The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

AnGaelach · 28-04-2017 01:08PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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

It's a pretty standard tactic - they try to paint you as some kind of 70 year old puritan if you're pro-life. I'm only in my 20s and I've been accused of being a sexual puritan who wants to use women as breeding mares before (not in this thread, but other ones certainly). It's ridiculous at this stage.

AnGaelach · 28-04-2017 01:24PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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?

I had no problem with gay marriage but to be completely fair, it would be social suicide to come out against it (abortion is much more nuanced so there might be a more "open" argument for/against it) so of the 37% of people who voted against it, the majority certainly didn't tell their friends or family they were voting that way.

AnGaelach · 28-04-2017 01:26PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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.

I'm lapsed Catholic at best, I don't look to the Church for moral direction, and I'm in my 20s... Yet I'm anti-abortion. Where does this place me in your black/white model?

seamus · 28-04-2017 01:29PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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 issue here is the level of nepotism that goes around broadcasting circles. The same reason why we see the same old presenters getting the same old jobs in RTE again and again and no space being made for new talent.

At a national level, Iona are nobodies. They have no specific affiliation or remit under the catholic church, no membership, unclear sources of funding, and seem to exist entirely as a platform for two or three conservative catholic journalists. They don't "do" anything except comment on stuff.

So the question has to be asked as to why anyone gives them the time of day? Why do Iona seem to appear every time anything with a remotely religious slant is being discussed? Why not Una Bean Mic Mathuna? Or the Irish Countrywomens' Association? They are as big and influential to the Irish population as Iona are.

Enter Tom Savage. A former priest, husband of Terry Prone, father of Anton Savage and founder/director of the communications clinic. A PR firm who represent a lot of Irish people, including many of those in RTE, Fine Gael, and with strong links to those in Iona and other bodies.

Oh and of course, Tom was also a broadcaster on RTE and a member of the board up until 2014.

So it would be fair to say that Tom and his company had/have significant influence within RTE when it comes to getting people on air. In fact, I don't think it would be unfair to say that RTE just ring the communications clinic and ask them who should go on air.

Tom died 4 weeks ago, and while I've no doubt Terry Prone is still best buds with a lot of the senior figures in RTE and Iona, it'll be interesting to see if the links start to wane and Iona find themselves being squeezed out in favour of other conservative political commentators.

Geuze · 28-04-2017 01:40PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

I'm lapsed Catholic at best, I don't look to the Church for moral direction, and I'm in my 20s... Yet I'm anti-abortion. Where does this place me in your black/white model?

I agree.

I am similar, I am not mass-going, I see myself as a reasonable person.

I was against SSM, and would be against abortion-on-demand.

You'd need to convince me to vote for limited abortion, beyond what is already available.

seamus · 28-04-2017 01:43PM

Geuze wrote: »

You'd need to convince me to vote for limited abortion, beyond what is already available.

As a matter of interest; since the vote will be on giving the Dail the comptency to legislate on abortion (more restrictive or less restrictive), what's your opinion on that?

You won't be asked to vote to make abortion more available, just to ensure that we don't have to have a national referendum every time someone discovers a flaw in the constitution in relation to abortion.

dav3 · 28-04-2017 02:01PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

I'm lapsed Catholic at best, I don't look to the Church for moral direction, and I'm in my 20s... Yet I'm anti-abortion. Where does this place me in your black/white model?

The leaders of the Catholic church and it’s devotees played and intrinsic part in amending the constitution. Although they’ve tried to fight subsequent referendum via proxies and the usual names and organisations, when a referendum is eventually called, they should be leading the charge to keep the 8th amendment as they were in 1983 when they lead a campaign of fear and misinformation.
If the Catholic church’s stance has changed since then, they should let us know. We all know this is not the case, and as they are primarily responsible for amending the 8th in 1983 they should be brought to the forefront of any debate to explain their reasons for keeping this amendment in place.

Where this leaves you, is up to you. But you certainly can’t distance yourself from a religious organisation who were responsible for running a campaign to amend the state constitution 1983, an amendment that we are currently discussing.

AnGaelach · 28-04-2017 02:12PM

dav3 wrote: »

Where this leaves you, is up to you. But you certainly can’t distance yourself from a religious organisation who were responsible for running a campaign to amend the state constitution 1983, an amendment that we are currently discussing.

Ah, so I'm guilty-by-association?

I'll have you know that you're actually infringing on my Constitutional right to disassociation.

seamus wrote: »

As a matter of interest; since the vote will be on giving the Dail the comptency to legislate on abortion (more restrictive or less restrictive), what's your opinion on that?

If you're generally pro-life (as I am), why would you ever accept a scenario where the rights of the unborn is nothing more than a political football that can be exchanged in horse-trading? Our other Constitutional rights are not left up to the Dáil to decide, because they shouldn't be within the realm of the Dáil to decide. I don't think a political party should be able to make abortion more or less restrictive based solely on horse-trading. I don't think our rights should be diminished like that.

AtomicHorror · 28-04-2017 02:13PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

It's a pretty standard tactic - they try to paint you as some kind of 70 year old puritan if you're pro-life. I'm only in my 20s and I've been accused of being a sexual puritan who wants to use women as breeding mares before (not in this thread, but other ones certainly). It's ridiculous at this stage.

To be fair, we've seen clear examples of some very unkind characterization of women by some posters on your side of the divide. The responses to those are directed at those who make the comments and those who support those comments.

You notably did not thank the poster who slurred women seeking abortions as "hussies", so naturally you are not the target of criticism of that user or those who agreed with him

....... · 28-04-2017 02:15PM

This post has been deleted.

keano_afc · 28-04-2017 02:16PM

So you can only be opposed to abortion if you're Catholic? What utter tripe.

AnGaelach · 28-04-2017 02:18PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

To be fair, we've seen clear examples of some very unkind characterization of women by some posters on your side of the divide. The responses to those are directed at those who make the comments and those who support those comments.

In this instance, yes, but I have been called puritan and I have been told I want to use women as brood-mares before - when the pro-choice side want nothing more than to discredit your character.

There are some unsavoury characters on this side of the aisle as well, granted.

AtomicHorror · 28-04-2017 02:19PM

Geuze wrote: »

I agree.

I am similar, I am not mass-going, I see myself as a reasonable person.

I was against SSM, and would be against abortion-on-demand.

You'd need to convince me to vote for limited abortion, beyond what is already available.

Who in the world sees themselves as unreasonable?

Pretty much nobody does. Yet almost everyone is, in fact, quote unreasonable. That's just being human. Accepting that you are prone to unreasonable, irrational thinking and behavior is the first step to correcting the problem.

Your position, by contrast, demands no change of you. Handy.

AtomicHorror · 28-04-2017 02:23PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

In this instance, yes, but I have been called puritan and I have been told I want to use women as brood-mares before - when the pro-choice side want nothing more than to discredit your character.

There are some unsavoury characters on this side of the aisle as well, granted.

The pro-choice side is also composed of individuals, and I haven't noticed any here calling you a puritan. So can we stop with this "they" stuff?

dav3 · 28-04-2017 02:36PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

Ah, so I'm guilty-by-association? I'll have you know that you're actually infringing on my Constitutional right to disassociation.

I'm not saying you’re guilty of anything. Whether people want to hear it or not, the main actor in keeping the 8th in pace is the catholic church.
I have no doubt there are many people of different religions that would hold the same view as the catholic church on abortion and perhaps even a few people who have no religion would hold the same view also.

The reality is the 8th is there because of the catholic church, they created the monster, they own it. If that makes people who wish to keep the 8th in place uncomfortable, then that is something they will have to deal with themselves.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 28-04-2017 02:46PM

keano_afc wrote: »

So you can only be opposed to abortion if you're Catholic? What utter tripe.

No, but it helps. Vast, vast majority of the most active, vocal and fervent pro life campaigners in this country have always been Catholics. The eighth wouldn't be there without the church. As the church's influence wanes, Ireland is becoming less pro life, although I suppose that's just a coincidence? In general terms you can't really avoid talking about Catholicism when you talk about abortion. I don't blame people for not liking to find themselves on the same side as the Sherlocks and the quinns of the world but there you go.

AnGaelach · 28-04-2017 02:48PM

dav3 wrote: »

I'm not saying you’re guilty of anything. Whether people want to hear it or not, the main actor in keeping the 8th in pace is the catholic church.
I have no doubt there are many people of different religions that would hold the same view as the catholic church on abortion and perhaps even a few people who have no religion would hold the same view also.

The reality is the 8th is there because of the catholic church, they created the monster, they own it. If that makes people who wish to keep the 8th in place uncomfortable, then that is something they will have to deal with themselves.

That's a whole lot of waffle for nothing of consequence. Why are you trying to equate me with an old "hypercatholic dinosaur" when I've told you I'm at best a lapsed Catholic? "It doesn't matter why you believe what you believe because other people also believe that too so you're just like them!"

Would you ever grow up?

Roadhawk · 28-04-2017 02:50PM

Pro choice all the way!!!...the OP should have created a poll for this thread...would have been interesting.

NuMarvel · 28-04-2017 02:55PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

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?

From what I can recall, most of his cases involve a lack of objectivity rather than balance. He was getting caught out for giving his opinion rather than not having a strict 50/50 balance.

eviltwin wrote: »

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

BAI's rules apply to all broadcasters, public and private. I'd have to double check, but I don't think there are allowances for ethos, etc.

Murrisk · 28-04-2017 02:56PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

I'm lapsed Catholic at best, I don't look to the Church for moral direction, and I'm in my 20s... Yet I'm anti-abortion. Where does this place me in your black/white model?

Non-religious, pro-life folk piping up does not negate the fact that the countries most vehemently opposed to abortion have large Catholic populations. Anecdotes are not useful, one needs to look at things on the population level. Of course there exists some atheist anti-abortion folk but it's no conincidence that the countries most opposed to abortion are traditionally Catholic.

njs030 · 28-04-2017 03:19PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

If you're generally pro-life (as I am).

How can you call yourself pro life if you are ignoring the life that currently exists in favor of one that is dependent on her?

Pro life simply means anti choice and should be called such. Don't try to hide what you really mean.

kunst nugget · 28-04-2017 03:21PM

notjustsweet wrote: »

How can you call yourself pro life if you are ignoring the life that currently exists in favor of one that is dependent on her?

Pro life simply means anti choice and should be called such. Don't try to hide what you really mean.

And then pro-choice becomes pro-abortion and all it achieves is more bickering…

njs030 · 28-04-2017 03:27PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

And then pro-choice becomes pro-abortion and all it achieves is more bickering…

No it doesn't, a person can be pro choice for others but not agree with abortion for themselves. That's agreeing with choice therefore pro-choice.

dav3 · 28-04-2017 03:38PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

That's a whole lot of waffle for nothing of consequence. Why are you trying to equate me with an old "hypercatholic dinosaur" when I've told you I'm at best a lapsed Catholic? "It doesn't matter why you believe what you believe because other people also believe that too so you're just like them!"

Would you ever grow up?

I have no idea why you’re quoting "hypercatholic dinosaur", I think you may have me confused with someone else.
I was merely pointing out the reason why one side of the debate would consist primarily of an organisation responsible for amending the 8th.

Although it was directed at someone else, you asked…

AnGaelach wrote: »

… Where does this place me in your black/white model?

To which I replied...

dav3 wrote: »

Where this leaves you, is up to you. But you certainly can’t distance yourself from a religious organisation who were responsible for running a campaign to amend the state constitution 1983, an amendment that we are currently discussing.

and reinforced it with…

dav3 wrote: »

The reality is the 8th is there because of the catholic church, they created the monster, they own it. If that makes people who wish to keep the 8th in place uncomfortable, then that is something they will have to deal with themselves.

I’m not sure what the confusion is.

Zubeneschamali · 28-04-2017 03:39PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

I'm lapsed Catholic at best, I don't look to the Church for moral direction, and I'm in my 20s... Yet I'm anti-abortion.

Every church in Ireland bar the Roman Catholic church was against passing the the 8th amendment in the first place (before you even get to the human rights groups, humanists, atheists etc), so if you are in favour of keeping it, you should probably think about why.

AnGaelach · 28-04-2017 04:08PM

Murrisk wrote: »

Non-religious, pro-life folk piping up does not negate the fact that the countries most vehemently opposed to abortion have large Catholic populations. Anecdotes are not useful, one needs to look at things on the population level. Of course there exists some atheist anti-abortion folk but it's no conincidence that the countries most opposed to abortion are traditionally Catholic.

Ah yes I forgot the Middle East was Catholic. Where are you getting that statistic from exactly?

AnGaelach · 28-04-2017 04:12PM

notjustsweet wrote: »

Pro life simply means anti choice and should be called such. Don't try to hide what you really mean.

Trying to provoke an argument on the grounds of such a stupid point is farcical.

"And pro-choice means pro-murder of a foetus and should be called such. Don't try to hide what you really mean."

Ad nauseam.

AnGaelach · 28-04-2017 04:13PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

so if you are in favour of keeping it, you should probably think about why.

I've already covered why I support keeping it. I don't think the rights of the unborn is something that should be used as a political football. I don't think the Oireachtas should have legislative power over that right, just as how it doesn't have legislative power over your right to association or your freedom of religion.

We're not the UK. Parliament is not sovereign here, the people are.

njs030 · 28-04-2017 04:15PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

Trying to provoke an argument on the grounds of such a stupid point is farcical.

"And pro-choice means pro-murder of a foetus and should be called such. Don't try to hide what you really mean."

Ad nauseam.

Hardly. I've already answered this, a choice can mean yes or no so it clearly does not mean pro murder of anything, what a ridiculous thing to say.

Refusing women choices is always saying no. So it's always putting the lives of a fetus above the walking, talking human mother so you obviously are not pro ALL lives.

ToddyDoody · 28-04-2017 04:20PM

'Amend' isn't as sexy on a jumper.

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Comments