Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Sarky

Oh yay! Jank came back! I missed your snuggly friendly posts so much! <3333

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Now, now Rob - don't be getting all pretentious on us.

Pretentious? Nope. Annoyed - certainly!

marienbad

A joke is great every now and then to lighten the tone , but a running gag going on for post after post in a thread as difficult and sensitive as this is just out of order.

Just my opinion.

Obliq

Jernal wrote: »

Folks,

Your effervescency.

I like the notion of a sparkly moderator (or gaseous?)
You now look like this in my mind's eye:



Hmmm. Is it wrong to want a G&T at 2pm?

Wow, this thread has gotten very civilised alright....

Nodin

Meanwhile in the fun factory

Senior Fine Gael figures say there is now a growing feeling that several TDs
and senators will lose the party whip as a result of the law, particularly the
suicide grounds.

Labour is successfully pushing back against Fine Gael's demands for six
doctors to approve an abortion where there is a threat of suicide.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/fine-gael-fears-six-will-vote-against-new-law-on-abortion-29223101.html

Morag

Obliq wrote: »

Hmmm. Is it wrong to want a G&T at 2pm?

All the coverage about the X Case bill this week has made me want a drink by lunch time, every damn day.

Bannasidhe

marienbad wrote: »

A joke is great every now and then to lighten the tone , but a running gag going on for post after post in a thread as difficult and sensitive as this is just out of order.

Just my opinion.

Point taken.

But personally I find the occasional foray into the surreal helps reduce my blood pressure after perusing the absurd farce that passes for 'real' in Ireland.

Bannasidhe

Morag wrote: »

All the coverage about the X Case bill this week has made me want a drink by lunch time, every damn day.

I now want 'lunch' at 10 a.m.

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

Pretentious? Nope. Annoyed - certainly!

What Ho and well met fellow ranter about architectural integrity.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Wassa matter GU - didn't anyone want to discuss this on the thread you created to discuss this so you decided to raise that flag here again and are now miffed it didn't fly?

What actually happened is I answered a question, comprehensively. But I can appreciate if there's no appetite for the answer. As with the unfortunate news of the suicide ground being regarded as pants by ninety percent of the third of shrinks actually motivated enought to express a view, I know we don't want to form views based on the fact of the matter.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As for 'demonstrating the influence of Irish Catholicism on the national mindset' - since when does the Irish language belong to the RCC? Douglas Hyde would have had a thing or two to say about that -

When did I draw any link between the Irish language and the RCC? Lots of points getting missed today. I won't futher confuse things by asking why you'd automatically exclude a member of the Church of Ireland from the term "Irish Catholic".

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Let me put this in simple terms for you - in the context of the topic of women's control over their own bodies I don't care what language is employed to tell me I don't have the right to decide what happens my own body. It could be in Sanskrit for all I care just as long as they remove the restrictions. ECHR rulings are available in many languages I do not read (my German in very weak and my Dutch is abysmal) so I read the English version trusting (and sometimes we do have to trust the experts) that it says the same in German, Spanish, Italian and...Irish. I suspect that if there were discrepancies eager beaver lawyers would soon highlight them.

Several points emerge. It's ludicrous to compare the necessary communication of international legal documents in several languages to the situation of how domestic law is managed. And the equivalent, for the ECHR, would be if it issued a single definitive text of its rulings in some minority European language like Romansch. You also don't appreciate that the primacy of Irish means that we place a profound limit on who can be an expert. Again, the parallel with Irish (Roman) Catholicism is striking. Create an arbitrary expertise, and insist that it be at the centre of all decision making. Nice work if you can get it, and somebody clearly has it.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I agree that the vast majority of Irish people have no idea of the purpose of the Constitution or have ever considered reading it and this is a very very bad thing but I dispute that this is because the Irish version takes precedence over the English one and would put it down to apathy and disengagement from our political process - a disengagement encouraged by our educational system that privileges loyalty to the Church of Rome over loyalty to the State and is far more concerned with creating obedient Catholics than engaged citizens. You can't blame that on a language.

Yes, it absolutely can be blamed on the ridiculous situation of writing the binding terms of the Constitution in a langauge that most cannot understand. It's self-evident baloney. And I haven't said that "the vast majority of Irish people have no idea of the purpose of the Constitution or have ever considered reading it". If you looked back, you'd find I actually said people did discuss the wording of the 8th Amendment - and that it was a pity they weren't able to discuss the version that was actually binding. You are the one who said that Irish people lack the capacity to deliberate and decide on the contents of their Constitution - I never subscribed to such an elitist view. Perhaps you'd like to reconsider, and recant?

Loafing Oaf

Nodin wrote: »

Meanwhile in the fun factory

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/fine-gael-fears-six-will-vote-against-new-law-on-abortion-29223101.html

Surely this was expected all along. If it's just half a dozen backwoodsmen (the 'woods' in question being leafy avenues in the case of Peter Matthews:p) voting against the bill what's the problem? Btw, I make a firm prediction that Lucy will end up trooping to lobby to vote for the bill: all these half-baked ideas about writing her own clauses for the bill and stuff was just a way of signaling to the FG base that she's VERY CONCERNED about the issue...

Nodin

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

What actually (.....)you'd like to reconsider, and recant?

If you'd be good enough to get back to me....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84339823&postcount=7160

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Nodin wrote: »

If you'd be good enough to get back to me....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84339823&postcount=7160

I think you got your answer, you just didn't like it. Beyond that, if you've a thirst for learning, you can read the 700+ page report that I've linked. I've no intention of doing so, as I'd regard it as self-evident that, if the authoritative version of the Constitution is in a language few can read, and that text has been found to have material differences, that's a problem.

I seriously can't be of further help to someone who can't see that.

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

What actually happened is I answered a question, comprehensively. But I can appreciate if there's no appetite for the answer. As with the unfortunate news of the suicide ground being regarded as pants by ninety percent of the third of shrinks actually motivated enought to express a view, I know we don't want to form views based on the fact of the matter.When did I draw any link between the Irish language and the RCC? Lots of points getting missed today. I won't futher confuse things by asking why you'd automatically exclude a member of the Church of Ireland from the term "Irish Catholic".Several points emerge. It's ludicrous to compare the necessary communication of international legal documents in several languages to the situation of how domestic law is managed. And the equivalent, for the ECHR, would be if it issued a single definitive text of its rulings in some minority European language like Romansch. You also don't appreciate that the primacy of Irish means that we place a profound limit on who can be an expert. Again, the parallel with Irish (Roman) Catholicism is striking. Create an arbitrary expertise, and insist that it be at the centre of all decision making. Nice work if you can get it, and somebody clearly has it.Yes, it absolutely can be blamed on the ridiculous situation of writing the binding terms of the Constitution in a langauge that most cannot understand. It's self-evident baloney. And I haven't said that "the vast majority of Irish people have no idea of the purpose of the Constitution or have ever considered reading it". If you looked back, you'd find I actually said people did discuss the wording of the 8th Amendment - and that it was a pity they weren't able to discuss the version that was actually binding. You are the one who said that Irish people lack the capacity to deliberate and decide on the contents of their Constitution - I never subscribed to such an elitist view. Perhaps you'd like to reconsider, and recant?

Nope - I'm far too busy being elitist and pretentious to engage with you and that rather wordy bee in your bonnet.

Bannasidhe

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/04/26/if-she-cant-do-it-maybe-she-should-decide-to-retire/

:rolleyes:

Numpty.

Nodin

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I think you got your answer, you just didn't like it. Beyond that, if you've a thirst for learning, you can read the 700+ page report that I've linked. I've no intention of doing so, as I'd regard it as self-evident that, if the authoritative version of the Constitution is in a language few can read, and that text has been found to have material differences, that's a problem.

I seriously can't be of further help to someone who can't see that.

No, you didn't answer the question. And no 'wade through this large amouny of unrelated text' is not an answer.

The fact is that difficulty in comprehension and discrepancies have presented no real opportunities for legal challenge to important legislation. Thats a reasonable indicator that its not the great "problem" you seem to think it is. Nor does it seem to have any relevance to the matter at hand.

lazygal

Bannasidhe wrote: »

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/04/26/if-she-cant-do-it-maybe-she-should-decide-to-retire/

:rolleyes:

Numpty.

What a patronising ****. Pregnant women can do without 'minding' and I trust experts like Mahony over accountants with rosary beads like Matthews.

Sarky

There isn't a facepalm big enough.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Nope - I'm far too busy being elitist and pretentious to engage with you and that rather wordy bee in your bonnet.

Grand, we'll leave it with you asserting that the Irish electorate are incapable of casting an informed vote. Which is a bit of a bitch, as we sort of need them to have at least one more referendum on this topic.

Nodin wrote: »

<..>The fact is that difficulty in comprehension and discrepancies have presented no real opportunities for legal challenge to important legislation. <...>

What's your basis for this statement? I'm just trying to judge if you know what a "fact" is.

Turtwig

Nodin wrote: »

The fact is that difficulty in comprehension and discrepancies have presented no real opportunities for legal challenge to important legislation. Thats a reasonable indicator that its not the great "problem" you seem to think it is. Nor does it seem to have any relevance to the matter at hand.

Could the same argument not be used against X case legislation? It only really affects a tiny minority of Irish people.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence and having a legal potential for something to exist is just stupid when it can be proactively dealt with.

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Grand, we'll leave it with you asserting that the Irish electorate are incapable of casting an informed vote. Which is a bit of a bitch, as we sort of need them to have at least one more referendum on this topic.What's your basis for this statement? I'm just trying to judge if you know what a "fact" is.

Be careful you don't fall off that high horse now as I would so miss your charm and scatter gun flinging of insults at anyone who dares to question your pontifications.

Turtwig

Folks,

It's probably been a hard week for all here but spare a thought for the mud.
Life, they say, is a physics simulation. Or at least, that was what the mud realised as it followed the curved parabola in the sky on its way to splatting someone in the face. So please don't fling mud, they get all philosophical and we hate that.

Thanks.

lazygal

If the mud sticks, is that not an unfortunate but unavoidable side effect of flinging it?

Sarky

The mud has yet to develop a nervous system and cannot feel pain, physical or otherwise, does it really matter what happens to it?

lazygal

Sarky wrote: »

The mud has yet to develop a nervous system and cannot feel pain, physical or otherwise, does it really matter what happens to it?

Of course! All mud is sacred. Mud killer.

Sarky

What about the disabled or very old who aren't capable of flinging anything any more, never mind mud?

lazygal

All mud is sacred, regardless of what stage of life. I'll just keep repeating that no matter what any other mud thinks.

Sarky

So you're going to ignore all the mud that just gets flung about naturally from processes like landslides or slurry-spreading or those bubbly hot mud swamps! You're so blinkered.

Bannasidhe

I feel soiled reading this.

Nodin

Jernal wrote: »

Could the same argument not be used against X case legislation? It only really affects a tiny minority of Irish people.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence and having a legal potential for something to exist is just stupid when it can be proactively dealt with.

If we were discussing legal issues generally, it may be a relevant if minor point. However in regards to the matter at hand, its hard to fathom the relevance.