Eighth Amendment poll

Started by Farrandeelin, May 01, 2018, 03:36:55 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Are you in favour of repealing the 8th amendment?

Yes
47 (21.8%)
Yes but have no vote
73 (33.8%)
No
40 (18.5%)
No but have no vote
36 (16.7%)
Undecided
20 (9.3%)

Total Members Voted: 216

Voting closed: May 24, 2018, 03:36:55 PM

BennyCake

Re: fake news, media coverage etc... Is it not fair to say this referendum is a simple yes or no?

Do you really need to be told or swayed which way to vote? Doesn't your conscience /morals tell you? I'd no need for anyone else to influence how I would vote, if I could.

sid waddell

Quote from: The Boy Wonder on May 02, 2018, 01:12:59 AM

Unfortunately some people confuse abortion with necessary medical intervention – at present, with the Eight Amendment in place, an expectant mother cannot legally be denied life-saving treatment.

No, they don't.

Can you please make a case as to why a pregnant woman should be denied necessary medical treatment?

You may refer to the case of Michelle Harte, who was denied treatment for cancer because she was pregnant.

Cork University Hospital staff advised her to have an abortion, but could not carry it out because of the 8th Amendment.

During the two months it took for her to arrange an abortion in England, her cancer spread to her brain.

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/goreyguardian/news/abortion-nightmare-for-cancer-sufferer-michelle-27340507.html

whitey

Quote from: sid waddell on May 02, 2018, 02:13:31 AM
Quote from: whitey on May 01, 2018, 06:55:31 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 01, 2018, 05:59:31 PM
Quote from: whitey on May 01, 2018, 04:58:13 PM
Both sides are spreading bvllshit, but the No side seem to have an huge edge in that regard

The  "In Her Shoes" page had a whopper just this past week where a featured posters story completely contradicted what she had posted on social media when she was pregnant
You can provide a link to this of course?

Because you wouldn't want to have a reputation for just spouting nonsense - not that I'm saying you have, not at all...  ;D

Haha.....not at all

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/heart-patient-unable-to-get-abortion-as-life-not-at-immediate-risk-1.3475728


This article was shared on the "in her shoes" facebook page (which I follow)

The rebuttal was posted by Gerald Allen on the "repeal vrs save the 8th debate" facebook page (which I also follow) on April 27th.

(The "debate" page is no such thing.....its firmly NO page. I had originally liked it thinking I was going to hear 2 reasonable sides to the argument)
Interesting that you have't posted the contents of this "rebuttal".

Having read over the relevant articles and Claire Malone's blog, the No campaign haven't a leg to stand on, as Claire Malone's story holds up just fine.

But what a typical intervention from John McGuirk - claiming he's not accusing somebody of lying while doing exactly that. A real charmer, that fella.

And in the process, adding to the already mountainous pile of mendacious propaganda and fake news coming from the No side.

Well I didnt want to be accused of cherry picking comments off a facebook post so I figured youd take a peek for yourself if you were interested enough in seeing what was being said.  Looks like her blog posts during pregnancy are at completely at odds with her Irish Time interview. Now it looks like (again according to the Facebook page) that her blog has been take down. Someone has screenshots, which if authentic, completely contradict her IT interview


I dont know who John McGuirk is......I have lived in the States for close to 30 years

I dont have a vote, but would vote yes if I had the choice.

sid waddell

Quote from: BennyCake on May 02, 2018, 02:20:36 AM
Re: fake news, media coverage etc... Is it not fair to say this referendum is a simple yes or no?

Do you really need to be told or swayed which way to vote? Doesn't your conscience /morals tell you? I'd no need for anyone else to influence how I would vote, if I could.
You either take democracy seriously or you dont.

Demoracy is about making an informed choice based on facts.

The No side don't take democracy seriously, because their campaign is based on lies.

It has to be, by definition, because the facts are strongly against them.


sid waddell

Quote from: whitey on May 02, 2018, 02:28:16 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 02, 2018, 02:13:31 AM
Quote from: whitey on May 01, 2018, 06:55:31 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 01, 2018, 05:59:31 PM
Quote from: whitey on May 01, 2018, 04:58:13 PM
Both sides are spreading bvllshit, but the No side seem to have an huge edge in that regard

The  "In Her Shoes" page had a whopper just this past week where a featured posters story completely contradicted what she had posted on social media when she was pregnant
You can provide a link to this of course?

Because you wouldn't want to have a reputation for just spouting nonsense - not that I'm saying you have, not at all...  ;D

Haha.....not at all

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/heart-patient-unable-to-get-abortion-as-life-not-at-immediate-risk-1.3475728


This article was shared on the "in her shoes" facebook page (which I follow)

The rebuttal was posted by Gerald Allen on the "repeal vrs save the 8th debate" facebook page (which I also follow) on April 27th.

(The "debate" page is no such thing.....its firmly NO page. I had originally liked it thinking I was going to hear 2 reasonable sides to the argument)
Interesting that you have't posted the contents of this "rebuttal".

Having read over the relevant articles and Claire Malone's blog, the No campaign haven't a leg to stand on, as Claire Malone's story holds up just fine.

But what a typical intervention from John McGuirk - claiming he's not accusing somebody of lying while doing exactly that. A real charmer, that fella.

And in the process, adding to the already mountainous pile of mendacious propaganda and fake news coming from the No side.

Well I didnt want to be accused of cherry picking comments off a facebook post so I figured youd take a peek for yourself if you were interested enough in seeing what was being said.  Looks like her blog posts during pregnancy are at completely at odds with her Irish Time interview. Now it looks like (again according to the Facebook page) that her blog has been take down. Someone has screenshots, which if authentic, completely contradict her IT interview


I dont know who John McGuirk is......I have lived in the States for close to 30 years

I dont have a vote, but would vote yes if I had the choice.

They aren't at odds.

They are the words of a woman with a very serious medical condition who experienced all sorts of conflicting emotions after finding herself pregnant, as is perfectly understandable.

It's rather unsurprising that McGuirk, who gives all the indications that he has never experienced a genuine human emotion in his life, would attempt to twist her words to suit his own cynical agenda.

The key point is that, far from what the No campaign have been spinning, she wasn't entitled to an abortion under Irish law unless her situation worsened to one of an immediate threat of death.

Luckily for her, that didn't happen.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/heart-patient-unable-to-get-abortion-as-life-not-at-immediate-risk-1.3475728

QuoteHer GP, Dr Miles Deas, contacted Prof Charles Gallagher in St Vincent's University Hospital (SVUH) respiratory department on July 28th last year, asking: "If it is deemed too much of a risk for the patient to continue with the pregnancy . . . would it be appropriate for a termination of pregnancy to occur within Ireland?"

At SVUH, Ms Malone's lung function was found "adequate" though her pregnancy was judged "high risk". She was referred to Prof Kevin Walsh, consultant cardiologist at the Mater hospital, and to Prof Mary Higgins, consultant obstetrician at the National Maternity Hospital (NMH).

I was sent home after two days to basically get on with it. Emotionally I was a wreck
In the Mater, "cardiology scanned my heart and said there was no immediate change so I wasn't entitled to a termination".

whitey

Quote from: sid waddell on May 02, 2018, 02:44:04 AM
Quote from: whitey on May 02, 2018, 02:28:16 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 02, 2018, 02:13:31 AM
Quote from: whitey on May 01, 2018, 06:55:31 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 01, 2018, 05:59:31 PM
Quote from: whitey on May 01, 2018, 04:58:13 PM
Both sides are spreading bvllshit, but the No side seem to have an huge edge in that regard

The  "In Her Shoes" page had a whopper just this past week where a featured posters story completely contradicted what she had posted on social media when she was pregnant
You can provide a link to this of course?

Because you wouldn't want to have a reputation for just spouting nonsense - not that I'm saying you have, not at all...  ;D

Haha.....not at all

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/heart-patient-unable-to-get-abortion-as-life-not-at-immediate-risk-1.3475728


This article was shared on the "in her shoes" facebook page (which I follow)

The rebuttal was posted by Gerald Allen on the "repeal vrs save the 8th debate" facebook page (which I also follow) on April 27th.

(The "debate" page is no such thing.....its firmly NO page. I had originally liked it thinking I was going to hear 2 reasonable sides to the argument)
Interesting that you have't posted the contents of this "rebuttal".

Having read over the relevant articles and Claire Malone's blog, the No campaign haven't a leg to stand on, as Claire Malone's story holds up just fine.

But what a typical intervention from John McGuirk - claiming he's not accusing somebody of lying while doing exactly that. A real charmer, that fella.

And in the process, adding to the already mountainous pile of mendacious propaganda and fake news coming from the No side.

Well I didnt want to be accused of cherry picking comments off a facebook post so I figured youd take a peek for yourself if you were interested enough in seeing what was being said.  Looks like her blog posts during pregnancy are at completely at odds with her Irish Time interview. Now it looks like (again according to the Facebook page) that her blog has been take down. Someone has screenshots, which if authentic, completely contradict her IT interview


I dont know who John McGuirk is......I have lived in the States for close to 30 years

I dont have a vote, but would vote yes if I had the choice.

They aren't at odds.

They are the words of a woman with a very serious medical condition who experienced all sorts of conflicting emotions after finding herself pregnant, as is perfectly understandable.

It's rather unsurprising that McGuirk, who gives all the indications that he has never experienced a genuine human emotion in his life, would attempt to twist her words to suit his own cynical agenda.

The key point is that, far from what the No campaign have been spinning, she wasn't entitled to an abortion under Irish law unless her situation worsened to one of an immediate threat of death.

Luckily for her, that didn't happen.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/heart-patient-unable-to-get-abortion-as-life-not-at-immediate-risk-1.3475728

QuoteHer GP, Dr Miles Deas, contacted Prof Charles Gallagher in St Vincent's University Hospital (SVUH) respiratory department on July 28th last year, asking: "If it is deemed too much of a risk for the patient to continue with the pregnancy . . . would it be appropriate for a termination of pregnancy to occur within Ireland?"

At SVUH, Ms Malone's lung function was found "adequate" though her pregnancy was judged "high risk". She was referred to Prof Kevin Walsh, consultant cardiologist at the Mater hospital, and to Prof Mary Higgins, consultant obstetrician at the National Maternity Hospital (NMH).

I was sent home after two days to basically get on with it. Emotionally I was a wreck
In the Mater, "cardiology scanned my heart and said there was no immediate change so I wasn't entitled to a termination".

Believe whatever you want....go back now like a good lad and post up what she said in real time on her blog.......if you can find it, because mysteriously its been deleted....wonder why

Im all in favor of repeal. Theres plenty enough real tragedies they can share on "in her shoes" without resorting to made up tragedies

sid waddell

Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on May 01, 2018, 09:27:48 PM
The most precious possession you have in this world is your own people. If given the option I would most definitely vote no. My wife and I were unable to have children so we adopted. One of our youngsters birth mom was raped. We now have one of our greatest gifts. Loves to play hurling, sing, play soccer, Irish dance play guitar you name it he's trying his hand at it. This little man is so handsome and kind he makes life worth living. We couldn't imagine life without our wee ones.
The Adoption Rights Alliance "strongly advocates for the repeal of the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution."

http://adoption.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/ARA-Position-Paper-on-8th-Amendment.pdf

QuoteFor our organisation, the Eighth Amendment represents the
latest incarnation of the control that was exerted over the thousands of women and girls who
were forced to relinquish their children for adoption and who were incarcerated in Mother
and Baby Homes, Magdalene Laundries and other institutions. Since 1983, all pregnant
women in Ireland have been denied the right to choose whether to proceed with a
pregnancy, just as adopted people's natural mothers were denied any choice.

ARA is opposed in the strongest possible terms to the notion that adoption represents a
viable alternative to abortion. We firmly recognise the right of a woman to choose not to
proceed with a pregnancy. Adoption should only ever be utilised in situations where a child
genuinely needs a home, and not as a mechanism whereby women and girls are forced to
carry to term and then relinquish the child to a closed, secret system.

QuoteARA has consistently campaigned against the continuation of adoptions under Ireland's
closed, secret system. The adopted people in contact with us are strong, resilient individuals,
and many were raised by loving adoptive parents. However, this does not justify the impact
of being adopted under a closed, secret system, because the consequences are life-long,
inter-generational and permanent. Even today in so-called modern Ireland, adopted people
are denied even the most basic rights, which are taken for granted by the rest of the
population. We are denied access to our birth certificates and adoption files and are made
to feel like criminals for daring to challenge the system. Those of us who have lived under
Ireland's regime know that no matter how loving an adoptive family might be, closed, secret
adoption is not a child-centred mechanism, and it is certainly not an alternative to
reproductive choice for women.

We strongly advocate the repeal of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.

sid waddell

Quote from: whitey on May 02, 2018, 02:49:06 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 02, 2018, 02:44:04 AM
Quote from: whitey on May 02, 2018, 02:28:16 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 02, 2018, 02:13:31 AM
Quote from: whitey on May 01, 2018, 06:55:31 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 01, 2018, 05:59:31 PM
Quote from: whitey on May 01, 2018, 04:58:13 PM
Both sides are spreading bvllshit, but the No side seem to have an huge edge in that regard

The  "In Her Shoes" page had a whopper just this past week where a featured posters story completely contradicted what she had posted on social media when she was pregnant
You can provide a link to this of course?

Because you wouldn't want to have a reputation for just spouting nonsense - not that I'm saying you have, not at all...  ;D

Haha.....not at all

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/heart-patient-unable-to-get-abortion-as-life-not-at-immediate-risk-1.3475728


This article was shared on the "in her shoes" facebook page (which I follow)

The rebuttal was posted by Gerald Allen on the "repeal vrs save the 8th debate" facebook page (which I also follow) on April 27th.

(The "debate" page is no such thing.....its firmly NO page. I had originally liked it thinking I was going to hear 2 reasonable sides to the argument)
Interesting that you have't posted the contents of this "rebuttal".

Having read over the relevant articles and Claire Malone's blog, the No campaign haven't a leg to stand on, as Claire Malone's story holds up just fine.

But what a typical intervention from John McGuirk - claiming he's not accusing somebody of lying while doing exactly that. A real charmer, that fella.

And in the process, adding to the already mountainous pile of mendacious propaganda and fake news coming from the No side.

Well I didnt want to be accused of cherry picking comments off a facebook post so I figured youd take a peek for yourself if you were interested enough in seeing what was being said.  Looks like her blog posts during pregnancy are at completely at odds with her Irish Time interview. Now it looks like (again according to the Facebook page) that her blog has been take down. Someone has screenshots, which if authentic, completely contradict her IT interview


I dont know who John McGuirk is......I have lived in the States for close to 30 years

I dont have a vote, but would vote yes if I had the choice.

They aren't at odds.

They are the words of a woman with a very serious medical condition who experienced all sorts of conflicting emotions after finding herself pregnant, as is perfectly understandable.

It's rather unsurprising that McGuirk, who gives all the indications that he has never experienced a genuine human emotion in his life, would attempt to twist her words to suit his own cynical agenda.

The key point is that, far from what the No campaign have been spinning, she wasn't entitled to an abortion under Irish law unless her situation worsened to one of an immediate threat of death.

Luckily for her, that didn't happen.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/heart-patient-unable-to-get-abortion-as-life-not-at-immediate-risk-1.3475728

QuoteHer GP, Dr Miles Deas, contacted Prof Charles Gallagher in St Vincent's University Hospital (SVUH) respiratory department on July 28th last year, asking: "If it is deemed too much of a risk for the patient to continue with the pregnancy . . . would it be appropriate for a termination of pregnancy to occur within Ireland?"

At SVUH, Ms Malone's lung function was found "adequate" though her pregnancy was judged "high risk". She was referred to Prof Kevin Walsh, consultant cardiologist at the Mater hospital, and to Prof Mary Higgins, consultant obstetrician at the National Maternity Hospital (NMH).

I was sent home after two days to basically get on with it. Emotionally I was a wreck
In the Mater, "cardiology scanned my heart and said there was no immediate change so I wasn't entitled to a termination".

Believe whatever you want....go back now like a good lad and post up what she said in real time on her blog.......if you can find it, because mysteriously its been deleted....wonder why

Im all in favor of repeal. Theres plenty enough real tragedies they can share on "in her shoes" without resorting to made up tragedies

"Believe whatever you want"

"Like a good lad"

Deary me, mate, this isn't the pub.

This is clearly all desperately confusing for you.




whitey

Still waiting for you to post it up....tick....tick...tick...tick....tick

sid waddell

Quote from: whitey on May 02, 2018, 03:06:04 AM
Still waiting for you to post it up....tick....tick...tick...tick....tick
Yourself and the No campaign have been caught out rotten, mate.

Just accept it.

It's a familiar pattern for you - you've a notorious reputation on this forum for playing fast and loose with the truth.


omaghjoe

#70
Quote from: sid waddell on May 01, 2018, 12:03:22 PM


A 12 week old foetus cannot survive outside the womb. That's what I mean by surviving independently, as you well know.

We do know what conscious experience a 12 week old foetus has.

The answer is none whatsoever.

It's hard to have a debate when one side is so intent on spreading lies.

A child cannot survive outside the womb until they are at least double 12 weeks even then its touch and go and usually goes hand and hand with lifelong anatomical and cerebal consequences, your probably looking to around 35weeks for a child to have an equal footing as one that goes full term, ( actually probably later statistically). Should the limit be increased to 24 weeks or later if your basing on survival outside the womb?
A child also needs constant round the clock care for the first 6-9months, it tapers off gradually but children need constant care/watching to at least 2 years, they could not survive on their own steam.

And I'm Sorry to tell you this Sid I don't know who told you that but you are wrong about a conscious experience, it is you distorting facts so you may want to reconsider your position based on actual facts.

No one know has any idea about a conscious experience of anyone or anything else, its guess work. Indeed its not thought that children are conscious until they are 6months old.

But no one really knows who or what is conscious, some scientists argue that consciousness of humans is an illusion while some philosopher argue that bacteria, plants, even rocks or maybe even a smart phone may have a conscious experience.

So if thats what your criteria for survival is based on then you need to reconsider your rationale for discarding of your old smartphone or eating spuds.


My criteria is based on what there is little debate about, namely
.... that a unique human life has formed that wants to survive....
and therefore should be allowed to as much as posibble.

Tony Baloney

A lot of talk about medical emergencies. Read a breakdown yesterday that 97% of abortions in the UK were unrelated to medical issues and 36% of these women had at least one previous abortion.

manfromdelmonte

Quote from: Tony Baloney on May 02, 2018, 07:47:19 AM
A lot of talk about medical emergencies. Read a breakdown yesterday that 97% of abortions in the UK were unrelated to medical issues and 36% of these women had at least one previous abortion.
and your point is?

Ireland is most definitely not the UK

gallsman

Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on May 01, 2018, 09:27:48 PM
The most precious possession you have in this world is your own people. If given the option I would most definitely vote no. My wife and I were unable to have children so we adopted. One of our youngsters birth mom was raped. We now have one of our greatest gifts. Loves to play hurling, sing, play soccer, Irish dance play guitar you name it he's trying his hand at it. This little man is so handsome and kind he makes life worth living. We couldn't imagine life without our wee ones.

Congrats to you and your wife on what sounds like a wonderful boy you're raising, but just let me check on thing.

No to abortion for victims of rape so people who can't have kids can adopt them? Are you f**king serious?!

Farrandeelin

Inaugural Football Championship Prediction Winner.