Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Silvio.Dante

Dades wrote: »

I suspect we've all had a few drinkies, people (me too).

I'm on my second bottle of Fairy Liquid myself...;)

Its a bitter as hell but I'm farting impressive bubbles...

Silvio.Dante

krankykitty wrote: »

I can't believe I'm explaining this again after I and others have already clearly detailed it out for you.

It doesn't matter how hard you lobby for the politician to vote Ta or Nil. All they are voting on is what wording is on the legislation, not that it won't go through. It HAS to, as the laws of the land are determined by the Constitution, which can only be changed by refererendum. Which has already happened and been passed.

If wording is rejected, it will just be reworded and resubmitted until a Ta vote happens and the legislation goes through- or else effectively the Government are acting in a treasonous manner, and will fall.

So, do you agree with me that if a majority of TDs vote Níl it cannot be legislated for..?

Thats all I'm saying...

_rebelkid

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

So, do you agree with me that if a majority of TDs vote Níl it cannot be legislated for..?

Thats all I'm saying...

IT WILL BE LEGISLATED FOR.

All they will vote on is the wording of the legislation. The legislation is happening, and will be enforced.

All that needs to be decided on is the wording that will be put into law.

Silvio.Dante

_rebelkid wrote: »

IT WILL BE LEGISLATED FOR.

All they will vote on is the wording of the legislation. The legislation is happening, and will be enforced.

All that needs to be decided on is the wording that will be put into law.

It can only be legislated for if a more TDs accede to it than reject it...

Bannasidhe

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

It can only be legislated for if a more TDs accede to it than reject it...

It HAS to be legislated for because there was a Referendum.

PopePalpatine

But Bannasidhe, don't you understand? The Catholic Church is not a democratic institution, therefore it wouldn't give two ****s about a referendum that doesn't go their way!

oldrnwisr

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

So, do you agree with me that if a majority of TDs vote Níl it cannot be legislated for..?

Thats all I'm saying...

Yes, Silvio, if more TDs vote NO than YES, then the legislation cannot pass for the moment. However, there are three problems with your idea.

1. The only realistic way in which TDs could vote NO in significant numbers is if there is a free vote, which is unlikely. This debate has already cost the exchequer quite a bit of money, what with public hearings, expert group reports and so on. So the reality is that this vote will likely be whipped to ensure its passage and prevent any further unnecessary expenditure.

2. Even if we assume a free vote, we would still have to assume that a) your position represents a majority of the public and b) that a majority of TDs would rebel against the stated position of their parties. Both are essentially tantamount to political suicide. Even if there were a number of TDs who were willing to go against the party line, why would they? Your position (i.e. no legislation is necessary) is only shared by 8% of voters. Do you really think that TDs are that stupid that they would listen to such a tiny if somewhat noisy minority.

3. As other posters have pointed out, a NO vote, were it to happen would not mean that the government would just give up. They can't. They would have to spend yet more money, working on a new bill with new wording albeit with the same effect and try to pass that and so on until it either passes or the government collapses in which case you're going to have a general election where new TDs will be elected who represent the majority view of the electorate which is legislating for X.

So I don't really know why you think that a NO vote, even were it possible, would be desirable. Have you ever heard of King Canute?

Oh, and while we're at it, why exactly do you think that even should it be subjected to a free vote there could possibly be a NO vote.

Silvio.Dante

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It HAS to be legislated for because there was a Referendum.

My previous point stands as a point of fact. Hence our massive campaign leading up to the propsed legislation being introduced into the Dail...

Silvio.Dante

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Yes, Silvio, if more TDs vote NO than YES, then the legislation cannot pass for the moment. However, there are three problems with your idea.

1. The only realistic way in which TDs could vote NO in significant numbers is if there is a free vote, which is unlikely. This debate has already cost the exchequer quite a bit of money, what with public hearings, expert group reports and so on. So the reality is that this vote will likely be whipped to ensure its passage and prevent any further unnecessary expenditure.

2. Even if we assume a free vote, we would still have to assume that a) your position represents a majority of the public and b) that a majority of TDs would rebel against the stated position of their parties. Both are essentially tantamount to political suicide. Even if there were a number of TDs who were willing to go against the party line, why would they? Your position (i.e. no legislation is necessary) is only shared by 8% of voters. Do you really think that TDs are that stupid that they would listen to such a tiny if somewhat noisy minority.

3. As other posters have pointed out, a NO vote, were it to happen would not mean that the government would just give up. They can't. They would have to spend yet more money, working on a new bill with new wording albeit with the same effect and try to pass that and so on until it either passes or the government collapses in which case you're going to have a general election where new TDs will be elected who represent the majority view of the electorate which is legislating for X.

So I don't really know why you think that a NO vote, even were it possible, would be desirable. Have you ever heard of King Canute?

Oh, and while we're at it, why exactly do you think that even should it be subjected to a free vote there could possibly be a NO vote.

All of the above may well be true.

However your focus on spending 'more money' as if the extra expense is a justificatinon for acceding to legislating for the intentional taking of life in Ireland is quite a weak one at best...

We may be lobbying in vain here but we're not going away and will be ramping up the pressure, on behalf of voiceless and innocent unborn babies up until and beyond the Dail vote...

The Mad Hatter

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

My previous point stands as a point of fact. Hence our massive campaign leading up to the propsed legislation being introduced into the Dail...

To delay legislation by a few weeks? I know you guys have shedloads of money (and I appreciate you pouring it into the Irish economy), but that seems like an insane way to spend it, if you don't mind me saying so.

Silvio.Dante

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

To delay legislation by a few weeks? I know you guys have shedloads of money (and I appreciate you pouring it into the Irish economy), but that seems like an insane way to spend it, if you don't mind me saying so.

No one can fortell how this would go, if by some chance we succeeded in gwtting the legislation voted down. It would be a massive accomplishment in itself and let the cards fall where they may after that... Game on...

krankykitty

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

It can only be legislated for if a more TDs accede to it than reject it...

Do yourself a favour and wake up to reality. I have more chance of getting signed for Manchester United than this legislation not pass (and I'm a woman, getting on to Giggs' age group and can't kick snow off a rope).

If you and your colleagues are using this as the basis of your campaign, I really can't believe how deluded, and lacking in respect it is for democracy.

Imagine if these referenda in 1992 and 2002 had gone the other way (the way the pro-lifers wanted), and effectively the legislation was not required. Now picture this, all the pro-choice people are out campaigning like you are, and saying we want the government to ignore what happened in the refererendum and make laws that go against the constitution as voted by the people. Would you not be angry at the idea that people would campaign for this, or that the government would consider legislating unconstitutionally?

You know what, earlier in this thread you said you'd love another referendum. So would I. I'd love one that would put this issue to bed for once and for all. However, if the vote went against you, would you accept it? You can't accept the last few votes so why would this one be any different.

krankykitty

No matter what side of the abortion debate I fall, I think I'd be really annoyed at people (especially those from another jurisdiction) campaigning against a democratic vote. Who do they think they are?

Silvio.Dante

krankykitty wrote: »

Do yourself a favour and wake up to reality. I have more chance of getting signed for Manchester United than this legislation not pass (and I'm a woman, getting on to Giggs' age group and can't kick snow off a rope).

If you and your colleagues are using this as the basis of your campaign, I really can't believe how deluded, and lacking in respect it is for democracy.

Imagine if these referenda in 1992 and 2002 had gone the other way (the way the pro-lifers wanted), and effectively the legislation was not required. Now picture this, all the pro-choice people are out campaigning like you are, and saying we want the government to ignore what happened in the refererendum and make laws that go against the constitution as voted by the people. Would you not be angry at the idea that people would campaign for this, or that the government would consider legislating unconstitutionally?

You know what, earlier in this thread you said you'd love another referendum. So would I. I'd love one that would put this issue to bed for once and for all. However, if the vote went against you, would you accept it? You can't accept the last few votes so why would this one be any different.

The only anger I'm picking up is from the advocates for X in this thread.

Go right ahead and support it being legislated for while we, advocate for it being rejected...:)

Silvio.Dante

krankykitty wrote: »

No matter what side of the abortion debate I fall, I think I'd be really annoyed at people (especially those from another jurisdiction) campaigning against a democratic vote. Who do they think they are?

Fair enough...:)

All the while we (Lifers) will continue to advocate for protecting all life from being intentionally killed in Ireland...

krankykitty

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

The only anger I'm picking up is from the advocates for X in this thread.

Go right ahead and support it being legislated for while we, advocate for it being rejected...:)

OK, but you had your chance (twice) to have it rejected and you were in the minority. It would be like if I put myself up for election to the local council, someone else got the seat but I decide to stand outside the offices every day protesting that I should get the seat. It's just not how it works.

And by the way, if you're inferring that I'm angry, yes I bloody well am. That a majority vote is not being respected by a. people like yourselves who are campaigning b. people from America sticking their nose in and c. successive Irish governments that have ignored their constitutional duties. All the while, women's lives are being put at risk.

Would you like me to attach a smily face to that so I can be passive aggressive about it ?

krankykitty

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Fair enough...:)

All the while we (Lifers) will continue to advocate for protecting all life from being intentionally killed in Ireland...

Fair enough, but you're fighting a losing battle as the votes have already been passed and it's a waste of your time.

Protecting ALL life from being killed? Where were you when Savita Hallapanavar lay dying in agony? When Michelle Harte and Sheila Hodgers needed their lifesaving cancer treatment? Or any other women who have suffered and/or died due to what's effectively stated in the highest law in the land not being acted on by Government?

Yes Silvio, I for one am angry.

aloyisious

This report in today's Sunday Independent, if true and correct in all details, show's how out of touch and/or insensitive to the care of women some of our politicians can be/truly are.

A MAJOR Fine Gael split on abortion is likely to accelerate after the announcement by Health Minister James Reilly that he will bring a memo to Cabinet on abortion legislation next week.

In a sign of ongoing tensions, the Sunday Independent has learnt that Fine Gael senator Fidelma Healy Eames has sent a letter to all Fine Gael TDs and senators warning that "a free vote is critical on matters of conscience".

Ms Healy Eames told her colleagues: "We have one of the safest countries in the world in which to have a baby and no doctor at the hearings ever withheld, or knew of any doctor to ever withhold, or refuse, medical treatment to a woman in difficulty in pregnancy in Ireland."

Originally published in Sunday Independent

krankykitty

Thinking that "matters of conscience" come into it show how deluded some politicians are also. It actually doesn't matter what they think, they are mandated and legally required to put this into law.

lazygal

krankykitty wrote: »

Thinking that "matters of conscience" come into it show how deluded some politicians are also. It actually doesn't matter what they think, they are mandated and legally required to put this into law.

I suggest a series of emails to TDs claiming its a matter of conscience reminding them of their constitutional obligations.

The Black Oil

It's funny to hear the pro-life camp throw the term 'innocent' around. I mean, it's not as if a certain religion condemns said innocents as sinners as soon as they're brought into the faith...

swampgas

krankykitty wrote: »

Thinking that "matters of conscience" come into it show how deluded some politicians are also. It actually doesn't matter what they think, they are mandated and legally required to put this into law.

If these TDs had any integrity, they would realise that if their conscience is in such conflict with the constitution, that perhaps they should be prepared to resign their seats.

Demanding to be allowed to ignore the constitution and supreme court is pretty outrageous.

lazygal

swampgas wrote: »

If these TDs had any integrity, they would realise that if their conscience is in such conflict with the constitution, that perhaps they should be prepared to resign their seats.

Demanding to be allowed to ignore the constitution and supreme court is pretty outrageous.

I reminded my TD that if his conscience clashed with his job as a legislator, perhaps he needs to reassess his job choice. He didn't bother to reply.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

aloyisious wrote: »

.... how out of touch and/or insensitive to the care of women some of our politicians can be/truly are .... Fine Gael senator Fidelma Healy Eames .... told her colleagues: "We have one of the safest countries in the world in which to have a baby and no doctor at the hearings ever withheld, or knew of any doctor to ever withhold, or refuse, medical treatment to a woman in difficulty in pregnancy in Ireland." ...

I may be missing the point. Can you explain where you feel this particular senator is out of touch and/or insensitive to herself?

Lingua Franca

Melih Gökçek, mayor of the capital, Ankara, supports the proposed ban, saying a mother who considers abortion should "kill herself instead and not let the child bear the brunt of her mistake," IBT reported.

Well, that would be one way to deal with the suicidal in pregnancy problem.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/06/nevin-yildirim-turkey-rape-beheading_n_1861016.html

TheChizler

Melih Gökçek, mayor of the capital, Ankara, supports the proposed ban, saying a mother who considers abortion should "kill herself instead and not let the child bear the brunt of her mistake," IBT reported.

But.. Non sequitor... Does not follow...

Bannasidhe

TheChizler wrote: »

But.. Non sequitor... Does not follow...

I recall Nancy Regan once remarking that if all murderers were executed that would mean less deaths...

Ummm...no, it would at least double the amount of deaths...

Silvio.Dante

krankykitty wrote: »

OK, but you had your chance (twice) to have it rejected and you were in the minority.

And thankfully we have a third chance to at least delay X being introduced via the Dail vote in the coming months.

You seem surprised that we're doing our best to have it rejected. A tad naive of you I think...

Silvio.Dante

krankykitty wrote: »

Protecting ALL life from being killed?

Did you miss the word 'intentionally'..?

An important mistake on your part I'd suggest. I'm assuming it was a mistake and not deliberate..?

krankykitty

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

And thankfully we have a third chance to at least delay X being introduced via the Dail vote in the coming months.

You seem surprised that we're doing our best to have it rejected. A tad naive of you I think...

I don't think it's naive to be surprised someone is spending so much time and energy on what is a futile matter