Eighth Amendment poll

[Esmarelda]

I've just watched Prime Time and there's something I don't understand about the material they covered.

They looked at Portugal and how many abortions they had in 2008 and then how many over the next few years. They told us how many per pregnancy were aborted and then they told how many women of child-bearing age per thousand had abortions and more and more stats.

My question is, who is this type of information supposed to sway? It's anything but a black and white issue, but at the same time is anyone on this board going to be swayed either way by these numbers?

If you're against abortion then you're against one abortion, two abortions or ten thousand abortions. If you're pro-choice then you'll realise that there are currently, say for argument's sake, 2,000 Irish women having abortions per year. If you're told that this will double or treble in the next ten years, are you going to take the view that that's too many so you'll vote No instead?

Surely the decision is based on how you view life and how you view choice and not on a rising scale of abortions?

I also heard Simon Harris on the radio today fielding questions from "numerous listeners" who wanted to know if the money to pay for these abortions is going to come at the expense of other healthcare areas. People might actually vote based on how much this is going to cost?

Am I missing something here or is there a sizeable portion of the electorate that are thinking this way?

[omaghjoe]

I've just watched Prime Time and there's something I don't understand about the material they covered.

They looked at Portugal and how many abortions they had in 2008 and then how many over the next few years. They told us how many per pregnancy were aborted and then they told how many women of child-bearing age per thousand had abortions and more and more stats.

My question is, who is this type of information supposed to sway? It's anything but a black and white issue, but at the same time is anyone on this board going to be swayed either way by these numbers?

If you're against abortion then you're against one abortion, two abortions or ten thousand abortions. If you're pro-choice then you'll realise that there are currently, say for argument's sake, 2,000 Irish women having abortions per year. If you're told that this will double or treble in the next ten years, are you going to take the view that that's too many so you'll vote No instead?

Surely the decision is based on how you view life and how you view choice and not on a rising scale of abortions?

I also heard Simon Harris on the radio today fielding questions from "numerous listeners" who wanted to know if the money to pay for these abortions is going to come at the expense of other healthcare areas. People might actually vote based on how much this is going to cost?

Am I missing something here or is there a sizeable portion of the electorate that are thinking this way?

Good point I'm not at least

However this seemed to start from the yes side saying that the no side is making stuff up. Especially about the ratio of babies born v aborted. When in actual fact it seems to be higher in eng and Wales than the no side were actually saying. Seems like the yes side are crying foul when they have nothing to cry foul about.

And sorry to add fuel to the fire but Tbh I think it's all side of yes side tactic of trying to paint the no side as ignorant buffoons and to influence voters by guilt by association.

But you are right when it boils down to it this is a vote on the 99% of abortions that are carried out on healthy consensual pregnancies  which at the end of the day is a straight up choice between life of the child v choice of the mother

[omaghjoe]

By the way did Leo say yesterday that Down's Syndrome babies would be protected in the legislation he has proposed?

How in the hell is he going to do that with unrestricted terminations up to 12weeks when you can have the test done at 10?

Or is he just spouting shite to make himself sound good?

[Itchy]

I've just watched Prime Time and there's something I don't understand about the material they covered.

They looked at Portugal and how many abortions they had in 2008 and then how many over the next few years. They told us how many per pregnancy were aborted and then they told how many women of child-bearing age per thousand had abortions and more and more stats.

My question is, who is this type of information supposed to sway? It's anything but a black and white issue, but at the same time is anyone on this board going to be swayed either way by these numbers?

If you're against abortion then you're against one abortion, two abortions or ten thousand abortions. If you're pro-choice then you'll realise that there are currently, say for argument's sake, 2,000 Irish women having abortions per year. If you're told that this will double or treble in the next ten years, are you going to take the view that that's too many so you'll vote No instead?

Surely the decision is based on how you view life and how you view choice and not on a rising scale of abortions?

I also heard Simon Harris on the radio today fielding questions from "numerous listeners" who wanted to know if the money to pay for these abortions is going to come at the expense of other healthcare areas. People might actually vote based on how much this is going to cost?

Am I missing something here or is there a sizeable portion of the electorate that are thinking this way?

Good point I'm not at least

However this seemed to start from the yes side saying that the no side is making stuff up. Especially about the ratio of babies born v aborted. When in actual fact it seems to be higher in eng and Wales than the no side were actually saying. Seems like the yes side are crying foul when they have nothing to cry foul about.

And sorry to add fuel to the fire but Tbh I think it's all side of yes side tactic of trying to paint the no side as ignorant buffoons and to influence voters by guilt by association.

But you are right when it boils down to it this is a vote on the 99% of abortions that are carried out on healthy consensual pregnancies  which at the end of the day is a straight up choice between life of the child v choice of the mother

I think you are dead right.
This has shown me the yes side are well able to spout lies too however I'm inclined to vote yes I think when all is balanced up. I just hope the government put systems in place to properly support women thinking of having an abortion and present them with all options.

[Syferus]

I love how fast some here are to judge what any couple does with advances modern science. You'd swear that a healthy baby wasn't something all parents wish to have.

Downs syndrome aren't healthy? Fair enuff if that's your opinion
What about club foot...cleft lip...girl?

Typical No side nonsense. Thankfully you won't get to actually vote.

[BennyCake]

Like Brexit, whichever side wins, they'll be accused of spinning lies and fake news.

[sid waddell]

What I posted is the truth.

What you're doing is trying desperately to find something to claim otherwise in order to suit your agenda.

And here's the thing.

In a previous post, you admitted that what I posted is correct.

Now, you've backtracked and are trying to claim otherwise.

Why are you trying to claim what I've posted is "false data" when you previously admitted it is correct?

I hadn't read the links you posted Sid, I took what you were saying in good faith. For the record, I did not "admit" what you posted was correct, I simply said I did not dispute it (as I hadn't read up on it and it's not something I have much knowledge on). It was only when I took the time to look at the links that it appeared to me that you were being disingenuous.

I am not trying to claim anything, I'm simply posting up direct quotes from the links that YOU posted. You say that figures from the UK don't matter but it turns out that the facts you posted are related to Africa & Latin America. Those quotes are what those articles stated and yet it seems to me that you were misrepresenting what they said i.e. you were inferring a causal link between lower abortion rates and more liberal abortion laws when the data in those links don't actually back up that and instead point to wider availability to contraception as being the reason for lower abortion rates. What you said was factually correct (i.e. "Abortion rates in countries where abortion is banned or highly restricted have a higher abortion rate than countries where it is safe and legal.") but the links you posted don't prove a relationship between the two.

So I'll ask you again, what is the relevance of your statement that "Abortion rates in countries where abortion is banned or highly restricted have a higher abortion rate than countries where it is safe and legal."?

So what I said was correct. Thanks.

And it's very relevant - worldwide trends are always relevant.

What the No side claim about UK abortion rates is cherry picking. And it's not even factually correct.

What relevance has incorrect information about one other country which has a different law to what will be in operation here if the 8th Amendment is abolished? Because that's what the No campaign is peddling.

[BennyCake]

What I posted is the truth.

What you're doing is trying desperately to find something to claim otherwise in order to suit your agenda.

And here's the thing.

In a previous post, you admitted that what I posted is correct.

Now, you've backtracked and are trying to claim otherwise.

Why are you trying to claim what I've posted is "false data" when you previously admitted it is correct?

I hadn't read the links you posted Sid, I took what you were saying in good faith. For the record, I did not "admit" what you posted was correct, I simply said I did not dispute it (as I hadn't read up on it and it's not something I have much knowledge on). It was only when I took the time to look at the links that it appeared to me that you were being disingenuous.

I am not trying to claim anything, I'm simply posting up direct quotes from the links that YOU posted. You say that figures from the UK don't matter but it turns out that the facts you posted are related to Africa & Latin America. Those quotes are what those articles stated and yet it seems to me that you were misrepresenting what they said i.e. you were inferring a causal link between lower abortion rates and more liberal abortion laws when the data in those links don't actually back up that and instead point to wider availability to contraception as being the reason for lower abortion rates. What you said was factually correct (i.e. "Abortion rates in countries where abortion is banned or highly restricted have a higher abortion rate than countries where it is safe and legal.") but the links you posted don't prove a relationship between the two.

So I'll ask you again, what is the relevance of your statement that "Abortion rates in countries where abortion is banned or highly restricted have a higher abortion rate than countries where it is safe and legal."?

So what I said was correct. Thanks.

And it's very relevant - worldwide trends are always relevant.

What the No side claim about UK abortion rates is cherry picking. And it's not even factually correct.

What relevance has incorrect information about one other country which has a different law to what will be in operation here if the 8th Amendment is abolished? Because that's what the No campaign is peddling.

We don't actually know yet what will be in operation. That's the thing.

[The Boy Wonder]

Tonight's Would You Believe programme on RTE was very informative – I'm not sure if it is available on RTE Player just yet but should available soon.

An Irish Solution: A Would You Believe? Special, RTÉ One, 10.15pm
In this WYB? special, reporter Mick Peelo brings us through the complex moral minefield facing Ireland on the issue of abortion. On Referendum day, May 25, the Irish people will make one of the most important decisions this country has ever faced about our values. At stake is our understanding of what constitutes a human life and whether the unborn should have equal rights to the women who bear them. Mick looks at the stories and values on all sides of the debate and explores what's at stake for our society, whether the outcome is to repeal or retain the Eighth Amendment to our Constitution.

[Wildweasel74]

Excuse me for my ignorance: as i dont have a vote up here; havent really been following!! The appeal of the 8th amendment; what excately does it entail? Is it a general change for abortion or for possible rape cases; danger to the mother; severe disability? I read about abortion possible under this up to 12 wks! Is this for all cases or for the issues i previously mentioned! Its abit like brexit; people dont know the ins and outs of what they are voting for!@

[The Boy Wonder]

https://refcom2018.refcom.ie/ provides an independent guide https://refcom2018.refcom.ie/refcom-guide-2018-english.pdf

Draft Legislation (if 8th Amendment is repealed )
http://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/General-Scheme-for-Publication.pdf

[sid waddell]

I've just watched Prime Time and there's something I don't understand about the material they covered.

They looked at Portugal and how many abortions they had in 2008 and then how many over the next few years. They told us how many per pregnancy were aborted and then they told how many women of child-bearing age per thousand had abortions and more and more stats.

My question is, who is this type of information supposed to sway? It's anything but a black and white issue, but at the same time is anyone on this board going to be swayed either way by these numbers?

If you're against abortion then you're against one abortion, two abortions or ten thousand abortions. If you're pro-choice then you'll realise that there are currently, say for argument's sake, 2,000 Irish women having abortions per year. If you're told that this will double or treble in the next ten years, are you going to take the view that that's too many so you'll vote No instead?

Surely the decision is based on how you view life and how you view choice and not on a rising scale of abortions?

I also heard Simon Harris on the radio today fielding questions from "numerous listeners" who wanted to know if the money to pay for these abortions is going to come at the expense of other healthcare areas. People might actually vote based on how much this is going to cost?

Am I missing something here or is there a sizeable portion of the electorate that are thinking this way?

Good point I'm not at least

However this seemed to start from the yes side saying that the no side is making stuff up. Especially about the ratio of babies born v aborted. When in actual fact it seems to be higher in eng and Wales than the no side were actually saying. Seems like the yes side are crying foul when they have nothing to cry foul about.

And sorry to add fuel to the fire but Tbh I think it's all side of yes side tactic of trying to paint the no side as ignorant buffoons and to influence voters by guilt by association.

But you are right when it boils down to it this is a vote on the 99% of abortions that are carried out on healthy consensual pregnancies  which at the end of the day is a straight up choice between life of the child v choice of the mother

I think you are dead right.
This has shown me the yes side are well able to spout lies too however I'm inclined to vote yes I think when all is balanced up. I just hope the government put systems in place to properly support women thinking of having an abortion and present them with all options.

