The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

glic71rods46t0

WhiteRoses wrote: »

No sane person uses abortion as a means of contraception.

Anyone who suggests so clearly has no knowledge of what the procedure involves, because if they did they would know no woman would go through with it unless they had no other option - let alone multiple times as a means of contraception.

The fact that you don’t trust women is pretty disgusting and speaks for itself but hey ho, it is your CHOICE to feel that way and who am I to deprive you of that?

You are right about it being my opinion but the good thing about being pro choice is that I’m actually not forcing my opinion on anyone, or on society as a whole.
Have an abortion, don’t have an abortion. Everyone has their own choice and opinion and is free to live their lives and make their own decisions as they see fit.
It’s to pro-life side that are forcing their opinions and beliefs on everyone.

I’m not arrogant enough to believe that my opinion speaks for society as a whole.
I trust other women.
Maybe you should do that too.

Thats a shocking misrepresentation of what I posted and quite dishonest. You need to recalibrate your moral compass - it's way off course

Spanish Eyes

q9214n5louyt3p wrote: »

Why stop there. Using your logic you could limit the voting to women of child bearing years - impacts them the most

I would favour that, because that is the reality. Men on the other hand are not safe until they are boxed!

But democracy means that you and others beyond childbearing years will always have a say and that is good too. I think!

If male, you will never have to face such a decision. Will you?

applehunter

Podge_irl wrote: »

How?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/amnesty-international-ordered-to-return-donation-from-billionaire-george-soros-1.3320638

SusieBlue

q9214n5louyt3p wrote: »

Thats a shocking misrepresentation of what I posted and quite dishonest. You need to recalibrate your moral compass - it's way off course

Sorry, which bit did I misunderstand? The bit about not trusting women or the bit about fearing women would use abortion as a means of contraceptive?

glic71rods46t0

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Sorry, which bit did I misunderstand? The bit about not trusting women or the bit about fearing women would use abortion as a means of contraceptive?

I think you understood me very well and chose to misrepresent my post - I've called you out on it. I think most reasonable people will call your post for what it is - disingenuous

NuMarvel

RobertKK wrote: »

It will be most likely the big business abortion providers who will move in fill the void if the 8th amendment is replaced.

After nearly 50 years of Irish people going to them, I suppose it would make a nice change for them to come to us.

q9214n5louyt3p

q9214n5louyt3p wrote: »

Thats a shocking misrepresentation of what I posted and quite dishonest. You need to recalibrate your moral compass - it's way off course

How so? You talked about women using abortion in lieu of contraception, those were your exact words. So to claim otherwise is pure deflection.

glic71rods46t0

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I would favour that, because that is the reality. Men on the other hand are not safe until they are boxed!

But democracy means that you and others beyond childbearing years will always have a say and that is good too. I think!

If male, you will never have to face such a decision. Will you?

I think you are contradicting yourself there in your first two paragraphs!
Regarding your last point ...Never have to face such a decision? One can't rule out medical advances in these gender fluid times!

SusieBlue

q9214n5louyt3p wrote: »

I think you understood me very well and chose to misrepresent my post - I've called you out on it. I think most reasonable people will call your post for what it is - disingenuous

Nope, sorry. I responded to what I saw in front of me.

I was being sincere in my reply. I didn’t misrepresent anything.

If you are making claims of me being disingenuous you’re going to back it up and explain how.

Ave Sodalis

q9214n5louyt3p wrote: »

I think you understood me very well and chose to misrepresent my post - I've called you out on it. I think most reasonable people will call your post for what it is - disingenuous

I actually don't see what was misrepresented either. I think you may need to clarify

glic71rods46t0

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Nope, sorry. I responded to what I saw in front of me.

I was being sincere in my reply. I didn’t misrepresent anything.

If you are making claims of me being disingenuous you’re going to back it up and explain how.

I simply don't believe your claim of sincerity.

swampgas

q9214n5louyt3p wrote: »

That is your opinion. There are other opinions on the matter though. Some might not share your trust of other women using abortion in lieu of contraception.

Basically, you think that women can't be trusted, and might have abortions in a way that you find unacceptable, immoral, or unethical. You don't trust women when it comes to really important decisions about their own bodies and lives - do the women in your life know this too?

Because the constitution and law apply to them also.

.

SusieBlue

q9214n5louyt3p wrote: »

I simply don't believe your claim of sincerity.

Not entertaining this, it isn’t clear at all what you mean which is why two other people have asked besides myself.

So either explain what your problem is or let it go.

SusieBlue

swampgas wrote: »

Basically, you think that women can't be trusted, and might have abortions in a way that you find unacceptable, immoral, or unethical. You don't trust women when it comes to really important decisions about their own bodies and lives - do the women in your life know this too?

Because the constitution and law apply to them too.

I came to the exact same conclusion but apparently I took him up wrong and am being disingenuous - go figure.

Spanish Eyes

This thread on a very polarising issue doesn't appear in the first few pages of ALL Posts.

And there are four months to go.

Either people have made their minds up or some are keeping their powder dry until nearer polling day. I dunno.

Either way, on a platform like this it doesn't seem to be generating the debate that I expected, warts and all!

But it is early days I suppose. I hope to be abroad without wi fi for a few weeks prior to the vote. I will come back to vote of course, my vote is precious, but I am not looking forward to the awfulness that may come just before that, and it will.

Maybe it won't though if here is anything to go by at this stage. Fatigue can set it.

WhiteRoses

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Not entertaining this, it isn’t clear at all what you mean which is why two other people have asked besides myself.

So either explain what your problem is or let it go.

Seems pretty typical of the tactics used by the pro-birthers.

glic71rods46t0

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Not entertaining this, it isn’t clear at all what you mean which is why two other people have asked besides myself.

So either explain what your problem is or let it go.

I don't give a hoot about you "not entertaining" it.

Sofiztikated

applehunter wrote: »

Soros has never come up in these arguments tbh. These arguments are more fundamental than that.

The media have a duty to report on it and be robust in their job. People in their day to day lives do not have the time to investigate this stuff. That is why we are supposed to have a fourth estate.

And your view on ultraconservative, religious right funding of the ProLife crowd?

SusieBlue

q9214n5louyt3p wrote: »

I don't give a hoot about you "not entertaining" it.

Well stop complaining and making vague statements so then?
I have no problem discussing any issues you might have with my post.
But I have no intention of coaxing the reason you’re upset out of you.
So seeing as it’s clear you aren’t willing to tell me what your issue is, we’ll just have to drop the issue so as not to derail the thread. Your call.

glic71rods46t0

Flying Fox wrote: »

Seems pretty typical of the tactics used by the pro-birthers.

Misrepresentation is a tactic of both sides in this debate - ironically you are misrepresenting the tactic as typical of only one side

glic71rods46t0

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Well stop complaining and making vague statements so then?
I have no problem discussing any issues you might have with my post.
But I have no intention of coaxing the reason you’re upset out of you.
So seeing as it’s clear you aren’t willing to tell me what your issue is, we’ll just have to drop the issue so as not to derail the thread. Your call.

Where did I say I was upset? You must be so used to misrepresenting others you can't help yourself!

SusieBlue

q9214n5louyt3p wrote: »

Where did I say I was upset? You must be so used to misrepresenting others you can't help yourself!

As I said if you aren’t willing to discuss and explain the ‘misrepresenting’ and my ‘disingenuity’ then it’s best to just drop it.

Spanish Eyes

Too early to peak I think. People will become bored and fed up and will have made their minds up anyway.

I will ignore Iona, pro abortion, anyone and everyone. I do not need lecturing to me at this stage of my life so they can all just go and feck off really.

I am bored already. It is an individual decision. But of course we are not capable of making that on our own anymore. Feck that.

Annasopra

applehunter wrote: »

What does that mean?

a robot?

Pretty much

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/will-eighth-amendment-vote-be-manipulated-online-1.3297594?mode=amp

http://metro.co.uk/2017/10/21/brexit-twitter-bots-posted-65000-messages-then-vanished-after-eu-referendum-7016396/

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/anti-abortion-group-hires-kanto-agency-that-pushed-brexit-hfnklf3kk

The Pro Life campaign has hired Kanto who have links to Cambridge Analytica. These guys will be infiltrating social media with millions of disruptive bots.

glic71rods46t0

WhiteRoses wrote: »

As I said if you aren’t willing to discuss and explain the ‘misrepresenting’ and my ‘disingenuity’ then it’s best to just drop it.

No. Anyone can look at my post and yours - I'm happy with that

dr.fuzzenstein

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Pretty much

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/will-eighth-amendment-vote-be-manipulated-online-1.3297594?mode=amp

http://metro.co.uk/2017/10/21/brexit-twitter-bots-posted-65000-messages-then-vanished-after-eu-referendum-7016396/

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/anti-abortion-group-hires-kanto-agency-that-pushed-brexit-hfnklf3kk

The Pro Life campaign has hired Kanto who have links to Cambridge Analytica. These guys will be infiltrating social media with millions of disruptive bots.

That is the death of online discussion.

Billy86

applehunter wrote: »

Then if comes to light that multi-billionaire George Soros is funding one the main repeal groups. But, not only that, in doing so he is breaking irish law. Sounds like a juicy story to me.[Media blackout for 4 days.

Podge_irl wrote: »

How?

applehunter wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/amnesty-international-ordered-to-return-donation-from-billionaire-george-soros-1.3320638

Poster complains about George Soros.

Poster claims media will not report on negative stories about George Soros.

Poster then links to the highest profile newspaper in the country running a negative story on George Soros to try and prove this.

Poster no doubt sees any of the irony in this, nor the fact they have successfully defeated their own argument with exactly zero assistance.

Billy86

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Pretty much

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/will-eighth-amendment-vote-be-manipulated-online-1.3297594?mode=amp

http://metro.co.uk/2017/10/21/brexit-twitter-bots-posted-65000-messages-then-vanished-after-eu-referendum-7016396/

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/anti-abortion-group-hires-kanto-agency-that-pushed-brexit-hfnklf3kk

The Pro Life campaign has hired Kanto who have links to Cambridge Analytica. These guys will be infiltrating social media with millions of disruptive bots.

I don't see bots particularly being effective on the boards.ie format - much more worthwhile it to check the Ireland reddit page (or Twitter) as their layout is far more vulnerable. Typically most threads there seem to have 30-100 posts. Keep an eye out for ones popping up all over the place there with 2,000+ over the coming months.

Also, sensationalist fake news on Facebook feeds - it plays a huge role in Trump's election and the Brexit vote, both times steered by Cambridge Analytica, if they're involved in this it is an absolute certainty they will go hard on that.

SusieBlue

q9214n5louyt3p wrote: »

No. Anyone can look at my post and yours - I'm happy with that

Me too. I wasn’t the only one who was unclear about what your issue is so if you are happy to leave it so am I.

applehunter

Billy86 wrote: »

Poster complains about George Soros.

Poster claims media will not report on negative stories about George Soros.

Poster then links to the highest profile newspaper in the country running a negative story on George Soros to try and prove this.

Poster no doubt sees any of the irony in this, nor the fact they have successfully defeated their own argument with exactly zero assistance.

No irony.

It's the paper of record.

It wasn't on their front page.

The other papers were trailing behind.