Referendum on the 8th amendment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark12345

The 8th Amendment. Remember that. If you don't, who could blame you?
It was designed for you not to be appalled by its language (just like "The Right To Choose" or "Pro Choice" in America).
Why is this relevant now?
Well in case it went unnoticed in Ireland this week, the New York State Legislature just passed a bill which allows a baby to be aborted at any time during the pregnancy and even after it has been born (killed in other words).
Some are calling it the "Fourth Trimester". Others are calling it "Infantacide"

And those who perform these abortions/killings cannot be prosecuted (and from what I understand they don't even have to be medical professionals - lay people who do it also).
And the wonderful folks in the New York State Legislature rose in unison to cheer and applaud the passing of the bill.

Meanwhile down in Virginia, a bill was introduced which the Governor of that state backed. In his description of what would happen in such situations, Governor Northam said that a baby could potentially be born and "made comfortable" while the mother and physician were allowed to have a discussion as to its (the baby's) fate. Meaning that any time after the birth of the baby, the mother could decide whether she wanted the child or not. There was no word as to how long the mother could take to decide (a half hour, an hour, a week a month?) Who knows? One wonders, what would happen if the mother decided after a few months that she really didn't want her newborn? Fortunately that bill was defeated in the Viriniga State Legislature. But it looks like we have reached new lows in our 'handling' of the unborn.

Why is this important to Ireland? Well you can be guaranteed it is coming to a hospital near you soon.

---

Nonsense - from start to finish.

That's the greatest load of horsesh!t I've read in quite some time.

I take it from your response that you do not believe what I've written?
I have absolutely no reason to lie - it was all over American TV during the week.
I won't benefit in way shape or form if you believe me or not.
But for your own peace of mind, do your research and find out for yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigel-harps1954

That's the greatest load of horsesh!t I've read in quite some time.

---

Don't take my word for it. Maybe you look at the following.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBoT4Xi8QVo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

Nonsense - from start to finish.

---

Nonsense?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBoT4Xi8QVo

Only saw the above post because it was quoted (so they aren't "hidden" like user posts, I'm guessing its impossible to do so). Did a quick Google on this issue. Beyond the (numerous) Conservative media outlets screaming "Infantacide!" I found this pretty good summation from Vox, this fact check from NBC and this counter-point from a Democrat.

Long story short, the proposed laws are being deliberately misinterpreted and the governor in question has been misquoted/had quotes taken out of context. Shocker, I know. I'm sure the response is going to be something along the lines of "mainstream liberal media". I don't care.

Spring harvest time in the troll farm, lads...:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter

Only saw the above post because it was quoted (so they aren't "hidden" like user posts, I'm guessing its impossible to do so). Did a quick Google on this issue. Beyond the (numerous) Conservative media outlets screaming "Infantacide!" I found this pretty good summation from Vox, this fact check from NBC and this counter-point from a Democrat.

Long story short, the proposed laws are being deliberately misinterpreted and the governor in question has been misquoted/had quotes taken out of context. Shocker, I know. I'm sure the response is going to be something along the lines of "mainstream liberal media". I don't care.

---

If you think the Governor has been misquoted, or deliberately misinterpreted, go to the man himself. Don't rely on interpretations. Pull up his exact words.
He said the baby would be made comfortable while the doctor and mother would decide its fate. No misquoting there.

And I suppose the New York Legislature were also misinterpreted?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eminence Grise

Spring harvest time in the troll farm, lads...:rolleyes:

---

Probably. I'm just correcting the record if anyone else happens by who doesn't have Mark hidden. I've no interest in engaging with him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark12345

I take it from your response that you do not believe what I've written?
I have absolutely no reason to lie - it was all over American TV during the week.
I won't benefit in way shape or form if you believe me or not.
But for your own peace of mind, do your research and find out for yourself.

---

See, there's your problem, you're looking at American TV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigel-harps1954

See, there's your problem, you're looking at American TV.

---

There was a dude on Fox news the other day that is a self proclaimed Germ denier - and hasn't washed his hands in years.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...t-pete-hegseth

Not even a Waterford Wispers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

There was a dude on Fox news the other day that is a self proclaimed Germ denier - and hasn't washed his hands in years.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...t-pete-hegseth

Not even a Waterford Wispers.

---

When people say "evolution is only a theory", I used to respond with "so is the theory of gravity and germ theory. That word does not mean what you seem to think it means".

Then I hear that people like Flat Earthers and this guy exist, and are utterly beyond the reach of reason.

Visions of you, peadar, as Inigo Montoya lisping 'You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigel-harps1954

See, there's your problem, you're looking at American TV.

---

So if it's on American TV, it's not really believable? Nice, neat and convenient logic that is.

Anyway, maybe this nurse is talking nonsense about a subject which supposedly doesn't exist, according to some people on here.

Or maybe the Governor of New York (Cuomo) and the Cardinal of New York (Dolan) took time out of their schedules to talk about a subject which again, supposedly doesn't exist and is just for trolls.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVi0FYPtRQg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-kYAv8qKN0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark12345

So if it's on American TV, it's not really believable? Nice, neat and convenient logic that is.

Anyway, maybe this nurse is talking nonsense about a subject which supposedly doesn't exist, according to some people on here.

Or maybe the Governor of New York (Cuomo) and the Cardinal of New York (Dolan) took time out of their schedules to talk about a subject which again, supposedly doesn't exist and is just for trolls.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVi0FYPtRQg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-kYAv8qKN0

---

Dead right Mark - if you can't trust the Catholic Church and Fox News - who can you trust?

I'm taking a slightly lighter tone now as I can only assume you are on a wind-up.

I reckon they actually believe this stuff, and wear a tinfoil-lined watch cap at all times.

I leave it here for your amusement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

Dead right Mark - if you can't trust the Catholic Church and Fox News - who can you trust?

I'm taking a slightly lighter tone now as I can only assume you are on a wind-up.

---

If you don't trust the Catholic Church that's absolutely your prerogative.
But you are missing the point here completely.
I was replying to someone on here earlier who didn't believe the news reports which came out last week about 'fourth-trimester abortions' (essentially after the baby has been born).
It's just nonsense from start to finish, or bull**** was how they described it.

My point was that the Governor of New York and the Cardinal of New York took time out of their schedules to speak about a topic which apparently doesn't exist.
Why would they do that, if the topic doesn't exist?

So I think if those two prominent people are discussing it (whether you trust the Catholic Church or not) then it actually does exist? Indeed I saw someone speaking about it again yesterday (Sunday).

And if the topic does exist (ie a bill was introduced and passed in the New York Legislature - connect the dots, that's why the Governor of New York was commenting about it - a seperate bill was introduced in the Virginia Legislature but was not passed) then maybe just maybe Fox News got it right?
Fair to say?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark12345

If you don't trust the Catholic Church that's absolutely your prerogative.
But you are missing the point here completely.
I was replying to someone on here earlier who didn't believe the news reports which came out last week about 'fourth-trimester abortions' (essentially after the baby has been born).
It's just nonsense from start to finish, or bull**** was how they described it.

My point was that the Governor of New York and the Cardinal of New York took time out of their schedules to speak about a topic which apparently doesn't exist.
Why would they do that, if the topic doesn't exist?

So I think if those two prominent people are discussing it (whether you trust the Catholic Church or not) then it actually does exist? Indeed I saw someone speaking about it again yesterday (Sunday).

And if the topic does exist (ie a bill was introduced and passed in the New York Legislature - connect the dots, that's why the Governor of New York was commenting about it - a seperate bill was introduced in the Virginia Legislature but was not passed) then maybe just maybe Fox News got it right?
Fair to say?

---

This post reminds me of that scene in The Waterboy when Adam Sandler fully believes in his own alternate reality while sitting in a psychology class- when questioned by the lecturer about the reasons that Alligators are honorary - he replies - " Alligators are honorary because they got all them teeth - but no toothbrush"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfC4u5GCy3I

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

This post reminds me of that scene in The Waterboy when Adam Sandler fully believes in his own alternate reality while sitting in a psychology class- when questioned by the lecturer about the reasons that Alligators are honorary - he replies - " Alligators are honorary because they got all them teeth - but no toothbrush"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfC4u5GCy3I

---

This post reminds me that there are people out there who watch Adam Sandler movies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Fly

This post reminds me that there are people out there who watch Adam Sandler movies.

---

Movies? Surely you mean fillums?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Fly

This post reminds me that there are people out there who watch Adam Sandler movies.

---

Ouch! :)

Well this is pretty horrendous -

https://www.rte.ie/news/health/2019/...street-review/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Fly

Well this is pretty horrendous -

https://www.rte.ie/news/health/2019/...street-review/

---

I saw this, it is brutal. The poor couple.

I was surprised that the abortion went ahead seeing as the 3rd test (the definitive one, it seems) hadn't been finished, or at least, the results hadn't come back. Kind of defeats the purpose of doing that test to an extent. Bearing in mind this was after the 12-week limit so a reason needed to be given, and I'm surprised the results from the first two tests were considered sufficient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigel-harps1954

That's the greatest load of horsesh!t I've read in quite some time.

---

I had forgotten all about this subject on Current Affairs until I saw the latest post from The Fly and Osarun.
And as I read through the posts I came upon this one.
In any event, I wonder if you have been following the news stories from America this week?
As it happened the state of Alabama followed Georgia in rejecting abortion, although they (Alabama) have gone all out and rejected all abortion even in the case of rape and incest.
Missouri followed suit and currently there are 16 states which have rejected abortion.
For the record, I do not believe in abortion, but having said that I would find it really difficult to disagree with anyone seeking an abortion in the case of rape or incest.

The country, it is safe to say, is headed on a collision course on the subject of abortion and, shock of all shocks, the Democrats are in uproar that anyone, let alone a whole state, would oppose abortion.
But the consensus of opinion in America points back to that decision by and subsequent celebrations of the New York State Legislature to grant abortions even after the baby has been born (remember I got laughed off the stage when I brought it up a few months ago).

The link below touches on the events of the week.

https://www.newsmax.com/christopherr...514/?oRef=mixi

Hot off the presses

https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/19/d..._campaign=push

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

I saw this, it is brutal. The poor couple.

I was surprised that the abortion went ahead seeing as the 3rd test (the definitive one, it seems) hadn't been finished, or at least, the results hadn't come back. Kind of defeats the purpose of doing that test to an extent. Bearing in mind this was after the 12-week limit so a reason needed to be given, and I'm surprised the results from the first two tests were considered sufficient.

---

Apologies for the late reply. I didn't want to comment on it much at the time given the context. It is indeed a brutal case, and sadly - an inevitable one. I'm sure it has been an awful experience for the couple and my thoughts go out to them.

My own stance on abortion hasn't changed and never will. I've little desire to stir up the debate again but all I will say is that it's interesting to note the terms used in the various reports on the case, and how each makes reference to the couple's baby.

https://twitter.com/netflixisajoke/s...087612417?s=21

Dave Chappell’s take on abortion. Exposes the selfishness of the “my body, my choice” argument.

“And if I’m wrong, then perhaps we’re wrong. So figure that sh!t out for yourselves”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

I saw this, it is brutal. The poor couple.

I was surprised that the abortion went ahead seeing as the 3rd test (the definitive one, it seems) hadn't been finished, or at least, the results hadn't come back. Kind of defeats the purpose of doing that test to an extent. Bearing in mind this was after the 12-week limit so a reason needed to be given, and I'm surprised the results from the first two tests were considered sufficient.

---

Thankfully there was a happier outcome for this mother and child -

https://www.thesun.ie/news/4652022/m...nged-hospital/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by passinginterest

I wouldn't be surprised if there's actually a reduction in the number of abortions procured by Irish women when the legislation takes effect. The stress of knowing the option wasn't available locally must have been a huge additional burden, and once flights were booked etc. changing of mind would have been unlikely. At least now there's going to be consultation locally, advice, support etc. and with the proposals to increase access to birth control and improve sex education in schools it should be a much healthier environment for women in general.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Fly

It's possible, but highly improbable. The liberalisation of abortion law has led to more abortion in every country (or at least every country I'm aware of) where such liberalisation has taken place. It's statistically demonstrable.

---

I just read the following article and thought I'd provide an update on the exchange above.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-new...138295825.html

So...there was a significant increase in the number of abortions carried out in Ireland last year rising to 10,033, the highest since the law changed to make it easier to have a termination.

Delving deeper into it (and highlighting the exceptions for obvious reasons)...statistics show that last year 21 procedures were carried out due to a risk to life or health of the mother under the grounds set out in Section 9 of the Act. Seven terminations were completed where there was a risk to life or health in an emergency situation. Another 129 were due to a fatal foetal abnormality and 9,876 medical abortions were carried out in early pregnancy.

As predictable as it was inevitable. C'est la vie!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Fly

I just read the following article and thought I'd provide an update on the exchange above.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-new...138295825.html

So...there was a significant increase in the number of abortions carried out in Ireland last year rising to 10,033, the highest since the law changed to make it easier to have a termination.

Delving deeper into it (and highlighting the exceptions for obvious reasons)...statistics show that last year 21 procedures were carried out due to a risk to life or health of the mother under the grounds set out in Section 9 of the Act. Seven terminations were completed where there was a risk to life or health in an emergency situation. Another 129 were due to a fatal foetal abnormality and 9,876 medical abortions were carried out in early pregnancy.

As predictable as it was inevitable. C'est la vie!

---

As it all was entirely the choice provided to the women in question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigel-harps1954

As it all was entirely the choice provided to the women in question.

---

I'm not sure what you're saying there exactly, or indeed what it has to do with the update provided.

How are the tourism figures to the UK?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John83

How are the tourism figures to the UK?

---

If you have those stats to hand then please share.

Wouldn't you know it, but I don't? It's almost like those women were invisible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John83

Wouldn't you know it, but I don't? It's almost like those women were invisible.

---

Are you suggesting that the annual increases are explained solely by the previously indeterminate figures for said invisible women?

I think it's fair to suggest it has to be a sizeable factor - would you not agree? After all, why would you travel to England for a medical procedure that is now available here?

I think it represents a significant challenge to your original point (that what we're seeing is more abortion), and I think the onus is on you to back that point up more thoroughly, no?

Once your point is quantified, it becomes easier to discuss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

I think it's fair to suggest it has to be a sizeable factor - would you not agree? After all, why would you travel to England for a medical procedure that is now available here?

---

I do agree, but how sizeable it is another thing entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

I think it represents a significant challenge to your original point (that what we're seeing is more abortion), and I think the onus is on you to back that point up more thoroughly, no?

Once your point is quantified, it becomes easier to discuss.

---

The flip of that assumes that's there's a predetermined proportion of all pregnancies that will end in abortion, and that what we're seeing now is just the increasing visibility of what was once invisible. In which case how will we know when full visibility has been reached?

On a separate note...the figures pertaining to the exceptions make for sober reading and just bolster my belief that abortion should always be, and should have been, allowed in those circumstances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Fly

I do agree, but how sizeable it is another thing entirely.

---

It is - but if you're going to make the claim that there is now "more abortion" than before, I think the onus is on you to prove your claim, and you haven't done so. Because you've left out a really key data set which even now you can't quantify.

A better comparison would be the % of pregnancies which ended in abortion before and after the referendum - because your caveat "there was a significant increase in the number of abortions carried out in Ireland" (my emphasis) is pretty irrelevant when something literally wasn't allowed before the referendum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

It is - but if you're going to make the claim that there is now "more abortion" than before, I think the onus is on you to prove your claim, and you haven't done so. Because you've left out a really key data set which even now you can't quantify.

---

It's hard to be definitive as figures for Irish women seeking abortions in Britain (and elsewhere) prior to the introduction of the 2018 Act are based on estimates. Though in 2016 for example, 3,265 Irish women were recorded as having had abortions in Britain (as per Simon Harris' speech to the Dáil on the Amendment of the Constitution).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

A better comparison would be the % of pregnancies which ended in abortion before and after the referendum - because your caveat "there was a significant increase in the number of abortions carried out in Ireland" (my emphasis) is pretty irrelevant when something literally wasn't allowed before the referendum.

---

It's not accurate to say that it's pretty irrelevant because that would fail to take into account how values and human behaviour are changed and influenced by the particular standards of the time (the zeitgeist in other words).

This applies to other issues like marriage and divorce rates for example, or the current and increasing debate around gender to use a more topical example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Fly

It's hard to be definitive as figures for Irish women seeking abortions in Britain (and elsewhere) prior to the introduction of the 2018 Act are based on estimates.

---

It may well be hard to be definitive. But your post was pretty definitive, even though this information was missing from it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Fly

It's not accurate to say that it's pretty irrelevant

---

I think it's entirely accurate to say your comparison - which amounted to "significant increase in something happening here after it become no longer illegal" - is pretty irrelevant.

Oops, I accidentally deleted my reply there...
(does anyone else have issues editing posts on a mobile phone?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

It may well be hard to be definitive. But your post was pretty definitive, even though this information was missing from it.

---

Fair point. The discussion has now been updated with the example provided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

I think it's entirely accurate to say your comparison - which amounted to "significant increase in something happening here after it become no longer illegal" - is pretty irrelevant.

---

And I'll just reiterate that it isn't for the reason provided.