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…274275277279280…324

Comments

  • #8282
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    you posted that already.

    Yeah well Zubeneschamali seemed to think I was making stuff up.


  • #8283
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    professore wrote: »
    No, just the Referendum Commission.

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/no-guarantee-a-yes-vote-will-lead-to-abortion-up-to-12-weeks-watchdog-36838099.html
    Right, so RefCom have pointed out exactly what the position will be after a repeal.

    So your statement was a flat-out lie.


  • #8284
    baylah17
    Closed Accounts Posts: 790 ✭✭✭baylah17


    professore wrote: »
    There was no problem with same sex marriage?

    This is very likely to fail too. The Referendum Commission said so themselves. Basically no one really knows what the position will be after the 8th is repealed.


    The mothers right to her life and health will no longer be restricted by the 8th if this passes.
    That is a cert


  • #8285
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,739 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    professore wrote: »
    I agree with everything you are saying here except the first sentence. I don't believe the yes side (or the vocal ones at least) are tolerant of everyone's beliefs either. Try saying to someone on the Yes side you are thinking of voting no and see what happens.

    The Yes side is tolerant in that no-one who is pro-repeal will ever force someone to have an abortion against their will. With Repeal the individual is free to believe that abortion is wrong and no-one will force them to have one. Unlike the No side who would enforce their beliefs on everyone.


  • #8286
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    professore wrote: »
    Yeah well Zubeneschamali seemed to think I was making stuff up.

    You are. The referendum commission haven't said this referendum "is very likely to fail too." In fact that would be against the entire idea of being a neutral, impartial source of information!

    And it's also untrue to say "Basically no one really knows what the position will be after the 8th is repealed."


  • Advertisement
  • #8287
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    the constitutional amendment around marriage was a lot simpler. Everybody understands what



    means. There is no ambiguity. The 8th was nothing but ambiguity.

    "There is no protection for a fetus before X weeks of gestation or in the case of fatal fetal abnormalities, or in the case that the mother's life will be endangered. In other cases the fetus will have the same rights as a living person."

    OK the terms I used aren't legal terms, but you get the gist. Pretty unambiguous I would say.


  • #8288
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    The Yes side are tolerant towards everyone's beliefs. Its the No side that are restrictive and controlling.
    You can vote yes and be against abortion and never avail of abortion services for the rest of your life - but you allow others who don't share your feelings get the healthcare they need.

    The No side are telling lies, using emotional blackmail and using graphic posters to manipulate people into agreeing with them. Its a really aggressive and forceful campaign that they are running.

    You might need to take step back. Yes is also using emotional blackmail. Yes is also aggressive and forceful. You're possibly entrenched in your beliefs.


  • #8289
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,916 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    professore wrote: »
    "There is no protection for a fetus before X weeks of gestation or in the case of fatal fetal abnormalities, or in the case that the mother's life will be endangered. In other cases the fetus will have the same rights as a living person."

    OK the terms I used aren't legal terms, but you get the gist. Pretty unambiguous I would say.

    so you are happy for the mothers health to be endangered?


  • #8290
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,916 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Deleted User wrote: »
    You might need to take step back. Yes is also using emotional blackmail. Yes is also aggressive and forceful. You're possibly entrenched in your beliefs.


    the irony is unreal.


  • #8291
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    You are. The referendum commission haven't said this referendum "is very likely to fail too." In fact that would be against the entire idea of being a neutral, impartial source of information!

    That was my opinion on what they said. Another one of these idiots that likes winning an argument. Nice strawman.
    NuMarvel wrote: »
    And it's also untrue to say "Basically no one really knows what the position will be after the 8th is repealed."

    This isn't untrue. Other than the 8th not being in the constitution, no one really knows what the position will be. Quoting from the Indo article:
    It also reinforces the fact that TDs and senators may not be able to reach agreement on what type of legislation should be passed, in which case the existing laws will apply even if the Eighth Amendment is repealed.


  • Advertisement
  • #8292
    baylah17
    Closed Accounts Posts: 790 ✭✭✭baylah17


    http://35.197.238.155/ref2018/ Referendum Commission Website
    http://35.197.238.155/ref2018/refcom-guide-2018-english.pdf Referendum Commission Guide


  • #8293
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    the irony is unreal.

    How so? I think you should read my posts more carefully


  • #8294
    baylah17
    Closed Accounts Posts: 790 ✭✭✭baylah17


    professore wrote: »
    That was my opinion on what they said. Another one of these idiots that likes winning an argument. Nice strawman.



    This isn't untrue. Other than the 8th not being in the constitution, no one really knows what the position will be. Quoting from the Indo article:

    Actually it is, since once the 8th is removed there will no longer be a Constitutional requirement of a real and substantial risk to the life of the woman as opposed to health of the woman.
    That, dear boy, is a huge change


  • #8295
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    so you are happy for the mothers health to be endangered?

    No of course I'm not. Could put in a proviso for that too. However would have to be serious health consequences, not stretch marks for example. This is where legislation could step in. As I said it could definitely be done to put this in the constitution. All academic at this point anyway.


  • #8296
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,223 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    It worked so well we had 2 further referendums to correct problems caused by the 8th? I dont think you really understand this at all if you are making statements like that.

    Its now at 5 in total
    Plus legal cases of
    Miss X, Miss A, Miss B, Miss C, Miss D, Amanda Mellett, Siobhan Whelan, Miss P, Miss Y

    And then of course the deaths of
    Sheila Hodgers, Savita Halapanavar, Bimbo Onanuga

    If the 8th is such a success how come all these cases ended up in the courts and all these women died?

    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



  • #8297
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,916 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    professore wrote: »
    That was my opinion on what they said. Another one of these idiots that likes winning an argument. Nice strawman.

    Can you clarify what they said that led you to believe that the referendum would fail?
    professore wrote: »

    This isn't untrue. Other than the 8th not being in the constitution, no one really knows what the position will be. Quoting from the Indo article:

    can you quote the actual line that says that?


  • #8298
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    professore wrote: »
    "There is no protection for a fetus before X weeks of gestation or in the case of fatal fetal abnormalities, or in the case that the mother's life will be endangered. In other cases the fetus will have the same rights as a living person."

    OK the terms I used aren't legal terms, but you get the gist. Pretty unambiguous I would say.

    I cannot see an attorney general worth their salt agreeing to letting a phrase like this anywhere near the constitution. This would open up a massive can of worms. It's basically saying the High Court was right in that recent deportation case.

    I can also see issues with the phrase fatal foetal abnormalities seeing as we're told by pro lifers that there is no such term.


  • #8299
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,916 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    professore wrote: »
    No of course I'm not. Could put in a proviso for that too. However would have to be serious health consequences, not stretch marks for example. This is where legislation could step in. As I said it could definitely be done to put this in the constitution. All academic at this point anyway.

    so already your proposed amendment is unmanageable. you cant use a phrase like "Serious health consequences" in the constitution without defining it. So you would end up with a long list of medical conditions in the constitution? can you see now why this was not proposed?


  • #8300
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,223 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    professore wrote: »
    There was no problem with same sex marriage?

    This is very likely to fail too. The Referendum Commission said so themselves. Basically no one really knows what the position will be after the 8th is repealed.
    What?

    The referendum commission said this will fail?

    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



  • #8301
    zedhead
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 605 ✭✭✭zedhead


    professore wrote: »
    No of course I'm not. Could put in a proviso for that too. However would have to be serious health consequences, not stretch marks for example. This is where legislation could step in. As I said it could definitely be done to put this in the constitution. All academic at this point anyway.

    How do you define what is serious? I mean there is a whole myriad of possibility between stretch marks and life threatening. Surely it is up to the woman to decide what sort of risk she is willing to take.


  • Advertisement
  • #8302
    iamwhoiam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,248 ✭✭✭✭iamwhoiam


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    I cannot see an attorney general worth their salt agreeing to letting a phrase like this anywhere near the constitution. This would open up a massive can of worms. It's basically saying the High Court was right in that recent deportation case.

    I can also see issues with the phrase fatal foetal abnormalities seeing as we're told by pro lifers that there is no such term.

    I wonder what the pro lifers would say if the carried a baby with anencephaly ? Some people truly have not got a bloody clue what they spout


  • #8303
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,916 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Its now at 5 in total
    Plus legal cases of
    Miss X, Miss A, Miss B, Miss C, Miss D, Amanda Mellett, Siobhan Whelan, Miss P, Miss Y

    And then of course the deaths of
    Sheila Hodgers, Savita Halapanavar, Bimbo Onanuga


    ah give me a break i just thought of the 2 most obvious ones :)

    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    If the 8th is such a success how come all these cases ended up in the courts and all these women died?

    Completely agree. the poster who thought otherwise hasnt really given this much thought at all.


  • #8304
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Deleted User wrote: »
    You might need to take step back. Yes is also using emotional blackmail. Yes is also aggressive and forceful. You're possibly entrenched in your beliefs.

    You only need to look at the hyperbolic incorrect posters from the No side, to see that you cannot even compare the two.

    There will be a day where the No voters will be glad people like me voted Yes for people like them.
    They are so obsessed with their morals and opinions on the matter they fail to realise the real world tragic situations they are forcing on other people's wives, daughters, and mothers.
    When a crisis pregnancy knocks on their door they will then be glad that the 8th was repealed.
    I am very confident in my beliefs and will make no apologies for that, it doesn't change the fact that the No side is using bully tactics to get their point across.


  • #8305
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    professore wrote: »
    That was my opinion on what they said. Another one of these idiots that likes winning an argument. Nice strawman.

    You weren't giving your opinion, you said the referendum commission said it was likely to fail:
    professore wrote: »
    This is very likely to fail too. The Referendum Commission said so themselves.

    And drop the insults. They do nothing more than highlight your lack of an argument.
    professore wrote: »
    This isn't untrue. Other than the 8th not being in the constitution, no one really knows what the position will be. Quoting from the Indo article:

    We know the 8th will be replaced. We know the Oireachtas will legislate. We know they will change the law. We know the final legislation won't go beyond what's been proposed by the government.

    There's a lot we know and can be certain about without there ever having to be a constitutional provision.


  • #8306
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    It's all grand lads, the 8th will be repealed and the likes of the Healy Raes will stand up in the Dail and vote for liberal abortion laws and promptly lose their seats in the next election.

    And if you want to find out what the Referendum Commission said, go off and do your own research. I'll do mine and make up my own mind.

    Over and out.


  • #8307
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    professore wrote: »
    No of course I'm not. Could put in a proviso for that too. However would have to be serious health consequences, not stretch marks for example. This is where legislation could step in. As I said it could definitely be done to put this in the constitution. All academic at this point anyway.

    Its this kind of talk that gets peoples backs up.
    Pray tell, what kind of women do you associate with in real life if you presume one would seek an abortion on the grounds of not wanting stretch marks?

    You are being extremely dismissive of the struggles, suffering, distress and health issues that women go through when seeking a termination, regardless of the reason they are doing it.


  • #8308
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,223 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    professore wrote: »
    It's all grand lads, the 8th will be repealed and the likes of the Healy Raes will stand up in the Dail and vote for liberal abortion laws and promptly lose their seats in the next election.

    And if you want to find out what the Referendum Commission said, go off and do your own research. I'll do mine and make up my own mind.

    Over and out.
    Right. So basically you cant stand over comment that the referendum commission said this referendum is likely to fail. No need to go off in a huff cause you made misleading statements that have no proof.

    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



  • #8309
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    so already your proposed amendment is unmanageable. you cant use a phrase like "Serious health consequences" in the constitution without defining it. So you would end up with a long list of medical conditions in the constitution? can you see now why this was not proposed?

    Jesus you are unbelievable. I'm not a supreme court judge putting up a constitutional amendment. The point is that you put in basic rights and then legislate around the rest. That's the whole point of the constitution!


  • #8310
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    Its this kind of talk that gets peoples backs up.
    Pray tell, what kind of women do you associate with in real life if you presume one would seek an abortion on the grounds of not wanting stretch marks?

    You are being extremely dismissive of the struggles, suffering, distress and health issues that women go through when seeking a termination, regardless of the reason they are doing it.

    Keep going, you are convincing me more and more to vote No.


  • Advertisement
  • #8311
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Right. So basically you cant stand over comment that the referendum commission said this referendum is likely to fail. No need to go off in a huff cause you made misleading statements that have no proof.

    No it was badly phrased. Here's what they actually say:
    If a majority votes Yes, the current law, including the law on travel and information, will remain in place unless and until it is changed by new law or is declared invalid by the courts.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement