The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

kylith

RobertKK wrote: »

Do the gullible see the lies?
Why would I want to help yes by pointing them out? They just help the side I support.

Because if you told us what the lies were maybe we’d change our minds?


Actual translation though: I can’t find any. I’m going to obfusticate in the hope you’ll stop asking me questions I know there’s no answer to.

RobertKK

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Also explains Robert's frequent characterization of Repeal Shield as a way for "snowflakes" to engage in echo chamber discussion. Not, you know, a way for women who endured trauma and loss to avoid getting spammed with photos of dismembered fetuses just for retweeting a pro-choice tweet.

I never posted any image on twitter to do with the aftermath of an abortion. I never insulted anyone. Repeal shield is for people who want to be ignorant of an overall debate so they created an echo chamber, using a questionable means that takes people personal information from twitter and putting it into an outside api or whatever it called, where no one who ended up on a public list gave permission for their data to be used in such a public way.

robarmstrong

You've complained you're being targeted by individuals seeking to have you threadbanned previously.

Let's look at your history in this thread.

You've posted blatant inaccuracies and when challenged on it you slunk away, you were warned (to my knowledge) for posting inaccuracies, you've been warned for your comments about certain cases involving abortion, you've dodged and avoided people trying to engage directly with you by crying out victim, when you eventually come back into the thread you usually post some snippet of something aimed snidely at either the pro-choice crowd or it's followers and then put the blinkers on.

Robert there have been so many genuine attempts to get you to engage honestly, but you dip and dodge and pick and choose what you want to answer, with my own questions included on it, so I'll ask you this.

Do you feel you've been a fair and well-meaning contributor to the thread?

RobertKK

kylith wrote: »

Because if you told us what the lies were maybe we’d change our minds?


Actual translation though: I can’t find any. I’m going to obfusticate in the hope you’ll stop asking me questions I know there’s no answer to.

Ok let me see and remember last night I said there are lies and unintentional lies.

Do people when they look at abortion stats and see most abortions are by healthy women of healthy unborn, then people see yes posters talking generally about compassion and healthcare think the Yes side is telling the truth or just using one big umbrella to cover up inconvenient truths?

RobertKK

robarmstrong wrote: »

You've complained you're being targeted by individuals seeking to have you threadbanned previously.

Let's look at your history in this thread.

You've posted blatant inaccuracies and when challenged on it you slunk away, you were warned (to my knowledge) for posting inaccuracies, you've been warned for your comments about certain cases involving abortion, you've dodged and avoided people trying to engage directly with you by crying out victim, when you eventually come back into the thread you usually post some snippet of something aimed snidely at either the pro-choice crowd or it's followers and then put the blinkers on.

Robert there have been so many genuine attempts to get you to engage honestly, but you dip and dodge and pick and choose what you want to answer, with my own questions included on it, so I'll ask you this.

Do you feel you've been a fair and well-meaning contributor to the thread?

I would need a secretary if I was to reply to everything.

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

I would need a secretary if I was to reply to everything.

Here you go, no secretary needed.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106824184&postcount=8607

It's all well and good to miss a few posts due to the nature of this thread, but you seem to have made a habit of missing those that address your inaccurate statements and challenges made on claims you've made, that's not on.

kylith

RobertKK wrote: »

Ok let me see and remember last night I said there are lies and unintentional lies.

Do people when they look at abortion stats and see most abortions are by healthy women of healthy unborn, then people see yes posters talking generally about compassion and healthcare think the Yes side is telling the truth or just using one big umbrella to cover up inconvenient truths?

Are you claiming that women who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant don’t need compassion? Do you think the Yes campaign are lying about the fact that pregnant women in this country do not have the right to be fully informed on their healthcare choices or to consent to or reject procedures?

Got any evidence of blatant lies similar to those told by the No campaign?

RobertKK

RobertKK wrote: »

I am not a supporter of needless killing dressed up as compassion and healthcare.

That's really not an answer to the question. I'm not suggesting there is a right or wrong answer, I am merely interested to know if you think abortion is ever justified?

AtomicHorror

RobertKK wrote: »

I never posted any image on twitter to do with the aftermath of an abortion.

I never insulted anyone.

Who said you did either thing? I used the images thing as an example. In case my meaning is not clear, the intention is to protect vulnerable people who want to engage in an important debate, from people who are insensitive to their trauma.

You have consistently shown yourself to be either insensitive or dismissive here, so it is plausible you behaved the same way on Twitter.

RobertKK wrote: »

Repeal shield is for people who want to be ignorant of an overall debate so they created an echo chamber, using a questionable means that takes people personal information from twitter and putting it into an outside api or whatever it called, where no one who ended up on a public list gave permission for their data to be used in such a public way.

Your argument on use of personal information might hold some water, but it has nothing to do with the intention behind the thing.

Stab*City

Sorry i've not been following this topic. I know the vote is a yes or no on abortion. But i just noticed something if the yes vote wins will abortions be free of charge?

ELM327

Stab*City wrote: »

Sorry i've not been following this topic. I know the vote is a yes or no on abortion. But i just noticed something if the yes vote wins will abortions be free of charge?

The vote is NOT a yes no on abortion.

robarmstrong

Stab*City wrote: »

Sorry i've not been following this topic. I know the vote is a yes or no on abortion. But i just noticed something if the yes vote wins will abortions be free of charge?

They will (I'm assuming) fall under the care of the HSE, fees and such would have to be determined upon legislation.

.......

This post has been deleted.

ELM327

robarmstrong wrote: »

They will (I'm assuming) fall under the care of the HSE, fees and such would have to be determined upon legislation.

Safe.
Free.
Legal.

.......

This post has been deleted.

RobertKK

bubblypop wrote: »

That's really not an answer to the question. I'm not suggesting there is a right or wrong answer, I am merely interested to know if you think abortion is ever justified?

To save the life of the mother.

Stab*City

ELM327 wrote: »

Safe.
Free.
Legal.

Why free?

nozzferrahhtoo

RobertKK wrote: »

The unborn learns from an early stage and is the most important learning a human does according to the latest evidence, this from a TED talk.

https://www.ted.com/talks/annie_murphy_paul_what_we_learn_before_we_re_born

kylith wrote: »

Can you summarise that please, I cannot watch videos on work.

Something of a dishonest move from Robert here. Surprised?

It is nothing that we did not know already. In the later stages of pregnancy there is a level of fetal learning that goes on. We have known this for some time.

In terms of your whole life, we learn things at an "early stage". That is to say, there is fetal learning in the womb. Scents and sounds in month 7 for example. So in your life you learn things at an "early stage".

In terms of fetal gestation this is occurring at a "late stage" however. We are talking well into the latter stages of the pregnancy here. Into the 7th month and later. Recall that the majority of choice based abortions happen by week 10, yet Robert is here offering a link to a video about weeks later than 28.

So Robert has taken something entirely true (Human beings learn from an early stage) and by switching "Human Beings" to "The unborn" he has made a misleading agenda driven distortion out of it. The aim of which is to suggest, without directly lying outright, that this learning is happening in an "early stage" of fetal development.

HUMANS learn things at a relatively early stage. The UNBORN however learns them at a late stage.... towards the end of pregnancy. Robert is merely attempting to distort the "early/late" relations there by conflating the contexts linguistically. As dishonest moves go, it is pretty egregious and blatant.

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

To save the life of the mother.

robarmstrong wrote: »

And what of cases like mine Robert, was I looking to "kill" my unborn children when my partner and I knew she was doomed to miscarry them?

My partners life is not in danger.

Are you going to answer or continue to deflect?

.......

This post has been deleted.

robarmstrong

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You explained it better than I could, thank you, had a brain fart!:)

Stab*City

ELM327 wrote: »

The vote is NOT a yes no on abortion.

??

What is it then? I'm confused.

RobertKK

Stab*City wrote: »

??

What is it then? I'm confused.

You will get all yes speech about how it is about women and their bodies.

NuMarvel

Stab*City wrote: »

Sorry i've not been following this topic. I know the vote is a yes or no on abortion. But i just noticed something if the yes vote wins will abortions be free of charge?

I doubt that's been finalised at this point yet. Abortions that are carried out in hospitals will probably be covered under the public system like any other procedure. However, it's expected most abortions will happen outside of a hospital setting because they can be carried out be administering some medication. And for that to be free, the government will have to negotiate with the GP bodies to agree rates, etc. That won't and can't happen before the referendum is passed.

What's your source out of curiosity?

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

You will get all yes speech about how it is about women and their bodies.

robarmstrong wrote: »

And what of cases like mine Robert, was I looking to "kill" my unborn children when my partner and I knew she was doomed to miscarry them?

Why so difficult to answer?

RobertKK

But most GPs in a poll said they don’t want to be abortionists and won’t be.

Yeah_Right

Stab*City wrote: »

??

What is it then? I'm confused.

It's about repealing the 8th amendment. Check out refcom2018.ie Then read the In Her Shoes page on Facebook. Should be everything you need to know.

Timberrrrrrrr

RobertKK wrote: »

You will get all yes speech about how it is about women and their bodies.

And all the NO lies about how its murdering babies right up to term.

ohnonotgmail

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Something of a dishonest move from Robert here. Surprised?

It is nothing that we did not know already. In the later stages of pregnancy there is a level of fetal learning that goes on. We have known this for some time.

In terms of your whole life, we learn things at an "early stage". That is to say, there is fetal learning in the womb. Scents and sounds in month 7 for example. So in your life you learn things at an "early stage".

In terms of fetal gestation this is occurring at a "late stage" however. We are talking well into the latter stages of the pregnancy here. Into the 7th month and later. Recall that the majority of choice based abortions happen by week 10, yet Robert is here offering a link to a video about weeks later than 28.

So Robert has taken something entirely true (Human beings learn from an early stage) and by switching "Human Beings" to "The unborn" he has made a misleading agenda driven distortion out of it. The aim of which is to suggest, without directly lying outright, that this learning is happening in an "early stage" of fetal development.

HUMANS learn things at a relatively early stage. The UNBORN however learns them at a late stage.... towards the end of pregnancy. Robert is merely attempting to distort the "early/late" relations there by conflating the contexts linguistically. As dishonest moves go, it is pretty egregious and blatant.

but surely that is straight out of the pro-life playbook?

nozzferrahhtoo

Stab*City wrote: »

??

What is it then? I'm confused.

As I understand it, though I can be corrected by people like NuMarvel who have more nuance and knowledge than I about the legal aspects of this referendum......

The constitution recognizes the right to the life of the unborn as being equal to that of the mother. A piece of text which impacts the medical care and choices of ALL pregnant women, even those who are looking to continue their pregnancy without abortion.

The reason abortion comes into it is because having removed that text, we have to consequently legislate for OR against abortion in law, rather than in the constitution, at a later stage. But that is not what we are voting on NOW. That would come later.

NOW we are voting solely to remove that text, and amend it to acknowledge law has to be written at a later stage.