The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

BabysCoffee

Heart breaking

https://evoke.ie/2018/04/18/news/irish-news/irish-couples-heartbreak-fatal-foetal-abnormality

It wasnt me123

robarmstrong wrote: »

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

I wouldn't bother, I just block them now if they go on and on repeating the same lies without backing them up with statistics.

The 8th will be repealed, the polls have not shown any mearsureable move from the 70 / 30 position.

If you have a heart and read some of the InHerShoes posts and that piece above about FFA, you have to vote Yes.

Repeal all the way - trust women

January

AnneFrank wrote: »

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

My husband is a real natural father to 4 kids, he supported me through my abortion it was a decision made together and that doesn't make him less of a man for it.

lazygal

AnneFrank wrote: »

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

What's a non real, unnatural father?
My husband and father of our children, father and father in law will all vote to repeal a law which hurts the women they love.

Timberrrrrrrr

horseburger wrote: »

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

So no evidence whatsoever that BPAS or Marie Stopes are planning on setting up in Ireland? Yet we have people like you quoting them as if they have bought properties here already to open.

Between That and your ridiculous "this happens in Germany " and "oh look at the statistics in Canada and Australia " arguments you have managed to successfully derail this thread more times than I care to count.

Your latest "show me where I said that" tirade over 3 pages was probably one of the most blatant attempts yet to get the thread closed. Hopefully more people have seen through you as I have and have reported your posts for derailing the thread.

We get it, you're pro-life to the bone. How about actually debating the issue now instead of trying to shut down the debate?

Achasanai

AnneFrank wrote: »

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

What's a 'real, natural' father?

BarleySweets

Achasanai wrote: »

What's a 'real, natural' father?

One who plays the game the way they want them to do and never hesitates to shame hussies who can’t keep their filthy legs shut, just like the man who lives in the church tells everyone to do.

robarmstrong

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So no evidence whatsoever that BPAS or Marie Stopes are planning on setting up in Ireland? Yet we have people like you quoting them as if they have bought properties here already to open.

Between That and your ridiculous "this happens in Germany " and "oh look at the statistics in Canada and Australia " arguments you have managed to successfully derail this thread more times than I care to count.

Your latest "show me where I said that" tirade over 3 pages was probably one of the most blatant attempts yet to get the thread closed. Hopefully more people have seen through you as I have and have reported your posts for derailing the thread.

We get it, you're pro-life to the bone. How about actually debating the issue now instead of trying to shut down the debate?

Yeah sorry that was just me trying to get him to give his opinion on the inaccuracies and falsehoods the pro-life campaign have put out so far but instead he deemed it that I was insinuating he made them.

Logic is not a strong point here for someone who came into the thread "just asking questions".

horseburger

robarmstrong wrote: »

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

The interwebs doesn't shut down at 6pm

You still refuse to answer my question.

Why do you think I should accept responsibility for claims that I didn't make?

This is the 13th time I will ask you:

What have I stated that is inaccurate?

Annasopra

ELM327 wrote: »

Back to your "one liners" I see.

Shes gonna say ths harassment.

AnneFrank

BarleySweets wrote: »

One who plays the game the way they want them to do and never hesitates to shame hussies who can’t keep their filthy legs shut, just like the man who lives in the church tells everyone to do.

Not that at all, love both.

robarmstrong

pitifulgod wrote: »

Do you oppose pregnant women with cancer engaging in a drug trial? In the long run, it could save their lives. It does, across the globe. But it requires an abortion.

He/she is threadbanned dude, they can't respond to your post.

January

AnneFrank wrote: »

Not that at all, love both.

You don't Love Both, if you did you'd support women to make the best choice for them whatever that is. You're a forced birther and that's the extent of it.

amcalester

horseburger wrote: »

What have I stated that is inaccurate?

That you are undecided.

horseburger

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

I wouldn't bother, I just block them now if they go on and on repeating the same lies without backing them up with statistics.

The 8th will be repealed, the polls have not shown any mearsureable move from the 70 / 30 position.

If you have a heart and read some of the InHerShoes posts and that piece above about FFA, you have to vote Yes.

Repeal all the way - trust women

If you had bothered to read the posts I wrote, you would realise that I said nothing about not trusting women.

What I called into question was, the practices of abortion clinics, in getting around legislation, by carrying out abortions, on grounds other than the ground originally requested - if that originally requested ground, is not permitted in the particular jurisdiction.

That issue indicates that the abortion will still occur, because the abortion clinic does it under a different ground - a different ground that was suggested by the staff at the clinic, to the pregnant woman.

Patricia Lohr of BPAS clearly stated, at the Oireachtas Committee meeting on 22nd November 2017, that an abortion on the grounds of "foetal sex" - whether it's a boy or a girl - could be carried out on another ground, for example mental health.

That would include a foetus/human foetus/baby, that is perfectly healthy and would otherwise, grow and develop healthily, before and after birth.

That raises the question, as to whether that abortion, is ethical and justifiable.

robarmstrong

amcalester wrote: »

That you are undecided.

That would be an obvious one! They won't even address the outrageous comments their fellow campaigners have made (even in this thread!), some pro-choicers have overstepped the line in this thread and I was more than happy to respectfully disagree with them and their opinion whilst commenting on what they initially said that made me disagree with them. The opposition however can't seem to do so, maybe they're just not strong enough?

horseburger

amcalester wrote: »

That you are undecided.

hilarious.

pitifulgod

horseburger wrote: »

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?

I'm a man, I don't think I should dictate over a woman's body for 9 months. If I face such a scenario, I hope I would be in a position to discuss it with my partner. But I would view the ultimate decision as her's.

robarmstrong wrote: »

He/she is threadbanned dude, they can't respond to your post.

Sorry, I skipeed about 15 pages so didn't realise.

horseburger

robarmstrong wrote: »

That would be an obvious one! They won't even address the outrageous comments their fellow campaigners have made (even in this thread!), some pro-choicers have overstepped the line in this thread and I was more than happy to respectfully disagree with them and their opinion whilst commenting on what they initially said that made me disagree with them. The opposition however can't seem to do so, maybe they're just not strong enough?

Iit's so obvious, even though you couldn't think of it, after me asking you 13 times!:)

You were asking me, for some reason, to justify statements about statistics of abortion - statements that I didn't make.

In response, I asked you to answer, by giving evidence of me making inaccurate statements, relating to the statements that you said were inaccurate.

You did not answer me.

kylith

The problem with ‘doesn’t the father get a say?’ is what happens if he and the mother disagree. Does he get to force her to continue with a pregnancy against her will?

Ideally the choice would be made in a discussion between both, but someone has to have the deciding vote and that has to be the person most affected by the pregnancy: the woman.

Wombatman

AnneFrank wrote: »

Not that at all, love both.

Love both what exactly? All I can see to love is a pregnant woman.

amcalester

horseburger wrote: »

hilarious.

Thanks.

Any voter who was actually and honestly undecided would be able to offer an opinion on the demonstrably false statements being propagated by the no campaign, so as an undecided voter, which you claim to be, what are your opinions on these falsehoods?

Timberrrrrrrr

kylith wrote: »

The problem with ‘doesn’t the father get a say?’ is what happens if he and the mother disagree. Does he get to force her to continue with a pregnancy against her will?

Ideally the choice would be made in a discussion between both, but someone has to have the deciding vote and that has to be the person most affected by the pregnancy: the woman.

Totally agree

We also then have situations where the woman has been raped, should a rapist get to have a say?

AnneFrank

January wrote: »

You don't Love Both, if you did you'd support women to make the best choice for them whatever that is. You're a forced birther and that's the extent of it.

I would love both, the irony of your post is unreal, and that's the extent of it.

amdublin

AnneFrank wrote: »

Not that at all, love both.

It doesn't feel that way.
As a woman I feel like number 2 to an unborn baby.

To be honest i think it's impossible to "love both
Therefore one has to be more important than the other.

And I chose the living woman.

Choice. Let's all have choice.

Repeal the 8th

AnneFrank

Wombatman wrote: »

Love both what exactly? All I can see to love is a pregnant woman.

Pregnant with what, the idea of a child that has been written previously?

AnneFrank

amdublin wrote: »

It doesn't feel that way.
As a woman I feel like number 2 to an unborn baby.

To be honest i think it's impossible to "love both
Therefore one has to be more important than the other.

And I chose the living woman.

Choice. Let's all have choice.

Repeal the 8th

I understand, but in the majority of cases I believe good decent men would fully support their woman and child, do we really need on demand abortion for 12 weeks ? And while many many women can obviously be trusted, you can't speak for all

robarmstrong

AnneFrank wrote: »

Pregnant with what, the idea of a child that has been written previously?

I'd like your opinion on what I went through, I'd just like to hear your thoughts.

As previously stated my partner has a heart-shaped uterus and a medically diagnosed weak womb (there's a scientific medical name for it and I am sorry but it just escapes me right now!), basically, all of our miscarriages happened because the baby implanted in the "wrong spot" so to speak. I don't know if I should actually name the hospitals or not but we were told no, she does not qualify to have an abortion as technically there was no FFA nor was there a threat to her health.

If you're unsure of how it goes it's this - baby implants in an area that does not have enough room to support the growth of it, and it's amniotic sac, so when it reaches a certain size, it will rupture, so each and every single one of our previous pregnancies has been a gamble as to where they'd implant.

Do you think we should have been denied an abortion in those circumstances, knowing full well that even though that baby was healthy (technically) they would not survive past a certain point due to my partners medical issue?

January

AnneFrank wrote: »

I would love both, the irony of your post is unreal, and that's the extent of it.

Again, that's not loving both, that's placing the value of the foetus above the value of the person carrying it.

No irony here, not sure you actually understand what irony means.

I've noticed that you can't actually argue a point with anyone, you just use their words back at them, akin to a child mocking someone repeatedly and your overuse of the words 'buddy' and 'pal' is very aggressive in nature, again a trait of someone who can't actually argue a point made by someone else.

pitifulgod

AnneFrank wrote: »

I understand, but in the majority of cases I believe good decent men would fully support their woman and child, do we really need on demand abortion for 12 weeks ? And while many many women can obviously be trusted, you can't speak for all

So do you not trust women if they choose to have an abortion? Yes, we do. Thousands of women travel abroad every year, our abortion rate is actually higher than prior to the 8th. There are many reasons that a woman chooses to have an abortion, I think allowing it in general before 12 weeks is good. We're not forcing women abroad and respecting their choice.