The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

JMNolan

ELM327 wrote: »

IN fairness the yes campaign is crowdfunded by real irish people as opposed to big american dollars

Sure it is :rolleyes:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/george-soros-s-amnesty-donation-was-not-for-political-purposes-1.3335146

Triceratops Ballet

ELM327 wrote: »

93.5% of random statements are made up on the spot.
And are probably more accurate than any propaganda slogan used by the no side.

you sound like someone who knows what they're talking about!!

kylith

AnneFrank wrote: »

After much thought and alot of consideration, i am voting no.
This is my choice. I do not need to read posters to do this for myself, or have
someone half my age try and convince me otherwise.
I will also not try and convince anyone else to vote my way.
It's a personal choice.Don't be a sheep. Make up your own mind, either way.

That is entirely your right, but please consider how the 8th affects healthcare for all women in Ireland on a daily basis, and ask yourself if you would like the women in your family to be denied medical attention because they might be pregnant. Even if a woman is not pregnant she can be denied certain procedures such as scans or x-rays because she might be.

kylith

AnneFrank wrote: »

Quote from the other thread about people wanting to rip down the no posters, very well made.


realdanbreen
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,551
Adverts | Friends
Quote:


I love the way the YES camp view themselves as liberal and yet want to behave like fascists.

And was rightly pointed out; it's not the yes side that wants to enforce modes of behaviour on the entire population.

nozzferrahhtoo

AnneFrank wrote: »

Quote from the other thread about people wanting to rip down the no posters, very well made.

Well since we are regurgitating old posts here is one I made earlier on that very topic:

On the marriage referendum there were two groups of disgusting people on EACH side, in the yes camp and the no camp.

The first is that on BOTH sides there were groups going around destroying the posters of the other side. Disgusting people in my view.

On BOTH sides there were also non-intellectuals with no relevant or interesting points to make in the SSM debate and could not string an argument together if their life depended on it..... who instead attempted to score cheap political points by pointing out the poster destroyers on the OTHER side but never their own.

They are even more disgusting and pitiful as people in my view than the poster destroyers themselves.

Anyway...... what were you saying again?

Bridge93

Someone posted a video here yesterday from Limerick of Yes posters being torn down. Happens both ways

gmisk

JMNolan wrote: »

Sure it is :rolleyes:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/george-soros-s-amnesty-donation-was-not-for-political-purposes-1.3335146

So that went to amnesty international.

Nothing to do with the 580k donated to the together for yes campaign.

ELM327

JMNolan wrote: »

Sure it is :rolleyes:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/george-soros-s-amnesty-donation-was-not-for-political-purposes-1.3335146

Please subscribe or sign in to continue reading.
That's behind a paywall.
But I'm going to assume you're referring to donations not related to this campaign.

The "Together For Yes" campaign was crowdfunded by Irish people, with the average donation around €35. I sent two donations, because I wanted to leave a comment.

baylah17

JMNolan wrote: »

ELM327 wrote: »

IN fairness the yes campaign is crowdfunded by real irish people as opposed to big american dollars

Sure it is :rolleyes:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/george-soros-s-amnesty-donation-was-not-for-political-purposes-1.3335146

Sad attempt as misdirection
The Yes money was raised by crowd funding nothing to do with any other form of funding
You really must try harder

baylah17

JMNolan wrote: »

ELM327 wrote: »

IN fairness the yes campaign is crowdfunded by real irish people as opposed to big american dollars

Sure it is :rolleyes:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/george-soros-s-amnesty-donation-was-not-for-political-purposes-1.3335146

Sad attempt as misdirection
The Yes money was raised by crowd funding nothing to do with any other form of funding
You really must try harder

Zubeneschamali

gmisk wrote: »

I am not sure what age has to do with it.

I agree - there were 416,000 No voters in 1983 - they are all 35 years older now, so at least 53.

And we have heard from 18 year old No voters this time in this thread.

So I don't think there is a simple old/young no/yes right/wrong divide.

Ave Sodalis

AnneFrank wrote: »

Quote from the other thread about people wanting to rip down the no posters, very well made.


realdanbreen
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,551
Adverts | Friends
Quote:


I love the way the YES camp view themselves as liberal and yet want to behave like fascists.

For somebody who's not trying to convince anyone of your point of view, you're trying awfully hard to stir sh*t.

baylah17

Peintre Celebre wrote: »

I do not believe in the murder of babies, so will be voting no

Nobody is proposing murdering babies
I take it you have no issue with killing women though
Wow stay classy

SusieBlue

AnneFrank wrote: »

After much thought and alot of consideration, i am voting no.
This is my choice. I do not need to read posters to do this for myself, or have
someone half my age try and convince me otherwise.
I will also not try and convince anyone else to vote my way.
It's a personal choice.Don't be a sheep. Make up your own mind, either way.

Your age comment isn't half patronising. As if someone younger than you is incapable of an intelligent thought and is unworthy of being heard. :rolleyes:

bruschi

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

A large portion of your annoyance can be alleviated however in changing what you think that argument is to what the argument actually is. And while the ACTUAL argument might still annoy you, we can hope it will annoy you less.

The difference is no one is saying that it has as much LIFE as a fetus. They are saying it has as much SENTIENCE as a fetus (that is to say:none).

Imagine a continuum of sentience. At the top end we could place the sentience of the average human male. At the bottom end we could place a rock. Then we could place things on that continuum.

Dolphins and chimps would be up towards our end of it. Dogs further down. The common house fly way down. And so on. Toe nails will be down at the rocks.

The fetus at 12/16 weeks could only be placed down where the toe nails and rocks are. The lights simply are not on, and no one is home. And even the light fittings are still be installed because most of the wiring is not even done yet either.



Actually that IS what we do when we work with the trauma of miscarriage at certain stages. Now of course we do not do it as directly or crassly as you describe here. But that is essentially what we work towards through a slower incremental methodology of empathy and understanding and education. We try to alleviate their grief and suffering by divesting them from some of the narratives that are the source of that suffering.

I can go into this more if you like, but simply google scholar papers on grief counselling with respect to miscarriage, and the concepts of "Loss of a baby" versus "Loss of a pregnancy" and the Swanson model. It is well documented.



Rather than a push away of those thoughts it is an open acknowledgement of them AND their implication. When one realizes it is a potential rather than an actual.... one then is forced to question why we apply the concerns of an actual to a potential. No one is pushing those thoughts away at all therefore.... rather they are following them openly and honestly to their conclusions.



Quite easily. We are as Terry Pratchett would say not really "Homo Sapien" (the wise ape) but actually "Pans Narrans" the story telling chimp. We parse our life through stories and narratives. And these often run parallel to reality. so we can acknowledge what a fetus ACTUALLY IS in one hand while investing ourselves emotionally in the stories we tell about that fetus in our life narratives. One does not have to forget what a fetus actually is in order to become emotionally invested in what it can become.

I think you invested a lot of time into something to try convince me of I dont know what. In terms of dealing with a miscarriage, there is no doubt that losing a baby is far worse than going through a miscarriage. I wouldnt disagree with that having gone through the latter. We grieved absolutely, but I know it would be far far worse to lose on of our children after being born.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But our own emotional investment in what it can become should never be projected on to others. Least of all by forcing them to continue with an unwanted pregnancy that they are not invested in like we are or would be.

again, I'm not sure if you saw the part where I am voting yes and think abortion should be legislated for. Oh yeah made the point that different people view pregnancies in different manners, to some its joyous, to others it isnt. The former views it as a prospective child, the latter as a clump of cells. I understand that, it still doesnt mean I dont believe dismissing a pregnancy as a clump of cells as being somewhat disingenuous in the debate.

And again, to reiterate, the only reason I'm being pedantic on a pro choice side is because there is far too much on the pro life side to disagree with. I personally dont like the casual abandonment of using phrases such as blobs or clumps of cells.

bruschi

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, no, I think this is obviously biologically wrong. Birth is a legal line, it doesn't reflect any inherent change in the fetus/baby, it is just a matter of law and geography.

Birth is a good line to pick for citizenship, inheritance and all of that sort of law, but it is not the best point to pick for when the law should offer protection.

as mentioned in that post I responded to, there is a huge theological debate to further that. I suppose I just picked the human "being" part of it. As to when law should offer protection, I dont know. The main points now being as to when a fetus could survive outside of the womb, so that for now seems to be where most agree on that.

nozzferrahhtoo

bruschi wrote: »

I think you invested a lot of time into something to try convince me of I dont know what.

Not trying to convince you of anything, you already said you are voting yes. But you mentioned an annoyance, and that annoyance seemed to me to be coming from an erroneous evaluation of the concept that was annoying you. So I hoped merely to alleviate your annoyance by correcting the error.

As for time, I type rather remarkably fast. The time invested in that post was a lot smaller than you might expect. Whatever you think it was, half it. Twice.

bruschi wrote: »

I dont believe dismissing a pregnancy as a clump of cells as being somewhat disingenuous in the debate.

It is accurate in some senses though, but yes I agree there are likely better ways to phrase it. But often in these debates we tend to use language that will stand out and really get the implications of what we say across or make people take notice of it. So we do not always say things in the best way.

The "clump of cells" narrative is basically designed to show that the fetus at 12 or 16 weeks entirely lacks anything that should be triggering our moral and ethical concerns. It is "just" a clump of cells in the sense that what is there, and going on there, is much too effete to ground the level of concern people hold for it.

Simultaneously trying to get that point across, while communicating emotionally the level of relative importance it holds for us, does leave us limited in the language we can use. And I admit it could likely be done better. But I am open to input on how.

Like it or not the fetus is the sentience equivalent of a rock. And I am not sure what the kid gloves should look like to convey that point amicably.

Sofiztikated

AnneFrank wrote: »

After much thought and alot of consideration, i am voting no.
This is my choice. I do not need to read posters to do this for myself, or have
someone half my age try and convince me otherwise.
I will also not try and convince anyone else to vote my way.
It's a personal choice.Don't be a sheep. Make up your own mind, either way.

So you popping in every now and again to post Save the 8th was you considering the argument, and making a decision?

And writing off someone's opinion or argument simply because they are younger than you just smacks of the close mindedness I expect from many Save people.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Annasopra

robarmstrong wrote: »

Off topic but could any of you PM me links to these groups? I've only found two and they aren't very active.

Go into facebook, twitter or instagram and do a search for "together for yes"

ohnonotgmail

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

she does know that there are people here older than that right?

Zubeneschamali

AnneFrank wrote: »

I do not need to read posters to do this for myself, or have someone half my age try and convince me otherwise.

How about someone 1.325 times your age? Do you need me to try?

Annasopra

seachto7 wrote: »

I am living in Dublin, but registered to vote in Limerick.

I am not sure if I have to vote in Limerick or can I vote by post for this?

I was thinking of changing my voting address to Dublin, but to be honest, and this is parochial, if there was a general election in 2 months, I would not want to vote for someone in Dublin. I'd rather vote for someone in Limerick. Selfish I know, but that's the way it is.

If you want to vote on May 25th and keep your vote in Limerick then you have to goto limerick on May 25th

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

The Cork TFY group and I'm assuming the other regional ones have a good weekly e-mail with what's going on, canvassing, fundraisers etc. I contacted the canvassing officer and he offered to put me on the mailing list for it. Good option if you're not a big social media user.

garbo speaks

I really hope that those who will vote yes will be able to sleep with themselves if this referendum is passed.

robarmstrong

garbo speaks wrote: »

I really hope that those who will vote yes will be able to sleep with themselves if this referendum is passed.

I will, with great comfort knowing that women will no longer be denied the right to a choice to seek an abortion in her own country.

ohnonotgmail

garbo speaks wrote: »

I really hope that those who will vote yes will be able to sleep with themselves if this referendum is passed.

If anything i will probably sleep a little better.

AnneFrank

Ganging up on and harassing me and others of a different view will only weaken whatever agenda you wish to push.

robarmstrong

AnneFrank wrote: »

Ganging up on and harassing me and others of a different view will only weaken whatever agenda you wish to push.

So will putting up inaccurate posters and telling porky pies.

ohnonotgmail

AnneFrank wrote: »

Ganging up on and harassing me and others of a different view will only weaken whatever agenda you wish to push.

if you have been harassed then report the posts. But you haven't been harassed.