The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Consonata · 31-12-2017 11:43PM

splinter65 wrote: »

But the pope wouldn’t be pushing the referendum anywhere. How would he do that?

Vatican calls Irish referendum a ‘defeat for humanity’

The Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, has called the result of the Irish same-sex marriage equality referendum a “defeat for humanity”.

Until Tuesday night, there had been no official Holy See reaction to the Yes vote in the referendum.

When that reaction finally came from Cardinal Parolin, the Vatican equivalent of prime minister, it was nothing if not hardline and outspoken:

“This result left me feeling very sad but as the Archbishop of Dublin [Diarmuid Martin] pointed out, the Church will have to take this reality on board in the sense of a renewed and strengthened evangelisation. I believe that we are talking here not just about a defeat for Christian principles but also about a defeat for humanity,” Cardinal Parolin told reporters on the margins of a Centesimus Annus conference in the Vatican.

Cardinal Parolin did not further explain the terms of this “defeat for humanity”, but his observations are a logical extension of Catholic doctrine, which teaches that the practise of homosexuality is a sin.

Coincidentally, reporters also questioned Cardinal Parolin about an ongoing row between France and the Holy See over the appointment of openly gay Laurent Stefanini as French ambassador to the Vatican.

It had been speculated that Mr Stefanini’s nomination by Francois Hollande’s government has not found favour with the Holy See, not so much because of his sexual orientation but rather because, in the past, he publicly supported same-sex marriage, which was introduced in France in 2013.

Nominated by the French government in early January, Mr Stefanini’s appointment has still not been ratified by the Vatican.

Asked about the matter, Cardinal Parolin would say only that “dialogue is still ongoing” between France and the Holy See.

splinter65 · 31-12-2017 11:44PM

eviltwin wrote: »

There's obviously a mistaken belief that a Papel visit will rejuvenate the Catholic faith here and that people who would have been in favour of abortion will see the error of their ways and vote accordingly

It's the last grasp at straws of an organisation that overestimates it's importance and relevance in this country.

I don’t think ive come across anyone from the Catholic Church publicly say that they hope there will be a rejuvenation of Roman Catholiscim in Ireland.
Have you read anything in that line evil twin?
For one thing, the Papal visit remains officially unconfirmed.
It’s more anxious murmurings from the Repeal side that I’m aware of.
I doubt anyone who has made their mind up about abortion will be swayed one way or the other.

nice_guy80 · 01-01-2018 11:48AM

roshje wrote: »

So would you be agreeable to a non religious group trying to influence the referendum vote?

like a sane and rational group with ideas based on fact and reasonable thought for those involved?
yes.
no problem

tigger123 · 01-01-2018 12:16PM

I'd wonder how many swing voters actually exist on this issue; how many people could acrually be awayed either way?

Da Boss · 01-01-2018 12:19PM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So the Catholic Church is “interfering “ you say?? Well if your against that im sure your against all other moral groups, be they religious or not, from interfering in the referendum,right? If the RCC can’t put forward their views I’m sure no other group can in the interests of fairness , or the word yee seem to love nowadays,equality

kylith · 01-01-2018 12:25PM

Sin City wrote: »

Even asking the question isnt going to prove anything as no matter what you say unless your in that situation you wont know what youll do

Case in point
I have a friend who doesnt believe in abortion
would argue against it at every oppurtuniy

He changed hes mind as soon as he knocked this woman up

He was booking flights to the UK as soon as he knew it and was convincing her shes not gonna have hes child

tigger123 wrote: »

Kind of illustrates the lack of empathy on the pro life side; all about the principal until it's your problem (and not someone else's), then it's all about the choice.

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/anti-tales.shtml is an interesting read; stories from workers in family planning clinics detailing some of the pro-life protesters that come in for terminations because everyone else is a slutty trollop but they made a mistake, they can't have a baby right now, it's different for them.

RDM_83 again · 01-01-2018 02:31PM

kylith wrote: »

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/anti-tales.shtml is an interesting read; stories from workers in family planning clinics detailing some of the pro-life protesters that come in for terminations because everyone else is a slutty trollop but they made a mistake, they can't have a baby right now, it's different for them.

