The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

.......

This post has been deleted.

Ave Sodalis

RobertKK wrote: »

Some are likely to be, a lot likely not to be.

If only some are voting repeal and a lot are not, then the Institute would not be pro-repeal...

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

Some are likely to be, a lot likely not to be.

Also, Dr Rhona Mahony? The very same doctor you said was looking after your case?

She came out in support of repeal as it was in her medical and professional opinion that the Constitutional provision “creates unacceptable clinical risk and should be removed”.

Hmmmmm..

swampgas

Stab*City wrote: »

I'm just really on the fence about this. I want someone to convince me but both sides are doing a bad job.

When a woman does not want to be pregnant she will find a way to have an abortion. It's been like that forever.

Right now women in Ireland have a constitutionally guaranteed right to travel abroad and have an abortion. And many women do just that - travel.

So who does the 8th affect most? People stuck in Ireland, such as pregnant women having medical issues. Savita would be a good example but there are many others.

Does keeping the 8th stop Irish women having abortions abroad? No. In fact it guarantees that they can not be stopped from doing so.

If the 8th is repealed, 2 things are likely to happen:
(1) Medical care for pregnant women in Ireland will get better.
(2) Many of the abortions currently outsourced to the UK, including those for FFA, will be done in Ireland instead. Which is much better for the women involved.

Repealing the 8th will have little effect on the numbers of abortions that Irish women are going to have. But it will have a huge affect on the quality of medical care we give to our women and girls.

Hopefully that helps you off the fence.

RobertKK

robarmstrong wrote: »

So you're back to making assumptions again, gotcha.

You are just arguing for the sake of it now. I mean do you believe the exact same people are there now as in 1983?
Am I wrong to say people have retired like the former chairman who supports retain and assume people were recruited?

RobertKK

robarmstrong wrote: »

Also, Dr Rhona Mahony? The very same doctor you said was looking after your case?

She came out in support of repeal as it was in her medical and professional opinion that the Constitutional provision “creates unacceptable clinical risk and should be removed”.

Hmmmmm..

Yes, and she thankfully isn't always right.

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

You are just arguing for the sake of it now. I mean do you believe the exact same people are there now as in 1983?
Am I wrong to say people have retired like the former chairman who supports retain and assume people were recruited?

You've convinced me, I'll take the words of one former chairman over the entire Institute, it's current chairman, and countless other highly experienced and knowledgeable medical professionals who as of now have seemed to outnumber the same medical professionals who are of the retain view.

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes, and she thankfully isn't always right.

Thankfully, neither are your posts.

kylith

RobertKK wrote: »

I don’t think all diagnoses of FFA are as clear as made out. I posted about a family member here and was called a liar as the story didn’t have the outcome some Yes wanted and one poster said they didn’t care that the unborn lived.
So if the unborn isn’t given a chance in cases where it is guess work on survival then the unborn life has no chance.
I am not trying to be insensitive but you asked for a reply and I know my relation was suppose to die according to people in the national maternity hospital.

I remember this. As I recall you refused to give any detail whatsoever which caused one poster to say they doubted your story. Then you, putting it colloquially, flounced off in a huff claiming people were ganging up on you because they wanted more information.

Incidentally, I’m still waiting since then for you to tell me how many parents you think it is acceptable to be forced to carry to term and watch their child die for the one child who beats the odds. I’m also waiting for you to clarify with whom the decision to take the risk should lie.

Also, please tell me the ‘lies’ you claim the Yes campaign is telling, because so far you haven’t come out with one.

RobertKK

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

If only some are voting repeal and a lot are not, then the Institute would not be pro-repeal...

Can you state the voting rules within the institute for them to come out in favour.
Is it 100%, 51%, 66%?

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

Can you state the voting rules within the institute for them to come out in favour.
Is it 100%, 51%, 66%?

We asked you this first -

Can you state the lies the pro-choice campaign have told? Seeing as you've obviously got so many.

RobertKK

kylith wrote: »

I remember this. As I recall you refused to give any detail whatsoever which caused one poster to say they doubted your story. Then you, putting it colloquially, flounced off in a huff claiming people were hanging up on you because they wanted more information.

Incidentally, I’m still waiting since then for you to tell me how many parents you think it is acceptable to be forced to carry to term and watch their child die for the one child who beats the odds. I’m also waiting for you to clarify with whom the decision to take the risk should lie.

Also, please tell me the ‘lies’ you claim the Yes campaign is telling, because so far you haven’t come out with one.

Some nearly wanted the name and for me to give out too much info. I have a right to privacy and the right allows me to give enough to not identify anyone.

Personally I can't get my head around 'We really wanted him/her but we went to England and had an abortion', my sister was told by her doctor once there is life there is hope.

I had people who campaign for yes here apologise for saying I lied about certain things and when I told them to check they saw I hadn't, but that is because they are decent people.
I am not some idiot who thinks only one sides lies, only a very gullible person thinks both sides have been completely honest, and that only one side lies.
I don't go around this forum saying there is a no lie, there is a yes lie.
Other people post stuff that they say is a no lie, but if they think only one side lies then there is delusion in bountiful supply.

robarmstrong

So what are the Yes lies Robert?

Give me 5, for example.

RobertKK

robarmstrong wrote: »

We asked you this first -

Can you state the lies the pro-choice campaign have told? Seeing as you've obviously got so many.

It will be restricted.
They say restricted but it is only a 3 day wait after the first appointment when it will be abortion for whatever reason up to 12 weeks.
It is a lie to make out that is restricted abortion which some on the yes side are doing.

NuMarvel

RobertKK wrote: »

It is more compassionate when the constitution values all lives, both born and unborn lives. Rather than making it out it compassionate to remove that right to life and replace it with a choice to kill if that is the wish of the woman, as if the life in the womb is worthless.
There will never be agreement on abortion law. But if you go from the 8th amendment to what is proposed, we go from white to black in the contrast, restricted abortion laws to unrestricted any reason abortion laws up to 12 weeks, that is not compassionate.
People who are pro-choice may view the 8th as extreme, but what is proposed to replace it is extreme. I don't believe a majority will view the proposed changes as being compassionate and it is the biggest hurdle the Yes side faces.

I didn't ask about the constitution. The constitution is words in a document, so it by definition can't be compassionate.

The status quo is that women are having abortions; either abroad, with constitutional protections, or illegally here, with no political or public will for prosecutions. And most of them happen within the first 12 weeks.

How is that more compassionate than what the government has proposed? How is it better to say abortions can keep happening abroad or in secret rather than here under proper, regulated, medical supervision?

From what I can see, the status quo doesn't help the unborn or the woman, whereas at least the alternative helps the woman. If you have something that says otherwise, I'd love to see it.

Stab*City wrote: »

I'm just really on the fence about this. I want someone to convince me but both sides are doing a bad job.

*Spidey sense tingling*

pitifulgod

RobertKK wrote: »

Some nearly wanted the name and for me to give out too much info. I have a right to privacy and the right allows me to give enough to not identify anyone.

Personally I can't get my head around 'We really wanted him/her but we went to England and had an abortion', my sister was told by her doctor once there is life there is hope.

I had people who campaign for yes here apologise for saying I lied about certain things and when I told them to check they saw I hadn't, but that is because they are decent people.
I am not some idiot who thinks only one sides lies, only a very gullible person thinks both sides have been completely honest, and that only one side lies.
I don't go around this forum saying there is a no lie, there is a yes lie.
Other people post stuff that they say is a no lie, but if they think only one side lies then there is delusion in bountiful supply.

Would you agree that it's a lie to say the eighth doesn't impact the cancer treatments a pregnant woman can get?

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

It will be restricted.
They say restricted but it is only a 3 day wait after the first appointment when it will be abortion for whatever reason up to 12 weeks.
It is a lie to make out that is restricted abortion which some on the yes side are doing.

Now is that a proven lie, or is that your interpretation of what the above is?

The 72 hours isn't just a "wait", there's counselling involved too.

RobertKK

RobertKK wrote: »

It will be restricted.
They say restricted but it is only a 3 day wait after the first appointment when it will be abortion for whatever reason up to 12 weeks.
It is a lie to make out that is restricted abortion which some on the yes side are doing.

Restricted? I didn't hear anything about restrictions?
I thought that it was unrestricted up to 12 weeks?
Of course, until an actual bill is published & debated in the dail etc we won't know the exact details.

NuMarvel

RobertKK wrote: »

Can you state the voting rules within the institute for them to come out in favour.
Is it 100%, 51%, 66%?

Voting rules? What do you think the Institute is?

RobertKK

robarmstrong wrote: »

So what are the Yes lies Robert?

Give me 5, for example.

1. Yes posters and no mention of abortion - it is a lie to say people are voting for compassion when it involves allowing the unborn to be terminated and dumped as medical waste, but the latter bit isn't mentioned.

2. It is not unrestricted abortion.

3. A majority of GPs are willing to become abortionists.

4. The yes campaign telling men to talk to the women in one's life pesuming they are all yes voters. None of them are in my life.

5. There is no illegal activity involving money on the Yes side.

RobertKK

NuMarvel wrote: »

Voting rules? What do you think the Institute is?

So you say when they decide something in the institute there is no voting just a presumption?

RobertKK

bubblypop wrote: »

Restricted? I didn't hear anything about restrictions?
I thought that it was unrestricted up to 12 weeks?
Of course, until an actual bill is published & debated in the dail etc we won't know the exact details.

January wrote: »

I refer you to Disabled People Together for Yes's facebook page for an answer to this one. Are these the types of checks you're talking about?

Just quoting January as it has the picture which highlights restrictive to try and paint a false picture.

kylith

RobertKK wrote: »

Some nearly wanted the name and for me to give out too much info. I have a right to privacy and the right allows me to give enough to not identify anyone.

Personally I can't get my head around 'We really wanted him/her but we went to England and had an abortion', my sister was told by her doctor once there is life there is hope.

I had people who campaign for yes here apologise for saying I lied about certain things and when I told them to check they saw I hadn't, but that is because they are decent people.
I am not some idiot who thinks only one sides lies, only a very gullible person thinks both sides have been completely honest, and that only one side lies.
I don't go around this forum saying there is a no lie, there is a yes lie.
Other people post stuff that they say is a no lie, but if they think only one side lies then there is delusion in bountiful supply.

But you didn't give any information, Robert, not so much as what the condition is. Do you think that if someone phones up the hospital and asks for a list of children suffering from X condition they'll just give it out.

Can you really not understand how someone can want a child and not want them to die of blood poisoning cos they have no kidneys, or gasping because their lungs haven't developed, or in agony because they have such bad spina bifida that just being born has broken their spine and caused internal injuries. Can you really not understand that? Really? If you could spare your child a minute's pain would you not move mountains to?

Now, if someone decides that they will take the risk to continue with the pregnancy and hope that their child will be ok I fully support their right to take that risk, but do you really, really think people should be forced to?

WHAT ARE THESE YES CAMPAIGN LIES, ROBERT? You've been banging on about them, calling us all gullible, making out like you're privy to something. What are they? Stop bullshitting around and either tell us these big lies that the Yes campaign is apparently spreading or admit that you're making it up and there's nothing but your own opinion. We're talking about the CAMPAIGN, not random people on Boards.

Because if you trot out this 'restriction' nonsense again I shall be very cross. Abortion will be RESTRICTED to under 12 weeks. There is a further RESTRICTION that there is a 3 day waiting period to include counselling.

NuMarvel

RobertKK wrote: »

So you say when they decide something in the institute there is no voting just a presumption?

I'm saying nothing. I'm asking you questions about what you said. Questions you avoided I notice.

RobertKK

kylith wrote: »

But you didn't give any information, Robert, not so much as what the condition is. Do you think that if someone phones up the hospital and asks for a list of children suffering from X condition they'll just give it out.

Can you really not understand how someone can want a child and not want them to die of blood poisoning cos they have no kidneys, or gasping because their lungs haven't developed, or in agony because they have such bad spina bifida that just being born has broken their spine and caused internal injuries. Can you really not understand that? Really? If you could spare your child a minute's pain would you not move mountains to?

Now, if someone decides that they will take the risk to continue with the pregnancy and hope that their child will be ok I fully support their right to take that risk, but do you really, really think people should be forced to?

WHAT ARE THESE YES CAMPAIGN LIES, ROBERT? You've been banging on about them, calling us all gullible, making out like you're privy to something. What are they? Stop bullshitting around and either tell us these big lies that the Yes campaign is apparently spreading or admit that you're making it up and there's nothing but your own opinion. We're talking about the CAMPAIGN, not random people on Boards.

Because if you trot out this 'restriction' nonsense again I shall be very cross. Abortion will be RESTRICTED to under 12 weeks. There is a further RESTRICTION that there is a 3 day waiting period to include counselling.

I know people on boards from the locality and I want my identity safeguarded.

nozzferrahhtoo

Stab*City wrote: »

So why are they so? Everyone i talk to is trying to influence you to lean a certain way. And if you don't lean their way they look down on you.

I have not been talking down to anyone on the thread, and I do not intend to start now, so perhaps my posts are useful to you. Maybe start with this one and if you have any questions or further concerns maybe I can deal with them for you.

Stab*City wrote: »

i still don't know which way to vote.

Well the first thing to do is inform yourself as much as possible as to the effect the text in the constitution has OTHER than on abortion. Read things like "in her shoes" and so forth which will show you how the text in question affects pregnant women. Including women who WANT to continue with the pregnancy, not just women who want or need to end it. Abortion is a big part of this debate, but the text we are voting on affects so much more than that. Abortion is just the emotive part the "no" side focus on to make you ignore the rest. Do not let them do that to you.

The second thing to do is look into the statistics on abortion in Ireland and realise that even if you hate abortion entirely, a "no" vote in this election is not going to reduce the number of them happening and a "yes" vote is not likely to increase it all that much either. The abortions ARE happening. They just are not happening on Irish soil. Which means they are happening in a riskier way for the women (I can explain why if you want but this post already getting long), and they are happening LATER in the gestation process than they would if those women had a local option.

Then look into what actually happens in a 0-12 weeks abortion, and what it is that is actually terminated. It is a medical pill only, not the hoovering and scraping and butchering the "no" side have been lying to you about. And the fetus that is terminated is entirely without sentience and consciousness. In fact more suffering and pain is visited on the world when you swat a fly, than when you terminate a fetus. Because a fly is at least in some way conscious. There is something it is like to be a fly quite likely. The fetus is not. At all. Even a little bit.

Then basically ask yourself what would YOU like to achieve with your vote. IF you vote either way, what do YOU think that vote means and will do and achieve. Let us know what you come up with here, it is always quite interesting!

If after all that you still wish to vote "no" or are still unsure about which way to go.... then do let us know why. Maybe it will be something I have personally not considered, and it will change my mind and vote too!

kylith

RobertKK wrote: »

1. Yes posters and no mention of abortion - it is a lie to say people are voting for compassion when it involves allowing the unborn to be terminated and dumped as medical waste, but the latter bit isn't mentioned.

The referendum is about repealing the 8th amendment. It is a lie to say that it is about anything else.

RobertKK wrote: »

2. It is not unrestricted abortion.

Yes, we know

RobertKK wrote: »

3. A majority of GPs are willing to become abortionists.

Untrue.

RobertKK wrote: »

4. The yes campaign telling men to talk to the women in one's life pesuming they are all yes voters. None of them are in my life.

Your presumption. What is a 'lie' about recommending people talk to women about a topic. So what if they are all anti-repeal, why not talk to them anyway?

RobertKK wrote: »

5. There is no illegal activity involving money on the Yes side.

Citation needed.

RobertKK

NuMarvel wrote: »

I'm saying nothing. I'm asking you questions about what you said. Questions you avoided I notice.

I looked it up, an extraordinary general meeting was held, 25 people turned up, 24 voted for repeal and one abstained.

See people do vote on these things

The institute chairman said “inevitably in all countries there are doctors who disagree and there are doctors obviously in this country and obstetricians as well who would prefer to see the Eighth retained and who don’t see a problem with it”.

kylith

RobertKK wrote: »

I know people on boards from the locality and I want my identity safeguarded.

So? Do they know the peculiarities of your sister's child's case? No one cares where you're from.

And the rest of it there?

NuMarvel

RobertKK wrote: »

Just quoting January as it has the picture which highlights restrictive to try and paint a false picture.

There's nothing on that leaflet that's untrue, especially in the context of the question that January was replying to when she posted it. I think the issue is that you think it's only talking about the 12-week on request aspect, when it's clear it's discussing the entire legislation.