The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

robarmstrong

bertieinexile wrote: »

OK. Let's parse this really carefully.
In 20% of the cases where a woman gets to choose a child dies.
God, that sounds even worse


Really rob? Do you know what I'm hearing? A guy who just wants to be loved.

Tell ya what, prick. I'm very loved. I'm very loved by my friends, my family, my partner, my multiple sons and daughters that I've lost due to the very same reason you and your cretins keep disregarding in the agenda to push some figures, and the son we had to abort.

pleas advice

david75 wrote: »

Do we have a scoreboard of people having been banned from this thread?
Cos it’s usually only one side lying deceiving and misleading.

Be interesting to see the stats.

chalk that one down

robarmstrong

Edward M wrote: »

Instead of shouting the odds you should have looked it up, google is your friend.
Around 1 in 5 pregnancies in the UK end up in miscarriage. I assume that's spontaneous miscarriage.
Looking to get people banned for posting figures, schoolyard tantrums, grow up.

https://www.miscarriageassociation.org.uk/media-queries/background-information/

Me grow up? You wandered into the thread with your ridiculous figures and claims. Go add 250k to the figure from the stats you've posted and come back and tell me that one in five still ends in abortion

Ken.

Mod-robarmstrong do not post in this thread again. Reason-Personal abuse and calling people trolls in thread.

NuMarvel

bertieinexile wrote: »

I can't believe the amount of energy that has been put in to discussing the phrase "abortion on demand". I honestly can't see why - and no one seems to have made much of an effort to explain.

I can't believe the amount of energy you're expending to avoid answering a simple question.

As for why, it's been already noted in the thread how some posters use the phrase in a manner that doesn't seem to be meet the usual definition of it. The prevailing theory is these people don't actually know what they mean when they use it. Your evasion certainly lends further credence to that theory.

bertieinexile wrote: »

The proposed Irish law provides an on request model up to 12 weeks.
As you say, the law in england, as written, doesn't provide an on request model at all.

I'll stop you there, because I asked for evidence from jurisdictions with similar laws to the ones proposed for Ireland. By your own admission, that's not Britain. And even then, your claims about the practical application about British laws don't constitute evidence because you've provided nothing to substantiate them.

If you're going to say that pregnant women and their doctors would act in bad faith after the on-request time frame, then the least you could do is provide the evidence that convinced you this would happen. Obviously though you've never found this evidence, if you even looked. So until such time as that evidence is presented, your claims can be properly disregarded.

robarmstrong

Yano what, ban me.

If you're gonna sit there and let them completely disregard how I lost some of my children just so they can push their own numbers and agenda you go right ahead, absolute disgraceful carry on just out and out ridiculousness.

david75

Conspectus wrote: »

Mod-robarmstrong do not post in this thread again. Reason-Personal abuse and calling people trolls in thread.

You need to read the entire thread and the hurtful bullish!t being posted by those people to be fair.

charlietheminxx

I’ve been reading along the thread but not participating. All I can say is that I’m so sorry to all those who have been directly affected by the 8th and I truly hope the poll is indicative of the referendum result so that more do not have to suffer.

It’s shocking seeing some of the propaganda being passed off as facts here. Fair play to everyone who has managed a well reasoned debate so far.

Edward M

robarmstrong wrote: »

Me grow up? You wandered into the thread with your ridiculous figures and claims. Go add 250k to the figure from the stats you've posted and come back and tell me that one in five still ends in abortion

I posted the figures, if you agree that the figures excluding miscarriage are true then the miscarriages don't count really.
Miscarriages happen, I know that from personal experience too within my own family, and my sister had a stillborn baby a few years ago, my nephew and his girlfriend had a stillbirth last September also. and I sympathise with anyone in any of these events.
As the miscarriage rate is happening regardless of whether there is abortion or not, the figures posted would relate to pregnancies that may have been viable, there is a list of exceptional circumstances for the abortions in the link also and percentages of these circumstances listed also.
Tantrums don't change these statistics.

bertieinexile

I'd also like to ask for robarmstrong to keep posting here.

While miscarriage may not be directly related to the issues covered by the 8th amendment the accompanying discussion that we are having, centering around birth and the fetus, is obviously hugely emotional for anyone who has been through the trauma of multiple miscarriages. There are many people in the same boat as rob.

I can see now that rob's attempt to extend the calculation of the abortion rate to include miscarriages is his way of incorporating his experience in to the discussion.

My apologies for the smart alec remark about needing to be loved, rob. I'm sure you are.

Annasopra

Mr.H wrote: »

I think the phrase abortion on demand is skewing things.

I've used the phrase myself so I'm not trying to be argumentative.

I just think pro choice people think its a phrase to make it sound more sinister. The phrase on demand is more about The fact it is being suggested that it will be unrestricted access to abortion. As in you won't need a medical reason to have one. That is what is meant by "on demand". Doesn't make it right or wrong. It's just a wording that is being argued to stop the actual debate.

Yes

On request is a better term.

erica74

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/mar/24/ann-enright-on-irelands-abortion-referendum

Article on The Guardian website today.
Some snippets from the article.

In 2016, there were 63,897 live births in Ireland. The medical estimate, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, is that up to a quarter of pregnancies end in miscarriage, which means that around 20,000 conceptions could have failed in Ireland last year due to natural causes.

Conservative figures from the charity Rape Crisis reveal that 3,265 Irish women went to Britain to procure abortions in 2016. This was down more than 50% from a high of 6,673 in 2001. The biggest shift happened among women in their 20s (those born after the referendum of 1983), with numbers declining more than 60%, from 4,089 to 1,563. Figures may be disputed in this fiercely debated topic, but there is no doubting a significant reduction over the same years in which the general population rose by nearly 25%. A more open and secular society has not resulted in more abortion, but less.

The pro-life view is taken more from theology than biology. Its supporters in Ireland did not foresee, or did not care about, the medical consequences of their unnatural view – the decisions gone wrong, the danger to the life of the impregnated woman, such as the case of Savita Halappanavar who died of septic shock in a Galway hospital, when a miscarriage could not be treated until the foetal heartbeat stopped.

They did not care about the psychological consequences, and the cruelty of that indifference was hard, as a society, to live with.

In March 2014, a refugee Ms Y arrived in Ireland and discovered that she was pregnant as the result of multiple rapes in her country of origin. She had no passport or papers and was turned back at a British port, when she tried to travel there for a termination. Back in Ireland and suicidal, she was told she could be detained under mental health legislation, and she agreed to stay in a maternity hospital instead. There, she went on hunger strike, until delivered by caesarean at 30 weeks. In the years since 1983 we have learned that there is no answer to the question: “How much suffering is too much suffering?” The question is irrelevant because the psychology of the mother is irrelevant, as are social or practical concerns.

Many children are conceived by accident, or in a state of doubt, and their mothers bring them – half in dread, half in hope – into the world. Other babies are born after long months of their mother’s anguish and incomprehension that her body should be so used – and after her body, her life.

What right does another human being have to be inside your body for the best part of a year, to make their way out of your private parts in a bloody, difficult and painful way, and then turn to you for nourishment, not to mention love – perhaps for the rest of your life?

The hidden fact in the eighth amendment is that the term “unborn” does not mean “human being” as the mother is a human being – if it did then the mother’s rights might also be asserted. The “unborn” here is code for “biology”, “happenstance” or “life itself”.

If we, in Ireland, can repeal the eighth amendment, that shift will echo around the world. It will be heard in El Salvador, where women have been imprisoned for the natural loss of their babies, it will be heard in those Australian states where abortion is both available and illegal at the same time, it will be heard in Poland where 30,000 people marched against the further restriction of abortion laws, and won. It will be heard in the US, where state by state the rights conferred by Roe v Wade are being whittled away to the especial detriment of poor women; women who own little or nothing, not even the body in which they walk around.

What do you think of the author's words and thoughts on the topic?
Elsewhere in the article she suggested changing the word "pregnant" to "impregnated". It sounds more accurate in terms of this topic but overall, I can't imagine women who actually want to be pregnant going around saying "I'm impregnated" with joy and delight and when announcing the news! However, as we all know, every pregnancy is wholly different so in terms of "I've been impregnated and cannot have a baby" it sounds right to me.

***if you're going to continue to just keep banging on about murdering babies and other hysterical nonsense without stringing a coherent sentence together, you will be added to my ignore list, you'll have plenty of company there;)

pleas advice

Originally Posted by :
The pro-life view is taken more from theology than biology. Its supporters in Ireland did not foresee, or did not care about, the medical consequences of their unnatural view


Hardly unbiased, is it?

erica74

pleas advice wrote: »

Originally Posted by :
The pro-life view is taken more from theology than biology. Its supporters in Ireland did not foresee, or did not care about, the medical consequences of their unnatural view


Hardly unbiased, is it?

What do you mean?

amdublin

I'm in the middle arse of nowhere for the weekend and it's got me thinking of someone who finds themselves pregnant and doesnt want to be.
The circumstances of why they don't want to be pregnant really don't concern me but for the sake of the prolifers who may be reading it could be anything from:
The woman who has already got children/completed her family
The woman who has been raped
The woman whose contraceptive failed
The woman whose baby has been diagnosed with a fatal foetal abnormality
The woman who didn't use a barrier method of contraceptive
The woman who cannot afford to have a baby from a money perspective
The woman who cannot afford to have a baby from a health perspective

I could go on.

They are all equal in my eyes. what is it to me how someone got pregnant, Or why they cannot continue the pregnancy.

I am thinking of all that stress and extra inconvenience Irish women have to go through to access abortion. Even more so if you live rural. To get back to Dublin today I need to take 2 buses. One hour one to get to a major town and then a 2.15 hour bus to Dublin. That's even before I could get on a flight if I was going to the UK to get a flight.

Why do we put our women through this. I think in some ways the pro life and the pro choice need to unite. Wouldn't it be great if all the "support" the prolifers gave didn't focus with an end game of "save the baby", "don't have an abortion". But instead there was a huge amount of support for someone to openly and honestly consider the options.
For someone to be able to think "ok I'm in an awful stress and panic here but rather than having to get flights booked to the UK and get this abortion process going, I know I have the time and space to attend my healthcare provider and discuss all the options knowing that I have the time to access the abortion pill here in my own village if that is the best option for me".

I've said it before, I think when you remove the travel element the Irish abortion rate will go down. Once you've booked those flights it sets things in motion/sets things in stone, very hard to change your mind knowing you only have this "one shot" And have spent so much money. Give our women the time and space to consider abortion or not in our country.

Repeal the 8th.

pleas advice

I mean the first couple of quoted paragraphs were grand, stated facts objectively, in an unbiased manner. And then the bias started to come through.

Edit.thought I was going to read an unbiased article, I'd like to read an unbiased article, facts, figures, comparisons ...

erica74

pleas advice wrote: »

I mean the first couple of quoted paragraphs were grand, stated facts objectively, in an unbiased manner. And then the bias started to come through.

And?

Obviously the author is prochoice so she is obviously going to put forward her thoughts and opinion from a prochoice perspective.

Is that all you have to say?

amdublin

pleas advice wrote: »

I mean the first couple of quoted paragraphs were grand, stated facts objectively, in an unbiased manner. And then the bias started to come through.

I'm completely biased. That was the whole point of my post.

I disagree with the hypocrisy of allowing abortion, but only in another country.

I hate the way prolifers focus on "save the babies" instead of looking at the bigger picture and really understanding the woman.

I think we can do better as a country.

I trust each individual woman to come to the conclusion what to do rather than some loon of "counsellor" showing horrific pictures and telling them false scary facts about abortion.

I think it's wrong wrong wrong.

Abortion is a personal and private matter for a woman and her doctor. If you don't want one don't have one.

Now go away and stop interfering in my uterus.

amdublin

Ps. Based on your last two posts pleasadvice im getting a feel for your new debating method
"Ah the bias, sad face, sighhhhh"

freshpopcorn

Does anybody know the result of the REDC poll?

Thanks in advance!

erica74

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Does anybody know the result of the REDC poll?

Thanks in advance!

Is this what you're after?

On the appeal of the 8th Amendment 60% support Repeal, with 20% not supporting repeal, while 20% remain undecided. With undecided voters removed this means suggest a 75/25 ratio of Repeal to Retain voters in the population as whole.

When this is taken to the next step however, and voters are asked how they would vote in terms of potentially replacing the 8th Amendment with legislation to allow abortion on demand in the first 12 weeks, 51% support, 27% do not support and 22% remain undecided. Again, removing the undecided voters would suggest 66/34 ratio in favour of allowing abortion on demand up to 12 weeks. This reduced level of support is due to the fact that 1 in 5 of those who agree we need to repeal the 8th Amendment, do NOT agree to abortion on demand.

From https://www.redcresearch.ie/beware-disconnected-undecided-voter/

freshpopcorn

I think there's a newer one there than that but I'm unsure!
It's in Today's Sunday Business Post.

Achasanai

erica74 wrote: »

And?

Obviously the author is prochoice so she is obviously going to put forward her thoughts and opinion from a prochoice perspective.

Is that all you have to say?

I think Pleas Advise is having trouble with the idea of an 'opinion piece'.

erica74

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I think there's a newer one there than that but I'm unsure!
It's in Today's Sunday Business Post.

Oh apologies, I didn't realise there was going to be another one yet.
I'm not subscribed so can't read the article but the subheading is

Support for repeal down by four points as No campaign up by six; Yes camp maintains strong lead when ‘don’t knows’ excluded

freshpopcorn

I think these are the results!

Today’s poll found that there has been a ten point swing away from repeal since January. The findings show that 56% of respondents are in favour of repeal, 26% are opposed, 16% don’t know and 2% refused to answer the question. On the issue of support for abortion up to twelve weeks, the poll found that 52% are in favour, 33% are opposed, 13% don’t know and 2% refused to give a preference.

erica74

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I think these are the results!

Today’s poll found that there has been a ten point swing away from repeal since January. The findings show that 56% of respondents are in favour of repeal, 26% are opposed, 16% don’t know and 2% refused to answer the question. On the issue of support for abortion up to twelve weeks, the poll found that 52% are in favour, 33% are opposed, 13% don’t know and 2% refused to give a preference.

Ta!
Still looks good for Repeal at this stage.

pleas advice

Achasanai wrote: »

I think Pleas Advise is having trouble with the idea of an 'opinion piece'.

No problem at all...

Article on The Guardian website today.
Some snippets from the article.

erica74

pleas advice wrote: »

No problem at all...

Article on The Guardian website today.
Some snippets from the article.

You do have a problem with it though. Your only response to the article has been about it not being unbiased. 3 posts about how it's not unbiased.

Are you at all interested in having a conversation about the content of the article, the points raised, the topic at hand?
The author clearly has prochoice views and you clearly have antichoice views, what do you think of what she said? If you think her opinion is biased, to level out the discussion, what response do you have to the points she made?

Edward M

erica74 wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/mar/24/ann-enright-on-irelands-abortion-referendum

Article on The Guardian website today.
Some snippets from the article.


















What do you think of the author's words and thoughts on the topic?
Elsewhere in the article she suggested changing the word "pregnant" to "impregnated". It sounds more accurate in terms of this topic but overall, I can't imagine women who actually want to be pregnant going around saying "I'm impregnated" with joy and delight and when announcing the news! However, as we all know, every pregnancy is wholly different so in terms of "I've been impregnated and cannot have a baby" it sounds right to me.

***if you're going to continue to just keep banging on about murdering babies and other hysterical nonsense without stringing a coherent sentence together, you will be added to my ignore list, you'll have plenty of company there;)

"What right does another human being have to be inside your body for the best part of a year, to make their way out of your private parts in a bloody, difficult and painful way, and then turn to you for nourishment, not to mention love – perhaps for the rest of your life?"


This element seems a bit severe.
Its probably the main sticking point as regards repeal as it make the point that will be used by prolife to try to bring about a no vote.
It doesent show the compassionate side of that need for repeal.
I can see how prochoice would love the article, but there is no compassion in that paragraph.
Personally, in our current debate I would stick to the more compassionate need for repeal.
That can follow after repeal, but if opinion tightens I wouldn't be trotting out statements like that to try to convince anyone who was having doubts over the abortion issue as part of their decision of why to vote yes.

erica74

Edward M wrote: »

"What right does another human being have to be inside your body for the best part of a year, to make their way out of your private parts in a bloody, difficult and painful way, and then turn to you for nourishment, not to mention love – perhaps for the rest of your life?"


This element seems a bit severe.
Its probably the main sticking point as regards repeal as it make the point that will be used by prolife to try to bring about a no vote.
It doesent show the compassionate side of that need for repeal.
I can see how prochoice would love the article, but there is no compassion in that paragraph.
Personally, in our current debate I would stick to the more compassionate need for repeal.
That can follow after repeal, but if opinion tightens I wouldn't be trotting out statements like that to try to convince anyone who was having doubts over the abortion issue as part of their decision of why to vote yes.

Why is there compassion needed for the unborn baby and not the woman who is pregnant?
IMO what the author says is absolutely correct and encompasses how I feel about the unborn baby.