The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

NiceyNice

NiceyNice wrote: »

Thanks a mill. That will more than do. They made a video too but this is great.

Found it! Worth a watch.


https://youtu.be/B6yJH8obJsM

Ave Sodalis

Trasna1 wrote: »

PC are countering with what is in the legislation,

Are they?

amdublin

NiceyNice wrote: »

Found it! Worth a watch.


https://youtu.be/B6yJH8obJsM

I'm speechless



Change must happen

NiceyNice

amdublin wrote: »

I'm speechless



Change must happen

It began with "What are we going to do about this dirty contraception being legalised" to completely annihilating women's bodily autonomy.

It's about control and shame. They are obsessed with controlling our bodies. It's obscene.

Hear women.
Trust women.
Stand in awe of all mná.

BabysCoffee

NiceyNice wrote: »

Found it! Worth a watch.


https://youtu.be/B6yJH8obJsM

Shocking

Zerbini Blewitt

Trasna1 wrote: »

.... PL are scaremongering on what will be let happen and PC are countering with what is in the legislation, but we're not voting on that. And most annoyingly both sides are exceptionally adept at shouting down the other.

I don't think it's fair for one side to take a "holier than thou" attitude when it comes to behaviour of either campaign so far. They both stink.

One side has legendary contempt for women for religious/cultish reasons and the other side live in the -post 17th century enlightenment- aka 20th/21st century (like ALL the rest of the civilised world).

Trying to equate them as the same makes you look like just another forced-birth (pro-life) liar.

What a pile of disingenuous, insulting crap :( :rolleyes:

erica74

Trasna1 wrote: »

Where is 24 weeks coming from? The legislation?

Their arse.

Please donate if you can.

http://crowdfund.togetherforyes.ie/?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=cf250

Try_harder

I will vote Yes because I trust women.

Its simple.

Hannibal_Smith

NiceyNice wrote: »

NiceyNice wrote: »

Thanks a mill. That will more than do. They made a video too but this is great.

Found it! Worth a watch.


https://youtu.be/B6yJH8obJsM

Thanks so much for sharing that. Very interesting. I really hope the result of the referendum is that women have a freedom to choose. You can't ask for less than that.

Trasna1

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

One side has legendary contempt for women for religious/cultish reasons and the other side live in the -post 17th century enlightenment- aka 20th/21st century (like ALL the rest of the civilised world).

Trying to equate them as the same makes you look like just another forced-birth (pro-life) liar.

What a pile of disingenuous, insulting crap :( :rolleyes:

Was there anything incorrect in what I wrote? If I wrote that part on a pro life forum I'd probably be called a liar too

thee glitz

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

thee glitz wrote: »

I'm not sure who's counting thanks here

Eh...

thee glitz wrote: »

One poster had 18 comments in this thread alone one day.

Edit to add, I know you say comments and it's Bertie who's counting thanks but it's still eyebrow raising

You made a mistake and were wrong, and clarified, so thanks for doing so. Data analytics, as much as this is, is growing exponentially, and will be applied to as much as is possible, limited only by the human capacity to direct it. This is Very topical right now, as you've probably noticed.

I don't think raised eyebrows are warranted towards anyone, particularly someone who's currently engaged in the study of same, for doing a little practice analysis, and wouldn't have mentioned anything about mine only there seems to be some interest (paranoia or not) in looking for patterns here. Using info that's literally a click or few more away from anyone.

Ave Sodalis

thee glitz wrote: »

You made a mistake and were wrong, and clarified, so thanks for doing so. Data analytics, as much as this is, is growing exponentially, and will be applied to as much as is possible, limited only by the human capacity to direct it. This is Very topical right now, as you've probably noticed.

I don't think raised eyebrows are warranted towards anyone, particularly someone who's currently engaged in the study of same, for doing a little practice analysis, and wouldn't have mentioned anything about mine only there seems to be some interest (paranoia or not) in looking for patterns here. Using info that's literally a click or few more away from anyone.

I didn't make a mistake... I knew I'd be taken up wrong without further context but it seems I was taken up wrong regardless. The eyebrow raising was the questioning of who was counting thanks, when you yourself were counting comments...

There is absolutely no practical use in counting either.

thee glitz

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

The legislation is pretty much irrelevant to the referendum

The legislation is the expected result of a repeal vote - It's very relevant.

Triceratops Ballet

Trasna1 wrote:

To be quite honest both campaigns are being run in a "win at all costs" way. Both sides are recruiting overseas voters of questionable eligibility to come back. Both sides have substantial funding from outside the state, PL are scaremongering on what will be let happen and PC are countering with what is in the legislation, but we're not voting on that. And most annoyingly both sides are exceptionally adept at shouting down the other.

I think it's more accurate to say pro choice campaigns are countering with stories about how the 8th amendment affects people.
There are plenty of people who are pro repeal because they recognise the constitution is not the place for this to be settled. I'd personally be pro repeal in all circumstances even if there was no legislative proposals on the table

pleas advice

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

The legislation is pretty much irrelevant to the referendum

ah now...

Ave Sodalis

thee glitz wrote: »

The legislation is the expected result of a repeal vote - It's very relevant.

pleas advice wrote: »

ah now...

Ah now what? We are not voting on the legislation. We are voting on repealing the 8th, which needs to go regardless of what the legislation afterwards is. Even if the legislation meant keeping abortion illegal, I would still be voting for repeal and lobbying for anything further. Something I suggest those who have an issue with the legislation do.

Triceratops Ballet

pleas advice wrote:

ah now...

Ah now what? If the proposed legislation were for even stricter controls on abortion I as a pro choice person would still vote for a repeal. The proposed legislation does not make a difference to my vote.

Zerbini Blewitt

Trasna1 wrote: »

Was there anything incorrect in what I wrote? If I wrote that part on a pro life forum I'd probably be called a liar too

Yes. You said both sides stink. They simply don’t.

One side comprises of naked, primitive religious nut-jobbery

the other is the result of decades (centuries) of the thrashed out thoughts of the world’s best obstetricians, philosophers, medics and ethicists.

Trying to equate them as the same thing is just brainless.

Try something else.

Annasopra

bertieinexile wrote: »

For those joining us late...

I put up a video of a 23 week old premature baby.
https://youtu.be/2RQ8ks-UH0E?t=22s
I said he is now a healthy 3 year old. You can even look up the parents account on youtube and see video of him playing.

nozzferraahhtoo said that
I asked how much support there was for that view among the pro choice posters on here

And I am shocked that
ELM327 (thanked by captbarnacles), Poster ...., (thanked by erica74), Professor Plum, (thanked by baylah17, January, Madscientist30, SusieBlue) and January (thanked by baylah17, ProfessorPlum) have all said they agree.












nozzferrahhtoo was thanked for his original statement by
Call me Al, crustybla, DubInMeath, Fizzlesque, frag420, January, PopePalpatine, Simi, swampgas and Yeah_Right

So far January is the only one of those we have heard from (DubInMeath is away)

Maybe this is just the very extreme end of the pro choice view.

Is there any other pro choice poster on here ready to agree that you shouldn't lose sleep over someone taking the life of that child hooked up to tubes in that incubator.

I am fascinated by what response we will have had by tomorrow afternoon.

You obsess too much about who thanks what!

Trasna1

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

Yes. You said both sides stink. They simply don’t.

One side comprises of naked, primitive religious nut-jobbery

the other is the result of decades (centuries) of the thrashed out thoughts of the world’s best obstetricians, philosophers, medics and ethicists.

Trying to equate them as the same thing is just brainless.

Try something else.

What is brainless is how far you've missed my point. I did not argue about the legitimacy of the pro life or pro choice position but that the campaigns of both sides are rotten.

It's an important distinction, evidently one that you find hard to grasp.

Ave Sodalis

Trasna1 wrote:

What is brainless is how far you've missed my point. I did not argue about the legitimacy of the pro life or pro choice position but that the campaigns of both sides are rotten.

But you were wrong. The pro-choice is not using the legislation as a counter argument. You've had two example after you posted that showing that it is pro-life who are using the legislation against repeal, despite not voting on it.

That was your example of pro-choice being rotten and it was, as evidenced, incorrect. Particularly when you consider most pro-choice are satisfied that 12 weeks is fair. It's pro-life that have an issue with the legislation and keep bring it in to arguments against the referendum.

Trasna1

thee glitz wrote: »

The legislation is the expected result of a repeal vote - It's very relevant.

If argue that it is only relevant in the short term. Say in the medium to long term a hard left or hard right party is the minority partner in a government. Normally these parties are limited in how much money they can extract from government for their pet projects/core constituency so they usually have to fall back on cheap measures like social legislation to give something to their supporters, for the hard budget compromises they've had to make. Depending on how this swings you could see tightening or loosening of the abortion regime over future dails and this obviously wouldn't be constrained by the Constitution.

Trasna1

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

But you were wrong. The pro-choice is not using the legislation as a counter argument. You've had two example after you posted that showing that it is pro-life who are using the legislation against repeal, despite not voting on it.

That was your example of pro-choice being rotten and it was, as evidenced, incorrect. Particularly when you consider most pro-choice are satisfied that 12 weeks is fair. It's pro-life that have an issue with the legislation and keep bring it in to arguments against the referendum.

I had several examples in my post including shipping in of voters of questionable eligibility as well as foreign campaign financing. That behaviour as well as the shrill tone of both campaigns makes them rotten imo


That said you are even pointing to the legislation in your own post. The vote is not on the legislation: it can tightened or loosened by future governments. The vote is about freeing the hand of the government to legislate for it as it sees fit.

Ave Sodalis

Trasna1 wrote:

That said you are even pointing to the legislation in your own post. The vote is not on the legislation: it can tightened or loosened by future governments. The vote is about freeing the hand of the government to legislate for it as it sees fit.

Which is what I was saying?

Zerbini Blewitt

Trasna1 wrote: »

What is brainless is how far you've missed my point. I did not argue about the legitimacy of the pro life or pro choice position but that the campaigns of both sides are rotten.

It's an important distinction, evidently one that you find hard to grasp.

The debate I am watching, for example, is between an obstetrician like https://twitter.com/louiseckenny
(Women first, foetus second)

and the notorious, joke-figure and 15 year political reject / attention-seeking-troll with zero medical education https://twitter.com/john_mcguirk

(foetus:- first, second, third & fourth. Girl/Woman:- n/a)

Maybe there is confusion here and we are watching different national debates?

Trasna1

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Which is what I was saying?

There are pro-choice campaigners pointing to the legislation when it is put to them that there may be a free for all wrt abortion here in the future.

Pointing to the legislation is not a valid argument as legislation can be easily changed, we don't know what the future holds on this issue but without a specific mention in the Constitution we won't be directly asked again. We should remember that as well as holding back liberalisation for as long as possible, the 8th was to ensure the public would be directly consulted on the issue should it desire change in the policy. Without the 8th, some parties in the dail would have almost certainly buried a liberal abortion policy in their manifesto but got elected to government on the back of a change in the economy. Under a Constitution where the 8th was never introduced, Ireland would have most likely got limited abortion in the mid 1990s and it would probably have been further liberalised to euro-norms post 2010.

thee glitz

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

I didn't make a mistake... I knew I'd be taken up wrong without further context

Sounds like deliberate misrepresentation! Anyway, you've clarified it.

The eyebrow raising was the questioning of who was counting thanks, when you yourself were counting comments...

There is absolutely no practical use in counting either.

I didn't count anything, I got a laptop to do it for me, by date. There's potentially lots of practical use in not just counting thanks by post, but profiling boardsies by the posts that they thank, not that I'm doing that (as you've cleared up). Don't be surprised if some else is though.

gctest50

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

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

and the notorious, joke-figure and 15 year political reject / attention-seeking-troll with zero medical education https://twitter.com/john_mcguirk

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

Same one ?

"Dear members,


................Two years ago a series of anonymous emails were sent from a ‘Concerned Histie’

to a group of approximately twenty people in the Hist, who were very active in the society and known to each other.

These emails were sent from an external computer and from an unknown email address.

These emails made specific allegations of sexual harassment against a member and made threats of further anonymous postings on internet sites utilised by
members, and also demanded resignations. Other allegations were also made.

The CHS is not in a position to comment on specific content, just on the broad details of what happened and as to what the official stance of the CHS is regarding what was printed in a newspaper that is circulated all around
College.

The emails caused serious hurt to the individuals named and damaged the CHS
greatly. The anonymous emails were dealt with internally and privately to
protect the image of the society, but most importantly to protect the
reputation of the individuals slandered in the electronic mail.

A full public offering of the emails would have been disastrous for the accused
individuals and owing to the small group of people that the emails were
circulated to; it was immediately known and quickly established that the
allegations were false.

The source of the emails was eventually traced. Following this, the individual
responsible for the emails sent an open email from his recognised TCD address, apologising for the hurt he had caused.

The CHS was not in a position to initiate disciplinary proceedings, as the Laws
of the Society do not provide for situations outside of our meetings. The CHS
cannot comment on what disciplinary measures the individuals affected by the
emails may have sought from College.


When the identity of the anonymous sender was revealed as John McGuirk he
apologised to both the individuals named, to everyone who received the emails
and finally to the society in general for the damage caused and this final
part, the apology to the society, was accepted by the CHS’

The CHS will make no further comment on the story and cannot comment for the
other individuals concerned.

Yours sincerely

Cathal McCann
Auditor
236th Session
College Historical Society"

Trasna1

gctest50 wrote: »

Same one ?

Yes.
John McGuirk is no stranger to controversy. I've always wondered how he has a public profile since he's not an elected representative and his opinions carry as much weight as any man on the street.

Fianna fail, libertas are two of the flags he has soldiered under.

Zerbini Blewitt

gctest50 wrote: »

Same one ?

Yeah!

I blocked him on twitter almost immediately that I came across him regarding this issue.

But one can't help but wonder:- are the coerced-incubation (pro-life) side supportive of this individual as a national figure