The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

gctest50 · 13-04-2018 02:07AM

smokingman wrote: »

Check if you're registered everyone. Seems the latest tactic from the "love both" crowd is to write letters to councils to get people they've identified using Facebook data to get pro-choice people removed as "non-resident"

Tuesday 08-05-2018 is the closing date for your Local Authority to receive an application for entry to the Supplement to the register of electors for the referendum.

https://www.checktheregister.ie

.

amdublin · 13-04-2018 10:12AM

I've said it before but sometimes I worry I am speaking in an echo chamber.

I am motivated by the conversation here on boards and think we can be confident it will pass.

But then I see some stuff on other places and it gives me a jolt of reality e.g. david mcwilliams posted in support of repeal on fb yesterday. Equally I saw two politicians do same (labour and someone else).

The comments /replies have opened my eyes.
There are a lot of pro life people out there with the likes of their opinions I guess I don't see usually. I don't want to label these people...But jeebs their thoughts are...pretty out there...to say the least. But they exist. And there's a lot of them. And they are loud and shouty on social media.

The pro choice for repeal side cannot be complacent.

We must get out and have those conversations.
We must remain calm and focussed on social media and online.
We must get out and vote on the day.

Trust women
Repeal the 8th

amdublin · 13-04-2018 10:18AM

Ps. The Crowd funding is at €459k which is utterly amazing. That gives me a lot of hope too

The crazy thing is:
If repeal is passed it literally changes nothing

For the pro life side literally the only change is that Irish abortions don't take place in England, Irish abortions take place in Ireland. No increase in abortions. And possibly even a decrease (taking the mad panic to book travel out of the equation)

For the pro choice side and the women affected it's a huge change

ELM327 · 13-04-2018 10:20AM

I was (as a pro choice person) very concerned before, but the sea of money flowing in from random people, 10 quid here 20 quid there, gives me real hope that it will pass.

As above, we need to keep calm and not rise to the baiting propoganda.

Try and show any "on the fence" friends the page on facebook "In Her Shoes" as there are some stories there that show why you need the 8th repealed- and they are more powerful than 1000 onions.

Keep calm.
#trustourwomen
#repealthe8th
#keepyourrosariesofftheirovaries

Ush1 · 13-04-2018 10:29AM

amdublin wrote: »

I've said it before but sometimes I worry I am speaking in an echo chamber.

I am motivated by the conversation here on boards and think we can be confident it will pass.

But then I see some stuff on other places and it gives me a jolt of reality e.g. david mcwilliams posted in support of repeal on fb yesterday. Equally I saw two politicians do same (labour and someone else).

The comments /replies have opened my eyes.
There are a lot of pro life people out there with the likes of their opinions I guess I don't see usually. I don't want to label these people...But jeebs their thoughts are...pretty out there...to say the least. But they exist. And there's a lot of them. And they are loud and shouty on social media.

The pro choice for repeal side cannot be complacent.

We must get out and have those conversations.
We must remain calm and focussed on social media and online.
We must get out and vote on the day.

Trust women
Repeal the 8th

I'm likely going to vote yes but I have to say I don't like this narrative.

While I can see both sides have extreme elements I think it's disingenuous to say this is a womens issue and it's their body. It's clearly more complicated than that when there is another life/potential life growing inside them.

Also, issues such as abortion effect society at large so everyone should have an interest, man or woman. I would have never had to worry about slavery, it wouldn't have effected me but I still would have voted to get rid of it.

gmisk · 13-04-2018 10:31AM

I will be honest I worry it will be fairly tight....closer than the marriage referendum possibly.
maybe something like 55/45.

I just worry people might listen to the lies on posters, leaflets and the rubbish spouted online as well.
Hopefully the ongoing and seemingly constant lies on the save the 8th side continue to be called out, and people do their own research before deciding how to vote.
Also picking that embarrassment John Mc Guirk as their campaign leader can only help.

ohnonotgmail · 13-04-2018 10:31AM

Ush1 wrote: »

I'm likely going to vote yes but I have to say I don't like this narrative.

While I can see both sides have extreme elements I think it's disingenuous to say this is a womens issue and it's their body. It's clearly more complicated than that when there is another life/potential life growing inside them.

Also, issues such as abortion effect society at large so everyone should have an interest, man or woman. I would have never had to worry about slavery, it wouldn't have effected me but I still would have voted to get rid of it.

It is a womans issue and it is their bodies. This issue affects them a lot more than it does society at large.

gmisk · 13-04-2018 10:33AM

ELM327 wrote: »

Try and show any "on the fence" friends the page on facebook "In Her Shoes" as there are some stories there that show why you need the 8th - and they are more powerful than 1000 onions.

I cant actually read any more of the posts on "in her shoes" absolutely heartbreaking but I agree entirely.

Ush1 · 13-04-2018 10:37AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is a womans issue and it is their bodies. This issue affects them a lot more than it does society at large.

Well you've shown me! See what I mean?

Yes it's their bodies that are carrying another body/potential body. Like it or not only women can procreate, mean can't, so you should be able to see why men would have an interest also.

seamus · 13-04-2018 10:40AM

ELM327 wrote: »

I was (as a pro choice person) very concerned before, but the sea of money flowing in from random people, 10 quid here 20 quid there, gives me real hope that it will pass.

This. There is a lot of noise from pro-life trolls. Lots of sock-puppeting going on to make it look like they're much louder and more widespread online than they actually are.

But when you look at the real-life realities, it gives me more positivity. The T4Y campaign's runaway funding success, and the pro-life's panicked mocking of the same. The fact that John McGuirk was the best individual they could find to head their campaign. Not even George Hook or Ivan Yates, or anyone with a track record of political savvy or success, or someone who commands respect in the public sphere.

Of course, that's not to get complacent. Much like marriage equality, there will of course be plenty with pro-life views who choose to stay silent. Who recognise the inherent flaws in their argument but choose not to confront it, instead choosing to stay silent rather than be criticised. As is their right.

They're the reason why campaigning is valuable. These people have no interest in getting into a public debate or argument. But they will read. They will listen to arguments.

ohnonotgmail · 13-04-2018 10:52AM

Ush1 wrote: »

Well you've shown me! See what I mean?

Yes it's their bodies that are carrying another body/potential body. Like it or not only women can procreate, mean can't, so you should be able to see why men would have an interest also.

men should have an interest to ensure that women can make the best choices for themselves.

Ush1 · 13-04-2018 10:59AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

men should have an interest to ensure that women can make the best choices for themselves.

...and wider society.

Do you accept it's not as simple as saying it's their bodies? Do you think people would be as concerned and stirred if women were wanting to legally chop off their legs?

applehunter · 13-04-2018 10:59AM

John McGuirk has played a stormer.

NuMarvel · 13-04-2018 11:02AM

applehunter wrote: »

John McGuirk has played a stormer.

Do you have anything constructive to add or are you occasionally wandering in here just to try and get a rise out of people?

It wasnt me123 · 13-04-2018 11:03AM

Ush1 wrote: »

...and wider society.

Do you accept it's not as simple as saying it's their bodies? Do you think people would be as concerned and stirred if women were wanting to legally chop off their legs?

Keep it relevant. My eggs and reproductive system are mine and mine alone. No busy body should have any say in what I do with my reproductive system. Do we put men's production of sperm in the Constitution? Of course not, its ridiculous and so is some randomer having a say in my uterus.

Repeal all the way

ohnonotgmail · 13-04-2018 11:03AM

Ush1 wrote: »

...and wider society.

Do you accept it's not as simple as saying it's their bodies? Do you think people would be as concerned and stirred if women were wanting to legally chop off their legs?

is that something common that i am not aware of?

It is simply this. Women must be allowed to make the best choice for themselves. Or do you suggest they should martyr themselves for the betterment of society? what societal issues that are caused by abortion override the health and wellbeing of a woman?

ohnonotgmail · 13-04-2018 11:04AM

applehunter wrote: »

John McGuirk has played a stormer.

in the sense that he is doing the repeal sides job for them i totally agree.

Zubeneschamali · 13-04-2018 11:04AM

applehunter wrote: »

John McGuirk has played a stormer.

Agreed, pro-choicers should have a whip round and buy him something nice for his efforts to drag the savethe8th campaign completely beneath the "water" in his sewer.

erica74 · 13-04-2018 11:05AM

A massive amount of new antichoice posters gone up around Waterford and Kilkenny over night.
Delighted to see my first few prochoice posters around as well though

gmisk · 13-04-2018 11:05AM

applehunter wrote: »

John McGuirk has played a stormer.

For the repeal side totally agree!

Ush1 · 13-04-2018 11:11AM

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

Keep it relevant. My eggs and reproductive system are mine and mine alone. No busy body should have any say in what I do with my reproductive system. Do we put men's production of sperm in the Constitution? Of course not, its ridiculous and so is some randomer having a say in my uterus.

Repeal all the way

Yeah, see there's a point when it's more than your reproductive system is the issue. Again, are you not seeing how disingenuous that line of reasoning is?

Your eggs and mens sperm by themselves won't create a human life. You know this, a fertilized egg obviously eventually will(barring complications). That's the relevant part.

applehunter · 13-04-2018 11:11AM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Do you have anything constructive to add or are you occasionally wandering in here just to try and get a rise out of people?

Criticizing John McGuirk is constructive, praising John McGuirk is not. Got ya.

"Wandering in here"

I will post whenever and whatever I want.

swampgas · 13-04-2018 11:11AM

I saw my first pro-repeal posters in Cork yesterday - it cheered me up after a difficult day.

seamus · 13-04-2018 11:13AM

Ush1 wrote: »

Do you accept it's not as simple as saying it's their bodies? Do you think people would be as concerned and stirred if women were wanting to legally chop off their legs?

You've unintentionally chosen a rather excellent analogue there.

There is currently no constitutional provision which requires that the law punishes people for removing their limbs.

If such a provision did exist, it would make surgical treatment a rather complicated affair to ensure that the removal of any body parts was fully in compliance with the law as set out.

It would also result in many poor, or late clinical decisions being made because of the same legal restrictions, and unsurity over the same. People would die because surgeons couldn't operate on them in time to remove a body part which later progressed to a serious complication.

So yes, if the constitution contained a provision providing explicit protection to your leg and requiring that people who remove legs should be punished with 14 years in jail, then I think you'd find quite a lot of people "concerned and stirred" about tying surgeon's hands and endangering patients through constitutional provisions.

Ush1 · 13-04-2018 11:13AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

is that something common that i am not aware of?

It is simply this. Women must be allowed to make the best choice for themselves. Or do you suggest they should martyr themselves for the betterment of society? what societal issues that are caused by abortion override the health and wellbeing of a woman?

It's fine if you can't or won't acknowledge what I'm saying. Have a nice Friday.:)

seamus · 13-04-2018 11:14AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

in the sense that he is doing the repeal sides job for them i totally agree.

Which is ironic, because a month ago on his Facebook page he suggested that the pro-life campaign should sit back and just let Simon Coveney do all the work for them.

John is the new Simon.

baylah17 · 13-04-2018 11:15AM

applehunter wrote: »

I will post whenever and whatever I want.

Please do, we could all do with a good laugh!

Repeal the 8th

Ush1 · 13-04-2018 11:15AM

seamus wrote: »

You've unintentionally chosen a rather excellent analogue there.

There is currently no constitutional provision which requires that the law punishes people for removing their limbs.

If such a provision did exist, it would make surgical treatment a rather complicated affair to ensure that the removal of any body parts was fully in compliance with the law as set out.

It would also result in many poor, or late clinical decisions being made because of the same legal restrictions, and unsurity over the same. People would die because surgeons couldn't operate on them in time to remove a body part which later progressed to a serious complication.

So yes, if the constitution contained a provision providing explicit protection to your leg and requiring that people who remove legs should be punished with 14 years in jail, then I think you'd find quite a lot of people "concerned and stirred" about tying surgeon's hands and endangering patients through constitutional provisions.

I dare say quite a few less than an abortion debate, which shows the point I'm making.

Legs don't produce children, but of course we all know that.

Timberrrrrrrr · 13-04-2018 11:18AM

Ush1 wrote: »

...and wider society.

Do you accept it's not as simple as saying it's their bodies? Do you think people would be as concerned and stirred if women were wanting to legally chop off their legs?

Happens all over the world for various reasons.

It wasnt me123 · 13-04-2018 11:19AM

Ush1 wrote: »

Your eggs and mens sperm by themselves won't create a human life. You know this, a fertilized egg obviously eventually will(barring complications). That's the relevant part.

No my body is the relevant part. MY body. Women want body autonomy, the same way men have body autonomy - equal playing field.

Not every fertilised egg eventually makes a baby - thousands never do - what are you going to do about those.

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Comments