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
16364666869325

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    RobertKK wrote: »
    I don’t need people to believe me. I know I am telling the truth and if others don’t want to believe then it is not my problem they choose to be doubting Thomas’s.
    Oh I know. But if you're going to declare your position is based on the circumstances of an anecdote, just don't be surprised when people start asking questions about it.

    That is, don't expect anyone's opinion to be swayed by a little ditty unless you're prepared to elaborate on it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Why is the exact condition your business?
    It is identifying for people who know outside the family and you can’t tell me who posts and doesn’t post on boards.

    I'm ok with not posting medical details of your nephew, because it can be identifying, and it's not your business to be doing so.

    However, as you've misrepresented a documented case as a "stunt", then don't be surprised when people throw shade towards your latest "proof," which is undocumented and unverifiable.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    RobertKK wrote: »
    People do believe me, it is just a small cohort here who are repeal fanatics that have an issue and don’t believe and that is their problem.

    I believe that you believe the version you posted. I don't think you would make up a nephew with a heart condition to score debate points.

    The reason folks are asking questions is because you said your nephew was diagnosed with a fatal fetal abnormality and has lived to be 10, with the implication being maybe more FFA cases would have similar results.

    So, folks are asking was his condition one of those generally regarded as fatal? Or was it one of those which is sometimes fatal? What chance did doctors give at the time of the test?

    There is a big difference between doctors warning a a couple that their child has only a 50% chance of living to adulthood and doctors warning another couple that their child will not survive an hour on its own.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    RobertKK wrote: »
    I don’t need people to believe me. I know I am telling the truth and if others don’t want to believe then it is not my problem they choose to be doubting Thomas’s.

    There is no reason why they should believe your story OR care to be honest. Despite the fact that people saying they did not care about your story triggered you into thinking they did not care about the life of your specific nephew directly. Which is two different things and you chose to get haughty about the latter, when the user in fact did the former.

    The reason for not caring being that....... aside from the unverifiable nature of your anecdote, especially in light of your seeming inability/unwillgness to name or describe the condition.......... it is not really relevant to abortion at all, and only partially relevant to the 8th. And where it IS relevant to the 8th it would at best be a pro-repeal anecdote.

    No serious medical diagnosis is 100%. We see people getting told they have months to live, who go on to live years, all the time. This happens. And there is reasons why it happens.

    The point about the 8th debate is WHEN such diagnoses come, people feel that the 8th limits treatment options and types available to the woman.

    The point about the abortion debate is WHEN such diagnoses come, abortion should be an OPTION. If a woman chooses not to take that option, and their child goes on to live a long life despite the diagnosis.... then that is great. But so what? Why should we in the context of THIS debate care a jot about your, or any other similar, anecdote?

    In the light of this what possible relevance do you think a "after the diagnosis people hinted abortion but now look the child is alive and happy and healthy" type anecdote actually has???


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,749 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    I'm ok with not posting medical details of your nephew, because it can be identifying, and it's not your business to be doing so.

    However, as you've misrepresented a documented case as a "stunt", then don't be surprised when people throw shade towards your latest "proof," which is undocumented and unverifiable.

    All I ever said was that a diagnosis of a life limiting condition/FFA is not always black and white and then I get a load of crap for it.
    I said some cases are, others aren’t and then you see Seamus above seeing it as a blatantly pro life agenda, which raises questions if one is only allowed to post pro-repeal given the crap one receives if the message doesn’t suit the narrative that others want.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    RobertKK wrote: »
    All I ever said was that a diagnosis of a life limiting condition/FFA is not always black and white and then I get a load of crap for it.
    I said some cases are, others aren’t and then you see Seamus above seeing it as a blatantly pro life agenda, which raises questions if one is only allowed to post pro-repeal given the crap one receives if the message doesn’t suit the narrative that others want.

    No one's said a FFA diagnosis is always black and white. You're arguing a point no one's made.

    As I said to you before, the repeal campaign is about allowing ALL women in these situations to have their choice supported and recognised by Irish law.

    Your nephew's family made a choice to continue with the pregnancy, and the law of the land allowed them to do that. There are families who make different choices, but the law doesn't grant them the same benefit.

    Pro choice is about saying those families should be treated in the same way. It's not advocating for a particular choice, but advocating that everyone's choice is respected and provided for.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    RobertKK wrote: »
    All I ever said was that a diagnosis of a life limiting condition/FFA is not always black and white and then I get a load of crap for it.

