The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Leroy42

Stonedpilot wrote: »

So why mention the walking around?.

You think killing female babies in the womb then dumping the remains in a hazard bin is empathy?.

All this false empathy from some quarters of the yes is sickening.

"Oh I have so much empathy for this total total stranger as she agrees with me on a point that I have heard 30 seconds of her story but that doesnt matter we have a sacred bond".

Yeah right.

Empathy eh. Planned Parenthood (huge US abortion clinic) sell the dead babies to medical research and God knows what else after killimg them.

Empathy eh. Gimme a break.

Your false contrived "empathy" is worse than none.

You don't need to know someone to have empathy!

noun
the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

It is being able to step outside your own narrow views and experience and try to understand what another person is going through.

Hector Savage

Travellers on NewsTalk now talking about this, of course they are pro "life".

Saying how its important to be kind and loving to kids and not to "murder" them.
So ... sulky racing, bare knuckle fighting, letting 5 year olds down pints in a pub - thats all grand so ???


Jesus the irony.

Zubeneschamali

brendanwalsh wrote: »

It will lead to a slippery slope imo.

Just like people now get divorced a week before they get married to their dog and adopt a gay penguin, right? We warned them!

nozzferrahhtoo

Deleted User wrote: »

What's the craic with the "trust women" slogan on yes posters? I think its a bit of a strawman argument. The no side is not saying they don't trust women.

In effect a lot of them are. When they suggest women are going to go around having multiple abortions. Or that women are going around not taking responsibility for their actions. Or that if the cut off limit is set too high that women are going to have late term terminations for nothing but a whim. Or that women do not think long and hard about the reasons for seeking a termination at all.

Of course this is not "The no side" doing this, as if we could paint them all with the same brush or something. We should not be doing THAT of course. But that this is a common theme coming out of many individuals in that camp is certainly true.

Cupcake_Crisis

Stonedpilot wrote: »

0.59 I cant get words out 1.00 they come out just fine. She had an abortion could possibly regret it who knows and describes "walking around Bermingham alone" as traumatic. Bermingham isnt Baghdad now.

The story wasnt as harrowing as perhaps she anticipated except for Ronans gaff be forgotten about.

Heres the thing. Saying someone deserves love and respect isnt that offensive a thing to say!.

I could understand the yes side making a song and dance of it if he said she DIDNT deserve love and respect.

The uproar is that he offered that girl absolution when 1- she never asked for it and 2- he has no right to offer it in the first place. It was patronizing beyond belief. If a similar sentiment had of been offered to someone from the no side sharing a story that was traumatic for them there’d have been similar uproar.

Nettle Soup

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Just like people now get divorced a week before they get married to their dog and adopt a gay penguin, right? We warned them!

OldNotWIse

sjb25 wrote: »

Shower did the same down my way here last few days they also stood outside the Wexford park GAA pitch when match was over Sunday shouting about killing baby’s I’d my 5 year old with me many other parents with kids around aswell no need for it at all I was sort of on the fence I was yes leaning but that incident at the GAA match pushed me right over the edge absolute disgrace they were

Whilst I disagree completely with shock tactics and crude posters, I am somewhat bewildered by people who base their vote on the behavior of one particular side. To me, the vote is about whether or not you support repeal of the 8th amendment, but so many people I know have come out and said "oh I have decided to vote yes or no because of the bold boys and girls on the other side with their bad tactics" - how is the behavior of one side relevant to how you feel on the 8th?

nozzferrahhtoo

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Your false contrived "empathy" is worse than none.

What is pretty poor form is that a lot of people seem to contrive to not even use the word empathy correctly. As if they do not know what it means. Claiming we should feel "empathy" for the fetus or some such.

Empathy "the ability to understand and share the feelings of another."

How can you "share the feelings of another" when that other does not even HAVE feelings in the first place. Or, even more accurately, the "other" is not even there TO have feelings in the first place.

antiskeptic

copeyhagen wrote: »

The no campaigners on the Finglas road yesterday at the overpass with the pictures of a dead foetus, covered in blood with the slogan something like "is this healthcare" should be ashamed of themselves, I hope they pushed a lot of 'on the fencers' into the yes side, purely by that disgusting display.

Have you heard of the concept of informed consent?

Do you yourself want to be informed in giving your consent?

Or do you prefer, as we do with our meat, to gaze only on the beautifully presented final product - preferring not to know what was involved in getting it that far.

Do what you like with meat, this is a somewhat more serious matter.

joe40

Stonedpilot wrote: »

storker wrote: »

I have the sneaking suspicion that it wasn't just being in Birmingham* that was traumatising her. It was her situation.

Staggering lack of empathy from the No side. Again.




*Understandable though that might be.

So why mention the walking around?.

You think killing female babies in the womb then dumping the remains in a hazard bin is empathy?.

All this false empathy from some quarters of the yes is sickening.

"Oh I have so much empathy for this total total stranger as she agrees with me on a point that I have heard 30 seconds of her story but that doesnt matter we have a sacred bond".

Yeah right.

Empathy eh. Planned Parenthood (huge US abortion clinic) sell the dead babies to medical research and God knows what else after killimg them.

Empathy eh. Gimme a break.

Your false contrived "empathy" is worse than none.

For all your bluster you do not really think that abortion is "killing a female baby" otherwise you would want women that have abortions and their doctors to go to jail for the act.

Then again maybe you bo believe that in which case your opinion while deplorable is not hypocritical.

So what is abortion  = murder therefore should be punished.

Or I disagree with abortion but since I do not advocate punishment for the women involved I feel it is less of a crime than killing an actual baby.

All yes voters would agree that killing a born baby is a crime and should be punished.

Leroy42

copeyhagen wrote: »

are you for real, that's not giving the details, its a picture of a dead foetus with no information whatsoever, it could have been a natural death inside the womb etc, its ****ing disgusting, scumbags.

It could have been an aborted baby, you don't know either way.

I am saying its pleasant, but if it is showing the reality then how can you be against that. Its a poster, aimed at getting a message across in a second or two. The point is to get people to listen to the message, its not the message itself.

A Yes poster, what does that tell you?

Abortion is a terrible thing, whether it is done early or later on. It is terrible for the woman concerned, effects those around her and effects the foetus.

Wrongway1985

ittakestwo wrote: »

OK. I presume you are referring to the morning after pill? I can never see the law going after a person who took the morning after pill.

No not MAPs those are only effective in a small timeframe, I'm talking similar pills to the ones people are asking they be allowed take under medical supervision. 1000 women are taking those pills per year to have terminations HERE so that's 1000 crimes essentially not being pursued these women are "criminals" in the eyes of the law. The law is not enforced...That's a sham law! Repeal the eight!

neonsofa

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Any no voter I've talked to, they're biggest concern is killing the unborn. There is no "trust" about it.


A ton of the posters bother me. All of them do frankly. I just think that particular Yes poster is quite weak if you look at them all objectively. If you claim the No side is outright lying, then this poster is doing the same tbh. Putting words in the mouth of the opposition that were never said.

The majority of no voters I have spoken to have issue with killing the unborn unless for a "valid" reason- rape, FFA. Their issue in majority of cases is with it being unrestricted up to 12 weeks. The trust comes in there with regards to trusting women that their reason is valid and not voting no because theyd prefer a screening process of sorts (no viable solution to this issue has been proposed though). Whether you share the same understanding of "valid reason" is the issue. But the majority of no people I've talked to, they don't trust that the 12 week unrestricted won't be abused- hence the reference to social abortions and trivial examples like skiing.

Zubeneschamali

antiskeptic wrote: »

Doubt anyone is watching much. Its tedious at this stage.

Loving the reactions from the No bots.

OldNotWIse

Hector Savage wrote: »

Travellers on NewsTalk now talking about this, of course they are pro "life".

Saying how its important to be kind and loving to kids and not to "murder" them.
So ... sulky racing, bare knuckle fighting, letting 5 year olds down pints in a pub - thats all grand so ???


Jesus the irony.

They should be denied an opinion on the matter based on your crass and racist generalization of them?

gmisk

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Just like people now get divorced a week before they get married to their dog and adopt a gay penguin, right? We warned them!

I love my dog so much.... Tell me more about dog marriage?

ohnonotgmail

Leroy42 wrote: »

It could have been an aborted baby, you don't know either way.

I am saying its pleasant, but if it is showing the reality then how can you be against that. Its a poster, aimed at getting a message across in a second or two. The point is to get people to listen to the message, its not the message itself.

A Yes poster, what does that tell you?

Abortion is a terrible thing, whether it is done early or later on. It is terrible for the woman concerned, effects those around her and effects the foetus.

and forcing women to travel abroad makes it better?

antiskeptic

Yes man speak with forked tongue.

If a baby can be aborted because it isn't actually one, then there ought be nothing offensive about a picture of an aborted foetus. Its a piece of bloody meat is all.

Take a trip to the butchers sometime

antiskeptic

OldNotWIse wrote: »

They should be denied an opinion on the matter based on your crass and racist generalization of them?

Theres a report button for that

Zubeneschamali

mzungu wrote: »

MM coming out as pro-choice was not a good career move and he may very well pay for it at the next election. Therefore I believe he is genuine in being pro-choice.

MM knows that FF can't be just the rural grey-haired core that survived the crash. They need young urban votes. Siding with Mattie McGrath and the Healy Raes on this one would be long term suicide.

Delirium

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yes man speak with forked tongue.

If a baby can be aborted because it isn't actually one, then there ought be nothing offensive about a picture of an aborted foetus. Its a piece of bloody meat is all.

Take a trip to the butchers sometime

And if you're pro-life, it seems somewhat strange to support the use of graphic images of dead babies to make your argument.

Penn

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I don't think there is that much wrong with being grateful to your birth mother for choosing to give you life. My own brother was adopted and I am eternally grateful to his birth mum for choosing to see her pregnancy through and give him up - I can't imagine my life without him!

My sister got pregnant in her early 20's. She and her boyfriend weren't together that long, both had fairly low paying jobs, both still living at home. They decided to get an abortion.

Then they changed their mind, and I now have an amazing 13 year old nephew who we all love dearly. Like you, we can't imagine life without him. Hell it's hard to even remember life before him.

But here's the thing; if they'd gone through with it and had the abortion, he never would have been born and that emotional connection never would have been made, We wouldn't be missing a nephew because he never would have been born. Likewise, you have a brother you love dearly, but if the mother had an abortion and you didn't have your brother, you wouldn't know the difference now because you'd never have formed that connection.

I'm glad my sister decided to not have the abortion. More importantly, I'm glad she recognised she had a choice, and she made the choice that was right for her. However I'm disgusted that if she had gone through with the abortion, she would have had to have gone to another country and not been able to get proper medical support here.

The 8th Amendment wouldn't have stopped her from getting an abortion. It would have stopped her from doing so safely in her own country under our own healthcare system and with full and proper after-care.

Zubeneschamali

manual_man wrote: »

On Friday, we vote for the abandonment in this country of protections for the unborn. The protection which we all relied on.

Throughout this entire 35 year farce, abortion on demand has been a short trip over the Irish Sea away.

No-one is alive because of the 8th - we are alive because our mothers made a choice.

antiskeptic

Delirium wrote: »

And if you're pro-life, it seems somewhat strange to support the use of graphic images of dead babies to make your argument.

Take warning images off tobacco products so.

Stonedpilot

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What is pretty poor form is that a lot of people seem to contrive to not even use the word empathy correctly. As if they do not know what it means. Claiming we should feel "empathy" for the fetus or some such.

Empathy "the ability to understand and share the feelings of another."

How can you "share the feelings of another" when that other does not even HAVE feelings in the first place. Or, even more accurately, the "other" is not even there TO have feelings in the first place.

You have validated my point.

I or you or anyone can never feel someone elses emotions.

Sharing in them like the Yes side lets on is a huge lie.

All peoples thoughts and emotions and feelings are somewhat independent despite how much we know them or love them.

Or this thing or "walking in someone elses shoes".

I can try. But to say I would then understand their thoughts emotions and feelings is a blatant lie.

How do you know a unborn baby doesnt have thoughts or feelings?.

I can assure you babies struggling to get away from the surgical tools ripping him or her limb from limb in later term abortions would have thoughts on the issue.

.......

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail

manual_man wrote: »

Some people, when the word change is mentioned, automatically assume that change is a positive. I don't believe that change is always positive. I believe that it can be a positive or negative. There are people all over the world that are filled with sadness that viable lives are destroyed each and every day, in the apparent name of compassion. Exercise your vote. Vote for what you genuinely believe is compassionate

On Friday, we vote for the abandonment in this country of protections for the unborn. The protection which we all relied on. Vote on what you feel in your heart. If you feel abandonment if life is the way to go, then please vote yes, if you want to vote against yourself, then please vote yes. Otherwise, if you value where you came from, if you believe in the sanctity of life, if you feel the pure love and everything that this embodies, then i implore you to vote no.

Considering it wasnt introduced until 1983 how did we all rely on it?

Delirium

antiskeptic wrote: »

Take warning images off tobacco products so.

Nobody is waving packs of cigs in my face in the streets :rolleyes:

antiskeptic

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

MM knows that FF can't be just the rural grey-haired core that survived the crash. They need young urban votes. Siding with Mattie McGrath and the Healy Raes on this one would be long term suicide.

Anyone siding with those clowns is committing suicide. You cant choose your bed fellows sonetimes

.......

This post has been deleted.