The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

DOS

This site has become full of Yes ads this afternoon!

My God it becomes more biased by the hour.

Cupcake_Crisis

Malaya Red Sandlot wrote: »

As a No voter, I do agree that if, hypothetically, Irish women were prevented from having abortions in the UK, it would not be enough to just nod our heads and feel delighted that we've saved all of these babies' lives.

Society does have a duty to provide properly for children whose mothers and fathers are unable or unwilling to do so, because of their circumstances. That doesn't mean passing them around from foster home to foster home, or abandoning them to institutional care, or leaving vulnerable mothers with no support and young children neglected and uncared for.

Even with the current situation, I definitely think our system of foster care and adoption is something that needs to be looked at.

Absolutely to all of the above. But there’s been 35 years to do that. 5 years since the PLDP act came in to do something about it and nothing. The 8th amendment had every opportunity to work and it didn’t. And it won’t. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result.

amcalester

DOS wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/did-the-ancient-celts-practice-human-sacrifice.amp

RobertKK wrote: »

Anyway everyone can see the company TV3 used as a fact checker is getting paid money to advertise for the Yes side, no conflict of interests there...

Facts are facts Robert, doesn't matter who provides them (or checks them).

A fact from a No campaigner is still a fact, the problem the No campaign have is that they don't have many facts and instead rely on lies and half truths.

That's why there's a fact checker taking part in the debate.

Calina

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

Malaya Red Sandlot wrote: »

As a No voter, I do agree that if, hypothetically, Irish women were prevented from having abortions in the UK, it would not be enough to just nod our heads and feel delighted that we've saved all of these babies' lives.

Society does have a duty to provide properly for children whose mothers and fathers are unable or unwilling to do so, because of their circumstances. That doesn't mean passing them around from foster home to foster home, or abandoning them to institutional care, or leaving vulnerable mothers with no support and young children neglected and uncared for.

Even with the current situation, I definitely think our system of foster care and adoption is something that needs to be looked at.

Absolutely to all of the above. But there’s been 35 years to do that. 5 years since the PLDP act came in to do something about it and nothing. The 8th amendment had every opportunity to work and it didn’t. And it won’t.

Also worth noting that a lot of people campaigning against repeal campaigned or voted against PLDP, Ronan Mullen being an example.

FrancieBrady

Savita being used to attack the government and the Yes side is pretty desperate stuff. Not to mention, pathetic, cruel and despicable.

Leroy42

DOS wrote: »

Should Savita's tragedy be used to bring in abortion on demand. NO. The Cure would truly be worse than the poison.

All reasoned citizens must weigh this up on Friday.

I agree that Savita case shouldn't be the basis, it should, and was, used to restart the debate.

And that debate has lead to this ref. And during this ref the No side has failed to point out any way that voting no will help with the likes of Savita or the 3k+ women who travel to the UK and whatever number buy pills over the internet.

RobertKK

Leroy42 wrote: »

What facts did they state were wrong that they did so in error?

You are basically calling a conspiracy, you might believe it to be the case, but as in most things your belief doesn't make it true.

Should the Irish Catholic be used as a fact checker and be advertising for a No vote?
Companies can't pretend to be neutral if one side is paying them money to promote their side.

DOS

Billy86 wrote: »

Yeah, it couldn't at all be that they don't want others needlessly dying like their daughter did. No not at all, what a crazy concept.

Meanwhile the no campaign continue to litter streets across the country both with down syndrome kids against down syndrome Ireland's wishes, and indeed of Savita herself.

The Yes side litter and abuse too. Like that American in Galway not allowing a man put a No poster up. And saying 'fcuk his mother's. There are nasty people on both sides. Not just No as the little bubble thread here would lead one to believe.

Cupcake_Crisis

Calina wrote: »

Also worth noting that a lot of people campaigning against repeal campaigned or voted against PLDP, Ronan Mullen being an example.

Ah Mullen would campaign against a hole in the wall if he thought it’d get him on the telly.

Timberrrrrrrr

DOS wrote: »

This site has become full of Yes ads this afternoon!

My God it becomes more biased by the hour.

As opposed to the constant barrage of NO ads thatbare plastered all over social media for the last few weeks, the multitude of NO posters that are EVERYWHERE all paid for by whom?

FrancieBrady

RobertKK wrote: »

Should the Irish Catholic be used as a fact checker and be advertising for a No vote?
Companies can't pretend to be neutral if one side is paying them money to promote their side.

What have they gotten wrong? A 'fact' by it's nature is usually fairly clear.

Billy86

DOS wrote: »

The Yes side litter and abuse too. Like that American in Galway not allowing a man put a No poster up. And saying 'fcuk his mother's. There are nasty people on both sides. Not just No as the little bubble thread here would lead one to believe.

Again, the no side are using images if downs syndrome children despite being g asked not to, and of savita despite her parents wanting repeal.

I don't think anyone is arguing that there are nasty people on both sides, but the difference is in the no campaign the nastiest ones are the ones running the show.

Cupcake_Crisis

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Savita being used to attack the government and the Yes side is pretty desperate stuff. Not to mention, pathetic, cruel and despicable.

Ok, but the no side are using her too. And they’re doing it with the knowledge that her parents are pro repeal

DOS

Leroy42 wrote: »

I agree that Savita case shouldn't be the basis, it should, and was, used to restart the debate.

And that debate has lead to this ref. And during this ref the No side has failed to point out any way that voting no will help with the likes of Savita or the 3k+ women who travel to the UK and whatever number buy pills over the internet.

And the Yes side don't recognise the right of the unborn, which we all were.

We'll all vote for what we think is the greater good. Democracy.

Leroy42

RobertKK wrote: »

Should the Irish Catholic be used as a fact checker and be advertising for a No vote?
Companies can't pretend to be neutral if one side is paying them money to promote their side.

If they can provide facts then of course. In many previous ref's, (certainly in 1983) the CC were represented in nearly all debates. The CC have plenty of opportunity to involve themselves.

I think you need to look at your own bias. A fact is a fact. The fact checker is supposed to check what was said against the evidence.

If you have an example of the fact checkers getting something wrong then please provide it.

pjohnson

Ah its starting to go full conspiracy now. Thats a good omen.

DOS

Billy86 wrote: »

Again, the no side are using images if downs syndrome children despite being g asked not to, and of savita despite her parents wanting repeal.

I don't think anyone is arguing that there are nasty people on both sides, but the difference is in the no campaign the nastiest ones are the ones running the show.

The ones running the show are the government and media.

pjohnson

DOS wrote: »

The ones running the show are the government and media.

Because they stopped the American funding that traumatised McGuirk right?

DOS

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

As opposed to the constant barrage of NO ads thatbare plastered all over social media for the last few weeks, the multitude of NO posters that are EVERYWHERE all paid for by whom?

I haven't seen those at all.

pjohnson

RobertKK wrote: »

Look who owns this site, and look who own the Journal .ie who is the fact checker TV3 used - Distillers Media, who are getting paid by Yes to advertise here.

This has been corrected here https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057874521/1/#post107065508


None of Roberts claims are true......how unusual

Leroy42

DOS wrote: »

And the Yes side don't recognise the right of the unborn, which we all were.

We'll all vote for what we think is the greater good. Democracy.

They certainly do recognise it (or at least I do) but I also recognise that in certain situations there is a conflict and how do we arrive at a solution.

The No side solution has been proven not to work. You are, by voting no, agreeing that a failed solution is the solution.

Care to give me any examples of how a no vote is going to help solve the issue that we face?

Cupcake_Crisis

DOS wrote: »

I haven't seen those at all.

Convenient. I can’t get away from them. Particularly if I click onto the likes of buzzfeed. A US site no less.

Leroy42

DOS wrote: »

The ones running the show are the government and media.

Until recently you couldn't drink on Good Friday. We still have school admissions determined by religion. The 8th is currently in operation.

The CC has had plenty of time in full control and done some truly horrible things

DOS

Great evening for canvassing this eve. And then in for the Prime Time debate.

Pity Maria Steen isn't on the No side. The Yes side haven't really anyone who can handle her. Certainly not skulking, butter wouldn't melt in his mouth Simon Harris.

ohnonotgmail

DOS wrote: »

Great evening for canvassing this eve. And then in for the Prime Time debate.

Pity Maria Steen isn't on the No side. The Yes side haven't really anyone who can handle her. Certainly not skulking, butter wouldn't melt in his mouth Simon Harris.

Have you anything to add apart from ad homs?

Dressing gown

Dressing gown wrote: »

You’ve dodged the main point which is you presume to speak for the unborn. You cannot presume to know it’s wishes.

Well answer me this. If your mother had not wanted to continue her pregnancy when you were conceived, would you have wanted her to have been forced to carry you? This is a philosophical question not a dig at you as a person. My answer to the question is I would not have wanted my mum to have been forced to carry me.

So DOS any answer to this one or is it too difficult a question to answer.

To me the answer is the same either way.

If you would have had your mother forced to carry you, then you are an inherently selfish individual and should probably recognise that. You should probably have spared your mother and therefore should vote yes.

If you would have spared your mother the pregnancy, you would probably be voting yes anyway.

The unborn do have a voice. Each of us can answer the question and at least to my mind the answer comes out the same way in either event.

DOS

Leroy42 wrote: »

Until recently you couldn't drink on Good Friday. We still have school admissions determined by religion. The 8th is currently in operation.

The CC has had plenty of time in full control and done some truly horrible things

You could drink on Good Friday. People bought cans.

I've gone through all the positives of Christianity earlier.

More correctly human beings do terrible things to each other under the name of religion, communism, fascism and all sorts of ideologies.

gctest50

RobertKK wrote: »

Look who owns this site, and look who own the Journal .ie who is the fact checker TV3 used - Distillers Media, who are getting paid by Yes to advertise here.

You are lying :

Boards.ie: Niamh wrote: »

This is incorrect, Boards has not been a part of Distilled Media (which is now called Distilled SCH) since 2015 and TheJournal.ie has always been a separate entity to Distilled Media/Distilled SCH.

DOS

Dressing gown wrote: »

So DOS any answer to this one or is it too difficult a question to answer.

To me the answer is the same either way.

If you would have had your mother forced to carry you, then you are an inherently selfish individual and should probably recognise that. You should probably have spared your mother and therefore should vote yes.

If you would have spared your mother the pregnancy, you would probably be voting yes anyway.

The unborn do have a voice. Each of us can answer the question and at least to my mind the answer comes out the same way in either event.

If my mother didn't carry me to birth, I as the human I am, would not be here. Different child would be born.

Which is worse being selfish or idly standing by and letting countless babies have their lives terminated?

uptherebels

RobertKK wrote: »

Look who owns this site, and look who own the Journal .ie who is the fact checker TV3 used - Distillers Media, who are getting paid by Yes to advertise here.

I haven't ever seen any ads from yes or no on here.
They must just be targeting you Robert as part of the pro choice conspiracy.