Petition to impeach pro life UCD SU President...

VinLieger · 13-10-2017 11:57AM

martingriff wrote: »

I disagree with the Iona but can you show how they are forcing there beliefs on to others

Pro choice means giving everyone a choice of what to do, nobody is forced into doing anything, pro-life is about telling people what they are allowed and not allowed to do.

Similarly with the marriage referendum, they were forcing their beliefs about marriage onto other people, by passing the marriage referendum those in Iona now arent gonna be forced into getting married to a homosexual, its simply giving the others a choice to be able to

AudreyHepburn · 13-10-2017 11:59AM

pilly wrote: »

I think you've missed the point twice there Captain. It is Iona who are forcing their beliefs on to others.

I think you’ll find you’re completely wrong here - there are fanatics on both sides of the debate and to deny otherwise is at best woefully naive.

At the end of the day this whole situation stems from those on the pro choice side taking a personal dislike to Katie Ascough because of what she believes not anything she might have done and trying to force her out of office simply because her views differ from theirs.

And that is just as bad as the Iona Institute forcing their beliefs on us.

Jayop · 13-10-2017 12:01PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

She lied didn't she? Did she do anything illegal?

I explicitly said I didn't think she did.

pilly · 13-10-2017 12:01PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I think you’ll find you’re completely wrong here - there are fanatics on both sides of the debate and to deny otherwise is at best woefully naive.

At the end of the day this whole situation stems from those on the pro choice side taking a personal dislike to Katie Ascough because of what she believes not anything she might have done and try No to force her out of office simply because her views differ from theirs.

And that is just as bad as the Iona Institute forcing their beliefs on a.

Vin Leger puts it better than I can in the post above.

Grayson · 13-10-2017 12:08PM

animaal wrote: »

Who do you think should get to decide what laws I follow? Or should everybody only follow the laws they agree with?

That's the way laws work. We don't follow laws because there's someone standing next to us stopping us from breaking the law.

When you break the speed limit it's your choice to do so. When you stay within the speed limit it's your choice.
You make those choices in the full knowledge of what the law is, why it's there and what the consequences are if you break it.

But it's your choice. No-one is forcing you to do anything. You do understand that don't you. It's your choice to keep the laws.

As for the student union, they made a choice too. Every student union for years had made the choice. They decided that the ethical thing was to provide students in the college with information about abortion services. And they had never been prosecuted for it. No student union had since the law was changed 22 years ago.
No-one has suggested that they were about to be prosecuted this year.

What they did was make an ethical decision, in the best interest of the students welfare. The legality of it has been argued for pages but only an idiot would argue that something is ethical simply because it is legal. Or that the only moral/ethical action would be to comply with the law in every situation.

I've probably posted this response 3 or 4 times so far and no-one and actually made any arguments against it yet.

Billy86 · 13-10-2017 12:14PM

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Social media nearly had a fit when she got elected. I thought it was hilarious.

One look at her CV and family and I have no idea how she made it she is so far from the typical student politics. This is a good life lesson for the youth in UCD. Get out and vote whenever their is an election, MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD.

Anyways, from the minute she got elected she was going down (by hook or by crook) and its just unfortunate for her that she gave them the opportunity so early in the year.

Its probably good for her, Id never have heard of her otherwise. She'll be thrown out, get a fair bit of publicity and it will give her supporters a martyr to celebrate.

Yep, people who didn't vote and then have a fit at the results deserve to be slapped - repeatedly, this is also true on the amount of people giving out about Brexit and Trump who simply weren't f***ed to vote at the time. Situations like this or Trump might well mobilise a lot of voters next time out though they'll probably revert to not bothering on the elections/referendums/etc after and wind up in a similar scenario, and as for the UK... well it's too late for them (as hugely against Brexit as I was I am equally if not more against this 'second referendum' boll*cks some are seeking).

Grayson · 13-10-2017 12:16PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I think you’ll find you’re completely wrong here - there are fanatics on both sides of the debate and to deny otherwise is at best woefully naive.

At the end of the day this whole situation stems from those on the pro choice side taking a personal dislike to Katie Ascough because of what she believes not anything she might have done and trying to force her out of office simply because her views differ from theirs.

And that is just as bad as the Iona Institute forcing their beliefs on us.

Did she say she would defer to others on pro choice matters? Yes.
Did she defer to others on those issues? No.

As far as I'm concerned that's enough reason for people to want to impeach her. She explicitly stated that she wouldn't touch those issues and then went back on her word.

Did you notice the way there wasn't a petition submitted until she removed the information?

And personally, I don't dislike her. She's probably really nice. I do feel sorry for her. Being indoctrinated from a young age, being cut off from the world through home schooling, she never had a chance.

13-10-2017 12:22PM

Billy86 wrote: »

Yep, people who didn't vote and then have a fit at the results deserve to be slapped - repeatedly, this is also true on the amount of people giving out about Brexit and Trump who simply weren't f***ed to vote at the time. Situations like this or Trump might well mobilise a lot of voters next time out though they'll probably revert to not bothering on the elections/referendums/etc after and wind up in a similar scenario, and as for the UK... well it's too late for them (as hugely against Brexit as I was I am equally if not more against this 'second referendum' boll*cks some are seeking).

Ill go against you there with the referendum results and maybe the need for a second referendum.

Politicians by their nature will come and go. Katie, Trump they generate a lot of controversy now but their time will end.

The brexit referendum is a different nature of vote entirely being a long term strategic decision. (But thats enough of that talk in this thread;))

VinLieger · 13-10-2017 12:24PM

Grayson wrote: »

The legality of it has been argued for pages but only an idiot would argue that something is ethical simply because it is legal. Or that the only moral/ethical action would be to comply with the law in every situation.

Couldn't have put it better

animaal · 13-10-2017 12:25PM

Grayson wrote: »

But it's your choice. No-one is forcing you to do anything. You do understand that don't you. It's your choice to keep the laws.

Grayson wrote: »

I've probably posted this response 3 or 4 times so far and no-one and actually made any arguments against it yet.

I'll give it a go. Although somebody with better understanding of the philosophy of our legal system may correct me

The state can and does stop people breaking laws - from light-handed measures such as fines, up to and including imprisonment to ensure you can't continue to break the law. We as citizens empower the state to do this. We give agents of the state a monopoly on the use of violence against others (other than in self defence).

You choose to follow the law because you're civic minded, or because you know that the state has a gun to your head when it tells you obey. The gun is usually a metaphor for some other reprimand, but when in serious cases it can be a real gun. That's hardly giving you a choice.

If I "invited" you to sign a contract while threatening your freedom, or to confiscate money from you if you don't sign, you couldn't be held to it afterwards. It wouldn't be seen that you acted with choice.

martingriff · 13-10-2017 12:29PM

VinLieger wrote: »

martingriff wrote: »

I disagree with the Iona but can you show how they are forcing there beliefs on to others

Pro choice means giving everyone a choice of what to do, nobody is forced into doing anything, pro-life is about telling people what they are allowed and not allowed to do.

Similarly with the marriage referendum, they were forcing their beliefs about marriage onto other people, by passing the marriage referendum those in Iona now arent gonna be forced into getting married to a homosexual, its simply giving the others a choice to be able to

So they are not forcing there beliefs on you yes they are very loud and aggressive on what they say but you can ignore them. Some in the pro choice side can be the same.

Case in point yourself showed the marriage referendum passed. If they forced there beliefs on people it would not have passed.

AudreyHepburn · 13-10-2017 12:30PM

Grayson wrote: »

Did she say she would defer to others on pro choice matters? Yes.
Did she defer to others on those issues? No.

As far as I'm concerned that's enough reason for people to want to impeach her. She explicitly stated that she wouldn't touch those issues and then went back on her word.

Did you notice the way there wasn't a petition submitted until she removed the information?

And personally, I don't dislike her. She's probably really nice. I do feel sorry for her. Being indoctrinated from a young age, being cut off from the world through home schooling, she never had a chance.

But that deference has to do with the 8th Amendment - this is unrelated to that.

It’s simply about removing illegal content from a document so that the college isn’t left open to the risk of fines, prison sentences etc.

Again she hasn’t actually stoped anyone from accessing the information, getting an abortion or campaigning to repeal.

We don’t get to pick and choose which laws to obey and with good reason.

Billy86 · 13-10-2017 12:34PM

martingriff wrote: »

So they are not forcing there beliefs on you yes they are very loud and aggressive on what they say but you can ignore them. Some in the pro choice side can be the same.

Case in point yourself showed the marriage referendum passed. If they forced there beliefs on people it would not have passed.

Forcing their beliefs on people, ruining straight marriages across the country and apparently forcing churches to conduct gay weddings across the country against hteir will were among the main arguments made against SSM by those against it (who share a big crossover with pro lifers not least through Iona, almost as if there's a pattern there...).

kylith · 13-10-2017 12:38PM

martingriff wrote: »

So they are not forcing there beliefs on you yes they are very loud and aggressive on what they say but you can ignore them. Some in the pro choice side can be the same.

Case in point yourself showed the marriage referendum passed. If they forced there beliefs on people it would not have passed.

They are attempting to force their beliefs on others. Currently, due to our fecked up laws based on religion, if a pregnant woman is diagnosed with a serious illness she may receive no treatment.

If you are pro-life, that's grand; don't have an abortion. But campaigning for people who do not share those views not to have control over their own bodies based on your beliefs rather than medical evidence is forcing your beliefs on them.

What the so-called pro-life side would force on women is enforced pregnancy. What the pro-choice side would 'force' on women is choice and the ability to make their own decisions based on what is best for them.

pilly · 13-10-2017 12:40PM

Billy86 wrote: »

Forcing their beliefs on people, ruining straight marriages across the country and apparently forcing churches to conduct gay weddings across the country against hteir will were among the main arguments made against SSM by those against it (who share a big crossover with pro lifers not least through Iona, almost as if there's a pattern there...).

I believe we're all gay now father?

nice_guy80 · 13-10-2017 12:41PM

youth defence?

frag420 · 13-10-2017 12:50PM

More commonly knows as the Spurs back three...

nice_guy80 wrote: »

youth defence?

Grayson · 13-10-2017 12:57PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

We don’t get to pick and choose which laws to obey and with good reason.

You literally do choose. Every single day. You're not a mindless automaton.

frag420 · 13-10-2017 12:58PM

So why was she only interested in changing the content and abiding by the law when she got elected?

Surely her civic duty while at UCD prior to being elected was to report this law breaking at the first opportunity but she choose not to. Where was her civic duty before she got elected?

And please, don't for one moment think that she or the IONA did not know the content of the publication prior to her being elected!!

I asked this of another poster twice already and have been ignored, perhaps you can shed some light on this?

animaal wrote: »

You choose to follow the law because you're civic minded, or because you know that the state has a gun to your head when it tells you obey. The gun is usually a metaphor for some other reprimand, but when in serious cases it can be a real gun. That's hardly giving you a choice.

Captain Obvious · 13-10-2017 01:03PM

frag420 wrote: »

Surely her civic duty while at UCD prior to being elected was to report this law breaking at the first opportunity but she choose not to.

How do you know she didn't?

frag420 · 13-10-2017 01:12PM

Going on previous from the likes of herself, her family and IONA, if she did report it we would have all heard about it, the iona PR monkey would have been working overtime....David Quinn would have been frothing at the mouth on national radio!!

Please don't be so naive!

Captain Obvious wrote: »

How do you know she didn't?

VinLieger · 13-10-2017 01:13PM

martingriff wrote: »

So they are not forcing there beliefs on you yes they are very loud and aggressive on what they say but you can ignore them. Some in the pro choice side can be the same.

Case in point yourself showed the marriage referendum passed. If they forced there beliefs on people it would not have passed.

If it had passed then yes they would have forced their beliefs on people. Because they failed that doesn't absolve them of the disgusting act of trying to force their beliefs on other people by actively campaigning against it.

Its exactly the same with repeal the 8th, by campaigning against it they are trying to force their beliefs onto everyone else once again.

martingriff · 13-10-2017 01:29PM

kylith wrote: »

martingriff wrote: »

So they are not forcing there beliefs on you yes they are very loud and aggressive on what they say but you can ignore them. Some in the pro choice side can be the same.

Case in point yourself showed the marriage referendum passed. If they forced there beliefs on people it would not have passed.

They are attempting to force their beliefs on others. Currently, due to our fecked up laws based on religion, if a pregnant woman is diagnosed with a serious illness she may receive no treatment.

If you are pro-life, that's grand; don't have an abortion. But campaigning for people who do not share those views not to have control over their own bodies based on your beliefs rather than medical evidence is forcing your beliefs on them.

What the so-called pro-life side would force on women is enforced pregnancy. What the pro-choice side would 'force' on women is choice and the ability to make their own decisions based on what is best for them.

So by them stating there beliefs is forcing there beliefs? It is in its hole. The law is not allowing it not Iona' s extreme beliefs. There is going to be a referendum and then the people of this country will decide. I agree the 8th has to go as it creates 2 much indecision on doing a termination on risk to the mother. Which is actual legal and as per the Rutunda head person do occur.

