The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

JDD

Trasna1 wrote: »

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.

You know, I doubt this. If the 8th was never mooted in the first place, legalization of terminations would still have been a toxic topic for politicians. Labour, as minority party in a coalition would have been the only party to even attempt it and not til the 2000’s - 90’s we’re still very catholic and a mooted limited regime would have brought down any government. 2000-2007 were boom years so likely an economic concession would have been made to keep terminations off the agenda. And Labour has been decimated since the crash so no chance for to sneak it through since.

Annasopra

Trasna1 wrote: »

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.

It shouldnt be. Thats the whole point.

Annasopra

Trasna1 wrote: »

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.
.

This is completely twisting things. Seems to me you are trying to pretend to be neutral here while constantly finding fault with repeal campaign. Then when called on it "oh but both sides are rotten". I'm surprised you havent mentioned Soros yet but no its definitely becoming clear you have a biased agenda while trying to claim neutrality.

Delirium

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 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.

Didn't members of the pro-life campaign show up with signs to a repeal march (that contained facist/Nazi symbology) and handed them out to marchers only to then photograph them and post online with "OMG! Nazis!" type tweets/posts?

Teenage girls ended up being called Nazi on the web because they were trusting enough to take a sign calling for repeal from the pro-lifer(s) posing as a pro-repeal person.

posturingpat

We're all a pack of horrible bastards, think that's the long and short of it:D

Annasopra

posturingpat wrote: »

We're all a pack of horrible bastards, think that's the long and short of it:D

Not at all. To be honest I think there are many very respectful people on both sides. I do question the "neutrality" of some posters here when they are going out of their way to say how horrible the yes campaign is

posturingpat

The whole thing's a mess. It's a constant bit of bickering between both sides like a pair of schoolkids.
Safest conclusion to come to is either we're all a pack of bastards or people have to cop on and stop labelling the side they disagree with as such.

baylah17

posturingpat wrote: »

The whole thing's a mess. It's a constant bit of bickering between both sides like a pair of schoolkids.
Safest conclusion to come to is either we're all a pack of bastards or people have to cop on and stop labelling the side they disagree with as such.

Well when you have the likes of John Watters last night equating picking up a pencil to vote yes as being the same thing as picking up a knife its hard not to label some leading PL mouthpieces as horrible bastards!
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/monster-prolife-meeting-hears-from-number-of-highprofile-speakers-36799094.html
Playwright, author and journalist John Waters quoted former Labour leader and Communications Minister Pat Rabbitte warning of 'shock tactics' being used by the No side in the campaign.

"But shock tactics means the truth," he said.

The former Irish Times journalist accused pro-choice campaigners and the media and of using 'sleight of hand' tricks "to conceal the truth".

"We don't have a press anymore," he said to more raucous applause.

"Everything is lies, everything is twisted. That's that you have to get across to people," he added.

He likened the very notion of holding the referendum on repealing the 8th to the sinister prospect of holding a referendum on exterminating the homeless as a means of dealing with the homeless and housing crisis.

"We don't have the right to tamper with these things," he said.

"If you mark yes (on the ballot), that pencil becomes a knife," he concluded to a standing ovation.

gmisk

Delirium wrote: »

Didn't members of the pro-life campaign show up with signs to a repeal march (that contained facist/Nazi symbology) and handed them out to marchers only to then photograph them and post online with "OMG! Nazis!" type tweets/posts?

Teenage girls ended up being called Nazi on the web because they were trusting enough to take a sign calling for repeal from the pro-lifer(s) posing as a pro-repeal person.

Dont forget the girl in the repeal jumper with this really horrible sign saying about killing ill babies....who was then photographed as an official martial on the save the 8th side..

https://twitter.com/daithigor/status/779726277032968192?lang=en

Absolutely horrific behavior but cant say I am surprised.

Totally shameless
https://twitter.com/lifeinstitute/status/781062314132922368

Trasna1

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

This is completely twisting things. Seems to me you are trying to pretend to be neutral here while constantly finding fault with repeal campaign. Then when called on it "oh but both sides are rotten". I'm surprised you havent mentioned Soros yet but no its definitely becoming clear you have a biased agenda while trying to claim neutrality.

You say I'm finding fault with the PC campaign but that's because I'm responding to people who seem to think that the PC campaign is above criticism. I couldn't be clearer, I don't like the tactics of PL either, who want to win at all costs as well.

I have no agenda apart from wanting everyone to stick to the rules. The fact that both sides are looking to the other for justification for stretching the rules is what makes both campaigns rotten.

Annasopra

Trasna1 wrote: »

You say I'm finding fault with the PC campaign but that's because I'm responding to people who seem to think that the PC campaign is above criticism. I couldn't be clearer, I don't like the tactics of PL either, who want to win at all costs as well.

I have no agenda apart from wanting everyone to stick to the rules. The fact that both sides are looking to the other for justification for stretching the rules is what makes both campaigns rotten.

Yes. I am saying it is transparent that you have a biased one sided agenda despite your attempts to deny it.

Woden

Thanks to those who highlighted the togetherforyes poster donation process. As an Irish citizen abroad who can no longer vote it was nice to at least feel I could contribute something

bertieinexile

Trasna1 wrote: »

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.

You seem like you are coming to this thread with an open mind and are ready to evaluate the advantages and shortcomings of both sides.
As someone shouted at me once walking down the Ormeau Road on the 12th of July in the dark, "D'ye know where y'orrr".

You asked why we are talking about abortion on demand up to 24 weeks. Would you take a look at the post making the case that this is in fact the issue. I would love to know if you think it's reasonable and if there's something there.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106660318&postcount=3481

I get that in your terms this would *only* apply in what you call the short term. It would *only* be until something was changed, if it ever was, but that would still be for a lot of years and mean the loss of a lot of lives. That is something that obviously matters to a large number of voters. And again that's if the law was ever changed again at all.
As you say it is the eighth alone that is responsible for us not having large scale abortion now.

bertieinexile

Good morning viewers

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

....if a mother in the UK decided, after it's removal from her womb not to put it on life support and to let it die...... then I would not be losing any sleep over it.

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

So far we have agreement from
Elm327 , Poster ...., , Professor Plum, January, Sofiztikated, Zubeneschamali and Timberrrr.

I put up the names of people who had thanked them for having agreed with this, thinking that might encourage these posters to make clear where they stood, but that seems to be an issue. Not sure why. We are ultimately talking about how popular this view is - how many support it.

I will do a final round up this afternoon. 24 hours should be enough.

Maybe, as some of these posters have said, this is mainstream thinking on the pro choice side.

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.

.......

This post has been deleted.

JDD

Ah Bertie, you're back. Three quite lengthy posts over the past 24 hours, since you said that you were formulating a response to my question a few pages back. You said that you had to think about it, to do it justice.

Any chance you've had a moment or two to reply?

B0jangles

bertieinexile wrote: »

Good morning viewers

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

....if a mother in the UK decided, after it's removal from her womb not to put it on life support and to let it die...... then I would not be losing any sleep over it.

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

So far we have agreement from
Elm327 , Poster ...., , Professor Plum, January, Sofiztikated, Zubeneschamali and Timberrrr.

I put up the names of people who had thanked them for having agreed with this, thinking that might encourage these posters to make clear where they stood, but that seems to be an issue. Not sure why. We are ultimately talking about how popular this view is - how many support it.

I will do a final round up this afternoon. 24 hours should be enough.

Maybe, as some of these posters have said, this is mainstream thinking on the pro choice side.

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.

Are you repeatedly trying to shame posters for thanking the posts they agree with and 'warn' other posters that you are and will be recording their posting behaviour, so they'd better watch what they say?

That seems extraordinarily sinister.


edit: Also -

JDD wrote: »

Ah Bertie, you're back. Three quite lengthy posts over the past 24 hours, since you said that you were formulating a response to my question a few pages back. You said that you had to think about it, to do it justice.

Any chance you've had a moment or two to reply?

This would be good.

uptherebels

bertieinexile wrote: »

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 don't loose sleep when people who are unknown to me die/ are killed, regardless of circumstances.
I would wager this is the same for most people even "pro lifers".
Desperately trying to find any arguement at all to try and support their agenda seems to be deeply ingrained in anti choicers

Ave Sodalis

Trasna1 wrote: »

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.

Seriously? You're criticising pro-choice for talking about legislation in direct response to someone trying to misrepresent legislation as a reason to vote no?

Then you go on to talk about the legislation yourself...

Trasna1 wrote: »

You say I'm finding fault with the PC campaign but that's because I'm responding to people who seem to think that the PC campaign is above criticism. I couldn't be clearer, I don't like the tactics of PL either, who want to win at all costs as well.

I have no agenda apart from wanting everyone to stick to the rules. The fact that both sides are looking to the other for justification for stretching the rules is what makes both campaigns rotten.

Actually, I never once said the pro-choice campaign is above criticism. Not once. In fact, if you look over the thread as a whole, you will notice that I am well able to point out the flaws in both sides. It just so happens that the individual fault you found with pro-choice doesn't actually exist.

I'm actually thinking your agenda is more so along the lines of "everyone is doing this wrong except me. I'm great." whilst, as pointed out, your posts are both wrong,and hypocritical.

Yeah_Right

Grayson wrote: »

So's your user name

Very true. I find this thread quite bizarre at times. There are a lot of posters on here who I would normally never agree with. Politics, the Middle East, economics, immigration, the Belfast trial, travellers, social welfare, cyclists, you name it and chances are we were on opposing sides. Before this thread we probably would have disagreed on whether water was wet. Yet on this topic, we agree. Its not a left v right issue. Its a human rights issue.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Triceratops Ballet

Give it a rest Bertie, the posters on this thread don't actually owe you an answer.
You've posted this tripe how many times now yet I believe questions put to you remain unanswered (probably cos you can't spin the answers in line with campaign rhetoric)

Fwiw I didn't thank the post, but I have no problem with the idea that families may choose to withdraw life support from their loved ones if that's the advice they are given by their doctors, I also support their right to disregard that medical advice if that is what they choose, that applies to patients of all ages.

What do you think of the fact that the hse policy on consent excludes pregnant women?

Crea

bertieinexile wrote: »

Good morning viewers

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

....if a mother in the UK decided, after it's removal from her womb not to put it on life support and to let it die...... then I would not be losing any sleep over it.

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

So far we have agreement from
Elm327 , Poster ...., , Professor Plum, January, Sofiztikated, Zubeneschamali and Timberrrr.

I put up the names of people who had thanked them for having agreed with this, thinking that might encourage these posters to make clear where they stood, but that seems to be an issue. Not sure why. We are ultimately talking about how popular this view is - how many support it.

I will do a final round up this afternoon. 24 hours should be enough.

Maybe, as some of these posters have said, this is mainstream thinking on the pro choice side.

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.

You are asking people their opinion on something that doesn't happen.
Live birth abortions do not happen.
If a baby is induced to be delivered alive early it's in the context of fatal foetal abnormality. In these cases a decision is made not to take extreme measures to save the baby. The baby is not "left to die". They are held in their loving parents arms.
This was denied to my sister. She wanted to be induced early because it was unlikely her baby would make it to term and she wanted a chance to meet him alive. Because of the 8th this could not happen. She was forced to remain pregnant and her baby was stillborn at 38 weeks. Is this ok with you?

Mr. CooL ICE

Mod: bertieinexile, people thank posts for whatever reasons they like. They might agree with the post, might find it funny, whatever. It doesn't matter and it's none of your business. You don't get to dictate why people should or shouldn't thank posts. Stop.

Also, please try to justify why you are arguing about 24 weeks. You seem to be arguing a different point to everyone else and are starting to derail the thread.

It wasnt me123

baylah17 wrote: »

Well when you have the likes of John Watters last night .........

It was a "Monster Pro Life rally" and there were 350 people, I wouldn't be getting too excited about it - but the lies they spout at these meetings are just poison. if that was 350 random people in a hall in Kerry the Independent wouldn't even have printed it - they court the likes of John Waters for an extreme view.

It seems that its the same people saying No to everything, no to divorce, no to marriage equality and no to repeal of the 8th.

Luckily I think Ireland has finally come of age and dragged itself into the 21st Century - Repeal all the way

ohnonotgmail

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

It was a "Monster Pro Life rally" and there were 350 people, I wouldn't be getting too excited about it - but the lies they spout at these meetings are just poison. if that was 350 random people in a hall in Kerry the Independent wouldn't even have printed it - they court the likes of John Waters for an extreme view.

It seems that its the same people saying No to everything, no to divorce, no to marriage equality and no to repeal of the 8th.

Luckily I think Ireland has finally come of age and dragged itself into the 21st Century - Repeal all the way

i could never understand him and Sinead O'Connor. I cant think of anything they have in common.

Zubeneschamali

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

they court the likes of John Waters for an extreme view.

While it's true that the only reason this meeting sees press coverage is that they have John Waters come and vomit bile at the podium, I think this doesn't actually help the No campaign.

John Waters has a long and tedious history of being a complete knob in print, and having the Usual Suspects like Waters (Mens rights, anti-SSM, anti-Europe, pro Catholic Church) line up with the No campaign is exactly what the Yes campaign will like to see. Losers vote No.

SusieBlue

bertieinexile wrote: »

Good morning viewers

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

....if a mother in the UK decided, after it's removal from her womb not to put it on life support and to let it die...... then I would not be losing any sleep over it.

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

So far we have agreement from
Elm327 , Poster ...., , Professor Plum, January, Sofiztikated, Zubeneschamali and Timberrrr.

I put up the names of people who had thanked them for having agreed with this, thinking that might encourage these posters to make clear where they stood, but that seems to be an issue. Not sure why. We are ultimately talking about how popular this view is - how many support it.

I will do a final round up this afternoon. 24 hours should be enough.

Maybe, as some of these posters have said, this is mainstream thinking on the pro choice side.

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.

Hi Bertie, absolutely no one owes you an explanation as to why they thank a post.
I know your pro life views falsely lead you to believe that your opinion is superior to everyone else's and that they should have to justify their actions to you, but this isn't the case.
You have no right to demand clarification and the fact that you are warning others that you are keeping tabs on who is thanking what further proves that.

Now that we've gotten the obvious out of the way, when can we expect your lengthy reply to JDD's post? I'm anticipating it with great interest.

Mr. CooL ICE

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i could never understand him and Sinead O'Connor. I cant think of anything they have in common.

"I take two steps forward/I take two steps back
We come together cos opposites attract
And you know - it ain't fiction; just a natural fact
We come together cos opposites attract"

- Sinead O'Connor ft John Waters

gubby

away back in the 80's when the last abortion referendum was held. my sister who was then pregnant with her 10th child, and who's husband was at that time a alcoholic received a visit from the local "pillars of society" to persuade her to vote no.. she very calmly asked them why they had never called to her door before to see if she was in need of help to feed her children or any other support!!!

Says it all I think