The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

January

captbarnacles wrote: »

You thanked your own post from a different account :pac:

And replied to it

Nettle Soup

Students may well read this thread in 20 years time and think we were all kinds of crazy

Ally Dick

Da Boss wrote: »

Yes I got banned as you know and somehow this account logged in . I’m not very good with technology but fair being fair I suppose I’ll scrap this account and go back to ismisejack. I’m just not good at technology, I’ll go so you’ll hear no more of me

SOCK PUPPET ALERT!

baylah17

david75 wrote: »

So based on boards reaction alone and amid the fallout today we can assume men in Ireland are ok with rape as long as you get away with it.

Depressing really.

No
Your disrespect for the judicial system is depressing
And trying to derail this thread with your ND is depressing
Shame on you

Oldtree

January wrote: »

And replied to it

Nooooo! Nabbed again

Would this be the cutehoorism that I've heard so much about?

Oldtree

baylah17 wrote: »

No
Your disrespect for the judicial system is depressing
And trying to derail this thread with your ND is depressing
Shame on you

May I ask what ND is?

nozzferrahhtoo

bertieinexile wrote: »

But even that much may come as a surprise to some of your fans here sheltering under your wing.

bertieinexile wrote: »

Feel free to rephrase.

I think you have managed to be wrong three times in one sentence here, which is quite an achievement. I do not think I have "fans". I do not think anyone is sheltering at all, least of all behind me. And I do not think anything I have said in those quotes will be a surprise to anyone who has read my posts with any regularity. Nothing I have said to you is anything I have not said many times before. If there is going to be any surprise I think it will be solely people being surprised at how different your appraisals of my statements are from what I actually said and meant.

I see nothing requiring rephrasing though. You are "taken aback" but that is your issue, not mine I guess. I do not need to rephrase anything to alleviate your discomforts, I am sure you will agree.

The problem I have here however is you seem to have couched much of your reply in imagination and guessing so I can not reply to any of it. You "imagine" for example people will be recalculating. I do not think they will be. You "Guess" what emotions people who know my posting will be feeling. Again I think this is false.

Perhaps if you want to converse with me we can make a little agreement. Maybe we should let them speak for themselves? If you want to give me YOUR thoughts on MY posts by all means do. If you want to give me what you "imagine" and "guess" others will say and think..... I have to say I am not interested. At all. Even a little.

bertieinexile wrote: »

You're saying that in this area not every argument that starts from a woman's feelings is valid.

I recall saying no such thing at all. You are making stuff up now in very bad faith with more than a little twisting to taint it.

What I DID say is that human narratives can cause us undue suffering, especially when those narratives do not track with reality. The narratives we have about "baby" do not map onto the fetus. And therefore the suffering we cause ourselves worrying over aspects of the fetus are often artificial and unwarranted. And if divesting people of unwarranted narratives reduces suffering, we should do it.

This is, I trust everyone will notice, VERY different a statement to the one you wholesale invented and are here trying to shove into my mouth in the pretence it came from there.

bertieinexile wrote: »

If you want to start defining life and non life (personhood and non-personhood) you really are dancing around the third rail. It's a huge philosophical gamble and you need to be totally committed to your tightly defined answer.

I would say NOT defining person-hood is the gamble. Choosing to remain vague or ignorant on that issue...... or to avoid confronting it for any reason, especially a reason as petty as merely avoiding the discomfort it might cause, is the real gamble and a bad one. And it is a gamble with the well being of 1000s of women and children.

It is central to everything related to and involving rights, morality and ethics. Because if moral and ethical concern is not directed at PEOPLE and more specifically personhood, then what IS it directed at? What is it even FOR in that case?

You ask me about legislation though and here I know my own limits and am honest about them.

I am happy to discuss the morality and philosophy and science behind abortion. I am not a lawyer or in any way trained in law however. If you wish to discuss legislation, you need to find a better interlocutor than I for that. I will stick to what I am good at, and let them do the same. Sorry if this is a disappointment, or comes across as a dodge, but I know where my pay grade ends.

However....

bertieinexile wrote: »

You say your concern (or your beginning of concern) that there is a person to care for starts at 16 weeks.

........ this is actually not true at all.

What I do say is that the near totality of choice based abortion occurs in 0-16 weeks. Actually the science of consciousness does not even START to get grey until 24 weeks really, and actually later. So at 16 weeks my concern does NOT begin actually. And I am curious where you got the idea it does. Read again what I wrote:

"The fetus at 0-16 weeks might have little toes and fingers and pull emotively at our evolutionary heart strings but when one realises this is NOT a conscious entity, it never has been one, and it is a distinct period of time away from ever being one....."

I think that is very clearly the opposite of what you just claimed about me.

But look how liberal canada is for example on abortion. Yet over 90% of abortions happen by week 12 there and nearly all of them by week 16. The horror you describe (again your active imagination we have seen already) does not happen there no matter how liberal their abortion regime. So the scare mongering of "What ifs" in a much more conservative Irish Context simply does not concern or worry me at all.

I certainly would not lose sleep over hearing an abortion at 24 weeks occurred, though I wish they wouldnt ever happen. But I see no reason to campaign for allowing it specifically. over 98% of abortions seem to happen by 16 weeks. So 16 weeks is around what I would campaign for. If they implemented 12 or 20 however, I would be more than content and happy with either.

Oldtree

Oldtree wrote: »

Nooooo! Nabbed again

Would this be the cutehoorism that I've heard so much about?

But I'm sure it'll be used as an example of how all the evil pro murder crowd are bullying the poor pro life people off the thread.

Edit sorry as pointed out by oldtree typo of using pro choice rather pro life.

crustybla

Oldtree wrote: »

Nooooo! Nabbed again

Would this be the cutehoorism that I've heard so much about?

Less cutehoorism and more immature idiocy. Leave him to it, he obviously needs a hobby. Bless.:pac:

Oldtree

DubInMeath wrote: »

Until the next technological miricle then, slan

Your own words have no meaning for you. You clearly do not stand by what you say! Slan

DubInMeath wrote: »

But I'm sure it'll be used as an example of how all the evil pro murder crowd are bullying the poor pro choice people off the thread.

Oldtree

crustybla wrote: »

Less cutehoorism and more immature idiocy. Leave him to it, he obviously needs a hobby. Bless.:pac:

I didn't know hobbies were a thing under rocks!

Oldtree

Oldtree wrote: »

Your own words have no meaning for you. You clearly do not stand by what you say! Slan

Typo sorry.

Oldtree

DubInMeath wrote: »

Typo sorry.

Probably not your first!

Oldtree

Oldtree wrote: »

Probably not your first!

No and won't be the last.

kylith

Da Boss wrote: »

Yes I got banned as you know and somehow this account logged in . I’m not very good with technology but fair being fair I suppose I’ll scrap this account and go back to ismisejack. I’m just not good at technology, I’ll go so you’ll hear no more of me

So why are you replying to yourself?

NuMarvel

Berserker wrote: »

Oh, I thought it would pass by a clear majority, 70% plus.

Gods, no. Divorce barely scrapped by. Freedom to travel for an abortion got 62%. Marriage equality got the same. Referendums on social issues don't generate massive wins like that.

I think there's a good chance it will pass, but I'm not expecting anything over 55%. Still a clear win, but not a landslide.

Berserker

NuMarvel wrote: »

Gods, no. Divorce barely scrapped by. Freedom to travel for an abortion got 62%. Marriage equality got the same. Referendums on social issues don't generate massive wins like that.

I think there's a good chance it will pass, but I'm not expecting anything over 55%. Still a clear win, but not a landslide.

Interesting, I thought that Ireland had changed massively in that regard. I moved here in the 1980s and I couldn't possible think of gay marriage being accepted by the masses. I would have thought that this referendum was going to be more of the same.

NuMarvel

Berserker wrote: »

Interesting, I thought that Ireland had changed massively in that regard. I moved here in the 1980s and I couldn't possible think of gay marriage being accepted by the masses. I would have thought that this referendum was going to be more of the same.

It would have been unthinkable in the 80s. Even so, that referendum still had a sizable No vote; nearly 40%. And that was about a pretty simple matter. This referendum is about a far more complex issue, and gets into areas like ethics, medicine, science, and so on.

frag420

Strong rumours that Ismisejack/da bass was seen being flogged out the back of the Iona Inst by Davey Quinn early this morning for making such a blatant mistake in his postings on Boards...apparently multiple accounts was covered in the first chapter of Daveys book on trolling for the modern man!!

we wish you both a speedy recovery!

baylah17

frag420 wrote: »

we wish you both a speedy recovery!

Do we fuk!:D:D

erica74

How is it that the spokesperson for the antichoice campaign can make statements like the Irish public are against abortion when the polls show that it is simply not true? Surely that's just classed as a downright lie?

Beta Ray Bill

Can I ask, how much time does it take to go over to the UK and have an Abortion?

Simon Coveney has stated there will be a 72 hour pause period between are person asking for an abortion and the procedure actually being carried out.
He also wanted a scan if the gestation period was greater than 9 weeks (but that's been fooked out)

The question is, with the 72 hour waiting period, is it just easier to go to the UK?

Edward M

grahambo wrote: »

Can I ask, how much time does it take to go over to the UK and have an Abortion?

Simon Coveney has stated there will be a 72 hour pause period between are person asking for an abortion and the procedure actually being carried out.
He also wanted a scan if the gestation period was greater than 9 weeks (but that's been fooked out)

The question is, with the 72 hour waiting period, is it just easier to go to the UK?

Hardly, but its certainly a lot more inconvenient not to mention the health risks and the cost.

Mr. CooL ICE

Faster? Probably. Easier? Absolutely no way.

amdublin

grahambo wrote: »

The question is, with the 72 hour waiting period, is it just easier to go to the UK?

I don't think so. What are your thoughts?

Off the top of my head:
Book flights
Book accommodation if needed/staying overnight
(They need to be paid obv)
Get to airport, hour or 2 hours before check in
Fly to a different country
Make way (train? Bus? Taxi) to clinic
Couple of hours in clinic...im guessing
Fly home as pains and cramps are starting. Maybe bleeding.
Look at other people on plane and wonder are they wondering why you as are in pain
Make way home from airport and get into your own bed with hot water bottle

nozzferrahhtoo

^ And take time off work of course! And of course that is all assuming you are willing or physically and mentally capable of doing the entire thing alone. If you are not, which many people are not, then you have to double most of the things in that list too.

Edward M

Experiences every day brings a different realisation as you go along while thinking on this issue.
If we weren't coming to a referendum on the issue, a part of the current rape trial wouldn't click with me.
I'm not commenting on that trial result here, just thinking on the events.
Nights like that happen all the time I suppose innocently, one thing can lead to another and everyone can go home happily, girl gets up next day, maybe not having full memory of the incident, or even if she has, hungover, go to work or just spend time recovering.
A few weeks later she discovers, Jesus, I'm pregnant, o fcuk, what can I do now?
My sympathy lies with her, if she wants to terminate that pregnancy.
Wouldn't i be a heartless bastard if I said no, you must have that baby, you slut, you had your fun, now suffer the consequences or fcuk off to england, let the blood be on their hands if you want to have an abortion, its grand if you do it there but not in my country.
I've copped on a bit I think.

Beta Ray Bill

amdublin wrote: »

I don't think so. What are your thoughts?

Off the top of my head:
Book flights
Book accommodation if needed/staying overnight
(They need to be paid obv)
Get to airport, hour or 2 hours before check in
Fly to a different country
Make way (train? Bus? Taxi) to clinic
Couple of hours in clinic...im guessing
Fly home as pains and cramps are starting. Maybe bleeding.
Look at other people on plane and wonder are they wondering why you as are in pain
Make way home from airport and get into your own bed with hot water bottle

I know very little about the logistical piece of the process if I'm honest.
Like do you need to ring ahead and book or just arrive?

So is the 72 hour pause there to stop more liberal laws coming into place in the future? (That's how it looks to me)
Coveney says he's pro-choice but I get the feeling deep down he's not, or has reservations (which a lot of people have in fairness).
I suppose he has to think about votes in the next election.

If the Pro-Choice win, then I think the process that should be in place should be as fast and stream lined and simple as possible.
You shouldn't have to fill out hundreds of forms or have a huge mental assessment or any of that kind of thing.

You should just be able to walk into a clinic up to 12 weeks and have one, and that's it.

January

grahambo wrote: »

I know very little about the logistical piece of the process if I'm honest.
Like do you need to ring ahead and book or just arrive?

So is the 72 hour pause there to stop more liberal laws coming into place in the future? (That's how it looks to me)
Coveney says he's pro-choice but I get the feeling deep down he's not, or has reservations (which a lot of people have in fairness).
I suppose he has to think about votes in the next election.

If the Pro-Choice win, then I think the process that should be in place should be as fast and stream lined and simple as possible.
You shouldn't have to fill out hundreds of forms or have a huge mental assessment or any of that kind of thing.

You should just be able to walk into a clinic up to 12 weeks and have one, and that's it.

You have to book it. You can't just arrive over there and demand an abortion (hmm)

volchitsa

grahambo wrote: »

I know very little about the logistical piece of the process if I'm honest.
Like do you need to ring ahead and book or just arrive?

So is the 72 hour pause there to stop more liberal laws coming into place in the future? (That's how it looks to me)
Coveney says he's pro-choice but I get the feeling deep down he's not, or has reservations (which a lot of people have in fairness).
I suppose he has to think about votes in the next election.

If the Pro-Choice win, then I think the process that should be in place should be as fast and stream lined and simple as possible.
You shouldn't have to fill out hundreds of forms or have a huge mental assessment or any of that kind of thing.

You should just be able to walk into a clinic up to 12 weeks and have one, and that's it.

No it's a medical procedure which may also require anaesthesia depending on the term of gestation. It also requires a scan and possibly other tests to ensure that the termination can be carried out safely.

Just as an example, imagine a woman whose periods have stopped due to some other problem like a hormonal problem or just stress, or even very occasionally ovarian tumour or some other serious illness. They can't just take her word for it, if something went wrong. So checks are required before the procedure itself, which means a woman can't just rock up and get it done, especially not if coming from Ireland as her medical file won't be available in the UK.

I don't necessarily disagree with the rest of your post by the way.