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

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

1…105106108110111…324

Comments

  • #3212
    Triceratops Ballet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,894 ✭✭✭Triceratops Ballet


    Ally Dick wrote: »
    That's a real problem..The mother can go off and murder the child without the father having a say

    Ignoring the ridiculous hyperbole in that post, what if her doesn't want a say?what if he ghosted her?
    If he has a say and they're of opposing views who should be the decider, and how on earth would that work?


  • #3213
    wexie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,480 ✭✭✭wexie


    January wrote: »
    Just want to make people aware of a new tactic of the anti-choice side, they're not replying on thread but PMing to discuss the 8th in reply to my posts. Using such terms as 'unborn babies will be ground up and vacuumed out/poisoned'.

    Watch yourselves.

    reeks of desperation doesn't it?


  • #3214
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    January wrote: »
    It's not actually. You cannot publicly post PM's.

    Sorry to single you out for info when this is not your forum! But you are here and active :)

    I assume there is SOME line in the sand though? Or is it subjective from mod to mod? For example if I removed the username? Or if I re-wrote the content to some degree? Or paraphrase it entirely?

    For example if someone sent me this:

    User: MythicalUser1
    Content: Abortion on demand will be the murder of babies and most of those babies will be torn apart by suction and scalpels.

    Which of the following would and would not get me infracted:

    (User Removal but maintain content)
    User: Redacted!
    Content: Abortion on demand will be the murder of babies and most of those babies will be torn apart by suction and scalpels.

    (User Removal and re-write while retaining meaning)
    User: Redacted!
    Content: Abortion is murder of babies and by tearing them apart by suction and scalpels.

    (Complete paraphrase with user)
    "Hi all, MythicalUser1 just PMed me to say abortion is murder and this murder is attained by sucking and cutting and my reply to that is....."

    (Complete paraphrase without user)
    "Hi all, someone just PMed me to say abortion is murder and this murder is attained by sucking and cutting and my reply to that is....."


  • #3215
    Wrongway1985
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Wrongway1985


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Abortion on demand up to 12 weeks gestation is a hell of a jump from the current position, is it not?

    Removing the shackles of those in crisis of course it's a hell of a jump, which is why we must vote yes!

    On your concern of up to 12 weeks, the first trimester why doesn't this make sense? Been available for our women up to a longer period for years (and continue to be) just not in our country.


  • #3216
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #3217
    bloodless_coup
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,480 ✭✭✭bloodless_coup


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    That is even more of a cop out than the "abuse" one. But I can remind you in all of 10 seconds effort here.

    Of course if you did reply to it, and I simply missed it, you have my apology. Merely link me to the reply I missed.

    Oh I remember that. I found it was worded strangely and got bored reading it.


  • #3218
    yourdeadwright
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,949 ✭✭✭✭yourdeadwright


    ....... wrote: »
    Except you werent. Under law. Before 1990.

    If you rape someone your a rapist ,
    It being legal or not has nothing to do with the act of rape


  • #3219
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    yourdeadwright wrote: »
    Rape is rape, it doesnt matter if its legal or illegal its still rape,

    Would you ever take your own advice and calm down about what people are saying to you on the internet? Thread's moved on like.


  • #3220
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    yourdeadwright wrote: »
    If you rape someone your a rapist ,
    It being legal or not has nothing to do with the act of rape

    ICYMI
    Sofiztikated wrote: »
    Have you anything to ass about the 8th amendment, or are you just playing silly buggers all day?


  • #3221
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    AFAIK guys you can't post the name or the content except in the Dispute Resolution forum where a mod asks you for transcripts if there's a dispute between a mod and user.


  • Advertisement
  • #3222
    yourdeadwright
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,949 ✭✭✭✭yourdeadwright


    ....... wrote: »
    But Granda wasnt a rapist.

    Sure me Granny wouldnt even have had the concept of saying no. It didnt exist.

    So people who are 70 , That is the age of the women in question didn't no you could say no ?
    What utter nonsense ,
    So you think everyone from 70 up was being raped at home ?


  • #3223
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #3224
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    yourdeadwright wrote: »
    So people who are 70 , That is the age of the women in question didn't no you could say no ?
    What utter nonsense ,
    So you think everyone from 70 up was being raped at home ?

    Have you just arrived on this planet ????

    Here's something for you to think on - there were MILLIONS of men and women who would decide whether to have sexual congress on a given night.

    Some women may have just gone with the flow. Some men may have not even been bothered.

    Many couples were equally up for it.

    I'd say a small minority of men were so bullish as to think "I'm doing it anyway" even over an objection.

    You really need to open a book, or talk to someone with an IQ in three figures as I believe you have the capacity to learn and grow - but are currently not doing so.


  • #3225
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    I know a lovely couple who are married 17 years now. However in our own country they've only legally been married three.

    Anyone who pushed their wife into sex before 1990 may not be a particularly nice person but is not a rapist as the offence didn't exist. Some - like me - think it should have been but it did not.


  • #3226
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #3227
    vg88
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 466 ✭✭vg88


    I saw an ad on facebook this morning of a doctor saying that the 8th amendment has only saved lives and has not cost one single life. Really sick of these false ads from pro-life.

    I'm not a big fan of either sides but I despise spreading complete lies about the referendum, is there anyway to report these online ads or is it one of those things nothing will be happen?


  • #3228
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I can't even remember his alternative, and I don't have time to look it up right now, because duty calls, again.

    However, I confess to having doubts that any one article in the Constitution would be able to address all the issues effectively, whilst believing that any changes need to remain democratic, hence the need for multiple questions.

    PS: Apologies in advance if I don't manage to get back to this this for a while. Spare time is hard to find, lately.

    His alternative was "Nothing in this Constitution shall be invoked to invalidate, or to deprive of force or effect, any provision of a law on the ground that it prohibits abortion.". In essence, it meant that abortion laws couldn't be found unconstitutional, and couldn't be struck down by the courts.

    It's not particularly relevant now, but I mention it to highlight that the AG's opposition wasn't based on his personal feelings on the matter. It was because the issue is incompatible with the constitution.

    And if you think the issue can't be effectively dealt with in the Constitution in one article or in one referendum, then it really doesn't belong there. Constitutional referendums aren't games of 20 Questions; constitutional provisions are meant to go decades without being changed. If there's something in there that needs multiple referenda to get right, then by definition it shouldn't be in there.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    I consider the unborn - from the instant of conception - to be fully deserving of the right to life.

    You realise that for nearly 10 years, the issue of protection for the unborn at conception has been entirely in the purview of politicians, right?

    What's more when the Supreme Court made this finding the Pro Life Campaign called for legislation to protect embryos at conception, not a constitutional amendment.

    The thing you're objecting to has been the status quo for years, and you're not even aware of it. If that's not proof that this "trust politicians" malarkey is a smokescreen for scaremongering, I don't know what is.


  • #3229
    Wrongway1985
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Wrongway1985


    Ally Dick wrote: »
    That's a real problem..The mother can go off and murder the child without the father having a say

    As a man I don't see what the problem is, of course a father can have his say and would surely stand by her decision. You word it like you suggest the father wishes the woman to continue her pregnancy and it would be wrong to accept any other factors. I'd suggest the fella go find a different woman for himself if that's the case.


  • #3230
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    doylefe wrote: »
    Oh I remember that. I found it was worded strangely and got bored reading it.

    Total. Cop. Out.

    But sure let me dumb it down for you anyway:

    1) What is wrong with eligible voters returning to vote?

    2) How do you know the majority of them yes voters?

    3) What is wrong with them being yes voters particularly?


  • #3231
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    yourdeadwright wrote: »
    So people who are 70 , That is the age of the women in question didn't no you could say no ?

    Marriage is, according to the Catholic church, irrevocable consent to sex. To the point where they say an unconsummated marriage can be annulled - it isn't a marriage at all.

    Now, there are quibbles in this rule - you can't marry someone against their will and rape them to consummate it, women may get to say "not tonight, dear" when they have "womens issues", or "No" if their husband caught something playing away from home, but the general rule, to which these are exceptions is that you married him, you don't get to say no.


  • Advertisement
  • #3232
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    Does anyone know where LoveBoth are physically based? Can't see it anywhere on their website, "Contact Us" just leads to e-mail.

    I mean I'm sure they don't operate out of the same offices, have the same founders, same board etc as YD or some other pro-life organisation. There are totally loads of pro-life outfits that started completely independently of each other because there's such an authentic grassroots pro-life movement in Ireland and it's not at all the same twenty odd zealots setting up loads of organisations to create that impression, no sirree, but still it's a bit odd.


  • #3233
    yourdeadwright
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,949 ✭✭✭✭yourdeadwright


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    But of course it does. Rape is a legally defined term.

    Thats like you saying that two men who were married pre 2015 had a legal marriage in Ireland. They didnt. Not until after the SSM Referendum.

    There was no act of rape legally defined within marriage prior to 1990. Didnt exist.[/quote]
    No rape is rape, if you rape someone your a rapist ,
    They may not have been a convicted rapist but they where a rapist ,,


  • #3234
    yourdeadwright
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,949 ✭✭✭✭yourdeadwright


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    But you couldnt say no.

    What part of this is giving you trouble?

    Up until 1990 if a woman went to the Guards and said "My husband wanted to have sex with me and I said no and he did it anyway so I want him charged with rape" the Guards would say, "sorry luv, there is no such thing as rape within marriage, there is nothing to charge him with."

    Women in Ireland were routinely being raped within marriages. They couldnt get divorced and they couldnt say no to sex and contraception wasnt legal until the late 70s. Abortion still isnt.

    One friend of mine got married and in the wedding car on the way from the church to the hotel her husband smacked her in the face, said "Youre mine now" and raped her while he told the driver to keep driving (which he did) and that was in the 80s.

    My own mother used to tell me not to get married and to live in sin because at least that way I didnt have to worry about divorce or marital rape.

    Anyway - this is all off topic but just another example of how badly women have been treated in this country.[/quote]
    It doesn't change the fact if your husband did rape you he is a rapist and a pig ,
    Rape is the act , if you commit the act your a rapist , weather its legal or not has noting to do with the act,


  • #3235
    spookwoman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,059 ✭✭✭✭spookwoman


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Loads of stories like that even into the 90's. I knew a lovely couple anyone would think they were perfect. reality was he was a complete b*stard behind doors and away from the kids. Poor woman had multiple miscarriages was subject to mental and physical abuse.
    another story is and this was a woman when the youngest was ready for school and she was getting more free time wanting to do things he would sabotage his condom to get here pregnant again so she would have to stay at home.
    No one know whats really goes on behind closed doors and in the marital bed even their own kids don't know.


  • #3236
    Experience_day
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 359 ✭✭Experience_day


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    I thought the Guards pressed assault charges in lieu?


  • #3237
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    moloner4 wrote: »
    I saw an ad on facebook this morning of a doctor saying that the 8th amendment has only saved lives and has not cost one single life. Really sick of these false ads from pro-life.

    I'm not a big fan of either sides but I despise spreading complete lies about the referendum, is there anyway to report these online ads or is it one of those things nothing will be happen?

    You can report the ads as misleading, offensive, irrelevant on Facebook. Don't react (as in like, angry, disbelief) or comment, that makes them more visible.

    Google are taking down all ads, including on YouTube, Facebook won't be running any from outside of Ireland, so it should improve shortly hopefully.


  • #3238
    spookwoman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,059 ✭✭✭✭spookwoman


    Esmeralda Inexpensive Balloonist wrote: »
    Does anyone know where LoveBoth are physically based? Can't see it anywhere on their website, "Contact Us" just leads to e-mail.

    I mean I'm sure they don't operate out of the same offices, have the same founders, same board etc as YD or some other pro-life organisation. There are totally loads of pro-life outfits that started completely independently of each other because there's such an authentic grassroots pro-life movement in Ireland and it's not at all the same twenty odd zealots setting up loads of organisations to create that impression, no sirree, but still it's a bit odd.
    Loveboth.ie is registered by Denise Kelly of Pro Life campaign who's address is Suit 60, Clifton House, Lower Fitzwilliam Street, Dublin 2


  • #3239
    yourdeadwright
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,949 ✭✭✭✭yourdeadwright


    spookwoman wrote: »
    ....... wrote: »
    But you couldnt say no.

    What part of this is giving you trouble?

    Up until 1990 if a woman went to the Guards and said "My husband wanted to have sex with me and I said no and he did it anyway so I want him charged with rape" the Guards would say, "sorry luv, there is no such thing as rape within marriage, there is nothing to charge him with."

    Women in Ireland were routinely being raped within marriages. They couldnt get divorced and they couldnt say no to sex and contraception wasnt legal until the late 70s. Abortion still isnt.

    One friend of mine got married and in the wedding car on the way from the church to the hotel her husband smacked her in the face, said "Youre mine now" and raped her while he told the driver to keep driving (which he did) and that was in the 80s.

    My own mother used to tell me not to get married and to live in sin because at least that way I didnt have to worry about divorce or marital rape.

    Anyway - this is all off topic but just another example of how badly women have been treated in this country.

    Loads of stories like that even into the 90's. I knew a lovely couple anyone would think they were perfect. reality was he was a complete b*stard behind doors and away from the kids. Poor woman had multiple miscarriages was subject to mental and physical abuse.
    another story is and this was a woman when the youngest was ready for school and she was getting more free time wanting to do things he would sabotage his condom to get here pregnant again so she would have to stay at home.
    No one know whats really goes on behind closed doors and in the marital bed even their own kids don't know.
    They most certainly did and they where terrible things but it doesn't change the fact that if you commit the act Rape, you are a Rapist regardless if it was legal or not ,
    Its pretty straight forward stuff,


  • #3240
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,106 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    spookwoman wrote: »
    Loveboth.ie is registered by Denise Kelly of Pro Life campaign who's address is Suit 60, Clifton House, Lower Fitzwilliam Street, Dublin 2
    LOL that's a serviced office.
    They could be hot desking beside anyone.


  • Advertisement
  • #3241
    PhoenixParker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,677 ✭✭✭PhoenixParker


    Esmeralda Inexpensive Balloonist wrote: »
    Does anyone know where LoveBoth are physically based? Can't see it anywhere on their website, "Contact Us" just leads to e-mail.

    I mean I'm sure they don't operate out of the same offices, have the same founders, same board etc as YD or some other pro-life organisation. There are totally loads of pro-life outfits that started completely independently of each other because there's such an authentic grassroots pro-life movement in Ireland and it's not at all the same twenty odd zealots setting up loads of organisations to create that impression, no sirree, but still it's a bit odd.

    Their website says 60 Clifton house lower fitzwilliam st Dublin 2.

    That's a serviced office that also offers virtual addresses.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement