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

January

RobertKK wrote: »

You just look for arguments sometimes.

No Robert Ive actually never looked for an argument from you or anyone else in any of the threads that have come up about repeal. What I have done is uncovered your untruth and judgement time and time again. That's not looking for an argument.

It's OK for you to belittle and judge my experience with abortion but not OK for me to question when you tell a story about your nephew being diagnosed with a heart condition. Double standards much.

Sofiztikated

RobertKK wrote: »

An article that is hidden behind a subscription?

Facebook has shut down an anti-abortion page that was posing as an extreme pro-choice group in the run-up to this month’s referendum.

The page cited the case of Alfie Evans, the British toddler with a degenerative brain disease who died on Saturday after his parents fought a legal battle to take him to Italy for treatment. “That’s why abortion is so important so that women are spared the heartbreak of having kids like Alfie #repealthe8th #herbody #herchoice”, the post said.

It comes amid calls for greater transparency on social media and online advertising. In recent weeks, pages run by anti-abortion activists have paid to boost social media posts presented as facts. The online advertisements are unregulated and do not appear to be linked to registered…

There's the first 3 paragraphs, which you would have been able to see as well.

PhoenixParker

is
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.

The 8th amendment didn't stop her making that decision. The story really highlights just how useless the 8th is as a tool to stop abortion.

The proposed legislation includes talking to a doctor and waiting three days. That chance to talk and think could well have been key to changing her mind.

There are a dozen things we can do to get women to choose options other then abortion like paying maternity leave at a rate above €235 for 26 weeks.

Retaining the 8th is, as the story illustrates, not one of them.

BabysCoffee

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Some nice women, some bad women

Are the really bad women the ones who have 2 abortions?

The Legend Of Kira

January wrote: »

https://www.facebook.com/ROSALimerick/videos/185621482084641/?sk=h_chr

It's not about religion tho'...

For some people it would be. They have a few public rosary rallies organised in different parts of the country to coincide with the referendum over the next week.

https://www.isfcc.org/rosary-rally

RobertKK

Sofiztikated wrote: »

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?

Most abortions are not what are posted about in this thread. People go for the hard cases.

Do people want to debate the marriage referendum again? I congratulated the Yes side when they won, I was not bitter which Yes will be if they lose in this referendum. I will not congratulate Yes if they win this referendum, as I don't condone killing human life needlessly which unrestricted abortion will allow.
The people who compare this referendum to the marriage referendum are going to be wrong.
What did sicken me on the day the marriage referendum was won is how a section of people on twitter on that very day moved onto abortion being next as if the two were comparable.

RobertKK

January wrote: »

No Robert Ive actually never looked for an argument from you or anyone else in any of the threads that have come up about repeal. What I have done is uncovered your untruth and judgement time and time again. That's not looking for an argument.

It's OK for you to belittle and judge my experience with abortion but not OK for me to question when you tell a story about your nephew being diagnosed with a heart condition. Double standards much.

You are a liar to say that, nothing more, nothing less.

I never personally discussed your experience, where have I discussed your actual abortion?
More lies.
You apologised to me for posting lies before when you falsely attributed something to me, then you went back and looked and saw I was correct.

PlaneSpeeking

RobertKK wrote: »

Sofiztikated wrote: »

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?

Most abortions are not what are posted about in this thread. People go for the hard cases.

Do people want to debate the marriage referendum again? I congratulated the Yes side when they won, I was not bitter which Yes will be if they lose in this referendum. I will not congratulate Yes if they win this referendum, as I don't condone killing human life needlessly which unrestricted abortion will allow.
The people who compare this referendum to the marriage referendum are going to be wrong.
What did sicken me on the day the marriage referendum was won is how a section of people on twitter on that very day moved onto abortion being next as if the two were comparable.

They are directly comparable.

I'm denied my right to healthcare because I am woman of a certain age.

My friend was denied the right to marry the man he loves because he a gay man.

Both are due to someone else's morality and their attempts to push that morality onto others.

ELM327

RobertKK wrote: »

Most abortions are not what are posted about in this thread. People go for the hard cases.

Do people want to debate the marriage referendum again? I congratulated the Yes side when they won, I was not bitter which Yes will be if they lose in this referendum. I will not congratulate Yes if they win this referendum, as I don't condone killing human life needlessly which unrestricted abortion will allow.
The people who compare this referendum to the marriage referendum are going to be wrong.
What did sicken me on the day the marriage referendum was won is how a section of people on twitter on that very day moved onto abortion being next as if the two were comparable.

They are similar, they are both human rights issues, as determined by the European Court of Human Rights. Both were issues where Ireland transgressed the rights of a minority - in SSM it was homosexuals and now it's women's right to healthcare and to the same rights to autonomy that we grant to corpses.

You and your ilk are dying out.
If this is not passed, we'll have a second referendum and outlaw misrepresentation, lies, doctored photos, and scaremongering. Not to mention a ban on outside interference.
That would render a near 100-0 yes win. If people were voting on the issue at hand.

ELM327

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

They are directly comparable.

I'm denied my right to healthcare because I am woman of a certain age.

My friend was denied the right to marry the man he loves because he a gay man.

Both are due to someone else's morality and their attempts to push that morality onto others.

+1
I think the last line really stands out as what we want here.
DO we want Devalera's Ireland of 1937, or a constitution that recognises an Ireland that grants the same rights to all of its citizens, regardless of creed, gender, sexuality, or anything else?

#togetherforYES

PS - on the gay marriage issue, I was of a similar viewpoint of RobertKK before the referendum, as mentioned before. But, while I may not like the idea of 2 men being together. What bloody business is it of mine? If they want to be (un)happy together who am I to stop them?
Should I try to regulate how/when Robert has intercourse with his husband/wife? No. It's not my business, end of.

January

So tell me this Robert, why would you deny me access to an abortion in my own country, if you're not judging me for it?

spookwoman

Mrsmum wrote: »

Sorry I just don't believe medical personnel are refusing to treat non pregnant women in order to protect a foetus that isn't there.
And it wasn't me either that introduced trans men.

Are you calling me a liar?
I had a bloody parotid tumor and I was told i could not have a scan that day because I couldn't remember when I last had my period. The type of tumor I had can turn to cancer and life expectancy rate are very low.
I'm on meds for other health issues and they mess with my periods, also one of my health issues gives me brain fog. If I were to get pregnant there is a good chance for miscarriage, there is a risk to my health and a high risk autism spectrum disorders in the child.
Tell me is it right to delay someones healthcare because someone at a desk thinks there is a chance I may be pregnant even though I know and have told them that I am 100% not pregnant.
Tell me is it right if I were to get pregnant to force me to have a child that has a good chance of having autism spectrum disorders and even passing on the same condition?
Tell me is it right to endanger my health to save I child I do not want

Sofiztikated

RobertKK wrote: »

Most abortions are not what are posted about in this thread. People go for the hard cases.

Do people want to debate the marriage referendum again? I congratulated the Yes side when they won, I was not bitter which Yes will be if they lose in this referendum. I will not congratulate Yes if they win this referendum, as I don't condone killing human life needlessly which unrestricted abortion will allow.
The people who compare this referendum to the marriage referendum are going to be wrong.
What did sicken me on the day the marriage referendum was won is how a section of people on twitter on that very day moved onto abortion being next as if the two were comparable.

What are most abortions? What makes them different to the experiences presented to you?

I don't particularly want your congratulations. I want you to get the **** out of the way of progress. Its not a game, or a competition to be won.

RobertKK

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

The irony of you posting that is just delicious.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

I haven't discussed with anyone here their personal experience of abortion. I discussed it generally.
I never tried to silence anyone discuss their personal experience, or question then on their abortion experience.
But I have seen the hostility for posting something that doesn't go with the general narrative that the Yes side here wants and how it goes...

SusieBlue

January wrote: »

So tell me this Robert, why would you deny me access to an abortion in my own country, if you're not judging me for it?

Your reason for doing so isn’t up to his personal standards so he can’t morally approve of it.
Come back to him with a better reason (maybe one where you’re minutes away from death?) and you might have better luck.

AnneFrank

ELM327 wrote: »

+1
I think the last line really stands out as what we want here.
DO we want Devalera's Ireland of 1937, or a constitution that recognises an Ireland that grants the same rights to all of its citizens, regardless of creed, gender, sexuality, or anything else?

#togetherforYES

PS - on the gay marriage issue, I was of a similar viewpoint of RobertKK before the referendum, as mentioned before. But, while I may not like the idea of 2 men being together. What bloody business is it of mine? If they want to be (un)happy together who am I to stop them?
Should I try to regulate how/when Robert has intercourse with his husband/wife? No. It's not my business, end of.

This makes you homophobic

ELM327

AnneFrank wrote: »

This makes you homophobic

I'm not afraid of them?

Stop diverting.
Another divert tactic by the godbotherers.

#getyourrosariesoffourovaries
#togetherforyes
#repealthe8th

SusieBlue

AnneFrank wrote: »

This makes you homophobic

That’s actually hilarious given your comments about trans people a couple of pages back.

PlaneSpeeking

RobertKK wrote: »

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

The irony of you posting that is just delicious.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

I haven't discussed with anyone here their personal experience of abortion. I discussed it generally.
I never tried to silence anyone discuss their personal experience, or question then on their abortion experience.
But I have seen the hostility for posting something that doesn't go with the general narrative that the Yes side here wants and how it goes...

Once again I respectfully ask you Robert - why are you so desperate to leave me and others like me in pain or at risk if death purely because you wish to dictate your morality to us?

Triceratops Ballet

Richard Hillman wrote:

This is not about 12 Weeks, this is abortion on demand with a little bit of red tape. For that reason, I will be voting no. 12 Weeks should have been proposed to enter the Constitution. There should also have been a proviso of holding a referendum in a few years time to reverse a potential Repeal. Give it a Trial run of 5-10 years, see if it's being abused and then vote again.

What would qualify as it being abused?

Do you think it's abhorrent that we went without the 8th amendment from 1937 to 1983? Even Dev didn't put it in the constitution and that's saying something.
Can you advise why the 8th is necessary in your eyes. Not in the context of abortion. Just the 8th amendment what does it do, why do we need it?

AnneFrank

SusieBlue wrote: »

That’s actually hilarious given your comments about trans people a couple of pages back.

My comments are factually correct

PlaneSpeeking

AnneFrank wrote: »

ELM327 wrote: »

+1
I think the last line really stands out as what we want here.
DO we want Devalera's Ireland of 1937, or a constitution that recognises an Ireland that grants the same rights to all of its citizens, regardless of creed, gender, sexuality, or anything else?

#togetherforYES

PS - on the gay marriage issue, I was of a similar viewpoint of RobertKK before the referendum, as mentioned before. But, while I may not like the idea of 2 men being together. What bloody business is it of mine? If they want to be (un)happy together who am I to stop them?
Should I try to regulate how/when Robert has intercourse with his husband/wife? No. It's not my business, end of.

This makes you homophobic

Really????? You went there ?

_Dara_

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

You're effectively saying that because the referendum terms aren't framed exactly as you want then you'll vote no. But honestly that always going to be the case - if you got your exact referendum then it wouldn't be the perfect fit for lots of other people.
This attitude is pretty much making it impossible to ever get this repealed. It's almost as if people (not necessarily you) are striving to find excuses to vote No with this 'oh, I'd love to vote yes and I agree with so much that yes is saying/aiming for but because of this one area of concern that doesn't quite suit me then I must reject everything and vote no'.

Great point. No piece of legislation can be tailored to each individual and voting No for that reason is irksome.

PlaneSpeeking

AnneFrank wrote: »

SusieBlue wrote: »

That’s actually hilarious given your comments about trans people a couple of pages back.

My comments are factually correct

No. They are anything but.

AnneFrank

ELM327 wrote: »

I'm not afraid of them?

Stop diverting.
Another divert tactic by the godbotherers.

#getyourrosariesoffourovaries
#togetherforyes
#repealthe8th

You said you don't like the idea of two men together not me, why not ?

ELM327

AnneFrank wrote: »

My comments are factually correct

As factually correct as any of the other fecal matter you lot come out with.
Yep.

1 in 5 of your posts (collectively for all the nos) are BS and the other 4 are insults

ELM327

AnneFrank wrote: »

You said you don't like the idea of two men together not me, why not ?

Are you able to read whole posts?

SusieBlue

AnneFrank wrote: »

My comments are factually correct

He would be homophobic if he had voted No for the reasons he mentioned.
Instead, he noted that it isn’t all about him and his beliefs, and voted Yes to allow other people their happiness even if he didn’t personally agree with their choices.

How did you vote in that referendum, Anne? If I remember correctly it was a No from you for that one as well.

ELM327

_Dara_ wrote: »

Great point. No piece of legislation can be tailored to each individual and voting No for that reason is irksome.

It's actually far worse than that, it's blocking women's healthcare.
SO it's actually dangerous.

AnneFrank

ELM327 wrote: »

As factually correct as any of the other fecal matter you lot come out with.
Yep.

1 in 5 of your posts (collectively for all the nos) are BS and the other 4 are insults

What's wrong with two men together? Why does it bother you ?

SusieBlue

AnneFrank wrote: »

What's wrong with two men together? Why does it bother you ?

How did you vote in that referendum?

Triceratops Ballet

Mrsmum wrote:

For me it depends on the seriousness of your sickness. It's a balancing act whereby the woman's life should never ever be at risk so if the pregnancy is downright dangerous to the woman, the doctor treating her should operate on the "as far as practicable" rule for the baby's life. The ideal is for yourself and your baby to be fine. All pregnant women suffer to a greater or lesser degree in order to produce offspring, it's part of the price we pay and it's usually worth it. I don't think it's right to end the baby's life because a woman is having a very tough pregnancy but as above if that tips over into real concern that's the point the doctor puts the woman first.

But what if she has an illness in addition to pregnancy? An illness like cancer where the treatment will harm the baby?

Do you think that women currently choose abortion because the pregnancy is tough? I

ELM327

SusieBlue wrote: »

He would be homophobic if he had voted No for the reasons he mentioned.
Instead, he noted that it isn’t all about him and his beliefs, and voted Yes to allow other people their happiness even if he didn’t personally agree with their choices.

How did you vote in that referendum, Anne? If I remember correctly it was a No from you for that one as well.

Bang on.
And I'd attribute my negative reactions to my anti-gay upbringing, which was lead by the catholic church.

AnneFrank

SusieBlue wrote: »

How did you vote in that referendum?

I have no problems with gay people at all, not like elm,it seems to repulse him

Infernum

Semi in-the-know here. Not to sound defeatist in any way, but what happens if the referendum goes in the pro-life movement's favour?

Sofiztikated

RobertKK wrote: »

I haven't discussed with anyone here their personal experience of abortion. I discussed it generally.
I never tried to silence anyone discuss their personal experience, or question then on their abortion experience.
But I have seen the hostility for posting something that doesn't go with the general narrative that the Yes side here wants and how it goes...

Oh oh oh, I'm being silenced.

The rattle of the No Voter.

We've given you heartbreaking detail as to why the 8th stands in the way, and as such, you with it. And when this is repeatedly pointed out, come back with "I'm being attacked"

We're never going to convince each other, but knock off the ****e of playing the victim. You LITERALLY have the country and the Constitution on your side at the moment.

ELM327

AnneFrank wrote: »

What's wrong with two men together? Why does it bother you ?

Already addressed, and irrelevant to the issue at hand.
I voted yes in SSM and YES/REPEAL on the 25th of may.

You lot generally vote no in everything.
NO to progress
NO to equality
NO to women's rights
NO to gays
NO to condoms
NO to the pill
NO to reform

RobertKK

Sofiztikated wrote: »

What are most abortions? What makes them different to the experiences presented to you?

I don't particularly want your congratulations. I want you to get the **** out of the way of progress. Its not a game, or a competition to be won.

Most abortions in England are healthy women abortion healthy unborn lives, because they put career, their lifestyle etc ahead of the unborn life which is viewed as a problem, which would say there is something wrong in society when new life is seen as something bad.

In the future, the pro-life side will be viewed like the anti-capital punishment side is - progressive and abortion supporting advocates will be on the wrong side of history.

ELM327

AnneFrank wrote: »

I have no problems with gay people at all, not like elm,it seems to repulse him

Why'd you vote no so?
You had a hissy fit the last time I linked to your previous posts.
But let's just say it's pretty clear you voted no, and have issues with the gays and the trans.

Infernum wrote: »

Semi in-the-know here. Not to sound defeatist in any way, but what happens if the referendum goes in the pro-life movement's favour?

There will probably be another referendum. Pretty soon after, as the ECHR has stated Ireland's laws on the matter transgress human rights.

Essentially it's a "Vote yes now, or vote yes in a few months" kinda deal.

AnneFrank

ELM327 wrote: »

Already addressed, and irrelevant to the issue at hand.
I voted yes in SSM and YES/REPEAL on the 25th of may.

You lot generally vote no in everything.
NO to progress
NO to equality
NO to women's rights
NO to gays
NO to condoms
NO to the pill
NO to reform

Divert divert divert.you said it elm not me,and then blamed the church.Laughable

Billy86

ELM327 wrote: »

Are you able to read whole posts?

Well it might make you somewhat homophobic, but if it does it also by default you are both homophobic and tolerant. Everyone has their own biases and areas of discrimination and they run far more like a gradient than a homophobic/not homophobic (or sexist/not sexist, racist/not racist, etc) switch, but what's most important is to not have that impact upon others.

I would reckon that "But, while I may not like the idea of 2 men being together. What bloody business is it of mine? If they want to be (un)happy together who am I to stop them?" plants you pretty firmly in the bracket of having some prejudices against gay people (or homosexuality in general) but not wanting those to impact on the lives of said gay people, and personally I am fine with that.

What I, and many others (yourself included I would assume) are not fine with is people who think they have a right to f*** with other peoples lives, damage their careers, damage their relationships, damage their mental health, and put their physical health and even very lives at risk simply because of their own prejudices. Because that's utterly disgusting, and a truth that the anti-repeal crowd simply do not want to face... hence all the attempts to sidetrack the conversation, answer questions that were never asked rather than those that were, etc etc.

ELM327

AnneFrank wrote: »

Divert divert divert.you said it elm not me,and then blamed the church.Laughable

Calm down there love.
XOXO

RobertKK

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Oh oh oh, I'm being silenced.

The rattle of the No Voter.

We've given you heartbreaking detail as to why the 8th stands in the way, and as such, you with it. And when this is repeatedly pointed out, come back with "I'm being attacked"

We're never going to convince each other, but knock off the ****e of playing the victim. You LITERALLY have the country and the Constitution on your side at the moment.

Did I say I was silenced? I know some would like to and I get reported, but I will not claim I was silenced, which is different to people wanting someone silenced.

You have the establishment on your side and some Fair City actors and some actors/actresses, and U2 and some other musicians and most of the media and all the political leaders, but lets see how it goes in the referendum?

PlaneSpeeking

RobertKK wrote: »

Sofiztikated wrote: »

What are most abortions? What makes them different to the experiences presented to you?

I don't particularly want your congratulations. I want you to get the **** out of the way of progress. Its not a game, or a competition to be won.

Most abortions in England are healthy women abortion healthy unborn lives, because they put career, their lifestyle etc ahead of the unborn life which is viewed as a problem, which would say there is something wrong in society when new life is seen as something bad.

In the future, the pro-life side will be viewed like the anti-capital punishment side is - progressive and abortion supporting advocates will be on the wrong side of history.

Oh sweet Jesus.

Still no reply to me Robert ? I'm a "nice" woman so feel free. Ahem.

AnneFrank

ELM327 wrote: »

Calm down there love.
XOXO

Haha ok buddy ðŸ‘

RobertKK

RobertKK wrote: »

Most abortions in England are healthy women abortion healthy unborn lives, because they put career, their lifestyle etc ahead of the unborn life which is viewed as a problem, which would say there is something wrong in society when new life is seen as something bad.

In the future, the pro-life side will be viewed like the anti-capital punishment side is - progressive and abortion supporting advocates will be on the wrong side of history.

Well, I do think you are very wrong on your second point, but that's my opinion.

In general, I understand your pro life stance, & I respect it to the extent that you are, at least, consistent. You appear to put the unborn above everything else, & consistently. So, not a hypocrite.
However, I do not remember any pro life movement to repeal the 13th & 14th amendments. Ever. Why is it that the prolife side just want to keep abortion out of Ireland? Even though the women have constitutional rights to information & travel for terminations?

RobertKK

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Once again I respectfully ask you Robert - why are you so desperate to leave me and others like me in pain or at risk if death purely because you wish to dictate your morality to us?

I vote with my conscience, not your conscience, not someone else's conscience, my own, I will not vote for something I disagree with because someone else says I must. Yes voters will act the same way, that is democracy.

You are not left at the risk of death, which a former chairman of the institute of obstetricians and gynaecologists denied happens and who said he carried out 4 abortions under the 8th amendment to save lives and women aren't left to die.
With Savita, it was really bad management and extremely slow to diagnose sepsis.
Abortion being legal doesn't stop women dying. Bad practice and management is what leads to death.

Sofiztikated

RobertKK wrote: »

Most abortions in England are healthy women abortion healthy unborn lives, because they put career, their lifestyle etc ahead of the unborn life which is viewed as a problem, which would say there is something wrong in society when new life is seen as something bad.

In the future, the pro-life side will be viewed like the anti-capital punishment side is - progressive and abortion supporting advocates will be on the wrong side of history.

Absolutely no one is saying that procreation isn't important. As I've said before, riding is great Craic, and people will still get pregnant, both planned and crisis, but for the ones that don't want to remain pregnant, there are already options open to them. But those options should be safe, and available in this country.

And no, the prolife side won't. They haven't yet, and the world already looks at them as bring a bit touched.

Moiratat

RobertKK wrote: »

Most abortions in England are healthy women abortion healthy unborn lives, because they put career, their lifestyle etc ahead of the unborn life which is viewed as a problem, which would say there is something wrong in society when new life is seen as something bad.

In the future, the pro-life side will be viewed like the anti-capital punishment side is - progressive and abortion supporting advocates will be on the wrong side of history.

Maybe they are considering what is best for THEIR child, a women who has other children to feed who might not be able to support another, a girl in college or secondary school who still lives at home and might not even have a job yet, a woman in an abusive relationship, a woman who is homeless, would you force these women to have children despite them deciding themselves that they don't want to struggle to rise many children but wants every child she has to have the best opportunity in life, or she might want to have experienced more in life before she can raise a child, or someone that's wants to be able to guarantee to themselves their child will have an actual safe home to live in.

spookwoman

RobertKK wrote: »

I vote with my conscience, not your conscience, not someone else's conscience, my own, I will not vote for something I disagree with because someone else says I must. Yes voters will act the same way, that is democracy.......
.

But by voting no you are saying to others they must do as you say