The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

dark crystal · 24-05-2018 05:03PM

schmittel wrote: »

I know one woman who had 'social' abortion. She was not carrying a foetus with a FFA, nor were they raped.

She was in a relationship. With me. We were young and made a mistake.

Please don't presume to know what experience or knowledge of abortion I have, or how it may never impact me.

I'm sorry you and your partner went through that. I'm sorry she had to make that decision and I'm sorry she had to travel to another country to access her abortion. I'm sorry 12 women will be making that same journey tomorrow.

I wish crisis pregnancy didn't exist and every pregnancy was wanted.

I also wish you the best. Genuinely.

seanin4711 · 24-05-2018 05:04PM

why am i getting ads on my browser for the 8thref on boards?

gmisk · 24-05-2018 05:04PM

schmittel wrote: »

Really, I thought doctors were not allowed to refuse treatment on moral grounds. Do you have a source link? Not doubting what you say, just genuinely interested to see that.

The No doctors admitted in debates they could refuse treatment on moral grounds and refer patients on to someone else.

_Dara_ · 24-05-2018 05:05PM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

And your brother ? (I think you mentioned he was a No).
I found it curious when you mentioned it, I thought the health issues you'd had might be the sort of thing which would make a brother actually realise the issues involved?

My brother is, to be quite frank, a jackass. We don’t have any kind of relationship. He’s a hard no.

Water John · 24-05-2018 05:05PM

Interesting that a few have visited this site for the first time today. They have claimed to be open minded throughout but having considered everything are now, voting No. They are all middle aged men. I'm curious as this was the demographic that was to be targeted by the No campaign in the final days???

PopePalpatine · 24-05-2018 05:07PM

seanin4711 wrote: »

why am i getting ads on my browser for the 8thref on boards?

Google may have refused to carry ads for the referendum, but that doesn't mean there aren't other online advertising platforms out there.

January · 24-05-2018 05:07PM

BabysCoffee wrote: »

I'm boarding the first of two flights to get home to vote. I cut a holiday short to make sure I cast my vote. Catch you all on the flipside tomorrow about 10am!

Are you the person who posted on the group in FB? If so, thank you so much for doing what you are doing x

_Dara_ · 24-05-2018 05:08PM

gmisk wrote: »

Can I ask what pushed him over the edge (possibly)?

It seems like Ronan Mullen has pissed off a lot of undecideds with his comments on Pat Kenny (understandably imo)

Maria Steen. Where others find her articulate, he actually thinks she’s incredibly patronising and supercilious. Loathes McGuirk and Ganley too.

ittakestwo · 24-05-2018 05:10PM

Water John wrote: »

Interesting that a few have visited this site for the first time today. They have claimed to be open minded throughout but having considered everything are now, voting No. They are all middle aged men. I'm curious as this was the demographic that was to be targeted by the No campaign in the final days???

Would not say this is abnormal to visit your boards.ie account just before a major national referendum. Even if you had not logged in for a while. Regarding them all happening to be middle age men and voting No, cant explain that.

gmisk · 24-05-2018 05:10PM

_Dara_ wrote: »

Maria Steen. Where others find her articulate, he actually thinks she’s incredibly patronising and supercilious. Loathes McGuirk and Ganley too.

I don't blame him!
He has good taste...hopefully he makes the right decision on this ref

uptherebels · 24-05-2018 05:11PM

schmittel wrote: »

Really, I thought doctors were not allowed to refuse treatment on moral grounds. Do you have a source link? Not doubting what you say, just genuinely interested to see that.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/health/conscience-clause-gps-will-be-allowed-to-opt-out-of-abortion-pill-law-36410265.html

gmisk · 24-05-2018 05:15PM

My family can't vote as all in North, but asked them how they would vote.

They were all yeses to my surprise.
My mum was a nurse then a health visitor for 30+ years she was a definite yes, my dad was also a yes.

My sister who would be a fairly committed Catholic as in she reads at mass and is an RE teacher really shocked me by saying she would have voted yes. She had a friend at college who had to travel to UK due to FFA, I think it always stayed with her.

jill_valentine · 24-05-2018 05:17PM

Trasna1 wrote: »

Whatever way it goes, I would like to see graciousness and humility from the winning side, and a willingness to unite. I doubt we will see that though unfortunately.

I'd like to compare this to my experience of the marriage ref for a second.

I'm gay, so from the beginning to the end of that cycle, I had to sit on my goddamn hands listening to clowns given kidglove treatment and first class airtime compare me - overtly and subtly - to sex offenders, mental patients, farm animals, and child abusers, for months. On radio, TV, and about fifty or so of the glossy signs I had to pass on my way to work every day.

Sometimes, they'd do it to my face, talking about how dangerous my personal life is to them and what they've decided is right for me. Other times, they'd talk about me in the abstract as if I wasn't there, and feign vapours over how "personally" we were taking this thing that had serious implications for our lives, and not theirs.

And the real kicker, when all was said and done, was seeing the mini David Quinns out there concede - graciously - that it was a good game. Because that's all it was to them. A game, a debate to be won or lost. Losing cost them ****ing nothing, and they knew it, just like they knew how high the stakes were for us - so when it was over, they just moved on to the next "game".

That's how devoid of basic decency the No's there were. They'd known all along the sky wouldn't fall, but they were happy to pretend otherwise if it might help them win. They were that vicious to us, for that long, for no reason other than the fact they'd have liked to beat us.

Graciousness and humility me foot. These people burned posters of Savita Halappanavar, accept open white supremacists in the core of the movement, sought to "target" young girls for their obstreperousness, called on men to do the "manly" thing by overruling women to preserve something that affects only them, planted fascist symbols in the hands of teenagers, slandered women living and dead, tried to derange the democratic process with bogus ID inspectors and foreign intervention, impersonated rival campaigns for reasons both nakedly cynical and actively creepy, and posted medical photos of miscarried foetuses outside maternity hospitals where would-be mothers were being given news, good and bad.

We should just shrug all that off? All's forgiven, see you next season?

Gracious? Should I be benignly gracious at people for failing to enshrine their apparent entitlement over me in law? Should I be humble at being granted sovereignty over myself?

Unite with who? Having now seen the true mettle of these people twice, I don't want anything to do with them. There is no middle ground between their insistence that I don't own my own goddamn body all the way, and my assertion that I do.

They shouldn't be humoured any more, we should know better by now. The No campaign this time was a poisonous club of Youth Defence runoff and associated flotsam, but as long as their track record of lying, manipulation and callous indifference to the lives of strangers gets a free pass and a blank slate, they can keep trying to impose their whims on other people for no reason greater than their own personal gratification. If they were to win, the ramifications would be awful far beyond the scope of this one amendment. They should be recognised for the festerment they are. Just because they didn't get the boot into gays last time, and may not get the boot into women this time, does not mean they're harmless.

To paraphrase a great quote I saw here years ago, these people fought kicking and screaming against every single step this country's ever taken to be more kind, progressive or fair.

Am I supposed to pretend I think they won't do the same with whatever the next one is? Is that the polite thing to do? Will the next group they draw a bead on think so? I doubt it.

So no. It's not my job to make nice with people who don't even consider me as a person so much as a kind of wrestling venue for their leisure, and what's more I don't even think it would be responsible for me to do if I wanted to.

Cupcake_Crisis · 24-05-2018 05:17PM

January wrote: »

Are you the person who posted on the group in FB? If so, thank you so much for doing what you are doing x

Ive been reading the Abroad4Yes Facebook page and crying like a big eejit. Say what you will about irish people, when our balls are to the wall we really shine.

hometruths · 24-05-2018 05:19PM

uptherebels wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/health/conscience-clause-gps-will-be-allowed-to-opt-out-of-abortion-pill-law-36410265.html

Thank you that's interesting

gmisk · 24-05-2018 05:21PM

jill_valentine wrote: »

I'd like to compare this to my experience of the marriage ref for a second.

I'm gay, so from the beginning to the end of that cycle, I had to sit on my goddamn hands listening to clowns given kidglove treatment and first class airtime compare me - overtly and subtly - to sex offenders, mental patients, farm animals, and child abusers, for months. On radio, TV, and about fifty or so of the glossy signs I had to pass on my way to work every day.

Sometimes, they'd do it to my face, talking about how dangerous my personal life is to them and what they've decided is right for me. Other times, they'd talk about me in the abstract as if I wasn't there, and feign vapours over how "personally" we were taking this thing that had serious implications for our lives, and not theirs.

And the real kicker, when all was said and done, was seeing the mini David Quinns out there concede - graciously - that it was a good game. Because that's all it was to them. A game, a debate to be won or lost. Losing cost them ****ing nothing, and they knew it, just like they knew how high the staked were for us - so when it was over, they just moved on to the next "game".

That's how devoid of basic decency the No's were. They'd known all along the sky wouldn't fall, but they were happy to pretend otherwise if it might help them win. They were that vicious to us, for that long, for no reason other than the fact they'd have liked to beat us.

Graciousness and humility me foot. These people burned posters of Savita Halappanavar, accept open white supremacists in the core of the movement, sought to "target" young girls for their obstreperousness, called on men to do the "manly" thing by disregarding women, planted fascist symbols in the hands of teenagers, slandered women living and dead, tried to derange the democratic process with bogus ID inspectors and foreign intervention, impersonated rival campaigns for reasons both nakedly cynical and actively creepy, and posted medical photos of miscarried foetuses outside maternity hospitals where would-be mothers were being given news, good and bad. We should just shrug all that off? All's forgiven, see you next season?

Gracious? Should I be benignly gracious at people for failing to enshrine their apparent entitlement over me in law? Should I be humble at being granted sovereignty over myself?

Unite with who? Having now seen the true mettle of these people twice, I don't want anything to do with them. There is no middle ground between their insistence that I don't own my own goddamn body all the way, and my assertion that I do.

They shouldn't be humoured any more, we should know better by now. The No campaign this time was a poisonous club of Youth Defence runoff and associated flotsam, but as long as their track record of lying, manipulation and callous indifference to the lives of strangers gets a free pass and a blank slate, they can keep trying to impose their whims on other people for no reason greater than their own personal gratification. If they were to win, the ramifications would be awful far beyond the scope of this one amendment. They should be recognised for the festerment they are. Just because they didn't get the boot into gays last time, and may not get the boot into women this time, does not mean they're harmless.

To paraphrase a great quote I saw here years ago, these people fought kicking and screaming against every single step this country's ever taken to be more kind, progressive or fair.

Am I supposed to pretend I think they won't do the same with whatever the next one is? Is that the polite thing to do? Will the next group they draw a bead on think so? I doubt it.

So no. It's not my job to make nice with people who don't even consider me as a person so much as a kind of wrestling venue, and what's more I don't think it would even be responsible for me to do so.

Boom! Mic drop!

I am gay BTW too thanks for this, much more eloquently put than I ever could.

gmisk · 24-05-2018 05:22PM

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

Ive been reading the Abroad4Yes Facebook page and crying like a big eejit. Say what you will about irish people, when our balls are to the wall we really shine.

Do not read #hometovote tweets.

Unless you want to literally have no water left in your body

Try_harder · 24-05-2018 05:26PM

Im voting to put the health of a woman first.
I trust women.
Vote Yes.

freshpopcorn · 24-05-2018 05:26PM

gmisk wrote: »

Do not read #hometovote tweets.

Unless you want to literally have no water left in your body

Freshpopcorn must be as cold as stone!

joe40 · 24-05-2018 05:26PM

Trasna1 wrote: »

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

With all due respect, that’s not what you’re voting no to tomorrow. When you vote no you’ll be saying that you want absolutely no debate on the proposed legislation and to leave the 8th untouched. Meaning that those cases you say are acceptable will stay in the exact same situation they are currently in. There will be no scope for change if it’s a no vote tomorrow.

Indeed but if the vote passes the government can, with some authority say that the people knew what they were voting for and that the mandate is for the proposed bill to be enacted with only minor technical amendment.

In the event of a No vote, we will be certainly be voting again on the 8th in the next Dail with a watered down proposal. 40.3.3 isn't tenable as it stands at the moment, no matter what way you look at it.

For someone who agrees that hard cases need to be dealt with but that the proposal goes too far, it is indeed a tough decision.

It took 21 years to legislate for the 1992 referendum. If this is a no vote, no other government will touch it with a bargepole for a long time.

_Dara_ · 24-05-2018 05:27PM

jill_valentine wrote: »

I'd like to compare this to my experience of the marriage ref for a second.

I'm gay, so from the beginning to the end of that cycle, I had to sit on my goddamn hands listening to clowns given kidglove treatment and first class airtime compare me - overtly and subtly - to sex offenders, mental patients, farm animals, and child abusers, for months. On radio, TV, and about fifty or so of the glossy signs I had to pass on my way to work every day.

Sometimes, they'd do it to my face, talking about how dangerous my personal life is to them and what they've decided is right for me. Other times, they'd talk about me in the abstract as if I wasn't there, and feign vapours over how "personally" we were taking this thing that had serious implications for our lives, and not theirs.

And the real kicker, when all was said and done, was seeing the mini David Quinns out there concede - graciously - that it was a good game. Because that's all it was to them. A game, a debate to be won or lost. Losing cost them ****ing nothing, and they knew it, just like they knew how high the stakes were for us - so when it was over, they just moved on to the next "game".

That's how devoid of basic decency the No's there were. They'd known all along the sky wouldn't fall, but they were happy to pretend otherwise if it might help them win. They were that vicious to us, for that long, for no reason other than the fact they'd have liked to beat us.

Graciousness and humility me foot. These people burned posters of Savita Halappanavar, accept open white supremacists in the core of the movement, sought to "target" young girls for their obstreperousness, called on men to do the "manly" thing by overruling women to preserve something that affects only them, planted fascist symbols in the hands of teenagers, slandered women living and dead, tried to derange the democratic process with bogus ID inspectors and foreign intervention, impersonated rival campaigns for reasons both nakedly cynical and actively creepy, and posted medical photos of miscarried foetuses outside maternity hospitals where would-be mothers were being given news, good and bad.

We should just shrug all that off? All's forgiven, see you next season?

Gracious? Should I be benignly gracious at people for failing to enshrine their apparent entitlement over me in law? Should I be humble at being granted sovereignty over myself?

Unite with who? Having now seen the true mettle of these people twice, I don't want anything to do with them. There is no middle ground between their insistence that I don't own my own goddamn body all the way, and my assertion that I do.

They shouldn't be humoured any more, we should know better by now. The No campaign this time was a poisonous club of Youth Defence runoff and associated flotsam, but as long as their track record of lying, manipulation and callous indifference to the lives of strangers gets a free pass and a blank slate, they can keep trying to impose their whims on other people for no reason greater than their own personal gratification. If they were to win, the ramifications would be awful far beyond the scope of this one amendment. They should be recognised for the festerment they are. Just because they didn't get the boot into gays last time, and may not get the boot into women this time, does not mean they're harmless.

To paraphrase a great quote I saw here years ago, these people fought kicking and screaming against every single step this country's ever taken to be more kind, progressive or fair.

Am I supposed to pretend I think they won't do the same with whatever the next one is? Is that the polite thing to do? Will the next group they draw a bead on think so? I doubt it.

So no. It's not my job to make nice with people who don't even consider me as a person so much as a kind of wrestling venue for their leisure, and what's more I don't think it would even be responsible for me to do so.

Post of the thread.

January · 24-05-2018 05:27PM

I finished up my campaigning this morning by doing a postcard drop in my estate this morning, as I was coming in to one garden a man in his 70's was leaving his house and I said 'hey, can I leave this here with you' and he said 'no point love, it'll only go in the bin' and my heart dropped until he said 'it's about feckin' time Ireland was dragged out of the dark ages, we'll both be voting yes here tomorrow!' and he gave me a little pat on the shoulder and sent me on my way. I can't cope with all this home to vote stuff. I keep randomly bursting into tears. I read on twitter earlier that the home to vote movement this time is 100 times bigger than what it was for the MarRef!

Cupcake_Crisis · 24-05-2018 05:28PM

gmisk wrote: »

Do not read #hometovote tweets.

Unless you want to literally have no water left in your body

Oh I made that mistake hours ago! The emotions are high. I’ll be a complete write off come Saturday.

gmisk · 24-05-2018 05:29PM

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Freshpopcorn must be as cold as stone!

Yourrrrr as cold as ice!!

_Dara_ · 24-05-2018 05:30PM

January wrote: »

I finished up my campaigning this morning by doing a postcard drop in my estate this morning, as I was coming in to one garden a man in his 70's was leaving his house and I said 'hey, can I leave this here with you' and he said 'no point love, it'll only go in the bin' and my heart dropped until he said 'it's about feckin' time Ireland was dragged out of the dark ages, we'll both be voting yes here tomorrow!' and he gave me a little pat on the shoulder and sent me on my way. I can't cope with all this home to vote stuff. I keep randomly bursting into tears. I read on twitter earlier that the home to vote movement this time is 100 times bigger than what it was for the MarRef!

That worries me. Are all those people eligible to vote?

gmisk · 24-05-2018 05:30PM

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

Oh I made that mistake hours ago! The emotions are high. I’ll be a complete write off come Saturday.

I am off work thankfully but same.

It's not quite at the blubbering stage I was at during the SSM but give it time!

retro:electro · 24-05-2018 05:31PM

On the topic of “abortion regret”, despite it being relatively rare; I don’t doubt its existence. Imagine it yourself. You’ve taken one day off work. You have other children at home and can’t take any more annual leave. You fly over on a plane full of stags and happy holiday goers. You’re on your own, in a city you’ve never been to before with a few hours in your back pocket to make a decision. You start to feel doubts but you’ve nobody with you. No family, no friends and no GP you’d usually confide in. You go through with it anyway because if not now, when? You can’t take any more time off, and you’re pretty certain it’s just nerves and everyone feels this. Your name is called and you go through with it. You later regret it. You regret that you made a drastic decision in haste and you regret that you did it alone.

Our proposition allows for unrestricted access up to 12 weeks. So, if one should be undecided on whether or not to go through with it, she has more than one day to decide if this is truly what she wants. For the women who know they want to terminate, I’m sure they’ll do so as early as possible. For those who are unsure, it allows them a few weeks to mull over what their options are and not be restricted by a ticking clock and a departure gate. This can only be a good thing.

Cupcake_Crisis · 24-05-2018 05:32PM

_Dara_ wrote: »

That worries me. Are all those people eligible to vote?

AFAIK if you’ve been living abroad for less than 18 months you’re eligible to vote. I don’t think anyone would come home before checking the register

smokingman · 24-05-2018 05:32PM

I felt incredibly proud to be Irish after the marriage ref and reading those home2votes, I'm beginning to feel the same again.
Gives me hope for our society that we actually care.

pjohnson · 24-05-2018 05:32PM

The #hometovote things are annoying.

The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Comments