The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

circadian

AnneFrank wrote: »

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

AHH **** off with that sad attempt at a guilt trip.

BabysCoffee

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

Trust Women.

Presumably you will not be rushing out to seek an abortion after the 8th is repealed. The majority of women will be doing likewise.

Nettle Soup

captbarnacles wrote: »

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.

To be fair I think No voters are torn. I think many No voters have taken a position for spurious or inherited reasons and have stubbornly kept the blinkers on. I cant see too many that have voted No in the past flip flopping now.

RobertKK

Achasanai wrote: »

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.

No, it is a general block of pro-retain the 8th people, one doesn't have to be offensive, abusive or troll to get on the repeal shield list.
It is is just a censor for people who only want to hear people who agree with them, to confirm their opinion, with opposing opinion blocked out so they can live in their bubble.
I think it will be a shock when the repeal the 8th fails for the people who used the repeal shield as they will have kept themselves in ignorance of the other side.

RobertKK

baylah17 wrote: »

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

They aren't very good for the repeal side when they block people who maybe supported them, the crime of those blocked is they have a different opinion.
That kind of behaviour backfires.

Smertrius

yes because it gives women the freedom to choose to have a baby or not by saying no its against freedom.

pitifulgod

RobertKK wrote: »

No, it is a general block of pro-retain the 8th people, one doesn't have to be offensive, abusive or troll to get on the repeal shield list.
It is is just a censor for people who only want to hear people who agree with them, to confirm their opinion, with opposing opinion blocked out so they can live in their bubble.
I think it will be a shock when the repeal the 8th fails for the people who used the repeal shield as they will have kept themselves in ignorance of the other side.

I don't personally use it but get why people use it. Most people have heard the arguments in favour of retaining it for decades. I made up my mind years ago, no pro lifer I've encountered has given me a credible reason to retain it. I've witnessed the damage it has done. You and others haven't suddenly developed a new argument...

I also know people who use repeal shield who canvas. Which is a hell of a lot more beneficial than arguing with pro lifers online, many of which aren't even based in Ireland. The ones posting foetus images repeatedly to users aren't going to be persuaded. In fact, everyone on the list is a hard no. Most of whom also said that the protection of life act would result in unrestricted abortions.(until birth) Basically the same nonsense as this time round.

amdublin

Out canvassing today in a working class/inner city area of Dublin.

Not a lot of doors answered
Of those answered not a lot of voters
Of those voting 80 to 90% are No's

We must avoid complacency. We need every Yes voter out on the day. It's not won yet.

Obviously there are other areas where the results will swing in the complete other direction.

RobertKK

amdublin wrote: »

Out canvassing today in a working class/inner city area of Dublin.

Not a lot of doors answered
Of those answered not a lot of voters
Of those voting 80 to 90% are No's

We must avoid complacency. We need every Yes voter out on the day. It's not won yet.

Obviously there are other areas where the results will swing in the complete other direction.

A people before profit canvasser in Dublin yesterday tweeted the figures they were getting were:
40% Yes
40% No
20% undecided

The Yes side needs Dublin to be heavy yes, as I think outside Dublin there will be a lot of no constituencies.

Smertrius

usa, UK, Australia, Norway, Russia, Asia have abortion is legal but in Ireland abortion is illegal

pleas advice

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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....

I like you, Nozz. But can you stop with this disingenuous line of reasoning.
You know the above aren't human life, you know the fetuses we are talking about here are. Human life, whether you are willing to call them 'Human' or not

pleas advice

BabysCoffee wrote: »

Trust Women.

Presumably you will not be rushing out to seek an abortion after the 8th is repealed. The majority of women will be doing likewise.

Do you trust women from England and Wales? Where there is more than one abortion for every four live births.

splinter65

pleas advice wrote: »

I like you, Nozz. But can you stop with this disingenuous line of reasoning.
You know the above aren't human life, you know the fetuses we are talking about here are. Human life, whether you are willing to call them 'Human' or not

Human beings they are. Human beings. But because they’re tiny and at the mercy of their mother then they have no rights and can be swatted away like that blue bottle you just squished in the kitchen.

dudara

pleas advice wrote: »

Do you trust women from England and Wales? Where there is more than one abortion for every four live births.

Those figures actually make me more determined to get the 8th repealed. Those figures tell me that a relatively significant amount of women have abortions. It is happening. It is neeed and it is wanted. For a multitude of reasons that vary from woman to woman.

I believe it’s wrong to take the position that this is abnormal. Women have abortions. They’ve been doing it for millennia. It’s not for everyone, but enough people turn to that option. It’s time for our society to tackle this openly, rather than pushing it away, out of sight.

robarmstrong

Sofiztikated wrote: »

@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.

I really hope you get an answer to this, I tried so hard to get him/her to comment on/give an opinion/discuss the pro-life campaign's inaccurate and misleading statements and posters and instead was met with an infantile response over and over again to the point where they're just on ignore now, they clearly have no interest in genuinely engaging or giving their honest comments/opinions on what has been asked numerous times and will instead deflect and ask what inaccurate statements HE made.

Really doesn't add anything to the discussion and if anything just dampens the PLC that little bit more that their advocates can't respond to queries as such.

I had a great engaging discussion with AnneFrank who initially was either undecided or pro-life (sorry, I can't remember!) and I hope they come off with a bit of extra knowledge that in situations like my own, my partner and I are being legitimately denied an abortion because medical professionals feel that she does not meet the criteria set out originally in the 8th, instead will have to constantly miscarry due to where the baby implants.

Voting no would continue to deny her access to a safe, clinical abortion and instead reduce her to playing the waiting game when it comes to when her waters will rupture prematurely and the perfectly healthy fetus will pass away. There is no definite medical presence around her if and when she miscarries whereas if we knew where the baby implanted we could have an abortion before the miscarriage came into play. I do not think it is fair to put that on her and deny her that right.

thee glitz

pitifulgod wrote: »

So do you not trust women if they choose to have an abortion? Yes, we do.

BabysCoffee wrote: »

Trust women

BabysCoffee wrote: »

Trust Women.

BabysCoffee wrote: »

Trusting and valuing women is another great thing.

BabysCoffee wrote: »

I will vote Yes and let mothers protect their unborn. I trust women.

Trust women what?

pitifulgod wrote: »

Thousands of women travel abroad every year, our abortion rate is actually higher than prior to the 8th.

There wasn't any Ryanair in 1983. Are you suggesting that the 8th has lead to more abortions?

captbarnacles wrote: »

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.

That wouldn't be very feasible - it would be more efficient to target the suppliers, still not easy though.

captbarnacles wrote: »

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.

It's not only possible, but reality, that many concerned for both woman and baby (love both!) will vote No due to the proposed legislation.

Smertrius

i still saying yes because for freedom and i hate religion

thee glitz

amcalester wrote: »

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

True, but unlikely - how would that play out? If the vote is to repeal, with legislation for 12 weeks no reason required abortion in the proposed legislation, then it would be politically difficult to defend not implementing it.

robarmstrong wrote: »

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.

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.

Sorry for your troubles. While every individual case can't be legislated for, I do think it would be possible to help your partner and you better without resorting to unrestricted abortion.

BabysCoffee wrote: »

Heart breaking

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

So what to do about it - allow abortion in the case of FFA and others where reasonably deemed to be required, or allow for any reason?

thee glitz

amdublin wrote: »

Out canvassing today in a working class/inner city area of Dublin.

Not a lot of doors answered
Of those answered not a lot of voters
Of those voting 80 to 90% are No's

We must avoid complacency. We need every Yes voter out on the day. It's not won yet.

Obviously there are other areas where the results will swing in the complete other direction.

If you think you're having trouble in the inner city, wait til you get to rural areas... Thanks for sharing.

robarmstrong

thee glitz wrote: »

Sorry for your troubles. While every individual case can't be legislated for, I do think it would be possible to help your partner and you better without resorting to unrestricted abortion.

I appreciate your thoughts, unfortunately there is no other possible help for us that doesn't involve repealing the 8th and bringing in legislation for unrestricted abortion, she does not qualify for the current requirements and would not unless the 8th is repealed and the restrictions are lifted.

thee glitz

robarmstrong wrote: »

I appreciate your thoughts, unfortunately there is no other possible help for us that doesn't involve repealing the 8th and bringing in legislation for unrestricted abortion, she does not qualify for the current requirements and would not unless the 8th is repealed and the restrictions are lifted.

You're welcome. I recognise why the 8th would need to be repealed, but not why all restrictions would need to be lifted.

BarleySweets

thee glitz wrote: »

It's not only possible, but reality, that many concerned for both woman and baby (love both!) will vote No due to the proposed legislation.

You do realize that a No vote saves no babies, right?

No matter how much you pray and wish and hope, those abortions are going to happen. You have no control whatsoever regarding those abortions and your opinion is yours alone.

We’re not voting on whether abortion should happen, and we’re not voting on whether we endorse abortion; we are voting on whether we should allow Irish women to avail of local services, from their regular doctors. Services that they are currently availing of in foreign countries like the UK, Italy, Spain, & France.

baylah17

splinter65 wrote: »

pleas advice wrote: »

I like you, Nozz. But can you stop with this disingenuous line of reasoning.
You know the above aren't human life, you know the fetuses we are talking about here are. Human life, whether you are willing to call them 'Human' or not

Human beings they are. Human beings. But because they’re tiny and at the mercy of their mother then they have no rights and can be swatted away like that blue bottle you just squished in the kitchen.

Nope
They are not human beings
Get over it and move on

gctest50

The country needs a hero like Dr. Henry Morgentaler






https://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/world/americas/henry-morgentaler-abortion-doctor-in-canada-dies-at-90.html

robarmstrong

thee glitz wrote: »

You're welcome. I recognise why the 8th would need to be repealed, but not why all restrictions would need to be lifted.

To be honest, we're on the same page, I'm against abortion but what am I meant to do? My partner has an medically diagnosed abnormality that doesn't affect her health or the babies health during pregnancy, the baby will be developing absolutely fine, but if they've implanted in the wrong area of her uterus they will develop perfectly healthy but the sac will rupture and the baby will unfortunately pass. So I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place, against abortion but unfortunately I need and want my partner to have legal access to it here in her own country without having to travel.

We've been told no, so now despite my views on abortion, I must vote to repeal, as otherwise it'll be a vicious cycle of implantation, hoping the baby has implanted in the right place, if not, prepare for miscarriage. It doesn't ever get easier but at least with legal abortion we'll be better off.

BarleySweets

thee glitz wrote: »

You're welcome. I recognise why the 8th would need to be repealed, but not why all restrictions would need to be lifted.

He told you why already: due to the 8th, Irish doctors are bound to protect the life of the unborn over and above giving accurate information to the pregnant woman. In Rob’s wife’s case, even if they know she’s going to miscarry, they won’t tell her in case she chooses to travel abroad to abort. They also don’t consider this condition as eligible to be considered FFA. Leaving her to carry the baby for weeks/months, experiencing a painful and non-normal pregnancy, until an inevitable miscarriage.

That pain and plight is avoidable, but medical help is denied for her due to the 8th.

nozzferrahhtoo

pleas advice wrote: »

I like you, Nozz. But can you stop with this disingenuous line of reasoning.

It is nothing of the sort. It is rather the first step in a large piece of reasoning. To get more nuance added to the "ending a life" mantra.

The goal is to show there is life everywhere, and we value different types of life in different ways for different reasons.

The goal therefore is to precisely identify what it is about "Human life" exactly that we value, or should value. Merely identifying it with the taxonomy name "Human life" just begs that question, without remotely answering it.

So when one digs further and says "ok so why should we value human life at all then?" one gets down to attributes and characteristics that are genuinely worth valuing. And the disadvantage here for the anti-choice campaigner is that they are PRECISELY the characteristics and attributes that a fetus at 12-16 weeks lacks. Not just partially lacks but ENTIRELY lacks.

If my reasoning is faulty then fault it. But merely asking me to "stop" it suggests this is not something you can do. And one should be wary when one is more interested in silencing a line of reasoning rather than rebutting it.

pleas advice wrote: »

You know the above aren't human life

Exactly. I do. But just like "life" can be broken down into more interesting and more relevant sub categories..... so too can "Human life". And there are different attributes at every stage of the human life cycle. Simply saying "it is human life" begs the question and just turns into assumption the very thing we should be querying in the first place.

It would be like me asking about the concepts of property and possession, and people answering me by pointing to borders on a map.

thee glitz

BarleySweets wrote: »

You do realize that a No vote saves no babies, right?

No matter how much you pray and wish and hope, those abortions are going to happen. You have no control whatsoever regarding those abortions and your opinion is yours alone.

We’re not voting on whether abortion should happen, and we’re not voting on whether we endorse abortion; we are voting on whether we should allow Irish women to avail of local services, from their regular doctors. Services that they are currently availing of in foreign countries like the UK, Italy, Spain, & France.

How are we not voting on whether we endorse abortion ?

I'm far from convinced that the 8th doesn't save lives - why is the relative instance of women having abortions done in England or Wales giving Irish addresses much lower than that for locals? We're well entitled to make decisions for ourselves without reference to the UK or anywhere else.

nozzferrahhtoo

splinter65 wrote: »

Human beings they are. Human beings. But because they’re tiny and at the mercy of their mother then they have no rights and can be swatted away like that blue bottle you just squished in the kitchen.

Now who is being disingenuous? You are replying to a post falsely accusing me of using a disingenuous line of reasoning and then offering a very disingenuous one of your own.

The reasoning I have offered, which has not been rebutted here except to ask that it be silenced, has absolutely, entirely and completely NOTHING to do with A) the size of the fetus or the pregnant woman's "mercy".

The reasons I have offered as to why there is no coherent basis for thinking such a fetus should have rights are MUCH more nuanced, elaborate, coherent and credible than that.

Smertrius

what if woman can't afford to have a child because she has no job and she is a student, you forcing her to keep the baby because of saying no this is against free will of choice.