The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

ELM327

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

If I was the child conceived as a result of a rape, no I wouldn't believe I was conceived in a respectable way. Unless you think rape is a respectable act?

There's an interesting article written by a woman who was a child conceived by rape who is pro repeal. I'll try find it.

Yeah_Right

HonestKevin wrote: »

Imagine there is someone who was conceived as a result of rape viewing this thread. You are saying it would have been ok to abort them as an unborn child but not yourself. You were conceived in a "respectable" way and they were not conceived in a "respectable" way.

That's discrimination no matter how you try to disguise it. You are "respectable" and they are not.

You heard it here first folks. Rape, it's just not "respectable".

Annasopra

Poyndexter wrote: »

Of course the proposed 12 week legislation is important in this debate and yes I disagree fully with a random 100 people that makes up the citizens assembly.

Yes the main issue I have are healthy women opting to have an abortion simply because they don’t want a child. If brought in here there is a far higher case of women making rash decisions jist like the many cases I have heard from women who deeply regret have an abortion or the near misses like the lady who spoke on the late late the other night. What we need is further support for women who find themselves in this situation. There are also options of putting your child up for adoption if they felt they couldn’t cope with raising a child for whatever reason.

So basically you dont trust women.

nozzferrahhtoo

pleas advice wrote: »

And deny that abortion is the killing of a living entity

I have been on this thread since day 1 and I have yet to see anyone deny that. I know what they HAVE been denying, and I know the valid reason they have been doing it. Perhaps you do not understand what it is they are ACTUALLY denying?

pleas advice wrote: »

i suppose it could be regarded as a point that a 'clump of cells' becomes an actively living thing...

pleas advice wrote: »

it is a genetically separate human entity, thats basic biology...

But many things have a heart beat and are "actively living things". And we do not afford them the rights, or concerns, you wish to afford them here. So clearly this is not the actual mediation point of your moral concerns, just the one you choose arbitrarily in retrospect to justify it.

The same thing can be said exactly about having distinct DNA. What is so special about DNA?

To explain the moral and ethical concerns we have for humans, that we do not have for other "actively living things" we have to look at the attributes that distinguish them and therefore are ACTUALLY mediating those concerns.

The issue for the "No" voter is the list of attributes that this process produces are EXACTLY the attributes a 16 week old fetus lacks.

Not slightly lacks.
ENTIRELY lacks.

And merely shouting "human" at that issue, as so many have done, only begs the very question to which an answer has been requested.

nozzferrahhtoo

Killester1 wrote: »

Why do you have more empathy for the woman and less for the unborn ? Just asking.

Because of what empathy actually means. "the ability to understand and share the feelings of another."

A pregnant women has feelings. A fetus at 0-16 weeks which is a COMPLETELY non-sentient agent does not. At all. How can you feel empathy for something that has no feelings? Other than vicariously that is, which you have essentially already mentioned and admitted to.

Killester1 wrote: »

Does anyone know if there is a limit to the number of abortions a person can have ??

There is very little reason to have such a limit. The Daily Mail (of course) did try to distort some statistics to make it sound like "Repeat abortions" are a thing. But a more honest look at the statistics show's that it really isn't.

It happens of course, but it is so relatively rare at a statistical level that I see little reason to consider limiting it. Nor am I sure what we would achieve by doing it. If abortion are ok, then what different does it make it 5 abortions happen in 5 women or 5 abortions happen in 3 women?

Killester1 wrote: »

The unborn deserve rights and respect too.

So they? When, why, at what stage and on what basis do you think rights should be acquired in a fetus?

Killester1 wrote: »

take responsibility for their actions and not have abortion as the fall back.

"Taking responsibility" includes considering your options and making the best one for your situation. YOU seem to think "taking responsibility" means "Do what I want you to do, or imagine I would do in your situation".

"Responsibility" does not work like that.

Killester1 wrote: »

I totally understand that. But why does abortion have to be the only solution to an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy. We need to work together on solutions. Having respect to life for both mother and the unborn is a start. .....

I am not aware of anyone saying it is the only solution, should be the only solution, or that they want it to be the only solution though. Everyone I know is simply saying it should be one of the OPTIONS on the table. Nothing more.

The rest of what you write we all already agree with I think. We need to work together on more solutions, more options, and more support for people to make the choices they may otherwise feel are not viable to them personally.

Also let us not pretend there is a lack of respect on the other side from you here, as if this somehow divides you from them. We on the choice side also respect and cherish life love and children and all the things you likely value. We just differ as to when AND why we feel those concerns can and should come into play.

Killester1 wrote: »

What options do the YES side have to offer?

Other than abortion, all the options the YES side have to offer are identical to the ones the NO side have to offer. Why do you expect any difference between them?

Also it was not a "yes" poster who was in this thread saying not only should pregnant women not have the option of abortion..... but that they should not even be getting children's allowance or single parent allowance and such forms of social welfare.

So not only did that "no" poster not want women to have abortions, he wanted to exacerbate the financial reasons many single women even feel compelled to seek abortion in the first place.

And WHY did he want that? Wait for it, it is a doozy. Apparently unwanted pregnancy is the only way single women in the poorer social classes can be compelled to want to better themselves.

Lovely stuff huh?

But yes I repeat, what options do you think the "NO" side can offer such women that the "YES" side are not or can not? I can not think of one.

nozzferrahhtoo

I am afraid you will find none of the hate, vitriol, or insults in my posts that you have been looking for in the posts of others. So let's see what you do with that shall we

Poyndexter wrote: »

Just reading through a lot of the posts here and the lack of respect and understanding from some yes voters for people who vote no is appalling really. Many calling anyone who votes no as idiots stupid etc. is quite insulting to be honest. It has come to the situation where people are afraid to express they are voting no in public which does not encourage healthy debate.

I think the reality is more nuanced than you are giving credit to here. What happens on threads like this is there ARE some "yes" voters who are rude and arrogant and aggressive. But not many. The same is true of the opposite side of course. All of this "murders" and "I hope the woman who had the abortion can live with herself" kind of comments and much much worse.

And those people are letting our "yes" side down. The people who respond to every new poster with "Oh another re-reg" or "another of the ones on shift work for youth defense" and so on are not representing me or mine. They are feeding the narrative you are selling here, and that is a shame.

But what happens in cases like this thread though is that the "no" people come in here and ONLY reply to the people who act like that. So then the "yes" side seem disproportionately rude and aggressive. They contrive to willfully ignore the posts of the people who are being reasoned, patient, polite, open and honest. They work out who are the emotional, baitable ones and they target them solely. Hell RobertKK alone has ignored so many of my replies to him at this point alone, you would likely lose count even if your tried.

In fact it seems sometime over the last couple of weeks there was a contrived move to ignore all of my posts. Me being un-trollable, un-emotive and calm when discussing this issue. And suddenly, all at the same time within the space of a few hours, the entire cohort of "no" posters on here collectively stopped responding to anything I write.

Poyndexter wrote: »

I can assure you I am not anti-women, an idiot, a jesus freak or whatever insult some yes campaigners would like to call me but someone with a conscience to protect the most vulnerable in our society who are the unborn that at 12 weeks have a heartbeat and so many humane features.

The issue with that narrative of course is that the "yes" voters also want to "protect the most vulnerable in society" too. So a narrative that suggests this somehow divides you from them is unfair and disingenuous. The issue lies solely in when AND why we feel those kind of concerns should come on line. Basis it on "heartbeat" is simply arbitrary, misleading and incoherent as a basis for having moral and ethical concern for the fetus.

It is something that moves YOU emotionally, and why not given the "heart"..... despite having nothing to do with emotion really......... has become the symbol for all the most positive things about humanity like "Love". So it is understandable, even if it is nonsense, that you gravitate towards it as a point to mediate your moral concerns. But it is a baseless and harmful move to make really.

Poyndexter wrote: »

Regarding cases of ffa, rape and danger of life to mother I agree abortion should be legalised in those cases

Could you describe to me what a system would look like that would allow women who have been the victims of rape to access abortion then? How would they go about applying, verifying their eligibility and so forth in a timely fashion?

Poyndexter wrote: »

ther options such as adoption where people who can’t have children for whatever reason would be delighted to adopt a child..

Could you explain what you know of abortion law in Ireland. Maybe start by listing the situations in which a couple are NOT allowed give their child up for adoptions?

Poyndexter wrote: »

Use protection? Birth control?

And for the large quantity of situations where that fails?

lazygal

lazygal wrote: »

I had a conversation with one last week, while on my way Holles Street for scans and prenatal care. I explained to her that I had had a complicated pregnancy so far, and the eighth amendment only added to the stress as my consultant was upfront from the start about what she could and could not do for a woman in my circumstances solely due to the constitution. I asked her how the eighth helped me, given that I had the means to travel if the worst was confirmed, but that it caused myself and my husband untold stress not knowing how we could organise this given work and childcare and the medical side of things too. She had no answers, she tried to give me a leaflet with a young woman on it who said because there wasn't a clinic nearby she decided to stay pregnant instead of have an abortion. I told her I'm married with children, they keep pushing this 'girl in trouble' narrative which is simply untrue, but there was no attempt to explain what benefits the eighth had for someone in my situation.
I would love anyone who is going to vote to keep the eighth to explain in detail how it's helped me over the past four months of my pregnancy.

Still would like to hear from No voters on this.

Zubeneschamali

HonestKevin wrote: »

Why have pregnancies as a result of incest been specifically brought up by the pro-repeal side throughout this campaign as a reason why we need abortion in Ireland?.

They haven't.

There was some discussion of incest at the Citizen's Assembly, but they did not include it as a specific reason, since incest with children is covered under rape.

From their Report (which HonestKevin has naturally read):

Presence of rape ground and possible inclusion of incest

A number of Members raised the inclusion of the rape reason (reason 5) and questioned why incest was omitted from the draft Ballot Paper. The Expert Advisory Group explained that rape was included as the purpose of this Ballot Paper is to make recommendations to the Oireachtas as to the types of issues the Members would like to see included in any new legislation, not to recommend how it would be implemented. Matters of implementation would need to be considered by the Oireachtas.

With respect to incest, it was explained that the term rape covers all non-consensual sexual intercourse including sexual intercourse with a minor in the sense of statutory rape. By using the term “rape” the only category of incest omitted arises from situations of consensual sexual intercourse between adults where they are in defined family relationships. It was suggested that incest could be recorded on the Ballot Paper as a separate reason if the Members voted for it. It was generally understood however that the terminology used- pregnancy as a result of rape- covered the situations the Members wanted covered, without requiring a separate ground covering incest.

Zubeneschamali

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Most of the those whom I've seen bringing up rape and incest are on the anti-repeal side, but are willing to make exceptions for 'hard cases' like rape and incest or fatal fetal abnormalities.

They say they are willing, in hopes of defeating this particular amendment.

If this one is defeated and some gullible person put forward an amendment which somehow allowed just rape, incest and FFA, the same people would find a reason to vote No to that, too.

Zubeneschamali

HonestKevin wrote: »

Imagine there is someone who was conceived as a result of rape viewing this thread. You are saying it would have been ok to abort them as an unborn child but not yourself.

No, we are saying it would have been OK to abort all of us with no restrictions up to 12 weeks. Haven't you read the proposals?

Zubeneschamali

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Your area (south dublin) will be a yes. It is outside Dublin that is genuinely going to bring no vote up.

Don't forget that this is a national referendum, not an election. Your vote counts just as much even if your area is 100% Yes, and counts as much as some Mattie McGrath fan in boggerland.

(Says he from the middle of the bog).

joe40

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Your area (south dublin) will be a yes. It is outside Dublin that is genuinely going to bring no vote up.

Don't forget that this is a national referendum, not an election. Your vote counts just as much even if your area is 100% Yes, and counts as much as some Mattie McGrath fan in boggerland.

(Says he from the middle of the bog).

That is an important point. A 20 % no vote in a constituency with a million people is the same as an 80% no vote in a constituency with 250,000 people.
I live in Donegal where people generally reject referendums, (the yes in the marriage referendum was a surprise) but that doesn't matter every yes or no vote goes into the same pot. I can imagine a No vote in rural constituencies due to demographics.

Zubeneschamali

Here is a big map of the 1983 result. I expect everywhere to swing enormously towards Yes from here (Yes in that one was the opposite of Yes now, of course), but the differences between Urban and Rural will remain.

Zubeneschamali

And now the SSM referendum:

Yeah_Right

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Could you describe to me what a system would look like that would allow women who have been the victims of rape to access abortion then? How would they go about applying, verifying their eligibility and so forth in a timely fashion?

I've never been able to get an answer from a pro-lifer on this one. I've asked people who are anti-abortion except for FFA and rape, online and in person and none of them have been able to explain how the rape provision would work.

Zubeneschamali

Some differences in the most pro/anti there, but you can see that the most pro-life area in 1983 overlaps the most anti-SSM area in Longford. The areas of Dublin do not exactly correspond, which may be down to demographic changes?

Hector Savage

I must say, the carry on of the YES movement would almost change my mind on the issue - tearing down posters, trying to shut down the pro life view ....wtf ?

Seems really aggressive too .

Another thing, on Twitter I have NEVER tweeted nor Re tweeted anything remotely pro life, yet I am blocked by a number of PRO CHOICE
users - that I have had zero interaction with ???

My guess is they have some list that is created by a bot - so maybe I follow certain pro life people but for other views they may have - seems very dangerous and orwellian.

RobertKK

Simon Harris spent the last number of months mostly tweeting about wanting the 8th amendment removed and talked about women’s health, while he seemed to miss that 12 to 15 women died from the cervical check scandal.

B0jangles

Hector Savage wrote: »

I must say, the carry on of the YES movement would almost change my mind on the issue - tearing down posters, trying to shut down the pro life view ....wtf ?

Seems really aggressive too .

Another thing, on Twitter I have NEVER tweeted nor Re tweeted anything remotely pro life, yet I am blocked by a number of PRO CHOICE
users - that I have had zero interaction with ???

My guess is they have some list that is created by a bot - so maybe I follow certain pro life people but for other views they may have - seems very dangerous and orwellian.

How do you feel about people setting fire to Yes posters?

https://twitter.com/griffski/status/990339617244303361

seamus

Hector Savage wrote: »

I must say, the carry on of the YES movement would almost change my mind on the issue - tearing down posters, trying to shut down the pro life view ....wtf ?

Seems really aggressive too .

Funny that you would see that on one side, but not on the other. Neither side has a monopoly on this kind of behaviour.

Another thing, on Twitter I have NEVER tweeted nor Re tweeted anything remotely pro life, yet I am blocked by a number of PRO CHOICE
users - that I have had zero interaction with ???

My guess is they have some list that is created by a bot - so maybe I follow certain pro life people but for other views they may have - seems very dangerous and orwellian.

There are options and extensions on twitter to auto-mute or auto-block accounts based on a number of criteria - notably whether you've confirmed your email & phone number, and are using a default picture.

"Orwellian" is the exact opposite of what it is. Private individuals are entitled to ignore the opinions of other private individuals.

A substantial amount of paid effort has been spent on twitter trying to troll pro-choice accounts and waste their time and efforts.

You can take solace in the fact that you'd be wasting your time engaging with these people because you're not going to be able to get them to change their mind.

kylith

Hector Savage wrote: »

I must say, the carry on of the YES movement would almost change my mind on the issue - tearing down posters, trying to shut down the pro life view ....wtf ?

Seems really aggressive too .

Another thing, on Twitter I have NEVER tweeted nor Re tweeted anything remotely pro life, yet I am blocked by a number of PRO CHOICE
users - that I have had zero interaction with ???

My guess is they have some list that is created by a bot - so maybe I follow certain pro life people but for other views they may have - seems very dangerous and orwellian.

Hi Hector. May I ask what you think of the underhanded tactics of the anti-repeal side such as, but not limited to:
Removing Repeal posters
Using fake nurses
Falsely representing themselves as midwives and trainee midwives
Putting graphic posters where children are likely to see them
Lying about what is involved in an abortion at 12 weeks
Misrepresenting the terms of the referendum
Opening clinics which spread misinformation about abortion and its effects (such as falsely claiming it increases depression and cancer rates)

Hector Savage

B0jangles wrote: »

How do you feel about people setting fire to Yes posters?

https://twitter.com/griffski/status/990339617244303361

It's equally as repulsive, but am almost certain it happens way way less...

Hector Savage

seamus wrote: »

Funny that you would see that on one side, but not on the other. Neither side has a monopoly on this kind of behaviour.

Ah they do now ...

There are options and extensions on twitter to auto-mute or auto-block accounts based on a number of criteria - notably whether you've confirmed your email & phone number, and are using a default picture.

Not applicable here ...

"Orwellian" is the exact opposite of what it is. Private individuals are entitled to ignore the opinions of other private individuals.

fair enough

A substantial amount of paid effort has been spent on twitter trying to troll pro-choice accounts and waste their time and efforts.

You can take solace in the fact that you'd be wasting your time engaging with these people because you're not going to be able to get them to change their mind.

YEah, Im not pro life though ???

B0jangles

Hector Savage wrote: »

It's equally as repulsive, but am almost certain it happens way way less...

How are you so certain? It's 100% certain that pro-repeal posters have been torn down and 100% certain they have been set on fire. Unless you've actually done some kind of count of instances of damage done to both pro-retain and pro-repeal posters,all you're going on is your gut-instinct, which will always tell you what you want to hear.

Hector Savage

Anyway, I seem to be on that repeal shield block list, bizarre really.

taserfrank

Who cares if posters are damaged and taken down?

Zubeneschamali

taserfrank wrote: »

Who cares if posters are damaged and taken down?

I care.

I wish they were banned altogether, but if they are allowed, they should not be destroyed. By either side.

kylith

Hector Savage wrote: »

It's equally as repulsive, but am almost certain it happens way way less...

What about the far from comprehensive list I posted above?

.......

This post has been deleted.

gandalf

Hector Savage wrote: »

Anyway, I seem to be on that repeal shield block list, bizarre really.

But is that enough to make you vote one way or another? Surely its more important to look at the facts and decide your vote based on that and not the behaviour of the extremes of either side or the debate?