Children's Referendum - Why You Should Vote No

TrishAlmighty wrote: »

if you or anyone else can give me guidance as to why this cant be the case then I may consider voting yes.

Because there's nothing in the text that says, "if the state decides its best (for them, not the child) then we cant question it"

Little snippets of a constitution can be twisted to mean practically anything if you think hard enough about it.

This is the relevant part of the text:

In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.

I've bolded the important parts which should make it clear why this amendment does not give the government the powers to force-vaccinate children or remove children when their parents refuse to pay the household charge.
It's actually very important to note that the amendment doesn't say that the state decides what's best for children. Simply that it will attempt to fill the parental role when the child's own parents have failed them.
This text already exists in the constitution, it's simply being clarified from a legal and literal perspective.

In the context of the entire constitutional document, any attempts to twist these words into claims of widespread forced adoptions and state-run workhouses are just completely laughable nonsense.

I would recommend trying to find out who this "Maria Mhic Mheanmain" is. Even their website gives no background information on her. Her name is scarily reminiscent of another woman (recently deceased), who frequently campaigned under "friendly" banners in order to push a downright evil one-tracked religious agenda.

Again I ask the question I asked in posts 11 and 14.
"In a crisis situation who should make the call"?

Curly Judge wrote: »

Aah,that warms the cockles of my heart!
Brings me right back to the days of the old Mother and Child Bill.
If this lady was in India, not only would she be sacred, she'd probably have opposed the banning of Suttee.

I find it interesting that the gentleman in the cassock is a prominent member of 'Parents for Children'. He must have been banging away in the background, Eamonn Casey style, to give him such a vested interest in this group...

So at once it's a 'money saving referendum' but at the same time kids will be needlessly dragged into care. At least make your fantasy internally consistent, eh?