The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Zerbini Blewitt

DubInMeath wrote: »

This has been the problem with these god botherers In Ireland since independence.
....

Yes, agree with all that.

As we all know, the religious don’t argue religious points on this topic any more, and are quite open about this (btw, I meant to say -of course there are pro-lifers who are not religious at all – that is not in doubt).

They say “let’s have a reasoned debate” and talk about “right to life” but when a thoughtful reasoned debate takes place and people like Nozz (& others) ask them to explain their justification for such a right…

….And if so if any entity is not sentient, never has been sentient, and is a significant and identifiable period of time away from ever being sentient......... then on what rational or philosophical basis are we affording that entity rights or moral and ethical concern?

they quickly disappear and it’s tumbleweed time (excluding poster Thirdfox, who still may reply to Nozz) but they head off somewhere else and spout the exact same misleading & unsubstantiated slogans that they cannot or will not justify here.

What an offensive charade the entire pro-life argument is (& the same antics as in ’83)!

Annasopra

erica74 wrote: »

Ta!
Still looks good for Repeal at this stage.

It could look better. Lot of work to do.

Zerbini Blewitt

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

As we all know, the religious don’t argue religious points on this topic any more, and are quite open about this (btw, I meant to say -of course there are pro-lifers who are not religious at all – that is not in doubt).

I'm not aware of any prolife group that isn't backed by a religious doctrine or group, but I'm open to correction on this.

If some prolifers are non religious, their stance makes even less sense to me unless they just have a problem with women having some control over their lives.

I get the whole all life is precious mantra, but it doesn't seem to extend to people once their born.
I say this based on the attitude of some people I know who are prolife towards abortion and the attitude they have towards the homeless, refugees etc is not plesant and it just doesn't square up. You could also base it on some of the posters here on boards and the same attitudes being aired.

bertieinexile

amdublin wrote: »

Edit. I'm now done engaging with you as others are too. I find your attitude to women and posters insufferable. Good bye and good luck to you.

I feel like I'm talking about amdublin behind his back now
Obviously there's a referendum coming up with, supposedly, a large number of undecideds waiting to be convinced. I know I shouldn't but I can't help welcoming the fact that amdublin is dealing like this with those who don't share his views. My bad.

bertieinexile

volchitsa wrote: »

You can't have read it properly.
Did you see where she said she assumed she would be offered the choice of induction at the hospital where she was being looked after, and was devastated when told that she couldnt?

I get the impression you dismiss that as unimportant, but it is crucial. For lots of reasons, I don't even know where to start, if you really can't see how many awful things there are there.

She actually said she was devastated when she heard about her child's condition.
Then there is the point in the story at which she has to give up hope.

I asked was there even 1% chance and I was told 0% chance of survival. We were brought into a tiny room then.
I thought they would tell me I would be started or they were going to give me a C section, never in my life did I think they would tell me I have to continue with the pregnancy until he dies inside me or make it to full term, or go to Liverpool to get induced. I just remember standing up and feeling my world turn upside down.

If you were able to change "Liverpool" above to "Dublin" how much difference would it make to the terrible emotional trauma she has been courageous enough to describe. What does she keep saying is the source of her upset?

ProfessorPlum wrote:

Read back over her story again, this time without your blinkers and try to see at which point this woman’s awful situation could have been (or was) improved, even if only by a tiny amount.

The kind hearted man who hugged her.

The sonographer who wouldn’t take her money.

Some of her family members being with her while she waited to deliver.

Not having to travel to a foreign country to deliver her child, and not having to bring his remains back in the boot of her car.

What have the first three got to do with travel? And for the last one think about the huge trauma she describes and then ask of what relative importance is it if she has to travel to and from a hospital in Dublin or one in Liverpool.


The thing I really don't understand about all of the responses above is that you all say you feel great empathy and understanding for a woman who unequivocally and deeply believes that she had a child, a living human being, in her womb. I just don't get how you can then switch on other occasions to talking about the fetus being a clump of cells without any humanity or right to life.

erica74

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It could look better. Lot of work to do.

Definitely.

david75

bertieinexile wrote: »

She actually said she was devastated when she heard about her child's condition.
Then there is the point in the story at which she has to give up hope.
If you were able to change "Liverpool" above to "Dublin" how much difference would it make to the terrible emotional trauma she has been courageous enough to describe. What does she keep saying is the source of her upset?


What have the first three got to do with travel? And for the last one think about the huge trauma she describes and then ask of what relative importance is it if she has to travel to and from a hospital in Dublin or one in Liverpool.


The thing I really don't understand about all of the responses above is that you all say you feel great empathy and understanding for a woman who unequivocally and deeply believes that she had a child, a living human being, in her womb. I just don't get how you can then switch on other occasions to talking about the fetus being a clump of cells without any humanity or right to life.

You seem to have entirely missed the whole point of this referendum just in the bolded point above. Stop with the lame sideshow. I’d like to think it’s beneath you.

captbarnacles

Silly woman professing to know how she feels. Bertie knows what's really bothering her.

The prolifers can't disguise their contempt for women even when they try.

captbarnacles

bertieinexile wrote: »

volchitsa wrote: »

You can't have read it properly.
Did you see where she said she assumed she would be offered the choice of induction at the hospital where she was being looked after, and was devastated when told that she couldnt?

I get the impression you dismiss that as unimportant, but it is crucial. For lots of reasons, I don't even know where to start, if you really can't see how many awful things there are there.

She actually said she was devastated when she heard about her child's condition.
Then there is the point in the story at which she has to give up hope.

I asked was there even 1% chance and I was told 0% chance of survival. We were brought into a tiny room then.
I thought they would tell me I would be started or they were going to give me a C section, never in my life did I think they would tell me I have to continue with the pregnancy until he dies inside me or make it to full term, or go to Liverpool to get induced. I just remember standing up and feeling my world turn upside down.

If you were able to change "Liverpool" above to "Dublin" how much difference would it make to the terrible emotional trauma she has been courageous enough to describe. What does she keep saying is the source of her upset?

ProfessorPlum wrote:

Read back over her story again, this time without your blinkers and try to see at which point this woman’s awful situation could have been (or was) improved, even if only by a tiny amount.

The kind hearted man who hugged her.

The sonographer who wouldn’t take her money.

Some of her family members being with her while she waited to deliver.

Not having to travel to a foreign country to deliver her child, and not having to bring his remains back in the boot of her car.

What have the first three got to do with travel? And for the last one think about the huge trauma she describes and then ask of what relative importance is it if she has to travel to and from a hospital in Dublin or one in Liverpool.


The thing I really don't understand about all of the responses above is that you all say you feel great empathy and understanding for a woman who unequivocally and deeply believes that she had a child, a living human being, in her womb. I just don't get how you can then switch on other occasions to talking about the fetus being a clump of cells without any humanity or right to life.

See? The geography isn't really bothering her so shipping the problem to England is fine because then we can pretend Irish women don't have abortions.

AudreyHepburn

As I have said before I will vote to repeal simply because I don’t believe I have the right to tell another woman how to live her life.

That heing said the attitude of a lot of pro choices really doesn’t sit well with me. You simply can’t claim to be about choice if you then make a point of shooting down anyone who comes out as pro life. Unfortunately this seems to be the line a lot of pro choices are taking.

Both sides of the debate are important and need to be heard. Johnson’s st because you disagree with someone’s stance does not make them a bad person nor dies make their points invalid.

bertieinexile

david75 wrote: »

David Quinn showing his and the pro life campaigns true colours
Unbelievable. Literally

https://twitter.com/rmcg2799/status/977859809222504448?s=21

Ok that's just too perfect.
This is almost the Platonic Ideal of "Fake News".

I read David Quinns article referred to in the tweet above. He is being sneered at because of the headline "Fake news isn't all bad if the message is seen to be right". The tweeter seems to think it represents David Quinn's own opinion.
In fact it is his characterisation of how mainstream media and politics feels about people getting their news from social media. He starts off referencing how impressed they were when the Obama campaign were the first to do exactly the same thing as Cambridge Analytica has now done.
Hence "Fake news isn't all bad if the message is seen to be right".

But you get it as tweet from someone else who has got the story completely wrong and you pass it on here. Now if only there was a phrase to describe that...

Achasanai

bertieinexile wrote: »

The thing that comes through most strongly in that account is that this woman feels that she was carrying a child in her womb, her child, another human being.

Wow, that's mad. Not the first thing that came to my mind (which was the horrific situation that she found herself in).

bertieinexile wrote: »

She actually said she was devastated when she heard about her child's condition.
Then there is the point in the story at which she has to give up hope.
If you were able to change "Liverpool" above to "Dublin" how much difference would it make to the terrible emotional trauma she has been courageous enough to describe. What does she keep saying is the source of her upset?


What have the first three got to do with travel? And for the last one think about the huge trauma she describes and then ask of what relative importance is it if she has to travel to and from a hospital in Dublin or one in Liverpool.

I think empathy is the key here, something that is missing in your initial response to the article (that I quote above). Travelling to Liverpool means being away from your family, your friends, your home, all the small comforts that might make the situation a little bit more bearable. To have to go through with what she did, and then have to make arrangements to travel to a foreign country on top of that? Again, empathy will help you to understand why so many (including herself) found this a kick in the teeth.

bertieinexile wrote: »

The thing I really don't understand about all of the responses above is that you all say you feel great empathy and understanding for a woman who unequivocally and deeply believes that she had a child, a living human being, in her womb. I just don't get how you can then switch on other occasions to talking about the fetus being a clump of cells without any humanity or right to life.

This is an absolutely bizarre argument. Our empathy for somebody can only be dependent on how they view their pregnancy? Our empathy is for the woman in the situation. That you don't even see that says for more about your argument than anything else.

Achasanai

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

That heing said the attitude of a lot of pro choices really doesn’t sit well with me. You simply can’t claim to be about choice if you then make a point of shooting down anyone who comes out as pro life. Unfortunately this seems to be the line a lot of pro choices are taking.

Do you think those on the save the eight side are doing the same? Maybe even on this very page?

david75

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

As I have said before I will vote to repeal simply because I don’t believe I have the right to tell another woman how to live her life.

That heing said the attitude of a lot of pro choices really doesn’t sit well with me. You simply can’t claim to be about choice if you then make a point of shooting down anyone who comes out as pro life. Unfortunately this seems to be the line a lot of pro choices are taking.

Both sides of the debate are important and need to be heard. Johnson’s st because you disagree with someone’s stance does not make them a bad person nor dies make their points invalid.

Anyone’s vote being influenced cos they don’t like the attitude of one side or another? Probably doesn’t deserve a vote.

I’m going to deny women the healthcare they need here cos I don’t like the tone in posts I read on the internet.

Jaysis.

Get the other side to stop lying and misleading and your see a much more reasonable and rational debate.

ForestFire

david75 wrote: »

Anyone’s vote being influenced cos they don’t like the attitude of one side or another? Probably doesn’t deserve a vote.

I’m going to deny women the healthcare they need here cos I don’t like the tone in posts I read on the internet.

Jaysis.

Get the other side to stop lying and misleading and your see a much more reasonable and rational debate.

Where in this post did the poster say her vote was being influenced?

She even made the point to reaffirm that she will vote repeal, and was raising a seperate issue.

I think people need to start reading post more thoughly, to make sure they don't miss understand, she said.. ..

I will vote repeal

AudreyHepburn

Achasanai wrote: »

Do you think those on the save the eight side are doing the same? Maybe even on this very page?

I’m sure some of them are and while it’s not right the difference is they aren’t claiming to be pro choice.

AudreyHepburn

david75 wrote: »

Anyone’s vote being influenced cos they don’t like the attitude of one side or another? Probably doesn’t deserve a vote.

I’m going to deny women the healthcare they need here cos I don’t like the tone in posts I read on the internet.

Jaysis.

Get the other side to stop lying and misleading and your see a much more reasonable and rational debate.

I am going to point out again clearly that I am PRO CHOICE. I will vote to REPEAL. I never said otherwise.

I was taking issue with those claiming to be pro choice who then abuse and shout down the pro life side.

There are lies and misleading statements on both sides of the debate and to claim otherwise is at best woefully naive.

_Dara_

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I am going to point out again clearly that I am PRO CHOICE. I will vote to REPEAL. I never said otherwise.

I was taking issue with those claiming to be pro choice who then abuse and shout down the pro life side.

There are lies and misleading statements on both sides of the debate and to claim otherwise is at best woefully naive.

So why only take issue with one side if both sides are at it?

pitifulgod

bertieinexile wrote: »

Ok that's just too perfect.
This is almost the Platonic Ideal of "Fake News".

I read David Quinns article referred to in the tweet above. He is being sneered at because of the headline "Fake news isn't all bad if the message is seen to be right". The tweeter seems to think it represents David Quinn's own opinion.
In fact it is his characterisation of how mainstream media and politics feels about people getting their news from social media. He starts off referencing how impressed they were when the Obama campaign were the first to do exactly the same thing as Cambridge Analytica has now done.
Hence "Fake news isn't all bad if the message is seen to be right".

But you get it as tweet from someone else who has got the story completely wrong and you pass it on here. Now if only there was a phrase to describe that...

The Obama campaign was transparent in terms of how it used social media. Cambridge Analytica claimed data was for one purpose and then used it for something entirely different, illegally doing so in the process. So the contrast does not work.

david75

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I am going to point out again clearly that I am PRO CHOICE. I will vote to REPEAL. I never said otherwise.

I was taking issue with those claiming to be pro choice who then abuse and shout down the pro life side.

There are lies and misleading statements on both sides of the debate and to claim otherwise is at best woefully naive.

I got that. I’ve yet to see any lies from the repeal campaign.

I can show you a litany from the pro life campaign though.

AudreyHepburn

_Dara_ wrote: »

So why only take issue with one side if both sides are at it?

Because only one side is trying to claim to be something it isn’t.

I don’t particularly like some of the tactics being used by the Pro Life side but at least they don’t try to hide what they are.

AudreyHepburn

david75 wrote: »

I got that. I’ve yet to see any lies from the repeal campaign.

I can show you a litany from the pro life campaign though.

Clearly you didn’t - I said nothing about my vote being influenced and clearly stated my stance on the debate.

You don’t have to agree with me but being deliberately obtuse about it helps no one.

david75

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Clearly you didn’t - I said nothing about my vote being influenced and clearly stated my stance on the debate.

You don’t have to agree with me but being deliberately obtuse about it helps no one.

Presenting irrefutable facts isn’t being obtuse. Something the pro life campaign can’t penetrate so they continue to endlessly spin lies and nonsense. Self defeating and self destructive but they have previous on this. .

BabysCoffee

I beg any anti-choicer to try justify the death of this lady who had to travel for an abortion. What a way to die in a taxi.

One wonders what would have happened if they didn't have to take time to explore options and save up for the procedure because it couldn't be carried out in Ireland.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/dublin-woman-who-travelled-to-london-for-an-abortion-died-from-extensive-internal-blood-loss-29437862.html

Love both......or in this case Love Neither because both are now dead

neonsofa

Just some snippets from the article posted by david75

david75 wrote: »

I thought they would tell me I would be started or they were going to give me a C section, never in my life did I think they would tell me I have to continue with the pregnancy until he dies inside me or make it to full term, or go to Liverpool to get induced. ....
If I continued with the pregnancy I would have to keep going to Dublin weekly for scans, just to see if his heart stopped beating, so I was just waiting for my baby to die. Everyone knew I was pregnant. I hated bumping into anybody, people asking when am I due, I got to the stage were I wouldn’t leave the house.

