Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

aloyisious

Anyone catch the Virgin One HD TV news? I came in at the last few seconds of a report on the planned new maternity hospital at St Vincent's. It seems the ground rules on which it will be operated are close to agreement-finalization, building to be completed by 2023.

Timberrrrrrrr

robindch wrote: »

To a reasonable degree, the moderators rule less on point (3) in this long, multi-year thread as other thread as both sides have repeatedly made the same points to each other, and therefore, again to a fair degree, both sides are guilty of the same thing.

What is an actionable item is a poster who makes an unambiguous claim of fact, who is then asked to support the claim with evidence, and who then fails to do so within some reasonable time (a week seems reasonable). While it's not in the charter, your friendly moderators are willing to step in at that point and explain to the poster who made the original claim, that he/she has not been able to sustain it, and the claim therefore lapses and will not be allowed make that now-unsubstantiated claim again under threat of some moderatorly action.

Please note that for the moderators to be able to judge whether a claim has been substantiated, the moderators need much more than a complaint of the form "poster X is not answering a question about Y".

Instead, the mods see links to one or more posts in which some poster makes a clear and unambiguous claim, then the mods need to see links to one or more posts with a request to substantiate the claim, and then they need to see either a) links to posts by the original claimant which fail to substantiate the claim, or b) a thread with a clear absence of supporting evidence provided by the original claimant. Then, the mods have enough to work with and will be happy to step in and mark the original claim, and any subsequent instance of it, as unsubstantiated. Repeated postings of unsubstantiated claims will be treated as soap-boxing and will be treated with according to point (3) in the forum charter.

No offence meant to yourself and I'm being totally serious here but if that's what is required then just read ANY thread that EOTR has posted in because for sure that is exactly what happens.

robarmstrong

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

No offence meant to yourself and I'm being totally serious here but if that's what is required then just read ANY thread that EOTR has posted in because for sure that is exactly what happens.

Seems like a copout to me with moderators seemingly hesitant to do anything about a certain individual constantly soapboxing.

One needs to only look at eotrs last few posts on this particular subject to solidify the fact that there is no substance to their argument, nor are there any actual basis of facts applied to their "points" but rather personal opinion passed off as fact.

So the end result is someone constantly soapboxing and just dragging away what is actually an interesting discussion because all they do is lie, make false claims knowingly purely to detract away from genuine and intriguing conversations.

Taking into consideration the posts in the feedback thread is all you need to see that no action will be sanctioned and this poster in question will continue to be allowed post absolute drivel with nothing behind their posts and run away/deny the stone cold facts that have been displayed to them which in turn shatters their argument but sure look, it's a clear show of what would appear to be favouritism, a hesitancy to address what is quite obviously a glaring problem across multiple forums. Laziness? Hesitancy? Favouritism? Regardless, it absolutely destroys well-articulated debates and will continue to unless something is done about it.

Hotblack Desiato

robindch wrote: »

What is an actionable item is a poster who makes an unambiguous claim of fact, who is then asked to support the claim with evidence, and who then fails to do so within some reasonable time (a week seems reasonable).

You've just described every single EOTR post in this forum (and probably boards as a whole.)

Bredabe

Does anyone else get the feeling the eotr maybe your one who was on sky debating with Colm O'Gorman just before the ref, in real life?

Cabaal

Bredabe wrote: »

Does anyone else get the feeling the eotr maybe your one who was on sky debating with Colm O'Gorman just before the ref, in real life?

Could be,
but one way or another eotr posts are like a slow motion car crash.... You just can't look away, even though you know they don't end well

Igotadose

Another overpaid, underworked TD to vote against: Martin MacSharry of Sligo/Leitrim, spouting an old tired line about abortion used as contraception. Do us all a favor, Mac Sharry, watch the match and don't vote, you're a useless gombeen.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/abortion-will-become-the-contraception-of-choice-fianna-fail-td-marc-mcsharry-in-abortion-uturn-37439645.html

Bredabe

Igotadose wrote: »

Another overpaid, underworked TD to vote against: Martin MacSharry of Sligo/Leitrim, spouting an old tired line about abortion used as contraception. Do us all a favor, Mac Sharry, watch the match and don't vote, you're a useless gombeen.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/abortion-will-become-the-contraception-of-choice-fianna-fail-td-marc-mcsharry-in-abortion-uturn-37439645.html

I read his comments, tho maybe not all as they didn't seem to anything new in them.
BUT as he said that men would use termination as a last chance contraception, then shouldn't he be punishing MEN and NOT women. The whole vibe from the piece I read screamed Incel/old fashioned schoolboy virgin.

Hotblack Desiato

Just another a$$hole who thinks women aren't capable of making up their own minds about their own bodies. Hopefully will get fecked out at the next election.

end of the road

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Just another a$$hole who thinks women aren't capable of making up their own minds about their own bodies. Hopefully will get fecked out at the next election.

i'd suggest that he does believe women are capable of making up their own minds about their own bodies. however, given that there is an unborn human being in the mix in relation to abortion, he is recognising that the decisian to abort effects that second, very tiny little body, and is simply standing up for the unborn and their body.
if in general he doesn't have a good record of delivery, then by all means he should be replaced with someone who will deliver on the actual issues effecting our country at a local and national level. however if he has a good record over all, then he should not be thrown out because he refuses to comply with what some deem to be the "right speak" or "right think"

Igotadose

end of the road wrote: »

i'd suggest that he does believe women are capable of making up their own minds about their own bodies. however, given that there is an unborn human being in the mix in relation to abortion, he is recognising that the decisian to abort effects that second, very tiny little body, and is simply standing up for the unborn and their body.

He doesn't mention that, however. It's all about 'last chance contraception' with him.

if in general he doesn't have a good record of delivery, then by all means he should be replaced with someone who will deliver on the actual issues effecting our country at a local and national level. however if he has a good record over all, then he should not be thrown out because he refuses to comply with what some deem to be the "right speak" or "right think"

Nice word "delivery." Delivery of what?

His voters will decide. If I were one of them, I'd be out there campaigning for whoever runs against him (if they're pro-choice, of course.)

end of the road

Igotadose wrote: »

He doesn't mention that, however. It's all about 'last chance contraception' with him.

Nice word "delivery." Delivery of what?

His voters will decide. If I were one of them, I'd be out there campaigning for whoever runs against him (if they're pro-choice, of course.)

sure, however it's all well good in voting for a politician based on their pro-life or pro-choice view, yet if they deliver absolutely nothing else during their time in power then one's vote has been wasted and could have been given to someone who would actually deliver on multiple issues.

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

sure, however it's all well good in voting for a politician based on their pro-life or pro-choice view, yet if they deliver absolutely nothing else during their time in power then one's vote has been wasted and could have been given to someone who would actually deliver on multiple issues.

an elected official that cant seem to understand what contraception actually means and is of the belief that women (pushed by men) will take an abortion over actual contraceptive methods and says such in the dail instead of delivering on actual serious issues, isn't worth voting for.
Never mind voting for someone that as an elected official refuses to support the will of those that elected him- a wasted vote one could say.

end of the road

uptherebels wrote: »

an elected official that cant seem to understand what contraception actually means and is of the belief that women (pushed by men) will take an abortion over actual contraceptive methods and says such in the dail instead of delivering on actual serious issues, isn't worth voting for.
Never mind voting for someone that as an elected official refuses to support the will of those that elected him- a wasted vote one could say.

if he's refusing to deliver on any issue, absolutely. if he decides to vote one way on an issue of which there are differing views in relation to, but over all has a good record in relation to other issues, then as a whole the vote may not be wasted. it will depend on one's perspective on specific issues.

Igotadose

end of the road wrote: »

if he's refusing to deliver on any issue, absolutely. if he decides to vote one way on an issue of which there are differing views in relation to, but over all has a good record in relation to other issues, then as a whole the vote may not be wasted. it will depend on one's perspective on specific issues.

Sligo/Leitrim 59% repeal. He should listen to his constituency, or no longer be their representative.The government that he's a member of is delivering on the legislation, so if he votes against it, he's refusing to deliver on a key issue.

end of the road

Igotadose wrote: »

Sligo/Leitrim 59% repeal. He should listen to his constituency, or no longer be their representative.The government that he's a member of is delivering on the legislation, so if he votes against it, he's refusing to deliver on a key issue.

he's not though. unless it could be absolutely demonstrated that all of his constituents specifically supported this specific legislation, which voting to repeal the 8th isn't enough to demonstrate it IMO. voting against the legislation and supporting more restrictive legislation if it did turn out the proposed legislation was rejected, would be just as much delivering on this issue as supporting the currently proposed legislation IMO.

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

if he's refusing to deliver on any issue, absolutely. if he decides to vote one way on an issue of which there are differing views in relation to, but over all has a good record in relation to other issues, then as a whole the vote may not be wasted. it will depend on one's perspective on specific issues.

im sorry but no, he has no mandate to stand against the proposed legislation.

to quote mcsharry
"You will see by my tone and demeanour (in the Dáil) I'm saying this is a very personal matter for me.

"I'd like to respect all views and not vilify and I'm entitled to my own personal view."

He had his say when he cast his vote during the referendum.
Now ignoring the will of the people that elected him and standing against legislation that they and the country voted for because of his personal opinion is failing to deliver on the issue.
If he cant do his job he needs to step down

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

he's not though. unless it could be absolutely demonstrated that all of his constituents specifically supported this specific legislation, which voting to repeal the 8th isn't enough to demonstrate it IMO. voting against the legislation and supporting more restrictive legislation if it did turn out the proposed legislation was rejected, would be just as much delivering on this issue as supporting the currently proposed legislation IMO.

it doesn't need to be all just a majority. that's what it was and that's how a democracy works.
They had the heads of the bill before the referendum and voted accordingly.
This has been explained to you again and again and again

end of the road

uptherebels wrote: »

im sorry but no, he has no mandate to stand against the proposed legislation.

i don't believe he has any specific mandate to stand for it either.

uptherebels wrote: »

to quote mcsharry
"You will see by my tone and demeanour (in the Dáil) I'm saying this is a very personal matter for me.

"I'd like to respect all views and not vilify and I'm entitled to my own personal view."

He had his say when he cast his vote during the referendum.
Now ignoring the will of the people that elected him and standing against legislation that they and the country voted for because of his personal opinion is failing to deliver on the issue.
If he cant do his job he needs to step down

he's only ignoring the will of some of those who elected him. politicians all throughout history have done that and will continue to do so.
standing against legislation because of his personal view isn't failing to deliver unless it can be demonstrated that there is actual majority support for the specific legislation, which as i said, my view is that repealing the 8th isn't enough to demonstrate such support for the specific legislation. given the issue at hand, i have no issue with him voting against the legislation, even if it is on the basis of his personal view, as there will be people who will share that view. there are certain occasions where ignoring the will of some of the people is necessary and i think this is one of those.

end of the road

uptherebels wrote: »

it doesn't need to be all just a majority. that's what it was and that's how a democracy works.
They had the heads of the bill before the referendum and voted accordingly.
This has been explained to you again and again and again

yes, but it still doesn't change the fact that the question on the ballot paper did not ask about the specific legislation. it asked about repealing the 8th and allowing the government to legislate.
my view and i suspect i'm not alone, is that the government putting forward proposed legislation before a vote, and then people voting yes to a slightly different question, does not mean that the people have voted for the proposed legislation, as they weren't specifically asked on it.

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

i don't believe he has any specific mandate to stand for it either.




he's only ignoring the will of some of those who elected him. politicians all throughout history have done that and will continue to do so.
standing against legislation because of his personal view isn't failing to deliver unless it can be demonstrated that there is actual majority support for the specific legislation, which as i said, my view is that repealing the 8th isn't enough to demonstrate such support for the specific legislation. given the issue at hand, i have no issue with him voting against the legislation, even if it is on the basis of his personal view, as there will be people who will share that view. there are certain occasions where ignoring the will of some of the people is necessary and i think this is one of those.

he is ignoring the will of the majority, not "some"
there is majority support for the legislation, that is why the government released the heads of the bill before the vote, so people would know what they were voting for and there was a landslide in support for it - this is what gave the government its mandate to introduce the legislation as it is.
He can ignore it and look after himself and hopefully he will get the boot at the next election.

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

yes, but it still doesn't change the fact that the question on the ballot paper did not ask about the specific legislation. it asked about repealing the 8th and allowing the government to legislate.
my view and i suspect i'm not alone, is that the government putting forward proposed legislation before a vote, and then people voting yes to a slightly different question, does not mean that the people have voted for the proposed legislation, as they weren't specifically asked on it.

if you vote a then b will happen
this is easy to understand, why is it difficult for you?

end of the road

uptherebels wrote: »

he is ignoring the will of the majority, not "some"
there is majority support for the legislation, that is why the government released the heads of the bill before the vote, so people would know what they were voting for and there was a landslide in support for it - this is what gave the government its mandate to introduce the legislation as it is.
He can ignore it and look after himself and hopefully he will get the boot at the next election.

they were voting to repeal the 8th and allow the government to legislate. nothing more. that was what was on the paper. nothing about any specific legislation. therefore, i do not buy that he is automatically ignoring the will of the people, or that there is automatically majority support for the legislation, or that the government automatically have any specific mandate to introduce this specific legislation, as i do not believe a vote to repeal the 8th is enough to demonstrate majority support for the legislation, or a an actual mandate to introduce this specific legislation, given we weren't asked on the ballot paper as to whether we wanted this specific legislation.
my view is that the reason the government released the legislation, and used a different but related question (as a mandate in their deluded heads) to force this legislation down people's throat, was to distract everyone from actual big issues, and in a desperate attempt to get re-elected dispite multiple failures. quite possibly to try and mute actual real debate on the legislation as well.

uptherebels wrote: »

if you vote a then b will happen
this is easy to understand, why is it difficult for you?

it isn't difficult. b was repeal of the 8th and the ability to legislate. had we been asked a question on the specific legislation on the voting paper, and people ticked yes, then that would be b also. but it wasn't. it should have been.

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

they were voting to repeal the 8th and allow the government to legislate. nothing more. that was what was on the paper. nothing about any specific legislation. therefore, i do not buy that he is automatically ignoring the will of the people, or that there is automatically majority support for the legislation, or that the government automatically have any specific mandate to introduce this specific legislation, as i do not believe a vote to repeal the 8th is enough to demonstrate majority support for the legislation, or a an actual mandate to introduce this specific legislation, given we weren't asked on the ballot paper as to whether we wanted this specific legislation.
my view is that the reason the government released the legislation, and used a different but related question (as a mandate in their deluded heads) to force this legislation down people's throat, was to distract everyone from actual big issues, and in a desperate attempt to get re-elected dispite multiple failures. quite possibly to try and mute actual real debate on the legislation as well.



it isn't difficult. b was repeal of the 8th and the ability to legislate. had we been asked a question on the specific legislation on the voting paper, and people ticked yes, then that would be b also. but it wasn't. it should have been.

they didn't force the legislation down anyones throat.
The legislation was formed from many debates and as seen by the landslide yes vote it was a big issue
people were free to vote no
You have said you voted no because of the proposed legislation yet you cant seem to acknowledge that people voted yes knowing and supporting the legislation.
when have we ever voted on specific legislation?

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

it isn't difficult. b was repeal of the 8th and the ability to legislate. had we been asked a question on the specific legislation on the voting paper, and people ticked yes, then that would be b also. but it wasn't. it should have been.

it is seemingly

vote to repeal and give us power to legislate
here is the heads of the bill that will form the legislation

easy and straight forward to understand for most

aloyisious

One way of seeing how his voting record stands in regard to his constituents is to see how he spoke in the Dail on the abortion issue. Did he speak in favour of allowing legislation for abortion to proceed in any way or did he totally oppose it from the start?

Seeing as how he is speaking about doing a U-turn on his position on the legislation, one cant be blamed for thinking that in the very recent past he was in favour of going along with his female and male constituents who did not oppose the advancement of the legislative route for abortion.

end of the road

uptherebels wrote: »

they didn't force the legislation down anyones throat.
The legislation was formed from many debates and as seen by the landslide yes vote it was a big issue
people were free to vote no
You have said you voted no because of the proposed legislation yet you cant seem to acknowledge that people voted yes knowing and supporting the legislation.
when have we ever voted on specific legislation?

no no, i never stated that nobody voted to repeal on the basis of their support for the legislation proposed. clearly some did. what i'm disputing, is the idea that voting repeal automatically equals majority support for the legislation, and a mandate to introduce that legislation.

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

no no, i never stated that nobody voted to repeal on the basis of their support for the legislation proposed. clearly some did. what i'm disputing, is the idea that voting repeal automatically equals majority support for the legislation, and a mandate to introduce that legislation.

and what evidence are you using to dispute this?

King Mob

uptherebels wrote: »

and what evidence are you using to dispute this?

Asked him this several times. He ignored it.

end of the road

uptherebels wrote: »

and what evidence are you using to dispute this?

the evidence i'm using is the lack of inclusion of a question on the paper as to whether we agree or not, with the specific legislation. my view is that had it been included, it would have provided clarity in relation to the amount of support for the legislation, and would have allowed for a fair and truely democratic mandate either to it's introduction, or not.