Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is there anyone on Boards who voted "No" because of Abortion?

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    nullzero wrote: »
    Again, you're assuming all No voters are idiots who run around chasing their tales whilst you laugh at their stupidity.
    There have been plenty of stupid threads started by Yes and No voters, that deosn't mean that everyone who voted Yes or No agree's with the crazies saying stupid things now does it?

    OP (No voter btw): So, if there is anyone on Boards.ie who voted "No" against Lisbon on reasons of abortion, can you make a post please?

    Everybody else: Dunno, they probably wouldn't post here anyway even if they did.

    / Thread wanders off topic.

    / The End.


    What exactly are you getting offended about? :confused:


  • Options
    #63
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,326 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    marco_polo wrote: »
    Maybe No voters should stop starting threads like this then ;)

    How do you know I'm a "No" voter?


  • Options
    #64
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,326 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    marco_polo wrote: »
    OP (No voter btw): So, if there is anyone on Boards.ie who voted "No" against Lisbon on reasons of abortion, can you make a post please?

    Everybody else: Dunno, they probably wouldn't post here anyway even if they did.

    / Thread wanders off topic.

    / The End.


    What exactly are you getting offended about? :confused:

    Again...how do you know I'm a "No" voter?


  • Options
    #65
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Again...how do you know I'm a "No" voter?

    Just got that impression from the tone of your posts, if I am incorrect then my humblest apologies.

    Tony EH wrote: »
    ..
    OK, so we've had the usual "Yes" voter attempts to turn a thread into a slagging match.
    ...
    Tony EH wrote: »
    The problem is that this abortion nonsense is always trotted out by the "Yes" camp as a main reason why a "No" was delivered the last time.
    ...


  • Options
    #66
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    marco_polo wrote: »
    OP (No voter btw): So, if there is anyone on Boards.ie who voted "No" against Lisbon on reasons of abortion, can you make a post please?

    Everybody else: Dunno, they probably wouldn't post here anyway even if they did.

    You forgot the key part where it was declared that because no one had come on to a Boards.ie EU forum thread within a 24 period admitting that they voted No becuse of abortion that the Yes side were wrong in saying that a sizable group people had voted No because of abortion.

    Whatever about minimum wge, now thats what I call an assumption.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,326 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Don't be so bloody simple.

    I clearly stated that I had yet to meet anyone that voted "No" because they factored in abortion. I wasn't just using Boards as an example.

    But, of course you already knew that. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #68
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Don't be so bloody simple.

    I clearly stated that I had yet to meet anyone that voted "No" because they factored in abortion. I wasn't just using Boards as an example.

    But, of course you already knew that. :rolleyes:

    I would know a few who probably did vote No for reasons like Abortion. Haven't asked them them exactly how they voted as I don't want their evangelical wrath.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #69
    candy-gal1
    Registered Users Posts: 6,568 ✭✭✭candy-gal1


    but why?! its not going to stop anyone getting abortions, i dont think, its just a boat r plane away! so why would people vote no because of that?! just curious.
    I voted no, but it wasnt at all for that reason.

    :D:)


  • Options
    #70
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    candy-gal1 wrote: »
    but why?! its not going to stop anyone getting abortions, i dont think, its just a boat r plane away! so why would people vote no because of that?! just curious.
    I voted no, but it wasnt at all for that reason.

    :D:)

    Certain groups said that the treaty would make abortions legal here. Yes people can go abroad for abortions but they can go abroad for cannabis too and that doesn't mean people want it legal here


  • Options
    #71
    Stark
    Registered Users Posts: 20,995 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    Difference with the cannabis is cannabis doesn't start maturing from a ball of undifferentiated cells into a human being during the time it takes to travel abroad. There's a lot of hypocrysy surrounding the whole abortion issue with the "It's okay to have it done abroad but not here" policy stance imo.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Stark wrote: »
    Difference with the cannabis is cannabis doesn't start maturing from a ball of undifferentiated cells into a human being during the time it takes to travel abroad. There's a lot of hypocrysy surrounding the whole abortion issue with the "It's okay to have it done abroad but not here" policy stance imo.

    And we are lucky that women don't have to go that far to get one.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #73
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Stark wrote: »
    Difference with the cannabis is cannabis doesn't start maturing from a ball of undifferentiated cells into a human being during the time it takes to travel abroad. There's a lot of hypocrysy surrounding the whole abortion issue with the "It's okay to have it done abroad but not here" policy stance imo.

    Without wanting to get into too big a debate, I don't think anyone actually has that stance. The people who don't want it done here don't want it done abroad either but there's nothing they can do about it in other countries.


  • Options
    #74
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Without wanting to get into too big a debate, I don't think anyone actually has that stance. The people who don't want it done here don't want it done abroad either but there's nothing they can do about it in other countries.
    Well actually there is, which is why we got the amendment protecting the right to travel in the first place. People can be detained in Ireland, if it can been shown that they intend to carry out a crime in another jurisdiction. For example, if one had proof that someone was about to take a trip to Thailand to procure sex with children, then we could stop them and/or possibly even charge them upon their return.

    So the right to travel amendment was a bit of an Irish solution to an Irish problem.

    I notice that people can't help themselves but actually debate abortion rather than what the thread is actually about, BTW.


  • Options
    #75
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Well actually there is, which is why we got the amendment protecting the right to travel in the first place. People can be detained in Ireland, if it can been shown that they intend to carry out a crime in another jurisdiction. For example, if one had proof that someone was about to take a trip to Thailand to procure sex with children, then we could stop them and/or possibly even charge them upon their return.

    So the right to travel amendment was a bit of an Irish solution to an Irish problem.

    I notice that people can't help themselves but actually debate abortion rather than what the thread is actually about, BTW.

    Abortion isn't a crime in the UK so they're not intending to carry out a crime in another jurisdiction. Unless you mean that someone can be detained if they intend to do something that's illegal in Ireland but not in the place they're going to?

    I still wouldn't say there's anyone who is of the opinion that "It's okay to have it done abroad but not here". That ruling was securing the right to travel, not the right to have an abortion so it says nothing about anyone's opinion on whether they want abortion to be available here or abroad. Even the most pro-life judge couldn't legitimately rule any other way because the person is not breaking any laws in their destination country


  • Options
    #76
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Abortion isn't a crime in the UK so they're not intending to carry out a crime in another jurisdiction. Unless you mean that someone can be detained if they intend to do something that's illegal in Ireland but not in the place they're going to?
    Correct.
    I still wouldn't say there's anyone who is of the opinion that "It's okay to have it done abroad but not here". That ruling was securing the right to travel, not the right to have an abortion so it says nothing about anyone's opinion on whether they want abortion to be available here or abroad.
    The right to travel was specifically included as an exception to the state ban on abortion and abortion alone. The amendment included access to information on abortion also - and only in relation to abortion. So both de facto and de jure it was a case of "it's okay to have it done abroad but not here" - read Article 40.3.3 if you don't believe me.
    Even the most pro-life judge couldn't legitimately rule any other way because the person is not breaking any laws in their destination country
    Except that they did - that's why we had the amendment in the first place.


  • Options
    #77
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Correct.

    The right to travel was specifically included as an exception to the state ban on abortion and abortion alone. The amendment included access to information on abortion also - and only in relation to abortion. So both de facto and de jure it was a case of "it's okay to have it done abroad but not here" - read Article 40.3.3 if you don't believe me.

    Except that they did - that's why we had the amendment in the first place.

    That hurts my head. Definitely an Irish solution to an Irish problem. Could it be said that the ban on abortion was infringing on other rights (the right to travel) and so the article had to be inserted to stop it? I'm trying to understand the motivation behind this, it doesn't look to me like something anyone would deliberately set out to do. It looks like fixing an unforeseen problem causes by the abortion ban, ie preventing people from travelling, rather than a deliberate attempt to allow abortion through the back


  • Options
    #78
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    It looks like fixing an unforeseen problem causes by the abortion ban, ie preventing people from travelling, rather than a deliberate attempt to allow abortion through the back
    Nope, because then it would have to apply to any case where someone could be prevented from travel on suspicion that they wanted to commit a crime (in a jurisdiction where it is legal). But it only applies to abortion.

