The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Wrongway1985 · 23-05-2018 02:32PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

"Vote no, demand a better solution from the government!!" ......

Which they will also vehemently oppose should that happen.
They have already admitted to wanting to force 12 year old children to carry their rapists child.
We can't trust a word they say.

The question was posed to the Healy-Ames woman on TV3 the other night would she opt not to support a woman close to her who came to her...whose mind was made up to go for a termination...the look on her face as her perfect world faded temporarily was honest and said of course she would support her decision. Cringed when she reappeared on Prime Time to reaffirm No position but ultimately she was more helpful to the Yes campaign :pac:

BarleySweets · 23-05-2018 02:33PM

smokingman wrote: »

I'm surprised Iona et all haven't been giving out about the Muslims yet given that Sharia law allows abortion and they'll all probably vote yes.
For reference, "ensoulment" doesn't happen for 120 days according to their beliefs.

Catholicism dictated until the 1860s that ensoulment didn’t happen until 166 days.

Iona don’t give a **** about religion or Catholics or you and me. They want power. They want to dictate to society and in their experience, the easiest way to achieve that appears to be latching on to the modern-day bastardized version of a religion created 2,000 years ago to control a rebellious bunch of desert-dwelling clans.

Zubeneschamali · 23-05-2018 02:34PM

nullzero wrote: »

It's not detectable until the 13th week.

Being the sort of person who would abort for a cleft lip is detectable.

Trasna1 · 23-05-2018 02:35PM

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

Just on some of the radio debates there is a trend of people coming on, they vote No fair enough but have the lovely notion that the government should go back and rejig things to THEIR ideal outlook on the topic. They truthfully think about it...this is not going to happen!

The TDs representing the No side voted against the Protection of Life during Pregnancy act it would be delusional to rely on these same people to stir the pot to cater for those in Rape or FFA situations...and even if a bill of the sort came to fruition they would vote against it!!

Almost certainly if this is voted down there will be a watered down proposal presented to the people in the next Dail. There is too much pressure for change for the 8th to hold out even if this amendment fails to pass.

Cupcake_Crisis · 23-05-2018 02:36PM

gmisk wrote: »

Hey man dont knock it til you tried it!!

(Disclaimer - I am a fully paid up member of the gay lifestyle with the gay agenda)

Ive been advocating butt stuff for years and got scoffed at. Now I can do it on moral grounds and everyone HAS to listen to me! This is a game changer.

Zubeneschamali · 23-05-2018 02:36PM

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

It’s okay between a man and a woman though, right? RIGHT?!?!

Are they married?

Do their spouses know about it?

Cupcake_Crisis · 23-05-2018 02:37PM

Trasna1 wrote: »

Almost certainly if this is voted down there will be a watered down proposal presented to the people in the next Dail. There is too much pressure for change for the 8th to hold out even if this amendment fails to pass.

And you can bet your sweet ass that the same people who are opposing repeal will oppose any other proposals. Because they’ve done it before and they’ll do it again.

Cupcake_Crisis · 23-05-2018 02:38PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Are they married?

Do their spouses know about it?

I’m not? Am I going to hell?!

Sardonicat · 23-05-2018 02:40PM

BarleySweets wrote: »

Iona don’t give a **** about religion or Catholics or you and me. They want power. They want to dictate to society and in their experience, the easiest way to achieve that appears to be latching on to the modern-day bastardized version of a religion created 2,000 years ago to control a rebellious bunch of desert-dwelling clans.

100% this is all about power. Iona are an insult to even the most nominal of Christians

gmisk · 23-05-2018 02:40PM

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

The question was posed to the Healy-Ames woman on TV3 the other night would she opt not to support a woman close to her who came to her...whose mind was made up to go for a termination...the look on her face as her perfect world faded temporarily was honest and said of course she would support her decision. Cringed when she reappeared on Prime Time to reaffirm No position but ultimately she was more helpful to the Yes campaign :pac:

This was the same woman whose *hairdresser who she was talking to about abortion as you do....had an abortion...and Healy Eames asked would you have not had an abortion if the state would have helped you?...hairdresser said wow I have never been asked tbh and was stunned...

