The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

....... wrote: »

Plenty of newly registered members with strong views popping up eh?

Is that the most likely position? A trojan horse? Did you read my comments?

....... wrote: »

Or rereg trolls.

You are wrong and I don't think my post even remotely gives that impression

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue

tonymontanavu wrote: »

That's fine but should their position be unquestionable as a result? You don't address the point I made

Yes of course it should be unquestionable.
In the same way that you or I don’t have to justify our opinions (unless we choose to, on forums such as these) on the matter to society, neither should they.
It’s interesting how you honed in on this one small age demographic - why do they offend you so much?
Why do you feel that one age group should should have to justify their position?

....... wrote: »

That you dismissively brush off people for whom contraception fails says enough.

So you think my husband should wait until I am in my 50s to have sex with me? We dont want children. No contraception is 100% safe. There is always a risk.

Responsible people prepare for that risk and have a plan ready, in my case it would mean endangering my own health to seek medical care in another jurisdiction.

Because Im not waiting 40 years to have sex with my husband (we met when i was 17) and that you even think that is a realistic situation shows you have no clue about the reality of peoples lives.

You didn't read what I said or you are being deliberately difficult. I said it's a reasonable position for a woman to say that if they become pregnant after taking precautions then they would like the choice of ending that pregnancy. I simply stated that that is the position and that should be stated.

tonymontanavu wrote: »

You didn't read what I said or you are being deliberately difficult. I said it's a reasonable position for a woman to say that if they become pregnant after taking precautions then they would like the choice of ending that pregnancy. I simply stated that that is the position and that should be stated.

You're right, it is a very reasonable position to take. and yet so many people have a problem with it.

This post has been deleted.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Yes of course it should be unquestionable.
In the same way that you or I don’t have to justify our opinions (unless we choose to, on forums such as these) on the matter to society, neither should they.
It’s interesting how you honed in on this one small age demographic - why do they offend you so much?
Why do you feel that one age group should should have to justify their position?

They are articulating their position publicly to influence the result of a constitutional amendment so if the assert something questionable it should be questioned. Any one of my opinions can and should be open to scrutiny if I make them known.

Everyone should have to justify their position if they make it known. Age groups having a common opinion as a result of surrounding themselves with like minded people and rejecting with anger any counter view points is a huge problem in my opinion. It's not limited to this group and religious over 50s is another if you are looking for some balance

....... wrote: »

Sorry - I really stopped reading too closely when I saw you suggesting people had a choice of having sex or not.

But to be honest, regardless of people taking precautions they should have access to abortion services. We dont punish people who take risks in sports by not treating them if they injure themselves and we should not punish women who take a risk and get pregnant either.

You either make it available for all or it just doesnt work. Strings attached abortion is simply trying to shame a woman.

Which is my position and kind of why I posted. Both sides are so quick to go on the defensive that a sensible discussion is very difficult

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue

tonymontanavu wrote: »

They are articulating their position publicly to influence the result of a constitutional amendment so if the assert something questionable it should be questioned. Any one of my opinions can and should be open to scrutiny if I make them known.

Everyone should have to justify their position if they make it known. Age groups having a common opinion as a result of surrounding themselves with like minded people and rejecting with anger any counter view points is a huge problem in my opinion. It's not limited to this group and religious over 50s is another if you are looking for some balance

And what you might consider questionable, another might consider to be reasonable and agreeable, so no, they don’t have to justify their opinions to each and every member of society.

Did you miss the part earlier where I pointed out that this age group is amongst the most passionate because the outcome of the referendum directly affects them, as the next generation of pregnant women and mothers?

This referendum will have no direct affects on the religious over 50’s, except for maybe some hurt feelings if it doesn’t go their way.
Yet out of the two groups you picked the young women to complain about, when the referendum directly affects them.
This alone speaks volumes.
Whether you intended to or not, it comes across as a bit mysogenic and condescending towards women. As if their opinion is less valuable and is plain annoying purely because of their age.

....... wrote: »

You stated that if a woman took precautions then needed an abortion then that was ok.

I think if a woman needs an abortion under any circumstances its ok. She is not required to be taking precautions to qualify for it.

I said that if you choose to have sex you can become pregnant. If you become pregnant you would like the choice to end it. I think people should state that clearly - that's it. I didn't suggest any conditions to that decision bar the 12 weeks

WhiteRoses wrote: »

And what you might consider questionable, another might consider to be reasonable and agreeable, so no, they don’t have to justify their opinions to each and every member of society.

Did you miss the part earlier where I pointed out that this age group is amongst the most passionate because the outcome of the referendum directly affects them, as the next generation of pregnant women and mothers?