The No campaign have claimed that one in five pregnancies in the UK end in abortion.

https://loveboth.ie/abortion-in-england-1-in-5/
In the UK, 1 in 5 pregnancies ends in abortion

They've also claimed the 1 in 5 figure for England.

Neither can be true, because they are not counting miscarriages, which the NHS estimates at 1 in 6 pregnancies.

They would be correct if they were claiming the ratio of abortions to babies born was one in five.

But that's not what they were claiming.

They claimed all pregnancies.

And they were wrong.

I don't really see what real relevance any of this has, but if one side is going to claim something, the onus is on the side claiming that thing to make sure it's correct. In this case, it wasnt.

And that's been the general pattern of the No campaign - lies and fake statistics.

Still they're claiming that foetuses yawn. They don't.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/referendum-posters-depicting-a-foetus-yawning-are-not-factually-accurate-36868779.html

Anti-repeal posters depicting babies yawning and kicking at nine weeks are "not factually accurate" and are causing "extreme distress" among pregnant women, the master of Rotunda Maternity Hospital, Professor Fergal Malone, said yesterday.

The "idea of a foetus yawning is not factually accurate, because a foetus in the womb is under water and there is no air in the uterus", the professor told the Irish Independent.

"A yawn is an inhalation of breath."

Hell, David Quinn claimed during Monday night's debate that there are 18,000 GPs in Ireland. There are 2,500.

It seems he was fooled by a reference to a 10 year-old Irish Times story that referenced "18,000 GPS location in Ireland".

https://twitter.com/sweetoblivion26/status/996285273137930240

[gallsman]

John Waters making an absolute tit of himself (well more of one than normal) on Eamon Dunphy's podcast today. Strange hearing Dunphy as a moderating voice of reason!

[sid waddell]

John Waters making an absolute tit of himself (well more of one than normal) on Eamon Dunphy's podcast today. Strange hearing Dunphy as a moderating voice of reason!

https://twitter.com/radiocleary/status/997096299529940993?s=21

Ironic that in a debate about the 8th Amendment, we get to find out what the sound of Waters breaking is like.

[macdanger2]

What I posted is the truth.

What you're doing is trying desperately to find something to claim otherwise in order to suit your agenda.

And here's the thing.

In a previous post, you admitted that what I posted is correct.

Now, you've backtracked and are trying to claim otherwise.

Why are you trying to claim what I've posted is "false data" when you previously admitted it is correct?

I hadn't read the links you posted Sid, I took what you were saying in good faith. For the record, I did not "admit" what you posted was correct, I simply said I did not dispute it (as I hadn't read up on it and it's not something I have much knowledge on). It was only when I took the time to look at the links that it appeared to me that you were being disingenuous.

I am not trying to claim anything, I'm simply posting up direct quotes from the links that YOU posted. You say that figures from the UK don't matter but it turns out that the facts you posted are related to Africa & Latin America. Those quotes are what those articles stated and yet it seems to me that you were misrepresenting what they said i.e. you were inferring a causal link between lower abortion rates and more liberal abortion laws when the data in those links don't actually back up that and instead point to wider availability to contraception as being the reason for lower abortion rates. What you said was factually correct (i.e. "Abortion rates in countries where abortion is banned or highly restricted have a higher abortion rate than countries where it is safe and legal.") but the links you posted don't prove a relationship between the two.

So I'll ask you again, what is the relevance of your statement that "Abortion rates in countries where abortion is banned or highly restricted have a higher abortion rate than countries where it is safe and legal."?

So what I said was correct. Thanks.

And it's very relevant - worldwide trends are always relevant.

What the No side claim about UK abortion rates is cherry picking. And it's not even factually correct.

What relevance has incorrect information about one other country which has a different law to what will be in operation here if the 8th Amendment is abolished? Because that's what the No campaign is peddling.

It was factually correct sid tbf. It's also factually correct to say that countries with higher use of suncream have higher rates of shark attacks. It would hardly be a worthwhile statement though.

You're on here whinging about facts but you have no problem being disingenuous yourself. Hypocrisy how are ya

I've tried to engage with you on genuine points but you seem to be too blinded by your zealotry to consider that it might not just be a one-sided story. I'll leave you to it