The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

ELM327

Poyndexter wrote: »

Already explained my opinion in circumstances of rape and anyway i was joking but the yes side have obviously lost their sense of humour and the level of anger and hate in the yes side posts is something else i must say.

This is turning into a debate on womens rights rather than about abortion and the eight amendment ie if you vote no youre a monster who hates women despite the fact ive encountered more women who will be voting no than men

It always is and has been about women's rights.
Nothing changes re abortion in the event of a repeal vote.

FYI - it's not a joking matter.

swampgas

Poyndexter wrote: »

Already explained in my original post.

This one?

Poyndexter wrote: »

Just reading through a lot of the posts here and the lack of respect and understanding from some yes voters for people who vote no is appalling really. Many calling anyone who votes no as idiots stupid etc. is quite insulting to be honest. It has come to the situation where people are afraid to express they are voting no in public which does not encourage healthy debate.

As someone who is going to vote no I have thought long and hard about this referendum and i understand where yes voters are coming from and I respect their views in terms of cases of rape, ffa and danger of life to the mother. However the unlimited abortion up to 12 weeks goes way too far for my liking and that is why I am voting no.

I can assure you I am not anti-women, an idiot, a jesus freak or whatever insult some yes campaigners would like to call me but someone with a conscience to protect the most vulnerable in our society who are the unborn that at 12 weeks have a heartbeat and so many humane features.

That’s just my thoughts on the matter and i will exercise my democratic right on may 25th by voting no. If the result is yes i will accept the result however if the result is no I fear the backlash.

Have you ready any of Nozzferatu's posts? Because up to 12 weeks a foetus might have human features, but it is a long way from being a baby. Granted, that's a grey area, and that's where much of the disagreement comes up. So it's worth discussing further.

If you disagree with 12 weeks, when do you think the right to life begins? Conception? Implantation? 6 weeks?

And if you truly believe that you are not anti-women, what makes you think you know better than a woman does herself about whether an abortion is the right thing for her?

Poyndexter

ELM327 wrote: »

It always is and has been about women's rights.
Nothing changes re abortion in the event of a repeal vote.

FYI - it's not a joking matter.

😒

RobertKK

ELM327 wrote: »

Ah yes that trusted and respected paper of record.
That poll shows that just over 2 out of every 3 Irish people are not on the NO side. I don't know why you quote that as a backup for your side.

So all was a lie by you, if you only agree all are polls that suit your viewpoint.
That poll did not that, it was a different poll company that said that about their poll.

RobertKK

https://twitter.com/mattsingh_/status/990187862913101824?s=21

https://twitter.com/ireland_thinks/status/990533650855923712?s=21

Sofiztikated

Poyndexter wrote: »

Already explained in my original post.

My sister in law.
2 kids under 4, and a couple of knee surgeries in the last 2 years. Is currently pregnant with a 3rd, which could leave her needing crutches and further surgeries, due to the stress the pregnancy has on her body.

Likely to be a healthy child, she's likely to be "healthy" woman. How would her choice to terminate a pregnancy that she cannot cope with right now, be a worse option than legally enforcing her to go through with it?

pitifulgod

RobertKK wrote: »

It is as he debated Wendy, not her husband, and most of the attack was on her husband. Then an openly gay man came out and said Wendy is a good friend - given the retweet by Boylan did contain overtures that Wendy and her husband are homophobic.

Pure in Heart hold homophobic stances, this is a reality. Can you point out some lies from the tweet? I think it's very much so relevant if her husband was involved in a group that literally prefers for young people to be oblivious to anything sex related. Robert, you're easily outraged. Also a quick google indicates she herself was involved in Pure In Heart. Seems pretty relevant now, no?

Further down the line I started attending a Catholic prayer group called Pure in Heart. I was intrigued to hear that the Church thinks that sex is great! And wants those of us who are married to have good sex lives within marriage. Similar to my brother when I began to live out my faith my friends were shocked to say the least – however as time has gone on they can really see how truly happy I am.
http://www.rabble.ie/2012/12/19/a-tsunami-of-death-creep-after-creep-after-creep/

ELM327 wrote: »

The same openly gay man who is pro gay rights (same sex marriage referendum) but anti-women's rights (judging by the "no" in his profile).

Yeah he's a well rounded citizen who judges all equally alright. Good thing for him as a gay man he won't face the crisis pregnancy situations at all.

Quick search of his timeline indicates he's more akin to Paddy Manning, supported a no vote in the marriage referendum.

RobertKK

pitifulgod wrote: »

Pure in Heart hold homophobic stances, this is a reality. Can you point out some lies from the tweet? I think it's very much so relevant if her husband was involved in a group that literally prefers for young people to be oblivious to anything sex related. Robert, you're easily outraged. Also a quick google indicates she herself was involved in Pure In Heart. Seems pretty relevant now, no?



Quick search of his timeline indicates he's more akin to Paddy Manning, supported a no vote in the marriage referendum.

Yes, did Peter Boylan debate Wendy's husband that he needed to retweet a tweet that was mostly about her husband?
Being against the marriage referendum didn't mean a person was homophobic.

ELM327

Poyndexter wrote: »

��

Great retort there.
Care to answer the actual post.
I've copied the text again for you, in case you're trying to do the usual "ignore" that the no side do.

ELM327 wrote: »

It always is and has been about women's rights.
Nothing changes re abortion in the event of a repeal vote.

FYI - it's not a joking matter.

RobertKK wrote: »

So all was a lie by you, if you only agree all are polls that suit your viewpoint.
That poll did not that, it was a different poll company that said that about their poll.

Another attempt to spin the truth there
Sure would you not go the whole hog and say "1 in 5" of my posts are lies and show photos of my recent kidney surgery to my children? That's your MO anyway John.

RobertKK wrote: »

...online spam...

Nothing worth while of a response here, not interested in reading irrelevant online links to what someone else thinks.

ELM327

pitifulgod wrote: »

Quick search of his timeline indicates he's more akin to Paddy Manning, supported a no vote in the marriage referendum.

Well that's even worse.
Quite literally a turkey voting for christmas.

Poyndexter

Ok guys to be honest I came on here to post and give my opinion on the matter but the level of vitriol, hate and lack of respect is something else. It’s an online forum supposed to be for some serious and light hearted discussion. I’ve given my views and some have respectfully engaged in informed debate with me while others would want to have a look at themselves. Not naming names but you know yourself.

As I said myself in my first post I wanted to give my reasons for voting no so people can understand where the no side are coming from but it’s as if if walked into the middle of a liberal feminist conference. No wonder there’s little to no debate here and it all just ends in bitter insults, lies and hysterics if anyone dares go against the consensus.

Moiratat

Poyndexter wrote: »

Just reading through a lot of the posts here and the lack of respect and understanding from some yes voters for people who vote no is appalling really. Many calling anyone who votes no as idiots stupid etc. is quite insulting to be honest. It has come to the situation where people are afraid to express they are voting no in public which does not encourage healthy debate.

As someone who is going to vote no I have thought long and hard about this referendum and i understand where yes voters are coming from and I respect their views in terms of cases of rape, ffa and danger of life to the mother. However the unlimited abortion up to 12 weeks goes way too far for my liking and that is why I am voting no.

I can assure you I am not anti-women, an idiot, a jesus freak or whatever insult some yes campaigners would like to call me but someone with a conscience to protect the most vulnerable in our society who are the unborn that at 12 weeks have a heartbeat and so many humane features.

That’s just my thoughts on the matter and i will exercise my democratic right on may 25th by voting no. If the result is yes i will accept the result however if the result is no I fear the backlash.

"I was not in good health, my mind was a toxic place of hatred and depression from my family and boyfriend abusing me. My mother an alcoholic to put it lightly left for weeks on end, leaving me with my baby brother and 3 younger sisters and no food or money. My older sister was never home and if she was she would only abuse us further (my older sister having sexually abused me and them). I "had" my boyfriend at the time, he abused me physically and mentally and it got to a stage where he would rape me and call me a slut or a whore afterwards. I became pregnant. My told my boyfriend and he tried to kill my baby by beating me, by forcing me to drink alcohol and many other ways, his family were stern Catholics. To me I wanted my baby, I wanted to be able to keep him or her and love them ,I still do love them but I had to look after my siblings which I couldn't do if my mother kicked me out which she would have. And I would have liked to have given my baby the best life possible and couldn't if I was kicked out and even at that point my baby could've been seriously hurt. My boyfriend threatened me that if I did not go to England he would kill me. So I did and I miss my baby terribly but I had to do what I did. Am I a murderer because of it or a killer? Every time I go out and see one of the no posters I want to end my life. I feel so much shame and disgust at myself. I had to leave my home to say goodbye to my baby, because of the eighth."
My situation, I would never call someone stupid because there opinion differed to mine but at the same time, the no side throw around the words murder and killing as if women are monsters, am I a monster because of what I have done? I still feel love for my child and every time I go outside I am bombarded by posters insinuating I am a murderer. What is your opinion on my situation? On the situation of women in abusive relationships that get pregnant?

amdublin

Ok I've looked on Twitter

????


It reads to me like the No side playing their old victim card/ woe is me trick

I won't be giving it more time. I'd suggest y'all don't either. But! If you want to that's fine by my too. You have that choice!

That's what is so great about having choice.

January

Poyndexter, voting no does not stop abortion. Adoption is not an option for some women, take my case, I'm already a mother to 4 children, could you imagine me having to explain to my children, that I was pregnant but wasn't keeping the baby because we couldn't afford, financially or emotionally, to bring another child into this family and we had to give their sister or brother away to another family so they could raise it?

gandalf

Poyndexter wrote: »

Ok guys to be honest I came on here to post and give my opinion on the matter but the level of vitriol, hate and lack of respect is something else. It’s an online forum supposed to be for some serious and light hearted discussion. I’ve given my views and some have respectfully engaged in informed debate with me while others would want to have a look at themselves. Not naming names but you know yourself.

As I said myself in my first post I wanted to give my reasons for voting no so people can understand where the no side are coming from but it’s as if if walked into the middle of a liberal feminist conference. No wonder there’s little to no debate here and it all just ends in bitter insults, lies and hysterics if anyone dares go against the consensus.

What hatred? You stated your position and got called up on it and now you've gone full snowflake because people questioned you. You seem to have made your mind up already before engaging here why bother trying to attempt in a discussion if that's the case?

amdublin

Poyndexter wrote: »

Ok guys to be honest I came on here to post and give my opinion on the matter but the level of vitriol, hate and lack of respect is something else. It’s an online forum supposed to be for some serious and light hearted discussion. I’ve given my views and some have respectfully engaged in informed debate with me while others would want to have a look at themselves. Not naming names but you know yourself.

As I said myself in my first post I wanted to give my reasons for voting no so people can understand where the no side are coming from but it’s as if if walked into the middle of a liberal feminist conference. No wonder there’s little to no debate here and it all just ends in bitter insults, lies and hysterics if anyone dares go against the consensus.

I've read back. There's one or two posts I don't agree with - calling you a fool for example. But that's it all other have been respectful and are just discussing back.and forward with you. So I think there is some dramatising going on with you up above.

But! If there posts you feel are particularly "vitriolic" you should report so the mods can review. Boards.ie is good like that

RobertKK

ELM327 wrote: »

Another attempt to spin the truth there
Sure would you not go the whole hog and say "1 in 5" of my posts are lies and show photos of my recent kidney surgery to my children? That's your MO anyway John.


Nothing worth while of a response here, not interested in reading irrelevant online links to what someone else thinks.

What is my name, is it John as you claim?

I backed up a post which showed you got the wrong poll and all you can do is stick your head in the sand because it is too hard to say you got something wrong.

Poyndexter

gandalf wrote: »

What hatred? You stated your position and got called up on it and now you've gone full snowflake because people questioned you. You seem to have made your mind up already before engaging here why bother trying to attempt in a discussion if that's the case?

Snowflake hahaha ah here pot kettle black. Trust me I ain’t no snowflake. If I was I’d be voting yes

ELM327

gandalf wrote: »

What hatred? You stated your position and got called up on it and now you've gone full snowflake because people questioned you. You seem to have made your mind up already before engaging here why bother trying to attempt in a discussion if that's the case?

This is the problem, when people realise their stance on an emotive issue is based on nothing except catholic guilt/traditional upbringing/fear of the unknown. They get defensive and look for someone to blame.

The yes side must be to blame because he's ran out of logical arguments for a no vote. I've had this with people on my friends list on facebook too, and in reality. Some of whom are now yes voters (and I know of at least two of those who donated to the #togetherforyes crowdfunding page).

pitifulgod

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes, did Peter Boylan debate Wendy's husband that he needed to retweet a tweet that was mostly about her husband?
Being against the marriage referendum didn't mean a person was homophobic.

She shares the positions of Pure in Heart, she was involved with them. It is relevant Robert, their version of sex education is not educating. If you're opposed to sexual education and campaigning against reproductive rights, there's a major issue that needs to be highlighted.

Yep, it's not a sign of homophobia even though many people who opposed it were in fact homophobic. Pure in Heart actually avoid talking about homosexuality. However they do recommend the Chastity project on their website. Here's some samples from them on homosexuality.

Please don’t celebrate sin. Celebrate love, namely, by showing it, really, for what it really is.
https://chastityproject.com/2015/07/love-unfiltered/

We shouldn’t feel shame for experiencing attractions or inclinations we didn’t specifically choose. Though we’re invited to be honest with ourselves, this doesn’t mean that we ought to be prideful about our attractions.
https://chastityproject.com/2017/06/is-it-okay-to-be-gay/

Basic summary is they favour you repressing your sexuality in the event of you being gay. Pure in heart teach chastity. The follow on logic is it's for life if you're gay.

Sofiztikated

Poyndexter wrote: »

No wonder there’s little to no debate here and it all just ends in bitter insults, lies and hysterics if anyone dares go against the consensus.

That is literally the Save sides MO, which you have literally just proved.

ELM327

RobertKK wrote: »

What is my name, is it John as you claim?

I backed up a post which showed you got the wrong poll and all you can do is stick your head in the sand because it is too hard to say you got something wrong.

Not relevant to the questions asked, John.
Go back and answer the questions without reams of online BS links.
You've been warned about link spamming before.

Poyndexter wrote: »

Snowflake hahaha ah here pot kettle black. Trust me I ain’t no snowflake. If I was I’d be voting yes

Snowflake = pro women's rights?
I don't follow.
As a self confessed right wing extremist (I'm a breitbart reader ) I'm no snowflake either, but I'm voting yes for women's rights and for healthcare.

RobertKK

pitifulgod wrote: »

She shares the positions of Pure in Heart, she was involved with them. It is relevant Robert, their version of sex education is not educating. If you're opposed to sexual education and campaigning against reproductive rights, there's a major issue that needs to be highlighted.

Yep, it's not a sign of homophobia even though many people who opposed it were in fact homophobic. Pure in Heart actually avoid talking about homosexuality. However they do recommend the Chastity project on their website. Here's some samples from them on homosexuality.


Basic summary is they favour you repressing your sexuality in the event of you being gay. Pure in heart teach chastity. The follow on logic is it's for life if you're gay.

It is not relevant to what Peter Boylan debated on Friday Night. Why did he take part in a debate with Wendy if he was so much superior and she was not worthy to debate him going by his retweet?

swampgas

Poyndexter wrote: »

Ok guys to be honest I came on here to post and give my opinion on the matter but the level of vitriol, hate and lack of respect is something else. It’s an online forum supposed to be for some serious and light hearted discussion. I’ve given my views and some have respectfully engaged in informed debate with me while others would want to have a look at themselves. Not naming names but you know yourself.

As I said myself in my first post I wanted to give my reasons for voting no so people can understand where the no side are coming from but it’s as if if walked into the middle of a liberal feminist conference. No wonder there’s little to no debate here and it all just ends in bitter insults, lies and hysterics if anyone dares go against the consensus.

Fair enough, but in turn you might also get some idea of just how serious an issue this is to many people. There isn't a whole lot of scope for light hearted discussion. I'm guessing you're male, young and have never had to deal with a problematic pregnancy. Your digs at feminism don't show much respect for how this affects women either.

So maybe show a bit of cop on and don't be making a laugh of an issue where peoples lives, health and futures are literally at stake.

RobertKK

ELM327 wrote: »

Not relevant to the questions asked, John.
Go back and answer the questions without reams of online BS links.
You've been warned about link spamming before.

I have not been warned about link spamming.

My name is not John.

Poyndexter

Poyndexter wrote: »

Snowflake hahaha ah here pot kettle black. Trust me I ain’t no snowflake. If I was I’d be voting yes

Sorry you've just shown either a complete misunderstanding of the term snowflake or the whole reason we are actually getting to have a vote on this issue.

pitifulgod

RobertKK wrote: »

It is not relevant to what Peter Boylan debated on Friday Night. Why did he take part in a debate with Wendy if he was so much superior and she was not worthy to debate him going by his retweet?

You don't see any relationship between unwanted pregnancies and chastity only sex education? The latter actually results in more unwanted pregnancies. She is directly associated with and was a member herself of a group that try to limit knowledge in terms of sexual education. You took issue with the gay statement hence addressing.(It's true btw) So tell me again, why isn't it relevant?

The pro life side are entitled to put whoever they want. That doesn't give them automatic credibility while Boylan is entirely credible and should very much so participate in debate regardless of what morons they choose to put up against him.

ELM327

RobertKK wrote: »

I have not been warned about link spamming.

My name is not John.

I do apologise (and this is the only one you'll get from me)

This was the post I was referring to.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106779234&postcount=6989
I mixed you up with another poster with a very similar posting style and stance.

RobertKK

pitifulgod wrote: »

You don't see any relationship between unwanted pregnancies and chastity only sex education? The latter actually results in more unwanted pregnancies. She is directly associated with and was a member herself of a group that try to limit knowledge in terms of sexual education. You took issue with the gay statement hence addressing.(It's true btw) So tell me again, why isn't it relevant?

The pro life side are entitled to put whoever they want. That doesn't give them automatic credibility while Boylan is entirely credible and should very much so participate in debate regardless of what morons they choose to put up against him.

One can only get an unwanted pregnancy via chastity if one doesn't practice it or is raped.
In Uganda it was found the ABC program for sex education was the most effective means when it came to sex and the spread od HIV/AIDS:
A for Abstinence
B for Be faithful
C for condoms if one can't do A or B.
This is a sex education program that all should be taught, it is backed up by evidence and would likely reduce the rate of abortion, just as it reduced HIV/Aids levels in African countries where it was promoted.
From a medical journal: http://pmj.bmj.com/content/81/960/625
Abstinence, being faithful, and condom use are complementary, synergistic, and inseparable components in the country’s HIV/AIDS national prevention and control programmes, and we need to roll out these prevention messages with extra urgency now, in the era of AR
I believe it would reduce crisis pregnancies and subsequently abortion. For some abstinence is ignored as part of a wider sexual education program.

RobertKK

ELM327 wrote: »

I do apologise (and this is the only one you'll get from me)

This was the post I was referring to.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106779234&postcount=6989
I mixed you up with another poster with a very similar posting style and stance.

Thank you for the apology.

Does it include calling me John even though you know it is not my name?