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

Sofiztikated

doylefe wrote: »

Thanks friend, typo fixed.

Fyi I think boards hashtag system is broken, your hashtags don't work.

So what's your view on the 8th amendment?

January

For the people saying they don't trust politicians, you don't have to trust politicians. Look at countries like Canada who effectively have no restrictions on abortions whatsoever, their rates of abortion fall in line with the rest of the world statistically. Women don't rock up to their doctors at 6/7 months pregnant and demand abortions for the craic.

Trust women. Not politicians.

PlaneSpeeking

Esmeralda Inexpensive Balloonist wrote: »

They just cannot help themselves bringing religion into it, inconvenient as it is for the people who insist this is nothing to do with the RCC.

In Cork there are some newish ones with some of the 1916 leaders and a tricolour, "They said cherish ALL the children of the nation" :rolleyes: I'm not sure that "what would Padraig Pearse do?" is a good guide to life's challenges...

....... right up until they are born ? Then, not so much.

yourdeadwright

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But rape within marriage simply didnt exist. It wasnt a crime until 1990.

So if you called someone a rapist who had had sex with his wife against her will you would be been liable to be sued for defamation.

What part of this do you not understand? It wasnt considered rape. It was considered a wifes duty to have sex when her husband wanted it, regardless of what she wanted. There was no concept of consent for a wife. Didnt exist.

I saw your ridiculous earlier posts regarding how many children people had and your suggestion that they should have restrained themselves if they didnt want to have more children.

My paternal grandmother had 17 children. Yes, 17. She spent the entirety of her married life either pregnant or recovering from a pregnancy. Both her body and mind were destroyed from it. Shortly after she had her last child, her husband died and not too long after that she was admitted to what was known as Dundrum Mental Asylum and she never came out of there.

Do you think she wanted to have 17 children? What options would she have had? There was no contraception available. She couldnt say no to her husband for sex. There was no abortion available.

So tell me, exactly, what options did she have?

My own mother had a coil secretly inserted and never told my father. This in the late 70s. She then became frightened of having it removed in case he found out about it (the doctor who inserted it agreed not to write it in any medical records) and left it inside her for the next 30 years. When it was finally removed because she had unexplained bleeding from her uterus, the doctor who removed it claimed it should go in a museum - and also agreed not to write it into her medical notes.

My grandfather, by all accounts, was a lovely man. My father was an abusive alcoholic. So I have my doubts about my grandfather.

But these were the realities that women lived with.

Not your rose tinted view of the past.[/quote]

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

yourdeadwright wrote: »

If your offended by a stranger on the internet you've more issues you need to be fixing ,

Are you for real ?

Do you know how many people have ended their lives due to bullying on social media ?

You remind me of the bully who made my early teens hell, every time she was had up for it (sadly not that often) her line was "oh it's only a joke"; her mother advised me to "get a thicker skin, it's just a laugh".

If you think making fun of a physical, mental, emotional or educational condition is no big deal, I really do feel sorry for you.

How exactly am I a bully for saying don't be offended by someone on the internet ?
Wow I'm such an evil man , how could I say such a thing,
If your a grown up online and worried about being offended its not really the place to be ,
You sum up my point of everyone in a rush to be offended , You call me a bully for telling someone not to be offended ,

Sofiztikated

Esmeralda Inexpensive Balloonist wrote: »

They just cannot help themselves bringing religion into it, inconvenient as it is for the people who insist this is nothing to do with the RCC.

In Cork there are some newish ones with some of the 1916 leaders and a tricolour, "They said cherish ALL the children of the nation" :rolleyes: I'm not sure that "what would Padraig Pearse do?" is a good guide to life's challenges...

There's a couple of them as well, but I was past them before I could see what they actually were.

They weren't there yesterday, but are this morning.

Triceratops Ballet

Esmeralda Inexpensive Balloonist wrote: »

They just cannot help themselves bringing religion into it, inconvenient as it is for the people who insist this is nothing to do with the RCC.

