Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

1…134135137139140…324

Comments

  • #4082
    Trasna1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 565 ✭✭✭Trasna1


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    This is completely twisting things. Seems to me you are trying to pretend to be neutral here while constantly finding fault with repeal campaign. Then when called on it "oh but both sides are rotten". I'm surprised you havent mentioned Soros yet but no its definitely becoming clear you have a biased agenda while trying to claim neutrality.

    You say I'm finding fault with the PC campaign but that's because I'm responding to people who seem to think that the PC campaign is above criticism. I couldn't be clearer, I don't like the tactics of PL either, who want to win at all costs as well.

    I have no agenda apart from wanting everyone to stick to the rules. The fact that both sides are looking to the other for justification for stretching the rules is what makes both campaigns rotten.


  • #4083
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,228 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Trasna1 wrote: »
    You say I'm finding fault with the PC campaign but that's because I'm responding to people who seem to think that the PC campaign is above criticism. I couldn't be clearer, I don't like the tactics of PL either, who want to win at all costs as well.

    I have no agenda apart from wanting everyone to stick to the rules. The fact that both sides are looking to the other for justification for stretching the rules is what makes both campaigns rotten.

    Yes. I am saying it is transparent that you have a biased one sided agenda despite your attempts to deny it.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #4084
    Woden
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,560 ✭✭✭Woden


    Thanks to those who highlighted the togetherforyes poster donation process. As an Irish citizen abroad who can no longer vote it was nice to at least feel I could contribute something


  • #4085
    bertieinexile
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 299 ✭✭bertieinexile


    Trasna1 wrote: »
    There are pro-choice campaigners pointing to the legislation when it is put to them that there may be a free for all wrt abortion here in the future.

    Pointing to the legislation is not a valid argument as legislation can be easily changed, we don't know what the future holds on this issue but without a specific mention in the Constitution we won't be directly asked again. We should remember that as well as holding back liberalisation for as long as possible, the 8th was to ensure the public would be directly consulted on the issue should it desire change in the policy. Without the 8th, some parties in the dail would have almost certainly buried a liberal abortion policy in their manifesto but got elected to government on the back of a change in the economy. Under a Constitution where the 8th was never introduced, Ireland would have most likely got limited abortion in the mid 1990s and it would probably have been further liberalised to euro-norms post 2010.

    You seem like you are coming to this thread with an open mind and are ready to evaluate the advantages and shortcomings of both sides.
    As someone shouted at me once walking down the Ormeau Road on the 12th of July in the dark, "D'ye know where y'orrr".

    You asked why we are talking about abortion on demand up to 24 weeks. Would you take a look at the post making the case that this is in fact the issue. I would love to know if you think it's reasonable and if there's something there.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106660318&postcount=3481

    I get that in your terms this would *only* apply in what you call the short term. It would *only* be until something was changed, if it ever was, but that would still be for a lot of years and mean the loss of a lot of lives. That is something that obviously matters to a large number of voters. And again that's if the law was ever changed again at all.
    As you say it is the eighth alone that is responsible for us not having large scale abortion now.


  • #4086
    bertieinexile
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 299 ✭✭bertieinexile


    Good morning viewers

    I put up a video of a 23 week old premature baby.
    https://youtu.be/2RQ8ks-UH0E?t=22s
    I said he is now a healthy 3 year old. You can even look up the parents account on youtube and see video of him playing.

    nozzferraahhtoo said that

    ....if a mother in the UK decided, after it's removal from her womb not to put it on life support and to let it die...... then I would not be losing any sleep over it.

    I asked how much support there was for that view among the pro choice posters on here

    So far we have agreement from
    Elm327 , Poster ...., , Professor Plum, January, Sofiztikated, Zubeneschamali and Timberrrr.

    I put up the names of people who had thanked them for having agreed with this, thinking that might encourage these posters to make clear where they stood, but that seems to be an issue. Not sure why. We are ultimately talking about how popular this view is - how many support it.

    I will do a final round up this afternoon. 24 hours should be enough.

    Maybe, as some of these posters have said, this is mainstream thinking on the pro choice side.

    Is there any other pro choice poster on here ready to agree that you shouldn't lose sleep over someone taking the life of that child hooked up to tubes in that incubator.


  • Advertisement
  • #4087
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #4088
    JDD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,580 ✭✭✭JDD


    Ah Bertie, you're back. Three quite lengthy posts over the past 24 hours, since you said that you were formulating a response to my question a few pages back. You said that you had to think about it, to do it justice.

    Any chance you've had a moment or two to reply?


  • #4089
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,950 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    bertieinexile wrote: »
    Good morning viewers

    I put up a video of a 23 week old premature baby.
    https://youtu.be/2RQ8ks-UH0E?t=22s
    I said he is now a healthy 3 year old. You can even look up the parents account on youtube and see video of him playing.

    nozzferraahhtoo said that

    ....if a mother in the UK decided, after it's removal from her womb not to put it on life support and to let it die...... then I would not be losing any sleep over it.

    I asked how much support there was for that view among the pro choice posters on here

    So far we have agreement from
    Elm327 , Poster ...., , Professor Plum, January, Sofiztikated, Zubeneschamali and Timberrrr.

    I put up the names of people who had thanked them for having agreed with this, thinking that might encourage these posters to make clear where they stood, but that seems to be an issue. Not sure why. We are ultimately talking about how popular this view is - how many support it.

    I will do a final round up this afternoon. 24 hours should be enough.

    Maybe, as some of these posters have said, this is mainstream thinking on the pro choice side.

    Is there any other pro choice poster on here ready to agree that you shouldn't lose sleep over someone taking the life of that child hooked up to tubes in that incubator.

    Are you repeatedly trying to shame posters for thanking the posts they agree with and 'warn' other posters that you are and will be recording their posting behaviour, so they'd better watch what they say?

    That seems extraordinarily sinister.


    edit: Also -
    JDD wrote: »
    Ah Bertie, you're back. Three quite lengthy posts over the past 24 hours, since you said that you were formulating a response to my question a few pages back. You said that you had to think about it, to do it justice.

    Any chance you've had a moment or two to reply?

    This would be good.


  • #4090
    uptherebels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    bertieinexile wrote: »

    Is there any other pro choice poster on here ready to agree that you shouldn't lose sleep over someone taking the life of that child hooked up to tubes in that incubator.

    I don't loose sleep when people who are unknown to me die/ are killed, regardless of circumstances.
    I would wager this is the same for most people even "pro lifers".
    Desperately trying to find any arguement at all to try and support their agenda seems to be deeply ingrained in anti choicers


  • #4091
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Trasna1 wrote: »
    There are pro-choice campaigners pointing to the legislation when it is put to them that there may be a free for all wrt abortion here in the future.

    Pointing to the legislation is not a valid argument as legislation can be easily changed, we don't know what the future holds on this issue but without a specific mention in the Constitution we won't be directly asked again. We should remember that as well as holding back liberalisation for as long as possible, the 8th was to ensure the public would be directly consulted on the issue should it desire change in the policy. Without the 8th, some parties in the dail would have almost certainly buried a liberal abortion policy in their manifesto but got elected to government on the back of a change in the economy. Under a Constitution where the 8th was never introduced, Ireland would have most likely got limited abortion in the mid 1990s and it would probably have been further liberalised to euro-norms post 2010.


    Seriously? You're criticising pro-choice for talking about legislation in direct response to someone trying to misrepresent legislation as a reason to vote no?

    Then you go on to talk about the legislation yourself...
    Trasna1 wrote: »
    You say I'm finding fault with the PC campaign but that's because I'm responding to people who seem to think that the PC campaign is above criticism. I couldn't be clearer, I don't like the tactics of PL either, who want to win at all costs as well.

    I have no agenda apart from wanting everyone to stick to the rules. The fact that both sides are looking to the other for justification for stretching the rules is what makes both campaigns rotten.

    Actually, I never once said the pro-choice campaign is above criticism. Not once. In fact, if you look over the thread as a whole, you will notice that I am well able to point out the flaws in both sides. It just so happens that the individual fault you found with pro-choice doesn't actually exist.

    I'm actually thinking your agenda is more so along the lines of "everyone is doing this wrong except me. I'm great." whilst, as pointed out, your posts are both wrong,and hypocritical.


  • Advertisement
  • #4092
    Yeah_Right
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,198 ✭✭✭Yeah_Right


    Grayson wrote: »
    So's your user name :)

    Very true. I find this thread quite bizarre at times. There are a lot of posters on here who I would normally never agree with. Politics, the Middle East, economics, immigration, the Belfast trial, travellers, social welfare, cyclists, you name it and chances are we were on opposing sides. Before this thread we probably would have disagreed on whether water was wet. Yet on this topic, we agree. Its not a left v right issue. Its a human rights issue.


  • #4093
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #4094
    Triceratops Ballet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,894 ✭✭✭Triceratops Ballet


    Give it a rest Bertie, the posters on this thread don't actually owe you an answer.
    You've posted this tripe how many times now yet I believe questions put to you remain unanswered (probably cos you can't spin the answers in line with campaign rhetoric)

    Fwiw I didn't thank the post, but I have no problem with the idea that families may choose to withdraw life support from their loved ones if that's the advice they are given by their doctors, I also support their right to disregard that medical advice if that is what they choose, that applies to patients of all ages.

    What do you think of the fact that the hse policy on consent excludes pregnant women?


  • #4095
    Crea
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,049 ✭✭✭Crea


    bertieinexile wrote: »
    Good morning viewers

    I put up a video of a 23 week old premature baby.
    https://youtu.be/2RQ8ks-UH0E?t=22s
    I said he is now a healthy 3 year old. You can even look up the parents account on youtube and see video of him playing.

    nozzferraahhtoo said that

    ....if a mother in the UK decided, after it's removal from her womb not to put it on life support and to let it die...... then I would not be losing any sleep over it.

    I asked how much support there was for that view among the pro choice posters on here

    So far we have agreement from
    Elm327 , Poster ...., , Professor Plum, January, Sofiztikated, Zubeneschamali and Timberrrr.

    I put up the names of people who had thanked them for having agreed with this, thinking that might encourage these posters to make clear where they stood, but that seems to be an issue. Not sure why. We are ultimately talking about how popular this view is - how many support it.

    I will do a final round up this afternoon. 24 hours should be enough.

    Maybe, as some of these posters have said, this is mainstream thinking on the pro choice side.

    Is there any other pro choice poster on here ready to agree that you shouldn't lose sleep over someone taking the life of that child hooked up to tubes in that incubator.

    You are asking people their opinion on something that doesn't happen.
    Live birth abortions do not happen.
    If a baby is induced to be delivered alive early it's in the context of fatal foetal abnormality. In these cases a decision is made not to take extreme measures to save the baby. The baby is not "left to die". They are held in their loving parents arms.
    This was denied to my sister. She wanted to be induced early because it was unlikely her baby would make it to term and she wanted a chance to meet him alive. Because of the 8th this could not happen. She was forced to remain pregnant and her baby was stillborn at 38 weeks. Is this ok with you?


  • #4096
    Mr. CooL ICE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,813 ✭✭✭✭Mr. CooL ICE


    Mod: bertieinexile, people thank posts for whatever reasons they like. They might agree with the post, might find it funny, whatever. It doesn't matter and it's none of your business. You don't get to dictate why people should or shouldn't thank posts. Stop.

    Also, please try to justify why you are arguing about 24 weeks. You seem to be arguing a different point to everyone else and are starting to derail the thread.


  • #4097
    It wasnt me123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,786 ✭✭✭It wasnt me123


    baylah17 wrote: »
    Well when you have the likes of John Watters last night .........

    It was a "Monster Pro Life rally" and there were 350 people, I wouldn't be getting too excited about it - but the lies they spout at these meetings are just poison. if that was 350 random people in a hall in Kerry the Independent wouldn't even have printed it - they court the likes of John Waters for an extreme view.

    It seems that its the same people saying No to everything, no to divorce, no to marriage equality and no to repeal of the 8th.

    Luckily I think Ireland has finally come of age and dragged itself into the 21st Century - Repeal all the way


  • #4098
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,924 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    It wasnt me123 wrote: »
    It was a "Monster Pro Life rally" and there were 350 people, I wouldn't be getting too excited about it - but the lies they spout at these meetings are just poison. if that was 350 random people in a hall in Kerry the Independent wouldn't even have printed it - they court the likes of John Waters for an extreme view.

    It seems that its the same people saying No to everything, no to divorce, no to marriage equality and no to repeal of the 8th.

    Luckily I think Ireland has finally come of age and dragged itself into the 21st Century - Repeal all the way

    i could never understand him and Sinead O'Connor. I cant think of anything they have in common.


  • #4099
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    It wasnt me123 wrote: »
    they court the likes of John Waters for an extreme view.

    While it's true that the only reason this meeting sees press coverage is that they have John Waters come and vomit bile at the podium, I think this doesn't actually help the No campaign.

    John Waters has a long and tedious history of being a complete knob in print, and having the Usual Suspects like Waters (Mens rights, anti-SSM, anti-Europe, pro Catholic Church) line up with the No campaign is exactly what the Yes campaign will like to see. Losers vote No.


