8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1

Nettle Soup · 06-05-2018 10:19AM

dudara wrote: »

I’m honestly gobsmacked. Sometimes you forget just how much other people want to tell you how to live your life and exactly how much you should be punished for failing to meet their moral standards.

I know, it's actually very hard to fathom that mindset now.

hill16bhoy · 06-05-2018 10:32AM

We already know about the fake "unbiased" Facebook pages and such that the No campaign have set up to get potential undecided voters to click on, and thus the No campaign can get their details and microtarget them. Gavin Sheridan did an excellent Twitter thread on this recently. His Second Captains podcast on this issue from Friday is also well worth listening to if you subscribe to that.

However, having been bored and on Twitter a good bit yesterday, the presence of No-supporting bot and fake accounts on Twitter also appears to be growing.

Nonsensical, poorly constructed replies which don't appear to make much sense on a basic level of English, constant retweets, numerical code at the end of user names, all the signs are there that the No campaign are using exactly the same bot and fake account-driven Twitter amplification techniques as the Trump campaign.

Who is funding and operating all this?

We know that the No campaign has links to Aggregate IQ.

If the nonsense being peddled online is not already a firestorm, it's certainly going to become one over the next three weeks. There is a concerted attempt going on to hoodwink the Irish public and yet again, the laws can do nothing about it.

PhoenixParker · 06-05-2018 10:33AM

Hammer Archer wrote: »

You are one charming person Anne Frank. Love both indeed. It's quite frankly bizarre how my partner's miscarriage seems to have elicited such a hostile response from you.

Anne Frank knows that a miscarriage before 12 weeks is deeply upsetting but cannot be compared to losing a child.

It's a thought people thinking about pregnancy and abortion need to contemplate.

To be anti-abortion in early pregnancy, the personhood of the foetus from the earliest point is at the core of the narrative. Our attitudes to miscarriage, both public and private, undermine that narrative.

The result is a defensive reaction and an attack.

Both sides do it though from the opposite points of view.

volchitsa · 06-05-2018 10:36AM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

If the woman is to have her womb removed, what should happen to the man?

I'm sure the person proposing this also wants men who abandon pregnant women to be castrated.
I mean, it's extreme but what's people's alternative?

Hysterectomy no less, so it needs to be a castration. Fair's fair. You people proposing vasectomies are just weaklings. :rolleyes:

Wrongway1985 · 06-05-2018 10:39AM

AnneFrank wrote: »

There was a mod warning on quoting from different threads, as it was a 'dickish' thing to do.

It would probably be better if you commented on the essence of it than detatch from it.

Re: Mods; of course they have and if they think that is the case in this instance I'm open to heeding warning.

Now maybe you will tell us why homeless people should according to you better off dead than waste national resources but condemn women who seek abortion as if they wish death like you do.

Or maybe resort to just another comment like so

AnneFrank wrote: »

Ah those evil men again,

Sofiztikated · 06-05-2018 10:49AM

Andrew Beef wrote: »

It is not my idea, and I don’t support it.

I support abortion in FFA/Savita type cases and in cases of rape.

Beyond that, I am opposed to abortion.

My position is pretty mainstream.

Answer this.

A woman wants a baby. There's a high chance she could miscarry due to a heart shaped uterus. If the implantation is in the wrong place, what do you suggest she does?

AnneFrank · 06-05-2018 10:59AM

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

It would probably be better if you commented on the essence of it than detatch from it.

Re: Mods; of course they have and if they think that is the case in this instance I'm open to heeding warning.

Now maybe you will tell us why homeless people should according to you better off dead than waste national resources but condemn women who seek abortion as if they wish death like you do.

Or maybe resort to just another comment like so

Different thread,different topic,different context.

amcalester · 06-05-2018 11:08AM

AnneFrank wrote: »

Different thread,different topic,different context.

Translated to “I make hypocritical posts and can’t defend my inconsistent beliefs that all life is precious except when it’s a dirty homeless person who should be left to die on the streets.”

PlaneSpeeking · 06-05-2018 11:09AM

AnneFrank wrote: »

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

It would probably be better if you commented on the essence of it than detatch from it.

Re: Mods; of course they have and if they think that is the case in this instance I'm open to heeding warning.

Now maybe you will tell us why homeless people should according to you better off dead than waste national resources but condemn women who seek abortion as if they wish death like you do.

Or maybe resort to just another comment like so

Different thread,different topic,different context.

Reply for me yet as to why I must remain in pain unnecessarily due to the insane idea that I'm a 48 year old woman and cannot be trusted to declare there is more chance of Ian Paisley rising from the grave, dressing in drag and singing Ireland's Call on the 12th than me being pregnant ??? The 8th does that to me.

Comments?

BabysCoffee · 06-05-2018 11:12AM

This is an interesting read

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/05/05/opinion/sunday/ireland-abortion-referendum.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Wrongway1985 · 06-05-2018 11:15AM

AnneFrank wrote: »

Different thread,different topic,different context.

I assumed correctly so you wish to jog on.

You can't stand by previous comments when challenged with ones you're making now.

Ken. · 06-05-2018 11:32AM

Mod-Andrew Beef do not post in this thread again. Reason- trolling.See below

Andrew Beef wrote: »

His idea? For discretionary abortions pre-12 weeks, the patient’s womb must also be removed. It’s extreme to say the least, but it would certainly rule out abortions taking place willy nilly.

pjohnson · 06-05-2018 11:37AM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Reply for me yet as to why I must remain in pain unnecessarily due to the insane idea that I'm a 48 year old woman and cannot be trusted to declare there is more chance of Ian Paisley rising from the grave, dressing in drag and singing Ireland's Call on the 12th than me being pregnant ??? The 8th does that to me.

Comments?

Be careful, there was a farmer from up North called Martin McGuiness on Irelands Got Talent who was a drag act. Maybe there is a drag version of Paisley around :pac:

PlaneSpeeking · 06-05-2018 11:39AM

pjohnson wrote: »

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Reply for me yet as to why I must remain in pain unnecessarily due to the insane idea that I'm a 48 year old woman and cannot be trusted to declare there is more chance of Ian Paisley rising from the grave, dressing in drag and singing Ireland's Call on the 12th than me being pregnant ??? The 8th does that to me.

Comments?

Be careful, there was a farmer from up North called Martin McGuiness on Irelands Got Talent who was a drag act. Maybe there is a drag version of Paisley around :pac:

** gets pregnancy test ready **!!!!

Sofiztikated · 06-05-2018 11:44AM

This is getting ridiculous.

I'm not saying anything about the moderation of this thread, but rather the arguments being made.

I've asked time and time again, could a retain proponent give me 1, just 1, reasonable argument for retaining the 8th.

No committee suggestions.
No hysterectomies.

If I vote to retain it, how do we, as a nation and a people, benefit?

PlaneSpeeking · 06-05-2018 11:53AM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

This is getting ridiculous.

I'm not saying anything about the moderation of this thread, but rather the arguments being made.

I've asked time and time again, could a retain proponent give me 1, just 1, reasonable argument for retaining the 8th.

No committee suggestions.
No hysterectomies.

If I vote to retain it, how do we, as a nation and a people, benefit?

I can only think they feel they're "saving lives". Nonsense of course but I honestly can't see how anyone could find it adds anything to society but pain, misery, worry and - sadly - death.

06-05-2018 12:18PM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

This is getting ridiculous.

I'm not saying anything about the moderation of this thread, but rather the arguments being made.

I've asked time and time again, could a retain proponent give me 1, just 1, reasonable argument for retaining the 8th.

No committee suggestions.
No hysterectomies.

If I vote to retain it, how do we, as a nation and a people, benefit?

Becauuse in their opinion, it would help keep women in their place and we'd still have the impression of being a land of saints and scollars?

Interesting that some posting on the no side here are the same ones posting against feminists running men's lives, gay rights and immigration destroys the fabric of Irish society.

Zubeneschamali · 06-05-2018 12:23PM

eviltwin wrote: »

You also said women who have abortions should be prosecuted. Hardly mainstream.

Of course it is mainstream - it's the law of the land. Max 14 years in prison.

volchitsa · 06-05-2018 12:27PM

I think somewhere in between those two posts, for most prolifers, IOW there are some downright racists and misogynists, and some who genuinely (still) think God should get the final say over reproduction and death etc, not people, but I think in many cases it's fear of where society is going to. Social conservatism.

And that's a very strong gut feeling that probably can't be argued down logically.

That's why every time one barrier goes and they see that society hasn't collapsed, they just drop that and move on to the next. Contraception, divorce, women voting for that matter! But fundamentally they're terrified of change itself.

Bubbaclaus · 06-05-2018 12:30PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Of course it is mainstream - it's the law of the land. Max 14 years in prison.

How many women have been convicted under this law?

joe swanson · 06-05-2018 12:32PM

I find the ongoing "debate" quite saddening in that if you don't agree with the politically correct viewpoint then you get shouted down and abused.

I will be voting no as I don't agree with unrestricted abortion up till 12 weeks. I agree with it if it is a necessary procedure ie fatal faetal abnormality etc . However the proposed followup legislation has convinced me to vote no.

As a relatively young man (and not religious either )this is not a fashionable viewpoint so I will and do get shouted down and abused for expressing this. I think the vote will be closer than people expect as many people are reluctant to express their views due to being shouted down .

PhoenixParker · 06-05-2018 12:35PM

A question for both sides:

Love both?

More for the no side
What have you done, what have you campaigned for (other than abortion) that genuinely illustrates your love for both?

More for the yes side
What changes and actions would be a love for both?

my answer

I'll hold my hand up and admit I've done little in the way of action that I believe would help women so they didn't feel the need to have an abortion. I would be in vocal support of any politician proposing the measures below.

Things I think would genuinely love both

Free contraception, especially long term options.
On consultation with a pharmacist, over the counter & free, pill availability (not morning after, the actual pill)

Longer maternity leave, better pay during maternity leave, being able to share leave between husband and wife. Better protections during pregnancy especially for contract workers. Better sick pay during pregnancy.

Massively subsidised childcare up to age 12.

World class disability support services.

Sofiztikated · 06-05-2018 12:36PM

joe swanson wrote: »

I find the ongoing "debate" quite saddening in that if you don't agree with the politically correct viewpoint then you get shouted down and abused.

I will be voting no as I don't agree with unrestricted abortion up till 12 weeks. I agree with it if it is a necessary procedure ie fatal faetal abnormality etc . However the proposed followup legislation has convinced me to vote no.

As a relatively young man (and not religious either )this is not a fashionable viewpoint so I will and do get shouted down and abused for expressing this. I think the vote will be closer than people expect as many people are reluctant to express their views due to being shouted down .

What concerns you about the proposed legislation?

And what would you suggest happens in the example I posted above?

Why do you think a woman might need an abortion?

Shadowstrife · 06-05-2018 12:38PM

joe swanson wrote: »

I find the ongoing "debate" quite saddening in that if you don't agree with the politically correct viewpoint then you get shouted down and abused.

I will be voting no as I don't agree with unrestricted abortion up till 12 weeks. I agree with it if it is a necessary procedure ie fatal faetal abnormality etc . However the proposed followup legislation has convinced me to vote no.

As a relatively young man (and not religious either )this is not a fashionable viewpoint so I will and do get shouted down and abused for expressing this. I think the vote will be closer than people expect as many people are reluctant to express their views due to being shouted down .

I will not shout you down sir, but answer this. If you, as you said, agree with the below:

'I agree with it if it is a necessary procedure ie fatal faetal abnormality etc .'

Then how will change happen? By magic?

Removing the 8th is to remove the barrier to change. The only way we can support women in these troubled pregnancies is to vote Yes.

Change CANNOT happen otherwise.

Triceratops Ballet · 06-05-2018 12:40PM

AnneFrank wrote:

Ah those evil men again,

Where did I say evil men? Having more rights is unfair, sure but it doesn't make men evil.

PhoenixParker · 06-05-2018 12:41PM

joe swanson wrote: »

I find the ongoing "debate" quite saddening in that if you don't agree with the politically correct viewpoint then you get shouted down and abused.

I will be voting no as I don't agree with unrestricted abortion up till 12 weeks. I agree with it if it is a necessary procedure ie fatal faetal abnormality etc . However the proposed followup legislation has convinced me to vote no.

As a relatively young man (and not religious either )this is not a fashionable viewpoint so I will and do get shouted down and abused for expressing this. I think the vote will be closer than people expect as many people are reluctant to express their views due to being shouted down .

What's proposed isn't unrestricted abortion.

It's subject to a doctor, confirmation of gestation and a three day waiting period.

It's restrictions where the current ordering pills online with no prosecution is in practice, unrestricted.

Why is restricted for 12 weeks and very restricted thereafter worse then what we have now?

eviltwin · 06-05-2018 12:42PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Of course it is mainstream - it's the law of the land. Max 14 years in prison.

I meant his views that post abortive women should be punished is not mainstream.

There is no appetite from any anti choice group to take prosecutions.

Guy:Incognito · 06-05-2018 12:43PM

Andrew Beef wrote: »

The argument that “abortion is happening in the UK anyway; make it safer by allowing it to happen here” is utterly ridiculous.

I want to see the 8th repealed but will be voting No because I don’t want to see unrestricted access to abortion up to 12 weeks. Why? Because it is morally wrong. If perfectly healthy people want to end the lives of perfectly healthy unborn children, let them travel to a jurisdiction that allows it. Making things convenient for them is not our concern; discretionary abortion shouldn’t be easy and we are right to keep it from happening on our doorstep.

YOU think it's wrong. So that's fine, don't have one. Let other people decide what they deem right and wrong with their own bodies.

Why do you want to force peop,e to do what you want with their bodies? It'll never affect you.

It's more than a "convenience" issue anyway. People should have proper medical follow up , not being force to day trip to another country try.

More "**** people that are suffering" bull****. Whatever way you want to dress it up.

joe swanson · 06-05-2018 12:43PM

Shadowstrife wrote: »

I will not shout you down sir, but answer this. If you, as you said, agree with the below:

'I agree with it if it is a necessary procedure ie fatal faetal abnormality etc .'

Then how will change happen? By magic?

Removing the 8th is to remove the barrier to change. The only way we can support women in these troubled pregnancies is to vote Yes.

Change CANNOT happen otherwise.

No but killing a child just because you want to up until 12 weeks which is what will be legislated for is what will happen. A correctly worded referendum with guarantees of limited followup legislation which could not be liberalised without another referendum is the only way I would vote yes

06-05-2018 12:46PM

joe swanson wrote: »

No but killing a child just because you want to up until 12 weeks which is what will be legislated for is what will happen. A correctly worded referendum with guarantees of limited followup legislation which could not be liberalised without another referendum is the only way I would vote yes

I feel like I'm blue in the face saying this, but it's not the killing of a child! Please explain how a foetus in early pregnancy is equal to an actual person?