In Cork there are some newish ones with some of the 1916 leaders and a tricolour, "They said cherish ALL the children of the nation" :rolleyes: I'm not sure that "what would Padraig Pearse do?" is a good guide to life's challenges...

Oh we have them too in Dub south central, I laughed when I saw them, Sinn Fein are pretty popular in a lot of the areas and I thought it was funny that they appeared to be trying to capitalise on that!

.......

This post has been deleted.

PlaneSpeeking

yourdeadwright wrote: »

How exactly am I a bully for saying don't be offended by someone on the internet ?
Wow I'm such an evil man , how could I say such a thing,
If your a grown up online and worried about being offended its not really the place to be ,
You sum up my point of everyone in a rush to be offended , You call me a bully for telling someone not to be offended ,

No dear, I'm calling you a bully for:

What a load of ****e, and using his daughter like that, should be ashamed of himself.

And others.

Sofiztikated

yourdeadwright wrote: »

How exactly am I a bully for saying don't be offended by someone on the internet ?
Wow I'm such an evil man , how could I say such a thing,
If your a grown up online and worried about being offended its not really the place to be ,
You sum up my point of everyone in a rush to be offended , You call me a bully for telling someone not to be offended ,

Yeah, that's not what was said.

And if someone was having sly digs at my medical condition, or my wife's miscarriage, I'd be a touch offended.

eviltwin

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Oh we have them too in Dub south central, I laughed when I saw them, Sinn Fein are pretty popular in a lot of the areas and I thought it was funny that they appeared to be trying to capitalise on that!

It's not SF behind those posters. The group launch was featured on the news, I could be wrong but I seem to remember a FF member was involved.

pleas advice

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Is everyone on the No side acting the perpetual victim ????

thats the yes side you're thinking of...

yourdeadwright

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But rape within marriage simply didnt exist. It wasnt a crime until 1990.

So if you called someone a rapist who had had sex with his wife against her will you would be been liable to be sued for defamation.

What part of this do you not understand? It wasnt considered rape. It was considered a wifes duty to have sex when her husband wanted it, regardless of what she wanted. There was no concept of consent for a wife. Didnt exist.

I saw your ridiculous earlier posts regarding how many children people had and your suggestion that they should have restrained themselves if they didnt want to have more children.

My paternal grandmother had 17 children. Yes, 17. She spent the entirety of her married life either pregnant or recovering from a pregnancy. Both her body and mind were destroyed from it. Shortly after she had her last child, her husband died and not too long after that she was admitted to what was known as Dundrum Mental Asylum and she never came out of there.

Do you think she wanted to have 17 children? What options would she have had? There was no contraception available. She couldnt say no to her husband for sex. There was no abortion available.

So tell me, exactly, what options did she have?

My own mother had a coil secretly inserted and never told my father. This in the late 70s. She then became frightened of having it removed in case he found out about it (the doctor who inserted it agreed not to write it in any medical records) and left it inside her for the next 30 years. When it was finally removed because she had unexplained bleeding from her uterus, the doctor who removed it claimed it should go in a museum - and also agreed not to write it into her medical notes.

My grandfather, by all accounts, was a lovely man. My father was an abusive alcoholic. So I have my doubts about my grandfather.

But these were the realities that women lived with.

Not your rose tinted view of the past.[/quote]
Again not reading my post but jump to being offended ,
I know all the above , but it doesn't change the fact that a man who rapes his wife  Is a rapist ,
If you commit Rape you are a rapist weather it illegal or legal ,
If someone tell's me there father raped there mother or called the priest to get her to have sex,
They are a rapist or a pig no matter what time they lived in , 
Just cause it was legal to rape your wife doesn't make it right ,your still a rapist and a pig,

Bridge93

So Facebook announced yesterday they were banning all ads from foreign sources relating to the referendum.

Today Google are banning all ads on the referendum including on YouTube

gimli2112

Just seen Google have banned ads relating to the referendum. I watch a fair bit of youtube and have been bombarded with ads for the No side. 100% no. Don't know if it's just the no vote has pumped a lot of money into a campaign or I'm being targeted.

PlaneSpeeking

pleas advice wrote: »

thats the yes side you're thinking of...

Ah bless. You tried.

yourdeadwright

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

yourdeadwright wrote: »

How exactly am I a bully for saying don't be offended by someone on the internet ?
Wow I'm such an evil man , how could I say such a thing,
If your a grown up online and worried about being offended its not really the place to be ,
You sum up my point of everyone in a rush to be offended , You call me a bully for telling someone not to be offended ,

No dear, I'm calling you a bully for:

What a load of ****e, and using his daughter like that, should be ashamed of himself.

And others.

Eh that's great but I never posted the above you moron ,
Another one proving my point quick to be offended by nothing ,

Hammer Archer

yourdeadwright wrote: »

If your offended by a stranger on the internet you've more issues you need to be fixing ,

The irony of that is the poster you've been defending has been playing the perpetual victim on this thread for weeks now over the mean repeal posters.

PlaneSpeeking

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Eh that's great but I never posted the above you moron ,
Another one proving my point quick to be offended by nothing ,

:rolleyes:

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

yourdeadwright wrote: »

How exactly am I a bully for saying don't be offended by someone on the internet ?
Wow I'm such an evil man , how could I say such a thing,
If your a grown up online and worried about being offended its not really the place to be ,
You sum up my point of everyone in a rush to be offended , You call me a bully for telling someone not to be offended ,

This is a highly charged subject, it's not like someone got offended in a Tayto vs King debate. People have lived and suffered and bled through these very real scenarios. It's important, if easy to forget, to be aware of the impact of your words and take the whole context into account.

Also it's 2018, are we not past "it's just on the internet"? Life is on the fcuking internet if you haven't noticed.

yourdeadwright

SusieBlue wrote: »

yourdeadwright wrote: »

If your offended by a stranger on the internet you've more issues you need to be fixing ,

So you are saying that its ok to mock how someone deals with a miscarriage?
Is that what you believe?

Where did I say it was ok  ?
I said don't be offended by a stranger on line ,

Zubeneschamali

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ah, the good old days, before these liberal lefties introduced divorce, contraception, sex education, laws against rape within marriage, smutty bukes, same sex marriage and all that.

Just wait! They'll be after abortion next! Good thing the bishops won't be having it, out with the crozier batin' people left and right!

SusieBlue

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Where did I say it was ok  ?
I said don't be offended by a stranger on line ,

You just contradicted yourself.
There would be nothing to be offended by if those comments weren't made. Maybe people (aka AnneFrank) should be a bit more mindful and sensitive to how s/he comes across and then there would be no need to be offended.

yourdeadwright

Hammer Archer wrote: »

yourdeadwright wrote: »

If your offended by a stranger on the internet you've more issues you need to be fixing ,

The irony of that is the poster you've been defending has been playing the perpetual victim on this thread for weeks now over the mean repeal posters.

|I'm not defending anyone ,
I'm saying why get upset over a total stranger online,

Sofiztikated

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Where did I say it was ok  ?
I said don't be offended by a stranger on line ,

Have you anything to ass about the 8th amendment, or are you just playing silly buggers all day?

robarmstrong

Ah here, we all need to grow up a bit with the name-calling, it'll end up with mod actions e.g cards/threadbans/etc.

You can have a heated discussion without resorting to name calling, and I'd hate to see this thread locked or threadbans handed out because people are throwing names at eachother like kids.

If someone insults you, report it and ignore it, address their post as if they simply did not insult you.

Yes, some people have been absolute dicks, but there's no need to go down to their level and get yourself into trouble over it, if you're offended over something someone has said (this should go for either side) respond to the post as calmly as you can, regardless of how f*cked up the offending post may be.

Triceratops Ballet

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

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

It certainly serves a purpose. As do the other important clauses in the Constitution. It is there to protect the right to life of the unborn, and to ensure that the people decide on any changes.

Are there issues? Yes. However, I do not believe that abortion on demand up to (or potentially, in the future, exceeding?) 12 weeks gestation is acceptable.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

How about you answer my questions, before you ask another?

PhoenixParker wrote: »

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?

What makes you think they will not? Abortion on demand up to 12 weeks gestation is a hell of a jump from the current position, is it not?

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

The same Dail/politicians who we give the legislative right to, amongst many other things (i) increase income tax to 98%, (ii) reduce the age of consent to single digits, (iii) declare war on other countries.
Yet life continues happily despite these powers the politicians have, cause they aren't going to do it.

No politicians are going to put in social legislation that the majority find abhorrent. It would be the end of their political career and would serve no purpose as the subsequent landslide government would undo it on Day 1.

Where do we give politicians the right to declare war on other Countries?

Hmm. Social legislation that the majority find abhorrent?

Why do you use the word social? Please define what you mean.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well firstly because we give control to current and future politicians for MANY things. Why should this one be any different other than some people overstating the complexity of it?

Secondly it appears no one is able to give any indication as to what it is concerns them. One user with the "I do not trust the politicians with this" narrative was asked by me to give their worst case scenario. What is the worst plausible legislation they could imagine politicians enacting. Their answer? Firstly they answered an entirely different question I did not actually ask. Then they ran away. Never came back.

Third, even if I take Canada as an example of legislation that could be enacted..... there is no real horror in play there anyway. Regardless of how restrictive or liberal laws on abortion are.... the statistics on it's actual usage are consistent from country to country. And they are that the overwhelming majority of abortions happen in or before week 10, even more so by week 12, the the tiny remainder of the totality pretty much done by week 16.

So not only can the fear mongerers about politicians not answer about their plausible worst case scenarios..... even the most liberal abortion legislation seems to have no more real world effect than some of the more restrictive.

So where EXACTLY is the problem? Even with zero confidence in the honesty and ability of future politicians..... one can not seem to envision an action by them that would actually be all that harmful or detrimental compared to any other.

Perhaps because one of the arguments being put forward by those on the pro-repeal side of the discussion is that the issue is too complicated to be enshrined in the Constitution.

If you are referring to me when you mention someone who "ran away", I have this thing called a life - one which entails family responsibilities that far exceed my desire to spend time on Boards.
I freely admit to not having read the last hundred or so pages of this discussion - because I've been nursing my sister who is very ill, together with taking care of my own family, and helping raise my Grandson. I may, or may not, have time to contribute further to this discussion, and I make no apology for that.
My family will always take priority over Boards etiquette.

As to worst case scenario? Abortion on demand.

Your definition of horror, by the way, is vastly different to mine.
I consider what you presumably define as an embryo, as being Human life, from the instant of conception. As such, abortion on demand is a horror.

The right of the child and the Mother must both be considered - and yes, that causes a lot of horrendous issues.

However, I don't believe the proposed legislation is satisfactory. I don't believe it should be left to the politicians.
I believe the people should have the right to decide on the legislation, and on all the different nuances that need to be considered - and if that means going back to the drawing board, because the current proposed legislation is unacceptable, then so be it.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

How about you answer my questions, before you ask another?

Your post had multiple questions. i responded to one of them.

Zubeneschamali

Bridge93 wrote: »

Today Google are banning all ads on the referendum including on YouTube

I hope they are keeping the money!

Hammer Archer

yourdeadwright wrote: »

|I'm not defending anyone ,
I'm saying why get upset over a total stranger online,

Sure you're not

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106945829&postcount=3122

And I ain't getting upset. I just find it rather amusing that the poster in question sees fit to personally attack me for my personal views on my own personal situation (and no one else's) yet screams blue murder when he feels he's been attacked.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Your post had multiple questions. i responded to one of them.

Any chance you ant to respond to the rest?

Particularly: Do you believe a disagreement between partners on the right to life should be grounds for an abortion?

If so, how do you reconcile the rights of a Father with this position?