The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

The Legend Of Kira · 02-02-2018 06:52PM

Cabaal 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....

In the past?
They are still using them at every opportunity

This recent display for example

And even when they don,t use images like in the above picture, some people still take offence over other non graphic images; so what images should the no side use in their campaigning ?

January · 02-02-2018 06:53PM

It's not the images, it's the outrageous claims they're making that's the problem.

david75 · 02-02-2018 06:55PM

It’s geeat to see people sharing their stories particularly about parents and family. It’s these conversations happening that will bring people around. It’s heslthy to least go talk about it openly.
The shock tactics being used already by the plc are going to stick with older people particularly unless we keep having these conversations.

I think the vast majority of people of any age group can see the current ad campaign is misleading at best nd appalling at worst. Weaponising a section of society that has firmly asked not to be used as a pawn especially in such a misleading manner, and they did it anyways.
That will backfire. It already has.

RobertKK · 02-02-2018 07:02PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

What is proposed is abortion up to 12 weeks. you cannot test for downs before 12 weeks. Its a complete red herring from the No side.

It is not when the law can be changed any time in the Dail.

pitifulgod · 02-02-2018 07:06PM

RobertKK wrote: »

It is not when the law can be changed any time in the Dail.

That's how laws work, they shouldn't rely on the constitution for every detail. That's the currently warped situation that we're in.

Water John · 02-02-2018 07:06PM

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.

freshpopcorn · 02-02-2018 07:08PM

RobertKK wrote: »

It is not when the law can be changed any time in the Dail.

I am really getting the head bit of me for saying this and keep on being told I'm scaremongering but the pro-life campaign will really use this in my opinion and it may harm the repeal campaign.

January · 02-02-2018 07:09PM

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.

How many lives has it ruined though?

If we can't leave it in the hands of this countries leaders then who can we leave it in the hands of?

jaja321 · 02-02-2018 07:13PM

RobertKK wrote: »

It is not when the law can be changed any time in the Dail.

It took how many years to get to this point?. In fairness, were not known for very radical governments or doing anything at a rapid pace. The middle ground is essentially where Irish voters are most comfortable. Sure there's hardly a hairs difference between the two major parties on any issue. Anyway..governments are elected by the people..so presumably government positions and legislative changes would reflect the views of the people of the time.

Water John · 02-02-2018 07:17PM

What must really spook the anti repealers is, that its 3 Fianna Failers, incl Billy Kelleher, that proposed the 12 weeks.

Bannasidhe · 02-02-2018 07:24PM

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I am really getting the head bit of me for saying this and keep on being told I'm scaremongering but the pro-life campaign will really use this in my opinion and it may harm the repeal campaign.

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.

A Bill may be commenced in either the Dáil or the Seanad but it must be passed by both Houses to become law. Usually, Bills are commenced in Dáil Eireann.

Before it is introduced to the Dáil, the contents of the Bill are approved by the Government. Usually there will be a process of consultation with government departments and groups likely to be affected by the Bill. (Examples of these groups are voluntary organisations, lobby groups or members of the public.)

Sometimes, the Government will publish a Green Paper. A Green Paper is a discussion document setting out ideas and inviting comment and views from individuals and relevant organisations.

The Bill is then put before the Dáil for a general debate on the principles of the Bill. Members of the Dáil may make suggestions for amendments and additions to the Bill.

The Bill is then sent to committees to be examined section by section. After the committee stage, more amendments may be made to the Bill. This is known as the report stage.

The final stage in the process is a debate in the Dáil, confined to the contents of the Bill. The members of the Dáil will then vote on whether to pass the Bill.

The Bill will then be sent down to the Seanad to go through the entire process of debate and committee examination again. The Seanad has 90 days (or any longer period agreed by both Houses) to consider the Bill and do one of the following:

Pass the Bill without any amendment or
Reject the Bill completely or
Return the Bill to the Dáil with amendments

If the Seanad rejects the Bill or returns it to the Dáil with amendments that the Dáil does not accept, the Bill will lapse after 180 days. The Dáil may, within those 180 days, pass a resolution declaring that the Bill is deemed to have been passed by both Houses. This provision means that the Seanad cannot generally stop the Dáil from introducing legislation – it can only cause delays.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/national_government/houses_of_the_oireachtas/legislation.html

We can't get animal welfare legislation through but you think we could get no-limits abortion legislation through??? It would need a government with a clear majority to impose the whip and even then do you think that there wouldn't be those who would cross the floor?

I do note that William Binchy is claiming this is what will happen if people vote Repeal. This is obviously the latest tactic from Pro-Lifers - the latest in their 'floodgates' type drama llama attempts to muddy the waters.

It's scaremongering.

There is as much chance of a Nationalist Socialist style coup happening.

NuMarvel · 02-02-2018 07:33PM

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.

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.

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.

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.

freshpopcorn · 02-02-2018 07:35PM

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.

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.

pitifulgod · 02-02-2018 07:37PM

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.

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.

freshpopcorn · 02-02-2018 07:41PM

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.

Yes, I get this but it's just an issue I feel the campaign might face. Sorry I can't help it.

Bannasidhe · 02-02-2018 07:42PM

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.

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 · 02-02-2018 07:44PM

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.

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)

NuMarvel · 02-02-2018 07:44PM

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.

I don't think anyone's arguing that it won't be used. Many of us have first hand experience of the tactics people like these use to stop referendums being passed.

But the relevant point is that it has no basis. And, to switch into campaign mode for a moment, anyone who's worried that it will convince people to vote no should be talking to their friends and family to tell them it has no basis.

Loafing Oaf · 02-02-2018 07:47PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The proposed Referendum question is clear - repeal the 8th or not.
After that point - if it passes - the legislative battle will begin.

I don't believe there will be much of a battle. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of FG will row in behind the proposed legislation, just like they did with POLDPA.

NuMarvel · 02-02-2018 07:49PM

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)

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.

freshpopcorn · 02-02-2018 07:54PM

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.

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.

david75 · 02-02-2018 08:03PM

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.

And we know the chances of that happening are slim to none unless activists and groups start calling for it. And then watch groups from the religious right rise to oppose it. Made up of the same people and self appointed mouth pieces we’re seeing here in this campaign.

Annasopra · 02-02-2018 09:07PM

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.

Bannasidhe · 02-02-2018 09:09PM

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.

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....

pilly · 02-02-2018 09:12PM

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.

You're not getting any are you? Bless.

Bannasidhe · 02-02-2018 09:16PM

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.

But to be fair the backers of campaigns like this aren't exactly known for their respect for actual living children. They just like to use them in poster campaigns against divorce, Marriage equality etc... never against homelessness, lack of disability supports, lack of health care provision for seriously ill children etc etc.

freshpopcorn · 02-02-2018 09:29PM

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....

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 · 02-02-2018 09:36PM

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.

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.

pilly · 02-02-2018 09:45PM

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.

I agree. Very odd.

freshpopcorn · 02-02-2018 09:47PM

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.

Yes, I've banged on about. I am not ashamed of it. If you want me to stop them don't reply to me.
I feel this issue is important and there's going to be a lot of scare tactis used. I fear at this time they might work.

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Comments