Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Options
1…240241243245246…325

Comments

  • Options
    #7262
    horseburger
    Registered Users Posts: 2,137 ✭✭✭horseburger


    BarleySweets wrote: »
    You’re doing it again, you’re confusing this conversation which is limited to removing one article from the constitution with a debate about legislative matters relating to abortion. Tell your local TDs about any concerns you have about future legislation and what procedures will be required by that future legislation.

    This conversation is about one thing and one thing only, to remove the 8th or not.

    And to answer your direct question about Niamh Smith TD: if she wishes to ignore the concerns of a woman who does not consent to become a mother, then yes, I would consider her to be anti-women. Exactly the same way if anybody singled out men and stopped us from choosing to have a sandwich for lunch and demanded we had soup instead, such people would be anti-men.

    You don't seem to grasp that fact, that the repeal of the Eighth Amendment, and uncertainty around the grounds under which abortion will be permitted, are related.

    Are you not anti woman, for disrespecting Niamh Smyth's sincere perspective on this issue, where abortion could be argued as anti woman in that the life of a female foetus is ended in abortion?

    I suggest this in reference, to the dialogue between Patricia Lohr Medical Director of BPAS, and Peter Fitzpatrick TD Fine Gael, at the Oireachtas Committee meeting on 22nd November 2017, where Patricia Lohr stated that an abortion on grounds of "foetal sex" as originally requested by the pregnant woman, but not approved - could be carried out under another ground - as suggested to the pregnant woman, by the staff of the abortion clinic.

    One presumes in this scenario that the pregnant woman was not aware that the alternative ground suggested, was available to her as a ground.

    The result of this is, that it is very difficult to ensure that abortions are not taking place, on grounds that are not permitted by legislation.

    In this scenario, where an abortion is sought under a ground not legislated for, why doesn't the abortion clinic not just say that they cannot carry an abortion out on the ground requested, and leave it at that.

    Why does a staff member of the abortion clinic, suggest an alternative ground - another ground that is approved for abortion?

    This alternative suggestion of another ground ensures that the abortion takes place, on a ground that was not originally sought by the pregnant mother?

    Doesn't that raise a question of ethics, with regard to an abortion clinic, contravening the legislation that is in place - with regard to the reason given by the pregnant woman, for requesting an abortion - in the country in which the clinic is operating, in relation to the grounds that are permitted for abortion?


  • Options
    #7263
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


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

    As opposed to the condescending posts by others about how intelligent they are and the deep south and Northern Ireland. Give me a break.


  • Options
    #7264
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #7265
    Triceratops Ballet
    Registered Users Posts: 4,894 ✭✭✭Triceratops Ballet


    Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »
    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 right to life.

    you don't believe that people should have the right of self determination, that they should have a right to choose what they want to do with their lives? would you be happy if your name was picked form a hat and you were forced into a life not of your own choosing?


  • Options
    #7266
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »
    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 right to life.

    No, my life is not at immediate risk but why should I have to keep having children just because my contraception has failed?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7267
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »
    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 right to life.

    Have a read of the last 2 words of January's post there.

    Should the children she already has be condemned to a life of poverty because she cannot afford to care for another child?


  • Options
    #7268
    BarleySweets
    Registered Users Posts: 198 ✭✭BarleySweets


    Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »
    I know it's not correct, that was the whole point.

    No, again you’re deflecting, this whole conversation thread began when you exclaimed that saying “a pregnancy” was wrong. That a pregnancy was not a thing. In a previous post I told you that saying “a pregnancy” was correct, because “pregnancy” is a noun. You seem to think you can pick and choose beliefs and facts to suit your faith, but you can’t. Especially not when you’re nitpicking grammar that you should have learned in high babies!

    In that last post, my point was to correct your misuse of “a pregnancy” and your misunderstanding of how to incorporate “a pregnancy” into grammatically correct sentences. I showed you that saying “a pregnancy” is perfectly crime lent and I even wrote some sentences to show you how to write sentences in English that incorporate “a pregnancy”.


  • Options
    #7269
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #7270
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »
    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 right to life.

    This is all a matter of opinion. That's why we're having a referendum, because opinions on the matter differ.

    That doesn't make people "wrong". It means we don't feel the same as you do on the issue. Your tone is extremely patronising, with your "Wrong!", "Try again" and "Next" type comments.
    We aren't here to convince you when you clearly won't be convinced, which is why I can't understand why you keep demanding answers and explanations from people.


  • Options
    #7271
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,466 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »
    As opposed to the condescending posts by others about how intelligent they are and the deep south and Northern Ireland. Give me a break.

    i think you are reading a different thread to everybody else.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7272
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #7273
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    Triceratops Ballet wrote: »
    you don't believe that people should have the right of self determination, that they should have a right to choose what they want to do with their lives? would you be happy if your name was picked form a hat and you were forced into a life not of your own choosing?

    The right to self determination! This is getting ridiculous.


  • Options
    #7274
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Keep having children just because your contraception has failed? You do realise that it is 99% effective.


  • Options
    #7275
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »
    Keep having children just because your contraception has failed? You do realise that it is 99% effective.

    You do realise you're completely wrong?

    The poster you just quoted actually knows some very impressive statistics on the effectiveness of contraception, I'm sure she'll post them shortly for you. You might learn something.


  • Options
    #7276
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Greater health risks are not immediate risks to your life. Based on your rational nobody would ever have children because of increased inherent risk.


  • Options
    #7277
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Your poor granny :( pregnancy and birth is so hard, my whole tummy is numb from my belly button down, from having two cesareans. It's not fun!


  • Options
    #7278
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »
    Keep having children just because your contraception has failed? You do realise that it is 99% effective.

    Yeah, do some research.

    I've had two contraceptive failures in 14 years, one I choose to go ahead with the pregnancy and one I didn't.


  • Options
    #7279
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »
    Greater health risks are not immediate risks to your life. Based on your rational nobody would ever have children because of increased inherent risk.

    It should be up to the woman whether she is wiling to take those risks, not you.

    Its fine to make statements like that when you aren't the one facing the risks.
    You have no idea of the circumstances women find themselves in with their health, where pregnancy can be gravely dangerous.
    The onus should be on her to make that choice, not society.


  • Options
    #7280
    BarleySweets
    Registered Users Posts: 198 ✭✭BarleySweets


    kylith wrote: »
    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.

    Well I stand corrected! I didn’t realize gender or PiV-ness had anything to do with it, always thought losing ones virginity just meant two people -of different or same gender- having sex together. Thanks!


  • Options
    #7281
    horseburger
    Registered Users Posts: 2,137 ✭✭✭horseburger


    captbarnacles wrote: »
    Ready to answer some questions yet?

    Are you going to vote yes/no and what restrictions would you like to see in place if it is passed?

    I guess you are one of the people, as described by Ian O'Doherty.

    Ian O'Doherty on the Pat Kenny show today made an interesting observation,
    about the way that certain advocates for a yes vote use tactics that alienate
    voters - who are undecided and see both sides of the argument - from
    voting yes.

    He stated:
    "I remember having
    dealings with some of the hardcore pro life groups when I was starting out as a
    journalist and they were the worst people in the world, right. A lot of
    the pro life people that I was used to, were the ones that were really peddling
    moral superiority. They were really obnoxious. They had some nasty tactics
    on how they dealt with journalists and stuff like that".

    He
    added that
    "it really saddens me, as somebody who would consider
    themselves reluctantly - I'm not on any side - but I would be pro choice, that I
    see some of the, real sort of bigotry, and sneering intolerance that is coming
    from some of the pro choice campaigners, as if the assumption that, anybody who
    is pro life, is automatically a religious fundamentalist - I know Atheist pro
    lifers".

    He added
    "it's the sneery condescention,
    against a lot of people on the pro life side that is actually the best
    marshalling tactic that the pro life people have themselves".


    In the discussion Peadar Toibin TD Fianna Fáil, spoke of how many voters
    would be supportive of legislation to allow abortion, in circumstances that are
    not currently permitted, for example anencephaly.

    He added that
    many voters have an extreme difficulty supporting a proposal that will permit
    abortion with no restriction for the first three months.

    Catherine
    Noone spoke using the euphemism 'termination of a pregnancy'.

    Why
    didn't Pat Kenny seek clarification from her, on whether she was using this
    phrase to reference births, or abortions, considering that a birth of a child
    coincides with the ending of a pregnancy, just the same as a pregnancy ends when
    an abortion is carried
    out?

    https://www.newstalk.com/listen_back/13240/44204/20th_April_2018_-_The_Pat_Kenny_Show_Part_3/


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7282
    Triceratops Ballet
    Registered Users Posts: 4,894 ✭✭✭Triceratops Ballet


    Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »
    The right to self determination! This is getting ridiculous.

    So you think it's perfectly just then that someone be actively forced to live a life that they don't want against their will. If we pull your name out of the hat to go down the mines you'll just accept that?

    I note you ignored my other reply about how being pregnant impacts on the rights of a pregnant woman.

    Here it is in case you want to tell me how "wrong" I am :rolleyes:
    Triceratops Ballet wrote: »
    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?


  • Options
    #7283
    zedhead
    Registered Users Posts: 602 ✭✭✭zedhead


    Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »
    Greater health risks are not immediate risks to your life. Based on your rational nobody would ever have children because of increased inherent risk.

    No people weigh up benefits and risks and decide for the situation they are in.

    For someone who wants a child, the benefits outweigh the risks.

    For someone who does not want to be pregnant for whatever reason, the risks outweigh the benefits.

    So we advocate for their choice.


  • Options
    #7284
    Kk333
    Registered Users Posts: 83 ✭✭Kk333


    January wrote: »
    No, my life is not at immediate risk but why should I have to keep having children just because my contraception has failed?

    Get your fella to get the snips. Hey George snip snip.


  • Options
    #7285
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    Kk333 wrote: »
    Get your fella to get the snips. Hey George snip snip.

    That's not 100% effective either you know.


  • Options
    #7286
    BarleySweets
    Registered Users Posts: 198 ✭✭BarleySweets


    Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »
    Greater health risks are not immediate risks to your life. Based on your rational nobody would ever have children because of increased inherent risk.

    What kind of world do you actually live in?!


  • Options
    #7287
    Triceratops Ballet
    Registered Users Posts: 4,894 ✭✭✭Triceratops Ballet


    Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »
    Greater health risks are not immediate risks to your life. Based on your rational nobody would ever have children because of increased inherent risk.

    but that's not what you asked, you asked:
    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?


  • Options
    #7288
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    BarleySweets wrote: »
    Well I stand corrected! I didn’t realize gender or PiV-ness had anything to do with it, always thought losing ones virginity just meant two people -of different or same gender- having sex together. Thanks!
    Virginity refers only to penetration of vagina by penis. You can get pregnant whether sperm goes in by turkey baster or, how to put this...., seepage.


  • Options
    #7289
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    kylith wrote: »
    Have a read of the last 2 words of January's post there.

    Should the children she already has be condemned to a life of poverty because she cannot afford to care for another child?

    As I said, causation and co-relation is not the same thing. Just because a woman is pregnant does not automatically mean that the children will be condemned to poverty. There are numerous causes of poverty which I'm sure you already know.


  • Options
    #7290
    zedhead
    Registered Users Posts: 602 ✭✭✭zedhead


    Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »
    As I said, causation and co-relation is not the same thing. Just because a woman is pregnant does not automatically mean that the children will be condemned to poverty. There are numerous causes of poverty which I'm sure you already know.

    But in her specific situation it would mean that. Her finances allowed her to provide for the family she had, not an extra person.

    Again the idea is that there is not a one size fits all experience to pregnancy. Everyones situation is different. Which is why the decision is between the woman and her doctor. Nobody else.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7291
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »
    As I said, causation and co-relation is not the same thing. Just because a woman is pregnant does not automatically mean that the children will be condemned to poverty. There are numerous causes of poverty which I'm sure you already know.

    If one is already in straitened circumstances then another mouth to feed can of course tip ones family into poverty. Do you not think that other people know whether or not they can afford a(nother) child better than you do?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement