The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

TerrorFirmer

Crea wrote: »

Seriously??? The pro life campaign have used 2 spokespeople who have blatantly lied about their medical credentials - one said he was a nurse and the other claimed to be a medical doctor. This is shocking.
I've also seen downright lies being told by pro life and when we challenge them we are accused of being aggressive.
If you are against repeal you are against abortion in Ireland for rape, FFA, serious risk to health of the mother. There is no moderate anti repeal.,

I was talking about first hand experience talking to a lot of campaigners on the ground.

I'm not excusing misinformation or misrepresentation of facts or talking about the major national figures.

I don't agree with the pro-life side fundamentally but I respect everyone's opinion once they're capable of engaging in reasoned, respectful, logical debate.

I was speaking broadly also, there's no point getting involved in individual anecdotal examples.

Annasopra

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I was talking about first hand experience talking to a lot of campaigners on the ground.

I'm not excusing misinformation or misrepresentation of facts or talking about the major national figures.

I don't agree with the pro-life side fundamentally but I respect everyone's opinion once they're capable of engaging in reasoned, respectful, logical debate.

I was speaking broadly also, there's no point getting involved in individual anecdotal examples.

Weird. You are giving us your own individual anecdotal examples.

TerrorFirmer

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Weird. You are giving us your own individual anecdotal examples.

I meant there's no point getting into 'this one time X says this, or Y said that'.

My original point was that the radical fringe of the pro-repeal is just as intolerant now as that of the pro-life.

And I think that's something that has only come about in recent years.

thee glitz

Crea wrote: »

If you are against repeal you are against abortion in Ireland for rape, FFA, serious risk to health of the mother. There is no moderate anti repeal.,

April Fool's no doubt.

thee glitz

January wrote: »

'circle jerk' quiz.

Sorry, I was a bit too honest there. Good on you for getting involved and making things happen. I'd support it only I don't.

You'd easily tell what side you're on.

Yes - by reading my posts.

Fact is that you guys have enough money that posters have been erected pretty much around the country the minute the referendum date was set in stone yet here we are having to raise funds via quiz nights etc and we're the ones supposed to be being funded by some billionaire?

They must be hiding the money from you! I'm not a no guy btw, more of a not under these circumstances lad. Glad to hear the no side are supposedly also well-funded. There's no cash for people in the middle!

volchitsa

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I meant there's no point getting into 'this one time X says this, or Y said that'.

My original point was that the radical fringe of the pro-repeal is just as intolerant now as that of the pro-life.

And I think that's something that has only come about in recent years.

So basically you make a sweeping generalization with no examples, whether personal or at the leadership level, to illustrate or back it up.

TBH, sounds like just another "I'm pro choice myself but here is why I like prolife better..." post, of which there are a suspiciously large number at the minute.

Simi

thee glitz wrote: »

I'm not a no guy btw, more of a not under these circumstances lad. Glad to hear the no side are supposedly also well-funded. There's no cash for people in the middle!

There is no middle. There's either repeal or no repeal. No to repeal means no abortion for FFA, rape, incest or threat to the woman's health and attempting to legally force her to continue a pregnancy against her wishes, regardless of the threat to her physical and mental health.

Yes to repeal allows the government to legislate for abortion in these cases.

Voting no and yet somehow claiming you're in the middle is disingenuous at best. We are not voting on the legislation that will come after repeal. We are voting on repeal itself.

If you vote no you are voting to ensure abortion remains illegal in all cases bar threat to life. The government is not going to rerun the referendum with new terms that are personally catered to your wishes! That is not how democracy works.

TerrorFirmer

volchitsa wrote: »

So basically you make a sweeping generalization with no examples, whether personal or at the leadership level, to illustrate or back it up.

TBH, sounds like just another "I'm pro choice myself but here is why I like prolife better..." post, of which there are a suspiciously large number at the minute.

This is a discussion board. I could post examples all day long, but at the end of the day this isn't a court of law and no one has anything to prove.

I merely made my valid observation and suddenly people feel they have to attack it, and now we have an implication that I'm secretly undermining the 'opposition'.

I am pro-choice and will be voting that way. You can believe it....or not?

Why are people obsessed with making these issues black and white? Am I not allowed criticize aspects of something even if I believe in it?

volchitsa

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

This is a discussion board. I could post examples all day long, but at the end of the day this isn't a court of law and no one has anything to prove.

I merely made my valid observation and suddenly people feel they have to attack it, and now we have an implication that I'm secretly undermining the 'opposition'.

I am pro-choice and will be voting that way. You can believe it....or not?

Why are people obsessed with making these issues black and white? Am I not allowed criticize aspects of something even if I believe in it?

Nobody said you can't criticise it, but as you say it's a discussion board. Not a blog. So if you say 'I think this thing", but refuse to explain why or illustrate it in any way - well, that's the end of the conversation isn't it?

TerrorFirmer

volchitsa wrote: »

Nobody said you can't criticise it, but as you say it's a discussion board. Not a blog. So if you say 'I think this thing", but refuse to explain why or illustrate it in any way - well, that's the end of the conversation isn't it?

I didn't refuse, I was just making a point as part of an overall discussion, relating to my experience.

In fact, someone did the very same thing, by responding to my post, stating, "that hasn't been my experience".

Perfectly fine and valid too - no further elaboration needed, I can take that at face value - why can't people take mine at face value without feeling a need to discredit or attack it?

It's worth clarifying, that I in fact said "I actually find the pro-choice side have become just as bad, if not actually worse on the far right end of the scale.

I wasn't talking about all pro-life campaigners, or all pro-choice campaigners, merely commenting on the more radical elements on both sides.

Previously (as in, years past), I've found that the radical aspect of the debate was almost exclusively attributable to the pro-life side - talking about grassroots here, not overall national campaigns.

However I feel there has been a noticeable surge in a fringe element on the pro-choice side of the discussion who are quite intolerant of opposing views. (no different to the right end of the pro-life spectrum granted, but it didn't quite exist before)

I'm a journalist, so it's my job to talk to people on both - or all - sides of every debate.

I'm genuinely a very impartial person in general; I've listened to people who have expressed the most outrageous opinions but once they can support their opinion with a mature discussion in which they will defend challenges against those beliefs I can accept it, even if I completely disagree (and naturally I often do but thats irrelevant).

I wasn't for a moment suggesting that pro-life campaigners talk a better talk than pro-choice campaigners. As has been alluded to, frankly a huge amount of information is just the opposite - misinformation.

Again as per my OP I was talking about the more far right elements on either side. I've talked to both on many occasions and I genuinely find in most cases, the pro-life were better able to hold a discussion and were more open to me playing devils advocate (it doesn't mean they can always answer the questions to any level of satisfaction, however).

I just don't like when people involved in any debate resort to shouting down challenges to their belief rather than engage in meaningful discussion (provided the question is genuine and not needlessly antagonistic, obviously).

Again I am talking about campaigners on the ground - I am not talking nor offering opinions on national campaigns or public spokespersons (though for what it's worth, I think the pro-life campaign often resorts to highly questionable tactics to put it mildly that I personally find pretty loathsome)

volchitsa

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I didn't refuse, I was just making a point as part of an overall discussion, relating to my experience.

In fact, someone did the very same thing, by responding to my post, stating, "that hasn't been my experience".

That's my point: "I think A."
"Well, that hasnt been my experience."
End of conversation.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Perfectly fine and valid too - no further elaboration needed, I can take that at face value - why can't people take mine at face value without feeling a need to discredit or attack it?

No further elaboration, close thread?

Sure, but as I say, don't expect people to find that a very worthwhile contribution to a discussion site.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

It's worth clarifying, that I in fact said "I actually find the pro-choice side have become just as bad, if not actually worse on the far right end of the scale.

Since you insist that no further elaboration is needed, I really have no idea what sort of views you are referring to, so this doesn't help me much.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I wasn't talking about all pro-life campaigners, or all pro-choice campaigners, merely commenting on the more radical elements on both sides.

Previously (as in, years past), I've found that the radical aspect of the debate was almost exclusively attributable to the pro-life side - talking about grassroots here, not overall national campaigns.

However I feel there has been a noticeable surge in a fringe element on the pro-choice side of the discussion who are quite intolerant of opposing views. (no different to the right end of the pro-life spectrum granted, but it didn't quite exist before)

I'm a journalist, so it's my job to talk to people on both - or all - sides of every debate.

I'm genuinely a very impartial person in general; I've listened to people who have expressed the most outrageous opinions but once they can support their opinion with a mature discussion in which they will defend challenges against those beliefs I can accept it, even if I completely disagree (and naturally I often do but thats irrelevant).

I wasn't for a moment suggesting that pro-life campaigners talk a better talk than pro-choice campaigners. As has been alluded to, frankly a huge amount of information is just the opposite - misinformation.

Again as per my OP I was talking about the more far right elements on either side. I've talked to both on many occasions and I genuinely find in most cases, the pro-life were better able to hold a discussion and were more open to me playing devils advocate (it doesn't mean they can always answer the questions to any level of satisfaction, however).

I just don't like when people involved in any debate resort to shouting down challenges to their belief rather than engage in meaningful discussion (provided the question is genuine and not needlessly antagonistic, obviously).

Again I am talking about campaigners on the ground - I am not talking nor offering opinions on national campaigns or public spokespersons (though for what it's worth, I think the pro-life campaign often resorts to highly questionable tactics to put it mildly that I personally find pretty loathsome)

Genuinely no clue what you are talking about.

I'm sorry if you feel that this is a criticism of your views, rather than a request for information about them.

January

thee glitz wrote: »

Sorry, I was a bit too honest there. Good on you for getting involved and making things happen. I'd support it only I don't.



Yes - by reading my posts.



They must be hiding the money from you! I'm not a no guy btw, more of a not under these circumstances lad. Glad to hear the no side are supposedly also well-funded. There's no cash for people in the middle!

Pro-choice is the middle

Madscientist30

Yeah I kind of agree there are very radical views on both sides which are not helpful..while pro-life side use emotive terms like "baby" to describe a fetus even under 12 weeks so they can hurl their "murderer" invective, I have also seen the term "parasitic" applied to the fetus from the pro-choice side which gives a lot of negative connotations and would hardly convince any undecided voters. Such terms on either side dont show any compassion for what is often a sad and difficult decision made during a dark time in someones life.

volchitsa

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I'm a journalist, so it's my job to talk to people on both - or all - sides of every debate.

I'm genuinely a very impartial person in general; I've listened to people who have expressed the most outrageous opinions but once they can support their opinion with a mature discussion in which they will defend challenges against those beliefs I can accept it, even if I completely disagree (and naturally I often do but thats irrelevant).

Just on this point, can we assume that you posted this with a straight face or are you just trolling here? :rolleyes:

thee glitz

Simi wrote: »

There is no middle.

That's to attempt to simplify an issue that clearly doesn't easily lend itself to it, especially when we could expect very liberal legislation to follow.

There's either repeal or no repeal.

I agree, but how would you feel if, following a vote to repeal, there wasn't going to be any changes to the law?

No to repeal means no abortion for FFA, rape, incest or threat to the woman's health and attempting to legally force her to continue a pregnancy against her wishes, regardless of the threat to her physical and mental health.

A No vote also prevents abortion on request / demand being introduced, which is what would happen, and what a lot of people have a problem with, in case you've somehow avoided becoming aware of this. How convenient it is that there so many special circumstance cases that pro-choicers use to attempt to emotionally blackmail those not comfortable with abortion for any / no reason. It seems many are interested in one thing only, which is unrestricted abortion. If you genuinely care about women in these circumstances, lobby for the proposed legislation to be more restrictive.

Yes to repeal allows the government to legislate for abortion in these cases.

Yes to repeal allows to government to legislate for abortion in all cases.

Voting no and yet somehow claiming you're in the middle is disingenuous at best. We are not voting on the legislation that will come after repeal. We are voting on repeal itself.

It follows that you would think so as you've failed to recognise that anyone could have any reservations about which way they intend to vote. While technically correct that we are voting on the constitution only, the consequences of a Yes vote can reasonably be thought to include the proposed legislation being introduced.

If you vote no you are voting to ensure abortion remains illegal in all cases bar threat to life.

No, when I vote No it will because I think abortion for no (good) reason is wrong.

The government is not going to rerun the referendum with new terms that are personally catered to your wishes! That is not how democracy works.

Would they rerun it though? I guess any revised proposed legislation would be more acceptable to me, though obviously not to my specification.

PhoenixParker

There's either repeal or no repeal.
I agree, but how would you feel if, following a vote to repeal, there wasn't going to be any changes to the law?

I'd be upset but I'd still vote to repeal.
Legalizing abortion is important to me but repealing the 8th amendment is about 100 times more important.

TerrorFirmer

volchitsa wrote: »

Just on this point, can we assume that you posted this with a straight face or are you just trolling here? :rolleyes:

Why wouldn't I accept someone's right to hold an opinion, and respect the fact that they'll engage in a discussion on those beliefs?

Can you explain how that constitutes trolling? Because I'm at a loss.

Or are we in territory already where there is objectively only one 'right' opinion?

TerrorFirmer

Because I won't respect people who hold any particular opinion that seek to merely shout down the opposition rather than engage in reasonable debate, for reference.

volchitsa

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Why wouldn't I accept someone's right to hold an opinion, and respect the fact that they'll engage in a discussion on those beliefs?

Can you explain how that constitutes trolling? Because I'm at a loss.

Or are we in territory already where there is objectively only one 'right' opinion?

You said you think something, but won't deign to explain it or give details, and as part of your defence of that refusal to engage with anyone else here, you say that you respect anyone who can explain their opinion, whatever that is.

But when anyone asks you to do the same, you choose to interpret that as them disagreeing with your opinion.

And you really don't see why that double standard looks like you are not posting in good faith here?

frag420

@thee glitz...

If your father raped your 14 yr old sister and she became pregnant would you force your sister to keep your niece/nephew/sibling?

Guy:Incognito

thee glitz wrote: »

A No vote also prevents abortion on request / demand being introduced, which is what would happen, and what a lot of people have a problem with, in case you've somehow avoided becoming aware of this.


n.

"A lot" of people should just keep out of other peoples lives when it wont affect them in the slightest.

Trust other people to be able to make the best decisions for themselves.

Ave Sodalis

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Why wouldn't I accept someone's right to hold an opinion, and respect the fact that they'll engage in a discussion on those beliefs?

Can you explain how that constitutes trolling? Because I'm at a loss.

Or are we in territory already where there is objectively only one 'right' opinion?

I think, to understand where volchitsa is coming from, you may have to read the rest of the thread (long as it may be). So far, most of the "discussion" from the pro-life side has been minimal, full of trolls and re-regs, and cries of bullying whenever someone disagrees with them. Genuine pro-life posters who are here to discuss their side are very few and far between.

So to come onto the thread to say that pro-choice are not up for discussing their side and shout down opposition is completely opposite to what's happening in this thread (and the part 1).

TerrorFirmer

volchitsa wrote: »

You said you think something, but won't deign to explain it or give details, and as part of your defence of that refusal to engage with anyone else here, you say that you respect anyone who can explain their opinion, whatever that is.

But when anyone asks you to do the same, you choose to interpret that as them disagreeing with your opinion.

And you really don't see why that double standard looks like you are not posting in good faith here?

What didn't I clarify?

I expanded on my original opinion to say that I'm a journalist who has spoken to a lot of people on both sides.

I said that in my opinion, the relatively new right wing fringe of the pro-choice is now as bad as the pro-life in terms of intolerance.

I then said in my personal experience of speaking with the very right-wing campaigners on both sides, pro-lifers still tend to be somewhat more open to being challenged or to a discussion.

I'm not trying to state objective truths here - I merely made a contribution on a discussion thread, never claimed it was an unassailable truth.

It's an observation. At no point did I get into the semantics of pro-life or pro-choice, and as stated, I'm entirely, resolutely pro-choice personally.

I fail to see how I'm surrounding myself in shrouds and smoke here. I've said it pretty plainly, in fact you responded saying 'I haven't a clue what you're talking about'.

I think, to understand where volchitsa is coming from, you may have to read the rest of the thread (long as it may be). So far, most of the "discussion" from the pro-life side has been minimal, full of trolls and re-regs, and cries of bullying whenever someone disagrees with them. Genuine pro-life posters who are here to discuss their side are very few and far between.

So to come onto the thread to say that pro-choice are not up for discussing their side and shout down opposition is completely opposite to what's happening in this thread (and the part 1).

That's fair enough.

I never claimed I was being bullied but from a simple observation I posted I felt some people almost took it like an actual attack on the pro-choice campaign in its entirety and even almost personally.

I also never said the pro-choice are attempting to shout down opposition.

I specifically was referring to fringe elements on both sides from the very first post - and these people, on both sides, do tend to want to just shout down opposition.

thee glitz

PhoenixParker wrote: »

I'd be upset

And that would be very understandable in this context.

but I'd still vote to repeal.
Legalizing abortion is important to me but repealing the 8th amendment is about 100 times more important.

Fair enough. In this case, those who are against the proposed legislation can / must display this by voting No.

thee glitz

PhoenixParker wrote: »

I'd be upset

And that would be very understandable in this context.

but I'd still vote to repeal.
Legalizing abortion is important to me but repealing the 8th amendment is about 100 times more important.

Fair enough. In this case, those who are against the proposed legislation can / must display this by voting No.

Ave Sodalis

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

That's fair enough.

I never claimed I was being bullied but from a simple observation I posted I felt some people almost took it like an actual attack on the pro-choice campaign in its entirety and even almost personally.

I also never said the pro-choice are attempting to shout down opposition.

I specifically was referring to fringe elements on both sides from the very first post - and these people, on both sides, do tend to want to just shout down opposition.

You may not have but this is something the pro-life side (for the most part, in this thread) have been doing instead of actually discussing anything.

thee glitz wrote: »

Fair enough. In this case, those who are against the proposed legislation can / must display this by voting No.

Must they?

volchitsa

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

What didn't I clarify?

I expanded on my original opinion to say that I'm a journalist who has spoken to a lot of people on both sides.

I said that in my opinion, the relatively new right wing fringe of the pro-choice is now as bad as the pro-life in terms of intolerance.

I then said in my personal experience of speaking with the very right-wing campaigners on both sides, pro-lifers still tend to be somewhat more open to being challenged or to a discussion.

I'm not trying to state objective truths here - I merely made a contribution on a discussion thread, never claimed it was an unassailable truth.

It's an observation. At no point did I get into the semantics of pro-life or pro-choice, and as stated, I'm entirely, resolutely pro-choice personally.

I fail to see how I'm surrounding myself in shrouds and smoke here. I've said it pretty plainly, in fact you responded saying 'I haven't a clue what you're talking about'.



That's fair enough.

I never claimed I was being bullied but from a simple observation I posted I felt some people almost took it like an actual attack on the pro-choice campaign in its entirety and even almost personally.

I also never said the pro-choice are attempting to shout down opposition.

I specifically was referring to fringe elements on both sides from the very first post - and these people, on both sides, do tend to want to just shout down opposition.

Without any examples of what you mean by fringe elements, it's impossible to know who or what you are referring to.

For example, prolife regularly try to claim that there is an extreme prochoice opinion which supports killing viable babies instants before their birth, or forced killing of all disabled babies. They have even gone to extremes such as joining prochoice marches holding posters calling for these things. We know this because they have been caught in the act and photos of named individuals have been posted here and elsewhere - Twitter mainly.

Personally I know no-one who is pro choice in real life who would support such a thing, so I suspect that anyone who does so anonymously on the internet or in some bizarre photo op is most likely a fake prolifer trying to portray the prochoice movement as something it is not.

Which is one reason why you need to describe clearly what you mean by radical elements if you expect anyone to take your claims seriously.

thee glitz

frag420 wrote: »

@thee glitz...

If your father raped your 14 yr old sister and she became pregnant would you force your sister to keep your niece/nephew/sibling?

Funny you mention it, I was never in that situation, even though it happens just the whole time. It wouldn't be my decision. See my bit about emotional blackmail bullsh!t above.

thee glitz

thee glitz wrote: »

Funny you mention it, I was never in that situation, even though it happens just the whole time. It wouldn't be my decision. See my bit about emotional blackmail bullsh!t above.

It may not happen to you and hope it doesn't, but it has happened to others and it will continue to happen. So it doesn't fall into emotional blackmail or bullsh1t, it's a genuine question where you have to put yourself into the situation, even just in your imagination.

By voting to retain the 8th the prolife side have already said that these women must be forced to carry to term.
Such an attitude shows little compassion for the woman and the child itself and more of one that would lay the blame at the woman for being abused and the child for even being conceived.

It's easy to have ideals and morals until your presented with the reality of a situation, that's what the prolife side ignore among a great other things.

PhoenixParker

thee glitz wrote: »

And that would be very understandable in this context.



Fair enough. In this case, those who are against the proposed legislation can / must display this by voting No.

Why?
They can vote yes and then campaign for a change in the law using all the usual means.

The 8th is not just about abortion. It has serious implications for the medical care of any pregnant woman in Ireland, far above and beyond abortion.

It kicks in only when a woman's life is at risk. Permanent disablement? Not worthy of consideration. Serious illness that needs treatment? Nope.
Excruciating pain,. Not a chance.
Consent law does not apply.

These things do happen. They're not some one in a million chance. Common illnesses from type 1 diabetes to liver problems to cancer give rise to these issues. We'retalking several women a day.

What does the 8th accomplish?

Does it reduce abortion?
Pills are available on line, abortion is readily available in the UK. The right to travel is literally constitutionally guaranteed.

What does it do? (aside from endangering the lives and health of pregnant women with wanted babies)

Delays abortion, which if you're opposed to the 12 week limit means it makes 12 week + abortions more not less likely.

Prevents Irish women from accessing after care and having continuity of care.

Makes difficult situations of rape, ffa etc. Worse and more traumatic.

Whatever your views on abortion, I can't understand why anyone would vote to retain the 8th.