Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Re: the bolded above. A few years ago the Garth Brookes concerts were I jeopardy of being cancelled (I'm sure we all remember that) and at one point the residents around Croke park said they will protestaginst the concerts and even go as far to block the roads to stop the trucks getting in with the stage. The above poster EOTR stated that if they did this then the guards should baton charge and arrest men women and children to ensure the concerts could go ahead. Hypocrisy of the lowest order as usual from him/her.
Haylee Purple Showboat wrote: » No right minded person would condone these so called protests no matter where they came from and should be addressed within the framework of the law.
Fighting Tao wrote: » We finally agree on something! :eek: As for the framework of the law, a protest only lasts a short time. From looking abroad people taking part in protests such as these are there daily for a long time. That is why more protection needs to be implemented in law.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Seen a lot of posts like the above, both before and after the vote, and it's just simply untrue. Well then you got him to vote Yes by giving him false information. Abortions at 12 weeks and under in this country will NOT all be pill based. That is not the way it has been in the UK, France or Holland and there is zero reason to think that the abortions methods used here will be any different to elsewhere. In 2016 (in the UK) 28% of abortions between 3 - 9 weeks were surgical and 84% of them between weeks 10 - 12: Not that I feel it matters a whole lot how a baby in the womb reaches their demise (the end result is the same after all). However, the reason I feel it very much matters that it was incorrectly stated over and over again throughout the campaign is because voters (as evidenced by the user quoted) based their decision on it. Telling people that 'Ah sure, it's just two pills and a heavy period' as many prochoice campaigners did, including Clare Daly, helped support the false narrative that a developing baby at between 10 - 12 weeks is just a 'clump of cells'. Bit harder to convince someone of that nonsense when you give them the truth and not just the truth with regards to likely abortive methods which will be used here but the full truth on what a late first trimester abortion can often entail.
Shurimgreat wrote: » However my original point is I despise the hypocrisy of people who cite the undignified burial of Tuam babies but say nothing about the same fate for aborted foetuses. Their ending is equally undignified.
Wrongway1985 wrote: Lots is an overstatement some yeah, thread of Aetheist voting no on here depicts rare breed and quite clearly only just over 30% of people voted No overall to suggest lots were Aethiests is absolute nonsense.
Triceratops Ballet wrote: » Are the full details of the exit poll anywhere I can't find them? I did the poll and it asked you to pick a religion agnostic and atheist were options so if the details of the poll are out there we can see an indication of the percentage of atheists who voted no
Fighting Tao wrote: » Why would anyone vote no when it was alreadyaccessible to all with a cheap flight/ferry to the UK? The only difference that repealing the 8th makes is that the women can be cared for at home. Unless the women aren’t important to no voters.
retro:electro wrote: » The two are incomparable. It is lunacy to compare the induced miscarriage of a non sentient fetus to the systemic abuse and cover up of an organisation whose morals were underpinned by catholic ethos, sanctity and family values. The church held such an inherent disgregard for the lives of actual living and breathing children that were supposed to be in their care that they threw their little bodies in a slurry tank and the ones they didn’t bury or sell they raped.
end of the road wrote: » personally, because i am against the 12 weeks unrestricted, and believe that in ireland abortion should only be legal in certain circumstances rather then unrestricted. people going to england was never going to factor in my vote because people often go to countries and do things that are illegal here but legal there so that wouldn't have been a reason for me to vote yes.
erica74 wrote: » Waterford.
Fighting Tao wrote: » However, it was impossible to permit all other cases under the 8th. Therefore, the only way to enable all eventualities bar 12 weeks was through repealing the 8th. Then it is possible to legislate for all eventualities.
Haylee Purple Showboat wrote: » That's as bad a Ben Bulbin. These people should be tracked down and shown no mercy. Hysteria over
pitifulgod wrote: » Benbulben is a protected site.... So it's incredibly different.
end of the road wrote: » people going to england was never going to factor in my vote because people often go to countries and do things that are illegal here but legal there so that wouldn't have been a reason for me to vote yes.
eeepaulo wrote: » This is the article on rte with the most info, there was a section on rte one yesterday where they read out a lot more stats.https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/0526/966120-eighth-amendment-referendum/
Haylee Purple Showboat wrote: » Looks like religious views were minimal in deciding to vote no.
end of the road wrote: » yet we were able to implement the poldpa. so it may have been possible to legislate for most of the hard cases via that but how much the government looked into that i don't know. it doesn't matter now anyway. best to campaign for the legislation if possible and to try and build bridges. we don't want to end up like brexit britain or trump's america.
Wrongway1985 wrote: » Why do you think people who ignored these women for years should be allowed all of a sudden come out of the woodwork to and be granted a platform to harass them? Protest me ring!
end of the road wrote: » harassment is already a crime. i support anyone's right to protest regardless of whether i agree with them or not. in the past i would have believed in restricting the protesting by groups i disagree with but the years have thought me that such is not a good idea and can only end badly.
Fighting Tao wrote: » It looked ridiculous even before Tá appeared.
Haylee Purple Showboat wrote: » Let's not slag off Waterford. It gave us the whisperer.
Fighting Tao wrote: » I support their right to protest too. However, there is evidence to show that the right to protest combined with anti-harassment / anti-intimidation laws will not stop the headaches outside the medical facilities. Specific laws are required to create an exclusion zone for the protection of staff and patients.
