The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Ken.

Thread reopened.

robarmstrong

What's the point in having this thread? The gist of it so far seems to be that the pro-life side can say the most outrageous of things, deny to respond whatsoever to any of the rebuttals, then hide behind the admins because people are being uncivil towards them?

We're trying to have a discussion with the opposition, they're making it very hard by dodging questions, running from the thread and coming back in after a few pages to drop more outrageous comments. Is that fair?

Outlaw Pete

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Voting to repeal the 8th is the compassionate thing to do.

Oh yeah?

Demonique wrote: »

I don't care

Outlaw Pete

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Oh yeah?

Could you please clarify your original post on this thread as requested, as stated it reads that women in western Europe have abortions for reasons that you haven't stated and that medical reasons for abortion are a smoke screen.

david75

From twitter- Support for repeal the 8th holds steady. Support for save the 8th is down 3 points. When undecideds are excluded (20%), repeal is on 64% with 36% wanting to retain the 8th.

support for access to abortion beyond 12 weeks because of a risk to the health of the woman or because of an FFA is at 76%, with 24% opposed. (Excluding 22% undecideds). However such access can only be legislated for if the 8th is removed from the constitution.
https://twitter.com/johnburnsst/status/975125731184447489?s=21

Outlaw Pete

jaxxx wrote: »

Last I checked prostitues were human beings just as much as anyone else.

A 12 week fetus is a human being also. A human being clinging to it's "mother" for sustenance. It may be at the very beginning of it's life, but it's still their life. Why (unless necessary to save the life of it's mother) should that baby be deemed so unimportant that it should be legal to take their life in such a nonchalant fashion?

Oldtree wrote: »

There is no suggestion of termination at 22 weeks, unless needed on medical grounds, so the photos are disingenuous and self serving.

Not yet there's not but it's understandable why someone would vote against repealing the 8th to circumvent abortion (on demand) at that stage ever being legal here given the attitude of so many within the prochoice movement in this country. There is zero compassion from them when it comes to first trimester babies, and many even with second trimester. It's quite frightening how detached they seem to be. Granted, some of the prolife movement who wouldn't support abortion for medically necessary reasons are seemingly detached, but that doesn't excuse the dispassion of prochoicers.

Graces7

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Voting to repeal the 8th is the compassionate thing to do.

Not for the innocent and helpless unborn baby.

Outlaw Pete

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

A 12 week fetus is a human being also. A human being clinging to it's "mother" for sustenance. It may be at the very beginning of it's life, but it's still their life. Why (unless necessary to save the life of it's mother) should that baby be deemed so unimportant that it should be legal to take their life in such a nonchalant fashion?



Not yet there's not but it's understandable why someone would vote against repealing the 8th to circumvent abortion (on demand) at that stage ever being legal here given the attitude of so many within the prochoice movement in this country. There is zero compassion from them when it comes to first trimester babies, and many even with second trimester. It's quite frightening how detached they seem to be. Granted, some of the prolife movement who wouldn't support abortion for medically necessary reasons are seemingly detached, but that doesn't excuse the dispassion of prochoicers.

A twelve week fetus is not a baby or a child.

The attitude of the the pro life movement towards denying a person making their own choices is unfathomable and frightening. Anyone who does wish to have an abortion isn't going to forced to have one by the pro choice side, but the pro life side don't think that forcing women to carry to term isn't an issue.

Would it be better if we just locked up all unwed mothers and rape victims In church run institutions along with their children again so they can be abused and taken advantage of?

amdublin

Graces7 wrote: »

Not for the innocent and helpless unborn baby.

What about the woman??

Why is the woman, who doesn't want to be pregnant (for whatever reason), not considered?

david75

DubInMeath wrote: »

The attitude of the the pro life movement towards denying a person making their own choices is unfathomable and frightening.
Would it be better if we just locked up all unwed mothers and rape victims In church run institutions along with their children again so they can be abused and taken advantage of?

I’ve yet to see any viable option being put forth by the pro life side so this seems to be exactly what they want. Being this totally out of step with where ireland is now and not realising it, is what’s losing it for them.

retro:electro

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

A 12 week fetus is a human being also.

But what if the women carrying that fetus doesn’t see it as a human being? Do you believe your principles should supersede those of the woman involved in the situation? Why would you want to control the anatomy of a complete stranger?

kylith

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

A 12 week fetus is a human being also. A human being clinging to it's "mother" for sustenance. It may be at the very beginning of it's life, but it's still their life. Why (unless necessary to save the life of it's mother) should that baby be deemed so unimportant that it should be legal to take their life in such a nonchalant fashion?

It can’t ‘cling’ to anything. It doesn’t even have basic sentience at 12 weeks.

Do you know what it feels like to find out that if you’re a few weeks pregnant and are diagnosed with cancer you will receive no treatment until it’s a direct threat to your life? To be told, like some posters in this thread, that your ability to walk, or to not live in constant pain, is secondary to something that doesn’t have a functioning brain? To not even have the choice that you want to take that risk? That is the 8th amendment.

erica74

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

A 12 week fetus is a human being also. A human being clinging to it's "mother" for sustenance. It may be at the very beginning of it's life, but it's still their life. Why (unless necessary to save the life of it's mother) should that baby be deemed so unimportant that it should be legal to take their life in such a nonchalant fashion?



Not yet there's not but it's understandable why someone would vote against repealing the 8th to circumvent abortion (on demand) at that stage ever being legal here given the attitude of so many within the prochoice movement in this country. There is zero compassion from them when it comes to first trimester babies, and many even with second trimester. It's quite frightening how detached they seem to be. Granted, some of the prolife movement who wouldn't support abortion for medically necessary reasons are seemingly detached, but that doesn't excuse the dispassion of prochoicers.

WHAT?
YOU are the one showing "zero compassion".

EVERY woman deserves the CHOICE to do WHATEVER she wants with her pregnancy. NOBODY ELSE should have the right to stick their noses into any woman's pregnancy.

robarmstrong

amdublin wrote: »

What about the woman??

Why is the woman, who doesn't want to be pregnant (for whatever reason), not considered?

Because PRO-LIFE!!!!1111111

For real though, don't expect an answer. Seems that the women don't register on their scale whatsoever.

robarmstrong

erica74 wrote: »

WHAT?
YOU are the one showing "zero compassion".

He does make a point, we show little "compassion" by referring to the unborn baby as a fetus (that's the scientific term for it) rather than humanising it, don't get me wrong my missus is 22 weeks pregnant and I've thought that it was a baby since day 1, but that's just me letting my emotions run me and because it's my own personal circumstance.

I'm sure that Pete would agree to an extent that his side are showing the same amount of compassion towards the women forced to carry these unwanted pregnancies as we "do" towards the fetus.

Though to cut across him, there will not be abortion on demand as previously stated by Pete. There is no evidence to back that up, though the "compassion" side of things is lacking from both sides.

Me personally? I favour the woman's right to choose what goes on with her own body over a developing sub-12 week fetus (that is not in my own personal circumstance, rather someone elses).

david75

Pro Life leaflet being distributed in Dublin at the minute And yep it’s full on crazy

amdublin

david75 wrote: »

Pro Life leaflet being distributed in Dublin at the minute And yep it’s full on crazy

What a load of weird cobblers

Graces7

amdublin wrote: »

What about the woman??

Why is the woman, who doesn't want to be pregnant (for whatever reason), not considered?

The woman can think and understand. The unborn baby (and it is human at every stage)is totally vulnerable and innocent. To pay with its life?

Just wondering;what about the fathers?

January

Graces7 wrote: »

The woman can think and understand. The unborn baby (and it is human at every stage)is totally vulnerable and innocent. To pay with its life?

Just wondering;what about the fathers?

When I had my abortion my husband was with me every step of the way.

Graces7

retro:electro wrote: »

But what if the women carrying that fetus doesn’t see it as a human being? Do you believe your principles should supersede those of the woman involved in the situation? Why would you want to control the anatomy of a complete stranger?

As it is unquestionably human ?

eviltwin

Graces7 wrote: »

The woman can think and understand. The unborn baby (and it is human at every stage)is totally vulnerable and innocent. To pay with its life?

Just wondering;what about the fathers?

poor babies, poor fathers.

Everyone gets a say in your book expect the woman most impacted

And you say you dont have an issue with women :rolleyes:

erica74

Graces7 wrote: »

The woman can think and understand. The unborn baby (and it is human at every stage)is totally vulnerable and innocent. To pay with its life?

Just wondering;what about the fathers?

The woman can think and understand, exactly. So if the woman can think and understand, she is capable of making her own decisions without you imposing your beliefs on her.

What about the fathers? Is that a statement or a question? What are you trying to ask?

Genuine question - why do you only care about the unborn babies? And now the fathers? What about the women?
Do you ever give us some consideration?

Demonique

applehunter wrote: »

If a doctor doesn't want to perform abortions, no one is going to force them to do them.

Outlaw Pete

mzungu wrote: »

The downs syndrome argument has been refuted....

In your mind, and that of others, perhaps, but it most certainly has not been rebutted.

Peter Boylan lied and he should not have been given as much time on our ariways as he has been. It's a disgrace. Have any prolife medical professionals (of which there are some) been given the time he has? Not a hope. I wouldn't mind so much if he took an objective stance but he clearly has a prochoice agenda given the misinformation he regularly puts out.

He claims that it would be "virtually impossible" for a woman, under the proposed legislation, to be able to undergo testing in time to have an abortion based on the results, and that is an outright lie (of which is fully aware by the way). Testing can be done at 10 weeks gestational age (8 weeks fetal) and the results can be back as early as one week (blood goes to the lab the same day it is drawn). You don't have to be a mathematician to see that it would be far from "virtually impossible" to decide to have an abortion based on the results of such a test in a country which allowed abortion up to 12 weeks. Is it any wonder that the prochoice movement are seen as they are when they behave in this underhand way. Tell the truth and stop the nonsense.

Let's not forget, In the England & Wales, 90% of pregnancies with prenatally diagnosed Down syndrome are terminated. There is no reason to think that Irish women would not look to do similar and given that we would have a 12 week window, you can be damn sure the likes of Eurofins would make sure they had their 10 week test results back in time to make their appointment.





Not too expensive either. Getting cheaper and cheaper to take part in the Down Syndrome genocide.

Graces7

Graces7 wrote: »

The woman can think and understand. The unborn baby (and it is human at every stage)is totally vulnerable and innocent. To pay with its life?

Just wondering;what about the fathers?

What if the 'father' raped the woman, should they have say demanding that the baby is carried to term?

amdublin

Graces7 wrote: »

The woman can think and understand. The unborn baby (and it is human at every stage)is totally vulnerable and innocent. To pay with its life?

Just wondering;what about the fathers?

It seems to me to be about everyone except the woman.

When are you ever going to empathise and understand the woman?

Why would anyone want to continue with this farce of going to England rather than accessing abortion here.

Oh looks like we're back to the "away with you to England girlio, feel the consequences of making love"

erica74

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Let's not forget, In the England & Wales, 90% of pregnancies with prenatally diagnosed Down syndrome are terminated.

And?

Outlaw Pete

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

In your mind, and that of others, perhaps, but it most certainly has not been rebutted.

Peter Boylan lied and he should not have been given as much time on our ariways as he has been. It's a disgrace. Have any prolife medical professionals (of which there are some) been given the time he has? Not a hope. I wouldn't mind so much if he took an objective stance but he clearly has a prochoice agenda given the misinformation he regularly puts out.

He claims that it would be "virtually impossible" for a woman, under the proposed legislation, to be able to undergo testing in time to have an abortion based on the results, and that is an outright lie (of which is fully aware by the way). Testing can be done at 10 weeks gestational age (8 weeks fetal) and the results can be back as early as one week (blood goes to the lab the same day it is drawn). You don't have to be a mathematician to see that it would be far from "virtually impossible" to decide to have an abortion based on the results of such a test in a country which allowed abortion up to 12 weeks. Is it any wonder that the prochoice movement are seen as they are when they behave in this underhand way. Tell the truth and stop the nonsense.

Let's not forget, In the England & Wales, 90% of pregnancies with prenatally diagnosed Down syndrome are terminated. There is no reason to think that Irish women would not look to do similar and given that we would have a 12 week window, you can be damn sure the likes of Eurofins would make sure they had their 10 week test results back in time to make their appointment.





Not too expensive either. Getting cheaper and cheaper to take part in the Down Syndrome genocide.

Just a reminder that I'm still waiting on your clarification that women in western europe use medical reasons as a smoke screen for having abortions.

Outlaw Pete

erica74 wrote: »

WHAT?
YOU are the one showing "zero compassion".

I have lots of compassion. I agree that all forms of therapeutic abortions should be available to women.

On what grounds do I like compassion exactly?

EVERY woman deserves the CHOICE to do WHATEVER she wants with her pregnancy. NOBODY ELSE should have the right to stick their noses into any woman's pregnancy.

So, Erica, I take it then that you would agree with a woman having her baby's life ended at ANY stage of her pregnancy, even nine months?? Really?? Don't you think that's barbaric?

If your answer is 'No, I would not agree with abortion at that stage unless medically necessary' then can I ask you, what right do you have to stick your nose into other women's pregnancies?

Outlaw Pete

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I have lots of compassion. I agree that all forms of therapeutic abortions should be available to women.

On what grounds do I like compassion exactly?



So, Erica, I take it then that you would agree with a woman having her baby's life ended at ANY stage of her pregnancy, even nine months?? Really?? Don't you think that's barbaric?

If your answer is 'No, I would not agree with abortion at that stage unless medically necessary' then can I ask you, what right do you have to stick your nose into other women's pregnancies?

No one but the prolife faction state that their will be abortions up to nine months your deflecting again and not answering people's questions.