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

Back in 2015 during the SSM hooha, Bock the Robber linked to this map of the godbotherers against the gay. Interesting how many of them are back in the news. Some of the next generation, too.

patrickSTARR wrote: »

Its not a cop out, its the way I see it.

Let people go to the UK, just because the UK allow it doesn't mean we should just go ........oh ok.

If a woman wants to do that, let her go across and do it. I don't have a vote in England and how the run it, but I do have a vote in this country.

But you ccall it a zygote, I look at it as a life.

patrickSTARR wrote: »

I agree, however I don't trust the government to draft legislation that bans abortion on demand.

If I knew repealing the 8th would ban on demand abortion for unwanted pregnancies then id vote to repeal.

patrickSTARR wrote: »

Id rather they didn't go abroad, id rather they value the life inside of them a bit more.

patrickSTARR wrote: »

I would advocate that, yes.

patrickSTARR wrote: »

Ah but this vote is to repeal the 8th, its what we are voting on now.

However if such an referendum was for the 13th and 14th, Id vote to repeal them.

Killing an unborn child is wrong.

patrickSTARR wrote: »

Id value them both, unlike them not valuing whats inside them


A life is a life regardless of how horrible a situation its conceived.

patrickSTARR wrote: »

Equally if my daughter aborted a baby just because its unplanned and not a good time in their lives, Id never forgive them either.

Well above have been some of my more recent comments on the subject of the 8th.

When discussing the topic I will admit I made these comments far too hastily without really thinking the answers through, mainly to defend my stance on the 8th.

Now when discussing this topic here I got a good few replies. Some very informative, some discussed rationally (something I probably didn’t do myself) and some not. Admittedly Ive been quiet bullheaded on the issue and was very quick to jump into the no camp without really taking on board the yes side.

I do believe a life starts at birth, regardless of what others think. Some call a it a foetus, I still think regardless of what its called, I still believe it has a right to life, hence why I was voting no.

But once I started reading others stories about how the 8th effected them, specifically on medical grounds. I found myself conflicted at first but still felt that what I consider a healthy mother and healthy baby, shouldn’t be aborted and I felt that if I was to vote in favour of repealing, I would be ok with abortion on demand.

I kept telling myself, a life is a life and that it should be given the chance to live rather be terminated.

But after my comments above, which again I admitted I didn’t really think through, I went ahead and did a few things.

I firstly talked about it to myself and thought about the worst case scenarios if my daughter or wife were to fall pregnant.

I thought, what if they discover aheart condition then fall pregnant……… what if one is raped and falls pregnant……….. what if one was given a cancer diagnosis when pregnant.

What would I want to happen. I mean I really gave it good thought.

I then discussed it with my partner, who was in the same boat as me (voting no). We both discussed it at length, from her and my daughters point of view.

The conclusion to both me weighing up my own thoughts and discussing it with my partner, was me realising that maybe Ive been quite ignorant to the plight of woman and others affected by the 8th.

As the phrase goes, what if I, my daughter or my partner were in their shoes or the worst case scenarios.

What would I want to happen?

I really surprised myself, as from being very clearly leaning on the no side, I am now thinking of voting yes.

I thought I would want it to be her decisions whether she kept a rapists baby. I feel I would want her to choose what to do if her life was at risk during a pregnancy.

I would more likely encourage her to save her own life than continue to being pregnant.

I still believe the life inside a human is precious and has the has the right to life, but not at the expense of my partners life or my daughters life.

I have been fairly ignorant in my beliefs on this thread, being very bull-headed and blunt in my takes on the 8th. When really and truly putting myself in the worst possible situations I would want the my partner or daughter to choose. I want them to feel loved, protected and safe.

I can say by reading the stories of others and putting myself and my family in their shoes………. I can see the benefits of the 8th being removed appear to out weigh the negatives.

I would want my wife to have the choice to live if she had serious difficulties in pregnancy. I wouldn’t want to lose her. I wouldn’t want to risk her life. I would want her to have a choice. I was far too rash in my judgment and too ignorant in my beliefs.

There is a lot to be said for putting yourself in someone elses shoes

RobertKK wrote: »

it is vile we have dead and terminally ill women from cover ups

It is also vile (and actually relevant to this thread) that you are still relying on selective quotes from official reports to try and cover up the fact that the 8th killed Savita Hallapanavar.

RobertKK wrote: »

......
Well an abortion advocate would say that.

He said legalised abortion leads to less abortion as well..

He is a bit more than that now, just a tad ..

Currently, he is President-elect of the International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecology – the global body dedicated to improving the quality of life of women and newborns.

Prof Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran's research and clinical interests are in understanding and improving the quality of life for women and newborn babies.

He has been in clinical practice for 37 years and in research and teaching for 25 years. He joined St George’s, University of London as a Professor and then became Head of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Previously, he held posts at a number of high-profile institutions including the National University of Singapore, the University of Nottingham, the Asia and Oceania Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, and the International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.

Among his key achievements is the development of a 'clinical dashboard' to provide clinicians with the relevant and timely information they need to inform decisions that improve the quality of patient care.

He obtained his MD and PhD by research. He gained membership of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (MRCOG) and fellowship of the Royal College of Surgeons by examination. He is active with a number of professional organisations and was president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, of which he was president 2009-10.

Currently, he is President-elect of the International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecology – the global body dedicated to improving the quality of life of women and newborns.

Professor Arulkumaran has published 24 books as author or editor, 240 indexed articles and more than 150 book chapters, and has been Editor in Chief of Best Practice and Research Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology since 1998.

Honours and awards
Honorary Fellow of American, South African, Indian, Sri Lankan, Pakistan, Australia & New Zealand College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists.

Dotor Honoris Causa from University of Athens, Greece.

Honorary Member of the German, South African, Malaysian and Canadian Societies of Obstetrics & Gynaecology

NoVoter wrote: »

The Yes side here claim that they are happy to engage in debate etc. I posted what I hoped was a fairly reasonable piece yesterday, giving my reasons for a No vote, and outlining why I feel some of the 'facts' as presented by the Yes side are anything but. I count approx 13/14 responses to my post from yesterday afternoon - the vast majority of these (a selection above) completely ignore my points in favour of some virtual high fiving and thanks whoring (including from posters who have said they are open to reasonable debate). It's of interest that even a Yes voter was attacked last night because he criticised the conduct of the Yes side on this thread. Seriously guys, look with some objectivity and see what a circle jerk this thread is - there are a lot (it is not just a few) Yes posters on this thread who are doing their side no good at all. I know I'm not going to be convincing anyone here to vote No, but at least try and show that there is some substance behind the Yes side, other than Right On virtue signalling. There were just two attempts (one only this morning) to debate the substantive issues I raised - I will reply to these separately. There were also one or two posters who said they had no problem with abortion on demand - that's fair enough; I disagree with that position, but I respect its honesty.

Let me completely destroy any attempt at what you feel to be a reasonable debate, because quite frankly, everything you've said is wrong, very, very wrong.

Let's start.

NoVoter wrote: »

I’d have a lot more respect for the Yes side if they were honest about their position – if you think a woman should be allowed to abort for whatever reason she likes, you are entitled to that opinion and should vote accordingly. Yet, in this thread (and I only dip in and out – I don’t have time to see all posts), I see constant lies and misleading statements from Yes posters – generally in the form of themselves labelling No claims as mistruths (and calling for posters who question their ‘truths’ to be censured). Let’s start with the most common:

The No claim that 1 in 5 pregnancies in England are aborted. This is automatically rejected as ‘lies’ etc – but it’s true. Not alone that, but the articles which have been linked in this thread as disproving the statistic actually back it up! Go on, read the (hopelessly biased) Irish Times’s Fact Check – it’s there in black and white: 21% of pregnancies known to the authorities are aborted. Yet the fact that miscarriage figures (an unknowable variable) are not included is taken as grounds to rubbish the stat – even though the No campaign themselves have stated that they are not counting miscarriages.

The No campaign stated they do not count miscarriage but then go on to say 1 in 5 of all pregnancies ends in abortion. Excluding miscarriage is not ALL pregnancies. They are leaving that out conveniently and for obvious purposes. If you actually read the IT fact check it says there is no way to verify or refute that claim, basically reword it to make it more accurate instead of blatantly misrepresenting it to push an agenda, 1 in every 6 women have a miscarriage, so how does 1 in 5 end in abortion?

NoVoter wrote: »

That Downs Syndrome babies cannot be aborted under the proposed legislation. A bizarre claim given the DS abortion rates in countries with abortion. The usual misleading ‘fact’ peddled is that DS cannot be diagnosed before 12 weeks, and that the legislation will not allow abortions for DS after that timeframe. The former is particularly disingenuous and plays upon the differences between the words ‘diagnosis’ and ‘screening’ – while the tests are not routinely available in public hospitals, put your hand in your pocket and you most certainly can get a strong indicator, and even a diagnosis depending on tests done, of DS in advance of the 12 week ‘no reason necessary’ limit. The claim that DS babies will not be aborted after 12 weeks is also laughable – it’ll just be slipped in under the mental health ground (more below).

More mindless and baseless speculation. "Put your hand in your pocket" doesn't apply to those who are unable to purchase the test. DS cannot be diagnosed before 12 weeks? There are expensive tests that can be taken as early as 9 weeks but the results often take anywhere between 2-3 weeks, in my partner and I's case we didn't get the results back until 14 weeks but she had already miscarried.

NoVoter wrote: »

That Ireland will not be introducing abortion on demand if we vote Yes. Of course we will! Believe it or not I’ve seen some people claim that we won’t have abortion on demand in the first 12 weeks because there’ll be a 3 day cooling off period – eh?! First 12 weeks are abortion on demand – hopefully we can all agree on that? After 12 weeks, it’s customary for Yes posters to mutter something about serious threat to health, two doctors, etc when the likelihood of abortion on demand after 12 weeks is raised. Yet, the proposed legislation makes clear that abortion will be offered until 24 weeks where there is a serious threat to the health of the mother – including on the grounds of mental health. This is a hugely vague caveat which I will have little doubt is a wide open door to abortion on demand up to 24 weeks. Why? Because this is exactly the same system as they have in the UK, where all abortions (including first 12 weeks) must be certified as necessary by two doctors on similar grounds. Yet, for all the talk from Yes campaigners about fatal abnormalities and threats to physical health of mothers etc, the TLDR of abortion figures from England is that 97% of abortions there are performed on mental health grounds – i.e. these are all healthy babies and only a tiny number of abortions are necessary due to foetal abnormalities or threats to the mother’s physical health. The mental health clause is widely regarded as resulting in de facto abortion on demand in the UK. Want to abort because you want a boy, not a girl – no problem. Downs Syndrome – no problem. Any other reason you want – no problem, we’ll just tick the mental health box. And yet, a more liberal abortion regime is proposed for Ireland!

Ah yes, another individual senselessly speculating the reasons behind the 97% mental health grounds picture. How do you know these are all healthy babies? The majority of abortions in the UK are before 12 weeks which is routinely when the first scan is. To assume that each and every single one of these pregnancies are healthy is nothing other than you speculating to try prove a point. There are no facts to determine that all of them are healthy, so try another route.

NoVoter wrote: »

That the proposed legislation will facilitate abortion on demand up to 24 weeks (not immediately, but it will happen) is why I am voting No. I support abortion in cases of FFA and rape / incest, yet such cases are hugely rare despite the attempts of the Yes side to inflate their importance. If that is what was proposed I would vote Yes – but it’s not.

No, it really won't facilitate abortion on demand up to 24 weeks, no matter how many times you repeat this, it isn't truth.

NoVoter wrote: »

As I said earlier, I have no issues with Yes voters who are honest with themselves. A Yes to the referendum is a yes to abortion on demand up to 24 weeks. If you are in favour of this, fair enough – I disagree, but we’re all entitled to our opinion.

No, Yes to the referendum isn't a yes to abortion on demand up to 24 weeks, again, repeat it all you like, doesn't make it true.

NoVoter wrote: »

I have no doubts BTW that the outcome in a few weeks will be a Yes – I think the margin of their victory may surprise even the Yes campaigners. But I won’t be doing the ‘cool’ thing – and will be voting No to abortion on demand.

Yeah, because voting to have women apply for safe and legal abortions in their own country and grant them a right to something that has been given to women in every civilized country in the world is the "cool" thing.

Women with uterine abnormalities will be further shunned if the 8th is retained, but I know they'll definitely be happy with the fact that instead of voting to repeal so they don't have to constantly miscarry children over and over again and can have a dignified end to a doomed pregnancy (uterine abnormalities are not a health issue to the mother nor is it a FFA, the fate of the entire pregnancy rests on where the embryo has implanted in the uterus), you'll be voting no because you don't wanna do the "cool thing".

Bravo, really mature, putting your own beliefs, yourself and your opinion above many, many women in this country who have genuine reasons for abortion purely because the proposed legislation (which you clearly don't understand and are happy enough to consistently speculate with basis on) does not suit you.

I don't like abortion, I'm pro-life but I'm voting to repeal because I've seen firsthand what the 8th does to women like my partner. I'm putting my beliefs and bias aside for the greater good, not because it's the "cool thing" to do.

patrickSTARR wrote: »

I really surprised myself, as from being very clearly leaning on the no side, I am now thinking of voting yes.

This is heartening to hear. Especially after so many people on the forum claiming that this debate is a waste of time and never changes peoples minds.

I hope having voted yes you then notice something I say time and time again on this thread. Which is that the "no" and "yes" side of this debate are united in one common goal. WE ALL want less (ideally no) abortions happening in our country/world.

So after you vote yes, consider coming back to this thread and exploring with the rest of us how we can work together towards that goal.

How can we change and update sex education..... contraception access and use...... social welfare and support for single parents....... medical choices, laws and options....... and much much more to work towards the goal where people A) never have to consider abortion or if they do they do not feel it is their only option.

The hate and emotion this topic generates risks making us lose sight of the fact we all essentially want the same thing at the end of the day. We just disagree on the best way to get there.

I look forward to meeting you on the front lines of that war.

patrickSTARR wrote: »

Well above have been some of my more recent comments on the subject of the 8th.

When discussing the topic I will admit I made these comments far too hastily without really thinking the answers through, mainly to defend my stance on the 8th.

Now when discussing this topic here I got a good few replies. Some very informative, some discussed rationally (something I probably didn’t do myself) and some not. Admittedly Ive been quiet bullheaded on the issue and was very quick to jump into the no camp without really taking on board the yes side.

I do believe a life starts at birth, regardless of what others think. Some call a it a foetus, I still think regardless of what its called, I still believe it has a right to life, hence why I was voting no.

But once I started reading others stories about how the 8th effected them, specifically on medical grounds. I found myself conflicted at first but still felt that what I consider a healthy mother and healthy baby, shouldn’t be aborted and I felt that if I was to vote in favour of repealing, I would be ok with abortion on demand.

I kept telling myself, a life is a life and that it should be given the chance to live rather be terminated.

But after my comments above, which again I admitted I didn’t really think through, I went ahead and did a few things.

I firstly talked about it to myself and thought about the worst case scenarios if my daughter or wife were to fall pregnant.

I thought, what if they discover aheart condition then fall pregnant……… what if one is raped and falls pregnant……….. what if one was given a cancer diagnosis when pregnant.

What would I want to happen. I mean I really gave it good thought.

I then discussed it with my partner, who was in the same boat as me (voting no). We both discussed it at length, from her and my daughters point of view.

The conclusion to both me weighing up my own thoughts and discussing it with my partner, was me realising that maybe Ive been quite ignorant to the plight of woman and others affected by the 8th.

As the phrase goes, what if I, my daughter or my partner were in their shoes or the worst case scenarios.

What would I want to happen?

I really surprised myself, as from being very clearly leaning on the no side, I am now thinking of voting yes.

I thought I would want it to be her decisions whether she kept a rapists baby. I feel I would want her to choose what to do if her life was at risk during a pregnancy.

I would more likely encourage her to save her own life than continue to being pregnant.

I still believe the life inside a human is precious and has the has the right to life, but not at the expense of my partners life or my daughters life.

I have been fairly ignorant in my beliefs on this thread, being very bull-headed and blunt in my takes on the 8th. When really and truly putting myself in the worst possible situations I would want the my partner or daughter to choose. I want them to feel loved, protected and safe.

I can say by reading the stories of others and putting myself and my family in their shoes………. I can see the benefits of the 8th being removed appear to out weigh the negatives.

I would want my wife to have the choice to live if she had serious difficulties in pregnancy. I wouldn’t want to lose her. I wouldn’t want to risk her life. I would want her to have a choice. I was far too rash in my judgment and too ignorant in my beliefs.

There is a lot to be said for putting yourself in someone elses shoes

Wow absolutely massive respect to you for doing research and really considering how this amendment has effected real women, their partners, families etc.
The in her shoes site is a difficult but really necessary read for me.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

This is heartening to hear. Especially after so many people on the forum claiming that this debate is a waste of time and never changes peoples minds.

I hope having voted yes you then notice something I say time and time again on this thread. Which is that the "no" and "yes" side of this debate are united in one common goal. WE ALL want less (ideally no) abortions happening in our country/world.

So after you vote yes, consider coming back to this thread and exploring with the rest of us how we can work together towards that goal.

How can we change and update sex education..... contraception access and use...... social welfare and support for single parents....... medical choices, laws and options....... and much much more to work towards the goal where people A) never have to consider abortion or if they do they do not feel it is their only option.

The hate and emotion this topic generates risks making us lose sight of the fact we all essentially want the same thing at the end of the day. We just disagree on the best way to get there.

I look forward to meeting you on the front lines of that war.

I was very ignorant.

I brought myself to this discussion and some posters, not all, were very fair in discussing my beliefs despite them being ignorant, something I was too blind to see at the time.

I wasn't set in my ways, still not 100 percent sure I will vote yes. But the more I read and the more I gave both sides a fair chance and opened my mind, especially by putting myself and my family in the worst possible scenarios, I cant help but lean towards yes. I think I was very narrow minded and bullheaded in my thinking initially.

NoVoter wrote: »

the Yes camp here will not tolerate any deviation from the party line.

That is one way to spin it I guess. The other way however, which I feel is more accurate, is that many of us are not looking at this in terms of "yes party line" but as "Good arguments and bad arguments".

Any many people, myself included, are focused on knocking down bad arguments. Even when they come from people we agree with.

If someone in the "yes" camp makes a bad point, I will rebut it. Which is the exact opposite of the "echo chamber" effect you seem to think is in play.

A bad argument is a bad argument regardless of the source. And I am no more (or less) likely to pull my punches from people who are voting yes, than no.

NoVoter wrote: »

I have seen plenty of commentary on this very thread brushing off abortions beyond 12 weeks as being some rare event, only to be performed in exceptionally demanding medical circumstances.

The statistics on this are pretty consistent world wide. And interestingly they are consistent regardless of how restrictive or liberal the abortion environment is in each country. And that consistency is that over 80% of abortions performed are done by week 10, over 90% by week 12, and nearly 100% by week 16.

Of the tiny % that do so after week 16..... most of them are done by medical necessity.

Is anyone denying that some people after week 16 have abortion for reasons other than medical necessity? I have not seen many (any?)....... but the number is so small as to be irrelevant. A statistical non-entity. So rather than simply denying your claims.... which is a valid approach........ many are also questioning the relevance of them.

All that said however I would add one more point. Pointing to a jurisdiction that has done the right thing badly..... is not an argument for not doing the right thing here. It is just an argument that we should do it with care.

The approach you are taking here is, in other words, fueled by a narrative and agenda. You already have decided you want to vote no, so you are using the failings of another state to justify that. Which is unwarranted. Basically you are telling us not to do the right thing, because someone else failed to do it correctly.

We see similar in debates on, for example, sex work. People who have ZERO arguments as to why sex work should be illegal (on the buyer or seller side) appeal to states where sex work was made legal but poorly..... and this is an unreasonable and intellectually bankrupt approach to discourse.

NoVoter wrote: »

the vast majority of these (a selection above) completely ignore my points in favour of some virtual high fiving and thanks whoring

You admitted in your first post that you are a re-reg, presumably banned or thread banned under your previous identity.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

I have already covered it in my earlier post, but again: the responses to my post yesterday prove the point - many on the Yes side here are incapable of debate and reduce themselves to attacking the poster rather than the point, even if that poster is on their own side if they are not absolutely on board. I do acknowledge though that you are arguing on the issues.

....... 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.

Respectfully, I disagree. I agree that some No posters haven't covered themselves in glory but the pack mentality of many on the Yes side here is breathtaking. NO points immediately dismissed as lies without any backing - as I myself have found out. I would imagine that the reasonable No posters simply cannot be bothered trying to debate those that will no debate.

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?

By far the most common users of "murder" and "murderer" to me seem to be the Yes side. In truth I haven't seen any No poster use them but I absolutely do not claim to have read all - or even the majority - of posts on the three threads.

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.

I don't think the phrase "human life" needs any further elaboration. That the proposed legislation will - I believe - lead to the ending of such life for any reason whatsoever I find repugnant. You are free to disagree with that - such is your right.

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.

Again, I disagree, and believe I have shown the correctness of my figures. All I see from the Yes side here is "but.....lies!" with no attempt to show why such figures are incorrect.

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?

I support abortion in cases of rape, but I have absolutely no clue how such a system would be implemented in practicality.

NoVoter wrote: »

I'll be voting NO in the referendum. There, I said it - the worst words you can say on Boards! That I feel I can't post that statement under my usual username says a lot I think about the referendum atmosphere generally, and Boards in particular.

.

NoVoter wrote: »

I don't agree - as the treatment of the 'dissenting' Yes voter last night shows, many in the Yes camp here will not tolerate any deviation from the party line. My primary identity here is known to people in my workplace - a workplace that is 100% on message with every 'progressive' social issue and where 21st century 'tolerance' is in full effect - i.e. it would not be a wise career move to dare to admit voting No.

To be fair to you, I believe that politics in general is something companies should tread carefully with.

I have seen a few companies putting up stuff on social media about how everyone in the office is in support of a Yes, and it got me thinking that unless your company is only 10 people, then statistically there are probably "No" voters in it. And chances are they've had to smile and bite their tongue while you declare everyone in your company to be on the Yes train.

And that's not right. I have no problem with companies declaring an "official" position on any political matter, but to also pre-empt your employees into declaring that same position is a step too far IMO.

Do you genuinely believe that we will do it differently in Ireland? I don't.

You see, this is where I have difficulty with your declaration about facts and the rest. Your reason for voting no is not based on facts, but skepticism.

You're voting no on the basis of what you think will happen eventually. That's not voting based on facts. The proposed laws, as presented, do not support what you believe is going to be the situation in this country after a Yes.

And what's more, even if you are eternally cynical, the power to influence those laws exists. Your personal grim outlook does not have to be reality unless you allow it to be.

In effect, your reason for voting no is "I don't trust legislators to legislate", just dressed up in a lot more words.

NoVoter wrote: »

I have already covered it in my earlier post, but again: the responses to my post yesterday prove the point - many on the Yes side here are incapable of debate and reduce themselves to attacking the poster rather than the point, even if that poster is on their own side if they are not absolutely on board. I do acknowledge though that you are arguing on the issues.





Respectfully, I disagree. I agree that some No posters haven't covered themselves in glory but the pack mentality of many on the Yes side here is breathtaking. NO points immediately dismissed as lies without any backing - as I myself have found out. I would imagine that the reasonable No posters simply cannot be bothered trying to debate those that will no debate.

We can immediately dismiss them because they have been brought up countless times before and found to be wrong.

NoVoter wrote: »

By far the most common users of "murder" and "murderer" to me seem to be the Yes side. In truth I haven't seen any No poster use them but I absolutely do not claim to have read all - or even the majority - of posts on the three threads.

well clearly you haven't read much of the 20000+ posts because this has been repeated ad nauseum by No voters.

NoVoter wrote: »

I don't think the phrase "human life" needs any further elaboration. That the proposed legislation will - I believe - lead to the ending of such life for any reason whatsoever I find repugnant. You are free to disagree with that - such is your right.

I think it is important to clarify why we place a foetus on the same level as a living breathing person.

NoVoter wrote: »

Again, I disagree, and believe I have shown the correctness of my figures. All I see from the Yes side here is "but.....lies!" with no attempt to show why such figures are incorrect.

you haven't shown anything. you have merely asserted that you are correct. If you make assertions it is to YOU to prove them. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

NoVoter wrote: »

I support abortion in cases of rape, but I have absolutely no clue how such a system would be implemented in practicality.

well that is a useful contribution. I suppose it is better than suggesting rape panels.

NoVoter wrote: »

I have already covered it in my earlier post, but again: the responses to my post yesterday prove the point

And I think they prove mine. Which is that people like yourself contrive to feed the trolls and then moan that the trolls are there. And I think that makes you part of the problem, not the solution.

Imagine you had ignored them and responded instead SOLELY The the posts that responded maturely to yours? Then imagine EVERYONE was doing that. What do you think the environment of this thread would be then?

NoVoter wrote: »

By far the most common users of "murder" and "murderer" to me seem to be the Yes side

Well as you say you have not actually read the posts and threads so I have to take your evaluation here with a grain of salt and an assumption you are merely seeing what you want to see. Because my experience on the threads.... which I actually have read every.... single.... post.... on (masochistic I know).... is the exact opposite. And hugely so. The narrative of murder is almost entirely coming from one side only.

NoVoter wrote: »

I don't think the phrase "human life" needs any further elaboration.

Well how very convenient for you don't you think? That suddenly the very crux and focus of the points the "other side" are making happens to be the thing you want to simply brush under the carpet and not discuss. This is real "cake and eat it" stuff here. A real stacking of the deck. You moan to us people will not debate or discuss the issue in a mature manner..... but then contrive to simply wave away the very core of what many people are debating.

How is that even remotely fair, open, honest or anything but completely and entirely intellectually bankrupt? You opened your narrative on the thread with a fear of derision and aggression and then contrive in this fashion to illicit it. With me you will fail to illicit it of course, as that is not how I function on this thread. But closing your ears in this fashion WILL illicit it from others. And you will, quite likely, use that to claim your narrative of abuse is vindicated.

It is like trying to claim all dogs are dangerous, and then proving your point by going around poking them all with a stick until they bite you so you can go "I told you so!".

But the fact is it very much does need elaboration because in isolation it is not an argument, but a slogan. And slogans alone are not a discussion. If you can not break down the meaning and content of your own slogans then that is telling. Even more so if rather than failing to do so, you dodge even making the attempt to.

NoVoter wrote: »

I support abortion in cases of rape, but I have absolutely no clue how such a system would be implemented in practicality.

And since you have no influence on how it would be implemented that is not really a problem. The problem is that no one else seems to have any ideas either. Including those who would have to implement such a policy. There appears, in fact, to be no coherent or plausible way to achieve it. Which should be a concern to yes and no voters alike.