Sydney Rose Irish Times Article

wexandproud

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I hear them say it all the time, so I am not sure what world you are in. But words are powerful things, as you clearly know in your willful mislabeling of pro choice campaigners as "pro abortion". A propaganda linguistic move that is designed to paper mache over the facts.

Facts such as most pro choice campaigners being anti-abortion in many ways. While people like myself want the CHOICE of abortion there for all women, we want to do everything we can to ensure it is not a choice that they have to make. Better sex education. Lower tax on, and better access to, contraceptive products for all ages. Better financial support for families and especially single mothers. And much more.

Just because you want a choice available to people, that does not mean you want that choice to be made. I am all for people having heart bypasses when they need them too. But that does not mean I do not support any and all initiatives designed to prevent people from ever needing them.

All of these opinions and attitudes are what people like yourself want to pretend do not exist when you use your contrived and fetid mislabeling. Better for your agenda to pretend all pro choice people are foaming at the mouth wanting abortions to be performed as often as possible on as many people as possible.

The reality, as I said, is that people like myself strive towards the ideal where all women CAN have them but no women actually do. An impossible ideal, but one that at least frames our agenda honestly, especially compared to you.



Did she though? How and where exactly? And since when does one have to be from a country to give an opinion on that country? This forum, for example, is awash with opinions on the US Election, German immigration policy, Brexit, and the problems in the Muslim World. None of us are from there. Seems to me the "She is not even Irish" moaners are just looking for ways to silence people they do not agree with.



How do you know what will or will not affect her?

Also why does one have to be affected by something in order to have an opinion or concerns about it? Not in my world anyway, maybe in the world in your head only?

For example I am not a child, a woman, homeless, unemployed, a drug addict, a gambler and yet I do a lot of work for, campaigning for, debating for, and activism for all those groups and more. At no point has it occurred to me that I need to be directly affected by any of these things to have an opinion on them, or to work to affect policy in relation to them.



Which is what exactly? So far the quotes on this thread have only been that she wants women to have their say on the issue.



Oh your confirmation bias is dripping. She was asked her opinion so she gave it. You are acting like there is some whole conspiracy and agenda behind that. Ignoring the fact that people who YOU do agree with on some issues are actually given a consistent platform. As someone pointed out the Iona institute have a WEEKLY platform in the Times. But someone asks a woman for her opinion for 5 seconds and you are up in arms like there is a "liberal" conspiracy at play. Wow. Just wow.



Why ask us. YOU are the one here trying to stifle their expression of an opinion on that platform, despite the fact they were ASKED to offer one. So since only you appear to take issue with them offering an opinion at that festival, why ask someone ELSE what ones should be allowed??



Frankly no. There is nothing to "care" about at the stages of the life cycle where I argue for allowing abortions to occur. Nor, I notice despite your contrived use of emotive terms and false labeling, have you offered reasons to think there is.

I have never seen a single argument, least of all from you, to afford moral, ethical or emotional concerns to a 12 week old fetus. If that bothers you fine, but your discomfort does not alter reality, much as you really might wish it would.



Nice narrative you have invented there, but as you can see from my posts I am very much capable of having my views challenged, and I have not required the use of a SINGLE insult while doing it. You will find, if you manage to engage me on the topic, that this will continue.

But one must point out that you have shown yourself quite willing to throw insults out on the thread too. Perhaps consider cleaning your own house before running a dust checking finger alone the sideboards in other peoples?

this , as well as others from nozzf on this subject are probably the best written posts i have seen on here in my few years as a member . No personal insults no name calling , just clear and well written points

Grayson

niamhstokes1 wrote: »

Just you tube marches for life etc.. .it's hard to find the "auld biddies" you talk about. That is what the media try to portray and you too it seems. The reality is very very different.

Those marches are filled with auld biddies. It can clearly be seen from higher up shots. The younger girls are placed at the front so that the TV cameras and photographers will capture them.

btw, As I said, the statistics back up what I said about the age gap.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/abortion-poll-provides-an-interesting-snapshot-of-ireland-s-attitudes-1.2281123

Those aged 65 or over are less likely to make abortion available in Ireland by choice, the poll found. Some 33 per cent of over 65s said they were not in favour of this.
In contrast, 52 per cent of the 25-34 age group said they thought women in Ireland “should be allowed access to abortion in Ireland as they chose”.

Any generation gap is small, but there is a gap . Older people were also less likely to be aware that abortion is classified as a crime in Ireland and carries a potential 14-year penalty. Some 82 per cent of respondents over 65 didn’t know this; 58 per cent of those aged 18-24 didn’t know this.
The poll also found younger females favoured less restricted access to abortion. The older you are, however, the more likely you are to “strongly disagree” that the 14-year prison sentence for having an abortion here is “reasonable”. Some 85 per cent of of those aged 55-64 said it was not reasonable. This dropped to 72 per cent among of those aged 18-24.

And seriously, please explain why someone would hate a high birthrate?

niamhstokes1

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am always skeptical of claims that the Media are pushing some political agenda on a mass public. Not that I am so Naive as to think that media outlets do not have agendas or political leanings of course..... but I also realize that the media respond to the demands of the consumer and they would not print it unless there was a market for absorbing it.

As such what you observe in the media is partly a mix of the agenda of the operator of that media..... AND that of the current political leanings of the consumer of that media..... the public.

I am made further skeptical though by the fact that people claiming some Country's Media Conspiracy to push an agenda USUALLY do so by ignoring the areas of the Media that are not actually doing that.

So when someone comes in saying the "Irish Media" are pushing some agenda they quote one or two articles in particular news papers like the Times while ignoring the Mail and Mirror and Sun..... or one particular talk show on Today FM while entirely ignoring RTE or local radio stations around that country.

But by all means show me that the Irish Media are pushing some agenda that does not reflect the consumer opinion of that media, and that this Media are colluding to do it to some significant mass and not just a news paper here or a radio show there.

For example, as another user on the thread pointed out, the Sydney Rose have 15 seconds..... while the Iona Institute have a weekly Broadsheet National column. That does not strike me as a media conspiracy fitting the one you describe. All I see is a rising public call for discourse on the topic of abortion and the Media responding to that as their desire for sales demands.



And the majority of the ones campaigning FOR it are also young and college going. Because it tends to be young college going people who go to marches and demonstrations and are more politically active.

You are therefore contriving to take an attribute that is true of BOTH sides of the debate and act like it speaks to yours. Which strikes me as desperate at best, and quite a canard at worst.



Ah yes, no conspiracy theory is ever really complete without at least one reference to "the elite" is it?



Except you have shown neither the ability to see into the future, OR any "orchestrated propaganda". But I am happy to consider examples of either should you have any to offer.



Ah of course, because anyone who does not agree with you must be doing so because they are sheep, and not because they do not see your position as holding intellectual merit.

Have some decorum please and respect people enough to realize they hold contrary opinions to yours for their own intellectual reasons, and not because the only way disagreement with your position of perfection could exist is through manipulation and brain washing.

I for one do not need any brain washing to be pro-choice on the matter of abortion. All I need is to realize there is no basis on offer to hold moral or ethical concern for a 12 week old fetus, least of all from you.

Actually on Maynooth campus, I have noticed the only pro choice people tend to be nerdy, fat, unpopular ,SMALL MINORITY of students. And the pro life tend to be popular, ambitious and go getters like myself. That's a typical Irish university campus.

Despite what you try to portray, the MAJORITY of young people in Ireland do not want abortion on demand or killing human beings. Have the vote... make sure it's not rigged etc.. and watch the majority vote against abortion on demand : ))

Also wtf is this??
"I for one do not need any brain washing to be pro-choice on the matter of abortion. All I need is to realize there is no basis on offer to hold moral or ethical concern for a 12 week old fetus, least of all from you."
You actually made me want to vomit. Are you for real? psychopath wants to kill babies and call them "12 week old fetus"... sick sick person !!! Shame on you !!

nozzferrahhtoo

niamhstokes1 wrote: »

The fact that most people are brainwashed by the Media and make decisions based on that

You call it a fact but do not show it to be a fact. You merely assert and assume it.

niamhstokes1 wrote: »

Who controls the Irish media and their agenda?

Everyone. The people running the media outlet do. The government do through laws. Rules written and unspoken do too such as the "equal time" issues the media often conform to (like in the Marriage Referendum). The public do too with sales given that if a Media Outlet starts to print what people do not want to read, they stop buying.

So the factors controlling any given media outlets agenda are numerous and diverse, which does not really serve to support your conspiracy theory 101 "It is all the elites" narrative.

Having said all that, even if there was some conspiracy to influence the public via media, the way to combat that is not to sound like a conspiracy peddler or call people who disagree with you brain washed. The way to do it is address the ACTUAL ISSUE AT HAND.

Which you could do by, say, putting forth some arguments as to why abortion between.... say.... 0 and 16 weeks should not be allowed.

If the best your side can do is NOT offer those arguments but call the opposing side brain washed.... then you are going to win the debate for them.... in much the same way as the obnoxious anti marriage referendum side did most of the Pro sides work for them too.

I could not care any less what the media tell me. All I want to know are what are the arguments AGAINST allowing abortions and so far your side have offered me SQUAT in answer to that query. Maybe you can change that, but I am having doubts already.

niamhstokes1 wrote: »

Have you noticed that virtually the entire Irish media is promoting amending the 8th?

No I have not, but am more than willing to see your facts and figures on it were you to offer any. Figures better than "Well I noticed one article in this news paper last Sunday and another article in another one the week before".
I mean actual figures showing a contrived and majority movement by the media to push one side of the agenda to the expense of the other. Have at it!

niamhstokes1 wrote: »

Think about that.... the Irish government has been told by elites to bring in abortion.

Ah those "elites" again. Is there a conspiracy 101 handbook somewhere that tells propagators to ensure to include the word in every post or how does it work?

Tasden

niamhstokes1 wrote: »

Just you tube marches for life etc.. .it's hard to find the "auld biddies" you talk about. That is what the media try to portray and you too it seems. The reality is very very different.

Perhaps auld buddies can't physically march. Doesn't mean they can't form an opinion.
And maybe young college going women are just more available to attend than older full time workers.

Also marches do not represent how the voting public feel on the issue, they represent the opinion of those who are actually present at the march- whether pro choice or pro life or whatever else people class themselves as.

Edit: actually lthe poster just posted about how all the popular girls are pro life. No need to even engage in debate if that's what she's posting tbh.

niamhstokes1

Grayson wrote: »

Those marches are filled with auld biddies. It can clearly be seen from higher up shots. The younger girls are placed at the front so that the TV cameras and photographers will capture them.

btw, As I said, the statistics back up what I said about the age gap.

irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/abortion-poll-provides-an-interesting-s


And seriously, please explain why someone would hate a high birthrate?

Absolute rubbish. You are quoting pro abortion media. And I go to the marches and know for a fact it is majority people my age , not "old biddies". I dare you do you tube the marches and see for yourself.

Grayson

niamhstokes1 wrote: »

The fact that most people are brainwashed by the Media and make decisions based on that has a lot to do with peoples opinion on amending the 8th. Who controls the Irish media and their agenda? Have you noticed that virtually the entire Irish media is promoting amending the 8th? Think about that.... the Irish government has been told by elites to bring in abortion. The Irish government controls the media .... what will the media promote to change the public opinion?

I don't get how people can say the Irish times has an agenda when they pay members of the Iona Institute.

And the Irish government hasn't been told to bring in abortion by the "media elites" (that phrase always makes me laugh). There is massive support for removing the 8th. The majority of the country want it. This is across all regions and across most age groups.

niamhstokes1

Grayson wrote: »

I don't get how people can say the Irish times has an agenda when they pay members of the Iona Institute.

And the Irish government hasn't been told to bring in abortion by the "media elites" (that phrase always makes me laugh). There is massive support for removing the 8th. The majority of the country want it. This is across all regions and across most age groups.

Absolute rubbish ! Not going to happen ! Have the vote , then buy me coffee and we can discuss why you failed.

nozzferrahhtoo

niamhstokes1 wrote: »

Actually on Maynooth campus, I have noticed the only pro choice people tend to be nerdy, fat, unpopular ,SMALL MINORITY of students.

Anecdote, especially unverifiable and judgemental anecdote, is not evidence. The "I have noticed" is all I need to read here as your bias is clear and bias strongly influences what is actually noticed by someone. Assuming, which I do not in this case, they are not simply making it up.

Were you to have actual figures on the Maynooth opinion that would be interesting. Actually there is a user around here who lives in Maynooth and works closely with many of their students. I will have to ping him to come read the thread as he has not posted in awhile.

All that said I would also wonder what someones personal physical opinions have to do with the merits of their political opinion. Is your position lacking so much merit that insults at the opinions of the opposition is your response of choice??? That is pretty low and unbecoming of an adult on a debate forum.

niamhstokes1 wrote: »

Despite what you try to portray, the MAJORITY of young people in Ireland do not want abortion on demand or killing human beings.

Except I have not tried to portray anything. YOU have. I said nothing about what the majority want, who they are, or what their appearance is. All I have said is that there has been enough of a ground swell of public opinion on the subject of abortion that it has landed firmly in the public eye again.

You ASSERT at us what the majority thing and want, but I am not seeing anything from you at this time supporting the assertion. A referendum however.... that would be a useful way to establish what opinion is and who the majority is. But I would evaluate any facts and figures, rather than rants and assertions, you have supporting your claim in the interim.

niamhstokes1 wrote: »

You actually made me want to vomit. Are you for real? psychopath wants to kill babies and call them "12 week old fetus"... sick sick person !!! Shame on you !!

Name calling does little to address either my position, or the basis for me holding it. So you can retain the feelings of shame for yourself and how you choose to conduct adult discourse.

As I said no one has offered me a reason to hold moral and ethical concerns towards a 12 week old fetus. Name calling is not going to change that fact. Offering actual arguments might, and would change my opinion over night.

And the "wanting to kill" rhetoric you pedal is a misrepresentation of the position I have espoused on this thread numerous times. I have multiple times said that my ideal world is one where 100% of women CAN have abortions but 0% of them actually ever do.

So if you are going to insist on dodging my position by merely throwing insults at me.... then perhaps at least have the decency to throw insults at the position I actually hold and not the one you have merely invented for me. Neither insulting me or misrepresenting me is big, clever, mature, or honest.... but if you would stop EITHER of them that would by progress.

StupidLikeAFox

niamhstokes1 wrote: »

Actually on Maynooth campus, I have noticed the only pro choice people tend to be nerdy, fat, unpopular ,SMALL MINORITY of students. And the pro life tend to be popular, ambitious and go getters like myself.

WHY DIDNT YOU MENTION THIS IMPORTANT FACT SOONER?!?!

Grayson

niamhstokes1 wrote: »

Absolute rubbish. You are quoting pro abortion media. And I go to the marches and know for a fact it is majority people my age , not "old biddies". I dare you do you tube the marches and see for yourself.

You said that the majority of young women are like yourself. You're proof of this was that there are young women at marches. I disagreed and actually provided statistics. Do you know how statistics work? There's numbers and the higher the number, the more people that are in favour or against something.

In this case the majority of young people want the 8th removed. A majority of 18-25 year olds want abortion on demand. These are facts.

The survey I referenced was performed by a professional polling company. Their only agenda is to be accurate because that's what they do.

Here's so facts from the march 2016 Red C poll.

- 87% supported wider access to abortion in Ireland and 72% supported the decriminalisation of abortion.

- 69% wanted the expansion of Ireland’s abortion laws to be a priority for the new government (when ‘don’t knows’ and those who were neutral are excluded).

- 73% believed that the new government should hold a referendum on repeal of the Eighth Amendment.

- 66% consider it "hypocritical" that the Constitution bans abortion in Ireland but allows women to travel abroad for abortion.

- 72% believed that the fact that women must travel for abortion services unfairly discriminates against those women who cannot afford or are unable to travel.

- 68% described Ireland's abortion laws as "cruel and inhumane" (when ‘don’t knows’ and those who were neutral are excluded).

As Stephen Colbert says "We all know that reality has a liberal bias"

Grayson

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

WHY DIDNT YOU MENTION THIS IMPORTANT FACT SOONER?!?!

How did I miss that reply I've had my head stuck in surveys for the last 20 minutes.

nozzferrahhtoo

niamhstokes1 wrote: »

Absolute rubbish. You are quoting pro abortion media. And I go to the marches and know for a fact it is majority people my age , not "old biddies". I dare you do you tube the marches and see for yourself.

Nice of you to preface your paragraph with an accurate summary of the content. Would that everyone would do that.

However I have to repeat that you are offering us biased anecdote, supporting it with nothing, and ignoring the fact that it is contrary to the anecdotes and experiences of others.

Have you anything......... other than what your own biases have allowed you to notice or invent........ to support the claim of what the actual demographic of the opinion is?

niamhstokes1 wrote: »

Absolute rubbish ! Not going to happen ! Have the vote , then buy me coffee and we can discuss why you failed.

I would expect.... and hope..... that if we fail it will be because the people voting against it had coherent and intellectual arguments for doing so. I have asked you two, possibly three, times now what those arguments actually are and..... like every time I ask....... have been offered the sound of nothing in reply.

But I can ask a third (fourth?) time if you like. What ARE the actual intellectually coherent arguments against allowing abortion on demand between the weeks of, say, 0 and 16. You know...... arguments that are not predicated on you merely calling me names like psychopath or brain washed.

niamhstokes1

You can waffle on all you want here. On demand abortion is NOT going to happen, whether you like it or not. We are not going to turn Ireland into the rest of Europe which has become an utter sh*ithole.

nozzferrahhtoo

^ I can safely take that as a "no" to both my queries then?

Grayson

niamhstokes1 wrote: »

Actually on Maynooth campus, I have noticed the only pro choice people tend to be nerdy, fat, unpopular ,SMALL MINORITY of students. And the pro life tend to be popular, ambitious and go getters like myself. That's a typical Irish university campus.
!!

As someone who graduated from Maynooth this year I have to disagree. Although I will say that when I see the pro lifers out there are two of the girls who are quite hot. So it's kinda funny to see them standing there trying to grab peoples attention whilst everyone walks past with their heads down trying not to make eye contact.

PopePalpatine

So, if a veneer of young women surrounding a mass of auld fellas & auld biddies at a pro-life/anti-choice rally is proof of young people wanting the retain the 8th Amendment, perhaps if Herr Drumpf adopted that tactic by putting black and Hispanic people at the front of his rallies that would invalidate all those polls giving him atrocious popularity with any demographic except rednecks? :pac:

Water John

Grayson you must have spotted Niamhstokes1 and Niamhstokes2.

Grayson

PopePalpatine wrote: »

So, if a veneer of young women surrounding a mass of auld fellas & auld biddies at a pro-life/anti-choice rally is proof of young people wanting the retain the 8th Amendment, perhaps if Herr Drumpf adopted that tactic by putting black and Hispanic people at the front of his rallies that would invalidate all those polls giving him atrocious popularity with any demographic except rednecks? :pac:

Nope, the statistics are.

But it does happen a lot. People do that all the time. Place the people you want to be seen in the photo's. Every political group does it.

Grayson

Water John wrote: »

Grayson you must have spotted Niamhstokes1 and Niamhstokes2.

Yeah, the pro life twins with the same name. Everyone knows them.

niamhstokes1

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nice of you to preface your paragraph with an accurate summary of the content. Would that everyone would do that.

However I have to repeat that you are offering us biased anecdote, supporting it with nothing, and ignoring the fact that it is contrary to the anecdotes and experiences of others.

Have you anything......... other than what your own biases have allowed you to notice or invent........ to support the claim of what the actual demographic of the opinion is?



I would expect.... and hope..... that if we fail it will be because the people voting against it had coherent and intellectual arguments for doing so. I have asked you two, possibly three, times now what those arguments actually are and..... like every time I ask....... have been offered the sound of nothing in reply.

But I can ask a third (fourth?) time if you like. What ARE the actual intellectually coherent arguments against allowing abortion on demand between the weeks of, say, 0 and 16. You know...... arguments that are not predicated on you merely calling me names like psychopath or brain washed.

The fact you dehumanise a baby to kill it because it is unborn, shows psychopathic character traits.

nozzferrahhtoo

niamhstokes1 wrote: »

The fact you dehumanise a baby to kill it because it is unborn, shows psychopathic character traits.

The reality of my position however is not that I dehumanize the fetus, but that no one has yet given me reason to "humanize" it in the first place. Least of all you given the only attempt you have made is the linguistic move of labeling it "baby" in the hope using the wrong word, will achieve the desired effect.

I can not take a brick off a table if there is no brick on the table. So I can not "De"humanize that which have not been "humanized" in the first place.

If you have any arguments for, in the contextual sense of moral and ethical concern, treating the 12 week old fetus as a humanized "baby" I am very much open to hearing them and then changing my entire stance on abortion.

But if you have none to offer then I am afraid your position, like your armchair psychological evaluation of me, hold literally and precisely zero merit and you are probably better off returning to the MO of merely hurling abuse and insult.

niamhstokes1

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The reality of my position however is not that I dehumanize the fetus, but that no one has yet given me reason to "humanize" it in the first place. Least of all you given the only attempt you have made is the linguistic move of labeling it "baby" in the hope using the wrong word, will achieve the desired effect.

I can not take a brick off a table if there is no brick on the table. So I can not "De"humanize that which have not been "humanized" in the first place.

If you have any arguments for, in the contextual sense of moral and ethical concern, treating the 12 week old fetus as a humanized "baby" I am very much open to hearing them and then changing my entire stance on abortion.

But if you have none to offer then I am afraid your position, like your armchair psychological evaluation of me, hold literally and precisely zero merit and you are probably better off returning to the MO of merely hurling abuse and insult.

Yes I touched a nerve all right. You can try and worm your way out of it all you want. We both know you want to kill.

StupidLikeAFox

niamhstokes1 wrote: »

The fact you dehumanise a baby to kill it because it is unborn, shows psychopathic character traits.

One of the major indicators of psychopathic behaviour is a lack of empathy. If you look at your posts, you have convinced yourself that this debate is a one-sided, black and white issue. You have completely ignored the fact that this is a complex issue and simplified it to some bizarre assumption that everyone in favour of repealing the 8th wants to murder babies. This is a warped and very simplistic worldview

niamhstokes1

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

One of the major indicators of psychopathic behaviour is a lack of empathy. If you look at your posts, you have convinced yourself that this debate is a one-sided, black and white issue. You have completely ignored the fact that this is a complex issue and simplified it to some bizarre assumption that everyone in favour of repealing the 8th wants to murder babies. This is a warped and very simplistic worldview

What does to abort a baby mean then? give it a gentle hug? and slice it into pieces?

nozzferrahhtoo

No point even taking the bait on that one as the user has just made it abundantly clear that this is not a two way conversation.

But I will use it as a spring board to repeat something to any other people reading the thread that I think can not be said often enough.

The Pro-Choice movement is not made of people who want abortions to happen, but want the choice of abortions to be available.

The ideal world for the majority of Pro-Choice campaigners is one where 100% of women CAN have an abortion but 0% of them ever do.

I, along with many other people who want full choice in abortion, also support any and all initiatives that involve reducing the requirements for ever having one. Things like:

1) More comprehensive and earlier sexual education in our schools.
2) Lower, if any, tax rates places on contraception methods.
3) Wider, younger and easier access to contraception and morning after methods.
4) Better financial support for the kinds of women who feel compelled to have abortions, such as single mothers, so they do not feel financially compelled to have abortions.

And much much more. It serves the anti-choice agenda to paint the pro-choice side as going around wanting to kill. But the reality we live in is that pro-choice campaigners would generally do everything they can to ensure abortions never happen and are never required.

The majority of us would likely fit the label "Pro-choice Anti-Abortion". I am very much Pro Choice. I am very much Anti Abortion too. And I see no contradiction between those positions.

niamhstokes1

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No point even taking the bait on that one as the user has just made it abundantly clear that this is not a two way conversation.

But I will use it as a spring board to repeat something to any other people reading the thread that I think can not be said often enough.

The Pro-Choice movement is not made of people who want abortions to happen, but want the choice of abortions to be available.

The ideal world for the majority of Pro-Choice campaigners is one where 100% of women CAN have an abortion but 0% of them ever do.

I, along with many other people who want full choice in abortion, also support any and all initiatives that involve reducing the requirements for ever having one. Things like:

1) More comprehensive and earlier sexual education in our schools.
2) Lower, if any, tax rates places on contraception methods.
3) Wider, younger and easier access to contraception and morning after methods.
4) Better financial support for the kinds of women who feel compelled to have abortions, such as single mothers, so they do not feel financially compelled to have abortions.

And much much more. It serves the anti-choice agenda to paint the pro-choice side as going around wanting to kill. But the reality we live in is that pro-choice campaigners would generally do everything they can to ensure abortions never happen and are never required.

The majority of us would likely fit the label "Pro-choice Anti-Abortion". I am very much Pro Choice. I am very much Anti Abortion too. And I see no contradiction between those positions.

Lots of reframing the bottom line, you want to kill

Triceratops Ballet

niamhstokes1 wrote:

Actually on Maynooth campus, I have noticed the only pro choice people tend to be nerdy, fat, unpopular ,SMALL MINORITY of students. And the pro life tend to be popular, ambitious and go getters like myself. That's a typical Irish university campus.

That's very different from my own typical Irish university experience, also what have the adjectives nerdy, fat and unpopular got to do with anything....are their opinions less valid cos they're "fat unpopular nerds"?

Do u have any actual evidence to back up what you're saying or are you just looking for an excuse to fling around sexy buzz words like "go getter"?

Come back with facts, or at least something with a little more depth than name calling and your points might be taken seriously

Water John

Niamh, when does it become a baby? When the egg is fertilised, implanted?

StupidLikeAFox

niamhstokes1 wrote: »

What does to abort a baby mean then? give it a gentle hug? and slice it into pieces?

I don't think you are really grasping the complexity of the issue. The majority of people who have abortions never want an abortion. I hope I never find myself in any of the range of circumstances where that that decision would have to be made. However, if I did, I would hope that the decision would be mine/my partners to make, its not a decision that would be taking lightly or flippantly one way or the other. If you were in that position, you wouldn't want me deciding for you and I certainly don't want you deciding for me.

You are making it out that people want to repeal the 8th to satisfy some urge to murder babies, can you not see how ridiculous that sounds?

Triceratops Ballet

StupidLikeAFox wrote:

You are making it out that people want to repeal the 8th to satisfy some urge to murder babies, can you not see how ridiculous that sounds?

No we want to repeal the 8th because we've been brainwashed into wanting to kill babies by the evil media....don't worry tho the popular kids in Maynooth have seen through the plot and are on their way to save us all

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

.

Here's so facts from the march 2016 Red C poll.



As Stephen Colbert says "We all know that reality has a liberal bias"

We all know how accurate polls are after brexit....oh wait :rolleyes:!

nozzferrahhtoo

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

I don't think you are really grasping the complexity of the issue.

I am not sure how true that is. In not one, but two posts above the user has willfully contrived to represent my position as being EXACTLY the opposite of the position I have espoused. It strikes me therefore the user in question is MORE than aware of the complexities, but willfully contrives to distort them to bait other users.

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

You are making it out that people want to repeal the 8th to satisfy some urge to murder babies, can you not see how ridiculous that sounds?

I think someone willfully trying to bait each other DOES know how ridiculous it sounds. Alas however it is representative of the kind of rhetoric more genuine anti-choice campaigners engage in. And it is, as you say, ridiculous.

We see this very often when they call "pro-choice" people not by the label "pro choice" but "pro abortion". A simple linguistic move they make which contrives quite willfully to make it sound like we want abortions to happen as often as possible.

The reality however, as I espoused but the user merely reversed and lied about......... is that pro-choice people would like no abortions to ever actually happen. "100% choice, 0% implementation" would be my slogan and goal.

seamus

Izaiah Slimy Album wrote: »

We all know how accurate polls are after brexit....oh wait :rolleyes:!

The brexit polls were actually pretty close - the last polls taken the day before the referendum placed it largely undecided.

For the most part, they were putting it at around 51% remain with a ~1% margin of error. Which is very close to the actual result.

Of course, it's far easier to ignore polls that don't suit your agenda by just claiming that they're all inaccurate without any actual proof of your own.

PopePalpatine

Izaiah Slimy Album wrote: »

We all know how accurate polls are after brexit....oh wait :rolleyes:!

In general, polls tend towards improving accuracy as election/referendum day approaches. Leave had more support than Remain in the run up to Britain's EU referendum, only being dented after the murder of Jo Cox.

But hey, whatever keeps your dream of the Catholic State of Ireland alive.

Grayson

seamus wrote: »

The brexit polls were actually pretty close - the last polls taken the day before the referendum placed it largely undecided.

For the most part, they were putting it at around 51% remain with a ~1% margin of error. Which is very close to the actual result.

Of course, it's far easier to ignore polls that don't suit your agenda by just claiming that they're all inaccurate without any actual proof of your own.

The thing is the brexit polls were actually correct. They said a 1% difference but what everyone forgets is that there's still a 4-5% margin of error in most of those polls.

The Bishop Basher

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The reality of my position however is not that I dehumanize the fetus, but that no one has yet given me reason to "humanize" it in the first place.

Just out of curiosity, why do you start from the position that it's not a baby ? I only ask because when i see a picture of a fetus at 16 weeks, given that it looks like a fully formed baby, the fact that it has working eyes, ears, muscle and independent movement, the burden of proof for me would lie very much with demonstrating that it's not actually a baby.

I'm interested to know why you start from the opposite side and what you base it on....

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

The majority of people who have abortions never want an abortion. I hope I never find myself in any of the range of circumstances where that that decision would have to be made.

Why is that ? Do they have an ethical reservation or is just a case of not wanting to endure the procedure ? I only ask as it struck me while reading your post.. Seems a lot of people do have a reservation but would be prepared to weigh that up against circumstances at the time which is fine as long as people are honest about that.

For the record, and to avoid being confused with any other agenda, I am neither religious nor anti abortion. I have no issue with early term abortions and i support (and would vote for) a change to the 8th to allow women have abortions in the case of foetal abnormality.

I am however, deeply uncomfortable with abortion on demand and i am totally opposed to later term abortions.

Elliott S

Izaiah Slimy Album wrote: »

We all know how accurate polls are after brexit....oh wait :rolleyes:!

Then once again I ask, if you are so sure that the Irish public will vote to keep the 8th amendment, why do you not want there to be a vote on the issue?

ohnonotgmail

Grayson wrote: »

The thing is the brexit polls were actually correct. They said a 1% difference but what everyone forgets is that there's still a 4-5% margin of error in most of those polls.

The problem with the brexit polls is that they had nothing to compare the survey results with. with general election results they have become very good at extrapolating from the polls they take to an election result as they have the results of previous polls and how they translated into results. they didnt have that for the brexit vote. Interesting article here that quotes Professor John Curtice. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/eu-referendum-how-right-or-wrong-were-the-polls/

The Bishop Basher

Polls are meaningless unless we have the actual wording we will be asked to vote on and have had an opportunity to discuss any implications..

There are way too many variables for generic polls to be an indicator of anything in my view.

seamus

Swanner wrote: »

Why is that ? Do they have an ethical reservation or is just a case of not wanting to endure the procedure ? I only ask as it struck me while reading your post.. Seems a lot of people do have a reservation but would be prepared to weigh that up against circumstances at the time which is fine as long as people are honest about that.

Obviously there are going to be a lot of different reasons why someone obtains an abortion and their feelings therein about it.

Whether the pregnancy is planned or unplanned, most people would rather that the circumstances allowed for them to continue with the pregnancy, but for whatever reason, they don't. This of course, shouldn't be confused with regret. Most women (95% according to some UK research) don't regret the fact that they've had an abortion.

There are some people who are completely anti-child and don't give it a second thought, but they're definitely the exceptional cases.

Elliott S

niamhstokes1 wrote: »

Have you noticed that virtually the entire Irish media is promoting amending the 8th?

As pointed out already, a pro-life commentator has a weekly column in the most read newspaper in the country.

Elliott S

wexandproud wrote: »

this , as well as others from nozzf on this subject are probably the best written posts i have seen on here in my few years as a member . No personal insults no name calling , just clear and well written points

Agreed, I love nozzferrahhtoo's posts. He/she doesn't get emotional, just responds rationally to everything.

niamhstokes1 wrote: »

Actually on Maynooth campus, I have noticed the only pro choice people tend to be nerdy, fat, unpopular ,SMALL MINORITY of students.

This is truly embarrassing stuff, Niamh. Truly pathetic.

Jayop

Some craic some of the posters on here are. I'm a fat nerdy unpopular person clearly going by Niamh's definition.

Two things I wanted to say.

1) What the girl said was perfectly fine. She didn't demand the 8th was repealed on stage, she simply said that Irish people should have the opportunity to vote on it. If the Pro-Life people are so certain that a referendum would be defeated then why are they complaining about this? very strange.

2) For anyone who says that people will not change their opinion on abortion so it's a pointless debate. This is very very untrue. People on the extremes of both sides will never change their views as they are so entrenched, but most people in the middle are not. I know that all members of my family who I now know to be pro-choice are people who were previously very much anti-abortion. I remember my sisters going to school with that little lapel pin with the babies feet and they are now very vocal pro-choice campaigners.

Magicmatilda

If a woman chooses that she does not want or is not able to continue the pregnancy then she should not have to travel to England to have that abortion carried out. It should be available here, up to 12 weeks, in my opinion. That is my opinion. I am not trying to force it on anyone, I am not campaigning for anything and I do not wish to change anyone else minds. I understand that some people, many people, feel differently and feel that a foetus is a baby and so do not agree. I accept that and genuinely respect their right to their opinion. I do have difficulty with the idea that the foetus may have a soul and would not choose an abortion myself (in any circumstances) but I respect and understand the decisions made by others. However I am deeply uncomfortable with exporting the problem. Irish women are having abortions and those women should be having them in Ireland. Irish women who cannot travel to England have the option available to them.

That all said, everywhere I look I am surrounded by "Repeal the 8th" campaign. It is in windows, on T-Shirts, badges and one particular news publication clearly has a very biased agenda.

The Rose of Tralee is not the place to raise these issues. Such issues have never been raised before, the 2014 Rose by virtue of being gay and non drinking started a discussion but she did not explicitly start talking about these issues while being interviewed by Daithi.

The Repeal the 8th campaign is a well funded campaign that is highly visable to everyone. ( I do wonder who is bank rolling it but that is a discussion for another day), a cause that is not a well funded campaign and impacts as many people and as many children is the lack of rights for unmarried fathers. This rose has detracted from this very real cause and which would have been highlighted had she not hijacked the media with her own agenda. I also believe that she did this for personal gain. To raise her profile. Sure isn't she now published in a national newspaper. That won't hurt her career in local news at home.

And as has been pointed out, there are three generations of women in my family who have attended university and two generations who could decide when to start families (as contraception has been freely available to them and their husbands/partners)

Dick phelan

What will the 8th be replaced with? That's my issue i support abortion but only for short time periods say 12 weeks, i'm not in favor of abortion of abortion at 20 + weeks so if we have a referendum i'd like to no what it will be introduced instead, i'd hate for Ireland to adopt UK or worse Canada's abortion laws.

Grayson

Dick phelan wrote: »

What will the 8th be replaced with? That's my issue i support abortion but only for short time periods say 12 weeks, i'm not in favor of abortion of abortion at 20 + weeks so if we have a referendum i'd like to no what it will be introduced instead, i'd hate for Ireland to adopt UK or worse Canada's abortion laws.

It'll be replaced with nothing. If there's one lesson it's that we shouldn't add in constitutional amendments. There's nothing wrong with legislating.

Water John

Grayson, its pretty certain the wording of the law will be decided before a constitutional referendum is held.
I suspect it will extend only to Fatal Feotal Abnormality and serious risk to the health of the mother, ie very limited.

Dick phelan

Grayson wrote: »

It'll be replaced with nothing. If there's one lesson it's that we shouldn't add in constitutional amendments. There's nothing wrong with legislating.

yes but what legislation, i don't want to vote to get rid of the 8th and then have the government legislate abortion laws similar to say Canada, i want to know what the abortion laws will be in this country before the 8th is removed, as i said i'd vote to repeal if time limits of say 12 weeks were placed on abortion on demand, if it's going to be up to 24 weeks then i'm sorry i'll be voting to keep the 8th.

Jayop

Dick phelan wrote: »

yes but what legislation, i don't want to vote to get rid of the 8th and then have the government legislate abortion laws similar to say Canada, i want to know what the abortion laws will be in this country before the 8th is removed, as i said i'd vote to repeal if time limits of say 12 weeks were placed on abortion on demand, if it's going to be up to 24 weeks then i'm sorry i'll be voting to keep the 8th.

The likely legislation if it ever is drafted will be somewhere between 12 and 20 weeks imo.

However once the 8th is repealed that legislation will still have to then go through the Dail, it will have amendments and changes added. It will forever more be open to being changed again by a government.

This is the reality. You cannot legislate through the constitution though, you cannot write the abortion law into the constitution because that's not what a constitution is for.