This referendum will have no direct affects on the religious over 50’s, except for maybe some hurt feelings if it doesn’t go their way.
Yet out of the two groups you picked the young women to complain about, when the referendum directly affects them.
This alone speaks volumes.
Whether you intended to or not, it comes across as a bit mysogenic and condescending towards women. As if their opinion is less valuable and is plain annoying purely because of their age.

That's called a debate which is what this is. I complained about both sides but pointed out one side who are probably most militant because of their close investment to the outcome as you point out (and therefore more close minded to opposing positions).

Bringing my hatred of women into it without any background is another thing I can't stand and is an incredibly condescending argument in my opinion.

tonymontanavu wrote: »

That's called a debate which is what this is. I complained about both sides but pointed out one side who are probably most militant because of their close investment to the outcome as you point out (and therefore more close minded to opposing positions).

Bringing my hatred of women into it without any background is another thing I can't stand and is an incredibly condescending argument in my opinion.

we have heard all the opposing positions ad nauseum. They have nothing to offer. Is it any wonder that young people reject them?

applehunter

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

we have heard all the opposing positions ad nauseum. They have nothing to offer. Is it any wonder that young people reject them?

#repealshield.

applehunter wrote: »

#repealshield.

what an excellent argument.

pilly

So the new pro life tactic is to pretend to be pro choice and throw a load of straw men out there.

How clever. :rolleyes:

This post has been deleted.

TomSweeney

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what an excellent argument.

It's a start, its handy on twitter for blocking all the shyte these people send to you

volchitsa

tonymontanavu wrote: »

I said that if you choose to have sex you can become pregnant. If you become pregnant you would like the choice to end it. I think people should state that clearly - that's it. I didn't suggest any conditions to that decision bar the 12 weeks

Are you saying this is the only, or the "real" reason people want repeal of the 8th?

If so, I think you are mistakenly trying to mindread, because there are other very good reasons for wanting the8th gone.

TomSweeney wrote: »

It's a start, its handy on twitter for blocking all the shyte these people send to you

If i look at that hashtag on twitter all i see are posts from iona-lite accounts.

volchitsa wrote: »

Are you saying this is the only, or the "real" reason people want repeal of the 8th?

If so, I think you are mistakenly trying to mindread, because there are other very good reasons for wanting the8th gone.

volchitsa

tonymontanavu wrote: »

No

So I dont know what you were saying then.
Some people want Repeal because they support a right to choose for abortion, others agree to having abortion for choice because it seems to be the only long term solution to solve the problem of the 8th amendment which harms women.

Coming on here and dictating what other people "should" say is suggesting that people arent being upfront about their opinons It is a bit weird for a "new" poster TBH.

JDD

I do sort of get what Tony Montana is saying. When campaigning for any sort of legislative change, you should make some effort to understand the reasons why someone might vote against your views. How else are you to persuade them to vote differently? And surely that is the point of a campaign - the people who will vote with you are already there. A campaign is to try and convince those that oppose your views to change their mind. Now, you're never going to change the mind of someone who is Iona Institute or Opus Dei (or both). But by calmly arguing against them, especially on a forum like this, you may convince a lurker or others to your views.

I agree that the cohort of college/early twenties women are the most vocal group of campaigners, and I agree that is for good reason. But like any young adult you would have a tendency to look at older generations and think "they're out of touch, they're dinosaurs, there's no convincing them, we just need to shout loud enough and we'll get the change we want". The pro-life campaigners will focus on that and use it to their advantage, so that older voters will feel like they're not being listened to.

[Deleted User]

You are forgetting that the 'older' voters you are talking about, those 50 years or over, were once campaigning against this amendment.
They were the 20 & 30 somethings of the 1980s, and they have waited a very long time for this referendum.

TomSweeney

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

If i look at that hashtag on twitter all i see are posts from iona-lite accounts.

OK I could be mistaken, I thought there was some handy list that would block all these twitter trolls ...

JDD

bubblypop wrote: »

You are forgetting that the 'older' voters you are talking about, those 50 years or over, were once campaigning against this amendment.
They were the 20 & 30 somethings of the 1980s, and they have waited a very long time for this referendum.

True. But people do tend to get more conservative as they get older. I wager a 25 year old in 1983, who would be 60 now, probably believes "young people" these days are taking too many risks sexually and probably have a different view on unrestricted terminations than they may have done in their youth.

david75

So we’re actually not having a referendum on what people get up to in the bedroom right? Cos that’s nobody else’s business regardless of their age.
Right?