The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

robarmstrong

pleas advice wrote: »

They might be 'false' in that they leave out qualifying information. But I don't think they're misleading.

If they have to leave out information, they're already misleading. They aren't giving the full truth, therefore, they are misleading. It's like me saying 1 in 5 customers get their shopping paid for! and then leaving out that they have to spend over a certain amount to avail of it, I know retail isn't the best way for me to compare it but I went for what just popped into my head, does that make sense?

I appreciate you acknowledging that they are false though.

horseburger

Deleted User wrote: »

So you do not defend the false and inaccurate statements made by the pro life campaign.

That's all Rob was looking for, for the last 30 odd posts. But we got there, in the end.

Why would I defend false and inaccurate statements?

pleas advice

pleas advice wrote: »

They might be 'false' in that they leave out qualifying information. But I don't think they're misleading.

They just present alternative facts.

robarmstrong

Deleted User wrote: »

So you do not defend the false and inaccurate statements made by the pro life campaign.

That's all Rob was looking for, for the last 30 odd posts. But we got there, in the end.

He won't comment on them or acknowledge them, in fact when they're pointed out to them he reverts into the "I did not make those statements, where did I make incorrect statements?" mindset.

It's not really what I'm looking for as he's just deflecting, again. I've stuck him on the ignore list though for the time being, 'til an AH mod comes in and has a gander, kinda derailed the thread a good bit and I apologise to all those valuable contributors who have to go through the previous pages to see what they missed in the morning.

robarmstrong

robarmstrong wrote: »

He won't comment on them or acknowledge them, in fact when they're pointed out to them he reverts into the "I did not make those statements, where did I make incorrect statements?" mindset.

It's not really what I'm looking for as he's just deflecting, again. I've stuck him on the ignore list though for the time being, 'til an AH mod comes in and has a gander, kinda derailed the thread a good bit and I apologise to all those valuable contributors who have to go through the previous pages to see what they missed in the morning.

Well if he doesn't defend them I'll take it as implied that he disagrees with them.

And then I'll go to sleep.

horseburger

robarmstrong wrote: »

He won't comment on them or acknowledge them, in fact when they're pointed out to them he reverts into the "I did not make those statements, where did I make incorrect statements?" mindset.

It's not really what I'm looking for as he's just deflecting, again. I've stuck him on the ignore list though for the time being, 'til an AH mod comes in and has a gander, kinda derailed the thread a good bit and I apologise to all those valuable contributors who have to go through the previous pages to see what they missed in the morning.

You have not answered my straight forward and uncomplicated question.

For some reason you volunteered to tell me that you never said I made inaccurate statements.

I didn't ask you if you said I made inaccurate statements.

I asked you:

What inaccurate statements have I made?

Your answer will include examples, or your answer is "None."

I think this is the 12th time I will ask you:

What inaccurate statements have I made?

pleas advice

Deleted User wrote: »

They just present alternative facts.

Not "alternate", just facts with an asterisks

robarmstrong

pleas advice wrote: »

Not "alternate", just facts with an asterisks

If you have to put an asterisk after a fact then the "fact" is misleading.

Saying "1 in 5 of all pregnancies in England and Wales end in abortion" is a lie.

Saying "1 in 5 of all live births in England and Wales end in abortion" is a fact.

Saying "90% of babies with Down Syndrome are aborted" is misleading, the correct statement that the pro-life crowd should put on posters (and I agree with them putting this up, as it is a fact) is "64% of Down Syndrome diagnoses are made prenatally, and 90% of those babies are aborted" is a factual statement and belongs on there instead. It adds more credibility to their argument and in my opinion would stir genuine and reasonable conversation.

horseburger

DubInMeath wrote: »

She and the Iona institute have consistently defended the likes of cardinal Sean Brady who swore a 14 year old abuse victim to silence, while hiding abuse from the police and moving pedophile priests to other areas to allow them to continue abusing children.
So yes she and the Iona institute do speak for those who support and commit sexual abuse of children, if you speak for a religion that does these things you endorse it.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/mishandling-of-abuse-cast-a-shadow-over-cardinals-career-28960389.html
"He is an extremely nice man - it's impossible to find anybody who knows him personally to say anything bad about him," Mr Quinn said.



I've been gracious enough to answer you, so do the same, plenty of posters are waiting on your answers to their questions.

Where, in that article, does David Quinn defend what Cardinal Sean Brady did in 1975?

You allege that David Quinn and Maria Steen have defended what Cardinal Sean Brady did in 1975.

You have made a serious, legally contentious allegation.

You stated:

DubInMeath wrote: »

She speaks for people who support and have committed the sexual abuse of children in my opinion

gctest50

horseburger wrote: »

Where, in that article, does David Quinn defend what Cardinal Sean Brady did in 1975?

You allege that David Quinn and Maria Steen have defended what Cardinal Sean Brady did in 1975.

You have made a serious, legally contentious allegation.

You stated:

Another buseireann/ionabot trying to get boards.ie closed down

horseburger

Someone, the other day, asked about Clare Daly's stance on limits on abortion.

Clare Daly addresses this question in this 2012 Late Late Show discussion:

Caroline Simons stated:

"If you look at the bill that Clare introduced earlier this year, She's not
talking about cases where mother's lives are at risk, and I think, we have to
appreciate, you know, Clare you and I have had this debate before. You said that
you think that as a reproductive choice, and as a matter of personal autonomy, a
woman should be entitled to choose to have an abortion, for whatever reasons she
wants, throughout pregnancy. And I think we have to be very clear that,
that being the case, I think we need to reflect very carefully. I'm very glad
that the Minister and Taoiseach, have decided not to rush into anything, in view
of where we are this week".

Clare Daly responded:

"Obviously, that is, I do support a pro choice position, but the
legislation I introduced, and I was quite open about it, could only deal with
the very narrow specifics of providing for abortion in Ireland where the life of
a woman was in danger, so, you know, that was the restrictive nature, and I
was actually apologetic that it was so restrictive. But to say that it opened
the floodgates, and would allow unlimited abortion, is absolutely
ludicrous. And it is reflective of the sort of hype and hysteria that
surrounds this issue, which really we should be discussing quite calmly and
rationally, because it affects so many families".

I presume, if Clare Daly wanted to question what Caroline Simons stated, about Clare Daly's stance - where Caroline Simons said about Clare Daly:

"You said that you think that as a reproductive choice, and as a matter of personal autonomy, a woman should be entitled to choose to have an abortion, for whatever reasons she wants, throughout pregnancy

- she had time to reply.

If Caroline Simons had inaccurately described Clare Daly's stance, Clare Daly had time to correct it.

horseburger

gctest50 wrote: »

Another buseireann/ionabot trying to get boards.ie closed down

It would be the libelous statement, and the poster that made the libelous statement, that would be the cause of boards.ie getting closed down, rather than someone else, who is pointing out the libelous statement.

horseburger

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Blah Blah Blah BPAS Blah Blah Blah Marie Stopes Blah Blah Blah...

Can you do me a favour? Link us to evidence that either of these entities will be setting up in the republic of Ireland please.

BPAS registering a .ie website, would strongly suggest an interest, in setting up shop in Ireland, and an interest in the outcome of the referendum.

www.abortion.ie
www.bpas.ie
www.bpas.co.uk

Zubeneschamali

Kk333 wrote: »

Would anyone be in agreement that both the mother and potential father be heavily involved in the discussion process before hand with the mother obviously making the decision? Also I believe if women have this option of abortion, men should have the opportunity before 12 weeks of legally absolving themselves of all responsibility, financial or otherwise.

Nope.

Zubeneschamali

Keith Mills' collection of polls excluding Don't Knows:

https://twitter.com/KeithMillsD7/status/987226809598119936

circadian

horseburger wrote: »

It would be the libelous statement, and the poster that made the libelous statement, that would be the cause of boards.ie getting closed down, rather than someone else, who is pointing out the libelous statement.

How's that fence sitting going? I see from your posts you've engaged in a well balanced and open minded debate.

horseburger

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Nope.

Is that not anti-man?

The man/father/potential father/potential parent, is 50% the parent.

Is he not being penalized for the crime of not being able to change the biological fact, of having a willy, but not a womb?

I mean, why so people say the man's views are irrelevant?

Should the man not have an input into the discussion that takes place between the pregnant woman and the doctor?

In that situation, why is argued that the doctor has more of a say - in discussions the doctor has with the pregnant woman - than the father/potential father/man?

Zubeneschamali

Well, well. We finally find an aspect of the debate where horseburget actually has an opinion of his own instead of spamming us with 2nd hand opinions via links and videos.

What does he finally chime in on?

Men"s rights! You couldn't make it up.

horseburger

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, well. We finally find an aspect of the debate where horseburget actually has an opinion of his own instead of spamming us with 2nd hand opinions via links and videos.

What does he finally chime in on?

Men"s rights! You couldn't make it up.

Would you like to answer the question?

Why is it argued that the father/potential father's opinion is irrelevant?

Why is it considered that the doctor has more of a say than the father/man/potential father, with regard to the phrase often used, that the decision made is done between the woman/potential mother, and her doctor.

I rarely hear it suggested that the decision made on whether or not to have an abortion is between the mother, father and the doctor.

Surely the best scenario is that the decision is made between all three?

Is the phrase 'between the woman and the doctor' only applicable in cases where the mother and father are no longer a couple?

Ave Sodalis

horseburger wrote:

Would you like to answer the question?

You are not one to get all indignant about not having questions answered.

horseburger

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

You are not one to get all indignant about not having questions answered.

I think it's an interesting aspect to discuss. No indignation from me. I just asked if the poster would like to answer.

If I was indignant, I'd shout, something like:

"WOULD YOU LIKE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!!!!!!"

Zubeneschamali

Go start a thread about Mens Rights if you want, this one is about the 8th.

horseburger

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Go start a thread about Mens Rights if you want, this one is about the 8th.

Might you contribute to a different thread, and if so, what would you say?

The referendum affects men as well, because men just so happen to be the other half of the parents, in any case of pregnancy and parenthood.

volchitsa

horseburger wrote: »

I think it's an interesting aspect to discuss. No indignation from me. I just asked if the poster would like to answer.

If I was indignant, I'd shout, something like:

"WOULD YOU LIKE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!!!!!!"

Does this sudden interest in fathers' rights mean you'd be ok with the fetus being killed as long as the father agreed?

Because afaics, fathers' rights can only come into the equation once one has decided that abortion is not comparable to killing a person but is more like buying or selling the family home, or some other family decision.

Zubeneschamali

It does indeed affect men.

My wife and my daughter's lives are not equal to an embryos. I want the 8th repealed.

BabysCoffee

I would imagine most men, my husband included, would like to see their wife valued over an embryo.

Most men would not choose to have their wife used as an incubator, such as in the case where the 8th forced a loving husband to watch his wife's body rot while he had to go to court to switch off the life support. Incidentally this lady's father also wanted to switch off life support too.

I think most men value women and trust women. These women are their wives, their sisters, their friends, their daughters, their mothers.....

Trust women

AnneFrank

I think most real,natural fathers would love both, save the 8th

BabysCoffee

AnneFrank wrote: »

I think most real,natural fathers would love both, save the 8th

Yes I'm sure many fathers "love both".

However given the choice they probably wish to see their wife live a healthy live and therefore will probably choose to repeal the 8th.

The great thing about repealing the 8th is that it gives the choice to those who don't want to value women over embryos. The people who cling to the idea that to "Love both" is for women to die to try save the foetus, can continue to do so.

Choice is a great thing. Trusting and valuing women is another great thing.

robarmstrong

AnneFrank wrote: »

I think most real,natural fathers would love both, save the 8th

I'm a "real, natural father" and I'm voting to repeal, are you saying many of us men are not "real, natural father's" ?

robarmstrong

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

You are not one to get all indignant about not having questions answered.

Try getting him to answer a question at stupid o clock in the morning, it was a classic blood from a stone scenario