The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Guy:Incognito

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Again its not a question of men trying to control women. Many women will be voting No.

Where did I say men? Some women are just as capable of wanting to control the choices of other women as some men.

Nobody, man or woman, should have or want to have a say in the health care or someone else that isn't their partner or someone they are responsible for

Sheeps

We don't trust judges with the decision of being able to take someone's life, why should we give this power to every woman?

minikin

URGENT PRESS RELEASE
OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT NOTICE

Due to the overwhelming turnout expected, an additional day has been set aside for polling.

To expedite the count we ask that all NO votes be cast on Friday 25th May and all YES votes be cast on Saturday 26th May (between 7am and 10am on both days).

Sincerely yours,
Leo
(so ye know it's true lads!)

nullzero

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

You keep saying your ok with abortions but not abortion on demand

All that points to is that you don't trust women to make the best decision in their circumstances and you think you can decide better for then by just telling them no

I don't think it's logical to say that somebody should be trusted because of their gender.

All your posts point to is that any nuanced opinion would appear to be too complex for you to grasp.

Digital_Guy

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Who is advocating abortions at any stage without reason?

I havnt seen anyone advocate late term abortions for anyone where there isn't ffa.

Even cases involving suicidal women everything I've seen has been people saying if it's past the stage of viability the baby will be delivered, albeit early.

Well you're not going to like this at all then:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/17/abortion-rate-england-and-wales-five-year-high

A majority of abortions (55%) are now carried out medically (with a pill), and that has increased the numbers being carried out before 10 weeks. Some 40% involve a form of surgery called vacuum aspiration.

This week the Royal College of Midwives was accused of backing a campaign by pro-choice groups to decriminalise termination, including removing the legal time limit of 24 weeks for most abortions, without consulting members.

The union, which represents the UK’s 30,000 midwives, said it was “a longstanding supporter of the right of women to have choice over their fertility and over all aspects of their maternity care. This includes the right to choose whether or not to have a baby.”

It added: “The RCM recommends that abortion procedures are regulated in the same way as all other procedures relating to a woman’s healthcare.” But it reitereated its “belief that abortion should be removed from the scope of the criminal law. We do not believe that it is right that it is still the case that women who choose to have an abortion can be criminalised and face prison.”

nullzero

DubInMeath wrote: »

Attitude, insulting attitude such as the op I quoted from you, a little petty insulting one line to someone who has a different opinion.

If you don't see it that's your issue not mine. Good night to ya, got to be in work for 5 in the morning better things to be doing.

So you can insult me by saying I need to get over some made up personal problems with women?
I'm not insulting anyone, I keep pushing to get my point across which I'm entitled to. If I had been insulting people I would have been thread banned by now.

Guy:Incognito

Sheeps wrote: »

We don't trust judges with the decision of being able to take someone's life, why should we give this power to every woman?

I havnt heard any people that are against capital punishment say it's because they don't trust judges.

But if were going down that road, why trust them with anything.?or jury's for that matter?

Shurimgreat

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Did you not post links earlier on how men have been known to force women to have abortions? Wasn't that you framing your arguement as "men controlling women"?

Yes i said that. I am opposed to men controlling women.

But this referendum is not about men controlling women. Many women are voting no.

Do you understand?

Sheeps

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I havnt heard any people that are against capital punishment say it's because they don't trust judges.

This power is not granted to anyone else in the state.

Guy:Incognito

Digital_Guy wrote: »

Well you're not going to like this at all then:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/17/abortion-rate-england-and-wales-five-year-high

A majority of abortions (55%) are now carried out medically (with a pill), and that has increased the numbers being carried out before 10 weeks. Some 40% involve a form of surgery called vacuum aspiration.

This week the Royal College of Midwives was accused of backing a campaign by pro-choice groups to decriminalise termination, including removing the legal time limit of 24 weeks for most abortions, without consulting members.

The union, which represents the UK’s 30,000 midwives, said it was “a longstanding supporter of the right of women to have choice over their fertility and over all aspects of their maternity care. This includes the right to choose whether or not to have a baby.”

It added: “The RCM recommends that abortion procedures are regulated in the same way as all other procedures relating to a woman’s healthcare.” But it reitereated its “belief that abortion should be removed from the scope of the criminal law. We do not believe that it is right that it is still the case that women who choose to have an abortion can be criminalised and face prison.”

Of course anti abortion groups are going to claim that. That's why the groups exist in the first place. To claim everything to do with abortions is wrong and evil and anyone that isn't anti abortion in all cases is hell bent on genocide.

It completely undermines the women involved.

Why is it that you think there are all these women out there that are perfectly happy to be pregnant for 6 months then just decide they want an abortion?

SusieBlue

pone2012 wrote: »

Again with the not reading... is there some reason you can't read my posts??

I said post was veiled with a feminist curtain.. do you understand the difference?... And the only reason I did say that is because of what you said about control... that's unfounded, untrue and nonsense if the highest order

Well seeing as we’re being condescending to each other, yes hun, I can read.

The point I was making was that in the post previous to that, I said that many of the men throwing around the word feminist/feminazi as an insult are the ones who only seem to be concerned with women aborting without their permission.

You then went on to refer to what I said as veiled with a feminist curtain. Irony.

nullzero

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Of course anti abortion groups are going to claim that. That's why the groups exist in the first place. To claim everything to do with abortions is wrong and evil and anyone that isn't anti abortion in all cases is hell bent on genocide.

The article states it is based on official figures.

Digital_Guy

If this comes in I surely do hope we are different to the Brits:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/20/abortion-is-part-of-our-calling-says-royal-college-of-midwives-c/

No morality, no care for the unborn who doesn't even come into the equation.

But in the UK, with pregnancy safer than ever yet terminations close to record levels – almost 186,000 in England and Wales last year – many midwives might, she acknowledged, look at abortion “through a rather different lens”.

And amid one of the most emotive of all current great ethical debates, morality should simply not, come into it for most midwives, she insisted. “It’s not our job really to say anything about the rights and wrongs of abortion.”

But are there situations in which an abortion could be seen as “wrong”? “Well, I would say no,” she says flatly. “At the end of the day, if you are a woman and you are pregnant you are going to have to make a decision about your pregnancy that you’re going to have to live with for the rest of your life, so why should I say that’s wrong?”

She is equally unequivocal that arguments about the “right” of the unborn child do not come into it. “The woman is the person who has rights within the framework that we currently practise in and I think we have to focus on the woman.”

Hotblack Desiato

Bunny Colvin wrote: »

Hell's Angel. Its a pity there isn't a heaven for Hitchens' to go to.

A truly vile person, but when she fetched up on the Late Late Show in the 80s and 90s Ireland fawned unquestioningly over her.

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."

And she did her very best to perpetuate the suffering of poor people, by opposing contraception and doing nothing for the sick. She was only interested in the dying, hoping to convert them on their deathbeds to catholicism.

While she gathered many millions in donations for "the poor" which she channeled to the gilded Vatican. While she instructed her nuns in Calcutta to reuse needles until they were blunt, when she flew on corporate jets to private clinics in the US for her own treatment. While she cosied up to the most odious right-wing figures in the US, including fraudsters like Charles Keating, and brutal dictators like Duvalier in Haiti - the poorest nation in the western hemisphere but he lived like a king and donated to MT.

Allegedly Hitch wanted to call the book Sacred Cow but his publisher made him settle for The Missionary Position

Naturally, because she cared not a whit for the suffering of born people, she was a passionate anti-abortion activist.

antiskeptic

Digital_Guy wrote: »

??

The abortion rate increased from less than 3% to over 20% since the year abortion was legalised? I'm just asking you to tell us how abortion rates decrease after it's introduced, that's all?

And you can also see that when the culture changes you get to the point where midwives - midwives - are advocating for abortion at any stage of pregnancy. Incredible

Its a bit more dramatic than that.


Legal abortions had be running at a baseline of around 20,000 per annum.

1968 is when the law went into drive mode

25k in 1968
55k in 1969
91k in 1970
133k in 1971
167k in 1972


We've nothing to worry about!

SusieBlue

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

Again lack of control over the situation. Down playing it so much. These are our sons and daughters we are talking about once again. The situation is whether or not a woman wants to abort their child. It's not a nice situation if it's a one night stand of whatever. Maybe the Catholic church were right all along. Wait til you're married.

And I’m not disputing that at all, it’s a very legitimate concern.
The point I’m making is that for a lot of male No voters it appears to be their ONLY concern.

Zubeneschamali

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Realistically, how often do you think it happens?

I'd say it's a realistic concern for Sir Wanksalot.

cournioni

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

All that points to is that you don't trust women to make the best decision in their circumstances and you think you can decide better for then by just telling them no

The viewpoint that most Yes voters can not grasp is this view from a lot of people:

Killing baby inside the womb is the same as killing a premature baby outside of the womb. They will wonder why one is acceptable and the other completely unacceptable?

sideswipe

Thankfully all the talking is almost done.

Time to exercise your right to vote for whatever you believe is right. Hopefully whatever the result a high turnout will conclusively show the people have spoken.

I have hated the polarisation of this referendum- if you're a 'No' you're part of some lunatic fringe. If you're yes you believe in killing healthy babies. There has been little room in the middle or slightly left or right of centre for that matter.

Whatever the result tomorrow I just hope there is no mass celebrations and hoisting people up on shoulders from either side, respect and decorium would be far more fitting. There will be genuine hurt felt by people tomorrow depending on their perspective and beliefs, we own it too each other not to lord it up and rub salt in wounds.

Try_harder

cournioni wrote: »

The viewpoint that most Yes voters can not grasp is this view from a lot of people:

Killing baby inside the womb is the same as killing a premature baby outside of the womb. They will wonder why one is acceptable and the other completely unacceptable?

a 12 week old foetus wouldn't survive outside the womb, so not the same thing at all.

Guy:Incognito

nullzero wrote: »

I don't think it's logical to say that somebody should be trusted because of their gender.

I never said they should. I was quite clear that when it's men that will get pregnant and possibly have abortions, then they can be trusted to make the decisions in their cases too.

It's you that thinks there's all these woman that just want to get pregnant so they can abort against the wishes of the father.

Let's be honest here. You know full well in the vast vast majority of cases (I'm allowing a bit for your scenario) that any decision is discussed by the couple.

People is healthy relationships don't just go on solo runs about important decisions like this completely against the will of their partner.

pleas advice

Digital_Guy wrote: »

And amid one of the most emotive of all current great ethical debates, morality should simply not, come into it for most midwives, she insisted. “It’s not our job really to say anything about the rights and wrongs of abortion.”

But are there situations in which an abortion could be seen as “wrong”? “Well, I would say no,” she says flatly. “At the end of the day, if you are a woman and you are pregnant you are going to have to make a decision about your pregnancy that you’re going to have to live with for the rest of your life, so why should I say that’s wrong?”

She is equally unequivocal that arguments about the “right” of the unborn child do not come into it. “The woman is the person who has rights within the framework that we currently practise in and I think we have to focus on the woman.”

whats the problem with that? #CHOICE #TRUST

/s

Yester

I've given it a lot of thought and I will be voting tomorrow.

Wrongway1985

Mam of 4 wrote: »

We have not had one knock at the door , from either side.

Obviously our opinions aren't worth asking about either .

Nobody called to mine either. Probably better off at someonelses door anyway.

I've been listening to the calls on issues of the eighth from only one side over the years...that was always the side I was going to help.

So I was a soft Yes at the start to will now be gutted if it doesn't pull through.

Guy:Incognito

cournioni wrote: »

The viewpoint that most Yes voters can not grasp is this view from a lot of people:

Killing baby inside the womb is the same as killing a premature baby outside of the womb. They will wonder why one is acceptable and the other completely unacceptable?

And the view that no voters don't grasp is that not everyone shares their view. But currently everyone is bound by their view.

Abortion will never be mandatory. So at no stage will no voters have to have one or be involved.

Paranoid Bob

Yester wrote: »

I've given it a lot of thought and I will be voting tomorrow.

Great answer. Me too.

Zubeneschamali

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I'd be interested to know what their next crusade might be.

Unisex toilets, yoga pants, euthanasia, compulsory vests for men.

cournioni

Try_harder wrote: »

a 12 week old foetus wouldn't survive outside the womb, so not the same thing at all.

You’re still killing a growing living being inside the womb though. Outside of issues such as FFA, rape victims etc. this will strike a nerve with most people outside the Yes camp, including myself.

Guy:Incognito

Digital_Guy wrote: »

Or the prospect of a 7 or 8 month old baby being aborted.

Who has advocated for that outside of ffa?

This is the horse**** peddled to muddy the waters Nd sway undecided people.

Zubeneschamali

Digital_Guy wrote: »

If someone has been raped, all they should need to do is sign a document to that effect. That's it, no questions asked.

Abortion on demand! Floodgates! Hussies too lazy to use contraception (which is a sin anyhow, but...)

dudara

Digital_Guy wrote: »

Nothing at all if you're ok with a culture of abortion and more and more babies not having the right you enjoyed to be born I guess. Or the prospect of a 7 or 8 month old baby being aborted.

Honestly, stop the nonsense. A 7 or 8 month old foetus will be past the age of viability and will not be aborted. The pregnancy will be terminated through other means, if needed.

AMKC

So has everyone made their mind up on what way they are voting? Its 7 and a half hours till the voting stations open and I am still undecided but am leaning one way more than the other and a part of me just wants to spoil my vote with a line in the middle of the page. This is the first time since I have been able to vote in 20 years that I find the whole thing very boring, uninteresting and do not have a problem if people do or do not vote. It is the first time I have thought about spoiling my vote. I will sleep on it and decide tomorrow whenever I vote.

murpho999

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Its their personal choice if they want to travel abroad for socio-economic reasons.

I would be in favour of "treating" for want of a better term the small number of unfortunate cases around rape, FFA etc here in Ireland. No problem with abortion in these limited circumstances.

The problem starts with abortion on demand which has the potential to be badly misused and over-used to the point it become as easy as getting a prescription from your GP.

It's not their personal choice to travel abroad for social economic reasons.

The 8th amendment forces them to travel abroad if they need an abortion.

Your rape proposals are unworkable as rape cannot be proven.

How can it be viewed as compassionate to force a rape victim to prove her pregnancy is a result of rape?

Also, how would you stop non rape victims who want an abortion from claiming they have been raped?

Stop referring to it as abortion on demand as no woman take's the decision lightly and to imply so is insulting.

I fail to see how it can be misused or abused.

I'm looking forward to seeing your posts on Saturday as I'm very confident that Yes will win and your arguments won't come to any fruition, thankfully.

Zubeneschamali

Trasna1 wrote: »

Less than 10k like divorce and the poll will almost certainly be found invalid.

You need more than a low number, you need some actual evidence.



And young wans taking selfies in Bangkok airport in repeal tshirts is not evidence of illegal voting.

Cupcake_Crisis

cournioni wrote: »

The viewpoint that most Yes voters can not grasp is this view from a lot of people:

Killing baby inside the womb is the same as killing a premature baby outside of the womb. They will wonder why one is acceptable and the other completely unacceptable?

If that’s the case why when I was told I was miscarrying was I sent home to “wait for it to pass”? Why didn’t they intervene?

Digital_Guy

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Who has advocated for that outside of ffa?

This is the horse**** peddled to muddy the waters Nd sway undecided people.

It'd be great if people could actually read what's actually happening out there instead of just firing out the two line responses on Boards.

This is what's afoot in the UK: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/20/abortion-is-part-of-our-calling-says-royal-college-of-midwives-c/

I like to think Ireland is different, but is it? I would hope so, if this carries!

Greysquirel09

SusieBlue wrote: »

And I’m not disputing that at all, it’s a very legitimate concern.
The point I’m making is that for a lot of male No voters it appears to be their ONLY concern.

We'd all love everyone to take every bit of info into consideration when voting but that's never gonna happen. Everyone has different experiences.
On the flip side you have alot of Yes voters saying men shouldn't even have a vote on the issue.

antiskeptic

Try_harder wrote: »

a 12 week old foetus wouldn't survive outside the womb, so not the same thing at all.

Neither would a 4 year old kid, if you removed its life support.

nullzero

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

And the view that no voters don't grasp is that not everyone shares their view. But currently everyone is bound by their view.

Abortion will never be mandatory. So at no stage will no voters have to have one or be involved.

You just discounted official British figures in abortion rates as being produced by anti abortion groups.

cournioni

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

And the view that no voters don't grasp is that not everyone shares their view. But currently everyone is bound by their view.

Abortion will never be mandatory. So at no stage will no voters have to have one or be involved.

You’re still not grasping my point though, if you kill outside the womb it’s completely unacceptable right? Why is it acceptable inside the womb?

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

I think we all understood what was being said.

I really do not. I can respect enough there’s some context I’m lacking here from the nature of your post but I do not know what persons/incident/thing you’re speaking about. Please elaborate.

antiskeptic

Deedsie wrote: »

Please any no voters reconsider your position... It is so cruel to force a mother to carry a child that is incompatible with life as long as the babies heart keeps beating. The baby can't and won't survive. You are forcing people to travel to Britain to have an abortion and then carry the baby home to bury it in Ireland.

I have stayed out of these debates but this is too important to stay out entirely. Please vote yes tomorrow for heartbroken mothers and fathers and their baby that has no hope of survival. Give them some bit of relief and let them choose what is the right thing for them to do in their own country.

Please vote yes.

Ffa I'd welcome the chance to do something about.

But at the cost you're asking?

Not a chance

Guy:Incognito

AMKC wrote: »

So has everyone made their mind up on what way they are voting? Its 7 and a half hours till the voting stations open and I am still undecided but am leaning one way more than the other and a part of me just wants to spoil my vote with a line in the middle of the page. This is the first time since I have been able to vote in 20 years that I find the whole thing very boring, uninteresting and do not have a problem if people do or do not vote. It is the first time I have thought about spoiling my vote. I will sleep on it and decide tomorrow whenever I vote.

Myself and my partner have 2 kids. And are done. Both are boys. So the reality is, we may very well never be directly involved with it (closest will be a daughter in law situation) .

It'd be very easy for us to just say "me, not my issue", but we're not. We're voting yes so that all the women we know and the ones we don't, can choose what's best for them. Be they 100% against abortion or in a position to need one the choice will be theirs.

Hotblack Desiato

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I'd be interested to know what their next crusade might be.

They will fight tooth and nail to ensure that children receive catholic indoctrination in schools against the will of their parents, as is happening now every day. Even though the constitution forbids this...

Guy:Incognito

cournioni wrote: »

You’re still not grasping my point though, if you kill outside the womb it’s completely unacceptable right? Why is it acceptable inside the womb?

Because I don't view it as the same. That my choice.

It's your choice to see it the way you choose and act accordingly. But to force that choice on others is wrong.

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

I really do not. I can respect enough there’s some context I’m lacking here from the nature of your post but I do not know what persons/incident/thing you’re speaking about. Please elaborate.

The scissor sisters (or the Mulhall sisters) famously murdered and dismembered their mothers partner (himself an extremely nasty character) and distributed his body parts around Dublin, his head was never found. They gained the name scissor sisters because of the brutality of their crime and the then popularity of the band of the same name.

dudara

cournioni wrote: »

You’re still not grasping my point though, if you kill outside the womb it’s completely unacceptable right? Why is it acceptable inside the womb?

Honestly, we understand your point well enough. I can understand it. I personally don’t believe that within the first 12 weeks a woman should be forced to stay pregnant if she doesn’t want to be.

I think these are pretty irreconcilable differences. I don’t genuinely know if there is much room for middle ground, other than saying that I do acknowledge your view.

Paranoid Bob

Digital_Guy wrote: »

Au contraire, I most definitely do and I referred to this earlier. If someone has been raped, all they should need to do is sign a document to that effect. That's it, no questions asked.

- "You were raped. Oh you poor dear. Who did this to you? We'll make sure they pay!"
- "uh" (I have to give a name or they'll know I'm lying and I won't get the abortion) "It was John."


.. cue the investigation that makes John's life a misery and adds more guilt and shame on the woman who just needed support.

Stonedpilot

Deedsie wrote: »

Please any no voters reconsider your position... It is so cruel to force a mother to carry a child that is incompatible with life as long as the babies heart keeps beating. The baby can't and won't survive. You are forcing people to travel to Britain to have an abortion and then carry the baby home to bury it in Ireland.

I have stayed out of these debates but this is too important to stay out entirely. Please vote yes tomorrow for heartbroken mothers and fathers and their baby that has no hope of survival. Give them some bit of relief and let them choose what is the right thing for them to do in their own country.

Please vote yes.

No voters are voting No as they think abortion is sadistic and cruel.

To tear a baby apart in the womb. Lots of American abortion doctors are anti abortion now!..

There is a reason people hate seeing the graphic pictures of babies ripped up by some blunt anti abortion groups. Its the brutal Truth!.
Last thing people like in the world is brutal truth.

Thats what happens in surgical abortions!. Unborn ripped limb from limb.

Guy:Incognito

nullzero wrote: »

You just discounted official British figures in abortion rates as being produced by anti abortion groups.

Where did I? You need to learn to read things properly.

The poster bolded a part of their story they posted. This was a lead on from the previous message of mine he replied to.

The bolded part was an accusation by anti abortion groups. And that's what was being replied to.