Yep preach the truth!Those evil pro-life damn them, I bet if we keep saying they are not only wrong but nasty hypocrites that hate kids that will convince the bulk of the population that is sceptical about a liberal pro-choice regime to put away their concerns.

This tactic of demonization and looking down on people has been proven to work brilliantly. I mean look at how we have Hillary Clinton as US President and the UK firmly rejecting Brexit.
:-/

Seriously though it does seem like some people are trying there hardest to loose an election that should be winnable

Fred Swanson · 01-01-2018 02:44PM

This post has been deleted.

end of the road · 01-01-2018 02:54PM

kylith wrote: »

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/anti-tales.shtml is an interesting read; stories from workers in family planning clinics detailing some of the pro-life protesters that come in for terminations because everyone else is a slutty trollop but they made a mistake, they can't have a baby right now, it's different for them.

i think we can say all of this or most of it never happened.

Hotblack Desiato · 01-01-2018 03:55PM

"Doesn't fit EOTR's narrative" = "Never happened"

/sigh

mrkiscool2 · 01-01-2018 03:59PM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Yep preach the truth!Those evil pro-life damn them, I bet if we keep saying they are not only wrong but nasty hypocrites that hate kids that will convince the bulk of the population that is sceptical about a liberal pro-choice regime to put away their concerns.

This tactic of demonization and looking down on people has been proven to work brilliantly. I mean look at how we have Hillary Clinton as US President and the UK firmly rejecting Brexit.
:-/

Seriously though it does seem like some people are trying there hardest to loose an election that should be winnable

What are you babbling on about? Both Hillary and Remain thought they were going to win, so didn't turn out to vote as they should have. Also, you can be damn sure the anti-choice side are going to be even more viscous and despicable with their tactics. I am expecting lots of pictures and probably a fake graveyard.

end of the road wrote: »

i think we can say all of this or most of it never happened.

Hahahahahahahahahaha ah amazing. As much as I would prefer you weren't anti-choice, at least you make me laugh with the things you come out with.

RDM_83 again · 01-01-2018 04:04PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

"Doesn't fit EOTR's narrative" = "Never happened"

/sigh

Complains about actual video of a person's speech being cherrypicking/strawmanning.

Anonymous statements apparently said to advocacy group that casts their opponents in a bad light.
Definitely true no doubt about it!

This stuff gets thanks on boards from the usual suspects but seriously it's just circle jerking amongst what maybe 10-20 deeply invested posters.

Martina1991 · 01-01-2018 04:04PM

end of the road wrote:

i think we can say all of this or most of it never happened.

Un-****ing-believable

Odhinn · 01-01-2018 04:09PM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

He's on a crusade. It's the hurley and slash hook against the papal halberd.

(sounds like a bit of craic, apart from all the being hacked to death thing)

Hotblack Desiato · 01-01-2018 04:10PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Eh? Where did I tar the entire pro-choice lobby with one brush? I didn't.

What other reason is there to post that video? The opinions of some randomer are irrelevant. But by linking them to a movement you can try to discredit that movement. This trick is as old as the hills. My side = cuddly Argentinian socialist (who happens to be the sole ruler of an authoritarian state, oops) vs. Their side = some wingnut.

I don't think at all that everyone in the pro-choice lobby, or even the majority of them for that matter, are actually anything like that particular wingnut, because the few people I do know who are pro-choice, are entirely reasonable people, perfectly capable of articulating their arguments in a respectful, non-authoritarian way that I could listen to them speak all day on the issue of abortion, or anything else they'd care to share on any issue under the sun.

Great. Which makes your decision to post that particular clip even harder to justify, unless of course your motivation was to paint the pro-choice lobby in a bad light.

HD you speak as though a person cannot change their mind? If that is so, then what has all the posturing, pontificating and evangelising in this thread and the many others which came before it been about?

You tell me. You were previously advocating a pro-choice position far in extreme of anyone else I've seen on boards. Could it simply have been an attempt to discredit pro-choice all along?

RDM_83 again · 01-01-2018 04:13PM

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

What are you babbling on about? Both Hillary and Remain thought they were going to win, so didn't turn out to vote as they should have. Also, you can be damn sure the anti-choice side are going to be even more viscous and despicable with their tactics. I am expecting lots of pictures and probably a fake graveyard.
.

You clearly didn't follow either campaign if you think moments like "basket of deplorables" in the US or in the UK the looking down on the English working classes by the great and the good had.

You realize that the referendum is about repealing the 8th, if you make it about abortion on demand being a right it risks support.

Like I am personally leaning towards repeal (if your bothered about it I have posted my ideal result before) but on here any hesitation about full freedom of choice up to a late limit is equated with being a member of Youth Defence, despite the fact polling has shown that this is the most bloody common opinion in the country!

volchitsa · 01-01-2018 04:24PM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Like I am personally leaning towards repeal (if your bothered about it I have posted my ideal result before) but on here any hesitation about full freedom of choice up to a late limit is equated with being a member of Youth Defence, despite the fact polling has shown that this is the most bloody common opinion in the country!

Any hesitation? Really?

Can you find five different posters who have made that claim please?
I'm not asking you to go through their posts and post up the evidence, just give us the names and I'll look up some of them myself, because I have seen nothing like that on here.

Not one. But perhaps I've missed them, and you'll be able to name several who describe limited pro choice views as being akin to those held by Youth Defence.

Consonata · 01-01-2018 04:33PM

RDM_83 again wrote:

Like I am personally leaning towards repeal (if your bothered about it I have posted my ideal result before) but on here any hesitation about full freedom of choice up to a late limit is equated with being a member of Youth Defence, despite the fact polling has shown that this is the most bloody common opinion in the country!

I mean that seems to be a bit of a strawman.

Personally, my ideal legislation is duplicating the british limit, though I doubt that is possible in the current political climate. Yet I can perfectly understand people who want to keep the limit at 12 weeks because I was once like them, unsure about the whole decision. Regardless, even if it is 12 weeks, something like 80% of all abortions happen before that time so that is a start at least.

MrPudding · 01-01-2018 04:50PM

volchitsa wrote: »

Any hesitation? Really?

Can you find five different posters who have made that claim please?
I'm not asking you to go through their posts and post up the evidence, just give us the names and I'll look up some of them myself, because I have seen nothing like that on here.

Not one. But perhaps I've missed them, and you'll be able to name several who describe limited pro choice views as being akin to those held by Youth Defence.

The only poster I can recall, in any of the abortion threads, arguing for no restrictions up to a late limit or even right up to birth, was One Eyed Jack. Go figure.

MrP

volchitsa · 01-01-2018 04:56PM

MrPudding wrote: »

volchitsa wrote: »

Any hesitation? Really?

Can you find five different posters who have made that claim please?
I'm not asking you to go through their posts and post up the evidence, just give us the names and I'll look up some of them myself, because I have seen nothing like that on here.

Not one. But perhaps I've missed them, and you'll be able to name several who describe limited pro choice views as being akin to those held by Youth Defence.

The only poster I can recall, in any of the abortion threads, arguing for no restrictions up to a late limit or even right up to birth, was One Eyed Jack. Go figure.

MrP

Indeed.
Because of course it's actually very easy to figure out what's really going on there.

Pro life poster needs a straw man "Extreme pro choice view" which another pro life poster kindly provides.

Not like it's not transparent or anything.

volchitsa · 01-01-2018 04:56PM

MrPudding wrote: »

volchitsa wrote: »

Any hesitation? Really?

Can you find five different posters who have made that claim please?
I'm not asking you to go through their posts and post up the evidence, just give us the names and I'll look up some of them myself, because I have seen nothing like that on here.

Not one. But perhaps I've missed them, and you'll be able to name several who describe limited pro choice views as being akin to those held by Youth Defence.

The only poster I can recall, in any of the abortion threads, arguing for no restrictions up to a late limit or even right up to birth, was One Eyed Jack. Go figure.

MrP

Indeed.
Because of course it's actually very easy to figure out what's really going on there.

Pro life poster needs a straw man "Extreme pro choice view" which another pro life poster kindly provides.

Not like it's not transparent or anything.

volchitsa · 01-01-2018 04:56PM

MrPudding wrote: »

volchitsa wrote: »

Any hesitation? Really?

Can you find five different posters who have made that claim please?
I'm not asking you to go through their posts and post up the evidence, just give us the names and I'll look up some of them myself, because I have seen nothing like that on here.

Not one. But perhaps I've missed them, and you'll be able to name several who describe limited pro choice views as being akin to those held by Youth Defence.

The only poster I can recall, in any of the abortion threads, arguing for no restrictions up to a late limit or even right up to birth, was One Eyed Jack. Go figure.

MrP

Indeed.
Because of course it's actually very easy to figure out what's really going on there.

Pro life poster needs a straw man "Extreme pro choice view" which another pro life poster kindly provides.

Not like it's not transparent or anything.

end of the road · 01-01-2018 05:06PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What other reason is there to post that video? The opinions of some randomer are irrelevant. But by linking them to a movement you can try to discredit that movement. This trick is as old as the hills. My side = cuddly Argentinian socialist (who happens to be the sole ruler of an authoritarian state, oops) vs. Their side = some wingnut.

Great. Which makes your decision to post that particular clip even harder to justify, unless of course your motivation was to paint the pro-choice lobby in a bad light.

You tell me. You were previously advocating a pro-choice position far in extreme of anyone else I've seen on boards. Could it simply have been an attempt to discredit pro-choice all along?

the pro-abortion movement don't need people to help, or make attempts to discredit them, they do it all by themselves as they have a number among their own ranks doing the work for them.

MrPudding wrote: »

The only poster I can recall, in any of the abortion threads, arguing for no restrictions up to a late limit or even right up to birth, was One Eyed Jack. Go figure.

MrP

sounds like you were reading his posts in a way that suited your viewpoint because i can find nothing within them that says he wants unrestricted abortion.

thee glitz · 01-01-2018 05:10PM

volchitsa wrote: »

Any hesitation? Really?

Can you find five different posters who have made that claim please?
I'm not asking you to go through their posts and post up the evidence, just give us the names and I'll look up some of them myself, because I have seen nothing like that on here.

Not one. But perhaps I've missed them, and you'll be able to name several who describe limited pro choice views as being akin to those held by Youth Defence.

I'm not saying that I can identify, or that there even are, 5 posters who made that claim. What I will though, is that it's probably thought by many. Pro-repeal posters go very quiet about the prospect of repealing the 8th resulting in abortion in (further) limited cases. What most seem to want is abortion availabilty for lifestyle reasons, with special circumstances being a convenient step to further that goal but not particularly cared about themselves.

RDM_83 again · 01-01-2018 05:11PM

Consonata wrote: »

I mean that seems to be a bit of a strawman..

connorhal and AnGaelach would appear to have views broadly in line with majority Irish opinion, repeal but under very limited circumstances but they have been misrepresented (it's a long thread to try scroll through on mobile those two leap to mind though)
Likewise it was this post that got me posting on this thread again (we all know these threads are pointless)

tigger123 wrote: »

Kind of illustrates the lack of empathy on the pro life side; all about the principal until it's your problem (and not someone else's), then it's all about the choice.

There are at least a sizable minority of people that would consider themselves pro-life that will vote for repealing the 8th.

Consonata wrote: »

Personally, my ideal legislation is duplicating the british limit, though I doubt that is possible in the current political climate. Yet I can perfectly understand people who want to keep the limit at 12 weeks because I was once like them, unsure about the whole decision. Regardless, even if it is 12 weeks, something like 80% of all abortions happen before that time so that is a start at least.

20% of 1/4 to 1/5 of all pregnancies is still a large number if we are going of the UK data.

Personally I would be deeply opposed to adopting the UK's system, Lord Steel himself (the man who started the whole thing so no rabid pro-lifer) considers the law he helped create no longer fit for purpose due to misapplication.

I would support a German system, I would not support a limit of 12 weeks as it's likely many exceptions would be allowed and we would end up with a UK system where an apparently fairly strict needs based system allows for abortion upto 24 weeks for social issues*.
Rather a more rigorous system upto 16 weeks involving multiple appointments and pre and post councillors allows abortions that are going to happen anyway to happen safety but helps reduce rate particularly the repeat rate, Germany is pretty liberal so I don't think emulating them should be considered a pro-life/authoritarian thing to do.

BPASS's own study showed that the majority of abortions between 20-24 weeks occur for "social" reasons, people love saying that abortions in that time period mainly happens for medical reasons but that's just wishful thinking not backed up by an abortion providers own data.

volchitsa · 01-01-2018 05:14PM

thee glitz wrote: »

volchitsa wrote: »

Any hesitation? Really?

Can you find five different posters who have made that claim please?
I'm not asking you to go through their posts and post up the evidence, just give us the names and I'll look up some of them myself, because I have seen nothing like that on here.

Not one. But perhaps I've missed them, and you'll be able to name several who describe limited pro choice views as being akin to those held by Youth Defence.

I'm not saying that I can identify, or that there even are, 5 posters who made that claim. What I will though, is that it's probably thought by many. Pro-repeal posters go very quiet about the prospect of repealing the 8th resulting in abortion in (further) limited cases. What most seem to want is abortion availabilty for lifestyle reasons, with special circumstances being a convenient step to further that goal but not particularly cared about themselves.

So your argument is that you know what pro choice posters here really think, regardless of what they may say.

Like Dev, you can look into their hearts can you? Probably no need to have a referendum at all then, let's just ask you what people think.

volchitsa · 01-01-2018 05:14PM

thee glitz wrote: »

volchitsa wrote: »

Any hesitation? Really?

Can you find five different posters who have made that claim please?
I'm not asking you to go through their posts and post up the evidence, just give us the names and I'll look up some of them myself, because I have seen nothing like that on here.

Not one. But perhaps I've missed them, and you'll be able to name several who describe limited pro choice views as being akin to those held by Youth Defence.

I'm not saying that I can identify, or that there even are, 5 posters who made that claim. What I will though, is that it's probably thought by many. Pro-repeal posters go very quiet about the prospect of repealing the 8th resulting in abortion in (further) limited cases. What most seem to want is abortion availabilty for lifestyle reasons, with special circumstances being a convenient step to further that goal but not particularly cared about themselves.

So your argument is that you know what pro choice posters here really think, regardless of what they may say.

Like Dev, you can look into their hearts can you? Probably no need to have a referendum at all then, let's just ask you what people think.

MrPudding · 01-01-2018 05:29PM

end of the road wrote: »

the pro-abortion movement

I know you have been asked this before, but what is the pro-abortion movement. Can you point out some pro-abortion posters to me please? I am most certainly pro-choice, but i am certainly not pro-abortion, and I think that vast majority of pro-choice people are the same.

I am pretty sure you know this, as it has been pointed out to you before, but you persist in using the term pro-abortion as you think it casts pro-choice people in a more negative light. it may do that, but what it definitely does is highlight the dishonesty you use in arguing your position.

MrP

thee glitz · 01-01-2018 05:35PM

volchitsa wrote: »

So your argument is that you know what pro choice posters here really think, regardless of what they may say.

My point is that they don't say anything - I believe you're the first to even address my point, so I can only infer from the silence. If we had a referendum on retaining the 8th amendment vs adding a clause allowing for abortion in the case of FFA, I have no doubt that that particular case could then be legislated for. Pro-choicers are promoting their cause by highlighting special cases, while refusing to contemplate compromises which would facilitate them.

RDM_83 again · 01-01-2018 05:39PM

MrPudding wrote: »

I know you have been asked this before, but what is the pro-abortion movement. Can you point out some pro-abortion posters to me please? I am most certainly pro-choice, but i am certainly not pro-abortion, and I think that vast majority of pro-choice people are the same.

I am pretty sure you know this, as it has been pointed out to you before, but you persist in using the term pro-abortion as you think it casts pro-choice people in a more negative light. it may do that, but what it definitely does is highlight the dishonesty you use in arguing your position.

MrP

Those that regard abortion as fundamental right without qualification or condition and any oversight by others to a person's ability to exercise that choice up until the point of sentience.

E.g abortion up to X but you have to get assessed by specialist first =/= pro-abortion

Abortion upto X and any specialist assesment or restriction is an outrageous attack on women's freedoms = pro abortion

The pro-gun lobby in the USA doesn't focus their campaigns on more guns, they are fighting to protect what they believe is a fundamental Constitutional right that shouldn't have any restriction.
Nobody has a problem calling them pro-gun

Edit: I dislike these terms anyway as they are meaningless really considering the spectrum of views is so variable and it's pointlessly antagonistic but this would be my understanding to separate the viewpoints between needs Vs rights

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Comments