nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

RobertKK

The citizens assembly voted to replace or amend the 8th amendment.

50% voted to replace or amend
44% voted to repeal
Rest preferred to not state an opinion

Now deciding how it will be replaced or amended
: Let the Dail legislate on the rights of the unborn
: Amend the provision in the constitution.

Meltdown on twitter by Repealthe8th people.

Mod- This thread has descended in to petty name calling. We've tried to let this thread run without too much mod interference but now it's on our radar we will be watching. From here on the name calling stops. If you can't debate civilly we will remove your right to post.

__________________

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

_Roz_

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But we are not doing that either. It has nothing to do with the "stage of development" so much as it has to do with Attributes present or absent. The very attributes that mediate moral and ethcal concern are wholly absent in a 12 week old fetus. Nothing to do with "stages" and everything to do with viewing the entity as it is now, what it is now, in this moment and time. Nothing to do with stages that come before, or after, this moment.

If you list the attributes that mediate moral and ethical concern, everything on that list is simply not there.

So you are not alone in the feeling it seems by far, just relatively alone in where you are standing while having it

Not sure that will alleviate any negative feelings either. Man I suck at this.

Yup, I getcha. And I completely agree that 'in this moment' the foetus is not a person, has no rights, is essentially an amoeba. But I just can't dismiss that, with time, it will change hehe. I mean, some scientists would argue that our perception of time as 'passing' is not true, and all times are equally real. In which case, the foetus is simultaneously an amoeba and a child and an adult and a person. That's kind of how I think of it.

Although, it's also true that if all times are equally real, then a foetus that is aborted never had the capacity to become a person, as it already was not!

This is what my brain is like. It's a stressful place. :pac:

nozzferrahhtoo

freshpopcorn wrote: »

When ever I heard TD's from especially PBP-Solidarity I always felt they spoke similarly to the above line and I feel if they speak a lot in the coming weeks they might damage the campaign they appeal to liberal.

Until I hear more specifics I genuinely can not agree OR disagree with you. As I said there is so much more left NOT said in that sentence than said. It simply does not give ANY detail.

One reading of the sentence makes it sound like they hold EXACTLY The position I do. In which case I would absolutely like to hear them say more.

But there really is nothing in the quote, unless you have others, that even implies let alone makes explicit, a belief in "no limits abortion".

captbarnacles

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Abortion on request up to 12 weeks covers rape.

The Citizens Assembly voted strongly to allow abortion for rape victims. The Oireachteas Committee said:

"In view of the complexities inherent in legislating for the termination of pregnancy for reasons of rape or other sexual assault, the committee is of the opinion that it would be more appropriate to deal with this issue by permitting termination of pregnancy with no restriction as to reason provided that it is availed of through a GP-led service delivered in a clinical context as determined by law and licensing practice in Ireland with a gestational limit of 12 weeks."

Has there been any sensible rebuttal to this? I haven't heard one yet.

Zubeneschamali

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And actually the "in cases of rape" appeals to be unworkable nonsense. I would have expected these two parties to have their thinking caps on and notice that. Shameful. Unless, of course, they have found a way to make it workable where I and others have failed for many years.

Abortion on request up to 12 weeks covers rape.

The Citizens Assembly voted strongly to allow abortion for rape victims. The Oireachteas Committee said:

"In view of the complexities inherent in legislating for the termination of pregnancy for reasons of rape or other sexual assault, the committee is of the opinion that it would be more appropriate to deal with this issue by permitting termination of pregnancy with no restriction as to reason provided that it is availed of through a GP-led service delivered in a clinical context as determined by law and licensing practice in Ireland with a gestational limit of 12 weeks."

freshpopcorn

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Summary:

Your link is not showing ANY party identifying with "certain parties support abortion with no limits". I am not seeing ONE, let alone the plural (you said parties not party). What am I missing exactly?

When ever I heard TD's from especially PBP-Solidarity I always felt they spoke similarly to the above line and I feel if they speak a lot in the coming weeks they might damage the campaign they appeal to liberal. Stick to people like Leo and Simon as much as possible and they should be less issues!

nozzferrahhtoo

_Roz_ wrote: »

Again, I'm not saying there's a moral onus to seeing it through, if I thought there was, I would be pro-life. I'm literally just arguing against the idea that because the foetus is in an earlier stage of development that abortion is any less preventing (using this term rather than 'ending') a life, than doing so right before birth

Well if you are speaking of "life" purely in the sense of basic biology then yes, terminating a fetus is no less ending/preventing a life than terminating a -1 Day old Baby. Nor, for that matter, is it any less than killing a cow for steak or chopping down a tree for paper. That is all "ending life".

If we go beyond pure biology though and use a more robust and rounded definition of "life" then the difference is termination of fetus is preventing one from coming into being while terminating a cow or -1 Day old baby is actively ENDING one. Which is, I am sure you will note, very different indeed.

So you CAN use the "not ending a life" argument. You just have to be very specific about which of the many meanings of "life" you are using. One wonderful and beautiful but ALSO problematic thing about language.... especially English Language I suspect.... is that one word can mean many things in many contexts.

Take the word "sport" for example. It can mean bare knuckle cage match mixed martial arts violence. It can also mean lawn bowling. The link between the two aside from the word "sport" is.... well.... little more than breathing I guess.

Words are variable and contextual. And it pays in deep debates to be cognizant of their form in any given move.

I can't dismiss the 'potential' element the way others do and apply different degrees of morality to cessation of a life due to the stage of development it's at.

But we are not doing that either. It has nothing to do with the "stage of development" so much as it has to do with Attributes present or absent. The very attributes that mediate moral and ethcal concern are wholly absent in a 12 week old fetus. Nothing to do with "stages" and everything to do with viewing the entity as it is now, what it is now, in this moment and time. Nothing to do with stages that come before, or after, this moment.

If you list the attributes that mediate moral and ethical concern, everything on that list is simply not there.

_Roz_ wrote: »

I'm not really arguing a course of action, I'm just focusing on one aspect of how I feel and discovering that apparently nobody else feels the same (except my mother hehe).

I think more people feel the same than you think. You are just (relatively) unique in being in the "yes" camp while feeling it. The "potential" argument has been used by many pro-choice people and.... in the cases of some users I can not mention due to moderator actions.... it has pretty much been exclusively their ENTIRE argument.

So you are not alone in the feeling it seems by far, just relatively alone in where you are standing while having it

Not sure that will alleviate any negative feelings either. Man I suck at this.

nozzferrahhtoo

freshpopcorn wrote: »

This article says that certain parties support abortion with no limits.

Well although it is great to see someone go for option 3 out of the 3 options I details, I would prefer to hear things from the horses mouth than second hand reported in a news paper myself. "I heard some clips" leaves me in a position where I can not hear the clips. Which is a shame.

However looking down the list in that link you have provided I am looking for the "certain parties" you mention. Let me work out which ones they might be:

Fianna FáilNo position on the circumstances where terminations are supported.

Ok so it is not them then clearly.

Greens: Favours a referendum and to repeal the Eighth Amendment. Members have mixed views on circumstances.

So not them either. But uselessly vague here so who knows.

Fine Gael: Position is not decided.

Or them for the same reason.

Social Democrats: allow for abortion on a range of grounds.

They do not say enough here to say if it is them or not. Potentially could be this party then, but that potential is based on what they do NOT say here, not what they do. "Range of grounds" simply says nothing about WHEN they think terminations should occur, and says pretty much nothing about what those grounds are.

Independent Alliance: No specific position taken by each of the five TDs

So not them either.

Independents4Change: Supports repealing the Eighth. Agrees with assembly recommendations, and that abortion is provided before 12 weeks and for a range of circumstances.

Certainly not them then as it is quite clearly stated, unlike any other party, what their believe on the limits are.

Rural Independents: Differing views. TD Mattie McGrath yesterday said he did not support abortions in any circumstances.

Again vague but doesn't sound like them either. Though clearly it is NOT Mattie you are speaking of.

PBP-Solidarity: Pro-choice, saying it is a woman’s decision. Abortions as early as possible and as late as necessary, but no specified circumstances.

Again a "what is not said" potential here for it to be them. But "late as necessary" is open to a RANGE of interpretations as it is using the word NECESSARY here. As in, not no limits abortion, but abortions in cases of necessity. So it does not SOUND like it is them either. And in fact that is exactly my position. I think abortions purely by choice should have a time limit, but abortions related to actual necessity should exceed that limit. That is not, however, "no limits abortion". Quite the opposite.

Labour: Supports repealing the Eighth and allowing for terminations in cases of rape, incest and fatal foetal abnormalities.

Sinn Féin: Favours a referendum. Terminations should be allowed for rape, incest, and fatal foetal abnormalities.

So not them either. And actually the "in cases of rape" appeals to be unworkable nonsense. I would have expected these two parties to have their thinking caps on and notice that. Shameful. Unless, of course, they have found a way to make it workable where I and others have failed for many years. In which case I take it back, and I can not WAIT to hear their proposal(s)! I genuinely have no idea, maybe I just lack imagination, how to make "abortion for rape" workable and coherent.

Summary:

Your link is not showing ANY party identifying with "certain parties support abortion with no limits".

I am not seeing ONE, let alone the plural (you said parties not party). What am I missing exactly?

freshpopcorn

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Where does it state that?

PBP-Solidarity: Pro-choice, saying it is a woman’s decision. Abortions as early as possible and as late as necessary, but no specified circumstances.

Timberrrrrrrr

freshpopcorn wrote: »

This article says that certain parties support abortion with no limits.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/abortion-legislation-party-positions-448614.html

They were TD's linked to these partied who I herd speak about the issue in clips on the news/primetime/etc and I felt it could do damage to the campaign if they did a lot of public speak on the issue!

Where does it state that?

_Roz_

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And as I said, including with my thought experiment about an AI, I see no reason why a process places any moral onus on us to allow it, or help it to, complete. It is not mere processes we afford moral and ethical concern to.

A good starting point is to go back to basics on it. Ask yourself what rights, morals, ethics are even FOR. What do they DO? What is their function?

So far I have not met a single person who has given me any answer to that other than to say that rights and morals are for mediating the actions of sentient entities towards the well being and rights of other sentient entities.

Nothing about processes. The idea we have moral regard for processes is just not a "feeling" I can share without something more solid in terms of reasoning or philosophy to suggest I should. And as such I think that while I feel you are going to vote the correct way, you are going to suffer a little needlessly for doing so.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't see why the fact that the process has started puts any moral obligation on anyone to see the process through.

Again, I'm not saying there's a moral onus to seeing it through, if I thought there was, I would be pro-life. I'm literally just arguing against the idea that because the foetus is in an earlier stage of development that abortion is any less preventing (using this term rather than 'ending') a life, than doing so right before birth, or even after birth (at which point it's ending the life, not preventing) and as such, I don't/can't use the argument of 'it's not a life' to support the right to abortion. I can't dismiss the 'potential' element the way others do and apply different degrees of morality to cessation of a life due to the stage of development it's at. That distinction is only relevant for painless abortion for the life, and for not ending up in jail for murdering a baby :pac: That's all.

I'm not really arguing a course of action, I'm just focusing on one aspect of how I feel and discovering that apparently nobody else feels the same (except my mother hehe).

freshpopcorn

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Perhaps but it depends how we deal with it. For example on this very thread a user was banned for making claims about the quantities of repeal camp wanting no limits abortion, but refusing to back up that claim in any way.

It was not even a PERMban. The user was told they COULD post on the thread again if only they would try to back up the claim. Said user, for obvious reasons, never returned. Because the claim simply could not be backed up. And they knew it as well as we did.

So if someone is making a SIMILAR claim, only specifically about TDs rather than the repeal camp as a whole..... then I think it fair and consistent that such claims be treated with the same level of "Conversational intolerance" (as Sam Harris would call it) and evidence be demanded of them in general. And excuses for not affording that evidence not tolerated or pandered to.

There is going to be a LOT of lies and misrepresentation and scaremongering (alas from both sides I am sure) in the coming months. And the onus is on ALL of us not to let it slide, and to call it out, at every turn until either the claimant A) Runs away (common) or admits "Yes you are right, I have absolutely no evidence AT ALL to offer to back up this narrative" (much less common) or C) actually presents the evidence for their claims (not as common as I would like).

I do not think we can have a sane debate on any issue, but less one this emotive, if we do not hold stringently and stridently to SOME level of shared truth and reality and substantiation. Even if that means calling out people who are on our "side" and will be voting how we want them to. I am a firm believer in cleaning up ones own house, before checking for dust on the sideboards in anyone else's.

This article says that certain parties support abortion with no limits.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/abortion-legislation-party-positions-448614.html

They were TD's linked to these partied who I herd speak about the issue in clips on the news/primetime/etc and I felt it could do damage to the campaign if they did a lot of public speak on the issue!

Zubeneschamali

_Roz_ wrote: »

So this analogy/argument omits the fundamental thing I am focusing on, which is the prevention of completion of a process.

It's true, 12 weeks is an arbitrary line in a process. The law today has 2 arbitrary lines - implantation (which is a strange one) and birth. Neither of these is magic - a baby 1 day before birth is vary similar to a baby one day after. Fertilization is a more obvious line than implantation, but whatever.

I don't see why the fact that the process has started puts any moral obligation on anyone to see the process through.

nozzferrahhtoo

_Roz_ wrote: »

So this analogy/argument omits the fundamental thing I am focusing on, which is the prevention of completion of a process.

And as I said, including with my thought experiment about an AI, I see no reason why a process places any moral onus on us to allow it, or help it to, complete. It is not mere processes we afford moral and ethical concern to.

A good starting point is to go back to basics on it. Ask yourself what rights, morals, ethics are even FOR. What do they DO? What is their function?

So far I have not met a single person who has given me any answer to that other than to say that rights and morals are for mediating the actions of sentient entities towards the well being and rights of other sentient entities.

Nothing about processes. The idea we have moral regard for processes is just not a "feeling" I can share without something more solid in terms of reasoning or philosophy to suggest I should. And as such I think that while I feel you are going to vote the correct way, you are going to suffer a little needlessly for doing so.

_Roz_

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well I would say that is no small difference given there IS no distress and pain for the fetus at 12 weeks. At all. The lights are off and no one is home. You will cause no more stress and pain in the world from terminating a fetus than you will from taking a hammer to a mannequin.

The reason one is morally worse than the other is that one would be killing an actual sentient entity. The other is not. Saying one is not worse than the other is basically like saying jabbing needles into a dog is no worse than jabbing them into an amoeba.

Respectfully disagree. That analogy doesn't hold on a moral level, for me. It does on a practical level, and is exactly why abortions up to 12 weeks should be allowed, because if you're going to do it, do it when the foetus won't know jack about it, and the difference between early and late abortions is the difference between jabbing an amoeba and jabbing a dog, absolutely. But on a moral level, what you're equating is preventing a life from growing with arbitrarily sticking needles into living creatures. And if you said to me, well then compare it with either destroying an amoeba, or destroying a dog, and I would say you can't compare that either, as both animals are at the height of their development. The difference is, an amoeba will never be a sentient individual, and a dog, similar to a human, becomes one as a puppy. (Humans also become sentient as puppies, clearly :pac:). So this analogy/argument omits the fundamental thing I am focusing on, which is the prevention of completion of a process.

seamus

ForestFire wrote: »

I don't even know the background to this, But are people not allowed to progress their views, add to their views as new information is presented.

If you asking everyone to stick to what they thought or said 2 weeks ago, that just seems like trying to stop the discussion.

It's called "shifting the goalposts".

Someone claims that they're opposed to something because of X.

When you illustrate that X is not an issue they don't stop being opposed, instead they say, "But what about Y?"

Which means that they've made up their mind ultimately, and it's not about X or Y at all.

baylah17

splinter65 wrote: »

For some people it is.

No, not revenge for 1983, but perhaps vindication for the victims of 1983 and the promise of a better future for women.

splinter65

drkpower wrote: »

No one mentioned 1983. 1983 has nothing to do with the strategic approach that need to be adopted now. This referendum is not some sort of revenge for 1983.

For some people it is.

ohnonotgmail

ForestFire wrote: »

Sorry but this is asking people to stop discussing, trying to shut down debate.

If something new is raised , then counter it, but don't try to stop new arguments/info.

You clearly didnt read what i posted

ForestFire

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

finding something else to cast doubt on

Sorry but this is asking people to stop discussing, trying to shut down debate.

If something new is raised , then counter it, but don't try to stop new arguments/info.

ohnonotgmail

ForestFire wrote: »

I don't even know the background to this, But are people not allowed to progress their views, add to their views as new information is presented.

If you asking everyone to stick to what they thought or said 2 weeks ago, that just seems like trying to stop the discussion.

that isn't what Joey said at all. It is not about progressing views. it is about continually finding something else to cast doubt on when the last thing they cast doubt on is no longer an issue. Claiming to be pro choice but doing all they can to undermine it. a cuckoo in the nest

ForestFire

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Sure only a few weeks ago you were saying 12 weeks was too much!!
I dunno but you keep finding fault with eveything. All your posts seem to be low level giving reasons to vote no. Its kinda like now you realised 12 weeks might win that you then bring in hardline TDs. At every opportunity you are doing it. "But what about x" and X is always a reason to vote no to repeal.

I don't even know the background to this, But are people not allowed to progress their views, add to their views as new information is presented.

If you asking everyone to stick to what they thought or said 2 weeks ago, that just seems like trying to stop the discussion.

Annasopra

freshpopcorn wrote: »

To the best of my knowledge we are voting to allow abortion up to twelve weeks. As in the marriage referendum we were voting to allow marriage regardless of gender.
If people are told by TD's they support abortion up to twelve weeks I believe it will pass but if there is to much doubt on this being expanded in the future I could see it causing the campaign trouble because lets face it people on the pro life side will use this as a tactic.
With the marriage referendum a line often used by the no side was it will lead to polygamy and the td's etc could say no it will not we are voting on allowing marriage regardless of gender. There was no doubt and it was clear cut. Similar with this referendum we need to make sure people known what they voting on and there is no doubt.

Sure only a few weeks ago you were saying 12 weeks was too much!!
I dunno but you keep finding fault with eveything. All your posts seem to be low level giving reasons to vote no. Its kinda like now you realised 12 weeks might win that you then bring in hardline TDs. At every opportunity you are doing it. "But what about x" and X is always a reason to vote no to repeal.

nozzferrahhtoo

_Roz_ wrote: »

To me the only difference between an abortion at 12 weeks and one at say 8 months, is the distress and pain for the potential life, and for the mother. But I don't think one is morally worse than the other, just more traumatic.

Well I would say that is no small difference given there IS no distress and pain for the fetus at 12 weeks. At all. The lights are off and no one is home. You will cause no more stress and pain in the world from terminating a fetus than you will from taking a hammer to a mannequin.

The reason one is morally worse than the other is that one would be killing an actual sentient entity. The other is not. Saying one is not worse than the other is basically like saying jabbing needles into a dog is no worse than jabbing them into an amoeba.

Jim Ellis wrote: »

Have a read of this to see the baby's development at 12 weeks: Tell me that's not a human life?

No one is saying it is not "human life" in terms of taxonomy and biological function however. They are saying it is not "Human life" in terms of person-hood and sentience as it has neither. Just because structures have formed and autonomic responses make some of them flap about or clench, that does not make it a "human" in any sense we should actually have concern for.

Jim Ellis wrote: »

I know you probably won't though because most on the repeal side are afraid to confront what they're actually campaigning for.

Yet you will find that I not only have seen 1000s of those images, I have the knowledge to know exactly what I am looking at too. I do not need to "confront" anything. I know the images AND the biology and detail behind them very intimately indeed. And I assure you there is nothing in EITHER those images or that knowledge that gives me any moral pause regarding abortion at 12 weeks.

The morality of an action is not based on what that action LOOKS like either. I do not particularly like looking at pictures of heart bypass surgery either as it is gory and bloody and unpleasant. That does not make heart bypass surgery immoral though.

So no, I do not think mere images are going to succeed for you where rational argument and debate is clearly failing.

RobertKK wrote: »

Some people have lives and I don't have time to reply to everything.

Despite being on the forum 5 yeas LESS than me you have around 400% MORE posts than me. So no I do not buy that cop out at all. You have been systematically ignoring my posts and points, and I think that is clear to everyone.

RobertKK wrote: »

I mean I got a loads of people quoting me, I am not going to reply to all and especially not long winded posted that are divided up like the above.

Says you while actually responding to that post above

You are contradicting your own canard here now.

RobertKK wrote: »

I did answer one of those questions you asked but you missed it.

Link?

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Yes but if this happens in debates I can see there being trouble! Can you?

Perhaps but it depends how we deal with it. For example on this very thread a user was banned for making claims about the quantities of repeal camp wanting no limits abortion, but refusing to back up that claim in any way.

It was not even a PERMban. The user was told they COULD post on the thread again if only they would try to back up the claim. Said user, for obvious reasons, never returned. Because the claim simply could not be backed up. And they knew it as well as we did.

So if someone is making a SIMILAR claim, only specifically about TDs rather than the repeal camp as a whole..... then I think it fair and consistent that such claims be treated with the same level of "Conversational intolerance" (as Sam Harris would call it) and evidence be demanded of them in general. And excuses for not affording that evidence not tolerated or pandered to.

There is going to be a LOT of lies and misrepresentation and scaremongering (alas from both sides I am sure) in the coming months. And the onus is on ALL of us not to let it slide, and to call it out, at every turn until either the claimant A) Runs away (common) or

admits "Yes you are right, I have absolutely no evidence AT ALL to offer to back up this narrative" (much less common) or C) actually presents the evidence for their claims (not as common as I would like).

I do not think we can have a sane debate on any issue, but less one this emotive, if we do not hold stringently and stridently to SOME level of shared truth and reality and substantiation. Even if that means calling out people who are on our "side" and will be voting how we want them to. I am a firm believer in cleaning up ones own house, before checking for dust on the sideboards in anyone else's.

Zubeneschamali

drkpower wrote: »

But if you try and hurdle those steps, you will only risk losing the main objective.

I'm sorry, what is your main objective exactly?

I'm not sure we are on the same page there. Or book. Maybe in the same library, maybe not.

Zubeneschamali

drkpower wrote: »

This referendum is not some sort of revenge for 1983.

Anyone who voted no in 1983 and has had to watch the slow motion train crash since will celebrate when this abomination is deleted from our Constitution.

It won't be revenge, the people responsible are mostly dead now, and their driving philosophy is in terminal decline, but when this one goes, it will be a milestone.

And I mean in 2018, 2028, 2038, whenever. I will see it gone before I die.

drkpower

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Eh, no. It was a stupid idea in 1983 and I told everyone in sight. Now it is a 1980s stupid idea dripping in blood.

Not going to lie.

No one mentioned 1983. 1983 has nothing to do with the strategic approach that need to be adopted now. This referendum is not some sort of revenge for 1983.

drkpower

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

How about we learn a lesson and pass a law that means we don't have to go to the Supreme Court just to find out what the law we just passed means?

The obvious solution is what Leo Varadkar said the other night:

No longer an article of our Constitution, but rather a private and personal matter for women and doctors. No more X cases, C cases, Miss Ys or Miss A, Miss B, or Miss C.

That was a sound bite. The legislation will be much more difficult.

History has shown us that it will be very difficult to craft legislation immune from challenge. Sure we could do what the uk did, but that simply won't pass in Ireland. Or at least today's Ireland. Step by step is what will have to happen.

But if you try and hurdle those steps, you will only risk losing the main objective.

Zubeneschamali

drkpower wrote: »

I am sigggesting you and others could learn from that approach. Or not.

Eh, no. It was a stupid idea in 1983 and I told everyone in sight. Now it is a 1980s stupid idea dripping in blood.

Not going to lie.

Zubeneschamali

drkpower wrote: »

Lessons have been learned. It will be much much tighter, and sadly, court battles will probably lie ahead in a few edge cases.

How about we learn a lesson and pass a law that means we don't have to go to the Supreme Court just to find out what the law we just passed means?

The obvious solution is what Leo Varadkar said the other night:

No longer an article of our Constitution, but rather a private and personal matter for women and doctors. No more X cases, C cases, Miss Ys or Miss A, Miss B, or Miss C.

drkpower

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Tactically, she may have preferred to make it not just about her, which I respect. It didn't work well, many outlets described Panti as the face of marriage equality.

And she did not lie, and did not hide what she thought we should do.

And we did it anyway.

It was a little bit more than 'just not about her' which is clear from both the article and the documentary which I'm sure you watched.

She recognised that her being a primary advocate would turn off some of the middle ground. She is owed a huge debt of gratitude for that selfless approach.

I am sigggesting you and others could learn from that approach. Or not.