The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

gctest50

thee glitz wrote: »

I appreciate that you've gone to some effort, but it would be more efficient for the sake of all to just spell it out. The number 1 result is Peter Lougheed Centre btw.

That was just a hint to get you going in the right direction of looking up stuff for yourself instead of reading off the old handbook

if you are getting results more relevant to other countries, try adding "ireland" to the end :


http://bfy.tw/HRH1

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

thee glitz

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Are you completely unaware of the reasoning behind the 12 week proposal?

Apparently.

It is proposed mainly to address the issue of women who have been raped to avoid retraumatising them through different medical and legal processes.

That's a disproportionate solution, got a source on it?

bertieinexile

There are a couple of interesting lessons to be taken from the assault on drillyeye that's just taken place.

The first being that if this is how you treat someone who was open to being persuaded but wasn't yet a believer, then the sooner you all get out on the canvass the better. Let her rip guys! Both barrels!

The basic problem drillyeye has with repeal is that, as the supreme court has unequivocally said, if you take away the 8th amendment then there are no constituional safeguards for the unborn child. You have no guarantees, no idea what abortion legislation may eventually look like in the future.
drillyeye is just repeating what the supreme court said.

Where drillyeye is overstating it I think, and where i agree with nearly all the recent pro choice posts, is that we do know what the immediate consequences of a yes vote will be. We know the legislation we will be getting. There is nothing vague about the consequences at all. In your efforts to trounce drillyeye you were a bit too upfront about the reality of the situation.
Its a long way removed from the sentiment expressed here.

ave sodalis
I would agree if that's what we are voting on, but it's not. We are voting the repeal the 8th, nothing more. Upon repeal, abortion will still be illegal. The 12 weeks will not be going into the constitution therefore we are not voting on that.
Edward M
Stricter laws than are proposed can be legislated for once the eighth is repealed.
Quite frankly I wouldn't be surprised if the proposed 12 week limit failed to be passed after repeal.

(Not saying these are contradictory but the message is totally different)

And of course you're right.

A Dail majority is 79. The Irish times
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/referendum-tracker
has 67 TDs in favour of abortion on demand/request up to 12 weeks plus 13 SF currently recorded as undeclared plus however many more of the other 22 undeclared TDs. Plus every party leader is in favour. Plus it would be getting voted on in the context of a successful referendum. Can you see any way that 12 weeks and the rest of the schedule would not be adopted in the case of a yes vote?

In the event of a Yes vote the published schedule would be approved.

And to bring it back to what drillyeye was saying, the only thing stopping the legislation being made any more liberal in future is that it is hard to imagine any way in which it could be more liberal.

The proposed legislation is for abortion on demand/request in law up to 12 weeks and in fact up to 24 weeks.

It wasnt me123

I think the pro choice group don't need to worry about posters, etc.

Let's face it - we know that the 8th needs to be repealed so that the 5,000 that go to the UK each year can get medical treatment and support and respect in their own country. That there should never be another Savita, her medical treatment, or lack thereof, was a disgrace.

The Catholic church no longer has a hold on the country, they can preach all they like about abortion. We haven't forgotten Tuam and the 800 babies thrown in a septic tank, the numerous paedophile priests and the hypocracy of the likes of Eamon Casey.

Let them put up posters about abortion in the UK - those numbers include people from Ireland that are forced to go abroad because they can't get that service in their own country - but commonsense is not their strong point. This is Ireland, not the UK.

Just keep mentioning Tuam. Once the babies are born, they don't give a shi*e about them.

gctest50

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

...... Once the babies are born, they don't give a shi*e about them.

.

thee glitz

gctest50 wrote: »

That was just a hint to get you going in the right direction of looking up stuff for yourself instead of reading off the old handbook

if you are getting results more relevant to other countries, try adding "ireland" to the end :


http://bfy.tw/HRH1

Peter Lougheed Centre it is so. No need to make everyone go clicking patronising links. Show you're a sport and look up how much higher the per capita abortion rate for women giving English or Welsh addresses over Irish ones is in those countries.

thee glitz

thee glitz wrote: »

Apparently.



That's a disproportionate solution, got a source on it?

Still waiting on you for sources to prove the pro choice side are using rape victims etc as a happy convenience/cover for abortion on demand.

gctest50

thee glitz wrote: »

Peter Lougheed Centre it is so. No need to make everyone go clicking patronising links. Show you're a sport and look up how much higher the per capita abortion rate for women giving English or Welsh addresses over Irish ones is in those countries.

thee glitz wrote: »

Peter Lougheed Centre it is so. No need to make everyone go clicking patronising links. ...........

So, you can't find out what PLC means in the middle of a thread called " The 8th Amendment "

thee glitz wrote: »

......
What's PLC if not a college course? .....

Annasopra

thee glitz wrote: »

Apparently.



That's a disproportionate solution, got a source on it?

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/EAJ2017102500002?opendocument#T00100

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/EAJ2017121300002?opendocument#E00100

It really is not disproportionate when you read the evidence given Tom O Malley, Noeline Blackwell and Maeve Eogan. And then read the debate on reason 9

captbarnacles

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

thee glitz wrote: »

How is that the opposite? They show that they don't particularly care about rape victims, FFA etc by not seeking that proposed legislation be more restrictive.

Are you completely unaware of the reasoning behind the 12 week proposal? It is proposed mainly to address the issue of women who have been raped to avoid retraumatising them throu
gh different medical and legal processes.

What they think but won't say is 'thats what the right to travel is for'.

At any Savethe8th here would you be ok with the state subsidizing women on a means test basis to travel for an abortion?

Ave Sodalis

thee glitz wrote: »

I'm tired too, but here goes... No, I'm not saying that they dont care about them. Yes, I'm saying that they are using them to push abortion on demand. They may care about them, but not as much as they claim to, and not even necessarily
as much as some who intend voting No. The agenda is abortion on demand, stories of rape victims are a happy convenience.

You are aware that a large amount of women on the pro-choice side are rape victims that wanted an option to have an abortion in their own country?

Seriously, what is this new way of posting you've decided to do? First you're saying that pro-choice are telling children of rape to kill themselves, then you're saying that victims of rape are a happy convenience to be used. I'm sure when an Irish women gets raped and falls pregnant, her first thought is "this is great! I can use this as a story on In Her Shoes!". I'm sure her brother's or her sister's first thought is "Fantastic! This will surely help the referendum!"

I'm sorry, I know you're trying to paint the pro-choice as some sort of demons in disguise that you have been clever enough to suss out like a Scooby Doo episode, but what you're implying is disturbing, false and it seems to me you're only even saying it so you can have some weird sort of "Aha! Gotcha! moment.

Zubeneschamali

bertieinexile wrote: »

There are a couple of interesting lessons to be taken from the assault on drillyeye that's just taken place.

One: drillyeye needs to go back to pro-life debate school, his efforts were transparent and laughable, we saw through his very first "just askin" post.

Two: When you say you are unfollowing the thread, press the unfollow button immediately. 10 posts saying you are leaving in a huff are even stupider than one.

amdublin

This thread:

If you don't respond to some posters - oh you don't want any debate or to hear the other side.

If you debate and reason with some posters - Oh this is assault it's terrible

Can't win

Zubeneschamali

amdublin wrote: »

This thread:

If you don't respond to some posters - oh you don't want any debate or to hear the other side.

If you debate and reason with some posters - Oh this is assault it's terrible

Can't win

Actually, I think those tactics are a sign that you have already won. They've got nothing.

Edward M

bertieinexile wrote: »

There are a couple of interesting lessons to be taken from the assault on drillyeye that's just taken place.

The first being that if this is how you treat someone who was open to being persuaded but wasn't yet a believer, then the sooner you all get out on the canvass the better. Let her rip guys! Both barrels!

The basic problem drillyeye has with repeal is that, as the supreme court has unequivocally said, if you take away the 8th amendment then there are no constituional safeguards for the unborn child. You have no guarantees, no idea what abortion legislation may eventually look like in the future.
drillyeye is just repeating what the supreme court said.

Where drillyeye is overstating it I think, and where i agree with nearly all the recent pro choice posts, is that we do know what the immediate consequences of a yes vote will be. We know the legislation we will be getting. There is nothing vague about the consequences at all. In your efforts to trounce drillyeye you were a bit too upfront about the reality of the situation.
Its a long way removed from the sentiment expressed here.
(Not saying these are contradictory but the message is totally different)

And of course you're right.

A Dail majority is 79. The Irish times
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/referendum-tracker
has 67 TDs in favour of abortion on demand/request up to 12 weeks plus 13 SF currently recorded as undeclared plus however many more of the other 22 undeclared TDs. Plus every party leader is in favour. Plus it would be getting voted on in the context of a successful referendum. Can you see any way that 12 weeks and the rest of the schedule would not be adopted in the case of a yes vote?

In the event of a Yes vote the published schedule would be approved.

And to bring it back to what drillyeye was saying, the only thing stopping the legislation being made any more liberal in future is that it is hard to imagine any way in which it could be more liberal.

The proposed legislation is for abortion on demand/request in law up to 12 weeks and in fact up to 24 weeks.

All party leaders haven as yet declared they are in favour of the 12 week limit I don't think, mlmd and her party so far haven't declared in favour of it.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/sf-unlikely-to-update-abortion-stance-before-referendum-1.3420390?mode=amp

The point I was making in the post of mine you quoted was that as over half of FF TDs voted against the referendum even. If the eighth is repealed it is possible FF could push MM towards a party vote before the legislation is passed, if that happened given the way they voted on the referendum, and if SF decide to not support the 12 week limit, it is possible for that to be tightened up after repeal.
The tighter the result the more likelihood of that happening.

applehunter

This is the impression I get like when I come on this thread.

There are 10-12 posters who have taken up camp ready to pounce on anyone that is not in favour of repeal or undecided.

There have been a few casualties on the mountain. Very capable climbers as well.

nice_guy80

applehunter wrote: »

This is the impression I get like when I come on this thread.

There are 10-12 posters who have taken up camp ready to pounce on anyone that is not in favour of repeal or undecided.

There have been a few casualties on the mountain. Very capable climbers as well.

they were hillwalkers
not capable of taking on the actual issue

Timberrrrrrrr

applehunter wrote: »

This is the impression I get like when I come on this thread.

There are 10-12 posters who have taken up camp ready to pounce on anyone that is not in favour of repeal or undecided.

There have been a few casualties on the mountain. Very capable climbers as well.

No body has been "pounced" upon. What happens is posters will come into the thread, make unfounded claims, post skewed statistics or even tell outright lies. When this is pointed out to them they leave the thread in a huff claiming to have been bullied or hounded out of the thread.

Please show links to a single poster who was "pounced" on.

_Dara_

applehunter wrote: »

This is the impression I get like when I come on this thread.

There are 10-12 posters who have taken up camp ready to pounce on anyone that is not in favour of repeal or undecided.

There have been a few casualties on the mountain. Very capable climbers as well.

Evidently not that capable.

Annasopra

applehunter wrote: »

This is the impression I get like when I come on this thread.

There are 10-12 posters who have taken up camp ready to pounce on anyone that is not in favour of repeal or undecided.

There have been a few casualties on the mountain. Very capable climbers as well.

Can we just stop this nonsense right now please. Some posters are being robustly challenged. Some get banned because they register multiple accounts or soapbox offensive views. Some posters pretend their stance of supporting repeal or undecided while undermining repeal. This is transparent. Nobody is being bullied here. Nobody is being assaulted here. It is completely and utterly ludicrous to suggest this.

Zubeneschamali

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Nobody is being bullied here. Nobody is being assaulted here. It is completely and utterly ludicrous to suggest this.

During the SSM referendum, we heard a lot of complaints like this, that people who were anti were being oppressed, labelled as bigoted, marginalised, abused...

If that becomes the pro-life narrative in this campaign, it'll be because they feel they are losing.

RobertKK

The repeal campaign is going badly from what I see, and polls will reflect this in the coming weeks.

Zubeneschamali

RobertKK wrote: »

The repeal campaign is going badly from what I see, and polls will reflect this in the coming weeks.

TBH I don't think the campaign will make much difference. It certainly won't sway people who were pro or anti repeal day one - we've had 30+ years to make up our minds.

The Don't Knows may be moved to vote either way by the campaign, but there are not enough of them to affect the outcome.

amdublin

RobertKK wrote: »

The repeal campaign is going badly from what I see, and polls will reflect this in the coming weeks.

I have friends in different canvass groups who are saying the opposite. Saying it feels like the majority - 65/35 are pro-choice in support of repeal. A lot of people saying they are pro life and don't agree with abortion personally but agree with the choice for others.



Although one friend who had her two year old with her...a lady said to him in the buggy "aren't you lucky your mammy didn't abort you"

seamus

RobertKK wrote: »

The repeal campaign is going badly from what I see, and polls will reflect this in the coming weeks.

This is the problem with echo chambers.

The pro-life campaign is getting absolutely savaged from what I can see. Every "launch" is being marred by being full of provable misinformation from the start, forcing a swift backpedal and retreat. And their angry, shouty, religious rhetoric is really grating on people in general.

Time will tell of course. I too may be in an echo chamber.

Objectively the pro-life campaign are largely onto a loser here because the 8th amendment has nothing going for it. It's not pro-life, it's not elegant, it's not simple and retaining it prevents any positive progress in Irish society.

The pro-life campaign is a "better the devil you know" campaign, and nothing else. Which is a very difficult position to defend when the devil you know is awful.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Billy86

applehunter wrote: »

This is the impression I get like when I come on this thread.

There are 10-12 posters who have taken up camp ready to pounce on anyone that is not in favour of repeal or undecided.

There have been a few casualties on the mountain. Very capable climbers as well.

Can you please stop acting like such a snowflake? For all the yammering on we've had from the pro-life side about how free speech means they should be allowed to harass often already traumatised young women and teenagers, many victims of rape,

Yet as soon as you guys get challenged on this, be it on this thread on Boards or in general every day lift, just about every single time the very first reaction is to play the victim card. "They're trying to SILENCE ME, life is so unfair!!". Nobody is trying to silence you, people are however challenging pro lifers opinions, which it's painfully obvious many have never had to deal with in their closed circles. Sure only 10 years ago many would have been certain they would never have to deal with same sex marriage or abortion becoming a reality in their lifetimes.

In truth, all posts like yours are, are an outright attempt to silence others, to make them feel shame for correcting other pro lifers, the same sh*t pulled in the SSM referendum, basically. Utterly cowardly carry on, but that's what we've come to expect at this point, which is why it doesn't work anymore.

Nettle Soup

thee glitz wrote: »

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Does any prolife person honestly believe the abortion issue can be dealt with sufficiently within the confines of the constitution?

No idea, but I'd like to see it discussed.

Are you serious? No idea.

The Same Sex Marriage referendum was only a 18 or 19 word change to the constitution and you saw all the nonsense and homophobic vitriol spouted by the anti side (where are they now to apologise?). The 8th is clearly not working. It has to go. The Oireachtas need to legislate for something this complex.

Billy86

amdublin wrote: »

I have friends in different canvass groups who are saying the opposite. Saying it feels like the majority - 65/35 are pro-choice in support of repeal. A lot of people saying they are pro life and don't agree with abortion personally but agree with the choice for others.

Same sh*t as SSM - "the polls here don't tell you the real truth, we all know the countryside will be overwhelmingly against it, [insert 'elitist Dublin' jab of choice here], and from what I can see here it won't be passing".

Cue May 2015, where it passed in every single constituency bar one (South Leitrim/Roscommon) where 'no' won by a whopping 1.5%.