Eighth Amendment poll

[Tony Baloney]

Who pays for the abortion up to 12 weeks without justification?

[magpie seanie]

I don't think the blaming of the other side serves any purpose. After this is over we need to unite and support women and children in a caring and compassionate society and the blame game will make that more difficult. Even if it's a yes vote, we all need to strive for a society where there's a reduction in the number of reasons a woman might consider an abortion. In my mind, that the ONLY way that we all win. Idealistic I know but I think everyone's feet need to be held to the fire on how much they really care.

[Rossfan]

Getting tighter folks
Yes 40.66%
No  39.56%
Undecided  19.78%

Sid's posts are obviously having an effect.

[trueblue1234]

The whinging on here started with you on the first page of the thread.

I think there is a clear majority in favour of repealing the 8th Amendment among all the public, but I expect the actual poll to be very close, perhaps as close as the divorce referendum in 1995.

The No side polled 37.93% in the 2015 same sex marriage referendum. It's hard to imagine anybody who voted No in that referendum voting Yes to repealing the 8th Amendment.

So, notwithstanding the small turnover in the electorate in that three year gap, the No side are effectively starting with almost 38%.

But there will be people who voted Yes in the 2015 referendum voting No this time.

Then, the Yes side have the age old problem of getting young people to actually come out and vote. That won't be a problem for the No side.

The potential for fake news and lies pushed by the No side to become the dominant narrative over the next three and a half weeks is very real. That's the only way they can win. Gavin Sheridan was on Twitter and on radio over the last couple of days detailing how the No side are putting up fake "unbiased" Facebook pages in order to gather data on undecided voters and microtarget.

The No campaign, like Brexit and Trump, are relying on underhand Cambridge Analytica-style methods to sway voters.

This was before any debate on here with regards to the whys and wherefores of why people had their positions. Your first post was to have a whinge at the no side before anyone on here really got into a debate on the subject. So spare me the "it's all coming from the no side" BS.
You are right the difference is down to that one point on when life begins. I would certainly struggle to accept aborting a 11 week old fetus, but understand that there can be circumstances where the alternative is equally harrowing. So it's hard to draw a line in the sand and say this is the point after which there is life and therefore should be protected. And that's been debated in this thread multiple times. And it's an interesting debate when you open yourself up to considering other peoples viewpoints.

You clearly don't understand what "whinging" is.

The fact is that there is a concerted campaign of disinformation and from the official No campaign and its constituent entities and it was obvious there was going to be before it started given that the No campaign had engaged Aggregate IQ. The No campaign was and is engaging in deceitful methods to gather details about undecided voters through fake "unbiased" Facebook pages.

There is no such parallel campaign on the Yes side.

So called "pro-life" groups, and particularly the American-based ones, have a long track record of propaganda and disinformation - far right groups in general have a long and storied history of such, and never more so than now.

One's attitude to the methods of the Brexit and Trump campaigns says a lot about one's attitude to democracy and whether one takes it seriously or not. This holds firm for this referendum campaign, as the same tactics being used by Brexit and Trump are again in use by the NO campaign. I mean, have you opened your eyes at all over the last few weeks?

Objecting to lies and disinformation is not whinging. It's correctly demanding that the campaign be fought on the issues. Democracy is not a joke.

Your rationale here appears to be that political campaigns should be allowed to get away with disinformation and dishonest trickery. But if anybody objects, they're "whingers" apparently. That is reasoning straight out of the school playground.

You have very much done that about the no side in this thread.

We were chatting about on this thread. No one on the thread had posted any disinformation. A debate hadn't even broken out, but instead of starting the debate you went after the other side rather than debating your own beliefs. Not all the information coming from the no side is disinformation yet you have consistently generalised against the no side in most of your posts.

Are you denying that there is a concerted campaign of disinformation coming from the No campaign?

Do you think this is relevant to the discussion?

Do you think it's correct to object to such a campaign?

If Donald Trump chants "lock her up", or says about a debate moderator "there was blood coming out of her eyes, there was blood coming out of wherever", is it whinging to object to such?

If the No campaign says that a nine week old foetus can yawn, which is a lie, is that disinformation? Is it correct to object to such?

Or is it "whinging"?

Whinging - complain persistently and in a peevish or irritating way.

I've seen a hell of a lot of that from No-supporting posters over the last couple of days.

Some of it is relevant yes. But is it the first thing you'd go for in a debate when everything that your complaining about hasn't been used or put forward on this board? Why did you think the best form of debating your position was to go straight out on the attack against the no side and using the actions of some of the no camp to tarnish the whole side? And you have done that repeatedly on this thread.
To me that form of debate just locks in peoples views and people get defensive. Syf is typical of this style of debating so that even when he's correct, the way he goes about it makes it counter productive.

[sid waddell]

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.

Firstly, Roman Catholic doctrine was the main reason the 8th Amendment was brought in in the first place. The Pro-Life Amendment campaign was inextricably linked to the Roman Catholic Church.

Secondly, yes, you are dismissing the Universal Declaration on Human Rights because it gives it expressly applies to the born, not the unborn.

This is contained in Article 1.

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

Here's the rationale for why the UN calls Ireland's abortion ban "cruel, inhuman and degrading".

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/un-says-ireland-s-abortion-ban-cruel-inhuman-or-degrading-1.2678246

The independent experts, from the Geneva-based Human Rights Committee, said Amanda Mellet was forced to choose between carrying her baby to term, knowing it would not survive, or travelling abroad for a termination.

The UN body also hit out at the Government for putting her through financial and emotional suffering.

Its report said she had to pick "between continuing her non-viable pregnancy or travelling to another country while carrying a dying foetus, at personal expense and separated from the support of her family, and to return while not fully recovered".

The UN has ordered the Government to compensate Ms Mellet and ensure she gets the adequate psychological treatment she may need and to prevent similar violations from occurring. It has also told the Government to report to it within six months on the measures it has taken to comply with the decision.

Ms Mellet was 21 weeks pregnant in November 2011 when medics told her the foetus would die in her womb or shortly after birth.

She travelled to the UK for an abortion but had to return home 12 hours after the procedure as she could not afford to stay longer.

The UN committee said the hospital where she was treated did not provide any options regarding the foetus's remains and she had to leave them behind.

Three weeks later the ashes were unexpectedly delivered to her by courier.

And again, from 2017:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/irish-abortion-law-violated-woman-s-human-rights-un-says-1.3118145

A United Nations committee has found Ireland violated the human rights of a woman who had to travel to Britain for an abortion after her baby was diagnosed with a fatal foetal abnormality.

The UN human rights committee has told the State to pay compensation to the woman, Siobhán Whelan, and to provide psychological treatment to her.

It also says Ireland needs to prevent similar violations of the rights of women by changing its laws on abortion.

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

You've demolished your own case there.

A foetus is not an indvidual person because it relies entirely for life on the woman it lies inside.

That doesn't mean it shouldn't have rights beyond the cut-off point for elective abortion - but the concept of giving it the exact same right to life as a born human is inhuman for the woman who is carrying it.

In Roche v Roche (2009), the Irish Supreme Court ruled that a frozen embryos outside the womb do not have a right to life.

Where do you stand on this?

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.

If the mother's life has to come first, that in itself is a contradiction of the 8th Amendment.

The question I asked in the relevant paragraph you reply to here was: why do the No campaign differentiate between the punishment for murdering a (born) baby, and aborting an unborn?

Why is this? (well, in reality I know full well, it's purely for PR purposes because they know it not play well at all).

But it's illogical and betrays a lack of confidence in their own argument.

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

But legislating for abortion in cases of rape and incest removes the so called "human right" you talk about. So, if you are amenable to abortion in cases of rape or incest, it shows that your belief in "the right to life" for the unborn is malleable, ie. that it is not absolute. And if that right is not absolute, thus, it doesn't exist at all.

It also categorically requires the removal of the 8th Amendment.

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???

The reality of the Kinahan-Hutch feud is that actual murders are taking place.

Speed limits are there to protect people's safety.

One of the main reasons the 8th Amendment needs to be abolished is that it puts women in danger by taking away their right to healthcare.

Proponents of keeping the 8th Amendment seem to be oblivious to this. I still haven't heard one reasonable attempt to deal with the fact that abortion is happening already in Ireland.

This is a question not just for you but for everybody planning to vote No: what do you plan to do about the thousands of women that are self-administering abortion in Ireland? The only inescapable conclusion I can come to is that they are the acceptable collateral damage of a failed constitutional provision.

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.

"Science knows nothing about it."

Really? Is this the best you have? Science and medicine knows a hell of a lot about it.

Your idea of the "right to life" of the unborn, taken to its logical conclusion, means we should keep desperately ill people with no prospect of survival alive artificially, indefinitely.

It also rules out abortion in cases of fatal foetal abnormaility, such as the Savita case.

What is your view on the Alfie Evans case?

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.

It's actually nothing to do with the reason I support the abolition of the 8th Amendment because we're not voting on the proposed legislation.

If there was no proposed legislation in the pipeline and the choice was whether to go back to the pre-1983 position, I'd still support the abolition of the 8th Amendment for the same reasons I've given here re. women being denied both essential and basic healthcare - which is a breach of human rights.

But yes, probably the main thinking in my wish to see the proposed legislation passed is because I believe in a woman's right to choose. The concept of the right to choose is hugely backed up by the problems caused by the 8th Amendment as well as the unworkability and indeed potential cruelty of a law which legislates only for "exceptions" such as rape, incest and fatal foetal abnormality.

[sid waddell]

I don't think the blaming of the other side serves any purpose. After this is over we need to unite and support women and children in a caring and compassionate society and the blame game will make that more difficult. Even if it's a yes vote, we all need to strive for a society where there's a reduction in the number of reasons a woman might consider an abortion. In my mind, that the ONLY way that we all win. Idealistic I know but I think everyone's feet need to be held to the fire on how much they really care.

Indeed, but remember that many people on the No side:
i) Wanted to keep contraception banned
ii) Object to sex education which actually deals with the reality of the world we live in today
iii) Spend a lot of their time vilifying single mothers and state supports for them

[sid waddell]

The whinging on here started with you on the first page of the thread.

I think there is a clear majority in favour of repealing the 8th Amendment among all the public, but I expect the actual poll to be very close, perhaps as close as the divorce referendum in 1995.

The No side polled 37.93% in the 2015 same sex marriage referendum. It's hard to imagine anybody who voted No in that referendum voting Yes to repealing the 8th Amendment.

So, notwithstanding the small turnover in the electorate in that three year gap, the No side are effectively starting with almost 38%.

But there will be people who voted Yes in the 2015 referendum voting No this time.

Then, the Yes side have the age old problem of getting young people to actually come out and vote. That won't be a problem for the No side.

The potential for fake news and lies pushed by the No side to become the dominant narrative over the next three and a half weeks is very real. That's the only way they can win. Gavin Sheridan was on Twitter and on radio over the last couple of days detailing how the No side are putting up fake "unbiased" Facebook pages in order to gather data on undecided voters and microtarget.

The No campaign, like Brexit and Trump, are relying on underhand Cambridge Analytica-style methods to sway voters.

This was before any debate on here with regards to the whys and wherefores of why people had their positions. Your first post was to have a whinge at the no side before anyone on here really got into a debate on the subject. So spare me the "it's all coming from the no side" BS.
You are right the difference is down to that one point on when life begins. I would certainly struggle to accept aborting a 11 week old fetus, but understand that there can be circumstances where the alternative is equally harrowing. So it's hard to draw a line in the sand and say this is the point after which there is life and therefore should be protected. And that's been debated in this thread multiple times. And it's an interesting debate when you open yourself up to considering other peoples viewpoints.

You clearly don't understand what "whinging" is.

The fact is that there is a concerted campaign of disinformation and from the official No campaign and its constituent entities and it was obvious there was going to be before it started given that the No campaign had engaged Aggregate IQ. The No campaign was and is engaging in deceitful methods to gather details about undecided voters through fake "unbiased" Facebook pages.

There is no such parallel campaign on the Yes side.

So called "pro-life" groups, and particularly the American-based ones, have a long track record of propaganda and disinformation - far right groups in general have a long and storied history of such, and never more so than now.

One's attitude to the methods of the Brexit and Trump campaigns says a lot about one's attitude to democracy and whether one takes it seriously or not. This holds firm for this referendum campaign, as the same tactics being used by Brexit and Trump are again in use by the NO campaign. I mean, have you opened your eyes at all over the last few weeks?

Objecting to lies and disinformation is not whinging. It's correctly demanding that the campaign be fought on the issues. Democracy is not a joke.

Your rationale here appears to be that political campaigns should be allowed to get away with disinformation and dishonest trickery. But if anybody objects, they're "whingers" apparently. That is reasoning straight out of the school playground.

You have very much done that about the no side in this thread.

We were chatting about on this thread. No one on the thread had posted any disinformation. A debate hadn't even broken out, but instead of starting the debate you went after the other side rather than debating your own beliefs. Not all the information coming from the no side is disinformation yet you have consistently generalised against the no side in most of your posts.

Are you denying that there is a concerted campaign of disinformation coming from the No campaign?

Do you think this is relevant to the discussion?

Do you think it's correct to object to such a campaign?

If Donald Trump chants "lock her up", or says about a debate moderator "there was blood coming out of her eyes, there was blood coming out of wherever", is it whinging to object to such?

If the No campaign says that a nine week old foetus can yawn, which is a lie, is that disinformation? Is it correct to object to such?

Or is it "whinging"?

Whinging - complain persistently and in a peevish or irritating way.

I've seen a hell of a lot of that from No-supporting posters over the last couple of days.

Some of it is relevant yes. But is it the first thing you'd go for in a debate when everything that your complaining about hasn't been used or put forward on this board? Why did you think the best form of debating your position was to go straight out on the attack against the no side and using the actions of some of the no camp to tarnish the whole side? And you have done that repeatedly on this thread.
To me that form of debate just locks in peoples views and people get defensive. Syf is typical of this style of debating so that even when he's correct, the way he goes about it makes it counter productive.

So yes, what I refer to is relevant, and it's absolutely one of the first things I think of, it would be very foolish not to considering the way the Brexit and US election campaigns were conducted, where lies rode roughshod over facts.

It's been obvious from a long way out that the No campaign this time would be modelled on the Brexit and Trump campaigns. And the central plank of both those campaigns was to vilify their opponents.

We are truly through the looking glass when the reflex reaction of conservatives when confronted with facts is to claim they're being bullied. These are the same people who claim to be for free speech.

It seems they're anything but.

The attitude is: this is my view, I have a right to not be questioned about it.

Nobody who voluntarily enters a debate on a forum has a right not to be questioned about their views.

[trueblue1234]

The whinging on here started with you on the first page of the thread.

I think there is a clear majority in favour of repealing the 8th Amendment among all the public, but I expect the actual poll to be very close, perhaps as close as the divorce referendum in 1995.

The No side polled 37.93% in the 2015 same sex marriage referendum. It's hard to imagine anybody who voted No in that referendum voting Yes to repealing the 8th Amendment.

So, notwithstanding the small turnover in the electorate in that three year gap, the No side are effectively starting with almost 38%.

But there will be people who voted Yes in the 2015 referendum voting No this time.

Then, the Yes side have the age old problem of getting young people to actually come out and vote. That won't be a problem for the No side.

The potential for fake news and lies pushed by the No side to become the dominant narrative over the next three and a half weeks is very real. That's the only way they can win. Gavin Sheridan was on Twitter and on radio over the last couple of days detailing how the No side are putting up fake "unbiased" Facebook pages in order to gather data on undecided voters and microtarget.

The No campaign, like Brexit and Trump, are relying on underhand Cambridge Analytica-style methods to sway voters.

This was before any debate on here with regards to the whys and wherefores of why people had their positions. Your first post was to have a whinge at the no side before anyone on here really got into a debate on the subject. So spare me the "it's all coming from the no side" BS.
You are right the difference is down to that one point on when life begins. I would certainly struggle to accept aborting a 11 week old fetus, but understand that there can be circumstances where the alternative is equally harrowing. So it's hard to draw a line in the sand and say this is the point after which there is life and therefore should be protected. And that's been debated in this thread multiple times. And it's an interesting debate when you open yourself up to considering other peoples viewpoints.

You clearly don't understand what "whinging" is.

The fact is that there is a concerted campaign of disinformation and from the official No campaign and its constituent entities and it was obvious there was going to be before it started given that the No campaign had engaged Aggregate IQ. The No campaign was and is engaging in deceitful methods to gather details about undecided voters through fake "unbiased" Facebook pages.

There is no such parallel campaign on the Yes side.

So called "pro-life" groups, and particularly the American-based ones, have a long track record of propaganda and disinformation - far right groups in general have a long and storied history of such, and never more so than now.

One's attitude to the methods of the Brexit and Trump campaigns says a lot about one's attitude to democracy and whether one takes it seriously or not. This holds firm for this referendum campaign, as the same tactics being used by Brexit and Trump are again in use by the NO campaign. I mean, have you opened your eyes at all over the last few weeks?

Objecting to lies and disinformation is not whinging. It's correctly demanding that the campaign be fought on the issues. Democracy is not a joke.

Your rationale here appears to be that political campaigns should be allowed to get away with disinformation and dishonest trickery. But if anybody objects, they're "whingers" apparently. That is reasoning straight out of the school playground.

You have very much done that about the no side in this thread.

We were chatting about on this thread. No one on the thread had posted any disinformation. A debate hadn't even broken out, but instead of starting the debate you went after the other side rather than debating your own beliefs. Not all the information coming from the no side is disinformation yet you have consistently generalised against the no side in most of your posts.

Are you denying that there is a concerted campaign of disinformation coming from the No campaign?

Do you think this is relevant to the discussion?

Do you think it's correct to object to such a campaign?

If Donald Trump chants "lock her up", or says about a debate moderator "there was blood coming out of her eyes, there was blood coming out of wherever", is it whinging to object to such?

If the No campaign says that a nine week old foetus can yawn, which is a lie, is that disinformation? Is it correct to object to such?

Or is it "whinging"?

Whinging - complain persistently and in a peevish or irritating way.

I've seen a hell of a lot of that from No-supporting posters over the last couple of days.

Some of it is relevant yes. But is it the first thing you'd go for in a debate when everything that your complaining about hasn't been used or put forward on this board? Why did you think the best form of debating your position was to go straight out on the attack against the no side and using the actions of some of the no camp to tarnish the whole side? And you have done that repeatedly on this thread.
To me that form of debate just locks in peoples views and people get defensive. Syf is typical of this style of debating so that even when he's correct, the way he goes about it makes it counter productive.

So yes, what I refer to is relevant, and it's absolutely one of the first things I think of, it would be very foolish not to considering the way the Brexit and US election campaigns were conducted, where lies rode roughshod over facts.

It's been obvious from a long way out that the No campaign this time would be modelled on the Brexit and Trump campaigns. And the central plank of both those campaigns was to vilify their opponents.

We are truly through the looking glass when the reflex reaction of conservatives when confronted with facts is to claim they're being bullied. These are the same people who claim to be for free speech.

It seems they're anything but.

The attitude is: this is my view, I have a right to not be questioned about it.

Nobody who voluntarily enters a debate on a forum has a right not to be questioned about their views.

Absolutely, and there has been debate on this thread regarding it. Constructive debate at that. Debate about when life begins which is at the crux of the issue. I don't see anyone claiming that their view shouldn't be questioned? Maybe i missed it?
The other side is that when you generalise about the entire or even most of the no side, you've a right to be pulled on it too. The people behind the public no campaign aren't the majority, they're just the most vocal. So you need to separate them from the mass no support. You could be part of the no camp and not agree with how they are campaigning.   

[sid waddell]

Absolutely, and there has been debate on this thread regarding it. Constructive debate at that. Debate about when life begins which is at the crux of the issue. I don't see anyone claiming that their view shouldn't be questioned? Maybe i missed it?
The other side is that when you generalise about the entire or even most of the no side, you've a right to be pulled on it too. The people behind the public no campaign aren't the majority, they're just the most vocal. So you need to separate them from the mass no support. You could be part of the no camp and not agree with how they are campaigning.   

That's the distinct impression I'm getting from a lot of No supporting posters.

The No campaign has been a disgrace, frankly, while the Yes campaign has enagaged on the facts and been respectful.

That's actually the problem. Lies make people sit up and take notice much more than facts and they tend to dictate the agenda.

The Yes side needs to be more confrontational because the No side is clearly not capable of giving satisfactory answers on a host of questions. They are the ones who should be on the backfoot.

Simple, core, true narratives are available to Yes side but they are not using them. "Yes for Compassion" is a useless slogan. It's the Irish equivalent of "I'm With Her".

What I see from most of the No side in general, both the official campaign and in its online support, is a willingness to stop at nothing to spread lies.

And I see plenty of our old alt-right friend, false equivalence, being trotted out in relation to this.

Ultimately No voters have to be aware what they are voting for - which is a continuation of the situations where women are denied both essential and basic healthcare, where rape and incest victims are forced to carry a pregancy to term against their will, where women who have pregnancies involving fatal foetal abnormalities are abandoned, and where women who have abortions inside this state are abandoned.

Women being condemned to a position of second class citizenship, in other words.

[trueblue1234]

Absolutely, and there has been debate on this thread regarding it. Constructive debate at that. Debate about when life begins which is at the crux of the issue. I don't see anyone claiming that their view shouldn't be questioned? Maybe i missed it?
The other side is that when you generalise about the entire or even most of the no side, you've a right to be pulled on it too. The people behind the public no campaign aren't the majority, they're just the most vocal. So you need to separate them from the mass no support. You could be part of the no camp and not agree with how they are campaigning.   

That's the distinct impression I'm getting from a lot of No supporting posters.

The No campaign has been a disgrace, frankly, while the Yes campaign has enagaged on the facts and been respectful.

That's actually the problem. Lies make people sit up and take notice much more than facts and they tend to dictate the agenda.

The Yes side needs to be more confrontational because the No side is clearly not capable of giving satisfactory answers on a host of questions. They are the ones who should be on the backfoot.

Simple, core, true narratives are available to Yes side but they are not using them. "Yes for Compassion" is a useless slogan. It's the Irish equivalent of "I'm With Her".

What I see from most of the No side in general, both the official campaign and in its online support, is a willingness to stop at nothing to spread lies.

And I see plenty of our old alt-right friend, false equivalence, being trotted out in relation to this.

Ultimately No voters have to be aware what they are voting for - which is a continuation of the situations where women are denied both essential and basic healthcare, where rape and incest victims are forced to carry a pregancy to term against their will, where women who have pregnancies involving fatal foetal abnormalities are abandoned, and where women who have abortions inside this state are abandoned.

Women being condemned to a position of second class citizenship, in other words.

Well we see different things so we'll park it there.

[sid waddell]

Should win over any undecideds:

http://www.thejournal.ie/bishop-abortion-far-worse-rape-4006848-May2018/

A BISHOP HAS claimed that having an abortion after being raped is sometimes far worse than the rape itself during a radio interview about whether to legalise abortion.

He also suggested that in cases of fatal foetal abnormality and cases of incest, women should carry their pregnancies to full term because "the life of the child is paramount".

In an interview with Newstalk's Pat Kenny Show, the Bishop of Ossory Dr Dermot Farrell was asked what should be done in cases of rape if the Eighth Amendment isn't repealed.

He said that "rape is a violent act" and "a violent crime against a woman", and added:

"What I understand from women who have been raped is that the abortion that followed sometimes after rape was far worse than the rape itself."

[sid waddell]

"Both sides are equally bad".   

DDoS attack hits Eighth Amendment referendum crowdfunding website

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/enterprise/referendum-ddos-attack-ireland

https://www.rte.ie/news/eighth-amendment/2018/0510/962545-together-for-yes-campaign/

[armaghniac]

I don't think the blaming of the other side serves any purpose. After this is over we need to unite and support women and children in a caring and compassionate society and the blame game will make that more difficult. Even if it's a yes vote, we all need to strive for a society where there's a reduction in the number of reasons a woman might consider an abortion. In my mind, that the ONLY way that we all win. Idealistic I know but I think everyone's feet need to be held to the fire on how much they really care.

Indeed, but remember that many people on the No side:
i) Wanted to keep contraception banned
ii) Object to sex education which actually deals with the reality of the world we live in today
iii) Spend a lot of their time vilifying single mothers and state supports for them

"many" is easy to say, if there are over a million people involved then some will have almost any wierd view available. However, most people believe that not creating a pregnancy is a responsible thing, creating one and then ending it less so. As for single mothers, "many" on the yes side believe they should abort their children and not live off the rest of the population.

[trileacman]

... 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.

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?

A good observation Hardy but I think you're prejudicing against the rationale of swaths of potential No voters. You'd be hard pressed not to have compassion for victims of rape or those who carry babies with fatal foetal abnormalities, which I have indirectly a very small amount of experience of in one particular case. Aborting what is in essence a cluster of cells at ~4 weeks because of rape can be rationalised as just, in the thankfully seldom occasions in which it occurs.

The problem is when the argument of rape is mobilised as a trojan horse in which to augment support for more wide-ranging abortion laws as if to draw equivalence between the traumatic experience of rape and cases where the pregnancy is an more an inconvenience. Perhaps I'm different from other people but I'm uncomfortable with the casual elimination of a developing life because it's come at an inconvenient time or isn't just happening the way you wanted to. I think there is a detachment involved in that viewpoint and requires a certain level of dehumanisation.

Could yes voters find solace in a society where a baby (up to 12 weeks and potentially more in future) can be aborted for any reason at all, no matter how trivial? If a person chooses to abort their child because it's the wrong sex or because they don't want to be having a baby at Christmas or maybe they just forgot to use contraception on a one-night stand, is aborting a child for those reasons, or something similar, morally acceptable to Yes voters? I'm uneasy about the diminishing of a growing person into a commodity or accessory, something that can be dispensed of so easily and who's existence can be so inconsequentially disregarded.

If, in some peoples eyes, this makes me a chauvinist, a religious zealot, an alt-right fascist or a "whinger" then it's a label I'll comfortably bear. Personal convictions are more inclined to be reinforced when challenged by personal abuse and derision. That's not a statement I direct at you Hardy, you've broached the subject with due respect.

[whitey]

I don't think the blaming of the other side serves any purpose. After this is over we need to unite and support women and children in a caring and compassionate society and the blame game will make that more difficult. Even if it's a yes vote, we all need to strive for a society where there's a reduction in the number of reasons a woman might consider an abortion. In my mind, that the ONLY way that we all win. Idealistic I know but I think everyone's feet need to be held to the fire on how much they really care.

Indeed, but remember that many people on the No side:
i) Wanted to keep contraception banned
ii) Object to sex education which actually deals with the reality of the world we live in today
iii) Spend a lot of their time vilifying single mothers and state supports for them

"many" is easy to say, if there are over a million people involved then some will have almost any wierd view available. However, most people believe that not creating a pregnancy is a responsible thing, creating one and then ending it less so. As for single mothers, "many" on the yes side believe they should abort their children and not live off the rest of the population.

Its the oldest trick in the book....find the most offensive views held by the fringes of opposing side, then paint everyone who disagrees with you as holding the same views, thereby discrediting all dissenting opinions