Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

recedite

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

if it was the precedent how can it also be a re-interpretation?

I'm not even going to bother.

NuMarvel

recedite wrote: »

I'm not even going to bother.

For your own sake, you really shouldn't.

Hotblack Desiato

Where'd you get that tract from Rec? LifeSiteNews?

Mark Hamill

recedite wrote: »

It all depends...
I'm aware of the rules from the Irish point of view, but its not that simple. Some countries don't allow dual citizenship. If you are born in one of those countries, and grow up there, you might not want to renounce that citizenship just so you can claim to be Irish on account of your parent's nationality.

What's growing up abroad got to do with your citizenship when you are born? Stop trying to shift the goalposts. Babies born to Irish parents are Irish regardless of where they are born (and regardless of if they change citizenship at an older age). Therefore they are Irish before they are born if, as the no side claim, unborn babies should have the rights as born do.

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

I'm basing it on the legal principle of "precedent". The first time something is established in a legal judgement. That is when it becomes part of "common law".

Similarly, your nitpicking in relation to the x-case and the right to travel is also noted. The AG and the High Court felt confident at the time that the 8th amendment prevented the girl from travelling for an abortion. As it turned out, the SC ruled that she could travel. This was confirmed by the people soon afterwards in a referendum, as was the suicide clause, and the info/advertising thing.


We can say that these things were considered illegal before "the x-case and its associated referendums" but were legal afterwards. Therefore we can say that the 8th amendment was re-interpreted at time, and the law was changed.

One could also say that as there was nothing in law connecting the issues of abortion, travel and information back then, conflating them into something considered illegal was just an assumption, so you're right on that. It was only when the SC had these separate issues brought before it over time and ruled on them separately that lawyers admitted something needed to be put into law to cover those rights assumed protected. The deployment of the 8th forced those other issues to the fore.

People never had to consider the issue of abortion and protection of the unborn before, it was assumed up til then that the constitution, and the act proscribing abortion, protected the life of the unborn. It was only when women brought in the "pill" that the lawyers admitted the constitution had nothing specific protecting the life of the unborn.

One has to say that the flaws in the 8th's wording were made obvious by the SC rulings and that the subsequent amendments to the constitution to provide protection to those other rights were needed. As you said, the AG and the High Court felt confident [their assumption] that the 8th covered all three [by supremecy of the right to life of the unborn] until the SC ruled they were separate constitutional rights. The SC ruling on the right to travel was for all citizens, not just the girl, though her case was the accelerant. Ditto on the citizens right to freedom of information.

ohnonotgmail

aloyisious wrote: »

One could also say that as there was nothing in law connecting the issues of abortion, travel and information back then, conflating them into something considered illegal was just an assumption, so you're right on that. It was only when the SC had these separate issues brought before it over time and ruled on them separately that lawyers admitted something needed to be put into law to cover those rights assumed protected. The deployment of the 8th forced those other issues to the fore.

People never had to consider the issue of abortion and protection of the unborn before, it was assumed up til then that the constitution, and the act proscribing abortion, protected the life of the unborn. It was only when women brought in the "pill" that the lawyers admitted the constitution had nothing specific protecting the life of the unborn.

One has to say that the flaws in the 8th's wording were made obvious by the SC rulings and that the subsequent amendments to the constitution to provide protection to those other rights were needed. As you said, the AG and the High Court felt confident [their assumption] that the 8th covered all three [by supremecy of the right to life of the unborn] until the SC ruled they were separate constitutional rights. The SC ruling on the right to travel was for all citizens, not just the girl, though her case was the accelerant. Ditto on the citizens right to freedom of information.

The Attorney General at the time, Peter Sutherland, considered the wording dangerously flawed and argued against it. The fine gael government recognised the flaws in the wording highlighted by the AG and tried to have the wording changed. During a debate in the Dail on the wording that was adopted
Alan Shatter said

The irony is that I have no doubt, not merely from the interpretation the Attorney General has given but from the other interpretations that can be validly taken from the amendment, that if it in its present form becomes part of our Constitution it will essentially secure a constitutional judgment in the not too distant future requiring the House to enact legislation to permit women to have abortions.

The full text of Sutherlands opinion on the wording can be found here https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/peter-sutherland-s-1983-advice-on-the-eighth-amendment-1.3353263

To describe it as prescient is a major understatement.

Hotblack Desiato

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The fine gael government recognised the flaws in the wording highlighted by the AG and tried to have the wording changed.

If only that government had had a majority in the Dail, and the smaller coalition partner had been totally opposed to the 8th, maybe they'd have been able to do something to stop it.



* SARCASM *

ohnonotgmail

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If only that government had had a majority in the Dail, and the smaller coalition partner had been totally opposed to the 8th, maybe they'd have been able to do something to stop it.



* SARCASM *

Not much the government can do when their own TDs vote against them.

aloyisious

Realistically speaking, the majority of the republic's voters were of one mind that the unborn needed protection and voted so. It's during the time when there was a degree of blinded trust in what was taught as morally good for Irish society was swallowed wholesale by it as the honest to goodness truth and individuality was a "NO-NO". I didn't explore all the facts behind the issue before voting, I voted for the amendment and regret ny silliness. Life is a lot more complicated than some people still want us to believe.

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

Go on, indulge me, explain it. I can't see any difference.

The difference is that "abortion on demand" makes it sound, falsely, like you can just go in and demand one and get one every time. You can not.

"Choice Based Abortion" makes it sound, correctly, like you choose to have one, you go and request one.... and several criteria are tested and evaluated before you are granted one.

recedite wrote: »

What happens at 16 weeks? Is that when the foetus gets its mojo?

Nothing in particular actually. In fact the only meaningful criteria for assigning anyone things like the right to life occur much later than that.

But over 98% of abortions are generally sought by 16 weeks. Complications due to abortion go up dramatically in a non-linear fashion after 16 weeks. And so forth.

There are no good reasons for assigning rights to the fetus until at least 24 weeks really, but there is good reason to mediate access more stringently before that. Politically I would campaign therefore for around 16 weeks myself, but I would not morally lose any sleep about a fetus aborted at 20 or 24.

But at SOME point in the developmental process the fetus transitions from being a biological entity to a sentient one. We are not 100% clear when that is yet. But everything we do know tells us it happens a relatively large chunk of time after when the near totality of abortions are actually sought.

Why what do YOU think happens at 0 weeks, 12 weeks or 16 weeks that triggers your moral and ethical concern for what is an entity no more sentient than a rock?

recedite

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The full text of Sutherlands opinion on the wording can be found here https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/peter-sutherland-s-1983-advice-on-the-eighth-amendment-1.3353263
To describe it as prescient is a major understatement.

Its an interesting article alright. But IMO you cannot say the original wording was "flawed" because it was open to interpretation. In some ways, that has been its strength. As Confuscious said, “The green reed which bends in the wind is stronger than the mighty oak which breaks in a storm.”
People knew at the time the wording was short and slightly vague, but that's how a constitution should be. Legislation on the other hand, is often long and complicated.
So if we look take on or two of Peter Sutherland's complaints, with the benefit of 2018 hindsight...

In particular it is not clear as to what life is being protected; as to whether ‘the unborn’ is protected from the moment of fertilisation or alternatively is left unprotected until an independently viable human being exists at 25 to 28 weeks.

Sorted out by the courts as being the moment of implantation. Flexibility in the wording allowed them to take account of the morning after pill, which is a comfort to rape victims. That is 6-12 days after conception, usually 9 days.

Further, having regard to the equal rights of the unborn and the mother, a doctor faced with the dilemma of saving the life of the mother, knowing that to do so will terminate the life of ‘the unborn’ will be compelled by the wording to conclude that he can do nothing.

Unnecessary scaremongering. Sorted out as being 100% in favour of the mother, even when the threat to life is coming from her own hand.

The Irish text of the proposed amendment, which must prevail in cases of conflict and which corresponds to ‘the unborn’ in the English, can be translated as ‘the unborn living’ or ‘the living unborn’. “In the event that the Supreme Court is called upon to construe the proposal, it could come to a number of different conclusions as to the definition of the class which is afforded protection. Undoubtedly a view which might commend itself to the court is that all human beings fall within the ambit of the amendment, and that a human being comes into existence when the process of fertilisation is complete.

Gibberish. Even if the 8th meant that "the unborn" covered all human beings, born and unborn, so what?

in the United States the Supreme Court there determined that to attempt to reach a conclusion on the issue would be to speculate because ‘those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus’.) Other conclusions might be that human life commences at the moment of implantation of fertilised ovum or when brain activity commences. “However, the point of time for which the most compelling legal argument could be made, other than the time of fertilisation, as being the moment of commencement of protection, could be said to be the time when the foetus becomes independently viable. I understand that this is probably at some time between 25 and 28 weeks of pregnancy.

So here we see his real thinking, which is similar to Nozz's indefinable "sentience" argument. An "impossible to define moment", which tends to default back to the time of "viability". So abortion on demand right up to the moment when the baby can survive post-abortion, breathing away on that cold slab. Small wonder that the majority of people in Ireland disagreed with him, and probably still do.


Sutherland was an arch catholic to the end, due to his upbringing. Yet in his inner mind and thinking he was a forebear to the perfidious George Soros and Colm O'Gorman. An apparent do-gooder, and a virtue signaller.
A strange mix; we'll never see his like again.
Hopefully.

Mark Hamill

recedite wrote: »

Here's some more education for you.

So one brave little lad there actually struggled on for more than 10 hours, breathing away, on a cold slab.

The RCOG recommend lethal injection to get it over with more quickly. Its considered a mercy to the child, but more importantly, also spares the staff some discomfort.
https://eclj.org/abortion/hrc/the-human-rights-of-babies-surviving-late-abortion

Firstly, any source for that "education" that isn't from an American, conservative, right wing, anti same-sex marriage group?
Secondly, what has late term abortions got to do with Ireland, when we will have abortions only up to 12 weeks?

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

So here we see his real thinking, which is similar to Nozz's indefinable "sentience" argument.

If you are too weak to pick up a rock, that does not mean the rock can not be picked up.

Similarly just because YOU can not define something, does not mean I can not. If you can find flaws in my thinking then perhaps discuss them with me rather than your recent MO of simply ignoring my points and posts.

Merely throwing labels like "indefinable" does not make the target take on those attributes however.

That said however.....

recedite wrote: »

An "impossible to define moment", which tends to default back to the time of "viability".

..... you seem to think that defining the "moment" is even required for my position. It is not. All that is required to bolster my position on abortion is the ability to define when that moment has not occurred..... not when it has.

So you are in danger of attempting to negate my position based on a criteria that was never used to establish it. Which would do nothing at all, save leave you talking past me and leaving you imagining that the "majority of people in Ireland" disagree with me when the position you are imagining they disagree with is not even the one I hold.

recedite

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The difference is that "abortion on demand" makes it sound, falsely, like you can just go in and demand one and get one every time. You can not.

"Choice Based Abortion" makes it sound, correctly, like you choose to have one, you go and request one.... and several criteria are tested and evaluated before you are granted one.

Its hardly a choice if somebody else decides whether its allowed or not.


In reality, once you make the switch from "abortion when the mothers life is at risk" to "abortion when the mothers health is at risk" the bar is set so low that it becomes abortion on demand. The only limit then is the time limit; ie how late are the permissible late term abortions.
Being pregnant is always more of a risk to "health" than not being pregnant.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Why what do YOU think happens at 0 weeks, 12 weeks or 16 weeks that triggers your moral and ethical concern for what is an entity no more sentient than a rock?

I'm not the one trying to bring in exemptions based on x number of weeks. I'm happy with the way it is.

recedite

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Firstly, any source for that "education" that isn't from an American, conservative, right wing, anti same-sex marriage group?

It says European at the top of the page. Do you not like Americans?

Secondly, what has late term abortions got to do with Ireland, when we will have abortions only up to 12 weeks?

That's not in the referendum wording. It may or may not happen afterwards, depending on who is in govt. and what they want.

recedite

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If you are too weak to pick up a rock, that does not mean the rock can not be picked up.

Nice, but its not Confucius


Like Sutherland you have been unable to crack this, so you have defaulted to the "viability" position.
Not entirely unlike myself, except that whereas I would tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the unborn, you would tend to use it against them.


That's why these kind of people are the genuine guardians of human rights. Not virtue signallers such as Colm O'Gorman, Peter Sutherland, or Soros.

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

Its hardly a choice if somebody else decides whether its allowed or not.

It is a choice to seek it. It is a choice to apply for it.

You have the choice to seek a drivers license for example. It does not mean the licensing authority has to grant you one. So it is not "Driving license on demand" is it? It is a process by which you can choose to apply for something you want to have.

You appear to have a very limited and restrictive definition of what "choice" means which would restrict the conversation without just cause.

recedite wrote: »

In reality, once you make the switch from "abortion when the mothers life is at risk" to "abortion when the mothers health is at risk" the bar is set so low that it becomes abortion on demand.

But again it can be refused. So it is not "on demand" at all. It is only "on demand" if you can demand it, and get it every time. If you can be refused it then there is more nuance in play than mere demand. And that nuance does not go away just because the majority MIGHT get it. Most people who apply for a driving license get one too. That does not mean they get it "on demand". They get it pending the result of the application procedure.

recedite wrote: »

The only limit then is the time limit

There is more than that. But up to 12 or 16 weeks I see no reason why there should be many limits. Nor have you moved at any point to offer one to me. Even when asked. Up to 12/16 weeks what limits should there be and why, other than on medical grounds such as medical indication that the pills in question are likely to cause harmful effects in any given individual.

I certainly would not want to see pills administered to cause miscarriage in a woman who is demonstrably allergic to them for example. That is a limitation that should very much exist. But from the perspective of the fetus itself I am seeing no valid limitations at all. People just scream "Human life" at me when I ask, and then refuse to engage in any level of discourse on what they think that ever means in the context.

recedite wrote: »

I'm not the one trying to bring in exemptions based on x number of weeks. I'm happy with the way it is.

Nice dodge. So basically there is no argument on offer, including from you, as to anything happening in such a fetus that should be a basis for us affording it rights, or moral and ethical concern.

recedite wrote: »

Like Sutherland you have been unable to crack this, so you have defaulted to the "viability" position.

I think I have enough words in my mouth without you putting yours in there too. Viability is not only NOTHING To do with my position on abortion, but I am on record more than once on this forum arguing against it as a very bad way to mediate this issue.

Is my position so difficult to assail that you require an entirely different one to hammer on instead?

recedite

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I think I have enough words in my mouth without you putting yours in there too. Viability is not only NOTHING To do with my position on abortion, but I am on record more than once on this forum arguing against it as a very bad way to mediate this issue.
Is my position so difficult to assail that you require an entirely different one to hammer on instead?

I assumed your "24 weeks" referred to "viability". If it refers to something else, you are welcome to say what it is.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There are no good reasons for assigning rights to the fetus until at least 24 weeks really, but there is good reason to mediate access more stringently before that. Politically I would campaign therefore for around 16 weeks myself, but I would not morally lose any sleep about a fetus aborted at 20 or 24.

Overheal

recedite wrote: »

It says European at the top of the page. Do you not like Americans?
That's not in the referendum wording. It may or may not happen afterwards, depending on who is in govt. and what they want.

Cute but there’s a stark difference in data from a US government source like the CDC or a well recognized body that conducts peer reviewed research like the APA - and some third party crap sponsored by the Westboro Baptist Church.

Considering the “US Partner” for ECLJ, ACLJ, appears to be posting about “The Deep State,” Hillary’s Emails, and “Attacks on our military and the Bible,” I’m just going to go ahead and file the organization under the category of sources that are less than objective.

I especially like their posts insinuating Russian Interference is a hoax but recent news that Obama interfered in Israeli elections, fear-mongering that doctors will be forced to perform abortions, and even some conspiracy about an Anti-Israel Deep State also. Hardly a bastion of fact based objectivity and research

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

Its an interesting article alright. But IMO you cannot say the original wording was "flawed" because it was open to interpretation. In some ways, that has been its strength. As Confuscious said, “The green reed which bends in the wind is stronger than the mighty oak which breaks in a storm.”
People knew at the time the wording was short and slightly vague, but that's how a constitution should be. Legislation on the other hand, is often long and complicated.
So if we look take on or two of Peter Sutherland's complaints, with the benefit of 2018 hindsight...
Sorted out by the courts as being the moment of implantation. Flexibility in the wording allowed them to take account of the morning after pill, which is a comfort to rape victims. That is 6-12 days after conception, usually 9 days.Unnecessary scaremongering. Sorted out as being 100% in favour of the mother, even when the threat to life is coming from her own hand.
Gibberish. Even if the 8th meant that "the unborn" covered all human beings, born and unborn, so what?
So here we see his real thinking, which is similar to Nozz's indefinable "sentience" argument. An "impossible to define moment", which tends to default back to the time of "viability". So abortion on demand right up to the moment when the baby can survive post-abortion, breathing away on that cold slab. Small wonder that the majority of people in Ireland disagreed with him, and probably still do.


Sutherland was an arch catholic to the end, due to his upbringing. Yet in his inner mind and thinking he was a forebear to the perfidious George Soros and Colm O'Gorman. An apparent do-gooder, and a virtue signaller.
A strange mix; we'll never see his like again.
Hopefully.

Does this mean you would have preferred an AG who would have given a dishonest opinion in order to deceive the public et al instead of the one given by your arch catholic, Peter Sutherland, which you describe as gibberish because he happened to include a reference in it to the Irish language and it's primary standing in the reading of irish constitutional and lesser law here over the English language, or other languages?

It seem's to me that you are trying to delude and distract others with your description of Peter Sutherland's opinion on the 8th into thinking his opinion was and is worthless. It just doesn't work.....

recedite

Overheal wrote: »

Cute but there’s a stark difference in data from a US government source like the CDC or a well recognized body that conducts peer reviewed research like the APA - and some third party crap sponsored by the Westboro Baptist Church.

Considering the “US Partner” for ECLJ, ACLJ, appears to be posting about “The Deep State,” Hillary’s Emails, and “Attacks on our military and the Bible,” I’m just going to go ahead and file the organization under the category of sources that are less than objective.

So you refuse to consider the data, on the basis of an ad hominem relating to a related organisation.
You ignore that the actual stats were taken from UK health professionals; a 2007 study by the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Guidance from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

I presume you just made up the Westboro Baptist Church sponsorship.

Overheal

recedite wrote: »

So you refuse to consider the data, on the basis of an ad hominem relating to a related organisation.
You ignore that the actual stats were taken from UK health professionals; a 2007 study by the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Guidance from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

I presume you just made up the Westboro Baptist Church sponsorship.

No, I refute your supposed evidence based on the body of their work, which is predacated on confirmation bias and a steep editorial slant, along with peddling conspiracy theories.

It’s a slickly designed website meant to not just come off as another angelfire blog or MySpace page but that’s all there is here. There are no editorial or journalistic standards upheld.

If you want to reference a study, reference a study. Don’t reference a Christian blog that cherry picks the study. What’s more I see no link to said study in that blog post, and you weren’t referencing any statistical data: you referenced an anecdote, which I have some doubts about being present in journal publication you are referring to.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

Its an interesting article alright. But IMO you cannot say the original wording was "flawed" because it was open to interpretation. In some ways, that has been its strength. As Confuscious said, “The green reed which bends in the wind is stronger than the mighty oak which breaks in a storm.”
People knew at the time the wording was short and slightly vague, but that's how a constitution should be. Legislation on the other hand, is often long and complicated.
So if we look take on or two of Peter Sutherland's complaints, with the benefit of 2018 hindsight...
Sorted out by the courts as being the moment of implantation. Flexibility in the wording allowed them to take account of the morning after pill, which is a comfort to rape victims. That is 6-12 days after conception, usually 9 days.Unnecessary scaremongering. Sorted out as being 100% in favour of the mother, even when the threat to life is coming from her own hand.
Gibberish. Even if the 8th meant that "the unborn" covered all human beings, born and unborn, so what?
So here we see his real thinking, which is similar to Nozz's indefinable "sentience" argument. An "impossible to define moment", which tends to default back to the time of "viability". So abortion on demand right up to the moment when the baby can survive post-abortion, breathing away on that cold slab. Small wonder that the majority of people in disagreed with him, and probably still do.


Sutherland was an arch catholic to the end, due to his upbringing. Yet in his inner mind and thinking he was a forebear to the perfidious George Soros and Colm O'Gorman. An apparent do-gooder, and a virtue signaller.
A strange mix; we'll never see his like again.
Hopefully.

On what basis do you say that? The public didnt vote on the wording of the referendum and i doubt the vast majority even considered Sutherlands opinion.

aloyisious

The thoughts of a person I know on the issue we are to decide in the referendum [whom I thought, due to his previous posting elsewhere on the Net, was going to be a NO voter in the referendum] are contained in the following copied para's ...............................

Pro-choice people seldom admit that life does begin at conception. In my view this is because it makes them hostage to the idea that abortion ends a human life. I prefer to acknowledge this reality. Pregnancy termination does end human life, but I feel that preserving human life is not an absolute value.

Just over 2 years ago I watched my uncle pass away in the Mater Hospital. His illness brought him to a point where treatment stood no chance of improving his condition. He was unconscious and unresponsive. Continuing with treatment would do nothing other than slow his passing, so his pain medication was maintained while treatment for his condition was withdrawn. I feel that this was the correct and compassionate decision. This choice by his family and medical staff implicitly recognises what most people know: that human life is not absolute, that it exists on a spectrum.

Many people feel that a beating heart betokens the living humanity of an individual, but really what counts is a functioning, developed brain. It is why lifesupport is turned off when it is determined that someone is 'braindead'.

A 12 week foetus has not developed a brain, and while a heartbeat is present, lifesupport systems can sustain a heartbeat in a braindead patient and a woman's womb will sustain a heartbeat in an undeveloped fetus. A fetus is human and is alive, but it is not a baby. I do not believe our constitution should recognise a fetus as a person who's life has equal value and deserves equal protection with its mother. This is why I will vote Yes to removing the 8th amendment from the constitution.
..................................................................................................................................................................................

The author of the para's posted that he had no objections to them being shared.

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

I assumed your "24 weeks" referred to "viability". If it refers to something else, you are welcome to say what it is.

I did. You appear to have decided to ignore it. Time and time again, in post after post after post, I have explained that my criteria for assigning moral and ethical concern to any entity is sentience. Not viability.

That you have decided to ignore this as often as I have said it is telling. That the user most known for running away from my posts, ignoring my points and later lying that he replied to them is the only user who thanked you for this, equally so.

There is no reason to think sentience is in play at 12 weeks. 16 weeks. 20 weeks. Even 24 weeks. After this point things get steadily more uncertain however.

You asked "What happens at 16 weeks? Is that when the foetus gets its mojo?" and I answered that question openly and maturely. I then ask you the same question in return, what do YOU think happens at each stage and why do you think those happenings are morally or ethically relevant. And what do you do? More dodge, ignore and deflect.

You are not engaging in this conversation in good faith at all.

robindch

Senator Mullen calls for foreign organisations to influence the Irish electorate:

https://mobile.twitter.com/BrianLeonardFR/status/994321975291105280/video/

Oops, tweet deleted. Here’s the full video from, at latest, December 2016, on YouTube. The call for donations appears from 2:30 onwards:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW_YbBHjoks

The website concerned is this one:

[url]Https://www.cherishlifeireland.org[/url]

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

Sutherland was an arch catholic to the end, due to his upbringing. Yet in his inner mind and thinking he was a forebear to the perfidious George Soros and Colm O'Gorman. An apparent do-gooder, and a virtue signaller.
A strange mix; we'll never see his like again.
Hopefully.

The No side being nasty as usual.

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The No side being nasty as usual.

Your own virtue is duly noted, by contrast.


Anybody see the Claire Byrne show debate on RTE last night?
Odd to see Mary Lou of SF speaking for Simon Harris of FG, who wasn't there.


Dr. Peter Boylan was coming across as very pompous, and seemed to get more and more irritated because his usual debating style "the argument from authority" became the balloon that was repeatedly punctured by another eminent obstetrician sitting opposite him.


The audience misbehaved by not supporting the Yes speakers, as they might have expected in an RTE studio.


Almost as interesting as the debate itself was what was absent from the debate; Govt. politicians or representative, churchmen, and any kind of religious argument.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

Its an interesting article alright. But IMO you cannot say the original wording was "flawed" because it was open to interpretation. In some ways, that has been its strength. As Confuscious said, “The green reed which bends in the wind is stronger than the mighty oak which breaks in a storm.”
People knew at the time the wording was short and slightly vague, but that's how a constitution should be. Legislation on the other hand, is often long and complicated.

After reading this back again i have come to the conclusion that it probably the most stupid thing i have read in this whole debate. And i include the multiple AH threads in that.

Hotblack Desiato

Boylan was getting irritated because not only did the moderator not protect him from constantly being interrupted and shouted down by No panellists, she kept interrupting him herself and rarely let him finish speaking. The No panellists wanted to silence Boylan by the above tactics, but the Nos in the audience were clearly targeting him too, shouting over him, even hissing at him when he was trying to speak. This was clearly organised and pre-meditated.

As for the audience being 50:50, that was clearly not the case. But RTE seemed to naively think that No activists would never fib about their true intentions, and employ the ruse of being a Yes or undecided voter we've seen so often on this site.

No side left looking like a bunch of crackpots and hooligans, shouting the Yes panellists down, shouting down women who have experienced crisis pregnancy.