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

Kurtosis

freshpopcorn wrote: »

They started collecting the data for the poll at the weekend on the 3rd or 8th and they ended the 15th from what I know!

RobertKK posted this claim last night which is incorrect. That was the Behaviour and Attitudes poll for the Sunday Times that collected data from the 3-15 May. The Red C poll for the Sunday Business Post collected data from 10-16 May. Incidentally, both of these polls had fairly similar results.

The Claire Byrne Live debate was the 14th so maybe you did participate in this poll after all.

freshpopcorn

Kurtosis wrote: »

RobertKK posted this claim last night which is incorrect. That was the Behaviour and Attitudes poll for the Sunday Times that collected data from the 3-15 May. The Red C poll for the Sunday Business Post collected data from 10-16 May. Incidentally, both of these polls had fairly similar results.

The Claire Byrne Live debate was the 14th so maybe you did participate in this poll after all.

My point was that the poll started a while before the debate was on because some people I know thought if happened after it!

Water John

Hardtalk debate, very well conducted by Stephen Sackur. Really knew his stuff. Just two people. Very similar to The Week in Politics with Mullen and McDowell.
Best form of informing debate for such subjects.

Cantona's Collars

Water John wrote: »

BBC1 Hardtalk, Caroline Simmons Vs Sinead Redmond. Simmons avoiding answering the case study of the woman who had to bring her FFA baby back to Ireland in the boot of her car.
Redmond, very good.

But the baby wasn't aborted in Ireland so is that a win for the pro life/love both campaign?
I'm sorry if the above comes across as insensitive towards the poor woman who had to travel and have an abortion but if the No campaign wins this ludicrous situation that women have to face will continue.....but that's okay because in holy, pious Ireland such "murders" won't take place.

Annasopra

DOS wrote: »

I've seen how that works. I posted that my church was so full today people were standing at the back and was accused of lieing by John Water.

Really any No posters on this thread have been goaded into being banned or unfairly banned in comparison to Yes side comment that is given free reign.

This is simply untrue. Yes posters have been banned here too. SOME People on the no side have trolled and goaded the mods into banning them.

Annasopra

freshpopcorn wrote: »

My take on the result is going by the marriage referendum is,
Yes in it was 62% No was 38%.
Now based on my personal experience everybody I know who voted No are voting No this time around.
I also know a few Yes's who'll be turning to No this time.
I don't know anybody who voted No and voting Yes this time.
However all the new people registered to Vote will make a difference this time around.
We will see a few constituencies going No tough.
When I talk to people about it.I get a very mixed response.

I think it could be as tight as Divorce ref 2

Annasopra

realitykeeper wrote: »

Not at all. Rape victims live to tell the tale, abortion victims don`t.

They dont always live to tell the tale at all. And sometimes "living to tell the tale" with the severe trauma they go through is extremely difficult. I actually was near tears reading this post because it was so dismissive of women brutally and violently violated. I find this disrgard for women quite shocking rrally.

freshpopcorn

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I think it could be as tight as Divorce ref 2

I keep on bouncing about the result.
My grandmother voted for divorcee two by accident. I wonder were they many more like her?

pleas advice

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

This is simply untrue. Yes posters have been banned here too. SOME People on the no side have trolled and goaded the mods into banning them.

ah now, whats the proportion of pro-life vs pro-choice that have been banned, compared to the proportion posting on these threads? whats the threshold of 'acceptable posting' for one side vs the other? Haven't seen any banned just for expressing a pro-choice view, can't say the same for the other side.
(not that I'm complaining about the modding, its an impossible task to take on, but theres probably 10 times the amount of posts being reported from one side against the other than vice versa)

Overheal

pleas advice wrote: »

ah now, whats the proportion of pro-life vs pro-choice that have been banned, compared to the proportion posting on these threads? whats the threshold of 'acceptable posting' for one side vs the other? Haven't seen any banned just for expressing a pro-choice view, can't say the same for the other side.
(not that I'm complaining about the modding, its an impossible task to take on, but theres probably 10 times the amount of posts being reported from one side against the other than vice versa)

Well, there is at least a mod or two of AH that I know is on the No side, and there is still ever as always the right of appeal in dispute resolution, so I don't see the conspiracy there.

What I have seen from the No side though are people creating new accounts for this one issue and pigeon-posting (fly in, sh*t everywhere, fly away) as well as people make accounts purely to re-post already lengthily discussed and misleading "information," one such example being the silent-scream video,

Many members of the medical community were critical of the film, describing it as misleading and deceptive. Richard Berkowitz, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Mount Sinai Medical Center, described the film as "factually misleading and unfair".[4] John Hobbins of the Yale School of Medicine called the film's use of special effects deceptive, a form of "technical flimflam." He pointed out that the film of the ultrasound is initially run at slow speed, but that it is sped up when surgical instruments are introduced to give the impression that "the fetus is thrashing about in alarm." Hobbins questioned the titular "scream", noting that "the fetus spends lots of time with its mouth open", that the "scream" may have been a yawn, and also that "mouth" identified on the blurry ultrasound in the film may in fact have been the space between the fetal chin and chest.[4] Edward Myer, chairman of pediatrics at the University of Virginia stated that, at twelve weeks, the brain is not sufficiently developed for a fetus to be able to feel pain.[8] Similarly, Hart Peterson, chairman of pediatric neurology at the New York Hospital, stated that the "notion that a 12-week-old fetus is in discomfort is erroneous."[8]

Fetal development experts argued that, contrary to Nathanson's assertion in the film, a fetus cannot perceive danger or make purposeful movements. David Bodian, a neurobiologist at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, stated that doctors had no evidence that a twelve-week-old fetus could feel pain, but noted the possibility of a reflex movement by a fetus in response to external stimuli such as surgical instruments. The size of the ultrasound image and of the fetus model used was also misleading, appearing to show a fetus the size of a full-term baby, while in actuality a twelve-week-old fetus is under two inches long.[4] Jennifer Niebyl of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine said that what Nathanson described as the fetus recoiling from pain and seeking to escape is "strictly reflex activity" which Nathason made look purposeful by speeding up the film as the suction catheter was placed.[12] Fay Redwine of the VCU Medical Center stated "Any of us could show you the same image in a fetus who is not being aborted."[12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silent_Scream#Medical_community

And still many 'No' posters are free to post here, and do, evidenced quite obviously. It would be deliberately misleading to ask whether or not there were more trolls from one side banned over the other, as it suggests quite falsely that there must be an equal number of bad actors on either side.

While it's not my place to look at reports for AH, again, it's up to the 'No' crowd if they want to report something on the thread, to report something. Generally speaking, it seems that posting in bad faith (posting propaganda, soapboxing, espousing debunked myths etc), or attacking a poster rather than a post, are the fastest ways to get removed from the discourse. Other common methods include re-reg to circumvent an existing ban (more ways to detect than you think), arguing about moderation on the thread (derailment of the thread)(most commonly done because 'addressing it privately silences muh free speech etc' 'I wont be silenced bla bla'), and trolling and making other non-substantive contributions to the discussion.

1800_Ladladlad

Irregardless of my opinion, Im openly welcoming the end of this referendum. Both sides have now come full circle meeting in the centre, behaving as bad as each other. What ever the result, I’m hoping both sides will be willing to accept & respect it.

Simi

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

Irregardless of my opinion, Im openly welcoming the end of this referendum. Both sides have now come full circle meeting in the centre, behaving as bad as each other. What ever the result, I’m hoping both sides will be willing to accept & respect it.

I reject the assertion that both sides are behaving as bad as each other.

Only one side defaced the side of a mountain with a 50m NO sign.
Only one side planted thousands of tiny crosses at the side of Donegal roads in the dead of night causing distress to the families of those killed in road traffic accidents.
Only one side handed pamphlets out to children going to an Ed Sheehan concert.
Only one side put pamphlets with miscarried foetuses on every windscreen in the hospital car park where I work to greet women who may have just lost a baby when they return to their cars.
Only one side picketed maternity hospitals with pictures of aborted foetuses.
Only one side has put forward the claim that legalizing abortion is the beginning of a Muslim takeover of Ireland.
Only one side is claiming that the 8th amendment has no negative effects on women's healthcare despite thousands of testimonies to the contrary.

I'm sure there have been a few instances of bad behaviour by yes voters, tearing down posters etc. But nothing that compares to the absolutely despicable acts perpetrated by no campaigners.

Overheal

Don't forget only one side had put forward the claim that legalizing abortion is the beginning of child euthanasia
Don't forget only one side had put forward the claim that legalizing abortion is the beginning of the next Holocaust

freshpopcorn

It took four goes to give me an answer!

Overheal

freshpopcorn wrote: »

It took four goes to give me an answer!

Isn't that Irish Referendum tradition? "The vote didn't turn out how we wanted so we're doing it again?"

freshpopcorn

Overheal wrote: »

Isn't that Irish Referendum tradition? "The vote didn't turn out how we wanted so we're doing it again?"

Yes but on Saturday we'll be told if it's a Yes Vote or No Vote.
A woman won't make a reply at Dublin Castle saying reply hazy try again!

erica74

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

But the baby wasn't aborted in Ireland so is that a win for the pro life/love both campaign?
I'm sorry if the above comes across as insensitive towards the poor woman who had to travel and have an abortion but if the No campaign wins this ludicrous situation that women have to face will continue.....but that's okay because in holy, pious Ireland such "murders" won't take place.

If abortion is legalised in Ireland, women will not have to bring their aborted babies home in the boot of their car, over choppy seas, needing to change the ice packs regularly.

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Yes but on Saturday we'll be told if it's a Yes Vote or No Vote.
A woman won't make a reply at Dublin Castle saying reply hazy try again!

It would be hilarious if that did happen:pac:

iguana

Overheal wrote: »

Don't forget only one side had put forward the claim that legalizing abortion is the beginning of child euthanasia
Don't forget only one side had put forward the claim that legalizing abortion is the beginning of the next Holocaust

And that it will be the famine all over again and this time we'll be overrun with foreigners and muslims and become strangers in our own land.

Dressing gown

erica74 wrote: »

If abortion is legalised in Ireland, women will not have to bring their aborted babies home in the boot of their car, over choppy seas, needing to change the ice packs regularly

Or indeed suffer the trauma of having to leave that baby behind on advice that it’s body would not survive the journey like that poor woman Amy on TV3 last night. And then wait 6 weeks for the remains to arrive in the post. She said it was 3 years previously but still couldn’t hold it together when telling her story. She said she felt like Ireland had rejected her baby. Regardless of abortion this going on is so so wrong. You can campaign like mad to your TD of you don’t want the abortion regime proposed but Irish families should absolutely not be enduring such hardship it is not justifiable on any level. Really voting to maintain a law that results in this situation occurring is merciless.

nozzferrahhtoo

pleas advice wrote: »

I'd wager after a while of trying to accept the 'conscience in a machine', both would be switched off. the machine destroyed or returned to the lab, and a funeral held for the body

A wager I would be happy to take if and when the technology allows us to take it. But notice however how you answered a different question to the one I asked. I asked which one would people choose to take home, and why. You instead answered something about what would happen "after awhile" some time later, having made that decision.

realitykeeper wrote: »

I disagree

Fine, but until such time as you start offering the first shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to substantiate the claim your god even exists in the first place......... then you can disagree all you like but your god has no more relevance than my friend's kid's imaginary friend Twinky.

The issue is that seemingly, having seen your posts around the forum for some time now, you do not appear to have the first shred of even an iota of substantiation that this entity is real.

Until you do, it appears you are manufacturing a god to fill in the gaps where you have failed to manufacture a reasoned argument on this subject.

nozzferrahhtoo

Just her wrote: »

Are you saying I should be done for murder for pushing a robot off a cliff, and in the same post telling me abortion, not a problem at all?

Essentially, yes. Though you are misusing the term robot to dilute the relevance of what we are talking about which is rather contrived.

Once again..... sentience and consciousness, the ability to experience suffering and well being...... are the focus of my moral and ethical agenda. I see past the "platform" that it happens to be running on. Whether that be a meat based computer or a silicon based computer or anything else. The focus of our moral and ethical concern has to be, for all the reasons I have offered without rebuttal in this conversation so far, sentience. It simply does not work coherently if it is not, nor.... while observing human behaviour to the flora and fauna of this world.......... do we see any evidence that it is not. The way we act, and the concerns we generally hold.......... strongly show it is.

And if and when we have sentience running on a platform that is not meat based, we will very much have this fact cascade through our moral discourse. It has in fact been the focus of much philosophy and science fiction for decades, where issues of future import tend to get discussed.

Just her wrote: »

I do believe the sentience of the foetus is being ignored.

Now you are shifting the goal posts on what you said before. Before you said "And completely ignore the fact that they were becoming sentient" which you have now shifted to "the sentience of the foetus is being ignored". These two are different things entirely, and the fact you think they are interchangeable in such a 1:1 fashion reveals much.

One can not ignore what is not in fact there.

Just her wrote: »

I don't get how you say above that the only thing of any value in the universe is sentience, so abort the foetus before it becomes sentient. How is that putting a value on sentience?

But I am not saying "abort it before it becomes sentient" am I now? What I AM saying is that we have no moral or ethical arguments to PREVENT someone doing so, and so we should not curtail that choice. Especially given the person making that choice IS sentient, and therefore their freedoms, choices and well-being should be our primary concern.

There is a massive philosophical, ethical and moral gulf between saying "You should do this" and "We have no basis upon which to prevent you doing this". I at no point am going around telling people they should abort anything. I work hard in fact, harder than you know, on issues that aim to reduce (ideally to zero) the number of abortions that ever occur in our society.

Just her wrote: »

You say you see sentience as the only thing of any value in our universe, but I'm betting you see money as valuable.

Not really. I see money as a means to mediate well being in sentient creatures, by mediating our interactions and the society in which such a system is based. It is far from ideal and causes much suffering in our world, but it is thus far the best means we have found to achieve this. It is not in and of itself valuable, so much as it is a manifestation of genuine concerns of sentient agents.

Further you are making the mistake of conflating two meanings of the same word. You are using the word "value" in two different senses but acting like they are the same.

But the answer to your thought experiment is clear so I will repeat it. The money in and of itself is not valuable. It is what it represents in terms of the well being and agendas of sentient creatures that is.

The same could be said of a more contextually correct use of the word "value" that you perhaps could have used in your thought experiment. Art. Art has "value" to us humans, but art in and of itself is not valuable. All the value and beauty and relevance and narratives we see in the world of art....... or in the world of money....... would simply drain out of the universe if there was no sentient creatures like ourselves to actually value it. All the beautiful works of sculpture would be little more than rock........ and all the money little more than flapping pieces of paper............. without sentient minds to see it otherwise.

That is what I mean when I say sentience is the source of, and focus of, all "value" in the universe. And why it is to be treasured and the focus of our moral and ethical concerns.

January

You never know who may need your Yes 💔

I don't even really know where to start but I can't just sit back and say nothing anymore. I want to share my story in the hope that even if just one person is sitting on the fence as to how to vote in the referendum on Friday, my story will help them decide to vote yes and show compassion for me and others in my situation. I never once thought that the 8th amendment would affect me and my family.

On March 17th, we found out we were expecting at nearly 6 weeks. Extremely surprised and in shock but happy!! We have a 3 year old, we live at home with my parents for just over a year now, after a year spent at his parents home. We are in the middle of saving hard for our house, a wedding and a honeymoon. Baby number 2 was to be planned for after all the stress, not to arrive during it, little did I know what lay ahead for us.

The last 8 weeks have been the longest of my life. Firstly we thought I was having an ectopic pregnancy due to the symptoms i was experiencing but then a scan proved everything was ok! Then at just nearly 10 weeks, I started to feel really unwell. Thinking it was a combination of morning sickness and low blood pressure, I went to The Coombe after experiencing pain in my head all day in work. I went completely blind, dizzy and extremely faint for about 10/15 minutes in the bathroom in work and when i did feel ok to move again, my sight didn't come back fully in my left eye. My co-ordination was not ok, I couldn't even type an email. The Coombe advised me to go to a general hospital after scanning the Baby and confirming baby was doing ok.

I was put under the care of the Neurology team. I thought they would tell me I had a bad migraine and send me on my way. Turned out I had a STROKE. A blood clot had travelled and landed in the back of my left eye. I'm 29! The consultant teams that looked after me during my stay were amazing, as were all the nurses that looked after me!! They really done all they could legally do. I'm on a dose of aspirin whilst waiting for blood results to come back, which will decide the next course of action. My headaches come and go. Some days I feel great and some days, like today, I can't get out of bed with the pain in my head.

My neurology team want to do an MRI on my brain to ensure I have no further clots, they are not allowed to. My life is not severely threatened enough for them to legally be able to do so. A consultant was brought in from Holiers street to be an advocate for my Baby during the consultations, she assured everyone that an MRI is not harmful past the first trimester and deemed one necessary in my case. In spite of this, Radiology will not go ahead and scan me because I am pregnant. I could be walking around waiting on another stroke to happen due to a clot in my head and only then, if that happens, would my life be threatened enough to warrant the MRI. Every nurse, doctor and consultant I've spoken to in the last 4 weeks wants to book me in for an MRI, each time they come back to me and my partner with the same answer. They are not allowed to go ahead with it.

My baby needs me to be healthy, I do not want to harm my baby in anyway but especially not by having a more severe stroke. I also want to be at ease for the next 26 weeks that each headache I get is not the start of another stroke.

Voting yes is not just about the choice of whether to make abortion legal in this country. It's about recognising that I am not just a vessel growing another life, which is amazing in its own right and should be given every support and the best care!! I am a woman who needs the appropriate medical treatment in my hour of need! Given the choice, I would not have went ahead with the MRI at the time. I would have waited until after 12 weeks and into my 2nd trimester, I want my baby to be safe. But that is not my choice to make due to the laws of this country. It's not even the choice for my Neurology team to make. My baby needs me to be healthy. My 3 year old little boy does too!!

You really never know what happens behind closed doors, all the more reason to trust women and give them their right to choice. This was just an insight into my life for the last few weeks. I need your yes vote. It will be too late for this pregnancy but not for future women in similar situations. I don't think I could ever go through this again but especially not if the no vote wins. I will always be a high risk for strokes now in any future pregnancies and knowing the limited care this country can provide me under current legislation is not very comforting.

I can't believe this is actually my story. It's been really hard to write, it seems so real and final and totally out of my control. Please consider voting YES for me.

#Repealthe8th #togetherforyes #prochoice

This is happening right now in Ireland. A woman being denied treatment right at this very moment because of the 8th.

I am watching a young guy standing on the wall of the Phoenix park, tying a no payer to a light inside the wall.
Surely the park rangers will take that down?

What is the law with posters on light poles along the street?

ELM327

January wrote: »

This is happening right now in Ireland. A woman being denied treatment right at this very moment because of the 8th.

Robert will say she's lying.
Or not post for a few days and ignore.


There is no factual riposte for the facts, which are that the 8th blocks a full spectrum of treatments for the mother.
The fact that a 10 week old foetus (which is at that point the size of a small grape for context - I know, I've seen one) has an "advocate" disgusts me.

pitifulgod

pleas advice wrote: »

ah now, whats the proportion of pro-life vs pro-choice that have been banned, compared to the proportion posting on these threads? whats the threshold of 'acceptable posting' for one side vs the other? Haven't seen any banned just for expressing a pro-choice view, can't say the same for the other side.
(not that I'm complaining about the modding, its an impossible task to take on, but theres probably 10 times the amount of posts being reported from one side against the other than vice versa)

Generally there has been a higher proportion of users from the no side who are willing to go rather nasty. Eg saying crap like "Murderer", posting foetuses or just being cruel. Guess that would account in terms of proportion banned on both sides.

freshpopcorn

bubblypop wrote: »

What is the law with posters on light poles along the street?

I know in my local town Yes/No posters are on light polls. I think the issue is with ESB polls.

ELM327

Overheal wrote: »

Isn't that Irish Referendum tradition? "The vote didn't turn out how we wanted so we're doing it again?"

In this case it should happen in the event of a NO vote.
But this time leave it only 6 months but outlaw all lies and foreign money.

Annasopra

pleas advice wrote: »

ah now, whats the proportion of pro-life vs pro-choice that have been banned, compared to the proportion posting on these threads? whats the threshold of 'acceptable posting' for one side vs the other? Haven't seen any banned just for expressing a pro-choice view, can't say the same for the other side.
(not that I'm complaining about the modding, its an impossible task to take on, but theres probably 10 times the amount of posts being reported from one side against the other than vice versa)

Thats not true either. Noone has been banned for just expressing a pro life view. Its more trolling, repetive posting (and refusing to engage in discussion) and extremist pro life view like mandatory hysterectomies that have been banned. I dont think the volume of reporting matters a jot. I know I reported quite a few pro choice posts too by the way. Its more that the volume of trolling and extremism was done way more by pro life posters.

ELM327

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Thats not true either. Noone has been banned for just expressing a pro life view. Its more trolling, repetive posting (and refusing to engage in discussion) and extremist pro life view like mandatory hysterectomies that have been banned. I dont think the volume of reporting matters a jot. I know I reported quite a few pro choice posts too by the way. Its more that the volume of trolling and extremism was done way more by pro life posters.

Interestingly I have not seen any pro choice trolls.

circadian

Looks like the poster war outside Beaumont hospital has kicked off again. All the yes posters are replaced by No posters, happened a few weeks back as well.