| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
UCDFAN 
Liam Brady
Joined: 10 May 2009
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
Points: 1700
|
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote  Reply
 Posted: 09 May 2018 at 6:16pm |
 Het-field wrote:
UCDFAN wrote:
Sorry the first two lines of the second paragraph. "Right to personal Medical Decision Right for Women to make personal decision over body Previously Right to Travel was an Abortion issue. " Messages in this 2018 campaign which remind voters of these entitlements. These same messages could've been used to challenge 27th Amendment where the proponents crimalised women who were pregnant in Ireland.
|
It didn't criminalise anybody. It was about the constitutional right to citizenship by virtue of being born on the island. People were still entitled to have their babies on the island, and people could have babies overseas and still claim citizenship. |
The walls wrote:
] What verbal gymnastics could you possibly engage in to make a coherent argument that the 27th Amendment criminalised pregnant women in Ireland? |
@Het-Field, a person can be born in Ireland without irish Citizenship entitlements, the person in the next cot has fully entitlements.
@Het-field, @The Walls,
Contemporary accounts from 2003 show that patients at Irish Maternity Hospitals were criminalised. Masters of the Irish Maternity Hospitals went to Minister of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Minister Michael McDowell BL) and had a chat about the patients in the Maternity Hospitals.
"In particular, Dr Ishtiaq [Orthapaedic surgeon Waterford gen Hosp] is concerned at the manner in which statistics on the nationality of mothers were gathered by the masters for submission to the Department of Justice, whether the masters had breached the confidentiality of non-national mothers and whether, in seeking tighter immigration controls, they were in breach of their duty of care." "I want to know why they didn't raise their concerns with him [Min. Health, Micheál Martin]. Why were the going to the Minister for Justice looking to keep non-national pregnant women out?" he asked."
Dept of Justice for criminals, Dept of Health for patients.
Pat Rabbitte TD in the Dail
Article mentions Masters of Irish Maternity Hospitals felt they were "Scapegoats" for the referendum. i have no sympathy for hurt as they chose to exclude based on Nationality.
|
|
www.ucdsupporters.ie
|
 |
Het-field
Roy Keane
By Appointment to His Majesty The King
Joined: 08 Mar 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 10655
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 May 2018 at 6:24pm |
@UCDFAN
Again, that criminalised nobody. The doctor in Waterford was raising a question about the dissemination of the information. But that doesn't mean there was any criminalisation. Also, immigration policy came under the auspices of the Department of Justice, so there was nothing sinister about the information being made available.
I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make. Both issues couldn't be further apart in their reasoning.
Edited by Het-field - 09 May 2018 at 6:26pm
|
|
the_walls
Jack Charlton
6 in a row, alive alive oh..
Joined: 13 Feb 2009
Location: Walkinstown
Status: Offline
Points: 5182
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 May 2018 at 6:36pm |
UCDFAN wrote:
Het-field wrote:
UCDFAN wrote:
Sorry the first two lines of the second paragraph. "Right to personal Medical Decision Right for Women to make personal decision over body Previously Right to Travel was an Abortion issue. " Messages in this 2018 campaign which remind voters of these entitlements. These same messages could've been used to challenge 27th Amendment where the proponents crimalised women who were pregnant in Ireland.
|
It didn't criminalise anybody. It was about the constitutional right to citizenship by virtue of being born on the island. People were still entitled to have their babies on the island, and people could have babies overseas and still claim citizenship. |
The walls wrote:
] What verbal gymnastics could you possibly engage in to make a coherent argument that the 27th Amendment criminalised pregnant women in Ireland? |
@Het-Field, a person can be born in Ireland without irish Citizenship entitlements, the person in the next cot has fully entitlements.
@Het-field, @The Walls,
Contemporary accounts from 2003 show that patients at Irish Maternity Hospitals were criminalised. Masters of the Irish Maternity Hospitals went to Minister of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Minister Michael McDowell BL) and had a chat about the patients in the Maternity Hospitals.
"In particular, Dr Ishtiaq [Orthapaedic surgeon Waterford gen Hosp] is concerned at the manner in which statistics on the nationality of mothers were gathered by the masters for submission to the Department of Justice, whether the masters had breached the confidentiality of non-national mothers and whether, in seeking tighter immigration controls, they were in breach of their duty of care." "I want to know why they didn't raise their concerns with him [Min. Health, Micheál Martin]. Why were the going to the Minister for Justice looking to keep non-national pregnant women out?" he asked."
Dept of Justice for criminals, Dept of Health for patients.
Pat Rabbitte TD in the Dail
Article mentions Masters of Irish Maternity Hospitals felt they were "Scapegoats" for the referendum. i have no sympathy for hurt as they chose to exclude based on Nationality. |
Maybe I'm just really thick but I can't see anything there that shows that pregnant women are criminalised by the 27th Amendment.
|
|
sid waddell
Roy Keane
On a dark desert highway
Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12173
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 May 2018 at 6:50pm |
Padraig wrote:
An excellent post I saw on Facebook:
''If you wouldn't force a 12-year old rape victim to give birth, you support repeal.If you wouldn't force someone to spend months carrying a child that will die trying to take its first breath, you support repeal. If you wouldn't force a homeless person to stay pregnant, you support repeal. If you wouldn't force a woman who already has children to risk leaving them motherless, you support repeal. If you wouldn't force a person with a chronic illness to be crippled and possibly killed by pregnancy, you support repeal. If you wouldn't use a brain-dead person as an incubator, you support repeal. If you wouldn't send a woman to prison for 14 years for procuring an abortion, you support repeal. If you wouldn't support forced C-sections, inductions, episiotomies, sweepings, and medication, you support repeal. If you trust women, you support repeal.''
You do not need to be pro-abortion to vote yes. |
Plus: Denying cancer treatment to a woman who finds herself pregnant
Denying basic healthcare such as X-rays to women who are not even pregnant - they can be asked to to prove in writing that they are are not.
You can't be "on the fence" and support No.
By supporting No, you are explicitly supporting all of those things.
|
|
Het-field
Roy Keane
By Appointment to His Majesty The King
Joined: 08 Mar 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 10655
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 May 2018 at 6:52pm |
the_walls wrote:
Maybe I'm just really thick but I can't see anything there that shows that pregnant women are criminalised by the 27th Amendment. |
No, you're right. And all the 27th Amendment did was to bring Ireland in line with the vast majority of the world. There are very few countries where citizenship is granted based exclusively on location of birth.
|
|
sid waddell
Roy Keane
On a dark desert highway
Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12173
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 May 2018 at 6:55pm |
Het-field wrote:
greenforever wrote:
On the Vote No side, there are posters which I would hope are blatant lies, I would hope that not 1 in 5 pregnancies for example are terminated in the UK. |
I think the statistic is true, but the devil is in the detail, namely termination can include miscarriage, given the use of the procedure to terminate the pregnancy. Not all of the 1/5 pregnancies are terminations of choice. In many cases there is no life left as the baby has passed on in the womb, and as such the life is not being terminated, only the ongoing, unviable pregnancy. The baby may not have been viable from the get-go, or something may have happened whereby the pregnancy was terminated. That is truly sad for those who suffer the misfortune, and the fact that they are being used as statistics to make a political point is gruesome. |
It's not true, actually, as it leaves out all pregnancies which result in miscarriage, which, according to the NHS, is believed to be around 1 in 6 - it's impossible to have exact figures given the nature of the subject.
So it's around 1 in 6 pregnancies that are terminated.
|
|
sid waddell
Roy Keane
On a dark desert highway
Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12173
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 May 2018 at 7:02pm |
Het-field wrote:
I can't think of a single medical professional I encountered who would use the term "foetus" when not talking about it in the abstract. |
But that's what it is - a foetus - and only from around 10 weeks.
Before that it's an embryo and before that it's a zygote.
It's only a baby from when it is born.
People can call it a baby to their heart's content, but until it is born, it is not.
|
|
Het-field
Roy Keane
By Appointment to His Majesty The King
Joined: 08 Mar 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 10655
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 May 2018 at 7:04pm |
sid waddell wrote:
But that's what it is - a foetus - and only from around 10 weeks.
Before that it's an embryo and before that it's a zygote.
It's only a baby from when it is born.
People can call it a baby to their heart's content, but until it is born, it is not.
|
A heartbeat can be seen at 7 weeks. And I know that from personal experience. Its more complex than just the label. I don't disagree on the names of the labels, but they can show signs of life very early.
|
|
sid waddell
Roy Keane
On a dark desert highway
Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12173
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 May 2018 at 7:07pm |
Not sure if it has been mentioned by the way but Google have banned all advertising to do with the referendum, including on YouTube.
A pretty significant development, I'd have thought.
This has been no doubt prompted by Gavin Sheridan's excellent work over the last 10 days or so, exposing how the No campaign have been setting up fake "unbiased" Facebook pages to get poster to click on links and self-identify, with the aim of microtargetting them later in the campaign.
Facebook have banned referendum-related advertising from outside Ireland, but I'd be pretty sure the No camp will be able to work around that.
Channel 4 News are covering this story tonight. It's just started.
Edited by sid waddell - 09 May 2018 at 7:08pm
|
|
sid waddell
Roy Keane
On a dark desert highway
Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12173
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 May 2018 at 7:10pm |
Het-field wrote:
sid waddell wrote:
But that's what it is - a foetus - and only from around 10 weeks.
Before that it's an embryo and before that it's a zygote.
It's only a baby from when it is born.
People can call it a baby to their heart's content, but until it is born, it is not.
|
A heartbeat can be seen at 7 weeks. And I know that from personal experience. Its more complex than just the label. I don't disagree on the names of the labels, but they can show signs of life very early. |
I didn't say it wasn't alive. But it's not a baby, it is not what we would know as a human being, and it has no sentience whatsoever until much later in the term.
Facts are important here.
|
|
greenforever
Jack Charlton
Joined: 07 Apr 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 6342
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 May 2018 at 7:10pm |
sid waddell wrote:
Padraig wrote:
An excellent post I saw on Facebook:
''If you wouldn't force a 12-year old rape victim to give birth, you support repeal.If you wouldn't force someone to spend months carrying a child that will die trying to take its first breath, you support repeal. If you wouldn't force a homeless person to stay pregnant, you support repeal. If you wouldn't force a woman who already has children to risk leaving them motherless, you support repeal. If you wouldn't force a person with a chronic illness to be crippled and possibly killed by pregnancy, you support repeal. If you wouldn't use a brain-dead person as an incubator, you support repeal. If you wouldn't send a woman to prison for 14 years for procuring an abortion, you support repeal. If you wouldn't support forced C-sections, inductions, episiotomies, sweepings, and medication, you support repeal. If you trust women, you support repeal.''
You do not need to be pro-abortion to vote yes. |
Plus: Denying cancer treatment to a woman who finds herself pregnant
Denying basic healthcare such as X-rays to women who are not even pregnant - they can be asked to to prove in writing that they are are not.
You can't be "on the fence" and support No.
By supporting No, you are explicitly supporting all of those things.
|
thats the bullsh*t from the yes side, there is equally as much bullsh*t from the no side.
The reality abortion in all circumstances is a horrible thing that should really be avoided except in extreme circumstances, however what is deemed extreme to one person is not to the next.
IF only the biggest supporters of both sides put the same effort into making society a better and more tolerant place/
|
|
I know nothing :-)
|
|
Het-field
Roy Keane
By Appointment to His Majesty The King
Joined: 08 Mar 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 10655
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 May 2018 at 7:17pm |
sid waddell wrote:
I didn't say it wasn't alive. But it's not a baby, it is not what we would know as a human being, and it has no sentience whatsoever until much later in the term.
Facts are important here. |
But thats where the moral argument arises, which is different to the scientific and medical one. There has been historical views on the "quickening" as the moment that life begins, but sentience will matter to very few people when it comes to evaluating, from a moral point of view, "when life begins". My point is that you can see an essence of life incredibly early.
It won't change my view on this referendum, or indeed on my belief in the right to choose.
Edited by Het-field - 09 May 2018 at 7:18pm
|
|
bhob
Roy Keane
YBIGs Donald Trump
Joined: 13 Feb 2009
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
Points: 10470
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 May 2018 at 7:43pm |
greenforever wrote:
sid waddell wrote:
Padraig wrote:
An excellent post I saw on Facebook:
''If you wouldn't force a 12-year old rape victim to give birth, you support repeal.If you wouldn't force someone to spend months carrying a child that will die trying to take its first breath, you support repeal. If you wouldn't force a homeless person to stay pregnant, you support repeal. If you wouldn't force a woman who already has children to risk leaving them motherless, you support repeal. If you wouldn't force a person with a chronic illness to be crippled and possibly killed by pregnancy, you support repeal. If you wouldn't use a brain-dead person as an incubator, you support repeal. If you wouldn't send a woman to prison for 14 years for procuring an abortion, you support repeal. If you wouldn't support forced C-sections, inductions, episiotomies, sweepings, and medication, you support repeal. If you trust women, you support repeal.''
You do not need to be pro-abortion to vote yes. |
Plus: Denying cancer treatment to a woman who finds herself pregnant
Denying basic healthcare such as X-rays to women who are not even pregnant - they can be asked to to prove in writing that they are are not.
You can't be "on the fence" and support No.
By supporting No, you are explicitly supporting all of those things.
|
thats the bullsh*t from the yes side, there is equally as much bullsh*t from the no side.
The reality abortion in all circumstances is a horrible thing that should really be avoided except in extreme circumstances, however what is deemed extreme to one person is not to the next.
IF only the biggest supporters of both sides put the same effort into making society a better and more tolerant place/ |
Which of the above is bullsh*t?
|
|
sid waddell
Roy Keane
On a dark desert highway
Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12173
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 May 2018 at 7:58pm |
greenforever wrote:
sid waddell wrote:
Padraig wrote:
An excellent post I saw on Facebook:
''If you wouldn't force a 12-year old rape victim to give birth, you support repeal.If you wouldn't force someone to spend months carrying a child that will die trying to take its first breath, you support repeal. If you wouldn't force a homeless person to stay pregnant, you support repeal. If you wouldn't force a woman who already has children to risk leaving them motherless, you support repeal. If you wouldn't force a person with a chronic illness to be crippled and possibly killed by pregnancy, you support repeal. If you wouldn't use a brain-dead person as an incubator, you support repeal. If you wouldn't send a woman to prison for 14 years for procuring an abortion, you support repeal. If you wouldn't support forced C-sections, inductions, episiotomies, sweepings, and medication, you support repeal. If you trust women, you support repeal.''
You do not need to be pro-abortion to vote yes. |
Plus: Denying cancer treatment to a woman who finds herself pregnant
Denying basic healthcare such as X-rays to women who are not even pregnant - they can be asked to to prove in writing that they are are not.
You can't be "on the fence" and support No.
By supporting No, you are explicitly supporting all of those things.
|
thats the bullsh*t from the yes side, there is equally as much bullsh*t from the no side.
The reality abortion in all circumstances is a horrible thing that should really be avoided except in extreme circumstances, however what is deemed extreme to one person is not to the next.
IF only the biggest supporters of both sides put the same effort into making society a better and more tolerant place/ |
Tell me what's bullsh*t about the Michelle Harte case.
Cancer sufferer who found herself unexpectedly pregnant.
Advised by the staff at UCH Cork that she should terminate the pregnancy. They couldn't offer that.
While pregnant, her treatment was withdrawn.
It took her two months to arrange an abortion in England. When the time came, she had to be helped onto the plane.
In that period, the cancer spread to her brain.
She would die a little over a year later from her cancer.
Oh, and abolishing the 8th Amendment will go a long way towards making society a better and more tolerant place for women.
Edited by sid waddell - 09 May 2018 at 8:01pm
|
|
Shedite
Jack Charlton
Joined: 09 Dec 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 9820
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 May 2018 at 9:08pm |
greenforever wrote:
Both sides are exaggerating the facts to suit their own agenda.
Some harsh facts like it or not are
Abortion is killing an unborn child, be it 4 weeks or 12 weeks or further into the pregnacy
The vast majority of girls having an abortion are not victims of rape or carrying a child that will either not survive or will be severely deformed.
These are facts that most on the repeal side do not want to face or accept
If the referendum is carried the oireachtas will be able to pass whatever laws it wishes in the future on this subject. There is no guarantee that any abortion legislation will actually get carried given how emotive the issue is and the hardened views on both sides.
On the Vote No side, there are posters which I would hope are blatant lies, I would hope that not 1 in 5 pregnancies for example are terminated in the UK.
A yes vote does not mean unlimited abortion, even though that could happen in the future, it doesn't even guarantee any abortion legislation will be passed.
A yes vote will not stop girls getting abortions either in the UK or via online tablets or whatever.
How will i vote? Very reluctantly I will vote yes, because I don't believe I have the right to tell a woman what to do, but I do know that there will be very many girls who will get abortions that may not have done so without a yes vote, and some of those abortions will be for pure selfish reasons. I would go as far to say there will be a lot more girls that will have abortions for purely personal and possibly selfish reasons than will do so because of rape or health issues relating to the pregnancy.
Lastly as a previous poster posted, anyone who loses a child due to a miscarriage, will not feel any less devastation because the foetus was only X weeks old. |
I agree with that.
The Yes campaign has to confront the hard facts. Needs to convince people that its right to alow doctors to do their jobs and carry out abortions when approporiate, putting the mother's life and wellbeing ahead of the unborn. Babies WILL die because of this, but its the right thing to do.
|
|
9fingers
Paul McGrath
Ballymun Resident #MONKEANO
Joined: 30 Jan 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 16144
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 May 2018 at 9:13pm |
Babies WILL die  The strangest yes voter I’ve come across
|
|
irishmufc
Robbie Keane
I love Vulvas
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
Location: Dublin
Status: Offline
Points: 25088
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 May 2018 at 9:46pm |
|
|
|
Wings? They're only the band The Beatles could have been.
|
|
greenforever
Jack Charlton
Joined: 07 Apr 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 6342
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 May 2018 at 9:55pm |
sid waddell wrote:
greenforever wrote:
sid waddell wrote:
Padraig wrote:
An excellent post I saw on Facebook:
''If you wouldn't force a 12-year old rape victim to give birth, you support repeal.If you wouldn't force someone to spend months carrying a child that will die trying to take its first breath, you support repeal. If you wouldn't force a homeless person to stay pregnant, you support repeal. If you wouldn't force a woman who already has children to risk leaving them motherless, you support repeal. If you wouldn't force a person with a chronic illness to be crippled and possibly killed by pregnancy, you support repeal. If you wouldn't use a brain-dead person as an incubator, you support repeal. If you wouldn't send a woman to prison for 14 years for procuring an abortion, you support repeal. If you wouldn't support forced C-sections, inductions, episiotomies, sweepings, and medication, you support repeal. If you trust women, you support repeal.''
You do not need to be pro-abortion to vote yes. |
Plus: Denying cancer treatment to a woman who finds herself pregnant
Denying basic healthcare such as X-rays to women who are not even pregnant - they can be asked to to prove in writing that they are are not.
You can't be "on the fence" and support No.
By supporting No, you are explicitly supporting all of those things.
|
thats the bullsh*t from the yes side, there is equally as much bullsh*t from the no side.
The reality abortion in all circumstances is a horrible thing that should really be avoided except in extreme circumstances, however what is deemed extreme to one person is not to the next.
IF only the biggest supporters of both sides put the same effort into making society a better and more tolerant place/ |
Tell me what's bullsh*t about the Michelle Harte case.
Cancer sufferer who found herself unexpectedly pregnant.
Advised by the staff at UCH Cork that she should terminate the pregnancy. They couldn't offer that.
While pregnant, her treatment was withdrawn.
It took her two months to arrange an abortion in England. When the time came, she had to be helped onto the plane.
In that period, the cancer spread to her brain.
She would die a little over a year later from her cancer.
Oh, and abolishing the 8th Amendment will go a long way towards making society a better and more tolerant place for women.
|
Supporting repeal currently means that the state will then be able to bring in any abortion legislation it wishes. any future legislation will be just as divisive.
Someone could agree with abortion been permitted in cases or rape, or where best medical practice recommends it etc, yet still be against repealing the 8th as it will allow unlimited abortion to be legislated for.
Its also bullsh*t the claims that voting yes will result in abortion on demand up till 6 months.
A yes vote will still need future legislation to permit abortion and with such divided opinions and a free vote in the dail it is very hard to know what will actually transpire.
|
|
I know nothing :-)
|
|
Tweet
