The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Outlaw Pete · 27-04-2017 07:36PM

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

No, I mean what would the process be, not the 'women should be punished if they have sex on purpose' bit. Walk me through how it would happen, what would the guidelines and rules be so that the dirty hoor who let her knickers down stays pregnant and serves her right, and the poor fallen woman who was raped is allowed an abortion because sure she'd probably never have one normally the poor thing.

Ah here we go with the martyrdom..

Haven't seen one user refer to women (who have become pregnant through consensual sex) in that manner, or anything close to it.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 27-04-2017 07:46PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ah here we go with the martyrdom..

Haven't seen one user refer to women (who have become pregnant through consensual sex) in that manner, or anything close to it.

Not in so many words no.

I'd love to continue the debate but I'd imagine you're busy. Somewhere there's a picture of a premature baby with nobody to post it and the words murder and ripped with nobody to type them pete

Zubeneschamali · 27-04-2017 08:03PM

Riskymove wrote: »

The difficulty, as ever, is how these work in pracice and what is required to be proven etc.

I think we should let a doctor take the woman at her word and get on with it - no legal board of busybodys at all.

B_Wayne · 27-04-2017 08:07PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ah here we go with the martyrdom..

Haven't seen one user refer to women (who have become pregnant through consensual sex) in that manner, or anything close to it.

One user referred to them as 'hussies' and another came along to back them up on the use of the term... So it's pretty spot on.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 27-04-2017 08:56PM

B_Wayne wrote: »

One user referred to them as 'hussies' and another came along to back them up on the use of the term... So it's pretty spot on.

Well yeah, and I mean apparently this is news to some people but the abortion debate does also take place outside the confines of boards on sites where people let their true colours show a bit more.

14670893_1245460292192943_4448342188860342845_n.jpg?oh=c6f2a15f7a7d9ed1b739fadc99f1f6e0&oe=5994B1BF

14670893_1245460292192943_4448342188860342845_n.jpg?oh=c6f2a15f7a7d9ed1b739fadc99f1f6e0&oe=5994B1BF

14479788_1230940766978229_3289019511863367309_n.jpg?oh=0d4a864a1e1fbda63a83461f2af346c7&oe=597BE163

14718637_1245460258859613_8911147948119234255_n.jpg?oh=e0a9bfba7ff36c8abfc6bdb9e9af3edc&oe=598D0539

14708165_1245460218859617_1613988011683940566_n.jpg?oh=7d8749affa6ef53e93dbed4102c4e461&oe=598A629B

14100331_1185031934902446_6509214040563311104_n.jpg?oh=ed6e663179168e9f32e4e25b0d323450&oe=5987F69E

14063896_1185030994902540_4915771403129098489_n.jpg?oh=6b1a6df1a306594998220713be9d4172&oe=59771DFC

AtomicHorror · 28-04-2017 01:12AM

B_Wayne wrote: »

One user referred to them as 'hussies' and another came along to back them up on the use of the term... So it's pretty spot on.

Actually, two other users came along to thank ricero for his judgment.

So there's at least three of them in it, and although ricero hasn't shown his face since then, the other two are still posting here:

ricero wrote: »

Liberals are trying to ruin this countries morality. I for one will not vote in abortion to be used as a easy fix for hussies who forget to use contraception

Murrisk · 28-04-2017 04:26AM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ah here we go with the martyrdom..

Haven't seen one user refer to women (who have become pregnant through consensual sex) in that manner, or anything close to it.

B_Wayne wrote: »

One user referred to them as 'hussies' and another came along to back them up on the use of the term... So it's pretty spot on.

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

Well yeah, and I mean apparently this is news to some people but the abortion debate does also take place outside the confines of boards on sites where people let their true colours show a bit more.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Actually, two other users came along to thank ricero for his judgment.

So there's at least three of them in it, and although ricero hasn't shown his face since then, the other two are still posting here:

Yep, and another person in the thread opined that women need make "better choices". I'm interested in what you think the user meant when they typed that, Pete? What's your take on what they meant by 'better choices'? I'm also interested to know if you read the thread before making your 'martyrdom' post? There are clear examples of people being incredibly judgemental of the sexual activity of women. Yet you claim nobody made any posts of that nature. Reading comprehension fail. Or wilful ignorance win. One or the other.

JupiterKid · 28-04-2017 06:14AM

Forcing a woman who has been raped to carry her fetus to full term is utterly barbaric, and anyone on this thread advocating this should be ashamed of themselves.

dav3 · 28-04-2017 08:12AM

JupiterKid wrote: »

Forcing a woman who has been raped to carry her fetus to full term is utterly barbaric, and anyone on this thread advocating this should be ashamed of themselves.

