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

Hotblack Desiato · 10-05-2018 10:44PM

spookwoman wrote: »

are you for real. Facebook said no to the ads yesterday, google and youtube say no today and you think its a conspiracy against the No side! You have been watching too many x files

FB and Google are only doing this because of the rampant illegality of the No side advertising funded from abroad.

They didn't turn away lots of business because they wanted to, it was to stave off the threat of future legislation being brought in to regulate them like ordinary media outlets are. So now that all this controversy has blown up, keeping their heads down until the referendum is over makes good business sense for them.

Dressing gown · 10-05-2018 10:46PM

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Martina1991 wrote: »

The following is an extract from a woman's story on the FB page In Her Shoes posted today.

"I suffered cardiac issues in my first pregnancy at the end and in labour, it was scary to say the least. Afterwards I was told it was just an unfortunate side effect of my pregnancy and no more was ever said about it. When I fell pregnant again the cardiac issues occurred from 10 weeks and got worse every week.

At 22 weeks I followed my GPâ€™s advice of heading straight to the hospital if I was worried. I was brought into a room on the maternity ward straight away and my baby was checked out immediately. Baby was fine. It took over half an hour for anyone to take my pulse. When the consultant came in the nurse gave an overview of my symptoms. The consultant panicked and said â€˜the baby has erratic and irregular heart rate?â€™ and once they were told no itâ€™s the mother they replied â€˜oh just the motherâ€™ and walked off.

That day it hit me so hard that it didnâ€™t matter what was happening to me as long as the baby was ok. I felt so sad and angry and then guilty that I was worrying about myself. Iâ€™ve learnt since itâ€™s ok to feel sad and angry, Iâ€™m not being selfish wanting to be ok. Itâ€™s not selfish to want to be alive for my husband and daughter. I cried on the way home. That was the start of many visits where I left in tears.

36 weeks arrived and I hobbled into the consultantâ€™s room and I asked for my section date and he said weâ€™d review at 38 weeks as the baby may not be breech then. I got angry and explained yet again that no matter what way the baby was I needed this to happen soon, I was beyond desperate just trying to exist every day and I was afraid of what pushing a baby out would do to my heart again.

My baby came 2 days before 39 weeks and I was near cardiac arrest through the delivery. I spent 7 hours in recovery afterwards as my heart went into a very erratic state. The poor midwife that pulled the short straw that day was amazing to me and was so angry that I was not having a section but she worked hard to look after me and to keep me calm.

The next day I was discharged and during that process I was advised not to get pregnant again as the cardiac issues would possibly be worse, possibly start earlier in the pregnancy and there would be a high risk of heart failure due to all Iâ€™ve been through or lifelong damage. I was also advised to speak to my GP about having some additional check-ups.
I cried.

Voting No is not stopping abortions, it is just punishing and torturing women who choose to have them. It is also ensuring that we continue to be treated as vessels without a voice.

Voting Yes gives us a voice, ownership of our own bodies and is removing the punishment for a situation that may be unfavourable to a certain group of the population yet has absolutely no bearing on their lives whatsoever".

Emer, Mayo.

Robert I really wish you would open your eyes and ears and LISTEN to these women who are all around you.

Whether you think abortion is wrong is your own belief. Stop standing in the way of our maternity care.

I don't know what she's complaining about. The baby is alive and so is she. This just proves once again that Ireland has the best maternity care in the world. Don't you agree Robert?

Don’t feed the troll.

Ally Dick · 10-05-2018 10:47PM

Hopefully Google and Facebook will keep Soros's pro abortion propaganda out as well

Hotblack Desiato · 10-05-2018 10:48PM

AnneFrank wrote: »

Not Maria Steen, the lady is a qualified barrister, architect and teacher, who schools her own children. I think she's a great role model for any girl.

Seems to be a big deal among the Iona crowd. Breda O'Brien did it with hers even though she's a school teacher herself.

Terrified their looney tunes ideas won't stand up to the scrutiny of the schoolyard, I can only conclude.

Hotblack Desiato · 10-05-2018 10:50PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Because it helps your side whom have a poor online campaign.

No, it's because the Yes side is limited to traceable, legally collected money.

Sofiztikated · 10-05-2018 10:51PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

FB and Google are only doing this because of the rampant illegality of the No side advertising funded from abroad.

They didn't turn away lots of business because they wanted to, it was to stave off the threat of future legislation being brought in to regulate them like ordinary media outlets are. So now that all this controversy has blow up, keeping their heads down until the referendum is over makes good business sense for them.

Yup, as I said before, after the massive drop in users Facebook took after the Cambridge Analytica debacle, and the GDPR coming in, they're not going to want any more scandal on hot topics like this, neither does Google.

hardtrier · 10-05-2018 10:51PM

Question for "Yes" voters; if you feel that it is ok to take a child's life in the womb, would you be happy to take it's life as soon as it is born, instead? It would be the same baby but there would be no doubt about what was happening.

AnneFrank · 10-05-2018 10:52PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Seems to be a big deal among the Iona crowd. Breda O'Brien did it with hers even though she's a school teacher herself.

Terrified their looney tunes ideas won't stand up to the scrutiny of the schoolyard, I can only conclude.

So two people is a big deal among the Iona crowd, which by the way is a significant number.mmmm weird conclusion

applehunter · 10-05-2018 10:52PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

No, it's because the Yes side is limited to traceable, legally collected money.

The only side found in breach of electoral law has been the YES side.

Zaph · 10-05-2018 10:55PM

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I don't know what she's complaining about. The baby is alive and so is she. This just proves once again that Ireland has the best maternity care in the world. Don't you agree Robert?

One feature of the debate I've noticed that probably bypassed me previously is the callous disregard for the well-being of women in situations like the one above that some people on the no side have. They really do see them as little more than incubators. It's depressing when you realise that there are people in the world who think like that and yet claim to "love both".

PhoenixParker · 10-05-2018 10:56PM

hardtrier wrote: »

Question for "Yes" voters; if you feel that it is ok to take a child's life in the womb, would you be happy to take it's life as soon as it is born, instead? It would be the same baby but there would be no doubt about what was happening.

We're talking about foetus's of up to 8 weeks gestation (12 weeks of pregnancy). The question of taking it's life when it's born therefore does not arise.

For later term abortions, (a situation that will only arise in extreme circumstances) where appropriate based on gestation and prognosis, every effort should be made to save the baby.

spookwoman · 10-05-2018 10:57PM

hardtrier wrote: »

Question for "Yes" voters; if you feel that it is ok to take a child's life in the womb, would you be happy to take it's life as soon as it is born, instead? It would be the same baby but there would be no doubt about what was happening.

Question for you are is there any legislation that will not allow the killing of children when they are born? Oh wait there is it's called manslaughter and murder.
Try again

NuMarvel · 10-05-2018 10:57PM

"Thanks be to God your mum was pro life or your mum would have ended up like this"

A poster hanging on the railings of a school. Just in case you thought No voters and campaigners couldn't get much lower.

https://twitter.com/Dailigh/status/994689066301116420

PopePalpatine · 10-05-2018 10:59PM

hardtrier wrote: »

Question for "Yes" voters; if you feel that it is ok to take a child's life in the womb, would you be happy to take it's life as soon as it is born, instead? It would be the same baby but there would be no doubt about what was happening.

Yep, definitely the same, right down to the presence of a functioning nervous syste-

Oh wait, the foetus's/baby's nervous system isn't formed until around the 18th-20th week of pregnancy. Sorry, I almost forgot what "false equivalence" was for a sec.

nice_guy80 · 10-05-2018 10:59PM

Ally Dick wrote: »

Hopefully Google and Facebook will keep Soros's pro abortion propaganda out as well

As a yes voter I agree
We don't need foreign interference in the debate

Ave Sodalis · 10-05-2018 11:01PM

nice_guy80 wrote: »

As a yes voter I agree
We don't need foreign interference in the debate

Absolutely, and they will because the ban is all foreign adverts (or just adverts) from either side.

Paranoid Bob · 10-05-2018 11:02PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

No, it's because the Yes side is limited to traceable, legally collected money.

Is it?
I just looked at the together4yes donations page. They have a checkbox self-attestation that the donor is a citizen of or permanent resident in Ireland, but the personal details form will accept billing addresses anywhere in the world.

A checkbox self-attestation is a very weak sort of control.

erica74 · 10-05-2018 11:04PM

spookwoman wrote: »

F**k sake
https://twitter.com/Deisesupes/status/994610065503145984

Good, at least I know who not to support in my region.

AnneFrank wrote: »

The truth hurts Tom, i will vote no but agree 100% with everything else you have said, this thread is a disgrace moderated by amateurs to allow what has gone on.

Report to the mods, maybe post in the feedback forum, hopefully someone can help you out with your issues.

hardtrier wrote: »

Question for "Yes" voters; if you feel that it is ok to take a child's life in the womb, would you be happy to take it's life as soon as it is born, instead? It would be the same baby but there would be no doubt about what was happening.

I have a better username for you - tryharder.

Sofiztikated · 10-05-2018 11:04PM

hardtrier wrote: »

Question for "Yes" voters; if you feel that it is ok to take a child's life in the womb, would you be happy to take it's life as soon as it is born, instead? It would be the same baby but there would be no doubt about what was happening.

Its not though.

Sentience.

At 12 weeks, there's no spinal chord to speak of, little by way of brain activity.

It just isn't there.

And just think, how awful must a situation be for a woman to actually have to go through with something like that?

Paranoid Bob · 10-05-2018 11:06PM

applehunter wrote: »

The only side found in breach of electoral law has been the YES side.

Reference?
The Amnesty money is not relevant; that has not been spent on this campaign.

Paranoid Bob · 10-05-2018 11:08PM

hardtrier wrote: »

Question for "Yes" voters; if you feel that it is ok to take a child's life in the womb, would you be happy to take it's life as soon as it is born, instead? It would be the same baby but there would be no doubt about what was happening.

No.
You need to draw the line somewhere; and at birth seems like a good place to draw it.

The proposed legislation is more conservative than that; it draws the line at viability.

Bannasidhe · 10-05-2018 11:10PM

hardtrier wrote: »

Question for "Yes" voters; if you feel that it is ok to take a child's life in the womb, would you be happy to take it's life as soon as it is born, instead? It would be the same baby but there would be no doubt about what was happening.

A foetus is not a child. It may eventually become a child - or it may not - in the same way as a child is not an adult. It may become an adult or it may not.
When it is born it becomes a child. And no, I don't think anyone here is suggesting the murder of new born babies.

Are you happy that born women who may be the mothers of born children are denied vital medical treatment which could save their lives?

hardtrier · 10-05-2018 11:10PM

If a foetus is not a baby, there is no need to abort it. Let the foetus develop and see if it becomes anything other than a baby. Choice is wonderful! But the time for choice is not when a baby has already been made. It is before intercourse takes place and the baby is conceived. If someone doesn't want a baby, let them not create it.

gmisk · 10-05-2018 11:12PM

Paranoid Bob wrote: »

Is it?
I just looked at the together4yes donations page. They have a checkbox self-attestation that the donor is a citizen of or permanent resident in Ireland, but the personal details form will accept billing addresses anywhere in the world.

A checkbox self-attestation is a very weak sort of control.

The donation page on the save 8th website has exactly the same thing..........

Paranoid Bob · 10-05-2018 11:12PM

hardtrier wrote: »

If a foetus is not a baby, there is no need to abort it. Let the foetus develop and see if it becomes anything other than a baby. Choice is wonderful! But the time for choice is not when a baby has already been made. It is before intercourse takes place and the baby is conceived. If someone doesn't want a baby, let them not create it.

Try harder.

That argument has been debunked many times in this thread.

robarmstrong · 10-05-2018 11:13PM

hardtrier wrote: »

If a foetus is not a baby, there is no need to abort it. Let the foetus develop and see if it becomes anything other than a baby. Choice is wonderful! But the time for choice is not when a baby has already been made. It is before intercourse takes place and the baby is conceived. If someone doesn't want a baby, let them not create it.

Invent a form of contraception that's 100% effective in all circumstances, then give us all a shout.

Sofiztikated · 10-05-2018 11:16PM

hardtrier wrote: »

If a foetus is not a baby, there is no need to abort it. Let the foetus develop and see if it becomes anything other than a baby. Choice is wonderful! But the time for choice is not when a baby has already been made. It is before intercourse takes place and the baby is conceived. If someone doesn't want a baby, let them not create it.

And that's fine to believe, but even believing that, how awful do things have to be for women to have to do something like that.
Many people actively want children. But sometimes things aren't fine and dandy, and hard choices have to be made.

Bannasidhe · 10-05-2018 11:17PM

hardtrier wrote: »

If a foetus is not a baby, there is no need to abort it. Let the foetus develop and see if it becomes anything other than a baby. Choice is wonderful! But the time for choice is not when a baby has already been made. It is before intercourse takes place and the baby is conceived. If someone doesn't want a baby, let them not create it.

If the foetus wasn't in the body of someone who didn't consent to it being there would be no need to abort it.

How do you propose women who did not consent to the creation of this foetus exercise this wonderful choice of which you speak?

Ave Sodalis · 10-05-2018 11:17PM

robarmstrong wrote: »

Invent a form of contraception that's 100% effective in all circumstances, then give us all a shout.

Also eliminate rape, FFA, and all other reasons why contraception is not the answer to a complete prevention of abortion.

Paranoid Bob · 10-05-2018 11:18PM

gmisk wrote: »

The donation page on the save 8th website has exactly the same thing..........

OK.
That's not good. If I were the risk officer for those campaigns I'd argue for a stronger check than that. It puts too much faith in the honesty of people who are motivated to donate. It puts the source of funds in doubt, which has a huge negative impact if the campaign is called out on it.

Online fundraising like that may be a much bigger risk than the online advertising.

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

Comments