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…279280282284285…324

Comments

  • #8432
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    I have to be honest and say I am getting a bit sick of the whole debate at this point - I wish the referendum would happen tomorrow so we can all have done with it.

    I’ve had my fill of the sniping and malice being shown on both sides now - I especially don’t like the attempts to silence the No side.

    You can’t claim to be pro choice if you then mock and ridicule those who choose a different side to you. You cannot attempt to silence them or try to stop them campaigning even if you don’t like the way they go about it. That’s not what being pro choice is about.

    Pointing out the many lies told by some No campaigners is not an attempt to silence. Just FYI.

    Tell a lie, campaigners? Don't whinge or play the victim when someone points out that it's a lie.


  • #8433
    Useful.Idiot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,834 ✭✭✭Useful.Idiot


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    You can’t claim to be pro choice if you then mock and ridicule those who choose a different side to you. You cannot attempt to silence them or try to stop them campaigning even if you don’t like the way they go about it. That’s not what being pro choice is about.

    It's inevitable that there will be activity like this from both sides given how emotional people are about the issue but let's not act like this is only a pro-choice campaign issue. There's many cases around the country of pro-choice events being silenced/dismantled by the pro-life side due to threats to hosting venues.


  • #8434
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    professore wrote: »
    I find the argument of being against abortion yourself but voting yes so as to not restrict others from doing it is intellectually dishonest.

    Let's say it was a referendum on legalising FGM. Would people who are against it be fine with voting Yes to allow it, as they would never allow it themselves but respect the rights of others to do it?

    And just saying "they are different" is not an answer - for genuine No voters they feel at least as strongly about abortion as others would about FGM.

    And as I said before, I am going to vote Yes and take responsibility for it - this is not some kind of back handed No argument.

    I just don't believe you are a yes voter. Earlier today I did briefly. But after reading this post - nah.


  • #8435
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    robarmstrong wrote: »
    Nah, not at all.

    I am not responsible nor complicit in what I am voting for, if that's the case, No voters are responsible for refusing women rights that are offered to them in other civilised countries, which I do not believe they are directly responsible or complicit in.

    I have to disagree. Referenda like this shape the kind of society we live in. For the same sex marriage referendum I enthusiastically voted yes - because although I am boringly straight myself, I have no problem at all with gay people having the same rights as I do. That one was easy.

    This one I struggle with, since I find abortion on demand morally wrong, but I do recognise that there are hard cases like rape, incest, underage, FFA and cases like your wife that don't fit in the box. Therefore I am OK with 12 weeks and non viable (or unable to live to term) fetuses. I also recognise that there will be lots of abortions for purely lifestyle reasons on a sliding scale which I am not OK with but there isn't a whole lot I can do about it. I know other people strongly disagree with me on this, and that's their opinion, and I'm happy to respect the democratic will of the people.


  • #8436
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    I just don't believe you are a yes voter. Earlier today I did briefly. But after reading this post - nah.

    It doesn't matter if you believe me. I've truthfully outlined my position here and you can take it how you want. What surprises me is how anyone can have black and white views on abortion. It isn't a black and white issue for me, it's a very murky grey one.


  • Advertisement
  • #8437
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,771 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Bit of an unfortunate poster by the socialist feminist movement/Rosa, given what it looks likes...


  • #8438
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,739 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    professore wrote: »
    I have no issues whatsoever with abortion being available to your wife. To me that's an open and shut case.

    But you can acknowledge, surely, that his wife's case falls outside your the conditions you have previously said you find acceptable: There is no FFA, her life is not at risk. It's simply a matter of ending the pregnancy sooner rather than later. This in itself shows that the terms you would prefer to see enshrined in the constitution do not actually cover all the occasions where you yourself would be ok with abortion taking place.


  • #8439
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    professore wrote: »
    The point is about supporting a law in a country that you claim to be against yourself to allow others freedom of choice.

    I believe it is wrong to cheat on my wife.

    I do not think there should be a law against it.

    I double plus do not think there should be a clause in the Constitution insisting that it should be illegal.


  • #8440
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    kylith wrote: »
    But you can acknowledge, surely, that his wife's case falls outside your the conditions you have previously said you find acceptable: There is no FFA, her life is not at risk. It's simply a matter of ending the pregnancy sooner rather than later. This in itself shows that the terms you would prefer to see enshrined in the constitution do not actually cover all the occasions where you yourself would be ok with abortion taking place.

    I do acknowledge this. I believe I mentioned a viable fetus. If not then this could be reformed too. I really believe something constitutional could be arrived at that would work. There could be some proviso for difficult unforeseen cases. You are going to have the same problem with legislation anyway.


  • #8441
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    I believe it is wrong to cheat on my wife.

    I do not think there should be a law against it.

    I double plus do not think there should be a clause in the Constitution insisting that it should be illegal.

    Cheating on your wife isn't a fundamental human right. The point at which you become a person with full rights is.


  • Advertisement
  • #8442
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,739 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    professore wrote: »
    I do acknowledge this. I believe I mentioned a viable fetus. If not then this could be reformed too. I really believe something constitutional could be arrived at that would work. There could be some proviso for difficult unforeseen cases. You are going to have the same problem with legislation anyway.

    I'm afraid that I disagree. I don't think that it is possible to have a proviso for everything in the constitution, and having to amend the constitution every time another issue with it is found would just be nightmarish. Much better to constitutionally allow for legislation which, at least, does not require an enormously expensive referendum every time something has to be changed.


  • #8443
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    Below are the kinds of things that are in the constitution. Surely where these rights begin and how they apply or don't apply to an unborn child is a pretty important thing to specify?

    Main Constitutional rights

    Equality before the law

    Right to life

    Personal liberty

    Freedom of expression

    Freedom of assembly

    Freedom of association

    The right to fair procedures

    Bodily integrity

    Trial by jury

    Religious liberty

    The right to privacy

    The right to earn a livelihood

    Freedom to travel

    Inviolability of a citizen's dwelling

    Property rights

    The rights of the family
    The right to marital privacy. This means that couples may make their own decisions about family planning.
    The right to consort together, to enjoy each other's company and to procreate. This right may be limited or restricted where a family member is in prison or where one spouse is not an Irish citizen. You can read more about prisoners' rights here.
    The right of parents to be the main and natural educators of their children. The State must respect your right as parents to provide for the religious, moral, intellectual, physical and social education of your children. The State cannot oblige you to send your children to school or to any particular type of school but it may require that children receive a certain minimum education.
    The right to free primary education - this means that the State must pay for your children's primary education. State aid for schools must not discriminate between schools of different religions.
    The right to decide the religion of your children. The State cannot interfere with this right.
    There is a constitutional principle that married parents have equal rights to and are joint guardians of their children. If the parents separate or divorce, the courts may decide who will have custody of the children. The paramount consideration is the welfare of the children.


  • #8444
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Bit of an unfortunate poster by the socialist feminist movement/Rosa, given what it looks likes...

    It's pretty much the international socialist feminist symbol as used in many countries. The venus symbol traditionally used to identify women, with the raised clenched fist used by most socialist movements as a method of identity, with a pretty much accurate request, what's unfortunate about it.


  • #8445
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    professore wrote: »
    Below are the kinds of things that are in the constitution. Surely where these rights begin and how they apply or don't apply to an unborn child is a pretty important thing to specify?

    Main Constitutional rights

    Equality before the law

    Right to life

    Personal liberty

    Freedom of expression

    Freedom of assembly

    Freedom of association

    The right to fair procedures

    Bodily integrity

    Trial by jury

    Religious liberty

    The right to privacy

    The right to earn a livelihood

    Freedom to travel

    Inviolability of a citizen's dwelling

    Property rights

    The rights of the family
    The right to marital privacy. This means that couples may make their own decisions about family planning.
    The right to consort together, to enjoy each other's company and to procreate. This right may be limited or restricted where a family member is in prison or where one spouse is not an Irish citizen. You can read more about prisoners' rights here.
    The right of parents to be the main and natural educators of their children. The State must respect your right as parents to provide for the religious, moral, intellectual, physical and social education of your children. The State cannot oblige you to send your children to school or to any particular type of school but it may require that children receive a certain minimum education.
    The right to free primary education - this means that the State must pay for your children's primary education. State aid for schools must not discriminate between schools of different religions.
    The right to decide the religion of your children. The State cannot interfere with this right.
    There is a constitutional principle that married parents have equal rights to and are joint guardians of their children. If the parents separate or divorce, the courts may decide who will have custody of the children. The paramount consideration is the welfare of the children.

    This makes absolutely no sense to me. Are you arguing that a foetus should have the right to travel, to work etc.


  • #8446
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    professore wrote: »
    Cheating on your wife isn't a fundamental human right.

    I know a few people (men and women) who believe it is.


  • #8447
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    DubInMeath wrote: »
    This makes absolutely no sense to me. Are you arguing that a foetus should have the right to travel, to work etc.

    A newborn baby has at least some of these rights. Clearly they don't have the right to say get married but they have some rights.


  • #8448
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    professore wrote: »
    Cheating on your wife isn't a fundamental human right.

    In the analogy, that would mean abortion is not a fundamental human right. I'm cool with that, too.


  • #8449
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    professore wrote: »
    A newborn baby has at least some of these rights.

    The Supreme Court recently ruled that no, a fetus is not a child and does not have any of those rights.

    It has exactly 1 constitutional right, and not for long.


  • #8450
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,739 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    In the analogy, that would mean abortion is not a fundamental human right. I'm cool with that, too.

    I think it would fall under bodily autonomy.


  • #8451
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,771 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    DubInMeath wrote: »
    It's pretty much the international socialist feminist symbol as used in many countries. The venus symbol traditionally used to identify women, with the raised clenched fist used by most socialist movements as a method of identity, with a pretty much accurate request, what's unfortunate about it.

    Just think what non socialist feminists might think it looks like in an abortion referendum. You can disagree but just saying it is unfortunate...


  • Advertisement
  • #8452
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    professore wrote: »
    I do acknowledge this. I believe I mentioned a viable fetus. If not then this could be reformed too. I really believe something constitutional could be arrived at that would work. There could be some proviso for difficult unforeseen cases. You are going to have the same problem with legislation anyway.

    The difference is a problem with legislation can be fixed pretty quickly, whereas a problem with the constitution would take an absolute minimum of 32 days to fix (assuming no objections or delays whatsoever) and almost certainly still needs new legislation anyway. That's a minimum of 32 days that whoever is suffering because of the problem has to wait.

    If it was one of your daughters, would you really be happy that they had to wait that month (or longer), just because someone wasn't completely satisfied with the normal legislative process?


  • #8453
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1975503349188630&id=522800944458885

    Hey Robert... Tell me what you think of this blatent lying from the 'prolife' side


  • #8454
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,780 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    The difference is a problem with legislation can be fixed pretty quickly, whereas a problem with the constitution would take an absolute minimum of 32 days to fix (assuming no objections or delays whatsoever) and almost certainly still needs new legislation anyway. That's a minimum of 32 days that whoever is suffering because of the problem has to wait.

    If it was one of your daughters, would you really be happy that they had to wait that month (or longer), just because someone wasn't completely satisfied with the normal legislative process?

    And you'd probably need to ask everyone in the country to approve her treatment.


  • #8455
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,780 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    January wrote: »
    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1975503349188630&id=522800944458885

    Hey Robert... Tell me what you think of this blatent lying from the 'prolife' side

    That's hilarious!


  • #8456
    gmisk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,384 ✭✭✭✭gmisk


    January wrote: »
    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1975503349188630&id=522800944458885

    Hey Robert... Tell me what you think of this blatent lying from the 'prolife' side
    I should be surprised but I am not.... Embarrassing


  • #8457
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    January wrote: »
    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1975503349188630&id=522800944458885

    Hey Robert... Tell me what you think of this blatent lying from the 'prolife' side

    Carndonagh must be so nice, they made it twice :pac:


  • #8458
    ForestFire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,964 ✭✭✭ForestFire


    January wrote: »
    Stop with the lies Robert, you've been called out so many times on it. If the 8th is repealed the 12 week legislation is not a guarantee. It could be shot down at the first hurdle by members of the Dail, you and I both know it you just love to scaremonger.
    January wrote: »
    I refer you to Disabled People Together for Yes's facebook page for an answer to this one. Are these the types of checks you're talking about?

    31113568_579573525751956_7153710224140926976_n.png?_nc_cat=0&oh=8497b4e816f15b5d950776819aca16b3&oe=5B69681D
    January wrote: »
    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1975503349188630&id=522800944458885

    Hey Robert... Tell me what you think of this blatent lying from the 'prolife' side

    You accuse Robertkkk of scaremongering for bring up the 12 weeks unrestricted abortion, when this is the only proposal on the table (72hrs is in no way a real restriction).

    Later you freely post yourself, information of the 12 weeks limit that will be introduced, to show how restrictive it will be. (Its not a lie anymore seemingly)

    And now your calling out Robertkkk, on a facebook post that he himself has not raised?


  • #8459
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    ForestFire wrote: »
    You accuse Robertkkk of scaremongering for bring up the 12 weeks unrestricted abortion, when this is the only proposal on the table (72hrs is in no way a real restriction).

    Later you freely post yourself, information of the 12 weeks limit that will be introduced, to show how restrictive it will be. (Its not a lie anymore seemingly)

    And now your calling out Robertkkk, on a facebook post that he himself has not raised?

    They're still proposals and no guarantees so no lies there.

    I'm asking Robert what he thinks about the pro life side blatently lying which he purports the pro choice side do a lot in this very thread.


  • #8460
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,615 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Good article by Fintan O'Toole, which resonates with me.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-how-i-discovered-what-i-felt-about-abortion-1.3471554


  • Advertisement
  • #8461
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Just think what non socialist feminists might think it looks like in an abortion referendum. You can disagree but just saying it is unfortunate...

    I'd say feminists who don't belong to the group, would know its a common emblem used for identifying that group world wide. Anyone else can do a quick google image search and find similar images belonging to out if they needed to, but wouldn't say that most would need to, for example one of the google images results brings you to soc_fem twitter account https://mobile.twitter.com/soc_fem


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement