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…277278280282283…324

Comments

  • #8372
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    I think that a highly visible 'home to vote' campaign would be a big mistake. I know of two people who are coming home to vote even though they are ineligible. They have both lived out of Ireland for around five years so they are not ordinarily resident. In the MarRef, Yes would have won with or without the 'Home To Vote' campaign but this result is likely to be much closer. So the result could be challenged if it's thought than voter fraud took place.

    If there IS a 'home to vote' campaign, it needs to be highlighted that only people who still have ordinary residence in Ireland are eligible to vote ie. students and recent emigrants.

    That's how the campaign is being highlighted, so there's no issue there. What's more, I've seen home to vote campaigns for both sides: Yes AND No.

    If there is a challenge brought, the burden of proof will be on the challenger. And it'll be very hard for them to show there were sufficient illegal votes to adversely affect the outcome of the referendum one way or the other.


  • #8373
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    No, we aren't, we are voting to replace as recommended by the Citizen's Assembly. Keep reading, you'll know as much as my teenagers soon.

    Also, your Caps Lock key is on the blink.

    Why do you insist on personally insulting me?


  • #8374
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,916 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    professore wrote: »
    Why do you insist on personally insulting me?

    why do you insist on getting very basic things wrong?


  • #8375
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    professore wrote: »
    Why do you insist on personally insulting me?

    How is saying your caps lock key is on the blink personally insulting you ?


  • #8376
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,739 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    iguana wrote: »
    In fact I'm in a group on facebook which is specifically about being non-religious and one poster in that group is going to vote No because she knows what the government is really up to..............

    I’m intrigued....


  • Advertisement
  • #8377
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    That's how the campaign is being highlighted, so there's no issue there. What's more, I've seen home to vote campaigns for both sides: Yes AND No.

    If there is a challenge brought, the burden of proof will be on the challenger. And it'll be very hard for them to show there were sufficient illegal votes to adversely affect the outcome of the referendum one way or the other.

    That’s good because for the MarRef, it wasn’t really highlighted, at least at a casual glance anyway.


  • #8378
    baylah17
    Closed Accounts Posts: 790 ✭✭✭baylah17


    professore wrote: »
    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    No, we aren't, we are voting to replace as recommended by the Citizen's Assembly. Keep reading, you'll know as much as my teenagers soon.

    Also, your Caps Lock key is on the blink.

    Why do you insist on personally insulting me?
    Why do you insist on insulting me my intelligence and the intelligence of other thread reader by postings lies misrepresentations and misinformation?


  • #8379
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,109 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    professore wrote: »
    Why do you insist on personally insulting me?
    There has already been a mod instruction on thread to stop this type of post.
    If you have been attacked please use the report button.

    Stop derailing the thread.


  • #8380
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    professore wrote: »
    Why do you insist on personally insulting me?

    It's interesting how, of all the posts that explain why there's no substantive difference between the Assembly's recommendations and what we're voting on, you decide to respond to the post that gives you an excuse to talk about something other the matter at hand.

    As the mods have said, if you think a post is insulting, you should report it.

    Now, do you have anything relevant to say or do we take that you accept we're voting on what the assembly recommended?


  • #8381
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    why do you insist on getting very basic things wrong?

    So the Repeal the 8th movement is basically lying about what they are trying to achieve? Also the poll needs to change. We are apparently replacing the 8th not repealing it.


  • Advertisement
  • #8382
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,916 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    professore wrote: »
    So the Repeal the 8th movement is basically lying about what they are trying to achieve? Also the poll needs to change. We are apparently replacing the 8th not repealing it.

    you really do go out of your way not to understand, don't you?


  • #8383
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #8384
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,807 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    @Professore.
    In this post a few years ago you said that the law should be changed to prevent women leaving the jurisdiction for an abortion.
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92197368&postcount=6425
    And below that any who do travel should be charged with murder.

    That's hard core stuff, a very extreme position.

    It's slightly hard to reconcile that with your 'on the fence, veering towards Yes' claims here. Albeit people do change.


  • #8385
    iguana
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,917 ✭✭✭✭iguana


    kylith wrote: »
    I’m intrigued....

    Well you know as much as I do. A few people asked what she meant but were just told to do our research and we'd know what the government was really up to. She, oddly enough, couldn't just tell us what that is.


  • #8386
    baylah17
    Closed Accounts Posts: 790 ✭✭✭baylah17


    ArmaniJeanss wrote: »
    @Professore.
    In this post a few years ago you said that the law should be changed to prevent women leaving the jurisdiction for an abortion.
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92197368&postcount=6425
    And below that any who do travel should be charged with murder.

    That's hard core stuff, a very extreme position.

    It's slightly hard to reconcile that with your 'on the fence, veering towards Yes' claims here. Albeit people do change.
    @Professors #caughtbythebollix
    Scarlet for you
    Iona just not making them the way they used to lol


  • #8387
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,109 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    ArmaniJeanss wrote: »
    @Professore.
    In this post a few years ago you said that the law should be changed to prevent women leaving the jurisdiction for an abortion.
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92197368&postcount=6425
    And below that any who do travel should be charged with murder.

    That's hard core stuff, a very extreme position.

    It's slightly hard to reconcile that with your 'on the fence, veering towards Yes' claims here. Albeit people do change.
    Great find :D:D:D
    Careful now, he's going to accuse you of trolling, like I was for quoting posts made on public record.


  • #8388
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    ArmaniJeanss wrote: »
    @Professore.
    In this post a few years ago you said that the law should be changed to prevent women leaving the jurisdiction for an abortion.
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92197368&postcount=6425
    And below that any who do travel should be charged with murder.

    That's hard core stuff, a very extreme position.

    It's slightly hard to reconcile that with your 'on the fence, veering towards Yes' claims here. Albeit people do change.

    My point on that was if you have a law, then it should make sense. The whole "freedom to travel" thing was a bit of a joke. Basically we have this strong moral stance on abortion in Ireland but sure if you go abroad it's all grand. Of course in practice, it would be impossible to police.

    My position has moved since then having further thought about it. It's not practical to have abortion illegal after a few weeks as I said in that debate. And I must admit my knowledge of the biology at the time was not what it is now. Often women don't even know they are pregnant until after this time.

    Anyway, I'm sure you will all find something to poke fun at in my statements above, if it makes you happy then go for it.


  • #8389
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    professore wrote: »
    Why do you insist on personally insulting me?

    I am actually not being insulting, I am being rather polite.

    Just recently you have been wrong about the what the Referendum Commission said, about the ease of putting restrictions on abortion into the Constitution, about what the Citizens Assembly said, about what the Oireachteas Committee said, and about what we are voting on.

    Apparently some of your other nonsense was "light hearted" and you didn't mean it.

    All this while lecturing us that we are going to lose by being "smug", which seems to be how you describe anyone who knows more than you do, which isn't hard.


  • #8390
    gmisk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,384 ✭✭✭✭gmisk


    professore wrote: »
    My point on that was if you have a law, then it should make sense. The whole "freedom to travel" thing was a bit of a joke. Basically we have this strong moral stance on abortion in Ireland but sure if you go abroad it's all grand. Of course in practice, it would be impossible to police.

    My position has moved since then having further thought about it. It's not practical to have abortion illegal after a few weeks as I said in that debate. And I must admit my knowledge of the biology at the time was not what it is now. Often women don't even know they are pregnant until after this time.
    In fairness that post was made about 4 years ago and fair play for at least doing some research and changing your position.
    So you are in favour of repealing now?


  • #8391
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    I am actually not being insulting, I am being rather polite.

    Just recently you have been wrong about the what the Referendum Commission said, about the ease of putting restrictions on abortion into the Constitution, about what the Citizens Assembly said, about what the Oireachteas Committee said, and about what we are voting on.

    Apparently some of your other nonsense was "light hearted" and you didn't mean it.

    All this while lecturing us that we are going to lose by being "smug", which seems to be how you describe anyone who knows more than you do, which isn't hard.

    Your condescending tone is anything but polite. It's passive aggressive. And I was not lecturing you on being smug. I was replying to the torrent of smug replies and calling that out. There are plenty of sniping remarks I could make but I wouldn't lower myself to your level.

    And in your last sentence you are calling me stupid in a roundabout way. Shows how poor your argument is that you have to resort to constant ad hominem attacks.

    That's the last thing I am going to say about that and if you persist I will report you - as you are derailing this thread with your personal attacks.


  • Advertisement
  • #8392
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    gmisk wrote: »
    In fairness that post was made about 4 years ago and fair play for at least doing some research and changing your position.
    So you are in favour of repealing now?

    Ideally I'd like to see it replaced with some kind of statement in the constitution around the 12 weeks, FFA, mother's health and then allow legislation around that. What the citizens assembly recommended. Basically safeguard politicians from going too far in either direction.

    However that's not going to happen, so I will vote yes anyway to repeal - or apparently replace, the 8th with a one liner, as I've been pointed out is the correct term.

    So yes I'm cautiously in favour of repeal. Thanks for not attacking me.


  • #8393
    gmisk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,384 ✭✭✭✭gmisk


    I suppose from my POV I think the voters and constituents will make sure politicians wont go too far as you put it in either direction.

    No problem at all :)

    I think in fairness a lot of people here have personal very real experience with regards this area, where as I really don't, so i can see why they would be so very passionate about it.


  • #8394
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    professore wrote: »
    Ideally I'd like to see it replaced with some kind of statement in the constitution around the 12 weeks, FFA, mother's health and then allow legislation around that. What the citizens assembly recommended.

    The Assembly specifically voted against that type of amendment and favoured an amendment that would allow the Oireachtas to decide the law. These are the two options they voted on:

    Option A - Article 40.3.3° should be replaced with a constitutional provision that explicitly authorises the Oireachtas to legislate to address termination of pregnancy, any rights of the unborn and any rights of the pregnant woman.

    Option B - Article 40.3.3° should be replaced or amended with a constitutional provision that directly addresses termination of pregnancy, any rights of the unborn and any rights of the pregnant woman.

    57% went for Option A, and that's what's on the ballot paper. This was all covered recently in the thread by the way. Maybe you should take the time out to review the thread, so we're not all rehashing old ground


  • #8395
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    gmisk wrote: »
    I think in fairness a lot of people here have personal very real experience with regards this area, where as I really don't, so i can see why they would be so very passionate about it.

    That's a good point. I know some women who have gone through this, one in particular who is a very close friend. And as others have pointed out from trawling through my post history, I have two daughters. So it's not some academic exercise for me either.


  • #8396
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    The Assembly specifically voted against that type of amendment and favoured an amendment that would allow the Oireachtas to decide the law. These are the two options they voted on:

    Option A - Article 40.3.3° should be replaced with a constitutional provision that explicitly authorises the Oireachtas to legislate to address termination of pregnancy, any rights of the unborn and any rights of the pregnant woman.

    Option B - Article 40.3.3° should be replaced or amended with a constitutional provision that directly addresses termination of pregnancy, any rights of the unborn and any rights of the pregnant woman.

    57% went for Option A, and that's what's on the ballot paper. This was all covered recently in the thread by the way. Maybe you should take the time out to review the thread, so we're not all rehashing old ground

    Thanks for clarifying. There are a huge amount of posts already, and I came late to the party.


  • #8397
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    professore wrote: »
    Thanks for clarifying. There are a huge amount of posts already, and I came late to the party.

    I appreciate that, but my last post was copied and pasted from one I made this day last week, so this has been recently discussed. It's definitely worthwhile even going back a week or so to catch up on the discussion; you'd be surprised how often the same issues come up in one way or another.


  • #8398
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,223 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    iguana wrote: »
    What do we think voter turn-out is actually going to be like? Most of the campaigning is obviously aimed at the undecideds but even referendums touted as having hugely high turnouts still see roughly one third of the electorate not voting. In 1983 less than 54% of the electorate turned out. The 1992 referenda had the third highest ever voter turnout with just over 68% on all three amendments. The abortion referendum in 2002 had a pathetic turnout of less than 43%, which was probably because it was a confusing clusterfuof a proposed amendment. The "fantastic" voter turnout of the marriage equality referendum 3 years ago was 60.52%. I don't like to assume but the odds are that most of the undecideds will stay undecided and not vote. Some of the Yes/No voters will also not vote but it will be mostly undecideds who don't.

    I heard unoficially that requests from new voters (18) in Wicklow to go onto the supplementary are much higher than marriage referendum.

    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



  • #8399
    Wombatman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭Wombatman


    professore wrote: »
    My point on that was if you have a law, then it should make sense. The whole "freedom to travel" thing was a bit of a joke. Basically we have this strong moral stance on abortion in Ireland but sure if you go abroad it's all grand. Of course in practice, it would be impossible to police.

    No more difficult than the Brexit Irish border problem. I believe the Brits are making great strides with a 'technical solution'.

    Maybe women of a certain age could report for testing and tagging before travelling abroad?


  • #8400
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    professore wrote: »
    That's a good point. I know some women who have gone through this, one in particular who is a very close friend. And as others have pointed out from trawling through my post history, I have two daughters. So it's not some academic exercise for me either.

    I appreciate your change in position on the matter and applaud you actually doing some research on the matter, if only more people who were on the fence or pro-life like yourself.

    I'm not sure if you read my situation as I can't remember seeing you pop up in the thread, but here it is - https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106806749&postcount=8130, bear in mind now, I have already had pro-lifers completely disregard the miscarriages my partner suffered and focused on me suggesting I have a vasectomy rather than have legislation put in place to allow my partner the dignity of a safe and legal abortion here.. Kind of felt like I was being blamed for the whole thing.

    So I can only apologize if you are feeling attacked by some posters, as since this thread has been opened we have had an influx of individuals who have had some truly horrific things to say and attempt to pass them off as opinions, or "facts".

    A couple of my friends were going to vote no until they realised voting no would be essentially booting women with uterine abnormalities like my partner to the kerb and denying them the dignity of having a safe and legal abortion performed on them. On another thread, someone recognized my partner's ordeal but is still voting no frankly because it doesn't suit them/appease them.

    This is the kind of mindset that we have been put up against so many times, so apologies for people jumping on you over questions/statements you made and I appreciate your change of stance with the intention to repeal.


  • Advertisement
  • #8401
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,223 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    professore wrote: »
    No it is not. We are voting for REPEAL. Not to REPLACE or AMEND. Very very different.

    Actually technically we are voting replace.

    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



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement