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

Overheal · 17-05-2018 07:42PM

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!

Sure that’s why they’re trialing busses to rural areas to bring people to the pubs. “For community”

Meanwhile folks were arguing the other week you don’t need to repeal you just need to fix the drink culture in Ireland :rolleyes:

Kiwi in IE · 17-05-2018 07:43PM

fxotoole wrote: »

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

I think the original poster of that comment meant he should have been given all the support he needed to continue because the more John Waters talks, the better for the yes side.

Overheal · 17-05-2018 07:46PM

Muahahaha · 17-05-2018 07:49PM

gmisk wrote: »

I think it will be tight but I think it was always going to be, maybe roughly 55/45 for yes.
I think there is an indication that the undecideds might break for Yes this time, so we will see, I will be happy as long as it passes even if it is tight.

The bookies also have generally
1/4 Yes
11/4 No

Hopefully the polls give the Yes side a kick up the a#se to go and vote. Trump and Brexit have taught us not to take anything for granted I hope!

As of this morning Paddy Power are taking no more bets on the referendum. I would imagine the poll this morning from the IT made their decision for them- when dont knows are excluded it showed 58% Yes and 42% No. What is also of interest is the dont knows were asked which way they are leaning and more said towards voting Yes than voting No.

In a past life I have studied elections, opinion polls and bookies odds extensively. Against stacked odds I won money both on Trump being elected and on Brexit being passed because the polling conditions a week to ten days out were enough to show me that their deficits could be made up and overturned. In the case of the 8th it is now too late for the No side to turn this around. Im calling this as a Yes win 56% to 44%. I also have the entire balance of my Paddy Power account riding on a Yes vote so there will be serious egg on my face if Im wrong

wexie · 17-05-2018 07:51PM

From here : http://entertainment.ie/trending/news/The-10-Best-Piss-Takes-Of-Ben-Bulbens-No-Sign/405076.htm

Frank Bullitt · 17-05-2018 07:52PM

fxotoole wrote: »

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

Jaysis lads, it was a joke!

As in thats what the NO side say for women who are pregnant but shouldn't get an abortion etc.

My comedy career is in ruins!

Achasanai · 17-05-2018 07:55PM

Muahahaha wrote: »

As of this morning Paddy Power are taking no more bets on the referendum. I would imagine the poll this morning from the IT made their decision for them- when dont knows are excluded it showed 58% Yes and 42% No. What is also of interest is the dont knows were asked which way they are leaning and more said towards voting Yes than voting No.

In a past life I have studied elections, opinion polls and bookies odds extensively. Against stacked odds I won money both on Trump being elected and on Brexit being passed because the polling conditions a week to ten days out were enough to show me that their deficits could be made up and overturned. In the case of the 8th it is now too late for the No side to turn this around. Im calling this as a Yes win 56% to 44%. I also have the entire balance of my Paddy Power account riding on a Yes vote so there will be serious egg on my face if Im wrong

I hope you're right, have no idea what to think myself. Interestingly, the no side (or at least Declan Ganley) is making out that the lack of booking odds is suggestive that it's a win for No. The 'correlation' is similar figures in polls and distance for seanad elections.

Wrongway1985 · 17-05-2018 08:01PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not being asked whether I can live my life. I'm being asked whether I approve of removing the right to life of the unborn, and replacing it with abortion on demand up to 12 weeks, and in more limited circumstance for 24 week. I don't approve, it's that simple.

It is that simple it seems you deny others because you don't approve is what it comes down to, you can do in your life as you choose but you must approve what goes on in the lives of others. Unfortunate.

Deleted User wrote: »

You believe my friend is not less of a parent because he is male, yet you do not think he should have rights about his unborn child, is that what you are saying?
I believe my friend is no less a parent than the mother of the unborn child. Therefore I believe his rights should be equal to hers.

My friends situation was not hypothetical. It was very real.
He loved his partner, and his child. She claimed to love him, she didn't want a child. He had no intention of "disposing" of her after the birth. He had the nursery set up, pram, pushchair, cot, baby clothes - everything prepared.
His Mother was excited at the thought of being a Grandmother, and happy to babysit if his partner wanted to work or attend college.
That baby was aborted just prior to the 28 week deadline, as it was at the time.
It broke his heart. It also broke up the relationship.

But it seems that some people do not regard that as a tragedy. I cannot, in conscience, take that approach.

No I don't believe because being male your friend is less a parent but he wasn't given the opportunity he was fed a bunch of lies.

What occurred to your friend was ludicrously deceitful and naturally it broke up the relationship it was a sure sign the relationship wasn't going to work. Surely your friend deserves better??

