Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

childrens Referendum **poll added**

Options
1…34689…24

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    Foster, adopt, remove.
    Foster, adopt, remove.
    Foster, adopt, remove.


  • Options
    #153
    bbam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,410 ✭✭✭bbam


    Slick50 wrote: »
    Do you believe it would have been better for this child to have been brought up by anyone other than her actual parents.? I don't!

    Two things spring to mind about that comment...
    Firstly, Adoptive and Foster parents are "Actual" parents.. It shows a degree of ignorance not knowing the basic terminology of the process..

    Secondly, who are you to think anything about the case. Are you a health professional with a speciality in this field ?? Have you been studying the details of the case with a balanced openminded approach as a professional would... I'd wager not, just another joe soap with an opinion and little fact to interpret the case.

    Irish people need to understand that not every child is better off with their birth parents. Through their neglect and abuse a minority have demonstrated their inability to successfully parent, placing children with Foster and potentially Adoptive parents who have been vetted and trained, who can provide a child with a loving and secure home and family is an excellent solution.


  • Options
    #154
    goodie2shoes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 702 ✭✭✭goodie2shoes


    i see failed Presidential candidate and has-been eurovision singer Dana is at it again with her paranoid, conspiracy theories again!

    next thing she'll be tellin us, it's a plot by an alien species to abduct our children.

    :D


  • Options
    #155
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,054 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Slick50 wrote: »
    Then that judgement would have been made on different circumstances, and in my opinion incorrect.

    Do you believe it would have been better for this child to have been brought up by anyone other than her actual parents.? I don't!

    I'm not sure - I don't make a presumption unlike you that the child is always better off with his/her natural parents. This case was not determined by her best interests - it was determined by the marital status of her biological parents.
    The central issue to be considered by the court underwent a metamorphosis; it was no longer the best interests of the child but the lawfulness or otherwise of the Doyles’ custody of her. When deciding whether the Doyles’custody of Ann is in accordance with law it is no longer possible for the court to follow the original approach of Lynch J. in In Re J.H. – “to look at it through the eyes, or from the point of view of the child”. It is clear that the court is bound by the decision in In Re J.H.; the full rigour of the test established in that case must be applied.

    Justice Catherine McGuinness was quite clear that her judgement could not be based on Anns best interests

    Baby Ann was not represented herself in the courts - if this referendum was passed she would have to be

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #156
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    mango salsa wrote: »
    I'm not sure - I don't make a presumption unlike you that the child is always better off with his/her natural parents. This case was not determined by her best interests - it was determined by the marital status of her biological parents.

    One thing, i'm not certain of. Are married couples allowed to put children up for adoption if the amendment is made? I'd assume it would be viewed as in the child's interests if the parents want to put the child up for adoption. It is bloody absurd that they can't do so at this point in time.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    goodie2shoes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 702 ✭✭✭goodie2shoes


    i wish the anti side would stop scare-mongering and pedalling conspiracy theories.


  • Options
    #158
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    In fairness ordinary Joe Soap is being asked to vote on the legislation. From listening to both sides of the debate I am inclined to vote no. It appears to me that there is already enough legislation in place to protect children.

    bbam wrote: »
    Two things spring to mind about that comment...
    Firstly, Adoptive and Foster parents are "Actual" parents.. It shows a degree of ignorance not knowing the basic terminology of the process..

    Secondly, who are you to think anything about the case. Are you a health professional with a speciality in this field ?? Have you been studying the details of the case with a balanced openminded approach as a professional would... I'd wager not, just another joe soap with an opinion and little fact to interpret the case.

    Irish people need to understand that not every child is better off with their birth parents. Through their neglect and abuse a minority have demonstrated their inability to successfully parent, placing children with Foster and potentially Adoptive parents who have been vetted and trained, who can provide a child with a loving and secure home and family is an excellent solution.


  • Options
    #159
    goodie2shoes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 702 ✭✭✭goodie2shoes


    i'll be voting YES.
    we need to protect our children, sometimes from their family.


  • Options
    #160
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    In fairness ordinary Joe Soap is being asked to vote on the legislation. From listening to both sides of the debate I am inclined to vote no. It appears to me that there is already enough legislation in place to protect children.

    +1

    Do the yes side propose a radical change after the referendum? Some magic wand of democracy that'll put everything to right? It won't happen.

    Interestingly it won't help children who have issues with the state. The biggest abuser of children.


  • Options
    #161
    goodie2shoes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 702 ✭✭✭goodie2shoes


    squod wrote: »
    +1

    Do the yes side propose a radical change after the referendum? Some magic wand of democracy that'll put everything to right? It won't happen.

    Interestingly it won't help children who have issues with the state. The biggest abuser of children.

    nonsense


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    goodie2shoes wrote: »
    nonsense

    It's fact.


  • Options
    #163
    Death and Taxes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,775 ✭✭✭Death and Taxes


    goodie2shoes wrote: »
    i'll be voting YES.
    we need to protect our children, sometimes from their family.
    We already have legislation to do that, explain why we need to change the constitution.


  • Options
    #164
    R0ot
    Registered Users Posts: 4,473 ✭✭✭R0ot


    goodie2shoes wrote: »
    i wish the anti side would stop scare-mongering and pedalling conspiracy theories.

    I wish the yes side would have a proper discussion on the matter.


  • Options
    #165
    MadYaker
    Registered Users Posts: 12,188 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    I didn't care until I had a load of right-wing catholic nut jobs, and John Waters in the Irish Times, telling me to vote no, so I will be voting Yes.


  • Options
    #166
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    MadYaker wrote: »
    I didn't care until I had a load of right-wing catholic nut jobs, and John Waters in the Irish Times, telling me to vote no, so I will be voting Yes.

    What a hero.


  • Options
    #167
    Slick50
    Registered Users Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Slick50


    bbam wrote: »
    Firstly, Adoptive and Foster parents are "Actual" parents.. It shows a degree of ignorance not knowing the basic terminology of the process..

    You will have to try and overlook a degree of ignorance of "terminology" (This is "boards.ie") But I'm sure most people would have understood I was refering to her biological parents.
    bbam wrote: »
    Secondly, who are you to think anything about the case. Are you a health professional... I'd wager not, just another joe soap with an opinion and little fact to interpret the case.

    One of the electorate. I came on here to see if there was anything more compelling than I have heard so far, to change the constitution.
    bbam wrote: »
    Irish people need to understand that not every child is better off with their birth parents.

    I would imagine most do.
    bbam wrote: »
    Through their neglect and abuse a minority have demonstrated their inability to successfully parent, placing children with Foster and potentially Adoptive parents who have been vetted and trained, who can provide a child with a loving and secure home and family is an excellent solution.

    Yes I understand this also. And is already being done.

    You haven't enlightened me on anything so far.
    mango salsa wrote:
    I'm not sure - I don't make a presumption unlike you that the child is always better off with his/her natural parents

    I never said "always", but the default position should be that the parents will live up to their responsibilities, untill they prove otherwise.

    Your not sure, but you seem to be presuming that her biological parents were not the best people
    goodie2shoes wrote:
    we need to protect our children, sometimes from their family.

    Nobody is disputing this! It's this type of emotive bluster that is being peddled all the time, rather than reasoning the proposed amendment.


  • Options
    #168
    bbam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,410 ✭✭✭bbam


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    In fairness ordinary Joe Soap is being asked to vote on the legislation. From listening to both sides of the debate I am inclined to vote no. It appears to me that there is already enough legislation in place to protect children.

    Yes the ordinary citizen is being asked to vote. They are being asked to vote on a change in the legislation which will afford the state better care for one of its vournerable sections of society.

    It may appear to be enough legislation, but again that's a Joe Soap interpretation. I refuse to go along with the nay sayers that the legislation is being enacted for anything but positive reasons. Its disingenuous to say that this extra power will be abused or used in negative ways.


  • Options
    #169
    R0ot
    Registered Users Posts: 4,473 ✭✭✭R0ot


    MadYaker wrote: »
    I didn't care until I had a load of right-wing catholic nut jobs, and John Waters in the Irish Times, telling me to vote no, so I will be voting Yes.

    This almost swayed me back to a Yes vote, but just because the crazys are on the same side doesn't make it wrong, they are of course voting and campaigning for No for the wrong reasons but doesn't make the amendment any less wrong/more right.


  • Options
    #170
    Slick50
    Registered Users Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Slick50


    MadYaker wrote: »
    I didn't care until I had a load of right-wing catholic nut jobs, and John Waters in the Irish Times, telling me to vote no, so I will be voting Yes.

    Isn't that just the thing though. Are these people really the best that can be offered to provide compelling debate on the issue. Are we going to be told later that there was real discussion on this.? Why ?


  • Options
    #171
    R0ot
    Registered Users Posts: 4,473 ✭✭✭R0ot


    bbam wrote: »
    Its disingenuous to say that this extra power will be abused or used in negative ways.

    Yes because a government has never used a vague document in a "wrong" way after it was implemented and put into law.... :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    MadYaker
    Registered Users Posts: 12,188 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    R0ot wrote: »
    This almost swayed me back to a Yes vote, but just because the crazys are on the same side doesn't make it wrong, they are of course voting and campaigning for No for the wrong reasons but doesn't make the amendment any less wrong/more right.

    I'm just doing it to spite them. Not very mature I know, but as I said earlier, I don't care.


  • Options
    #173
    tan11ie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,056 ✭✭✭tan11ie


    There are a lot of questions that need to be answered and explained clearly in order for me to give a yes vote. The lack of public/media debate on this referendum leads me to believe a yes vote will win....most will just place their trust in the Government as usual.


  • Options
    #174
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    Yes for Europe Jobs Children


  • Options
    #175
    Slick50
    Registered Users Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Slick50


    goodie2shoes wrote: »
    i see failed Presidential candidate and has-been eurovision singer Dana is at it again with her paranoid, conspiracy theories again!

    It seems she's not entirely wrong though
    Sharrow wrote: »
    About bloody time, it's only taken 23 years, these are part of the changes needed so we can finally ratify the UN Convention on the rights of the child.
    Sharrow wrote:
    Ireland signed up to the UN convention of the Rights of the child in 1990 and as a result we needed to change the constitution and successive governments 'forgot' about it.
    So it's finally happening now, it will make all kids equal in terms of adoption and will be the starting point for long need changes, like children having input to cases before the family courts.


    goodie2shoes wrote: »
    next thing she'll be tellin us, it's a plot by an alien species to abduct our children.

    :D
    That's Jim Corrs area...

    We are going to be treated to another "debate" with John Walters representing the no side on tonights frontline.... god help us.


  • Options
    #176
    Slick50
    Registered Users Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Slick50


    squod wrote: »
    Yes for Europe Jobs Children

    And stability!!!


  • Options
    #177
    MadYaker
    Registered Users Posts: 12,188 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    tan11ie wrote: »
    There are a lot of questions that need to be answered and explained clearly in order for me to give a yes vote. The lack of public/media debate on this referendum leads me to believe a yes vote will win....most will just place their trust in the Government as usual.

    Well don't just sit there expecting to be spoon fed by the media, in fact if you want unbiased info the media is the last place you should be looking. The referendum commission set up this website: http://www.referendum2012.ie/ to provide unbiased info to people, have a read and make your own mind up.


  • Options
    #178
    Smidge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,541 ✭✭✭Smidge


    tan11ie wrote: »
    There are a lot of questions that need to be answered and explained clearly in order for me to give a yes vote. The lack of public/media debate on this referendum leads me to believe a yes vote will win....most will just place their trust in the Government as usual.

    I agree. I think it will be a yes.

    And I think this will be detrimental for children in the future.

    What boggles the mind is WHY we have to write this into the constitution and why the government would want us to?
    There are stringent enough laws for the protection of children without this referendum and the changing of the constitution.

    If it were simply about child protection and improving their rights we would not need to amend the constitution.

    Allowing new legislation regarding adoption?
    That's a different matter altogether.

    IMO this is a wolf in sheep's clothing, dressing up an adoption referendum(some see as forced and I'm not too sure it's not having read and listened to much about this referendum lately)as a children's rights referendum.


  • Options
    #179
    goodie2shoes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 702 ✭✭✭goodie2shoes


    i have it on good authority that Frances Fitz is planning on kidnapping every child in the country starting with those whose name begins with the letter A.

    she recently bought a very large house in terenure. 10 bedrooms and several outbuildings. some people have seen her driving a large people carrier.

    so you have to ask why.:eek::eek::eek:


    Vote NO and end this now!


  • Options
    #180
    tan11ie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,056 ✭✭✭tan11ie


    MadYaker wrote: »
    Well don't just sit there expecting to be spoon fed by the media, in fact if you want unbiased info the media is the last place you should be looking. The referendum commission set up this website: http://www.referendum2012.ie/ to provide unbiased info to people, have a read and make your own mind up.

    Who the **** said I didn't read up on it all?

    I have already read through the website,I have also read the four "vote yes" leaflets that arrived through my door, are you saying everything is explained as clear as day?? It's not to me !

    My comment about media/public debate lies with the fact that their are a lot out their that take a glance at what is available to them (all those "vote yes"leaflets)and base their opinion on that, those who will just place their trust in the Government yet again.

    I wonder if any "Vote No" leaflets will arrive through the door before Saturday.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    goodie2shoes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 702 ✭✭✭goodie2shoes


    perhaps the Govt. are planning on kidnapping children and selling them to China?

    i mean why else would the Chinese president visit this tiny country last year. all that stuff about beef, and milk exports was a smokescreen imho.

    i used to think Dana was a crack-pot but now i'm not so sure.

    we need to wake up to this.


Advertisement