Eighth Amendment poll

[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

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

Have you got any stats & maths for that Sid?

I calculated 1in4 for Eng&Wales in 2016 which is the latest figures.

And that factored in miscarriages, which are extremely difficult to factor in, not least because most of them occur before most abortions take place, and the age of the mother

[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.

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

Is that a serious response? I guess not.

I'm pointing out relevant facts.

Banning abortion is a proven failed policy worldwide.

[omaghjoe]

Here's my own calcs on that

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

[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

Have you got any stats & maths for that Sid?

I calculated 1in4 for Eng&Wales in 2016 which is the latest figures.

And that factored in miscarriages, which are extremely difficult to factor in, not least because most of them occur before most abortions take place, and the age of the mother

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fact-check-does-one-in-every-five-pregnancies-in-england-end-in-abortion-1.3480584

For England and Wales, figures from the Office of National Statistics say there were 692,271 live births and 3,112 stillbirths in 2016.

In that year, the UK Department of Health says 190,406 pregnancies were terminated. As a percentage of recorded pregnancies (live births + still births + abortions), one in five pregnancies, or 21 per cent, ends in an abortion.

Specifically for England, there were 663,157 live births and 2,895 still births. There were 177,350 terminations. That also equates to a rate of 21 per cent, or one in five.

In Scotland, the National Record of Scotland says there were 54,488 live births and 236 still births. In that year, 12,063 terminations were carried out. This allows us to calculate that 18 per cent of all pregnancies end in a termination, but remember this percentage is calculated without knowing how many pregnancies ended in a miscarriage.

In Northern Ireland, 24,076 live births and 13 terminations took place between April 2016 and March 2017. Figures for still births and miscarriages were not available.

The figures above combined suggest there were 976,865 pregnancies in the United Kingdom. A total of 202,482 of those resulted in the termination of the pregnancy, which equates to 20.73 per cent, which is one in five.

However, this figure cannot be relied upon as it does not include the number of pregnancies that end in miscarriage. The Office of National Statistics says it does not collate such figures but the NHS says one in six pregnancies in Britain ends in miscarriage.

There is also the added complication that the number of terminations carried out in the UK in 2016 were in relation to women who had travelled there for an abortion, including 3,265 from Ireland.

Therefore it is unclear if one in five pregnancies in England (or Britain) results in abortion.

[macdanger2]

One last quote from one of YOUR OWN links sid:

The report finds about 56 million abortions occur every year — nearly 50 million of them in developing countries. About a quarter of all pregnancies end in abortion.

[sid waddell]

One last quote from one of YOUR OWN links sid:

The report finds about 56 million abortions occur every year — nearly 50 million of them in developing countries. About a quarter of all pregnancies end in abortion.

I'm not sure what your point is here, and also not sure of the reason for the smiley?

In fact what you quote quite clearly proves what I said - that banning abortion is a proven failed policy worldwide.

[omaghjoe]

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

Is that a serious response? I guess not.

I'm pointing out relevant facts.

Banning abortion is a proven failed policy worldwide.

Shit....
I can't believe since civilization began we have never realized that once you introduce laws and make certain actions illegal it still happens...

Perhaps now we will have the chance to introduce some sort of law enforcement system to catch and stop people doing these actions and perhaps even introduce a judicial system were we can give those accused a fair chance of clearing their name or convicting them of committing that action

[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

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

Have you got any stats & maths for that Sid?

I calculated 1in4 for Eng&Wales in 2016 which is the latest figures.

And that factored in miscarriages, which are extremely difficult to factor in, not least because most of them occur before most abortions take place, and the age of the mother

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fact-check-does-one-in-every-five-pregnancies-in-england-end-in-abortion-1.3480584

For England and Wales, figures from the Office of National Statistics say there were 692,271 live births and 3,112 stillbirths in 2016.

In that year, the UK Department of Health says 190,406 pregnancies were terminated. As a percentage of recorded pregnancies (live births + still births + abortions), one in five pregnancies, or 21 per cent, ends in an abortion.

Specifically for England, there were 663,157 live births and 2,895 still births. There were 177,350 terminations. That also equates to a rate of 21 per cent, or one in five.

In Scotland, the National Record of Scotland says there were 54,488 live births and 236 still births. In that year, 12,063 terminations were carried out. This allows us to calculate that 18 per cent of all pregnancies end in a termination, but remember this percentage is calculated without knowing how many pregnancies ended in a miscarriage.

In Northern Ireland, 24,076 live births and 13 terminations took place between April 2016 and March 2017. Figures for still births and miscarriages were not available.

The figures above combined suggest there were 976,865 pregnancies in the United Kingdom. A total of 202,482 of those resulted in the termination of the pregnancy, which equates to 20.73 per cent, which is one in five.

However, this figure cannot be relied upon as it does not include the number of pregnancies that end in miscarriage. The Office of National Statistics says it does not collate such figures but the NHS says one in six pregnancies in Britain ends in miscarriage.

There is also the added complication that the number of terminations carried out in the UK in 2016 were in relation to women who had travelled there for an abortion, including 3,265 from Ireland.

Therefore it is unclear if one in five pregnancies in England (or Britain) results in abortion.

SO that's a No then I just posted my own calculation with miscarriages factored in (which is a complete minefield) for Eng &wales in 2016 and 1 in 4 seems about right

[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.

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

Is that a serious response? I guess not.

I'm pointing out relevant facts.

Banning abortion is a proven failed policy worldwide.

Shit....
I can't believe since civilization began we have never realized that once you introduce laws and make certain actions illegal it still happens...

Perhaps now we will have the chance to introduce some sort of law enforcement system to catch and stop people doing these actions and perhaps even introduce a judicial system were we can give those accused a fair chance of clearing their name or convicting them of committing that action

Delusion is a terrible thing. It's rife among the No side.

14 years in prison is the punishment on the statute books for carrying out an abortion in Ireland. How nice to know you want to see it enforced.

I thought the No side were all against that. I guess it turns out that's not the case.

Very reassuring for women, not.

That kind of attitude should do wonders in winning undecideds.

Maybe the No side should just borrow Mr. Trump's slogan and chant "lock her up". It worked wonders in the US, I can't see any reason why it wouldn't work equally well in this campaign...

[omaghjoe]

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

Is that a serious response? I guess not.

I'm pointing out relevant facts.

Banning abortion is a proven failed policy worldwide.

Shit....
I can't believe since civilization began we have never realized that once you introduce laws and make certain actions illegal it still happens...

Perhaps now we will have the chance to introduce some sort of law enforcement system to catch and stop people doing these actions and perhaps even introduce a judicial system were we can give those accused a fair chance of clearing their name or convicting them of committing that action

Delusion is a terrible thing. It's rife among the No side.

14 years in prison is the punishment on the statute books for carrying out an abortion in Ireland. How nice to know you want to see it enforced.

I thought the No side were all against that. I guess it turns out that's not the case.

Very reassuring for women, not.

That kind of attitude should do wonders in winning undecideds.

Maybe the No side should just borrow Mr. Trump's slogan and chant "lock her up". It worked wonders in the US, I can't see any reason why it wouldn't work equally well in this campaign...

Quit goin on about the 14years thing, its the perfect either or fallacy which you have peddled in numerous time in this thread

How many woman have been convicted of it since the 8th was introduced?

You are delusional if you are proposing that it going to be the case

[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.

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

Is that a serious response? I guess not.

I'm pointing out relevant facts.

Banning abortion is a proven failed policy worldwide.

Shit....
I can't believe since civilization began we have never realized that once you introduce laws and make certain actions illegal it still happens...

Perhaps now we will have the chance to introduce some sort of law enforcement system to catch and stop people doing these actions and perhaps even introduce a judicial system were we can give those accused a fair chance of clearing their name or convicting them of committing that action

Delusion is a terrible thing. It's rife among the No side.

14 years in prison is the punishment on the statute books for carrying out an abortion in Ireland. How nice to know you want to see it enforced.

I thought the No side were all against that. I guess it turns out that's not the case.

Very reassuring for women, not.

That kind of attitude should do wonders in winning undecideds.

Maybe the No side should just borrow Mr. Trump's slogan and chant "lock her up". It worked wonders in the US, I can't see any reason why it wouldn't work equally well in this campaign...

Quit goin on about the 14years thing, its the perfect either or fallacy which you have peddled in numerous time in this thread

How many woman have been convicted of it since the 8th was introduced?

You are delusional if you are proposing that it going to be the case

You've just been going on about it.

The 14 years imprisonment being on the statute books is yet another aspect of the delusion surrounding this whole issue from the No side.

They say they don't want anybody imprisoned.

So, why not abolish it from the statute books entirely?

Why not say that the penalty for abortion should be 0 years and 0 days in prison?

ie. No punishment at all?

And let's just let women have abortions without any fear of punishment for anybody whatsoever.

That actually sounds quite sensible, when you think about it.

It's almost like it's exactly what the Yes side is campaigning for.

[whitey]

Sid....ffs will go out canvessing like a good man. your doing more harm than good to the Yes argument ranting and raving in here like this

[sid waddell]

So, everybody, are we agreed that the 14 year prison term on the statute books for abortion should be abolished?

And replaced with 0 years and 0 days?

[Jim_Murphy_74]

"Would you believe" team  did a good documentary last night on RTE 1:  "An Irish Solution".

Gave people on both sides of debate good time, mostly talking from experience rather than quoting facts and figures that everyone questions anyway.

For example they spoke with people dealing with FFA that had terminations and also those that went to term.  Spoke with parents (for and against) of people with Down Syndrome.

They examined Norway and it's experience of abortion as they thought laws were similar to Ireland.   Looked at how doctors, religious and women wrestle with aspects.   

I thought that if you are going to have abortion their model is much more sensitive (if that is right word) than UK for example.  They shun surgical abortion.  Women take tablets themselves rather than having medics administer drugs (Woman takes ownership).   After the event children are afforded baptism, funeral etc.  A lot of counselling before and after.  Public hospitals only, no private companies allowed.  Teenagers get free and confidential counselling, sex education and contraception in state run centres.    Also looked at societal issues around disability in Norway.

To me, looking for guidance in advance of the referendum it was 1,000 times better than Claire Byrne/Primetime shows.

As every the "Would you Believe" team excel.

/Jim.

[Rossfan]

Yes 42%
No 39%
Undecided 19%
.
Leave out the Undecided and it's Yes by 51.8 to 48.2 so say 52/48.