8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1

ELM327

Richard Hillman wrote: »

.

Q1. Economic changes. Relationship issues. Doesn't like the sex of the baby. Many reasons.

Q2. I think some are nice and some are not nice.

All of which are a) possible and b) ALREADY HAPPENING.

A lot of Irish women receive abortions in the UK (nearly 4,000 last year).
If these could take place in Ireland they would take place at an earlier stage of development (eg 6-8 weeks not 12-16).

But. They. Still. Happen.

ELM327

RobertKK wrote: »

It is enshrined that abortion can happen in certain cases, there is not censorship of information if it is asked for, and women can't be stopped travelling because it is impracticable for starters.
It doesn't mean we have to go down the wrong road because others have.

They can, and were, stopped. Until the majority of the country approved the 12th and 13th amendment.

Since you have not answered my question, I will repost it.

ELM327 wrote: »

These rights are already enshrined in our constitution. See the 12th and 13th amendment. If that is your position why are you not campaigning for repeal of those 2 amendments (right to travel and to procure information on abortion).

RobertKK

ELM327 wrote: »

They can, and were, stopped. Until the majority of the country approved the 12th and 13th amendment.

Since you have not answered my question, I will repost it.

Like the 8th amendment, people voted for it to be the law of the land.

pjohnson

ELM327 wrote: »

Agreed. There was one poster , a mod (not of this forum, but still, you'd expect better), who seemed determined to argue with everyone. But we've left it at that. We are all on the one page, REPEAL.

#togetherforyes

That ilk of thinking he was using will do more harm than good. I presume it was him who started the "what about trans men" thing?

He is far too confrontational to help any repeal.

pitifulgod

RobertKK wrote: »

It is enshrined that abortion can happen in certain cases, there is not censorship of information if it is asked for, and women can't be stopped travelling because it is impracticable for starters.
It doesn't mean we have to go down the wrong road because others have.

Those who are unable to travel are the only people legally prevented from abortions. Them you've got the fact that they're happening regardless of legality. It's not a matter of being impracticable, Irish citizens view it as acceptable to travel for abortions. They have for decades. The fact that a woman can be prevented from having cancer treatments that will ultimately save their lives, indicates we went the wrong way in 83.

BabysCoffee

Richard Hillman wrote: »

.

Q1. Economic changes. Relationship issues. Doesn't like the sex of the baby. Many reasons.

Q2. I think some are nice and some are not nice.

Who are you to judge women?

ELM327

RobertKK wrote: »

Like the 8th amendment, people voted for it to be the law of the land.

Lets see on the 26th of May if that continues to be the case.

ELM327

pjohnson wrote: »

That ilk of thinking he was using will do more harm than good. I presume it was him who started the "what about trans men" thing?

He is far too confrontational to help any repeal.

+1
I'm quite argumentative and confrontational when someone is "wrong" - as part of my asperger's but he was taking it to a whole other level.

And I'd hate for someone like that to make the difference in favour of NO winning. It's going to be a close call referendum. A few votes here or there can make all the difference.

Fizzlesque

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Genuine question?

Why do you think of a <12 week pregnancy as a child?
What's your personal experience of pregnancy & children that brings you to that conclusion?

If you haven't already, (or for those reading along) try talking to the women in your life about it.

If you talked to me, I'd tell you that I have one child and I had a miscarriage at 11 weeks.

The miscarriage was deeply upsetting. It was a planned pregnancy, a wanted baby. . . I cried, I grieved, it took me months to recover.

Months, not years, not decades.
I know people who've lost children, they never recover.
Decades later it still affects them daily.

An 11 week foetus is not a child.

I'd like to add my story to this. I have given a child up for adoption and I've had a miscarriage. My daughter's adoption took place 29 years ago; the miscarriage occurred 20 years ago. I am psychologically and emotionally traumatised as a result of being separated from my daughter - something I struggle with on a daily basis, even all these years later. I rarely give a second thought to the miscarriage. They most definitely were not the same experiences.

RobertKK

BabysCoffee wrote: »

Who are you to judge women?

I don't see him judging women.

ELM327

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't see him judging women.

So when you tell a woman they cannot have a termination because of your " morals ", despite them making the decision themselves, that is not judging?

RobertKK

Fizzlesque wrote: »

I'd like to add my story to this. I have given a child up for adoption and I've had a miscarriage. My daughter's adoption took place 29 years ago; the miscarriage occurred 20 years ago. I am psychologically and emotionally traumatised as a result of being separated from my daughter - something I struggle with on a daily basis, even all these years later. I rarely give a second thought to the miscarriage. They most definitely were not the same experiences.

