Cabaal wrote: » Nonsense, Religious dogma fueled the NO side, pretty much all the no groups had religious funding and/or religious foundations. In many cases, the same people involved previously opposed marriage equality too. They tried to hide the religious aspect, but the reality is it drove their compaign.
lazygal wrote: » They're not bothering to hide their religion now. Iona and Youth Defence are busy pushing Gript. No secular groups opposed repeal of the 8th.
end of the road wrote: » only in certain circumstances really. i would suggest that for others such as economic and social reasons, it's more a discretionary allowence/privilage.
end of the road wrote: » correct and for clarity, a constitutional guarantee was my preferred option as i suspect it was for some others. i think i even mentioned it around the time.
end of the road wrote: » it was defended in terms of it saving unborn lives yes . that continued to be the case to the end. but it was accepted that over all it was of itself bad legislation that had to go of it's own merrits. but the proposed legislation meant we could not vote to remove it at that time.
end of the road wrote: » at that time refers to the 2018 referendum, where we could not vote to remove the 8th because of the legislation the government had outlined to bring, and which they have brought in, which is the proposed legislation i refer to as the reason for keeping the 8th, as it was only proposed legislation at the time before the result was announced.
end of the road wrote: » agreed, but that was only a very small part of the pro-life campaign and many of us ignored it ourselves. not vicious or hateful though.
only in certain circumstances really. i would suggest that for others such as economic and social reasons, it's more a discretionary allowence/privilage.
smacl wrote: » Yes indeed. Reminded of American religious nutters flying over to exorcise a doctor's clinic which he deemed had demonic possession due to abortions being carried out there.
What worries me most about the pro-life campaign is that it is driven by foreign money from sources unknown trying to unduly influence Irish society. We need much greater transparency on who precisely is trying to pull strings here and why?
SusieBlue wrote: » BS of the highest order, they spread fake news, exploited statistics and used an emotionally manipulative poster campaign designed specifically to guilt, scaremonger and shame people.
Not one single thing they did was honest and they were happy to throw decent, vulnerable people under the bus just so that they could continue living in their fantasty that Ireland is an abortion free country (it isn't and never was).
end of the road wrote: » agreed, but that was only a very small part of the pro-life campaign and many of us ignored it ourselves. not vicious or hateful though. only in certain circumstances really. i would suggest that for others such as economic and social reasons, it's more a discretionary allowence/privilage.
Screw Attack wrote: » Small part of the campaign? My ass. This law is still pretty hard on abortion (up to 12 weeks). It's a fertalised lump of cells. There's no brain, and it can be terminated without remorse. It's religious crap, and yet Pro life freaks are against it. Not surprising really. Sure, fella, sure. You say you'd acquiesce on "certain circumstances" but you're pretty comfortable with it being completely banned in general. You give the game away when you believe a tiny spec of goo is a human being.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » But only yesterday you said you would have supported repeal were it not for the legislation. More flip-flops than a beach in Tenerife.
aloyisious wrote: » The rub in the sentence is that you mean the application of what you call a discretionary allowance/privilege was to be left to the discretion of a person not related to the woman or the foetus in her womb. That sounds like you're equating it with a Dept of Social Affairs decision to deny a person a social payment on discretionary grounds: sorry, your application is being refused as it doesn't fit Dept guidelines. As for the very small part of the pro-life campaign, did the management even try to control or expel that very small part from the campaign? As we've seen, ignoring a problem minority won't make it go away or behave in a more social manner.
end of the road wrote: » it's an unborn, slowly forming human being.
end of the road wrote: » being able to end that life at one stage, but not at another, doesn't make any concistent sense.
Screw Attack wrote: » [...] My ass [...] Sure, fella, sure [...]
aloyisious wrote: » Are they behind gript as an advertising agency or means of getting their messages out now? I saw a short video on F/B yesterday about the film being shown in the Omniplex in Galway and noted the headline over the video stated it was funded by and sponsored by gript.
Hannibal_Smith wrote: » What about the demonstrations outside maternity hospitals? That was pretty vicious and hateful.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » So if it is forming to be one, that means it is not one. You can not be X and be becoming X at the same time. It does if that attributes to coherently afford it value exist at one stage, but not at the other. Then it is entirely consistent, coherent and valid to claim it is ok to end it at one stage but not the other. Unfortunately any time I have brought up those attributes specifically you have screamed "irrelevant" and ran away from the conversation entirely, ignoring my posts. So, lots of swings and lots of misses by yourself i'm afraid.
end of the road wrote: » i never ran away or ignored your points
end of the road wrote: » however given i already answered them originally, then there isn't much more i can say to you.
Calina wrote: » And so Stormont may be recalled.
aloyisious wrote: » Peregrinus posted on page 105 that the Sec State for N/I has powers to activate the UK Parliaments voted introduction to N/I of the law as it applies in the other part of the UK if there is no local Govt in N/I, as there was before S/F and DUP had their row and ended the sitting of the power-sharing administration there. If that is the absolute on the matter, then if SF decline to agree to serve with the DUP in any re-opened Stormont there can be NO power-sharing N/I Govt, it seems to me the Sec State can go ahead and activate the Westminster decision.
Igotadose wrote: » And, if indeed the DUP vote against the Johnson deal, why shouldn't HMG direct the SecState for NI to do exactly that? Not like HMG's being supported by the NI Westminsterans...
aloyisious wrote: » Peregrinus posted on page 105 that the Sec State for N/I has powers to activate the UK Parliaments voted introduction to N/I of the law as it applies in the other part of the UK if there is no local Govt in N/I, as there was before S/F and DUP had their row and ended the sitting of the power-sharing administration there. If that is the absolute on the matter, then if SF decline to agree to serve with the DUP in any re-opened Stormont there can be NO power-sharing N/I Govt, it seems to me the Sec State can go ahead and activate the Westminster decision. It seems to me that part of the avoidance route that local abortion legislation would also have to be introduced by a working Govt in N/I in order for the DUP to succeed in stopping the activation of the Westminster vote from becoming the law of the land in N/I. As I see it now, it's up to the Pro-choice people in N/I to start knocking on doors if they want the laws governing them to be equal to that in the rest of the UK and similar to that in the republic. However, if the Sec State decides there are more important matters to deal with in the present, he may put the activation on a list of to-do items. No doubt the Westminster Brexit affair will be at the head of the list, esp with the DUP likely to be on the warpath after todays deal between Boris & the EU Admin. peregrinus post: Delay, certainly. What the just-passed law says is that, if the NI executive and assembly are not back up and running by a certain date, the SoS for NI (who has the power to legislate for NI when the assembly is not operating) must make regulations extending equal marriage and access to abortion to NI. However SFAIK no time limit for making those regulations is specified. This is not going to be a quick process. The new legislation does not say that NI law on these subjects in NI is to be the same as it is in England and Wales (or Scotland, or Ireland - all three jurisdictions have different legal laws in relation to both matters). It just sets out a broad principle, but leaves the details of how that principle is to be given effect in legislation to be worked out later. This would normally take a while. There'd be reviews of the current law on marriage and on abortion, to see in what respects they fail to comply with the principles, or meet the standards, set out in the new legislation. There would normally be a consultation process, in which the government issues a paper discussing the issues, suggesting ways in which they might be addressed through legislation, and inviting observations from interested stakeholders. There'd then be draft legislation published, and comments invited. Finally, the legislation could be made. It could take a year or more (or less) and, crucially, how fast the process goes depends in part on how enthusiastically the government approaches it. So if they want to soft-pedal it, there is certainly scope for that.
end of the road wrote: » what i saw of them were certainly not vicious or hateful, but peaceful protests. protests are always going to upset, offend, or disrupt some, but that is the price to pay for democracy.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » I think the DUP realise this is a fait accompli, and this latest flurry is just about signalling to their supporters that they 'did everything in their power' to stop it.
Bredabe wrote: » Leitrim ARC along side the local sfmp are certain that everything will go to plan and at midnight on tue, abortion will be legal. From my reading of the wm ruling, there is NO hope of the dup being able to fulfill it before tue. There is no way they will get a sf candidate for the executive or a cross party agreement on I think, security between now and tue. If I know it cant be done, then they knew this from the beginning.
aloyisious wrote: » As abortion will no longer be illegal in N/I from Tuesday, I hope there are facilities available in N/I for what will come and they are ready for the protestors outside their buildings otherwise the flights will continue to the UK.
The UK Government has published guidelines for medical professionals on abortion law and termination of pregnancy in Northern Ireland. It relates to the interim period between decriminalisation and new regulations being implemented from April next. The NIO said there were no plans for abortion services being made routinely available during that time frame.
lazygal wrote: » Shocking findings that contraceptive provision reduces abortion rates. Bit shook tbh.https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/17/opinion/abortion-iud-contraception.html#click=https://t.co/55Wv7so2mB
Loafing Oaf wrote: » AFAIK 'liberal' abortion is not due to come on stream next week.https://www.rte.ie/news/uk/2019/1008/1081757-ni-abortion/
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f07ee44b0b39bbb635066da4046d9475.svg)
