The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Ismisejack

robarmstrong wrote: »

They aren't forced by law to have intercourse 3 times a week.

But they are forced by law into carrying a pregnancy conceived out of rape, incest, etc and must continue that pregnancy irregardless of whether or not they can support the resulting child.

Well uve mentioned abortion their in instances of rape incest etc. surely if that is your belief that rape victims shouldn’t have carry a pregnancy against their wishes why is it yee are campaigning for unlimited abortion up to twelve weeks. The rape situation just suits yee in pursuing your actual agenda which is abortion on demand

Ismisejack

Regards unwanted pregnancy, excluding rape it’s simply a case of negligence. When women consent to sex they should always , if they wish to not get pregnant, use contraception like condoms and the pill. Any honest person will admit that the absence of contraception is a factor in many unwanted pregnancies. Abortion is NOT the solution to these such problems, contraception is. In cases where contraception fails, 99 out of 100 times it’s as a result of negligence or improper use of contraception . I understand contraception has failed however this is the case very very seldom and it is a minisual risk a consenting couple have to take when engaging in sex. So let me make it clear, Abortion is NOT the solution to any the case outlined above, there are far more practical and humane solutions, that is contraception and the correct use of ut

Madscientist30

Oldtree wrote: »

Sierra Eire wrote: »

Not sure if you're a troll, communist or both, but your argument has nothing to do with abortion.

Sierra Eire wrote: »

I have never been in, and more than likely will never be in, a situation where ending a human's life was a choice.

It was a genuine response to your glib statement about never knowingly ending a human life. Makes you seem very ignorant and naive of a very big world where 9 million people die of starvation annually while you aren't!

Yes Oldtree but all those people are born, so they dont matter at all, didnt you know that?

Zubeneschamali

Ismisejack wrote: »

if that is your belief that rape victims shouldn’t have carry a pregnancy against their wishes why is it yee are campaigning for unlimited abortion up to twelve weeks.

That question is answered in the report of the Citizen's Assembly.

Which I'm sure everyone here has read, since it is the basis for the Referendum. Right?

Zubeneschamali

Ismisejack wrote: »

When women consent to sex they should always , if they wish to not get pregnant, use contraception like condoms and the pill.

I always find it hilarious that the pro-life crew these days are so keen on contraception and condoms in these arguments.

When the 8th was first passed, contraception was not legally available in Ireland without a doctor's prescription for cases of bona fide family planning, i.e. married people only.

And were the anti-abortion crew back then in favour of contraception for all? They were in their holes, just as they have always been: against divorce, against contraception, against gay rights, against anything the Bishops told them to be against.

What will they be against when abortion is legal here? Transgender toilets?

erica74

Ismisejack wrote: »

Regards unwanted pregnancy, excluding rape it’s simply a case of negligence. When women consent to sex they should always , if they wish to not get pregnant, use contraception like condoms and the pill. Any honest person will admit that the absence of contraception is a factor in many unwanted pregnancies. Abortion is NOT the solution to these such problems, contraception is. In cases where contraception fails, 99 out of 100 times it’s as a result of negligence or improper use of contraception . I understand contraception has failed however this is the case very very seldom and it is a minisual risk a consenting couple have to take when engaging in sex. So let me make it clear, Abortion is NOT the solution to any the case outlined above, there are far more practical and humane solutions, that is contraception and the correct use of ut

I really don't care. If a woman no longer wants to be pregnant, she should be able to have an abortion (if that's what she chooses) in her home country. It's as simple as that.

Contraception is only a "solution" before the conception, it's not a solution afterwards so therefore it's not a solution for women who don't want to be pregnant but find themselves pregnant.

CHOICE IS THE SOLUTION.

baylah17

Ismisejack wrote: »

Well uve mentioned abortion their in instances of rape incest etc. surely if that is your belief that rape victims shouldn’t have carry a pregnancy against their wishes why is it yee are campaigning for unlimited abortion up to twelve weeks. The rape situation just suits yee in pursuing your actual agenda which is abortion on demand

Ismisejack wrote: »

Regards unwanted pregnancy, excluding rape it’s simply a case of negligence. When women consent to sex they should always , if they wish to not get pregnant, use contraception like condoms and the pill. Any honest person will admit that the absence of contraception is a factor in many unwanted pregnancies. Abortion is NOT the solution to these such problems, contraception is. In cases where contraception fails, 99 out of 100 times it’s as a result of negligence or improper use of contraception . I understand contraception has failed however this is the case very very seldom and it is a minisual risk a consenting couple have to take when engaging in sex. So let me make it clear, Abortion is NOT the solution to any the case outlined above, there are far more practical and humane solutions, that is contraception and the correct use of ut

Tis small wonder so many people refer to the Retain campaign as "Anti-woman" when you read misogynistic drivel like this.

nice_guy80

amazing and baffling that all the pro lifers are against regular sex!!!

surely that is the whole point of being pro life??

pleas advice

erica74 wrote: »

I really don't care. If a woman no longer wants to be pregnant, she should be able to have an abortion (if that's what she chooses) in her home country. It's as simple as that.

Contraception is only a "solution" before the conception, it's not a solution afterwards so therefore it's not a solution for women who don't want to be pregnant but find themselves pregnant.

CHOICE IS THE SOLUTION.

I mean, i could say...

Killing the unborn should never* be an option IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT!!!!!

but that does nothing to advance the debate, its just restating the basic premise *(with caveats) of one side, so whats the point?

Ave Sodalis

Sierra Eire wrote:

I support the current 8th Amendment, which, to my knowledge, allows for abortion when the mother's life is at risk. If I'm wrong about what the amendment says then forgive me, but I still support what I think it says.

The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act allows abortion when the mother is either suicidal or actively dying, and it was only brought in in 2013 as a patch for a much larger problem.
The 8th itself has been the cause of some horrific deaths through the years, and given how loosely the Act can be interpreted, will be the cause of more in the future.
How many more acts and bills need to be brought in as quick fixes, how many living breathing women need to die, how many children need to go over to the UK for services that should be here (a 12 year old had to travel at the start of this year)... before you say that maybe the 8th is hugely flawed?

Hannibal_Smith

Ismisejack wrote: »

Regards unwanted pregnancy, excluding rape it’s simply a case of negligence. When women consent to sex they should always , if they wish to not get pregnant, use contraception like condoms and the pill. Any honest person will admit that the absence of contraception is a factor in many unwanted pregnancies. Abortion is NOT the solution to these such problems, contraception is. In cases where contraception fails, 99 out of 100 times it’s as a result of negligence or improper use of contraception . I understand contraception has failed however this is the case very very seldom and it is a minisual risk a consenting couple have to take when engaging in sex. So let me make it clear, Abortion is NOT the solution to any the case outlined above, there are far more practical and humane solutions, that is contraception and the correct use of ut

So contraception fails, the woman is pregnant, she doesn't want to be. What then? She must carry on with the pregnancy as a lesson learned? She must share her body, it's functions with something she doesn't want. For 9 months. Then endure the pain of childbirth and raise a child she didn't want.* The man, who also made the baby meanwhile, is where? Maybe he's around, maybe he's not. The person worse off is the woman. I don't think I'm being sexist in saying that? I think the person who faces the most physical and mental upheaval is the woman. But a male perspective would clarify that. what if they were strangers who had sex but don't actually want anything to do with each other. They're now bound by this unwanted situation.

Why should the woman be forced to carry this through? It is a life shattering situation. If it's due to negligence, as you say, it's the negligence of two people, yet unfairly weighs heavier against the woman. If Its possible to resolve it medically with compassion and dignity, why not let that be an option?

* The other option being adoption, but that doesn't remove the pregnancy, the child birth or the having to endure a situation you don't want to be in.

PhoenixParker

I said it before I'll say it again.
The pill has a 99% effectiveness rate with perfect use.
That means 1 in 100 sexually active women using it perfectly will get pregnant each year.
Use it for all your fertile years and there is about 1 in 3 chance of an unexpected pregnancy.

erica74

pleas advice wrote: »

I mean, i could say...

Killing the unborn should never* be an option IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT!!!!!

but that does nothing to advance the debate, its just restating the basic premise *(with caveats) of one side, so whats the point?

The reasons for choice have been stated over and over and over again, read the thread, read the last thread, do some research.

nozzferrahhtoo

Sierra Eire wrote: »

You'd swear women were forced by law to have unprotected sex at least 3 times a week or that there's some kind of airborne virus making women pregnant with arguments like this.

This poster doesn't seem to understand that women can already decide what happens to their bodies. For example, they have the choice to say NO to sexual intercourse, or perhaps *GASP* take responsibility when doing it. This eliminates the need to even mention the prospect of abortion.

You'd swear footballers were forced by law to play football at least 3 times a week or that there's some kind of airborne virus making footballers play with arguments like this.

This poster doesn't seem to understand that people can already decide what happens to their bodies. For example, they have the choice to say NO to sport, or perhaps *GASP* take responsibility when doing it. This eliminates the need to even mention the prospect of treatment of sports injuries.

See, we can do it with anything.

Yes people make choices. Yes many (most? all?) choices come with risk. Yes people take precautions and responsibility when doing those things. But statistically STILL, life and existence being what it is, things go wrong. Consequences, expected or otherwise, likely and unlikely, happen. All the time.

And our choice as a society when this is true is to either offer people options and supports (which is the kind of person I am).......... or stand over them in our rusty white knight armor sitting on yur geriatric not quite as high as we like to pretend it is high horse.......... and finger wag at them that they were not moral or responsible enough (which is apparently the kind of person you are).

People take small, medium and high risks all the time. People take care when taking risks as much as is possible. But statistically it will go wrong for some. That is when we offer them options and support. Not high horse recriminations that they just were not careful enough.

You also ignore the fact that some abortions have nothing to do with failed contraception or being not careful or responsible enough. Some people getting pregnant WANTED to get pregnant. It was AFTER that point that something in their circumstances changed. So wagging your moralistic judgmental finger at them is rendered irrelevant entirely.

erica74

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is when we offer them options and support.

This is what blows my mind. The prolife crowd "care" so much and "love both" but show no compassion whatsoever for women who fall pregnant and don't want to be pregnant.

Mr. CooL ICE

Mod: Reopened. Play nice please, people.

Mr. CooL ICE

Mod: RobertKK, you spent a long time speculating on the Miss P case but presenting it as fact despite all evidence pointing to the contrary. It was both disgusting and insulting. Remember that Ireland is a small place where both friends and family of the deceased can easily see what you have posted.

It was not a stunt. This is not opinion. This is a fact. Drop that argument now or don't post in this thread again.

Mr. CooL ICE

david75 wrote: »

Absolutely! I’ll refer you to Roberts posts for a sample of that ignorance.

Mod: You posts are becoming increasingly abrasive. Tone them down or you won't be posting here for much longer.

Mr. CooL ICE

Sierra Eire wrote: »

Not sure if you're a troll, communist or both, but your argument has nothing to do with abortion.

Mod: Enough of the troll accusations, please. Report anybody you think is trolling and let the mods deal with it.

SusieBlue

Ismisejack wrote: »

Regards unwanted pregnancy, excluding rape it’s simply a case of negligence. When women consent to sex they should always , if they wish to not get pregnant, use contraception like condoms and the pill. Any honest person will admit that the absence of contraception is a factor in many unwanted pregnancies. Abortion is NOT the solution to these such problems, contraception is. In cases where contraception fails, 99 out of 100 times it’s as a result of negligence or improper use of contraception . I understand contraception has failed however this is the case very very seldom and it is a minisual risk a consenting couple have to take when engaging in sex. So let me make it clear, Abortion is NOT the solution to any the case outlined above, there are far more practical and humane solutions, that is contraception and the correct use of ut

Once again full blame and responsibility is thrown at the woman. I've asked before and was ignored, so I'll ask again.
Did the woman spontaneously impregnate herself or does the man have to face any consequences?
And what consequences should be bestowed on the man? Remember: It must be equal to the physical, mental, and life altering changes a woman will go through. What are your suggestions???
Or do you only want to punish the woman?

robarmstrong

Ismisejack wrote: »

Well uve mentioned abortion their in instances of rape incest etc. surely if that is your belief that rape victims shouldn’t have carry a pregnancy against their wishes why is it yee are campaigning for unlimited abortion up to twelve weeks. The rape situation just suits yee in pursuing your actual agenda which is abortion on demand

Have you got any facts or evidence that this will lead to abortion on demand or is it just your opinion? I'm not campaigning for "unlimited" abortion, I'm campaigning to lift the ridiculous restrictions that are in place.

SusieBlue

Sierra Eire wrote: »

You'd swear women were forced by law to have unprotected sex at least 3 times a week or that there's some kind of airborne virus making women pregnant with arguments like this.

This poster doesn't seem to understand that women can already decide what happens to their bodies. For example, they have the choice to say NO to sexual intercourse, or perhaps *GASP* take responsibility when doing it. This eliminates the need to even mention the prospect of abortion.

As awful as rape is, and it's inexcusable, I don't see it as a big epidemic that needs to be addressed. I think those situations should be handled properly without killing a child.

More women bashing nonsense going on here I see.
Any consequences for the man who gets her pregnant or is it all her fault?
Should we just send her off to the laundry to boot, and be done with the whole situation?

robarmstrong

SusieBlue wrote: »

More women bashing nonsense going on here I see.
Any consequences for the man who gets her pregnant or is it all her fault?
Should we just send her off to the laundry to boot, and be done with the whole situation?

You'd swear that unprotected sex is the one and only reason women get pregnant, rather than contraception failure as it is not guaranteed 100% effective.

But hey, who am I, I'm just some guy with some facts to throw around.

rainbow kirby

erica74 wrote: »

This is what blows my mind. The prolife crowd "care" so much and "love both" but show no compassion whatsoever for women who fall pregnant and don't want to be pregnant.

If they really cared they would be out campaigning for disability support, for free effective contraception, for subsidised childcare, for more social housing, for flexible working, for extra funding for the maternity services...

All conspicuous by their absence. Funny that.

It's all about control. There's no love for either there, let alone "love both".

BabysCoffee

Ismisejack wrote: »

Regards unwanted pregnancy, excluding rape it’s simply a case of negligence. When women consent to sex they should always , if they wish to not get pregnant, use contraception like condoms and the pill. Any honest person will admit that the absence of contraception is a factor in many unwanted pregnancies. Abortion is NOT the solution to these such problems, contraception is. In cases where contraception fails, 99 out of 100 times it’s as a result of negligence or improper use of contraception . I understand contraception has failed however this is the case very very seldom and it is a minisual risk a consenting couple have to take when engaging in sex. So let me make it clear, Abortion is NOT the solution to any the case outlined above, there are far more practical and humane solutions, that is contraception and the correct use of ut

You're fierce concerned about other women's personal business - maybe you need to quit thinking about what others get up to in the bedroom, with or without contraception. I'm sick of hearing judgey people preaching to me in a holier than thou and sanctimonious tone.

RobertKK

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

Mod: RobertKK, you spent a long time speculating on the Miss P case but presenting it as fact despite all evidence pointing to the contrary. It was both disgusting and insulting. Remember that Ireland is a small place where both friends and family of the deceased can easily see what you have posted.

It was not a stunt. This is not opinion. This is a fact. Drop that argument now or don't post in this thread again.

I was only replying to replies. Plus I had finished posting in this thread last night so I had no intention of replying when one only gets called names and told they don’t care a relative lives or died.
So if I get a thread ban for replying, I have already a self imposed ban and I just want to use this reply to let others know that, some were replying last night after they knew I had stopped replying, a couple tried to bait me into replying via name calling/putdowns then but they weren’t worth it and the hassle one gets isn’t worth it.

NuMarvel

There's a good piece in the Dublin Inquirer today about foreign online influence in the referendum: https://www.dublininquirer.com/2018/03/20/with-facebook-ads-us-groups-seek-to-influence-outcome-of-referendum/.

Through the Transparent Referendum Initiative, they got in touch with a Irish-American pro-lifer who'd paid for ads on Facebook.

“I was requested by Irish pro-life activists to stir up Americans to stand with them to support the 8th Amendment,” Slattery said by telephone on 19 March.

Heeding this request, Slattery spent “a couple of hundred dollars” or “a few hundred dollars” (his answer varied during our conversation) boosting posts to his “friends in Ireland”, he said.

“As an Irish-American pro-lifer, I feel I have the right to do that,” he said. “If I broke the law, come extradite me, send a garda over to get me … I could come have a pint over there,” he said, making clear that this response was meant to be “tongue-in-cheek”.

Madscientist30

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Ismisejack wrote: »

When women consent to sex they should always , if they wish to not get pregnant, use contraception like condoms and the pill.

I always find it hilarious that the pro-life crew these days are so keen on contraception and condoms in these arguments.

When the 8th was first passed, contraception was not legally available in Ireland without a doctor's prescription for cases of bona fide family planning, i.e. married people only.

And were the anti-abortion crew back then in favour of contraception for all? They were in their holes, just as they have always been: against divorce, against contraception, against gay rights, against anything the Bishops told them to be against.

What will they be against when abortion is legal here? Transgender toilets?

This is so true, I remember the fire and brimstone against contraception so well growing up, it was as bad as abortion and completely anti-family according to half the people I knew at the time. And now pro-lifers are all for contraception! And the travelling to the UK also doesnt seem to bother them half as much as it used to...gives me hope for the future....

thee glitz

NuMarvel wrote: »

We can already reasonably deduce that.

That's a No to democracy so. Thankfully, changing our laws is beyond the power of your suspicions.

The anti-repeal campaign is predicated in large part on the premise that politicians can't be trusted no matter what, and that's why the 8th needs to stay.

It's not that they can't be trusted - abortion on demand Will be a reality if the anti-anti-repealers get their way.

I don't think they'd change their tune if the government was only going to legislate for FFA or other exceptions.

Why? Of course there are people who recognise to varying degrees the merits in abortion availability in special circumstances, particularly in the case FFA, without embracing abortion just because (but only to 12 weeks).

But if you want cast iron certainty, then we can just ask you; if the government said they'd only legislate for FFA post repeal, but anti-repeal groups were saying it could lead to "abortion on demand", how would you vote?

I'd be very tempted to vote to repeal, but would prefer to see any subsequent changes requiring a referendum (so, constitutional protection). Abortion on demand is a 1-way street - if it gets in, it's not going to go away. The next time FF/FG need some lefty loonies to form a government, this would be wide open to change.

See, two months out from referendum day, and you're already trying to disown a potential No vote. It'd be funny if it wasn't so serious.

Not at all. Many pro-choicers talk about special cases, but few (though yourself in fairness) care to discuss it. It seems that the want for a liberal regime is greater than concern for these.

If the people vote No, women will continue to have abortions by traveling or importing pills. How is that helping the unborn?

To some extent, the problem is enforcement of the law. Lock a few pill suppliers up for 14 years and things might change. I recognise that people 'travel', availing of the non-enforcement of even feeble UK laws in particular. I believe that we should have laws that reflect our own people's wishes. At least for now, we're free to move to the UK and do things their way there as we wish. Short of conquering the UK and a few others, maintaining our own laws is the best we can do.

Doctor Jimbob

RobertKK wrote: »

I was only replying to replies. Plus I had finished posting in this thread last night so I had no intention of replying when one only gets called names and told they don’t care a relative lives or died.
So if I get a thread ban for replying, I have already a self imposed ban and I just want to use this reply to let others know that, some were replying last night after they knew I had stopped replying, a couple tried to bait me into replying via name calling/putdowns then but they weren’t worth it and the hassle one gets isn’t worth it.

Don't bother playing the sympathy card, you made plenty of posts significantly worse than the ones you're complaining about when it suited your agenda.