    Indeed, the referendum didn't even limit itself to the issue of travel, but also included the right to abortion information and only abortion information - I believe it is still illegal to give information advertising a brothel even if is in a country like Holland where it is legal.

    So it was pretty much allowing abortion by the back door (although that is probably anatomically impossible), I'm afraid.

    Ironically, though, I'm pretty much convinced that if abortion was legal in Ireland people would still go to the UK for it; in part for increased anonymity and in part because it would probably be cheaper there, even taking into account travel and accommodation.


  • Options
    #79
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Nope, because then it would have to apply to any case where someone could be prevented from travel on suspicion that they wanted to commit a crime (in a jurisdiction where it is legal). But it only applies to abortion.

    Indeed, the referendum didn't even limit itself to the issue of travel, but also included the right to abortion information and only abortion information - I believe it is still illegal to give information advertising a brothel even if is in a country like Holland where it is legal.

    So it was pretty much allowing abortion by the back door (although that is probably anatomically impossible), I'm afraid.

    Ironically, though, I'm pretty much convinced that if abortion was legal in Ireland people would still go to the UK for it; in part for increased anonymity and in part because it would probably be cheaper there, even taking into account travel and accommodation.

    Clarify something for me: if someone is catching a flight to Amsterdam to smoke some weed can they be arrested?


  • Options
    #80
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Clarify something for me: if someone is catching a flight to Amsterdam to smoke some weed can they be arrested?
    Not arrested, but if their express intention is to go abroad to break Irish law, an injunction could be raised against their travel.


  • Options
    #81
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Not arrested, but if their express intention is to go abroad to break Irish law, an injunction could be raised against their travel.

    If the service is legal in the EU, doesnt the freedom of travel provisions of the EU apply. They can only be restricted for reasons of public policy, health etc... In the absence of legislation, wouldnt a court need to consider that you going to Amsterdam for a spliff was a reason of public policy/health. And surely ehe chances of that are remote, at best?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Not arrested, but if their express intention is to go abroad to break Irish law, an injunction could be raised against their travel.

    Does that not strike you as bat sh!t crazy? If this was any other country I wouldn't believe you


  • Options
    #83
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    drkpower wrote: »
    If the service is legal in the EU, doesnt the freedom of travel provisions of the EU apply.
    I don't think that it quite works like that. Otherwise it would be legal to advertise German and Dutch brothels in Irish publications.
    And surely ehe chances of that are remote, at best?
    Absolutely, and would probably require someone seeking a specific injunction, as occurred in the X Case - where being stopped from going for an abortion was probably also viewed as only a remote possibility.

    Anyhow, regardless of your stance on abortion, it is often cited as a classic example of an Irish solution to an Irish problem.


  • Options
    #84
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    I don't think that it quite works like that. Otherwise it would be legal to advertise German and Dutch brothels in Irish publications.

    Perhaps; but are you sure it isnt?!?

    I dont actually know the answer to that question but I cant see any reason why it would be illegal. Im not aware of any rule of law that would prevent someone from accessing a legally available service in another EU country. Practically, there are advertising guidelines that would probably prevent Irish publications advertising such services.


  • Options
    #85
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    drkpower wrote: »
    Perhaps; but are you sure it isnt?!?
    I am sure that the amendment was specific to abortion and know (following legal advice) that it would not cover any other issue other than a woman's right to travel for an abortion.


  • Options
    #86
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    I am sure that the amendment was specific to abortion and know (following legal advice) that it would not cover any other issue other than a woman's right to travel for an abortion.

    That is correct regarding the 13th amendment. But what I am talking about is the right to travel and access services guaranteed by the EU.


  • Options
    #87
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    drkpower wrote: »
    That is correct regarding the 13th amendment. But what I am talking about is the right to travel and access services guaranteed by the EU.
    I was only talking about the 13th amendment.


Advertisement