8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1

Mrsmum

ELM327 wrote: »

Why do all the NO posters have the same trends as the (now on my ignore list so cannot see her posts, and it is great) anne frank user.

Play the victims, when they are out of "reasonable" debate.

You used abusive language. Full stop. That's not anyone's fault only yours.

dudara

gmisk wrote: »

There is a new together for yes fundraiser for online.
It is badly needed I totally agree.
http://donate.togetherforyes.ie/
It has also zoomed up to 23k in a very short space of time!

I have already chipped in btw

The amount of money that the “No” campaign have for advertising and poster is astounding. I’ve seen whole new sets of “No” posters go up recently while it’s still the same original posters from the “YES” side. Anyway, I’ve just added €50 to the pot, I hope that many others here can add whatever they can.

pjohnson

Hammer Archer wrote: »

No canvassers showed up yesterday on the doorstep. Respectfully advised them that, as both of us were voting yes, I wouldn't waste their time and paper.

His response was the usual "Think of the little babies."
I said that I had my views which I wouldn't argue with him and said I had a little baby upstairs who we'd just put her to bed so I'd rather not risk waking her.
His (frankly weird) response: "Would you not look into her eyes?"

Honestly, is that all the No canvassers have? "Think of the little babies"?

Should have said "No Canvasser, I have never looked at her why the hell would I?My wife was actually upset when she realised I had changed the nappy on her teddy rather than her own nappy, I'm not even fully sure it is a girl as I make a point of never looking at her."

swampgas

Mrsmum wrote: »

Of course you don't see how which just about sums up this thread. AF complained of someone calling her a C**t and Elm said maybe they weren't wrong and you can't see that's abusive. Fine if that's the level we're at. Even one person from the yes side called Elm out on the namecalling but most people thanked Elm for his abusive posts.

Rather than get all upset about swear words, it might be an idea to look at what was being said in those previous exchanges. You don't need to use expletives to say truly obnoxious, offensive, disgusting things to people.

If anything the odd expletive is mild compared to the very bitter and nasty suggestions made to people who have been honest about their experiences.

ELM327

Mrsmum wrote: »

Of course you don't see how which just about sums up this thread. AF complained of someone calling her a C**t and Elm said maybe they weren't wrong and you can't see that's abusive. Fine if that's the level we're at. Even one person from the yes side called Elm out on the namecalling but most people thanked Elm for his abusive posts.

Mrsmum wrote: »

You used abusive language. Full stop. That's not anyone's fault only yours.

Back under your rock there.
If you (or anyone else) has an issue with any of my posts you can press the little red icon beside it to report it to the moderators. They can then take a decision.

Stop derailing the thread, sh1t or get off the pot, and report my posts. Or grow up and move on.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Btw guys, for anyone interested - I called the hospital again and lied my ass off.

"Yes last period, yesterday"

X-Ray is Friday.

What a country we live in, when women have to lie to get healthcare.
Yes, the 8th is brilliant, LOVE BOTH, right? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

PlaneSpeeking

Mrsmum wrote: »

You used abusive language. Full stop. That's not anyone's fault only yours.

Hey, you dismissed my pain when I discussed it.

Are you familiar with the Doctrine of Clean Hands ?

ELM327

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Hey, you dismissed my pain when I discussed it.

Are you familiar with the Doctrine of Clean Hands ?

Abuse, like crisis pregnancy, only matters to them when it affects them directly, remember?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Mrsmum

swampgas wrote: »

Rather than get all upset about swear words, it might be an idea to look at what was being said in those previous exchanges. You don't need to use expletives to say truly obnoxious, offensive, disgusting things to people.

If anything the odd expletive is mild compared to the very bitter and nasty suggestions made to people who have been honest about their experiences.

I don't disagree with you at all and plenty people have got banned for what they said. But sometimes people just want to go on an abusive rant too just for the sake of it which isn't acceptable either.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Billy86

swampgas wrote: »

I had to drive between Cork, Dublin and Galway over the long weekend. Is there a pole in Ireland that doesn't have a NO poster on it? The relentless barrage of lie after lie after lie along the road really annoyed me. As a result I have donated another €100 to togetherforyes this morning.

The amount of money spent on NO posters must be absolutely mind-boggling, it's quite disturbing thinking about how the NO campaign must be getting funded.

A small hint probably lies in the fact that Facebook has to issue a statement that all non-Irish ads to influence the referendum were being blocked as of yesterday, so they're well aware something is up ala Trump and Brexit. Both of which were heavily influenced by Cambridge Analytica, which is/was funded (as it has since rebranded) by Robert Mercer who is a fundamentalist nutjob to the extent that even the likes of Iona probably get worried about their radicalism.

And that would be before the likes of the mega-churches (yes, that is a mass/church service...) who are also known to fund these causes.

AnneFrank

Esmeralda Inexpensive Balloonist wrote: »

Mocking and belittling people's traumatic miscarriages is all I see. Hard to forget that. Coming hot on the heels of several drive by #loveboth posts too iirc. Insane.

I find this funny because I never did,find a post where I mocked someone's miscarriage by name, I shall wait patiently

SusieBlue

Mrsmum wrote: »

I don't disagree with you at all and plenty people have got banned for what they said. But sometimes people just want to go on an abusive rant too just for the sake of it which isn't acceptable either.

I believe the alleged name calling (in form of a youtube video) occurred after your friend AnneFrank passive aggressively took the p*ss out of someones miscarriage for about the 5th time, despite others previously pointing out how insensitive s/he was being.
S/he also wrongly accused Elm of being homophobic several times, with no valid proof, and then ran away when called out on it.

Mrsmum

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's really telling how many of you want to support & defend that abuse.

SusieBlue

AnneFrank wrote: »

I find this funny because I never did,find a post where I mocked someone's miscarriage by name, I shall wait patiently

Stop telling lies. You made those comments in reply to other people, which is even worse. Its sneaky.

WinnyThePoo

AnneFrank wrote: »

I find this funny because I never did,find a post where I mocked someone's miscarriage by name, I shall wait patiently

This won't end well for you.

AnneFrank

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

S/he actively mocked a poster's experience of a miscarriage.

You just don't do that.

Where did I mention anyone or their miscarriage?

AnneFrank

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

This won't end well for you.

I know what I said I never mentioned any names, only repeating what was said about a baby that is only an idea of a baby if not born.Big difference

PlaneSpeeking

AnneFrank wrote: »

I know what I said I never mentioned any names, only repeating what was said about a baby that is only an idea of a baby if not born.Big difference

Really ? That's the defence you're going with ??

SusieBlue

Let me jog your memory again for you, Anne.

Original post made by HammerArcher:

Good thing you're not on a discussion forum then. Oh wait.

I think you've realized the stupidity of your post and are now furiously trying to backtrack.
My OH had a miscarriage around that time (couple of weeks earlier). We now have a 3 month old daughter. While the miscarriage was definitely tough, we don't feel like we lost a baby, more the idea of a baby. I cannot even begin to comprehend how I'd feel if we lost our daughter now.

Here are links to where you mocked his way of dealing with his own miscarriage, over and over again.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106920509

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106900005

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106788462

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106792247

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106782548

Stop being so sneaky. Its clear what you were up to. It was a very unkind and insensitive thing to do.
You can't deny the evidence.

He and others confronted you for doing this, and you just ignored them, ran away, and came back a few days later to mock him a bit more.

joe40

joe40 wrote: »

But even if we were to vote directly on legislation, it can be changed by dail vote at a future date. We would have to.put a new amendment into the constitution and this topic is too complex for that

Which I cannot accept. I completely fail to understand why anyone would give complete control of such an important issue to some unknown future politicians - even if they trusted the ones who were currently in office.

NuMarvel wrote: »

And like I've said, this wouldn't be binding.

The constitution allows binding referendums on two things: i) what's in our constitution, or ii) legislation that's been passed by the Oireachtas and referred to a referendum in accordance with Article 27. What you're proposing meets neither of those criteria, so it can't be binding.

Like I said, the options are either maintain the status quo, or remove the 8th and campaign to have the laws changed to your suiting. The former means nothing changes, and nobody really wants that. The latter means things might change more than you'd like, but also means you can campaign to change them to your suiting.

There really, really, really isn't a viable third option.

There's a perfectly valid third option.
Multiple referenda questions, or multiple referenda.

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

Women including you should have governance over their own body. I guess I'll have to explain the obvious...you didn't mention those words but kind is a trusting word, whereas Snake is the opposite .

Men are essential in pro creation sure but they aren't required to carry a child thats the womans body, if there is a disagreement over abortion that doesn't strike me as a realistic stable environment for a child.

Maybe trust men should be a slogan for fathers who are desperate to have access to their children but have no legal rights when it comes to the unmarried ones but thats another story.

Thanks for the explanation. I do, however, speak fluent English, and have no cognitive impairments.

Are you actually suggesting that a disagreement between a couple over the right to life should be grounds for an abortion?

I agree that Fathers should have more rights - whether married or unmarried.
You don't seem to acknowledge that right where a disagreement exists over abortion, however?

PlaneSpeeking

SusieBlue wrote: »

Let me jog your memory again for you, Anne.

Original post made by HammerArcher:


Here are links to where you mocked his way of dealing with his own miscarriage, over and over again.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106920509

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106900005

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106788462

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106792247

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106782548

Stop being so sneaky. Its clear what you were up to. It was a very unkind and insensitive thing to do.
You can't deny the evidence.

I'd wager good coin that they can do just that sadly.

Mrsmum

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Hey, you dismissed my pain when I discussed it.

Are you familiar with the Doctrine of Clean Hands ?

I never dismissed your pain. In fact I think it was to you I was that I was sorry you were in pain, which is an acknowledgement of your pain. I argued that medical personnel have to be sure a woman of child bearing years is not pregnant before treating her.

swampgas

Mrsmum wrote: »

I never dismissed your pain. In fact I think it was to you I was that I was sorry you were in pain, which is an acknowledgement of your pain. I argued that medical personnel have to be sure a woman of child bearing years is not pregnant before treating her.

What's weird is that you are okay with women needing to PROVE that they are not pregnant. It should be enough for a woman to be able to sign a disclaimer that she assures the medical staff that she is not pregnant, end of story.

AnneFrank

SusieBlue wrote: »

Let me jog your memory again for you, Anne.

Original post made by HammerArcher:


Here are links to where you mocked his way of dealing with his own miscarriage, over and over again.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106920509

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106900005

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106788462

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106792247

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106782548

Stop being so sneaky. Its clear what you were up to. It was a very unkind and insensitive thing to do.
You can't deny the evidence.

He and others confronted you for doing this, and you just ignored them, ran away, and came back a few days later to mock him a bit more.

so actually i never mentioned anyone ?
But if you "think" i did, that means i did ?
I don't think so

Triceratops Ballet

Deleted User wrote: »

Which I cannot accept. I completely fail to understand why anyone would give complete control of such an important issue to some unknown future politicians - even if they trusted the ones who were currently in office.

So do you think the 8th amendment works well and serves a purpose?

Hammer Archer

AnneFrank wrote: »

I find this funny because I never did,find a post where I mocked someone's miscarriage by name, I shall wait patiently

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Which I cannot accept. I completely fail to understand why anyone would give complete control of such an important issue to some unknown future politicians - even if they trusted the ones who were currently in office.



There's a perfectly valid third option.
Multiple referenda questions, or multiple referenda.



Thanks for the explanation. I do, however, speak fluent English, and have no cognitive impairments.

Are you actually suggesting that a disagreement between a couple over the right to life should be grounds for an abortion?

I agree that Fathers should have more rights - whether married or unmarried.
You don't seem to acknowledge that right where a disagreement exists over abortion, however?

You think the propestive father should have any say in what a woman does with her body?

PhoenixParker

Deleted User wrote: »

Which I cannot accept. I completely fail to understand why anyone would give complete control of such an important issue to some unknown future politicians - even if they trusted the ones who were currently in office.

From the bringing in of the constitution to 1983 there was no constitutional clause with respect to the unborn and for most of that time there was no call for it either.

The story of how the 8th came about is a fascinating account of church manipulation of the state.

It took our politicians decades to bring in the simplest legislation to flesh out the 8th amendment. What makes you think they'll be anxious to revise the first legislation they pass?

AnneFrank

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'd wager good coin that they can do just that sadly.

Of course i will i haven't mentioned anyone's name and didn't direct my comments at any one person.
To me an unborn child is not the idea of a child.
Sorry if that offends you.