nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Ozymandius2011

This is for people who have already voted in the referendum. How did you vote? I voted yes.

Mod: This thread is little more than a survey about how you voted. Please don't the ins and outs of abortion.

Mod: This is not a reiteration of the previous 8th threads. If you were threadbanned from those, you are not threadbanned here.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Outlaw Pete

Nozz, only the following parts of your post were on point and so I'll reply to them:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But AGAIN when I say you reacted to the study emotionally "as if" it was trying to speak, then that is 100% exactly what I meant.

Your emotional reaction to the study scales not just with it looking like speech, but like it is actually trying to speak.

I believe you parse that study as if you believe the fetus is literally trying to speak. Not that you ACTUALLY believe it is trying to speak, but that you are parsing your response to it through that dynamic.

That is all I said, all I have ever said, and all I will continue to say.

The above is just nonsense. That is quite clearly not all you said. Three examples...

1) In this post you say that I read the study as saying that the fetus was trying to speak:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But alas the user appears to have read that as the fetus WAS trying to speak, rather than making movements similar to those of trying to speak.

2) In the following post you say that I took the researchers comments to mean the fetus was "actually trying to speak".

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The user who posted it took this to mean the fetus looked like it was ACTUALLY trying to speak.

3) And lastly you said in the following post that I interrupted what was said in the study as "pretty much being the fetus ACTUALLY trying to speak".

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

All rationality went out of the user at that point and he interpreted it looking LIKE "trying to speak" as pretty much being the fetus ACTUALLY trying to speak. Which was both sad AND comical at the time.

So quit running away from this, nozz. Either quote a post from me that would be indicative of my having "interrupted" the researchers as saying that the fetuses were "actually trying to speak" (as opposed to looking 'as if' they were) or apologize.

[Deleted User]

Overheal wrote: »

SSF Will be fine.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101042651&postcount=678

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101025657&postcount=630

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100994815&postcount=545

You occasionally just straight post and endorse the study, where it is "as if they are trying to speak" with your main thrust being they are mouthing in response to auditory stimuli. Not that much of a stretch to conclude that you agree they are responding the the auditory stimuli with mouth movements, as the researchers say, "as if to speak" or to communicate back to the auditory stimuli.

100 Euros to SSF if you don't mind. You can PM me the receipt; you both should really get a room though, just realizing after quote-hopping back in that old thread (thanks, google) that the (sexual?) tension between ye is riveting and has been going on for *years* :pac: At the very least we can say you both need to go get a beer together and hash it out. #diditforthecharity

Think you might be on Pete's ignore list

Overheal

DubInMeath wrote: »

Think you might be on Pete's ignore list

Evidently! Only eyes for one poster...

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

So quit running away from this, nozz. Either quote a post from me that would be indicative of my having "interrupted" the researchers as saying that the fetuses were "actually trying to speak" (as opposed to looking 'as if' they were) or apologize.

I am running away from nothing except your attempts to pretend what I said has a meaning different to the one I am telling you it has. A fetus has no language, so ACTUALLY believing it is trying to speak, or suggesting you believe it was actually trying to speak, would be ridiculous. I do not think you believe that, and I never once suggested you do despite your pretence.

What I AM saying is that your reaction to it is AS IF you believe it. Put more clearly, your reaction to it scales with someone who did/does actually believe it. And that is the focus of my points.

But the only one running away is you because I asked then, and I asked twice again here today, what you actually think the relevance of the study is. You have refused again and again to answer. However you have suggested the study suggests A) That early stage fetuses are "aware" and that 2) This vocal movement somehow elevates the fetus above a biological entity that shows responses to stimuli.

The study, quite simply, does neither. And the only "running away" that is occurring here is you running away from that fact.

Overheal

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am running away from nothing except your attempts to pretend what I said has a meaning different to the one I am telling you it has. A fetus has no language, so ACTUALLY believing it is trying to speak, or suggesting you believe it was actually trying to speak, would be ridiculous. I do not think you believe that, and I never once suggested you do despite your pretence.

What I AM saying is that your reaction to it is AS IF you believe it. Put more clearly, your reaction to it scales with someone who did/does actually believe it. And that is the focus of my points.

But the only one running away is you because I asked then, and I asked twice again here today, what you actually think the relevance of the study is. You have refused again and again to answer. However you have suggested the study suggests A) That early stage fetuses are "aware" and that 2) This vocal movement somehow elevates the fetus above a biological entity that shows responses to stimuli.

The study, quite simply, does neither. And the only "running away" that is occurring here is you running away from that fact.

Christ, Dub, I'm on both ignore lists.

Overheal

Gintonious wrote: »

The highlight of the whole campaign. This was when Sky couldn't get anyone from the NO side, so this is what they had to settle on. She is absolutely out of her mind.

Incredible.

I'm going to do a transcript of this. Stand. By. World.

nozzferrahhtoo

Can you sit through it long enough to do that? Or can you do that thing I have failed spectacularly to do, and managed to extract subtitles directly? I have seen two websites that explain how to do it, and it never works for me.

Fighting Tao

Overheal wrote: »

Christ, Dub, I'm on both ignore lists.

It would be great if Boards did the opposite of their MatchMaking and let us see who has people on ignore. It would possibly save a bit of time responding to posts.

Fighting Tao

I wonder will that clip make Reeling in the Years 2018. Sadly probably not as it's not from RTE.

QueenRizla

Overheal wrote: »

I'm going to do a transcript of this. Stand. By. World.

Ah surely she is taking the piss. Someone said she is an actress. 97% of healthy babies in the UK are aborted and abortion is a form of contraception in Portugal!!! Women are six times more likely to commit suicide (where the fuk did she get that from) She said someone on RTÉ said about the 97%!! Did that happen on tv?
She can’t even pronounce statistic.

retro:electro

I love how she just said “women are six more times likely to commit suicide” and that was the sum total of her point. In relation to what? With respect to what? In what context? Nope just women are six times more likely to commit suicide. O...kay. Colm was like this is the easiest job ever.
Gas.

Fighting Tao

retro:electro wrote: »

I love how she just said “women are six more times likely to commit suicide” and that was the sum total of her point. In relation to what? With respect to what? In what context? Nope just women are six times more likely to commit suicide. O...kay. Colm was like this is the easiest job ever.
Gas.

In fairness to Kay, she did pull her up on it. Although I got the impression that Kay was taking the pish out of her at the same time.

[Deleted User]

QueenRizla wrote: »

Ah surely she is taking the piss. Someone said she is an actress. 97% of healthy babies in the UK are aborted and abortion is a form of contraception in Portugal!!! Women are six times more likely to commit suicide (where the fuk did she get that from) She said someone on RTÉ said about the 97%!! Did that happen on tv?
She can’t even pronounce statistic.

The did you know in the UK 97% of healthy babies sh*te was on posters around north east Meath before the vote and a few days afterwards. No details regarding which organisation they belonged or printers details that I could see. Was away for a few weeks before the vote so not sure if they were up around Dublin. Sure they were but anyone know who they belonged to?

fxotoole

QueenRizla wrote: »

She can’t even pronounce statistic.

What else would you expect from a stark raving mad Trump supporter?

Cupcake_Crisis

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Can you sit through it long enough to do that? Or can you do that thing I have failed spectacularly to do, and managed to extract subtitles directly? I have seen two websites that explain how to do it, and it never works for me.

It actually gets funnier the more you watch it. Watch Colm’s facial expressions, he can’t believe the sh!te she’s coming out with.

Charmeleon

retro:electro wrote: »

I love how she just said “women are six more times likely to commit suicide” and that was the sum total of her point. In relation to what? With respect to what? In what context? Nope just women are six times more likely to commit suicide. O...kay. Colm was like this is the easiest job ever.
Gas.

It’s from a study in Finland, The Journal, heavily pro-choice, ‘fact checked’ this but neglected to specify the claim was true: https://www.google.ie/amp/www.thejournal.ie/yes-to-life-life-institute-8th-amendment-abortion-leaflet-facts-3058066-Nov2016/%3Famp%3D1

QueenRizla

fxotoole wrote: »

What else would you expect from a stark raving mad Trump supporter?

It appears she is for real, I just read her blog on her website it is absolutely mental. There is a dream about Trump with a Scooby Doo style mask removal, and mad stories from her time in Hollywood and the casting couch.

gormdubhgorm

Overheal wrote: »

That's not what I asked: abortion issues are also in the legislation but that hasn't stopped you from bemoaning their deletion from the constitution. Why should abortion issues be enshrined in the constitution but not alcohol issues?

Because it is a clear life and death issue?

Captain Obvious

Gintonious wrote: »

The highlight of the whole campaign. This was when Sky couldn't get anyone from the NO side, so this is what they had to settle on. She is absolutely out of her mind.

Incredible.

That was amazing.

[Deleted User]

Captain Obvious wrote: »

That was amazing.

I actually needed a cigarette afterwards.

WillContribute

SusieBlue wrote: »

We have no reason to believe it won't be a GP lead service as promised in the proposal.
Circa 4k abortions occur annually, not much of a market there for a specialised clinic.

GP led service, not realistic.

The prime time discussion Tues night was instructive, as to the moving goalposts. Present. Kay O'Connell(FG) and the president of the GPs association. In summary...RTÉ: Are GPs ready for this? Assoc of GPs: Nobody has consulted us in any way about this, and it will be very difficult to implement correctly. KOC: We never said it would be a GP service, we said a "doctor led" service. (As if we thought builders might do it). Back and forth etc. GPs: In principle it can be done and we are not objecting, but realistically not now or anytime soon the way things are, unless W, X, Y, Z will be sorted and someone talks to us. KOC: We'll talk to you tomorrow.

Most GPs prescribe antibiotics, blood pressure tablets, creams etc. Anything more urgent, complex or difficult and it's a referral to A&E or a consultant. Nearly all tasks are to start with a sick person and try and make them healthier/better. Benefit outweighs the risk, etc

The up to 12 weeks abortion scheme is the opposite appproach. You start with a healthy pregnant woman, and then introduce medications( which if done correctly are generally OK to terminate the pregnancy) but if not done correctly, can seriously injure that woman. (I have deliberately left out the child to just focus on the woman, as this is the new reality.)

E.g. A GP must certify that the woman is under 12 weeks, to do this correctly, requires ultrasound. Very few GPs have it. (There is a 6 month waiting list for ultrasound.) If the GP gets it wrong, eg the pregnancy is actually at 14 or 16 weeks, there can be dangerous medical complications, it's not just two pills like aspirin. (Norway uses hospital clinics for ALL abortions.) For GPs in this type of proposal, there are a lot of extra costs and medical risk. Who also would insure them in this situation? When the accident occurs and legal suit follows, it'll be all negligence, and also the patient signing a disclaimer won't work. (Distress etc)

I'd expect it would have to be specialist clinics. It'll still be "doctor led", but look how the spin goalposts are moving.

Fighting Tao

Charmeleon wrote: »

It’s from a study in Finland, The Journal, heavily pro-choice, ‘fact checked’ this but neglected to specify the claim was true: https://www.google.ie/amp/www.thejournal.ie/yes-to-life-life-institute-8th-amendment-abortion-leaflet-facts-3058066-Nov2016/%3Famp%3D1

Her “fact” was different to that in the journal article you quoted.

Nettle Soup

Why isn't God punishing us with bad weather after the Yes vote?

I have never seen the country in such good form!

Captain Obvious

DubInMeath wrote: »

I actually needed a cigarette afterwards.

She has more videos too

PopePalpatine

Maybe the resulting sunburn counts as God's punishment? :pac:

Cupcake_Crisis

Captain Obvious wrote: »

She has more videos too

I don’t think I physically could tbh. She’s slightly rage inducing. Imagine trying to have a conversation with her!

gormdubhgorm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

So you want to control women for 9 months!

I don't see it as controlling women I see it as safeguarding a fetus they have all the control they want after that.

If I got a hammer and smashed a babies brains out I would be arrested and vilified.

Yet aborting a fetus is OK now just a few months earlier?

Laws are strange they change social and societal norms.

Years ago in the 1500's it was common place for royalty to give thier 13 year old daughter to some man.
Now that would be viewed as pedophilia.

Some societal changes are good but not this abortion thing.
To call it controlling seems strange to me.

Do people who get abortions not view the fetus as a life form at all?
I don't get it.
I know of a neighbour who miscarried and even went to the trouble of getting a little white coffin.

Obviously from the tone of this thread the vocal people who voted yes view the fetus as an inconvenience to thier body.

That should be got rid of like a pimple on yer @rse.

Unless the life of the mother is threatened I see it as an unnecessary act.

As I said in another post statistically some of those who voted yes must be unplanned pregnancies / unwanted pregnancies themselves.

So it was kind of like turkeys voting for Christmas... for some of them.

As I said before this is the start of the slippery slope.

I think a lot of the moderate yes votes will regret thier decision in 10
/ 20 / 30 years to come.People have made thier beds now this is the start of the slow slide toward eugenics, gender based abortion, maybe even colour of eyes / hair in years to come.

The hipster generation have spoken.

I ME ME ME MINE as the Beatles said

[Deleted User]

WillContribute wrote: »

GP led service, not realistic.

The prime time discussion Tues night was instructive, as to the moving goalposts. Present. Kay O'Connell(FG) and the president of the GPs association. In summary...RTÉ: Are GPs ready for this? Assoc of GPs: Nobody has consulted us in any way about this, and it will be very difficult to implement correctly. KOC: We never said it would be a GP service, we said a "doctor led" service. (As if we thought builders might do it). Back and forth etc. GPs: In principle it can be done and we are not objecting, but realistically not now or anytime soon the way things are, unless W, X, Y, Z will be sorted and someone talks to us. KOC: We'll talk to you tomorrow.

Most GPs prescribe antibiotics, blood pressure tablets, creams etc. Anything more urgent, complex or difficult and it's a referral to A&E or a consultant. Nearly all tasks are to start with a sick person and try and make them healthier/better. Benefit outweighs the risk, etc

The up to 12 weeks abortion scheme is the opposite appproach. You start with a healthy pregnant woman, and then introduce medications( which if done correctly are generally OK to terminate the pregnancy) but if not done correctly, can seriously injure that woman. (I have deliberately left out the child to just focus on the woman, as this is the new reality.)

E.g. A GP must certify that the woman is under 12 weeks, to do this correctly, requires ultrasound. Very few GPs have it. (There is a 6 month waiting list for ultrasound.) If the GP gets it wrong, eg the pregnancy is actually at 14 or 16 weeks, there can be dangerous medical complications, it's not just two pills like aspirin. (Norway uses hospital clinics for ALL abortions.) For GPs in this type of proposal, there are a lot of extra costs and medical risk. Who also would insure them in this situation? When the accident occurs and legal suit follows, it'll be all negligence, and also the patient signing a disclaimer won't work. (Distress etc)

I'd expect it would have to be specialist clinics. It'll still be "doctor led", but look how the spin goalposts are moving.

Having spent ten years working in the medical software and devices sector for all areas from pharmacists to chemo, I believe doctors that are willing to provide for the health of their patients first will be more than willing to revise on any training they need to prescribe the pills and provide any required after care.

gormdubhgorm

retro:electro wrote: »

How is this a bad thing? Seriously? Do you wish you were disabled?

So all disabled people are bad and should not exist should they?

Cupcake_Crisis

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

So all disabled people are bad and should not exist should they?

That’s not at all what she said and well you know it.