The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

professore

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well you already posted the post below which makes you questionable at best.

AFTER HOURS. Am allowed some tongue in cheek comments.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

ELM327 got there before me.

Go on then, which end of political spectrum would you think is associated with either side

ELM327

professore wrote: »

AFTER HOURS. Am allowed some tongue in cheek comments.

This is not a tongue in cheek topic, it's about the life and health of our women.

ELM327

Deleted User wrote: »

Go on then, which end of political spectrum would you think is associated with either side

I'm right wing and pro choice.
(Extreme right wing, think Renua without the pro life leanings)

JDD

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

ELM327 got there before me.

You're a liberal, rather than left wing, in the old traditional sense of the word.

iamwhoiam

professore wrote: »

AFTER HOURS. Am allowed some tongue in cheek comments.

There is a time and place for tongue in cheek. This isn't it

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Go on then, which end of political spectrum would you think is associated with either side

your mistake is that you stick to this old fashioned idea of a spectrum. its old hat. and never really worked in ireland.

ELM327

JDD wrote: »

You're a liberal, rather than left wing, in the old traditional sense of the word.

If that's addressed at me (unsure, as you've quoted someone else referencing my handle) I'm no liberal I assure you. Liberals are generally PC, pro social welfare and high taxation to cover good levels of healthcare and social housing etc. Like Sweden.
I'd be more of a low tax economy, low social welfare costs and anti healthcare and social housing. Like the southern states in the US.

Interesting test here
https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

And here's my result
Economic Left/Right: 4.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 4.46

https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass?ec=4.88&soc=4.46

ohnonotgmail

JDD wrote: »

You're a liberal, rather than left wing, in the old traditional sense of the word.

I'm really not. I just dont see what anybody does with their bodies is the business of anybody else.

iguana

professore wrote: »

AFTER HOURS. Am allowed some tongue in cheek comments.

And you don't expect come back from said comments? Though it didn't come across as at all tongue in cheek, much more like a deliberate attempt to silence someone. I know 3 definite No voters in real life, 2 are very, very Catholic, 1 is an atheist. While the No campaign has obvious roots in religious misogyny not all No voters are religious or misogynists.

In fact I'm in a group on facebook which is specifically about being non-religious and one poster in that group is going to vote No because she knows what the government is really up to..............

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

your mistake is that you stick to this old fashioned idea of a spectrum. its old hat. and never really worked in ireland.

Why did you bother engage me at all on that point ...

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Why did you bother engage me at all on that point ...

because you posted nonsense.

FutureGuy

professore wrote: »

Keep going, you are convincing me more and more to vote No.

You have daughters and you are thinking about voting against them having more choice because of someone on the internet.

****ing crazy post.

.......

This post has been deleted.

_Dara_

professore wrote: »

Actually I have every intention of voting yes.

Then why are you making statements about voting no because somebody was a poo poo face on the internet? And I use the childish term 'poo poo face' because changing your vote on something so important to spite someone is so very childish.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

Anecdote versus generalisation

Sure. But you are conflating two things. Pro-life and conservatism are typically intertwined because the pro-life movement started from US conservatives.

However, U.S. conservatives are heavily religious.

So rather than it being a largely "conservative" issue, it's a largely religious issue. It just so happens that religion and conservatism are heavily intertwined.

But this is where the No campaign are making a mistake in Ireland. They're trying to use identity politics to manipulate the discussion, as was done for Trump and Brexit. Pitting it as a "liberal elites telling us what to do" debate. But this specific issue in Ireland is not a right -v- left one. It's a church -v- state one.

And that's why trying to frame it as the former is what will hurt any campaign. Conservatives in Ireland are angry at the church. They may still have largely conservative moral values, and may consider themselves religious, but they have disconnected their moral identity from catholic doctrine. That is, Irish conservatives no longer accept the Vatican's word as unquestionable gospel and instead come to their own conclusions.

This is why, when John McGuirk is hurling insults at "lefties" in universities and bitching about "liberal media", they're not sending out a rallying call to conservatives. If anything they're angering conservatives by trying to tell them what to think.

Ave Sodalis

iguana wrote:

In fact I'm in a group on facebook which is specifically about being non-religious and one poster in that group is going to vote No because she knows what the government is really up to..............

Did you make her a tinfoil hat too? There's no discussing it with people like that

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

because you posted nonsense.

lol okay. You know I'm right in that generalisation.

iguana

What do we think voter turn-out is actually going to be like? Most of the campaigning is obviously aimed at the undecideds but even referendums touted as having hugely high turnouts still see roughly one third of the electorate not voting. In 1983 less than 54% of the electorate turned out. The 1992 referenda had the third highest ever voter turnout with just over 68% on all three amendments. The abortion referendum in 2002 had a pathetic turnout of less than 43%, which was probably because it was a confusing clusterfuçk of a proposed amendment. The "fantastic" voter turnout of the marriage equality referendum 3 years ago was 60.52%. I don't like to assume but the odds are that most of the undecideds will stay undecided and not vote. Some of the Yes/No voters will also not vote but it will be mostly undecideds who don't.

ohnonotgmail

iguana wrote: »

What do we think voter turn-out is actually going to be like? Most of the campaigning is obviously aimed at the undecideds but even referendums touted as having hugely high turnouts still see roughly one third of the electorate not voting. In 1983 less than 54% of the electorate turned out. The 1992 referenda had the third highest ever voter turnout with just over 68% on all three amendments. The abortion referendum in 2002 had a pathetic turnout of less than 43%, which was probably because it was a confusing clusterfuçk of a proposed amendment. The "fantastic" voter turnout of the marriage equality referendum 3 years ago was 60.52%. I don't like to assume but the odds are that most of the undecideds will stay undecided and not vote. Some of the Yes/No voters will also not vote but it will be mostly undecideds who don't.

i cant see it going higher than the marriage referendum. I think you are right in that the undecideds will stay at home.

seamus

I also agree the undecideds will probably stay at home. Because it's such a polarising and passionate debate, they may feel like they don't want to interfere either way by casting a vote, that they're not qualified enough to cast an opinion.

I expect it will probably be higher then the marriage equality referendum. The effects of this are more wide-ranging; the entire country is affected by it one way or another, unlike same-sex marriage. And there was a general consensus that marriage equality was a dead cert unless something devastating could be pulled out of the bag, so people were less concerned about doing their part. Social media made it look like there was a huge swell of voters. But much like inviting people to parties on Facebook, what people say on social media and what they actually do are often very different things.

SusieBlue

professore wrote: »

Actually I have every intention of voting yes. I am an atheist and religious thinking doesn't enter my worldview. I agree with the findings of the Oireachtas committee on abortion.

All I've gotten here is lots of insults and being accused of insulting others for simply stating some opinions, of hating women and wanting to see them suffer even though I said no such thing and find it disgusting and abhorrent. For someone who agrees with you but maybe questions the methodology of getting it accepted. Hell I didn't even want you to agree with me - just wanted some constructive debate.

And yet you claim to be tolerant of others views and the bigots are reserved for the No side. Sorry guys you are just as bad. Never have I seen such a polarised thread on Boards. I'm just wasting my time here. Now I'm really out.

My sincerest apologies, I didn't realise you were lying and trying to provoke a reaction when you posted this, I thought you were being serious:

professore wrote: »

Keep going, you are convincing me more and more to vote No.

You are moaning about lack of serious debate, yet you are the person who brought this notion to the table:

professore wrote: »

However would have to be serious health consequences, not stretch marks for example.

If you want constructive debate my advice is to stop posting hyperbolic remarks to get a reaction, and stop saying things you don't mean.
Being deliberately facetious and then playing the victim when you are misunderstood is getting you nowhere.

dr.fuzzenstein

ELM327 wrote: »

If that's addressed at me (unsure, as you've quoted someone else referencing my handle) I'm no liberal I assure you. Liberals are generally PC, pro social welfare and high taxation to cover good levels of healthcare and social housing etc. Like Sweden.
I'd be more of a low tax economy, low social welfare costs and anti healthcare and social housing. Like the southern states in the US.

Interesting test here
https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

And here's my result
Economic Left/Right: 4.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 4.46

https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass?ec=4.88&soc=4.46

Ah, the 3rd world within the 1st world.
The American dream. Everyone can make it from dishwasher to billionaire.
Therefore anyone who doesn't make it is stupid and lazy and doesn't deserve help. America, where the pace is dictated by the fastest and the loudest.

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/09/18/whats-wrong-with-the-south

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/02/poverty-increase-map_n_5548577.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/05/hookworm-lowndes-county-alabama-water-waste-treatment-poverty

https://www.census.gov/prod/1/statbrief/sb93_15.pdf

Mr. CooL ICE

professore wrote: »

All I've gotten here is lots of insults and being accused of insulting others for simply stating some opinions

Mod: General rule on boards is to attack the post and not the poster. If you see anybody throwing around insults, please report the post and let the mods deal with it.

_Dara_

I think the turnout for this will be higher than for the MarRef. I know a good few people who didn't vote in the MarRef because they just didn't think it was that an important an issue and didn't really mind if it passed or didn't. This is something that many more people feel strongly about.

professore

Dole Scrounging Vegan Crossfitter wrote: »

Mod: General rule on boards is to attack the post and not the poster. If you see anybody throwing around insults, please report the post and let the mods deal with it.

Thanks Mod. I believe in free speech so let them say what they like.

NuMarvel

iguana wrote: »

What do we think voter turn-out is actually going to be like? Most of the campaigning is obviously aimed at the undecideds but even referendums touted as having hugely high turnouts still see roughly one third of the electorate not voting. In 1983 less than 54% of the electorate turned out. The 1992 referenda had the third highest ever voter turnout with just over 68% on all three amendments. The abortion referendum in 2002 had a pathetic turnout of less than 43%, which was probably because it was a confusing clusterfuçk of a proposed amendment. The "fantastic" voter turnout of the marriage equality referendum 3 years ago was 60.52%. I don't like to assume but the odds are that most of the undecideds will stay undecided and not vote. Some of the Yes/No voters will also not vote but it will be mostly undecideds who don't.

I think the percentage turnout will be around 55%. As you say, I can see many undecided sitting this one out.

That said, in terms of numbers the turnout could be similar to the marriage referendum. The electorate has a natural growth anyway (it went up by 85000 voters between May 2015 and the 2016 election), and there's anecdotal evidence of even larger number of student registrations than during 2015. Couple this with another strong home to vote campaign, and you could see a large number of people voting. It just may not be the largest percentage because of the size of the electorate.

ELM327

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Ah, the 3rd world within the 1st world.
The American dream. Everyone can make it from dishwasher to billionaire.
Therefore anyone who doesn't make it is stupid and lazy and doesn't deserve help. America, where the pace is dictated by the fastest and the loudest.

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/09/18/whats-wrong-with-the-south

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/02/poverty-increase-map_n_5548577.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/05/hookworm-lowndes-county-alabama-water-waste-treatment-poverty

https://www.census.gov/prod/1/statbrief/sb93_15.pdf

Absolutely interested in a discussion on this but it's not the time or the place - given that this is the Repeal the 8th thread and not in politics. Is there a political thread on right vs left fiscal policy?

professore

A clarification. I mentioned earlier that I agreed with the position of the Oireachtas committee. What I meant to say was I agreed with the position of the Citizens' Assembly:

THE OIREACHTAS COMMITTEE on the Eighth Amendment today voted to recommend an abortion regime similar but not identical to that which was recommended by the Citizens’ Assembly.

On the substantive issue over whether the Eighth Amendment be repealed, the committee voted by a margin of 14 votes to six that it should.

This differed to the recommendation by the assembly which said that the Eighth Amendment be replaced or amended.

http://www.thejournal.ie/committee-citizens-assembly-3749589-Dec2017/

Zubeneschamali

professore wrote: »

I believe in free speech so let them say what they like.

"Let them say what they like" but moan about it clutters up the thread with stuff about you instead of about the topic.