I would fight tooth and nail if some people arguments would not be allowed in a debate just because you or I do not like them.

animaal · 13-10-2017 01:32PM

frag420 wrote: »

So why was she only interested in changing the content and abiding by the law when she got elected?

I think only she can answer that.

Maybe she would have always liked to, but only could when she had the means to do so. Or maybe the legal advice confirmed a suspicion that she had but wasn't certain about before that. Or maybe something else entirely.

I don't know much about her; she may be lovely or a complete nutjob. But the reaction to her actions seems to involve far more pitchforks and torches than would be the case if it was over any issue other than abortion.

At the end of the day, the SU is an organisation whose members can hire/fire its leader for any reason they want. And rightly so. I just think in this instance it doesn't reflect well on them. If I was a pro-life campaigner, I'd be happy enough with how it's all panning out.

martingriff · 13-10-2017 01:33PM

VinLieger wrote: »

martingriff wrote: »

So they are not forcing there beliefs on you yes they are very loud and aggressive on what they say but you can ignore them. Some in the pro choice side can be the same.

Case in point yourself showed the marriage referendum passed. If they forced there beliefs on people it would not have passed.

If it had passed then yes they would have forced their beliefs on people. Because they failed that doesn't absolve them of the disgusting act of trying to force their beliefs on other people by actively campaigning against it.

Its exactly the same with repeal the 8th, by campaigning against it they are trying to force their beliefs onto everyone else once again.

It's called debate you don't like what they say then debate them argue the point. I thought this was a free and democratic country where we can do thus. If you ban there right to speech because you don't like what or how they say something then aren't you the 1 forcing your beliefs

VinLieger · 13-10-2017 01:37PM

martingriff wrote: »

It's called debate you don't like what they say then debate them argue the point. I thought this was a free and democratic country where we can do thus. If you ban there right to speech because you don't like what or how they say something then aren't you the 1 forcing your beliefs

What? Where did you see me say anything about silencing them or banning their right to free speech and their opinions?

You need to learn to debate yourself and stop trying to strawman other peoples posts

martingriff · 13-10-2017 01:49PM

VinLieger wrote: »

martingriff wrote: »

It's called debate you don't like what they say then debate them argue the point. I thought this was a free and democratic country where we can do thus. If you ban there right to speech because you don't like what or how they say something then aren't you the 1 forcing your beliefs

What? Where did you see me say anything about silencing them or banning their right to free speech and their opinions?

You need to learn to debate yourself and stop trying to strawman other peoples posts

No read your post and I can see you want to stop them saying what they are saying because what they are saying is trying to force there beliefs on people

frag420 · 13-10-2017 01:50PM

animaal wrote: »

I think only she can answer that.

Maybe she would have always liked to, but only could when she had the means to do so. Or maybe the legal advice confirmed a suspicion that she had but wasn't certain about before that. Or maybe something else entirely.

What means does she need to report law breaking?

Imagine if I saw someone being attacked but decided not to report it as I didnt have the means to do so? No means at all, zero, nada??

So she had no phone to call the SU to complain or the press assoc or the police?

She didn't have the means to walk to the SU office to make an official complaint or to local police station?

Also, if you had a suspicion your neighbour was abusing there kids, would you wait for proof or would you report it?

VinLieger · 13-10-2017 01:59PM

martingriff wrote: »

No read your post and I can see you want to stop them saying what they are saying because what they are saying is trying to force there beliefs on people

Yeah your talking nonsense now, if you can't debate without resorting to out and out lies about what someone else has said there's not much point in interacting with such pathetic posts

Foxtrol · 13-10-2017 02:08PM

VinLieger wrote: »

martingriff wrote: »

I disagree with the Iona but can you show how they are forcing there beliefs on to others

Pro choice means giving everyone a choice of what to do, nobody is forced into doing anything, pro-life is about telling people what they are allowed and not allowed to do.

Similarly with the marriage referendum, they were forcing their beliefs about marriage onto other people, by passing the marriage referendum those in Iona now arent gonna be forced into getting married to a homosexual, its simply giving the others a choice to be able to

Pro-choice is forcing them to be powerless in what they see as babies being murdered.

Louis CK did a bit where he talks about how crazy people look when they are protesting outside abortion clinics and then goes on to what's even crazier is people thinking that they shouldn't be protesting if they believe babies are being murdered. Imagine believing there was an office were you thought 2 year olds were being murdered on a daily basis and just shrugging your shoulders and trying to do something about it

Petition to impeach pro life UCD SU President...

Comments