The difficult setting you shared while an extremely exceptional case is possible here anyway not because your friend resided in the UK.

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.

The father has equal share in DNA only not in the process of pregnancy simple as, all the risks complications and issues arising are all undertaken by the woman in pregnancy why should the man share equal rights!?

Men especially with regard to unmarried fathers rights are second class citizens in a multitude of cases to children that are born, why the need to prioritize the unborn?

The 8th amendment has it that the rights of the mother and child are playing a balancing act with each other any idea that the father should or needs to be included in that fiasco can't be put that forward unless it's repealed.

Overheal · 17-05-2018 08:01PM

wexie wrote: »

From here : http://entertainment.ie/trending/news/The-10-Best-Piss-Takes-Of-Ben-Bulbens-No-Sign/405076.htm

Omg yes please

SusieBlue · 17-05-2018 08:02PM

Anyone on the fence, please watch this, it’s a video from TFMR Ireland.

https://youtu.be/M4xQ2eFfvTI

It’s very easy to dismiss the ‘hard’ cases when they are faceless and we don’t know their stories, but when you see actual people tell their lived experiences of an already tragic situation being made more distressing, I don’t know how anyone could vote No.
These people deserve better. They should be supported to grieve in whatever way they see fit.

We can’t continue to export this problem. We can’t keep our head in the sand.
These situations are happening every day and it’s time we woke up and helped those people rather than allowing a foreign healthcare system look after them.

Just her · 17-05-2018 08:07PM

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.

Do you not see an issue with your sentience point, as in the foetus/ baby is not a non sentient being as you would put it forever, but give them a couple of more weeks and they will fall into your sentient group and suddenly be allowed to live? So there is a rush to abort before they become sentient and people feel ok with this path then?

Also apologies I read your post about 40 pages back where you gave out I didn't answer some of your posts, I find this thread insanely paced and I've skipped a lot of pages for now but will try and get back.

fxotoole · 17-05-2018 08:09PM

wexie wrote: »

From here : http://entertainment.ie/trending/news/The-10-Best-Piss-Takes-Of-Ben-Bulbens-No-Sign/405076.htm

Jaysus Avengers spoiler alert much?

Dressing gown · 17-05-2018 08:18PM

Just her wrote: »

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.

Following through though on the logic that the constitution is protecting the “unborn” from conception are we not bound by the constitution to ascribe the rights to embryo and foetus from conception to the same level they are afforded to the mother? Should abortion not be prosecuted as murder? Is failure to prosecute abortion as murder not unconstitutional? Equally is the provision of the morning after pill not contrary to the right to life of the embryo and therefore unconstitutional at best and murder at worst? Surely IVF is also unconstitutional given the number of fertilised eggs that are discarded?

erica74 · 17-05-2018 08:20PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

Anyone on the fence, please watch this, it’s a video from TFMR Ireland.

https://youtu.be/M4xQ2eFfvTI

It’s very easy to dismiss the ‘hard’ cases when they are faceless and we don’t know their stories, but when you see actual people tell their lived experiences of an already tragic situation being made more distressing, I don’t know how anyone could vote No.
These people deserve better. They should be supported to grieve in whatever way they see fit.

We can’t continue to export this problem. We can’t keep our head in the sand.
These situations are happening every day and it’s time we woke up and helped those people rather than allowing a foreign healthcare system look after them.

There's not a lot that makes me cry and I don't even want children myself but that brought a tear to my eye.

17-05-2018 08:24PM

Dressing gown wrote: »

Following through though on the logic that the constitution is protecting the “unborn” from conception are we not bound by the constitution to ascribe the rights to embryo and foetus from conception to the same level they are afforded to the mother? Should abortion not be prosecuted as murder? Is failure to prosecute abortion as murder not unconstitutional? Equally is the provision of the morning after pill not contrary to the right to life of the embryo and therefore unconstitutional at best and murder at worst? Surely IVF is also unconstitutional given the number of fertilised eggs that are discarded?

The constitution is hypocritical. It's protection of the unborn only covers the unborn in Ireland. The fact the the right to travel for an abortion is protected in the same article is just a contradiction imo.
Basically the constitution only protects unborn of women who cannot, for whatever reason, travel for an abortion.
Not very equal in the constitution.

pumpkin4life · 17-05-2018 08:32PM

Muahahaha wrote: »

As of this morning Paddy Power are taking no more bets on the referendum. I would imagine the poll this morning from the IT made their decision for them- when dont knows are excluded it showed 58% Yes and 42% No. What is also of interest is the dont knows were asked which way they are leaning and more said towards voting Yes than voting No.

In a past life I have studied elections, opinion polls and bookies odds extensively. Against stacked odds I won money both on Trump being elected and on Brexit being passed because the polling conditions a week to ten days out were enough to show me that their deficits could be made up and overturned. In the case of the 8th it is now too late for the No side to turn this around. Im calling this as a Yes win 56% to 44%. I also have the entire balance of my Paddy Power account riding on a Yes vote so there will be serious egg on my face if Im wrong

I think you're right, and my track record for predicting these things has been excellent so far. Predicted Gay marriage within 2%, 2016 fianna fail revival, brexit win, trump win, italian elections, french elections, austrian elections. Failed with the dutch election admittedly.

Even if we take the majority of don't knows to be nos (70% say, which was the number in the gay marriage referendum) and adjust for social desirability bias, it's still looking for me to be 53-56% yes and the rest no.

It will be closer than the polls say, but the yes will carry it.

Just her · 17-05-2018 08:46PM

Dressing gown wrote: »

Following through though on the logic that the constitution is protecting the “unborn” from conception are we not bound by the constitution to ascribe the rights to embryo and foetus from conception to the same level they are afforded to the mother? Should abortion not be prosecuted as murder? Is failure to prosecute abortion as murder not unconstitutional? Equally is the provision of the morning after pill not contrary to the right to life of the embryo and therefore unconstitutional at best and murder at worst? Surely IVF is also unconstitutional given the number of fertilised eggs that are discarded?

I feel like you are trying to put words in my mouth, apologies if this is not the case. It just seems like you are trying to set up a trap and get me to agree to all that you say and then about 50 different posters will jump down my throat. All of the above is your own words, I didn't say any of it.

DOS · 17-05-2018 09:01PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, we will not be writing another dogs dinner into the Constitution. For reasons, see the reports of the CA and Oireachteas committee. We'll wait 5 years for some more of the older voters to die off and go again.

'The older voters to die off'. I take it this is Compassion and Care Yes side style.

No respect for human life at either end of the spectrum.

Nettle Soup · 17-05-2018 09:03PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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.

My polling station is a small school in a rural area. Its usually very quiet with only 2 voting booths.

Simi · 17-05-2018 09:09PM

pumpkin4life wrote: »

I think you're right, and my track record for predicting these things has been excellent so far. Predicted Gay marriage within 2%, 2016 fianna fail revival, brexit win, trump win, italian elections, french elections, austrian elections. Failed with the dutch election admittedly.

Even if we take the majority of don't knows to be nos (70% say, which was the number in the gay marriage referendum) and adjust for social desirability bias, it's still looking for me to be 53-56% yes and the rest no.

It will be closer than the polls say, but the yes will carry it.

I really, really hope you're right. The longer this goes on the more anxious I feel, I get a feeling of dread every time I think about it.

wexie · 17-05-2018 09:09PM

DOS wrote: »

'The older voters to die off'. I take it this is Compassion and Care Yes side style.

No respect for human life at either end of the spectrum.

Maybe not if that's how you want to look at it. (yes I'd vote for euthanasia)

But plenty in between...ya know...where it counts.

Beats having it the other way around any day of the week and twice on Sundays

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 17-05-2018 09:09PM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I am older , retired and from a different era . I and my friends who are my age have no hesitation voting Yes . Its not just young people who understand the need to protect our women

I work somewhere where I see a huge amount of foot traffic and a very broad demographic. This week I've noticed a big increase in the amount of older people (as in 55+) wearing Repeal/Yes gear. Maybe it's one of those tricks your brain plays on you where once you notice something once you're more inclined to notice it again but I don't think so.

Went and got myself a Repeal jumper today, they relaunched in Cork yesterday. There were about five or six left, I'd to get an XL. Never been so delighted to see something I wanted not in stock :pac:

Dressing gown · 17-05-2018 09:10PM

Just her wrote: »

I feel like you are trying to put words in my mouth, apologies if this is not the case. It just seems like you are trying to set up a trap and get me to agree to all that you say and then about 50 different posters will jump down my throat. All of the above is your own words, I didn't say any of it.

Im not trying to set a trap I’m just trying really really hard to try to put myself in your shoes and see things clearly from your perspective. Professionally I have a scientific and a very technical legal background and I suppose that makes me ask a lot of questions and think about the whys of things a bit more. I just can’t get a feel for how to be a no voter to me I feel there is a big elephant in the room that is religion and that’s the only way I can rationalise why I can’t get my head around your perspective.

To me what the 8th amendment does in practice is not to protect the right to life of the unborn, but as another poster put it, only the unborn of those who can’t afford to travel or are too young to get hold of abortion pills online. Instead of doing what it supposed to do it makes the most vulnerable in our society not the unborn ‘baby’ but the mother carrying it-for it is she who must be dying or seriously ill before she can be saved. The very fact that she can be saved in those circumstances means the constitution doesn’t actually value the life of the unborn as equal to the mother; as the mother then trumps the unborns right to life. And then we as a nation don’t respect the 8th amendment in any event because we don’t prosecute anyone over it, and no one is protesting that, which tells me no one actually believes the unborns right to life actually equals the right to life of the mother.

Legally, scientifically, ethically, the amendment doesn’t work. I cannot get my head around why there is even a debate on this.

wexie · 17-05-2018 09:14PM

Dressing gown wrote: »

Im not trying to set a trap I’m just trying really really hard to try to put myself in your shoes and see things clearly from your perspective. Professionally I have a scientific and a very technical legal background and I suppose that makes me ask a lot of questions and think about the whys of things a bit more. I just can’t get a feel for how to be a no voter to me I feel there is a big elephant in the room that is religion and that’s the only way I can rationalise why I can’t get my head around your perspective.

To me what the 8th amendment does in practice is not to protect the right to life of the unborn, but as another poster put it, only the unborn of those who can’t afford to travel or are too young to get hold of abortion pills online. Instead of doing what it supposed to do it makes the most vulnerable in our society not the unborn ‘baby’ but the mother carrying it-for it is she who must be dying or seriously ill before she can be saved. The very fact that she can be saved in those circumstances means the constitution doesn’t actually value the life of the unborn as equal to the mother; as the mother then trumps the unborns right to life. And then we as a nation don’t respect the 8th amendment in any event because we don’t prosecute anyone over it, and no one is protesting that, which tells me no one actually believes the unborns right to life actually equals the right to life of the mother.

Legally, scientifically, ethically, the amendment doesn’t work. I cannot get my head around why there is even a debate on this.

But the reason you can't get your head around it is because you are looking at it in a logical way.

Like a friend of mine once told me :you're too clever to make sense of the world, but dumb enough to keep trying

Nettle Soup · 17-05-2018 09:16PM

Simi wrote: »

pumpkin4life wrote: »

I think you're right, and my track record for predicting these things has been excellent so far. Predicted Gay marriage within 2%, 2016 fianna fail revival, brexit win, trump win, italian elections, french elections, austrian elections. Failed with the dutch election admittedly.

Even if we take the majority of don't knows to be nos (70% say, which was the number in the gay marriage referendum) and adjust for social desirability bias, it's still looking for me to be 53-56% yes and the rest no.

It will be closer than the polls say, but the yes will carry it.

I really, really hope you're right. The longer this goes on the more anxious I feel, I get a feeling of dread every time I think about it.

Aragh to be perfectly honest there is no decision here. The 8th is wrong no matter what way you look at it. It should be 100% Yes.

Bannasidhe · 17-05-2018 09:20PM

Esmeralda Inexpensive Balloonist wrote: »

I work somewhere where I see a huge amount of foot traffic and a very broad demographic. This week I've noticed a big increase in the amount of older people (as in 55+) wearing Repeal/Yes gear. Maybe it's one of those tricks your brain plays on you where once you notice something once you're more inclined to notice it again but I don't think so.

Went and got myself a Repeal jumper today, they relaunched in Cork yesterday. There were about five or six left, I'd to get an XL. Never been so delighted to see something I wanted not in stock :pac:

I wanted to get a Repeal jumper but had one of those days in work where I couldn't take 5 minutes to go get one.

I did have to go to Triskel and as I was walking down the Grand Parade towards the bridge I noticed the strangest thing - my Together for Yes T-shirt seemed to cause the pink sea of Love Bothers to part. Seriously, people in pink hi vis vests who were standing directly on my route mysteriously moved aside and closed again in my wake.

:pac:

Sheeps · 17-05-2018 09:30PM

Will people be allowed wear the repeal gear in the voting centres given that its illegal to campaign near voting centres?

ohnonotgmail · 17-05-2018 09:33PM

Sheeps wrote: »

Will people be allowed wear the repeal gear in the voting centres given that its illegal to campaign near voting centres?

They wont. It would be classed as canvassing and there is no canvassing allowed near or in the polling station.

wexie · 17-05-2018 09:33PM

Sheeps wrote: »

Will people be allowed wear the repeal gear in the voting centres given that its illegal to campaign near voting centres?

No (just going on this from previous posts)

So no repeal or love both or anything gear allowed in the voting centres

P_1 · 17-05-2018 09:33PM

Sheeps wrote: »

Will people be allowed wear the repeal gear in the voting centres given that its illegal to campaign near voting centres?

No.

Remember when going to vote:
No tshirts.
No jumpers
No badges

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

Comments