Well we had Mattie Mcgrath on the radio the morning after the Citizens’ Assembly once again stating he is opposed to abortion in all circumstances. He is quite happy forcing a women to have a baby against her will, even if she was raped. I’m sure he’s not the only TD who thinks in this way.

Unfortunately he wasn’t pushed on this by the interviewer, he never is. I believe people with this mindset should be encouraged to come forward and give a full explanation as to why they think forcing a woman to have a baby against her will is a reasonable belief to have.

It’s the only way to show these people that their belief is no longer held by the majority of people in Ireland.

AtomicHorror · 28-04-2017 08:39AM

dav3 wrote: »

Well we had Mattie Mcgrath on the radio the morning after the Citizens’ Assembly once again stating he is opposed to abortion in all circumstances. He is quite happy forcing a women to have a baby against her will, even if she was raped. I’m sure he’s not the only TD who thinks in this way.

Unfortunately he wasn’t pushed on this by the interviewer, he never is. I believe people with this mindset should be encouraged to come forward and give a full explanation as to why they think forcing a woman to have a baby against her will is a reasonable belief to have.

It’s the only way to show these people that their belief is no longer held by the majority of people in Ireland.

I think at a certain point media outlets have to ask themselves if they're really obliged to offer a platform to everyone with a brain-fart about an important topic. And ask themselves if they're offering it for the sake of good journalism or good sales.

A lunatic is free to stand on a box on Grafton Street and speak as he wishes, we don't have to make the decision to hand him a megaphone.

dav3 · 28-04-2017 09:15AM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I think at a certain point media outlets have to ask themselves if they're really obliged to offer a platform to everyone with a brain-fart about an important topic. And ask themselves if they're offering it for the sake of good journalism or good sales.

A lunatic is free to stand on a box on Grafton Street and speak as he wishes, we don't have to make the decision to hand him a megaphone.

Unfortunately he’s an elected TD. By not pushing him further on what he means by ‘opposed to abortion in any circumstances’ or challenging him on his beliefs, there’s a sense of giving credence to his comments and beliefs due to his profile nationally. This applies to the same half dozen names, that we all know, constantly on the airwaves attempting to misinform and muddy the waters when it comes to the abortion debate.

The lunatic on the corner can be dealt with easily. It’s the same faces that they put on rotation from the likes of, the iona institute, pro life campaign, NUI senators, TDs and misguided journalists, that require a bit more effort as they will always be handed a megaphone.
We can see from the Citizens’ Assembly that when people are presented with the all facts in calm and reasonable debate and not influenced by outsiders like the ones mentioned above, they will make the correct choices.

Zubeneschamali · 28-04-2017 09:17AM

dav3 wrote: »

Well we had Mattie Mcgrath on the radio the morning after the Citizens’ Assembly once again stating he is opposed to abortion in all circumstances. He is quite happy forcing a women to have a baby against her will, even if she was raped.

Most of them fall back to "can't she do the walk of shame to England" if pushed.

kunst nugget · 28-04-2017 09:18AM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I think at a certain point media outlets have to ask themselves if they're really obliged to offer a platform to everyone with a brain-fart about an important topic. And ask themselves if they're offering it for the sake of good journalism or good sales..

There's pretty strict rules in place in terms of balanced reporting in relation to referenda (or even potential referenda like repeal the 8th) where both sides have to get equal airing - organisations on both sides seem to monitor the airwaves obsessively and make complaints if they think the other side is getting preferential treatment.

Zubeneschamali · 28-04-2017 09:22AM

dav3 wrote: »

This applies to the same half dozen names, that we all know, constantly on the airwaves attempting to misinform and muddy the waters when it comes to the abortion debate.

Folks in RTE believe that they have to have a "balanced" debate with views on both sides given equal and respectful treatment.

The gay marriage referendum was strange that way, since they were unable to dig out anyone half-way normal to oppose it with "balance", although they tried.

So was their failure to round up opposition due to the fact it was so popular, or did it end up so popular because the anti side were so pathetic?

AtomicHorror · 28-04-2017 11:16AM

kunst nugget wrote: »

There's pretty strict rules in place in terms of balanced reporting in relation to referenda (or even potential referenda like repeal the 8th) where both sides have to get equal airing - organisations on both sides seem to monitor the airwaves obsessively and make complaints if they think the other side is getting preferential treatment.

This I know, but I don't have to like how "balanced" is interpreted by a spineless organisation that fears complaints more than it respects expertise or good journalism.

There will be plenty of voices on the No side with a coherent argument to make. We won't want for balance.

dav3 · 28-04-2017 12:07PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Folks in RTE believe that they have to have a "balanced" debate with views on both sides given equal and respectful treatment.

The gay marriage referendum was strange that way, since they were unable to dig out anyone half-way normal to oppose it with "balance", although they tried.

So was their failure to round up opposition due to the fact it was so popular, or did it end up so popular because the anti side were so pathetic?

It was similar to the Citizen’s Assembly where one side of the debate was unable to put their points across in a meaningful manner. They, like the same-sex marriage referendum relied on misinformation and false facts.

As an aside, there are disgraceful attempts to undermine the Citizens’ Assembly by certain people in the media. One point being that the outcome does not tally with previous polls.

This is a false equivalence. The only way you can compare a poll and the outcome of the Citizen’s Assembly would be to expose the people taking to poll to the same facts, logic and evidence by leading experts and then poll them and compare it to the Citizens’ Assembly outcome. I imagine we would get the same results as the Assembly.

When you expose people to misinformation and fearmongering, having a skewed poll on abortion is inevitable. The attempts to discredit the Citizen’s Assembly should be challenged at every opportunity.

AtomicHorror · 28-04-2017 12:21PM

dav3 wrote: »

As an aside, there are disgraceful attempts to undermine the Citizens’ Assembly by certain people in the media. One point being that the outcome does not tally with previous polls.

This is a false equivalence. The only way you can compare a poll and the outcome of the Citizen’s Assembly would be to expose the people taking to poll to the same facts, logic and evidence by leading experts and then poll them and compare it to the Citizens’ Assembly outcome. I imagine we would get the same results as the Assembly.

When you expose people to misinformation and fearmongering, having a skewed poll on abortion is inevitable. The attempts to discredit the Citizen’s Assembly should be challenged at every opportunity.

This was something that came to my mind last week as well.

Although I'm happy with the outcome of the CA, I still do think that a sample so small cannot be considered statistically representative of the population.

What I think would be really interesting would be any data on the participants attitudes on entry into the CA. And then of course equivalent polling on exit.

Was the wording of the ballots known at the start of the CA meetings on Article 40.3.3? Was any entry polling done?

It would be very interesting to see if the CA were similar to the general populace in attitudes and whether access to experts moved people's position on various matters.

kunst nugget · 28-04-2017 12:21PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Folks in RTE believe that they have to have a "balanced" debate with views on both sides given equal and respectful treatment.

It's not that the folks in RTÉ believe they have to have a balanced debate - all radio stations are required by the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland to have balanced coverage with both sides being given equal treatment.

NuMarvel · 28-04-2017 12:23PM

dav3 wrote: »

It was similar to the Citizen’s Assembly where one side of the debate was unable to put their points across in a meaningful manner. They, like the same-sex marriage referendum relied on misinformation and false facts.

As an aside, there are disgraceful attempts to undermine the Citizens’ Assembly by certain people in the media. One point being that the outcome does not tally with previous polls.

This is a false equivalence. The only way you can compare a poll and the outcome of the Citizen’s Assembly would be to expose the people taking to poll to the same facts, logic and evidence by leading experts and then poll them and compare it to the Citizens’ Assembly outcome. I imagine we would get the same results as the Assembly.

When you expose people to misinformation and fearmongering, having a skewed poll on abortion is inevitable. The attempts to discredit the Citizen’s Assembly should be challenged at every opportunity.

What's somewhat encouraging is that the first poll after the Assembly concluded showed broadly similar results to the opinions of the Assembly members.

The Claire Byrne Live poll showed that, when don't knows were excluded, 60% of people favoured access to abortion with no restrictions with 40% against. The result from the Assembly was 64% in favour, 36% against. There is a caveat with that, because the Don't Knows in the CB Live poll were at 17%, so sizeable enough to make a different either way. But it's a good start just one day later.

I think it would be beneficial for everyone if the media used the CA criteria; reasons and timeframes, for future polls. It's what the Oireachtas will be looking at, so it will build a better picture of public opinion.

AtomicHorror · 28-04-2017 12:25PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

It's not that the folks in RTÉ believe they have to have a balanced debate - all radio stations are required by the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland to have balanced coverage with both sides being given equal treatment.

Sure, but if, for the sake of argument, a TD wished to opine that we should vote no because it is the will of the faeries, does BAI require that his opinion get an airing, or is it sufficient that equal time and exposure be granted to the no side, but with discretion as to the bonkersness of the actual voices given a platform?

eviltwin · 28-04-2017 12:26PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

This was something that came to my mind last week as well.

Although I'm happy with the outcome of the CA, I still do think that a sample so small cannot be considered statistically representative of the population.

What I think would be really interesting would be any data on the participants attitudes on entry into the CA. And then of course equivalent polling on exit.

Was the wording of the ballots known at the start of the CA meetings on Article 40.3.3? Was any entry polling done?

It would be very interesting to see if the CA were similar to the general populace in attitudes and whether access to experts moved people's position on various matters.

They were asked before they were selected on their views on abortion. Anyone with links to a pro choice or pro life campaign was not selected.

kunst nugget · 28-04-2017 12:28PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

This I know, but I don't have to like how "balanced" is interpreted by a spineless organisation that fears complaints more than it respects expertise or good journalism.

There will be plenty of voices on the No side with a coherent argument to make. We won't want for balance.

In referenda like the one for the Marriage Equality one, it did end giving a lot of power to fringe groups like the Iona Institute as they were one of the few groups opposing it but thems the breaks.

I still think the fair and balanced approach is the only way to go - it stops dissent about unfair treatment in the media if the vote goes against them.

AtomicHorror · 28-04-2017 12:34PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

In referenda like the one for the Marriage Equality one, it did end giving a lot of power to fringe groups like the Iona Institute as they were one of the few groups opposing it but thems the breaks.

But was that the BAI or RTE's fear of the BAI erring on the side of caution?

kunst nugget wrote: »

I still think the fair and balanced approach is the only way to go - it stops dissent about unfair treatment in the media if the vote goes against them.

I hope so. My only worry on it, is that in the US elections, DJT was getting knocked down in the polls when directly debating his opponent, but as soon as the debates ended, so did his declining polls. Unless the direct confrontation of a dishonest/illogical/post-factual side is near-continuous to an exhausting extent, the effect of that challenge in polling seems to be very short-lived. I'm just not so convinced anymore that granting fringe voices a platform is as wise or effective as we assume.

NuMarvel · 28-04-2017 12:34PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

It's not that the folks in RTÉ believe they have to have a balanced debate - all radio stations are required by the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland to have balanced coverage with both sides being given equal treatment.

The 50/50 balance rule only applies during referendum campaigns. Outside of that, the rules are that broadcasters must be fair and objective. But as the BAI said, there's no automatic requirement for balance or equal airtime to be fair.

kunst nugget · 28-04-2017 12:35PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Sure, but if, for the sake of argument, a TD wished to opine that we should vote no because it is the will of the faeries, does BAI require that his opinion get an airing, or is it sufficient that equal time and exposure be granted to the no side, but with discretion as to the bonkersness of the actual voices given a platform?

No, it wouldn't mean that his opinion would have to be aired, it just means that if it is aired, equal coverage has to be given to an opposing argument. Like I said, I think the problem has been with the previous couple of a referendum (Marriage Equality, Children's Rights) only fringe groups were in the opposition camp which lead to them being given a lot of media power - it didn't do much damage to the outcome of the votes.

kunst nugget · 28-04-2017 12:38PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

The 50/50 balance rule only applies during referendum campaigns. Outside of that, the rules are that broadcasters must be fair and objective. But as the BAI said, there's no automatic requirement for balance or equal airtime to be fair.

They seem to get a lot of complaints from both sides any time this issue is raised outside of referenda about balance and fairness if only one side of the argument is being favoured. Hasn't Ray D'arcy been stung a couple of times in relation to it?

kunst nugget · 28-04-2017 12:39PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

But was that the BAI or RTE's fear of the BAI erring on the side of caution?

RTÉ would be following the BAI guidelines to avoid complaints being upheld against them.

AtomicHorror · 28-04-2017 12:39PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

RTÉ would be following the BAI guidelines to avoid complaints being upheld against them.

I think they have a duty to push the envelope and exercise some discretion though, complaints or otherwise.

kunst nugget wrote: »

No, it wouldn't mean that his opinion would have to be aired, it just means that if it is aired, equal coverage has to be given to an opposing argument. Like I said, I think the problem has been with the previous couple of a referendum (Marriage Equality, Children's Rights) only fringe groups were in the opposition camp which lead to them being given a lot of media power - it didn't do much damage to the outcome of the votes.

In which case we can hope that the loonies are crowded out by more moderate No's... well ok, I hope so.

In theory that is what should happen since this is a more divisive topic, but I guess we'll see if RTE get that quite soon.

eviltwin · 28-04-2017 12:43PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

The 50/50 balance rule only applies during referendum campaigns. Outside of that, the rules are that broadcasters must be fair and objective. But as the BAI said, there's no automatic requirement for balance or equal airtime to be fair.

does that apply across the board? I can't see ,for example, Spirit FM, which has a strong Christian ethos, taking on a balanced view on this issue

Zubeneschamali · 28-04-2017 12:58PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

It's not that the folks in RTÉ believe they have to have a balanced debate - all radio stations are required by the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland to have balanced coverage with both sides being given equal treatment.

But when one side consists of a bunch of hypercatholic pre Vatican 2 dinosaurs, and the other side consists of everybody else, this "balance" is entirely artificial.

Take the SSM referendum - the only way to have a balanced debate would be no debate. The anti crew were mad, just letting them speak destroyed their own side.

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Comments