The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

SusieBlue wrote: »

I wonder how they’d feel if the shoe was on the other foot.
If there was mandatory early inductions for non viable pregnancies, and they were forced to travel to the UK to have the ability to carry the pregnancy to term like they wanted to.
I don’t think they’d like to be denied that choice on such a personal decision.

Exactly. I feel for them I really do. But I cannot help but feel annoyed at them for their obvious lack of empathy for other couples in similar situations.
The ability to think outside of yourself would be nice.

joe40 wrote: »

Yeah I agree. Maybe to play devils advocate here their point might be had the termination option been available here they may have taken that option at the initial diagnosis, and missed out on the birth.
It is a pretty lame argument though. I get the feeling they were never going to terminate even if the choice was available.

Those who believe that the 8th took the option of termination away from them, even if in hindsight they are thankful for the outcome, should have more understanding as to why everyone should be entitled to a choice imo. Just speaking generally, Not in terms of your post on the family.

DarkScar wrote: »

Gombeen. If he didn't have oodles of cash we'd never have heard of him.

There is at least something we can definitely agree on!
Would be interested to hear how you feel about John McGuirk?
Do you think he has done a good job as campaign manager for save the 8th?

DarkScar wrote: »

We are discussing a referendum on abortion in Ireland, which is currently a crime. Her answer was that it isn't a crime in England.
Excuse me if I try to be very precise when I'm dealing with such a bizarre series of non-sequitur responses.

No I'll think you will find it's not actually a crime! we know women are having abortions here around 1000 per year on THIS SOIL. No one has been prosecuted the law isn't enforced and there has not been given any sort of priority in ensuring abortion doesn't occur here without the need for a passport.

Please point to me one criminal offense where if 1000 people actively carry it out...there will be no steps to seek out the perpetrator and all 1000 will get off scot-free?

Included in the definition of a crime even is that it is punishable by law, so until you see someone actually be put away for breaking this "law" it is awfully naive to accept it as a crime.

So it is essentially legal here on this Island, we haven't adapted our laws as to do so would offend those who live in a Utopia seemingly.

I posted a radio interview with a girl who goes through her journey of how she went about acquiring pills how secret the whole operation was and the steps taken when she took them. I found it fiercely upsetting.

It's stories like that which make me stomach turn when hearing the likes of the phrase I want to be a voice for the voiceless uttered I mean that's bizarre...the people that actually have voices you haven't bothered your hole listening to you.

Whiffy is on after

spookwoman wrote: »

Whiffy is on after

Oh the former senator?
She is usually a tad clueless, well she was during the SSM ref.

I added a poll to thread!

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I added a poll to thread!

Nice. Something less contentious!

I genuinely think we can do 66%+ this time. SSM had people's attention, but it didn't have quite this much energy. And also, having seen the success of SSM, I think a lot of people will be more willing to engage with the voting process.

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

Mcguirk: I don't trust fact check journos I trust 3 judges...gets name of one of them completely wrong

didnt get the date right either

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

Mcguirk: I don't trust fact check journos I trust 3 judges...gets name of one of them completely wrong

He has been a disaster really let's be honest I think even people voting no could agree on that?
His actions alone drove a fair amount of people to donate to together for yes just to p him off.
His personal attacks on people have just been horrible as well. He seems to come from a perspective of just throw enough crap and some of it will stick.

Why was he selected I wonder?

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

Mcguirk is an absolute cretin

gmisk wrote: »

Why was he selected I wonder?

McGuirk "won" the Lisbon referendum for Ganley and he's been riding on that ever since.

He's incredibly cocky and arrogant and if you're in the same room as him and he wants something from you, he's probably surprisingly likable. I'd say these people call him in as some kind of "consultant", they have a laugh and a joke, he plays a good game of pretending to know what he's talking about and so they offer him the job.

Though luckily, outside of that context he comes across as nothing more than a pompous and arrogant twat. Even if you were on the No side you'd be cringing at his antics and thinking about punching him in the face.

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

Fidelma Healy Eames came out a doozy, the young woman who is voting no because she had NO choice. She clearly didn’t think that anecdote through. I despair.

Yeah and then she seemed confused about what was being asked.

Sorry lads who is the two guys on the panel ? Theo something is one guy but I don't know the guy on the very end.