The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

Case proven against you.

I am not the person who started replying to you tonight, you chose to and with your usual 'lies' because that is how one has a grown up debate, they just keep calling one a liar.

Why would I want to reply to someone who acts the way you do towards me? I choose to avoid you as all I get is name calling and the mods do nothing about it, but then the site does have Yes advertising on it.

I debate like a grown up, I don't lie. You don't debate like a grown up, because you lie.

I personally wouldn't want to reply to someone who would call me out on any bullsh!t I'd been spewing out. You choose to avoid me because I call you out on your bullsh!t, not because all you get is "name calling".

Stop telling lies and people will stop labeling you a liar, it is really, really simple.

DOS

DubInMeath wrote: »

It was a genuine question, so thanks for answering sort of.

In relation to exercising our individual conscience, however, you don't seem to agree with that from your posts. Is that not a bit of a hypothetical stance? As if repeal is successful people who don't wish to avail of abortion services will be free to do so as per their individual beliefs,while those that do will also be free to do so based on theirs.

Exercising our conscience individually on the vote

I don't believe we should have the individual choice to terminate the life of an unborn.

Look you're a genuine poster. I'm sure we agree on a lot of things but we'll probably have to agree we differ on this one.

_Dara_

nullzero wrote: »

This thread has become a worrying place indeed.
From an objective point tonight's debate was reasonably equal, the notion that there were "winners" shows the problem with this issue; the need for dominion of one side over the other.
There are family members, friends and colleagues etc who hold differing views on the referendum and most hold their views for considered and moderate reasons on both sides, yet all we see here is pathetic thriumphalism and echo chamber post thanking all who agree with our given opinions, the only debate is narrow and related to point scoring, no insult or childish ridicule is too low, we have degenerated into mindless pigs once the insult suits our argument whatever loose approximation of the term we display here.

This issue has highlighted the inability of modern Ireland to have a genuine discourse, neither side have been willing or able to empathize with the other and debate rationally.
Going forward I fear for this country, not because we may legalize abortion, but because we've become so horrifically regressive in terms of how we manage discourse over important issues.

Anywhere there is a debate, there will be attempts to ascertain who won. It’s the nature of the beast, regardless of how solemn the subject matter is. It was the same with last week’s debate. Were you as concerned last week when it was mostly agreed that the No side won?

Moiratat

DarkScar wrote: »

So you've picked 12 weeks as when the foetus becomes a human? Or are you just weasling out of anything approaching a commitment on that by telling us "what the debate is about" with answering anything at all?
If it's a human and you deliberately kill it then it's murder. That's the only logically consistent conclusion. Not interested in what case you're making against what other people say.

So you believe its murder then? So thousands of women are wandering around Ireland who have had abortions, should we worry because they are murderers? Should they be locked up? Should a girl who was raped but took pills be sentences 14 years? Should I go to prison? Am I a murderer?

RobertKK

RobertKK wrote: »

Rob Armstrong is now on my ignore list, so he can post all the crap he wants about me now unhindered.

Were you not giving out about repeal shield in multiple posts and those that use it?

arybvtcw0eolkf

In the poll I voted 50-59%.

I started early by casting my YES vote yesterday.

I won't rejoice at a YES win. I'm actually not pro abortion, but I'm pro choice, compassion and I recognize that termination of pregnancy is a fact of life for thousands of Irish women.

But like every other hard decision the Irish have to make, we sweep it under the carpet and export it.

Its time we grew up and dealt with abortion like a modern society.

Hotblack Desiato

nullzero wrote: »

From an objective point tonight's debate was reasonably equal

That's a fairly minority view, to be frank

the notion that there were "winners" shows the problem with this issue; the need for dominion of one side over the other

I don't recall seeing you complain last week when many posters were saying that No won the debate (even Yes voters were saying this) but tonight when the No side were shown up to have poor arguments and a lack of empathy for women in crisis pregnancy, you cry foul.

As for one side having dominion over the other, currently it's the No side who have dominion over every woman in Ireland by imposing their moralistic viewpoint upon them. If Yes win, nobody will be forced to have an abortion.

Going forward I fear for this country, not because we may legalize abortion, but because we've become so horrifically regressive in terms of how we manage discourse over important issues.

The strategy and tactics of the No side have been utterly despicable and exploitative.

There is only one side trying to have an honest, respectful (and legally funded) campaign here and it's not the No side.

pleas advice

Hellrazer wrote: »

No it doesn't.

It makes me pro choice.You can actually be pro choice but not pro abortion.They are not the same thing.

they are though, 'pro-choice'? choice to do what?
to do what she feels is right in the circumstances,

to abort, if thats the choice

Ken.

Mod- Robertkk and robarmstrong do not post in this thread again. Maybe take it to pm seeing ye have such a hard on for each other. Reason- bating and outright lying.

spookwoman

RobertKK wrote: »

You should look at the other threads and some of the stuff Rob Armstrong posted towards me, he has a problem with me. I am happy to ignore him but he is not able to provide the same courtesy, he looks for arguments and that is why he started with the name calling with childish and lies, so are you going to say he is 'loosing'?

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't want the laws that government plan on bringing in.
You use rape as it is convenient for your argument, you would not use the case of a woman who maybe had an affair behind her husband's back and got pregnant and use abortion as a mean to cover it up as it wouldn't suit the argument you want to evoke.
The constitution could have been changed to limit it to things like rape, but the proposed law covers things like the above which is far away from rape.
So Yes but not under what the government is proposing, so I will vote No.

then you

RobertKK wrote: »

Read back and you will see Yes people here not trusting women when it comes to rape.

I looked back over what you said and came to this. I read this as you twisting things to try and put the blame back on the yes side when we say 12 week covers rape.
Say its is repealed and it says I can get an abortion with in 12 weeks if I got raped and impregnated. I didn't report it due to fear, shame etc. I go to wherever and say I was raped and need an abortion. The first thing that they will want is proof my dear friend. I will be asked did I report it, why did i not and I will become very distressed and probably relive it all over again because of red tape and paperwork. Now how would you have it so I could have that abortion?

Sorry just saw he is banned

nullzero

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That's a fairly minority view, to be frank



I don't recall seeing you complain last week when many posters were saying that No won the debate (even Yes voters were saying this) but tonight when the No side were shown up to have poor arguments and a lack of empathy for women in crisis pregnancy, you cry foul.



The strategy and tactics of the No side have been utterly despicable and exploitative.

There is only one side trying to have an honest, respectful (and legally funded) campaign here and it's not the No side.

I wasn't posting here last week.
You're just sore because I made a point that painted people such as you as the childish bullies you are behaving as.
Grow up a little,posting insulting pictures about people is schoolyard level stuff, it taints everything else you say whether you recognize it or not.

Hellrazer

PurvesGrundy wrote: »

Do you trust women to always make the right decision in this instance?

Absolutely. it’s their choice.

DOS

BarleySweets wrote: »

If, as you clearly stated here in your own words, “you don’t need religion to know right from wrong” is you speaking the truth: why oh why did you treat us all to dozens of rants across a timespan of hours today bemoaning the fact that a secular Ireland that entirely rejects religion would be a doomed society?

Earlier today, you literally gloated about how sure you were that the Irish population is currently 40% staunch Christian and that you are sure that this Christian population is absolutely not dying out, while also asserting that this Christian population will be the ones to keep Ireland on the straight and narrow so I don’t see how you can believe both of those ideologies without contradicting yourself.

A second question, if you feel so strongly that we don’t need religion to know right from wrong, why do we need religion at all?

I stopped reading at 'rants'. I could easily answer but given your tone why bother.

nullzero

DOS wrote: »

Well said.

Thank you,I appreciate that.

storker

DarkScar wrote: »

So you've picked 12 weeks as when the foetus becomes a human?

You don't know where the 12 weeks comes from? Seriously? Have you been following the debate at all?

Or are you just weasling out of anything approaching a commitment on that by telling us "what the debate is about" with answering anything at all?

.

I'm not under any obligation to declare where I believe life begins, but I will say that the 12 weeks that appears to be on the table seems to me and to many medical experts to be far enough from that magical miraculous point in time of yours that that it's an acceptable time limit.

If it's a human and you deliberately kill it then it's murder.

Only in your opinion. In the real world we have laws and courts that make those decisions.

That's the only logically consistent conclusion. Not interested in what case you're making against what other people say.

What other people say tends to be the main thrust of the debate on the no side. But I take your point in the reverse sense and will henceforth concentrate on mainstream No arguments rather than extreme fundamentalist ones. I don't think there's anything to be gained by engaging further with you anyway.

Hellrazer

pleas advice wrote: »

they are though, 'pro-choice'? choice to do what?
to do what she feels is right in the circumstances,

to abort, if thats the choice

No they’re not. it’s pro choice.not pro abortion.
If she wants to abort then it’s her choice. While I may not fully agree with it I and many others have to concede to that woman’s choice.

Makikomi has explained it aswell a few posts above.

Kiwi in IE

gandalf wrote: »

Charisma is not a word I'd associate with Steen. From watching her she has the charisma of a block of ice. She is the most capable of the no side but she lacks empathy.

Of course she lacks empathy. Along with the rest of the no side.

Simon Harris was fabulous. I was apprehensive when I heard he would be representing us, but he was brilliant.

Faugheen

pleas advice wrote: »

robarmstrong wrote: »

I do act like a grown man Bob, I don't feel the need to resort to lying constantly, I don't snidely insult or disregard the likes of mental health being a valid ground for abortion by insinuating women are lying about it..

are people still denying that abortion in the UK is de facto available on request

And yet that's where you want to send your loved ones to get an abortion.

freshpopcorn

Mod NoteRobertkk and robarmstrong are thread band so they can't reply to you!

Hotblack Desiato

nullzero wrote: »

I wasn't posting here last week.
You're just sore because I made a point that painted people such as you as the childish bullies you are behaving as.
Grow up a little,posting insulting pictures about people is schoolyard level stuff, it taints everything else you say whether you recognize it or not.

I'm not sore about anything.

FHE had a completely gormless expression on her face at that moment and honestly it was the first thing it reminded me of. This person thinks that she can pontificate on air about the laws our citizens must live under and we all should listen to her, when she doesn't have the slightest clue.

I see Simon Harris being called a w****r etc. etc. on this thread but you seem okay with that, so that's not "bullying".

But thanks for the advice to "grow up" :rolleyes:

Hotblack Desiato

nullzero wrote: »

I never condoned any behavior on either side, my earlier post was pretty clear the issues lay in both camps.
You are an unpleasant character hanging off the back of the repeal bandwagon, there are plenty like you on the No side too. I'd prefer to avoid all of you boorish bullying childish types regardless of your affiliations.

Such hypocrisy :rolleyes:

BarleySweets

nullzero wrote: »

This thread has become a worrying place indeed.
From an objective point tonight's debate was reasonably equal, the notion that there were "winners" shows the problem with this issue; the need for dominion of one side over the other.
There are family members, friends and colleagues etc who hold differing views on the referendum and most hold their views for considered and moderate reasons on both sides, yet all we see here is pathetic thriumphalism and echo chamber post thanking all who agree with our given opinions, the only debate is narrow and related to point scoring, no insult or childish ridicule is too low, we have degenerated into mindless pigs once the insult suits our argument whatever loose approximation of the term we display here.

This issue has highlighted the inability of modern Ireland to have a genuine discourse, neither side have been willing or able to empathize with the other and debate rationally.
Going forward I fear for this country, not because we may legalize abortion, but because we've become so horrifically regressive in terms of how we manage discourse over important issues.

Fear!


Fear fear fear!


Fear fear fear fear fear!

That’s such a common thread with No-supporters lately that it’s getting ridiculous at this stage. If you’ve got an empirical argument to make or some sort of a point you want to get across, will you just state it plainly without it being draped in such maudlin, emotive, nonsense.

If it’s not DOS and his ranting about how ruined Ireland will be as we shed the shackles imposed upon our society by the church. It’s RobertKK with a metric **** ton of spin and lies and conjecture about women who are going through life-altering crises, and his latest argument tonight: forget about rape victims who may need abortions because some wives might want an abortion if they have an affair that leads to them getting knocked up.

Then there’s you, trying to put across a point that, in reality, we all agree with.
We are all sick to death of this campaign (2-week limit for future referendum campaigns, anyone?) you ruin the chances for anyone agreeing with your post by prophesising doom and fear and spin-waffling away with two paragraphs of flowery nonsense about how this is all indicative of a future Irish society that’ll never be able to enjoy considered discourse. (The ultimate irony, of course, is that a quick browse of your posts indicate that you, yourself, appear incapable of anything approaching considered discourse. I only looked at the last two pages of your posts because they’re all the same tone: fear, shame, emotive, no meat to any arguments you’re trying to make.)

retro:electro

Robertkk id rather not receive PM’s from you, thanks.

nullzero

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Such hypocrisy :rolleyes:

How?

Edit, you know what's don't bother, my ego is too fragile to withstand another nonsensical repsonse punctuated with a rolleyes emoji.
Is that really your go to method of invalidating somebody?

PurvesGrundy

Hellrazer wrote: »

Absolutely. it’s their choice.

How do you know their reasoning is always justified though? It could be abortion for purely career progression or social life. I am not religious or fundamentalist in the slightest, but that is just shallow in my opinion and I am disappointed that it would be deemed acceptable as part of this proposed abortion legislation.

nullzero

BarleySweets wrote: »

Fear!


Fear fear fear!


Fear fear fear fear fear!

That’s such a common thread with No-supporters lately that it’s getting ridiculous at this stage. If you’ve got an empirical argument to make or some sort of a point you want to get across, will you just state it plainly without it being draped in such maudlin, emotive, nonsense.

If it’s not DOS and his ranting about how ruined Ireland will be as we shed the shackles imposed upon our society by the church. It’s RobertKK with a metric **** ton of spin and lies and conjecture about women who are going through life-altering crises, and his latest argument tonight: forget about rape victims who may need abortions because some wives might want an abortion if they have an affair that leads to them getting knocked up.

Then there’s you, trying to put across a point that, in reality, we all agree with.
We are all sick to death of this campaign (2-week limit for future referendum campaigns, anyone?) you ruin the chances for anyone agreeing with your post by prophesising doom and fear and spin-waffling away with two paragraphs of flowery nonsense about how this is all indicative of a future Irish society that’ll never be able to enjoy considered discourse. (The ultimate irony, of course, is that a quick browse of your posts indicate that you, yourself, appear incapable of anything approaching considered discourse. I only looked at the last two pages of your posts because they’re all the same tone: fear, shame, emotive, no meat to any arguments you’re trying to make.)

That is a pile of waffle.
I don't agree with your opinion therefore even though you agree with me you don't agree with me and I'm spreading fear(wtf?) .
Time to get out of the echo chamber.

_Dara_

PurvesGrundy wrote: »

How do you know their reasoning is always justified though? It could be abortion for purely career progression or social life. I am not religious or fundamentalist in the slightest, but that is just shallow in my opinion and I am disappointed that it would be deemed acceptable as part of this proposed abortion legislation.

They might decide that it was a mistake later and they will have to live with it. Such is life. We can’t fully shield people from doing things they will regret. Sometimes people will. It’s unavoidable. And some Irish women are regretting having abortions now. Voting yes doesn’t change that. Indeed maybe more women go ahead with it now because they’ve made the UK commitment and fear time running out. Less breathing room to figure out if it’s what they truly want.

BarleySweets

DOS wrote: »

I stopped reading at 'rants'. I could easily answer but given your tone why bother.

“But given your tone why bother?” Huh?

Surely a man of God, such as yourself, should do as Jesus himself preached and forgive my poor wording and do me the good graciousness of replying to my question without the snootyness? I asked you two genuine questions that I’m curious about, I would welcome any reply you give with an open mind.

brooke 2

DOS wrote: »

The rapist should be dealt with. Not an innocent life taken.

Any thoughts about the victim of the rape?? :mad:

gctest50

nullzero wrote: »

That is a pile of waffle.
I don't agree with your opinion therefore even though you agree with me you don't agree with me and I'm spreading fear(wtf?) .

Time to get out of the echo chamber.

That echo chamber thing is overused

Sometimes almost everyone comes to the same conclusion because it's the right thing ( or close as practical )