The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Frank Bullitt · 23-05-2018 12:40PM

A statement from Love Both campaign said Ms Sherlock withdrew because the group wanted a medical professional from the anti-abortion campaign to debate Prof Higgins. Despite this, the group nominated Ms Steen, who is not a medic. She is a qualified barrister, but has not practiced in a number of years.

Nothing going on here...nothing to see.

Cupcake_Crisis · 23-05-2018 12:41PM

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Didnt know. Maria is an excellent debater. Say whomever is on the Yes side against her is now bricking it and having a few scoops to quell the nerves.

I highly disagree, she’s great at talking over people and deliberately answering different questions than she’s asked.

Hasn’t she pulled out of tonight’s debate?

Zubeneschamali · 23-05-2018 12:42PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Somebody did a diagram of all the connections a few years back. Looks like a demented spider's web. Not sure if it was Slugger O'Toole, does anyone remember?

Bock the robber linked to one, but is is missing the next generation, being done for the SSM referendum. I think there are Sherlocks missing, too.

pjohnson · 23-05-2018 12:42PM

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

I highly disagree, she’s great at talking over people and deliberately answering different questions than she’s asked.

So perfect speaker for the "no" side

jimgoose · 23-05-2018 12:43PM

Maria Steen is 'kin gorgeous. Pity she's a looper. :pac:

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 23-05-2018 12:43PM

AllForIt wrote: »

Being an undecided veering yes I'm a bit surprised at some of the arguments I'm beginning to dismiss on the yes side.

Namely- ordering abortion pill over the internet, dangerous. Sorry, that's your lookout for taking the risk and putting yourself in that situation in the first place. What would one do if there was no abortion pill - fall of a horse? It's not exactly a 'I had absolutely no choice' scenario. One may very well feel they have a 'right' to go that route but that's not a right we all agree on.

Pretty much what women did do before the availability of the pills. Fell off horses, down stairs, drank bleach, got in a boiling hot bath and downed gin, and of course the good old clothes hanger. The pills are a massive leap forward in terms of safety, taking them without medical supervision and with the threat of a jail sentence longer than the average sentence for rape hanging over you if you do need medical help is not ideal though, obviously. Yes these are choices people make, but do you think people make them if there's a realistic alternative? "Have the baby, it'll be grand" is the one size fits all solution that's rolled out. If you are pregnant and cannot stay pregnant then you do have limited, dangerous, arduous options and nothing else. Prohibition of abortion does not prevent abortion, it prevents safe abortion, and the pills illustrate how, and on what scale.

I had to go to England - again not 100% had too. If that option wasn't an option, what would be the rate of desired abortions be then? Much less I'd say without a doubt if one didn't feel 'I can always go to England' as then there may very well be less unplanned pregnancies.

Now all I'm saying is that I don't buy those particular arguments.

Sure I didn't *have to* come to work this morning. There was nothing stopping me ringing my boss, telling him to go fcuk himself, and going back to sleep. Absolutely nothing preventing me.

If the UK wasn't an option, there'd be more pills imported, more dangerous self induced abortions. Maybe there would be more couples going "erra feckit, weekend in Manchester wouldn't be the worst anyway" but I doubt to any significant extent.

Although, the UK is likely to become less of an option. The NHS can barely cope, it's not going to able to keep taking care of an aspect of Irish life that we just refuse to deal with. Travel between Ireland and the UK could potentially get more difficult in the medium term too.

woejus · 23-05-2018 12:44PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't mean no voters are all connected, but yes, the movements are all connected, How many jumps from, say Katie Ascough to Maria Steen? Not far - Katie's Dad Tom - Iona - Maria.

These are not a random collection of people who met up to campaign for this amendment, they have all been in bed together for many, many years.

Start here

https://www.solocheck.ie/Irish-Company/Clonmacnois-Publishing-Limited-478365
https://www.solocheck.ie/Irish-Company/Bosco-Vision-Limited-445154

Follow related companies, you'll get to Lolek Ltd (Iona "Institute"), CEIST (Rónán Múllén) and the RCC fairly quickly

Ascoughs run Spirit Radio, "jesus coming in your ears"

http://www.spiritradio.ie/?team=tom-ascough-chairman-3

BoatMad · 23-05-2018 12:44PM

Trasna1 wrote: »

Gender can be determined at ten/eleven weeks, the same as downs. And with medical advancement it should be able to happen earlier.

12 weeks is not mentioned in the constitutional amendment, that's the proposed legislation which may or may not be enacted and may or may not be compatible with the the rest of the constitution.

Furthermore, gender related abortions are normally made under provision C in the UK, which is up to 24 weeks.

This is not really the case, a reliable determination of gender is only available around 15 weeks , often more

but I agree with the rest of your comments , repealing the 8th has no effort whatsoever or what might or might not be in any legislation , it remains to be seen what can be got through the current Dail , most likely the current Gov may not be in power by the time the Dail deals with this issue

Stonedpilot · 23-05-2018 12:45PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't mean no voters are all connected, but yes, the movements are all connected, How many jumps from, say Katie Ascough to Maria Steen? Not far - Katie's Dad Tom - Iona - Maria.

These are not a random collection of people who met up to campaign for this amendment, they have all been in bed together for many, many years.

No they havent tons of the Vote No people who are leafletting just asked people to volunteer on the sites and on social media and they met up. They wouldnt even know the other persons surname!.

You talking about Iona only?.

woejus · 23-05-2018 12:46PM

jimgoose wrote: »

Maria Steen is 'kin gorgeous. Pity she's a looper. :pac:

She's a lawyer also, did you know that? The only lawyer.
Did she mention she's a lawyer? Just in case you missed it, she's a lawyer.

Once more, she's a lawyer.

woejus · 23-05-2018 12:47PM

Stonedpilot wrote: »

No they havent tons of the Vote No people who are leafletting just asked people to volunteer on the sites and on social media and they met up. They wouldnt even know the other persons surname!.

You talking about Iona only?.

Yeah... they just "met up" and flew all the way from abortion-wracked USA to the Emerald Isle. Who paid for the tickets? The good lord?

ohnonotgmail · 23-05-2018 12:48PM

woejus wrote: »

Start here

https://www.solocheck.ie/Irish-Company/Clonmacnois-Publishing-Limited-478365
https://www.solocheck.ie/Irish-Company/Bosco-Vision-Limited-445154

Follow related companies, you'll get to Lolek Ltd (Iona "Institute"), CEIST (Rónán Múllén) and the RCC fairly quickly

Ascoughs run Spirit Radio, "jesus coming in your ears"

http://www.spiritradio.ie/?team=tom-ascough-chairman-3

EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

jimgoose · 23-05-2018 12:48PM

woejus wrote: »

She's a lawyer also, did you know that? The only lawyer.
Did she mention she's a lawyer? Just in case you missed it, she's a lawyer.

Once more, she's a lawyer.

Is she? I hadn't noticed. You'd be surprised how many lawyers are also loopers, though. :pac:

NuMarvel · 23-05-2018 12:49PM

Trasna1 wrote: »

In most instances it is a last resort. I wouldn't agree it always is though when the purpose is say gender selection, which occurs in some communities in the UK.

The UK Dept of Health looked at this a few years ago and found no evidence of that happening within Britain overall or within specific ethnic groups. The male/female ratio for newborns was within normal parameters.

Billy86 · 23-05-2018 12:49PM

woejus wrote: »

Yeah... they just "met up" and flew all the way from abortion-wracked USA to the Emerald Isle. Who paid for the tickets? The good lord?

Jesus Saves!

...on air miles.

Sofiztikated · 23-05-2018 12:52PM

I've skipped a bunch of posts, so forgive me if I missed something important.

Has there been any reasonable suggestions from the No campaign as to why we should vote no?

pjohnson · 23-05-2018 12:52PM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

I've skipped a bunch of posts, so forgive me if I missed something important.

Has there been any reasonable suggestions from the No campaign as to why we should vote no?

Spiderbabies was one of the better ones I saw.

Just her · 23-05-2018 12:54PM

Sebastian Dangerfield wrote: »

I'll answer. If i found out that my wifes health was at risk as a result of carrying a foetus, I would try to convince her and others to end the pregnancy as soon as possible, sentient or not. Its not even a grey area in my mind.

What Im also sure of is that she would risk her own life to try to see the pregnancy through. Yet shes a staunch yes supporter, because she believes in choice

Ok thanks for answering. What's if her health wasn't in danger and she wanted an abortion regardless, not necessarily your wife but generally speaking, would you be against abortion then.

jill_valentine · 23-05-2018 12:54PM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

I've skipped a bunch of posts, so forgive me if I missed something important.

Has there been any reasonable suggestions from the No campaign as to why we should vote no?

Today's line seems to be "If you're unsure, vote No!", but that's about the closest I've really seen.

Trasna1 · 23-05-2018 12:54PM

schemingbohemia wrote: »

It isn't one of the grounds for abortion after 12 weeks though, unless you're suggesting that women would pretend to be suicidal enough to persuade 2 doctors because they'd rather a boy or a girl? So yet again it comes down to the No side not trusting women.

We are not voting on the proposed legislation but on the constitutional amendment. 12 weeks discussion is really a misdirection. The proposed amendment provides for no restriction. As such, future laws which could include grounds based on disability, gender etc would not be subject to constitutional limitation.

Nettle Soup · 23-05-2018 12:56PM

Anecdotal again but there seems to be a visible increase on Yes campaigners, in Galway at least. The No campaigners seem to be waning. Are they giving up? The Yes campaign do seem to be running a great final leg across the board.

Just her · 23-05-2018 12:57PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have the courage of my convictions yes, given that is essentially what you are asking here.

I believe the moment there is cause to suspect a human biological entity is an instance of human sentience, then it should be afforded all the rights and implications of that status. So I would be entirely against choice based abortion in the face of such data.

The courage of my convictions goes in the other direction too. If it could actually be shown that a new born baby was in no way at all an instance of human sentience at any level, I would similarly have no moral or ethical concerns for it.

The reality, rather than the whataboutery, lies in between those two extremes at this time. But thankfully not at all near where the near totality of choice based abortion actually occurs.

Ok, as you know I don't agree with you but thanks for answering

PopePalpatine · 23-05-2018 12:58PM

woejus wrote: »

Start here

https://www.solocheck.ie/Irish-Company/Clonmacnois-Publishing-Limited-478365
https://www.solocheck.ie/Irish-Company/Bosco-Vision-Limited-445154

Follow related companies, you'll get to Lolek Ltd (Iona "Institute"), CEIST (Rónán Múllén) and the RCC fairly quickly

Ascoughs run Spirit Radio, "jesus coming in your ears"

http://www.spiritradio.ie/?team=tom-ascough-chairman-3

Are we still doing "Phrasing!?"

erica74 · 23-05-2018 12:59PM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

I've skipped a bunch of posts, so forgive me if I missed something important.

Has there been any reasonable suggestions from the No campaign as to why we should vote no?

Nope, same old same old, incoherent irrelevant nonsense.

ohnonotgmail · 23-05-2018 01:00PM

Trasna1 wrote: »

We are not voting on the proposed legislation but on the constitutional amendment. 12 weeks discussion is really a misdirection. The proposed amendment provides for no restriction. As such, future laws which could include grounds based on disability, gender etc would not be subject to constitutional limitation.

the government could also introduce legislation that bans abortion. they could introduce legislation that does whatever they like. the same as for every other aspect of life.

Zubeneschamali · 23-05-2018 01:01PM

Stonedpilot wrote: »

You talking about Iona only?.

Iona, Youth Defence, SaveThe8th, Cóir, VIE Ltd, Catholic Comment, Mothers and Fathers Matter, Legatus, Libertas, Family and Life Movement, Family Solidarity, Plac, The Pro-Life Campaign, SPUC, Lolek ... before we even get to Opus Dei and the Knights.

And there are not many steps needed to get from one to the other via shared personnel or family connections.

erica74 · 23-05-2018 01:02PM

Broadcast blackout from 2pm tomorrow until 10pm on Friday.

Sebastian Dangerfield · 23-05-2018 01:02PM

Trasna1 wrote: »

12 weeks is not mentioned in the constitutional amendment, that's the proposed legislation which may or may not be enacted and may or may not be compatible with the the rest of the constitution.

This is a key point. We are not putting 12 weeks into the constitution, we are entrusting responsibility for it to the representatives that we elect. So it can just as easily be toughened as well as softened, if the will of the people is to do so.

Every "No" leaflet that has come through our door has mentioned that politicians can't be trusted with this. Well guess what - that's how a democracy works. We entrust politicians with our finances, our health, our infrastructure, and everything in between. So if the current batch can't be trusted, why don't Iona and co set up a political party who they feel can be trusted, and see how they get on at the ballot box? Because they'd be run from 99% of doors they knocked on, that's why - their views are not representative of Irish people, and I'm delighted that's the case.

....... · 23-05-2018 01:03PM

This post has been deleted.

cournioni · 23-05-2018 01:03PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

Yeah, why should the person who has to gestate the pregnancy, go through childbirth, and rear the child for 18+ years have any say in the matter, ridiculous carry on. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Of course, the perfect solution is to kill the unborn regardless of context.

The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Comments