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…259260262264265…324

Comments

  • #7832
    Galwayguy35
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,202 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    freshpopcorn wrote: »
    Well I read a headline Yesterday and Leo said that they wouldn't be another referendum. (I think) This wouldn't mean that a future government wouldn't have one.
    It's hard to know to be honest. Would a new government hold a referendum on something the public rejected?
    I could see another referendum of it did fail but it could have something such as writing a twelve week rule into the constitution.

    They weren't long having a second Lisbon referendum after the first one was rejected.

    But I still think Yes will shade it but it could be tight.


  • #7833
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    No harm to remind folk...

    If you get a polling card, well done you, BUT EVERYONE NEEDS TO BRING SOME I.D. TOO!

    Certainly no harm, but I have never been asked for extra ID in 35 years of voting.


  • #7834
    Nettle Soup
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Nettle Soup


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Mrhuth wrote: »
    The thing with the referendum is that the NO voters are more zealous than the pro repeal ones. They go to extreme lengths and use deception to convince others. I have never voted and don't know how it works but is there any way to prevent them voting multiple times? Will it be supervised? I could imagine if there would be supervision, then some of the zealous no voters would happen to know the person supervising and collaborate to vote multiple times. They will not stop at anything, that much I am sure about. You can be guaranteed that all the no voters will take actually go and cast their vote while the yes side might not.

    It's very difficult to get away with that in Ireland because we have polling cards and potential Id requirements - you have to vote at a particular polling centre, using a polling card, and they're generally small and well-staffed enough that someone showing up more than once would immediately be recognised from earlier in the day. I'm pretty sure you have to leave your polling card behind when you're done voting as well?

    I have voted without polling cards or ID. They usually know me at the polling station and just cross me off the list.


  • #7835
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Pugzilla wrote: »
    Fair enough, but you can go in naked, right?

    If you wear plain undies instead of the RepealThe8th ones, you'll be grand.


  • #7836
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,715 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    Galwayguy35 wrote: »
    They weren't long having a second Lisbon referendum after the first one was rejected.

    But I still think Yes will shade it but it could be tight.

    I'm just going on what Leo said.
    Didn't they fight to get a better deal tough?
    Maybe if No won they'd change what people are voting on.(I don't know to be honest)


  • Advertisement
  • #7837
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Nettle Soup wrote: »
    I have voted without polling cards or ID. They usually know me at the polling station and just cross me off the list.

    Interesting. In my local polling station, because I live in a populous enough district (Sandycove/Glasthule, voting in the Harold National School) you actually have tables with different ranges of ID numbers, and you have to know your polling card ID in order to figure out where to go to get your ballot paper. Mine is ML something or MN something, can't remember from last time. It's two letters and four digits anyway - but maybe these aren't as important in smaller towns or districts with less traffic in the polling station? Mine tends to be absolutely mobbed with people depending on the time of day.


  • #7838
    Mrhuth
    Closed Accounts Posts: 182 ✭✭Mrhuth


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Correct, no campaigning of any sort inside the polling station.

    Couldn't they just stand outside and campaign right outside the entrance then?


  • #7839
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,715 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    No harm to remind folk...

    If you get a polling card, well done you, BUT EVERYONE NEEDS TO BRING SOME I.D. TOO!

    Has anybody ever being asked for ID with their polling card?
    I never heard of it happening.


  • #7840
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    Mrhuth wrote: »
    Couldn't they just stand outside and campaign right outside the entrance then?

    There's an exclusion zone, AFAIK.


  • #7841
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Mrhuth wrote: »
    Couldn't they just stand outside and campaign right outside the entrance then?

    Generally not. Depending on Irish law in most polling situations there is a buffer around a polling place where this can’t happen. Usually a couple hundred feet, or meters If you prefer


  • Advertisement
  • #7842
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    Just caught up with the John Waters thing. How gloriously awful.

    I'm out of the loop on this, what's he done this time?

    Have to be honest, as someone who fundamentally believes that men are getting shafted in a lot of areas of Irish life and the law these days, I absolutely despise the fact that the most well known mens' rights commentator in Ireland is John feckin' Waters. Just adds fuel to the moronic idea that you have to be a right wing religious conservative in order to believe that opposition to discrimination should go both ways. :mad:


  • #7843
    FingerDeKat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 219 ✭✭FingerDeKat


    freshpopcorn wrote: »
    Has anybody ever being asked for ID with their polling card?
    I never heard of it happening.
    I have never been asked but I only vote in referenda's and I always have ID just in case.


  • #7844
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    I'm out of the loop on this, what's he done this time?

    Have to be honest, as someone who fundamentally believes that men are getting shafted in a lot of areas of Irish life and the law these days, I absolutely despise the fact that the most well known mens' rights commentator in Ireland is John feckin' Waters. Just adds fuel to the moronic idea that you have to be a right wing religious conservative in order to believe that opposition to discrimination should go both ways. :mad:

    Lost his sh*t at Eamon Dunphy on air and stormed our, as Dunphy was trying to remind him he was a 'no' voter himself.

    Long and short versions are here - https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107021706&postcount=7693


  • #7845
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Billy86 wrote: »
    Lost his sh*t at Eamon Dunphy on air and stormed our, as Dunphy was trying to remind him he was a 'no' voter himself.

    Long and short versions are here - https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107021706&postcount=7693

    He was mad he wasn’t allowed to engage on a tangent.


  • #7846
    Frank Bullitt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,921 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    John should have received all the support he needed to continue that interview.


  • #7847
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Another no-no is whipping out your...

    phone to take a selfie or a pic of the ballot.

    This is supposed to prevent people buying votes.


  • #7848
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    don corleone wrote: »
    I have a problem with this. but I am voting yes as I believe all of the other positives of repealing far outweigh this issue. Still, its an issue for me nonetheless. Wondering if anyone feels the same.

    Think all of us feel that same? I hope so. As I keep saying on this thread, it is important on all issues but EXTRA important on divisive issues, to never lose sight of common ground.

    And the common ground on this issue is we all want less, ideally no, abortions to ever actually happen. That is the ideal we should all work towards.

    I think "when the mother and baby are perfectly healthy but the mother" seeks an abortion anyway, she should very much have that choice. But I am not "happy" with that situation either.

    I think we should do all we can as a society to ensure it does not happen. Improving the ways to prevent women and girls ending up with a crisis or unwanted pregnancy..... improving supports financial and otherwise for women who are having that abortion because they do not have the resources to support a baby......... and so on. We should look at ALL The common reasons abortion happens, and move to mediate them.

    I doubt anyone of sound mind here is happy with abortions happening and wants more of them. We all want to put an end to them. We just some of us believe that laws against it is not the right way to attain that goal, just like for example Prohibition was never the right way to reduce and control moderate and mature alcohol consumption.

    Merely banning choice based abortion is to treat the symptom not the problem.


  • #7849
    wexie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,480 ✭✭✭wexie


    Gintonious wrote: »
    John should have received all the support he needed to continue that interview.

    What support? He was asked a logical and sensible question to support his point of view and he lost the plot?

    So what kind of support should he have got?

    Xanax?


  • #7850
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,715 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    Somebody shared a video of people saying how they'd vote along the M8 route. Some of this was filmed last week before the Claire Byrne debate.


  • #7851
    spookwoman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,059 ✭✭✭✭spookwoman


    Pugzilla wrote: »
    Patients will try to sue doctors for anything. They practice defensive medicine for that reason. Give a CT scan (a big dose of radiation) to someone who happens to be pregnant and you've opened the door to a multi million euro lawsuit. When people see how lucrative it can be, then they'll take advantage of the system.

    That why a waiver or something needs to be signed. When I went in for an operation I have to sign a form to say there was a chance there may be problems etc.


  • Advertisement
  • #7852
    Mint Sauce
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,293 ✭✭✭✭Mint Sauce


    Mrhuth wrote: »
    Couldn't they just stand outside and campaign right outside the entrance then?

    No! The exclusion zone, as far as I know, is actually from the grounds where the vote is being held. So say in a school or church hall, its not 100yds or foot, or what ever the distance is from the door, but from the gates. I could be wrong, but am sure someone will clarify.

    freshpopcorn wrote: »
    Has anybody ever being asked for ID with their polling card?
    I never heard of it happening.

    Twice. My local polling station, has about five or six ballot boxes, asked there. A previous polling station had three, had voted there at least twice before, the third occassion I was working one of the desks, and was asked for ID when I placed my vote. She may have been just messing, but still wanted to see it.


  • #7853
    Frank Bullitt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,921 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    wexie wrote: »
    What support? He was asked a logical and sensible question to support his point of view and he lost the plot?

    So what kind of support should he have got?

    Xanax?

    It was a joke...


  • #7854
    Just her
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 171 ✭✭Just her


    Dressing gown wrote: »
    I’ve a question for no voters.

    If the fundamental core of your vote hinges on the fact that an actual baby is formed at conception, why do we not name babies miscarried in the first trimester? Surely if they should have an equal right to life to that of the mother from the moment of conception, they should also have the legal right to a name? Are there not other rights that we should be exploring? should they not be entitled to be recognised as a person and have a birth and death certificate issued?

    I’m not trying to be facetious I’m just trying to understand how far the recognition of the embryo and foetus as a baby and an equal in the right to life to that of the mother you consider we should go.

    I'd have no issue with any of the above being done. I've read of people naming babies they've miscarried, but not officially, obviously, as you say it's not done.


  • #7855
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Fair enough. I'll rephrase that to "Believing in the right to life from conception."

    Great, but rephrasing it still does not add anything. You are still expressing a belief that has no apparent basis in reality. You see, I can only speak for myself here, but I tend to be less interesting in WHAT people believe so much as WHY they believe it. And so far I am not getting any of the latter from you.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    It is clear that we have very different outlooks on what constitutes life. To me, life begins at conception.

    I do not think we are all that different. I have the same outlook on life as you, I just have MORE nuance and depth to it than you. What I mean by this is that I too believe "life" begins at conception. Any humans, any cows, any dogs, any horses, and birds. But I recognise that we are talking about life in biological terms there. And nothing more.

    I then go deeper than you after this point in that I recognise that although it is all "life" we treat some life different to others. We recognise some as being more valuable, or as being more of concern to us morally and ethically.

    And what I do is ask WHY is that. Why do we value one form of life more than any other. I have looked at every attribute I can think of and only one seems to work. Sentience. Our moral and ethical concern for life tends to track with sentience. And you can do many thought experiments to show this is so.

    The sticking point for me therefore is I see no logically or philosophically valid way to assign rights, or moral and ethical concern, to anything that therefore ENTIRELY lacks that faculty. Such as, you guessed it, a 12 week old fetus.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    The point at which sentience can be proven, or the ability to feel pain, has no impact on the very simple fact that abortion prevents a baby being born.

    So do many things. Abstinence prevents babies being born. Contraception prevents babies being born. The "no" side LOVE (it has been done so many times on this thread alone) trotting out the line "If we had abortion there are many people alive and well today who would not be here" in a case of whatiffery. But somehow they do not seem impressed by me retorting "Yes, and there are a lot of people NOT alive and well and walking around today because we legalized contraception not that long ago".

    Everyone knows what abortion does and what it is for. What is not so clear is why you feel it to be a problem. You seem to think that making it clear THAT it is a problem is enough. Which is equally baffling to me.

    What is worse is that.......
    Deleted User wrote: »
    You are free to disagree with my argument, just as I am free to disagree with your definitions. Clearly you consider the point at which sentience can be proved is relevant. I do not. I don't believe sentience should be an issue at all. The fact that sentience will develop is enough for me.

    ......... not only is your argument.... rather assertion not argument..... poor in isolation..... the issue of abortion is NOT in isolation is it? There is a sentient agent in play. The pregnant woman. So not only are you assigning the fetus rights without any coherent reason.... you are doing so at the expense of the rights, choices, freedoms and well being of the only actual sentient agent in the equation. And THAT requires more justification morally than a mere "I just believe it to be so".
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Discussion boards will never change that. Neither will you, or I.

    Speak for yourself I guess. I have seen people change their mind in real time on this forum. And I have even been thanked both in public and private messages on this forum for my part in it happening. Discourse DOES change minds. And I am committed to the art of human discourse above all other concerns on political and moral issues.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    On the issue of Fathers rights, I cannot understand the reasoning behind a father having rights and responsibilities for a child after birth, yet none beforehand. Why should that be?

    He should have rights and responsibilities of a human child person as and when a human child person comes into the equation. The fetus is not such a thing, and as such there is no reason why he should have any rights and responsibilities to it, or over it. That's why.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    It took two people to create that baby - why does only one have rights?

    If a house was built and I paid for and built everything myself by hand, and you did nothing but pay for and lay the first brick.... do you think we should have equal rights and responsibilities to that house? It might take two people to create a baby, but do not pretend that means their involvement, investment, inputs and integration into that process (just to stick to words starting with the letter i) are equal or equivalent. IF you planted the seed of a tree on my land, and I invested all the plant food and water into growing that seed, your investment and responsibility in that resulting tree would be near nothing.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    It's not as if the father suddenly changes into someone else after the birth. It's not as if he isn't expected to care for his partner and child before birth, but he should have no legal rights? Sounds like discrimination to me, tbh.

    Again, he should have legal rights. We just disagree as to WHEN he attains them and why.


  • #7856
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    I never ever once thought in my entire life that I'd side with Eamon Dunphy.

    Holy Jesus, he's a no voter and he was asking good solid questions! Waters should be embarrassed big time for that, I genuinely think a lot of what comes out of Dunphy's mouth is nonsense of all shapes and forms but wow, talk about a toddler-styled wobbler.


  • #7857
    fxotoole
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,661 ✭✭✭fxotoole


    Gintonious wrote: »
    John should have received all the support he needed to continue that interview.

    What are you on about? Éamon was being very facilitating and it was John who walked way when the going got tough


  • #7858
    FingerDeKat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 219 ✭✭FingerDeKat


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Great, but rephrasing it still does not add anything. You are still expressing a belief that has no apparent basis in reality. You see, I can only speak for myself here, but I tend to be less interesting in WHAT people believe so much as WHY they believe it. And so far I am not getting any of the latter from you.



    I do not think we are all that different. I have the same outlook on life as you, I just have MORE nuance and depth to it than you. What I mean by this is that I too believe "life" begins at conception. Any humans, any cows, any dogs, any horses, and birds. But I recognise that we are talking about life in biological terms there. And nothing more.

    I then go deeper than you after this point in that I recognise that although it is all "life" we treat some life different to others. We recognise some as being more valuable, or as being more of concern to us morally and ethically.

    And what I do is ask WHY is that. Why do we value one form of life more than any other. I have looked at every attribute I can think of and only one seems to work. Sentience. Our moral and ethical concern for life tends to track with sentience. And you can do many thought experiments to show this is so.

    The sticking point for me therefore is I see no logically or philosophically valid way to assign rights, or moral and ethical concern, to anything that therefore ENTIRELY lacks that faculty. Such as, you guessed it, a 12 week old fetus.



    So do many things. Abstinence prevents babies being born. Contraception prevents babies being born. The "no" side LOVE (it has been done so many times on this thread alone) trotting out the line "If we had abortion there are many people alive and well today who would not be here" in a case of whatiffery. But somehow they do not seem impressed by me retorting "Yes, and there are a lot of people NOT alive and well and walking around today because we legalized contraception not that long ago".

    Everyone knows what abortion does and what it is for. What is not so clear is why you feel it to be a problem. You seem to think that making it clear THAT it is a problem is enough. Which is equally baffling to me.

    What is worse is that.......



    ......... not only is your argument.... rather assertion not argument..... poor in isolation..... the issue of abortion is NOT in isolation is it? There is a sentient agent in play. The pregnant woman. So not only are you assigning the fetus rights without any coherent reason.... you are doing so at the expense of the rights, choices, freedoms and well being of the only actual sentient agent in the equation. And THAT requires more justification morally than a mere "I just believe it to be so".



    Speak for yourself I guess. I have seen people change their mind in real time on this forum. And I have even been thanked both in public and private messages on this forum for my part in it happening. Discourse DOES change minds. And I am committed to the art of human discourse above all other concerns on political and moral issues.



    He should have rights and responsibilities of a human child person as and when a human child person comes into the equation. The fetus is not such a thing, and as such there is no reason why he should have any rights and responsibilities to it, or over it. That's why.



    If a house was built and I paid for and built everything myself by hand, and you did nothing but pay for and lay the first brick.... do you think we should have equal rights and responsibilities to that house? It might take two people to create a baby, but do not pretend that means their involvement, investment, inputs and integration into that process (just to stick to words starting with the letter i) are equal or equivalent. IF you planted the seed of a tree on my land, and I invested all the plant food and water into growing that seed, your investment and responsibility in that resulting tree would be near nothing.



    Again, he should have legal rights. We just disagree as to WHEN he attains them and why.
    Normally don't read posts that are walls of text but nozzferrahhtoo's posts are well worth reading. He drills down into the issue and if you honestly answer yes/no to his points you will vote yes.


  • #7859
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    “If the 8th Amendment didn’t exist there would be a lot of people who are here today that would not be”

    Same could be said for alcohol!


  • #7860
    spookwoman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,059 ✭✭✭✭spookwoman


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    “If the 8th Amendment didn’t exist there would be a lot of people who are here today that would not be”

    Same could be said for alcohol!
    Same with the world cup if Ireland didnt get through :D


  • Advertisement
  • #7861
    BarleySweets
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 198 ✭✭BarleySweets


    sabat wrote: »
    My question was how does it differ from other countries, ie what does it have to do with the 8th amendment. The answer is that is in fact standard best medical practice everywhere in the world. Despite this indisputable fact it has been used several times on this thread as an example of how the 8th amendment affects women's health care in Ireland. This is from The International Atomic Energy Agency, I suppose they're a front for the Iona Institute too?



    https://www.iaea.org/resources/rpop/health-professionals/radiology/pregnant-women

    Of course not one single poster is going to withdraw their earlier assertions and say "I stand corrected" but I'll get plenty of irrelevant non-sequiturs with 15 thanks each.

    That’s rich, you call out others for ignoring your claims and accuse them of being incorrect by misrepresenting IAEA guidelines, yet my reply to your question (which you’ve ignored) detailed exactly how the 8th affects women in this situation.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement