Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

King Mob

End, do you have anything to show that a majority of people actually agree with you?
A poll? A survey? Anything?

Why are you ignoring this question ?

Igotadose

end of the road wrote: »

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.

The lack of something doesn't prevent logical conclusion. The lack of a murder weapon isn't needed when there's other clear evidence of the crime.

So, the evidence that the proposed legislation was an huge item, provided by the citizen's assembly and its report well known to TD's and the general public months in advance of the referendum. This is just sour grapes and the guy not having the courage of his convictions to resign.

robarmstrong

King Mob wrote: »

Asked him this several times. He ignored it.

Just report his post for the moderators to (hopefully, maybe?) do something about it.

As highlighted to him here - https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108398816&postcount=8395

eotr highlights we weren't "technically asked if we wanted abortion" yet the proposal to Article 40.3.3 was put out as

Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy.
“If a majority votes Yes, this will allow the Oireachtas to pass laws regulating the termination of pregnancy. These laws need not limit the availability of termination to circumstances where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother."

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp eotr?

.......

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp eotr?

It isnt.

The purpose of the posts are to disrupt orderly discussion with nonsense. Reported all over boards.ie, there are even specific threads where this behaviour has been discussed yet nothing is done about it.

See the last few pages of this thread:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056770280&page=85

ohnonotgmail

....... wrote: »

It isnt.

The purpose of the posts are to disrupt orderly discussion with nonsense. Reported all over boards.ie, there are even specific threads where this behaviour has been discussed yet nothing is done about it.

See the last few pages of this thread:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056770280&page=85

you attributed that quote to the wrong user.

.......

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you attributed that quote to the wrong user.

Weird, not sure what happened there. I have fixed it.

Hotblack Desiato

aloyisious wrote: »

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.

Should we be concerned? Separate Church and State, and Our Mat Hosp, a new group, are claiming that the new NMH will be under catholic ethos, no sterilisations or abortions etc. despite the state fully funding and owning the building.

https://twitter.com/SCASIreland/status/1054480304365289472

https://twitter.com/OurMatHosp/status/1053671976932384769

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

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.

ask yourself where is the major outcry,protests over the proposed legislation?
there are none.
Where are the credible alternatives put forward?
there are none.
Now ask yourself why this is...
Now compare this to the reaction to recent events where the government has tried to implement/did implement unpopular legislation or hasn't done anything on important issues!
I don't hold politicians in a high regard generally but in my opinion this is one of the few times they have got an answer to a problem spot on. That it may be because the only real option was the right one is for a different conversation.

People had a choice on the legislation, vote yes
or
vote no and propose alternatives
remember at this point is was heads of a bill.
Like you voted no because you didn't like the legislation
everybody was free to no if they weren't happy and only a minority did.

Now if you wouldn't mind pointing out where we have voted on specific legislation before and the mechanism to allow such a vote.

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

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 understanding is that that would have been illegal. A referendum question can only be a Yes/No to a single question, and not one with subsections. That's why the 12th, 13th and 14th amendments were 3 different amendments, not just one with three separate sections.

As for agreeing with specific legislation, that is a matter for general elections.
Or in cases where people feel they have been misled by the government as to its plans, a campaign of public protest. Irish Water comes to mind.

Where is there any comparable sign of public disquiet about the proposed law on abortion? After all, those who are against it consider it to be a very serious act, far worse than just a higher water bill. And yet, nothing.

Looks like the vast majority of people are happy enough with what's proposed.

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.

That's just an attempt to move the goalposts. The question posed in the referendum was clear, the legislation that would follow a Yes vote was announced in advance, and you have absolutely zero evidence, except your own wishful thinking, that such a procedure, had it been legal, was indicated, never mind that it would have given a different outcome.

Hotblack Desiato

This was all discussed many times over during the campaign. Legislating in the constitution is a very bad idea, especially because when you want to change it, or find out that the wording is flawed, it's so difficult to change. We made that mistake with divorce in 1995 and we'll need another referendum to fix it. In any case this debate is pointless, 66% Yes.

aloyisious

In a not-so-much a passing-comment way, it's worth remembering that this Sunday it's six [6] years since the death of Savita Halappanavar in GUH. There's a vigil in remembrance of Savita at Stephens Green from 2PM to 3PM by the Abortion Rights Campaign.

Igotadose

Various underworked, overpaid TD's whine about the upcoming abortion laws: https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/1025/1006625-abortion-bill/

Their complaint: "ndependent deputies Mattie McGrath, Michael Collins, Carol Nolan, Peter Fitzpatrick and Danny Healy-Rae said that while the public voted to remove the Eighth Amendment from the Constitution, they did not vote in favour of the Bill in its current form."

Of course, every law gets voted on by public directly...wait..in fact that isn't how it works, we vote for TD's. Oh I see, since this law improves women's lives, it needs as much delaying and deflecting and weakening as possible. I get it now.

All these **** need to go in the next election.

Hotblack Desiato

The moral of the story is simple - stop voting for gobsh!te TDs.

The five TDs also expressed concern that the majority of committee members supported repeal.

Hello gobsh!tes, two-thirds of your voters did too.

aloyisious

Igotadose wrote: »

Various underworked, overpaid TD's whine about the upcoming abortion laws: https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/1025/1006625-abortion-bill/

Their complaint: "ndependent deputies Mattie McGrath, Michael Collins, Carol Nolan, Peter Fitzpatrick and Danny Healy-Rae said that while the public voted to remove the Eighth Amendment from the Constitution, they did not vote in favour of the Bill in its current form."

Of course, every law gets voted on by public directly...wait..in fact that isn't how it works, we vote for TD's. Oh I see, since this law improves women's lives, it needs as much delaying and deflecting and weakening as possible. I get it now.

All these **** need to go in the next election.

They're debating the making of changes to the legislation in the Dail now. Independents, party members with freedom and without freedom from parties and others tabling motions for changes.

gctest50

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The moral of the story is simple - stop voting for gobsh!te TDs.


..................

but they ....

gctest50

Igotadose wrote: »

,.................

All these **** need to go in the next election.

Attention seeker resigns :

https://www.thejournal.ie/peadar-toibin-resign-4341199-Nov2018/





.



law of unintended consequences-ish : we mught have dodged alien takeover

Dick Swiveller

gctest50 wrote: »

Attention seeker resigns :

https://www.thejournal.ie/peadar-toibin-resign-4341199-Nov2018/





.



law of unintended consequences-ish : we mught have dodged alien takeover

Why do you call him an attention seeker?

Loafing Oaf

gctest50 wrote: »

Attention seeker resigns :

https://www.thejournal.ie/peadar-toibin-resign-4341199-Nov2018/





.



law of unintended consequences-ish : we mught have dodged alien takeover

Abortions for none, miniature tricolors for all

uptherebels

Dick Swiveller wrote: »

Why do you call him an attention seeker?

I would imagine talking to be seen to be talking without contributing anything

Loafing Oaf

i thought when they only suspended him for another six months they weren't looking to force him out but it seems they were.

"I have lost speaking rights, spokesperson positions, portfolios and have been significantly censored in my engagements with the media. These actions have prevented me from fully representing my constituents.”

Surprised at this as he's one of their most middle-Ireland-friendly reps, and you'd imagine they could have put the abortion thing behind them once he had served his suspension.

end of the road

he's definitely no attention seeker. hopefully it's not the last we see from him in politics. his resignation from sf if sf's loss. we need more like him who aren't afraid to express their true view on issues and stick to it come what may.

eviltwin

end of the road wrote: »

he's definitely no attention seeker. hopefully it's not the last we see from him in politics. his resignation from sf if sf's loss. we need more like him who aren't afraid to express their true view on issues and stick to it come what may.

maybe he will join the one issue party that is Renua

Dick Swiveller

eviltwin wrote: »

maybe he will join the one issue party that is Renua

He'll run as independent. He was Sin Féin's biggest vote-getter last time round. He's very popular among his constituents.

Bredabe

end of the road wrote: »

he's definitely no attention seeker. hopefully it's not the last we see from him in politics. his resignation from sf if sf's loss. we need more like him who aren't afraid to express their true view on issues and stick to it come what may.

As the ref was 2:1, how is he going to convince enough Yes voters to vote for him? especially as the churches power has been eroded so noticeably?

What tactics do you think he can employ that will overcome the majorities dislike of killing pregnant people, lack of job security, health care, housing? Before we even look at how there are so few easily accessible alternatives to abortion?

Dick Swiveller

Bredabe wrote: »

As the ref was 2:1, how is he going to convince enough Yes voters to vote for him? especially as the churches power has been eroded so noticeably?

What tactics do you think he can employ that will overcome the majorities dislike of killing pregnant people, lack of job security, health care, housing? Before we even look at how there are so few easily accessible alternatives to abortion?

Most people won't be thinking about abortion when they vote in the next general election. The Fianna Fáil TDs who were opposed to aborrtion will be comfortably re-elected, even though their constituencies voted for repeal.

Bredabe

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

i thought when they only suspended him for another six months they weren't looking to force him out but it seems they were.

"I have lost speaking rights, spokesperson positions, portfolios and have been significantly censored in my engagements with the media. These actions have prevented me from fully representing my constituents.”

Surprised at this as he's one of their most middle-Ireland-friendly reps, and you'd imagine they could have put the abortion thing behind them once he had served his suspension.

I assume that he like mattie and the hr's(lack of capitalisation is deliberate) feel that there are jobs for like from No voters and this is his way into that niche.

Hotblack Desiato

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

"I have lost speaking rights, spokesperson positions, portfolios and have been significantly censored in my engagements with the media. These actions have prevented me from fully representing my constituents.”

What a throbber. He'll find out soon enough how it works as an independent TD without the backup of a party. Hint: unless you're a Healy-Rae the media don't come calling.

Hotblack Desiato

Dick Swiveller wrote: »

The Fianna F TDs who were opposed to aborrtion will be comfortably re-elected, even though their constituencies voted for repeal.

Naah. John Curran in Dublin Mid West is toast.

And because it's possible for any future government to make abortion illegal again, it's important that people DO think about pro- or anti-choice when voting. It's not a purely constitutional issue which is done and dusted once the referendum is over.

Bredabe

Dick Swiveller wrote: »

Most people won't be thinking about abortion when they vote in the next general election. The Fianna Fáil TDs who were opposed to aborrtion will be comfortably re-elected, even though their constituencies voted for repeal.

I will, and I'll not vote for someone who would hurt me and try to force others into living his view of a good life.

If any candidate isn't working for housing/jobs/healthcare and the rest, they arnt getting my vote.

Dick Swiveller

Bredabe wrote: »

I will, and I'll not vote for someone who would hurt me and try to force others into living his view of a good life.

If any candidate isn't working for housing/jobs/healthcare and the rest, they arnt getting my vote.

Yes, but most people won't vote depending on whether the TD is pro-life or pro-choice. People on Boards might, but the general public won't.