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

seamus wrote: »

It's curious, NoVoter, that all of your reasons for voting No are based on being unhappy with the laws and abortion practices in another jurisdiction, yet the effect of retaining the eighth amendment is to send all Irish abortions to that same jurisdiction.

Surely if the nature of what happens in the UK makes you so unhappy, you would prefer to bring these abortions back to Ireland where your vote can be used to influence the laws that you disagree with?

Voting No is a vote to continue to send abortions to the UK. That's a fact.

Voting Yes is a vote to bring those abortions back under Irish jurisdiction. That's a fact.

So given that, why are you voting No, when clearly a "Yes" vote is more aligned to your objections?

We could have a promotional campaign.

Guaranteed Irish Abortions.

not really suprised anymore :


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

hardtrier wrote: »

If a foetus is not a baby

There is no "if", the Supreme Court ruled in March that the unborn are not children.

RobertKK wrote: »

It is speculated that the companies believe No could win and didn't want to be blamed for it, as the Yes side would be hostile.

It is often said that one should avoid the passive voice in one's writing, because it makes it look as if one is trying to avoid being responsible for the lies one is typing.

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

Well then, you don't wish any debate at all, you want an echo chamber, which isn't far off what this thread has turned into anyway.

Where are you gone Tom?? You've missed the last 5 or so pages of another mysterious "new" poster telling us to close our legs, cop on and just use contraception properly, "if you don't want a baby, just don't create one", try telling that to women who have been raped, try telling that to women who desperately want their babies but who have to travel to the UK for abortions due to health risk to their much wanted babies, denying that women are prevented from accessing essential medical care due to their pregnancy, couples should just abstain from sex, or use "natural family planning", disrespectful and disgusting comments about stillborn babies etc.

Try reading those same posts attacking people on the basis of their gender for the past few months (in reality, this has been going on for years since 1983) and you might understand why there are so many posters in favour of repeal who are just sick of reading these.

Sorry i did not see your post sooner. Since having two accounts on boards.ie is against the rules I would have tried to reply to you sooner on the off chance you are about to be banned on both accounts. I hope I can open up dialogue with you in time.....

NoVoter wrote: »

There, I said it - the worst words you can say on Boards!

Unfortunately you are setting up a self fulfilling narrative here. You are moaning that "no" voters are treated poorly. But then you are coming in opening up your posting with this level of exaggeration and hyperbole. In other words you are willfully contriving to torpedo your own credibility, and emote the responses of others, before you even begin.

You see the reality of it is........

NoVoter wrote: »

If I’m voting No, surely that means that I am (according to various posters here) an ancient, rosary clutching, God bothering, Mass going, woman hating, “disgusting” human being?

....... that few users voting "no" have been treated this way at all. Even a little bit. The reason people like yourself believe, or pretend to believe, this narrative is two fold:

1) There ARE a couple of users who "let the side down" by throwing insults of this nature around at "no" voters. Not often, but sometimes. What happens however is that those "no" voters contrive to respond only to those insulting posters...... in order to get more insulting posts............ while outright wholesale ignoring the posts of the users (like myself) who stay reasonable, tolerant, mature and articulate. Scroll back over my posts on this thread if you do not believe me. You will find a) no insults or attacks of the nature you describe and b) the "no" voters I open discussion with simply ignore my posts.

2) The "no" voters who attract the ire you (exagerate but) describe do so not because they ARE "no" voters but because of how they conduct themselves in this conversation. Aside from contriving as in point 1) above to only bait the users who are behaving badly..... they throw sound bites out to derail discussion, lie to us, dodge and ignore points, screech about things like persecution when we did nothing but rebut a point they made.... and more. And even the most mature of interlocutors EVENTUALLY is going to get impatient and lose the rag with such childish behaviours and attempts to shut conversation down. AGAIN you can scroll back and prove this to yourself. Observe the last time, for example, AnneFrank shouted "Save the 8th" at us. It was done after (s)he made a point, it was rebutted by three users, and rather than engage in that conversation (s)he merely screeched this sound bite.

Generally the no voters are treated maturely here. But a few are contriving to cause, exacerbate, and then exaggerate the environment of aggression you appeal to here in your post. And your own hyperbole which you opened the post with suggests (though does not yet prove) you could be merely another attempt to do this. We can but wait and see I suppose.

NoVoter wrote: »

I think the Yes side do themselves no favours by constantly shouting these ad hominem insults

Does this not go both ways however? There have been a vast quantity of insults from both sides. I have seen it, and I acknowledge that because my biases and agendas do not blinker my vision. When one noticed insults from one side only, and not the other as you do, one should engage in the introspection required to evaluate how biased you are being.

For example have you seen how much the word "murder" is used in this debate? Do you think it mature, helpful, or doing anyone any favors to be going around calling people like myself either "murderers" or someone who promotes and defends murder?

Maybe clean your own house, before you run a dust checking finger over the sideboards in someone else's?

NoVoter wrote: »

surely they can appreciate that there is a substantial difference between opposing SSM (a ‘positive’ thing with no downsides), and opposing abortion – the deliberate taking of a human life?

Built into that sentence is the assumption that one has "down sides" and the other does not. Which just again shows your own biases here. Thus far however I am waiting for people like your good self to tell me exactly what these supposed "down sides" are when we are talking about the termination of the fetus at 12 or 16 weeks. Actually mostly we are talking about 10 weeks to be statistically honest.

Unfortunately, as you do here, when I seek to have that question answered I just get the phrase "human life" thrown at me. No substance. No elaboration. No explanation. Just a single 2 word phrase. Over. And Over. And over again.

You go on then to talk about the number of abortions that occur as a % of pregnancy, and the topic of abortion due to the diagnosis of Down Syndrome specifically. However unless you can construct an argument as to why abortion itself is bad..... which you have not yet done........ then the number of them, or the reason for them........ is irrelevant. I think your facts, and evaluation of the facts, around the statistics in both cases is wrong. But since they are irrelevant I will leave others to correct them for you.

NoVoter wrote: »

I support abortion in cases of FFA and rape / incest

Perhaps you can do something absolutely no one else has yet done it seems. Which is explain how a system to allow abortion in the case of rape would even work. How would you, in a plausible and timely manner (given the time sensitive nature of abortion) evaluate access to this service? How, to put it bluntly, will you ascertain a woman was in fact raped?

NoVoter wrote: »

No doubt I’ll be subjected to abuse and vitriol now

I trust however that:

1) You will find that my post contains absolutely NONE of this and
2) You will not, as others have done, contrive to ignore my post and instead focus on the ones that validate your narrative of being abused?

I have a feeling it will be a No result.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

How do you feel about lobbying organisations which refuse point blank to reveal their funding or engage with SIPO?

Multiple organisations operating from the same address but not acknowledging they are linked?

Edit: How about an Irish Senator going on US television to ask directly Americans to donate to one side?

I presume there are specific stories associated with each of those three points, but I don't know any of them. Can you provide references?


From looking at the SIPO site I can't see any specific reference to third parties that have failed to register for this referendum campaign.


Two groups having the same address suggests a link, but does not prove one. I used to work for a company that sublet its offices from another company, and a startup that used hot desks in a business incubator. Several unrelated companies shared the same address. Without more information I'd say the shared address is suggestive of a link. If the two organisations had the same people listed as principals; that would be a clear link.


Soliciting donations is not illegal. Using foreign donations to campaign is. I'd say whatever groups the senator was soliciting for should certainly be registered with SIPO, and if the foreign money received is used to support this campaign then SIPO should seek a prosecution.


I'm sorry those are very abstract answers to your questions; I don't know the details of any of the incidents you are referring to.

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Are any of the NO side registered with SIPO at all?

Yes and were the most open about funding on prime time unlike the Yes side.

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I have a feeling it will be a No result.

I see what you mean.
But I think it will be a very divided vote.
The boggers (and I'm a bogger myself), the god botherers, and the old will generally vote NO.
The young people, (who is who this really affects), people in Dublin and other developed areas, and anyone who has talked to anyone who suffered any sort of healthcare issue that the 8th caused will vote YES.

We compassionate, non-mysoginistic people have to hope that the latter outnumbers the former.

ANd if not we'll keep campaigning. We'll push for another referendum with an even playing field (so a ban on lies)

RobertKK wrote: »

The new head of the doctors union had this to say:



http://www.thejournal.ie/maitiu-o-tuathail-interview-4005316-May2018/

Doctors are not in a position to provide a GP led abortion service.

So they can't hand out two pills?
In an appointment which the woman would have had to have booked anyway? Really? That's what you're going with?

ELM327 wrote: »

So they can't hand out two pills?
In an appointment which the woman would have had to have booked anyway? Really? That's what you're going with?

A GP-led service is about more than just handing out pills. The concerns raised by the union representative in that article look quite reasonable and realistic and should not be summarily dismissed because they are inconvenient.


Passing this referendum is not going to help the women of this country to the extent it should if we ignore warnings from GPs about their ability to provide care.

Paranoid Bob wrote: »

A GP-led service is about more than just handing out pills. The concerns raised by the union representative in that article look quite reasonable and realistic and should not be summarily dismissed because they are inconvenient.


Passing this referendum is not going to help the women of this country to the extent it should if we ignore warnings from GPs about their ability to provide care.

The linked article is about GP fatigue, and is in no way related to the outcome of this referendum.
The solution is more GPs, and this is needed irrespective of the outcome of the referendum.

It's very important not to play into the manipulation and lies of the NO side. Particularly RobertKK. The others are just mindlessly shouting into the void but Robert makes points that are twisted in a way that to the layman who offers but a cursory glance they seem to support no. It's only with critical thought and objectivity that they are exposed for the lies and manipulation that they are.

If it were a real issue they would have come out against the 8th, But they haven't

Regarding the issue of the possible result of the Eighth Amendment referendum on 25 May, Ó Tuathail stresses that the NAGP is taking a neutral stance on the vote.

ELM327 wrote: »

Was that prime time with leno? Or Carson?
Because it surely wasn't the one on RTé

http://www.rte.ie/amp/947793/

No need for everyone is telling lies if they say something.

So do people think doctors will administer the abortion pills and then send them home, rather then make sure their patient is fine and lacking complications when she aborts?