Eighth Amendment poll

[whitey]

im in favor of a Yes vote, but dont have a vote.

If the comments on here are anything to go by, the bullying and mocking of the No supporters could very well result in a large hidden No vote, and another surprise like Brexit and Trump.

I think the Yes camp should be nervous by anything less than a 15 % lead in the polls

[Syferus]

im in favor of a Yes vote, but dont have a vote.

If the comments on here are anything to go by, the bullying and mocking of the No supporters could very well result in a large hidden No vote, and another surprise like Brexit and Trump.

I think the Yes camp should be nervous by anything less than a 15 % lead in the polls

..you are told about No campaigners heckling a maternity ward and you talk about bullying by Yes voters. Christ.

[whitey]

im in favor of a Yes vote, but dont have a vote.

If the comments on here are anything to go by, the bullying and mocking of the No supporters could very well result in a large hidden No vote, and another surprise like Brexit and Trump.

I think the Yes camp should be nervous by anything less than a 15 % lead in the polls

..you are told about No campaigners heckling a maternity ward and you talk about bullying by Yes voters. Christ.

That's not what I'm referring to but believe what ever you want

(Out of curiosity, what exactly were they doing outside the maternity ward?  Who were they "heckling"? Expectant mothers? Were they holding those offensive signs? )

[macdanger2]

While we're speaking about things being disingenuous - the "1 in 5" posters by the no campaign are an absolute disgrace. Statistically/factually incorrect and using the comparison of Britain which has vastly more liberal abortion laws that what is proposed for here if there's a yes vote. We have a referendum commission - surely they should have powers to prevent outright lies being peddled. There may be examples on the Yes side but I've not seen them (and I'm biased of course).

When I saw the posters, I assumed that that was bull also so I looked it up and as far as I could see, it's correct. In the last 50 years, there's been ~35m kids born in the UK (according to what looked like the UK CSO website) and 8.7m abortions (according to wiki) so it seems to be legit. I didn't interrogate those figures to any great extent so open to correction on those however

[sid waddell]

While we're speaking about things being disingenuous - the "1 in 5" posters by the no campaign are an absolute disgrace. Statistically/factually incorrect and using the comparison of Britain which has vastly more liberal abortion laws that what is proposed for here if there's a yes vote. We have a referendum commission - surely they should have powers to prevent outright lies being peddled. There may be examples on the Yes side but I've not seen them (and I'm biased of course).

When I saw the posters, I assumed that that was bull also so I looked it up and as far as I could see, it's correct. In the last 50 years, there's been ~35m kids born in the UK (according to what looked like the UK CSO website) and 8.7m abortions (according to wiki) so it seems to be legit. I didn't interrogate those figures to any great extent so open to correction on those however

The statistic is inaccurate because it leaves out the 1 in 6 pregnancies which end in a miscarriage.

But here's the thing - the rate of abortion in the UK is irrelevant - in every single case, it is, thankfully, the woman's right to choose whether to continue with a pregnancy or not.

In every single case, the woman has the right to choose the correct decision for her. That's as it should be, and as it should be in Ireland too.

[macdanger2]

While we're speaking about things being disingenuous - the "1 in 5" posters by the no campaign are an absolute disgrace. Statistically/factually incorrect and using the comparison of Britain which has vastly more liberal abortion laws that what is proposed for here if there's a yes vote. We have a referendum commission - surely they should have powers to prevent outright lies being peddled. There may be examples on the Yes side but I've not seen them (and I'm biased of course).

When I saw the posters, I assumed that that was bull also so I looked it up and as far as I could see, it's correct. In the last 50 years, there's been ~35m kids born in the UK (according to what looked like the UK CSO website) and 8.7m abortions (according to wiki) so it seems to be legit. I didn't interrogate those figures to any great extent so open to correction on those however

The statistic is inaccurate because it leaves out the 1 in 6 pregnancies which end in a miscarriage.

But here's the thing - the rate of abortion in the UK is irrelevant - in every single case, it is, thankfully, the woman's right to choose whether to continue with a pregnancy or not.

In every single case, the woman has the right to choose the correct decision for her. That's as it should be, and as it should be in Ireland too.

Fair enough, never considered that, should be 1 in 6 so.

On your other point, tbh I think speaking in absolute terms (or what sounds like absolute terms at least) such as that hard to understand. If a woman decided to abort at 36 weeks would that also be her choice? I don't think it would be good for society for such a thing to be allowed (even though it would be a rare rare occurrence)

No matter what your viewpoint, an absolute view on such a complex issue is incorrect imo - otherwise if you're a no voter, you believe that anything after the initial conception is murder and if you're a yes voter,  anything before birth is the mother's decision.

[sid waddell]

While we're speaking about things being disingenuous - the "1 in 5" posters by the no campaign are an absolute disgrace. Statistically/factually incorrect and using the comparison of Britain which has vastly more liberal abortion laws that what is proposed for here if there's a yes vote. We have a referendum commission - surely they should have powers to prevent outright lies being peddled. There may be examples on the Yes side but I've not seen them (and I'm biased of course).

When I saw the posters, I assumed that that was bull also so I looked it up and as far as I could see, it's correct. In the last 50 years, there's been ~35m kids born in the UK (according to what looked like the UK CSO website) and 8.7m abortions (according to wiki) so it seems to be legit. I didn't interrogate those figures to any great extent so open to correction on those however

The statistic is inaccurate because it leaves out the 1 in 6 pregnancies which end in a miscarriage.

But here's the thing - the rate of abortion in the UK is irrelevant - in every single case, it is, thankfully, the woman's right to choose whether to continue with a pregnancy or not.

In every single case, the woman has the right to choose the correct decision for her. That's as it should be, and as it should be in Ireland too.

Fair enough, never considered that, should be 1 in 6 so.

On your other point, tbh I think speaking in absolute terms (or what sounds like absolute terms at least) such as that hard to understand. If a woman decided to abort at 36 weeks would that also be her choice? I don't think it would be good for society for such a thing to be allowed (even though it would be a rare rare occurrence)

No matter what your viewpoint, an absolute view on such a complex issue is incorrect imo - otherwise if you're a no voter, you believe that anything after the initial conception is murder and if you're a yes voter,  anything before birth is the mother's decision.

The vast majority of abortions happen early in a pregnancy. In England and Wales 90% happen in the first 13 weeks.

I believe the woman should always have the right to choose during the stage where the foetus has no possibility of sentience. The 12 week limit proposed is comfortably within that timeframe. I'd be happy with a longer elective limit, 16 weeks perhaps, but 12 is hell of a lot better than 0.

When the foetus develops viabiity, it becomes a case of trying to balance the rights of the mother and the foetus.

In the rare and unfortunate cases where a woman's health or life is in danger post-viability, it should be then up to medical staff to deliver the best possible care for the mother while making every effort to deliver a healthy baby too if possible.

I think the proposed legislation would be a giant leap forward from what we have now.

[omaghjoe]

This is pretty close to my point of view as well.

"3&4. I actually agree that an unborn child should not have equal right to life to that of the mother, but this does not mean then the unborn child does have a right to give life a go. If a proposal was put forward that would still protect the right to life of a healthy fetus but the mothers life was always came first I would happily support it. Not sure if its possible to legislate for this tho and the proposed legislation gives them no right to life whatsoever."

In that case your issue is with the legislators and you should support the removal of the 8th amendment.

No, because I don't trust the legislators, and giving them the power to do what they are proposing to do is what I am uneasy with.

So retain the 8th amendment where the foetus has an equal right to life to that of the mother. Which you don't agree with. That's what you're saying? I'm sorry but that makes absolutely no sense to me. Especially as to do so will not prevent one termination that is happening anyway.....it will just happen in Britain or using illegally imported pills. That's failing to address the issue in my opinion. The constitution is a black and white document....it is simply the wrong vehicle to address such a complex and difficult issue as this.

I understand not trusting politicians (and very often it would be yourself who would be asking me - what other alternative system is there?) but in this process there has been a citizens assembly which considered many contributions and came up with recommendations. The proposed legislation is along the lines of these recommendations. If there was a process of developing legislation that was less controlled by politicians in this country I certainly can't remember it. I know people will say the power to legislate still remains afterwards but does anyone really think there will be any political appetite to revisit this? It has taken 35 years to address a glaring mistake in the 8th amendment.

You're putting words in my mouth.

I would prefer to retain the current amendment rather than completely remove it, thus leaving the way open for the 12 week abortion (and beyond if politicians legislate for it in the future).

However, if the referendum was phrased differently, and specifically reworded the section in language which addressed those particular scenarios only, then I'd be in favour.

My issue with repealing the 8th is that it is being done in such a way as to leave the door open for legislators to do what they like, and on a topic like this, I am not comfortable with that.

If that makes no sense, well, sorry.

AZ - I'm not putting words in your mouth....that's why I used the question mark.

I suppose we fundamentally disagree on whether the constitution is the correct place to legislate for this issue.

I'd just like to restate that voting No will not stop one termination of the type that is already happening. Women will still go to England. Pills will still be imported. The only people who will suffer are the cases where the woman is too sick or distressed or poor to travel to Britain. I understand most people have sympathy in the difficult cases like health complications and rape but are troubled by the elective terminations. That's very understandable but it's only the difficult cases that will or may not be able to go to Britain that you'll stop by voting No.

Law on its own is not fundamentally about preventing things happening, that is law enforcement. Law is about drawing a line in the sand to say that this is not ok to do in this society.
Law enforcement is a different issue, frequently a law is difficult to enforce/prevent such as traffic offences, but that doesn't make it ok to carry them out and it is certainly no reason to get rid of speed limits.

This vote is not about whether or not you think it is practical to stop abortions taking place, this is vote about whether or not it is ok to end a unique human life with no justification.

I agree that a No vote will unlikely cause the current rate to drop, it will probably still increase but a Yes vote will cause it to skyrocket as the legal line that existed will have disappeared and abortion will have become normalized in society as has happened in other countries which have abortion on request.

Joe, a woman that wants an abortion will justify it to herself. She may also not view it as a human life. These views will not match everyone else's views of course.

Is there evidence that abortion will "sky rocket"? I think this is one of the main problems facing the Yes side; the fear among the undecided that if the 8th is repealed, that there will be mass abortions. Is there anything to suggest this is the case?

I was talking about legal justification no reason is required by law, the unborn would have no legal protection. A mother's justification to herself could be "f**k this wean I couldn't be arsed with it", or "cleft lip? don't want the hassle of that we'll abort and try for another one" Such reasons would never stand up to an type of legal justification if the child had even the slightest bit of legal protection.

There is evidence that abortion will skyrocket if you compare the increasing rate of abortion after it is legalized in other countries with similar cultures. The fact that it becomes legal makes it more accessible and means that culturally it becomes more accepted which in turn leads to further relaxing of the law and more abortions. It does level off but at a rate much higher than the current estimates of Irish abortions.

[omaghjoe]

If when the proposed legislation is enacted it will de facto represent the majority wish of the electorate, since that's what we elect governments for. If the electorate wishes to change its mind on the legislation, there will be a general election in due course.

eh?... with a minority government that won 25% of the popular vote?
General elections are not single issue plebiscites

[omaghjoe]

Is this the question in the referendum? I though it was to replace the 8th to text that allows the oireachtas to legislate on abortion. Just because there is a yes vote doesn't Change the current law.

Imagine that, omaghjoe paying away without the slightest understanding of the facts. Who'd have thunk it?

Ah here. That's disingenuous. It's pretty obvious what will happen if the referendum is passed. Just because there's a Yes vote doesn't change the current law, however a Yes vote clearly means that the proposed legislation will be brought through the Oireachteas quickly.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but at least be honest about what a Yes vote means in reality.

It's absolutely not disingenuous. Removing a constitutional barrier to "introducing abortions on request" is some leap.

But Gallsman, that's the proposed legislation. Up to 12 week, abortions to be available without any limits. Or do you think that won't come in? Effectively, this is the people voting on that piece of legislation, because if they vote yes, the Government know there's a popular mandate for the legislation as is. As Syf says, people are codding themselves if they think this referendum will not lead to elective abortions up to 12 weeks, within a matter of months.

Proposed legislation is just that - proposed.

12 weeks is half the time that abortion is generally available in the UK. It can take half that before people even realise they're pregnant. Use of the phrase "abortion on demand" is absolute bullshit and vines from the minds of people who think everyone just decides willy nilly that they'll pop down for an abortion. Next stop (it's been used here before) is "people will just use it as contraception"

Lads lads are yous really serious?

We have been told what will happen in the event of a Yes vote, and that is there will be termination allowed up to 12weeks. Not even the most naive person around would believe that legislation will not be introduced, it will...This is a referdum on that legisation as much as it is on a removal of the ammendment

I'm not sure why yous are acting so obtuse about it anyway sure most of ye have expressed a support of unrestricted terminations up to 12weeks and beyond.
Speaking of Brexit, it seems a bit like saying you vote to leaving the EU but not the common market, customs area etc

Of maybe some of ye despite all the  holier than thou posturing yous are actually a wee bit selective with the facts?

[omaghjoe]

Other observations I have is the campaign reminds me of Brexit and the American presidential election where the No side is taking a very simple targeted lets have a revoloution against the government/establishment that have made our lives a misery, take back our country, with striking stats that are complete lies etc.. etc.. , and the Yes side is kind of wishy washy rambling set of reasons, all logical and valid but seem limp in soundbite terms to the No side!!!

Facts aren't sexy in comparison to lies.

Most people voting Yes will be doing so on the basis of facts.

Most people voting No will not be doing so on the basis of facts, but on feelings and emotion.

You can't persuade people who vote on the basis of feelings rather than facts that they are wrong by throwing facts at them.

This is as true of this referendum as it is with Brexit and Trump.

Everyone on both sides have based their decision on emotion it just depends at the point you bring emotion into your reasoning.

However lets suppose that two arguments from each side have equally well thought out rationale to their position.
On the Yes side it would boil be because you feel that a woman should be able to choose based on empathy for the mother.
On the No side because they feel that an abortion is the ending of a human life and are empathetic to the current child and the potential that the child has.

Most of us feel both of those things unless you demonise the mother as lacking human emotion (which I actually havent heard a lot of tho some to be fair), or you demonise the life growing inside her as sub-human (which is a central theme of the Yes side).
It is factually incorrect to depict either of these things, it is in the truest sense of the word victim blaming.

So for those of us who feel empathetic for both the woman and the child (most of us I hope) we have to decide does the mothers right to choose outweigh the right of the child to life? Or does the right to life of the child outweigh the right of the mother to end that life.

That's what it boils down to folks, it a personal decision but for me its the later


IF someone uses false facts or reasoning on a particular side of an argument it does not mean that there is no rationale argument for that side. we need to to search for the facts and correct rationale. There is no such thing as an opinion based only on facts,to form an opinion you also need rationale, and when it comes to morals like in this case, preference or emotion.

[omaghjoe]

While we're speaking about things being disingenuous - the "1 in 5" posters by the no campaign are an absolute disgrace. Statistically/factually incorrect and using the comparison of Britain which has vastly more liberal abortion laws that what is proposed for here if there's a yes vote. We have a referendum commission - surely they should have powers to prevent outright lies being peddled. There may be examples on the Yes side but I've not seen them (and I'm biased of course).

When I saw the posters, I assumed that that was bull also so I looked it up and as far as I could see, it's correct. In the last 50 years, there's been ~35m kids born in the UK (according to what looked like the UK CSO website) and 8.7m abortions (according to wiki) so it seems to be legit. I didn't interrogate those figures to any great extent so open to correction on those however

The statistic is inaccurate because it leaves out the 1 in 6 pregnancies which end in a miscarriage.

But here's the thing - the rate of abortion in the UK is irrelevant - in every single case, it is, thankfully, the woman's right to choose whether to continue with a pregnancy or not.

In every single case, the woman has the right to choose the correct decision for her. That's as it should be, and as it should be in Ireland too.

Fair enough, never considered that, should be 1 in 6 so.

On your other point, tbh I think speaking in absolute terms (or what sounds like absolute terms at least) such as that hard to understand. If a woman decided to abort at 36 weeks would that also be her choice? I don't think it would be good for society for such a thing to be allowed (even though it would be a rare rare occurrence)

No matter what your viewpoint, an absolute view on such a complex issue is incorrect imo - otherwise if you're a no voter, you believe that anything after the initial conception is murder and if you're a yes voter,  anything before birth is the mother's decision.

The vast majority of abortions happen early in a pregnancy. In England and Wales 90% happen in the first 13 weeks.

I believe the woman should always have the right to choose during the stage where the foetus has no possibility of sentience. The 12 week limit proposed is comfortably within that timeframe. I'd be happy with a longer elective limit, 16 weeks perhaps, but 12 is hell of a lot better than 0.

When the foetus develops viabiity, it becomes a case of trying to balance the rights of the mother and the foetus.

In the rare and unfortunate cases where a woman's health or life is in danger post-viability, it should be then up to medical staff to deliver the best possible care for the mother while making every effort to deliver a healthy baby too if possible.

I think the proposed legislation would be a giant leap forward from what we have now.

So is sentince or viability your base point.

If its viability a pregnancy is viable well before the 12 week mark

You me or no one else have no idea when sentience occurs in anyone or anything else. But it is an interesting point, a gun to the head would be cool as the victim feels nothing? That ok? A person in a coma feels nothing and indeed they are reliant on others to coming out of the coma, is it to switch their support system off and let them die even if they are guaranteed to come out of the coma in a healthy state?
Sentience is a very vague concept and a strange base point for someone who purports to deal only in facts...

[omaghjoe]

So I did a bit of my own research and maths on this...

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/679028/Abortions_stats_England_Wales_2016.pdf

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/birthsummarytablesenglandandwales/2016

2016
England and Wales births: 696 271
E&W abortions: 185 596

That works out at 1 in 3.75

Now the miscarriage question is a complicated one, for a start it varies hugely on gestational age and a whole range of other factors for the baby and mother.

https://expectingscience.com/2015/08/26/lies-damned-lies-and-miscarriage-statistics/

The first 5/6 weeks the risk is very high and it will likely skew the overall figure, so perhaps that is where the 1 in 6 comes from. However at 6 weeks the fetus seems to average a 10% (1 in 10) chance of miscarriage and tapering off to 5% (1 in 20) at 8 weeks and further decrease as the pregnancy progresses.
Most abortions are carried out between 5-10 weeks when it seems the risk is for the sake of argument probably around 1 in 10. Its likely less but if someone wants to do the math tear away, and also the mothers age of abortions is lower which would mean they are more likely to survive and not to mention the repeat miscarriages from mother who want to have a successful pregnancy. I think it is likely more like 1 in 15 but we will go with the 1 in 10 as a safety factor.

So working that 1 in 10 into the original stats it works out at  1 in 4.16.

I open to corrections of course but all in all the 1 in 4 doesn't look like a gross exaggeration that its depicted.

This is also only one year of course but if someone wants to do a few more years be my guest

[macdanger2]

While we're speaking about things being disingenuous - the "1 in 5" posters by the no campaign are an absolute disgrace. Statistically/factually incorrect and using the comparison of Britain which has vastly more liberal abortion laws that what is proposed for here if there's a yes vote. We have a referendum commission - surely they should have powers to prevent outright lies being peddled. There may be examples on the Yes side but I've not seen them (and I'm biased of course).

When I saw the posters, I assumed that that was bull also so I looked it up and as far as I could see, it's correct. In the last 50 years, there's been ~35m kids born in the UK (according to what looked like the UK CSO website) and 8.7m abortions (according to wiki) so it seems to be legit. I didn't interrogate those figures to any great extent so open to correction on those however

The statistic is inaccurate because it leaves out the 1 in 6 pregnancies which end in a miscarriage.

But here's the thing - the rate of abortion in the UK is irrelevant - in every single case, it is, thankfully, the woman's right to choose whether to continue with a pregnancy or not.

In every single case, the woman has the right to choose the correct decision for her. That's as it should be, and as it should be in Ireland too.

Fair enough, never considered that, should be 1 in 6 so.

On your other point, tbh I think speaking in absolute terms (or what sounds like absolute terms at least) such as that hard to understand. If a woman decided to abort at 36 weeks would that also be her choice? I don't think it would be good for society for such a thing to be allowed (even though it would be a rare rare occurrence)

No matter what your viewpoint, an absolute view on such a complex issue is incorrect imo - otherwise if you're a no voter, you believe that anything after the initial conception is murder and if you're a yes voter,  anything before birth is the mother's decision.

The vast majority of abortions happen early in a pregnancy. In England and Wales 90% happen in the first 13 weeks.

I believe the woman should always have the right to choose during the stage where the foetus has no possibility of sentience. The 12 week limit proposed is comfortably within that timeframe. I'd be happy with a longer elective limit, 16 weeks perhaps, but 12 is hell of a lot better than 0.

When the foetus develops viabiity, it becomes a case of trying to balance the rights of the mother and the foetus.

In the rare and unfortunate cases where a woman's health or life is in danger post-viability, it should be then up to medical staff to deliver the best possible care for the mother while making every effort to deliver a healthy baby too if possible.

I think the proposed legislation would be a giant leap forward from what we have now.

Thanks for the reply sid. Rationale like that is easier to understand than the simple "it's her choice" which I hear from the yes campaign and is something that turns me off. For me, the 16 weeks would probably be too high but everyone has to draw the line somewhere

[trileacman]

Just a question for the Yes voters, do you see any problem with the large scale abortion of children with abnormalities? I seen a guardian piece lately that said 92% of babies with Down's syndrome were aborted in England since the pre natal screen for Down's syndrome came in. There were also suggestions that a similar pre natal test for aspergers and autism could see a similar discrimination against those conditions.

What's your argument in favour of conditions like that?