*warning hairdresser was unlikely to ever have existed

P.S She is a clown, but in fairness i think the general public think that too....2016 election she got a whopping 2% of the vote!

Zubeneschamali · 23-05-2018 02:41PM

Sherlock bulldozing hospitals before he'll allow abortion is pure fantasy. If the Church try and opt their hospitals out, we'll just nationalize the hospitals. We already pay the bills.

See what happened with nuns controlling the national maternity Hospital for how that'll go.

Cantona's Collars · 23-05-2018 02:41PM

BarleySweets wrote: »

Catholicism dictated until the 1860s that ensoulment didn’t happen until 166 days.

Iona don’t give a **** about religion or Catholics or you and me. They want power. They want to dictate to society and in their experience, the easiest way to achieve that appears to be latching on to the modern-day bastardized version of a religion created 2,000 years ago to control a rebellious bunch of desert-dwelling clans.

Every time I hear Iona institute I brace myself for a load of pseudo religious nonsense. They are simply a self serving organisation who somehow claim charitable status. I never heard of any charitable work they carry out.

....... · 23-05-2018 02:42PM

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali · 23-05-2018 02:43PM

Trasna1 wrote: »

Almost certainly if this is voted down there will be a watered down proposal presented to the people in the next Dail.

No point - we know that some half-assed amendment to the current wording will just cause more legal mayhem.

We'll just wait a few years and repeal it fully. We would only have to delete any half measure in a few years anyhow.

pjohnson · 23-05-2018 02:44PM

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

Ive been advocating butt stuff for years and got scoffed at. Now I can do it on moral grounds and everyone HAS to listen to me! This is a game changer.

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

And you can bet your sweet ass that the same people who are opposing repeal will oppose any other proposals. Because they’ve done it before and they’ll do it again.

The rearvolution begins!

Trasna1 · 23-05-2018 02:44PM

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

And you can bet your sweet ass that the same people who are opposing repeal will oppose any other proposals. Because they’ve done it before and they’ll do it again.

Yes they will. That's why I'm surprised the no campaign didn't set up a group with new faces that essentially took the line that "we understand the difficult cases need addressing but this goes too far". When that message comes from people whose hard core views are known that message rings hollow.

If it fails we will get the same proposal in the next Dail, sans12 weeks i.e. prohibiting the non rape / incest /ffa grounds.
And it does fail, one good thing would be that it would consign citizens assemblies to the dustbin of history.

Hotblack Desiato · 23-05-2018 02:44PM

Belated reply to a now-banned poster so I won't quote them:

People who talk about the older generation being a solid No are deluding themselves.

They need to remember that 1/3 of the votes in 1983 were against the 8th, these people are all over 53 now and there is no reason for them to vote for the 8th now if they voted against it then, especially given all the horrors the 8th has caused.

Many other older voters now did not vote in 1983 (turnout was low) but will vote to repeal, some will have voted for the 8th then but will vote to repeal it now.

The polls show a higher No in the older demographic, but as a group they are at best marginally No.

My mother-in-law is a mass-goer in her 80s and is voting Yes as are her friends.

Zubeneschamali · 23-05-2018 02:47PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

They need to remember that 1/3 of the votes in 1983 were against the 8th, these people are all over 57 now

Oi!

Not a day over erm, (remembers year, scribbles, take away 1...) 53!

Sardonicat · 23-05-2018 02:48PM

pjohnson wrote: »

The rearvolution begins!

Personally, if that was my only option I'd go for full term, drug free, double episiotomy. But each to their own. I won't be trying to insert an article into the constitution to prevent others from doing it ( or anywhere else, for that matter ).

Cupcake_Crisis · 23-05-2018 02:49PM

Trasna1 wrote: »

Yes they will. That's why I'm surprised the no campaign didn't set up a group with new faces that essentially took the line that "we understand the difficult cases need addressing but this goes too far". When that message comes from people whose hard core views are known that message rings hollow.

If it fails we will get the same proposal in the next Dail, sans12 weeks i.e. prohibiting the non rape / incest /ffa grounds.
And it does fail, one good thing would be that it would consign citizens assemblies to the dustbin of history.

They didn’t do that because they know for the legislation to work there needs to be a non restricted period to allow for certain hard cases. They know full well that they can’t be legislated for appropriately so they have to campaign to keep the blanket ban.

Ah yes! Don’t mind the women as long as the citizens assembly gets what’s coming to it!

spookwoman · 23-05-2018 02:50PM

nullzero wrote: »

If he's a known atheist and taking a stance that contradicts the catholic churches stance on the referendum and he's a public figure, why is he looking to be involved in a catholic ceremony in a church owned by the catholic church?

What did he expect them to do?

This is laughable in every way.

He is the kids godparent and its usually them that stands by the person getting the confirmation
I'm a protestant atheist and was asked to stand by my godson at his "catholic" confirmation. I did it because it's not about me or the priest its about my nephew. I could have protested saying I'm an atheist I don't believe in these ceremonies but no, It's his day and you don't bring your personal petty indifference to another persons event.

nullzero · 23-05-2018 02:56PM

spookwoman wrote: »

He is the kids godparent and its usually them that stands by the person getting the confirmation
I'm a protestant atheist and was asked to stand by my godson at his "catholic" confirmation. I did it because it's not about me or the priest its about my nephew. I could have protested saying I'm an atheist I don't believe in these ceremonies but no, It's his day and you don't bring your personal petty indifference to another persons event.

Are you being serious?
It's an event that exists within the catholic church. Do in need to continue?

BarleySweets · 23-05-2018 02:57PM

Trasna1 wrote: »

Yes they will. That's why I'm surprised the no campaign didn't set up a group with new faces that essentially took the line that "we understand the difficult cases need addressing but this goes too far". When that message comes from people whose hard core views are known that message rings hollow.

If it fails we will get the same proposal in the next Dail, sans12 weeks i.e. prohibiting the non rape / incest /ffa grounds.
And it does fail, one good thing would be that it would consign citizens assemblies to the dustbin of history.

I don’t think that dropping the 12-weeks will be viable. No matter what the bleeding hearts want or think: the current legislation is the minimum viable option for abortion, and the most appropriate too for both the health of women in this situation and from a value-for-money perspective when compared to how other countries do abortion regimes.

Under no circumstances can incest or rape be prosecuted within 12-weeks. Even 9 months will be a difficult timeframe to achieve. So it’ll become a box ticking exercise where conviction in an appropriate timeframe is impossible so the woman’s word must be taken at face value and nothing more said on the matter. But in reality, we all know that a lot of women will be lying. And no legislation can be considered fully appropriate if it encourages people to lie. The AG wouldn’t be able to allow such legislation. And even if he did, Europe would go ballistic at us for being so wreckless.

The 12-weeks is needed, there’s no two ways around it no matter how much anyone may accidentally misunderstand, or intentionally misrepresent, why it’s needed.

hatrickpatrick · 23-05-2018 02:57PM

nullzero wrote: »

It's a nasty opinion tbh.

It's only a nasty opinion if you believe that an early-term foetus counts as a human life. If you don't, then someone could have an abortion because they're supposed to have a hair appointment (albeit one booked six months in advance) before their due date and it still wouldn't matter.

Personally, I don't believe a foetus in the first trimester to have any more objective value than an unfertilised egg or one of the millions of sperm which ends up getting flushed down a toilet after a bit of solo practitioning. I just don't believe that it counts as a human life, and therefore the only objective "value" it can be said to have is entirely dependent on whether or not its prospective mother is actually happy about it potentially becoming a life, and a life that she has to give birth to in roughly half a year.

Opinions like these have been missing from this debate - nobody on the yes side has been willing to bluntly say "I support it for any reason because I genuinely don't ascribe any philosophical value to what I regard as a pre-life - ergo not actually alive or an 'individual person' yet - human embryo/foetus". I can understand their unwillingness to open that can of worms but personally I think it's something of a shame, because it means that when the likes of Peader Tobin talk about "the rights of the individual", nobody has ever given a direct response in one of these debates to say "in my view, there is no individual involved other than the woman who is pergnant in her first trimester". And without this massive elephant in the room being addressed, the debate is a total farce.

Basically the point is that whether someone's having an abortion because of a disability diagnosis, because they were raped, because they can't afford to have a kid, because they don't want to go through the major bodily changes associated with pregnancy or because the idea of labour scares the sh!t out of them, at the end of the day it literally doesn't matter if you're one of the many people out there who does not regard an early term foetus as "alive" and therefore ascribes no objective "value" to it beyond that which its prospective parent ascribes to it. And I highly suspect that there are far, far more people out there who hold this fundamental belief about the nature of "life" and whether or not an early-term foetus can be said to possess it, than have admitted so publicly or been polled as such.

In my view, the result of this referendum will ultimately come down to whether more people believe a first trimester foetus to count as an individual human being, or not. And I strongly suspect that there are far more people in the "it doesn't" camp than one might think, because for various reasons it's been utterly taboo to discuss this fundamental elephant in the room at all during this campaign.

spookwoman · 23-05-2018 02:58PM

nullzero wrote: »

Are you being serious?
It's an event that exists within the catholic church. Do in need to continue?

So anyone that's an atheist should not attend family members and friends wedding and funerals are you for real?

Cantona's Collars · 23-05-2018 02:58PM

spookwoman wrote: »

He is the kids godparent and its usually them that stands by the person getting the communion.
I'm a protestant atheist and was asked to stand by the godson at his "catholic" confirmation. I did it because it's not about me or the priest its about my nephew. I could have protested saying I'm an atheist I don't believe in these ceremonies but no, It's his day and you don't bring your personal petty indifference to another persons event.

Anyway,how many parents of kids being confirmed could even recognise the priest or bishop if they saw them on the street,let alone even name them. One local school insisted that kids making their first communion went to mass every week in the run up to the event and they had to be signed in to prove attendance. The Sunday after they were asked to attend mass again and only 9 or 10 turned up out of all of them.

....... · 23-05-2018 02:59PM

This post has been deleted.

jimgoose · 23-05-2018 02:59PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...an 'individual person' yet...

This is exactly the view the Common Law takes right up to birth, and I have yet to hear mention of it. That is why it is not possible to murder an individual who hasn't been born.

BarleySweets · 23-05-2018 03:01PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Belated reply to a now-banned poster so I won't quote them:

People who talk about the older generation being a solid No are deluding themselves.

They need to remember that 1/3 of the votes in 1983 were against the 8th, these people are all over 53 now and there is no reason for them to vote for the 8th now if they voted against it then, especially given all the horrors the 8th has caused.

Many other older voters now did not vote in 1983 (turnout was low) but will vote to repeal, some will have voted for the 8th then but will vote to repeal it now.

The polls show a higher No in the older demographic, but as a group they are at best marginally No.

My mother-in-law is a mass-goer in her 80s and is voting Yes as are her friends.

This. A billion times. Turnout in 83 was less than 60%. We need to get every man and woman into the voting booth. This hasn’t been won by either side yet.

nullzero · 23-05-2018 03:01PM

spookwoman wrote: »

So anyone that's an atheist should not attend family members and friends wedding and funerals are you for real?

You're reaching big time.
There's a difference between attending a church and pledging to help a child live within the catholic faith when you don't believe in it.
Get a grip.

The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Comments