The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Poyndexter

[quote="ELM327;106860410"



Unfortunately you do, but I'd prefer for the health and rights of our women I'd prefer if you didn't[/quote]

And unfortunately for the unborn you have a vote. But its a democracy we live in. Not the dictatorship you wish?

RobertKK

ELM327 wrote: »

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

Lost the debate?
Did you even watch it?

Yes, he certainly didn't win it, which his retweet confirms as he felt he needed to discredit the person who had debated him.
Winners don't need to lie to try and discredit.

ELM327

Poyndexter wrote: »

And unfortunately for the unborn you have a vote. But its a democracy we live in. Not the dictatorship you wish?

Thankfully for the rights and health of our women, you lot enumerate 27% of the electorate.

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes, he certainly didn't win it, which his retweet confirms as he felt he needed to discredit the person who had debated him.
Winners don't need to discredit.

Lmao.

Poyndexter

swampgas wrote: »

And we're back ... it's Groundhog Day.

Sorry you left yourself wide open on that one. Couldn’t resist

dudara

I must add that I really changed my opinion of Micheal Martin when he announced his position on the 8th. Both him and Leo Varadkar would have a lot of traditional TDs and party members, and being politicians, they well understand the risk of a backlash from traditional voters. They obviously feel that this is more important. I’m impressed hugely by their stance

swampgas

Poyndexter wrote: »

Sorry you left yourself wide open on that one. Couldn’t resist

Not getting it, I'm afraid.

I'd be curious to know how much of this thread you've read back over? Have you just jumped in now?

Because the whole "use contraception/keep your legs closed if you don't want to be pregnant" nonsense has been done to death. And the reality is there are lots of reasons why sensible people taking sensible precautions get pregnant, and all you have to offer is ... what? Adoption?

Poyndexter

ELM327 wrote: »

Thankfully for the rights and health of our women, you lot enumerate 27% of the electorate.


Lmao.

Didn’t know you conducted a poll of the entire electorate of the country? We’ll see what that figure is on May 26th when the counting is done. Although I feel yes will win, the no side will be a lot higher than 27 percent

Poyndexter

swampgas wrote: »

Not getting it, I'm afraid.

I'd be curious to know how much of this thread you've read back over? Have you just jumped in now?

Because the whole "use contraception/keep you legs closed if you don't want to be pregnant" nonsense has been done to death. And the reality is there are lots of reasons why sensible people taking sensible precautions get pregnant, and all you have to offer is ... what? Adoption?

It was a joke will you calm down. You got a stipod answer to a stupid question get over it.

pitifulgod

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes, he certainly didn't win it, which his retweet confirms as he felt he needed to discredit the person who had debated him.
Winners don't need to lie to try and discredit.

There's no lying in what was stated.... It is relevant, she didn't respond by saying she doesn't with agree with that position on sex education. The reality is that, Pure in Heart is something she supports. She didn't win on Friday btw. :rolleyes: It's pretty telling when you're outraged by facts being stated.

ELM327

Poyndexter wrote: »

Didn’t know you conducted a poll of the entire electorate of the country? We’ll see what that figure is on May 26th when the counting is done. Although I feel yes will win, the no side will be a lot higher than 27 percent

Many polls have been done with relatively consistent data. Acceptable poll size is generally 1000.
All of which has NO at below 30%. And not only that, even allowing for 100% conversion from "dont know" to "NO", the NO side still doesnt get 50%.

ELM327

Poyndexter wrote: »

It was a joke will you calm down. You got a stipod answer to a stupid question get over it.

A Stipod (sic) answer?
Is that the same kind of stipod (sic) that suggests adoption as a viable option to terminate a pregnancy?

Wrongway1985

Martina1991 wrote: »

The anti choice people here (mostly men it seems) will never have their lives put in danger because of it. For many anti choice people a yes vote won't impact their lives at all.

That does seem to be the case (I'm a guy btw), I really hope you and many other women get what ye want, outside the confines of boards however I know a few women mostly swayed by religious opinion who are strongly against repealing (more so than men).

swampgas

Poyndexter wrote: »

It was a joke will you calm down. You got a stipod answer to a stupid question get over it.

I'm perfectly calm, thanks.

So, any chance of you explaining why you think a No vote is the right thing to do?

You obviously seem to think that healthy women who have a crisis pregnancy should just go ahead with it, with the constitution forcing them to if need be. Have you ever asked any of the women in your life what their take on it is?

Do you have a sister or niece or aunt who you would be happy to see forced into an unwanted pregnancy against her will?

baylah17

Poyndexter wrote: »

bubblypop wrote: »

What is your solution for a woman who doesn't wish to be pregnant?

Use protection? Birth control?

So all women should take the pill to protect against pregnancy due to rape?

You really have a low opinion of women and women's rights

RobertKK

ELM327 wrote: »

Many polls have been done with relatively consistent data. Acceptable poll size is generally 1000.
All of which has NO at below 30%. And not only that, even allowing for 100% conversion from "dont know" to "NO", the NO side still doesnt get 50%.

The Ireland thinks poll for the Daily Mail had No at 31% (+4%) and Yes at 46%(-7%)

Poyndexter

swampgas wrote: »

I'm perfectly calm, thanks.

So, any chance of you explaining why you think a No vote is the right thing to do ?

Already explained in my original post.

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes, he certainly didn't win it, which his retweet confirms as he felt he needed to discredit the person who had debated him.
Winners don't need to lie to try and discredit.

Like the way the pro-life campaign lied about the "nurse" and tried to discredit the people who exposed him?

ELM327

Poyndexter wrote: »

Already explained in my original post.

Ah. Another dodge.
Poor diddums. Run out of rationale already have we? Naaawh.

RobertKK wrote: »

The Ireland thinks poll for the Daily Mail had No at 31% (+4%) and Yes at 46%(-7%)

Ah yes that trusted and respected paper of record.
That poll shows that just over 2 out of every 3 Irish people are not on the NO side. I don't know why you quote that as a backup for your side.

RobertKK

pitifulgod wrote: »

There's no lying in what was stated.... It is relevant, she didn't respond by saying she doesn't with agree with that position on sex education. The reality is that, Pure in Heart is something she supports. She didn't win on Friday btw. :rolleyes: It's pretty telling when you're outraged by facts being stated.

It is as he debated Wendy, not her husband, and most of the attack was on her husband. Then an openly gay man came out and said Wendy is a good friend - given the retweet by Boylan did contain overtures that Wendy and her husband are homophobic.

Poyndexter

baylah17 wrote: »

So all women should take the pill to protect against pregnancy due to rape?

You really have a low opinion of women and women's rights

Already explained my opinion in circumstances of rape and anyway i was joking but the yes side have obviously lost their sense of humour and the level of anger and hate in the yes side posts is something else i must say.

This is turning into a debate on womens rights rather than about abortion and the eight amendment ie if you vote no youre a monster who hates women despite the fact ive encountered more women who will be voting no than men

ELM327

RobertKK wrote: »

It is as he debated Wendy, not her husband, and most of the attack was on her husband. Then an openly gay man came out and said Wendy is a good friend - given the retweet by Boylan did contain overtures that Wendy and her husband are homophobic.

The same openly gay man who is pro gay rights (same sex marriage referendum) but anti-women's rights (judging by the "no" in his profile).

Yeah he's a well rounded citizen who judges all equally alright. Good thing for him as a gay man he won't face the crisis pregnancy situations at all.

ELM327

Poyndexter wrote: »

Already explained my opinion in circumstances of rape and anyway i was joking but the yes side have obviously lost their sense of humour and the level of anger and hate in the yes side posts is something else i must say.

This is turning into a debate on womens rights rather than about abortion and the eight amendment ie if you vote no youre a monster who hates women despite the fact ive encountered more women who will be voting no than men

It always is and has been about women's rights.
Nothing changes re abortion in the event of a repeal vote.

FYI - it's not a joking matter.

swampgas

Poyndexter wrote: »

Already explained in my original post.

This one?

Poyndexter wrote: »

Just reading through a lot of the posts here and the lack of respect and understanding from some yes voters for people who vote no is appalling really. Many calling anyone who votes no as idiots stupid etc. is quite insulting to be honest. It has come to the situation where people are afraid to express they are voting no in public which does not encourage healthy debate.

As someone who is going to vote no I have thought long and hard about this referendum and i understand where yes voters are coming from and I respect their views in terms of cases of rape, ffa and danger of life to the mother. However the unlimited abortion up to 12 weeks goes way too far for my liking and that is why I am voting no.

I can assure you I am not anti-women, an idiot, a jesus freak or whatever insult some yes campaigners would like to call me but someone with a conscience to protect the most vulnerable in our society who are the unborn that at 12 weeks have a heartbeat and so many humane features.

That’s just my thoughts on the matter and i will exercise my democratic right on may 25th by voting no. If the result is yes i will accept the result however if the result is no I fear the backlash.

Have you ready any of Nozzferatu's posts? Because up to 12 weeks a foetus might have human features, but it is a long way from being a baby. Granted, that's a grey area, and that's where much of the disagreement comes up. So it's worth discussing further.

If you disagree with 12 weeks, when do you think the right to life begins? Conception? Implantation? 6 weeks?

And if you truly believe that you are not anti-women, what makes you think you know better than a woman does herself about whether an abortion is the right thing for her?

Poyndexter

ELM327 wrote: »

It always is and has been about women's rights.
Nothing changes re abortion in the event of a repeal vote.

FYI - it's not a joking matter.

😒

RobertKK

ELM327 wrote: »

Ah yes that trusted and respected paper of record.
That poll shows that just over 2 out of every 3 Irish people are not on the NO side. I don't know why you quote that as a backup for your side.

So all was a lie by you, if you only agree all are polls that suit your viewpoint.
That poll did not that, it was a different poll company that said that about their poll.

RobertKK

https://twitter.com/mattsingh_/status/990187862913101824?s=21

https://twitter.com/ireland_thinks/status/990533650855923712?s=21

Sofiztikated

Poyndexter wrote: »

Already explained in my original post.

My sister in law.
2 kids under 4, and a couple of knee surgeries in the last 2 years. Is currently pregnant with a 3rd, which could leave her needing crutches and further surgeries, due to the stress the pregnancy has on her body.

Likely to be a healthy child, she's likely to be "healthy" woman. How would her choice to terminate a pregnancy that she cannot cope with right now, be a worse option than legally enforcing her to go through with it?

pitifulgod

RobertKK wrote: »

It is as he debated Wendy, not her husband, and most of the attack was on her husband. Then an openly gay man came out and said Wendy is a good friend - given the retweet by Boylan did contain overtures that Wendy and her husband are homophobic.

Pure in Heart hold homophobic stances, this is a reality. Can you point out some lies from the tweet? I think it's very much so relevant if her husband was involved in a group that literally prefers for young people to be oblivious to anything sex related. Robert, you're easily outraged. Also a quick google indicates she herself was involved in Pure In Heart. Seems pretty relevant now, no?

Further down the line I started attending a Catholic prayer group called Pure in Heart. I was intrigued to hear that the Church thinks that sex is great! And wants those of us who are married to have good sex lives within marriage. Similar to my brother when I began to live out my faith my friends were shocked to say the least – however as time has gone on they can really see how truly happy I am.
http://www.rabble.ie/2012/12/19/a-tsunami-of-death-creep-after-creep-after-creep/

ELM327 wrote: »

The same openly gay man who is pro gay rights (same sex marriage referendum) but anti-women's rights (judging by the "no" in his profile).

Yeah he's a well rounded citizen who judges all equally alright. Good thing for him as a gay man he won't face the crisis pregnancy situations at all.

Quick search of his timeline indicates he's more akin to Paddy Manning, supported a no vote in the marriage referendum.

RobertKK

pitifulgod wrote: »

Pure in Heart hold homophobic stances, this is a reality. Can you point out some lies from the tweet? I think it's very much so relevant if her husband was involved in a group that literally prefers for young people to be oblivious to anything sex related. Robert, you're easily outraged. Also a quick google indicates she herself was involved in Pure In Heart. Seems pretty relevant now, no?



Quick search of his timeline indicates he's more akin to Paddy Manning, supported a no vote in the marriage referendum.

Yes, did Peter Boylan debate Wendy's husband that he needed to retweet a tweet that was mostly about her husband?
Being against the marriage referendum didn't mean a person was homophobic.

ELM327

Poyndexter wrote: »

��

Great retort there.
Care to answer the actual post.
I've copied the text again for you, in case you're trying to do the usual "ignore" that the no side do.

ELM327 wrote: »

It always is and has been about women's rights.
Nothing changes re abortion in the event of a repeal vote.

FYI - it's not a joking matter.

RobertKK wrote: »

So all was a lie by you, if you only agree all are polls that suit your viewpoint.
That poll did not that, it was a different poll company that said that about their poll.

Another attempt to spin the truth there
Sure would you not go the whole hog and say "1 in 5" of my posts are lies and show photos of my recent kidney surgery to my children? That's your MO anyway John.

RobertKK wrote: »

...online spam...

Nothing worth while of a response here, not interested in reading irrelevant online links to what someone else thinks.