'GAA Athletes for a No Vote'

[The Iceman]

One of the most vexing things for me re Mickey Harte's group is that they obviously put a lot of thought into how they could maximise the perception that this was a 'GAA' group, without actually being in technical breach of any rules (that I can see at least).
The name, the location for the launch, the deliberate blurring of the lines between their position and the strategic vision of the association etc.
It's incredibly cynical stuff.

I think you have to try and put yourself in Mickey Harte's shoes here to try and understand his thought processes. My sense would be that Mickey, as a devout Catholic, will regard the legalization of abortion as tantamount to allowing the murder of the innocents. In such circumstances, he will use whatever influence he has to try and affect that decision. In that context, his concern for the issue around the blurring of the lines regarding the use of the GAA's name will carry zero weight.

By the way, I wonder will those 'Gaels' on here, who decry Mickey's intervention, on the basis of him coming from a different jurisdiction, consider their membership of the GAA on the basis that it has as its basic aim "the strengthening of the National Identity in a 32 County Ireland through the preservation and promotion of Gaelic Games and pastimes"?

Their position flies in the face of the spirit of that aim.

Harte coming from outside the 26 counties has nothing to do with anything, so let's put that one to bed. We've had a president from Belfast, and Martin McGuinness and Dana ran last time.

There's a glaring inconsistency that the No side never answer. If they believe that abortion truly does constitute "murder", why can't any of them answer whether they think women who have abortions are committing murder, and should be locked up in prison for such?

Presuming the No campaigners think all murders should be punishable by imprisonment, like.

Between 1980 and 2016, 170,000 Irish women travelled abroad to have abortions.

Are these 170,000 women therefore "murderers"?

the doctor or nurse who performs it is a murderer. The woman in many cases doesn't think it's a baby. Or does but is being coerced into terminating it. But a child loses its life. I don't think all the blame falls on the woman. There's a man involved in this whole equation too. We're all to blame on some level because we let it happen. But the act of murder in my eyes is solely on the abortionist.
Your line of argument doesn't take anything away from what is happening - you're focusing on the aftermath, we're focusing on the act and preventing it. We're not calling for these women to be locked up

[haranguerer]

How to stump a save the 8ther - Hypothetical Question


If you could choose only one, would you save 1,000 viable human embryos or one child in a burning building?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

I've seen that smugly posted before - the fact is these sorts of issues have been stumping everyone forever. It does raise interesting points, no doubt, but there are similar questions repealers may find it similarly stumping to answer, like, when does life start, or why they bother to congratulate someone who announces a pregnancy, or indeed commiserate with someone who has a miscarriage?

It seems to me the difference in whether it is a life or not comes down largely to whether it is wanted or not, and that to me seems a very inconsistent position indeed.

[Tubberman]

One of the most vexing things for me re Mickey Harte's group is that they obviously put a lot of thought into how they could maximise the perception that this was a 'GAA' group, without actually being in technical breach of any rules (that I can see at least).
The name, the location for the launch, the deliberate blurring of the lines between their position and the strategic vision of the association etc.
It's incredibly cynical stuff.

I think you have to try and put yourself in Mickey Harte's shoes here to try and understand his thought processes. My sense would be that Mickey, as a devout Catholic, will regard the legalization of abortion as tantamount to allowing the murder of the innocents. In such circumstances, he will use whatever influence he has to try and affect that decision. In that context, his concern for the issue around the blurring of the lines regarding the use of the GAA's name will carry zero weight.

By the way, I wonder will those 'Gaels' on here, who decry Mickey's intervention, on the basis of him coming from a different jurisdiction, consider their membership of the GAA on the basis that it has as its basic aim "the strengthening of the National Identity in a 32 County Ireland through the preservation and promotion of Gaelic Games and pastimes"?

Their position flies in the face of the spirit of that aim.

Harte coming from outside the 26 counties has nothing to do with anything, so let's put that one to bed. We've had a president from Belfast, and Martin McGuinness and Dana ran last time.

There's a glaring inconsistency that the No side never answer. If they believe that abortion truly does constitute "murder", why can't any of them answer whether they think women who have abortions are committing murder, and should be locked up in prison for such?

Presuming the No campaigners think all murders should be punishable by imprisonment, like.

Between 1980 and 2016, 170,000 Irish women travelled abroad to have abortions.

Are these 170,000 women therefore "murderers"?

I think that's an assumption on your behalf.

[Jinxy]

How to stump a save the 8ther - Hypothetical Question


If you could choose only one, would you save 1,000 viable human embryos or one child in a burning building?

If you could choose only one, would you save 1,000 strangers or your own child in a burning building?

[Mourne Red]

How to stump a save the 8ther - Hypothetical Question


If you could choose only one, would you save 1,000 viable human embryos or one child in a burning building?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

I've seen that smugly posted before - the fact is these sorts of issues have been stumping everyone forever. It does raise interesting points, no doubt, but there are similar questions repealers may find it similarly stumping to answer, like, when does life start, or why they bother to congratulate someone who announces a pregnancy, or indeed commiserate with someone who has a miscarriage?

It seems to me the difference in whether it is a life or not comes down largely to whether it is wanted or not, and that to me seems a very inconsistent position indeed.

What makes us human is our ability to feel pain, and that starts at the 12-14 week milestone in pregnancy from what I have read.. I think before 12 weeks as the Irish government have set out is A reasonable cut off point as compared to the U.K. were t is 24 weeks Babies have been born premature and lived from that length of pregnancy

[sid waddell]

One of the most vexing things for me re Mickey Harte's group is that they obviously put a lot of thought into how they could maximise the perception that this was a 'GAA' group, without actually being in technical breach of any rules (that I can see at least).
The name, the location for the launch, the deliberate blurring of the lines between their position and the strategic vision of the association etc.
It's incredibly cynical stuff.

I think you have to try and put yourself in Mickey Harte's shoes here to try and understand his thought processes. My sense would be that Mickey, as a devout Catholic, will regard the legalization of abortion as tantamount to allowing the murder of the innocents. In such circumstances, he will use whatever influence he has to try and affect that decision. In that context, his concern for the issue around the blurring of the lines regarding the use of the GAA's name will carry zero weight.

By the way, I wonder will those 'Gaels' on here, who decry Mickey's intervention, on the basis of him coming from a different jurisdiction, consider their membership of the GAA on the basis that it has as its basic aim "the strengthening of the National Identity in a 32 County Ireland through the preservation and promotion of Gaelic Games and pastimes"?

Their position flies in the face of the spirit of that aim.

Harte coming from outside the 26 counties has nothing to do with anything, so let's put that one to bed. We've had a president from Belfast, and Martin McGuinness and Dana ran last time.

There's a glaring inconsistency that the No side never answer. If they believe that abortion truly does constitute "murder", why can't any of them answer whether they think women who have abortions are committing murder, and should be locked up in prison for such?

Presuming the No campaigners think all murders should be punishable by imprisonment, like.

Between 1980 and 2016, 170,000 Irish women travelled abroad to have abortions.

Are these 170,000 women therefore "murderers"?

the doctor or nurse who performs it is a murderer. The woman in many cases doesn't think it's a baby. Or does but is being coerced into terminating it. But a child loses its life. I don't think all the blame falls on the woman. There's a man involved in this whole equation too. We're all to blame on some level because we let it happen. But the act of murder in my eyes is solely on the abortionist.
Your line of argument doesn't take anything away from what is happening - you're focusing on the aftermath, we're focusing on the act and preventing it. We're not calling for these women to be locked up

Ordering a murder is equivalent to murder. If there was any consistency in your position and the position of "No" campaigners, you'd be calling for both the doctor and the woman to be locked up.

If you and "No" campaigners believe abortion really is murder, then it follows automatically that you would want to see those responsible abortions be imprisoned.

But you know this would play very badly with public opinion, so you carry on without addressing the contradiction.

[The Iceman]

One of the most vexing things for me re Mickey Harte's group is that they obviously put a lot of thought into how they could maximise the perception that this was a 'GAA' group, without actually being in technical breach of any rules (that I can see at least).
The name, the location for the launch, the deliberate blurring of the lines between their position and the strategic vision of the association etc.
It's incredibly cynical stuff.

I think you have to try and put yourself in Mickey Harte's shoes here to try and understand his thought processes. My sense would be that Mickey, as a devout Catholic, will regard the legalization of abortion as tantamount to allowing the murder of the innocents. In such circumstances, he will use whatever influence he has to try and affect that decision. In that context, his concern for the issue around the blurring of the lines regarding the use of the GAA's name will carry zero weight.

By the way, I wonder will those 'Gaels' on here, who decry Mickey's intervention, on the basis of him coming from a different jurisdiction, consider their membership of the GAA on the basis that it has as its basic aim "the strengthening of the National Identity in a 32 County Ireland through the preservation and promotion of Gaelic Games and pastimes"?

Their position flies in the face of the spirit of that aim.

Harte coming from outside the 26 counties has nothing to do with anything, so let's put that one to bed. We've had a president from Belfast, and Martin McGuinness and Dana ran last time.

There's a glaring inconsistency that the No side never answer. If they believe that abortion truly does constitute "murder", why can't any of them answer whether they think women who have abortions are committing murder, and should be locked up in prison for such?

Presuming the No campaigners think all murders should be punishable by imprisonment, like.

Between 1980 and 2016, 170,000 Irish women travelled abroad to have abortions.

Are these 170,000 women therefore "murderers"?

the doctor or nurse who performs it is a murderer. The woman in many cases doesn't think it's a baby. Or does but is being coerced into terminating it. But a child loses its life. I don't think all the blame falls on the woman. There's a man involved in this whole equation too. We're all to blame on some level because we let it happen. But the act of murder in my eyes is solely on the abortionist.
Your line of argument doesn't take anything away from what is happening - you're focusing on the aftermath, we're focusing on the act and preventing it. We're not calling for these women to be locked up

Ordering a murder is equivalent to murder. If there was any consistency in your position and the position of "No" campaigners, you'd be calling for both the doctor and the woman to be locked up.

If you and "No" campaigners believe abortion really is murder, then it follows automatically that you would want to see those responsible abortions be imprisoned.

But you know this would play very badly with public opinion, so you carry on without addressing the contradiction.

and that means we should go ahead and let abortions happen how?
public opinion isn't a requirement for laws. Internet theft and illegal downloading of content is still theft but public opinion on it wouldn't agree... I don't see what your point is. "A ha I've got you pro lifers in a contradiction therefore all your thinking is wrong I win....."

[sid waddell]

One of the most vexing things for me re Mickey Harte's group is that they obviously put a lot of thought into how they could maximise the perception that this was a 'GAA' group, without actually being in technical breach of any rules (that I can see at least).
The name, the location for the launch, the deliberate blurring of the lines between their position and the strategic vision of the association etc.
It's incredibly cynical stuff.

I think you have to try and put yourself in Mickey Harte's shoes here to try and understand his thought processes. My sense would be that Mickey, as a devout Catholic, will regard the legalization of abortion as tantamount to allowing the murder of the innocents. In such circumstances, he will use whatever influence he has to try and affect that decision. In that context, his concern for the issue around the blurring of the lines regarding the use of the GAA's name will carry zero weight.

By the way, I wonder will those 'Gaels' on here, who decry Mickey's intervention, on the basis of him coming from a different jurisdiction, consider their membership of the GAA on the basis that it has as its basic aim "the strengthening of the National Identity in a 32 County Ireland through the preservation and promotion of Gaelic Games and pastimes"?

Their position flies in the face of the spirit of that aim.

Harte coming from outside the 26 counties has nothing to do with anything, so let's put that one to bed. We've had a president from Belfast, and Martin McGuinness and Dana ran last time.

There's a glaring inconsistency that the No side never answer. If they believe that abortion truly does constitute "murder", why can't any of them answer whether they think women who have abortions are committing murder, and should be locked up in prison for such?

Presuming the No campaigners think all murders should be punishable by imprisonment, like.

Between 1980 and 2016, 170,000 Irish women travelled abroad to have abortions.

Are these 170,000 women therefore "murderers"?

the doctor or nurse who performs it is a murderer. The woman in many cases doesn't think it's a baby. Or does but is being coerced into terminating it. But a child loses its life. I don't think all the blame falls on the woman. There's a man involved in this whole equation too. We're all to blame on some level because we let it happen. But the act of murder in my eyes is solely on the abortionist.
Your line of argument doesn't take anything away from what is happening - you're focusing on the aftermath, we're focusing on the act and preventing it. We're not calling for these women to be locked up

Ordering a murder is equivalent to murder. If there was any consistency in your position and the position of "No" campaigners, you'd be calling for both the doctor and the woman to be locked up.

If you and "No" campaigners believe abortion really is murder, then it follows automatically that you would want to see those responsible abortions be imprisoned.

But you know this would play very badly with public opinion, so you carry on without addressing the contradiction.

and that means we should go ahead and let abortions happen how?
public opinion isn't a requirement for laws. Internet theft and illegal downloading of content is still theft but public opinion on it wouldn't agree... I don't see what your point is. "A ha I've got you pro lifers in a contradiction therefore all your thinking is wrong I win....."

The point is that the No campaign refuses to address a glaring and massive contradiction in its reasoning and rhetoric.

If they can't do that, nothing they say deserves to be taken seriously.

[Lar Naparka]

One of the most vexing things for me re Mickey Harte's group is that they obviously put a lot of thought into how they could maximise the perception that this was a 'GAA' group, without actually being in technical breach of any rules (that I can see at least).
The name, the location for the launch, the deliberate blurring of the lines between their position and the strategic vision of the association etc.
It's incredibly cynical stuff.

I think you have to try and put yourself in Mickey Harte's shoes here to try and understand his thought processes. My sense would be that Mickey, as a devout Catholic, will regard the legalization of abortion as tantamount to allowing the murder of the innocents. In such circumstances, he will use whatever influence he has to try and affect that decision. In that context, his concern for the issue around the blurring of the lines regarding the use of the GAA's name will carry zero weight.

By the way, I wonder will those 'Gaels' on here, who decry Mickey's intervention, on the basis of him coming from a different jurisdiction, consider their membership of the GAA on the basis that it has as its basic aim "the strengthening of the National Identity in a 32 County Ireland through the preservation and promotion of Gaelic Games and pastimes"?

Their position flies in the face of the spirit of that aim.

Harte coming from outside the 26 counties has nothing to do with anything, so let's put that one to bed. We've had a president from Belfast, and Martin McGuinness and Dana ran last time.

There's a glaring inconsistency that the No side never answer. If they believe that abortion truly does constitute "murder", why can't any of them answer whether they think women who have abortions are committing murder, and should be locked up in prison for such?

Presuming the No campaigners think all murders should be punishable by imprisonment, like.

Between 1980 and 2016, 170,000 Irish women travelled abroad to have abortions.

Are these 170,000 women therefore "murderers"?

the doctor or nurse who performs it is a murderer. The woman in many cases doesn't think it's a baby. Or does but is being coerced into terminating it. But a child loses its life. I don't think all the blame falls on the woman. There's a man involved in this whole equation too. We're all to blame on some level because we let it happen. But the act of murder in my eyes is solely on the abortionist.
Your line of argument doesn't take anything away from what is happening - you're focusing on the aftermath, we're focusing on the act and preventing it. We're not calling for these women to be locked up

Ordering a murder is equivalent to murder. If there was any consistency in your position and the position of "No" campaigners, you'd be calling for both the doctor and the woman to be locked up.

If you and "No" campaigners believe abortion really is murder, then it follows automatically that you would want to see those responsible abortions be imprisoned.

But you know this would play very badly with public opinion, so you carry on without addressing the contradiction.

Been trying to make that point, sort of earlier in this thread and I'm afraid nobody got my point, except Syferus and he got it it arseways.
I'm not saying abortion is right or wrong, merely that women in the republic who wish to have a pregnancy terminated can do so with relatively little bother. Nothing short of armed guards at every airport and ferryport along with hefty sentencing for all concerned will prevent that.
That ain't going to happen and, as well as that, any individual has the right to travel abroad without having to state their reasons for doing so.
If the Yes vote carries the day and abortion on demand is allowed by law, I can't see having much of an impact on society for many years to come.Women will, in many cases, prefer to travel outside of their locality to have pregnancies terminated rather than being the subject of ridicule or worse at home.
They will continue to use discretion and travel abroad, at least until public attitudes change and that won't happen overnight.
Here, I'm not stating my personal views only. I have spoken to any women of various ages and none of those I spoke to seems too fussed by the results of the referendum.

[grounded]

How to stump a save the 8ther - Hypothetical Question


If you could choose only one, would you save 1,000 viable human embryos or one child in a burning building?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

I've seen that smugly posted before - the fact is these sorts of issues have been stumping everyone forever. It does raise interesting points, no doubt, but there are similar questions repealers may find it similarly stumping to answer, like, when does life start, or why they bother to congratulate someone who announces a pregnancy, or indeed commiserate with someone who has a miscarriage?

It seems to me the difference in whether it is a life or not comes down largely to whether it is wanted or not, and that to me seems a very inconsistent position indeed.

What makes us human is our ability to feel pain, and that starts at the 12-14 week milestone in pregnancy from what I have read......

The theories about what 'makes us human' have been postulated on for thousands of years. You've just picked out one characteristic among many for your argument.

[Jinxy]

Lads, I'm not sure if this is the right place to discuss the actual referendum itself.

[Tubberman]

One of the most vexing things for me re Mickey Harte's group is that they obviously put a lot of thought into how they could maximise the perception that this was a 'GAA' group, without actually being in technical breach of any rules (that I can see at least).
The name, the location for the launch, the deliberate blurring of the lines between their position and the strategic vision of the association etc.
It's incredibly cynical stuff.

I think you have to try and put yourself in Mickey Harte's shoes here to try and understand his thought processes. My sense would be that Mickey, as a devout Catholic, will regard the legalization of abortion as tantamount to allowing the murder of the innocents. In such circumstances, he will use whatever influence he has to try and affect that decision. In that context, his concern for the issue around the blurring of the lines regarding the use of the GAA's name will carry zero weight.

By the way, I wonder will those 'Gaels' on here, who decry Mickey's intervention, on the basis of him coming from a different jurisdiction, consider their membership of the GAA on the basis that it has as its basic aim "the strengthening of the National Identity in a 32 County Ireland through the preservation and promotion of Gaelic Games and pastimes"?

Their position flies in the face of the spirit of that aim.

Harte coming from outside the 26 counties has nothing to do with anything, so let's put that one to bed. We've had a president from Belfast, and Martin McGuinness and Dana ran last time.

There's a glaring inconsistency that the No side never answer. If they believe that abortion truly does constitute "murder", why can't any of them answer whether they think women who have abortions are committing murder, and should be locked up in prison for such?

Presuming the No campaigners think all murders should be punishable by imprisonment, like.

Between 1980 and 2016, 170,000 Irish women travelled abroad to have abortions.

Are these 170,000 women therefore "murderers"?

the doctor or nurse who performs it is a murderer. The woman in many cases doesn't think it's a baby. Or does but is being coerced into terminating it. But a child loses its life. I don't think all the blame falls on the woman. There's a man involved in this whole equation too. We're all to blame on some level because we let it happen. But the act of murder in my eyes is solely on the abortionist.
Your line of argument doesn't take anything away from what is happening - you're focusing on the aftermath, we're focusing on the act and preventing it. We're not calling for these women to be locked up

Ordering a murder is equivalent to murder. If there was any consistency in your position and the position of "No" campaigners, you'd be calling for both the doctor and the woman to be locked up.

If you and "No" campaigners believe abortion really is murder, then it follows automatically that you would want to see those responsible abortions be imprisoned.

But you know this would play very badly with public opinion, so you carry on without addressing the contradiction.

and that means we should go ahead and let abortions happen how?
public opinion isn't a requirement for laws. Internet theft and illegal downloading of content is still theft but public opinion on it wouldn't agree... I don't see what your point is. "A ha I've got you pro lifers in a contradiction therefore all your thinking is wrong I win....."

The point is that the No campaign refuses to address a glaring and massive contradiction in its reasoning and rhetoric.

If they can't do that, nothing they say deserves to be taken seriously.

That's ridiculously simplistic.
You believe there's a contradiction in what you believe all who intend to vote No believe and so you believe nothing they believe deserves to be listened to?
Hang on, maybe it's no so simple after all....

[sid waddell]

How to stump a save the 8ther - Hypothetical Question


If you could choose only one, would you save 1,000 viable human embryos or one child in a burning building?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

I've seen that smugly posted before - the fact is these sorts of issues have been stumping everyone forever. It does raise interesting points, no doubt, but there are similar questions repealers may find it similarly stumping to answer, like, when does life start, or why they bother to congratulate someone who announces a pregnancy, or indeed commiserate with someone who has a miscarriage?

It seems to me the difference in whether it is a life or not comes down largely to whether it is wanted or not, and that to me seems a very inconsistent position indeed.

What makes us human is our ability to feel pain, and that starts at the 12-14 week milestone in pregnancy from what I have read.. I think before 12 weeks as the Irish government have set out is A reasonable cut off point as compared to the U.K. were t is 24 weeks Babies have been born premature and lived from that length of pregnancy

It's much later than 12-14 weeks. Into the 20s anyway.

[sid waddell]

One of the most vexing things for me re Mickey Harte's group is that they obviously put a lot of thought into how they could maximise the perception that this was a 'GAA' group, without actually being in technical breach of any rules (that I can see at least).
The name, the location for the launch, the deliberate blurring of the lines between their position and the strategic vision of the association etc.
It's incredibly cynical stuff.

I think you have to try and put yourself in Mickey Harte's shoes here to try and understand his thought processes. My sense would be that Mickey, as a devout Catholic, will regard the legalization of abortion as tantamount to allowing the murder of the innocents. In such circumstances, he will use whatever influence he has to try and affect that decision. In that context, his concern for the issue around the blurring of the lines regarding the use of the GAA's name will carry zero weight.

By the way, I wonder will those 'Gaels' on here, who decry Mickey's intervention, on the basis of him coming from a different jurisdiction, consider their membership of the GAA on the basis that it has as its basic aim "the strengthening of the National Identity in a 32 County Ireland through the preservation and promotion of Gaelic Games and pastimes"?

Their position flies in the face of the spirit of that aim.

Harte coming from outside the 26 counties has nothing to do with anything, so let's put that one to bed. We've had a president from Belfast, and Martin McGuinness and Dana ran last time.

There's a glaring inconsistency that the No side never answer. If they believe that abortion truly does constitute "murder", why can't any of them answer whether they think women who have abortions are committing murder, and should be locked up in prison for such?

Presuming the No campaigners think all murders should be punishable by imprisonment, like.

Between 1980 and 2016, 170,000 Irish women travelled abroad to have abortions.

Are these 170,000 women therefore "murderers"?

the doctor or nurse who performs it is a murderer. The woman in many cases doesn't think it's a baby. Or does but is being coerced into terminating it. But a child loses its life. I don't think all the blame falls on the woman. There's a man involved in this whole equation too. We're all to blame on some level because we let it happen. But the act of murder in my eyes is solely on the abortionist.
Your line of argument doesn't take anything away from what is happening - you're focusing on the aftermath, we're focusing on the act and preventing it. We're not calling for these women to be locked up

Ordering a murder is equivalent to murder. If there was any consistency in your position and the position of "No" campaigners, you'd be calling for both the doctor and the woman to be locked up.

If you and "No" campaigners believe abortion really is murder, then it follows automatically that you would want to see those responsible abortions be imprisoned.

But you know this would play very badly with public opinion, so you carry on without addressing the contradiction.

and that means we should go ahead and let abortions happen how?
public opinion isn't a requirement for laws. Internet theft and illegal downloading of content is still theft but public opinion on it wouldn't agree... I don't see what your point is. "A ha I've got you pro lifers in a contradiction therefore all your thinking is wrong I win....."

The point is that the No campaign refuses to address a glaring and massive contradiction in its reasoning and rhetoric.

If they can't do that, nothing they say deserves to be taken seriously.

That's ridiculously simplistic.
You believe there's a contradiction in what you believe all who intend to vote No believe and so you believe nothing they believe deserves to be listened to?
Hang on, maybe it's no so simple after all....

The massive contradictions at the heart of the No campaign are what is simplistic.

As long as they continue to ignore those contradictions, why should anything they say be taken seriously by reasonable people?

Especially given that their campaign amounts to little more than a shameless tissue of lies.

If you believe abortion is murder, you should at least admit you believe that mothers who have abortions and the doctors who carry them out are murderers.

If you believe abortion is murder, that means you also believe the morning after pill and any abortion pill is murder.

If you believe that the 8th Amendment should be retained, you should be up front about your belief that rape victims shuld be forced to carry a pregnanacy to term.

We have got no acknowledgement, never mind answers, from any prominent people in the No campaign as regards any of these contradictions.

There is no honesty from the No side here.

I'm no Fine Gael supporter, but this is a genuine attempt from a Government to address a serious and very difficult issue in a reasonable, grown up manner.

There is no desire to do so from the other side.

[Syferus]

One of the most vexing things for me re Mickey Harte's group is that they obviously put a lot of thought into how they could maximise the perception that this was a 'GAA' group, without actually being in technical breach of any rules (that I can see at least).
The name, the location for the launch, the deliberate blurring of the lines between their position and the strategic vision of the association etc.
It's incredibly cynical stuff.

I think you have to try and put yourself in Mickey Harte's shoes here to try and understand his thought processes. My sense would be that Mickey, as a devout Catholic, will regard the legalization of abortion as tantamount to allowing the murder of the innocents. In such circumstances, he will use whatever influence he has to try and affect that decision. In that context, his concern for the issue around the blurring of the lines regarding the use of the GAA's name will carry zero weight.

By the way, I wonder will those 'Gaels' on here, who decry Mickey's intervention, on the basis of him coming from a different jurisdiction, consider their membership of the GAA on the basis that it has as its basic aim "the strengthening of the National Identity in a 32 County Ireland through the preservation and promotion of Gaelic Games and pastimes"?

Their position flies in the face of the spirit of that aim.

Harte coming from outside the 26 counties has nothing to do with anything, so let's put that one to bed. We've had a president from Belfast, and Martin McGuinness and Dana ran last time.

There's a glaring inconsistency that the No side never answer. If they believe that abortion truly does constitute "murder", why can't any of them answer whether they think women who have abortions are committing murder, and should be locked up in prison for such?

Presuming the No campaigners think all murders should be punishable by imprisonment, like.

Between 1980 and 2016, 170,000 Irish women travelled abroad to have abortions.

Are these 170,000 women therefore "murderers"?

I think that's an assumption on your behalf.

It's a talking point regularly used by the No side Tubberman. Whether they've spent enough time thinking about what it means and taken the idea to its logical conclusion is another matter.