end of the road wrote: » perhapse you could ask those who didn't simply go away when they were voted against in 1983, what part of the relevant percentage who voted against them do they not understand?[/qupte] really? :rolleyes: At the end of the day the result from the repeal ref had a larger percentage voting to repeal it then voted to introduce it in the first place. It was a landslide majority, larger then even the marriage equality ref. To try compare them as similar referendums is misleading and you know it. i think you are just going to have to get over it and accept that just like in 1983, a percentage of people voting one way does not stop those in opposition from continuing to have a voice and to use that voice to express their viewpoint and opinion. If they had spent all that effort, money etc over the decaes since the 8th was introduced to support contraception and to improve sex education then we likely wouldn't have had a repeal the 8th ref in the first place. The repeal was entirely of the making of the zealot any women's rights people. They most certainly shouldn't be respected.
i think you are just going to have to get over it and accept that just like in 1983, a percentage of people voting one way does not stop those in opposition from continuing to have a voice and to use that voice to express their viewpoint and opinion.
Cabaal wrote: » really? At the end of the day the result from the repeal ref had a larger percentage voting to repeal it then voted to introduce it in the first place. It was a landslide majority, larger then even the marriage equality ref. To try compare them as similar referendums is misleading and you know it.
Cabaal wrote: » If they had spent all that effort, money etc over the decaes since the 8th was introduced to support contraception and to improve sex education then we likely wouldn't have had a repeal the 8th ref in the first place. The repeal was entirely of the making of the zealot any women's rights people. They most certainly shouldn't be respected.
end of the road wrote: » of course there would have been a repeal as the 8th of it's own caused many other issues, it was a case of when and not if.
Cabaal wrote: » so you agree it was seriously flawed? Fantastic, so it had to go, least we can agree on that.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » That sound you hear is furious backpedalling. EOTR supported a No vote, of course. I wonder is there a person left alive who will admit that they voted against divorce in 1995? Something which seems incomprehensible today, but a whisker under 50% did. Also it's totally disingenuous to claim that pro-lifers are campaigning for more restrictive legislation, they are not, because they know there isn't a snowball's chance of that happening. Instead they are carrying out nasty little protests to intimidate women and medical staff, like the vindictive anti-woman bullies they are.
end of the road wrote: » no back peddling on my part, neither furious or non-furious. i supported a no vote simply to vote against the now current legislation, nothing more, and i was very clear on this at the time.
divorce is no way comparable to abortion as you know, both are so far apart it's unreal.
yeah some pro-lifers may be protesting, good old democracy, you will just have to get over it. no doubt if the referendum went the other way there would have been some sort of protest.
if you have any evidence of intimidation of medical staff and women or just about anyone then you have an obligation to report it for further investigation by the relevant authorities.
Cabaal wrote: » Not enough roll eyes in thw world for this nonsense from Trump supporters protesting against restrictions during this pandemic.
Cabaal wrote: » I'm certainly hearing some backpeddling here, You, me and everyone else knows the 8th HAD to be repealed for ANY legislation to come into place. Claiming you voted no because you didn't like the specific proposed legislation at the time but in anyway trying to claim you didn't actually like the 8th is a cop out. Like divorce history takes a dim view of those that supported the 8th. It actually is comparable for a number of reasons and you know right well it is, these include: - The constitution was no place to prevent or stop a person divorcing, any normal country legislates to do this (same for abortion) - Restrictions on divorce were heavily influenced by catholic zealots (same for abortion) - It was an issue that took society changes which result in the religious zealots loosing influence on government etc (same as abortion) - People eventually saw the harm it did by forcing people into situations against their will (same as abortion being banned) - Lack of divorce like lack of abortions harmed women the most.... physically, emotionally and financially But sure...you keep on saying they can't be compared at all Actually we don't have to "get over it" Pro lifers intimidating people outside their homes and outside of medical practices so they can intimidate familys and women isn't acceptable. We most certainly don't have to put up with these bully tactics. You are some peice of work, You honestly think a women/couple coming out of a hospital who just has been given some very bad news needs to see a bunch of nutback religious fruitloops with white coffins standing at the entrance? You don't think this would be intimidating or upsetting? You are one cold f*** if you can't see that. If I was with my wife in this situation and we had to go extra near these f**kwits I'd go over kick over the coffin and punch the first nutbag that comes near me in the face, I'd gladly be arrested for it too so it could end up in the media and these nutbags can be banned for upsetting people by protesting in a location they have no place in being near, ever.
end of the road wrote: » again this is incorrect, you can recognise the 8th of it's own merrits was bad legislation as i have always done, but recognise that voting to repeal would have meant allowing for legislation which would remove the right to life from other human beings and therefore would be worse.
punching someone in the hopes of getting it in the media in the aim of getting a protest bann is going to fail, as even if you get your way, protests will i would imagine very much continue, small scale as they seem to be.
Cabaal wrote: » You could never legislate properly while the 8th existed, this is basic stuff. Given you have admitted that the 8th was flawed why would you want to keep something that you now openly admit is flawed. It makes more sense to remove it and then properly legislate like any normal country. The 8th was beyond a doubt not suitable. Oh nice dodge on my previous question. Only a truely heartless, cold son of a b**** could play down the effects these zealot protesters have on women and couples. At least admit that you can see how it would indimtate and upset people, have the decency instead of dodging. As I said, if my wife was upset by this f**** after being given bad news in a hospital I would gladly inflict as much pain as i could on them and do everything I could to make sure they get banned from upsetting others in future. I think almost every husband/partner would do the same too, the same goes for protecting family members. Perhaps youre level of caring towads a family member or partner is very different, thats most unfortunate.
end of the road wrote: » as i said, i only voted to keep it to vote against the now current legislation, that was the only method available to more or less state your disagreement with it.
aloyisious wrote: » Reading what you've written above, would I be right in understanding that you did not like the 8th amendment but it was the only thing available to you to try prevent the ideas and proposals discussed in the Peoples Assembly in respect to the abortion issue from coming to fruition via permission of the Irish People - not withstanding that the 8th was the law standing in the way of Irish women and girls deciding the fate of their own pregnancies here via access to the necessary medical planning and procedures being made legal here for them in Ireland? I got the impression that you were not totally against giving those women and girls the right to decide on that, or maybe - given how you wrote that you depended on the 8th in an all or nothing approach to block the women and girls from having that right via new Irish legislation of their choice - I read you wrong in that respect. Maybe it'd be more correct to say you didn't like the idea of the Irish People deciding to remove the 8th from the constitution [in the same way they put it there] because you liked the effect the 8th had on restraining Irish women and girls from having any legal say on abortion where their own future was concerned and you are covering your anti-abortion position by claiming your own adherence to the 8th was based on the proposals and suggestions coming from the Peoples Assembly to the Dail on possible legislative moves there.
end of the road wrote: » yes, voting no was a way of preventing the current legislation and thus the liberal abortion regime we have.
end of the road wrote: it's not far to restrictive, it's just about right. one can have an abortion in ireland if carying the baby puts their life in danger. if not and they wish to have an abortion, they can head over to the uk, it's not that far away tbh. the only way i might be willing to move a bit is if those who's lives aren't in danger, and who still want an abortion, fund it themselves. i as a tax payer want nothing to do with it and don't want to be contributing to it unless it's an absolute emergency like the example above.
i don't agree with abortion, never will, however i also recognise that people can and do travel elsewhere to procure abortions and there is nothing i can do about that. however, i can vote to uphold the rights of the unborn in my country and hope enough people are willing to do the same.
Salary Negotiator wrote: » I don’t believe you ever considered voting to repeal the 8th. You are just using your opposition to the current legislation to make you seem more reasonable than you are.
end of the road wrote: » you are incorrect on all counts.
uptherebels wrote: » Well seeing as you have already said that rape victims shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion, how incorrect is it?
end of the road wrote: » as incorrect as it always has been.
Cabaal wrote: » So you dislike the 8th but you also loved the 8th enough to force a rape victim to give birth to the rapist off spring. Aren't you just a classy cold person. All I'm seeing is a failed attempt to backtrack from you in recent times with numerous dodges when it comes to questions asked, it's fairly embarrassing to watch it unfold. Pop corn helps of course...
end of the road wrote: » incorrect. what is happening is that you want there to be a backtrack from me, so are seeing what you want to actually be the case. however there is no backtrack.
end of the road wrote: » my position on abortion is i am against unrestricted abortion and believe it should only be for serious medical issues such as for example a threat to the mother's life or a situation where the unborn baby will not survive to birth or long after it. my position on the 8th as i recently stated is that i accept it was over all bad legislation and on it's own merrits did need to go, but voted against repealing it on the basis of stopping the now current legislation as i believe it was the only way to state my opposition to that legislation, with a hope that more restrictive legislation would be proposed and the vote put back to us again down the line.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Would saying the following be a fair summary of your position: Although the 8th Amendment was flawed, you believe abortion should be severely restricted and the only possibility you could see of that happening was to vote to retain the 8th. However, you also believed that the 8th was so flawed it would be eventually repealed albeit with,hopefully, far stricter legislation around when abortions could be carried out.
end of the road wrote: » yes that is a fair summery.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Unfortunately there is still a large gap between our legal position and the UK, and quite a number of women still have to travel there Also women and couples with pregnancies with fatal abnormalities are getting dicked around by some hospitals here and being told they have to delay to "see what happens" or "help them come to terms with it" or other such BS.
Bannasidhe wrote: » I agree. But am unsurprised. FG are, at their core, socially conservative but like to play pretend they are liberal (perhaps confused by actually being neo-liberal cos all these new fangled terms are like totes amazeingballs confounding). They cheerlead socially progressive initiatives when they correctly see that's the way the zeitgiest is going. Cry triumphant when 'they win' a subsequent referendum. Promise such wonderfully considered legislation. Best legislation ever. ... and then.. limbo on the unacted Acts. Ask any married LGB parents about FG's commitment to full equality. And that's not as controversial as 'unborn babies.' No State funded health care facility should be allowed to dicky around, but they are.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » FF are no different. Actually, SF are no different. They would have been mostly anti-choice a few years back until they saw which way the wind was blowing and the advantages of having a female leadership. They were campaigning for a Yes vote for repeal when their party policy was officially still "pro-life", it wasn't changed until after the referendum - more proof if it was needed that the members of that party don't call the shots, as it were. In fairness to FG they had a pretty socially liberal by Irish standards policy in the late 60s (didn't get elected though, and when they did get in in '73 Liam Cosgrave was extremely conservative and voted against his own cabinet's contraception bill) and it's almost 40 years now since Garret Fitzgerald started his "constitutional crusade". Ireland wasn't ready for it though, we chose not to allow divorce and it's an indelible stain on his political career that he accepted the wording of the 8th amendment because he was afraid to stand up to FF on the issue, even though he knew and had advice from Peter Sutherland the attorney-general that it had serious flaws.
