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

Ave Sodalis

erica74 wrote: »

So they're "targeting" women wearing Repeal jumpers, rather than "targeting" the public and voters with facts and rationality.

When there's a lack of the latter, I guess the former is all they have to offer.

Bannasidhe

SusieBlue wrote: »

Just saw a post on facebook by the president of the Christian Solidarity Party.

It reads:


obstreperous
adjective
noisy and difficult to control.

I mean....Where to even start with that pile of crap? Are the No side happy to stand behind a campaign that is proudly declaring they are setting out to target women they deem to be difficult to control?
Disgusting, disgraceful, misogynistic comments. No place in 2018 for rubbish like that.

That's my lunch break sorted tomorrow. I'll be popping into Together for Yes and buying a few obstreperous t-shirts.

SusieBlue

erica74 wrote: »

So they're "targeting" women wearing Repeal jumpers, rather than "targeting" the public and voters with facts and rationality.

Why are we even shocked?
Groups like those are rife with sexism and chauvanistic attitudes.
I'm sure they think its their god given right to attempt to brow beat these women back into submission, for daring to have an opposing opinion.

It will never cease to amuse me how certain groups and individuals get so grossly offended and feel so threatened by women who are assertive and confident in their own minds and opinions.
All it does is make me want to scream louder.

captbarnacles

Just purchased myself some stickers for my business and car.

Would have liked a big poster though.

January

I'd love for one of those eejits to approach me in public, I practically live in my repeal jumper nowadays. They'll see how obstreperous I can be then!

Grayson

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It worked in '83.

Mind you, they have toned it down a bit - This is a SPUC (Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child) leaflet from back then. Reading some of the No comments here this view still appears to be held by some.

Here's another one



There's loads of stuff here.
https://irishelectionliterature.com/page/1/


Edit: It looks like that might actually be a new poster.

Sofiztikated

Grayson wrote: »

Here's another one



There's loads of stuff here.
https://irishelectionliterature.com/page/1/

That's gas, I wonder if whoever drew those faces had anything to do with the lady that "fixed" that painting of Jesus.

January

Yeah that ones new.

AtomicHorror

I assumed that was from the previous campaign... would have taken some fancy tech to make that in the early 80's.

2018 though...

wexie

January wrote: »

I'd love for one of those eejits to approach me in public, I practically live in my repeal jumper nowadays. They'll see how obstreperous I can be then!

I'm kinda hoping for some videos of some 'obstreperous' ladies having a good go at these eejits to be honest

(no violence of course, would spray painting someone be considered assault? :pac:)

I'd nearly be tempted to go out in an appeal tshirt myself but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't go anywhere near me, I don't look like the most approachable fella

January

My only problem is I'm never anywhere exciting, always just on the school run etc so no hope of them approaching me.

Ave Sodalis

Grayson wrote: »

Here's another one



There's loads of stuff here.
https://irishelectionliterature.com/page/1/


Edit: It looks like that might actually be a new poster.

I googled John Clerkin... here's what I found: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/selling-condoms-1.44115

nozzferrahhtoo

wexie wrote: »

I'm kinda hoping for some videos of some 'obstreperous' ladies having a good go at these eejits to be honest

My suspicion is that is exactly their ploy here. They are going out to troll some people to get videos of people behaving badly that they can populate their twitter streams with.

wexie

January wrote: »

My only problem is I'm never anywhere exciting, always just on the school run etc so no hope of them approaching me.

Well if you do catch their attention on the school run then you have my permission to have a good go at them, especially on the schoolrun.

As a matter of fact...I insist

Sofiztikated

wexie wrote: »

I'm kinda hoping for some videos of some 'obstreperous' ladies having a good go at these eejits to be honest

(no violence of course, would spray painting someone be considered assault? :pac:)

I'd nearly be tempted to go out in an appeal tshirt myself but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't go anywhere near me, I don't look like the most approachable fella

It would.

Getting involved in shouting matches especially ones that would be recorded and used as evidence of these obstreperous (have to say, fair play, its a great sounding word, but the meaning just shows them up for who they are) women, and presented as them being silenced.

Facts, reason and argument, all the way.

(I realise I'm a bit hypocritical in saying this, I get wound up as well.)

seamus

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

My suspicion is that is exactly their ploy here. They are going out to troll some people to get videos of people behaving badly that they can populate their twitter streams with.

I think you're giving the CSP too much credit tbh.

bootpaws

I would like a jumper with "Obstreperous Woman" on it, for when my Repeal one is in the wash.

wexie

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Facts, reason and argument, all the way.

(I realise I'm a bit hypocritical in saying this, I get wound up as well.)

I know you're right....I know it....yet.....

I have this itch to go out carrying the skinny end of a fishing rod...:o

Mr. CooL ICE

bootpaws wrote: »

I would like a jumper with "Obstreperous Woman" on it, for when my Repeal one is in the wash.

So would I. Would completely blow their minds

erica74

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

My suspicion is that is exactly their ploy here. They are going out to troll some people to get videos of people behaving badly that they can populate their twitter streams with.

That's their ploy I'd say, same as on here, trolling and then saying "oh the yes side are doing themselves no favours".

erica74

bootpaws wrote: »

I would like a jumper with "Obstreperous Woman" on it, for when my Repeal one is in the wash.

Best idea ever.

BalcombeSt4

There's posters around with a woman & a child that must be about 3 years old, saying "respect both of them".

So my question is does the NO side know that you can't abort a child that's 3 years old?

nozzferrahhtoo

seamus wrote: »

I think you're giving the CSP too much credit tbh.

Hope so. It is not a scenario where I would take any pleasure at all in saying "I told you so"

Sofiztikated

Dole Scrounging Vegan Crossfitter wrote: »

So would I. Would completely blow their minds

Same, a bloke version would be amusing.

Sofiztikated

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

There's posters around with a woman & a child that must be about 3 years old, saying "respect both of them".

So my question is does the NO side know that you can't abort a child that's 3 years old?

We can't !?

What am I going to do with my abortion hammer business?

Zubeneschamali

Neyite wrote: »

So it's not really about the sanctity of human life then, but more about the comeuppance of the woman, her morals and whether she is chaste enough to 'deserve' her abortion.

This is one reason that I respect the Catholic Churches view on all of this - they really do believe in the sanctity of life, and really think raped women should give birth, and that babies with a FFA should be born even if they have no brain and die nearly immediately. They are opposed to MAP and IVF as it affects embryos, too.

I don't agree with that position, in fact the the vast majority of the public don't agree with it, even the nominal catholics, but i respect that at least that t is consistent.

Anyone who supports abortion for rape victims, however, has already agreed to treating the right to life on a case-by-case basis, sanctity and absolutism are out the window.

Sofiztikated

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is one reason that I respect the Catholic Churches view on all of this - they really do believe in the sanctity of life, and really think raped women should give birth, and that babies with a FFA should be born even if they have no brain and die nearly immediately. They are opposed to MAP and IVF as it affects embryos, too.

I don't agree with that position, in fact the the vast majority of the public don't agree with it, even the nominal catholics, but i respect that at least that t is consistent.

Anyone who supports abortion for rape victims, however, has already agreed to treating the right to life on a case-by-case basis, sanctity and absolutism are out the window.

That's the thing though, even when catholics support changing their stance on anything, like the ACP on women's rights, LGBT rights or whatever, they're met with "Well they're more protestant than anything else."

wexie

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is one reason that I respect the Catholic Churches view on all of this - they really do believe in the sanctity of life, and really think raped women should give birth, and that babies with a FFA should be born even if they have no brain and die nearly immediately. They are opposed to MAP and IVF as it affects embryos, too.

I don't agree with that position, in fact the the vast majority of the public don't agree with it, even the nominal catholics, but i respect that at least that t is consistent.

Anyone who supports abortion for rape victims, however, has already agreed to treating the right to life on a case-by-case basis, sanctity and absolutism are out the window.

Yet at the same time....

The Catholic bishops’ child-protection body is advising priests not to inform state authorities about incidents of child abuse they hear about in the confession box, in apparent contravention of the law. Guidelines published by the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church exempts priests from passing on admissions of child abuse made in the confessional, it has emerged.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/23738fc2-560e-11e8-9871-a6b7d2d44e9e

It's all good and well being consistent on one particular issue...but not if you then take a completely conflicting stance on a different issue.

Unless you argue that it's only the 'sanctity of life' and not looking out for the vulnerable in general :mad:

(interesting anecdote : I was nearly thrown out of my Catholic school when I was a wee lad for asking my religion teacher did he not think it a bit hypocritical that the Vatican was a major shareholder in Durex (they were at the time, mid 80's....so there's consistency for ya)

BalcombeSt4

Sofiztikated wrote: »

We can't !?

What am I going to do with my abortion hammer business?

Nope, you can't.

You'll just have to find younger victims to bash their brain with your hammer.

That would be a good name for an abortion clinic. "The Baby Bashing Clinic (your babies brains will be bashed in with three strikes or less or your money back) "

PopePalpatine

Grayson wrote: »

Here's another one

"Graphic design is my passion." :pac: