The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

david75

Ismisejack wrote: »

I clearly stated that rape is an inexcusable crime and not for one second did I say anything other than that so stop putting words in my mouth and spreading false and utterly untrue propaganda about me tarnishing my nane

You’ve been spouting utter nonsense lies and hysteria since you joined us and stating fictional extremes as facts.
This was a response in kind.

baylah17

Ismisejack wrote: »

Using positive words such as choice etc and calling unborn child fetus etc is pro abortion contingents way of making abortion sound less inhumane than it actually is

Based on your post you are in no position to lecture anyone on humanity.
You use use words like baby for a 8 week old fetus, you label child victims of rape who terminate their pregnancy as murderers, you twist words, you judge that which you will never have to endure and you label and condemn the real victims here.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ismisejack wrote: »

Using positive words such as choice etc and calling unborn child fetus etc is pro abortion contingents way of making abortion sound less inhumane than it actually is

So basically your issue is that people are using words CORRECTLY and your position is therefore based on moaning about this, while using words like "murder" and "child" incorrectly.

When you find your position is based on misusing words, while complaining about others CORRECT use of words, then you have reached a level of being wrong the likes of which I have never witnessed on this forum before.

The issue however is NOT that the pro choice side is inhumane or dehumanizing the fetus. The issue is that you are humanizing it before it's due, and without basis. And then simply having something of a tantrum that people do not just swallow that whole, and without question.

If you genuinely were interested in constructing an argument against abortion, the pro-choice narrative, and the removal of rights of the unborn from the constitution then there is a way to do it. You simply have to (for once) construct an argument more robust than merely screeching words like "Human" and "child" as to why a fetus at 0-16 weeks should have any rights at all.

This has not been done by any of the anti-choice contingent. Least of all by yourself.

Ismisejack wrote: »

I have clearly stated the reason behind my stance against abortion- abortion ends human life , it’s the act of killing an unborn child and in my opinion that is wholly unacceptable. Simple as that

That is not simple, it is simplistic. Much different. You are doing exactly what I described. Merely screeching words like "child" as if the misuse of words will construct an argument for you where you have failed to do so.

No one has denied you have stated your positions here. Your reasoning however need a lot more work. It is entirely circular, and entirely based on assertion. And that assertion is entirely grounded in the misuse of terms and language.

But at least you are actually replying to people who reply to you now. Which is a step forward and a massive improvement on your MO to date. So there is hope yet.

Hannibal_Smith

Ismisejack wrote: »

I have clearly stated the reason behind my stance against abortion- abortion ends human life , it’s the act of killing an unborn child and in my opinion that is wholly unacceptable. Simple as that

But no one is denying you that opinion. Your facts are wrong, but your opinion and your vote is yours.

To keep dropping insulting grenades like you do is soap boxing is bringing the thread round and round in circles. People are going to vote your way and others aren't. You may want to control what a woman is allowed to with her body, but you can't control her vote.

david75

Haha. True.

It can be very dangerous to see things from somebody else's point of view without the proper training. DOUGLAS ADAMS

Zubeneschamali

david75 wrote: »

Are these guys knowingly warping into a parody of themselves and gettin more ridiculous or is it just me?

An increasing number of new/long dormant posters suddenly popping in with a briefcase full of talking points. Not so much ridiculous as transparently fake.

After 12,000 posts in these threads, it's suddenly super-urgent that we drop all ongoing conversations and debate these new folks. Just one argument! One! Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

david75

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

An increasing number of new/long dormant posters suddenly popping in with a briefcase full of talking points. Not so much ridiculous as transparently fake.

After 12,000 posts in these threads, it's suddenly super-urgent that we drop all ongoing conversations and debate these new folks. Just one argument! One! Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

But they’re increasingly hysterical and nonsensical. Last few don’t even sound Irish tbh




This looks like he’s got something for both sides.

https://twitter.com/simonharristd/status/978516445998043137?s=21

Zubeneschamali

Ismisejack wrote: »

Abortion is the unlawful killing of another unborn child, and that is what yee are trying to legalize

No, since the 8th was passed, abortion has been lawful in several situations.

By accident and against the express intentions of the people who wrote the 8th and voted for it, and despite warnings from actual law-talking guys before they wrote it and voted for it, but nonetheless, they accidentally made abortion legal here for the first time.

Because the pro-life crew are not, in fact, very bright.

Madscientist30

preacher2 wrote: »

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Then do you mind explaining what on earth you mean by your other post I replied to?

What? I am not asking for you to build me a rocket ship here, I am not here trying to argue with you, which you are clearly trying to do with me and I promise it wont end well.

Just bring me a basic argument for abortion. 1 argument, I seen a women do it a few posts up but Im not sure if shes here for a debate.

Most of you people dont want to listen so I am asking for one of you to come to a debate here.

You promise it wont end well? Your aggression and venom just jumps off the screen.....poor guy I feel sorry for you now. Just try to think happy thoughts

Zubeneschamali

Ismisejack wrote: »

I would assist her in whatever way possible however the unborn child shouldn’t get the death sentence for its fathers actions.

Thanks for your help with the Repeal the 8th campaign. Keep it up!

seamus

Coveney this morning suggesting a "two-thirds lock" on any abortion regulations into the future.

In essence this would mean that any change to the abortion laws would require the consent of a two-thirds majority of the Dail.

It's not something I personally would prefer, but in terms of shutting down the "I don't trust politicians to legislate" or "It'll be abortion up to 60 weeks soon enough" crowd, it would be very effective.

The pro-life campaign would lose one of the last pillars of their campaign. Fair play to Coveney, it's a good idea.

FutureGuy

Ismisejack wrote: »

people have abortions anyway the anti life side claim, as if that is a legitimate reason for legalizing abortion. Lots of people do drigs anyway so why legalize them too. And murder ( of the born), that happens regularly too so why don’t the pro choice people want choice when it comes to murdering the born?

Honest question - why are you not going after the 13th amendment if you care so much for the "Irish unborn"?

NuMarvel

david75 wrote: »

Are these guys knowingly warping into a parody of themselves and gettin more ridiculous or is it just me?

It's definitely not just you. And at this point, I'm just ignoring the extremists, who can't be reasoned with, and the obvious spoofers, who don't want to be reasoned with.

david75

NuMarvel wrote: »

It's definitely not just you. And at this point, I'm just ignoring the extremists, who can't be reasoned with, and the obvious spoofers, who don't want to be reasoned with.

Yeah I’ve been trying to do the same.

david75

*if these are actual bot accounts as part of the Kanto hiring by Save the 8th, and they seem to be given they’re more and more extreme each time they come on, it’s backfiring wildly on them. This is what they spent all that money on?

It’s not even good psychological warfare if you can laugh at it.

Zubeneschamali

david75 wrote: »

Last few don’t even sound Irish tbh

Poster A had posted nothing for 3 years before bursting to life in this thread and just this thread. He refers to "dorm room arguments".

B made a very bizarre 1st post asking why he should join the military, deploy and fight terrorism if abortion is happening in his own country. He clearly meant deploy to a different country to "fight terrorism". Would you like some of Mom's apple pie with that?

C appeared a month ago and has posted nothing anywhere on boards except in these abortion referendum threads. When he first appeared, he posted in the strangest Darby O'Gill fake Irish accent: Pro choice yee call yeerselfs??

Another odd thing is that many of these pop-up posters seem unfamiliar with references to ordinary day-to-day stuff here. They will post generic stuff about baby murder, but don't know who the PLC are, don't jump to the defence of Ronan Mullen (not in their briefing pack?), aren't aware that abortion is already legal here, etc. etc.

Annasopra

david75 wrote: »

*if these are actual bot accounts as part of the Kanto hiring by Save the 8th, and they seem to be given they’re more and more extreme each time they come on, it’s backfiring wildly on them. This is what they spent all that money on?

It’s not even good psychological warfare if you can laugh at it.

To be honest I doubt this is Kanto/Cambridge analytica stuff. Its too public, obvious and transparent. Its not the slick style of what they did with Trump and Brexit.

kylith

preacher2 wrote: »

Medical problems: This is a bit broad, however when it comes down to this why cant you just go to UK? I still disagree with it but why cant you? Anyway, you need to be more specific because there is a massive array of medical problems that dont justify and abortion and a very small amount that do.

So you’re not actually anti-abortion, you’re just Pro-forcing I’ll women to have to fork out a load of money and travel to another country, without their medical records, to get the healthcare they need.

Women having prolonged miscarriages: should they have to travel too?

Hannibal_Smith

Can I ask a question regarding cancer and chemo? Something popped up on my fb newsfeed today and it was a story of a woman who is undergoing chemo and she has to have a pregnancy test before each treatment. If the pregnancy test was positive what would happen? Would they stop the treatment?

kylith

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Can I ask a question regarding cancer and chemo? Something popped up on my fb newsfeed today and it was a story of a woman who is undergoing chemo and she has to have a pregnancy test before each treatment. If the pregnancy test was positive what would happen? Would they stop the treatment?

Yes. Chemo would harm the foetus so would be stopped. Her medical advice would be ‘pray you deliver before it becomes terminal’.

.......

This post has been deleted.

david75

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

To be honest I doubt this is Kanto/Cambridge analytica stuff. Its too public, obvious and transparent. Its not the slick style of what they did with Trump and Brexit.

I’d agree except as the post just above yours States, they just don’t even seem to be Irish. Even the spelling is wrong. ‘Legalizing’ for example. I’ve had to correct my phone to include the z. And they don’t seem to have any local knowledge or awareness of the backstory and history of all this.

It’s obvious they’re new accounts just here to sh!tpost but where from?

seamus

kylith wrote: »

Yes. Chemo would harm the foetus so would be stopped. Her medical advice would be ‘pray you deliver before it becomes terminal’.

Or "take a little holiday to the UK and we'll check the foetus again when you get back".

david75

kylith wrote: »

Yes. Chemo would harm the foetus so would be stopped. Her medical advice would be ‘pray you deliver before it becomes terminal’.

Seriiusly?? That’s appalling

kylith

david75 wrote: »

Seriiusly?? That’s appalling

THat’s the 8th amendment for you.

seamus

david75 wrote: »

Seriiusly?? That’s appalling

Yes. Any treatment that carries a significant (i.e. probable) risk of inducing an abortion is illegal as the medical team could be jailed for up to 14 years for providing it.

Even treatments that are known to have a slight risk of inducing an abortion are in a grey area and medical professionals very rarely go ahead with them.

baylah17

Ismisejack wrote: »

Abortion is the unlawful killing of another unborn child,

Nope, nothing unlawful about it at all, in fact its already legal here under the provisions of the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act.
Hopefully after the referendum it will be more widely available with less stupid hoops to jump through.

January

seamus wrote: »

Coveney this morning suggesting a "two-thirds lock" on any abortion regulations into the future.

In essence this would mean that any change to the abortion laws would require the consent of a two-thirds majority of the Dail.

It's not something I personally would prefer, but in terms of shutting down the "I don't trust politicians to legislate" or "It'll be abortion up to 60 weeks soon enough" crowd, it would be very effective.

The pro-life campaign would lose one of the last pillars of their campaign. Fair play to Coveney, it's a good idea.

Coveneys literal 180 degree turn has surprised me so much.

david75

January wrote: »

Coveneys literal 180 degree turn has surprised me so much.

It’s encouraging to see though. He sat down and listened to doctors and experts and the evidence. And somehow getting all kinds of crap for it including the front page headline on the indo yesterday not so subtly having a dig at him simply cos he changed his mind.

baylah17

seamus wrote: »

Coveney this morning suggesting a "two-thirds lock" on any abortion regulations into the future.

In essence this would mean that any change to the abortion laws would require the consent of a two-thirds majority of the Dail.

It's not something I personally would prefer, but in terms of shutting down the "I don't trust politicians to legislate" or "It'll be abortion up to 60 weeks soon enough" crowd, it would be very effective.

The pro-life campaign would lose one of the last pillars of their campaign. Fair play to Coveney, it's a good idea.

Would that not require another amendment to the Constitution to change the voting rules in the Dail ?
Or couldn't the Dail just repeal that piece of legislation with a simple majority?
Seems to me the Tainiste is just muddying the waters