Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Options
1…4849515354…325

Comments

  • Options
    #1502
    ProfessorPlum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,812 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    kylith wrote: »
    So you think she should have turned down a chance to further her career?


    Seriously, does it matter what other people think about a woman’s decision - whether it’s good, bad, justified or immoral?

    All that matters is that a woman’s choice is respected.
    Everyone is allowed have an opinion on what they think someone else should do. They just shouldn’t be allowed to force some else to do it.

    Badgering another poster on their differing opinions when s/he didn’t interfere with the woman’s decision is unfair and gets us nowhere.

    (Not having a go at you Kylith, but this kind of thing goes on here a bit from both sides and it doesn’t really add to the debate.)


  • Options
    #1503
    italodisco
    Registered Users Posts: 1,426 ✭✭✭italodisco


    kylith wrote: »
    So she should have maybe given up her one chance to see the world because _you_ thought she should have a baby.

    I'm confused, when did I say she should have given up the chance because of my opinion on it???


  • Options
    #1504
    thee glitz
    Registered Users Posts: 2,294 ✭✭✭thee glitz


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    How is a democratic vote an affront to the will of the people?
    uptherebels wrote: »
    When we are being told what we are voting for and will have the wording of the new legislation before voting, how in anyway is it an affront to the will of the people?

    It is so when we are being told that we can have this generally agreeable thing, but only if we also agree to something which many find abhorrent. Allowance of that generally agreeable (abortion in the case of medical necessity, and it already happens, but giving doctors more discretion) will also mean abortion for any/no reason up to a nominal point.

    Given what's planned, I will vote No - not because I'm a fan of the 8th, but because it what prevents abortion on demand, protecting the unborn.


  • Options
    #1505
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    thee glitz wrote: »
    It is so when we are being told that we can have this generally agreeable thing, but only if we also agree to something which many find abhorrent. Allowance of that generally agreeable (abortion in the case of medical necessity, and it already happens, but giving doctors more discretion) will also mean abortion for any/no reason up to a nominal point.

    Given what's planned, I will vote No - not because I'm a fan of the 8th, but because it what prevents abortion on demand, protecting the unborn.

    Right you've been called out on this multiple times and you just seem to consistently avoiding address it.

    The bolded part above you have never once provided a shred of evidence, any facts, or even explained HOW it is "abortion on demand".

    Keep using that phrase, see where you end up.


  • Options
    #1506
    BabysCoffee
    Registered Users Posts: 4,713 ✭✭✭BabysCoffee


    thee glitz wrote: »
    It is so when we are being told that we can have this generally agreeable thing, but only if we also agree to something which many find abhorrent. Allowance of that generally agreeable (abortion in the case of medical necessity, and it already happens, but giving doctors more discretion) will also mean abortion for any/no reason up to a nominal point.

    Given what's planned, I will vote No - not because I'm a fan of the 8th, but because it what prevents abortion on demand, protecting the unborn.

    I will vote Yes and let mothers protect their unborn. I trust women.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1507
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,567 ✭✭✭swampgas


    thee glitz wrote: »
    It is so when we are being told that we can have this generally agreeable thing, but only if we also agree to something which many find abhorrent. Allowance of that generally agreeable (abortion in the case of medical necessity, and it already happens, but giving doctors more discretion) will also mean abortion for any/no reason up to a nominal point.

    Given what's planned, I will vote No - not because I'm a fan of the 8th, but because it what prevents abortion on demand, protecting the unborn.

    To be fair, what we are really voting on is re-locating abortion from the UK to Ireland. Blocking repeal does nothing to protect the unborn right now.

    If the 8th is repealed, and unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks in introduced, what will happen is that medical cases will be easier and safer and non-medical cases will happen sooner and with less distress to the women, as they will no longer need to travel.

    Unless you also want to repeal the freedom of information and freedom to travel amendments of course, I can't see how keeping the 8th will do what you claim it will do.


  • Options
    #1508
    ProfessorPlum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,812 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    thee glitz wrote: »
    It is so when we are being told that we can have this generally agreeable thing, but only if we also agree to something which many find abhorrent. Allowance of that generally agreeable (abortion in the case of medical necessity, and it already happens, but giving doctors more discretion) will also mean abortion for any/no reason up to a nominal point.

    Given what's planned, I will vote No - not because I'm a fan of the 8th, but because it what prevents abortion on demand, protecting the unborn.


    There’s nothing undemocratic about the process.
    You decide based on the question asked which way to vote. That’s up to you.

    You’ve decided to vote against repeal. You can be happy that your vote will be against abortion on request (or on demand as you put it, it really is just semantics).

    But - you need to own the fact that your vote also puts women’s and children’s lives and health at risk.

    If you’re happy with that choice, then it is your right to vote that way.


  • Options
    #1509
    thee glitz
    Registered Users Posts: 2,294 ✭✭✭thee glitz


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Thank you for your concern, i appreciate that you are really trying to help us repeal the 8th.

    :pac::D:pac:

    I knew I couldn't say that with a straight face.

    I respect that you make your views very clear, and understand why you have no interest in a referendum in which a yes vote would result in 'soft-abortion' legislation.

    I take it you won't pretend to have any specific interest in 'special circumstances' situations, and will reserve putting any more truths to you til the day I want to get banned.


  • Options
    #1510
    statesaver
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,084 ✭✭✭statesaver


    BabysCoffee wrote: »
    I will vote Yes and let mothers protect their unborn. I trust women.

    Can I ask you what you mean by that because that just does not make any sense to me.

    You are pro choice, yes ?


  • Options
    #1511
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    italodisco wrote: »
    So why did the pro choice group call a hotel and make threats because the pro life group were having some praise jebus save the babies event? Would that not be considered trying to stop them have an opinion?

    Let's discuss this in greater detail.

    A group advertised a conference in a hotel in Dublin City Centre some months ago, within that conference they wanted to talk about how abortion led to an increase in breast cancer and an increase in depression in women. This is lies. A number of people called, messaged and emailed the hotel to express their upset at a group being able to spread such horrible mistruths about abortion. The hotel took an executive decision to cancel the meeting, the hotel never commented on receiving death threats, this was communicated to media sources from a very prominent anti-choice spokesperson, the hotel refused to comment, the garda refused to comment on whether they were investigating said death threats, so don't believe everything you read online, first of all.

    Second of all, meanwhile, 'pro-life' groups have managed to have a number of pro-choice meetings cancelled by calling and emailing several venues around Dublin, most recently Maximillians Bistro in Blanchardstown by threatening to boycott the venue if they went ahead with the meetings. But do I hear you being outraged at that? No... so it's all good for pro-life groups to go around getting the other sides meetings cancelled (when they're not even spreading such horrible mis-information such as abortions lead to an increased risk of breast cancer!) merely just speaking of the upcoming campaign and how we're going to canvas etc but not the other way around. OK, Gotcha.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1512
    Neyite
    Administrators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,947 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Neyite


    It's not abortion on demand.

    It's abortion without restriction.

    It's allowing a woman to assess her particular set of circumstances and decide for her, if a termination is necessary. That kind of thing is not decided on a whim.

    It's for the victims of rape.
    It's for the women who, due to their health, can't carry a pregnancy.
    It's for the women facing cancer treatment.
    It's for the women in direct provision who cannot travel for a termination.
    It's for the women here illegally.
    It's for the women too poor to afford travel.
    It's for children who are physically too immature to carry a pregnancy and give birth without severe risks to their health.
    It's for the women who's pregnancy will put them at risk of increased domestic abuse.
    It's for the women who's contraception failed and they are simply too poor to afford another child.
    It's for the women who are miscarrying their wanted baby and have to gamble as to whether the dying heartbeat will die before sepsis happens.
    Its' so that women who needs an X-ray can get one - and not just on certain days of her cycle because she's deemed to be fertile and therefore has some sort of Shrodingers pregnancy going on every month for half the month.
    It's for the women at high risk of having a special needs child and she's already struggling to cope with the one she has and cares for 24/7.
    It's so women can get full medical support in early pregnancy to try to maintain their pregnancy.
    It's for women with fatal foetal abnormalities.
    It's for continuity of maternity care including post abortion health care.

    This is why we need it unrestricted. Because that list is only a small portion of reasons for seeking termination, and we can't amend the constitution to accommodate each and every deserving case. In order to help these women, we need to open it up to all and to trust that the vast vast majority of women will have a bloody good reason to go and seek an abortion.

    I trust women to make that decision if they have to. I've never known a women to make that decision lightly of flippantly. Never.


  • Options
    #1513
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    thee glitz wrote: »
    Given what's planned, I will vote No - not because I'm a fan of the 8th, but because it what prevents abortion on demand, protecting the unborn.

    Retaining the 8th won't stop abortions ("on demand" or otherwise) and won't protect the unborn. Women will continue to travel or continue to import pills, and nobody posting here about "protecting the unborn" will do anything to stop that. Mainly because they don't want to do anything to stop that.

    The only benefit you'll get from voting No is continuing to pretend Irish women aren't having abortions. And I don't see why women should suffer increased risks to their health just so you can live in denial.

    If you can't bring yourself to vote Yes, you should at least have the decency to abstain. A No vote won't help anyone, including the unborn, but at least by not voting you're allowing others to help pregnant women.


  • Options
    #1514
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    Neyite wrote: »
    It's not abortion on demand.

    It's abortion without restriction.

    It's allowing a woman to assess her particular set of circumstances and decide for her, if a termination is necessary. That kind of thing is not decided on a whim.

    It's for the victims of rape.
    It's for the women who, due to their health, can't carry a pregnancy.
    It's for the women facing cancer treatment.
    It's for the women in direct provision who cannot travel for a termination.
    It's for the women here illegally.
    It's for the women too poor to afford travel.
    It's for children who are physically too immature to carry a pregnancy and give birth without severe risks to their health.
    It's for the women who's pregnancy will put them at risk of increased domestic abuse.
    It's for the women who's contraception failed and they are simply too poor to afford another child.
    It's for the women who are miscarrying their wanted baby and have to gamble as to whether the dying heartbeat will die before sepsis happens.
    Its' so that women who needs an X-ray can get one - and not just on certain days of her cycle because she's deemed to be fertile and therefore has some sort of Shrodingers pregnancy going on every month for half the month.
    It's for the women at high risk of having a special needs child and she's already struggling to cope with the one she has and cares for 24/7.
    It's so women can get full medical support in early pregnancy to try to maintain their pregnancy.
    It's for women with fatal foetal abnormalities.
    It's for continuity of maternity care including post abortion health care.

    This is why we need it unrestricted. Because that list is only a small portion of reasons for seeking termination, and we can't amend the constitution to accommodate each and every deserving case. In order to help these women, we need to open it up to all and to trust that the vast vast majority of women will have a bloody good reason to go and seek an abortion.

    I trust women to make that decision if they have to. I've never known a women to make that decision lightly of flippantly. Never.

    Is it okay if I use the bolded whenever another pro-lifer says the phrase "abortion on demand" ? Ridiculous that they still label it as such with no foundation whatsoever.


  • Options
    #1515
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    Neyite wrote: »
    It's not abortion on demand.

    It's abortion without restriction.

    It's allowing a woman to assess her particular set of circumstances and decide for her, if a termination is necessary. That kind of thing is not decided on a whim.

    It's for the victims of rape.
    It's for the women who, due to their health, can't carry a pregnancy.
    It's for the women facing cancer treatment.
    It's for the women in direct provision who cannot travel for a termination.
    It's for the women here illegally.
    It's for the women too poor to afford travel.
    It's for children who are physically too immature to carry a pregnancy and give birth without severe risks to their health.
    It's for the women who's pregnancy will put them at risk of increased domestic abuse.
    It's for the women who's contraception failed and they are simply too poor to afford another child.
    It's for the women who are miscarrying their wanted baby and have to gamble as to whether the dying heartbeat will die before sepsis happens.
    Its' so that women who needs an X-ray can get one - and not just on certain days of her cycle because she's deemed to be fertile and therefore has some sort of Shrodingers pregnancy going on every month for half the month.
    It's for the women at high risk of having a special needs child and she's already struggling to cope with the one she has and cares for 24/7.
    It's so women can get full medical support in early pregnancy to try to maintain their pregnancy.
    It's for women with fatal foetal abnormalities.
    It's for continuity of maternity care including post abortion health care.

    This is why we need it unrestricted. Because that list is only a small portion of reasons for seeking termination, and we can't amend the constitution to accommodate each and every deserving case. In order to help these women, we need to open it up to all and to trust that the vast vast majority of women will have a bloody good reason to go and seek an abortion.

    I trust women to make that decision if they have to. I've never known a women to make that decision lightly of flippantly. Never.

    Seriously, I'm not even joking, can I share this on my personal page on FB? Please?


  • Options
    #1516
    thee glitz
    Registered Users Posts: 2,294 ✭✭✭thee glitz


    robarmstrong wrote: »

    Right you've been called out on this multiple times and you just seem to consistently avoiding address it.

    The bolded part above you have never once provided a shred of evidence, any facts, or even explained HOW it is "abortion on demand".

    I don't think I've been called out on anything to the extent of clarity being required . Abortion on demand / on request / for no reason / for lifestyle reasons / just because. While a few forms may need to be filled in, it's doesn't mean it's not on-demand / request / whatever
    Keep using that phrase, see where you end up.

    What are ye gonna do - abort me?


  • Options
    #1517
    Neyite
    Administrators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,947 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Neyite


    January wrote: »
    Seriously, I'm not even joking, can I share this on my personal page on FB? Please?

    Please do, and feel free to add to the list as well. - don't tag me to it on FB though. ;)


  • Options
    #1518
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    Neyite wrote: »
    Please do, and feel free to add to the list as well. - don't tag me to it on FB though. ;)

    I won't tag you, don't worry!


  • Options
    #1519
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    thee glitz wrote: »
    I don't think I've been called out on anything to the extent of clarity being required . Abortion on demand / on request / for no reason / for lifestyle reasons / just because. While a few forms may need to be filled in, it's doesn't mean it's not on-demand / request / whatever

    You've constantly avoided posts directed at addressing some of the wild statements you've made.

    While a few forms may need to be filled in, it doesn't mean it is "abortion on demand".
    thee glitz wrote: »
    What are ye gonna do - abort me?

    Aaaand there goes the mask.


  • Options
    #1520
    thee glitz
    Registered Users Posts: 2,294 ✭✭✭thee glitz


    robarmstrong wrote: »

    Right you've been called out on this multiple times and you just seem to consistently avoiding address it.

    The bolded part above you have never once provided a shred of evidence, any facts, or even explained HOW it is "abortion on demand".

    I don't think I've been called out on anything to the extent of clarity being required . Abortion on demand / on request / for no reason / for lifestyle reasons / just because. While a few forms may need to be filled in, it's doesn't mean it's not on-demand / request / whatever
    Keep using that phrase, see where you end up.

    What are ye gonna do - abort me?[/quote]


  • Options
    #1521
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    You aren’t helping your point, theeglitz.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1522
    whatdoicare
    Registered Users Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭whatdoicare


    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/mar/22/paraguayan-rape-victim-14-dies-giving-birth


    Well guys, a country with the same abortion laws as us shows us how its done. An innocent 14 year old girl prevented from getting an abortion "because her life wasnt in danger" dies an absolutely horrible death but sure thats grand, the baby kinda lived.....well done pro life, well done.


  • Options
    #1523
    thee glitz
    Registered Users Posts: 2,294 ✭✭✭thee glitz


    robarmstrong wrote: »
    You've constantly avoided posts directed at addressing some of the wild statements you've made.

    Bollox - I've addressed many posts (admittedly I don't think all, but as best I could for now). And I haven't made any wild statements anyway.
    While a few forms may need to be filled in, it doesn't mean it is "abortion on demand".

    Ok, we'll call it abortion on filling in a few papers.
    Aaaand there goes the mask.

    What are ye on about?


  • Options
    #1524
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    thee glitz wrote: »
    And I haven't made any wild statements anyway.
    thee glitz wrote: »
    It's not that they can't be trusted - abortion on demand Will be a reality if the anti-anti-repealers get their way.

    Wild statement with absolutely no evidence, no proof of this supposed reality.

    I was trying to quote your posts from the previous thread but due to it being locked, I can't.

    Accept that there's no such thing as "abortion on demand".

    Read what Neyite's post in particular. Let it sink in.


  • Options
    #1525
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    david75 wrote:
    Is this mature, or rubbish? I don’t even see how it’s relevant.

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

    It is mature. It is a debate which is talked about as an off shoot of the backlash caused by taxing femine products as luxury items.

    I am male but my personal view is these products and contraception (at least option) should be available for free.


  • Options
    #1526
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    Doctor Jimbob wrote:
    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.

    Fair point.

    My comment is because in here it seems to be mostly pro choice and anyone who appears to be opposed is teamed up on. On fact I said I am pro choice and just because I didn't just agree with everyone, people here reported my posts to get me banned.

    Do you think that is mature behaviour?

    I didn't say anything offensive yet got loads of reports.......
    Doctor Jimbob wrote:
    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.

    Yes it was debated. By a select few. Do you think the debate is over? Nothing has been passed yet and it looks like it will be very close.

    To pretend there is nothing to debate is that set yourself for a no vote.


  • Options
    #1527
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


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


    I baited nobody. You or your friends tried to get me banned and we're told to cop on. The thread was even locked because of are being ridiculous.

    How is me saying I'm pro choice baiting you?

    Maybe of you grew up and acted like an adult you would be able to have an intelligent conversation


  • Options
    #1528
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    Mr.H wrote: »
    It is mature. It is a debate which is talked about as an off shoot of the backlash caused by taxing femine products as luxury items.

    I am male but my personal view is these products and contraception (at least option) should be available for free.


    I thought that was in the UK?

    Never mind. As you were


  • Options
    #1529
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    thee glitz wrote:
    What are ye on about?


    I wouldn't really worry about rob. They come across as very naive. Everything they said to you they said to me also. Even down to the mask off rubbish.

    In fact they tried to get me banned by reporting all my posts. Didn't say anything offensive but claimed I was baiting.


  • Options
    #1530
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    Mr.H wrote: »
    I wouldn't really worry about rob. They come across as very naive. Everything they said to you they said to me also. Even down to the mask off rubbish.

    In fact they tried to get me banned by reporting all my posts. Didn't say anything offensive but claimed I was baiting.



    How do you know anyone’s reported you to get you banned? You’re only posting here a day or two.


    There were previous posters banned that sound remarkably like you but that’s par for the course language, derailing, hysteria and sideshow fron the pro life posters we’ve seen come and go throughout the past few weeks.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1531
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    NuMarvel wrote:
    If you can't bring yourself to vote Yes, you should at least have the decency to abstain. A No vote won't help anyone, including the unborn, but at least by not voting you're allowing others to help pregnant women.


    Everyone has the right to vote or no. It is the demographic process.

    If nobody makes an argument strong enough to change someone's views, then that someone has a right to vote whatever way they want.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement