The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Zubeneschamali

professore wrote: »

What I meant to say was I agreed with the position of the Citizens' Assembly:
http://www.thejournal.ie/committee-citizens-assembly-3749589-Dec2017/

Keep reading: what we will vote on IS the recommendation of the Citizen's Assembly, as I told you earlier.

professore

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I haven't been posting NO rhetoric. I just haven't been slavishly agreeing with everything the Yes side have said. Not the same thing at all. The No side are almost non existent on here so there isn't anyone to disagree with. If there were I would equally be posting YES rhetoric.

professore

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Keep reading: what we will vote on IS the recommendation of the Citizen's Assembly, as I told you earlier.

No it is not. We are voting for REPEAL. Not to REPLACE or AMEND. Very very different.

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

_Dara_

NuMarvel wrote: »

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.

I think that a highly visible 'home to vote' campaign would be a big mistake. I know of two people who are coming home to vote even though they are ineligible. They have both lived out of Ireland for around five years so they are not ordinarily resident. In the MarRef, Yes would have won with or without the 'Home To Vote' campaign but this result is likely to be much closer. So the result could be challenged if it's thought than voter fraud took place.

If there IS a 'home to vote' campaign, it needs to be highlighted that only people who still have ordinary residence in Ireland are eligible to vote ie. students and recent emigrants.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Ave Sodalis

professore wrote: »

No it is not. We are voting for REPEAL. Not to REPLACE or AMEND. Very very different.

The 8th amendment is being replaced with:
“Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancies.”

NuMarvel

professore wrote: »

No it is not. We are voting for REPEAL. Not to REPLACE or AMEND. Very very different.

What we are voting on is pretty much what the Assembly recommended. This is how the Assembly's recommendation is summarised on their website:

In the third ballot, 57% of the Members recommended that Article 40.3.3 be replaced with a Constitutional provision explicitly authorising the Oireachtas to address termination of pregnancy, any rights of the unborn and any rights of the pregnant woman. In other words, it would be a matter for the Oireachtas to decide how to legislate on these issues.

If the referendum is carried, Article 40.3.3 will consist of the following: "Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy."

There is, in effect no difference to what the Assembly recommended and what the Government is proposing.

baylah17

professore wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Keep reading: what we will vote on IS the recommendation of the Citizen's Assembly, as I told you earlier.

No it is not. We are voting for REPEAL. Not to REPLACE or AMEND. Very very different.

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

We are voting to amend the 8th
Amend as change the wording and the effect

Zubeneschamali

professore wrote: »

No it is not. We are voting for REPEAL. Not to REPLACE or AMEND. Very very different.

No, we aren't, we are voting to replace as recommended by the Citizen's Assembly. Keep reading, you'll know as much as my teenagers soon.

Also, your Caps Lock key is on the blink.

NuMarvel

_Dara_ wrote: »

I think that a highly visible 'home to vote' campaign would be a big mistake. I know of two people who are coming home to vote even though they are ineligible. They have both lived out of Ireland for around five years so they are not ordinarily resident. In the MarRef, Yes would have won with or without the 'Home To Vote' campaign but this result is likely to be much closer. So the result could be challenged if it's thought than voter fraud took place.

If there IS a 'home to vote' campaign, it needs to be highlighted that only people who still have ordinary residence in Ireland are eligible to vote ie. students and recent emigrants.

That's how the campaign is being highlighted, so there's no issue there. What's more, I've seen home to vote campaigns for both sides: Yes AND No.

If there is a challenge brought, the burden of proof will be on the challenger. And it'll be very hard for them to show there were sufficient illegal votes to adversely affect the outcome of the referendum one way or the other.

professore

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, we aren't, we are voting to replace as recommended by the Citizen's Assembly. Keep reading, you'll know as much as my teenagers soon.

Also, your Caps Lock key is on the blink.

Why do you insist on personally insulting me?

ohnonotgmail

professore wrote: »

Why do you insist on personally insulting me?

why do you insist on getting very basic things wrong?

January

professore wrote: »

Why do you insist on personally insulting me?

How is saying your caps lock key is on the blink personally insulting you ?

kylith

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

I’m intrigued....

_Dara_

NuMarvel wrote: »

That's how the campaign is being highlighted, so there's no issue there. What's more, I've seen home to vote campaigns for both sides: Yes AND No.

If there is a challenge brought, the burden of proof will be on the challenger. And it'll be very hard for them to show there were sufficient illegal votes to adversely affect the outcome of the referendum one way or the other.

That’s good because for the MarRef, it wasn’t really highlighted, at least at a casual glance anyway.

baylah17

professore wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, we aren't, we are voting to replace as recommended by the Citizen's Assembly. Keep reading, you'll know as much as my teenagers soon.

Also, your Caps Lock key is on the blink.

Why do you insist on personally insulting me?

Why do you insist on insulting me my intelligence and the intelligence of other thread reader by postings lies misrepresentations and misinformation?

ELM327

professore wrote: »

Why do you insist on personally insulting me?

There has already been a mod instruction on thread to stop this type of post.
If you have been attacked please use the report button.

Stop derailing the thread.

NuMarvel

professore wrote: »

Why do you insist on personally insulting me?

It's interesting how, of all the posts that explain why there's no substantive difference between the Assembly's recommendations and what we're voting on, you decide to respond to the post that gives you an excuse to talk about something other the matter at hand.

As the mods have said, if you think a post is insulting, you should report it.

Now, do you have anything relevant to say or do we take that you accept we're voting on what the assembly recommended?

professore

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

why do you insist on getting very basic things wrong?

So the Repeal the 8th movement is basically lying about what they are trying to achieve? Also the poll needs to change. We are apparently replacing the 8th not repealing it.

ohnonotgmail

professore wrote: »

So the Repeal the 8th movement is basically lying about what they are trying to achieve? Also the poll needs to change. We are apparently replacing the 8th not repealing it.

you really do go out of your way not to understand, don't you?

.......

This post has been deleted.

ArmaniJeanss

@Professore.
In this post a few years ago you said that the law should be changed to prevent women leaving the jurisdiction for an abortion.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92197368&postcount=6425
And below that any who do travel should be charged with murder.

That's hard core stuff, a very extreme position.

It's slightly hard to reconcile that with your 'on the fence, veering towards Yes' claims here. Albeit people do change.

iguana

kylith wrote: »

I’m intrigued....

Well you know as much as I do. A few people asked what she meant but were just told to do our research and we'd know what the government was really up to. She, oddly enough, couldn't just tell us what that is.

baylah17

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

@Professore.
In this post a few years ago you said that the law should be changed to prevent women leaving the jurisdiction for an abortion.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92197368&postcount=6425
And below that any who do travel should be charged with murder.

That's hard core stuff, a very extreme position.

It's slightly hard to reconcile that with your 'on the fence, veering towards Yes' claims here. Albeit people do change.

@Professors #caughtbythebollix
Scarlet for you
Iona just not making them the way they used to lol

ELM327

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

@Professore.
In this post a few years ago you said that the law should be changed to prevent women leaving the jurisdiction for an abortion.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92197368&postcount=6425
And below that any who do travel should be charged with murder.

That's hard core stuff, a very extreme position.

It's slightly hard to reconcile that with your 'on the fence, veering towards Yes' claims here. Albeit people do change.

Great find :D:D
Careful now, he's going to accuse you of trolling, like I was for quoting posts made on public record.

professore

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

@Professore.
In this post a few years ago you said that the law should be changed to prevent women leaving the jurisdiction for an abortion.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92197368&postcount=6425
And below that any who do travel should be charged with murder.

That's hard core stuff, a very extreme position.

It's slightly hard to reconcile that with your 'on the fence, veering towards Yes' claims here. Albeit people do change.

My point on that was if you have a law, then it should make sense. The whole "freedom to travel" thing was a bit of a joke. Basically we have this strong moral stance on abortion in Ireland but sure if you go abroad it's all grand. Of course in practice, it would be impossible to police.

My position has moved since then having further thought about it. It's not practical to have abortion illegal after a few weeks as I said in that debate. And I must admit my knowledge of the biology at the time was not what it is now. Often women don't even know they are pregnant until after this time.

Anyway, I'm sure you will all find something to poke fun at in my statements above, if it makes you happy then go for it.

Zubeneschamali

professore wrote: »

Why do you insist on personally insulting me?

I am actually not being insulting, I am being rather polite.

Just recently you have been wrong about the what the Referendum Commission said, about the ease of putting restrictions on abortion into the Constitution, about what the Citizens Assembly said, about what the Oireachteas Committee said, and about what we are voting on.

Apparently some of your other nonsense was "light hearted" and you didn't mean it.

All this while lecturing us that we are going to lose by being "smug", which seems to be how you describe anyone who knows more than you do, which isn't hard.

gmisk

professore wrote: »

My point on that was if you have a law, then it should make sense. The whole "freedom to travel" thing was a bit of a joke. Basically we have this strong moral stance on abortion in Ireland but sure if you go abroad it's all grand. Of course in practice, it would be impossible to police.

My position has moved since then having further thought about it. It's not practical to have abortion illegal after a few weeks as I said in that debate. And I must admit my knowledge of the biology at the time was not what it is now. Often women don't even know they are pregnant until after this time.

In fairness that post was made about 4 years ago and fair play for at least doing some research and changing your position.
So you are in favour of repealing now?

professore

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I am actually not being insulting, I am being rather polite.

Just recently you have been wrong about the what the Referendum Commission said, about the ease of putting restrictions on abortion into the Constitution, about what the Citizens Assembly said, about what the Oireachteas Committee said, and about what we are voting on.

Apparently some of your other nonsense was "light hearted" and you didn't mean it.

All this while lecturing us that we are going to lose by being "smug", which seems to be how you describe anyone who knows more than you do, which isn't hard.

Your condescending tone is anything but polite. It's passive aggressive. And I was not lecturing you on being smug. I was replying to the torrent of smug replies and calling that out. There are plenty of sniping remarks I could make but I wouldn't lower myself to your level.

And in your last sentence you are calling me stupid in a roundabout way. Shows how poor your argument is that you have to resort to constant ad hominem attacks.

That's the last thing I am going to say about that and if you persist I will report you - as you are derailing this thread with your personal attacks.

professore

gmisk wrote: »

In fairness that post was made about 4 years ago and fair play for at least doing some research and changing your position.
So you are in favour of repealing now?

Ideally I'd like to see it replaced with some kind of statement in the constitution around the 12 weeks, FFA, mother's health and then allow legislation around that. What the citizens assembly recommended. Basically safeguard politicians from going too far in either direction.

However that's not going to happen, so I will vote yes anyway to repeal - or apparently replace, the 8th with a one liner, as I've been pointed out is the correct term.

So yes I'm cautiously in favour of repeal. Thanks for not attacking me.