The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Mr. CooL ICE

Mod: Thread reopened.

However, some things need to be reiterated as people seem to be forgetful.

1) Don't question moderator actions on thread. Seriously, this is boards 101. It clutters up the thread. Report posts and move on. PM the mod in question if you have a question to ask. Any more of this and it'll be straight to cards/bans.

2) Don't discuss other posters' posts in other forums, as it is dickish behaviour. If you want to discuss other posters' posts from within After Hours, only do it if it is in some relevant context.

3) Stop accusing posters of being in US (or whatever) time zones. It is taking cheap shots and adding nothing to the discussion. This has been warned about before so any more will result in cards/bans.



Have deleted some posts because the last few pages is a bickering mess. And ffs, the weather is nice, so why can't everybody play nice?

kylith

RobertKK wrote: »

So the abortion advocates were telling lies then as well.

So is the morning after pill banned?
Women do get treated if ill in pregnancy even if poses a risk to the life of the unborn.
Women not treated for high blood pressure in pregnancy?
But they did use 'may' a lot since they were not dealing with truths.

So many falsehoods that didn't happen from the anti-amendment side in 1983.

OR treatments for some conditions have moved on since the 80s.

Incidentally; termination of pregnancy is still the only option for Toxaemia, or pre-eclampsia as it is now usually called.

pitifulgod

RobertKK wrote: »

So the abortion advocates were telling lies then as well.

So is the morning after pill banned?
Women do get treated if ill in pregnancy even if poses a risk to the life of the unborn.
Women not treated for high blood pressure in pregnancy?
But they did use 'may' a lot since they were not dealing with truths.

So many falsehoods that didn't happen from the anti-amendment side in 1983.

To use an example, a woman has cancer and wishes to avail of a drug trial. This medical drug has a potentially higher survival rate. She cannot have a medical trial as an abortion is required. That's being refused a treatment no? This has happened.
https://amp.independent.ie/regionals/goreyguardian/news/abortion-nightmare-for-cancer-sufferer-michelle-27340507.html?__twitter_impression=true

Zubeneschamali

RobertKK wrote: »

So is the morning after pill banned?
Women do get treated if ill in pregnancy even if poses a risk to the life of the unborn.
Women not treated for high blood pressure in pregnancy?
But they did use 'may' a lot since they were not dealing with truths.

The MAP is not banned, because the courts decided the 8th does not apply from fertilization, and the poor little zygote has no legal protection at all until implantation. This court case could have gone the other way as outlined in the pamphlet - the prolifers certainly thought it would.

Women do not get treated for some conditions. There are medications like chemo which doctors will not give you if pregnant, and you can't get an abortion (here) to start them. Only option is a trip to England.

They predicted the X case injunction, and we had to have a referendum to fix that issue (13th).

They predicted the issue with abortion information, and we had to have another referendum (14th) to fix that.

And, not mentioned, but both Alan Shatter in the Dail and the AG on record said the amendment would have the opposite effect of its intention and would make legal abortion a constitutional necessity.

v638sg7k1a92bx

SusieBlue wrote: »

Can you please provide evidence that a 6 week old zygote should have the same rights as a living citizen, thanks.

You are the one advocating repealing the 8th amendment, the onus is on you to to outline the basis for changing the status quo and to prove that a 6 week old zygote should not have a right to life.

Triceratops Ballet

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

You are the one advocating repealing the 8th amendment, the onus is on you to to outline the basis for changing the status quo and to prove that a 6 week old zygote should not have a right to life.

Because it's right to life directly impacts on the rights of another living breathing human being

.......

This post has been deleted.

baylah17

AnneFrank wrote: »

ELM327 wrote: »

The one thread, and not trolling, just quoting some of your one liners.Not just this thread actually, multiple threads.

AhGo suck on your rosary beads lol Seriously though You need to try living You know Get a life ChillRelaxHave sexEnjoy sexGreet the world with a smile

v638sg7k1a92bx

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Because it's right to life directly impacts on the rights of another living breathing human being

How does a baby in a woman's, who did not choose to be there, impact on anyone else's rights?

.......

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

You are the one advocating repealing the 8th amendment, the onus is on you to to outline the basis for changing the status quo and to prove that a 6 week old zygote should not have a right to life.

Well firstly, the onus isn't on me to prove anything to you.
Because you aren't listening to anything you are told, which is why the last 6 pages of the thread descended into a repetitive mess.

Secondly, the act states it has equal life to that of the mother.

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother

I've already explained several times why I don't feel a fetus or zygote is of equal worth to a living woman.

Now I'm asking you, why you feel a zygote should have equal rights to a born citizen?

kylith

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

You are the one advocating repealing the 8th amendment, the onus is on you to to outline the basis for changing the status quo and to prove that a 6 week old zygote should not have a right to life.

It has no functioning brain.
It has no functioning nervous system.
It has no functioning organs.
It cannot survive outside of a womb.

Why should it have rights that take precedence over those of a grown woman?
Why should she have to carry it to term if she does not want to? Pregnancy and birth can be torturous.

v638sg7k1a92bx

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

As I've explained to you dozens of times, those explanations don't stand up to scrutiny.

seamus

RobertKK wrote: »

So the abortion advocates were telling lies then as well.

So is the morning after pill banned?
Women do get treated if ill in pregnancy even if poses a risk to the life of the unborn.
Women not treated for high blood pressure in pregnancy?
But they did use 'may' a lot since they were not dealing with truths.

So many falsehoods that didn't happen from the anti-amendment side in 1983.

I don't think you understand what the word "lie" means Robert.
There are no statements in that leaflets about what "will" happen, just what "may" happen.

And none of them were lies.

The morning after pill was banned in Ireland until 2003.
Women who are ill in pregnancy often do not get treated if it poses a risk to the unborn.
As mentioned above, the only treatment for pre-eclampsia is termination. Irish women with this condition have to engage in a balancing act where they're continually monitored and the pregnancy brought as far as the doctors believe is possible, before delivery. And that brings along with it a lot of potential lifelong complications and increased risk factors for other conditions; for both mother and child.

Whereas an early diagnosis with pre-eclampsia could allow for an early termination before it becomes any more complicated, this is just not an option in Ireland.

SusieBlue

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

As I've explained to you dozens of times, those explanations don't stand up to scrutiny.

Your arguments in favour of keeping the 8th don't stand up to my scrutiny.

I shouldn't have to live my life and suffer restricted maternity care, because my choices fall short of your standards.

BarleySweets

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Can you put that in a sentence please? I don't even think it's grammatically correct.

"Hello Mary how are you?"
"Not very well I have a pregnancy"

What you wrote isn’t grammatically correct.

Your English teachers must be rolling in their graves.

Here’s some correct sentences for ya:

- A pregnancy usually lasts for 38 weeks.
- The excited lady enjoyed a pregnancy free from any problems.
- The tall man was happy when his sister told him that her recent nausea wasn’t caused by an illness but that she had sex with a nice man a few weeks ago that resulted in a pregnancy. Unfortunately his sister couldn’t remember the nice man’s name so he didn’t know who to congratulate but everybody was happy with the outcome.






And my favorite: The fictional character, Mary, from the bestselling novel “The Bible”, had a pregnancy that started when she was a virgin. (Which is, of course, impossible in real life.)

ohnonotgmail

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

As I've explained to you dozens of times, those explanations don't stand up to scrutiny.

so all of the arguments below dont stand up to scrutiny?

It has no functioning brain.
It has no functioning nervous system.
It has no functioning organs.
It cannot survive outside of a womb.

v638sg7k1a92bx

BarleySweets wrote: »

What you wrote isn’t grammatically correct.

Your English teachers must be rolling in their graves.

Here’s some correct sentences for ya:

- A pregnancy usually lasts for 38 weeks.
- The excited lady enjoyed a pregnancy free from any problems.
- The tall man was happy when his sister told him that her recent nausea wasn’t caused by an illness but that she had sex with a nice man a few weeks ago that resulted in a pregnancy. Unfortunately his sister couldn’t remember the nice man’s name so he didn’t know who to congratulate but everybody was happy with the outcome.

And my favorite: The fictional character, Mary, from the bestselling novel “The Bible”, had a pregnancy that started when she was a virgin. (Which is, of course, impossible in real life.)

I know it's not correct, that was the whole point.

Triceratops Ballet

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

How does a baby in a woman's, who did not choose to be there, impact on anyone else's rights?

you think carrying a baby puts no limitations on you?

If you can be denied medical treatment because you are pregnant your rights are being impacted on
If you are forced to have a medical procedure you don't want because you are pregnant your rights are being impacted on
If you are raped and become pregnant you are forced to pay a price for a situation you did not ask to be in and are in through no fault of your own
The right to life of the unborn interferes with womens rights in all of those situations.

Should the 8th be retained, what would you say to a couple who are forced to travel for a termination?

January

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

How does a baby in a woman's, who did not choose to be there, impact on anyone else's rights?

You're kidding right? Right?

How does a 'baby' (it's not a baby, but we'll play along) that I tried to prevent not impact on my rights? What about my right to a life and my already born children's right to a life without poverty?

kylith

BarleySweets wrote: »

And my favorite: The fictional character, Mary, from the bestselling novel “The Bible”, had a pregnancy that started when she was a virgin. (Which is, of course, impossible in real life.)

Actually, no. As 'virginity' is dependant on PiV sex a lesbian could easily have a virgin birth, or a heterosexual couple if, as Scrubs put it, there was an airstrike on an outlying region.

Triceratops Ballet

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

As I've explained to you dozens of times, those explanations don't stand up to scrutiny.

of course they do, you just don't want them to

v638sg7k1a92bx

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so all of the arguments below dont stand up to scrutiny?

That does not fit the description of a child five minutes before delivery.

Wrong and next.

ohnonotgmail

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

That does not fit the description of a child five minutes before delivery.

Wrong and next.

we are not talking about a child 5 minutes . babies are not aborted 5 minutes from delivery except in very exceptional medical circumstances.

SusieBlue

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

That does not fit the description of a child five minutes before delivery.

Wrong and next.

Oh would you give over. The referendum is for on request at pre 12 weeks gestation, and later in heartbreaking cases of FFA.
There will be no abortions occurring 5 minutes before birth so you have no need to keep bringing it up.
Its pure deflection.

AnneFrank

AnneFrank wrote: »

wow trolling me through different threads on different topics,
i wasn't aware that was allowed.

One of the great things about boards it allows you to see all the racist, homophobic and misogynistic sh1t some people post.

.......

This post has been deleted.

kylith

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

That does not fit the description of a child five minutes before delivery.

Wrong and next.

1) You specifically asked about a 6 week foetus.

2) Your questions about '5 minutes before delivery' aka induction, aka happens all the time were answered.

3) Ref 2): I asked why, in your opinion/estimation/belief a woman would request an abortion "5 minutes before delivery". I would appreciate an answer.

ohnonotgmail

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

That does not fit the description of a child five minutes before delivery.

Wrong and next.

The condescending attitude must be a real vote winner. No wonder the No side are trailing so badly.

v638sg7k1a92bx

January wrote: »

You're kidding right? Right?

How does a 'baby' (it's not a baby, but we'll play along) that I tried to prevent not impact on my rights? What about my right to a life and my already born children's right to a life without poverty?

Wrong again. This is getting very tiresome.

Causation and co-relation are not the same thing. Just because you are pregnant does not automatically put your life in immediate risk, the same way having an unwanted child does mean your other children will automatically be condemned to a life of poverty.