Best Council Meeting EVER!!!!!!

Dave!

Firespinner wrote:

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?

Bleh, getting too philosophical here, I'll think about it another day

Firespinner wrote:

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.

What about the concerns of pro-choicers? Pregnant women who want to terminate the pregnancy have to get the ferry to England, and keep it a secret lest they be cast away as pariahs. Is that alright?
I guess until the next referrendum, it remains alright.

BTW, anyone remember the results of the last referrendum on the subject? I can't remember...

The_Minister

DaveMcG wrote:

BTW, anyone remember the results of the last referrendum on the subject? I can't remember...

national or student?
National it failed cause conservatives thought that it was too liberal, and liberals that it was too conservative, so it fell in the cracks.

Dave!

Firespinner wrote:

national or student?
National it failed cause conservatives thought that it was too liberal, and liberals that it was too conservative, so it fell in the cracks.

Didn't know there was a student referrendum! I know that it didn't pass with the national one, but I mean what percentages? And same with students, what percentage?

arbeitsscheuer

In the national referendum in March 2002, the vote was extremely close; just over 10,500 votes separated the two sides.
50.42 per cent voted No, while 49.58 per cent voted Yes, to the proposed removal of a clause whereby the threat of suicide is enough to excuse and justify termination of the pregnancy.

That's a vague summing-up of it anyway. From what I can remember.

Dave!

SebtheBum wrote:

In the national referendum in March 2002, the vote was extremely close; just over 10,500 votes separated the two sides.
50.42 per cent voted No, while 49.58 per cent voted Yes, to the proposed removal of a clause whereby the threat of suicide is enough to excuse and justify termination of the pregnancy.

That's a vague summing-up of it anyway. From what I can remember.

Thank you sir!

That is pretty tight... I wonder would the result be the same 4 years later.

arbeitsscheuer

DaveMcG wrote:

Thank you sir!

That is pretty tight... I wonder would the result be the same 4 years later.

Well, for a start it would be completely different - the wording of the proposed amendment would presumably be less stupidly inneffectual and/or compromising. The amendment was supposed to be a Conservative and pro-life one, but as Firespinner pointed out, the pro-life movement split down the middle, while the pro-choice Alliance was much better organised and cohesive.

And even then it was a close run thing...

Who knows whether the result would be the same today - but there certainly ain't any hope of getting any Liberal/pro-choice amendment to the current constitution passed in a referendum. For those of us who are pro-choice, the only option is to back the current legislation to the hilt, regardless of how rubbish it really is.

singingstranger

I think the IFPA have come out last year looking for another national referendum, reckoning that public opinion has swayed enough now for it to be passed...

arbeitsscheuer

singingstranger wrote:

I think the IFPA have come out last year looking for another national referendum, reckoning that public opinion has swayed enough now for it to be passed...

If by IFPA you are referring to the Irish Family Planning Association then it's difficult to imagine you being more wrong - they campaigned for a "No" to the proposed changes in 2002, and it's difficult to see why they would have changed their stance in the intervening 4 years.

singingstranger

SebtheBum wrote:

If by IFPA you are referring to the Irish Family Planning Association then it's difficult to imagine you being more wrong - they campaigned for a "No" to the proposed changes in 2002, and it's difficult to see why they would have changed their stance in the intervening 4 years.

C'est the advice of Abey Campbell, lads... maybe I've got the body wrong. I'll go have a look.

**edit: No, seems to be them - http://www.ireland.indymedia.org/newswire.php?story_id=71411&condense_comments=true&save_prefs=true - maybe they wanted a "no" because they didn't think the 2002 referendum would really solve anything. It wasn't, after all, a true pro-choice referendum.

pretty*monster

Rotfl, the 2002 referendum, not a pro-choice referendum, you bet your ass it wasn't. The wording of the motion was multi-directional and basically bollocks, it restated the right to travel and the right to information (with limits), but mainly sought to role back the decision on the X case... which was a bit... I dunno…
the X case merely protected the girls right to travel, but the text of the proposed amendment implied that the threat of suicide, based on the X case, would be removed as a ground for abortion if it passed. Since the amendment fell we would assume that the government should legislate for abortion on the grounds of suicide.

Of course the government never did. After the amendment fell Ahern said:
"It will be the work of the next government to study and understand the results and implications of this referendum, and to act upon it. And above all, in doing so, the will of the sovereign people as expressed at the ballot box should be respected." (Irish Times, 09/03/02)
It's been four years Bertie, nothing done, please start working.


At any rate the 2002 referendum was a complete white elephant nothing was going to change, whatever way one voted. But one should note that the people (very narrowly) voted to keep abortion merely illegal as opposed to very illegal indeed.

In 1992 thew people of Ireland voted to allow the right of travel and the right to information. And (depending on how you interpret it) against abortion in cases where the woman's life is at risk OR against not including suicide as a factor in assesing wheather a pregant woman's life is at risk.

1983 was the last time the issue of abortion was put to the people of Ireland in a clear and distinct way, yes the referendum affirming the unborn child's right to life was passed.

As a country we've come a long way from 1983. Be damned, we've even legalized homosexuality I mean, hands up which of us were eligible to vote in 1983?
I honestly believe that in this day and age a real pro-choice referendum would have more than a fighting chance. But of course no government (and certainly not FF) wants to touch the issue, which is why it's high time their hand was forced.

(oh and Seb, the ifpa are pro-choice, they campaigned for a No to the ‘02 amendment cos, as I've pointed out, it was anti-choice, they were calling for a referendum over the summer, on the back of an Irish woman taking an appeal to the European Court of Human rights, I lost track of both these stories, anyone remember them?).

Oooh, we're wildly off topic.

singingstranger

pretty*monster wrote:

Oooh, we're wildly off topic.

lollers... so, how about that Council, huh?

anonymous_joe

Why do all threads in the UCD forum turn to this subject?

Dave!

What subject...?

arbeitsscheuer

pretty*monster wrote:

(oh and Seb, the ifpa are pro-choice, they campaigned for a No to the ‘02 amendment cos, as I've pointed out, it was anti-choice, they were calling for a referendum over the summer, on the back of an Irish woman taking an appeal to the European Court of Human rights, I lost track of both these stories, anyone remember them?).

No sh*t sherlock:rolleyes: .

My point was that the IFPA wouldn't want another bloomin referendum on the (correct) assumption that the chances of any legislation making abortion more available/possible/legal are slim to none - The 2002 Referendum proved this. The IFPA aren't stupid, they're not gonna campaign for a referendum on something they know they can't win.

me wrote:

there certainly ain't any hope of getting any Liberal/pro-choice amendment to the current constitution passed in a referendum. For those of us who are pro-choice, the only option is to back the current legislation to the hilt, regardless of how rubbish it really is

Jesus...:rolleyes:

Dave!

SebtheBum wrote:

No sh*t sherlock:rolleyes: .

My point was that the IFPA wouldn't want another bloomin referendum on the (correct) assumption that the chances of any legislation making abortion more available/possible/legal are slim to none - The 2002 Referendum proved this. The IFPA aren't stupid, they're not gonna campaign for a referendum on something they know they can't win.

Jesus...:rolleyes:

Oh the most pleasant guy in Ireland once again brings a smile to the discussion......

humbert

That has just become my desktop background! so good:D

HappyCrackHead

I think both SebtheBum and pretty*monster have established that their pro-choice.

Anyway More happened in council last week than just the defeat of an oppertunity to challenge the legallity of abortion information (though that was important). There was the bull**** motion by the members of Kevin Barry Cummann, the proposer of which was PRO for arts Paul Lynam.

The motion was to mandate the president to send a "get well soon card" to former Taioseach Charles J Haughey. By all accounts this was Members of KBC trying to flex their muscel as it were, considering how many left wing motions had been defeated in recent weeks.

CJH had been a UCD student, (someone can find out if he actually graduated i figure he didnt, but chalk that up to personal bias), however he was a student before the SU existed. He was also a criminal and still owes the state about 2million euro in unpaid tax. In fact the problems in our health system can be traced back to 1987 when his government ordered funding cuts.

anyway... back to my point it was an attempt to get one over on council, and it was narrowly deafeated. Last council has to have some contensious issues.

pretty*monster

HappyCrackHead wrote:

The motion was to mandate the president to send a "get well soon card" to former Taioseach Charles J Haughey. By all accounts this was Members of KBC trying to flex their muscel as it were, considering how many left wing motions had been defeated in recent weeks.

Yeah... I though that one would have been funny, but the KBC Krew took it so seriously that it was mostly just wierd and creepy.

scop

My gods are better than your gods.

Our motions are better than your motions.

My beliefs are more heroic than yours.

You should all decide which group is stronger, have a huge fight and the let one rule them all. Save us the blood and guts of 'democracy.'

:cool:

Jonny Arson

scop wrote:

My gods are better than your gods.

Our motions are better than your motions.

My beliefs are more heroic than yours.

You should all decide which group is stronger, have a huge fight and the let one rule them all. Save us the blood and guts of 'democracy.'

:cool:

Post of thread.

gliondar

I lost a lot of respect for people on the right when I saw that motion about CJH being put forward...... the thought that people consider him some sort of hero. A man who destroyed our nations good will. I tell ya, if another motion like that appears Ill be sickened. Nothing but slime.....

arbeitsscheuer

pretty*monster wrote:

Yeah... I though that one would have been funny, but the KBC Krew took it so seriously that it was mostly just wierd and creepy.

Agreed - I thought it was a p*sstake when I first heard bout it, then chattin to some of them I was closer to tears than laughter tbh...

Lynam and Bond as Arts PRO's eh?
The electorate could not have picked 2 more sharply contrasting characters.

Next year they should fight it out, mano el mano, in gladiatorial combat as opposed to the (nefarious and sneaky) political tet a tets that are becoming just a tad tiresome.

The_Minister

In fairness CH was:
1) a UCD student
2) a taoiseach
3) not all that bad. He brought in free public transport for the elderly etc.

When Garrett pops it we will send him a card.

Dave!

Firespinner wrote:

3) not all that bad.

There's alot of people who'd have alot to say about that remark...... I hope you're willing to back it up

scop

Firespinner wrote:

In fairness CH was:
1) a UCD student
2) a taoiseach
3) not all that bad. He brought in free public transport for the elderly etc.

When Garrett pops it we will send him a card.

The man in your signature would be proud.

There is a line even I would have to draw. When you say somebody like Haughey who would feck ya over for a quid on the floor is not too bad then youve reached, turning so many blind eyes stage that you may lose sight altogether.

The_Minister

What I mean is that he did a lot of good as well, which has been thrown by the wayside in the rush by his opponents to finish him. Someone once said that the "good that men do is often interred with them". I wouldn't vote for him but pretending that he was some kind of demon is childish and pathetic. He did good deeds as well, and this should not be forgotten.

zap

cow was the best moment well that and paddy walking out and then coming back and announcing that i threw some water on my face and I'm back.

The_Minister

zap wrote:

cow was the best moment well that and paddy walking out and then coming back and announcing that i threw some water on my face and I'm back.

We were so OT I didn't know what you meant for five minutes. My first thought was "oh some spamming randomer":D
The cow was brilliant, as was the reaction it got from the person reffered to in the opening post. I can't blame him for walking out.

mad lad

haughey wasn't all that bad? He stole 20,000 from Brian Lenihans liver transplant fund. I hope the guy rots in hell.

Jonny Arson

Haughey yeah.... blah blah blah


now onto more important things like the OT, SU council yeah stuff, sounds like WWF (or WWE:mad: ) these days heh doesn't it, stuff