Outright lies in Campaign

scorching hemorrhoids

abortion only up to 12 weeks, yeah right.

scorching hemorrhoids

scorching hemorrhoids wrote: »

abortion only up to 12 weeks, yeah right.

How is that a lie?

Seth Brundle

Apparently John McGuirk is being asked to honour his personal election pledge (which will probably be another lie)...

On March 31, Mr McGuirk tweeted that he would "never take a political job again" if Dublin Central won 75% of the vote in the referendum to repeal the Eighth Amendment.

The Dublin Central constituency has in fact closed at 76.51% in favour of Yes, just over the 3-1 margin.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/discover/calls-for-john-mcguirk-to-honour-pledge-and-retire-from-political-campaigns-845260.html

Cheerio. Hope to never hear from you again!

scorching hemorrhoids

Deleted User wrote: »

How is that a lie?

wait and see, abortion 13,14,15,16,17,18 weeks, we all know its going to happen

Seth Brundle

scorching hemorrhoids wrote: »

wait and see, abortion 13,14,15,16,17,18 weeks, we all know its going to happen

There's no evidence to suggest that at all!

amcalester

scorching hemorrhoids wrote: »

wait and see, abortion 13,14,15,16,17,18 weeks, we all know its going to happen

Only a matter of time before we have calls for abortion up to 75 weeks.

Mark my words.

Seth Brundle

^^^ South Park - Cartman's Mom is Still a Dirty Slut (1998)

Liane Cartman: [At the Unplanned Parenthood Clinic] I want to have... an abortion.

Nurse Goodly: Oh, well, we can do that. This must be a very difficult time for you, Mrs...

Liane Cartman: Cartman. Yes, it's such a hard decision but I just don't feel like I can raise a child in this screwy world.

Nurse Goodly: Yes, Ms. Cartman, if you don't feel fit to raise a child, an abortion probably is the answer. Do you know the actual time of conception?

Liane Cartman: About 8 years ago.

Nurse Goodly: [thinking] I see... So the fetus is...

Liane Cartman: 8 years old.

Nurse Goodly: Ms. Cartman, 8 years old is a little late to be considering abortion.

Liane Cartman: Really?

Nurse Goodly: Yes, this is what we would refer to as the 40th trimester.

Liane Cartman: But I just don't think I'm a fit mother.

Nurse Goodly: But we prefer to abort babies a little earlier on. In fact, there's a law against abortions after the 2nd trimester.

Liane Cartman: Well, I think you need to keep your laws off of my body!

Nurse Goodly: Hummm... I'm afraid I can't help you, Ms. Cartman. If you want to change the law, you'll have to speak with your congressman.

Liane Cartman: Well, that's exactly what I intend to do! Good day.

drunkmonkey

Seth Brundle wrote: »

There's no evidence to suggest that at all!

So what happens the women who have to travel after 12 weeks, I thought this was the whole issue people having to travel.
This is where it's going to get tricky.

antiskeptic

amcalester wrote: »

Only a matter of time before we have calls for abortion up to 75 weeks.

Mark my words.

"Trust Women" .

"What's right for you is right for you. What's right for me is right for me".

"Bring them home so they can receive healthcare here!"

"Bodily autonomy"

"Killing can be healthcare"





Trust men as well as women. Bring em home from Switzerland rather than the UK and ... Hey Presto!


Euthanasia on request.

FreudianSlippers

drunkmonkey wrote: »

So what happens the women who have to travel after 12 weeks, I thought this was the whole issue people having to travel.
This is where it's going to get tricky.

What does this even mean?

drunkmonkey

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

What does this even mean?

In response to up above, abortion after 12 weeks. Will women still have to travel, under the proposed legislation they will have to

pauldla

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

Any cultures resident in our land for whom a boy is preferable (even as a firstborn) to a girl?

I hear you're a racist now, Father?

Jaysis he’s over here asking the same question too? He wouldn’t answer over on A&A, got all coy. Then came out with something about FGM. Gas character altogether.

Hitman3000

antiskeptic wrote:

Euthanasia on request.

What's wrong with euthanasia? If someone wants to end their suffering I can't see a reason to deny them.

zom

Hitman3000 wrote: »

What's wrong with euthanasia? If someone wants to end their suffering I can't see a reason to deny them.

It perfectly matches our modern society policy - only young, pretty and healthy survive. Euhtanize all the rest !!

The Bishop Basher

I’d support any proposal to legislate for euthanasia. I don’t understand why everyone is so worked up about abortion when euthanasia affects far more people.

I also have a major difficulty with late 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions and the way they’re carried out. Given the violent nature by which the baby is destroyed would it not be more compassionate to deliver the baby and then euthanize it humanely after birth ?

SusieBlue

I know I sound like a broken record but late term terminations will only be permitted in cases of FFA or severe threat to the mother.

These are wanted, loved babies. They are not torn limb from limb. They aren’t abortions - the pregnancy is simply terminated early.

The mother is induced and the baby is born via labour or caesarean section.

If you look at any TFMR interview, across the board, they ALL talk about spending time with their baby after the birth, getting pictures and keepsakes.
They also speak of the biggest stress of all, which is getting their baby’s body home. They talked about how they wish their families could have met their baby.
For those scenarios to be reality, they would need a body to bring home and bury.

In cases of medical emergency because of the mothers health, the quickest exit route is a cesearean section.
Once again, these are wanted babies, why would their parents allow them to be chopped up?
They are sent straight to neonatal and given every chance and the best of care.

This talk of decapatation and dismemberment came from the No side and it couldn’t be further from the truth - these babies are grieved for by their parents and given proper funerals.

Nody

zom wrote: »

It perfectly matches our modern society policy - only young, pretty and healthy survive. Euhtanize all the rest !!

Yes because someone living with an incurable disease making their life a living hell are doing it because the society wants people to be young and pretty; nothing to do with them having a say over their own body and life quality and deciding when enough pain is enough.

zom

Nody wrote: »

Yes because someone living with an incurable disease making their life a living hell are doing it because the society wants people to be young and pretty; nothing to do with them having a say over their own body and life quality and deciding when enough pain is enough.

It will make easier for everyone if we could get rid of people with incurable diseases.

splinter65

zom wrote: »

It will make easier for everyone if we could get rid of people with incurable diseases.

Easier and cheaper. More money for the state to spread around people who don’t have incurable diseases, or disabilities...or mental illnesses...

splinter65

drunkmonkey wrote: »

So what happens the women who have to travel after 12 weeks, I thought this was the whole issue people having to travel.
This is where it's going to get tricky.

They won’t have to travel anywhere. It’s going to be 20 weeks. Possibly more. We can’t stop now. Everyone must be looked after.

amcalester

splinter65 wrote: »

Easier and cheaper. More money for the state to spread around people who don’t have incurable diseases, or disabilities...or mental illnesses...

That reminds me, forced sterilization after 2 children if you can’t demonstrate an ability to support further children.

splinter65

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

What does this even mean?

If you don’t discover your pregnant till 12 weeks and 1 day, and you don’t wish to be pregnant, what happens then ? Can’t you just fib about your LMP date when you go into the GPs office? It’s only a little lie. How’s he/she to know?

splinter65

amcalester wrote: »

This is frustratingly confusing.

So we’re not allowed fix it so that women who can’t support children don’t have children but those same women are not allowed abort the pregnancies that will result in children.

I’ll de frustrate it for you right now by blocking you. Sleep easy now.

Sonics2k

zom wrote: »

It will make easier for everyone if we could get rid of people with incurable diseases.

I mean, you do realise that euthanasia is voluntary, right?

Like, someone with an incurable or horrible disease knows they'll die in agony or misery, and instead chooses the time and place of their death?

splinter65

Sonics2k wrote: »

I mean, you do realise that euthanasia is voluntary, right?

Like, someone with an incurable or horrible disease knows they'll die in agony or misery, and instead chooses the time and place of their death?

Why do you think euthanasia is only legal in a very few countries Sonics?

Sonics2k

splinter65 wrote: »

Why do you think euthanasia is only legal in a very few countries Sonics?

Religious dogma, if I'm honest.

volchitsa

splinter65 wrote: »

Why do you think euthanasia is only legal in a very few countries Sonics?

Because we're starting from religious cultures where for generations even suicide was a mortal sin, for one thing. The status quo is very much against legal euthanasia.

It's also a complex issue and not one that people like to think about when they don't have to. So any change is slow and uncertain. And I don't just mean in Ireland.

fergus1001

amcalester wrote:

Only a matter of time before we have calls for abortion up to 75 weeks.

and much like the religious nuts on the no side the middle ground won't listen

It was a yes vote accept it or move to Northern Ireland DUP would love you

splinter65

Sonics2k wrote: »

Religious dogma, if I'm honest.

So religious dogma doesn’t get in the way of abortion in the UK but does get in the way of euthanasia ?
Religious dogma prevents euthanasia in all but 5 Eu states!??
Jesus sonic you don’t know very much about it do you?

splinter65

volchitsa wrote: »

Because we're starting from religious cultures where for generations even suicide was a mortal sin, for one thing. The status quo is very much against legal euthanasia.

It's also a complex issue and not one that people like to think about when they don't have to. So any change is slow and uncertain. And I don't just mean in Ireland.

But the option has been thoroughly explored in many countries including the UK and totally rejected on many grounds and for very good reasons primarily the fact that it is completely impossible to rule out the possibility that patients may be pressurized either actually or in the patients imagination by family or healthcare workers or because of financial reasons.
Sooner or later you’ll run out of things that can be blamed on religion, I think.

Enzokk

drunkmonkey wrote: »

So what happens the women who have to travel after 12 weeks, I thought this was the whole issue people having to travel.
This is where it's going to get tricky.

Well no law will be able to cover all eventualities and be perfect. All we can do is make laws for the majority of cases and deal with the exceptions in the best way possible. Your question is vague though so it is impossible to offer an opinion on a question that could have a lot of different answers. Do you want to be more specific if you really want to ask about woman that travel after 12 weeks to have an abortion?

splinter65

Enzokk wrote: »

Well no law will be able to cover all eventualities and be perfect. All we can do is make laws for the majority of cases and deal with the exceptions in the best way possible. Your question is vague though so it is impossible to offer an opinion on a question that could have a lot of different answers. Do you want to be more specific if you really want to ask about woman that travel after 12 weeks to have an abortion?

Well the 8th amendment is gone now which means the legislation can be introduced to allow for abortion and that legislation will probably commence with a 12 week cut off point but can and will be extended and extended to accommodate all the groups lobbying for more.
That’s what happens everywhere and there’s no reason to think it will be any different here.

Enzokk

splinter65 wrote: »

Well the 8th amendment is gone now which means the legislation can be introduced to allow for abortion and that legislation will probably commence with a 12 week cut off point but can and will be extended and extended to accommodate all the groups lobbying for more.
That’s what happens everywhere and there’s no reason to think it will be any different here.

Do you have a list of countries where a limit was set and then extended and also a list where the limit has stayed the same?

Seth Brundle

splinter65 wrote: »

Well the 8th amendment is gone now which means the legislation can be introduced to allow for abortion and that legislation will probably commence with a 12 week cut off point but can and will be extended and extended to accommodate all the groups lobbying for more.
That’s what happens everywhere and there’s no reason to think it will be any different here.

You're just wildly speculating. Once the legislation is passed, no politician will want to go near it ever again!

scorching hemorrhoids

splinter65 wrote: »

Well the 8th amendment is gone now which means the legislation can be introduced to allow for abortion and that legislation will probably commence with a 12 week cut off point but can and will be extended and extended to accommodate all the groups lobbying for more.

Just wait and see,Unlimited abortion is what we have now, no if ands or buts about it.
We all know this, to deny it now is foolish.....
So of course the usual suspect will be along soon to deny

looksee

The rejoicing at the yes vote had much more to do with women's health and very little, if nothing, to do with 'killing babies'. The numbers that would have voted for abortion simply to 'get rid' of a pregnancy on a whim would have been miniscule. The enthusiasm was misleading, I doubt any of the crowds would have agreed that they were in favour of killing babies. Few would have been in favour of eliminating fetuses just as a form of contraception.

The need to pass this referendum was much more complex and had everything to do with women's health, bodily autonomy, safety in pregnancy. As an extension of that it was about a move away from the grip of religious dogmas and uncaring attitudes to 'respectability' and approved morality. It was about women's rights.

The posters and opinions of the No side were a desperate effort to retain control of society, and especially women, by use of those dogmas and attitudes. The use of inaccurate images and statistical lies were just a ruse to achieve the aim of maintaining that control. I have no doubt that many of the No supporters thought they were fighting for the rights of innocent babies, but they were being led down that path by money and influence that supported darker aims - power over society. That sounds like a conspiracy theory, I know. Fortunately the vast majority of people could see the weakness of the arguments, and voted yes for the wider needs of the health and well-being of women and their families.

The clearest argument that the No campaign was hollow rhetoric was shown by the fact that its principle supporters are the same people who have no concern for, and often a negative influence on, children after their birth. And my own opinion is that the reason the No side was so loud before the referendum, then lost so resoundingly is that the major influences - the money for posters for example - came from outside the State, they had the money but not the votes.

This attempted interference with local affairs is where the CT 'world powers' notion begins to sound a little bit convincing, and is something that we should be taking note of.

volchitsa

looksee wrote: »

And my own opinion is that the reason the No side was so loud before the referendum, then lost so resoundingly is that the major influences - the money for posters for example - came from outside the State, they had the money but not the votes.

This attempted interference with local affairs is where the CT 'world powers' notion begins to sound a little bit convincing, and is something that we should be taking note of.

The crowd sourcing that worked so well for prochoice was evidence of feeling on the ground, but of course it's much easier to say that was sufficient in hindsight!

I think it's a sign of how mature the Irish electorate has become that there was no equivalent to Brexit in the end.

And to be fair to the government, setting up the Citizens' and the Dáil Committee and putting up the proposed legislation beforehand was all venue different to how the British went about the Brexit referendum so cack handedly.

But you are right that it would be unwise to be complacent about the continued potential for political interference.

.......

This post has been deleted.

NuMarvel

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'll save splinter the trouble, because I've looked; there is nowhere else that introduced a 12 week time-frame and then extended it. Not in Europe anyway, and some of them have had it in place for decades. What has happened is that some places have introduced restrictive models, eg legislating for exceptional cases only, and then expanded into something like we're proposing. But that's completely different to what Splinter is claiming.

But as has been pointed out countless times before (so I don't know why Splinter hasn't seen it), in practice, when women who need an abortion can access it early, they will access it early.

Look at France, Sweden and the UK for example. France is on request up to 12 weeks, Sweden on request up to 18 weeks, and the UK on health grounds up 24 weeks. All different laws and timeframes, yet in each case, more than 90% of women have an abortion before 12 weeks. What's more, due to advances in medicine and changes in access to that medication, more and more abortions are happening earlier in the pregnancy. In the UK 81% of abortions in 2016 were before the 10th week. That's up from 68% in 2006, ten years earlier. In 2002 (the earliest I can find), it was 57%.

No matter what the laws actually say, the vast majority of abortions will happen within the first trimester. And due to medical advancements and increased access, that proportion will only go up, not down. Which, as an aside, is probably why none of our European neighbours are considering increasing the on-request timeframes.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Chips Lovell

Several posts deleted.

If you haven't done so already, please read the charter. Serious posts only please. No one-liners or bickering.

Thanks