, if both images are fake.

If you are arguing that the model is an inaccurate representation of the size of the foetus, which it might be, it doesn't impact on the debate, because no matter if both images are an inaccurate representation, abortion still involves the ending of life, regardless of the stage of its human life cycle deveopment.

If you are saying that it is ok to end the life of a foetus at an earlier stage of pregnancy, but not at a later stage, why would that be?

The life of the foetus will still be ended, so I don't really see why - if abortion is advocated - it is more acceptable to end its life on the basis that it is at an earlier stage of development than later.

What exactly are you hoping I will say?

I agree with you on that one, horseburger! Full-term abortions for all, and miniature Irish flags for everyone else!

BarleySweets

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Completely off topic and probably being used as a form of distraction but I'll bite. Women are more open to multiple births due to a massive rush of hormones that essentially makes the brain associate childbirth with a positive, despite the massive amount of pain, in order for females of all species to have more offspring. For many animals, and assuming once for humans too, reproducing is the basic reason for existence. The higher the intelligence, the less necessary it gets but we never lost the physical effects. Men getting kicked in the stones, also produces a rush of hormones and nerve signals that essentially do the opposite of birth hormones, but for much the same reason.


TL:DR, nature likes reproduction and does what it can to protect that function.

Oh Ave, why would you put yourself through replying to such nonsense!

horseburger

robarmstrong wrote: »

So more deflection, grand I expected as much.

It has everything to do with the debate if people are posting such images (the false one Robert uploaded) to sway undecided voters.

But again, avoid the question and continue your whole "I'm on the fence but only seem to have issues with the pro-choice" mantra.

With regard to your claim of misrepresentation of the human development of a foetus, it is worthwhile to consider that the images of cereal on cereal boxes are very often not actual size. Often the image is larger than the cereal in the box, to display more clearly the details of each Corn Flake or Rice Krispie, or Coco Pop, or Frostie, or All Bran, or Special K.

In the case below, the reviewer of a brand of cereal noticed that the image on the box, depicted the cereal as being smaller than actual size.

Neither a smaller or larger image on the box, justifies describing the cereal in the box, as not being cereal.

The image on the box being smaller or larger in the photo on the boxes, doesn't mean that the cereal contained in the boxes, isn't cereal.

Whatever it is you are trying quite hard to get at, doesn't change the issue that a foetus, at any stage of existence, no matter if it is at its earliest stage, middle or later stage, is undergoing human growth and development.

http://www.someblogsite.com/archives/2298

Here is some of what is stated, on this issue of the cereal being depicted, in the photos on the cereal boxes, in the review of the particular brand of cereal:

"I tried a new cereal the other day: Post Toasties. I forget where I picked it up, but I haven’t tried to find it again".

"This isn’t a review of the cereal itself (think “inflated grape nuts”), but rather of something I noticed on the box".

"In the US, all food products are required to list the nutrition information. I believe that a corollary to that law is that all cereal boxes are required to show a bowl of the cereal with milk (fruit garnish optional)".

"Let’s zoom in on the standard disclaimer":

"No big deal, right? Every box of cereal says “enlarged to show texture”.
Wrong! Well, every box may say that, but that doesn’t mean that it’s right.
I started eating the cereal and discovered that the cereal’s claims were incorrect. The photo on the box was not enlarged to show texture. In fact, the picture showed the cereal smaller than it actually was".

horseburger

blanch152 wrote: »

I have been looking but I can't see from your posts whether you have acknowledged that your view that abortion in limited circumstances not currently permitted by the 8th means that you must vote for repeal.

I have asked you this question twice already but have yet to see a response. You keep posting as if you are undecided but the reality of your views requires a vote for repeal.

Get over yourself.

I've made numerous points about the debate around the referendum for which I have not received a response.

Are you going to post replies to other posters about that?

What's your view of the discussion between Maria Steen and Ivana Bacik regarding grounds for abortion in relation to the exchanges between Peter Fitzpatrick and Patricia Lohr?