The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

KellyXX

KellyXX wrote: »

Looks like that's what I'm going to be voting on then. I don't trust legislators.

The options there to me were ,vote and we will sort it all out later with something. Too wish you washy for me.

What are you afraid they're going to do?

Having abortion specifically referenced in a country's constitution is highly unusual.

Cabaal

KellyXX wrote: »

Looks like that's what I'm going to be voting on then. I don't trust legislators.

The options there to me were ,vote and we will sort it all out later with something. Too wish you washy for me.

Very silly outlook,
By that logic why have any legislation at all for anything....after all you don't trust legislators (apparently).

Sure we'll just put everything in the constitution,
What could go wrong?
:rolleyes:

frag420

Edward M wrote: »

Yawn!

Must be exhausting stopping all these women travelling to murder the unborn...no wait, it cant be that as you dont really give a crap about them travelling to murder outside of Ireland just so long as it doesn't happen here!

Maybe your tired because you spend a lot of time searching for evidence to back up the vast majority of the crazy claims from the pro birth side..no wait, cant be that either or else you folks would have produced the evidence by now!?

So what has you so tired Ed??

seamus

You see now we're getting to the point where some people want to vote "No" because they just don't like the idea of abortion, but they know that sounds petty and irrational.

So they invent vague reasons like, "I don't trust legislators" or, "What's going to happen is not very clear, so I'm voting no to be safe" to make themselves feel better, but once you scratch at the surface their reasoning has no basis.

The same kinds of nonsense appeared in the marriage equality referendum - people with pseudo-rational reasons for voting against it, but ultimately it just came down to them not liking gay people.

KellyXX

Flying Fox wrote: »

What are you afraid they're going to do?

Having abortion specifically referenced in a country's constitution is highly unusual.

They can do ANYTHING.

KellyXX

Cabaal wrote: »

Very silly outlook,
By that logic why have any legislation at all for anything....after all you don't trust legislators (apparently).

Sure we'll just put everything in the constitution,
What could go wrong?
:rolleyes:

Have you forgotten we are talking about one particular subject here?

KellyXX

seamus wrote: »

You see now we're getting to the point where some people want to vote "No" because they just don't like the idea of abortion, but they know that sounds petty and irrational.

So they invent vague reasons like, "I don't trust legislators" or, "What's going to happen is not very clear, so I'm voting no to be safe" to make themselves feel better, but once you scratch at the surface their reasoning has no basis.

The same kinds of nonsense appeared in the marriage equality referendum - people with pseudo-rational reasons for voting against it, but ultimately it just came down to them not liking gay people.

Oh Jesus.
This is getting tiring.
Give me clear things to vote on and I'm happy to vote.
But don't tell me what I must vote on. You have your own vote for that.

ELM327

seamus wrote: »

You see now we're getting to the point where some people want to vote "No" because they just don't like the idea of abortion, but they know that sounds petty and irrational.

So they invent vague reasons like, "I don't trust legislators" or, "What's going to happen is not very clear, so I'm voting no to be safe" to make themselves feel better, but once you scratch at the surface their reasoning has no basis.

The same kinds of nonsense appeared in the marriage equality referendum - people with pseudo-rational reasons for voting against it, but ultimately it just came down to them not liking gay people.

Like the down's syndrome red herring?
It is not possible in 99%+ of pregnancies to test for down's before 12 weeks.
But don't let the anti-choice/pro -birth side let facts get in the way of a good aul christian whine.

Ave Sodalis

KellyXX wrote: »

But don't tell me what I must vote on. You have your own vote for that.

I don't see in that post where he told you what you must do. They're just pointing out the flaw in your thinking, you're still entitled to think and vote that way. Once you put it on a public forum though, it's going to be questioned.

Cabaal

KellyXX wrote: »

Have you forgotten we are talking about one particular subject here?

So you see the constitution as important then?

Great, should we also fully enforce article 42 and sub articles under 42 in that case?