Just wondering, is that because down down you know there is a person out there hopefully still alive and leading a good life and the other died in pregnancy and you know that can't be unchanged, there is nothing you can do now?
You need not answer if you don't want to. Maybe you need to look for the child you gave up for adoption, maybe you have, but none of this needs be replied to as I understand it is personal and you are under no obligation to answer anything.

January

RobertKK wrote: »

Just wondering, is that because down down you know there is a person out there hopefully still alive and leading a good life and the other died in pregnancy and you know that can't be unchanged, there is nothing you can do now?
You need not answer if you don't want to. Maybe you need to look for the child you gave up for adoption, maybe you have, but none of this needs be replied to as I understand it is personal and you are under no obligation to answer anything.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

PlaneSpeeking

RobertKK wrote: »

ELM327 wrote: »

These rights are already enshrined in our constitution. See the 12th and 13th amendment. If that is your position why are you not campaigning for repeal of those 2 amendments (right to travel and to procure information on abortion).

It is enshrined that abortion can happen in certain cases, there is not censorship of information if it is asked for, and women can't be stopped travelling because it is impracticable for starters.
It doesn't mean we have to go down the wrong road because others have.

So if there was a practical way of preventing women from travelling you would take it ?

RobertKK

January wrote: »

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

You didn't see me acting this way when you wanted a full medical diagnosis when I posted something personal, I at least give people the option to not reply if they don't want to. Not hectored and all the rest of the crap I was subjected to.

January

RobertKK wrote: »

You didn't see me acting this way when you wanted a full medical diagnosis when I posted something personal, I at least give people the option to not reply if they don't want to. Not hectored and all the rest of the crap I was subjected to.

I simply asked you for the name of the condition your nephew was diagnosed with not his full medical diagnosis. You're assuming this woman is traumatised because she hasn't looked for the child she gave up for adoption (which you don't even know by the way). World of difference with what I asked and what you are assuming.

PlaneSpeeking

RobertKK wrote: »

January wrote: »

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

You didn't see me acting this way when you wanted a full medical diagnosis when I posted something personal, I at least give people the option to not reply if they don't want to. Not hectored and all the rest of the crap I was subjected to.

At least you have a full medical diagnosis. Something you and your wonderful Amendment are denying me.

BabysCoffee

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't see him judging women.

You see no judgement when he says some women are nice and some are not?

RobertKK

January wrote: »

I simply asked you for the name of the condition your nephew was diagnosed with not his full medical diagnosis. You're assuming this woman is traumatised because she hasn't looked for the child she gave up for adoption (which you don't even know by the way). World of difference with what I asked and what you are assuming.

You assume wrong, I asked and said maybe she did, you just look for an argument sometimes when there is no need for the hostility.
You think I remember really long medical conditions and why did you see it as your business to know? I said in the above case that no reply was needed if that is what she wanted to do, not badger someone for information as you tried. If what you did is fine, then go ask a doctor for medical information on someone who isn't related to you.

RobertKK

BabysCoffee wrote: »

You see no judgement when he says some women are nice and some are not?

Some men are nice and some aren't, it is a fact of life. It isn't a judgement, it would simply be naive to think all men or all women are nice.

gmisk

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/48c4b944-4f02-11e8-9812-5f003d09c84c
Yet more dirty tricks from the no side

Richard Hillman

Richard Hillman wrote: »

.

Q1. Economic changes. Relationship issues. Doesn't like the sex of the baby. Many reasons.

Q2. I think some are nice and some are not nice.

And what type of women have abortions, in your opinion?

Fizzlesque

RobertKK wrote: »

Just wondering, is that because down down you know there is a person out there hopefully still alive and leading a good life and the other died in pregnancy and you know that can't be unchanged, there is nothing you can do now?
You need not answer if you don't want to. Maybe you need to look for the child you gave up for adoption, maybe you have, but none of this needs be replied to as I understand it is personal and you are under no obligation to answer anything.

Hi Robert. I don't mind replying - I am very open about my daughter & how negatively affected I have been by our separation.

I don't need to look for my daughter because we have a semi-open adoption. This means I have been able to write to her, send gifts, receive photos and updates all along. I know she is living a good life and has always been well cared for. I'm still waiting for her to be ready to get to know me in person. I have to believe that day will eventually come.

The reason both experiences were so completely different to each other was because one pregnancy became my baby and the other pregnancy didn't. It really is a simple as that for me. A 'could have become a baby' and a 'did become a baby'.

I think people underestimate how painful it is to give birth to a baby and allow someone else become that child's mother - I certainly did before I made that choice. I had no idea it was going to be a lifelong grieving process. If a friend came to me and told me they were thinking of choosing adoption, I would strongly advise against it. Time doesn't heal all wounds - my experience of adoption has been that time continuously deepens the wound.

tigger123

gmisk wrote: »

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/48c4b944-4f02-11e8-9812-5f003d09c84c
Yet more dirty tricks from the no side

Unbelievable.

January

RobertKK wrote: »

You assume wrong, I asked and said maybe she did, you just look for an argument sometimes when there is no need for the hostility.
You think I remember really long medical conditions and why did you see it as your business to know? I said in the above case that no reply was needed if that is what she wanted to do, not badger someone for information as you tried. If what you did is fine, then go ask a doctor for medical information on someone who isn't related to you.

Again, giving the name of the diagnosis that your nephew has isn't looking for his medical information. You made a whole load of assumptions in that post about the poster who had a child who she adopted, saying she doesn't have to reply is a red herring. Don't make assumptions about other people and their experiences.

Moiratat

RobertKK wrote: »

The debate can't be about the hard cases when what is proposed is to replace the 8th with the majority of abortions being healthy women aborting healthy unborn.
The hard cases which are a very small percentage can't be used as a reason to go from one position where abortion is allowed in certain cases to abortion for any reason at all. From a position where all human life has a value, to where certain human life is disposable if desired because one can kill the unborn life rather than it being required.

My child was healthy, I was healthy. If my abuser did not have money to afford travel, he would have harmed me and my baby and if somehow we both survived that harm, my child would have had nothing, as I had nothing, we would have been homeless and my siblings would have suffered as there would have been no one to help my mother out of her addiction or to help them from the depression they had as children, it would've been very likely at least one of them would have committed suicide. All because I couldn't have afforded the travel. My case is not a hard case, do you know how the feeling of discovering you are pregnant and there is no chance of your child ever living a good life? Many girls in Ireland do, and it is exacerbated by the eighth forcing these girls to either take pills or go abroad or if they can't afford travel to have their child and live every day struggling and hating themselves for getting pregnant. These girls being healthy women with healthy babies but no means to care for them or uncontrollable situations they might be in.

gmisk

tigger123 wrote: »

Unbelievable.

They honestly have no shame whatsoever there is whole thread with lies associated with this campaign its pretty horrendous, the levels some people will scoop too.

amcalester

RobertKK wrote: »

Some men are nice and some aren't, it is a fact of life. It isn't a judgement, it would simply be naive to think all men or all women are nice.

It was the implication that women who have abortions are not nice that was judgemental.

RobertKK

Fizzlesque wrote: »

Hi Robert. I don't mind replying - I am very open about my daughter & how negatively affected I have been by our separation.

I don't need to look for my daughter because we have a semi-open adoption. This means I have been able to write to her, send gifts, receive photos and updates all along. I know she is living a good life and has always been well cared for. I'm still waiting for her to be ready to get to know me in person. I have to believe that day will eventually come.

The reason both experiences were so completely different to each other was because one pregnancy became my baby and the other pregnancy didn't. It really is a simple as that for me. A 'could have become a baby' and a 'did become a baby'.

I think people underestimate how painful it is to give birth to a baby and allow someone else become that child's mother - I certainly did before I made that choice. I had no idea it was going to be a lifelong grieving process. If a friend came to me and told me they were thinking of choosing adoption, I would strongly advise against it. Time doesn't heal all wounds - my experience of adoption has been that time continuously deepens the wound.

Thank you, I can understand some of that, and then is more I would have to experience to understand. I did a DNA test a couple of years ago, one of those you see advertised, I had a person contact me who was adopted, living in the US, around a 3rd cousin, but I couldn't really help him as I couldn't find the actual connection to help him. I do understand it can be difficult for both the woman who gives up for the baby for adoption, and for the person who was adopted. I won't pretend I understand it like you do, so thank you for sharing.

RobertKK

amcalester wrote: »

It was the implication that women who have abortions are not nice that was judgemental.

I saw it as a more a general opinion on women, which one can apply to men just as equally.

ELM327

RobertKK wrote: »

I saw it as a more a general opinion on women, which one can apply to men just as equally.

For all the men who get abortions too?
Come off it.

Sofiztikated

Moiratat wrote: »

My child was healthy, I was healthy. If my abuser did not have money to afford travel, he would have harmed me and my baby and if somehow we both survived that harm, my child would have had nothing, as I had nothing, we would have been homeless and my siblings would have suffered as there would have been no one to help my mother out of her addiction or to help them from the depression they had as children, it would've been very likely at least one of them would have committed suicide. All because I couldn't have afforded the travel. My case is not a hard case, do you know how the feeling of discovering you are pregnant and there is no chance of your child ever living a good life? Many girls in Ireland do, and it is exacerbated by the eighth forcing these girls to either take pills or go abroad or if they can't afford travel to have their child and live every day struggling and hating themselves for getting pregnant. These girls being healthy women with healthy babies but no means to care for them or uncontrollable situations they might be in.

Robert keeps banging on about the hard cases. We've given him countless examples of everyday women and the effect the 8th has on them.

Rob and his wife's struggles to bring a child to term.
Your abuse.
My wife's missed miscarriage.
That new posters dealings with adoption.
January's decision to have an abortion to continue support to her existing family.
The countless In Her Shoes stories.

But he'll continue to spout dribble, and say no, and judging people for their reasons.

RobertKK

January wrote: »

Again, giving the name of the diagnosis that your nephew has isn't looking for his medical information. You made a whole load of assumptions in that post about the poster who had a child who she adopted, saying she doesn't have to reply is a red herring. Don't make assumptions about other people and their experiences.

You just look for arguments sometimes.

amcalester

RobertKK wrote: »

I saw it as a more a general opinion on women, which one can apply to men just as equally.

Outside of any context I’d agree, some people are nice and some aren’t.

But in the context of not trusting women, the right to an abortion being abused, women claiming depression to access abortion after 12 weeks etc, I think it’s pretty clear what he meant.

Sofiztikated

RobertKK wrote: »

You just look for arguments sometimes.

She's not wrong though.

Billy86

It seems this is getting some attention on US TV as well.

Sofiztikated

Billy86 wrote: »

It seems this is getting some attention on US TV as well.

Been posted already.

Making yer man Barrett travel to London was a wee touch of genius. Comedy Central has toned Jim Jeffries down a bit, but he hasn't lost any wit.

Richard Hillman

bubblypop wrote: »

And what type of women have abortions, in your opinion?

Some nice women, some bad women

Billy86

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Been posted already.

Making yer man Barrett travel to London was a wee touch of genius. Comedy Central has toned Jim Jeffries down a bit, but he hasn't lost any wit.

Apologies, hadn't seen it until it popped up on my FB feed a half hour or so back. Just noticed it's about 2-3 weeks old when I checked there.

mohawk

Mrsmum wrote: »

I'm really not getting drawn into the crazy dramatics around here so don't think it's gonna happen folks. Consider this my answer to all like minded replys. Jeez even poor Joey the parrot quickly realised you better not say a thing the mob don't like and he was on the same side and actually I thought he made a reasonable point.
I am saying that of course medical personnel here have to check if a patient is pregnant before administering treatment. That's common sense for the medical people to cover their legal asses like that same as they do in every country because when push comes to shove they would very quickly be sued if the treatment they gave a woman harmed her foetus. On a previous post someone said she regularly lies to them so therefore they'd be mad to just believe someone if the treatment is such that it would harm a foetus.

Possibly my post you are referring to and I didn't say I regularly lie. I have said I have lied about my last period to get treatment in the past. I lied because I knew I definitely, definitely 100% wasn't pregnant. I did it because if you are honest and say no period for 2 months but I know I am not pregnant as have not had sex in forever. They don't believe you. Especially annoying if you are seeing a Doctor who knows you have a messed up cycle.

I understand perfectly why medical professionals ask the question. They are correct to do so. We don't test new drugs on pregnant women so we mostly don't know if a drug causes harm to a foetus. I agree perfectly with asking the question. If I am asked are you pregnant and I say there isn't a chance then I should be believed. If I thought I could possibly be pregnant then I would say so.

Speaking to my female friends quite a number of them have done similar.

RobertKK

Moiratat wrote: »

My child was healthy, I was healthy. If my abuser did not have money to afford travel, he would have harmed me and my baby and if somehow we both survived that harm, my child would have had nothing, as I had nothing, we would have been homeless and my siblings would have suffered as there would have been no one to help my mother out of her addiction or to help them from the depression they had as children, it would've been very likely at least one of them would have committed suicide. All because I couldn't have afforded the travel. My case is not a hard case, do you know how the feeling of discovering you are pregnant and there is no chance of your child ever living a good life? Many girls in Ireland do, and it is exacerbated by the eighth forcing these girls to either take pills or go abroad or if they can't afford travel to have their child and live every day struggling and hating themselves for getting pregnant. These girls being healthy women with healthy babies but no means to care for them or uncontrollable situations they might be in.

You say you would be harmed, what is healthy about being harmed?

Are people stuck in a cycle when it comes to people in general who are stuck in a life of never having a good life which you refer to? I know people may not want to leave their community, their family, their friends but if their life is going to be bad, what is done to try and change it? This refers to men as well, it is not about pregnant women.

