Best Council Meeting EVER!!!!!!

Vainglory

dajaffa wrote:

One thing that (sadly) made it very clear that the sides basically disagree with each other on most things, is that the left (who are pro-choice), voted against the refurendum that (if passed) makes the UCD SU stance closer to what their own is....

In my opinion, a referendum that acknowledges the 1995 Abortion Information Act as being legitimate and says we should act within it is not one that brings the SU stance closer to my own.

dajaffa

I'm not disagreeing but surely lobbying the government to legalise abortion is good in your eyes, even if this ref wasn't allowed to run, the motion to have the clinic info in the Fresher's Guide was defeated anyway. Surely it's better to give the info in a seperate welfare handbook, than not at all...

The_Minister

Vainglory wrote:

I was actually quite surprised that a motion mandating the President to find out what came under the umbrella of "legal" was defeated. Especially when he wanted us to only do things that were "legal" in the next motion.

But maybe that's just me.

It was defeated because it was a dishonest and perfidious motion. It excluded legal advice as an option for determining the legality of the motion, in effect forcing the union to turn to the courts, a result which was sought already by Kate O'Hanlon. In effect Council had already decided on this. It was a Trojan Horse motion.

Vainglory

Firespinner wrote:

It was defeated because it was a dishonest and perfidious motion. It excluded legal advice as an option for determining the legality of the motion, in effect forcing the union to turn to the courts, a result which was sought already by Kate O'Hanlon. In effect Council had already decided on this. It was a Trojan Horse motion.

What good is legal advice if you only get it from ONE person and take that as gospel? I had more legal advice, from more people, which said the opposite to what the Union Legal Advisor said, but of course that didn't matter because people chose to ignore it.

Vainglory

dajaffa wrote:

I'm not disagreeing but surely lobbying the government to legalise abortion is good in your eyes, even if this ref wasn't allowed to run, the motion to have the clinic info in the Fresher's Guide was defeated anyway. Surely it's better to give the info in a seperate welfare handbook, than not at all...

Our referendum will include the bit about lobbying the government for abortion services within the state, I don't disagree with that part.

The_Minister

Vainglory wrote:

What good is legal advice if you only get it from ONE person and take that as gospel? I had more legal advice, from more people, which said the opposite to what the Union Legal Advisor said, but of course that didn't matter because people chose to ignore it.

They should ask many experts, but the opinions of pro-choice activists, willing to represent pro-bono and spoiling for a fight cannot be taken seriously when unbiased sources differ.

dajaffa

Agree with that one alright. Pro-choice lawyers would want us to do it, so of they could end up defending us in court in a case that would set legal precedent (one way or the other), which (not that I know), would be a lawyer's dream. The SU legal advisor (who isn't actively pro-choice as far as I'm aware) thought we'd loose. It was emphasised that this was his opinion, but that's al that can be given until a case goes to court...

The_Minister

dajaffa wrote:

Agree with that one alright. Pro-choice lawyers would want us to do it, so of they could end up defending us in court in a case that would set legal precedent (one way or the other), which (not that I know), would be a lawyer's dream.

There is a certain prestige attached to such cases if thats what you mean.

dajaffa

That's the jist of it alright.

HappyCrackHead

DUH!!!

Who wouldnt want the case? its a career maker!!!

Who in their right mind wouldnt wanna say, "i was in UCD when we brought the government to its knees, and the nation too its senses over abortion"!???

The referendum is a joke, that stuff about lobbying government is crap. More influential and focused groups have been lobbying for "a woman's right to choose" in this country for decades.

Not to mention this referendum still retains UCD's non-directive policy and actively lobbying the government for abortion would violate that.

*(afterthought) Jane's amendment to the referndum specifically stating what we all know, that they dont wanna give out details of these numbers or addresses without prior consulation, was shot down.

Read between the lines.

They just want to prevent any officer repeating the actions of Jane Horgan-Jones who put up numbers and addresses on her door, which where thrice torn down by our illustrious acting-president/president-elect/president for life Dan Hayden.

Stick that in ur anti-choice pipe and blow smoke out ur bee-hive

The_Minister

HappyCrackHead wrote:

Who in their right mind wouldnt wanna say, "i was in UCD when we brought the government to its knees, and the nation too its senses over abortion"!???

Pro-lifers?:rolleyes: People who are against abortion on moral grounds but wouldn't regard themselves as pro-life

HappyCrackHead

oh yeah i forgot.... not everyone is as much of a "progressive thinker" as i am. It's a woman's choice and she shouldnt have to travel in order to have an abortion.

Maybe pro-lifers should spend less time trying to prevent people from having a choice and more time supporting the other alternatives, adoption, foster etc...

pretty*monster

I read an article a while ago exploring the idea that few people on either side of the vicious abortion debate in the State's give a hoot about women's choices or murdered babies and the whole thing is an excusse for two groups who hate each other to hate each other more...

I guess wednesday's council reminded me of that.

pretty*monster

I read an article a while ago exploring the idea that few people on either side of the vicious abortion debate in the State's give a hoot about women's choices or murdered babies and the whole thing is an excusse for two groups who hate each other to hate each other more...

I guess wednesday's council reminded me of that.

The_Minister

pretty*monster wrote:

I read an article a while ago exploring the idea that few people on either side of the vicious abortion debate in the State's give a hoot about women's choices or murdered babies and the whole thing is an excusse for two groups who hate each other to hate each other more...

I guess wednesday's council reminded me of that.

Most people are pretty centre, and very vague on their beliefs. TBH I've always felt that any kind of "moral" referendum should require a 50%+ turnout to be valid, as you are imposing a moral viewpoint on the majority. Technical referendums can just have the 10%

pretty*monster

A pro-choice stance doesn't push anything on anyone.

The_Minister

pretty*monster wrote:

A pro-choice stance doesn't push anything on anyone.

I'm fairly sure that some people oppose abortion...you may hear them sometimes, referring to your beliefs as pro-death, waving pictures near O'connell street of chopped up babies, seeing abortion as a socially acceptable holocaust......
I really doubt that Youth 2000 or Christian Union would take it lying down (I think that there is another one but I forget the name:o )

Hermione*

Actually I agree with pretty*monster. I couldn't imagine ever having an abortion, but I believe it should be legalised to give people the choice as to whether or not they want one. My parents are practising Catholics, yet they've always opposed abortion referundums on the basis that their beliefs shouldn't affect other people's options.

Sorry for going o/t, I really hate the presumption that if you're pro-choice you 'approve' of abortion. So council, yeah ...

The_Minister

You're right Hermione. Coucil was great - everyone lost their dignity, and it was just great in general.

Samos

Why is the union's stance called non-directive, when this is clearly the same as pro-choice (that is, giving information on all the possible outcomes and allowing the affected person to decide)? As far as I can gather, the furore is over the provision of contact information for foreign abortion clinics, which is technically illegal. However, this information is freely available on the internet for anyone who wants it, so why was it necessary to type this material up and present it in a public location?

There is only a tangential relationship between what is illegal and what is unethical. The law only provides a bare minimum for acceptable conduct, but I would certainly not rely on this for providing principles by which I ought to live. In many cases I feel that it can inhibit ethical behaviour by restricting free conduct, and personally I would like a world where nobody could decide what is acceptable for me.

Those who are 'pro-life' simply want to impose their beliefs of what is proper conduct on others. Personally, I think that it is unethical to exploit animals for persoanl benefit, but I would not support a law that would dictate this to anyone. An imprortant part of making an ethical choice is that it not be forced on the person by threat of punishment, but accepted because it conforms to moral axioms, such as making the world a fairer place or increaing overall happiness, etc.

humbert

Firespinner wrote:

Most people are pretty centre, and very vague on their beliefs. TBH I've always felt that any kind of "moral" referendum should require a 50%+ turnout to be valid, as you are imposing a moral viewpoint on the majority. Technical referendums can just have the 10%

I agree, anything important should require a lot more than a 10% turnout. You can condem people for their apathy but if so few people care then nothing should change otherwise very few people can make decisions for everyone else. I also think there have been other threads that have discussed the whole abortion thing ad nauseam and my understanding of firespinners post was simply that it's an important enough topic to need a higher turnout before any changes should be made by anyone.

The_Minister

humbert wrote:

I agree, anything important should require a lot more than a 10% turnout. You can condem people for their apathy but if so few people care then nothing should change otherwise very few people can make decisions for everyone else. I also think there have been other threads that have discussed the whole abortion thing ad nauseam and my understanding of firespinners post was simply that it's an important enough topic to need a higher turnout before any changes should be made by anyone.

Pretty much yea.

singingstranger

Back on OT...

Actually, forget it.

/me tries to block out memories of Council from mind

The_Minister

HappyCrackHead wrote:

I think the need for "quick lads put up your hands" was more because the nature of the chair. who, and i think even firespinner can acknowledge, can be very quick to count, or miscount, the votes of the class reps. at least they dont need to be cajoled into voting a particular way as i have witnessed some people being.

Sorry I missed this earlier. Yes, I can acknowledge that he counts fast and miscounts rarely. You must admit there was a certain irony though.

Vainglory

Firespinner wrote:

They should ask many experts, but the opinions of pro-choice activists, willing to represent pro-bono and spoiling for a fight cannot be taken seriously when unbiased sources differ.

Who said that all the legal opinion I got was from people who offered to represent us for free? Actually, none of the stuff I quoted in council was from the people who offered to represent for free. I asked people such as legal advisors to various political parties too.

anonymous_joe

Firespinner wrote:

They should ask many experts, but the opinions of pro-choice activists, willing to represent pro-bono and spoiling for a fight cannot be taken seriously when unbiased sources differ.

Seen as we all have an opinion on the issue, no one is unbiased. Might as well get a variety of different legal opinions.

The_Minister

Vainglory wrote:

Who said that all the legal opinion I got was from people who offered to represent us for free? Actually, none of the stuff I quoted in council was from the people who offered to represent for free. I asked people such as legal advisors to various political parties too.

Was one of these plitical party advisors Ivanna Bakik?
What parties?
Who (what firms) did you ask?

Stabshauptmann

Samos wrote:

[P]ersonally I would like a world where nobody could decide what is acceptable for me.
...
Those who are 'pro-life' simply want to impose their beliefs of what is proper conduct on others.

The idea that nobody should be able to impose their ethical views on others is short sighted and arrogant/naive. The need for and benefits of society are so numerous I wouldn’t know where to begin, but without society human evolution and achievement wouldn’t be worth mentioning. However society needs laws, it cannot work without them.

At the very least societies laws should be the bare minimum needed to ensure that nobody’s rights and opportunities are infringed upon by anyone else. Shouldn’t society impose on me their moral belief that it is wrong for me to kill you simply because you hold a different opinion to me? The questions for me surrounding abortion are; 1)Is the unborn foetus a human life and worthy of societies protection 2)Who's rights are at stake and are some more important than others 3)Are people trying to force a religious view upon society.
I think people should be free to hold what ever moral position they want, and if you think I’m going to hell that’s too bad but I’ll say hi to Hitler when I get there. But if it doesn’t effect you then its not up to you to save my soul. There are lots of reasons why murder should be outlawed. Nobody should have to live in fear. Everybody has the right to self determination and to live. The reason I can support abortion is that IMO until there is a baby, independent and self sustaining it has no rights and no impact on society.

But I can understand why some people consider it murder, if you can’t understand where other people are coming from then I don’t know how you can hold a debate. I find in 90% of disputes both parties are wrong/misinformed but to varying degrees.

I'm pro-choice, but I find it hard to convince others of my opinion when other people who share my opinion profess it in an illogical and arrogant way.

BTW, as a side note/rant to the idea of a lawless society:
Anarchism as a political philosophy, is the belief that all forms of social coercion, such as governments and social hierarchies are undesirable. In short nobody should be able to force social standards on others.
Such a society simply wouldn’t work, that’s why we evolved into modern society. Are laws are all designed to improve the quality of life and protect society from abuses of power.

My beef with anarchists are many fold.
What anarchists don’t realise is that anarchism is how society started off and everything anarchists propose happened and now we've evolved into what we have now. Voluntary association evolved into governments and mutual aid industry. Trade is mutually beneficial.

I hate vandals and view graffiti as egotistical masturbation, while this isn’t a fundamental part of anarchism, it is in UCD:rolleyes:

As a student of economics I can only marvel at the selective and willful ignorance of the people who spread total lies. Kropotkin's work is so woefully incomplete and simple it can’t be applied. It contradicts itself repeatedly.
Ignorance even greater than their short sighted view of history.

Dave!

Firespinner wrote:

I'm fairly sure that some people oppose abortion...you may hear them sometimes, referring to your beliefs as pro-death, waving pictures near O'connell street of chopped up babies, seeing abortion as a socially acceptable holocaust......
I really doubt that Youth 2000 or Christian Union would take it lying down (I think that there is another one but I forget the name:o )

Well they can take a run and jump in that case, cos allowing the choice for someone to have an abortion does not mean that doctors are going to start chasing down pregnant women and forcing them to have an abortion. It's none of their business what someone else does, as it does not interfere with their lives (other than perhaps providing them with more photos to use in their propaganda).

The_Minister

DaveMcG wrote:

Well they can take a run and jump in that case, cos allowing the choice for someone to have an abortion does not mean that doctors are going to start chasing down pregnant women and forcing them to have an abortion. It's none of their business what someone else does, as it does not interfere with their lives (other than perhaps providing them with more photos to use in their propaganda).

What about a doctors right to conciencious objection? If a woman needs an abortion and every doctor available is stringintly pro-life, is the doctor forced to perform the abortion or the mother forced to carry the child?


Pro-lifers quite literally see abortion as a holocaust, like germans felt when watching the jews taken away and everyone cheering. (I'm not trolling - they really see it as that). Should they be forced to stand by and watch as what they consider murder is committed? Its not so simple as telling them to jump in the Liffy.