Eighth Amendment poll

[Syferus]

As per usual on here a debate has turned into an 'I know more than you' competition!

The attempts to draw false equilvence between both sides when it's clear one side has more blame than the other are so rife on this site and on social issues in particular that posts like this have become a cliche in and of themselves.

Usually it happens when the person posting it supports the side that's being rubbished and can't really offer a solid reason why they don't agree so they skip straight to the both-sideisms because it appears on the face of it a sensible interjection but that couldn't be further from the truth.

[Boycey]

Exhibit A ^^^^^^

[omaghjoe]

You are wrong. Your "calculations" were wrong. You don't know what you're on about.

As for:

I pretty sure you said it maybe you didnt if someone wants to trawl thru your posts again to find it they are welcome to. But a good few others have claimed it is BS when it does not appear to be

You have already claimed that "I said" the 1 in 5 stat is wrong. Now you're "pretty sure" I said it but can't be bothered to "trawl" through posts.

Prove I said it or admit you were wrong. Failure to do either makes your a liar

I'll give you a hint: I didn't say it. Not once. Haven't commented on it in the slightest. Perhaps your reading is as bad as your 'rithmetic.

The great minds of the No campaign, folks.

If I'm wrong Tell me where and how I am wrong.

You told me about my error, I accepted it and continued to try and get the ratio correct, then I told you about yours but you said I am wrong, tell me where and how and, we will get to the bottom of it.

I don't care if I am wrong but tell me where and we will reveal the facts

The rest is Ad hominen, Im sorry if you didn't say it specifically but try not to take it personally its an anonymous forum.
Unfortunately I get you, Syf, Sid and a few others mixed up as you all have the exact same opinion and attitude to everything.
I should have said the Yes side called BS on the 1in5 but it looks like it is actually right.

[gallsman]

You're wrong because you keep messing up the numbers. The claim from the No side is that 1 in 5 pregnancies ends in abortion. Pregnancies. Not relative to live births or miscarriages. 1 in 5 pregnancies.

Total pregnancies = births + miscarriages + abortions. The fact that some miscarriages might have been aborted is irrelevant. Total number of pregnancies is X + Y + Z. Let's say abortions are Z. The calculation is Z/(X +Y +Z). Cry I'm "playing the man" all you like, but I genuinely can't make this any easier. It's not opinion, or a view on things. It's maths.

[Itchy]

Rte primetime I think showed stats on portugal showing more than 1:5 pregnancies were aborted. Obviously they didn't present a thesis on it. I just thought I'd bring it up again as Sid previously rubbished it. I believe those numbers to be accurate but im going to vote yes in any case.

[sid waddell]

Rte primetime I think showed stats on portugal showing more than 1:5 pregnancies were aborted. Obviously they didn't present a thesis on it. I just thought I'd bring it up again as Sid previously rubbished it. I believe those numbers to be accurate but im going to vote yes in any case.

I haven't made any reference to Portugal's abortion rate, so I'm not sure how you think I could have "rubbished it".

[southtyronegael]

Got a leaflet in letterbox today from no side with Cristiano Ronaldo's picture on it saying he wouldn't exist if abortion was an option.

i got one from the yes side with a picture of jimmy saville on it saying he wouldnt exist if abortion was an option.

[sid waddell]

If anybody knows the score about the shameful attitude to women's health that prevailed and still prevails in Ireland, it's Vicky Phelan:

https://twitter.com/PhelanVicky/status/997104227418890240

I am voting Yes for the women of Ireland who have been let down by our health service and by our government time and time again. If we really want women to be placed at the centre of their own care, Vote Yes to allow us to make the choice about our own care #WhoNeedsYourYes

This is a spurious connection. The failure of screening could have affected any screening programme, including one for men only.

One can rationalise anything as "spurious" when it doesn't fit with your agenda.

But personally I'm not sure how one can rationalise the history of how women have been treated in Ireland since the foundation of the state, especially when it comes to their health, as anything other than disgraceful.

I suppose it becomes a little bit easier to rationalise it in your head as something less than disgraceful when you're a culturally and socially conservative man living in another jurisdiction.

[whitey]

You're wrong because you keep messing up the numbers. The claim from the No side is that 1 in 5 pregnancies ends in abortion. Pregnancies. Not relative to live births or miscarriages. 1 in 5 pregnancies.

Total pregnancies = births + miscarriages + abortions. The fact that some miscarriages might have been aborted is irrelevant. Total number of pregnancies is X + Y + Z. Let's say abortions are Z. The calculation is Z/(X +Y +Z). Cry I'm "playing the man" all you like, but I genuinely can't make this any easier. It's not opinion, or a view on things. It's maths.

Seems like the miscarriages are been drawn into the argument to muddy the water

What would the ratio of abortions be to "viable" pregnancies?

[seafoid]

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/may/19/ed-sheeran-denounces-use-of-song-in-anti-abortion-campaign-in-ireland

Ireland's referendum has attracted interest from groups from around the world seeking to influence the vote. A significant proportion of Facebook posts aimed at influencing voters were shown to have come from pages managed partly or entirely outside Ireland. Even some groups registered with Ireland's ethics watchdog, the Standards In Public Office Commission, had Facebook pages managed from abroad.

[Asal Mor]

Just one more week till this thing is over. Has there ever been a greater platform for self-righteous phoneys(on both sides)? From John Waters(and there's loads more like him on the No side), with his "how dare you interrupt me from saving thousands of babies from their black-capped executioners with your perfectly reasonable questions" outburst, to Yes voters getting outraged over phrases like "abortion on demand"(I've no issue with people voting for abortion but for jaysus sake be honest about what you're voting for), both sides of this debate have been sickening.

The only worthwhile and persuasive element of the debate that I've heard were the stories of women who've travelled full of shame and fear to England for abortions. That, allied to the laughable hypocrisy of our constitution which protects their right to travel for abortions is enough reason to vote yes.

Thank God there's another fantastic weekend of sport in store so we can escape from listening to the pontificators.

[omaghjoe]

You're wrong because you keep messing up the numbers. The claim from the No side is that 1 in 5 pregnancies ends in abortion. Pregnancies. Not relative to live births or miscarriages. 1 in 5 pregnancies.

Total pregnancies = births + miscarriages + abortions. The fact that some miscarriages might have been aborted is irrelevant. Total number of pregnancies is X + Y + Z. Let's say abortions are Z. The calculation is Z/(X +Y +Z). Cry I'm "playing the man" all you like, but I genuinely can't make this any easier. It's not opinion, or a view on things. It's maths.

Hmm..... the posters said 1 in 5 babies? not pregnancies? Using the number of pregnancies is practically impossible as it suddenly becomes the least accurate variable as the miscarriages rate can be as high as 75% in the first few weeks and mothers don't even know they've had one.

The intend of the stat is obviously to give an accurate picture of how many extra babies would have been born had it not been for abortions. The best way to do this is by using likely successful pregnancies, which is what I was doing.

Anyway as I said before it looks like 1 in 5 is near enough spot on, we are at least agreed on that. And any difference is unlikely to influence you, I, or too many others anyway.

[gallsman]

You're wrong because you keep messing up the numbers. The claim from the No side is that 1 in 5 pregnancies ends in abortion. Pregnancies. Not relative to live births or miscarriages. 1 in 5 pregnancies.

Total pregnancies = births + miscarriages + abortions. The fact that some miscarriages might have been aborted is irrelevant. Total number of pregnancies is X + Y + Z. Let's say abortions are Z. The calculation is Z/(X +Y +Z). Cry I'm "playing the man" all you like, but I genuinely can't make this any easier. It's not opinion, or a view on things. It's maths.

Hmm..... the posters said 1 in 5 babies? not pregnancies? Using the number of pregnancies is practically impossible as it suddenly becomes the least accurate variable as the miscarriages rate can be as high as 75% in the first few weeks and mothers don't even know they've had one.

The intend of the stat is obviously to give an accurate picture of how many extra babies would have been born had it not been for abortions. The best way to do this is by using likely successful pregnancies, which is what I was doing.

Ok, so what you're suggesting is that the No side don't consider it a baby until it's born...?

Regardless, if you choose to ignore miscarriages, you ignore it completely. You don't factor those into the statistics. A birth is a birth. A miscarriage is a miscarriage. You don't get to say "sure some of those would have been aborted, so let's juke the stats".

For the record, John McGuirk didn't say they left out miscarriages from their stats because of the "intent" of their posters was to show something else. He said they did so vendue it was too difficult to work them into the numbers, i.e. they're complete giving idiots.

[omaghjoe]

You're wrong because you keep messing up the numbers. The claim from the No side is that 1 in 5 pregnancies ends in abortion. Pregnancies. Not relative to live births or miscarriages. 1 in 5 pregnancies.

Total pregnancies = births + miscarriages + abortions. The fact that some miscarriages might have been aborted is irrelevant. Total number of pregnancies is X + Y + Z. Let's say abortions are Z. The calculation is Z/(X +Y +Z). Cry I'm "playing the man" all you like, but I genuinely can't make this any easier. It's not opinion, or a view on things. It's maths.

Hmm..... the posters said 1 in 5 babies? not pregnancies? Using the number of pregnancies is practically impossible as it suddenly becomes the least accurate variable as the miscarriages rate can be as high as 75% in the first few weeks and mothers don't even know they've had one.

The intend of the stat is obviously to give an accurate picture of how many extra babies would have been born had it not been for abortions. The best way to do this is by using likely successful pregnancies, which is what I was doing.

Ok, so what you're suggesting is that the No side don't consider it a baby until it's born...?

Regardless, if you choose to ignore miscarriages, you ignore it completely. You don't factor those into the statistics. A birth is a birth. A miscarriage is a miscarriage. You don't get to say "sure some of those would have been aborted, so let's juke the stats".

For the record, John McGuirk didn't say they left out miscarriages from their stats because of the "intent" of their posters was to show something else. He said they did so vendue it was too difficult to work them into the numbers, i.e. they're complete giving idiots.

Who's John McGurk ..Derry footballer who robbed his employer?... Sorry I dont know the personalities I just try to deal with facts

The poster showed a newborn infant, not a foetus so I assumed it was an attempt to give an accurate picture of how many extra babies would have been born had it not been for abortions, which is the only logical thing you could take from that.

Factoring in miscarriages into the number of live births is what you were doing which is juking the stats

Also isnt ignoring miscarriages exactly what they did because it is such a variable?

The yes side starting adding them in (which I actually think is fair enough) to get a more accurate picture but still we end up at 1 in 5....

[gallsman]

No, I corrected your stats where you brought in miscarriages in your initial post on the matter. Include then, don't include, I couldn't care less. I was merely fixing your calculations. Yes they left it out (although the suspicion is that they did so as it would benefit them, not because it's too difficult to include them), but I'm not talking about that. YOU included them.

As previously mentioned, if the miscarriage rate is up towards 20%, as some statistics would suggest, the rate of abortions to pregnancies goes up above 1 in 6.