You seem pretty knowledgeable about the constitution so I'm sure I don't have to explain what I'm talking about, its relevant to the 8th.

Cabaal

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

This is literally the same vague scaremongering people used in run up to the marriage equality referendum. "There will be consequences. Things could happen. Unspecified things!"

Also.....cause god said so

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_nmxXYIUqA

and apparently it threatened religious freedom and apparently it was bad for parents and children.
Neither of which is true,

We can always sit back and watch the spoof videos though

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wopoEJxFYQw

Just to add, when every children's based charity in the country said it was wrong for anyone to discriminate against children based on their parents sexuality the Iona Institution said "shame on them"...referring to the charities.
Proof if anything they don't care about actual children.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgOj0fXKuRE

Edward M

frag420 wrote: »

Must be exhausting stopping all these women travelling to murder the unborn...no wait, it cant be that as you dont really give a crap about them travelling to murder outside of Ireland just so long as it doesn't happen here!

Maybe your tired because you spend a lot of time searching for evidence to back up the vast majority of the crazy claims from the pro birth side..no wait, cant be that either or else you folks would have produced the evidence by now!?

So what has you so tired Ed??

Ah no frag, its not the argument, I'm for debate.
Its the stereotyping.
Sure I must eat me dinner in the middle of the day, say the rosary morning noon and night, the Angelus at 12 and 6, and mass if possible in between too. No wonder I'm exausted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

KellyXX

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

I don't see in that post where he told you what you must do. They're just pointing out the flaw in your thinking, you're still entitled to think and vote that way. Once you put it on a public forum though, it's going to be questioned.

It was post where they are assuming they know me l and then attack me. They don't know at all which way I am voting. When I said I want clearer things and certainty to cast my vote they attack me. That gets very tiring. People cannot voice an opinion on anything in this debate without people lying in the grass ready to pounce on them.

This is another example of Twitter camoflage. The polls.will be nothing like the real opinions of people. Nobody will come.out and tell anyone their real.opinions for fear of the Twitter mob. They will tell the pollsters what they want to hear and save their real opinions for the voting booth.

KellyXX

KellyXX wrote: »

They can do ANYTHING.

Again, what in particular are you so concerned they'll do?

If you're pro choice and supportive of the 12 week limit then it's a no brainer that you should vote to repeal. Anyone making up excuses for why they can't clearly doesn't want repeal and had no intention to vote for it anyway.

Zubeneschamali

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, it is just people acting the maggot to get a reaction.

Kelly nobody is attacking you, just questioning your posts. You are on a discussion forum after all.

Guy:Incognito

KellyXX wrote: »

Oh Jesus.
This is getting tiring.
Give me clear things to vote on and I'm happy to vote.
But don't tell me what I must vote on. You have your own vote for that.

You're voting on letting people make their own decisions about themselves, their bodies and their families. The vast majority of them you don't know and never will. It won't impact your life what they do with that choice.

Let them make it for themselves.

seamus

KellyXX wrote: »

But don't tell me what I must vote on. You have your own vote for that.

I'm not telling you what you must vote on, just pointing out to you that everyone here can see through your flimsy reasoning, even if you can't see through it yourself.

Legislators legislate. They do it all the time. It's what we elect them to do. They use teams of highly qualified people to craft legislation which fits in with all the other branches of law - constitutional, national, international, bye-laws, EU law, natural laws - and then they have other experts review it to make sure it can actually be a law, and then debate it between other elected representatives to decide if this piece of law reflects the country their electorate want.

This is far from legislators being able to do "Anything" - by which I presume you believe that they can scratch words on the back of a bar mat and sign it into law with no resistance.

To think that a country is better off tying the hands of legislators rather than "risk" them making a bad law is literally shooting oneself in the foot. You're preventing them making any changes that may be beneficial to society.

By all means if you believe that abortion should be completely outlawed and you don't ever want a government to be able to legislate for it, then just say that. Because there are some areas where legislators' hands should be tied, such as human rights, the death penalty, etc. And I accept that for some people, the unborn right to life is a red line issue without compromise. I don't agree, but I accept their right to believe it.

But don't try to invent the excuse that "I want abortion to be available in some circumstances, but don't trust legislators to do it right". You might fool yourself, but you don't fool anyone else.

Cabaal

KellyXX wrote: »

It was post where they are assuming they know me l and then attack me. They don't know at all which way I am voting. When I said I want clearer things and certainty to cast my vote they attack me. That gets very tiring. People cannot voice an opinion on anything in this debate without people lying in the grass ready to pounce on them.

This is a discussion form at the end of the day,
If you want to post something and not have anybody comment on it then start a blog and turn off comments.

You claim you haven't decided what way you'll vote but you've already claimed you don't want it removed from the constitution and you don't trust the government to legislate.

So this very clearly shows what side you are voting, especially as we know the vote to remove is exactly what you claim you don't want.

I can't help but think this post is disingenuous.

Nobody is telling you how to vote, but make your decision based on the right reasons not flippant and tinfoil hat stuff like you don't trust the government. Also don't be disingenuous and claim you don't know what way you'll vote when you've already said you don't want it removed from the constitution.

Be upfront, if you believe a fetus is equal a baby and the 8th should stay then just say it and be done with it.

This is another example of Twitter camoflage. The polls.will be nothing like the real opinions of people. Nobody will come.out and tell anyone their real.opinions for fear of the Twitter mob. They will tell the pollsters what they want to hear and save their real opinions for the voting booth.

You mean like the marriage ref, when all the polls should it would pass and then it did?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Ave Sodalis

KellyXX wrote: »

It was post where they are assuming they know me l and then attack me. They don't know at all which way I am voting. When I said I want clearer things and certainty to cast my vote they attack me. That gets very tiring. People cannot voice an opinion on anything in this debate without people lying in the grass ready to pounce on them.

This is another example of Twitter camoflage. The polls.will be nothing like the real opinions of people. Nobody will come.out and tell anyone their real.opinions for fear of the Twitter mob. They will tell the pollsters what they want to hear and save their real opinions for the voting booth.

If you are personally feeling attacked, there is a report post button. Personal attacks are not allowed and a mod will sort it out.

However, if you post an opinion on a public discussion board, you do not have the right to keep that opinion in tact. Once you post here and on other forums or media, you give others the right to form an opinion of your opinion. If you do not like your opinions being attacked, then I would suggest keeping them to yourself is the best bet. You can also defend your opinion (although whinging that you're being attacked because people disagree with you isn't the best defense from a discussion point of view).

baylah17

KellyXX wrote: »

Have you forgotten we are talking about one particular subject here?

Have you forgotten the legal shambles inserting the 8th into the Constitution caused in the first place? It led to a teenage rape victim being arrested and detained to prevent her going to the UK to obtain a Termination (Google X Case).
The job of the Legislature is to legislate, if you dont trust the legislature to legislate who do you think should do it?

Cabaal

baylah17 wrote: »

Have you forgotten the legal shambles inserting the 8th into the Constitution caused in the first place? It led to a teenage rape victim being arrested and detained to prevent her going to the UK to obtain a Termination (Google X Case).
The job of the Legislature is to legislate, if you dont trust the legislature to legislate who do you think should do it?

Worst still, look up Miss P

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/judgment-on-brain-dead-pregnant-woman-wins-award-1.2606884

The woman, aged in her 20s and referred to as Miss P, was at 15 weeks’ gestation when declared clinically dead on December 3rd at a Dublin hospital.

That arose from a brain trauma suffered at a hospital outside Dublin on November 29th, two days after she was admitted there complaining of severe headaches.

Due to concerns by doctors at the Dublin hospital over the legal implications of her pregnancy, arising from the State’s obligation to vindicate the right to life of the unborn in Article 40.3.3. - the 1983 anti-abortion amendment to the Constitution - she was kept on somatic life-support treatment.

Her father, supported by her partner and extended family, sought court orders stopping the somatic treatment so they could bury her “with dignity”.

The court heard Miss P’s condition was deteriorating, her brain was decomposing and there were concerns about the effect on the unborn of that condition and of drugs being administered to the woman.

In its judgment, the court found the prospect for the unborn is “nothing but distress and death”.

Nobody should have been forced to go to court in this situation,
If this was me and my wife was brain dead and decomposing I'd rather pull the plug myself then be forced to go to court like this family and partner did. I wouldn't care about the jail time I might get especially if it helped bring the massive flaws in the 8th to attention

frag420

Edward M wrote: »

Ah no frag, its not the argument, I'm for debate.
Its the stereotyping.
Sure I must eat me dinner in the middle of the day, say the rosary morning noon and night, the Angelus at 12 and 6, and mass if possible in between too. No wonder I'm exausted.

Yeah stereotyping pro choice folks as baby killers, murderers who want to kill the unborn right up to the day of birth...well it must take a lot out of you and the rest of the pro birth crowd!

Curios how you say the rosary and the angelus at midday....at the same time, together? Do you swap out over second word with the word from the other prayer...

The HAIL Angel HOLYof QUEEN the Mother Lord of declared Mercy unto our Mary,


:pac::pac::pac:

Edward M

frag420 wrote: »

Yeah stereotyping pro choice folks as baby killers, murderers who want to kill the unborn right up to the day of birth...well it must take a lot out of you and the rest of the pro birth crowd!

Curios how you say the rosary and the angelus at midday....at the same time, together? Do you swap out over second word with the word from the other prayer...

The HAIL Angel HOLYof QUEEN the Mother Lord of declared Mercy unto our Mary,


:pac::pac::pac:

And with my mouth full of dinner too.:)

Peatys

Edward M wrote: »

And with my mouth full of dinner too.:)

Dinner at half eleven???

Billy86

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Bit of a leap there from 'best of my knowledge' to 'got the impression'.

Well then it's to the best of my knowledge or (what ever suits you) they are certain TD's who'd support later term abortions. If these people speak in debates on the matter they could do damage to the repeal campaign.

Which tds are you talking about? It's probably best to be more specific if the reasoning on your end appears to be based on no more than a hunch.

Billy86

freshpopcorn wrote: »

It all depends on who shows up on the day.
I was confident it would be repealed up until the marriage referendum but the result of that made me slightly doubtful.
I also thought the demand/discussion online about the issue isn't as popular as people make out. it always seems to be the same people involved.

I really don't understand this one... in the marriage referendum we had people telling us it would be closer than expected and that no would have a big chance of winning without much to back it up beyond "people in favour being too aggressive and putting neutrals off" and other assorted bogeymen arguments about the laws of nature, the history or marriage and adoptions - nearly all of which were false arguments.

We're hearing the same here, yet the fact is the marriage referendum was a landslide vote beyond even what many on the 'yes' side expected, and won in every single area bar one - where it only lost by something like 1-2%.

How does that lead you to believe that the repeal side are less likely to win in this referendum?

Guy:Incognito

Billy86 wrote: »

I really don't understand this one... in the marriage referendum we had people telling us it would be closer than expected and that no would have a big chance of winning without much to back it up beyond "people in favour being too aggressive and putting neutrals off" and other assorted bogeymen arguments about the laws of nature, the history or marriage and adoptions - nearly all of which were false arguments.

We're hearing the same here, yet the fact is the marriage referendum was a landslide vote beyond even what many on the 'yes' side expected, and won in every single area bar one - where it only lost by something like 1-2%.

How does that lead you to believe that the repeal side are less likely to win in this referendum?

Complacency can beat anything if there's enough if it.