The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

backspin.

Putinbot wrote: »

What do people think of a poll for the thread.
Simple question 'How will you vote in the referendum?'
2 possible answers
I'll vote in favour of repealing the 8th
I'll vote against repealing the 8th.

Undecided is important too as that is where i currently stand.

I think the world is overpopulated and people will always have unwanted pregnancy and i do not want a world where there are lots of terrible parents raising kids they never wanted.

But i can't get past the belief that abortion is the killing of a life.

Hammer Archer

AnneFrank wrote: »

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

Oh look, you're back. Any response?

Hammer Archer wrote: »

OK enlighten me, how does a yes vote affect you or women who never want to have an abortion?

And why are you attacking my views on my own personal experience of a miscarriage my partner suffered and the birth of my daughter? Bizarre how you are the one claiming to be harassed when you come out with that. Why does my personal experience elicit such a hostile response from you?

I'd especially love to know why you had such a hostile response to me and my partner's personal experience of a miscarriage.

AnneFrank

Rob, with respect I will not comment on personal cases, January I am well aware thank you, I think you misunderstand what I have said.

robarmstrong

backspin. wrote: »

Undecided is important too as that is where i currently stand.

I think the world is overpopulated and people will always have unwanted pregnancy and i do not want a world where there are lots of terrible parents raising kids they never wanted.

But i can't get past the belief that abortion is the killing of a life.

Fully respect your beliefs and that you're currently undecided, I don't want to "convert you" or anything of the sort but what I would ask of you is to please take no heed of the false posters the pro-life campaign has put up, our biggest fear is that undecided voters will believe the lies they've told and vote no.

I refer you to my situation above and as an undecided voter, I would ask you the same question I asked AnneFrank.

Hammer Archer

AnneFrank wrote: »

Rob, with respect I will not comment on personal cases, January I am well aware thank you, I think you misunderstand what I have said.

Hilarious. Why did you feel the need to attack our experience then?

lazygal

AnneFrank wrote: »

Rob, with respect I will not comment on personal cases, January I am well aware thank you, I think you misunderstand what I have said.

Every pregnancy and abortion is personal.

AnneFrank

backspin. wrote: »

Undecided is important too as that is where i currently stand.

I think the world is overpopulated and people will always have unwanted pregnancy and i do not want a world where there are lots of terrible parents raising kids they never wanted.

But i can't get past the belief that abortion is the killing of a life.

That's exactly my struggle too

robarmstrong

AnneFrank wrote: »

Rob, with respect I will not comment on personal cases, January I am well aware thank you, I think you misunderstand what I have said.

Why won't you comment on personal cases? It's a discussion board and you're refusing to discuss. I'm not trying to have a "gotcha!" moment, I just want to hear what you would have to say regarding that particular case.

pitifulgod

AnneFrank wrote: »

Rob, with respect I will not comment on personal cases, January I am well aware thank you, I think you misunderstand what I have said.

You responded to Hammer's experience with judgement.... So you're perfectly willing to respond to personal cases when it suits.

January

If anyone is in the Dublin area keep an eye on your letter boxes, Terminations For Medical Reasons are having their flyer delivered today and it's very powerful, full of testimonies from women who've had pregnancies with FFA and their journies.

AnneFrank

robarmstrong wrote: »

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?

Rob I don't want to reply because I'm very sorry you went through this, but it misscarried ? There was no need for an abortion am I reading that right?

captbarnacles

backspin. wrote: »

Undecided is important too as that is where i currently stand.

I think the world is overpopulated and people will always have unwanted pregnancy and i do not want a world where there are lots of terrible parents raising kids they never wanted.

But i can't get past the belief that abortion is the killing of a life.

But Irish women are having abortions everyday regardless of your belief and 'No' voters seem to be content with that.

To me if people really believed it was killing they would be trying to repeal the 13th amendment and demanding women be prosecuted for importing abortion pills.

I am not talking about you in particular but if the referendum passes the pregnancies aborted in Ireland will be as foremost in peoples minds as the ones aborted in England ie Not at all.

amcalester

AnneFrank wrote: »

Rob I don't want to reply because I'm very sorry you went through this, but it misscarried ? There was no need for an abortion am I reading that right?

The ****ing lack of empathy being shown by some no campaigners is astounding.

robarmstrong

AnneFrank wrote: »

Rob I don't want to reply because I'm very sorry you went through this, but it misscarried ? There was no need for an abortion am I reading that right?

The reason for the abortion would be simply because the baby was going to be miscarried anyway, so instead of her waters breaking in a public place and her miscarrying there, we find out where the baby has implanted in a scan and have an abortion shortly thereafter, in a controlled environment.

So there was a need for an abortion because of the above scenario, does that make sense?

captbarnacles

amcalester wrote: »

The ****ing lack of empathy being shown by some no campaigners is astounding.

This.

As I posted yesterday the massive concern they have for the unborn always seems to directly contrast with the massive lack of concern for everyone else.

Makes it difficult to believe they really care at all.

AnneFrank

robarmstrong wrote: »

The reason for the abortion would be simply because the baby was going to be miscarried anyway, so instead of her waters breaking in a public place and her miscarrying there, we find out where the baby has implanted in a scan and have an abortion shortly thereafter, in a controlled environment.

So there was a need for an abortion because of the above scenario, does that make sense?

It does Rob and again I'm sorry you went through this,I'm no medical expert but this sounds like it would fall under the Ffa category in the sense it wasn't going to be successful, I have zero problem with an abortion like this I have said that previously,it's the 12 week on demand abortion I have an issue with, and that's what we are being asked to vote on.To me it's a life

RobertKK

Amy Huberman whom I don’t follow, but she is the latest who is a fairly well known person who believes their repeal posts shouldn’t be used to influence as she is now hiding beside the repeal shield.
I am starting to think the repeal shield is good. The repeal shield is like being blocked by people who are unable to stand behind their opinion in an open society. So they choose an echo chamber.

amcalester

AnneFrank wrote: »

It does Rob and again I'm sorry you went through this,I'm no medical expert but this sounds like it would fall under the Ffa category in the sense it wasn't going to be successful, I have zero problem with an abortion like this I have said that previously,it's the 12 week on demand abortion I have an issue with, and that's what we are being asked to vote on.To me it's a life

The 2 don’t go hand in hand though.

There’s no guarantee that the legislation will pass.

robarmstrong

AnneFrank wrote: »

It does Rob and again I'm sorry you went through this,I'm no medical expert but this sounds like it would fall under the Ffa category in the sense it wasn't going to be successful, I have zero problem with an abortion like this I have said that previously,it's the 12 week on demand abortion I have an issue with, and that's what we are being asked to vote on.To me it's a life

No that's absolutely fine, I appreciate your opinion, my point to you is that it was determined by medical experts that it didn't fall under the FFA category, and because it doesn't fall under this category the only option I have is to vote repeal for the 12 week abortion on request legislation, it's not on demand because it can and will be denied and doctors have the right to conscientiously object.

Voting for repeal would be voting to support people like my partner who does not fall under that FFA category or the physical health to the mother category (at the moment), who are left with no alternative due to the restrictions in place. A vote to repeal isn't just this whole 12 week on demand nonsense, it's helping people like us.

By the way, I am in no way guilt tripping you here nor am I antagonizing you for your opinion, I'm just telling you about my scenario and how the 8th will help us.

It isn't fair that my partner has to continually miscarry (based on the baby implanting in the wrong area) instead of being granted a legal abortion in this country.

AnneFrank

amcalester wrote: »

The 2 don’t go hand in hand though.

There’s no guarantee that the legislation will pass.

I agree, it makes me wonder why it's being presented in the way it is.But many people here believe it's a done deal and the polls would agree, I do too but I think it'll be closer than people think

amcalester

AnneFrank wrote: »

I agree, it makes me wonder why it's being presented in the way it is.But many people here believe it's a done deal and the polls would agree, I do too but I think it'll be closer than people think

I meant the legislation regarding unrestricted abortion, not the referendum.

Voting Yes does not necessarily mean unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks.

Voting No however guarantees that people like Rob and his partner don’t receive the most appropriate treatment.

nozzferrahhtoo

backspin. wrote: »

But i can't get past the belief that abortion is the killing of a life.

Not sure if my perspective could be useful to you but if you used any product from the meat, vegetable, paper or medical industry for example you likely ended life. And sometimes in barely imaginable numbers.

As humans we "end life" all the time. So the question is, what attributes must an entity have for us to decide we should NOT end it's life.

That is a question I explored a lot over the last 25 years and the conclusions I came to was a list of attributes that a 12 or 16 week old fetus simply does not have.

So for myself I never had a problem "getting past" this issue for abortion as there was actually nothing TO "get past" in the first place.

So perhaps ask yourself what EXACTLY is it about a 12 week old fetus that mediates your concerns in a way that Cows making beef, trees making paper, insects killed in great numbers while growing vegetables, or bacteria killed by the billions by medicine does not.

baylah17

AnneFrank wrote: »

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

Repeal the 8th
Trust each woman to what is best for her

pitifulgod

RobertKK wrote: »

Amy Huberman whom I don’t follow, but she is the latest who is a fairly well known person who believes their repeal posts shouldn’t be used to influence as she is now hiding beside the repeal shield.
I am starting to think the repeal shield is good. The repeal shield is like being blocked by people who are unable to stand behind their opinion in an open society. So they choose an echo chamber.

The reason people use it is because they're bombarded by foetus images and abuse. The higher profile you see, the worse it is.

gctest50

RobertKK wrote: »

Amy Huberman whom I don’t follow, but she is the latest who is a fairly well known person who believes their repeal posts shouldn’t be used to influence as she is now hiding beside the repeal shield.

I am starting to think the repeal shield is good. The repeal shield is like being blocked by people who are unable to stand behind their opinion in an open society. So they choose an echo chamber.

RobertKK wrote: »

........

who believes their repeal posts shouldn’t be used to influence as she is now hiding beside the repeal shield.

..........

cr@p logic

cr@p attempt at manipulating people

It just autoblocks on graphic images

the only people sending graphic images are extremists


Someone should ask her " do you believe your repeal posts should be used" etc

horseburger

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:

They supported him until the end including his stance that having priests should not report knowledge of sexual abuse gained through confession.

https://www.ionainstitute.ie/cardinal-brady-attacked-for-defending-seal-of-confession/

I know your going to try a thread derailment on this, because your about as much on the fence as I am in relation to the 8th, so its going to be my final answer to you on this here, but if you want to discuss by pm fire away, I'll reply when I can.

baylah17

Great to see Amy Huberman Derval ORourke publicly supporting together for yes
Excellent role models
Intelligent successful women not afraid to speak out against the injustice of the evil 8th

Achasanai

RobertKK wrote: »

Amy Huberman whom I don’t follow, but she is the latest who is a fairly well known person who believes their repeal posts shouldn’t be used to influence as she is now hiding beside the repeal shield.
I am starting to think the repeal shield is good. The repeal shield is like being blocked by people who are unable to stand behind their opinion in an open society. So they choose an echo chamber.

Why do you care whether somebody uses repeal shield or not? I'm assuming it works along the lines of blocking (individually) trolls and the like here on Boards. Somebody like Huberman would attract more attention than the average Twitter user, so blocking en masse makes sense.

Sofiztikated

@horseburger

You haven't lied. You haven't given your own opinion on anything, nor posted anything of substance for us to determine if YOU have lied.

We've asked you countless times, even myself a few days ago had to ask you three times what you though,long before this latest 3 page back and forth between you and rob, to which you replied, but edited out the question.

We, on the other hand, have laid out in various levels of minute detail, how the 8th affects us, our loved ones, colleagues, people we meet every day but don't know their names, and people we have never met.

Noone is saying pregnancy and procreation aren't important. The human race depends on it, and to be honest, riding is great craic. I can't wait to have a child with my wife, we've only had one pregnancy, which ended in a missed miscarriage, and are possibly looking into IVF, but man that's hella expensive. But even if, after all that time, and considerable expense, if she requires a termination, I'd really rather she had it here safely, than somewhere else. Do we want children, absolutely, but is that potential baby, the carrier of my name, and one which is looking to be slipping day by day, worth the risk to her health and well being? I know I'd rather have my wife healthy and happy (given a level of happiness, seeing as she'll have just lost a chance at being a mother) than my wife is poor health or worse, and a child to look after, and IVF bills to pay.

I have 2 questions, I would appreciate a genuine answer, if you we be so kind.

1. In your opinion, if we vote to keep the 8th, how does our situation improve? Give me a reason to vote no. Sell it to me.

2. What do you (not someone else, you horseburger) think benefits of repealing the 8th might be? Do you see see why our situation gives us reason to vote yes?

I've been polite, but if you respond with your usual "someone said" and "I heard" bluff and hours of video (seriously, have you actually watched them all, or do you just have it written down because someone told you?), I'm just going to write you off as that belligerent, old fool, that shouts and rants at people, and any genuine things he might have to say, gets lost in a cloud of spittle and bile.

Please and thank you.

Wombatman

AnneFrank wrote: »

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

For some people that is what it is. We all don't have the same ideas or beliefs as you. The only 'fact' in this area is that people have different beliefs and opinions.

Nobody is trying to force you to do anything you don't want to do, but by voting no you will be.

I believe the 'Love Both' slogan should be applied to two actual groups of people, those women who choose to go ahead with their pregnancies and those who choose not to, for whatever reason.

Do you Love Both AnneFrank?