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Robert keeps banging on about the hard cases. We've given him countless examples of everyday women and the effect the 8th has on them.

Rob and his wife's struggles to bring a child to term.
Your abuse.
My wife's missed miscarriage.
That new posters dealings with adoption.
January's decision to have an abortion to continue support to her existing family.
The countless In Her Shoes stories.

But he'll continue to spout dribble, and say no, and judging people for their reasons.

Hard cases make bad law. It should be more nuanced, I listened to some of in her shoes stories, one was 'I wanted to keep the baby, I was 37, I so wanted to have the baby...' her partner didn't and despite a good job, she aborted. I'm sorry but that does nothing to encourage me to vote Yes.

People on the Yes side can stay in denial if they think 12 weeks unrestricted is good, it is what could lose you the referendum.

Sofiztikated

gmisk wrote: »

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/48c4b944-4f02-11e8-9812-5f003d09c84c
Yet more dirty tricks from the no side

*cricket noises*

You'll hear nowt from No posters regarding this.

RobertKK

Sofiztikated wrote: »

She's not wrong though.

She is wrong in my opinion and since it involved an issue that is personal to me, that is more important than what you think is right or wrong.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

People on the Yes side can stay in denial if they think 12 weeks unrestricted is good, it is what could lose you the referendum.

So basically like how gay adoptions could lose the same sex marriage referendum back in 2015 then.

RobertKK

Sofiztikated wrote: »

*cricket noises*

You'll hear nowt from No posters regarding this.

An article that is hidden behind a subscription?

pitifulgod

RobertKK wrote: »

I saw it as a more a general opinion on women, which one can apply to men just as equally.

We don't tend to judge the character of men when it comes to medical treatment.

swampgas

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Some nice women, some bad women

How bad would a man have to be before you think the state should remove his access to healthcare?

And would it be okay to deny healthcare to all men just because of a few bad apples?

Sofiztikated

RobertKK wrote: »

Hard cases make bad law. It should be more nuanced, I listened to some of in her shoes stories, one was 'I wanted to keep the baby, I was 37, I so wanted to have the baby...' her partner didn't and despite a good job, she aborted. I'm sorry but that does nothing to encourage me to vote Yes.

People on the Yes side can stay in denial if they think 12 weeks unrestricted is good, it is what could lose you the referendum.

We've given you nuance, we've given you minute detail, we've given you facts, figures and statistics. But its never enough.

You say hard cases makes bad law, but where I'm looking from, the bad law is already there. And it looks like every case is a hard case, when presented to you.

And to be honest, a couple making a decision to have a child or not is their business. But of course it would be so much better if she went on to have that child, and he left her. I thought babies need a mammy and a daddy, based on your stance in SSM referendum.

And what do you have to say about yet more lies from the No side?

PlaneSpeeking

mohawk wrote: »

Mrsmum wrote: »

I'm really not getting drawn into the crazy dramatics around here so don't think it's gonna happen folks. Consider this my answer to all like minded replys. Jeez even poor Joey the parrot quickly realised you better not say a thing the mob don't like and he was on the same side and actually I thought he made a reasonable point.
I am saying that of course medical personnel here have to check if a patient is pregnant before administering treatment. That's common sense for the medical people to cover their legal asses like that same as they do in every country because when push comes to shove they would very quickly be sued if the treatment they gave a woman harmed her foetus. On a previous post someone said she regularly lies to them so therefore they'd be mad to just believe someone if the treatment is such that it would harm a foetus.

Possibly my post you are referring to and I didn't say I regularly lie. I have said I have lied about my last period to get treatment in the past. I lied because I knew I definitely, definitely 100% wasn't pregnant. I did it because if you are honest and say no period for 2 months but I know I am not pregnant as have not had sex in forever. They don't believe you. Especially annoying if you are seeing a Doctor who knows you have a messed up cycle.

I understand perfectly why medical professionals ask the question. They are correct to do so. We don't test new drugs on pregnant women so we mostly don't know if a drug causes harm to a foetus. I agree perfectly with asking the question. If I am asked are you pregnant and I say there isn't a chance then I should be believed. If I thought I could possibly be pregnant then I would say so.

Speaking to my female friends quite a number of them have done similar.

I tried to lie and say I was a gay woman and therefore could not be pregnant. Didn't work and i didn't feel great.

But I was desperate.

Sofiztikated

RobertKK wrote: »

She is wrong in my opinion and since it involved an issue that is personal to me, that is more important than what you think is right or wrong.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

The irony of you posting that is just delicious.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.