  • #4100
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    bertieinexile wrote: »
    Good morning viewers

    I put up a video of a 23 week old premature baby.
    https://youtu.be/2RQ8ks-UH0E?t=22s
    I said he is now a healthy 3 year old. You can even look up the parents account on youtube and see video of him playing.

    nozzferraahhtoo said that

    ....if a mother in the UK decided, after it's removal from her womb not to put it on life support and to let it die...... then I would not be losing any sleep over it.

    I asked how much support there was for that view among the pro choice posters on here

    So far we have agreement from
    Elm327 , Poster ...., , Professor Plum, January, Sofiztikated, Zubeneschamali and Timberrrr.

    I put up the names of people who had thanked them for having agreed with this, thinking that might encourage these posters to make clear where they stood, but that seems to be an issue. Not sure why. We are ultimately talking about how popular this view is - how many support it.

    I will do a final round up this afternoon. 24 hours should be enough.

    Maybe, as some of these posters have said, this is mainstream thinking on the pro choice side.

    Is there any other pro choice poster on here ready to agree that you shouldn't lose sleep over someone taking the life of that child hooked up to tubes in that incubator.

    Hi Bertie, absolutely no one owes you an explanation as to why they thank a post.
    I know your pro life views falsely lead you to believe that your opinion is superior to everyone else's and that they should have to justify their actions to you, but this isn't the case.
    You have no right to demand clarification and the fact that you are warning others that you are keeping tabs on who is thanking what further proves that.

    Now that we've gotten the obvious out of the way, when can we expect your lengthy reply to JDD's post? I'm anticipating it with great interest.


  • #4101
    Mr. CooL ICE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,813 ✭✭✭✭Mr. CooL ICE


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    i could never understand him and Sinead O'Connor. I cant think of anything they have in common.

    "I take two steps forward/I take two steps back
    We come together cos opposites attract
    And you know - it ain't fiction; just a natural fact
    We come together cos opposites attract"

    - Sinead O'Connor ft John Waters


  • Advertisement
  • #4102
    gubby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,010 ✭✭✭gubby


    away back in the 80's when the last abortion referendum was held. my sister who was then pregnant with her 10th child, and who's husband was at that time a alcoholic received a visit from the local "pillars of society" to persuade her to vote no.. she very calmly asked them why they had never called to her door before to see if she was in need of help to feed her children or any other support!!!

    Says it all I think


  • #4103
    Hooks Golf Handicap
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 233 ✭✭Hooks Golf Handicap


    Active engagement with the Yes side is the No campaigns main difficulty here.
    Say your pro Repeal & you get the knee jerk barrage of "baby killers" or "murderers".
    Just keep the head down, wait for polling day & tick Yes.


  • #4104
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    bertieinexile wrote: »
    Is there any other pro choice poster on here ready to agree that you shouldn't lose sleep over someone taking the life of that child hooked up to tubes in that incubator.

    It's the decision of the doctors & the next of kin.


  • #4105
    Reati
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,926 ✭✭✭Reati


    gubby wrote: »
    away back in the 80's when the last abortion referendum was held. my sister who was then pregnant with her 10th child, and who's husband was at that time a alcoholic received a visit from the local "pillars of society" to persuade her to vote no.. she very calmly asked them why they had never called to her door before to see if she was in need of help to feed her children or any other support!!!

    Says it all I think

    Start at .43



    Pretty much sums it all up nicely :)


  • #4106
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    bubblypop wrote: »
    It's the decision of the doctors & the next of kin.

    I'm genuinely baffled as to why people can't understand the above. Individuals do not owe society an explanation to justify decisions like that. Its the height of selfishness and arrogance to assume otherwise.


  • #4107
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,228 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    bertieinexile wrote: »
    Good morning viewers

    I put up a video of a 23 week old premature baby.
    https://youtu.be/2RQ8ks-UH0E?t=22s
    I said he is now a healthy 3 year old. You can even look up the parents account on youtube and see video of him playing.

    nozzferraahhtoo said that

    ....if a mother in the UK decided, after it's removal from her womb not to put it on life support and to let it die...... then I would not be losing any sleep over it.

    I asked how much support there was for that view among the pro choice posters on here

    So far we have agreement from
    Elm327 , Poster ...., , Professor Plum, January, Sofiztikated, Zubeneschamali and Timberrrr.

    I put up the names of people who had thanked them for having agreed with this, thinking that might encourage these posters to make clear where they stood, but that seems to be an issue. Not sure why. We are ultimately talking about how popular this view is - how many support it.

    I will do a final round up this afternoon. 24 hours should be enough.

    Maybe, as some of these posters have said, this is mainstream thinking on the pro choice side.

    Is there any other pro choice poster on here ready to agree that you shouldn't lose sleep over someone taking the life of that child hooked up to tubes in that incubator.


    Please stop trying to shame posters for thanking posts. Its childish nonsense.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #4108
    Yeah_Right
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,198 ✭✭✭Yeah_Right


    bertieinexile wrote: »
    For those joining us late...

    I put up a video of a 23 week old premature baby.
    https://youtu.be/2RQ8ks-UH0E?t=22s
    I said he is now a healthy 3 year old. You can even look up the parents account on youtube and see video of him playing.

    nozzferraahhtoo said that
    I asked how much support there was for that view among the pro choice posters on here

    And I am shocked that
    ELM327 (thanked by captbarnacles), Poster ...., (thanked by erica74), Professor Plum, (thanked by baylah17, January, Madscientist30, SusieBlue) and January (thanked by baylah17, ProfessorPlum) have all said they agree.












    nozzferrahhtoo was thanked for his original statement by
    Call me Al, crustybla, DubInMeath, Fizzlesque, frag420, January, PopePalpatine, Simi, swampgas and Yeah_Right

    So far January is the only one of those we have heard from (DubInMeath is away)

    Maybe this is just the very extreme end of the pro choice view.

    Is there any other pro choice poster on here ready to agree that you shouldn't lose sleep over someone taking the life of that child hooked up to tubes in that incubator.

    I am fascinated by what response we will have had by tomorrow afternoon.

    Sorry I'm late Bertie. Just catching up on the thread now.

    Yes I would have no issue with the life support being turned off on a 23 week old baby. Or a 6 month old baby. Or a 10 year old kid. Or a 25 year old adult. Or a 40 year old. Or a 70 year old. You get the picture? I doubt that deciding to turn off the life support of someone you love is an easy decision. They probably agonize, discuss and argue about it but it's not my business. It's between the family and the doctors.


  • #4109
    Trasna1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 565 ✭✭✭Trasna1


    Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »
    Active engagement with the Yes side is the No campaigns main difficulty here.
    Say your pro Repeal & you get the knee jerk barrage of "baby killers" or "murderers".
    Just keep the head down, wait for polling day & tick Yes.

    Indeed and for balance the opposite is true too. Say you are pro life and you'll be told you are a religious nut job and living a life pre enlightenment.

    Don't fully subscribe to the pro choice side or be like myself, neutral and question everything and you'll be labeled as the opposition.

    And it's people like me that need to be won over (that said, any campaigner of any flavor won't convince me).


  • #4110
    Edward M
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,837 ✭✭✭Edward M


    bertieinexile wrote: »
    Good morning viewers

    I put up a video of a 23 week old premature baby.
    https://youtu.be/2RQ8ks-UH0E?t=22s
    I said he is now a healthy 3 year old. You can even look up the parents account on youtube and see video of him playing.

    nozzferraahhtoo said that

    ....if a mother in the UK decided, after it's removal from her womb not to put it on life support and to let it die...... then I would not be losing any sleep over it.

    I asked how much support there was for that view among the pro choice posters on here

    So far we have agreement from
    Elm327 , Poster ...., , Professor Plum, January, Sofiztikated, Zubeneschamali and Timberrrr.

    I put up the names of people who had thanked them for having agreed with this, thinking that might encourage these posters to make clear where they stood, but that seems to be an issue. Not sure why. We are ultimately talking about how popular this view is - how many support it.

    I will do a final round up this afternoon. 24 hours should be enough.

    Maybe, as some of these posters have said, this is mainstream thinking on the pro choice side.

    Is there any other pro choice poster on here ready to agree that you shouldn't lose sleep over someone taking the life of that child hooked up to tubes in that incubator.

    In all fairness here your posts should stop acting the b***x with this naming and supposed shaming.
    The biggest shame I can see here is your own, by not recognising that the eighth amendment is a harmful piece of kit and trying to pretend it only does good, we all well know that's not the case and your linking it to something that can be protected without it anyway, is just plain stupid IMO.


  • Advertisement
  • #4111
    It wasnt me123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,786 ✭✭✭It wasnt me123


    Reati thank you for that - it all made perfect sense. Never heard of George Carlyn before but want to watch more. I really enjoyed it.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement