The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Mr.H

kylith wrote:

We all would prefer if that were the case. Hopefully free or subsidised contraception will be available in the future.

I would very much like to see not just free contraception but also femine hygiene products.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

thee glitz wrote: »

That's exactly why it matters. Are we all gathered here to discuss repealing so women getting the treatment they need, or just pretending and using special cases as a justification for abortion for any reason?

Unfortunately none of us have a time machine where we can go back and try and convince pro-life campaigners not to insert that sh1tshow of an amendment into the constitution even though abortion was already very illegal. No meaningful change can happen, for any cases, without repealing it. Your beef is with the people who voted for it in the first place.

Mr.H

Doctor Jimbob wrote:

As opposed to the pro life side, whose argument consists largely of mature topics such as claiming people will have abortions just for the craic.

So why can't we just have an actual mature debate and ignore the rubbish.

But it does need to be debated. Not just agreed with

Mr.H

Sofiztikated wrote:

Define "Need".

Medically needed

Mr.H

Zubeneschamali wrote:

That is exactly what is proposed - abortion without restriction up to 12 weeks.

I know. But I'm hoping things will be thought about more sensibly before laws are passed.

david75

Mr.H wrote: »

So why can't we just have an actual mature debate and ignore the rubbish.

But it does need to be debated. Not just agreed with

‘I would very much like to see not just free contraception but also femine hygiene products.’


Is this mature, or rubbish?
I don’t even see how it’s relevant

Doctor Jimbob

Mr.H wrote: »

So why can't we just have an actual mature debate and ignore the rubbish.

But it does need to be debated. Not just agreed with

Youre not exactly helping to have a mature debate by claiming only the pro-choice side are making immature arguments, while the pro-life side have literal nazis coming on and raving about Soros and globalisation and anti-white agendas.

It has been debated, by the citizen's assembly. They decided the best course of action would be unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks, with reasoning given as to why.

thee glitz

kylith wrote: »

If you block repeal because some women might get what _you_ consider “bad” abortions and a woman dies because she cannot get the treatment she needs because of that, and meanwhile thousands of Irish women are going to the UK for terminations anyway, how will you feel?

Wait a minute there... You are blocking repeal by not pushing medical necessity cases a special circumstance.

robarmstrong

Mr.H wrote: »

So why can't we just have an actual mature debate and ignore the rubbish.

But it does need to be debated. Not just agreed with

Stop posting rubbish then.

You initially came in here appearing to bait/flame people while maintaining "oh hey guys I'm pro-choice!!"

You don't have any understanding of the terms you're using. Referring to abortion is a contraceptive is ridiculous, contraception serves to prevent pregnancy, a woman is already pregnant so that completely voids what you're saying. I might be wrong but either you or someone with posts similar to you (I'll double check) kept referring to it as either unlimited abortion or abortion on demand. Wrong in both counts.

We can't have an actual mature debate if hysterical over-dramatic phrases are constantly thrown in, just because you believe it or interpret to be unlimited abortion/abortion on demand does not actually mean it is true.

seamus

Mr.H wrote: »

I know. But I'm hoping things will be thought about more sensibly before laws are passed.

You see, nobody is quite sure what you mean.

Because the sensible, reasonable, calm and respectful discussion part has been done. The Citizen's Assembly heard a lot of information from a lot of speakers, many of whom being experts in their relevant scientific fields. And after all of that discussion, came, through sensible vote-casting, to the conclusion that the most sensible way forward was to legislate for abortion without restriction up to 12 weeks, and abortion in other special circumstances beyond that.

So I'm not sure what a "more sensible" consideration looks like to you, or what you believe was missing from the citizen's assembly that renders their report invalid or unreasonable.

thee glitz

Misael Echoing Horse wrote: »

thee glitz wrote: »

That's exactly why it matters. Are we all gathered here to discuss repealing so women getting the treatment they need, or just pretending and using special cases as a justification for abortion for any reason?

Unfortunately none of us have a time machine where we can go back and try and convince pro-life campaigners not to insert that sh1tshow of an amendment into the constitution even though abortion was already very illegal. No meaningful change can happen, for any cases, without repealing it. Your beef is with the people who voted for it in the first place.

A time-machine would be nice, but what beef could I have with people years ago if there was nothing better they could have done? And if there was, why not do it now...

Sofiztikated

Mr.H wrote: »

Medically needed

Cool.

So if a woman, otherwise healthy but dealing with crippling anxiety, becomes pregnant, and doesn't think she'll be in a good place to bare and raise a child, is that a medical necessity?

_Dara_

The rape thing. I have trouble with the rape thing. The practicalities. People who say abortion should be allowed in the case of rape - how would that work? The pregnancy would likely be far past the 12 week mark before it would be proven that a rape took place. And what if it couldn’t be proven as can happen with rape cases. What is a raped pregnant woman supposed to do in these scenarios? It doesn’t make practical sense. Would she have to prove that she was raped for the abortion to be allowed? That would be tricky. And would heap on more pressure on an already traumatised woman.

thee glitz

Mr.H wrote: »

I am going to vote yes to repeal. But I really hope abortion without limitations isn't on the horizon. Yes abortion should be available to people who need it. But no I don't believe it should be a back up contraceptive.

This is what's currently on the table. A yes vote is a vote for abortion on demand. This needs to be changed if we are to uphold the pretence of any democracy. Not that it shouldn't be ruled out, but we should be sure that this, specifically, is the will of the people before introducing it.

robarmstrong

thee glitz wrote: »

This is what's currently on the table. A yes vote is a vote for abortion on demand. This needs to be changed if we are to uphold the pretence of any democracy. Not that it shouldn't be ruled out, but we should be sure that this, specifically, is the will of the people before introducing it.

False. It's unrestricted abortion, there are no indications of this "abortion on demand" hysteria.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

thee glitz wrote: »

Wait a minute there... You are blocking repeal by not pushing medical necessity cases a special circumstance.

Sorry, the people campaigning and voting for repeal are blocking it? Not the people campaigning and voting against it?

Own your decisions would you. A vote to retain is a vote to continue the pain and suffering of those special cases. If that's something you're willing to enable rather than liberalise abortion then take responsibility for that.

italodisco

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Cool.

So if a woman, otherwise healthy but dealing with crippling anxiety, becomes pregnant, and doesn't think she'll be in a good place to bare and raise a child, is that a medical necessity?

No.

It's not a good enough reason to terminate a life.

Have the child, give it up for adoption if you can't raise it.

As an anxiety sufferer myself I know only too well about making rash decisions based on an over thought out fear etc.

Many choices I've made due to anxiety I have seriously regretted down the line which in turn just made it worse for me.

I'd love to vote in favour of choice but unfortunately the reality is plenty of people will terminate just to suit their lifestyle / career etc.

As for the pro choice side constantly trying to make out the pro life lot are a bunCh of religious nutters, they are just as entitled to an opinion as the supposedly free speech left wing.

Can't wait for the barrage of sjw types to come at me now and give me hell for having an opinion yawn

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

thee glitz wrote: »

A time-machine would be nice, but what beef could I have with people years ago if there was nothing better they could have done? And if there was, why not do it now...

They're the ones who created this situation. Without the 8th, exceptional circumstances could have been regulated for.

robarmstrong

italodisco wrote: »

No.

It's not a good enough reason to terminate a life.

Have the child, give it up for adoption if you can't raise it.

As an anxiety sufferer myself I know only too well about making rash decisions based on an over thought out fear etc.

Many choices I've made due to anxiety I have seriously regretted down the line which in turn just made it worse for me.

I'd love to vote in favour of choice but unfortunately the reality is plenty of people will terminate just to suit their lifestyle / career etc.

As for the pro choice side constantly trying to make out the pro life lot are a bunCh of religious nutters, they are just as entitled to an opinion as the supposedly free speech left wing.

Can't wait for the barrage of sjw types to come at me now and give me hell for having an opinion yawn

Have you any evidence of this "reality" or is it just your version of "reality"?

Zubeneschamali

thee glitz wrote: »

what beef could I have with people years ago if there was nothing better they could have done? And if there was, why not do it now...

There was something better: vote against the 8th in 1983. That's what I did.

As for doing it now, that's exactly what we are doing: repealing the 8th.

Sofiztikated

thee glitz wrote: »

This is what's currently on the table. A yes vote is a vote for abortion on demand. This needs to be changed if we are to uphold the pretence of any democracy. Not that it shouldn't be ruled out, but we should be sure that this, specifically, is the will of the people before introducing it.

What nonsense is this?

I don't like what is going to a democratic vote, therefore it's not democracy?

Ave Sodalis

italodisco wrote: »

No.

It's not a good enough reason to terminate a life.

Have the child, give it up for adoption if you can't raise it.

As an anxiety sufferer myself I know only too well about making rash decisions based on an over thought out fear etc.

Many choices I've made due to anxiety I have seriously regretted down the line which in turn just made it worse for me.

I'd love to vote in favour of choice but unfortunately the reality is plenty of people will terminate just to suit their lifestyle / career etc.

As for the pro choice side constantly trying to make out the pro life lot are a bunCh of religious nutters, they are just as entitled to an opinion as the supposedly free speech left wing.

Can't wait for the barrage of sjw types to come at me now and give me hell for having an opinion yawn

1) It's not as simple as giving it up for adoption. There are a multitude of reasons for having an abortion and the 8th affects them all

2) There are a multitude of reasons for having an abortion. The 8th affects them all.

3) Where have you recently seen pro-choice people saying that it's only religious nutters who are pro-life?

4) Everyone is entitled to free speech, even those that disagree with others. You have a right to an opinion. Others have a right to have an opinion on your opinion.

5) I guess I'm an SJW (:rolleyes:) for even replying to you, but if you're going to automatically dismiss those who disagree with you as SJW crazies, you cannot expect a reasonable discussion. Also, do you see the hypocrisy of saying that pro-choice are dismissing pro-life as religious nuts, whilst you dismiss pro-choice as SJWs?

Doctor Jimbob

italodisco wrote: »

No.

It's not a good enough reason to terminate a life.

Have the child, give it up for adoption if you can't raise it.

As an anxiety sufferer myself I know only too well about making rash decisions based on an over thought out fear etc.

Many choices I've made due to anxiety I have seriously regretted down the line which in turn just made it worse for me.

I'd love to vote in favour of choice but unfortunately the reality is plenty of people will terminate just to suit their lifestyle / career etc.

As for the pro choice side constantly trying to make out the pro life lot are a bunCh of religious nutters, they are just as entitled to an opinion as the supposedly free speech left wing.

Can't wait for the barrage of sjw types to come at me now and give me hell for having an opinion yawn

I don't feel particularly comfortable with people having abortions for those reasons either. It's not my place to force my morals on other people though, so I'll still be voting for repeal.

Zubeneschamali

italodisco wrote: »

As for the pro choice side constantly trying to make out the pro life lot are a bunCh of religious nutters, they are just as entitled to an opinion as the supposedly free speech left wing.

You seem to be saying that bunches of religious nutters are just as entitled to an opinion as left wing people.

I quite agree.

But putting the opinions of bunches of religious nutters into the Constitution is a bad idea. I mean, look at the Preamble, wtf is this about:

In the name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred, We, the people of Éire, Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial, Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation, And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations, Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

italodisco

robarmstrong wrote: »

Have you any evidence of this "reality" or is it just your version of "reality"?

I don't live in a bubble rob, that's how things work in the real world. I know 3 separate individuals (friends) who have had an abortion and 2 of them certainly did it simply because it would have impacted on what they saw as their own freedom to enjoy their life.

I didn't give my opinion as it wasn't my choice or business to do so but I personally found it quite harsh.

If you have to ask me if I have evidence for my previous post then you must be extremely naive to think that type of thing wouldn't happen.

I suppose you think I'm a religious pro life head too

thee glitz

robarmstrong wrote: »

False. It's unrestricted abortion, there are no indications of this "abortion on demand" hysteria.

What's the difference?

Misael Echoing Horse wrote: »

Sorry, the people campaigning and voting for repeal are blocking it? Not the people campaigning and voting against it?

Yes, indirectly. By not opposing abortion for any reason as being the result of repealing the 8th, they are turning voters away.

Own your decisions would you. A vote to retain is a vote to continue the pain and suffering of those special cases. If that's something you're willing to enable rather than liberalise abortion then take responsibility for that.

It's what many people will do, unless/until certainty around protection of life in general is given. Which is not where we are. You can give up the charade about caring specifically about those in pain and suffering.

Ave Sodalis

italodisco wrote: »

I suppose you think I'm a religious pro life head too

Nobody even said that?

thee glitz

Misael Echoing Horse wrote: »

They're the ones who created this situation. Without the 8th, exceptional circumstances could have been regulated for.

So let's do it now

italodisco

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You seem to be saying that bunches of religious nutters are just as entitled to an opinion as left wing people.

I quite agree.

But putting the opinions of bunches of religious nutters into the Constitution is a bad idea. I mean, look at the Preamble, wtf is this about:

In the name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred, We, the people of Éire, Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial, Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation, And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations, Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

As an atheist I'd have a rather negative view in the majority of the pro life crew and their holy Mary nonsense (which is just my opinion) but I think they are entitled to spout that crap as much as the other side.

Both sides have gotten way too pumped up

amdublin

italodisco wrote: »

I don't live in a bubble rob, that's how things work in the real world. I know 3 separate individuals (friends) who have had an abortion and 2 of them certainly did it simply because it would have impacted on what they saw as their own freedom to enjoy their life.

I didn't give my opinion as it wasn't my choice or business to do so but I personally found it quite harsh.

If you have to ask me if I have evidence for my previous post then you must be extremely naive to think that type of thing wouldn't happen.

I suppose you think I'm a religious pro life head too

Who are you to judge their reasons. They knew best. Let people decide for themselves.

If you get pregnant and feel you can't do it because of your anxiety but must do it because of your personal morals then that is great. I am genuinely pleased for you if thats yoir choice.

Stop pushing your decisions and beliefs on to other people.

In other words take your nose out of other people's bedrooms and vaginas and mind your own business.