freshpopcorn wrote: » When the same sex marriage referendum passed. This referendum was called for basically because of how Ireland is changing with the result. I also feel the No side can pick poles in this campaign this time that might stick. It's a total different referendum and I find some people are very complacent at the moment.
freshpopcorn wrote: » Just making people aware of the issues that's coming up and I feel people aren't taking them seriously! It's very easy to say reasons why to vote yes.
Sweetemotion wrote: » What has the SSM referendum got to do with this referendum? I have no idea why the two are seen as the same.
The Legend Of Kira wrote: » One other poster pointed out something from an Irish times article- I wasn,t aware of till he/she mentioned it. .... Given that the boys mother gave her permission for his image to be used in the billboard campaign, how is he being exploited once his parent/guardian consented to give permission to use his image ? if his image was used without any permission being given then yeah I would see issue with it- but once permission has being given Id see it as his mothers own personal business if she wants his image to be used, this new group the Irish times mentioned ( Disability voices for life ) if they want to campaign & give permission for images to be used in billboards I don,t see any issue with it .
Bannasidhe wrote: » You have done rather more than 'mention' it, you have been actively banging on about it. If you did so much campaigning in '15 you would know that one of the strengths of that campaign was the disciplined way people kept on message and actively counteracted attempts at 'but if we allow this then ...*insert floodgates scenario here* scaremongering. I see no counteracting from you - I see dissemination.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » Yep. As I said earlier he is continuously spreading reasons to vote no.
The Legend Of Kira wrote: » One other poster pointed out something from an Irish times article- I wasn,t aware of till he/she mentioned it. "" The Irish Times claims he is Joseph Cronin and his mam Catriona gave full permission to use his image.""https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106033987&postcount=6420 Given that the boys mother gave her permission for his image to be used in the billboard campaign, how is he being exploited once his parent/guardian consented to give permission to use his image ? if his image was used without any permission being given then yeah I would see issue with it- but once permission has being given Id see it as his mothers own personal business if she wants his image to be used, this new group the Irish times mentioned ( Disability voices for life ) if they want to campaign & give permission for images to be used in billboards I don,t see any issue with it .https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/child-with-down-syndrome-to-feature-in-anti-abortion-billboard-campaign-1.3372867
Joeytheparrot wrote: » The Legend Of Kira wrote: » What exactly is horrible about the billboards & what if any type of pro life billboards would you find acceptable ? when they used some graphic posters in the past some people say its " horrible " & when they use non graphic images some people still take offence, for example this is a new billboard van being driven around town at the moment & some people are still taking offence over it even though there is no graphic images on display . It is downright nasty. If the 12 week legislation comes in it is effectively lying. It is exploiting the child. Down Syndrome Ireland have said it is disredpectful to people with down syndrome and their families and these images are causing a huge amount of unnecessary stress.
The Legend Of Kira wrote: » What exactly is horrible about the billboards & what if any type of pro life billboards would you find acceptable ? when they used some graphic posters in the past some people say its " horrible " & when they use non graphic images some people still take offence, for example this is a new billboard van being driven around town at the moment & some people are still taking offence over it even though there is no graphic images on display .
Joeytheparrot wrote: » It is exploiting the child. Down Syndrome Ireland have said it is disredpectful to people with down syndrome and their families and these images are causing a huge amount of unnecessary stress.
Joeytheparrot wrote: I find your assertions on this very strange. You claim to be in favour of repeal but you are always undermining it. I'm not sure I believe you are in favour of repeal at all.
freshpopcorn wrote: » Yes and the things I've mentioned will be a major stubling block in my opinion and it will cause a lot of hassle. I just feel some posters here are very niave about it. I did a good bit of campaigning for the marriage one/talked to people about and got a different vibe. People who are big into this also had the same issues with their parents. We are never going to agree on this.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Ah now - you are the one who keeps making comparisons to Mar Eq and you are giving the impression that really, it was all very clear cut and in the bag by January. You may have done a little campaigning but I did a hell of a lot and it wasn't clear cut due to Ionaist's usual tactics and it only seems like it was in the bag in January in hindsight. At the time it felt far from it and we were fending off 'won't somebody think of the children' on air (my own son was on Sean O'Rourke on this very topic), in print, and from bloody lampposts across the country. TBH, the person I see on here who is primarily sowing the seeds of doubt about future legislation is you. With allies like you....
Joeytheparrot wrote: » It is downright nasty. If the 12 week legislation comes in it is effectively lying. It is exploiting the child. Down Syndrome Ireland have said it is disredpectful to people with down syndrome and their families and these images are causing a huge amount of unnecessary stress.
Deleted User wrote: Sex is not a right for either partner, it is not a chore, it is not a requirement of a relationship.
Deleted User wrote: The act of Penatrive sex can result in a pregnancy, the only 100% foolproof way to avoid this is to avoid having sex. If you do have sex then there should be a level of responsibility and that includes raising a child.
freshpopcorn wrote: » I did a little campaigning for the marriage referendum the two biggest issues I heard were. Will the priest have to marry the couples if they had to and the answer is No. I encountered people who weren't even aware of civil marriage. If you read the previous posts myself and another few posters had a chat about our parents view on this compared to marriage referendum. Both posters said there parent's would vote no. An I said my mother would vote no and my father would be a little more liberal on the issue. He might come around to the twelve week rule but anything else not a hope or even talk of it. I simply don't like how people are comparing this to the marriage referendum because it's not as clear cut. It's just my opinion that lots of the scaremongering tactics in the marriage referendum were easy to defeat but this one will be a lot more tricky.
NuMarvel wrote: » We don't have to have a referendum on that though. The court ruled in the Marie Fleming case a few years back that it's within the Oireachtas' power to legislate for this if they wish.
Bannasidhe wrote: » I must say you have a very different recollection of the Mar Eq Ref than I do. I remember having to spend a ridiculous amount of time countering the BS that it was about children -including the insinuation that if the gays were allowed to adopt they would abuse the children. Indeed I recognise a few posters here who made that insinuation. It was far from clear and this was a deliberate tactic. They were aiming at the 'I don't mind the gays getting married but they shouldn't be allowed to adopt children because... well... because...' closet homophobes. The proposed Referendum question is clear - repeal the 8th or not. After that point - if it passes - the legislative battle will begin. Stop giving oxygen to the scaremongering.
david75 wrote: » Wouldn’t be so sure. The moron Bishop has already mentioned this passing will lead to enforced euthanasia for old people. Scaremongering. The right to die issue is going to come up sooner than later and they’ll fight that too with the same rigor (mortis)
Bannasidhe wrote: » The proposed Referendum question is clear - repeal the 8th or not. After that point - if it passes - the legislative battle will begin.
freshpopcorn wrote: » Yes I understand this but not everybody does. It will be used against the repeal campaign in my opinion. They'll say in a debate can you grantee that in the future that our abortion laws won't be liberalised even further in years to come and the person has to reply yes in my opinion. In the marriage referendum there was loads of talk about people marrying trees and toasters and multiple wives but the marriage referendum was clear cut people were voting on people marrying regardless of gender. This view isn't accepted here and I am waiting for people to give out to me about it but I just see it as an issue that might arise.
NuMarvel wrote: » This is their final war. There isn't another major social issue that we have to have a referendum on, so this is last chance saloon for them. They will do absolutely anything and everything to stop this being passed. There won't be a lacuna or a free for all. If the referendum is passed, the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act remains the law of the land until such time as either the Oireachtas or the courts determine otherwise. And I can't see the courts wanting to get involved anytime soon after the referendum unless there's an urgent case in front of them.
pitifulgod wrote: » They can point out that the government will have to face reelection so will be subject to public opinion on legislation. Politicians aren't in a bubble where there's no consequences to decisions.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Because realistically getting 'extreme' legislation through the Dáil would be so difficult even Simon Coveney would admit it's pretty darn close to impossible. It's not like any thing at all can get through. It's quite a complicated process.
Water John wrote: » I think people know, at this point, that the anti repeal side will use whatever tactics they think will see their side prevail. Basically the end, will justify the means. The SSM and even divorce were simply, symptoms of the, slippery slope. For them, this is the war.
Water John wrote: » Cora Sherlock was just on Drivetime RTE 1 and she set out her stall. Worth listening to. I think she claimed the prohibition on abortion had save 5,000 lives each year.They are also targetting the lacuna between a Repeal vote, being successful, and any subsequent legislation. That this gap would allow a free for all. Also, strong attack focussed on Minister Harris. His Dail speech being, mean spirited. Mary Wilson cut her, at that point. Obviously a lot of clock watching in RTE on this. Certainly, not attacking politicians directly but that, we shouldn't hand this issue, to them.