    Diagnoses tend to be more nuanced and not black and white either. Unless the gestation is VERY late term it is unlikely anyone ever gave the diagnosis of "about 40 hrs of life when born before he would die." before then hinting at an abortion trip to England as you claimed.

    Assuming the anecdote is real and not entirely made up by you (which I dont but lets assume it anyway) it is much more likely that having spotted an anomaly in early or mid pregnancy, the doctors said things like "At this point X Y or Z could happen where X is good, Y is bad, and Z is terrible....... and if Z were to occur the even if the baby reaches birth it will not live longer than 48 hours...... so at this point you might want to consider your options including a trip to England.".

    And the fact such a child reaches 10 years of age means Z did not happen. While not impossible, I simply do not buy the claim that this woman was told outright the child would not see it's third day and now suddenly it is 10 years old. Do such things happen? Yes. Are they statistically common enough that I believe it here? Not so much.

    Again however the truth of your story is not relevant either way. The relevance of it is. And so far I am seeing none. The debate here is that HAVING received such a diagnosis what options and choices SHOULD be available to the pregnant woman. And your anecdote, real or not, does not address that issue at all.

    So rather than playing the victim card again and lamenting the fact no one believes you, or that you falsely imagine only pro-repeal narratives are welcome here...... perhaps it would be wiser to address that relevance issue.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    RobertKK wrote: »
    All I ever said was that a diagnosis of a life limiting condition/FFA is not always black and white and then I get a load of crap for it.
    I said some cases are, others aren’t and then you see Seamus above seeing it as a blatantly pro life agenda, which raises questions if one is only allowed to post pro-repeal given the crap one receives if the message doesn’t suit the narrative that others want.

    I'll not be able to answer this any better than what nozzferrahhtoo did, so just read what he said, then read it again slower.

    Noone is looking for mandatory abortions. If someone has a pregnancy with an abnormality of any kind, and wants to continue with it, more power to them. Every support should be available to them. That's their choice.

    However, if someone doesn't want to put themselves, their family, or their mental and physical health, through that ordeal? Why is "Suck it up, and tough it out" the best option?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Basically, Robert, what you’re doing is saying ‘My sister made the decision to continue with the pregnancy and it turned out Ok so everyone else should have to do the same thing ’.

    I’m glad it turned out well for the kid, but it turns out fcking awfully for many, many more families and it is no-one’s place to make their decisions for them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,749 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Diagnoses tend to be more nuanced and not black and white either. Unless the gestation is VERY late term it is unlikely anyone ever gave the diagnosis of "about 40 hrs of life when born before he would die." before then hinting at an abortion trip to England as you claimed.

    Assuming the anecdote is real and not entirely made up by you (which I dont but lets assume it anyway) it is much more likely that having spotted an anomaly in early or mid pregnancy, the doctors said things like "At this point X Y or Z could happen where X is good, Y is bad, and Z is terrible....... and if Z were to occur the even if the baby reaches birth it will not live longer than 48 hours...... so at this point you might want to consider your options including a trip to England.".

    And the fact such a child reaches 10 years of age means Z did not happen. While not impossible, I simply do not buy the claim that this woman was told outright the child would not see it's third day and now suddenly it is 10 years old. Do such things happen? Yes. Are they statistically common enough that I believe it here? Not so much.

    Again however the truth of your story is not relevant either way. The relevance of it is. And so far I am seeing none. The debate here is that HAVING received such a diagnosis what options and choices SHOULD be available to the pregnant woman. And your anecdote, real or not, does not address that issue at all.

    So rather than playing the victim card again and lamenting the fact no one believes you, or that you falsely imagine only pro-repeal narratives are welcome here...... perhaps it would be wiser to address that relevance issue.

    I am not playing any victim, I am being called a liar. That didn’t make me a victim, it makes the person saying it uncouth.
    I am not asking anyone to debate what I told, it is others who want to keep it going, I just saw some hypocrisy last night and had to respond.
    People apart from me see a lot of hypocrisy around here, some say I am a hypocrite, I disagree but that is irrelevant, but there are people on the repeal side here that people see as hypocrites too.
    Most people on boards don’t post on this thread as it is nasty, some of the stuff verges on bullying for not holding the right opinion. People can choose to be victims or they can take action, I take action.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    RobertKK wrote: »
    I am not playing any victim, I am being called a liar.

    And you called the doctors and lawyers in the P case liars. It’s not nice, is it? Maybe in future you can be more mindful of what you say.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    RobertKK wrote: »
    I am not playing any victim, I am being called a liar.

    ^ That entire post is playing the victim card though, even if you deny it. There is no relevant content to this debate in it. It is wholly and entirely about how victimized you feel, and you imagine others feel, by people on this thread.

    The ONLY thing interesting here would be the relevance of your anecdote. Which is precisely the thing you have decided not to discuss. Before attempting to cloud that choice with the irrelevancies you just populated this last post with.

    Again EVEN IF we imagine your anecdote to be true.... so what? Why should we care? All the anecdote describes is a woman who had (or should have had) options. She chose one, and it turned out great for her. Great. Now.... so what?

    The ENTIRE debate here is about giving women who are pregnant more choices. So.... at best.... your anecdote is a pro-repeal one. Whether you realize it or not.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 7,096 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hannibal_Smith


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Diagnoses tend to be more nuanced and not black and white either. Unless the gestation is VERY late term it is unlikely anyone ever gave the diagnosis of "about 40 hrs of life when born before he would die." before then hinting at an abortion trip to England as you claimed.

    Assuming the anecdote is real and not entirely made up by you (which I dont but lets assume it anyway) it is much more likely that having spotted an anomaly in early or mid pregnancy, the doctors said things like "At this point X Y or Z could happen where X is good, Y is bad, and Z is terrible....... and if Z were to occur the even if the baby reaches birth it will not live longer than 48 hours...... so at this point you might want to consider your options including a trip to England.".

    And the fact such a child reaches 10 years of age means Z did not happen. While not impossible, I simply do not buy the claim that this woman was told outright the child would not see it's third day and now suddenly it is 10 years old. Do such things happen? Yes. Are they statistically common enough that I believe it here? Not so much.

    Again however the truth of your story is not relevant either way. The relevance of it is. And so far I am seeing none. The debate here is that HAVING received such a diagnosis what options and choices SHOULD be available to the pregnant woman. And your anecdote, real or not, does not address that issue at all.

    So rather than playing the victim card again and lamenting the fact no one believes you, or that you falsely imagine only pro-repeal narratives are welcome here...... perhaps it would be wiser to address that relevance issue.

    I am not playing any victim, I am being called a liar. That didn’t make me a victim, it makes the person saying it uncouth.
    I am not asking anyone to debate what I told, it is others who want to keep it going, I just saw some hypocrisy last night and had to respond.
    People apart from me see a lot of hypocrisy around here, some say I am a hypocrite, I disagree but that is irrelevant, but there are people on the repeal side here that people see as hypocrites too.
    Most people on boards don’t post on this thread as it is nasty, some of the stuff verges on bullying for not holding the right opinion. People can choose to be victims or they can take action, I take action.

    The nastiness is on both sides. A poster only a few pages ago was accused of being complacent of two child murders.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    RobertKK wrote: »
    People apart from me see a lot of hypocrisy around here, some say I am a hypocrite, I disagree but that is irrelevant, but there are people on the repeal side here that people see as hypocrites too.
    Most people on boards don’t post on this thread as it is nasty, some of the stuff verges on bullying for not holding the right opinion. People can choose to be victims or they can take action, I take action.

    Robert you stated earleir that the poll results tied to this thread were due to people being afraid to vote because they would be bullied for voting to retain the 8th.

    I pointed out that you don't have to post in the actual thread in order to vote in the poll and that as votes are anonymous where your evidence of this statement is. I'm still waiting on your reply with the evidence supporting your statement because your making a similar statement above.

    The posts so far from anyone from the prolife side have been proved to be false and some have been resulted in bans for being rereg accounts, flame bait, bullying etc.

    If there was/is evidence of bullying as you state report it, but don't think that someone asking you to provide evidence not opinion as per my request doesn't constitute bullying in my opinion.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,653 ✭✭✭✭amdublin


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Most people on boards don’t post on this thread as it is nasty, some of the stuff verges on bullying for not holding the right opinion. People can choose to be victims or they can take action, I take action.

    How do you know this about "most people on boards"? Have you spoken with all the people on boards to find this out?


  • Registered Users Posts: 30,601 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    I was looking around facebook to see who was into this locally and the two who are into it most are two sister in there mid twenties. One in the repeal campaign and the other in keep.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,553 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    amdublin wrote: »
    How do you know this about "most people on boards"? Have you spoken with all the people on boards to find this out?

    I would imagine that the fact that it's almost 2 thousand posts in the second part of the thread (so 12 thousand posts altogether) would be the most intimidating. I know that's what would put me off going into a thread I only had a vague interest in.

    Pretty sure Robert played the victim card all through the SSM referendum discussions too, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    ^ Man when you have been following the thread since the start, it does not feel very long. But when I realized I have read all 12,000 posts on the entire thread life it strikes me it might be about time for me to retire from it :)


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 7,096 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hannibal_Smith


    I was looking around facebook to see who was into this locally and the two who are into it most are two sister in there mid twenties. One in the repeal campaign and the other in keep.

    I've heard similar. I think it's going to be a close call. It came up in work the other day and a few people said they would vote to keep the 8th.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 30,601 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    ^ Man when you have been following the thread since the start, it does not feel very long. But when I realized I have read all 12,000 posts on the entire thread life it strikes me it might be about time for me to retire from it :)

    To be honest I find it kind of boring and it's basically made up of the same posters.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,653 ✭✭✭✭amdublin


    I've heard similar. I think it's going to be a close call. It came up in work the other day and a few people said they would vote to keep the 8th.

    I think it's going to be very close all right. I just hope it passes. I don't care about the margin.

    All I want is free choice for each individual
    That's all. Not a forced abortion for everyone at any stage.

    Repeal the 8th


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,749 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    amdublin wrote: »
    How do you know this about "most people on boards"? Have you spoken with all the people on boards to find this out?

    It is fact most people on boards don’t post on this thread. Everyone knows it is a contentious subject.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    To be honest I find it kind of boring and it's basically made up of the same posters.

    Yea I know the feeling. Actually I have retired from the thread a number of times. Then after a few days I get somewhere between 2 and 5 PMs asking me to come back and deal with some poster or other. So then I have to spend an hour catching up on the entire thread, before attempting to take down the requested target.
    RobertKK wrote: »
    It is fact most people on boards don’t post on this thread. Everyone knows it is a contentious subject.

    Well yes,it is a fact most people on boards do not post on this thread. But that has nothing to do with it being contentious.

    Why?

    Well stop for a second and think. Most people on boards do not post on most threads most of the time. Regardless of the topic or subject, every thread receives only a tiny fraction of the boards population posting on it.

    So your observation is correct. Your explanatory narrative for it is fantasy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 30,601 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    I've heard similar. I think it's going to be a close call. It came up in work the other day and a few people said they would vote to keep the 8th.

    I haven't being surprised by people I have seen who's into the repeal campaign but have being surprised by people who are pro-life.
    I think it will be close and Dublin will help to bring up the result but I can see lots of rural constituencies voting No and people being upset.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    kylith wrote: »
    Basically, Robert, what you’re doing is saying ‘My sister made the decision to continue with the pregnancy and it turned out Ok so everyone else should have to do the same thing ’.

    Not to mention the fact that people given such a diagnosis already have a constitutionally guaranteed right to end the pregnancy. They just have to do it on foreign soil at their own expense.

    So how is the 8th saving lives? By hitting the poor, women on dodgy visas, women in prison or already in hospital who get such a diagnosis. Not ordinary folks like Robert's family who already have a choice, if an inconvenient, expensive and somewhat riskier choice than they would without the 8th.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,553 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    RobertKK wrote: »
    It is fact most people on boards don’t post on this thread. Everyone knows it is a contentious subject.

    Most people on Boards don't post on any one thread...


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    RobertKK wrote: »
    It is fact most people on boards don’t post on this thread. Everyone knows it is a contentious subject.

    Most people don’t post in most threads. I’ll wager that there’s not one thread that ‘most’ people have posted in.


  • Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    RobertKK wrote: »
    It is fact most people on boards don’t post on this thread. Everyone knows it is a contentious subject.

    It's a contentious subject, but can you please provide evidence as requested to back up your statements that people aren't voting on the thread poll because they will be bullied.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    I haven't being surprised by people I have seen who's into the repeal campaign but have being surprised by people who are pro-life.
    I think it will be close and Dublin will help to bring up the result but I can see lots of rural constituencies voting No and people being upset.

    It'll definitely be close, no matter which way it goes. Not 1995 Divorce Referendum close, but it's not going to be a Marriage Equality Referendum landslide either. Not that I think anyone's expecting that anyway.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement