The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

seamus

markodaly wrote: »

Au Contraire mon ami.

If the 8th is repealed there will be no legal protection for the unborn, so an abortion could take place an hour before birth that would be fully legal. Unless you can show me where it would not be so?

Terminations routinely occur before the due date in this country. In fact, in many instances it's medical best practice to terminate the pregnancy early so as to avoid going into labour.

So, eh, what's your problem?

bertieinexile

Howdy pardners! Y'all good now?

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
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".
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.

david75
Joeytheparrot
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?

How do you become one of these bots? Is there a few bob in it? Although to be honest I'd be happy just to get a good meal out of it. Smart boy, not afraid of work. Has own bicycle.

Harris is about to drop a bomb in the Dail this afternoon with his proposed legislation. It's going to engage the majority of voters for the first time and the reality of what's proposed is going to hit them hard.
I don't think the pro choice side are ready for this at all.


Look at the your attempts to engage with Ligertion. To me he represents where the huge centre ground are on this.
You don't seem to have any ability to imagine yourselves in his position which is the only starting point for trying to convince someone.
Why would you. You have spent two years only talking to one another.
It's way too late to try changing your approach now. It goes deeper than that
If you had tried to see where your opponents, or even the middle ground, were coming from you would never have dreamed of putting 12 weeks to the people. The smart move would have been to introduce an unpolicable wedge case like rape and got unrestricted access that way.

Because when most of the country hear Harris's proposals today it is just going to sound like one thing to them. Floodgates.

Lets have a look at how you are dealing with those voters

ligertigon
I guess what I am saying, Is that I will be voting NO, based on the question put to voters, as it skews too far for me.
Physical Medical condition putting life of mother at risk, should be allowed, though on a list set in stone.
On demand? not a chance, responsibility comes in here.
I am an atheist, and not a liberal, and believe very strongly in protecting life but not the spawn of a rapist, though this would be hard to be proven in the short time frame...

Oldtree
So not on demand for the spawn of a rapist. How do you propose to seperate out this specific point? Put women on trial and require definitive proof before acceding to a legitimate termination in your eyes?
You will be asked a black and white question yes or no in may. #trustwomen

ligertigon
I don't propose anything. Not my job. Not interested.
My job is to vote on the question put to me with a yes/no.
So blame the citizens assembly for that one dude.

Oldtree
You did propose somthing...
So dude I blame you for that one if as you say you will vote no. You can't have it every which way to suit yourself and well you know it.

ligertigon
Blame me for an opinion?
Yes I can have it every which way. Its called erring on the side of caution

Oldtree
You were blaming the citizens assembly, so you got blamed back
If you are erring on the side of caution then you know you are making an error and not on the side of caution for Irish women.

Do you think the chances of ligertigon changing his mind are now (A) more likely (B) less likely (C) the same.

I hope, and have every reason to believe, this is also what's going on on the doorsteps

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If the 8th is repealed, the PLDPA will still be the law of the land and an abortion an hour before birth will carry a 14 year jail sentence, the same as it does today.

And just to follow this up, there WAS a very dangerous period for the unborn in this country related to the 8th, but it was not before it passed nor will it be after it is repealed.

The X case judgement made the 1861 act unconstitutional in 1992. The PLDPA was passed by the FG/Labour coalition in 2013. For 20 years, Ireland had no valid law on the books against abortion. Only the text of the constitution itself protected the unborn, and it would have been an absolute nightmare to convict anyone of anything using just the constitution.

So the condition you are worried about, having no laws at all against abortion, was true for 20 years because of the 8th, the x case judgement and the fear that successive governments had for 20 years of the backlash from prolifers if they legislated for the X case thereby legalising abortion.

Zubeneschamali

bertieinexile wrote: »

Harris is about to drop a bomb in the Dail this afternoon with his proposed legislation.

This is not a bombshell. The 12 week proposal has been headline news in this country for 9 months. Perhaps you were abroad and missed it all?

The prolifers have been screaming ever since that it'll never pass, pretending that they would back a more restrictive regime, and warning Repealers that we are making a tactical mistake (although why they would warn us if we were really making a mistake is not clear).

And with all this noise, polling (which includes the 12 week proposal) still says the referendum will pass comfortably.

david75

Harris is going to hit the pro choice campaign with a bombshell?? And we’re not ready for it??

Are the pro lifers on drugs today or somethin??

david75

Really weird that American media are covering this and our own media really aren’t.
This is a brilliant read. Scary though

Why American Pro-Life Dollars Are Pouring Into Ireland

https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/01/why-american-pro-life-dollars-are-pouring-into-ireland/266981/

.......

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

david75 wrote: »

This is a brilliant read. Scary though

Why American Pro-Life Dollars Are Pouring Into Ireland

https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/01/why-american-pro-life-dollars-are-pouring-into-ireland/266981/

2013?

Perhaps not exactly hot off the presses?

bertieinexile

Maybe I wasn't clear.

I know what Harris is going to propose.

You obviously know what he's going to propose.

But I think it is only after today that general public are going to really engage with what is being proposed. They'll feel it's finally time to pay attention. And I think they are going to be very alarmed.

Abortion on demand/request up to 12 weeks in law, and up to 24 weeks in practice.

No way.



Now I've to go off and rustle some steer on my big ranch here in Texas.

nozzferrahhtoo

bertieinexile wrote: »

You don't seem to have any ability to imagine yourselves in his position which is the only starting point for trying to convince someone. Why would you. You have spent two years only talking to one another.

Speak for yourself I guess, you are not speaking about... or to.... me. Let us detail a few of your errors when it comes to me.

Firstly the two years is wrong as it was MANY years ago that I decided it was worth questioning my positions on abortion, what they are, why I hold them, and where they should change.

Secondly, since I clarified my positions and their basis with myself...... my conversations on the topic.... including on every single thread on this forum...... have been almost exclusively with people who are anti-abortion and anti-choice.

And the result of that time and time again.............. be it people on line on forums, people off line in various situations, debates, or even people who specifically set up anti abortion stalls in places like those stalls there used to be in front of Central Bank in Dublin................... is a complete lack of anti abortion arguments.

Literally all they have ever been able to do is either screech words like "baby" and "human".......... or show pictures of the fetus and say "Look at the pictures man". But I have yet to see any attempt at a coherent position based on arguments, evidence, data and reasoning to indict the act of terminating the life of a 0-16 week old fetus.

Third however, it is far from true that I am not able to put myself in, imagine the content of, or even empathize with...... the position of those people. I have listened to their emotive and biases nonsense long enough to know and feel exactly where much of it is coming from. And I understand many of the biological and evolutionary attributes that are a pre-cursor to them feeling that way. We are pretty much evolved to want to protect our young. We are pretty much evolved to want to protect against injustice and unfairness, especially in those we perceive to be vulnerable or weak or defenseless.

So in fact I do not need to imagine anything. I have ALL the same emotions and compulsions and biology as these people. I do not need to imagine myself in their position, I AM in their position. But there is a difference in what I do in that position to them. The difference solely lies in my going one step further than them and differentiating between emotions that have a valid and meaningful target, and those that are just being triggered for no actual good reason.

Not coming out of a position in the same way as someone else though does not, despite your diatribe above, suggest that position is not a shared one.

seamus

bertieinexile wrote: »

But I think it is only after today that general public are going to really engage with what is being proposed. They'll feel it's finally time to pay attention. And I think they are going to be very alarmed.

You think the public have no idea that the bill is going to allow abortion up to 12 weeks?

It's all the media have been talking about for months. Anyone who's unaware at this stage is likely so disengaged that they don't vote at all.

Oldtree

bertieinexile wrote: »

Howdy pardners! Y'all good now?

Hiya Bert, hows Ernie? good of you to step out into the light after 3 years and 9 months alone in the wilderness!

bertieinexile wrote: »

Look at the your attempts to engage with Ligertion. To me he represents where the huge centre ground are on this.

Thats an interesting opinion, but sadly an incorrect one.

bertieinexile wrote: »

If you had tried to see where your opponents, or even the middle ground, were coming from you would never have dreamed of putting 12 weeks to the people. The smart move would have been to introduce an unpolicable wedge case like rape and got unrestricted access that way.

There is no middle ground in May, a yes or no thats it. The 8th needs to go and not be circumvented in some roundabout way, we have had enough of the roundabout nonsence.

bertieinexile wrote: »

Lets have a look at how you are dealing with those voters
Do you think the chances of ligertigon changing his mind are now (A) more likely (B) less likely (C) the same.
I hope, and have every reason to believe, this is also what's going on on the doorsteps

I thought I dealt with his/her/it's comments in a fairly even way.

Have you any evidence of your newfound belief about what is happening on the doorsteps or is this just another spurious piece of imaginative misinformation.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

bertieinexile wrote: »

Abortion on demand/request up to 12 weeks in law, and up to 24 weeks in practice.

No way.

Prolife people have been warning us and warning us since last summer that this was a terrible mistake, because for some reason they apparently really want us to win.

But it has, as stated earlier, been front page headline news since the CA report came out. It is not any sort of surprise or bombshell. Consider that Simon Coveney's change of heart was big news in the recent cycle, and those stories only make sense if readers already know about 12 weeks, Leo, and Coveney's hesitance to back Leo on 12 weeks.

david75

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

2013?

Perhaps not exactly hot off the presses?

So extrapolate to five years later and how much they’re pumping in now

applehunter

Has Simon Harris refereed to the unborn child in any of his soundbites?

Simon Coveney refereed to the unborn child in his statement on RTE last night and it took me by surprise.

It wasnt me123

I actually don't mind the 72 hour delay being proposed. It will possibly give younger pregnant women a bit of space - and then if they still say yes so they get the pills. In my head I'm thinking any female over 25 would be more definite in how they feel but younger women, possibly not. I could be wrong but I think 3 days isnt a huge ask. Its not unusual for GPs to ask patients to go away and think about a particular treatment (not just terminations) before coming to a decision.

On the 2/3rds majority I am definitely against. Its about time Ireland "pulled their big pants on" and just grew up. I don't need some nutter like Mattie McGrath or Ronan Mullen holding up a change in the law because they are bible bashers.

I think the referendum will be a resounding yes and will pass as well as the equal marriage referendum, and rightly so. I've noticed media reports on people in the UK coming home to make sure they are registered and then coming back to vote Yes.

Oldtree

applehunter wrote: »

Has Simon Harris refereed to the unborn child in any of his soundbites?

Simon Coveney refereed to the unborn child in his statement on RTE last night and it took me by surprise.

Yes indeed, but his support for repeal of the 8th was unequivocal.
I think he is referring to the unborn viable child, as against the unborn non-viable fetus, which the proposed legislation already mentions.

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/978357081454542848

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/0326/950089-eighth-amendment-cabinet/

I think the 72 hours is necessary from the states perspective to ensure absolute certainty. I am unsure about it yet.

david75

Seems to be nothing more than a concession to those considering voting against it. Really flimsy. It won’t work to convince them or anyone.

NuMarvel

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

I actually don't mind the 72 hour delay being proposed. It will possibly give younger pregnant women a bit of space - and then if they still say yes so they get the pills. In my head I'm thinking any female over 25 would be more definite in how they feel but younger women, possibly not. I could be wrong but I think 3 days isnt a huge ask. Its not unusual for GPs to ask patients to go away and think about a particular treatment (not just terminations) before coming to a decision.

GPs may ask patients to take some time to think about a particular treatment, but I think this will be the only instance of that time being legally mandated.

I think if you've gotten to the point that you've made an appointment and you're talking to your GP about having an abortion, then chances are you've given it a fair bit of thought. If you decide yourself you want some more time, then that's well and good. But I don't see any advantage to legally mandating a waiting time, and as I understand it, research from the US shows that applying a waiting time doesn't change abortion rates.

All that said, it's a choice between the status quo, or modernised legislation that includes a waiting time, then it's the latter, all the way!

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

On the 2/3rds majority I am definitely against. Its about time Ireland "pulled their big pants on" and just grew up. I don't need some nutter like Mattie McGrath or Ronan Mullen holding up a change in the law because they are bible bashers.

I really don't know what Coveney was thinking when he floated that idea. It was shot down as unconstitutional pretty quickly, so he obviously didn't run it by lawyers first. I can only imagine he was on a high from the platitudes he got yesterday!

Oldtree

david75 wrote: »

Seems to be nothing more than a concession to those considering voting against it. Really flimsy. It won’t work to convince them or anyone.

He does say he is "middle ground".

I think he wants to ensure that every woman is fully informed 'before' making her final decision (she may not be fully informed before going into the doctor) and that is a middle ground issue, being addressed to the middle ground.

david75

Oldtree wrote: »

He does say he is "middle ground".

I think he wants to ensure that every woman is fully informed 'before' making her final decision (she may not be fully informed before going into the doctor) and that is a middle ground issue, being addressed to the middle ground.

I don’t think he’s being dishonest at all, just as you said, he’s spesking from his point of view to those of his point of view. I’d imagine the middle ground is a whole lot bigger than of us realise. We only hear the most active and vocal extremes really.

Oldtree

NuMarvel wrote: »

GPs may ask patients to take some time to think about a particular treatment, but I think this will be the only instance of that time being legally mandated.

Consultants do not make the decision on life changing treatment, for say, cancer. They would outline the pros and cons of every avenue and allow the patient to make the decision, but it is not an instant decision as there is a lot for a patient to think about after getting a professionals advice.

NuMarvel wrote: »

I think if you've gotten to the point that you've made an appointment and you're talking to your GP about having an abortion, then chances are you've given it a fair bit of thought. If you decide yourself you want some more time, then that's well and good. But I don't see any advantage to legally mandating a waiting time, and as I understand it, research from the US shows that applying a waiting time doesn't change abortion rates.

All that said, it's a choice between the status quo, or modernised legislation that includes a waiting time, then it's the latter, all the way!

If a waiting period dosn't change abortion rates, then it is something that can be addressed down the line if necessary.

seamus

I guess the 72 hours shoots down the "on demand" nonsense, since it's not "on demand" at all.

It's not ideal, but at least it's not the ridiculousness of forcing them to have an ultrasound or engage in a weekend of prayer or something like you get in the US.

They should legally mandate the keeping of statistics, so they can revisit it a year later and see how many took the initial consultation -v- how many didn't go through with it and assess whether it makes any difference.

Oldtree

david75 wrote: »

I don’t think he’s being dishonest at all, just as you said, he’s spesking from his point of view to those of his point of view. I’d imagine the middle ground is a whole lot bigger than of us realise. We only hear the most active and vocal extremes really.

the middle ground are always waiting in the long grass, are a bright bunch of buttons, contemplative and not easily swayed by rhetoric.

david75

Oldtree wrote: »

the middle ground are always waiting in the long grass, are a bright bunch of buttons, contemplative and not easily swayed by rhetoric.

Well they turned up for us in marriage equality. Can only hope the PLC disinformation campaign continues to turn more and more of them off.

Saw one guy saying he was undecided but probably voting to repeal as it’s a woman’s right etc etc and the abuse he was getting from pro lifers in the replies was eye watering.

Give them more rope!

Kyta

On a meta (sort of) level, I was reading this thread recently and took a step back to ask myself - why are the posters here (on either side of the debate) participating in this discussion on boards.ie?

There are generally 2 classes of people in discussion forums, posters actively engaging in the debate, and readers (Which I was for the last few months) either registered or unregistered on the website.

From what I can see, anyone actively participating and posting on the thread has a very firm (bordering extreme in some cases) stance on their position and would never in a million years be swayed from a yes to a no vote, or vice versa. And yet both sides continue to participate.

Also historically abortion has been a very divisive issue in society. There are actually very few "undecideds", which admittedly I know is just anecdotal evidence from my own experience. I know the polls say 15-22% are undecided, but I'm guessing a certain % of those polled chose not to divulge their opinion for personal reasons which is understandable. And as we have seen with Trump and Brexit, polls do not always reflect the actual vote on the day. I just looked at the poll on this thread and the undecideds are less than 7%. Which again reflects the demographic on this website vs. the general public who are 15-22% undecided depending on the polling company. I guess the elderly contingent of society (60+) is less likely to have a boards.ie account than millenials. Yet they are still a large demographic in Irish society. Just an example of a demographic possibly missing from the boards.ie poll vs. Kantar media polls and so on..

My question I guess is, (again whether you are pro-life or pro-choice) are you posting here in an attempt to sway the opinion of potentially undecided voters who are reading the thread? And do you think the % of undecideds who you could potentially convince to vote your way is large enough to affect the outcome of this referendum?

Huexotzingo

markodaly wrote: »

Au Contraire mon ami.

If the 8th is repealed there will be no legal protection for the unborn, so an abortion could take place an hour before birth that would be fully legal. Unless you can show me where it would not be so?

If the legislation you linked was sufficient, then why is there still a discussion on cabinet level to the 'what happens after'.

Also, the supreme court ruling was pretty strong on this, that the unborn would have no constitutional rights once the 8th was repealed.

Rubbish.

kylith

markodaly wrote: »

If the 8th is repealed there will be no legal protection for the unborn, so an abortion could take place an hour before birth that would be fully legal. Unless you can show me where it would not be so?

Why do you think women would do that? And I mean that in both ways: what is your reason for thinking that, presumably, women would want to kill a foetus an hour before birth, and what reason do you think a woman would have for, presumably, killing a foetus an hour before birth.

This is quite aside from the fact that, as said upthread, pregnancies are often terminated days or weeks before the due date. This is called 'inducing labour' and is usually done to avoid damage to the woman or foetus if, for example, the foetus is getting too big to be safely delivered, or if the woman is showing signs of pre-eclampsia. Nothing is killed during these, it is simply the pregnancy that is terminated.

Amirani

Kyta wrote: »

My question I guess is, (again whether you are pro-life or pro-choice) are you posting here in an attempt to sway the opinion of potentially undecided voters who are reading the thread? And do you think the % of undecideds who you could potentially convince to vote your way is large enough to affect the outcome of this referendum?

As you sort of alluded to in the rest of your post, I think trying to sway the opinion of "undecided" voters for something like this is pretty fruitless, particularly in an online forum. It's very much a moral/philosophical issues at its core, that can't really be fully rationalised by logical argument.

I'm more interested in discussing the social and political impacts around it myself, though I don't post much on the issue.