Eighth Amendment poll

Started by Farrandeelin, May 01, 2018, 03:36:55 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Are you in favour of repealing the 8th amendment?

Yes
47 (21.8%)
Yes but have no vote
73 (33.8%)
No
40 (18.5%)
No but have no vote
36 (16.7%)
Undecided
20 (9.3%)

Total Members Voted: 216

Voting closed: May 24, 2018, 03:36:55 PM

sid waddell

Quote from: Mayo4Sam on May 10, 2018, 04:02:08 PM

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/state-says-court-cannot-rule-when-life-begins-1.1011943

Its an actual legal case, there is no legal definition for birth in Ireland, or rather when life begins
There is no confusion about what birth is.


sid waddell

#301
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 10, 2018, 10:49:51 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 10, 2018, 10:06:14 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 10, 2018, 08:57:26 PM
... I see no problem with a woman who was attacked getting a morning after pill or whatever it takes, quite the reverse I think the State must ensure that such people are treated.
However,  in my opinion, this is not the same thing as waiting 3 months and then deciding to have an abortion.

Quote from: trileacman on May 10, 2018, 09:27:48 PM
You'd find few people who would say that a rape victim shouldn't have access to a morning after pill or abortion. Likewise I'd be in favour of termination for people who carry babies with fatal foetal abnormalities. If the prorposed legislation addressed those issues without allowing for abortion on demand up to 12 weeks then it would enjoy a lot more support.

Like most reasonable people, I respect the convictions of all who have considered the issues and come to a decision. I must say, though, that I have never understood this contention and cannot see how it doesn't destroy the argument of those whose opposition to abortion at any stage is based on the right to life from conception.

If a zygote or foetus has an unquestioned right to life (and I'm not, in this post, addressing that point one way or the other), how is that right so easily withdrawn based on its parentage and how can someone who believes this propose abortion in the case of rape?

It's an excellent and difficult point that I really cannot come to a clear decision on, the life is innocent but the mother has just gone through an horrific ordeal and to carry out the pregnancy would be a constant reminder and an undue burden she should not have to bear.. how do you legislate for it as sid was pointing out the crime would have to be proved. Its difficult but I also think that using cases like this as a crutch to support on request abortion is insincere. One thing I am sure of is that I would not be in favour of serve (if any punishment) in these cases.

But to put it in context there is a similar dilemma for those on the prochoice side but believe there should be a cut off at 6/12/20/24.... weeks. Why should there be a cut off?..... the child needs the mother at any of these cutoff dates so why isn't it still the mother's choice after these dates?

You have a cut-off point for elective abortion for the obvious reason that a foetus at, say, 26 weeks, is a much different and more developed thing to a 2 week old embryo or a 10 week old foetus.

At some week in the 20s it develops the possibility of viability and the neuroanatomical machinery needed for sensation.

The embryo or foetus has no sentience whatsover during the time period for which elective abortion is being proposed.

Women should have the right to choose and the period in which elective abortion is allowed gives them that. But, as the pregnancy develops, there has to be be a cut-off point where the respective rights of the mother and unborn have to be balanced as much as possible.

Beyond the cut-off point, abortion should remain an option if needed to protect the health or life of the mother. It is unconscionable to have laws which protect an unborn to the extent where continuing with a pregnancy can damage the health or put at risk the life of the mother.

From viability on, if a pregnancy needs to be terminated, every effort should be made to deliver a baby which is healthy as possible.









sid waddell

Quote from: armaghniac on May 10, 2018, 10:34:58 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 10, 2018, 10:06:14 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 10, 2018, 08:57:26 PM
... I see no problem with a woman who was attacked getting a morning after pill or whatever it takes, quite the reverse I think the State must ensure that such people are treated.
However,  in my opinion, this is not the same thing as waiting 3 months and then deciding to have an abortion.

Quote from: trileacman on May 10, 2018, 09:27:48 PM
You'd find few people who would say that a rape victim shouldn't have access to a morning after pill or abortion. Likewise I'd be in favour of termination for people who carry babies with fatal foetal abnormalities. If the prorposed legislation addressed those issues without allowing for abortion on demand up to 12 weeks then it would enjoy a lot more support.

Like most reasonable people, I respect the convictions of all who have considered the issues and come to a decision. I must say, though, that I have never understood this contention and cannot see how it doesn't destroy the argument of those whose opposition to abortion at any stage is based on the right to life from conception.

If a zygote or foetus has an unquestioned right to life (and I'm not, in this post, addressing that point one way or the other), how is that right so easily withdrawn based on its parentage and how can someone who believes this propose abortion in the case of rape?

It is a minimal intervention. If you do not accept the idea of minimal intervention than you can justify abortion to 9 months, or infanticide.
Stopping a pregnancy starting is a different order of magnitude from ending one.
Morning after pills are a different thing to abortion pills. Morning after pills are designed to stop ovulation and prevent a pregnancy rather than terminate a zygote or embryo.

You didn't address the question of how, if you believe life begins at conception, you can believe that abortion is justified based on grounds of rape.

Please stop scaremongering about "justifying abortion to 9 months" or infanticide. That's hysterical stuff.

Syferus

Quote from: Rufus T Firefly on May 11, 2018, 12:05:20 AM
Quote from: Syferus on May 10, 2018, 11:34:25 PM
Quote from: Rufus T Firefly on May 10, 2018, 11:15:33 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 10, 2018, 04:11:15 PM
My offer to humble gallsman is not exclusive to this discussion - it's been an ongoing thing with him.  Most of his responses to me in discussions start with an insult. He doesn't know how to play the ball and I'd be happy to play the man if we ever did cross paths.  It's unfair to push that on anyone who votes no. And to be fair there are a fair few aggressive yes voters on this thread.

It's not hard to debate and discuss like adults. I have to draw a line somewhere and say enough is enough if I am being continually insulted. I wouldn't stand for it in person and I certainly am within my rights to call it out here.

I saw this earlier and I didn't have time to respond in your defence, after others came in.

I can understand your reaction to the personal insults. For someone else then to come in and link your response - on what is clearly a personal issue -  to the wider 'no' vote campaign, is deliberately misleading and provocative.

There are one or two posters here over the years who I have found opinionated, abrupt and abrasive in their debating manner and I have had fall outs as a consequence. However there is a new breed of posters here that have taken those aforementioned 'qualities' to new depths. It doesn't do much for the standard of the debate or the reputation of the forum itself.

It's tough when people won't pretend to be nice to you when you hold a hard to defend position, isn't it?

Cry me a river kid, I've got three times the abuse thrown at me and you don't hear me complaining.

You accept therefore that you were deliberately misleading and provocative, and you do so because of the abuse you receive?

I despair.

For someone who's trying very hard to portray themselves as the voice of reason you really don't understand basic facts about the female reproductive system.

I doubt you'll have the balls to apologise for attacking me based off your own lack of knowledge, though.

sid waddell

#304
Quote from: Rufus T Firefly on May 10, 2018, 11:15:33 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 10, 2018, 04:11:15 PM
My offer to humble gallsman is not exclusive to this discussion - it's been an ongoing thing with him.  Most of his responses to me in discussions start with an insult. He doesn't know how to play the ball and I'd be happy to play the man if we ever did cross paths.  It's unfair to push that on anyone who votes no. And to be fair there are a fair few aggressive yes voters on this thread.

It's not hard to debate and discuss like adults. I have to draw a line somewhere and say enough is enough if I am being continually insulted. I wouldn't stand for it in person and I certainly am within my rights to call it out here.

I saw this earlier and I didn't have time to respond in your defence, after others came in.

I can understand your reaction to the personal insults. For someone else then to come in and link your response - on what is clearly a personal issue -  to the wider 'no' vote campaign, is deliberately misleading and provocative.

There are one or two posters here over the years who I have found opinionated, abrupt and abrasive in their debating manner and I have had fall outs as a consequence. However there is a new breed of posters here that have taken those aforementioned 'qualities' to new depths. It doesn't do much for the standard of the debate or the reputation of the forum itself.

The wider "No" campaign have been only too willing to throw insults around and employ gutter tactics.

Have a look at the Twitter feeds of some of the main figures in the No campaign if you don't believe me.

Have a look at what's happening outside hospitals where people are being routinely intimidated by headbangers thrusting giant pictures of dead foetuses in their faces.

There are no "Yes" campaigners going around thrusting pictures of dead women in people's faces.

Have a look at some of the No campaign's propaganda, lies and deliberate attempts to misinform, as well as their dishonest attempts to gather online information about undecided voters in an attempt to microtarget them.

And yes, it is one side which is overwhelmingly to blame for the poisonous atmosphere around the campaign.

whitey

Quote from: magpie seanie on May 10, 2018, 04:55:49 PM
Quote from: whitey on May 10, 2018, 04:33:45 PM
Plenty of No voters have legitimate concerns and well thought out arguments for their decision

If the bullying going on here is representative of whats happening in broader society that could cost the Yes side a few percentage points. It happened with Brexit and it happened with Trump

Those are working out well.....!!!!

Won't disagree with you on that.

Not too much respect for others opinions on here. If you do have a different opinion you're either stupid, uninformed, fascist, bigoted, misogynistic.....take your pick

sid waddell

#306
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 10, 2018, 10:37:01 PM


1stly the UN declaration of human rights is not ground zero point for all human rights, its not like human rights began in 1948, they have been around for as long as civilsation has been around and will evolve with generations, human rights are in no way constrained by this declaration they can be built upon and Ireland did this by affording protection to the unborn.
So you imply human rights are unchanging.

Yet the Roman Catholic Church gave no rights to the unborn up 166 days until 1869.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the gold standard setting out the rights of humans. You can dismiss it if you want, but by doing so you are adopting your own personal, arbitrary definition of what human rights are.

QuoteThe bit of being born free as I said is a well used phrase regarding civil liberties as it is in the case to intro designed to introduce  the main point of Article #1 which is that we should behave to each other in the spirit of brotherhood, could a new born child suddenly start behaving with conscience and brotherhood? Of course not! it develops over time.

Article 1 or any other Article is not a precondition to all the other rights, every one is entitled to each one regardless of whether they have access the one previous or not
The word born is included because that's exactly what it refers to when deciding when human rights begin.

The UN has called Ireland's abortion laws "cruel, inhuman and degrading".

I've already explained that you cannot afford the same absolute right to life for the unborn as for born humans without trampling all over the rights of women.

Ireland is a massive outlier in its constitutional provision. It has been a predictable disaster.

Five years ago, pretty much the entirety of those involved in the current No campaign campaigned to stop the Government legislating for abortion even in cases where there was a threat to the life of the mother. That right there was a two fingers to human rights.

You'll forgive me if I don't take any proclamations on "human rights" from the No side seriously, given that they've already proved they aren't interested in them.

QuoteAnd lastly and most significantly it is a declaration of Human Rights that means all humans should be able to experience these rights at the relevant point in their life, and as I have said an unborn child no matter the stage of development is a unique human so my interpretation is that any relevant rights should extend to them also in this case that would be the right to life.
You're saying this. This is your own unique, arbitrary definition of personhood.

A one hour old zygote is clearly not a person.


QuoteI said that 14 years may be an appropriate punishment in some extreme cases...for most tho probably not but it depends on each individual circumstance, take another read I thought I made myself perfectly clear. BTW this is not a debate about law enforcement, it is debate about law.
Again, see the Jennifer Crichton case. Life imprisonment for killing a baby. You will get very few people who disagree that prison is an appropriate punishment for killing a baby.

Yet the No side is at pains to stress they don't want women imprisoned for having an abortion. This makes no sense if they consider a zygote to be a human being.

So, why are the No side clearly differentiating between aborting an unborn and killing a baby in terms of punishment, if they believe abortion is murder?

This drives a coach and horses through their claims that an unborn should have the same rights as a born baby.

QuoteI agree there are complications both moral and legal with rape incest etc etc and I would like there to be a solution for these women. I also agree there are situations when women's health should be put first but again it depends on the situation.
To make exceptions for rape and incest requires an end to the 8th Amendment, because it is by definition an admission that the unborn has an equal right to life as that of the mother.

It is also a statement that not all unborns are equal, because an unborn that is the product of a rape did not choose to be the product of a rape.

QuoteAbortion is happening in Ireland illegally everyone knows that, but that does not make it against the law, it does not make it right. All types of crimes happen in Ireland everyday, it does not mean that we should make them legal.
Laws need to reflect reality. I want laws to reflect reality. You don't.

The constitution already affords the right to abortion in cases of threat to life. It already affords the right to travel for an abortion and the right to information about abortion. So the constitution actully sees no problem with abortion, only with the location of that abortion.

This is farcical.

It's also farcical and cowardly to not deal with the reality of the already widespread self-administering of abortion here. It is sticking your fingers in your ears and whistling away to yourself obliviously.

And it puts women in a tragic dilemma which could have terrible health consequences for them. It would be a disgrace for this state to wash its hands of those women.

QuoteBut in actually fact all these things are actually irrelevant to your reasoning on abortion as you just believe that a woman should be able to choose to terminate her pregnancy up to 18 weeks (is there any rational to that gestational point or just because you feel that way?) for no reason what so ever or just because she doesn't want the hassle of the child, to spite a partner, wrong gender whatever.
Yes, there's loads of rationale as to why I believe it should be 16 or 18 weeks. It affords a generous right to choose for the woman during a period of the pregnancy when the foetus is not a sentient being. I'm guided by medical science on this.

QuoteI got to wonder why you make such a point about Healthcare when at the end of the day the reason for your position is that you believe that a woman's right to choose overrides an unborn child's to life.
There are loads of reasons for my position.

Belief in the right to choose. The evidence that women are denied healthcare. The reality that abortion is already happening and will not cease to happen with a No vote. Protecting women's lives and respecting them. The bleedin' obvious evidence that the current constutional situation is a dumb, inflexible sledgehammer that makes bad law.

omaghjoe

Quote from: sid waddell on May 11, 2018, 02:11:50 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 10, 2018, 10:37:01 PM


1stly the UN declaration of human rights is not ground zero point for all human rights, its not like human rights began in 1948, they have been around for as long as civilsation has been around and will evolve with generations, human rights are in no way constrained by this declaration they can be built upon and Ireland did this by affording protection to the unborn.
So you imply human rights are unchanging.

Yet the Roman Catholic Church gave no rights to the unborn up 166 days until 1869.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the gold standard setting out the rights of humans. You can dismiss it if you want, but by doing so you are adopting your own personal, arbitrary definition of what human rights are.

Hmm ... have another read of that there I just said said they evolve and can be built upon but sure knock yourself out.

I have never mentioned Catholic doctrine in this debate ever but you seem fierce keen to bring them into it.

Again I never dismissed it, just dismissing the absurdity of your interpretation to use it for deny the right to life to an unborn child.

Quote
QuoteThe bit of being born free as I said is a well used phrase regarding civil liberties as it is in the case to intro designed to introduce  the main point of Article #1 which is that we should behave to each other in the spirit of brotherhood, could a new born child suddenly start behaving with conscience and brotherhood? Of course not! it develops over time.

Article 1 or any other Article is not a precondition to all the other rights, every one is entitled to each one regardless of whether they have access the one previous or not
The word born is included because that's exactly what it refers to when deciding when human rights begin.

The UN has called Ireland's abortion laws "cruel, inhuman and degrading".

I've already explained that you cannot afford the same absolute right to life for the unborn as for born humans without trampling all over the rights of women.

Ireland is a massive outlier in its constitutional provision. It has been a predictable disaster.

Five years ago, pretty much the entirety of those involved in the current No campaign campaigned to stop the Government legislating for abortion even in cases where there was a threat to the life of the mother. That right there was a two fingers to human rights.

You'll forgive me if I don't take any proclamations on "human rights" from the No side seriously, given that they've already proved they aren't interested in them.

Born free relates to slavery, oppression, imperialism. Twisting it to deny the right to life of the unborn is beyond absurd. And lets not forgetting that it mentions nothing about allowing sanctioning such an act.

I speak for myself not the No campaign or anyone else, linking me to their position that you disagree with doing is yet another logical fallacy, stick to the points in our conversation please

I would say Ireland's laws have been reasonably successful  considering the rate of illegal and overseas abortion on Irish babies is much lower than other countries with abortion legalised, 1000s upon 1000s of lives saved as a result. If the Un wants to call that cruel let them work away
Quote
QuoteAnd lastly and most significantly it is a declaration of Human Rights that means all humans should be able to experience these rights at the relevant point in their life, and as I have said an unborn child no matter the stage of development is a unique human so my interpretation is that any relevant rights should extend to them also in this case that would be the right to life.
You're saying this. This is your own unique, arbitrary definition of personhood.

A one hour old zygote is clearly not a person.

For the craic I googled the definition:
per·son·hood
noun
the quality or condition of being an individual person.

Pretty sure every stage of a human's lifecycle meets the scientific definition to an individual human.
Looks like its not only me but I think you've helped me find a dignified term for the baby/foetus etc.....Unborn person


Quote
QuoteI said that 14 years may be an appropriate punishment in some extreme cases...for most tho probably not but it depends on each individual circumstance, take another read I thought I made myself perfectly clear. BTW this is not a debate about law enforcement, it is debate about law.
Again, see the Jennifer Crichton case. Life imprisonment for killing a baby. You will get very few people who disagree that prison is an appropriate punishment for killing a baby.

Yet the No side is at pains to stress they don't want women imprisoned for having an abortion. This makes no sense if they consider a zygote to be a human being.

So, why are the No side clearly differentiating between aborting an unborn and killing a baby in terms of punishment, if they believe abortion is murder?

This drives a coach and horses through their claims that an unborn should have the same rights as a born baby.
As I said it depends on the circumstance but some women suffering from post natal depression should not be held to account.
I have repeatedly stated that the mother's life comes first and has too, so that does mean that their life is "worth-less" if you want to frame it in those terms so I don't think I am in any crazy level of contradiction here. You will have to find someone who is.

Quote
QuoteI agree there are complications both moral and legal with rape incest etc etc and I would like there to be a solution for these women. I also agree there are situations when women's health should be put first but again it depends on the situation.
To make exceptions for rape and incest requires an end to the 8th Amendment, because it is by definition an admission that the unborn has an equal right to life as that of the mother.
It is also a statement that not all unborns are equal, because an unborn that is the product of a rape did not choose to be the product of a rape.
Yes as I have said before I would be open to this but not one that removes the right altogether and certianly not introducing on demand terminations up to 12weeks

Quote
QuoteAbortion is happening in Ireland illegally everyone knows that, but that does not make it against the law, it does not make it right. All types of crimes happen in Ireland everyday, it does not mean that we should make them legal.
Laws need to reflect reality. I want laws to reflect reality. You don't.

The constitution already affords the right to abortion in cases of threat to life. It already affords the right to travel for an abortion and the right to information about abortion. So the constitution actully sees no problem with abortion, only with the location of that abortion.

This is farcical.

It's also farcical and cowardly to not deal with the reality of the already widespread self-administering of abortion here. It is sticking your fingers in your ears and whistling away to yourself obliviously.

And it puts women in a tragic dilemma which could have terrible health consequences for them. It would be a disgrace for this state to wash its hands of those women.
Laws need to reflect realtiy eh? So remove speed limts as everyone breaks them then? now that is farcial
Let the Hutch and Kinihans tear away at each other cos thats reality???

Quote
QuoteBut in actually fact all these things are actually irrelevant to your reasoning on abortion as you just believe that a woman should be able to choose to terminate her pregnancy up to 18 weeks (is there any rational to that gestational point or just because you feel that way?) for no reason what so ever or just because she doesn't want the hassle of the child, to spite a partner, wrong gender whatever.
Yes, there's loads of rationale as to why I believe it should be 16 or 18 weeks. It affords a generous right to choose for the woman during a period of the pregnancy when the foetus is not a sentient being. I'm guided by medical science on this.

Is sentience your only reason? I mean if you believed that the baby was sentient from 4 weeks would that be your cut off?
Also can I tell you something about sentience, Science knows nothing about it, literally nothing...and doesnt claim too... as it totally subjective. There are a few scientists who even believe that sentience is actually only all an illusion anyway. You don't know what another thing experiences, whether it be another person, an animal, bird, plant, rock... no one knows, now you have a fair idea about people because we can communicate with each other but we can't do that with a child until their 2nd year. The most likely scenario is that as long as a baby is in the womb it is never sentient in the way that we understand it until at least it is born and most likely for a long time after that. But sentience also raises another question about ending other forms of human life in general, is that ok if the victim is not sentient, if someone is in a coma, sleeping, gunshot to the head etc etc. Your at least vegetarian I presume as well.... but then are potatoes sentient? if sentience is your guide its about as wishwashy, unscientific, subjective unknown "thing" going.

I'd prefer to go with something more factual, for example what science does know for sure about an unborn person... and that it is a human from the moment of conception.

Quote
QuoteI got to wonder why you make such a point about Healthcare when at the end of the day the reason for your position is that you believe that a woman's right to choose overrides an unborn child's to life.
There are loads of reasons for my position.

Belief in the right to choose. The evidence that women are denied healthcare. The reality that abortion is already happening and will not cease to happen with a No vote. Protecting women's lives and respecting them. The bleedin' obvious evidence that the current constutional situation is a dumb, inflexible sledgehammer that makes bad law.

Since 90+% of terminations are not medical necessary and you have no issue of that 90+% them I am going to go with that is the main and over riding reason that you support terminations is because you believe the right to choose for a woman overrides the right to life of the unborn person.

Rufus T Firefly

Quote from: Syferus on May 11, 2018, 01:16:35 AM
For someone who's trying very hard to portray themselves as the voice of reason you really don't understand basic facts about the female reproductive system.

I doubt you'll have the balls to apologise for attacking me based off your own lack of knowledge, though.

I have never, ever, got into a debate on this forum on the female reproductive system. Your comment therefore is as bizarre as it is....dare I say it ...misleading and provocative.

I'm sensing a theme here.

magpie seanie

Quote from: Rufus T Firefly on May 11, 2018, 08:26:06 AM
Quote from: Syferus on May 11, 2018, 01:16:35 AM
For someone who's trying very hard to portray themselves as the voice of reason you really don't understand basic facts about the female reproductive system.

I doubt you'll have the balls to apologise for attacking me based off your own lack of knowledge, though.

I have never, ever, got into a debate on this forum on the female reproductive system. Your comment therefore is as bizarre as it is....dare I say it ...misleading and provocative.

I'm sensing a theme here.

Rufus - like myself, you've been round here a long time. We don't always agree but I think we have a healthy respect for each other so please take this as it is intended. Put Syferus on ignore and do not engage. He ruins every adult discussion around here if people reply to him so best not to. As someone on the same "side" I find his comments disgusting and embarrassing and undermining the cause he purports to argue for. Cheers.

Rufus T Firefly

Quote from: magpie seanie on May 11, 2018, 08:36:21 AM
Rufus - like myself, you've been round here a long time. We don't always agree but I think we have a healthy respect for each other so please take this as it is intended. Put Syferus on ignore and do not engage. He ruins every adult discussion around here if people reply to him so best not to. As someone on the same "side" I find his comments disgusting and embarrassing and undermining the cause he purports to argue for. Cheers.

Understood. Sounds like sound advice. Thanks Seanie.

trueblue1234

#311
Quote from: sid waddell on May 11, 2018, 12:33:49 AM
Am I missing something here?

Iceman made a made a personal threat against gallsman to "humble him" if he ever met him in person.

Syferus then says "I'd say you'd finish him like a woman finishes an embryo with the morning after pill".

A woman doesn't "finish an embryo" with the morning after pill, that's the whole point. Some posters really aren't the sharpest. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that comment.

Most No supporters have very little effort to engage on substantive points here, with some preferring to engage in constant victim playing while dishing out personal abuse themselves.

But apparently it's the No supporters who are being "bullied".

Victim playing on the internet is pretty much always the tool of thse who are losing the argument. It's a classic alt-right technique.

And it's soooo boring.

Classic case of some lads being able to give it but not take it.
If you don't believe Syf was making a deliberately antagonizing post to Iceman in his post then we can leave it there. We won't agree on it. It's his MO in most posts. And your generalisation of the No camp on here is also BS. There's been numerous posts by posters on why they feel they should vote no, and others who have explained that they might vote yes but have issues with some of it. Your attempt to whitewash all No voters as victim playing whinges is disingenuous. Just because you might not agree with their viewpoint doesn't make it it any less of an opinion than your own.
Grammar: the difference between knowing your shit

Milltown Row2

Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 11, 2018, 08:48:00 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 11, 2018, 12:33:49 AM
Am I missing something here?

Iceman made a made a personal threat against gallsman to "humble him" if he ever met him in person.

Syferus then says "I'd say you'd finish him like a woman finishes an embryo with the morning after pill".

A woman doesn't "finish an embryo" with the morning after pill, that's the whole point. Some posters really aren't the sharpest. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that comment.

Most No supporters have very little effort to engage on substantive points here, with some preferring to engage in constant victim playing while dishing out personal abuse themselves.

But apparently it's the No supporters who are being "bullied".

Victim playing on the internet is pretty much always the tool of thse who are losing the argument. It's a classic alt-right technique.

And it's soooo boring.

Classic case of some lads being able to give it but not take it.
If you don't believe Syf was making a deliberately antagonizing post to Iceman in his post then we can leave it there. We won't agree on it. It's his MO in most posts. And your generalisation of the No camp on here is also BS. There's been numerous posts by posters on why they feel they should vote no, and others who have explained that they might vote yes but have issues with some of it. Your attempt to whitewash all No voters as victim playing whinges is disingenuous. Just because you might not agree with their viewpoint doesn't make it it any less of an opinion than your own.

Syf/sid, an Axis or the same person?
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea


Mayo4Sam

Quote from: sid waddell on May 11, 2018, 01:21:37 AM
Quote from: Rufus T Firefly on May 10, 2018, 11:15:33 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 10, 2018, 04:11:15 PM
My offer to humble gallsman is not exclusive to this discussion - it's been an ongoing thing with him.  Most of his responses to me in discussions start with an insult. He doesn't know how to play the ball and I'd be happy to play the man if we ever did cross paths.  It's unfair to push that on anyone who votes no. And to be fair there are a fair few aggressive yes voters on this thread.

It's not hard to debate and discuss like adults. I have to draw a line somewhere and say enough is enough if I am being continually insulted. I wouldn't stand for it in person and I certainly am within my rights to call it out here.

I saw this earlier and I didn't have time to respond in your defence, after others came in.

I can understand your reaction to the personal insults. For someone else then to come in and link your response - on what is clearly a personal issue -  to the wider 'no' vote campaign, is deliberately misleading and provocative.

There are one or two posters here over the years who I have found opinionated, abrupt and abrasive in their debating manner and I have had fall outs as a consequence. However there is a new breed of posters here that have taken those aforementioned 'qualities' to new depths. It doesn't do much for the standard of the debate or the reputation of the forum itself.

The wider "No" campaign have been only too willing to throw insults around and employ gutter tactics.

Have a look at the Twitter feeds of some of the main figures in the No campaign if you don't believe me.

Have a look at what's happening outside hospitals where people are being routinely intimidated by headbangers thrusting giant pictures of dead foetuses in their faces.

There are no "Yes" campaigners going around thrusting pictures of dead women in people's faces.

Have a look at some of the No campaign's propaganda, lies and deliberate attempts to misinform, as well as their dishonest attempts to gather online information about undecided voters in an attempt to microtarget them.

And yes, it is one side which is overwhelmingly to blame for the poisonous atmosphere around the campaign.

Well this is blatantly not true, both sides are equally odious from what I can see and completely unaware that their tactics are almost identical.

If you're voting yes you're a baby murderer, how could you kill a baby that has hands and feet, it'll be abortion on demand next.

If you're voting no then you're killing mothers by not allowing them the right to life in cases of FFA

Both poisonous extremes. Sid you seem to be completely oblivious that you do exactly what you accuse the NO side of. Yer both at it, it would put me off voting altogether

Excuse me for talking while you're trying to interrupt me