We got the money together and decided we would go to Liverpool, I just couldn’t do it. I felt so depressed and sad, it was like I was grieving and my child wasn’t even dead yet.
Everything was booked. We had to go back to the rotunda for my final scan in Ireland, they were hoping his heart would of stopped beating so I wouldn’t have to travel and have him at home, how horrible to be even told that, but there he was his heart beating away not knowing what was ahead.

Just myself and my partner traveled to Liverpool, our family wanted to come to support us, to be there, but I was having none of it. I knew they couldn’t miss work, but I was feeling so punished, punished for nobody being able to meet our little boy. It was such a horrible feeling felt so lonely and low and so so scared.

We were blessed to have an aunty living in Liverpool, I say she was like an angel, she and her husband helped us so much. I couldn’t imagine having to go over and stay in a hotel. ....

I carried him for 4 weeks known he was going to die and it was hell.


We left on Saturday and travelled home by boat. We were told his tiny white coffin had to be in the boot of the car for the journey home, it was awful but I was just thankful I could get my baby home. I wouldn’t have been able to leave with out him. Leaving the hospital with empty arms and an aching heart was bad enough.


Repeal the 8th so women don’t have to travel, don’t have to bring there baby home on a boat in the middle of the night in a boot of a car. I always feel so much was taken away from me. I would of loved my other sisters and my family to meet my son but they couldn’t, my home country let me down, let my son down and took so much away from us.”

Since people are just ignoring the woman's words and accusing people of applying an agenda to the woman's story.

Her own words explain the relevance. She is fairly explicit about how the 8th amendment caused her additional pain.

Remaining in Dublin meant she'd have to wait for her baby to die. Something she, and many other women shouldn't have to do.

Travelling meant she had to factor in who is available to travel with her. It impacts on the availability of the support network for the couple.

If she hadn't had family over there she would have had to arrange (while greiving) a hotel and pay for that and other expenses incurred while staying there and travelling. She even says how the 4 weeks carrying him was hell. Those 4 weeks could have been spent mourning their loss and her body recovering in the comfort of her home.

She then (and I can't believe I have to explicitly state this after a grieving mother already did so in such an eloquent way) had to bring her baby home in the boot of her car.

Maybe you should start actually listening to what she is saying instead of thinking you know better.

Seems that is a hard habit to break for some.

volchitsa

The idea of having to hold yourself together in a public space like an airport, going through check-in, possibly being asked if you're there for a holiday or for work, sitting waiting to board, while trying to look normal when your heart is really broken, in a way that is far worse and deeper than over any romantic breakup - just thinking of that alone makes me quite upset reading it.

david75

volchitsa wrote: »

The idea of having to hold yourself together in a public space like an airport, going through check-in, possibly being asked if you're there for a holiday or for work, sitting waiting to board, while trying to look normal when your heart is really broken, in a way that is far worse and deeper than over any romantic breakup - just thinking of that alone makes me quite upset reading it.

And the flight home

baylah17

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

_Dara_ wrote: »

So why only take issue with one side if both sides are at it?

Because only one side is trying to claim to be something it isn’t.

I don’t particularly like some of the tactics being used by the Pro Life side but at least they don’t try to hide what they are.

Eh yes they do
They claim to care about women but are willing to accept this states murder of Savita and others as a worthy price
They lie about biology using pictures of 30 week old get feotuses to represent 10 week old feotuses
They lie about repealing the 8th equating to the genocide of Downs Syndrome unborn
They are by and large small minded scum who still excuse Tuam and it's like as society's fault
Halocaust deniers and the flat earth society have more credibility than the anti choice anti woman brigade

RobertKK

david75 wrote: »

broken after reading this.

......

Only came back for one post.

When I posted a story about a family member who was told her unborn wouldn't live past birth, you said you didn't believe me or care.
When the outcome of the story suits, you then pretend to be all compassionate and caring.
I'm not debating this, just stating a fact, because I am still angry with what you posted and you didn't have the decency to apologise for.

B0jangles

Boundless, shameless hypocrisy Robert.