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…187188190192193…324

Comments

  • #5672
    AnneFrank
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,827 ✭✭✭AnneFrank


    horseburger wrote: »
    Can I ask you since you mentioned Cavan.

    Did you think that Niamh Smyth TD Fianna Fáil, when she spoke about the issue of the Eighth Amendment, when she raised concerns about abortion, when she spoke on Tonight with Matt and Ivan on TV3 recently?

    Is she anti-woman?

    I thought she spoke sincerely on this clearly very contentious issue, where there are certain pro choice groups, who are every bit as hostile to opposing views, as certain pro life groups.

    Look how many are in this thread, such a one sided discussion because you'll be shouted down for having a differing view, Unfortunately i think it will pass, but it could be closer than people think.


  • #5673
    Mr. CooL ICE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,812 ✭✭✭✭Mr. CooL ICE


    AnneFrank wrote: »
    Look how many are in this thread, such a one sided discussion because you'll be shouted down for having a differing view, Unfortunately i think it will pass, but it could be closer than people think.

    Where are people being shouted down for having a different view?

    People are being shouted down for constantly posting lies and/or absolute gibberish


  • #5674
    AnneFrank
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,827 ✭✭✭AnneFrank


    Case in point.


  • #5675
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    AnneFrank wrote:
    Look how many are in this thread, such a one sided discussion because you'll be shouted down for having a differing view, Unfortunately i think it will pass, but it could be closer than people think.


    Shouted down? Who has been shouted down?

    Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but everyone else is entitled to have an opinion on that opinion. You cannot expect to come onto a discussion forum and not discuss anything. Or is it a case that because most people on this thread are pro-choice, majority of them should shut up and keep silent to even it up a bit?

    Also, can you see the difference between a single sentence post made by someone who is otherwise actively involved in a thread, or one made by someone who just shows up to make a single sentence post?


  • #5676
    Mr. CooL ICE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,812 ✭✭✭✭Mr. CooL ICE


    bertieinexile wrote: »
    Everybody will have access up to 24 weeks for Down Syndrome and best indicators are we would have a 90% rate of abortion of people with Down Syndrome

    Mod: bertieinexile, do not post in this thread again.

    Reason: Ignoring direct mod instruction here and here.


  • Advertisement
  • #5677
    Mr. CooL ICE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,812 ✭✭✭✭Mr. CooL ICE


    AnneFrank wrote: »
    Case in point.

    :confused:

    Please elaborate


  • #5678
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    AnneFrank wrote: »
    I'm not trying to convince anyone, either will i try shout down everyone else in this thread with a different opinion.

    Hardly. In the last month you have 2 posts on this thread and both of them were identical and both of them were a one liner.

    You have basically not expressed anything TO shout down. You are just playing the standard victim card people play when they are disagreed with. Which is simply to portray disagreement or dissent as if it is hostile, an attack, an affront or an offence.

    This is a DISCUSSION site. If you post an opinion and a number of people are disagreeing with you, that is not "Shouting you down". The phrase to "Shout someone down" means to prevent them from speaking or getting their points across at all by drowning them out with noise. The great thing about on line forums is no one can do that. They can reply to your post, but they can not shout loud enough to prevent you from posting it.

    Coming into a discussion and debate forum, and getting haughty when people discuss and debate though is about as sensible and meaningful as going into a pub and complaining that people there keep offering you alcohol.

    You want to save the 8th, I am all ears as to why. Do you have any reasons or reasoning for this other than that which I covered in the middle of the three sections of this post here? Or did I pretty much cover your position there?


  • #5679
    bertieinexile
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 299 ✭✭bertieinexile


    SNIP

    Banned.


  • #5680
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    bertieinexile wrote: »
    Deleted post.

    In a recent post, I showed that the UK figures applied here would actually mean the elimination of 66% of babies with Down Syndrome, not 90% as claimed.

    But this is a really weird argument - if abortion is not OK, what has DS to do with it? If it is murder, a crime, a sin or whatever, I don't see how a DS diagnosis makes it better or worse.

    And if abortion is OK without a DS diagnosis, how is it not OK with? It's completely illogical.

    I think it is an effort to get people to somehow associate abortion with discrimination/prejudice against people with DS.


  • #5681
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    You think you know all the reasons why women should be able to access abortion in their home country, then out of the blue a fact like this hits you in the face and you have to take a step back and realise your privilege.

    https://twitter.com/TFYEastCork/status/985336217599381504


  • Advertisement
  • #5682
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,109 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    horseburger wrote: »
    Don't get too technical now!:)

    What spelling of foetus do you prefer?

    Is a fetus different to a foetus?
    Trying to make you feel more at home as an american.


  • #5683
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    bertieinexile wrote: »
    Deleted post.

    I know you're threadbanned, and rightly so.

    It actually took you here https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106739313&postcount=5244

    I'm sorry I disappointed you Bertie, you disappointed me as well, there I was, preparing myself for a good intellectual discussion but instead it was derailed by your consistent deflection and misinterpretations of statements followed by the inevitable "what I'm saying is right" part.

    You're wrong about abortion on demand on up to 24 weeks, you've been proven wrong on that.

    You then made an even bolder claim regarding DS abortions without (most likely) reading that the figure stems from pre-natal diagnoses of DS. 90% of DS children are not in fact, aborted, as 64% of these cases are only diagnosed pre-natally (before they are born, so 36% are diagnosed after they're born).

    I think I'm doing a stellar job for the pro-choice crowd to be quite honest bertie, but they don't need my help, as individuals like you give them all the fuel and ammunition they need.

    'til next time son.


  • #5684
    Trasna1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 565 ✭✭✭Trasna1


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    In a recent post, I showed that the UK figures applied here would actually mean the elimination of 66% of babies with Down Syndrome, not 90% as claimed.

    But this is a really weird argument - if abortion is not OK, what has DS to do with it? If it is murder, a crime, a sin or whatever, I don't see how a DS diagnosis makes it better or worse.

    And if abortion is OK without a DS diagnosis, how is it not OK with? It's completely illogical.

    I think it is an effort to get people to somehow associate abortion with discrimination/prejudice against people with DS.
    Presumably because it feels like eugenics. I guess it's the idea that people aren't wanted because they are not perfect enough, rather than for another reason like ffa.

    It is obviously much harder to argue the moral grounds for abortion if the reason for doing so is on the grounds of disability, no more than gender.


  • #5685
    captbarnacles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,972 ✭✭✭captbarnacles


    bertieinexile wrote: »
    ....even more nonsense.....

    Bertie appears to be debating a completely different referendum to the one in May.

    You cannot diagnose DS after 12 weeks afaik hence you could not get a termination here for DS so you know what will happen? women who decide after getting a definite diagnosis they cannot cope with this will go to England to obtain a termination and this you and all other prolifers have no objection to!!


  • #5686
    amdublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,653 ✭✭✭✭amdublin


    January wrote: »
    You think you know all the reasons why women should be able to access abortion in their home country, then out of the blue a fact like this hits you in the face and you have to take a step back and realise your privilege.

    https://twitter.com/TFYEastCork/status/985336217599381504

    Gosh not something you'd think about at All, agree

    *adds to my list of why I'm voting Yes to repeal the 8th


  • #5687
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Trasna1 wrote: »
    Presumably because it feels like eugenics. I guess it's the idea that people aren't wanted because they are not perfect enough, rather than for another reason like ffa.

    It is obviously much harder to argue the moral grounds for abortion if the reason for doing so is on the grounds of disability, no more than gender.

    Well, to bring us back on topic, the proposed Irish law won't include disability as grounds for abortion, and it won't be covered by other grounds for practical reasons. In reality, women who wish to access abortion because of disability will continue to travel to the UK or elsewhere.


  • #5688
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Some friendly advice for anyone who may not be aware (and this goes for both the pro and anti repeal side);

    If you see something on social media that you don't like, then don't engage it. Don't add a reaction, don't comment, don't share it so you can be angry.

    Any and all interactions are a good thing for the post. The network's algorithm says that this is something that people want to see, and it ranks it higher up peoples' newsfeeds, whether they want to see it or not. Facebook doesn't care whether you like or hate a post, it doesn't care that you're fighting ignorance by correcting it, it only cares that it has engaged your attention. And it will show you more of the same, and it will show your network more of the same.

    If you really need to add a reaction to share with your own network, screenshot the offending post, and post that image to your feed. If someone shares something you don't like, the most effective thing you can do is block it. This tells the software not to show you more of the same and by extension to not show it to your network.

    This is how the cambridge analytica stuff spread; by exploiting the fact that hysterical posts grab the attention of everyone and spread faster than factual posts. Facebook makes money not by showing you stuff you like, but by showing any posts to as many people as possible.


  • #5689
    Shadowstrife
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 83 ✭✭Shadowstrife


    ^ Maybe stay off FB entirely. The only thing I find it useful for is to find out if Irish friends abroad are alive during a terrorist attack


  • #5690
    Trasna1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 565 ✭✭✭Trasna1


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    Well, to bring us back on topic, the proposed Irish law won't include disability as grounds for abortion, and it won't be covered by other grounds for practical reasons. In reality, women who wish to access abortion because of disability will continue to travel to the UK or elsewhere.

    But as we discussed earlier, the proposed law is irrelevant. There will be no constitutional limitation on the grounds for abortion.
    We are not voting on the legislation.


  • #5691
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    seamus wrote: »
    Some friendly advice for anyone who may not be aware (and this goes for both the pro and anti repeal side);

    If you see something on social media that you don't like, then don't engage it. Don't add a reaction, don't comment, don't share it so you can be angry.

    Any and all interactions are a good thing for the post. The network's algorithm says that this is something that people want to see, and it ranks it higher up peoples' newsfeeds, whether they want to see it or not. Facebook doesn't care whether you like or hate a post, it doesn't care that you're fighting ignorance by correcting it, it only cares that it has engaged your attention. And it will show you more of the same, and it will show your network more of the same.

    If you really need to add a reaction to share with your own network, screenshot the offending post, and post that image to your feed. If someone shares something you don't like, the most effective thing you can do is block it. This tells the software not to show you more of the same and by extension to not show it to your network.

    This is how the cambridge analytica stuff spread; by exploiting the fact that hysterical posts grab the attention of everyone and spread faster than factual posts. Facebook makes money not by showing you stuff you like, but by showing any posts to as many people as possible.

    I've started doing something along those lines; liberal use of the mute or block buttons, and if I'm sharing something, I screenshot it. And with screenshots of lies/bunkum/nonsense, I crop out the author as well so the attention is focused on the message than the messenger.


  • Advertisement
  • #5692
    Wombatman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭Wombatman


    January wrote: »
    You think you know all the reasons why women should be able to access abortion in their home country, then out of the blue a fact like this hits you in the face and you have to take a step back and realise your privilege.

    https://twitter.com/TFYEastCork/status/985336217599381504

    Totally behind a yes vote but this is stretching things a little. Most people don't understand any type of sign language so it makes little difference. British sign language is also used here.


  • #5693
    Trasna1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 565 ✭✭✭Trasna1


    Wombatman wrote: »
    Totally behind a yes vote but this is stretching things a little. Most people don't understand any type of sign language so it makes little difference. British sign language is also used here.

    Indeed, and can't most deaf people write?
    Communicate is more difficult sure, but not impossible.


  • #5694
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    Wombatman wrote: »
    Totally behind a yes vote but this is stretching things a little. Most people don't understand any type of sign language so it makes little difference. British sign language is also used here.

    It's not stretching it. If you access health care here you either have a family member interpret for you or you have access to someone who can interpret. If you know ISL and don't know BSL and have to travel for an abortion then you'll have trouble with interpretation. Its a minority for sure but it's definitely not stretching things.


  • #5695
    baylah17
    Closed Accounts Posts: 790 ✭✭✭baylah17


    Trasna1 wrote: »
    There will be no constitutional limitation on the grounds for abortion.

    And rightly so!
    The Constitution is not the place to put such limits, let the legislature legislate in accordance with the prevailing will of the people and the scientific evidence at any given time.


  • #5696
    horseburger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,137 ✭✭✭horseburger


    baylah17 wrote: »
    And rightly so!
    The Constitution is not the place to put such limits, let the legislature legislate in accordance with the prevailing will of the people and the scientific evidence at any given time.

    Would you place any limits as to when an abortion can be carried out?


  • #5697
    Trasna1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 565 ✭✭✭Trasna1


    baylah17 wrote: »
    And rightly so!
    The Constitution is not the place to put such limits, let the legislature legislate in accordance with the prevailing will of the people and the scientific evidence at any given time.

    Agreed. But lets not kid ourselves, it need not be the prevailing will (unpopular measurers are forced through all the time), only the will of a party of government.

    The constitutional amendment may not lead to disability as a grounds for abortion (that will be up to legislators) but it offers no protection against it being grounds.

    I'm not saying it will happen but the proposal does not impede it from happening.


  • #5698
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,109 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    horseburger wrote: »
    Would you place any limits as to when an abortion can be carried out?
    Not in the constitution.
    Morality is a personal decision and should not be in the constitution.


  • #5699
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Trasna1 wrote: »
    But as we discussed earlier, the proposed law is irrelevant. There will be no constitutional limitation on the grounds for abortion.
    We are not voting on the legislation.

    And as also been discussed, there is no need for a constitutional limit because Irish politicians as a whole aren't going to introduce radical changes to our abortion laws, either now or in the future. It took us 30 years just to legislate for abortion when a woman's life was at risk! Why should anyone believe they're secretly waiting for a Yes vote to completely strike down all our abortion laws?

    And in addition to that, it has also been discussed that the constitution isn't the right place to deal with this issue in the first place. Most people want some kind of change to our abortion laws and a Yes vote is the only realistic way to make that happen.

    The draft bill published allows people to make an informed decision as to what is proposed to happen if the referendum is carried. Any future changes to the final law, even minor ones, will receive significant media coverage and scrutiny, and ultimately won't pass if the public are against it. We've seen this in recent times with the likes of water charges, and ownership of the new maternity hospital and we will see it again if the public oppose any future change to the law.

    So there is little point bring abortion on grounds of disability into the discussion when it's not going to be in the final legislation, and is unlikely to be a feature anytime soon. Should that ever change, the public will be well equipped to make their opinions known about it.


  • #5700
    horseburger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,137 ✭✭✭horseburger


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    In a recent post, I showed that the UK figures applied here would actually mean the elimination of 66% of babies with Down Syndrome, not 90% as claimed.

    But this is a really weird argument - if abortion is not OK, what has DS to do with it? If it is murder, a crime, a sin or whatever, I don't see how a DS diagnosis makes it better or worse.

    And if abortion is OK without a DS diagnosis, how is it not OK with? It's completely illogical.

    I think it is an effort to get people to somehow associate abortion with discrimination/prejudice against people with DS.

    What do you reckon of abortion? Are you ok with it in general?


  • Advertisement
  • #5701
    horseburger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,137 ✭✭✭horseburger


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Not in the constitution.
    Morality is a personal decision and should not be in the constitution.

    I didn't ask about the constitution. I asked if the poster would place limits as to the stages the poster would be happy about abortion being carried out.

    What do you reckon yourself?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement