Mexican stand off at RTE Primetime

drunkmonkey

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Any sign of an explanation from the No campaign?.

"A statement from Love Both campaign said Ms Sherlock withdrew because the group wanted a medical professional from the anti-abortion campaign to debate Prof Higgins. Despite this, the group nominated Ms Steen, who is not a medic. She is a qualified barrister, but has not practiced in a number of years.

The statement went on to say: “The public is entitled to a fair presentation of the issues before the referendum. RTÉ chose not to deliver that in their original panel.”
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/maria-steen-will-take-part-in-tv3-debate-having-previously-pulled-out-1.3505341

It's a fair enough point about a doctor on both sides, maybe 3 on each side would have been a better format than no women involved.

Danjamin1

kerry cow wrote: »

I will be voting no , because it's not right to end a life, only in the event the mothers life was in danger .we have a allowance for that already .Yes we have lost a few mothers to mistakes but we have saved so many babies lives with the system we have .
Rape cases don't have to wait 10 , 12 0r 20 weeks to terminate .
Your raped today , take the morning after pill this evening .
What's the big issue .the deed is done .
There is many a downs child loved up and down the country .If it was normal to abort , we would not have their presents .
Is it a perfect race that is been sought here ? Is it a reduced maintenance bill the government want on long term health care ?
I believe we should have a little more reflection in our lives , on why are we here ? We should be glad of the hand that we are dealt and deal with it .life is about challenges and how we cope .
How many children have been born to young people who's parents flipped it when they heard the news ? Some babies were aborted , some were not .If you asked the survivors to give their little ones back , it won't happen , why because they are loved by all , and it wasn't as bad as people made out .
People will read this post who have aborted or who are thinking of aborting and who did not abort .why not let that baby grow , adopt out , there are so many wanting children that can nt have .
I will vote no and at this point it doesn't matter to me if the yes side win , because all I can do is the right thing , lead my life as best I can , harm no one and Let all life grow .
I am not any set religion but am a believer in the right to live .

Is that you Michael Healy-Rae?

Loafing Oaf

drunkmonkey wrote: »

"A statement from Love Both campaign said Ms Sherlock withdrew because the group wanted a medical professional from the anti-abortion campaign to debate Prof Higgins. Despite this, the group nominated Ms Steen, who is not a medic. She is a qualified barrister, but has not practiced in a number of years.

The statement went on to say: “The public is entitled to a fair presentation of the issues before the referendum. RTÉ chose not to deliver that in their original panel.”
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/maria-steen-will-take-part-in-tv3-debate-having-previously-pulled-out-1.3505341

It's a fair enough point about a doctor on both sides, maybe 3 on each side would have been a better format than no women involved.

Yeah I had presumed that Cora got cold feet at the last minute but it looks like No were trying to pull a fast one by substituting Maria. They should just have been honest from day one and said she's our best player, we want her on all the showpiece debates. If Harris refused to debate her well that would just reflect badly on him...

Try_harder

If No wanted a medic why nominate a non practicing solicitor?

Penn

drunkmonkey wrote: »

"A statement from Love Both campaign said Ms Sherlock withdrew because the group wanted a medical professional from the anti-abortion campaign to debate Prof Higgins. Despite this, the group nominated Ms Steen, who is not a medic. She is a qualified barrister, but has not practiced in a number of years.

The statement went on to say: “The public is entitled to a fair presentation of the issues before the referendum. RTÉ chose not to deliver that in their original panel.”
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/maria-steen-will-take-part-in-tv3-debate-having-previously-pulled-out-1.3505341

It's a fair enough point about a doctor on both sides, maybe 3 on each side would have been a better format than no women involved.

If it was a fair enough point, why didn't the No side ask to put a doctor on instead of Steen? From RTE's statements, they were willing to have anyone on bar Ms Steen due to her having been on the last debate. It could have still been two-on-two, with Toibin and a doctor nominated by the No side.

I think it's clear that the No side, having seen Maria's performance on the last debate, just wanted her on this one too to try and keep that momentum. It's backfired significantly.

Charmeleon

Three on each side would have been better, pulling out though looks really bad for the no campaign. Any point about fairness could have been made in the debate itself.

Akrasia

pleas advice wrote: »

The same way that everyone is pro choice

Not in this case. The pro-life campaign are explicitly against giving women the choice to terminate their pregnancy.

Even when that choice is a tragic choice between terminating early, or carrying a pregnancy that will either miscarry, be stillborn, or die very shortly after birth.

beertons

Is Toby fronting for the Mexican's now?

GreeBo

kerry cow wrote: »

harm no one and Let all life grow .
I am not any set religion but am a believer in the right to live .

Other than the potential lives you end before they can begin by advocating the morning-after pill?

You dont see a contradiction at all in this approach?
By definition, you are taking the morning after pill to stop a life from growing.
Hows that different than having an abortion other than via semantics about when life starts?

Charmeleon

GreeBo wrote: »

Other than the potential lives you end before they can begin by advocating the morning-after pill?

You dont see a contradiction at all in this approach?
By definition, you are taking the morning after pill to stop a life from growing.
Hows that different than having an abortion other than via semantics about when life starts?

No one knows, when they take the MAP, whether there is a fertilized egg or not and the chances are very high there isn’t. You could argue, if you believe human rights apply from conception, that it is a reckless act but could never be proved either way.

GreeBo

Charmeleon wrote: »

No one knows, when they take the MAP, whether there is a fertilized egg or not and the chances are very high there isn’t. You could argue, if you believe human rights apply from conception, that it is a reckless act but could never be proved either way.

Sure you don't know, but the *only* reason you are taking it is to prevent one.

In actuality you might not be preventing one, but thats frankly irrelevant to the argument.

Charmeleon

GreeBo wrote: »

Sure you don't know, but the *only* reason you are taking it is to prevent one.

In actuality you might not be preventing one, but thats frankly irrelevant to the argument.

It’s the willful prevention of a possible pregnancy, the same as many forms of contraception. Abortion is (usually) only carried out after it is positively confirmed that a developing baby is present.

Hitman3000

I think RTE played a blinder and refused to be bullied by the NO campaign. To those in the NO camp , serious f**k up on yer part.

BoatMad

I will vote no and at this point it doesn't matter to me if the yes side win , because all I can do is the right thing , lead my life as best I can , harm no one and Let all life grow .

were life that simple, the fact that there many variations of the " right thing " in real life , seems to have passed you completely by

Ally Dick

Danjamin1 wrote: »

Is that you Michael Healy-Rae?

Is that you Mary Lou?

drunkmonkey

Here we go..

In the Dáil today, Independent TD Mattie McGrath alleged that Ms Steen was not allowed on the programme because Mr Harris was “afraid” of her.

bauderline

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Here we go..

In the Dáil today, Independent TD Mattie McGrath alleged that Ms Steen was not allowed on the programme because Mr Harris was “afraid” of her.

Are we supposed to consider that as fact rather than a political cheap shot from Mattie... a pretty poor one at that.

Hitman3000

drunkmonkey wrote:

In the Dáil today, Independent TD Mattie McGrath alleged that Ms Steen was not allowed on the programme because Mr Harris was “afraid†of her.

Mattie sat in the audience of CB and repeatedly shouted liar at Dr Boylan. Do you think if Mattie says something it's factual?

Try_harder

McGuirk tried to shaft Sherlock to put in Stein - who is not a medical professional- and it backfired- watching it backfire and them now making up convoluted stories would be funny if the issue were not so serious

Annabella1

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Here we go..

In the Dáil today, Independent TD Mattie McGrath alleged that Ms Steen was not allowed on the programme because Mr Harris was “afraid” of her.

Mattie has become one of the foot in mouth brigade who will bring the yes vote out

Calling an obstetrician with 40 years experience who has saved countless lives of mothers and babies ' a liar' is a disgrace (even if you don't agree with his viewpoint)

kerry cow

Danjamin1 wrote:

Is that you Michael Healy-Rae?

Kerrybull

GreeBo

Charmeleon wrote: »

It’s the willful prevention of a possible pregnancy, the same as many forms of contraception. Abortion is (usually) only carried out after it is positively confirmed that a developing baby is present.

Lets be clear here, its the willful prevention of a possible baby, just like abortion is.

Hence why I think the "no" argument, for me, is nonsensical.

The only way to logically & fully satisfy their argument is to only have sex if you are trying to conceive. Anything else is denying the rights of the unborn (who also happens to be, un-conceived, unfertilized and largely un-believable at that time)

Charmeleon

GreeBo wrote: »

Lets be clear here, its the willful prevention of a possible baby, just like abortion is.

Hence why I think the "no" argument, for me, is nonsensical.

The only way to logically & fully satisfy their argument is to only have sex if you are trying to conceive. Anything else is denying the rights of the unborn (who also happens to be, un-conceived, unfertilized and largely un-believable at that time)

Any supervised abortion requires that a living fetus(baby) is identified beforehand. If it was a possible baby, that would, completely ironically, be considered ‘unethical’ treatment.

The rest of your argument makes no logical sense to me and seems to exist only as a strawman.

Mr E

We're done here, guys. We've moved away from Primetime and onto a discussion about the 8th.

Thread closed. Go to After Hours, Politics or Politics Café to talk about the referendum.

See you tonight for the TV3 debate.