Sponge25 wrote: » We do have testicles which enable the creation of a foetus. We ought to have 50pc say. So what if the female carries the baby, nature decreed this not men.
JRant wrote: » To be honest Dara, I'm with Wibbs on this one. I have a pain in my face listening to the smug condescending arrogant aßholes on both sides of this debate. The level of hostility displayed at times has also been something to behold. Whatever way this falls on Friday we have not heard anything like the end of it unfortunately. There will be triumphant bleats from whatever side wins and that will be even more insufferable than what we've seen so far.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » You say that you don't think anyone, male or female, should have a say in another's decision to terminate a pregnancy, and your reasoning for that is because it would have 'zero effect' on their life........... but, if somebody decides to do something neglectful to a newborn child (for example) that also would have zero effect on a stranger's life..... does that therefore then mean that such crimes are none of society's business as a result? Of course not, and so why then, just because the baby is within a woman's womb, should that then be considered to be the case? In my view neglect is neglect, whether it's a newborn or a baby at 12 weeks gestation in the womb. Hell, it's not so long ago in Ireland that we had the images of very prematurely born babies plastered across the back of cigarette packets, in an effort to try and alert us to the dangers that smoking has on babies developing in the womb and yet here we are set to make it legal to end their lives even when there is no substantial risk of life to the woman. And what about the collective CHOICE you (the Yes voters) are making for the developing human being in the womb? What of them? What of their body automony? You all speak of being forced to remain pregnant? But what about being forced to die? We all have one life and bar none, all of us where at that 12 week stage of development, where we could only move very minimally and do very little, and to be in Ireland at that stage of development was one of the safest places on the planet to be, and still is, lucky us, but yet tomorrow many people in this country will walk into a Poll booth and strike down a law which very likely has played a part in their very existence.
SusieBlue wrote: » I don't think anyone, man or woman, should get to have a choice in a strangers pregnancy. A pregnancy that has nothing to do with them. A pregnancy that will have zero effect on their life.
SusieBlue wrote: » And this is the problem with the No side - they are exploiting and taking advantage of situations like this to make a collective CHOICE for the whole of society.
SusieBlue wrote: » A choice that should absolutely be up to the individual woman and her partner to decide.
end of the road wrote: » they already don't get to have a choice in a stranger's pregnancy. the law simply says that someone cannot kill their unborn child in ireland unless there is a good reason to do so. huge huge difference. yes, we are preventing the choice to kill others for any reason. what's the problem. the same happens for me, for you, for everyone on this thread, for everyone on this site and in the whole country. in our case the law extends to the unborn. and quite frankly, both campaigns are exploiting and taking advantage, make no mistake about it. it already is where required. that is what the poldpa does.
_Dara_ wrote: » The Yes campaign hasn’t been perfect for sure. But some of the stunts pulled by the No campaign put them way out in front: quotations from fake healthcare professionals, planting people at Repeal with banners featuring blatantly inflammatory slogans, distributing a booklet modelled aesthetically on official government booklets etc. Very underhand stuff and, honestly, quite desperate. I haven’t seen anything that compares from the Yes campaign. Saying that one side is as bad the other is fluent but doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny. My father is voting no and he has much bigger problems with the No campaign. Really hates the lot of them and has found the Yes campaign much less objectionable. He has found the No campaign so offputting that he is actually considering abstaining. He told me that earlier and, believe me, he always votes.
end of the road wrote: » the law simply says that
Calhoun wrote: » Just because you don't see something doesn't mean its not there. Although i know why you don't see it. At least your father honest as he understands things are bad on the no side where as your happy to overlook the yes because its who you are voting for.
_Dara_ wrote: » Elaborate. You said you know why so it shouldn’t be an issue. Oh and I’m all ears, by the way. If you or others have Yes campaign equivalents to citing fake health care workers, planting people at marches and emulating the look of official government documents, I’d genuinely love to see those examples. You’re insinuating that I’m blind to them so they must exist, right?
SusieBlue wrote: » I look forward to never discussing this issue with you again after tomorrow.
the_syco wrote: » The law simply says that we can lock teenagers into a lunatic asylum until the baby is due, force feed them, and force them to give birth.
RocketRaccoon wrote: » This is a genuine question as you've mentioned it a few times. Who are the plants at these marches?
_Dara_ wrote: » It will take me a moment to find the information so bear with me.
end of the road wrote: » it says that in certain circumstances someone can be sectioned under the mental health act for their own safety and or the safety of the public
Deleted User wrote: » I am not necessarily against abortion but I don't think its clear what exactly is going to be legislated for if the eighth is repealed
This time tomorrow night its all over
Calhoun wrote: » Well i did elaborate, i said because your for that side your basically ignoring the bad **** it does. Just because one side does something bad doesn't mean it excuses the other. Particularly when one side has popular support in both government, media and most online platforms. The yes side i have seen attack men, attack old people, basically prohibit any discussion that doesn't align with their own views which is fairly bad in a democracy. No im insinuating that your basically absolving one side because in your eyes it isnt so bad but its despicable from both sides.
Wibbs wrote: » My feelings pretty much and a major concern of mine. For me anyway it seems daft to vote for legislation when one doesn't know what form that legislation will take. Legislation that we won't get a choice to vote on. Leave it to the government and our judiciary? Yeah, I'm chock full of confidence there. History tends to show they'll either copy chunks of the UK legislation, go with what EU bureaucrats suggest, or make a hames of it. Or all of the above. Of the many branches of Irish civic layers that I have respect for the judiciary and the government do not figure highly in the ranks. And that's an understatement. So I'm very much swinging towards a No vote and it's got feck all to do with the matter of abortion itself. On that matter I have pretty zero issues with the "abortion pill" and early stage abortions. Beyond that point and when it comes to a healthy developing foetus and a woman not in medical danger my position and line becomes harder and more defined. And I make zero apologies for that. And when I read and not just here about clumps of cells and comparisons with onanistic emissions my position becomes harder still and my eye rolling more vigorous. Oh Im not so sure about that L. If there's a Brexit stylee "shock" of a No vote - and my prediction, such as it is, it will be close - the Yes side will go full apeshit. If it is a Yes, the No side won't be too happy, though I suspect will drift away more quickly than if it's a No. If it's a No, I'll further bet that we'll be asked again in short order, but if it's a Yes, that'll be that.As for the "Trust Women" spiel. Last week I had both Yes and No campaigners to my door peddling their position. The Yes lot came out with the above early on. A position I challenged them on, given the No campaigners had called previously and they were also women. So which one's do I "trust"? We're rightfully reminded that women(and men) aren't a hive mind.
_Dara_ wrote: » When have we ever got to vote on legislation? Why would anyone expect to?
Wibbs wrote: » I hate to break it to you, but you'll be voting on it tomorrow. You will be agreeing to or disagreeing with Irish legislation. You vote on it anytime there's a constitutional referendum.
Wibbs wrote: » Both are peddling the guilt trip politics in pretty much equal amounts. The Nays have us "killing babies" and so forth the Yays have us "not trusting women" and so forth. Consider this; look at how self admitting No voters are rounded upon on the various threads on this here Boards. Which side tends to garner more vitriol and accusations of stupidity? Even though there's lots of that to be getting on with among some on both sides.
_Dara_ wrote: » I asked for concrete examples. Both sides have had a minority of rude, attacking canvassers. However the stunts I’ve outlined above push the No campaign far ahead and I haven’t even listed them all. I said I’m all ears. Seriously, anything will do. The worst I’ve seen is a video of a Yes campaigner stopping a No campaigner from putting up a poster and yes, he pushed the guy. But that’s matched by people being filmed taking down Yes posters and attacking the people who asked them why. Give me examples that match any of the underhanded No campaign stunts I mentioned upthread. Seriously, anything at all. You say these examples exist so what’s the issue? Don’t assume that because I’m voting one way that I’m blind and think the campaign I support is flawless. Maybe that’s how you roll. Don’t assume it’s the same for everyone. So, I maintain: saying that the campaigns have been as bad as each other is demonstrably not true and just a glib, lazy statement.
SusieBlue wrote: » The Yes slogan means to trust women with their own healthcare decisions, for their own lives. It isn’t advocating trusting every woman on earth with every single possible issue.
_Dara_ wrote: » Nope. We’re voting on the constitution, not any particular legislation. I hate to break THAT to you.
_Dara_ wrote: » The trust women thing. I don’t use that personally but if you’re asking, then, yup, I trust the No campaign women to make the right decisions for themselves and their reproductive health. Why wouldn’t I?
Calhoun wrote: » I am not google for you and i have been posting on this thread enough that i have given examples already. There was a video i linked a week or so back of a black lady telling men they need to shut up and do what their woman tell them to, or how about the social media engineered bull**** about men getting a vasectomy? I will give you another as i am feeling generous though, the pro-choice advocate Janet Ni Shuilbhean saying she was glad that a couple of pro-lifers died on twitter was pretty horrible to be fair. As i said when one side has the wind at their back so to speak and you still have to resort to attacking elderly people or anyone that doesn't agree with you something is seriously not right. I maintain that you are so hardened to the yes side that you don't even want to think of them as doing bad things and would rather paper over it.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/8d35864a3237216e70f346edd3eb761f.svg)
