It’s weird to see the DUP actually siding with the RCC in response to the vote, it’s like the closing of a loop that started with Pope Alexander VIII backing King Billy.
No where did PTG say that.
Stalin made abortion illegal in the Soviet Union. I just don’t see any common thread between the individualist ideology (in social terms - not economic) that you find on the left today and between the communists responsible for genocide in C20. For the former, individual rights come first, for the latter the good of the state. They’re very different.
Yes, of course they did. Many people throughout their history. My problem is that you mis-read/mis-represented his argument and this confuses the thread even more.
He said (benign institution in comparison to)
In your opinion, the Comparisons is stupid here…
But you see it was a general point of opinion not a scientific proof. (Which it sounds like you are looking for.)
Thinking about it further, Shame was a big deal in this referendum campaign. I had said:
But that’s only half the story. Shaming is alive and well in Ireland, only its changed. And thar change was reflected in the campaign. The Far Left love using shame as a tactic, and it’s beloved by the soft Left too. Coles2 says things like “xyz should hang their head in shame because…” all the time. Shaming is a mostly female tactic and so many of the SJWs are female so it’s a default tactic to them
In the Ireland of the early 80s etc shaming re abortion and pregnancy was about sinning against the community’s values. That the sort of women who got pregnant were fallen women of low morals. Their low morals from the community’s perspective being self centredness, inability to delay gratification and licentiousness and wickedness in killing another life. Feeling shame about such things is now clearly completely gone.
The Shaming used by Yes campaign has transformed into: Ireland as a society should feel ashamed at
- exporting its crises pregnancies (this triggered the fear of being seen as backward compared to other countries which triggers many Irish people)
- killing Savita
- scaring women who buy abortion pills online. Leaving them bleeding and alone
- placing any limits on individual autonomy (triggering relativism, you don’t have the right to tell anyone what they’re doing is wrong)
- ‘Current Year Thinking’ - we should be ashamed this is happening in 2018
Guys, because it is mostly guys.
Can you stop with the fundamentally misunderstanding the Savita case.
It’s not about shame or martyrdom or whatever. I’ve seen it repeatedly across this thread and it highlights a fundamental basic ignorance of what’s going on.
Her story for Irish women is about pure unadulterated personal fear.
It’s not some nebulous abstract thing.
Most women hope to have children.
That inevitably means giving birth.
For Irish women thats going to be in an Irish hospital.
Everyone has heard horror stories from close friends and relatives.
Savita didn’t want an abortion. She wanted a baby. She had a miscarriage and ended up pleading for her life to a patronising asshole of a doctor who’s inaction killed her.
Her experience of being patronized, dismissed and injured by that attitude is something a very high proportion of the Irish female population has experienced when dealing with the maternity services. Most of the time the doctor’s get lucky and nobody dies. In Savita’s case they didn’t.
It’s not shame it’s fear, there but for the grace of God go I.
Pretty much what I’ve been saying all along. But the doctor could have taken action within the existing law without needing abortion on demand. That is the lie of the Yes campaign.
The issue in that case is the difference between could have and would have.
Without the complications of the 8th, medicine becomes easier to practice and is therefore more idiot proof.
Idiot proof? Id look into recent reports on virtually all materity hospitals incl ballinasloe portlaoise etc. There very little evidence to suggest the 8th will improve maternity care. There is plenty of evidence increased resources, better equipment and training will improve outcomes. But hey, look over there.
I’m not making the case for improving medicine by easing regulations, I’m just pointing out that less complicated stuff is easier to get right.
It’s not less complicated if a patient like Savita has to ask for the correct treatment. The only case you seem to be making is that we can employ more idiots as doctors.
Three separate court applications to challenge the result of the referendum lodged:
Ive been offgrid for two weeks more or less so only responding to this nonsense now.
First off, People before Profit/Solidarity/The Socialist Party etc are self proclaimed Trotskyist outfits. This means that they believe Stalin sold out to some degree in promoting Communism within one country. Trotskyist outfits believe themselves to be the true inheritors of Bolshevism and aspire to some sort of pan-global borderless communist utopia. That means they support the usurpation of the State as understood in its current form. Their tactics are generally described as ‘entryist’ which means that they will engage with the democratic process simply with a view to destroying it from the inside out as well as taking part in single issue campaigns with the same intention. This is where Coppinger, Brid Smyth, Paul Murphy etc got their start and built their profiles initially prior to getting elected to the Dail (water charges/Bin Charges etc). Repeal has provided them with a further (national) increase in profile despite many of the mainstream Repealers not really knowing what these people stand for ie the enthusiastic promotion of an ideology which caused the deaths of 100 million peple duing the 20th century. This is fact.
Sinn Fein are a self-described ‘democratic socialist’ party with the emphasis being on socialist. Until recently enough they maintained a private standing army with which they the waged a 30 year war against the Northern and Southern states. Their declared aim is a 32 county socialist Republic. Their leader Ms McDOnald assumed the role of de facto leader of the Repeal movement on a number of national TV and radio debates during the course of the campaign when Varadkar and Harris were in hiding. A significant percentage of Sinn Fein’s membership have engaged in or been convicted of crimes such as kidnapping, extrotion, murder etc. One of their current TDs has been convicted of gun running. These again, are facts.
Together, both of the above cohorts constituted a significant sub section of the Repeal movement. Again, this is fact.
Now, please note, the next part is opinion. You’ll note that opinion differs from fact.
A minority of members of the Irish Catholic Church are guilty of having committed historical crimes against some of the weakest members of irish society. Its hierarchy were also guilty of seeking to cover them up. For this (IMO) it has rightly lost any moral authority it once had. Howeever, in my opinion its crimes pale in comparison to those of the chosen ideology of the far left referred to above. Likewise, while I appreciate that desperate times often call for desperate measures (and Im not a pacifist), many of the acts carried out by Sinn Feins military wing again, are of a far more serious sort than those of the above mentioned members of the Irish Catholic Church. In my opinion this removes any moral authority statements by the likes of Coppinger, Smyth, McDonald and the rest have made vis a vis the Irish Catholic Church. People in glasshouses etc.
And for you to argue otherwise, you would need to construct a case for Industrial SChools or Magdalene Laundries having been on a par or worse than Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipleago or Mao’s cultural revolution… or for the crimes of the Irish catholic Church to somehow have been on a par with kidnapping, torture, murder, placement of bombs in shopping centres and on occasion, sectarian killings etc etc. I dont believe that youre capable of making such a case…but youre obviously free to attempt to do so.
Furthermore, in terms of why all this deveoped, you’ll note that the OP on the other thread stated the following…
Later in the thread I stated the following
Youll note that the response to this (to include your own) was hysterical and a suggestion was made that it was indicative of the existence of a racialised/racist Alt-Right conspiracy theory and calls to shut the thread down ensued.
This seems pretty incredible to me and would appear to fly in the face of every aspect of what has passed for what I understand to be the norms that govern western civilisational discourse ie when you posit a theory or hypothesis you are expected to be capable of defending it. By way of example, within academia there exists the system of peer review whereby robust criticism and defence of positions or papers are expected. Likewise, our legal system is adversarial in nature whereby even somebody caught red handed with a murder weapon is afforded a defence appointed by the State, if the accused cannot afford one of his own. The current trend towards shutting down debate or opinion that makes someone uncomfortable ie non-politically correct or non-deferential to the constructed narrative of the day, is not just silly, its actually dangerous in its application. To apply such an outlook to either the educational or legal systems referred to above would be to effectively render themn obsolete. Perhaps this is the intention? Indeed, to seek to disallow discussion on a supposedly collectivist discussion forum is just bizarre.
Of course, many might say that such an approach simply seeks to encourage good outcomes ie those that tally with the narrative of the day. And what could be wrong with that? Well, history teaches us where the creation of such a narrative, if superficial, actually leads. The greatest example of same may very well have been the British Empire at its height which claimed itself to have been engaged in a ‘civilising’ project of subjects, all equal under the British sovereign. To this end, using India as an example, the outward appearence of the trappings of liberal democracy were created by the British in India in the form of democracy, the parliamentary system, freedom of press, freedom of speech etc etc. All these were instituted by the British not to (as they themselves suggested) civilise the ‘natives’ or afford them the benefits of said liberal values, but rather to legitimise their own (British) rule…while they of course continued to loot the place over a period of 400 years. I cant help but be struck by the similarities with what passes for the current establishment’s outward presentation of a superficial tolerance and diversity that in fact accepts zero diversity of thought, opinion or expression that do not sit neatly within the boundaries of its own chosen narrative.
Cue the hysterical misrepresentation…
You exhibit one dimensional, reds-under-the-bed, thinking. Take a deep breath before replying.
More misrepresentation Im afraid.
I have stated that Repeal contained within its ranks a significant cohort of hard left leaning ideologues. Ive outlined my case for same above. Ive also stated that (IMO) the majority of Repeal supporters do not share such politics and in many instances are probably unaware of same.
Ive further outlined why this may have been the case in the context of the employment of ‘entryism’ as a political tactic.
This is really basic stuff.
Plus I note you’ve ignored the rest.
Feel free to deconstruct any of it if you so wish.
No it isn’t, it’s batshit paranoid lunacy. I’m not even sure what broad point you’re trying to make. There was/is support for repeal across the political spectrum, and yet you choose to focus on the left because you hate them and what they stand for.
This isn’t a thread about SF/PbP politics, it’s a(nother) thread about the repeal of the 8th amendment.
Maybe you should start a new thread/blog about the communists coming to take our stuff/repress our masculinity/flood us with immigrants/murder hundreds of millions of people or whatever the hell it is that’s bothering you.
Look. If you go back and read you’ll see that the initial comment was made in the context of a reply to PS300016 (or whatever the number is) about why it would be better from a conservative/traditionalist/Non-left leaning perspective to get hardline religious people off the political stage. The reasoning was that their presence allows others avoid having to debate actual issues by focussing on historical crimes…despite in my view said crimes being (in the greater scheme of things) of a less serious nature than those committed by some of those throwing around the accusations. It really was that simple.
Its not an attempt to absolve anyone and neither has it anything to with perceived Reds under the Bed scaremongering which Id suggest may be projection on the part of some others around here who seem to be well into conspiracy theories.
Well thank you for that. As Ive statde from the outset all Ive sdone is simply point out the political backgrounds of a sub-section of Repeal. Theres nothing false or misleading in anything Ive suggested. And Ive never suggested that this applies to the entire Repeal movement. Im pretty sure Ive stated as much previously.
And finally I find the calls for shutting down threads and seeking to limit what people say to be really poor form. Surely on a discussion forum if you (not you personally) have an issue with what someone else said, (and providing it adheres to the ‘play the ball not the man’ policy), then the proper action is to respond and seek to advance your own position? Otherwise we migt as well give up and go home TBH.
No need there are a couple of threads in the Piston that’ll cover that off, one of them has Calais in the title the other Scandanavia.
In the case of Irish voters, the Irish Far Left, Trotskyites and the Catholic Church there is a bit of the Father Dougall going on - ‘those bishop autocrats were near, those other autocrats were far away’. People are prepared to share a platform with Monsters in Waiting who would be opening reeducation camps within a year of getting control
Someone on another thread said that Repeal was about the rights of the individual and personal autonomy which therefore made no sense to ascribe the movement as being part of Trotskyite world view. But that is to misunderstand the Far Left in Ireland in 2018 who latched on to this cause and packaged it as cultural Marxism as part of a struggle against oppression, a dominance hierarchy, the poorest not being able to travel etc.
The reason the Far Left support individual rights like transgenderism (which I’m sure gets short shrift in Trotskyite states) is part of a wider strategy to destabilise traditional roles and deconstruct society.
Also remember one of the central drives of the Far Left is to oppose religion and religious influence. Which is a competitor to their quasi religious beliefs. Getting a victory over Religion - with its bedrock on the soul and the transcendent and that the foetus is part of that story - is one up for them.
But let’s make no bones about it, the Catholic Bishop were exerting excessive control over Irish civil society. And they were quite happy to control the day to day lives of non Catholics as a by-product.
Now you get jumbled
I’m capable of making that case. You are switching into Enda Kenny mode, who attempted to silence Sinn Fein on pretty much any issue by repeating Bridget McConville over and over when pushed.
Sinn Fein have a broad mandate North and South. They will have to defend their abortion stance to their voters. They are not in a glasshouse when it comes to political violence stopping them from opposing Catholic Church interference in the State. They are in a strongly built fortress. British rule in Ireland was entirely the product of conquest and therefore devoid of any moral authority whatsoever. The only moral choice when faced with all that was going on, (and all that was strongly suspected of going on e.g. the British State’s dirty war) was to oppose it FULLY and without apology. Those that didn’t oppose it fully should feel ashamed of themselves. The only clean surgical wars are in US press briefings.
If you want to put IRA violence in an analogy about the abortion debate it was like abortion in the case of rape. Ruthless and tragic at the same time , particularly if you’re on the receiving end, but entirely justified and right.