gaaboard.com

Non GAA Discussion => General discussion => Topic started by: Farrandeelin on May 01, 2018, 03:36:55 PM

Title: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Farrandeelin on May 01, 2018, 03:36:55 PM
A general overview of gaaboard members feelings on this issue.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Hardy on May 01, 2018, 03:43:58 PM
There seems to be quite a large undecided cohort - perhaps include that option in the poll?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Ambrose on May 01, 2018, 03:45:32 PM
I will be voting NO. It's only the second time in my life that I will have voted and I'll be 50 later this year, so it's something I feel very strongly about.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 01, 2018, 03:56:33 PM
There seems to be quite a large undecided cohort - perhaps include that option in the poll?

Is there, really? Some may say that but I think this is an issue most people know from a long way out what way they're voting.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: AZOffaly on May 01, 2018, 03:57:41 PM
There seems to be quite a large undecided cohort - perhaps include that option in the poll?

Is there, really? Some may say that but I think this is an issue most people know from a long way out what way they're voting.

I think there's a large amount who say they are undecided because they don't want to say they will vote No. I think the yes side will win, but I don't think it will be more than 60-40.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Hound on May 01, 2018, 03:58:58 PM
I'd guess there'll be a big urban-rural divide here when they release the constituency-by-constituency split.

Yes side need to get a real push on to get voters out, otherwise a No win is most certainly not out of the question. This is a very different debate to the marriage vote, which I think was a relatively easy decision for most people (whether Yes or No). There's a very big amount of people for whom this referendum is a very difficult decision either way and many might decide just not to bother.

 

Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 01, 2018, 04:01:10 PM
There seems to be quite a large undecided cohort - perhaps include that option in the poll?

Is there, really? Some may say that but I think this is an issue most people know from a long way out what way they're voting.

I think there's a large amount who say they are undecided because they don't want to say they will vote No. I think the yes side will win, but I don't think it will be more than 60-40.

I'd take a stab and say an 8-point margin for the Yes side when all is said and done as gaps like this one invariably narrow approaching a poll. So 54-46, which would still be a resounding win in a country that was devoutly Catholic two decades ago.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: AZOffaly on May 01, 2018, 04:02:33 PM
It is when you count the number of votes, but if you have a room of 100 people, and 55 are for, and 45 against, it feels a lot closer :) Also, 2 decades ago was 1998. I'm not sure how devoutly Catholic the country was then. Maybe 4 decades ago.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: BennyCake on May 01, 2018, 04:12:09 PM
Can't vote, but a definite NO.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: whitey on May 01, 2018, 04:18:23 PM
Yes.....but with reservations (but can't vote)

Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 01, 2018, 04:19:43 PM
It is when you count the number of votes, but if you have a room of 100 people, and 55 are for, and 45 against, it feels a lot closer :) Also, 2 decades ago was 1998. I'm not sure how devoutly Catholic the country was then. Maybe 4 decades ago.

Divorce scrapped over the line 50.28% to 49.72% in 1996; nineteen years later same sex marriage passed 62.07% to 37.93%. The liberalisation of Ireland mostly happened between 1996 and 2015 IMHO, and I'm very thankful for it.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 01, 2018, 04:21:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: AZOffaly on May 01, 2018, 04:28:55 PM
To be honest, I try to ignore all the Yes and No bullshit. As I said on another thread, I read the proposed referendum changes, and the proposed legislation, and that's what I'll make my mind up on. (Or have already)

what lies are the No side putting out?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 01, 2018, 04:33:08 PM
To be honest, I try to ignore all the Yes and No bullshit. As I said on another thread, I read the proposed referendum changes, and the proposed legislation, and that's what I'll make my mind up on. (Or have already)

what lies are the No side putting out?
For a start, their narrative is to try and fool the public that there will be unrestricted access to abortion up to six months.

This is a blatant lie.

David Robert Grimes laid out some of their other lies in an Irish Times article last month.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/myths-and-lies-about-abortion-must-be-debunked-1.3448176
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 01, 2018, 04:34:50 PM
To be honest, I try to ignore all the Yes and No bullshit. As I said on another thread, I read the proposed referendum changes, and the proposed legislation, and that's what I'll make my mind up on. (Or have already)

what lies are the No side putting out?

They have some shďte about six month abortions up on a poster back home, classic disingenuous fear-mongering. This was found at a bus stop in Dublin (and this isn’t a joke, the same yokes had similar posters up in the past):


Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Tony Baloney on May 01, 2018, 04:37:07 PM
Are their any figures in the public domain in UK etc as to how percentage of multiple abortions by a single person as using abortion as birth control has been a key argument. I remember reading that some women in England had >5 abortions. In those cases I'd have said the women needed counselling.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: AZOffaly on May 01, 2018, 04:38:41 PM
To be honest, I try to ignore all the Yes and No bullshit. As I said on another thread, I read the proposed referendum changes, and the proposed legislation, and that's what I'll make my mind up on. (Or have already)

what lies are the No side putting out?
For a start, their narrative is to try and fool the public that there will be unrestricted access to abortion up to six months.

This is a blatant lie.

David Robert Grimes laid out some of their other lies in an Irish Times article last month.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/myths-and-lies-about-abortion-must-be-debunked-1.3448176

That's obviously a lie, *but* it's not untrue to say this referendum would allow legislation to be brought at some point in the future which could have any term right up to birth.

I realise legislation like that would (hopefully) never get through the Dáil, but the actual constitutionality of it would be fine.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 01, 2018, 04:39:32 PM
Are their any figures in the public domain in UK etc as to how percentage of multiple abortions by a single person as using abortion as birth control has been a key argument. I remember reading that some women in England had >5 abortions. In those cases I'd have said the women needed counselling.

Or more likely the pill. Sex ed would be more effective than counselling in addressing that sort of problem.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: The Iceman on May 01, 2018, 04:41:36 PM
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.
the majority of the people who surprisingly voted yes in the same sex marriage referendum, I feel voted to stick one to the church. And in their eyes it doesn't have a negative impact on society or doesn't hurt anyone. Those same people won't vote yes for abortion. Theres a big difference and the two issues cannot be compared. I know loads of atheists and agnostics who are anti abortion.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 01, 2018, 04:44:27 PM
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.
the majority of the people who surprisingly voted yes in the same sex marriage referendum, I feel voted to stick one to the church. And in their eyes it doesn't have a negative impact on society or doesn't hurt anyone. Those same people won't vote yes for abortion. Theres a big difference and the two issues cannot be compared. I know loads of atheists and agnostics who are anti abortion.

You’re an insufferable twŕt to suggest people voted Yes to stick it to the church from your birds eye view of modern Ireland over in America.

The fact you call it surprising shows how massively out of touch you are with this country.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: AZOffaly on May 01, 2018, 04:45:33 PM
I voted Yes in the Marriage Equality Referendum. Because I wanted to allow Gay People have the same access to a family unit, even just as a couple, as anyone else. That was about fairness, and nobody was getting hurt at all.

This referendum is not nearly a clear cut in my view.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: whitey on May 01, 2018, 04:58:13 PM
Both sides are spreading bvllshit, but the No side seem to have an huge edge in that regard

The  "In Her Shoes" page had a whopper just this past week where a featured posters story completely contradicted what she had posted on social media when she was pregnant
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: The Iceman on May 01, 2018, 05:00:30 PM
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.
the majority of the people who surprisingly voted yes in the same sex marriage referendum, I feel voted to stick one to the church. And in their eyes it doesn't have a negative impact on society or doesn't hurt anyone. Those same people won't vote yes for abortion. Theres a big difference and the two issues cannot be compared. I know loads of atheists and agnostics who are anti abortion.

You’re an insufferable twŕt to suggest people voted Yes to stick it to the church from your birds eye view of modern Ireland over in America.

The fact you call it surprising shows how massively out of touch you are with this country.
I'm talking about our generation - the older generation - your da an ma and aunts and uncles - a lot of them would have voted for marriage referendum because of gripes with the church - i've talked to more people about it, older people and they agree thats the underlying reason...
abortion is a whole different issue and in no way correlates
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 01, 2018, 05:06:49 PM
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.
the majority of the people who surprisingly voted yes in the same sex marriage referendum, I feel voted to stick one to the church. And in their eyes it doesn't have a negative impact on society or doesn't hurt anyone. Those same people won't vote yes for abortion. Theres a big difference and the two issues cannot be compared. I know loads of atheists and agnostics who are anti abortion.

You’re an insufferable twŕt to suggest people voted Yes to stick it to the church from your birds eye view of modern Ireland over in America.

The fact you call it surprising shows how massively out of touch you are with this country.
I'm talking about our generation - the older generation - your da an ma and aunts and uncles - a lot of them would have voted for marriage referendum because of gripes with the church - i've talked to more people about it, older people and they agree thats the underlying reason...
abortion is a whole different issue and in no way correlates

They are literally 100% incorrect if they think it materially effected the result. The church's role in that referendum as any sort of driving force was minuscule. People simply do not care anymore.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Tony Baloney on May 01, 2018, 05:08:33 PM
If the Yes vote goes through what is the financial impact on the person seeking an abortion? Presumably this wouldn't be within the remit of health insurance and if it's driven by lifestyle rather than medical necessity will the women have to pay?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: longballin on May 01, 2018, 05:22:52 PM
Was more towards Yes but not convinced until I saw Late Late Show debate on Friday night. Have no vote though. So it's a Yes from me.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: mrdeeds on May 01, 2018, 05:36:00 PM
Voting yes.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Owenmoresider on May 01, 2018, 05:50:30 PM
No.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 01, 2018, 05:59:31 PM
Both sides are spreading bvllshit, but the No side seem to have an huge edge in that regard

The  "In Her Shoes" page had a whopper just this past week where a featured posters story completely contradicted what she had posted on social media when she was pregnant
You can provide a link to this of course?

Because you wouldn't want to have a reputation for just spouting nonsense - not that I'm saying you have, not at all...  ;D
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Eamonnca1 on May 01, 2018, 06:22:36 PM

You’re an insufferable twŕt to suggest people voted Yes to stick it to the church from your birds eye view of modern Ireland over in America.

The fact you call it surprising shows how massively out of touch you are with this country.

There's no need for that.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: laoislad on May 01, 2018, 06:32:26 PM
I can't wait for it all to be over whatever the outcome.
Saying that I've decided I'll be voting No.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Esmarelda on May 01, 2018, 06:40:08 PM
I've almost managed to stay clear from the debate, but slipped up when I saw a small bit of The Late Late Show.

I am, and was always, voting yes but I had recently come slightly towards the middle. The No side on the Late Late Show set me right though.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: whitey on May 01, 2018, 06:55:31 PM
Both sides are spreading bvllshit, but the No side seem to have an huge edge in that regard

The  "In Her Shoes" page had a whopper just this past week where a featured posters story completely contradicted what she had posted on social media when she was pregnant
You can provide a link to this of course?

Because you wouldn't want to have a reputation for just spouting nonsense - not that I'm saying you have, not at all...  ;D

Haha.....not at all

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/heart-patient-unable-to-get-abortion-as-life-not-at-immediate-risk-1.3475728


This article was shared on the “in her shoes” facebook page (which I follow)

The rebuttal was posted by Gerald Allen on the “repeal vrs save the 8th debate” facebook page (which I also follow) on April 27th.

(The “debate” page is no such thing.....its firmly NO page. I had originally liked it thinking I was going to hear 2 reasonable sides to the argument)
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 01, 2018, 06:57:57 PM

You’re an insufferable twŕt to suggest people voted Yes to stick it to the church from your birds eye view of modern Ireland over in America.

The fact you call it surprising shows how massively out of touch you are with this country.

There's no need for that.

I would agree in most cases. In this case it’s absolutely appropriate given what was said and knowing that poster’s attitude towards both the church and social progress. To diminish the same sex marriage vote to the degree that you see it as a public railing against the church, all from the distance of America takes a serious level of hubris.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: whitey on May 01, 2018, 07:05:18 PM

You’re an insufferable twŕt to suggest people voted Yes to stick it to the church from your birds eye view of modern Ireland over in America.

The fact you call it surprising shows how massively out of touch you are with this country.

There's no need for that.

I would agree in most cases. In this case it’s absolutely appropriate given what was said and knowing that poster’s attitude towards both the church and social progress. To diminish the same sex marriage vote to the degree that you see it as a public railing against the church, all from the distance of America takes a serious level of hubris.

Your own county men and women didnt exactly cover themselves in glory during the Marriage referendum
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Hardy on May 01, 2018, 07:11:54 PM
There seems to be quite a large undecided cohort - perhaps include that option in the poll?

Is there, really? Some may say that but I think this is an issue most people know from a long way out what way they're voting.

Sorry for delayed response:
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/poll-finds-a-fifth-undecided-on-abortion-referendum-both-sides-welcome-findings-838297.html (https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/poll-finds-a-fifth-undecided-on-abortion-referendum-both-sides-welcome-findings-838297.html)
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Rossfan on May 01, 2018, 07:20:36 PM
Hmmmm mm. ....
GAA boarders  who have a vote going 44% No, 38% Yes and 18% Undecided.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 01, 2018, 07:24:31 PM
There seems to be quite a large undecided cohort - perhaps include that option in the poll?

Is there, really? Some may say that but I think this is an issue most people know from a long way out what way they're voting.

Sorry for delayed response:
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/poll-finds-a-fifth-undecided-on-abortion-referendum-both-sides-welcome-findings-838297.html (https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/poll-finds-a-fifth-undecided-on-abortion-referendum-both-sides-welcome-findings-838297.html)

I get that there are high reported undecided voters but I’d seriously question if a lot don’t know already which way they’ll go.

Change is in the air and I think a lot of the undecideds are No voters who don’t have the courage to express their convictions, which in itself would tell you a little about the what likely result will be.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Boycey on May 01, 2018, 08:59:40 PM
There seems to be quite a large undecided cohort - perhaps include that option in the poll?

Is there, really? Some may say that but I think this is an issue most people know from a long way out what way they're voting.

Sorry for delayed response:
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/poll-finds-a-fifth-undecided-on-abortion-referendum-both-sides-welcome-findings-838297.html (https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/poll-finds-a-fifth-undecided-on-abortion-referendum-both-sides-welcome-findings-838297.html)

I get that there are high reported undecided voters but I’d seriously question if a lot don’t know already which way they’ll go.

Change is in the air and I think a lot of the undecideds are No voters who don’t have the courage to express their convictions, which in itself would tell you a little about the what likely result will be.

I think no voters are the most likely to express their convictions.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Baile an tuaigh on May 01, 2018, 09:27:48 PM
The most precious possession you have in this world is your own people. If given the option I would most definitely vote no. My wife and I were unable to have children so we adopted. One of our youngsters birth mom was raped. We now have one of our greatest gifts. Loves to play hurling, sing, play soccer, Irish dance play guitar you name it he's trying his hand at it. This little man is so handsome and kind he makes life worth living. We couldn't imagine life without our wee ones.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: GJL on May 01, 2018, 09:49:30 PM
The most precious possession you have in this world is your own people. If given the option I would most definitely vote no. My wife and I were unable to have children so we adopted. One of our youngsters birth mom was raped. We now have one of our greatest gifts. Loves to play hurling, sing, play soccer, Irish dance play guitar you name it he's trying his hand at it. This little man is so handsome and kind he makes life worth living. We couldn't imagine life without our wee ones.

Brilliant post. Vote No.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 01, 2018, 09:49:53 PM
There seems to be quite a large undecided cohort - perhaps include that option in the poll?

Is there, really? Some may say that but I think this is an issue most people know from a long way out what way they're voting.

Sorry for delayed response:
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/poll-finds-a-fifth-undecided-on-abortion-referendum-both-sides-welcome-findings-838297.html (https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/poll-finds-a-fifth-undecided-on-abortion-referendum-both-sides-welcome-findings-838297.html)

I get that there are high reported undecided voters but I’d seriously question if a lot don’t know already which way they’ll go.

Change is in the air and I think a lot of the undecideds are No voters who don’t have the courage to express their convictions, which in itself would tell you a little about the what likely result will be.

I think no voters are the most likely to express their convictions.

You’d be very wrong if you think most who are voting Yes isn’t very loud and very proud of their choice. We’ve been waiting for a very long time to change this law.

We’ve had the legislation No voters want for the entire history of the State; we know it doesn’t work. Time to try something new.

And if, as I suspect, Ireland agrees with me then there’s little chance of it ever being reversed because the benefits to society and to people will be impossible to ignore. If No wins it will only delay progress and we will be back at the polls within a decade.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Milltown Row2 on May 01, 2018, 09:55:36 PM
Who’s the we?? Won’t have any difference on your life, unless  :o
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Farrandeelin on May 01, 2018, 09:59:00 PM
Who’s the we?? Won’t have any difference on your life, unless  :o

Syf or any man might marry or settle down with a woman (maybe he already is). His potential future partner/present partner may at some stage have complications during pregnancy. That's how.

Edit to add that I wouldn't wish the above on any couple.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Gabriel_Hurl on May 01, 2018, 10:04:41 PM
Can't vote - but I'd be voting yes if I could
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: longballin on May 01, 2018, 10:05:26 PM
Who’s the we?? Won’t have any difference on your life, unless  :o

Of course it makes difference to man's life too... could be your daughter is affected, partner etc. Not comparable to how it affects women but does have affect men too
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: manfromdelmonte on May 01, 2018, 10:06:01 PM
Yes from me

the 8th should never have been introduced in the first place by the religious conservatives who promoted it by scaremongering politicians and the public

amazing the No side were firstly on the Yes side back in 1983, but on the No side for probably every other referendum since - 12th, 13th amendments, divorce, same sex marriage

they might as well be unionists imho
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Eamonnca1 on May 01, 2018, 10:08:51 PM
Can't vote but would vote yes.

I'm queasy about abortion and it can't be a nice experience, but I'd hate to be a woman in that situation. At the early stages of pregnancy there's not yet a central nervous system and nothing approaching sentience, so there's no such thing as a "baby" to begin with. But this is all academic since the principle is bodily autonomy.  If someone's life depends on me donating a kidney or donating blood, no doctor has the right to cut me open, interfere with my body, and make me do something with it that I don't want, even if another life is at stake. Bodily autonomy. It's not negotiable and it should apply to everyone, including pregnant women.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Milltown Row2 on May 01, 2018, 10:19:30 PM
Who’s the we?? Won’t have any difference on your life, unless  :o

Of course it makes difference to man's life too... could be your daughter is affected, partner etc. Not comparable to how it affects women but does have affect men too

You’re missing the point, I’m unsure on Syferus’s sex! He’s either a woman, man, or part of the LGBT crowd!
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Owen Brannigan on May 01, 2018, 10:36:12 PM
By voting Yes people need to know that they are not voting for abortion, that would have to be legislated for by the Dail. 

It is a vote to make any future legislation on abortion to be constitutional.  In other words, it is a vote to give the decision on abortion to be taken by elected representatives.

If the amendment is repealed it would be interesting to see if any legislation could be passed by the Dail with TDs looking over their shoulders at how the electorate would treat them in an imminent election.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: macdanger2 on May 01, 2018, 10:37:12 PM
Undecided.

Leaning towards yes but could be convinced to vote no.

The standard of debate in the media & online is generally pitiful, mainly the extreme opinions being voiced rather than discussing it properly and acknowledging that shades of grey do exist
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Rufus T Firefly on May 01, 2018, 11:03:18 PM
I think no voters are the most likely to express their convictions.

I'd be curious Boycey as to what you mean by "express their convictions"? If you mean by that, going out and voting, I would tend to agree with you. However if you mean voicing those convictions in a public forum, my sense would be no. I think many that do call for a 'no' vote are likely to be subject to all sorts of vitriol and venom. Mickey Harte is a classic example of that. It takes courage to stand up and do what he has done, whether you agree with him or not.

With regard to the debate, again my sense would be that many viewpoints will be led by the view of the foetus in the womb - is it a life with potential, or is it a potential life? I would very much be of the former opinion - the foetus in the womb is a life and on that basis, if I had a vote, I'd be voting no. I look at  Baile an tuaigh's excellent post above and wonder how many more innocents like his son, never got the chance his son did.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 01, 2018, 11:38:10 PM
By voting Yes people need to know that they are not voting for abortion, that would have to be legislated for by the Dail. 

It is a vote to make any future legislation on abortion to be constitutional.  In other words, it is a vote to give the decision on abortion to be taken by elected representatives.

If the amendment is repealed it would be interesting to see if any legislation could be passed by the Dail with TDs looking over their shoulders at how the electorate would treat them in an imminent election.

This was already went over two months ago. The Government and the major parties support the recommendations; in the event of the referendum being passed the legislation that was proposed will pass with some sabre rattling by those who can’t take losing like grow-ups but there is absolutely no way enough FG/FF/Lab/SF will disrespect the electorate’s wishes and refuse to pass the legislation that was used as the basis for the solution in the event of a Yes vote. It would be quite literally electoral suicide for the parties involved.

You talk about pissing off their constituents - well many more will be much more seriously pissed off if the side the most votes don’t get what the were told they were getting. At least the other side have no foot to stand on if the referendum is passed.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: trileacman on May 02, 2018, 12:00:16 AM
Can't vote but would vote yes.

I'm queasy about abortion and it can't be a nice experience, but I'd hate to be a woman in that situation. At the early stages of pregnancy there's not yet a central nervous system and nothing approaching sentience, so there's no such thing as a "baby" to begin with. But this is all academic since the principle is bodily autonomy.  If someone's life depends on me donating a kidney or donating blood, no doctor has the right to cut me open, interfere with my body, and make me do something with it that I don't want, even if another life is at stake. Bodily autonomy. It's not negotiable and it should apply to everyone, including pregnant women.

What you describe there, “body autonomy”, is tantamount to unlimited abortion with no restrictions as to the stage of pregnancy. If the primary reason you believe in voting yes is because no one can force you to support a life inside you because it is your body and hence your choice then you can have no rebuttal for a woman who chooses to abort her baby a day before delivery or even an hour before delivery. As you say it was her body and her choice, if a woman chooses at 8 months gestation to abort her baby then how, as a supporter of “bodily auntonomy”, could you oppose her?


That’s not something I could fathom but that’s just my opinion.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Eamonnca1 on May 02, 2018, 12:08:40 AM
Can't vote but would vote yes.

I'm queasy about abortion and it can't be a nice experience, but I'd hate to be a woman in that situation. At the early stages of pregnancy there's not yet a central nervous system and nothing approaching sentience, so there's no such thing as a "baby" to begin with. But this is all academic since the principle is bodily autonomy.  If someone's life depends on me donating a kidney or donating blood, no doctor has the right to cut me open, interfere with my body, and make me do something with it that I don't want, even if another life is at stake. Bodily autonomy. It's not negotiable and it should apply to everyone, including pregnant women.

What you describe there, “body autonomy”, is tantamount to unlimited abortion with no restrictions as to age. If the primary reason you believe in voting yes is because no one can force you to support a life inside you because it is your body and hence your choice then you can have no rebuttal for a woman who chooses to abort her baby a day before delivery or even an hour before delivery, because as you say it was her body and her choice.

That’s not something I could fathom but that’s just my opinion.

I agree, it's a very difficult topic and there's no easy answers. I'd just like abortion to be safe, legal and rare. The Dutch (who seem to get so much right) seem to have figured out how to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, and they didn't do it by listening to religious instruction.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: The Boy Wonder on May 02, 2018, 01:12:59 AM
Rufus got it right in his post above – a NO voter expressing their opinions risks being met with vitriol and venom (as evidenced by some resident ignoramuses on this forum’s LLS thread).

For the record I intend to vote No which will be cancelled by the Yes vote of the Missus. I can agree to an extent with the reasons she is voting Yes and in turn her Yes vote does not mean she is in favour of abortion on demand – my reason for voting No.  I am a conscientious objector to abortion as a choice where there are NO valid reasons for medical intervention to end a pregnancy. There are of course exceptional situations such as rape and fatal foetal abnormalities – I don’t have the wisdom to offer an opinion here.

Abortion on demand is widely available across Europe. Because we have a prohibition on abortion in our constitution we have a far lower rate of abortion than other European countries – this is a positive result in my opinion.

I don't agree that abortion should be legalised just because it is possible to purchase abortion pills online. I’m not squeamish but today’s 6-One News had a feature on abortion pills which I found disturbing to watch – just seeing the images of abortion pills on screen and thinking of the ease in which embryonic human life can be snuffed out.

Unfortunately some people confuse abortion with necessary medical intervention – at present, with the Eight Amendment in place, an expectant mother cannot legally be denied life-saving treatment.

All voters need to be fully informed on what they will be voting on - 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

For anyone interested in a Christian perspective on this debate I quote from the COI Archbishop of Armagh’s statement of 28th March – this stance would be endorsed by a wide spectrum of the electorate :

‘We have previously expressed our concern that the forthcoming Constitutional referendum is being understood as something akin to an opinion poll on the complex issue of abortion. However, now that the Government has made known the general scheme of a Bill which it would introduce should the referendum on the repeal of Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution of Ireland be passed, voters face a stark decision.
‘Although it is true that the present provision under the Constitution has proved less than satisfactory in some respects, and we suggested the possibility of a modification to the present Constitutional position, what is now being proposed by the Government – if the Article is repealed – is unrestricted access to abortion up to twelve weeks of pregnancy.
‘As we have said before (in our statement of 5th February – and we also refer to the wider comments made in that statement about the need for pastoral care for women, their partners and their families, and for improved support services and greater investment in medical and mental health services), unrestricted access to abortion in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy, or indeed at any stage, is not an ethical position we can accept. There is, for Christians, a very clear witness in the Scriptures that all human life, including before physical birth, has a sacred dignity in the eyes of God.
‘We therefore ask Church members to think through the issues involved carefully and with prayer over these coming weeks.’
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 02, 2018, 01:17:48 AM
It’s so very easy for men in this thread to sit back and moralise to women saying they should take an unwanted pregnancy to term as if it’s something that is easy or should be done lightly.

Like with most womens’ issues this forum is at odds with the majority opinion and stuck with opinions that might have cut mustard a few decades ago when we knew a lot less about the world we live in.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: trileacman on May 02, 2018, 01:52:45 AM
Can't vote but would vote yes.

I'm queasy about abortion and it can't be a nice experience, but I'd hate to be a woman in that situation. At the early stages of pregnancy there's not yet a central nervous system and nothing approaching sentience, so there's no such thing as a "baby" to begin with. But this is all academic since the principle is bodily autonomy.  If someone's life depends on me donating a kidney or donating blood, no doctor has the right to cut me open, interfere with my body, and make me do something with it that I don't want, even if another life is at stake. Bodily autonomy. It's not negotiable and it should apply to everyone, including pregnant women.

What you describe there, “body autonomy”, is tantamount to unlimited abortion with no restrictions as to age. If the primary reason you believe in voting yes is because no one can force you to support a life inside you because it is your body and hence your choice then you can have no rebuttal for a woman who chooses to abort her baby a day before delivery or even an hour before delivery, because as you say it was her body and her choice.

That’s not something I could fathom but that’s just my opinion.

I agree, it's a very difficult topic and there's no easy answers. I'd just like abortion to be safe, legal and rare. The Dutch (who seem to get so much right) seem to have figured out how to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, and they didn't do it by listening to religious instruction.

Sorry is that an “I agree that women should have the right to abortions up to the day of delivery?” I’m not being insincere I’m just curious as to how you square the idea of “bodily autonomy” with what I presume is the desire not to see babies aborted at near full term.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: BennyCake on May 02, 2018, 02:12:34 AM
The most precious possession you have in this world is your own people. If given the option I would most definitely vote no. My wife and I were unable to have children so we adopted. One of our youngsters birth mom was raped. We now have one of our greatest gifts. Loves to play hurling, sing, play soccer, Irish dance play guitar you name it he's trying his hand at it. This little man is so handsome and kind he makes life worth living. We couldn't imagine life without our wee ones.

Brilliant post. Vote No.

+1
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 02, 2018, 02:13:31 AM
Both sides are spreading bvllshit, but the No side seem to have an huge edge in that regard

The  "In Her Shoes" page had a whopper just this past week where a featured posters story completely contradicted what she had posted on social media when she was pregnant
You can provide a link to this of course?

Because you wouldn't want to have a reputation for just spouting nonsense - not that I'm saying you have, not at all...  ;D

Haha.....not at all

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/heart-patient-unable-to-get-abortion-as-life-not-at-immediate-risk-1.3475728


This article was shared on the “in her shoes” facebook page (which I follow)

The rebuttal was posted by Gerald Allen on the “repeal vrs save the 8th debate” facebook page (which I also follow) on April 27th.

(The “debate” page is no such thing.....its firmly NO page. I had originally liked it thinking I was going to hear 2 reasonable sides to the argument)
Interesting that you have't posted the contents of this "rebuttal".

Having read over the relevant articles and Claire Malone's blog, the No campaign haven't a leg to stand on, as Claire Malone's story holds up just fine.

But what a typical intervention from John McGuirk - claiming he's not accusing somebody of lying while doing exactly that. A real charmer, that fella.

And in the process, adding to the already mountainous pile of mendacious propaganda and fake news coming from the No side.



Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: BennyCake on May 02, 2018, 02:20:36 AM
Re: fake news, media coverage etc... Is it not fair to say this referendum is a simple yes or no?

Do you really need to be told or swayed which way to vote? Doesn't your conscience /morals tell you? I'd no need for anyone else to influence how I would vote, if I could.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 02, 2018, 02:25:31 AM

Unfortunately some people confuse abortion with necessary medical intervention – at present, with the Eight Amendment in place, an expectant mother cannot legally be denied life-saving treatment.

No, they don't.

Can you please make a case as to why a pregnant woman should be denied necessary medical treatment?

You may refer to the case of Michelle Harte, who was denied treatment for cancer because she was pregnant.

Cork University Hospital staff advised her to have an abortion, but could not carry it out because of the 8th Amendment.

During the two months it took for her to arrange an abortion in England, her cancer spread to her brain.

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/goreyguardian/news/abortion-nightmare-for-cancer-sufferer-michelle-27340507.html
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: whitey on May 02, 2018, 02:28:16 AM
Both sides are spreading bvllshit, but the No side seem to have an huge edge in that regard

The  "In Her Shoes" page had a whopper just this past week where a featured posters story completely contradicted what she had posted on social media when she was pregnant
You can provide a link to this of course?

Because you wouldn't want to have a reputation for just spouting nonsense - not that I'm saying you have, not at all...  ;D

Haha.....not at all

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/heart-patient-unable-to-get-abortion-as-life-not-at-immediate-risk-1.3475728


This article was shared on the “in her shoes” facebook page (which I follow)

The rebuttal was posted by Gerald Allen on the “repeal vrs save the 8th debate” facebook page (which I also follow) on April 27th.

(The “debate” page is no such thing.....its firmly NO page. I had originally liked it thinking I was going to hear 2 reasonable sides to the argument)
Interesting that you have't posted the contents of this "rebuttal".

Having read over the relevant articles and Claire Malone's blog, the No campaign haven't a leg to stand on, as Claire Malone's story holds up just fine.

But what a typical intervention from John McGuirk - claiming he's not accusing somebody of lying while doing exactly that. A real charmer, that fella.

And in the process, adding to the already mountainous pile of mendacious propaganda and fake news coming from the No side.

Well I didnt want to be accused of cherry picking comments off a facebook post so I figured youd take a peek for yourself if you were interested enough in seeing what was being said.  Looks like her blog posts during pregnancy are at completely at odds with her Irish Time interview. Now it looks like (again according to the Facebook page) that her blog has been take down. Someone has screenshots, which if authentic, completely contradict her IT interview


I dont know who John McGuirk is......I have lived in the States for close to 30 years

I dont have a vote, but would vote yes if I had the choice.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 02, 2018, 02:29:03 AM
Re: fake news, media coverage etc... Is it not fair to say this referendum is a simple yes or no?

Do you really need to be told or swayed which way to vote? Doesn't your conscience /morals tell you? I'd no need for anyone else to influence how I would vote, if I could.
You either take democracy seriously or you dont.

Demoracy is about making an informed choice based on facts.

The No side don't take democracy seriously, because their campaign is based on lies.

It has to be, by definition, because the facts are strongly against them.

Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 02, 2018, 02:44:04 AM
Both sides are spreading bvllshit, but the No side seem to have an huge edge in that regard

The  "In Her Shoes" page had a whopper just this past week where a featured posters story completely contradicted what she had posted on social media when she was pregnant
You can provide a link to this of course?

Because you wouldn't want to have a reputation for just spouting nonsense - not that I'm saying you have, not at all...  ;D

Haha.....not at all

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/heart-patient-unable-to-get-abortion-as-life-not-at-immediate-risk-1.3475728


This article was shared on the “in her shoes” facebook page (which I follow)

The rebuttal was posted by Gerald Allen on the “repeal vrs save the 8th debate” facebook page (which I also follow) on April 27th.

(The “debate” page is no such thing.....its firmly NO page. I had originally liked it thinking I was going to hear 2 reasonable sides to the argument)
Interesting that you have't posted the contents of this "rebuttal".

Having read over the relevant articles and Claire Malone's blog, the No campaign haven't a leg to stand on, as Claire Malone's story holds up just fine.

But what a typical intervention from John McGuirk - claiming he's not accusing somebody of lying while doing exactly that. A real charmer, that fella.

And in the process, adding to the already mountainous pile of mendacious propaganda and fake news coming from the No side.

Well I didnt want to be accused of cherry picking comments off a facebook post so I figured youd take a peek for yourself if you were interested enough in seeing what was being said.  Looks like her blog posts during pregnancy are at completely at odds with her Irish Time interview. Now it looks like (again according to the Facebook page) that her blog has been take down. Someone has screenshots, which if authentic, completely contradict her IT interview


I dont know who John McGuirk is......I have lived in the States for close to 30 years

I dont have a vote, but would vote yes if I had the choice.

They aren't at odds.

They are the words of a woman with a very serious medical condition who experienced all sorts of conflicting emotions after finding herself pregnant, as is perfectly understandable.

It's rather unsurprising that McGuirk, who gives all the indications that he has never experienced a genuine human emotion in his life, would attempt to twist her words to suit his own cynical agenda.

The key point is that, far from what the No campaign have been spinning, she wasn't entitled to an abortion under Irish law unless her situation worsened to one of an immediate threat of death.

Luckily for her, that didn't happen.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/heart-patient-unable-to-get-abortion-as-life-not-at-immediate-risk-1.3475728

Quote
Her GP, Dr Miles Deas, contacted Prof Charles Gallagher in St Vincent’s University Hospital (SVUH) respiratory department on July 28th last year, asking: “If it is deemed too much of a risk for the patient to continue with the pregnancy . . . would it be appropriate for a termination of pregnancy to occur within Ireland?”

At SVUH, Ms Malone’s lung function was found “adequate” though her pregnancy was judged “high risk”. She was referred to Prof Kevin Walsh, consultant cardiologist at the Mater hospital, and to Prof Mary Higgins, consultant obstetrician at the National Maternity Hospital (NMH).

I was sent home after two days to basically get on with it. Emotionally I was a wreck
In the Mater, “cardiology scanned my heart and said there was no immediate change so I wasn’t entitled to a termination”.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: whitey on May 02, 2018, 02:49:06 AM
Both sides are spreading bvllshit, but the No side seem to have an huge edge in that regard

The  "In Her Shoes" page had a whopper just this past week where a featured posters story completely contradicted what she had posted on social media when she was pregnant
You can provide a link to this of course?

Because you wouldn't want to have a reputation for just spouting nonsense - not that I'm saying you have, not at all...  ;D

Haha.....not at all

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/heart-patient-unable-to-get-abortion-as-life-not-at-immediate-risk-1.3475728


This article was shared on the “in her shoes” facebook page (which I follow)

The rebuttal was posted by Gerald Allen on the “repeal vrs save the 8th debate” facebook page (which I also follow) on April 27th.

(The “debate” page is no such thing.....its firmly NO page. I had originally liked it thinking I was going to hear 2 reasonable sides to the argument)
Interesting that you have't posted the contents of this "rebuttal".

Having read over the relevant articles and Claire Malone's blog, the No campaign haven't a leg to stand on, as Claire Malone's story holds up just fine.

But what a typical intervention from John McGuirk - claiming he's not accusing somebody of lying while doing exactly that. A real charmer, that fella.

And in the process, adding to the already mountainous pile of mendacious propaganda and fake news coming from the No side.

Well I didnt want to be accused of cherry picking comments off a facebook post so I figured youd take a peek for yourself if you were interested enough in seeing what was being said.  Looks like her blog posts during pregnancy are at completely at odds with her Irish Time interview. Now it looks like (again according to the Facebook page) that her blog has been take down. Someone has screenshots, which if authentic, completely contradict her IT interview


I dont know who John McGuirk is......I have lived in the States for close to 30 years

I dont have a vote, but would vote yes if I had the choice.

They aren't at odds.

They are the words of a woman with a very serious medical condition who experienced all sorts of conflicting emotions after finding herself pregnant, as is perfectly understandable.

It's rather unsurprising that McGuirk, who gives all the indications that he has never experienced a genuine human emotion in his life, would attempt to twist her words to suit his own cynical agenda.

The key point is that, far from what the No campaign have been spinning, she wasn't entitled to an abortion under Irish law unless her situation worsened to one of an immediate threat of death.

Luckily for her, that didn't happen.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/heart-patient-unable-to-get-abortion-as-life-not-at-immediate-risk-1.3475728

Quote
Her GP, Dr Miles Deas, contacted Prof Charles Gallagher in St Vincent’s University Hospital (SVUH) respiratory department on July 28th last year, asking: “If it is deemed too much of a risk for the patient to continue with the pregnancy . . . would it be appropriate for a termination of pregnancy to occur within Ireland?”

At SVUH, Ms Malone’s lung function was found “adequate” though her pregnancy was judged “high risk”. She was referred to Prof Kevin Walsh, consultant cardiologist at the Mater hospital, and to Prof Mary Higgins, consultant obstetrician at the National Maternity Hospital (NMH).

I was sent home after two days to basically get on with it. Emotionally I was a wreck
In the Mater, “cardiology scanned my heart and said there was no immediate change so I wasn’t entitled to a termination”.

Believe whatever you want....go back now like a good lad and post up what she said in real time on her blog.......if you can find it, because mysteriously its been deleted....wonder why

Im all in favor of repeal. Theres plenty enough real tragedies they can share on "in her shoes" without resorting to made up tragedies
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 02, 2018, 02:54:20 AM
The most precious possession you have in this world is your own people. If given the option I would most definitely vote no. My wife and I were unable to have children so we adopted. One of our youngsters birth mom was raped. We now have one of our greatest gifts. Loves to play hurling, sing, play soccer, Irish dance play guitar you name it he's trying his hand at it. This little man is so handsome and kind he makes life worth living. We couldn't imagine life without our wee ones.
The Adoption Rights Alliance "strongly advocates for the repeal of the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution."

http://adoption.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/ARA-Position-Paper-on-8th-Amendment.pdf

 
Quote
For our organisation, the Eighth Amendment represents the
latest incarnation of the control that was exerted over the thousands of women and girls who
were forced to relinquish their children for adoption and who were incarcerated in Mother
and Baby Homes, Magdalene Laundries and other institutions. Since 1983, all pregnant
women in Ireland have been denied the right to choose whether to proceed with a
pregnancy, just as adopted people’s natural mothers were denied any choice.

ARA is opposed in the strongest possible terms to the notion that adoption represents a
viable alternative to abortion. We firmly recognise the right of a woman to choose not to
proceed with a pregnancy. Adoption should only ever be utilised in situations where a child
genuinely needs a home, and not as a mechanism whereby women and girls are forced to
carry to term and then relinquish the child to a closed, secret system.

Quote
ARA has consistently campaigned against the continuation of adoptions under Ireland’s
closed, secret system. The adopted people in contact with us are strong, resilient individuals,
and many were raised by loving adoptive parents. However, this does not justify the impact
of being adopted under a closed, secret system, because the consequences are life-long,
inter-generational and permanent. Even today in so-called modern Ireland, adopted people
are denied even the most basic rights, which are taken for granted by the rest of the
population. We are denied access to our birth certificates and adoption files and are made
to feel like criminals for daring to challenge the system. Those of us who have lived under
Ireland’s regime know that no matter how loving an adoptive family might be, closed, secret
adoption is not a child-centred mechanism, and it is certainly not an alternative to
reproductive choice for women.

We strongly advocate the repeal of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 02, 2018, 03:02:43 AM
Both sides are spreading bvllshit, but the No side seem to have an huge edge in that regard

The  "In Her Shoes" page had a whopper just this past week where a featured posters story completely contradicted what she had posted on social media when she was pregnant
You can provide a link to this of course?

Because you wouldn't want to have a reputation for just spouting nonsense - not that I'm saying you have, not at all...  ;D

Haha.....not at all

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/heart-patient-unable-to-get-abortion-as-life-not-at-immediate-risk-1.3475728


This article was shared on the “in her shoes” facebook page (which I follow)

The rebuttal was posted by Gerald Allen on the “repeal vrs save the 8th debate” facebook page (which I also follow) on April 27th.

(The “debate” page is no such thing.....its firmly NO page. I had originally liked it thinking I was going to hear 2 reasonable sides to the argument)
Interesting that you have't posted the contents of this "rebuttal".

Having read over the relevant articles and Claire Malone's blog, the No campaign haven't a leg to stand on, as Claire Malone's story holds up just fine.

But what a typical intervention from John McGuirk - claiming he's not accusing somebody of lying while doing exactly that. A real charmer, that fella.

And in the process, adding to the already mountainous pile of mendacious propaganda and fake news coming from the No side.

Well I didnt want to be accused of cherry picking comments off a facebook post so I figured youd take a peek for yourself if you were interested enough in seeing what was being said.  Looks like her blog posts during pregnancy are at completely at odds with her Irish Time interview. Now it looks like (again according to the Facebook page) that her blog has been take down. Someone has screenshots, which if authentic, completely contradict her IT interview


I dont know who John McGuirk is......I have lived in the States for close to 30 years

I dont have a vote, but would vote yes if I had the choice.

They aren't at odds.

They are the words of a woman with a very serious medical condition who experienced all sorts of conflicting emotions after finding herself pregnant, as is perfectly understandable.

It's rather unsurprising that McGuirk, who gives all the indications that he has never experienced a genuine human emotion in his life, would attempt to twist her words to suit his own cynical agenda.

The key point is that, far from what the No campaign have been spinning, she wasn't entitled to an abortion under Irish law unless her situation worsened to one of an immediate threat of death.

Luckily for her, that didn't happen.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/heart-patient-unable-to-get-abortion-as-life-not-at-immediate-risk-1.3475728

Quote
Her GP, Dr Miles Deas, contacted Prof Charles Gallagher in St Vincent’s University Hospital (SVUH) respiratory department on July 28th last year, asking: “If it is deemed too much of a risk for the patient to continue with the pregnancy . . . would it be appropriate for a termination of pregnancy to occur within Ireland?”

At SVUH, Ms Malone’s lung function was found “adequate” though her pregnancy was judged “high risk”. She was referred to Prof Kevin Walsh, consultant cardiologist at the Mater hospital, and to Prof Mary Higgins, consultant obstetrician at the National Maternity Hospital (NMH).

I was sent home after two days to basically get on with it. Emotionally I was a wreck
In the Mater, “cardiology scanned my heart and said there was no immediate change so I wasn’t entitled to a termination”.

Believe whatever you want....go back now like a good lad and post up what she said in real time on her blog.......if you can find it, because mysteriously its been deleted....wonder why

Im all in favor of repeal. Theres plenty enough real tragedies they can share on "in her shoes" without resorting to made up tragedies

"Believe whatever you want"

"Like a good lad"

Deary me, mate, this isn't the pub.

This is clearly all desperately confusing for you.



Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: whitey on May 02, 2018, 03:06:04 AM
Still waiting for you to post it up....tick....tick...tick...tick....tick
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 02, 2018, 03:21:57 AM
Still waiting for you to post it up....tick....tick...tick...tick....tick
Yourself and the No campaign have been caught out rotten, mate.

Just accept it.

It's a familiar pattern for you - you've a notorious reputation on this forum for playing fast and loose with the truth.

 
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: omaghjoe on May 02, 2018, 06:43:56 AM


A 12 week old foetus cannot survive outside the womb. That's what I mean by surviving independently, as you well know.

We do know what conscious experience a 12 week old foetus has.

The answer is none whatsoever.

It's hard to have a debate when one side is so intent on spreading lies.

A child cannot survive outside the womb until they are at least double 12 weeks even then its touch and go and usually goes hand and hand with lifelong anatomical and cerebal consequences, your probably looking to around 35weeks for a child to have an equal footing as one that goes full term, ( actually probably later statistically). Should the limit be increased to 24 weeks or later if your basing on survival outside the womb?
A child also needs constant round the clock care for the first 6-9months, it tapers off gradually but children need constant care/watching to at least 2 years, they could not survive on their own steam.

And I'm Sorry to tell you this Sid I don't know who told you that but you are wrong about a conscious experience, it is you distorting facts so you may want to reconsider your position based on actual facts.

No one know has any idea about a conscious experience of anyone or anything else, its guess work. Indeed its not thought that children are conscious until they are 6months old.

But no one really knows who or what is conscious, some scientists argue that consciousness of humans is an illusion while some philosopher argue that bacteria, plants, even rocks or maybe even a smart phone may have a conscious experience.

So if thats what your criteria for survival is based on then you need to reconsider your rationale for discarding of your old smartphone or eating spuds.


My criteria is based on what there is little debate about, namely
.... that a unique human life has formed that wants to survive....
and therefore should be allowed to as much as posibble.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Tony Baloney on May 02, 2018, 07:47:19 AM
A lot of talk about medical emergencies. Read a breakdown yesterday that 97% of abortions in the UK were unrelated to medical issues and 36% of these women had at least one previous abortion.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: manfromdelmonte on May 02, 2018, 07:59:17 AM
A lot of talk about medical emergencies. Read a breakdown yesterday that 97% of abortions in the UK were unrelated to medical issues and 36% of these women had at least one previous abortion.
and your point is?

Ireland is most definitely not the UK
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: gallsman on May 02, 2018, 08:22:16 AM
The most precious possession you have in this world is your own people. If given the option I would most definitely vote no. My wife and I were unable to have children so we adopted. One of our youngsters birth mom was raped. We now have one of our greatest gifts. Loves to play hurling, sing, play soccer, Irish dance play guitar you name it he's trying his hand at it. This little man is so handsome and kind he makes life worth living. We couldn't imagine life without our wee ones.

Congrats to you and your wife on what sounds like a wonderful boy you're raising, but just let me check on thing.

No to abortion for victims of rape so people who can't have kids can adopt them? Are you f**king serious?!
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Farrandeelin on May 02, 2018, 09:26:43 AM
That's not what he meant.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: tyrone girl on May 02, 2018, 09:35:53 AM
I hit the wrong poll option. I hit yes but should have hit the yes but cant vote.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: whitey on May 02, 2018, 10:19:57 AM
Still waiting for you to post it up....tick....tick...tick...tick....tick
Yourself and the No campaign have been caught out rotten, mate.

Just accept it.

It's a familiar pattern for you - you've a notorious reputation on this forum for playing fast and loose with the truth.

Still having trouble reading?   Im in favor of a Yes vote.....Ive already said it 3 times, and this number 4 in case you dont know what number comes after 3.

The Times article is completely at odds with her blog postings and her blog has been taken down

If you think different, good for you
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 02, 2018, 10:27:43 AM
That's not what he meant.
If a woman has the appalling crime of rape inflicted on her, is made pregnant as a result, and subsequently decides to carry the pregnancy to full term and puts the baby up for adoption, that is her choice and the right choice for her.

The point is that by voting No, people will be voting to continue the situation where rape victims are forced to any resulting pregnancy to full term.

Unless they leave the country, obviously.

Somebody having an adopted child that they love that was the product of a rape, is not a reason for this state to force rape victims to be forced to carry a pregnancy to full term.

The dirty little secret the No side have is that they are extremely glad that Britain offers acess to abortion, because it's a safety valve. That way the No side can simply keep their fingers stuck in their ears and whistle away to themselves, pretending that there is no problem with how pregnant women are treated in Ireland.

I have a real problem with this line.

The most precious possession you have in this world is your own people.

Women are people too, you know.

It's time we start treating them like people, not vessels.


Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 02, 2018, 10:30:26 AM
Still waiting for you to post it up....tick....tick...tick...tick....tick
Yourself and the No campaign have been caught out rotten, mate.

Just accept it.

It's a familiar pattern for you - you've a notorious reputation on this forum for playing fast and loose with the truth.

Still having trouble reading?   Im in favor of a Yes vote.....Ive already said it 3 times, and this number 4 in case you dont know what number comes after 3.

The Times article is completely at odds with her blog postings and her blog has been taken down

If you think different, good for you
Stop trolling, please, mate, for everybody's sake.

You contribute nothing whatsoever of substance to the forum and have made the US politics thread unreadable due to your trolling.

You're clearly intent on doing similar to this thread.



Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: gallsman on May 02, 2018, 10:56:09 AM
That's not what he meant.

Isn't it? Then why go on about his adoption story? The fact he gets to play happy families because one person chose not to terminate (or perhaps didn't have the option to) has absolutely no relevance on the next case

If the point was to demonstrate that babies that might otherwise be aborted can grow up to live joyous, happy and fulfilling lives, what point was it trying to counter?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Rossfan on May 02, 2018, 10:59:46 AM
Yes 39%
No 37%
Undecided 24%.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: AZOffaly on May 02, 2018, 11:06:49 AM
Yes 39%
No 37%
Undecided 24%.

Where's that Rossfan?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Rossfan on May 02, 2018, 11:15:06 AM
GAABOARD poll on this thread of those who have a vote.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: AZOffaly on May 02, 2018, 11:18:07 AM
GAABOARD poll on this thread of those who have a vote.

Ah right. So, worthless then :)
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: whitey on May 02, 2018, 11:46:37 AM
Still waiting for you to post it up....tick....tick...tick...tick....tick
Yourself and the No campaign have been caught out rotten, mate.

Just accept it.

It's a familiar pattern for you - you've a notorious reputation on this forum for playing fast and loose with the truth.

Still having trouble reading?   Im in favor of a Yes vote.....Ive already said it 3 times, and this number 4 in case you dont know what number comes after 3.

The Times article is completely at odds with her blog postings and her blog has been taken down

If you think different, good for you
Stop trolling, please, mate, for everybody's sake.

You contribute nothing whatsoever of substance to the forum and have made the US politics thread unreadable due to your trolling.

You're clearly intent on doing similar to this thread.

I made an accurate statement about an IT article that was posted on "in her shoes" and you jumped down my throat and accused me of making shit up.

 Sorry if the facts about the incostincies between the  blog and the IT article dont fit your agenda

Why was the blog taken down.....this is now the 3rd or 4th time Ive asked you and am still waiting for an answer

If you dont like my posts......feel free to ignore them, but dont expect me to hide in the corner if you accuse me of lying and fabricating stuff
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 02, 2018, 11:55:21 AM
Still waiting for you to post it up....tick....tick...tick...tick....tick
Yourself and the No campaign have been caught out rotten, mate.

Just accept it.

It's a familiar pattern for you - you've a notorious reputation on this forum for playing fast and loose with the truth.

Still having trouble reading?   Im in favor of a Yes vote.....Ive already said it 3 times, and this number 4 in case you dont know what number comes after 3.

The Times article is completely at odds with her blog postings and her blog has been taken down

If you think different, good for you
Stop trolling, please, mate, for everybody's sake.

You contribute nothing whatsoever of substance to the forum and have made the US politics thread unreadable due to your trolling.

You're clearly intent on doing similar to this thread.

I made an accurate statement about an IT article that was posted on "in her shoes" and you jumped down my throat and accused me of making shit up.

 Sorry if the facts about the incostincies between the  blog and the IT article dont fit your agenda

Why was the blog taken down.....this is now the 3rd or 4th time Ive asked you and am still waiting for an answer

If you dont like my posts......feel free to ignore them, but dont expect me to hide in the corner if you accuse me of lying and fabricating stuff

Just hide in the corner and continue to lie and fabricate stuff, then.

Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Billys Boots on May 02, 2018, 01:16:25 PM
Saw this today:

Quote
Here are nine reasons why I will be voting yes, Yes, YES …. (by Brian Barrington )
1 - Ireland is a civilised country in all areas except one: our abortion laws. Check out the attached map below. Ireland’s abortion laws put it in the same category as bastions of human rights like Somalia, Afghanistan, the Congo and Papua New Guinea. Saudi Arabian women have more abortion rights than Irish women. It really is that bad. It is long past time to rectify this wrong and to end our national shame.
2 - The Irish Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is in favour of repealing the 8th Amendment, as is the Irish Midwife’s Association. The professional view these doctors and midwives is that they cannot do their jobs properly thanks to the 8th amendment. They have to deal every day with the terrible consequences of this badly thought out constitutional amendment. Are we really so sure that we know better than they do what is needed? What argument can we make that we know better? Let’s see.
3 - According to the Irish constitution a fully grown woman has an “equal right to life” with an embryo. The text reads: “The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.” This is a straightforward obscenity. The right to life of a fully grown woman clearly vastly exceeds that of an embryo and to say otherwise, as the Irish constitution currently does, is outrageous. It is not just an insult to Irish women – as an Irish man I am insulted to have something this stupid in my constitution.
4 - The 8th Amendment is an outright lie. It is easy to see that Irish people do not actually believe that mothers and unborn children have an “equal right to life” – we showed this when voted overwhelmingly to give women the explicit right to travel abroad for pregnancy terminations. We might as well have put in our constitution: “We don’t really mind if you have an abortion as long as you go to England – just don’t do it on holy Irish soil”. The national hypocrisy is stunning. The fact that we enshrine in our constitution the right of women to travel to have abortions demonstrates that we do not actually think that an unborn child has an “equal right to life” as the mother. This is why the 8th Amendment is an outright lie.
5 - If you put lies in your constitution it is not just symbolic. It has bad real-world consequences. In the Y case a pregnant rape victim was denied an abortion in Ireland. She was a foreign national so she could not do what many Irish women do in that situation (i.e. go to England). After the woman went on hunger strike an Irish court ordered her to be force fed. Another proud day for Ireland courtesy of the 8th amendment.
In 2010 an Irish woman was denied an abortion despite being diagnosed with fatal foetal syndrome. The cruelty and inhumanity of this simply beggars belief. Imagine a law that COERCES women with fatal foetal abnormalities to continue pregnancy and undergo child birth against their will? After being abandoned by her own country this woman had to go to England of course. At least she was able to do so.
If Savita Halappanavar had been granted an abortion when she requested it she would be alive now, but due to our abortion laws she was denied it and that is why she is dead now.
If you put dumb shit in your constitution then this is the kind of thing that happens.
The 8th has inflicted unnecessary suffering on countless women in Ireland. It is barbaric. It degrades us as a people. It is a cancer in our constitution and it needs to be removed. By voting to remove the amendment we can in a small way apologise to the women who have suffered and take steps to ensure that appalling events like these do not happen again. One thing is for sure: if we disgrace ourselves and vote No then appalling events like these WILL happen again. Knowing this, how can anyone is good conscience vote No?
6 - Now, it may be that after the X case (Remember that? The attorney general slapped a travel injunction on a pregnant fourteen year old rape victim in regard to travelling to England for an abortion. Another disgrace for our nation thanks to this sham provision in our constitution) a judge eventually interpreted the 8th amendment to in this instance privilege the life of the mother over that of the unborn. But this “interpretation” contradicts the plain meaning of the text, which explicitly says that their right to life is “equal” and therefore that one should not be privileged over the other. There is a good reason why the judge, when dealing with the concrete reality of the X case, had to interpret the text to mean something that it does not say: the text of the 8th amendment is ABSURD – it is so obviously absurd that no reasonable person can take what it actually says seriously, so it therefore needs to be ignored (i.e. “interpreted” to mean something that it does not actually say). Well, are we really going to leave this absurdity in our Constitution? Why not just take the stupid thing out, since its symbolism is grotesque and its real-world consequences even worse?
7- Our favoured means of ignoring the cruelty of the 8th amendment involves hopping on a Ryanair flight to London. Time to end this national farce. How ironic and humiliating that we Irish rely on Britain, our old colonial master, to solve for us the problem that we don’t have the courage and maturity to face for ourselves. Now we have the opportunity to show at least a modicum of courage and maturity and begin dealing with the problem ourselves. I really hope that we don’t make a holy show of ourselves and vote No.
8 - Do the No people ever pause to think how nasty their campaign has been? Think for a moment what it is like for women who have suffered late term miscarriages being forced to look at those No posters day after day, week after week, month after month. Does this ever cross the minds of the No people? Do they even care? They have lost the argument. They have no argument so their campaign relies almost entirely on what is really a form of emotional bullying.
While we’re at it, many foreigners like to use Ireland as a poster-boy for their social agenda and fund these campaigns – are we not a bit tired of Ireland being used as a pawn in somebody else’s culture war? They don’t have to deal with the consequences. We do.
9 - The decrepit Catholic hierarchy is telling you to vote No. These are the same people who tell you that it’s a mortal sin to wear a condom. We all ignore them about contraception so why should we pay any attention to them about this? After the child abuse scandals what authority do they have to lecture the rest of us about morality? They will never face the problems, heartaches and complexities that other people face in regard to this. They will never have to go through pregnancy and birth. They will never struggle with fertility problems. They will never have a miscarriage. They will never have to be a parent to a child. They will never have to decide whether to have a termination or not. Are these (supposedly) celibate men really the people to be lecturing the rest of us about this? They are entitled to their opinion, of course; and the rest of us are entitled to ignore it.
It’s really very simple: we need to delete this poisonous amendment from our Constitution.
We can do it now.
Or we can wait another few years and do it then.
Do you really want to go through all this again?
We might as well just do it now.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: easytiger95 on May 02, 2018, 01:50:14 PM
I'll be voting yes for a few reasons - which were mostly covered by BB's post.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Dinny Breen on May 02, 2018, 01:50:59 PM
As above.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: whitey on May 02, 2018, 02:21:56 PM
Still waiting for you to post it up....tick....tick...tick...tick....tick
Yourself and the No campaign have been caught out rotten, mate.

Just accept it.

It's a familiar pattern for you - you've a notorious reputation on this forum for playing fast and loose with the truth.

Still having trouble reading?   Im in favor of a Yes vote.....Ive already said it 3 times, and this number 4 in case you dont know what number comes after 3.

The Times article is completely at odds with her blog postings and her blog has been taken down

If you think different, good for you
Stop trolling, please, mate, for everybody's sake.

You contribute nothing whatsoever of substance to the forum and have made the US politics thread unreadable due to your trolling.

You're clearly intent on doing similar to this thread.

I made an accurate statement about an IT article that was posted on "in her shoes" and you jumped down my throat and accused me of making shit up.

 Sorry if the facts about the incostincies between the  blog and the IT article dont fit your agenda

Why was the blog taken down.....this is now the 3rd or 4th time Ive asked you and am still waiting for an answer

If you dont like my posts......feel free to ignore them, but dont expect me to hide in the corner if you accuse me of lying and fabricating stuff

Just hide in the corner and continue to lie and fabricate stuff, then.

Lol....keep it up
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: magpie seanie on May 02, 2018, 02:27:46 PM
As above.


Ditto. Very well put in all honesty.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: magpie seanie on May 02, 2018, 02:37:39 PM
That's not what he meant.
If a woman has the appalling crime of rape inflicted on her, is made pregnant as a result, and subsequently decides to carry the pregnancy to full term and puts the baby up for adoption, that is her choice and the right choice for her.

The point is that by voting No, people will be voting to continue the situation where rape victims are forced to any resulting pregnancy to full term.

Unless they leave the country, obviously.

Somebody having an adopted child that they love that was the product of a rape, is not a reason for this state to force rape victims to be forced to carry a pregnancy to full term.

The dirty little secret the No side have is that they are extremely glad that Britain offers acess to abortion, because it's a safety valve. That way the No side can simply keep their fingers stuck in their ears and whistle away to themselves, pretending that there is no problem with how pregnant women are treated in Ireland.

I have a real problem with this line.

The most precious possession you have in this world is your own people.

Women are people too, you know.

It's time we start treating them like people, not vessels.


I agree.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 02, 2018, 02:39:28 PM
That's not what he meant.

The Adoption Alliance’s stance on pro-choice posted a few pages ago makes sobering reading for anyone who is using adoption to explain away voting No, though.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: easytiger95 on May 02, 2018, 04:10:23 PM
That's not what he meant.
If a woman has the appalling crime of rape inflicted on her, is made pregnant as a result, and subsequently decides to carry the pregnancy to full term and puts the baby up for adoption, that is her choice and the right choice for her.

The point is that by voting No, people will be voting to continue the situation where rape victims are forced to any resulting pregnancy to full term.

Unless they leave the country, obviously.

Somebody having an adopted child that they love that was the product of a rape, is not a reason for this state to force rape victims to be forced to carry a pregnancy to full term.

The dirty little secret the No side have is that they are extremely glad that Britain offers acess to abortion, because it's a safety valve. That way the No side can simply keep their fingers stuck in their ears and whistle away to themselves, pretending that there is no problem with how pregnant women are treated in Ireland.

I have a real problem with this line.

The most precious possession you have in this world is your own people.

Women are people too, you know.

It's time we start treating them like people, not vessels.


I agree.

That said, this vote is going to be a very personal one for everyone and I have no problem with Baile An Tuaigh giving his own personal reason for his preference. I don't find it persuasive on a general level, but as an explanation of where he is at on this, it seems valid enough.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: macdanger2 on May 02, 2018, 10:04:29 PM

The point is that by voting No, people will be voting to continue the situation where rape victims are forced to any resulting pregnancy to full term.


What's the situation with rape under the proposed new legislation? Am I correct in saying that unless the woman presents before 12 weeks, no abortion will be allowed? Or is there an additional clause?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Itchy on May 02, 2018, 11:02:00 PM
Interesting. Only looking at who can vote its 27 for yes, 23 for No and 14 undecided. It's not very scientific but convinced me that I wasn't wrong when I said no could win this.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 02, 2018, 11:07:59 PM
Interesting. Only looking at who can vote its 27 for yes, 23 for No and 14 undecided. It's not very scientific but convinced me that I wasn't wrong when I said no could win this.

Christ.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: longballin on May 02, 2018, 11:13:36 PM
Interesting. Only looking at who can vote its 27 for yes, 23 for No and 14 undecided. It's not very scientific but convinced me that I wasn't wrong when I said no could win this.

Christ.

  :D
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Rossfan on May 03, 2018, 12:15:58 AM
Why is eejit hole calling on the Lord?
Is he in trouble or dying or what?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 03, 2018, 12:44:49 AM
Why is eejit hole calling on the Lord?
Is he in trouble or dying or what?

You are a child in an adult's body. And a petty child at that.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: omaghjoe on May 03, 2018, 06:50:01 AM
Saw this today:

Quote
Here are nine reasons why I will be voting yes, Yes, YES …. (by Brian Barrington )
1 - Ireland is a civilised country in all areas except one: our abortion laws. Check out the attached map below. Ireland’s abortion laws put it in the same category as bastions of human rights like Somalia, Afghanistan, the Congo and Papua New Guinea. Saudi Arabian women have more abortion rights than Irish women. It really is that bad. It is long past time to rectify this wrong and to end our national shame.
2 - The Irish Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is in favour of repealing the 8th Amendment, as is the Irish Midwife’s Association. The professional view these doctors and midwives is that they cannot do their jobs properly thanks to the 8th amendment. They have to deal every day with the terrible consequences of this badly thought out constitutional amendment. Are we really so sure that we know better than they do what is needed? What argument can we make that we know better? Let’s see.
3 - According to the Irish constitution a fully grown woman has an “equal right to life” with an embryo. The text reads: “The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.” This is a straightforward obscenity. The right to life of a fully grown woman clearly vastly exceeds that of an embryo and to say otherwise, as the Irish constitution currently does, is outrageous. It is not just an insult to Irish women – as an Irish man I am insulted to have something this stupid in my constitution.
4 - The 8th Amendment is an outright lie. It is easy to see that Irish people do not actually believe that mothers and unborn children have an “equal right to life” – we showed this when voted overwhelmingly to give women the explicit right to travel abroad for pregnancy terminations. We might as well have put in our constitution: “We don’t really mind if you have an abortion as long as you go to England – just don’t do it on holy Irish soil”. The national hypocrisy is stunning. The fact that we enshrine in our constitution the right of women to travel to have abortions demonstrates that we do not actually think that an unborn child has an “equal right to life” as the mother. This is why the 8th Amendment is an outright lie.
5 - If you put lies in your constitution it is not just symbolic. It has bad real-world consequences. In the Y case a pregnant rape victim was denied an abortion in Ireland. She was a foreign national so she could not do what many Irish women do in that situation (i.e. go to England). After the woman went on hunger strike an Irish court ordered her to be force fed. Another proud day for Ireland courtesy of the 8th amendment.
In 2010 an Irish woman was denied an abortion despite being diagnosed with fatal foetal syndrome. The cruelty and inhumanity of this simply beggars belief. Imagine a law that COERCES women with fatal foetal abnormalities to continue pregnancy and undergo child birth against their will? After being abandoned by her own country this woman had to go to England of course. At least she was able to do so.
If Savita Halappanavar had been granted an abortion when she requested it she would be alive now, but due to our abortion laws she was denied it and that is why she is dead now.
If you put dumb shit in your constitution then this is the kind of thing that happens.
The 8th has inflicted unnecessary suffering on countless women in Ireland. It is barbaric. It degrades us as a people. It is a cancer in our constitution and it needs to be removed. By voting to remove the amendment we can in a small way apologise to the women who have suffered and take steps to ensure that appalling events like these do not happen again. One thing is for sure: if we disgrace ourselves and vote No then appalling events like these WILL happen again. Knowing this, how can anyone is good conscience vote No?
6 - Now, it may be that after the X case (Remember that? The attorney general slapped a travel injunction on a pregnant fourteen year old rape victim in regard to travelling to England for an abortion. Another disgrace for our nation thanks to this sham provision in our constitution) a judge eventually interpreted the 8th amendment to in this instance privilege the life of the mother over that of the unborn. But this “interpretation” contradicts the plain meaning of the text, which explicitly says that their right to life is “equal” and therefore that one should not be privileged over the other. There is a good reason why the judge, when dealing with the concrete reality of the X case, had to interpret the text to mean something that it does not say: the text of the 8th amendment is ABSURD – it is so obviously absurd that no reasonable person can take what it actually says seriously, so it therefore needs to be ignored (i.e. “interpreted” to mean something that it does not actually say). Well, are we really going to leave this absurdity in our Constitution? Why not just take the stupid thing out, since its symbolism is grotesque and its real-world consequences even worse?
7- Our favoured means of ignoring the cruelty of the 8th amendment involves hopping on a Ryanair flight to London. Time to end this national farce. How ironic and humiliating that we Irish rely on Britain, our old colonial master, to solve for us the problem that we don’t have the courage and maturity to face for ourselves. Now we have the opportunity to show at least a modicum of courage and maturity and begin dealing with the problem ourselves. I really hope that we don’t make a holy show of ourselves and vote No.
8 - Do the No people ever pause to think how nasty their campaign has been? Think for a moment what it is like for women who have suffered late term miscarriages being forced to look at those No posters day after day, week after week, month after month. Does this ever cross the minds of the No people? Do they even care? They have lost the argument. They have no argument so their campaign relies almost entirely on what is really a form of emotional bullying.
While we’re at it, many foreigners like to use Ireland as a poster-boy for their social agenda and fund these campaigns – are we not a bit tired of Ireland being used as a pawn in somebody else’s culture war? They don’t have to deal with the consequences. We do.
9 - The decrepit Catholic hierarchy is telling you to vote No. These are the same people who tell you that it’s a mortal sin to wear a condom. We all ignore them about contraception so why should we pay any attention to them about this? After the child abuse scandals what authority do they have to lecture the rest of us about morality? They will never face the problems, heartaches and complexities that other people face in regard to this. They will never have to go through pregnancy and birth. They will never struggle with fertility problems. They will never have a miscarriage. They will never have to be a parent to a child. They will never have to decide whether to have a termination or not. Are these (supposedly) celibate men really the people to be lecturing the rest of us about this? They are entitled to their opinion, of course; and the rest of us are entitled to ignore it.
It’s really very simple: we need to delete this poisonous amendment from our Constitution.
We can do it now.
Or we can wait another few years and do it then.
Do you really want to go through all this again?
We might as well just do it now.


Firstly repeated use of hyperbolic adjectives like absrub, dumb, stupid, disgrace etc not does make something so, that is merely a subjective interpretation. Using this language  strategically for humour and emotion is a good method for gaining support for your points but does not make your point correct...

1. Just because countries that are deemed to be "civilised" legalise abortion does not make it ok or right.And I didnt see a map but I'm pretty sure it will show that Ireland is "behind" China, Russia, Germany, USA, Turkey, Cambodia, & Rwanda in terms of abortion law and therefore less civilised than these countries were genocide was perpetratedin the recent past. Also by this definition of civilised North Korea is obiviously more so than South Korea.
Folks, Ireland is a soverign country with a self determination for its people, make your own decision on your values and rationale not what France, UK or Holland are doing, what a Guardian opinion pieces say is right, or what the latest social media trend is.

2&5. It is unfortunate that medical professionals are put in this position but they are the best qualified people to do this and are actually put in equally difficult positions frequently regarding best treatment options in life or death situations, the case of Savita is a tragic one I agree and its obviously easy to say with hindsight that it was the wrong decision not to abort the pregnancy.

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

9. The position of particular institutions should be irrelevant to anyone who is trying to make a logical argument or decision. Otherwise its just an attempt to guilt by association with an "unfashionable" organisation.

8. Ever looked at how nasty the Yes campaign has been? There are a good number of reasonable campaigners but it also seems that every turnaround those who are on the No side are being depicted as inhumane, cruel, backward dinosaurs who cant keep up with modern trends, stifle progress, cant think for themselves but instead blindly follow what the bishops instructions are. There is a term for this... its called Ad hominen and should be dead in the water for anyone who adheres to reason but it introduces a strong emotion element to arguments that people cannot see past sometimes.

Now there are extremes scenarios pushed forward by both sides... Namely cases of rape, terminal fetal abnormalities v Downs Syndrome, Cleft Lip or even "Wrong gender" abortions on the other.

However the vast majority (did I see over 90%?) of abortions that will be carried out under proposed legislation will be carried out on perfectly healthy babies produced from consensual sex and therefore this is what the discussion should focus on. And within that context it seems that argument boils down to a rather simple:
.....Right to Life of the baby v the Right of Choice for the mother.......
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Esmarelda on May 03, 2018, 08:17:03 AM
I have to largely agree with Joe. I'm voting Yes but that list is embarrassing. It lowers the Yes side's case to the equivalent of what I've come to expect from the No side.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: AZOffaly on May 03, 2018, 08:30:49 AM
This is pretty close to my point of view as well.

"3&4. I actually agree that an unborn child should not have equal right to life to that of the mother, but this does not mean then the unborn child does have a right to give life a go. If a proposal was put forward that would still protect the right to life of a healthy fetus but the mothers life was always came first I would happily support it. Not sure if its possible to legislate for this tho and the proposed legislation gives them no right to life whatsoever."
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: magpie seanie on May 03, 2018, 08:34:47 AM
This is pretty close to my point of view as well.

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


In that case your issue is with the legislators and you should support the removal of the 8th amendment.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: AZOffaly on May 03, 2018, 08:37:26 AM
This is pretty close to my point of view as well.

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


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

No, because I don't trust the legislators, and giving them the power to do what they are proposing to do is what I am uneasy with.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: magpie seanie on May 03, 2018, 09:19:50 AM
This is pretty close to my point of view as well.

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


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

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


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

I understand not trusting politicians (and very often it would be yourself who would be asking me - what other alternative system is there?) but in this process there has been a citizens assembly which considered many contributions and came up with recommendations. The proposed legislation is along the lines of these recommendations. If there was a process of developing legislation that was less controlled by politicians in this country I certainly can't remember it. I know people will say the power to legislate still remains afterwards but does anyone really think there will be any political appetite to revisit this? It has taken 35 years to address a glaring mistake in the 8th amendment.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Ty4Sam on May 03, 2018, 09:42:55 AM
Can someone explain to me, is there special circumstances, and if so what are they, that come with repealing the 8th? I take it someone just can't walk off the street and get an abortion, is there a timeframe, medical problems etc.?

I don't have a vote so not interested in getting viewpoints, opinions etc, just the facts.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: AZOffaly on May 03, 2018, 09:47:57 AM
This is pretty close to my point of view as well.

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


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

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


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

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

You're putting words in my mouth.

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

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

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

If that makes no sense, well, sorry.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: magpie seanie on May 03, 2018, 10:25:10 AM
This is pretty close to my point of view as well.

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


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

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


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

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

You're putting words in my mouth.

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

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

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

If that makes no sense, well, sorry.


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

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

I'd just like to restate that voting No will not stop one termination of the type that is already happening. Women will still go to England. Pills will still be imported. The only people who will suffer are the cases where the woman is too sick or distressed or poor to travel to Britain. I understand most people have sympathy in the difficult cases like health complications and rape but are troubled by the elective terminations. That's very understandable but it's only the difficult cases that will or may not be able to go to Britain that you'll stop by voting No.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: seafoid on May 03, 2018, 02:29:31 PM
Abortion was common in pre medieval and medieval Ireland and was managed by women.
Changes around the time of the Reformation gave medical and social power to priests.
This film is very interesting. It covers the story from a wider European perspective
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YizdSL2_pMo&t=801s

Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Itchy on May 03, 2018, 04:10:55 PM
Over Half of the FF parliamentary party will canvas for a No vote.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/more-than-half-of-fianna-fil-parliamentary-party-backing-no-vote-in-referendum-36870462.html
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: seafoid on May 03, 2018, 04:24:08 PM
Over Half of the FF parliamentary party will canvas for a No vote.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/more-than-half-of-fianna-fil-parliamentary-party-backing-no-vote-in-referendum-36870462.html
And bears shit in the woods.
No would need a much higher % of FF to win.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Itchy on May 03, 2018, 04:52:26 PM
Over Half of the FF parliamentary party will canvas for a No vote.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/more-than-half-of-fianna-fil-parliamentary-party-backing-no-vote-in-referendum-36870462.html
And bears shit in the woods.
No would need a much higher % of FF to win.

You dont think a similar % in FG will be the same?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Rossfan on May 03, 2018, 04:58:31 PM
GAA Board poll now
Yes 42%
No 37%
Undecided 21%.
About 54/46 with the undecideds out.
In the real world I'd expect about half the 78% of the population who are  Catholics to be No, (same figure as the Same sex marriage Referendum).
Most SF and loony and not so loony left -about 25% will be Yes
So the other 36% will decide with Yes needing 26 of it.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 03, 2018, 05:28:38 PM
GAA Board poll now
Yes 42%
No 37%
Undecided 21%.
About 54/46 with the undecideds out.
In the real world I'd expect about half the 78% of the population who are  Catholics to be No, (same figure as the Same sex marriage Referendum).
Most SF and loony and not so loony left -about 25% will be Yes
So the other 36% will decide with Yes needing 26 of it.

The percentage of people who are catholic on a census form that let that inform how they’re voting in the referfrum is quite low and only applies in massive numbers to older people.

If the Yes side get out the vote this will not even be close. The time for debating with the other side should be over now and the focus needs to be on motivating younger people to vote.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: seafoid on May 03, 2018, 05:29:32 PM
Over Half of the FF parliamentary party will canvas for a No vote.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/more-than-half-of-fianna-fil-parliamentary-party-backing-no-vote-in-referendum-36870462.html
And bears shit in the woods.
No would need a much higher % of FF to win.

You dont think a similar % in FG will be the same?
I think FG are different on social issues but that is just my impression
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Avondhu star on May 03, 2018, 11:49:39 PM
GAA Board poll now
Yes 42%
No 37%
Undecided 21%.
About 54/46 with the undecideds out.
In the real world I'd expect about half the 78% of the population who are  Catholics to be No, (same figure as the Same sex marriage Referendum).
Most SF and loony and not so loony left -about 25% will be Yes
So the other 36% will decide with Yes needing 26 of it.

The percentage of people who are catholic on a census form that let that inform how they’re voting in the referfrum is quite low and only applies in massive numbers to older people.

If the Yes side get out the vote this will not even be close. The time for debating with the other side should be over now and the focus needs to be on motivating younger people to vote.
What evidence have you that the young vote are more pro repeal?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 04, 2018, 12:09:26 AM
GAA Board poll now
Yes 42%
No 37%
Undecided 21%.
About 54/46 with the undecideds out.
In the real world I'd expect about half the 78% of the population who are  Catholics to be No, (same figure as the Same sex marriage Referendum).
Most SF and loony and not so loony left -about 25% will be Yes
So the other 36% will decide with Yes needing 26 of it.

The percentage of people who are catholic on a census form that let that inform how they’re voting in the referfrum is quite low and only applies in massive numbers to older people.

If the Yes side get out the vote this will not even be close. The time for debating with the other side should be over now and the focus needs to be on motivating younger people to vote.
What evidence have you that the young vote are more pro repeal?

https://extra.ie/2018/04/28/news/irish-news/abortion-poll-yes-side-no-side

Next time use Google if you don’t accept broadly known facts.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: armaghniac on May 04, 2018, 12:33:21 AM
GAA Board poll now
Yes 42%
No 37%
Undecided 21%.
About 54/46 with the undecideds out.
In the real world I'd expect about half the 78% of the population who are  Catholics to be No, (same figure as the Same sex marriage Referendum).
Most SF and loony and not so loony left -about 25% will be Yes
So the other 36% will decide with Yes needing 26 of it.

The percentage of people who are catholic on a census form that let that inform how they’re voting in the referfrum is quite low and only applies in massive numbers to older people.

If the Yes side get out the vote this will not even be close. The time for debating with the other side should be over now and the focus needs to be on motivating younger people to vote.
What evidence have you that the young vote are more pro repeal?

Young people are generally less responsible and more influenced by fads. The main exception was Brexit.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 04, 2018, 12:34:25 AM
GAA Board poll now
Yes 42%
No 37%
Undecided 21%.
About 54/46 with the undecideds out.
In the real world I'd expect about half the 78% of the population who are  Catholics to be No, (same figure as the Same sex marriage Referendum).
Most SF and loony and not so loony left -about 25% will be Yes
So the other 36% will decide with Yes needing 26 of it.

The percentage of people who are catholic on a census form that let that inform how they’re voting in the referfrum is quite low and only applies in massive numbers to older people.

If the Yes side get out the vote this will not even be close. The time for debating with the other side should be over now and the focus needs to be on motivating younger people to vote.
What evidence have you that the young vote are more pro repeal?

Young people are generally less responsible and more influenced by fads. The main exception was Brexit.

You are really ratcheting up the nonsense to 11 now.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: omaghjoe on May 04, 2018, 05:12:46 AM
This is pretty close to my point of view as well.

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


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

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


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

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

You're putting words in my mouth.

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

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

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

If that makes no sense, well, sorry.


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

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

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

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

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

I agree that a No vote will unlikely cause the current rate to drop, it will probably still increase but a Yes vote will cause it to skyrocket as the legal line that existed will have disappeared and abortion will have become normalized in society as has happened in other countries which have abortion on request.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: omaghjoe on May 04, 2018, 05:35:21 AM
Abortion was common in pre medieval and medieval Ireland and was managed by women.
Changes around the time of the Reformation gave medical and social power to priests.
This film is very interesting. It covers the story from a wider European perspective
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YizdSL2_pMo&t=801s

This link seems to be mostly about witches in France Seafoid, says very little about abortion and certainly doesn't mention the frequency or acceptability of it, tho didnt watch all of it.

But anyway say that it was the case and abortion was frequent, legal and accepted in medieval Ireland. Where does that leave the rationale from the Yes side that the current law is outdated? Using that reasoning then shifting position back to an even more outdated standard would be even worse?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: seafoid on May 04, 2018, 06:57:26 AM
Abortion was common in pre medieval and medieval Ireland and was managed by women.
Changes around the time of the Reformation gave medical and social power to priests.
This film is very interesting. It covers the story from a wider European perspective
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YizdSL2_pMo&t=801s

This link seems to be mostly about witches in France Seafoid, says very little about abortion and certainly doesn't mention the frequency or acceptability of it, tho didnt watch all of it.

But anyway say that it was the case and abortion was frequent, legal and accepted in medieval Ireland. Where does that leave the rationale from the Yes side that the current law is outdated? Using that reasoning then shifting position back to an even more outdated standard would be even worse?

I think on the yes side the avoidable death of Savita was the last straw.
If she had known how the system works she could have gone to England. She would still be around.  But she didn't and she is dead.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: omaghjoe on May 04, 2018, 07:08:11 AM
Abortion was common in pre medieval and medieval Ireland and was managed by women.
Changes around the time of the Reformation gave medical and social power to priests.
This film is very interesting. It covers the story from a wider European perspective
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YizdSL2_pMo&t=801s

This link seems to be mostly about witches in France Seafoid, says very little about abortion and certainly doesn't mention the frequency or acceptability of it, tho didnt watch all of it.

But anyway say that it was the case and abortion was frequent, legal and accepted in medieval Ireland. Where does that leave the rationale from the Yes side that the current law is outdated? Using that reasoning then shifting position back to an even more outdated standard would be even worse?

I think on the yes side the avoidable death of Savita was the last straw.
If she had known how the system works she could have gone to England. She would still be around.  But she didn't and she is dead.

It was an unfortunate mistake that could and should have be avoided if the guidelines were weighed more to the mother.

Introducing on request abortions tho is not an appropriate or proportional response to this case. And is a cynical use of this woman's death to justify what will be a huge increase in the rate of ending unique human lives.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Hound on May 04, 2018, 07:36:13 AM
GAA Board poll now
Yes 42%
No 37%
Undecided 21%.
About 54/46 with the undecideds out.
In the real world I'd expect about half the 78% of the population who are  Catholics to be No, (same figure as the Same sex marriage Referendum).
Most SF and loony and not so loony left -about 25% will be Yes
So the other 36% will decide with Yes needing 26 of it.

The percentage of people who are catholic on a census form that let that inform how they’re voting in the referfrum is quite low and only applies in massive numbers to older people.

If the Yes side get out the vote this will not even be close. The time for debating with the other side should be over now and the focus needs to be on motivating younger people to vote.
What evidence have you that the young vote are more pro repeal?

https://extra.ie/2018/04/28/news/irish-news/abortion-poll-yes-side-no-side

Next time use Google if you don’t accept broadly known facts.
Good man syf. Never resist the chance to be a complete asshole!

"Next time" somebody asks you a simple question why not try and be civil, and give an answer like "here's a link to an interesting article which gives a good breakdown by age, etc..."

But you'll probably blame someone else for you posting like an asshole. If you were a bit more civil, people mightnt wonder if you're touched in the head.

Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: thebigfella on May 04, 2018, 08:47:58 AM
Abortion was common in pre medieval and medieval Ireland and was managed by women.
Changes around the time of the Reformation gave medical and social power to priests.
This film is very interesting. It covers the story from a wider European perspective
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YizdSL2_pMo&t=801s

This link seems to be mostly about witches in France Seafoid, says very little about abortion and certainly doesn't mention the frequency or acceptability of it, tho didnt watch all of it.

But anyway say that it was the case and abortion was frequent, legal and accepted in medieval Ireland. Where does that leave the rationale from the Yes side that the current law is outdated? Using that reasoning then shifting position back to an even more outdated standard would be even worse?

I think on the yes side the avoidable death of Savita was the last straw.
If she had known how the system works she could have gone to England. She would still be around.  But she didn't and she is dead.

It was an unfortunate mistake that could and should have be avoided if the guidelines were weighed more to the mother.

Introducing on request abortions tho is not an appropriate or proportional response to this case. And is a cynical use of this woman's death to justify what will be a huge increase in the rate of ending unique human lives.

Is this the question in the referendum? I though it was to replace the 8th to text that allows the oireachtas to legislate on abortion. Just because there is a yes vote doesn’t Change the current law.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Esmarelda on May 04, 2018, 10:22:01 AM
This is pretty close to my point of view as well.

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


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

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


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

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

You're putting words in my mouth.

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

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

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

If that makes no sense, well, sorry.


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

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

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

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

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

I agree that a No vote will unlikely cause the current rate to drop, it will probably still increase but a Yes vote will cause it to skyrocket as the legal line that existed will have disappeared and abortion will have become normalized in society as has happened in other countries which have abortion on request.
Joe, a woman that wants an abortion will justify it to herself. She may also not view it as a human life. These views will not match everyone else's views of course.

Is there evidence that abortion will "sky rocket"? I think this is one of the main problems facing the Yes side; the fear among the undecided that if the 8th is repealed, that there will be mass abortions. Is there anything to suggest this is the case?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: seafoid on May 04, 2018, 10:25:52 AM
Abortion was common in pre medieval and medieval Ireland and was managed by women.
Changes around the time of the Reformation gave medical and social power to priests.
This film is very interesting. It covers the story from a wider European perspective
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YizdSL2_pMo&t=801s

This link seems to be mostly about witches in France Seafoid, says very little about abortion and certainly doesn't mention the frequency or acceptability of it, tho didnt watch all of it.

But anyway say that it was the case and abortion was frequent, legal and accepted in medieval Ireland. Where does that leave the rationale from the Yes side that the current law is outdated? Using that reasoning then shifting position back to an even more outdated standard would be even worse?

I think on the yes side the avoidable death of Savita was the last straw.
If she had known how the system works she could have gone to England. She would still be around.  But she didn't and she is dead.

It was an unfortunate mistake that could and should have be avoided if the guidelines were weighed more to the mother.

Introducing on request abortions tho is not an appropriate or proportional response to this case. And is a cynical use of this woman's death to justify what will be a huge increase in the rate of ending unique human lives.
It won't. 3000 abortions a year happen anyway. The only question is where they happen
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 04, 2018, 10:34:05 AM
Abortion was common in pre medieval and medieval Ireland and was managed by women.
Changes around the time of the Reformation gave medical and social power to priests.
This film is very interesting. It covers the story from a wider European perspective
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YizdSL2_pMo&t=801s

This link seems to be mostly about witches in France Seafoid, says very little about abortion and certainly doesn't mention the frequency or acceptability of it, tho didnt watch all of it.

But anyway say that it was the case and abortion was frequent, legal and accepted in medieval Ireland. Where does that leave the rationale from the Yes side that the current law is outdated? Using that reasoning then shifting position back to an even more outdated standard would be even worse?

I think on the yes side the avoidable death of Savita was the last straw.
If she had known how the system works she could have gone to England. She would still be around.  But she didn't and she is dead.

It was an unfortunate mistake that could and should have be avoided if the guidelines were weighed more to the mother.

Introducing on request abortions tho is not an appropriate or proportional response to this case. And is a cynical use of this woman's death to justify what will be a huge increase in the rate of ending unique human lives.
It won't. 3000 abortions a year happen anyway. The only question is where they happen

And how good the aftercare is. Despite what some fools think, an abortion tends to be a big deal for most people who have one. For many the care shouldn’t end with the procedure.

There seems to be a puritanical bent to a lot of northern posters, indeed many of the same people who ridicule the DUP for being backwards.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: gallsman on May 04, 2018, 10:37:14 AM
Is this the question in the referendum? I though it was to replace the 8th to text that allows the oireachtas to legislate on abortion. Just because there is a yes vote doesn’t Change the current law.

Imagine that, omaghjoe paying away without the slightest understanding of the facts. Who'd have thunk it?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: AZOffaly on May 04, 2018, 10:39:38 AM
Is this the question in the referendum? I though it was to replace the 8th to text that allows the oireachtas to legislate on abortion. Just because there is a yes vote doesn’t Change the current law.

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

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

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but at least be honest about what a Yes vote means in reality.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: gallsman on May 04, 2018, 10:47:18 AM
Is this the question in the referendum? I though it was to replace the 8th to text that allows the oireachtas to legislate on abortion. Just because there is a yes vote doesn’t Change the current law.

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

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

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

It's absolutely not disingenuous. Removing a constitutional barrier to "introducing abortions on request" is some leap.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 04, 2018, 10:47:59 AM
Is this the question in the referendum? I though it was to replace the 8th to text that allows the oireachtas to legislate on abortion. Just because there is a yes vote doesn’t Change the current law.

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

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

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

Some fantasists here still think the Dail could go against the wishes of the people and not implement the recommendations they themselves support in the event of a Yes vote, so there is definitely a lack of honesty going round on both sides.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: AZOffaly on May 04, 2018, 10:52:46 AM
Is this the question in the referendum? I though it was to replace the 8th to text that allows the oireachtas to legislate on abortion. Just because there is a yes vote doesn’t Change the current law.

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

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

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

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

But Gallsman, that's the proposed legislation. Up to 12 week, abortions to be available without any limits. Or do you think that won't come in? Effectively, this is the people voting on that piece of legislation, because if they vote yes, the Government know there's a popular mandate for the legislation as is. As Syf says, people are codding themselves if they think this referendum will not lead to elective abortions up to 12 weeks, within a matter of months.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: magpie seanie on May 04, 2018, 11:05:26 AM
Is this the question in the referendum? I though it was to replace the 8th to text that allows the oireachtas to legislate on abortion. Just because there is a yes vote doesn’t Change the current law.

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

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

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


It's not disingenuous, it's a fact. The referendum is about removing the 8th amendment. That's it.

What will happen afterwards is a separate matter though it has been fairly clearly signposted. There's no trojan horse here but there are clearly two separate things happening. I'd suggest a lot of No campaigners/voters problem is with our elected TD's and Senators, a majority of whom appear ready to change the law if the 8th amendment is removed. In a democracy if there's enough of them to stop or change legislation then that will happen.

The 8th amendment is a horrible blunt instrument that has been a disaster since its inception. It has failed to keep abortion out of Ireland and it has failed women. It has to go.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: gallsman on May 04, 2018, 11:15:15 AM
Is this the question in the referendum? I though it was to replace the 8th to text that allows the oireachtas to legislate on abortion. Just because there is a yes vote doesn’t Change the current law.

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed legislation is just that - proposed.

12 weeks is half the time that abortion is generally available in the UK. It can take half that before people even realise they're pregnant. Use of the phrase "abortion on demand" is absolute bullshit and vines from the minds of people who think everyone just decides willy nilly that they'll pop down for an abortion. Next stop (it's been used here before) is "people will just use it as contraception"
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: AZOffaly on May 04, 2018, 11:18:15 AM
Seanie, it is disingenuous. To say 'The law won't change if the 8th Amendment is removed' implies that this is simply some sort of unconnected event. The referendum being removed ALLOWS the proposed law to be enacted. It's almost cause and effect.

Telling someone that repealing the 8th won't lead to 12 week elective abortions is either being deliberately disingenuous, or is avoiding the consequence of their vote. Most Yes voters, by far, want to see 12 week elective abortions in my view, otherwise they are in serious danger of watching the law of unintended consequences. Semantics about what the wording of the constitution will look like post referendum is just that. Semantics. The truth is that the proposed legislation will be enacted unless the referendum is defeated.

Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: AZOffaly on May 04, 2018, 11:18:48 AM
Is this the question in the referendum? I though it was to replace the 8th to text that allows the oireachtas to legislate on abortion. Just because there is a yes vote doesn’t Change the current law.

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed legislation is just that - proposed.

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

So you think the proposed legislation will not be enacted?

Edit, I meant to say I agree with you about 'abortion on demand' and 'use it as contraception'. Abortion is not a trivial matter, and I don't think anyone would ever do it lightly. However, I use the term elective abortions and I think it's accurate for the situation proposed re the 12 weeks. It's obviously still a terrible choice and decision to make, but it is still elective.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Rossfan on May 04, 2018, 11:20:54 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the Government  called on to publish draft legislation before the referendum so people would have the full picture before voting on Article 40/3/3?
We now know what the proposed Legislation is if the Constitution is changed so we're not voting in a vacuum as it were.
While technically the voters are only voting on whether to change 40/3/3 there is a bigger picture associated with it.
If we vote to change will the Dáil pass the proposed legislation?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: AZOffaly on May 04, 2018, 11:26:07 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the Government  called on to publish draft legislation before the referendum so people would have the full picture before voting on Article 40/3/3?
We now know what the proposed Legislation is if the Constitution is changed so we're not voting in a vacuum as it were.
While technically the voters are only voting on whether to change 40/3/3 there is a bigger picture associated with it.
If we vote to change will the Dáil pass the proposed legislation?

Yes and yes. That's exactly my point. Whether you are a Yes or No voter is up to yourself obviously, but it's not a vote in a vacuum. There is cause and effect at play here.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: gallsman on May 04, 2018, 11:53:09 AM
No I think it will be enacted but I would not be surprised to see the issue drawn out.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Rossfan on May 04, 2018, 12:22:33 PM
I suspect the 12 weeks legislation will indeed be enacted if the Referendum passes.
Most of SF plus lefties of all sorts = 35 votes at least plus the Cabinet and Junior members another 30.
So they only need 15 of the other 93 to back it then.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Avondhu star on May 04, 2018, 01:24:11 PM
I suspect the 12 weeks legislation will indeed be enacted if the Referendum passes.
Most of SF plus lefties of all sorts = 35 votes at least plus the Cabinet and Junior members another 30.
So they only need 15 of the other 93 to back it then.
Wait till the TDs analyse the no votes in their constituency?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Hardy on May 04, 2018, 04:45:24 PM
If when the proposed legislation is enacted it will de facto represent the majority wish of the electorate, since that's what we elect governments for. If the electorate wishes to change its mind on the legislation, there will be a general election in due course.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 04, 2018, 04:55:07 PM
Why are the anti-choice nutters so congenitally incapable of teling the truth?
Quote
https://www.newstalk.com/Master-of-the-Rotunda-Maternity-Hospital-warns-prolife-posters-factually-inaccurate

Pro-life posters that say a foetus can kick and yawn at nine weeks are factually incorrect, according to the Master of the Rotunda Maternity Hospital.

Speaking to Newstalk's Lunchtime Live, Professor Fergal Malone noted that a “yawn is an inhalation of breath" and as such is impossible for a foetus - which is surrounded by fluid in the womb.

The Professor also noted that the notion of a foetus kicking or having “any such conscious movement” after nine weeks gestation is misleading.

He said the posters are causing “extreme distress” among pregnant women.

The Rotunda Hospital was forced to call the Gardaí after a group of campaigners picketed in front of the hospital with posters featuring graphic imagery.

Professor Malone said the protesters were "holding them up to the faces of people walking through the hospital."

Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: AZOffaly on May 04, 2018, 05:13:40 PM
Why would anti abortion campaigners be outside a maternity hospital. Donkeys.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Crete Boom on May 04, 2018, 05:47:41 PM
Alot of people on here seem to be saying they don't trust who we elect to legislate for abortion?
Does everyone here who doesn't trust the governement we elect vote in general elections? If you do why do you vote if you don't trust elected governments?
If they only way we can or feel we can legislate for major social issues is to have it bound in rigid black and white text in our constituition what is the point in us having a democracy at all?
I am in the undecided camp but I don't feel very comfortable with this we can't trust our elected officials to legislate on a major social issues so we need to have rigid text in a constitution to police a major social issue!!!

Other observations I have is the campaign reminds me of Brexit and the American presidential election where the No side is taking a very simple targeted lets have a revoloution against the government/establishment that have made our lives a misery, take back our country, with striking stats that are complete lies etc.. etc.. , and the Yes side is kind of wishy washy rambling set of reasons, all logical and valid but seem limp in soundbite terms to the No side!!!
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Esmarelda on May 04, 2018, 05:48:15 PM
Matt Cooper on asking a FF TD if FF lead the next government, with over half their TDs canvassing for a NO vote, won't they just change the legislation to reflect this position.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 04, 2018, 06:08:50 PM


Other observations I have is the campaign reminds me of Brexit and the American presidential election where the No side is taking a very simple targeted lets have a revoloution against the government/establishment that have made our lives a misery, take back our country, with striking stats that are complete lies etc.. etc.. , and the Yes side is kind of wishy washy rambling set of reasons, all logical and valid but seem limp in soundbite terms to the No side!!!
Facts aren't sexy in comparison to lies.

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

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

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

This is as true of this referendum as it is with Brexit and Trump.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: magpie seanie on May 04, 2018, 07:16:58 PM
Seanie, it is disingenuous. To say 'The law won't change if the 8th Amendment is removed' implies that this is simply some sort of unconnected event. The referendum being removed ALLOWS the proposed law to be enacted. It's almost cause and effect.

Telling someone that repealing the 8th won't lead to 12 week elective abortions is either being deliberately disingenuous, or is avoiding the consequence of their vote. Most Yes voters, by far, want to see 12 week elective abortions in my view, otherwise they are in serious danger of watching the law of unintended consequences. Semantics about what the wording of the constitution will look like post referendum is just that. Semantics. The truth is that the proposed legislation will be enacted unless the referendum is defeated.


But not exactly. Trying to pretend nothing will change of there's a yes vote is disingenuous but the referendum is simply about removing or retaining the 8th Amendment. As has been said before, if a majority in Dáil Éireann want more restrictive laws at a future time they will be in a position to do so.

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

Again one other thing I want to be clear about. No one or very few people want to see abortions at any stage. The reality though is that they are happening and we need to face those facts rather than keeping our heads in the sand.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: whitey on May 04, 2018, 07:24:07 PM
im in favor of a Yes vote, but dont have a vote.

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

I think the Yes camp should be nervous by anything less than a 15 % lead in the polls
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 04, 2018, 07:45:41 PM
im in favor of a Yes vote, but dont have a vote.

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

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

..you are told about No campaigners heckling a maternity ward and you talk about bullying by Yes voters. Christ.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: whitey on May 04, 2018, 09:31:02 PM
im in favor of a Yes vote, but dont have a vote.

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

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

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

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

(Out of curiosity, what exactly were they doing outside the maternity ward?  Who were they "heckling"? Expectant mothers? Were they holding those offensive signs? )
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: macdanger2 on May 04, 2018, 10:51:04 PM

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


When I saw the posters, I assumed that that was bull also so I looked it up and as far as I could see, it's correct. In the last 50 years, there's been ~35m kids born in the UK (according to what looked like the UK CSO website) and 8.7m abortions (according to wiki) so it seems to be legit. I didn't interrogate those figures to any great extent so open to correction on those however
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 04, 2018, 11:54:24 PM

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


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

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

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

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


Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: macdanger2 on May 05, 2018, 12:23:59 AM

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

No matter what your viewpoint, an absolute view on such a complex issue is incorrect imo - otherwise if you're a no voter, you believe that anything after the initial conception is murder and if you're a yes voter,  anything before birth is the mother's decision.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 05, 2018, 01:26:21 AM

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

No matter what your viewpoint, an absolute view on such a complex issue is incorrect imo - otherwise if you're a no voter, you believe that anything after the initial conception is murder and if you're a yes voter,  anything before birth is the mother's decision.
The vast majority of abortions happen early in a pregnancy. In England and Wales 90% happen in the first 13 weeks.

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

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

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

I think the proposed legislation would be a giant leap forward from what we have now.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: omaghjoe on May 05, 2018, 07:59:24 AM
This is pretty close to my point of view as well.

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


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

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


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

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

You're putting words in my mouth.

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

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

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

If that makes no sense, well, sorry.


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

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

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

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

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

I agree that a No vote will unlikely cause the current rate to drop, it will probably still increase but a Yes vote will cause it to skyrocket as the legal line that existed will have disappeared and abortion will have become normalized in society as has happened in other countries which have abortion on request.
Joe, a woman that wants an abortion will justify it to herself. She may also not view it as a human life. These views will not match everyone else's views of course.

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

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

There is evidence that abortion will skyrocket if you compare the increasing rate of abortion after it is legalized in other countries with similar cultures. The fact that it becomes legal makes it more accessible and means that culturally it becomes more accepted which in turn leads to further relaxing of the law and more abortions. It does level off but at a rate much higher than the current estimates of Irish abortions.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: omaghjoe on May 05, 2018, 08:04:02 AM
If when the proposed legislation is enacted it will de facto represent the majority wish of the electorate, since that's what we elect governments for. If the electorate wishes to change its mind on the legislation, there will be a general election in due course.

eh?... with a minority government that won 25% of the popular vote?
General elections are not single issue plebiscites
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: omaghjoe on May 05, 2018, 08:08:37 AM
Is this the question in the referendum? I though it was to replace the 8th to text that allows the oireachtas to legislate on abortion. Just because there is a yes vote doesn’t Change the current law.

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed legislation is just that - proposed.

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

Lads lads are yous really serious?

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

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

Of maybe some of ye despite all the  holier than thou posturing yous are actually a wee bit selective with the facts?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: omaghjoe on May 05, 2018, 08:18:43 AM


Other observations I have is the campaign reminds me of Brexit and the American presidential election where the No side is taking a very simple targeted lets have a revoloution against the government/establishment that have made our lives a misery, take back our country, with striking stats that are complete lies etc.. etc.. , and the Yes side is kind of wishy washy rambling set of reasons, all logical and valid but seem limp in soundbite terms to the No side!!!
Facts aren't sexy in comparison to lies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


IF someone uses false facts or reasoning on a particular side of an argument it does not mean that there is no rationale argument for that side. we need to to search for the facts and correct rationale. There is no such thing as an opinion based only on facts,to form an opinion you also need rationale, and when it comes to morals like in this case, preference or emotion.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: omaghjoe on May 05, 2018, 08:29:31 AM

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

No matter what your viewpoint, an absolute view on such a complex issue is incorrect imo - otherwise if you're a no voter, you believe that anything after the initial conception is murder and if you're a yes voter,  anything before birth is the mother's decision.
The vast majority of abortions happen early in a pregnancy. In England and Wales 90% happen in the first 13 weeks.

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

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

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

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

So is sentince or viability your base point.

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

You me or no one else have no idea when sentience occurs in anyone or anything else. But it is an interesting point, a gun to the head would be cool as the victim feels nothing? That ok? A person in a coma feels nothing and indeed they are reliant on others to coming out of the coma, is it to switch their support system off and let them die even if they are guaranteed to come out of the coma in a healthy state?
Sentience is a very vague concept and a strange base point for someone who purports to deal only in facts...
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: omaghjoe on May 05, 2018, 08:41:10 AM
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
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: macdanger2 on May 05, 2018, 08:47:38 AM

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

No matter what your viewpoint, an absolute view on such a complex issue is incorrect imo - otherwise if you're a no voter, you believe that anything after the initial conception is murder and if you're a yes voter,  anything before birth is the mother's decision.
The vast majority of abortions happen early in a pregnancy. In England and Wales 90% happen in the first 13 weeks.

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the reply sid. Rationale like that is easier to understand than the simple "it's her choice" which I hear from the yes campaign and is something that turns me off. For me, the 16 weeks would probably be too high but everyone has to draw the line somewhere
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: trileacman on May 05, 2018, 10:00:36 AM
Just a question for the Yes voters, do you see any problem with the large scale abortion of children with abnormalities? I seen a guardian piece lately that said 92% of babies with Down’s syndrome were aborted in England since the pre natal screen for Down’s syndrome came in. There were also suggestions that a similar pre natal test for aspergers and autism could see a similar discrimination against those conditions.

What’s your argument in favour of conditions like that?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Hardy on May 05, 2018, 11:38:12 AM
If when the proposed legislation is enacted it will de facto represent the majority wish of the electorate, since that's what we elect governments for. If the electorate wishes to change its mind on the legislation, there will be a general election in due course.

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

Wow! I never thought of that.

What the hell are we going to do now that all our laws are invalid because one party doesn't have a majority in the government?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: omaghjoe on May 05, 2018, 04:39:43 PM
If when the proposed legislation is enacted it will de facto represent the majority wish of the electorate, since that's what we elect governments for. If the electorate wishes to change its mind on the legislation, there will be a general election in due course.

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

Wow! I never thought of that.

What the hell are we going to do now that all our laws are invalid because one party doesn't have a majority in the government?

You didn't? I would have thought that obvious TBH

The laws won't be invalid but they in no way represent the wish of the majority  especially on single issues like you were professing.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 05, 2018, 05:52:11 PM
If when the proposed legislation is enacted it will de facto represent the majority wish of the electorate, since that's what we elect governments for. If the electorate wishes to change its mind on the legislation, there will be a general election in due course.

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

Wow! I never thought of that.

What the hell are we going to do now that all our laws are invalid because one party doesn't have a majority in the government?

You didn't? I would have thought that obvious TBH

The laws won't be invalid but they in no way represent the wish of the majority  especially on single issues like you were professing.

Do Tyrone people have a sarcasm bypass at birth or something?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 05, 2018, 07:10:11 PM
If when the proposed legislation is enacted it will de facto represent the majority wish of the electorate, since that's what we elect governments for. If the electorate wishes to change its mind on the legislation, there will be a general election in due course.

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

Wow! I never thought of that.

What the hell are we going to do now that all our laws are invalid because one party doesn't have a majority in the government?

You didn't? I would have thought that obvious TBH

The laws won't be invalid but they in no way represent the wish of the majority  especially on single issues like you were professing.

Do Tyrone people have a sarcasm bypass at birth or something?
The Ballygawley bypass isn't the only one in the county, you know.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: magpie seanie on May 08, 2018, 04:22:45 PM
Just a question for the Yes voters, do you see any problem with the large scale abortion of children with abnormalities? I seen a guardian piece lately that said 92% of babies with Down’s syndrome were aborted in England since the pre natal screen for Down’s syndrome came in. There were also suggestions that a similar pre natal test for aspergers and autism could see a similar discrimination against those conditions.

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


No one is arguing for that. It's a complete red herring and typical of the misinformation being put about by the No campaign. Under the proposed legislation elective abortions are not available after 12 weeks. As I understand it the test for Down's is only possible around 20 weeks. So there will be no change here in those circumstances.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: magpie seanie on May 08, 2018, 04:28:43 PM

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Also - not all miscarriages are reported so that would further widen the ratio. It's a completely false claim.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: omaghjoe on May 08, 2018, 06:17:45 PM

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Also - not all miscarriages are reported so that would further widen the ratio. It's a completely false claim.

Can  you apply some maths to the data like i did above to backup your claim instead of just repeating it? Perhaps you could come up with a figure instead of just saying the 1in4 is wrong.

It seems to me that for 2016 the 1in4 claim isn't to wide of the mark.

Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: trileacman on May 08, 2018, 09:30:45 PM
Just a question for the Yes voters, do you see any problem with the large scale abortion of children with abnormalities? I seen a guardian piece lately that said 92% of babies with Down’s syndrome were aborted in England since the pre natal screen for Down’s syndrome came in. There were also suggestions that a similar pre natal test for aspergers and autism could see a similar discrimination against those conditions.

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


No one is arguing for that. It's a complete red herring and typical of the misinformation being put about by the No campaign. Under the proposed legislation elective abortions are not available after 12 weeks. As I understand it the test for Down's is only possible around 20 weeks. So there will be no change here in those circumstances.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/screening-amniocentesis-downs-syndrome/

Test is carried out between 10-14 weeks. So much for the No side being the ones spreading misinformation.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: seafoid on May 08, 2018, 09:43:30 PM
This referendum if it passes will change social life in Ireland. The draconian reproductive  politics that defined the State for all of its life gave us things like the travel to Liverpool, adoption and a very strong sense of duty towards handicapped people. Other countries with abortion don't have as many handicapped people. Especially Protestant countries.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: whitey on May 08, 2018, 09:51:50 PM
This referendum if it passes will change social life in Ireland. The draconian reproductive  politics that defined the State for all of its life gave us things like the travel to Liverpool, adoption and a very strong sense of duty towards handicapped people. Other countries with abortion don't have as many handicapped people. Especially Protestant countries.

Im in favor of a yes vote, but think you have to give women options especially when their lives are in danger. 

Speaking of adoptions, do they have “open adoptions” in Ireland, where the adoptive parents and birth parents stay in touch and the kids know from an early age that they are part of 2 separate families. I personally know 2 people (one being my cousin) who have this arrangement and it works out great. They usually meet up with the birth parents families once or twice a year and the kids even get to spend time with their other half brothers, sisters, cousins etc.  (Kinda defeats the whole “its not the right time for me to have a baby” argument)
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: trileacman on May 08, 2018, 10:00:52 PM
https://www.nhs.uk/news/genetics-and-stem-cells/downs-syndrome-qa/ (https://www.nhs.uk/news/genetics-and-stem-cells/downs-syndrome-qa/)

That’s the nhs article that says 92% of foetuses with Down’s syndrome are currently aborted.

Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Farrandeelin on May 08, 2018, 11:24:04 PM
https://www.nhs.uk/news/genetics-and-stem-cells/downs-syndrome-qa/ (https://www.nhs.uk/news/genetics-and-stem-cells/downs-syndrome-qa/)

That’s the nhs article that says 92% of foetuses with Down’s syndrome are currently aborted.

It's a woman's right to choose.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 08, 2018, 11:24:24 PM
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106909728&postcount=1418

Quote
I've just had an x-ray cancelled for two weeks because of this amendment.

I'm clearly not pregnant but the only way round it is for a GP to do a test and sign a form. Like my mum signing a note for school.

This is my health we are talking about and I don't have the right to treatment. I am not even trusted to declare myself not pregnant.

REPEAL THE 8TH NOW

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106913221&postcount=1460

Quote
So, timing eh?

I've just had my mother come to me in tears with news about my younger brother , who's girlfriend is 27 weeks pregnant. A girl my own kids were delighted about ( my youngest, at 6, is the baby, over both sides of the family so he was chuffed that he wouldn't be anymore).

Myself and the missus had been wondering between us how come they'd had so many scans, seemed a lot over the last while. Apparently they'd noticed a few things and it's all come to a head now, having seen a geneticist and whatever other doctors you see about these things . I don't know the full ins and outs because I'm getting the information 3rd hand but the jist is the baby may survive , and could survive a long life span but it would not be a life worth lioving. A life being kept alive , pretty much just for th awake of not being dead. A life of suffering for both child and parents, aswell as sacrifice for any other children they may have. So now they are looking at the prospect of having to go abroad, to see doctors and specialist and go through all the hurt and suffering all over again , to have a baby induced that won't survive and then have to travel straight back home to deal with it.
These are two kids (relativly speaking I mean. They are mid 20s) and this is their first experience of pregnancy and the effects and stresses of what happens when it goes wrong. "Sorry folks, nothing we can do, here's a plane ticket so someone else can deal with you"


From the beginning I have been pro choice and tbh I assu ed my mother was too, but this resulted in a bit of heated discussion ( not helped that we were both upset) when she went on the "abortion on demand" bit . She didn't seem to see any issue or connection between her upset and what others might be dealing with I their lives just because our family's particular situation is wholly medical.


**** the laws and **** the 8th amendment.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106914307&postcount=1492

Quote
I’m being investigated for cervical cancer due to high grade genotyping cell changes picked up during an abnormal smear.
Before each appointment I have to do a pregnancy test, and If that test were to come back positive, there would be nothing they could do to help me.
In 9 months time it could have progressed to cancer but I still wouldn’t be given an option to terminate.
I would be expected to gamble my life that all would be ok and wait to start treatment and testing after the baby is born in 9 months, or else go to the UK for a termination and continue the preventative treatment.
Either way, the Irish healthcare system cannot and will not do anything until I am no longer pregnant.
Luckily I’m not and don’t plan to be any time soon but it’s a scary thought.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 08, 2018, 11:35:32 PM
Forcing doctors to wait until a woman's life is at risk is not proper healthcare.

It is effective homicide if the woman dies.

That's the reality of the 8th Amendment.


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/eighth-amendment-causing-uncertainty-for-doctors-gynaecologist-1.3478274

Eighth Amendment causing uncertainty for doctors – gynaecologist

The Eighth Amendment should be repealed as it is causing uncertainty and difficulty for doctors and delaying the treatment of seriously ill women, a gynaecologist has said.

Speaking at the launch of Fine Gael’s Yes campaign in Cork, Prof Richard Greene said the amendment and the termination of pregnancy were difficult issues with both sides of the debate offering opposing views as to how it affects practitioners and patients.

“How does it affect me as a clinician, dealing daily with women and I’ve been working in obstetrics and gynaecology for nearly 30 years? I would say the simplest message I would give about the Eighth Amendment is that it muddies the water –we just don’t have clarity about how we should practise,” said Prof Greene, who works at University College Cork and Cork University Maternity Hospital.

He offered examples of how the amendment, which guarantees an equal right to life to the mother and child, has an impact on his work at the hospital. He cited the case of a woman he called Sheila, who presented at 13-14 weeks pregnant with her cervix already open in a pregnancy that she really wanted.

“Sheila’s water bag around the baby had gone, the chance that this baby would survive is about one or two in 1,000. The chances of that baby’s lungs developing are limited and the risk of infection is very significant and we have to achieve another 10 weeks of pregnancy to get her to a viable gestation,” he said.

“But I have to actually wait until her life is at risk to do what I know is an appropriate treatment. Yes, the 2013 Protection Of Life in Pregnancy Act will allow me to act once her life is in danger but effectively the Eighth Amendment is dictating a tardiness for both Sheila and myself.”

Ectopic pregnancy
Prof Greene also instanced the case of a woman he called Nancy who presented with an ectopic pregnancy, in which the foetus was outside the uterus and unviable. She was also showing signs of bleeding which put her life at risk, he said.

“We discuss it with Nancy and her partner. The decision is made to treat her surgically and remove the pregnancy. There is a heartbeat but they accept that it is the appropriate treatment and it meets all the legal requirements,” he said.

However, I leave her and I am called to come back and counsel her again because she overhears a conversation where one staff member says to the other, ‘Is this legal, the baby’s heart is still beating?’ So the correct choice of care is being questioned because of the Eighth Amendment.”

Prof Greene also gave the example of a couple he named Martina and Joe who suffered “a profound loss of pregnancy at 38 weeks when their baby was stillborn” and three subsequent miscarriages before Martina became pregnant again only to discover the baby had anencephaly.

“This baby is not going to survive, it may be born alive but it will not survive. They were devastated given their story but they were absolutely horrified at the idea we had to wait for the pregnancy to proceed and go to the end of the pregnancy, knowing there was nothing to get out of it,” he said.

“And the question they were asking was why cannot we do something now so that we can at least try again and hopefully have a child and I saw the horrendous pain they went through. In the end, the Eighth Amendment was adding to their grief and mental trauma.

“They eventually went to the UK for a termination but they are still pained by all of this. They never had a baby to take home, they had no burial place, they had no service with their family. Martina’s physical life was not in danger but they are psychologically traumatised because of it.”

Prof Greene accepted some believe the floodgates would open if the Eighth Amendment was repealed but the evidence from Eastern Europe and some US states where free contraception and early healthcare were provided suggested the number of terminations can be reduced multifold.

“I trust the women I looked after in pregnancy and I can honestly tell you they make good decisions after much consideration before they undertake a termination. The Eighth Amendment is affecting women and doctors in providing good healthcare and that’s why I’m supporting a Yes vote.”
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: omaghjoe on May 08, 2018, 11:51:12 PM
77
https://www.nhs.uk/news/genetics-and-stem-cells/downs-syndrome-qa/ (https://www.nhs.uk/news/genetics-and-stem-cells/downs-syndrome-qa/)

That’s the nhs article that says 92% of foetuses with Down’s syndrome are currently aborted.


There may be a bit of misinformation going on here, we never got this test but were offered it at the time and turned it down, as it involved risks to the baby. That carried out at the start of the 2nd trimester (week 14ish??) and  hence past the 12week cutoff. It is carried out by putting a needle through the sac (hence the risk) and testing the babies chromozones.

However now the test can be done earlier to that by examining the mothers blood. Since the babies blood cells cross the placentia into the mother's bloodstream they are there and can be idenitfied by the difference in the DNA. So they are able to tell all the genetic characteristics about the baby from pretty early this will include the Down's Syndrome test.
This can be carried out at week 10 a friend of ours got it dont recently and made the 12week announcement with the sex of the baby and all!
This is well before the 12week cutoff so there is no doubt there would be terminiations carried out for this reason.

And I think Seafoid makes an excellent point about how the nature of society would change as a result
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: omaghjoe on May 08, 2018, 11:56:15 PM
Forcing doctors to wait until a woman's life is at risk is not proper healthcare.

It is effective homicide if the woman dies.

That's the reality of the 8th Amendment.


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/eighth-amendment-causing-uncertainty-for-doctors-gynaecologist-1.3478274

Eighth Amendment causing uncertainty for doctors – gynaecologist

The Eighth Amendment should be repealed as it is causing uncertainty and difficulty for doctors and delaying the treatment of seriously ill women, a gynaecologist has said.

Speaking at the launch of Fine Gael’s Yes campaign in Cork, Prof Richard Greene said the amendment and the termination of pregnancy were difficult issues with both sides of the debate offering opposing views as to how it affects practitioners and patients.

“How does it affect me as a clinician, dealing daily with women and I’ve been working in obstetrics and gynaecology for nearly 30 years? I would say the simplest message I would give about the Eighth Amendment is that it muddies the water –we just don’t have clarity about how we should practise,” said Prof Greene, who works at University College Cork and Cork University Maternity Hospital.

He offered examples of how the amendment, which guarantees an equal right to life to the mother and child, has an impact on his work at the hospital. He cited the case of a woman he called Sheila, who presented at 13-14 weeks pregnant with her cervix already open in a pregnancy that she really wanted.

“Sheila’s water bag around the baby had gone, the chance that this baby would survive is about one or two in 1,000. The chances of that baby’s lungs developing are limited and the risk of infection is very significant and we have to achieve another 10 weeks of pregnancy to get her to a viable gestation,” he said.

“But I have to actually wait until her life is at risk to do what I know is an appropriate treatment. Yes, the 2013 Protection Of Life in Pregnancy Act will allow me to act once her life is in danger but effectively the Eighth Amendment is dictating a tardiness for both Sheila and myself.”

Ectopic pregnancy
Prof Greene also instanced the case of a woman he called Nancy who presented with an ectopic pregnancy, in which the foetus was outside the uterus and unviable. She was also showing signs of bleeding which put her life at risk, he said.

“We discuss it with Nancy and her partner. The decision is made to treat her surgically and remove the pregnancy. There is a heartbeat but they accept that it is the appropriate treatment and it meets all the legal requirements,” he said.

However, I leave her and I am called to come back and counsel her again because she overhears a conversation where one staff member says to the other, ‘Is this legal, the baby’s heart is still beating?’ So the correct choice of care is being questioned because of the Eighth Amendment.”

Prof Greene also gave the example of a couple he named Martina and Joe who suffered “a profound loss of pregnancy at 38 weeks when their baby was stillborn” and three subsequent miscarriages before Martina became pregnant again only to discover the baby had anencephaly.

“This baby is not going to survive, it may be born alive but it will not survive. They were devastated given their story but they were absolutely horrified at the idea we had to wait for the pregnancy to proceed and go to the end of the pregnancy, knowing there was nothing to get out of it,” he said.

“And the question they were asking was why cannot we do something now so that we can at least try again and hopefully have a child and I saw the horrendous pain they went through. In the end, the Eighth Amendment was adding to their grief and mental trauma.

“They eventually went to the UK for a termination but they are still pained by all of this. They never had a baby to take home, they had no burial place, they had no service with their family. Martina’s physical life was not in danger but they are psychologically traumatised because of it.”

Prof Greene accepted some believe the floodgates would open if the Eighth Amendment was repealed but the evidence from Eastern Europe and some US states where free contraception and early healthcare were provided suggested the number of terminations can be reduced multifold.

“I trust the women I looked after in pregnancy and I can honestly tell you they make good decisions after much consideration before they undertake a termination. The Eighth Amendment is affecting women and doctors in providing good healthcare and that’s why I’m supporting a Yes vote.”

I actually agree did with alot of that. There needs to be a bit of common sense

But why didn't proposed legislation support extra emphasis for the mother health instead of removing all protection to the unborn under 12 weeks?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 09, 2018, 12:07:33 AM
Pro-choice people constantly stress the need for extra support for women.

They have stressed the need for sex education, for access to contraception, and most of all, for the need for proper healthcare.

Anti-choice campaigners engage in weasel words when they talk about suporting women.

They have offered no support whatsoever to women suffering crisis pregnancies since 1983.

How can they when their campaign is based around restricting women's rights and forcing them to continue with pregnancies against their will?

You can't have proper healthcare with the 8th Amendment in place.

And you still can't have proper healthcare without proper legislation to enshrine the right to choose.

Abortion is happening and will continue to happen in Ireland.

The choice is between making it safe and legal with comprehensive follow up care, as it will be without the 8th Amendment and with abortion legislation, or keeping it unregulated and unsafe, as it will continue to be if the 8th Amendment is still in place.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 09, 2018, 12:18:04 AM
https://www.facebook.com/aidancomerfordwriting/

Quote
My wife and I have an intellectually-disabled daughter. She's autistic. She will never understand consent. If she were ever pregnant, it would be through rape. If that ever happened, would you come to our house and tell us what is best for our child? Because that is what your No vote on May 25th would mean, in practice.

She's on the cusp of puberty. She's terrified of blood. She will scream (and I mean SCREAM) when she's cut, and scream even louder if we approach her to help. That can escalate to scratching, kicking and biting. Any trip to A&E might mean restraint or sedation. Can you imagine what it would be like trying to get her through pregnancy?

She doesn't handle it very well when a DVD gets stuck, so how would she handle labour? Are you going to provide support? Because, at the moment, we're struggling to get speech and language therapy for her.

Do you really think that a zygote's right to grow, for example, trumps our disabled daughter's right not to have her rapist's baby?

If we did decide that she should have an abortion, have you ever travelled with an autistic person like my daughter? To say that it is stressful for all concerned is an understatement. And we might arrive in the UK, to find people outside the clinic, roaring at us, calling us murderers.

And if we didn't make that choice, we would have to raise the baby. You might say that we could "simply" put the baby up for adoption. And how would we explain that a girl who can keen for days over a lost doll?

Before this referendum was called, I was ignorant. I had no idea of the myriad of ways that the eighth amendment has affected Irish women's healthcare and rights. I have heard some truly tragic stories, and I would never dream of standing in any woman's house and forcing my choice upon her, especially when I don't have to live with the consequences of that choice.

If tragedy ever strikes our house, don't offer me your sympathy. Sympathy doesn't buy a lot of nappies in Tesco. And don't offer me your "support." That can only be an empty promise.

The only thing I want from you is to vote YES on May 25th, so that WE - and not YOU - could decide what best to do for OUR family.

***

And if you are still set on voting No, and there's an argument forming in your head about disabled people and abortion...just don't. It isn't relevant to this referendum. And in any case, this is my life, not a point-scoring exercise. Instead, re-read this post with an open heart and an open head.

#TogetherforYes
#Repealthe8th

Please share.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: omaghjoe on May 09, 2018, 12:28:34 AM
We can all start the copy and paste nonsense sid. Except the child within a babies womb have no story to copy snd paste or ever will if it is taken away for no reason.

How can you have proper healthcare for all by taking away  the right to life of the unborn?

A healthy unborn child can have it's life ended with no legal consequences or justification. That is what the majority of abortions are and will be under the proposed legislation.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 09, 2018, 12:55:33 AM
We can all start the copy and paste nonsense sid. Except the child within a babies womb have no story to copy snd paste or ever will if it is taken away for no reason.

How can you have proper healthcare for all by taking away  the right to life of the unborn?

A healthy unborn child can have it's life ended with no legal consequences or justification. That is what the majority of abortions are and will be under the proposed legislation.
I'd thank you if you didn't flippantly dismiss the many real stories about the incredible harm the 8th Amendment causes as "nonsense", thanks.

You and every other No supporter has completely avoided dealing with them, because dealing with them would force you to confront the actual reality.

We're talking about real, actual human rights here - the right of women to not suffer grave health consequences because of conservative, patriarchal religious dogma, the right of a vulnerable woman not to have to carry a pregnancy to term against their wishes without risking a long jail sentence. 





Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 09, 2018, 01:00:16 AM
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/medic-savita-died-as-result-of-abortion-laws-461173.html

Quote
Savita Halappanavar died as a direct result of Ireland’s abortion laws and not simply because she contracted sepsis, the author of the independent report into her death has said.

Prof Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran made the comment as he said the Eighth Amendment is “not working” and declared his “surprise” it has taken five years since Savita’s death for a discussion on its removal to take place.

He was speaking during a meeting of the Oireachtas committee on the future of the amendment. That meeting also heard former master of Holles Street Hospital Dr Peter Boylan call for the immediate repeal of existing laws and warn politicians will face “Groundhog day” if it does not happen.

Prof Arulkumaran said the reality is Savita died because of the abortion laws.

Asked specifically by Independent senator Lynn Ruane “if the presence of the Eighth Amendment cost Savita her life”, Prof Arulkumaran said: “It was very clear the things holding the hands of physicians was the legal issue. Anybody, any junior doctor, would have said this is a sepsis condition, we must terminate.

“She did have sepsis. However, if she had a termination in the first days as requested, she would not have had sepsis. We would never have heard of her and she would be alive today,” he said.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: The Boy Wonder on May 09, 2018, 01:14:36 AM
Extract from my post of 02-May:
I am a conscientious objector to abortion as a choice where there are NO valid reasons for medical intervention to end a pregnancy.

Given the intolerance displayed by Sid Waddell (who cannot seem to accept that people are entitled to hold viewpoints opposite to his) I wonder why anyone would bother participating in a debate on this forum.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 09, 2018, 01:30:30 AM
Extract from my post of 02-May:
I am a conscientious objector to abortion as a choice where there are NO valid reasons for medical intervention to end a pregnancy.

Given the intolerance displayed by Sid Waddell (who cannot seem to accept that people are entitled to hold viewpoints opposite to his) I wonder why anyone would bother participating in a debate on this forum.
This is a debating forum.

You've been unable to rebut any points I or any other Yes supporter has made, and in typical "No" fashion, have resorted to playing the victim card. That's getting very tedious at this stage and is a well worn tactic of the online right when they are losing a debate.

Have a read over your quoted extract there.

What right should you or anybody else have to decide what is a crisis pregnancy and what isn't?

What right should you or anybody else have to decide that a rape victim should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her will? Because that is a direct consequence of your view.

That is what you are advocating.

Your quoted extract denies the right of a suicidal women to a termination.

That is explicitly against a European Court of Human Rights ruling and is specifically against what the Irish people decided in 1992.

That is not conscientious objection.

That is an attempt to dogmatically impose your narrow version of "morality" on everybody else.







Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 09, 2018, 08:52:25 AM
I'd say there's a few lads here who would vote No. 1 for Des.

Quote
Councillor 'glad to stand over' claims linking sex slavery and Hitler to Eighth vote

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/councillor-glad-to-stand-over-claims-linking-sex-slavery-and-hitler-to-eighth-vote-36888250.html

A county councillor has defended claims that the abolition of the Eighth Amendment will lead to sex slavery becoming "normalised".

Leitrim Independent councillor Des Guckian said in an email to his constituents that "Hitler would be very happy with the proposal to abolish the Eighth".
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: magpie seanie on May 09, 2018, 10:49:00 AM
Just a question for the Yes voters, do you see any problem with the large scale abortion of children with abnormalities? I seen a guardian piece lately that said 92% of babies with Down’s syndrome were aborted in England since the pre natal screen for Down’s syndrome came in. There were also suggestions that a similar pre natal test for aspergers and autism could see a similar discrimination against those conditions.

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


No one is arguing for that. It's a complete red herring and typical of the misinformation being put about by the No campaign. Under the proposed legislation elective abortions are not available after 12 weeks. As I understand it the test for Down's is only possible around 20 weeks. So there will be no change here in those circumstances.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/screening-amniocentesis-downs-syndrome/

Test is carried out between 10-14 weeks. So much for the No side being the ones spreading misinformation.


Thank you for the correction. I guess I was mistaken and my memory failed me from my personal experiences. To equate what I said above with "spreading disinformation" is a bit laughable so wind your neck in.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: AZOffaly on May 09, 2018, 11:13:20 AM
Sid, everything you posted about would be the only reasons I would countenance voting YES. I've said all along that those type of circumstances should be legislated for. However I believe this could have been done by rewording the 8th amendment in a more clear fashion.

The bit that I am not comfortable with, and the reason I am voting NO, is because I cannot support 12 week elective abortions. And because of this referendum passing, the Government has told us that is exactly what they are going to push through the Dáil and Seanad.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 09, 2018, 11:13:30 AM
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/down-syndrome-group-calls-for-respect-during-abortion-referendum-1.3366953

Quote
Down Syndrome Ireland (DSI) said the use of the image by Love Both had “come on top of a number of references” in the media recently in which campaigners had referred to people with Down syndrome to present their views.

“This is very disrespectful to both children and adults with Down syndrome and their families. It is also causing a lot of stress to parents. People with Down syndrome should not be used as an argument for either side of this debate.”

“Down syndrome Ireland believes that it is up to each individual to make their own decision about which way to vote in the upcoming referendum.

“We are respectfully asking both sides of the campaign debate, all political parties and any other interested groups to stop exploiting children and adults with Down syndrome to promote their campaign views.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 09, 2018, 11:24:07 AM
Sid, everything you posted about would be the only reasons I would countenance voting YES. I've said all along that those type of circumstances should be legislated for. However I believe this could have been done by rewording the 8th amendement in a more clear fashion.

The bit that I am not comfortable with, and the reason I am voting NO, is because I cannot support 12 week elective abortions. And because of this referendum passing, the Government has told us that is exactly what they are going to push through the Dáil and Seanad.
You can't "reword" the 8th Amendment to include certain circumstances you don't like. It is by definition a blunt instrument designed to pay no heed to "hard cases" (every crisis pregnancy is a hard case).

In the current situation it would be unconstitutional to legislate for circumstances such as rape and fatal foetal abnormaility.

Those situations can only be legislated for by abolishing the 8th Amendment.

Anybody who claims to want to make exceptions but who says they will vote No is just making excuses. 

Also, making rape an exception is a terrible idea.

A letter in the Irish Times last week explained in very clear fashion why this is so.

Quote
Expert evidence given to both the Citizen's Assembly and the Joint Oireachtas Committee explicitly stated that it would be impossible to legislate for abortion in cases of rape or incest without further traumatising victims. According to this evidence, any legislation that included a specific clause for rape would mean that victims would need to firstly disclose their assault and secondly to prove on some level that their pregnancy was as a result of sexual violence. As someone who has worked with victims of sexual violence I can tell you this not workable, and the experts agree. Victims of rape are severely traumatised in the days, weeks and months after their attack. Two-thirds of victims never report, and when they do it is most frequently to a friend or family member. Asking a victim to sit across from a professional and disclose their story in order to obtain an abortion is not compassionate and it is not in the best interests of victims. It forces them to relive their horrific experiences and creates unnecessary distress and suffering at a time when they are most vulnerable. If we truly want to show compassion and kindness to rape victims we need to allow them to make that choice in private without forcing them to relive their nightmare.

Niamh Casey, Rathcormac, Co., Cork.





Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: AZOffaly on May 09, 2018, 11:25:57 AM
I'm not making any excuses. I'm voting NO because I don't want the proposed legislation to be passed into law.


If that wasn't on the table, this referendum would pass by a much bigger margin I think.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 09, 2018, 11:28:11 AM
I'm not making any excuses. I'm voting NO because I don't want the proposed legislation to be passed into law.


If that wasn't on the table, this referendum would pass by a much bigger margin I think.
Then you're voting on something other than the question being asked.

So, yes, you very muh are making excuses.

Abortion should be a question for legislators, not the constitution.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: AZOffaly on May 09, 2018, 11:30:11 AM
Disingenuous. As pointed out beforehand, the Government were asked to bring forth proposed legislation so that people would know what the consequences of voting YES would be. They've done so, I don't like it, and thus I'm voting NO.

I don't understand why some YES proponents are so keen on disassociating themselves from the proposed legislation that will follow this referendum as night follows day. If you're supportive of the referendum, but not supportive of the legislation, then you are codding yourself.

I don't need to make excuses for that.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Rossfan on May 09, 2018, 11:33:41 AM
GAAboarders who can vote
Yes 42%
No 37%
Undecided 21%.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 09, 2018, 11:44:33 AM
Disingenuous. As pointed out beforehand, the Government were asked to bring forth proposed legislation so that people would know what the consequences of voting YES would be. They've done so, I don't like it, and thus I'm voting NO.

I don't need to make excuses for that.
I'm not being disingenuous at all.

The question is on the 8th Amendment and nothing else.

It has been explained ad nauseum that there is no possibility, under the constitution, of legislating for abortion in cases such as rape, incest or fatal foetal abnormality.

There is no possibility under the constitution of a change to the situation where women are denied essential healthcare services such as cancer treatment if they are pregnant, or even basic healthcare such as X-rays (and they don't even have to be pregnant to be denied such - they can be denied it unless and until they prove in writing that they are not pregnant).

Under the present constitutional situation and even with the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, Savita Halappanavar would still have died. That's because doctors have to wait for a woman to start dying before they can perform an abortion.

All the above cases are proof of why the 8th Amendment has been so disastrous.

A No vote is a vote for all that to continue.

For it to change, there has be legislation to introduce safe, legal abortion.

Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: AZOffaly on May 09, 2018, 11:48:26 AM
Disingenuous. As pointed out beforehand, the Government were asked to bring forth proposed legislation so that people would know what the consequences of voting YES would be. They've done so, I don't like it, and thus I'm voting NO.

I don't need to make excuses for that.
I'm not being disingenuous at all.

The question is on the 8th Amendment and nothing else.

It has been explained ad nauseum that there is no possibility, under the constitution, of legislating for abortion in cases such as rape, incest or fatal foetal abnormality.

There is no possibility under the constitution of a change to the situation where women are denied essential healthcare services such as cancer treatment if they are pregnant, or even basic healthcare such as X-rays (and they don't even have to be pregnant to be denied such - they can be denied it unless and until they prove in writing that they are not pregnant).

Under the present constitutional situation and even with the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, Savita Halappanavar would still have died. That's because doctors have to wait for a woman to start dying before they can perform an abortion.

All the above cases are proof of why the 8th Amendment has been so disastrous.

A No vote is a vote for all that to continue.

For it to change, there has be legislation to introduce safe, legal abortion.

It's not though Sid. We've been through this. Do you accept that if this referendum passes, it is almost certain that a law will be introduced to allow for elective abortions up to 12 weeks, along with other measures?

If you accept that, then surely you can see that this referendum is not simply about changing the wording of the constitution, as if it were some semantic exercise. Cause and effect is in play here.

The only realistic way I, as someone who does not agree with elective abortions, can have a voice to stop that happening is to vote NO. I'm aware people will say, well you could lobby politicians to change the law back afterwards, but in reality that is not going to happen.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: magpie seanie on May 09, 2018, 11:48:46 AM
Disingenuous. As pointed out beforehand, the Government were asked to bring forth proposed legislation so that people would know what the consequences of voting YES would be. They've done so, I don't like it, and thus I'm voting NO.

I don't understand why some YES proponents are so keen on disassociating themselves from the proposed legislation that will follow this referendum as night follows day. If you're supportive of the referendum, but not supportive of the legislation, then you are codding yourself.

I don't need to make excuses for that.


But you cannot do as you say - make amendments to an amendment in the constitution. It's just not practical. The constitution is simply not the vehicle for an issue as nuanced and complex as this. The 12 weeks is cut off point that has been decided on after a huge volume of submissions to both the Citizens Assembly and the Oireachtas committees. It's not perfect of course. Very little to do with this issue is perfect. To me it's a much better regime that we have at present which is just at best typical Irish head in the sand stuff and at worst, as we know, extremely dangerous to women's health and terribly unfair in some other circumstances.

I think on balance it's a common sense approach based on professional best evidence. Sometimes we have to accept some unpleasantness for the greater good. Not repealing the 8th amendment would be criminal in my view.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 09, 2018, 11:52:25 AM
Question for No voters.

The penalty for abortion in Ireland is 14 years imprisonment.

Do you think this penalty should be upheld if a woman is found to have had an abortion within the state?

Should the woman be imprisoned for 14 years?

Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: AZOffaly on May 09, 2018, 11:57:27 AM
Disingenuous. As pointed out beforehand, the Government were asked to bring forth proposed legislation so that people would know what the consequences of voting YES would be. They've done so, I don't like it, and thus I'm voting NO.

I don't understand why some YES proponents are so keen on disassociating themselves from the proposed legislation that will follow this referendum as night follows day. If you're supportive of the referendum, but not supportive of the legislation, then you are codding yourself.

I don't need to make excuses for that.


But you cannot do as you say - make amendments to an amendment in the constitution. It's just not practical. The constitution is simply not the vehicle for an issue as nuanced and complex as this. The 12 weeks is cut off point that has been decided on after a huge volume of submissions to both the Citizens Assembly and the Oireachtas committees. It's not perfect of course. Very little to do with this issue is perfect. To me it's a much better regime that we have at present which is just at best typical Irish head in the sand stuff and at worst, as we know, extremely dangerous to women's health and terribly unfair in some other circumstances.

I think on balance it's a common sense approach based on professional best evidence. Sometimes we have to accept some unpleasantness for the greater good. Not repealing the 8th amendment would be criminal in my view.

Why though Seanie? Why can we not REPLACE the 8th amendment with a form of wording which allows for more specific scenarios to be covered, while also recognising the right to life of the unborn child. I'd be okay with saying the life of the unborn child does not supercede the life of the mother. Then legislate for that in the context of the mother's health, fatal foetal abnormalities etc.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: AZOffaly on May 09, 2018, 11:58:25 AM
Question for No voters.

The penalty for abortion in Ireland is 14 years imprisonment.

Do you think this penalty should be upheld if a woman is found to have had an abortion within the state?

Should the woman be imprisoned for 14 years?

No. I don't. But I think a doctor that performs an elective abortion should be disbarred. I'm not trying to trivialise what a woman must be going through to even think about an abortion. I am not one of those who say this will lead to a queue outside the clinics for abortions during lunch hour, or any of that sensationalist nonsense.

All I'm saying, is that as a citizen of this country, I do not want my country to legalise abortions where there is no risk to the mother, or fatal foetal abnormalities. 
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 09, 2018, 12:00:57 PM
Disingenuous. As pointed out beforehand, the Government were asked to bring forth proposed legislation so that people would know what the consequences of voting YES would be. They've done so, I don't like it, and thus I'm voting NO.

I don't need to make excuses for that.
I'm not being disingenuous at all.

The question is on the 8th Amendment and nothing else.

It has been explained ad nauseum that there is no possibility, under the constitution, of legislating for abortion in cases such as rape, incest or fatal foetal abnormality.

There is no possibility under the constitution of a change to the situation where women are denied essential healthcare services such as cancer treatment if they are pregnant, or even basic healthcare such as X-rays (and they don't even have to be pregnant to be denied such - they can be denied it unless and until they prove in writing that they are not pregnant).

Under the present constitutional situation and even with the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, Savita Halappanavar would still have died. That's because doctors have to wait for a woman to start dying before they can perform an abortion.

All the above cases are proof of why the 8th Amendment has been so disastrous.

A No vote is a vote for all that to continue.

For it to change, there has be legislation to introduce safe, legal abortion.

It's not though Sid. We've been through this. Do you accept that if this referendum passes, it is almost certain that a law will be introduced to allow for elective abortions up to 12 weeks, along with other measures?

If you accept that, then surely you can see that this referendum is not simply about changing the wording of the constitution, as if it were some semantic exercise. Cause and effect is in play here.

The only realistic way I, as someone who does not agree with elective abortions, can have a voice to stop that happening is to vote NO. I'm aware people will say, well you could lobby politicians to change the law back afterwards, but in reality that is not going to happen.

The question you need to ask yourself is:

In order to keep your particular moral view imposed on everybody else;

Are you prepared to accept that rape victims, victims of incest, mothers in cases of fatal foetal abnormalities, and mothers whose health is at risk from a pregnancy, will be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against their will?

Are you prepared to accept that women will be denied essential healthcare such as cancer services and basic healthcare such as X-rays, even if if they may not be pregant?







Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 09, 2018, 12:02:49 PM
Question for No voters.

The penalty for abortion in Ireland is 14 years imprisonment.

Do you think this penalty should be upheld if a woman is found to have had an abortion within the state?

Should the woman be imprisoned for 14 years?

No. I don't. But I think a doctor that performs an elective abortion should be disbarred. I'm not trying to trivialise what a woman must be going through to even think about an abortion. I am not one of those who say this will lead to a queue outside the clinics for abortions during lunch hour, or any of that sensationalist nonsense.

All I'm saying, is that as a citizen of this country, I do not want my country to legalise abortions where there is no risk to the mother, or fatal foetal abnormalities.

If a woman is found to have murdered her 12 week old baby, should that woman be sentenced to prison?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: AZOffaly on May 09, 2018, 12:05:23 PM
If you are telling me that we cannot legislate for rape or incest victims, even under the welfare of the mother viewpoint, then yes I would have to say that I feel the numbers of people pregnant under those circumstances would not outweigh the number of healthy viable babies who would also be terminated under a blanket 12 week law. That's an horrific choice to make though, but if we cannot, as you say, legislate for the specific cases, then we should not legislate in such a way as to make it completely open.

As regards the X-RAY, are there not alternative diagnostics that would not harm a baby? What about MRIs or ultrasounds?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: AZOffaly on May 09, 2018, 12:08:16 PM
Question for No voters.

The penalty for abortion in Ireland is 14 years imprisonment.

Do you think this penalty should be upheld if a woman is found to have had an abortion within the state?

Should the woman be imprisoned for 14 years?

No. I don't. But I think a doctor that performs an elective abortion should be disbarred. I'm not trying to trivialise what a woman must be going through to even think about an abortion. I am not one of those who say this will lead to a queue outside the clinics for abortions during lunch hour, or any of that sensationalist nonsense.

All I'm saying, is that as a citizen of this country, I do not want my country to legalise abortions where there is no risk to the mother, or fatal foetal abnormalities.

If a woman is found to have murdered her 12 week old baby, should that woman be sentenced to prison?

No, because I believe someone doing that has emotional extenuating circumstances. However, that does not mean I think we should just allow it as an elective procedure.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: magpie seanie on May 09, 2018, 12:18:02 PM
Question for No voters.

The penalty for abortion in Ireland is 14 years imprisonment.

Do you think this penalty should be upheld if a woman is found to have had an abortion within the state?

Should the woman be imprisoned for 14 years?

No. I don't. But I think a doctor that performs an elective abortion should be disbarred. I'm not trying to trivialise what a woman must be going through to even think about an abortion. I am not one of those who say this will lead to a queue outside the clinics for abortions during lunch hour, or any of that sensationalist nonsense.

All I'm saying, is that as a citizen of this country, I do not want my country to legalise abortions where there is no risk to the mother, or fatal foetal abnormalities.

If a woman is found to have murdered her 12 week old baby, should that woman be sentenced to prison?

No, because I believe someone doing that has emotional extenuating circumstances. However, that does not mean I think we should just allow it as an elective procedure.


But it'll just happen in the UK then or they'll order pills and take them at home. The only people you're "stopping" are those without the means to travel or import pills.....the poor and those with least support.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: magpie seanie on May 09, 2018, 12:21:02 PM
Disingenuous. As pointed out beforehand, the Government were asked to bring forth proposed legislation so that people would know what the consequences of voting YES would be. They've done so, I don't like it, and thus I'm voting NO.

I don't understand why some YES proponents are so keen on disassociating themselves from the proposed legislation that will follow this referendum as night follows day. If you're supportive of the referendum, but not supportive of the legislation, then you are codding yourself.

I don't need to make excuses for that.


But you cannot do as you say - make amendments to an amendment in the constitution. It's just not practical. The constitution is simply not the vehicle for an issue as nuanced and complex as this. The 12 weeks is cut off point that has been decided on after a huge volume of submissions to both the Citizens Assembly and the Oireachtas committees. It's not perfect of course. Very little to do with this issue is perfect. To me it's a much better regime that we have at present which is just at best typical Irish head in the sand stuff and at worst, as we know, extremely dangerous to women's health and terribly unfair in some other circumstances.

I think on balance it's a common sense approach based on professional best evidence. Sometimes we have to accept some unpleasantness for the greater good. Not repealing the 8th amendment would be criminal in my view.

Why though Seanie? Why can we not REPLACE the 8th amendment with a form of wording which allows for more specific scenarios to be covered, while also recognising the right to life of the unborn child. I'd be okay with saying the life of the unborn child does not supercede the life of the mother. Then legislate for that in the context of the mother's health, fatal foetal abnormalities etc.


I'm looking for something definitive on this as it seems to be generally accepted that it is not possible and I can understand why, for example you just need to look at the consequences of the 8th amendment that weren't foreseen. There was no internet, no abortion pills etc back then. Medicine has moved on greatly in that time.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 09, 2018, 12:26:40 PM
If you are telling me that we cannot legislate for rape or incest victims, even under the welfare of the mother viewpoint, then yes I would have to say that I feel the numbers of people pregnant under those circumstances would not outweigh the number of healthy viable babies who would also be terminated under a blanket 12 week law. That's an horrific choice to make though, but if we cannot, as you say, legislate for the specific cases, then we should not legislate in such a way as to make it completely open.

As regards the X-RAY, are there not alternative diagnostics that would not harm a baby? What about MRIs or ultrasounds?
In your previous post you ask why the 8th Amendment cannot be reworded to say that the rights of the unborn cannot supercede the rights of the mother.

Firstly, the 8th Amendment already says that.

But in practice, it amounts to giving a 1 week old embryo greater rights than that of an actual born, adult woman. It effectvely strips the woman of her rights during the pregnancy and reduces her to little more than the status of a vessel.

I cannot agree that even if one dislikes the idea of abortion, the situations I mention should be tolerated in order to enforce a particular moral view on everybody else.

The real test of somebody that believes the acceptance of such situations is necessary in order to enforce a particular moral view is; if it was your wife or daughter or sister who had been raped, or had a pregnancy involving a fatal foetal abnormality, or a pregnancy in which there was a threat to her health, or found herself unexpectedly pregnant while undergoing cancer treatment and was denied further treatment as a result, and she wanted an abortion but could not get one, how would you react?

Would you tell her "I'm sorry, I can't support you - you should carry the pregnancy to term."

I would venture that in pretty much every situation, they would support their wife, daughter or sister, and that they would feel extremely angry that she had no rights in such a situation.

It's easy to hold a particular moral view if one has an idea that crisis pregnancies are something that can only happen to other people.

Not so easy when you imagine it happening to a loved one.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: magpie seanie on May 09, 2018, 12:30:25 PM
If you are telling me that we cannot legislate for rape or incest victims, even under the welfare of the mother viewpoint, then yes I would have to say that I feel the numbers of people pregnant under those circumstances would not outweigh the number of healthy viable babies who would also be terminated under a blanket 12 week law. That's an horrific choice to make though, but if we cannot, as you say, legislate for the specific cases, then we should not legislate in such a way as to make it completely open.

As regards the X-RAY, are there not alternative diagnostics that would not harm a baby? What about MRIs or ultrasounds?
In your previous post you ask why the 8th Amendment cannot be reworded to say that the rights of the unborn cannot supercede the rights of the mother.

Firstly, the 8th Amendment already says that.

But in practice, it amounts to giving a 1 week old embryo greater rights than that of an actual born, adult woman. It effectvely strips the woman of her rights during the pregnancy and reduces her to little more than the status of a vessel.

I cannot agree that even if one dislikes the idea of abortion, the situations I mention should be tolerated in order to enforce a particular moral view on everybody else.

The real test of somebody that believes the acceptance of such situations is necessary in order to enforce a particular moral view is; if it was your wife or daughter or sister who had been raped, or had a pregnancy involving a fatal foetal abnormality, or a pregnancy in which there was a threat to her health, or found herself unexpectedly pregnant while undergoing cancer treatment and was denied further treatment as a result, and she wanted an abortion but could not get one, how would you react?

Would you tell her "I'm sorry, I can't support you - you should carry the pregnancy to term."

I would venture that in pretty much every situation, they would support their wife, daughter or sister, and that they would feel extremely angry that she had no rights in such a situation.

It's easy to hold a particular moral view if one has an idea that crisis pregnancies are something that can only happen to other people.

Not so easy when you imagine it happening to a loved one.


Well said.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 09, 2018, 12:37:04 PM
Question for No voters.

The penalty for abortion in Ireland is 14 years imprisonment.

Do you think this penalty should be upheld if a woman is found to have had an abortion within the state?

Should the woman be imprisoned for 14 years?

No. I don't. But I think a doctor that performs an elective abortion should be disbarred. I'm not trying to trivialise what a woman must be going through to even think about an abortion. I am not one of those who say this will lead to a queue outside the clinics for abortions during lunch hour, or any of that sensationalist nonsense.

All I'm saying, is that as a citizen of this country, I do not want my country to legalise abortions where there is no risk to the mother, or fatal foetal abnormalities.

If a woman is found to have murdered her 12 week old baby, should that woman be sentenced to prison?

No, because I believe someone doing that has emotional extenuating circumstances. However, that does not mean I think we should just allow it as an elective procedure.
What about, say, this case?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/11/mother-jailed-life-murder-baby-daughter-lancashire-jennifer-crichton

If a man murders a baby, should he be sentenced to prison?

Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: The Iceman on May 09, 2018, 01:45:31 PM
Disingenuous. As pointed out beforehand, the Government were asked to bring forth proposed legislation so that people would know what the consequences of voting YES would be. They've done so, I don't like it, and thus I'm voting NO.

I don't need to make excuses for that.
I'm not being disingenuous at all.

The question is on the 8th Amendment and nothing else.

It has been explained ad nauseum that there is no possibility, under the constitution, of legislating for abortion in cases such as rape, incest or fatal foetal abnormality.

There is no possibility under the constitution of a change to the situation where women are denied essential healthcare services such as cancer treatment if they are pregnant, or even basic healthcare such as X-rays (and they don't even have to be pregnant to be denied such - they can be denied it unless and until they prove in writing that they are not pregnant).

Under the present constitutional situation and even with the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, Savita Halappanavar would still have died. That's because doctors have to wait for a woman to start dying before they can perform an abortion.

All the above cases are proof of why the 8th Amendment has been so disastrous.

A No vote is a vote for all that to continue.

For it to change, there has be legislation to introduce safe, legal abortion.

It's not though Sid. We've been through this. Do you accept that if this referendum passes, it is almost certain that a law will be introduced to allow for elective abortions up to 12 weeks, along with other measures?

If you accept that, then surely you can see that this referendum is not simply about changing the wording of the constitution, as if it were some semantic exercise. Cause and effect is in play here.

The only realistic way I, as someone who does not agree with elective abortions, can have a voice to stop that happening is to vote NO. I'm aware people will say, well you could lobby politicians to change the law back afterwards, but in reality that is not going to happen.
I think this is a very fair and honest assessment of what's happening AZ.
The likes of Sid is trying to disguise what can really happen here. It's what happens all over the world. Elective abortion for whatever reason you want. And let's be brutally honest over 98% of abortions have nothing to do with rape or incest or fetal abnormalities (in countries were elective abortion is legal).
The information is freely available from the Guttmacher Institute which is the abortion industry's own research group!
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: magpie seanie on May 09, 2018, 02:25:54 PM
Disingenuous. As pointed out beforehand, the Government were asked to bring forth proposed legislation so that people would know what the consequences of voting YES would be. They've done so, I don't like it, and thus I'm voting NO.

I don't need to make excuses for that.
I'm not being disingenuous at all.

The question is on the 8th Amendment and nothing else.

It has been explained ad nauseum that there is no possibility, under the constitution, of legislating for abortion in cases such as rape, incest or fatal foetal abnormality.

There is no possibility under the constitution of a change to the situation where women are denied essential healthcare services such as cancer treatment if they are pregnant, or even basic healthcare such as X-rays (and they don't even have to be pregnant to be denied such - they can be denied it unless and until they prove in writing that they are not pregnant).

Under the present constitutional situation and even with the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, Savita Halappanavar would still have died. That's because doctors have to wait for a woman to start dying before they can perform an abortion.

All the above cases are proof of why the 8th Amendment has been so disastrous.

A No vote is a vote for all that to continue.

For it to change, there has be legislation to introduce safe, legal abortion.

It's not though Sid. We've been through this. Do you accept that if this referendum passes, it is almost certain that a law will be introduced to allow for elective abortions up to 12 weeks, along with other measures?

If you accept that, then surely you can see that this referendum is not simply about changing the wording of the constitution, as if it were some semantic exercise. Cause and effect is in play here.

The only realistic way I, as someone who does not agree with elective abortions, can have a voice to stop that happening is to vote NO. I'm aware people will say, well you could lobby politicians to change the law back afterwards, but in reality that is not going to happen.
I think this is a very fair and honest assessment of what's happening AZ.
The likes of Sid is trying to disguise what can really happen here. It's what happens all over the world. Elective abortion for whatever reason you want. And let's be brutally honest over 98% of abortions have nothing to do with rape or incest or fetal abnormalities (in countries were elective abortion is legal).
The information is freely available from the Guttmacher Institute which is the abortion industry's own research group!


No one is disguising anything. It couldn't be more obvious and out in the open. And it couldn't be more obvious and out in the open that there are two separate things happening here. The vote is about one of them. Other votes that have taken place (last general election/Seanad elections) will decide the other action (when incidentally I didn't hear much talk about this issue).

Another point - the elective abortions you speak of will not be impacted one iota by voting no. What will impact the numbers is supporting organisations like the one you mentioned (had never heard of them before but had a quick look) who want to reduce the numbers of unplanned pregnancies not labelling in derogatory terms such as the abortion industry's own research group .
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: thebigfella on May 09, 2018, 02:32:03 PM
Disingenuous. As pointed out beforehand, the Government were asked to bring forth proposed legislation so that people would know what the consequences of voting YES would be. They've done so, I don't like it, and thus I'm voting NO.

I don't need to make excuses for that.
I'm not being disingenuous at all.

The question is on the 8th Amendment and nothing else.

It has been explained ad nauseum that there is no possibility, under the constitution, of legislating for abortion in cases such as rape, incest or fatal foetal abnormality.

There is no possibility under the constitution of a change to the situation where women are denied essential healthcare services such as cancer treatment if they are pregnant, or even basic healthcare such as X-rays (and they don't even have to be pregnant to be denied such - they can be denied it unless and until they prove in writing that they are not pregnant).

Under the present constitutional situation and even with the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, Savita Halappanavar would still have died. That's because doctors have to wait for a woman to start dying before they can perform an abortion.

All the above cases are proof of why the 8th Amendment has been so disastrous.

A No vote is a vote for all that to continue.

For it to change, there has be legislation to introduce safe, legal abortion.

It's not though Sid. We've been through this. Do you accept that if this referendum passes, it is almost certain that a law will be introduced to allow for elective abortions up to 12 weeks, along with other measures?

If you accept that, then surely you can see that this referendum is not simply about changing the wording of the constitution, as if it were some semantic exercise. Cause and effect is in play here.

The only realistic way I, as someone who does not agree with elective abortions, can have a voice to stop that happening is to vote NO. I'm aware people will say, well you could lobby politicians to change the law back afterwards, but in reality that is not going to happen.
I think this is a very fair and honest assessment of what's happening AZ.
The likes of Sid is trying to disguise what can really happen here. It's what happens all over the world. Elective abortion for whatever reason you want. And let's be brutally honest over 98% of abortions have nothing to do with rape or incest or fetal abnormalities (in countries were elective abortion is legal).
The information is freely available from the Guttmacher Institute which is the abortion industry's own research group!

FFS  ::)
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: easytiger95 on May 09, 2018, 02:47:35 PM
Quick constitutional primer for all involved -

If the referendum is passed and the government moves legislation legalising abortion that you don't like...you can vote them out.

During any election, you can always vote for the party with the most draconian proposal for facilitating abortion, and if they don't implement it...you can vote them out.

If any of your local TDs take a liberal stance on abortion, you can not give them a preference, in the hope they will be...voted out.

And if you think TDs are too stupid/gullible/unprincipled (fill in your own adjective) to be trusted with such an issue...you can vote them out.

The reason why the Constitution is the wrong place for this, and the Oireachtas is the right place, is that the science involved is constantly evolving, as are social attitudes. It is up to people to be active in that political process to influence it to their own position. Saying that the current reps are not good enough is a cop out. Run for office if you feel the system is letting you down. But don't let the perceived incompetence of legislators be a reason for denying women healthcare and autonomy over their own bodies in terrible situations.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: omaghjoe on May 09, 2018, 02:49:08 PM
We can all start the copy and paste nonsense sid. Except the child within a babies womb have no story to copy snd paste or ever will if it is taken away for no reason.

How can you have proper healthcare for all by taking away  the right to life of the unborn?

A healthy unborn child can have it's life ended with no legal consequences or justification. That is what the majority of abortions are and will be under the proposed legislation.
I'd thank you if you didn't flippantly dismiss the many real stories about the incredible harm the 8th Amendment causes as "nonsense", thanks.

You and every other No supporter has completely avoided dealing with them, because dealing with them would force you to confront the actual reality.

We're talking about real, actual human rights here - the right of women to not suffer grave health consequences because of conservative, patriarchal religious dogma, the right of a vulnerable woman not to have to carry a pregnancy to term against their wishes without risking a long jail sentence.

The nonsense I was taking about was your action of copy and pasting whole articles into this thread not that the actual stories ::)

I have discussed them, multiple times and I have said a better solution needs to be found for many of cases

Yes I am talking about real human rights, the first most basic right is the right to life, all other rights are subsequent to that primary right

I have laid out
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: omaghjoe on May 09, 2018, 02:56:12 PM
Quick constitutional primer for all involved -

If the referendum is passed and the government moves legislation legalising abortion that you don't like...you can vote them out.

During any election, you can always vote for the party with the most draconian proposal for facilitating abortion, and if they don't implement it...you can vote them out.

If any of your local TDs take a liberal stance on abortion, you can not give them a preference, in the hope they will be...voted out.

And if you think TDs are too stupid/gullible/unprincipled (fill in your own adjective) to be trusted with such an issue...you can vote them out.

The reason why the Constitution is the wrong place for this, and the Oireachtas is the right place, is that the science involved is constantly evolving, as are social attitudes. It is up to people to be active in that political process to influence it to their own position. Saying that the current reps are not good enough is a cop out. Run for office if you feel the system is letting you down. But don't let the perceived incompetence of legislators be a reason for denying women healthcare and autonomy over their own bodies in terrible situations.

A parliamentary election is not a single issue plebiscite it involves multiple issues.

This however is a plebiscite on the 8th amendment and the consequences of it being removed of which the main one is the introduction of legislation for elective abortions for no medical reason at 12weeks.

To try and paint this referendum as anything else is either completely niave or just plain old dishonesty.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: easytiger95 on May 09, 2018, 03:20:18 PM
Quick constitutional primer for all involved -

If the referendum is passed and the government moves legislation legalising abortion that you don't like...you can vote them out.

During any election, you can always vote for the party with the most draconian proposal for facilitating abortion, and if they don't implement it...you can vote them out.

If any of your local TDs take a liberal stance on abortion, you can not give them a preference, in the hope they will be...voted out.

And if you think TDs are too stupid/gullible/unprincipled (fill in your own adjective) to be trusted with such an issue...you can vote them out.

The reason why the Constitution is the wrong place for this, and the Oireachtas is the right place, is that the science involved is constantly evolving, as are social attitudes. It is up to people to be active in that political process to influence it to their own position. Saying that the current reps are not good enough is a cop out. Run for office if you feel the system is letting you down. But don't let the perceived incompetence of legislators be a reason for denying women healthcare and autonomy over their own bodies in terrible situations.

A parliamentary election is not a single issue plebiscite it involves multiple issues.

This however is a plebiscite on the 8th amendment and the consequences of it being removed of which the main one is the introduction of legislation for elective abortions for no medical reason at 12weeks.

To try and paint this referendum as anything else is either completely niave or just plain old dishonesty.

Still the sharpest knife in the drawer I see Joe.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: omaghjoe on May 09, 2018, 03:25:31 PM
Quick constitutional primer for all involved -

If the referendum is passed and the government moves legislation legalising abortion that you don't like...you can vote them out.

During any election, you can always vote for the party with the most draconian proposal for facilitating abortion, and if they don't implement it...you can vote them out.

If any of your local TDs take a liberal stance on abortion, you can not give them a preference, in the hope they will be...voted out.

And if you think TDs are too stupid/gullible/unprincipled (fill in your own adjective) to be trusted with such an issue...you can vote them out.

The reason why the Constitution is the wrong place for this, and the Oireachtas is the right place, is that the science involved is constantly evolving, as are social attitudes. It is up to people to be active in that political process to influence it to their own position. Saying that the current reps are not good enough is a cop out. Run for office if you feel the system is letting you down. But don't let the perceived incompetence of legislators be a reason for denying women healthcare and autonomy over their own bodies in terrible situations.

A parliamentary election is not a single issue plebiscite it involves multiple issues.

This however is a plebiscite on the 8th amendment and the consequences of it being removed of which the main one is the introduction of legislation for elective abortions for no medical reason at 12weeks.

To try and paint this referendum as anything else is either completely niave or just plain old dishonesty.

Still the sharpest knife in the drawer I see Joe.
???
That must leave you as the butter knife Tiger
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: easytiger95 on May 09, 2018, 03:31:06 PM
Quick constitutional primer for all involved -

If the referendum is passed and the government moves legislation legalising abortion that you don't like...you can vote them out.

During any election, you can always vote for the party with the most draconian proposal for facilitating abortion, and if they don't implement it...you can vote them out.

If any of your local TDs take a liberal stance on abortion, you can not give them a preference, in the hope they will be...voted out.

And if you think TDs are too stupid/gullible/unprincipled (fill in your own adjective) to be trusted with such an issue...you can vote them out.

The reason why the Constitution is the wrong place for this, and the Oireachtas is the right place, is that the science involved is constantly evolving, as are social attitudes. It is up to people to be active in that political process to influence it to their own position. Saying that the current reps are not good enough is a cop out. Run for office if you feel the system is letting you down. But don't let the perceived incompetence of legislators be a reason for denying women healthcare and autonomy over their own bodies in terrible situations.

A parliamentary election is not a single issue plebiscite it involves multiple issues.

This however is a plebiscite on the 8th amendment and the consequences of it being removed of which the main one is the introduction of legislation for elective abortions for no medical reason at 12weeks.

To try and paint this referendum as anything else is either completely niave or just plain old dishonesty.

Still the sharpest knife in the drawer I see Joe.
???
That must leave you as the butter knife Tiger

I am talking about the fact that if this referendum is passed, the legislation that will follow can be changed, by the wishes of the electorate by....you guessed it, voting out those who passed the legislation and voting in those with new, more draconian policies. So I wasn't actually talking about the process of the referendum, as I qualified at the start. I was talking about the subsequent democratic process.

You can apologise for your naivety or dishonesty at your leisure.

I wouldn't be walking around with sharp scissors if I were you.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: omaghjoe on May 09, 2018, 03:59:05 PM
Quick constitutional primer for all involved -

If the referendum is passed and the government moves legislation legalising abortion that you don't like...you can vote them out.

During any election, you can always vote for the party with the most draconian proposal for facilitating abortion, and if they don't implement it...you can vote them out.

If any of your local TDs take a liberal stance on abortion, you can not give them a preference, in the hope they will be...voted out.

And if you think TDs are too stupid/gullible/unprincipled (fill in your own adjective) to be trusted with such an issue...you can vote them out.

The reason why the Constitution is the wrong place for this, and the Oireachtas is the right place, is that the science involved is constantly evolving, as are social attitudes. It is up to people to be active in that political process to influence it to their own position. Saying that the current reps are not good enough is a cop out. Run for office if you feel the system is letting you down. But don't let the perceived incompetence of legislators be a reason for denying women healthcare and autonomy over their own bodies in terrible situations.

A parliamentary election is not a single issue plebiscite it involves multiple issues.

This however is a plebiscite on the 8th amendment and the consequences of it being removed of which the main one is the introduction of legislation for elective abortions for no medical reason at 12weeks.

To try and paint this referendum as anything else is either completely niave or just plain old dishonesty.

Still the sharpest knife in the drawer I see Joe.
???
That must leave you as the butter knife Tiger

I am talking about the fact that if this referendum is passed, the legislation that will follow can be changed, by the wishes of the electorate by....you guessed it, voting out those who passed the legislation and voting in those with new, more draconian policies. So I wasn't actually talking about the process of the referendum, as I qualified at the start. I was talking about the subsequent democratic process.

You can apologise for your naivety or dishonesty at your leisure.

I wouldn't be walking around with sharp scissors if I were you.

Yes... and I was telling you that a parliamentary election is not a single issue plebiscite.??? People will vote on how a range of issues, for example in West Tyrone if the Shinners somehow managed (they wont) to get the A5 built, sorted out Brexit, and got Stormont going again I MIGHT consider voting for them...(if I had a vote) in spite of their position on this issue!

Not to mention that the current government in the Dail got 25% of the popular vote... not exactly democratic, throw in party whips and proportional representation and single issues soon get mired.

In Indyref many Scots did not vote yes because the case of independence hadn't laid out the economic plan of independence. You cant make a decision if you don't know what the consequences will be.
And the consequences of voting Yes on the 8th have been made clear by the incumbent government and that is that healthy humans will have their lives legally ended without ever having a chance or choice.

Besides I dunno why your trying to reduce this to purely about the question asked, you've expressed support for those consequences havent you? So give your rationale for that instead of trying to narrow the remit on what people should be voting on in this referendum.


Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: magpie seanie on May 09, 2018, 04:07:30 PM
Quick constitutional primer for all involved -

If the referendum is passed and the government moves legislation legalising abortion that you don't like...you can vote them out.

During any election, you can always vote for the party with the most draconian proposal for facilitating abortion, and if they don't implement it...you can vote them out.

If any of your local TDs take a liberal stance on abortion, you can not give them a preference, in the hope they will be...voted out.

And if you think TDs are too stupid/gullible/unprincipled (fill in your own adjective) to be trusted with such an issue...you can vote them out.

The reason why the Constitution is the wrong place for this, and the Oireachtas is the right place, is that the science involved is constantly evolving, as are social attitudes. It is up to people to be active in that political process to influence it to their own position. Saying that the current reps are not good enough is a cop out. Run for office if you feel the system is letting you down. But don't let the perceived incompetence of legislators be a reason for denying women healthcare and autonomy over their own bodies in terrible situations.

A parliamentary election is not a single issue plebiscite it involves multiple issues.

This however is a plebiscite on the 8th amendment and the consequences of it being removed of which the main one is the introduction of legislation for elective abortions for no medical reason at 12weeks.

To try and paint this referendum as anything else is either completely niave or just plain old dishonesty.

Still the sharpest knife in the drawer I see Joe.
???
That must leave you as the butter knife Tiger

I am talking about the fact that if this referendum is passed, the legislation that will follow can be changed, by the wishes of the electorate by....you guessed it, voting out those who passed the legislation and voting in those with new, more draconian policies. So I wasn't actually talking about the process of the referendum, as I qualified at the start. I was talking about the subsequent democratic process.

You can apologise for your naivety or dishonesty at your leisure.

I wouldn't be walking around with sharp scissors if I were you.

Yes... and I was telling you that a parliamentary election is not a single issue plebiscite.??? People will vote on how a range of issues, for example in West Tyrone if the Shinners somehow managed (they wont) to get the A5 built, sorted out Brexit, and got Stormont going again I MIGHT consider voting for them...(if I had a vote) in spite of their position on this issue!

Not to mention that the current government in the Dail got 25% of the popular vote... not exactly democratic, throw in party whips and proportional representation and single issues soon get mired.

In Indyref many Scots did not vote yes because the case of independence hadn't laid out the economic plan of independence. You cant make a decision if you don't know what the consequences will be.
And the consequences of voting Yes on the 8th have been made clear by the incumbent government and that is that healthy humans will have their lives legally ended without ever having a chance or choice.

Besides I dunno why your trying to reduce this to purely about the question asked, you've expressed support for those consequences havent you? So give your rationale for that instead of trying to narrow the remit on what people should be voting on in this referendum.


Correct so you vote for the best collection of your wants/beliefs that are presented.

It's a compromise.

Like this issue.

To pretend it's a black and white issue and adopting and absolutist position is to me the most disingenuous position of all.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: The Boy Wonder on May 09, 2018, 04:11:28 PM
Bunreacht na hÉireann recognises the fundamental personal rights of citizens and there is no right more fundamental than the right to life. The purpose of the eight amendment to the constitution is to protect and vindicate the right to life of the unborn. The right to life is not just another civil right – because it will be matter of life or death for perfectly healthy human embryos there is every justification for this right to be built into our constitution.

Re. the argument that women should have autonomy over their own bodies and therefore have the right to choose abortion – where one stands on this depends on each person’s beliefs and value system. Personally it goes against my beliefs but I am not moralising to others – I’m just trying to explain the “No” side of the argument. I accept that a sizeable proportion of the electorate (of every religious denomination and none) with vote Yes in good conscience. However I would worry that a sizeable number of voters might cast their vote without proper consideration of the consequences of a successful vote for repeal.

From Two Lives, One Love :
Where a seriously ill pregnant woman needs medical treatment which may, as a secondary effect, put the life of her baby at risk, such treatments are always ethically permissible provided every effort has been made to save the life of both the mother and her baby.

It is offensive and wrong for the Yes side to suggest that No voters are / will be denying women healthcare.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Mayo4Sam on May 09, 2018, 04:21:34 PM
I am torn on what way to vote on this.

On the one side I think there is a way that we could legislate for the rape cases and the fatal foetal abnormalities etc and still not bring in abortion on tap. It annoys me to see this being used as an argument. Very few people are against abortion in those cases but they will account for less than 1% of abortions so it seems outrageous to legislate for the whole based on those cases.

On the other hand I could easily have been caught out as a young buck in college or after getting a girl in trouble as they say. And if it happened to me (once we'd agreed) i'd have been on the boat over myself, so I'm not against it.

I do believe different people believe life starts at different points in time, a family member recently had a miscarriage and as her dad said "well that baby was alive to us" but looking at it from outside its loss isn't felt as much as if it had been born and died.

I can't ever remember an issue where I dislike both sides as much as I do this issue, both sides are so blinkered and dismissive of the other.

I'm currently leaning towards No, mainly because I wouldn't like abortion to be the contraception of choice, I would like people to take more responsibility and I have no issue with exporting our problem to Britain. But if I did decide to vote Yes it would be because I think people have their own values and beliefs on when life begins.

I wish they had given the option to legislate for the rare cases but still not have abortion
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: magpie seanie on May 09, 2018, 04:22:13 PM
Bunreacht na hÉireann recognises the fundamental personal rights of citizens and there is no right more fundamental than the right to life. The purpose of the eight amendment to the constitution is to protect and vindicate the right to life of the unborn. The right to life is not just another civil right – because it will be matter of life or death for perfectly healthy human embryos there is every justification for this right to be built into our constitution.

Re. the argument that women should have autonomy over their own bodies and therefore have the right to choose abortion – where one stands on this depends on each person’s beliefs and value system. Personally it goes against my beliefs but I am not moralising to others – I’m just trying to explain the “No” side of the argument. I accept that a sizeable proportion of the electorate (of every religious denomination and none) with vote Yes in good conscience. However I would worry that a sizeable number of voters might cast their vote without proper consideration of the consequences of a successful vote for repeal.

From Two Lives, One Love :
Where a seriously ill pregnant woman needs medical treatment which may, as a secondary effect, put the life of her baby at risk, such treatments are always ethically permissible provided every effort has been made to save the life of both the mother and her baby.

It is offensive and wrong for the Yes side to suggest that No voters are / will be denying women healthcare.


No it is not. It is clearly happening. The vast majority of the medical professionals involved in this field and their professional organisations completely disagree with your statement. Perhaps you are actually correct but the evidence of so many women and the expertise of the professionals is what I'd go along with.

When basic facts like this are being flagrantly denied or contested it's difficult to maintain a conversation.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: omaghjoe on May 09, 2018, 04:39:28 PM
Bunreacht na hÉireann recognises the fundamental personal rights of citizens and there is no right more fundamental than the right to life. The purpose of the eight amendment to the constitution is to protect and vindicate the right to life of the unborn. The right to life is not just another civil right – because it will be matter of life or death for perfectly healthy human embryos there is every justification for this right to be built into our constitution.

Re. the argument that women should have autonomy over their own bodies and therefore have the right to choose abortion – where one stands on this depends on each person’s beliefs and value system. Personally it goes against my beliefs but I am not moralising to others – I’m just trying to explain the “No” side of the argument. I accept that a sizeable proportion of the electorate (of every religious denomination and none) with vote Yes in good conscience. However I would worry that a sizeable number of voters might cast their vote without proper consideration of the consequences of a successful vote for repeal.

From Two Lives, One Love :
Where a seriously ill pregnant woman needs medical treatment which may, as a secondary effect, put the life of her baby at risk, such treatments are always ethically permissible provided every effort has been made to save the life of both the mother and her baby.

It is offensive and wrong for the Yes side to suggest that No voters are / will be denying women healthcare.


No it is not. It is clearly happening. The vast majority of the medical professionals involved in this field and their professional organisations completely disagree with your statement. Perhaps you are actually correct but the evidence of so many women and the expertise of the professionals is what I'd go along with.

When basic facts like this are being flagrantly denied or contested it's difficult to maintain a conversation.

If it is reasonable to do that then it is even more rationale to depict the Yes side as aiding and abetting prenatal culling.

I don't think either is a reasonable depiction BTW.

But if woman are denied healthcare it is to protect the life of another.
What do the medical professional say about the healthcare provided to the child? oh it doesn't get any.... in fact we take undertake the action of ending his/her life
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 09, 2018, 04:45:02 PM
We can all start the copy and paste nonsense sid. Except the child within a babies womb have no story to copy snd paste or ever will if it is taken away for no reason.

How can you have proper healthcare for all by taking away  the right to life of the unborn?

A healthy unborn child can have it's life ended with no legal consequences or justification. That is what the majority of abortions are and will be under the proposed legislation.
I'd thank you if you didn't flippantly dismiss the many real stories about the incredible harm the 8th Amendment causes as "nonsense", thanks.

You and every other No supporter has completely avoided dealing with them, because dealing with them would force you to confront the actual reality.

We're talking about real, actual human rights here - the right of women to not suffer grave health consequences because of conservative, patriarchal religious dogma, the right of a vulnerable woman not to have to carry a pregnancy to term against their wishes without risking a long jail sentence.

The nonsense I was taking about was your action of copy and pasting whole articles into this thread not that the actual stories ::)

I have discussed them, multiple times and I have said a better solution needs to be found for many of cases

Yes I am talking about real human rights, the first most basic right is the right to life, all other rights are subsequent to that primary right

I have laid out

Sure it was. Just admit that you don't like people quoting articles from reputable sources and actual real life experiences because both have a habit of destroying your argument.

Here's Article 1 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

Note the key word "born".

You don't get to impose your own, erroneous definition of human rights, thanks.

The UN also states that Ireland's abortion laws are "cruel and inhumane".

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/13/un-denounces-ireland-abortion-laws-as-cruel-and-inhumane-again

"Cruel and inhumane" are not words that are associated with human rights.

Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: easytiger95 on May 09, 2018, 04:58:31 PM
Quick constitutional primer for all involved -

If the referendum is passed and the government moves legislation legalising abortion that you don't like...you can vote them out.

During any election, you can always vote for the party with the most draconian proposal for facilitating abortion, and if they don't implement it...you can vote them out.

If any of your local TDs take a liberal stance on abortion, you can not give them a preference, in the hope they will be...voted out.

And if you think TDs are too stupid/gullible/unprincipled (fill in your own adjective) to be trusted with such an issue...you can vote them out.

The reason why the Constitution is the wrong place for this, and the Oireachtas is the right place, is that the science involved is constantly evolving, as are social attitudes. It is up to people to be active in that political process to influence it to their own position. Saying that the current reps are not good enough is a cop out. Run for office if you feel the system is letting you down. But don't let the perceived incompetence of legislators be a reason for denying women healthcare and autonomy over their own bodies in terrible situations.

A parliamentary election is not a single issue plebiscite it involves multiple issues.

This however is a plebiscite on the 8th amendment and the consequences of it being removed of which the main one is the introduction of legislation for elective abortions for no medical reason at 12weeks.

To try and paint this referendum as anything else is either completely niave or just plain old dishonesty.

Still the sharpest knife in the drawer I see Joe.
???
That must leave you as the butter knife Tiger

I am talking about the fact that if this referendum is passed, the legislation that will follow can be changed, by the wishes of the electorate by....you guessed it, voting out those who passed the legislation and voting in those with new, more draconian policies. So I wasn't actually talking about the process of the referendum, as I qualified at the start. I was talking about the subsequent democratic process.

You can apologise for your naivety or dishonesty at your leisure.

I wouldn't be walking around with sharp scissors if I were you.

Yes... and I was telling you that a parliamentary election is not a single issue plebiscite.??? People will vote on how a range of issues, for example in West Tyrone if the Shinners somehow managed (they wont) to get the A5 built, sorted out Brexit, and got Stormont going again I MIGHT consider voting for them...(if I had a vote) in spite of their position on this issue!

Not to mention that the current government in the Dail got 25% of the popular vote... not exactly democratic, throw in party whips and proportional representation and single issues soon get mired.

In Indyref many Scots did not vote yes because the case of independence hadn't laid out the economic plan of independence. You cant make a decision if you don't know what the consequences will be.
And the consequences of voting Yes on the 8th have been made clear by the incumbent government and that is that healthy humans will have their lives legally ended without ever having a chance or choice.

Besides I dunno why your trying to reduce this to purely about the question asked, you've expressed support for those consequences havent you? So give your rationale for that instead of trying to narrow the remit on what people should be voting on in this referendum.

What are you talking about? I already gave my reasons for voting yes. Read back the thread.

People vote on single issues in general elections all the time - see 2nd amendment voters in the US, UKIP voters (now Tories) in the UK. I believe you are the one limiting choice by saying people cannot do so. Of course they can, if they choose to, at the expense of other issues.

All I was pointing out was that, should the referendum be passed, given we live in a parliamentary democracy, the legislation that is causing No voters such distress (and genuine distress I am sure) can be modified in the future by the election of a government with a mandate to do so. Which is one advantage of taking this issue out of the constitution.

It is a simple point.

Careful about the scissors.

Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: omaghjoe on May 09, 2018, 05:28:46 PM
We can all start the copy and paste nonsense sid. Except the child within a babies womb have no story to copy snd paste or ever will if it is taken away for no reason.

How can you have proper healthcare for all by taking away  the right to life of the unborn?

A healthy unborn child can have it's life ended with no legal consequences or justification. That is what the majority of abortions are and will be under the proposed legislation.
I'd thank you if you didn't flippantly dismiss the many real stories about the incredible harm the 8th Amendment causes as "nonsense", thanks.

You and every other No supporter has completely avoided dealing with them, because dealing with them would force you to confront the actual reality.

We're talking about real, actual human rights here - the right of women to not suffer grave health consequences because of conservative, patriarchal religious dogma, the right of a vulnerable woman not to have to carry a pregnancy to term against their wishes without risking a long jail sentence.

The nonsense I was taking about was your action of copy and pasting whole articles into this thread not that the actual stories ::)

I have discussed them, multiple times and I have said a better solution needs to be found for many of cases

Yes I am talking about real human rights, the first most basic right is the right to life, all other rights are subsequent to that primary right

I have laid out

Sure it was. Just admit that you don't people quoting articles from reputable sources and actual real life experiences because both have a habit of destroying your argument.

Here's Article 1 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

Note the key word "born".

You don't get to impose your own, erroneous definition of human rights, thanks.

The UN also states that Ireland's abortion laws are "cruel and inhumane".

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/13/un-denounces-ireland-abortion-laws-as-cruel-and-inhumane-again

"Cruel and inhumane" are not words that are associated with human rights.

I know its probably easier to depict me as an evil monster in your head, so with that depiction you probably know what I was thinking better than the real me does. Post a link like you did in this post.
You have barely addressed my arguments or questions, you just keep going around in circles with the same mantra.

Firstly "Born free" is a well used (American) phrase in the context of liberties I do not think that it is intended to be taken as literally at birth. All rights are not suddenly bestowed on a child at birth.. For example you don't even have the right to vote, work, drive, drink etc until much older, so we are not all equal in terms of rights at birth. Also the right to life before birth to some degree is guaranteed in law in virtually every member state of the UN. Using your interpretation a child could have its life terminated during labour with no legal consequences.
You using a well used phrase out of context as a legal justification.

As I said before Human beings lifecycle is defined at conception and it is from that point that the right to life must be bestowed. To end their life is cruel and inhuman
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 09, 2018, 05:39:06 PM
We can all start the copy and paste nonsense sid. Except the child within a babies womb have no story to copy snd paste or ever will if it is taken away for no reason.

How can you have proper healthcare for all by taking away  the right to life of the unborn?

A healthy unborn child can have it's life ended with no legal consequences or justification. That is what the majority of abortions are and will be under the proposed legislation.
I'd thank you if you didn't flippantly dismiss the many real stories about the incredible harm the 8th Amendment causes as "nonsense", thanks.

You and every other No supporter has completely avoided dealing with them, because dealing with them would force you to confront the actual reality.

We're talking about real, actual human rights here - the right of women to not suffer grave health consequences because of conservative, patriarchal religious dogma, the right of a vulnerable woman not to have to carry a pregnancy to term against their wishes without risking a long jail sentence.

The nonsense I was taking about was your action of copy and pasting whole articles into this thread not that the actual stories ::)

I have discussed them, multiple times and I have said a better solution needs to be found for many of cases

Yes I am talking about real human rights, the first most basic right is the right to life, all other rights are subsequent to that primary right

I have laid out

Sure it was. Just admit that you don't people quoting articles from reputable sources and actual real life experiences because both have a habit of destroying your argument.

Here's Article 1 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

Note the key word "born".

You don't get to impose your own, erroneous definition of human rights, thanks.

The UN also states that Ireland's abortion laws are "cruel and inhumane".

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/13/un-denounces-ireland-abortion-laws-as-cruel-and-inhumane-again

"Cruel and inhumane" are not words that are associated with human rights.

I know its probably easier to depict me as an evil monster in your head, so with that depiction you probably know what I was thinking better than the real me does. Post a link like you did in this post.
You have barely addressed my arguments or questions, you just keep going around in circles with the same mantra.

Firstly "Born free" is a well used (American) phrase in the context of liberties I do not think that it is intended to be taken as literally at birth. All rights are not suddenly bestowed on a child at birth.. For example you don't even have the right to vote, work, drive, drink etc until much older, so we are not all equal in terms of rights at birth. Also the right to life before birth to some degree is guaranteed in law in virtually every member state of the UN. Using your interpretation a child could have its life terminated during labour with no legal consequences.
You using a well used phrase out of context as a legal justification.

As I said before Human beings lifecycle is defined at conception and it is from that point that the right to life must be bestowed. To end their life is cruel and inhuman

Well you better get used to this brave new ‘cruel’ world where we let women have control over their own bodies, because it’s happening with or without your permission.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: omaghjoe on May 09, 2018, 05:56:13 PM
Quick constitutional primer for all involved -

If the referendum is passed and the government moves legislation legalising abortion that you don't like...you can vote them out.

During any election, you can always vote for the party with the most draconian proposal for facilitating abortion, and if they don't implement it...you can vote them out.

If any of your local TDs take a liberal stance on abortion, you can not give them a preference, in the hope they will be...voted out.

And if you think TDs are too stupid/gullible/unprincipled (fill in your own adjective) to be trusted with such an issue...you can vote them out.

The reason why the Constitution is the wrong place for this, and the Oireachtas is the right place, is that the science involved is constantly evolving, as are social attitudes. It is up to people to be active in that political process to influence it to their own position. Saying that the current reps are not good enough is a cop out. Run for office if you feel the system is letting you down. But don't let the perceived incompetence of legislators be a reason for denying women healthcare and autonomy over their own bodies in terrible situations.

A parliamentary election is not a single issue plebiscite it involves multiple issues.

This however is a plebiscite on the 8th amendment and the consequences of it being removed of which the main one is the introduction of legislation for elective abortions for no medical reason at 12weeks.

To try and paint this referendum as anything else is either completely niave or just plain old dishonesty.

Still the sharpest knife in the drawer I see Joe.
???
That must leave you as the butter knife Tiger

I am talking about the fact that if this referendum is passed, the legislation that will follow can be changed, by the wishes of the electorate by....you guessed it, voting out those who passed the legislation and voting in those with new, more draconian policies. So I wasn't actually talking about the process of the referendum, as I qualified at the start. I was talking about the subsequent democratic process.

You can apologise for your naivety or dishonesty at your leisure.

I wouldn't be walking around with sharp scissors if I were you.

Yes... and I was telling you that a parliamentary election is not a single issue plebiscite.??? People will vote on how a range of issues, for example in West Tyrone if the Shinners somehow managed (they wont) to get the A5 built, sorted out Brexit, and got Stormont going again I MIGHT consider voting for them...(if I had a vote) in spite of their position on this issue!

Not to mention that the current government in the Dail got 25% of the popular vote... not exactly democratic, throw in party whips and proportional representation and single issues soon get mired.

In Indyref many Scots did not vote yes because the case of independence hadn't laid out the economic plan of independence. You cant make a decision if you don't know what the consequences will be.
And the consequences of voting Yes on the 8th have been made clear by the incumbent government and that is that healthy humans will have their lives legally ended without ever having a chance or choice.

Besides I dunno why your trying to reduce this to purely about the question asked, you've expressed support for those consequences havent you? So give your rationale for that instead of trying to narrow the remit on what people should be voting on in this referendum.

What are you talking about? I already gave my reasons for voting yes. Read back the thread.

People vote on single issues in general elections all the time - see 2nd amendment voters in the US, UKIP voters (now Tories) in the UK. I believe you are the one limiting choice by saying people cannot do so. Of course they can, if they choose to, at the expense of other issues.

All I was pointing out was that, should the referendum be passed, given we live in a parliamentary democracy, the legislation that is causing No voters such distress (and genuine distress I am sure) can be modified in the future by the election of a government with a mandate to do so. Which is one advantage of taking this issue out of the constitution.

It is a simple point.

Careful about the scissors.




I am talking of your proposal to kick the issue of the proposed legislation down the road when we know what the legislation will be and which you have expressed direct support for. It is an attempting to gerrymander the issues. Your moving the goalposts on what people should vote on.

Some people do vote on single issues, most don't. And as I said with a parliamentary democracy which is currently governed by 25% of the vote, along with party whips, political bargaining, proportional representation etc etc and single issues like this are like a needle in a haystack.

This referendum is an opportunity for all the electorate to do just that
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: laoislad on May 09, 2018, 06:06:02 PM
I am torn on what way to vote on this.

On the one side I think there is a way that we could legislate for the rape cases and the fatal foetal abnormalities etc and still not bring in abortion on tap. It annoys me to see this being used as an argument. Very few people are against abortion in those cases but they will account for less than 1% of abortions so it seems outrageous to legislate for the whole based on those cases.

On the other hand I could easily have been caught out as a young buck in college or after getting a girl in trouble as they say. And if it happened to me (once we'd agreed) i'd have been on the boat over myself, so I'm not against it.

I do believe different people believe life starts at different points in time, a family member recently had a miscarriage and as her dad said "well that baby was alive to us" but looking at it from outside its loss isn't felt as much as if it had been born and died.

I can't ever remember an issue where I dislike both sides as much as I do this issue, both sides are so blinkered and dismissive of the other.

I'm currently leaning towards No, mainly because I wouldn't like abortion to be the contraception of choice, I would like people to take more responsibility and I have no issue with exporting our problem to Britain. But if I did decide to vote Yes it would be because I think people have their own values and beliefs on when life begins.

I wish they had given the option to legislate for the rare cases but still not have abortion
Good Post 👍
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 09, 2018, 07:40:36 PM
We can all start the copy and paste nonsense sid. Except the child within a babies womb have no story to copy snd paste or ever will if it is taken away for no reason.

How can you have proper healthcare for all by taking away  the right to life of the unborn?

A healthy unborn child can have it's life ended with no legal consequences or justification. That is what the majority of abortions are and will be under the proposed legislation.
I'd thank you if you didn't flippantly dismiss the many real stories about the incredible harm the 8th Amendment causes as "nonsense", thanks.

You and every other No supporter has completely avoided dealing with them, because dealing with them would force you to confront the actual reality.

We're talking about real, actual human rights here - the right of women to not suffer grave health consequences because of conservative, patriarchal religious dogma, the right of a vulnerable woman not to have to carry a pregnancy to term against their wishes without risking a long jail sentence.

The nonsense I was taking about was your action of copy and pasting whole articles into this thread not that the actual stories ::)

I have discussed them, multiple times and I have said a better solution needs to be found for many of cases

Yes I am talking about real human rights, the first most basic right is the right to life, all other rights are subsequent to that primary right

I have laid out

Sure it was. Just admit that you don't people quoting articles from reputable sources and actual real life experiences because both have a habit of destroying your argument.

Here's Article 1 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

Note the key word "born".

You don't get to impose your own, erroneous definition of human rights, thanks.

The UN also states that Ireland's abortion laws are "cruel and inhumane".

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/13/un-denounces-ireland-abortion-laws-as-cruel-and-inhumane-again

"Cruel and inhumane" are not words that are associated with human rights.

I know its probably easier to depict me as an evil monster in your head, so with that depiction you probably know what I was thinking better than the real me does. Post a link like you did in this post.
You have barely addressed my arguments or questions, you just keep going around in circles with the same mantra.

Firstly "Born free" is a well used (American) phrase in the context of liberties I do not think that it is intended to be taken as literally at birth. All rights are not suddenly bestowed on a child at birth.. For example you don't even have the right to vote, work, drive, drink etc until much older, so we are not all equal in terms of rights at birth. Also the right to life before birth to some degree is guaranteed in law in virtually every member state of the UN. Using your interpretation a child could have its life terminated during labour with no legal consequences.
You using a well used phrase out of context as a legal justification.

As I said before Human beings lifecycle is defined at conception and it is from that point that the right to life must be bestowed. To end their life is cruel and inhuman

Of course, I could have well guessed you'd simply dismiss the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as you simply dismiss everything else.

We weren't talking about the right to drive or to work or to drink, but continue on down your rabbit hole by all means.

Of course the unborn are protected to some degree in every state - as they will be here if the proposed legislation is passed. In most states, they're called abortion laws. That's laws, whichare legislated for, as to opoosed to blunt, inflexible constitutional provisions like we have in Ireland.

The crux of the matter is this - we cannot afford the same right to life to the unborn that we afford to an actual born human, because that unborn is contained within an actual born human woman, who must always take precedence.

To afford the same right to life to an unborn as to the born, the reality is you must trample over the human rights of the actual born woman.

That's what Ireland did, and it predictably proved to be a disaster. It is that specific thinking which led to Savita Halappanavar's death and to cases like the Michelle Harte, the X Case and many, many others.

It is an utterly ridiculous point to maintain that a zygote should have the same right to life as the woman carrying it.

Can you tell me why that zygote should have the same right to life as the woman carrying it?

Can I also pose the same question to you specifically that I posed in general to No supporters earlier?

If a woman, say, takes an abortion pill that successfully works to abort an embryo or a foetus (abortion pills can work anywhere up to 12 weeks), should she face 14 years in jail?

You do understand that this is already happening every single day in Ireland and isn't going to stop if No wins?

What is your answer to the thousands of Irish women that are taking abortion pills in this state?



Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 09, 2018, 07:51:51 PM

I am talking of your proposal to kick the issue of the proposed legislation down the road when we know what the legislation will be and which you have expressed direct support for. It is an attempting to gerrymander the issues. Your moving the goalposts on what people should vote on.

Some people do vote on single issues, most don't. And as I said with a parliamentary democracy which is currently governed by 25% of the vote, along with party whips, political bargaining, proportional representation etc etc and single issues like this are like a needle in a haystack.

This referendum is an opportunity for all the electorate to do just that

And what would your attitude be if there was no proposed legislation?

I can tell you straight up what the attitude of most No suporters would be.

They would be making it a major campaign issue and accusing the Government of dishonesty, underhand tactics, and "an attempt to hoodwink the Irish people into a regime of baby murder", and other such bullshit like that.

You wouldn't be calling it a single issue campaign.

You'd be screaming from the rooftops about "why should we trust politicians".

Oh wait, you're doing that already.

The bottom line here is that the No supporters will find any excuse to muddy the waters, outright lie and create as much fear and scaremongering as possible, and they would have been the exact same thing anyway had there been no proposed legislation.

Meanwhile, they completely fail to deal with the proven serious issues that the 8th Amendment has brought. They have no solutions to them.

Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: screenexile on May 09, 2018, 08:28:08 PM
See Cooper and some lad from the No campaign went at it this evening.

In fairness Cooper was grand until the No campaigner started engaging in whataboutery and was called on it. He seemed to think Google banning ads amounted to rigging the election in Yes’ favour. Sounds like the No campaign realise they are doomed so are crying foul to save face!!!
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 09, 2018, 08:32:54 PM
See Cooper and some lad from the No campaign went at it this evening.

In fairness Cooper was grand until the No campaigner started engaging in whataboutery and was called on it. He seemed to think Google banning ads amounted to rigging the election in Yes’ favour. Sounds like the No campaign realise they are doomed so are crying foul to save face!!!

That's that slimeball John McGuirk.

John wouldn't be a misogynist at all - no, no, never.

LIBERTAS’S main election spindoctor has described the party's failed Dublin candidate as “a psychotic bitch”.
Press officer John McGuirk has taken a parting shot at the demoralised party, saying that Caroline Simons was the “worst candidate ever”.

https://www.herald.ie/news/spindoctor-calls-libertas-poll-failure-simons-psychotic-bitch-27915407.html
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: macdanger2 on May 09, 2018, 08:43:28 PM

Also, making rape an exception is a terrible idea.


I asked a question on this previously but didn't see an answer on it - what's the situation going to be in cases of rape under the proposed new legislation?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: screenexile on May 09, 2018, 08:54:27 PM
See Cooper and some lad from the No campaign went at it this evening.

In fairness Cooper was grand until the No campaigner started engaging in whataboutery and was called on it. He seemed to think Google banning ads amounted to rigging the election in Yes’ favour. Sounds like the No campaign realise they are doomed so are crying foul to save face!!!

That's that slimeball John McGuirk.

John wouldn't be a misogynist at all - no, no, never.

LIBERTAS’S main election spindoctor has described the party's failed Dublin candidate as “a psychotic bitch”.
Press officer John McGuirk has taken a parting shot at the demoralised party, saying that Caroline Simons was the “worst candidate ever”.

https://www.herald.ie/news/spindoctor-calls-libertas-poll-failure-simons-psychotic-bitch-27915407.html

The very boyo... you could hear the smugness in his voice as he started bringing up things just to annoy people!!
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: omaghjoe on May 09, 2018, 09:28:21 PM
We can all start the copy and paste nonsense sid. Except the child within a babies womb have no story to copy snd paste or ever will if it is taken away for no reason.

How can you have proper healthcare for all by taking away  the right to life of the unborn?

A healthy unborn child can have it's life ended with no legal consequences or justification. That is what the majority of abortions are and will be under the proposed legislation.
I'd thank you if you didn't flippantly dismiss the many real stories about the incredible harm the 8th Amendment causes as "nonsense", thanks.

You and every other No supporter has completely avoided dealing with them, because dealing with them would force you to confront the actual reality.

We're talking about real, actual human rights here - the right of women to not suffer grave health consequences because of conservative, patriarchal religious dogma, the right of a vulnerable woman not to have to carry a pregnancy to term against their wishes without risking a long jail sentence.

The nonsense I was taking about was your action of copy and pasting whole articles into this thread not that the actual stories ::)

I have discussed them, multiple times and I have said a better solution needs to be found for many of cases

Yes I am talking about real human rights, the first most basic right is the right to life, all other rights are subsequent to that primary right

I have laid out

Sure it was. Just admit that you don't people quoting articles from reputable sources and actual real life experiences because both have a habit of destroying your argument.

Here's Article 1 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

Note the key word "born".

You don't get to impose your own, erroneous definition of human rights, thanks.

The UN also states that Ireland's abortion laws are "cruel and inhumane".

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/13/un-denounces-ireland-abortion-laws-as-cruel-and-inhumane-again

"Cruel and inhumane" are not words that are associated with human rights.

I know its probably easier to depict me as an evil monster in your head, so with that depiction you probably know what I was thinking better than the real me does. Post a link like you did in this post.
You have barely addressed my arguments or questions, you just keep going around in circles with the same mantra.

Firstly "Born free" is a well used (American) phrase in the context of liberties I do not think that it is intended to be taken as literally at birth. All rights are not suddenly bestowed on a child at birth.. For example you don't even have the right to vote, work, drive, drink etc until much older, so we are not all equal in terms of rights at birth. Also the right to life before birth to some degree is guaranteed in law in virtually every member state of the UN. Using your interpretation a child could have its life terminated during labour with no legal consequences.
You using a well used phrase out of context as a legal justification.

As I said before Human beings lifecycle is defined at conception and it is from that point that the right to life must be bestowed. To end their life is cruel and inhuman

Of course, I could have well guessed you'd simply dismiss the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as you simply dismiss everything else.

We weren't talking about the right to drive or to work or to drink, but continue on down your rabbit hole by all means.

Of course the unborn are protected to some degree in every state - as they will be here if the proposed legislation is passed. In most states, they're called abortion laws. That's laws, whichare legislated for, as to opoosed to blunt, inflexible constitutional provisions like we have in Ireland.

The crux of the matter is this - we cannot afford the same right to life to the unborn that we afford to an actual born human, because that unborn is contained within an actual born human woman, who must always take precedence.

To afford the same right to life to an unborn as to the born, the reality is you must trample over the human rights of the actual born woman.

That's what Ireland did, and it predictably proved to be a disaster. It is that specific thinking which led to Savita Halappanavar's death and to cases like the Michelle Harte, the X Case and many, many others.

It is an utterly ridiculous point to maintain that a zygote should have the same right to life as the woman carrying it.

Can you tell me why that zygote should have the same right to life as the woman carrying it?

Can I also pose the same question to you specifically that I posed in general to No supporters earlier?

If a woman, say, takes an abortion pill that successfully works to abort an embryo or a foetus (abortion pills can work anywhere up to 12 weeks), should she face 14 years in jail?

You do understand that this is already happening every single day in Ireland and isn't going to stop if No wins?

What is your answer to the thousands of Irish women that are taking abortion pills in this state?

I didn't dismiss the UN Bill of human rights merely pointing out your twisted interpretation of it for your own agenda, all the rights are not present at birth or for a good few years afterwards.

I have repeatedly said that the actual born woman takes precedence so please stop with that straw man.
Repeating a straw man does not make it rational or true.

Under the proposed legislation the unborn child will be afforded no legal protection.
This leads to abortion on request for children that have no health issues there needs to be some degree of legal protection for healthy unborn consensually conceived babies of which the vast majority of abortions will be carried out on.

The punishment should fit the crime and they differ for every circumstance. 14 years seems excessive but I am sure someone could point to a case where a child was naturally conceived where the abortion was carried out in a fit of rage to spite someone else, like a partner. Or because the child is a girl instead of a boy or something like that. In those cases 14years seems about right especially if its a repeat offence.
But 14 years seems excessive for the majority of the convenience abortions, I know a lot of woman are in crisis not thinking straight, bad influences etc etc. I believe women who abandon their babies aren't usually charged, or those suffering postpartum depression who hurt kill their babies are usually found not to be liable for their actions. Similar compassion should with abortion but of course it all depends on the circumstance.

I have answered yours questions so can you answer me this one which I have asked repeatedly...

Since the vast majority of abortions will be carried out on healthy babies should such babies (embyros/humans etc) have no right to life? and should the mother's right to choose always supersede any right to life of the child?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: omaghjoe on May 09, 2018, 09:36:22 PM

I am talking of your proposal to kick the issue of the proposed legislation down the road when we know what the legislation will be and which you have expressed direct support for. It is an attempting to gerrymander the issues. Your moving the goalposts on what people should vote on.

Some people do vote on single issues, most don't. And as I said with a parliamentary democracy which is currently governed by 25% of the vote, along with party whips, political bargaining, proportional representation etc etc and single issues like this are like a needle in a haystack.

This referendum is an opportunity for all the electorate to do just that

And what would your attitude be if there was no proposed legislation?

I can tell you straight up what the attitude of most No suporters would be.

They would be making it a major campaign issue and accusing the Government of dishonesty, underhand tactics, and "an attempt to hoodwink the Irish people into a regime of baby murder", and other such bullshit like that.

You wouldn't be calling it a single issue campaign.

You'd be screaming from the rooftops about "why should we trust politicians".

Oh wait, you're doing that already.

The bottom line here is that the No supporters will find any excuse to muddy the waters, outright lie and create as much fear and scaremongering as possible, and they would have been the exact same thing anyway had there been no proposed legislation.

Meanwhile, they completely fail to deal with the proven serious issues that the 8th Amendment has brought. They have no solutions to them.

Your talking about a scenario that is not this situation so really your just speculating. Tho I am amazing to see how well you know how the entire opposite side of the fence is thinking impressive stuff, but I suspect (open to correction of course) your just making it up to demonise those who think differently just like you have done with me.
The Government have been straight up and honest about what will happe so people can know what the consequences of a yes vote will be

I haven't said anything about trusting politicians about this issue, tho only an eejit would trust a politician in general.

Your the one mudding the waters, going over old ground, telling lies, not answering questions, digressing and with virtually every sentence playing the man.

None of this tho takes away from the central question of:

Since the vast majority of abortions will be carried out on healthy babies should such babies have no right to life? and should the mother's right to choose always supersede any right of the child?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 09, 2018, 11:37:56 PM

I am talking of your proposal to kick the issue of the proposed legislation down the road when we know what the legislation will be and which you have expressed direct support for. It is an attempting to gerrymander the issues. Your moving the goalposts on what people should vote on.

Some people do vote on single issues, most don't. And as I said with a parliamentary democracy which is currently governed by 25% of the vote, along with party whips, political bargaining, proportional representation etc etc and single issues like this are like a needle in a haystack.

This referendum is an opportunity for all the electorate to do just that

And what would your attitude be if there was no proposed legislation?

I can tell you straight up what the attitude of most No suporters would be.

They would be making it a major campaign issue and accusing the Government of dishonesty, underhand tactics, and "an attempt to hoodwink the Irish people into a regime of baby murder", and other such bullshit like that.

You wouldn't be calling it a single issue campaign.

You'd be screaming from the rooftops about "why should we trust politicians".

Oh wait, you're doing that already.

The bottom line here is that the No supporters will find any excuse to muddy the waters, outright lie and create as much fear and scaremongering as possible, and they would have been the exact same thing anyway had there been no proposed legislation.

Meanwhile, they completely fail to deal with the proven serious issues that the 8th Amendment has brought. They have no solutions to them.

Your talking about a scenario that is not this situation so really your just speculating. Tho I am amazing to see how well you know how the entire opposite side of the fence is thinking impressive stuff, but I suspect (open to correction of course) your just making it up to demonise those who think differently just like you have done with me.
The Government have been straight up and honest about what will happe so people can know what the consequences of a yes vote will be

I haven't said anything about trusting politicians about this issue, tho only an eejit would trust a politician in general.

Your the one mudding the waters, going over old ground, telling lies, not answering questions, digressing and with virtually every sentence playing the man.

None of this tho takes away from the central question of:

Since the vast majority of abortions will be carried out on healthy babies should such babies have no right to life? and should the mother's right to choose always supersede any right of the child?

Even calling a twelve week-old embryo a ‘baby’ is an incredible push. Emotive language unmoored from any logic.

Like every other western country, we will get abortion in time like every other human right and the side who opposed the granting of that right will fade into a fringe group within a generation. More than anything the No side people are deeply frightened because they know their argument will never be good enough to reverse a Yes vote, but they know even a No vote will only realistically delay the inevitable.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: The Iceman on May 10, 2018, 12:19:41 AM
I really hope your significant other doesn't experience the loss of a baby at 12 weeks...or any week.
I don't understand your outlook on this at all - I see no regard for life, no feelings or empathy for the baby and a strong aggressive push to bring elective abortion to Ireland and label it a human right and progress. You'll know in the end....
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 10, 2018, 12:47:59 AM
We can all start the copy and paste nonsense sid. Except the child within a babies womb have no story to copy snd paste or ever will if it is taken away for no reason.

How can you have proper healthcare for all by taking away  the right to life of the unborn?

A healthy unborn child can have it's life ended with no legal consequences or justification. That is what the majority of abortions are and will be under the proposed legislation.
I'd thank you if you didn't flippantly dismiss the many real stories about the incredible harm the 8th Amendment causes as "nonsense", thanks.

You and every other No supporter has completely avoided dealing with them, because dealing with them would force you to confront the actual reality.

We're talking about real, actual human rights here - the right of women to not suffer grave health consequences because of conservative, patriarchal religious dogma, the right of a vulnerable woman not to have to carry a pregnancy to term against their wishes without risking a long jail sentence.

The nonsense I was taking about was your action of copy and pasting whole articles into this thread not that the actual stories ::)

I have discussed them, multiple times and I have said a better solution needs to be found for many of cases

Yes I am talking about real human rights, the first most basic right is the right to life, all other rights are subsequent to that primary right

I have laid out

Sure it was. Just admit that you don't people quoting articles from reputable sources and actual real life experiences because both have a habit of destroying your argument.

Here's Article 1 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

Note the key word "born".

You don't get to impose your own, erroneous definition of human rights, thanks.

The UN also states that Ireland's abortion laws are "cruel and inhumane".

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/13/un-denounces-ireland-abortion-laws-as-cruel-and-inhumane-again

"Cruel and inhumane" are not words that are associated with human rights.

I know its probably easier to depict me as an evil monster in your head, so with that depiction you probably know what I was thinking better than the real me does. Post a link like you did in this post.
You have barely addressed my arguments or questions, you just keep going around in circles with the same mantra.

Firstly "Born free" is a well used (American) phrase in the context of liberties I do not think that it is intended to be taken as literally at birth. All rights are not suddenly bestowed on a child at birth.. For example you don't even have the right to vote, work, drive, drink etc until much older, so we are not all equal in terms of rights at birth. Also the right to life before birth to some degree is guaranteed in law in virtually every member state of the UN. Using your interpretation a child could have its life terminated during labour with no legal consequences.
You using a well used phrase out of context as a legal justification.

As I said before Human beings lifecycle is defined at conception and it is from that point that the right to life must be bestowed. To end their life is cruel and inhuman

Of course, I could have well guessed you'd simply dismiss the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as you simply dismiss everything else.

We weren't talking about the right to drive or to work or to drink, but continue on down your rabbit hole by all means.

Of course the unborn are protected to some degree in every state - as they will be here if the proposed legislation is passed. In most states, they're called abortion laws. That's laws, whichare legislated for, as to opoosed to blunt, inflexible constitutional provisions like we have in Ireland.

The crux of the matter is this - we cannot afford the same right to life to the unborn that we afford to an actual born human, because that unborn is contained within an actual born human woman, who must always take precedence.

To afford the same right to life to an unborn as to the born, the reality is you must trample over the human rights of the actual born woman.

That's what Ireland did, and it predictably proved to be a disaster. It is that specific thinking which led to Savita Halappanavar's death and to cases like the Michelle Harte, the X Case and many, many others.

It is an utterly ridiculous point to maintain that a zygote should have the same right to life as the woman carrying it.

Can you tell me why that zygote should have the same right to life as the woman carrying it?

Can I also pose the same question to you specifically that I posed in general to No supporters earlier?

If a woman, say, takes an abortion pill that successfully works to abort an embryo or a foetus (abortion pills can work anywhere up to 12 weeks), should she face 14 years in jail?

You do understand that this is already happening every single day in Ireland and isn't going to stop if No wins?

What is your answer to the thousands of Irish women that are taking abortion pills in this state?

I didn't dismiss the UN Bill of human rights merely pointing out your twisted interpretation of it for your own agenda, all the rights are not present at birth or for a good few years afterwards.

I have repeatedly said that the actual born woman takes precedence so please stop with that straw man.
Repeating a straw man does not make it rational or true.

Under the proposed legislation the unborn child will be afforded no legal protection.
This leads to abortion on request for children that have no health issues there needs to be some degree of legal protection for healthy unborn consensually conceived babies of which the vast majority of abortions will be carried out on.

The punishment should fit the crime and they differ for every circumstance. 14 years seems excessive but I am sure someone could point to a case where a child was naturally conceived where the abortion was carried out in a fit of rage to spite someone else, like a partner. Or because the child is a girl instead of a boy or something like that. In those cases 14years seems about right especially if its a repeat offence.
But 14 years seems excessive for the majority of the convenience abortions, I know a lot of woman are in crisis not thinking straight, bad influences etc etc. I believe women who abandon their babies aren't usually charged, or those suffering postpartum depression who hurt kill their babies are usually found not to be liable for their actions. Similar compassion should with abortion but of course it all depends on the circumstance.

I have answered yours questions so can you answer me this one which I have asked repeatedly...

Since the vast majority of abortions will be carried out on healthy babies should such babies (embyros/humans etc) have no right to life? and should the mother's right to choose always supersede any right to life of the child?
I didn't twist the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in any way.

You talked about the supposed "right to life" as a human right. The way you framed that was clearly as an absolute right. I've already explained why that shouldn't be offered to the unborn and why when it is, as in Ireland's case, it proves to be a disaster.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't offer it to the unborn and neither do other European countries. That doesn't mean the unborn don't have rights under abortion laws. They clearly do, that is why time limits are imposed for elective abortion.

If you believe the woman carrying an unborn takes precedence, then you believe the 8th Amendment must go as the 8th Amendment denies this.

As I said prevously, abortion is happening in Ireland right now. Thousands of Irish women abort using pills which work up to 12 weeks.

If you believe 14 years is an appropriate punishment, what should be done about these women? How do you plan to catch them and punish them? How do you plan to lock them up, because there are a hell of a lot of them and there isn't space in our prisons for them.

Why are the No campaign furiously denying they want to see any women locked up?

If a woman murders a (born) baby, she will almost certainly go to jail. See the link to the Jennifer Crichton case earlier. I absolutely agree that a woman who murders a baby should go to jail unless there are serious mental health issues at play.

But the so called pro-life side claim that an unborn, from conception, is a human being. Yet they say they don't want women to go to jail if they have an abortion. This doesn't make sense. One either believes that abortion is a human being or they don't, and if they do, why the difference in prescribed punishment, or lack of it, for killing a born baby versus an unborn foetus?

If there is a threat to health at any stage in the pregnancy, I believe the woman's right should always supercede that of the foetus, yes, and it should never ever be subservient in any circumstances. In practice, under the 8th Amendment, it is.

I firmly believe women all should have the right to choose up to a specified time limit. I'm happy with 12 weeks as the limit as it's a hell of a lot better than what we have now, ie. 0, but I would be happier with a higher limit, as I've said, previously, perhaps 16 weeks or 18 as Sweden have. Nevertheless, the fact is that the vast majority of abortions are carried out before 12 weeks. After that, as the foetus develops sentience in the post 20 week period it becomes a matter of balancing rights as is best possible. I'm happy with the provisions for up to 6 months for threat to health etc. After that in the rare cases where the pregnancy needs to ended it will become a case of inducing labour if necessary with the primary aim to save the mother, but also with the aim of delivering a healthy baby. The proposed legislation is a quantum leap forward for Irish women.

The question of possible "exceptions" has been brought up here.

Now, let's say the 8th Amendment is abolished, and legislators are free to frame legislation. The problem with legislating only for, say, rape and incest, is that it would place at least some burden of proof on the mother to prove she had been raped. Under normal circumstances, and as we saw so clearly in Belfast recently, rape is a very difficult crime to prove, and it will never, ever be proved in the time frame of a resulting pregnancy.

So, how do you prove it? We know rape is a hugely underreported crime and in reality there are a huge number of rape victims out there who have never even reported it.

What burden of proof would be required? It would have to be reported for a start. Then a woman would presumably have to come before a panel a very short time after her rape and attempt to prove to some as of yet unknown burden of proof that she had been raped.

During and after Belfast many people talked about how it felt it was the complainant on trial, not the defendants. Legislating only for cases such as rape is a recipe for victims to be put on trial in order to obtain an abortion. I really don't think we want that.

I can get that people don't like abortion. Nobody "likes" abortion. Nobody is saying "go abortion!" But it is necessary for women's welfare for it to be available to all. The alternative is that a particular, narrow view of morality continues to be imposed on everybody. Whereas pro-choice campaigners are not attempting to impose their morality on anybody. Nobody would be forcing anybody to have an abortion.

The reality that No campaigners must face up to is, as I have already said, that abortion is already happening in Ireland. Anybody can buy abortion pills online. They work up to 12 weeks.

So we have thousands of women carrying out their own abortions (currently illegally, of course). Now these pills will generally be safe, but there is always the chance of something going wrong. Perhaps the mother has an underlying health condition which makes it unsafe for her to take an abortion pill.

What happens if something goes wrong? What if a woman has an adverse reaction to the pill and needs urgent medical help? She'll already have been in a vulnerable position given she is taking the pill to terminate her crisis pregnancy in the first place. What goes through her mind? If she goes to a public hospital, she'll have to tell the staff that she has had an abortion via a pill. And what if somebody on the staff is a strict Catholic and reports her? A 14 year prison sentence could hang over her.

So, should we leave women who encounter complications as a result of taking abortion pills to face a nightmarish dilemma between i) not seeking medical help, which could result in grave health implications, and ii) presenting at a hospital and possibly facing prison time?

Or do we face up to reality and legalise it, regulate it and make it safe for everybody?

Because, it is happening, a No vote won't mean it's not happening - it will be delusion, and it will be cowardice. We will just continue on as before, and the reality will be swept under the carpet.



Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 10, 2018, 01:07:57 AM
I really hope your significant other doesn't experience the loss of a baby at 12 weeks...or any week.
I don't understand your outlook on this at all - I see no regard for life, no feelings or empathy for the baby and a strong aggressive push to bring elective abortion to Ireland and label it a human right and progress. You'll know in the end....
The bit you write about having no regard for life or no feelings or empathy is absolute nonsense.

That is in fact what I see everywhere from No supporters - the lack of feelings and empathy for women, the vile hatred online, and scant regard for their lives.

Remember, just five years ago, the exact same people who are campaigning against this referendum - Cora Sherlock, Ronan Mullen, William Binchy etc., were all over the airwaves telling us why a suicidal woman should be forced to give birth against her will.

Put yourself in the shoes of a woman experiencing a crisis pregnancy who feels they need an abortion.

Or put yourself in the shoes of someone who has a loved one experiencing a crisis pregnancy and feels they needs an abortion.

See what your answer is.

I would strongly advise every person voting to do this.



Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: magpie seanie on May 10, 2018, 09:28:20 AM

Also, making rape an exception is a terrible idea.


I asked a question on this previously but didn't see an answer on it - what's the situation going to be in cases of rape under the proposed new legislation?


As I understand it there is no separate provision and I understand why. How would it work? Would the woman have the prove she was raped and how would she do that? How long would it take? Unpalatable and all as the elective 12 weeks might be if you really think about it then it's clear to see it's the only sensible approach. It provides for these cases and the vast majority of "trips to England" that are and have taken place for years and years.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: longballin on May 10, 2018, 09:29:00 AM
It does seem the NO side have no regard for the physical or mental wellbeing of women. But that is how the Catholic Church traditionally treated women.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: macdanger2 on May 10, 2018, 10:16:42 AM

Also, making rape an exception is a terrible idea.


I asked a question on this previously but didn't see an answer on it - what's the situation going to be in cases of rape under the proposed new legislation?


As I understand it there is no separate provision and I understand why. How would it work? Would the woman have the prove she was raped and how would she do that? How long would it take? Unpalatable and all as the elective 12 weeks might be if you really think about it then it's clear to see it's the only sensible approach. It provides for these cases and the vast majority of "trips to England" that are and have taken place for years and years.

Yeah, I understand the problems around a woman having to "prove" she was raped if there were special provisions for it and I doubt there's any good solution to it. The 12 weeks limit doesn't fully solve the problem for women who are raped though as they may not know they're pregnant/ may not have told anyone about what happened/ may not have decided what to do with the baby. Many of these women will still have to go to England.

Personally I would be more comfortable with a lower general limit and a significantly higher limit for difficult cases although I appreciate it's not easy to accommodate this.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: macdanger2 on May 10, 2018, 10:27:27 AM
It does seem the NO side have no regard for the physical or mental wellbeing of women. But that is how the Catholic Church traditionally treated women.

This type of attitude is not particularly helpful to the debate but it tends to be prevalent among most of those we hear in the media. So many seem to think that there are NO valid reasons for voting the other way and it ends up that the No side labels anyone thinking about voting Yes as a murderer while the Yes side labels anyone thinking about voting No as having no respect for women. The way it's developed reminds me of American politics and Brexit. Is the reality not that there are legitimate reasons for voting either way and it's a matter of weighing up those and making your own decision.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 10, 2018, 10:38:06 AM
Until 1869, the Roman Catholic Church saw no problem with abortion up to 166 days, or almost 24 weeks.

Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Tubberman on May 10, 2018, 10:50:54 AM
Until 1869, the Roman Catholic Church saw no problem with abortion up to 166 days, or almost 24 weeks.



Very little relevance to 2018!
I'm not religious at all (haven't been in a church outside weddings/funerals/christenings in 20 years I'd say) and still have major issues with repealing the amendment and the proposed legislation.
Don't make the lazy assumption that all No voters are bible thumpers. 
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Rossfan on May 10, 2018, 10:55:16 AM
The "Roman" Catholic Church said Earth was the Centre of the Universe once and also said the Sun revolved around the Earth.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 10, 2018, 10:56:43 AM
Until 1869, the Roman Catholic Church saw no problem with abortion up to 166 days, or almost 24 weeks.



Very little relevance to 2018!
I'm not religious at all (haven't been in a church outside weddings/funerals/christenings in 20 years I'd say) and still have major issues with repealing the amendment and the proposed legislation.
Don't make the lazy assumption that all No voters are bible thumpers.
It has a lot of relevance in that a supposedly "unchanging" fact according to the Roman Catholic Church is in fact a relatively recent concept as far as they are concerned.

I mean, were abortions carried out in 1868 not murder but abortions carried out in 1870 murder?

Certainly I don't think there were any significant changes in biology during those two years.


Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 10, 2018, 10:59:23 AM
The "Roman" Catholic Church said Earth was the Centre of the Universe once and also said the Sun revolved around the Earth.
And until 2007 they said that "limbo" exists.

Does an unbaptised baby who was born and died in 2006 go to limbo, but an unbaptised baby which was born and died in 2008 go to heaven?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: gallsman on May 10, 2018, 11:03:48 AM
I really hope your significant other doesn't experience the loss of a baby at 12 weeks...or any week.
I don't understand your outlook on this at all - I see no regard for life, no feelings or empathy for the baby and a strong aggressive push to bring elective abortion to Ireland and label it a human right and progress. You'll know in the end....

You are such a pathetic, shit-stirring bellend.

Trying to draw equivalence between losing a child and abortion. Utterly embarrassing.

If your wife was raped and impregnated you'd be down the clinic in no time.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 10, 2018, 11:05:57 AM

If your wife was raped and impregnated you'd be down the clinic in no time.
Iceman?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: The Iceman on May 10, 2018, 12:33:10 PM
I really hope your significant other doesn't experience the loss of a baby at 12 weeks...or any week.
I don't understand your outlook on this at all - I see no regard for life, no feelings or empathy for the baby and a strong aggressive push to bring elective abortion to Ireland and label it a human right and progress. You'll know in the end....

You are such a pathetic, shit-stirring bellend.

Trying to draw equivalence between losing a child and abortion. Utterly embarrassing.

If your wife was raped and impregnated you'd be down the clinic in no time.
First off you don't need to continue to insult me - you might bump in to me some time and I promise I will humble you.
Second, of course I can draw a comparison with a miscarriage at 12 weeks and an abortion at 12 weeks - its still a child. Have you spoken to anyone who's had an abortion - I have. I haven't met one who doesn't regret it. Do you know any women who have had miscarriages? I do, in my own family, and they mourn those children still.
And we would not be down any clinic - you know nothing about me or my family or what we have been through and are capable of handling.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: trueblue1234 on May 10, 2018, 02:10:37 PM
It does seem the NO side have no regard for the physical or mental wellbeing of women. But that is how the Catholic Church traditionally treated women.

This just isn't true. Some understand but also feel that life (And some people believe either rightly or wrongly that a foetus is life) is also important. And therefore it's not a straightforward decision to make. Posts like the above are as unhelpful as anyone in the no camp shouting "murderer". I'll put my hands up and say that I was initially in the no camp. But am beginning to sway towards yes now. But have concerns on that side as well. So I honestly don't think there'll be a decision that I'll be fully happy with. 
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: magpie seanie on May 10, 2018, 02:18:00 PM
It does seem the NO side have no regard for the physical or mental wellbeing of women. But that is how the Catholic Church traditionally treated women.

This just isn't true. Some understand but also feel that life (And some people believe either rightly or wrongly that a foetus is life) is also important. And therefore it's not a straightforward decision to make. Posts like the above are as unhelpful as anyone in the no camp shouting "murderer". I'll put my hands up and say that I was initially in the no camp. But am beginning to sway towards yes now. But have concerns on that side as well. So I honestly don't think there'll be a decision that I'll be fully happy with.


Yes and no doubt you're not happy with the current situation either where women are travelling to England every day, pills are being bought online, women with health complications aren't being properly cared for, victims of rape/incest who become pregnant etc. What's proposed should the 8th amendment be removed is not a perfect solution. I feel though it's the safest and best compromise that should address a lot of concerns but clearly cannot cater for everything.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 10, 2018, 02:32:14 PM
I really hope your significant other doesn't experience the loss of a baby at 12 weeks...or any week.
I don't understand your outlook on this at all - I see no regard for life, no feelings or empathy for the baby and a strong aggressive push to bring elective abortion to Ireland and label it a human right and progress. You'll know in the end....

You are such a pathetic, shit-stirring bellend.

Trying to draw equivalence between losing a child and abortion. Utterly embarrassing.

If your wife was raped and impregnated you'd be down the clinic in no time.
First off you don't need to continue to insult me - you might bump in to me some time and I promise I will humble you.
Second, of course I can draw a comparison with a miscarriage at 12 weeks and an abortion at 12 weeks - its still a child. Have you spoken to anyone who's had an abortion - I have. I haven't met one who doesn't regret it. Do you know any women who have had miscarriages? I do, in my own family, and they mourn those children still.
And we would not be down any clinic - you know nothing about me or my family or what we have been through and are capable of handling.
Any chance you could provide statistics from a reputable source about women's reactions to having an abortion?

If your wife was raped and was made pregnant as a result, and she wanted an abortion, what would you say to her?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: thebigfella on May 10, 2018, 02:45:41 PM
I really hope your significant other doesn't experience the loss of a baby at 12 weeks...or any week.
I don't understand your outlook on this at all - I see no regard for life, no feelings or empathy for the baby and a strong aggressive push to bring elective abortion to Ireland and label it a human right and progress. You'll know in the end....

You are such a pathetic, shit-stirring bellend.

Trying to draw equivalence between losing a child and abortion. Utterly embarrassing.

If your wife was raped and impregnated you'd be down the clinic in no time.
First off you don't need to continue to insult me - you might bump in to me some time and I promise I will humble you.
Second, of course I can draw a comparison with a miscarriage at 12 weeks and an abortion at 12 weeks - its still a child. Have you spoken to anyone who's had an abortion - I have. I haven't met one who doesn't regret it. Do you know any women who have had miscarriages? I do, in my own family, and they mourn those children still.
And we would not be down any clinic - you know nothing about me or my family or what we have been through and are capable of handling.

So you’ve met every woman who’s had an abortion?  ::)
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: trueblue1234 on May 10, 2018, 02:51:36 PM
It does seem the NO side have no regard for the physical or mental wellbeing of women. But that is how the Catholic Church traditionally treated women.

This just isn't true. Some understand but also feel that life (And some people believe either rightly or wrongly that a foetus is life) is also important. And therefore it's not a straightforward decision to make. Posts like the above are as unhelpful as anyone in the no camp shouting "murderer". I'll put my hands up and say that I was initially in the no camp. But am beginning to sway towards yes now. But have concerns on that side as well. So I honestly don't think there'll be a decision that I'll be fully happy with.


Yes and no doubt you're not happy with the current situation either where women are travelling to England every day, pills are being bought online, women with health complications aren't being properly cared for, victims of rape/incest who become pregnant etc. What's proposed should the 8th amendment be removed is not a perfect solution. I feel though it's the safest and best compromise that should address a lot of concerns but clearly cannot cater for everything.

Exactly. I suppose it's an imperfect world and that and nothing is going to cover all bases. As I said I find myself moving over towards the yes side as per the reasons in your post. But I do take issue with posts like Longballin's who think that everyone in the no side have no concerns for a woman's health. I think that's rarely the case. Most are because they see the taking of a (Potential) life as a travesty. Which, if I'm honest, I struggle with as well. But realise that the alternative is equally horrid. That for me is the reason why I wouldn't actively push either side, I just don't have the conviction of my decision.

Not sure if that makes sense.....
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: magpie seanie on May 10, 2018, 03:36:58 PM
It does seem the NO side have no regard for the physical or mental wellbeing of women. But that is how the Catholic Church traditionally treated women.

This just isn't true. Some understand but also feel that life (And some people believe either rightly or wrongly that a foetus is life) is also important. And therefore it's not a straightforward decision to make. Posts like the above are as unhelpful as anyone in the no camp shouting "murderer". I'll put my hands up and say that I was initially in the no camp. But am beginning to sway towards yes now. But have concerns on that side as well. So I honestly don't think there'll be a decision that I'll be fully happy with.


Yes and no doubt you're not happy with the current situation either where women are travelling to England every day, pills are being bought online, women with health complications aren't being properly cared for, victims of rape/incest who become pregnant etc. What's proposed should the 8th amendment be removed is not a perfect solution. I feel though it's the safest and best compromise that should address a lot of concerns but clearly cannot cater for everything.

Exactly. I suppose it's an imperfect world and that and nothing is going to cover all bases. As I said I find myself moving over towards the yes side as per the reasons in your post. But I do take issue with posts like Longballin's who think that everyone in the no side have no concerns for a woman's health. I think that's rarely the case. Most are because they see the taking of a (Potential) life as a travesty. Which, if I'm honest, I struggle with as well. But realise that the alternative is equally horrid. That for me is the reason why I wouldn't actively push either side, I just don't have the conviction of my decision.

Not sure if that makes sense.....


Makes perfect sense and I'm not all that different from you in truth. I just think if we go with removing the 8th and introducing the new proposals I see very few additional negatives (the geographic location of where abortions are carried out is about all I can think of - which is a red herring for me) and a lot of positives for the difficult cases in comparison to the status quo that exists today.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 10, 2018, 03:37:47 PM
I really hope your significant other doesn't experience the loss of a baby at 12 weeks...or any week.
I don't understand your outlook on this at all - I see no regard for life, no feelings or empathy for the baby and a strong aggressive push to bring elective abortion to Ireland and label it a human right and progress. You'll know in the end....

You are such a pathetic, shit-stirring bellend.

Trying to draw equivalence between losing a child and abortion. Utterly embarrassing.

If your wife was raped and impregnated you'd be down the clinic in no time.
First off you don't need to continue to insult me - you might bump in to me some time and I promise I will humble you.
Second, of course I can draw a comparison with a miscarriage at 12 weeks and an abortion at 12 weeks - its still a child. Have you spoken to anyone who's had an abortion - I have. I haven't met one who doesn't regret it. Do you know any women who have had miscarriages? I do, in my own family, and they mourn those children still.
And we would not be down any clinic - you know nothing about me or my family or what we have been through and are capable of handling.

You’ll humble him? Sounds about the typical No side attitude alright. If my argument doesn’t cut mustard I’ll just get angry and threaten the other side. Problem solved?

Better get used to abortions in Ireland because it’s going to pass.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: AZOffaly on May 10, 2018, 03:39:23 PM
To be fair Syf, that attitude is not unique to the no side. I think trueblue articulated it fairly well, and I'd be very similar, except I can't get over my problem with the 12 week elective. That's what is swaying me the way I am.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 10, 2018, 03:41:25 PM
To be fair Syf, that attitude is not unique to the no side. I think trueblue articulated it fairly well, and I'd be very similar, except I can't get over my problem with the 12 week elective. That's what is swaying me the way I am.

I don’t think the women on the Yes side are very likely to threaten to humble you, AZ, but maybe they’re a lot tougher in Tipp than the ones I know at home or in Dublin.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: AZOffaly on May 10, 2018, 03:43:57 PM
To be fair Syf, that attitude is not unique to the no side. I think trueblue articulated it fairly well, and I'd be very similar, except I can't get over my problem with the 12 week elective. That's what is swaying me the way I am.

I don’t think the women on the Yes side are very likely to threaten to humble you, AZ, but maybe they’re a lot tougher in Tipp than the ones I know at home or in Dublin.

Well, yes, talking about 'humbling' someone is very UFC alright.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: magpie seanie on May 10, 2018, 03:49:57 PM
To be fair Syf, that attitude is not unique to the no side. I think trueblue articulated it fairly well, and I'd be very similar, except I can't get over my problem with the 12 week elective. That's what is swaying me the way I am.


The 12 week elective is necessary to cover the cases of incest or rape (most - there will still be exceptions due mainly to later disclosure/discovery etc). How else would you propose these cases are dealt with? It's simply not possible to handle them any other way.

And it also covers the vast majority of elective cases that are already happening in the UK. You may not like this aspect but they are happening and surely it's more compassionate that a woman is able to have support round her and doesn't have to travel?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Mayo4Sam on May 10, 2018, 03:52:35 PM
We can all start the copy and paste nonsense sid. Except the child within a babies womb have no story to copy snd paste or ever will if it is taken away for no reason.

How can you have proper healthcare for all by taking away  the right to life of the unborn?

A healthy unborn child can have it's life ended with no legal consequences or justification. That is what the majority of abortions are and will be under the proposed legislation.
I'd thank you if you didn't flippantly dismiss the many real stories about the incredible harm the 8th Amendment causes as "nonsense", thanks.

You and every other No supporter has completely avoided dealing with them, because dealing with them would force you to confront the actual reality.

We're talking about real, actual human rights here - the right of women to not suffer grave health consequences because of conservative, patriarchal religious dogma, the right of a vulnerable woman not to have to carry a pregnancy to term against their wishes without risking a long jail sentence.

The nonsense I was taking about was your action of copy and pasting whole articles into this thread not that the actual stories ::)

I have discussed them, multiple times and I have said a better solution needs to be found for many of cases

Yes I am talking about real human rights, the first most basic right is the right to life, all other rights are subsequent to that primary right

I have laid out

Sure it was. Just admit that you don't like people quoting articles from reputable sources and actual real life experiences because both have a habit of destroying your argument.

Here's Article 1 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

Note the key word "born".

You don't get to impose your own, erroneous definition of human rights, thanks.

The UN also states that Ireland's abortion laws are "cruel and inhumane".

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/13/un-denounces-ireland-abortion-laws-as-cruel-and-inhumane-again

"Cruel and inhumane" are not words that are associated with human rights.

Sid, just a point of information here.
There is a dispute over what born actually means, legally speaking.
Some take it to mean the day in a hospital when you come out of the womb.
However others take it to be at the moment of conception.

These are such valid and divided stances that the state had to stop our court system ruling on the embryo case in 2006.

So ironically you don't get to define birth either.

It really is the key issue for this election
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: AZOffaly on May 10, 2018, 03:54:44 PM
To be fair Syf, that attitude is not unique to the no side. I think trueblue articulated it fairly well, and I'd be very similar, except I can't get over my problem with the 12 week elective. That's what is swaying me the way I am.


The 12 week elective is necessary to cover the cases of incest or rape (most - there will still be exceptions due mainly to later disclosure/discovery etc). How else would you propose these cases are dealt with? It's simply not possible to handle them any other way.

And it also covers the vast majority of elective cases that are already happening in the UK. You may not like this aspect but they are happening and surely it's more compassionate that a woman is able to have support round her and doesn't have to travel?

It's not easy Seanie, I understand that. I absolutely understand why people feel differently to me. But I have to vote with my conscience, and I just can't get past this aspect. I'm not trying to convince anyone to vote No. As long as everyone votes according to their true gut feel on it, then that's democracy, and even if I'm on the wrong side of the result, and I don't like this aspect, I will be happy that at least it was done for the right reasons.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: magpie seanie on May 10, 2018, 03:58:42 PM
We can all start the copy and paste nonsense sid. Except the child within a babies womb have no story to copy snd paste or ever will if it is taken away for no reason.

How can you have proper healthcare for all by taking away  the right to life of the unborn?

A healthy unborn child can have it's life ended with no legal consequences or justification. That is what the majority of abortions are and will be under the proposed legislation.
I'd thank you if you didn't flippantly dismiss the many real stories about the incredible harm the 8th Amendment causes as "nonsense", thanks.

You and every other No supporter has completely avoided dealing with them, because dealing with them would force you to confront the actual reality.

We're talking about real, actual human rights here - the right of women to not suffer grave health consequences because of conservative, patriarchal religious dogma, the right of a vulnerable woman not to have to carry a pregnancy to term against their wishes without risking a long jail sentence.

The nonsense I was taking about was your action of copy and pasting whole articles into this thread not that the actual stories ::)

I have discussed them, multiple times and I have said a better solution needs to be found for many of cases

Yes I am talking about real human rights, the first most basic right is the right to life, all other rights are subsequent to that primary right

I have laid out

Sure it was. Just admit that you don't like people quoting articles from reputable sources and actual real life experiences because both have a habit of destroying your argument.

Here's Article 1 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

Note the key word "born".

You don't get to impose your own, erroneous definition of human rights, thanks.

The UN also states that Ireland's abortion laws are "cruel and inhumane".

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/13/un-denounces-ireland-abortion-laws-as-cruel-and-inhumane-again

"Cruel and inhumane" are not words that are associated with human rights.

Sid, just a point of information here.
There is a dispute over what born actually means, legally speaking.
Some take it to mean the day in a hospital when you come out of the womb.
However others take it to be at the moment of conception.

These are such valid and divided stances that the state had to stop our court system ruling on the embryo case in 2006.

So ironically you don't get to define birth either.

It really is the key issue for this election


I'm sorry but I've never heard anyone claim something like this. It's clearly ridiculous. If you're looking for a definition a dictionary is usually a good place to start.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: easytiger95 on May 10, 2018, 03:59:56 PM
If a no voter tells me, honestly, that he/she considers a foetus to be alive from conception, and that they can't square their conscience with what the termination of that foetus would mean to them, then there is very little I can say to change their mind. I don't think I'd try either.

This is a vote of conscience - I don't think anyone going to the polls is doing so with a skip in their step. It is the most consequential social decision we have ever been asked to make.

The only regret anyone should have over their vote, is not using it. The campaigners on either side don't have to presume good faith on the part of their opponents. Perhaps we should do so here, so people don't have to be "humbled" at any stage of the game.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: AZOffaly on May 10, 2018, 04:00:40 PM
100% Easytiger. That's well said.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Mayo4Sam on May 10, 2018, 04:02:08 PM
We can all start the copy and paste nonsense sid. Except the child within a babies womb have no story to copy snd paste or ever will if it is taken away for no reason.

How can you have proper healthcare for all by taking away  the right to life of the unborn?

A healthy unborn child can have it's life ended with no legal consequences or justification. That is what the majority of abortions are and will be under the proposed legislation.
I'd thank you if you didn't flippantly dismiss the many real stories about the incredible harm the 8th Amendment causes as "nonsense", thanks.

You and every other No supporter has completely avoided dealing with them, because dealing with them would force you to confront the actual reality.

We're talking about real, actual human rights here - the right of women to not suffer grave health consequences because of conservative, patriarchal religious dogma, the right of a vulnerable woman not to have to carry a pregnancy to term against their wishes without risking a long jail sentence.

The nonsense I was taking about was your action of copy and pasting whole articles into this thread not that the actual stories ::)

I have discussed them, multiple times and I have said a better solution needs to be found for many of cases

Yes I am talking about real human rights, the first most basic right is the right to life, all other rights are subsequent to that primary right

I have laid out

Sure it was. Just admit that you don't like people quoting articles from reputable sources and actual real life experiences because both have a habit of destroying your argument.

Here's Article 1 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

Note the key word "born".

You don't get to impose your own, erroneous definition of human rights, thanks.

The UN also states that Ireland's abortion laws are "cruel and inhumane".

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/13/un-denounces-ireland-abortion-laws-as-cruel-and-inhumane-again

"Cruel and inhumane" are not words that are associated with human rights.

Sid, just a point of information here.
There is a dispute over what born actually means, legally speaking.
Some take it to mean the day in a hospital when you come out of the womb.
However others take it to be at the moment of conception.

These are such valid and divided stances that the state had to stop our court system ruling on the embryo case in 2006.

So ironically you don't get to define birth either.

It really is the key issue for this election


I'm sorry but I've never heard anyone claim something like this. It's clearly ridiculous. If you're looking for a definition a dictionary is usually a good place to start.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/state-says-court-cannot-rule-when-life-begins-1.1011943

Its an actual legal case, there is no legal definition for birth in Ireland, or rather when life begins
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: laoislad on May 10, 2018, 04:08:38 PM
To be fair Syf, that attitude is not unique to the no side. I think trueblue articulated it fairly well, and I'd be very similar, except I can't get over my problem with the 12 week elective. That's what is swaying me the way I am.


The 12 week elective is necessary to cover the cases of incest or rape (most - there will still be exceptions due mainly to later disclosure/discovery etc). How else would you propose these cases are dealt with? It's simply not possible to handle them any other way.

And it also covers the vast majority of elective cases that are already happening in the UK. You may not like this aspect but they are happening and surely it's more compassionate that a woman is able to have support round her and doesn't have to travel?

It's not easy Seanie, I understand that. I absolutely understand why people feel differently to me. But I have to vote with my conscience, and I just can't get past this aspect. I'm not trying to convince anyone to vote No. As long as everyone votes according to their true gut feel on it, then that's democracy, and even if I'm on the wrong side of the result, and I don't like this aspect, I will be happy that at least it was done for the right reasons.
Exactly how I feel about it and I'll also be voting No.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: The Iceman on May 10, 2018, 04:11:15 PM
My offer to humble gallsman is not exclusive to this discussion - it's been an ongoing thing with him.  Most of his responses to me in discussions start with an insult. He doesn't know how to play the ball and I'd be happy to play the man if we ever did cross paths.  It's unfair to push that on anyone who votes no. And to be fair there are a fair few aggressive yes voters on this thread.

It's not hard to debate and discuss like adults. I have to draw a line somewhere and say enough is enough if I am being continually insulted. I wouldn't stand for it in person and I certainly am within my rights to call it out here.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: whitey on May 10, 2018, 04:33:45 PM
Plenty of No voters have legitimate concerns and well thought out arguments for their decision

If the bullying going on here is representative of whats happening in broader society that could cost the Yes side a few percentage points. It happened with Brexit and it happened with Trump
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: magpie seanie on May 10, 2018, 04:55:49 PM
Plenty of No voters have legitimate concerns and well thought out arguments for their decision

If the bullying going on here is representative of whats happening in broader society that could cost the Yes side a few percentage points. It happened with Brexit and it happened with Trump


Those are working out well.....!!!!
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: magpie seanie on May 10, 2018, 04:57:01 PM
We can all start the copy and paste nonsense sid. Except the child within a babies womb have no story to copy snd paste or ever will if it is taken away for no reason.

How can you have proper healthcare for all by taking away  the right to life of the unborn?

A healthy unborn child can have it's life ended with no legal consequences or justification. That is what the majority of abortions are and will be under the proposed legislation.
I'd thank you if you didn't flippantly dismiss the many real stories about the incredible harm the 8th Amendment causes as "nonsense", thanks.

You and every other No supporter has completely avoided dealing with them, because dealing with them would force you to confront the actual reality.

We're talking about real, actual human rights here - the right of women to not suffer grave health consequences because of conservative, patriarchal religious dogma, the right of a vulnerable woman not to have to carry a pregnancy to term against their wishes without risking a long jail sentence.

The nonsense I was taking about was your action of copy and pasting whole articles into this thread not that the actual stories ::)

I have discussed them, multiple times and I have said a better solution needs to be found for many of cases

Yes I am talking about real human rights, the first most basic right is the right to life, all other rights are subsequent to that primary right

I have laid out

Sure it was. Just admit that you don't like people quoting articles from reputable sources and actual real life experiences because both have a habit of destroying your argument.

Here's Article 1 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

Note the key word "born".

You don't get to impose your own, erroneous definition of human rights, thanks.

The UN also states that Ireland's abortion laws are "cruel and inhumane".

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/13/un-denounces-ireland-abortion-laws-as-cruel-and-inhumane-again

"Cruel and inhumane" are not words that are associated with human rights.

Sid, just a point of information here.
There is a dispute over what born actually means, legally speaking.
Some take it to mean the day in a hospital when you come out of the womb.
However others take it to be at the moment of conception.

These are such valid and divided stances that the state had to stop our court system ruling on the embryo case in 2006.

So ironically you don't get to define birth either.

It really is the key issue for this election


I'm sorry but I've never heard anyone claim something like this. It's clearly ridiculous. If you're looking for a definition a dictionary is usually a good place to start.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/state-says-court-cannot-rule-when-life-begins-1.1011943

Its an actual legal case, there is no legal definition for birth in Ireland, or rather when life begins


Huh? They're two different things. Big difference between "birth" and "when life begins" in my mind anyway.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 10, 2018, 04:59:54 PM
My offer to humble gallsman is not exclusive to this discussion - it's been an ongoing thing with him.  Most of his responses to me in discussions start with an insult. He doesn't know how to play the ball and I'd be happy to play the man if we ever did cross paths.  It's unfair to push that on anyone who votes no. And to be fair there are a fair few aggressive yes voters on this thread.

It's not hard to debate and discuss like adults. I have to draw a line somewhere and say enough is enough if I am being continually insulted. I wouldn't stand for it in person and I certainly am within my rights to call it out here.

I’d say you’d finish him like a woman finishes an embryo with the morning after pill..
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: trueblue1234 on May 10, 2018, 05:01:27 PM
My offer to humble gallsman is not exclusive to this discussion - it's been an ongoing thing with him.  Most of his responses to me in discussions start with an insult. He doesn't know how to play the ball and I'd be happy to play the man if we ever did cross paths.  It's unfair to push that on anyone who votes no. And to be fair there are a fair few aggressive yes voters on this thread.

It's not hard to debate and discuss like adults. I have to draw a line somewhere and say enough is enough if I am being continually insulted. I wouldn't stand for it in person and I certainly am within my rights to call it out here.

I’d say you’d finish him like a woman finishes an embryo with the morning after pill..

You really are an odious poster...
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 10, 2018, 05:42:28 PM
My offer to humble gallsman is not exclusive to this discussion - it's been an ongoing thing with him.  Most of his responses to me in discussions start with an insult. He doesn't know how to play the ball and I'd be happy to play the man if we ever did cross paths.  It's unfair to push that on anyone who votes no. And to be fair there are a fair few aggressive yes voters on this thread.

It's not hard to debate and discuss like adults. I have to draw a line somewhere and say enough is enough if I am being continually insulted. I wouldn't stand for it in person and I certainly am within my rights to call it out here.

I’d say you’d finish him like a woman finishes an embryo with the morning after pill..

You really are an odious poster...

I’d be genuinely upset if someone with your mindset didn’t think that.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: longballin on May 10, 2018, 06:02:50 PM
My offer to humble gallsman is not exclusive to this discussion - it's been an ongoing thing with him.  Most of his responses to me in discussions start with an insult. He doesn't know how to play the ball and I'd be happy to play the man if we ever did cross paths.  It's unfair to push that on anyone who votes no. And to be fair there are a fair few aggressive yes voters on this thread.

It's not hard to debate and discuss like adults. I have to draw a line somewhere and say enough is enough if I am being continually insulted. I wouldn't stand for it in person and I certainly am within my rights to call it out here.

I’d say you’d finish him like a woman finishes an embryo with the morning after pill..

You really are an odious poster...

I’d be genuinely upset if someone with your mindset didn’t think that.
I must have similar mindset. That is a most despicable attitude to women and a throwback to Ireland of the 1950s. Thankfully we've moved on which YES vote will confirm.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: GJL on May 10, 2018, 08:32:22 PM
My offer to humble gallsman is not exclusive to this discussion - it's been an ongoing thing with him.  Most of his responses to me in discussions start with an insult. He doesn't know how to play the ball and I'd be happy to play the man if we ever did cross paths.  It's unfair to push that on anyone who votes no. And to be fair there are a fair few aggressive yes voters on this thread.

It's not hard to debate and discuss like adults. I have to draw a line somewhere and say enough is enough if I am being continually insulted. I wouldn't stand for it in person and I certainly am within my rights to call it out here.

I’d say you’d finish him like a woman finishes an embryo with the morning after pill..

You really are an odious poster...

+1
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: armaghniac on May 10, 2018, 08:57:26 PM
If your wife was raped and impregnated you'd be down the clinic in no time.

I do not favour this amendment, but I agree with this sentiment. 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.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: trueblue1234 on May 10, 2018, 09:24:07 PM
My offer to humble gallsman is not exclusive to this discussion - it's been an ongoing thing with him.  Most of his responses to me in discussions start with an insult. He doesn't know how to play the ball and I'd be happy to play the man if we ever did cross paths.  It's unfair to push that on anyone who votes no. And to be fair there are a fair few aggressive yes voters on this thread.

It's not hard to debate and discuss like adults. I have to draw a line somewhere and say enough is enough if I am being continually insulted. I wouldn't stand for it in person and I certainly am within my rights to call it out here.

I’d say you’d finish him like a woman finishes an embryo with the morning after pill..

You really are an odious poster...

I’d be genuinely upset if someone with your mindset didn’t think that.

Well you can sleep soundly tonight.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: trileacman on May 10, 2018, 09:27:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 10, 2018, 09:36:58 PM
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.

It already has more than 50% support. You’d swear it was the No side that had a 15-25 point lead in every single poll they way you’re play-acting. Not surprised, though.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Hardy on May 10, 2018, 10:06:14 PM
... 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?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: macdanger2 on May 10, 2018, 10:14:05 PM
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.

It already has more than 50% support. You’d swear it was the No side that had a 15-25 point lead in every single poll they Way you’re paltacting. Not surprised, though.

The last poll I saw was 45/34 for yes/no with the remainder undecided
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: hardstation on May 10, 2018, 10:15:22 PM
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.

It already has more than 50% support. You’d swear it was the No side that had a 15-25 point lead in every single poll they way you’re play-acting. Not surprised, though.
FFS, how precious are you?
A majority can still “enjoy a lot more support”.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 10, 2018, 10:18:48 PM
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.

It already has more than 50% support. You’d swear it was the No side that had a 15-25 point lead in every single poll they Way you’re paltacting. Not surprised, though.

The last poll I saw was 45/34 for yes/no with the remainder undecided

Extrapolate that to the vote. All those supposedly undecided voters aren’t going to uniformly vote No. I think like with most votes people like to pretend they’re closer than they really are when a big lead exsists. Anything else just feels boring.

As long as the GOTV is good on the Yes side - and I have every reason to believe that it will be excellent - there will be little drama when the votes are tallied.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: gallsman on May 10, 2018, 10:33:39 PM
My offer to humble gallsman is not exclusive to this discussion - it's been an ongoing thing with him.  Most of his responses to me in discussions start with an insult. He doesn't know how to play the ball and I'd be happy to play the man if we ever did cross paths.  It's unfair to push that on anyone who votes no. And to be fair there are a fair few aggressive yes voters on this thread.

It's not hard to debate and discuss like adults. I have to draw a line somewhere and say enough is enough if I am being continually insulted. I wouldn't stand for it in person and I certainly am within my rights to call it out here.

No, instead you just land into every debate with your insufferably misguided patronising attitude and play the holier than thou card when pulled on it.

"My mate was raped and had a beautiful, healthy baby as a result therefore nobody should be allowed abortion. Don't worry about the distress it'll inflict on any woman, my mate was grand so they can get through it too."

Odious, obnoxious bollocks.

Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: armaghniac on May 10, 2018, 10:34:58 PM
... 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?

It is a minimal intervention. If you do not accept the idea of minimal intervention than you can justify abortion to 9 months, or infanticide.
Stopping a pregnancy starting is a different order of magnitude from ending one. 
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: omaghjoe on May 10, 2018, 10:37:01 PM
We can all start the copy and paste nonsense sid. Except the child within a babies womb have no story to copy snd paste or ever will if it is taken away for no reason.

How can you have proper healthcare for all by taking away  the right to life of the unborn?

A healthy unborn child can have it's life ended with no legal consequences or justification. That is what the majority of abortions are and will be under the proposed legislation.
I'd thank you if you didn't flippantly dismiss the many real stories about the incredible harm the 8th Amendment causes as "nonsense", thanks.

You and every other No supporter has completely avoided dealing with them, because dealing with them would force you to confront the actual reality.

We're talking about real, actual human rights here - the right of women to not suffer grave health consequences because of conservative, patriarchal religious dogma, the right of a vulnerable woman not to have to carry a pregnancy to term against their wishes without risking a long jail sentence.

The nonsense I was taking about was your action of copy and pasting whole articles into this thread not that the actual stories ::)

I have discussed them, multiple times and I have said a better solution needs to be found for many of cases

Yes I am talking about real human rights, the first most basic right is the right to life, all other rights are subsequent to that primary right

I have laid out

Sure it was. Just admit that you don't people quoting articles from reputable sources and actual real life experiences because both have a habit of destroying your argument.

Here's Article 1 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

Note the key word "born".

You don't get to impose your own, erroneous definition of human rights, thanks.

The UN also states that Ireland's abortion laws are "cruel and inhumane".

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/13/un-denounces-ireland-abortion-laws-as-cruel-and-inhumane-again

"Cruel and inhumane" are not words that are associated with human rights.

I know its probably easier to depict me as an evil monster in your head, so with that depiction you probably know what I was thinking better than the real me does. Post a link like you did in this post.
You have barely addressed my arguments or questions, you just keep going around in circles with the same mantra.

Firstly "Born free" is a well used (American) phrase in the context of liberties I do not think that it is intended to be taken as literally at birth. All rights are not suddenly bestowed on a child at birth.. For example you don't even have the right to vote, work, drive, drink etc until much older, so we are not all equal in terms of rights at birth. Also the right to life before birth to some degree is guaranteed in law in virtually every member state of the UN. Using your interpretation a child could have its life terminated during labour with no legal consequences.
You using a well used phrase out of context as a legal justification.

As I said before Human beings lifecycle is defined at conception and it is from that point that the right to life must be bestowed. To end their life is cruel and inhuman

Of course, I could have well guessed you'd simply dismiss the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as you simply dismiss everything else.

We weren't talking about the right to drive or to work or to drink, but continue on down your rabbit hole by all means.

Of course the unborn are protected to some degree in every state - as they will be here if the proposed legislation is passed. In most states, they're called abortion laws. That's laws, whichare legislated for, as to opoosed to blunt, inflexible constitutional provisions like we have in Ireland.

The crux of the matter is this - we cannot afford the same right to life to the unborn that we afford to an actual born human, because that unborn is contained within an actual born human woman, who must always take precedence.

To afford the same right to life to an unborn as to the born, the reality is you must trample over the human rights of the actual born woman.

That's what Ireland did, and it predictably proved to be a disaster. It is that specific thinking which led to Savita Halappanavar's death and to cases like the Michelle Harte, the X Case and many, many others.

It is an utterly ridiculous point to maintain that a zygote should have the same right to life as the woman carrying it.

Can you tell me why that zygote should have the same right to life as the woman carrying it?

Can I also pose the same question to you specifically that I posed in general to No supporters earlier?

If a woman, say, takes an abortion pill that successfully works to abort an embryo or a foetus (abortion pills can work anywhere up to 12 weeks), should she face 14 years in jail?

You do understand that this is already happening every single day in Ireland and isn't going to stop if No wins?

What is your answer to the thousands of Irish women that are taking abortion pills in this state?

I didn't dismiss the UN Bill of human rights merely pointing out your twisted interpretation of it for your own agenda, all the rights are not present at birth or for a good few years afterwards.

I have repeatedly said that the actual born woman takes precedence so please stop with that straw man.
Repeating a straw man does not make it rational or true.

Under the proposed legislation the unborn child will be afforded no legal protection.
This leads to abortion on request for children that have no health issues there needs to be some degree of legal protection for healthy unborn consensually conceived babies of which the vast majority of abortions will be carried out on.

The punishment should fit the crime and they differ for every circumstance. 14 years seems excessive but I am sure someone could point to a case where a child was naturally conceived where the abortion was carried out in a fit of rage to spite someone else, like a partner. Or because the child is a girl instead of a boy or something like that. In those cases 14years seems about right especially if its a repeat offence.
But 14 years seems excessive for the majority of the convenience abortions, I know a lot of woman are in crisis not thinking straight, bad influences etc etc. I believe women who abandon their babies aren't usually charged, or those suffering postpartum depression who hurt kill their babies are usually found not to be liable for their actions. Similar compassion should with abortion but of course it all depends on the circumstance.

I have answered yours questions so can you answer me this one which I have asked repeatedly...

Since the vast majority of abortions will be carried out on healthy babies should such babies (embyros/humans etc) have no right to life? and should the mother's right to choose always supersede any right to life of the child?
I didn't twist the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in any way.

You talked about the supposed "right to life" as a human right. The way you framed that was clearly as an absolute right. I've already explained why that shouldn't be offered to the unborn and why when it is, as in Ireland's case, it proves to be a disaster.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't offer it to the unborn and neither do other European countries. That doesn't mean the unborn don't have rights under abortion laws. They clearly do, that is why time limits are imposed for elective abortion.

If you believe the woman carrying an unborn takes precedence, then you believe the 8th Amendment must go as the 8th Amendment denies this.

As I said prevously, abortion is happening in Ireland right now. Thousands of Irish women abort using pills which work up to 12 weeks.

If you believe 14 years is an appropriate punishment, what should be done about these women? How do you plan to catch them and punish them? How do you plan to lock them up, because there are a hell of a lot of them and there isn't space in our prisons for them.

Why are the No campaign furiously denying they want to see any women locked up?

If a woman murders a (born) baby, she will almost certainly go to jail. See the link to the Jennifer Crichton case earlier. I absolutely agree that a woman who murders a baby should go to jail unless there are serious mental health issues at play.

But the so called pro-life side claim that an unborn, from conception, is a human being. Yet they say they don't want women to go to jail if they have an abortion. This doesn't make sense. One either believes that abortion is a human being or they don't, and if they do, why the difference in prescribed punishment, or lack of it, for killing a born baby versus an unborn foetus?

If there is a threat to health at any stage in the pregnancy, I believe the woman's right should always supercede that of the foetus, yes, and it should never ever be subservient in any circumstances. In practice, under the 8th Amendment, it is.

I firmly believe women all should have the right to choose up to a specified time limit. I'm happy with 12 weeks as the limit as it's a hell of a lot better than what we have now, ie. 0, but I would be happier with a higher limit, as I've said, previously, perhaps 16 weeks or 18 as Sweden have. Nevertheless, the fact is that the vast majority of abortions are carried out before 12 weeks. After that, as the foetus develops sentience in the post 20 week period it becomes a matter of balancing rights as is best possible. I'm happy with the provisions for up to 6 months for threat to health etc. After that in the rare cases where the pregnancy needs to ended it will become a case of inducing labour if necessary with the primary aim to save the mother, but also with the aim of delivering a healthy baby. The proposed legislation is a quantum leap forward for Irish women.

The question of possible "exceptions" has been brought up here.

Now, let's say the 8th Amendment is abolished, and legislators are free to frame legislation. The problem with legislating only for, say, rape and incest, is that it would place at least some burden of proof on the mother to prove she had been raped. Under normal circumstances, and as we saw so clearly in Belfast recently, rape is a very difficult crime to prove, and it will never, ever be proved in the time frame of a resulting pregnancy.

So, how do you prove it? We know rape is a hugely underreported crime and in reality there are a huge number of rape victims out there who have never even reported it.

What burden of proof would be required? It would have to be reported for a start. Then a woman would presumably have to come before a panel a very short time after her rape and attempt to prove to some as of yet unknown burden of proof that she had been raped.

During and after Belfast many people talked about how it felt it was the complainant on trial, not the defendants. Legislating only for cases such as rape is a recipe for victims to be put on trial in order to obtain an abortion. I really don't think we want that.

I can get that people don't like abortion. Nobody "likes" abortion. Nobody is saying "go abortion!" But it is necessary for women's welfare for it to be available to all. The alternative is that a particular, narrow view of morality continues to be imposed on everybody. Whereas pro-choice campaigners are not attempting to impose their morality on anybody. Nobody would be forcing anybody to have an abortion.

The reality that No campaigners must face up to is, as I have already said, that abortion is already happening in Ireland. Anybody can buy abortion pills online. They work up to 12 weeks.

So we have thousands of women carrying out their own abortions (currently illegally, of course). Now these pills will generally be safe, but there is always the chance of something going wrong. Perhaps the mother has an underlying health condition which makes it unsafe for her to take an abortion pill.

What happens if something goes wrong? What if a woman has an adverse reaction to the pill and needs urgent medical help? She'll already have been in a vulnerable position given she is taking the pill to terminate her crisis pregnancy in the first place. What goes through her mind? If she goes to a public hospital, she'll have to tell the staff that she has had an abortion via a pill. And what if somebody on the staff is a strict Catholic and reports her? A 14 year prison sentence could hang over her.

So, should we leave women who encounter complications as a result of taking abortion pills to face a nightmarish dilemma between i) not seeking medical help, which could result in grave health implications, and ii) presenting at a hospital and possibly facing prison time?

Or do we face up to reality and legalise it, regulate it and make it safe for everybody?

Because, it is happening, a No vote won't mean it's not happening - it will be delusion, and it will be cowardice. We will just continue on as before, and the reality will be swept under the carpet.

1stly the UN declaration of human rights is not ground zero point for all human rights, its not like human rights began in 1948, they have been around for as long as civilsation has been around and will evolve with generations, human rights are in no way constrained by this declaration they can be built upon and Ireland did this by affording protection to the unborn.
 
The bit of being born free as I said is a well used phrase regarding civil liberties as it is in the case to intro designed to introduce  the main point of Article #1 which is that we should behave to each other in the spirit of brotherhood, could a new born child suddenly start behaving with conscience and brotherhood? Of course not! it develops over time.

Article 1 or any other Article is not a precondition to all the other rights, every one is entitled to each one regardless of whether they have access the one previous or not

And lastly and most significantly it is a declaration of Human Rights that means all humans should be able to experience these rights at the relevant point in their life, and as I have said an unborn child no matter the stage of development is a unique human so my interpretation is that any relevant rights should extend to them also in this case that would be the right to life.


I said that 14 years may be an appropriate punishment in some extreme cases...for most tho probably not but it depends on each individual circumstance, take another read I thought I made myself perfectly clear. BTW this is not a debate about law enforcement, it is debate about law.

I agree there are complications both moral and legal with rape incest etc etc and I would like there to be a solution for these women. I also agree there are situations when women's health should be put first but again it depends on the situation.

Abortion is happening in Ireland illegally everyone knows that, but that does not make it against the law, it does not make it right. All types of crimes happen in Ireland everyday, it does not mean that we should make them legal.
 
But in actually fact all these things are actually irrelevant to your reasoning on abortion as you just believe that a woman should be able to choose to terminate her pregnancy up to 18 weeks (is there any rational to that gestational point or just because you feel that way?) for no reason what so ever or just because she doesn't want the hassle of the child, to spite a partner, wrong gender whatever.

I got to wonder why you make such a point about Healthcare when at the end of the day the reason for your position is that you believe that a woman's right to choose overrides an unborn child's to life.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: omaghjoe on May 10, 2018, 10:49:51 PM
... 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?

It's an excellent and difficult point that I really cannot come to a clear decision on, the life is innocent but the mother has just gone through an horrific ordeal and to carry out the pregnancy would be a constant reminder and an undue burden she should not have to bear.. how do you legislate for it as sid was pointing out the crime would have to be proved. Its difficult but I also think that using cases like this as a crutch to support on request abortion is insincere. One thing I am sure of is that I would not be in favour of serve (if any punishment) in these cases.

But to put it in context there is a similar dilemma for those on the prochoice side but believe there should be a cut off at 6/12/20/24.... weeks. Why should there be a cut off?..... the child needs the mother at any of these cutoff dates so why isn't it still the mother's choice after these dates?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: macdanger2 on May 10, 2018, 11:02:56 PM
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.

It already has more than 50% support. You’d swear it was the No side that had a 15-25 point lead in every single poll they Way you’re paltacting. Not surprised, though.

The last poll I saw was 45/34 for yes/no with the remainder undecided

Extrapolate that to the vote. All those supposedly undecided voters aren’t going to uniformly vote No. I think like with most votes people like to pretend they’re closer than they really are when a big lead exsists. Anything else just feels boring.

As long as the GOTV is good on the Yes side - and I have every reason to believe that it will be excellent - there will be little drama when the votes are tallied.

The Yes side have a decent lead but not more than 50% support as we stand. The gap has been decreasing so it will all come down to turnout and what way the undecided voters go. I think this will be a very tight result in the end
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Rufus T Firefly on May 10, 2018, 11:15:33 PM
My offer to humble gallsman is not exclusive to this discussion - it's been an ongoing thing with him.  Most of his responses to me in discussions start with an insult. He doesn't know how to play the ball and I'd be happy to play the man if we ever did cross paths.  It's unfair to push that on anyone who votes no. And to be fair there are a fair few aggressive yes voters on this thread.

It's not hard to debate and discuss like adults. I have to draw a line somewhere and say enough is enough if I am being continually insulted. I wouldn't stand for it in person and I certainly am within my rights to call it out here.

I saw this earlier and I didn't have time to respond in your defence, after others came in.

I can understand your reaction to the personal insults. For someone else then to come in and link your response - on what is clearly a personal issue -  to the wider 'no' vote campaign, is deliberately misleading and provocative.

There are one or two posters here over the years who I have found opinionated, abrupt and abrasive in their debating manner and I have had fall outs as a consequence. However there is a new breed of posters here that have taken those aforementioned 'qualities' to new depths. It doesn't do much for the standard of the debate or the reputation of the forum itself.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 10, 2018, 11:34:25 PM
My offer to humble gallsman is not exclusive to this discussion - it's been an ongoing thing with him.  Most of his responses to me in discussions start with an insult. He doesn't know how to play the ball and I'd be happy to play the man if we ever did cross paths.  It's unfair to push that on anyone who votes no. And to be fair there are a fair few aggressive yes voters on this thread.

It's not hard to debate and discuss like adults. I have to draw a line somewhere and say enough is enough if I am being continually insulted. I wouldn't stand for it in person and I certainly am within my rights to call it out here.

I saw this earlier and I didn't have time to respond in your defence, after others came in.

I can understand your reaction to the personal insults. For someone else then to come in and link your response - on what is clearly a personal issue -  to the wider 'no' vote campaign, is deliberately misleading and provocative.

There are one or two posters here over the years who I have found opinionated, abrupt and abrasive in their debating manner and I have had fall outs as a consequence. However there is a new breed of posters here that have taken those aforementioned 'qualities' to new depths. It doesn't do much for the standard of the debate or the reputation of the forum itself.

It's tough when people won't pretend to be nice to you when you hold a hard to defend position, isn't it?

Cry me a river kid, I've got three times the abuse thrown at me and you don't hear me complaining.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Rufus T Firefly on May 11, 2018, 12:05:20 AM
My offer to humble gallsman is not exclusive to this discussion - it's been an ongoing thing with him.  Most of his responses to me in discussions start with an insult. He doesn't know how to play the ball and I'd be happy to play the man if we ever did cross paths.  It's unfair to push that on anyone who votes no. And to be fair there are a fair few aggressive yes voters on this thread.

It's not hard to debate and discuss like adults. I have to draw a line somewhere and say enough is enough if I am being continually insulted. I wouldn't stand for it in person and I certainly am within my rights to call it out here.

I saw this earlier and I didn't have time to respond in your defence, after others came in.

I can understand your reaction to the personal insults. For someone else then to come in and link your response - on what is clearly a personal issue -  to the wider 'no' vote campaign, is deliberately misleading and provocative.

There are one or two posters here over the years who I have found opinionated, abrupt and abrasive in their debating manner and I have had fall outs as a consequence. However there is a new breed of posters here that have taken those aforementioned 'qualities' to new depths. It doesn't do much for the standard of the debate or the reputation of the forum itself.

It's tough when people won't pretend to be nice to you when you hold a hard to defend position, isn't it?

Cry me a river kid, I've got three times the abuse thrown at me and you don't hear me complaining.

You accept therefore that you were deliberately misleading and provocative, and you do so because of the abuse you receive?

I despair. 
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 11, 2018, 12:33:49 AM
Am I missing something here?

Iceman made a made a personal threat against gallsman to "humble him" if he ever met him in person.

Syferus then says "I'd say you'd finish him like a woman finishes an embryo with the morning after pill".

A woman doesn't "finish an embryo" with the morning after pill, that's the whole point. Some posters really aren't the sharpest. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that comment.

Most No supporters have very little effort to engage on substantive points here, with some preferring to engage in constant victim playing while dishing out personal abuse themselves.

But apparently it's the No supporters who are being "bullied".

Victim playing on the internet is pretty much always the tool of thse who are losing the argument. It's a classic alt-right technique.

And it's soooo boring.

Classic case of some lads being able to give it but not take it.

Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 11, 2018, 12:35:39 AM

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/state-says-court-cannot-rule-when-life-begins-1.1011943

Its an actual legal case, there is no legal definition for birth in Ireland, or rather when life begins
There is no confusion about what birth is.

Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 11, 2018, 01:03:42 AM
... 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?

It's an excellent and difficult point that I really cannot come to a clear decision on, the life is innocent but the mother has just gone through an horrific ordeal and to carry out the pregnancy would be a constant reminder and an undue burden she should not have to bear.. how do you legislate for it as sid was pointing out the crime would have to be proved. Its difficult but I also think that using cases like this as a crutch to support on request abortion is insincere. One thing I am sure of is that I would not be in favour of serve (if any punishment) in these cases.

But to put it in context there is a similar dilemma for those on the prochoice side but believe there should be a cut off at 6/12/20/24.... weeks. Why should there be a cut off?..... the child needs the mother at any of these cutoff dates so why isn't it still the mother's choice after these dates?

You have a cut-off point for elective abortion for the obvious reason that a foetus at, say, 26 weeks, is a much different and more developed thing to a 2 week old embryo or a 10 week old foetus.

At some week in the 20s it develops the possibility of viability and the neuroanatomical machinery needed for sensation.

The embryo or foetus has no sentience whatsover during the time period for which elective abortion is being proposed.

Women should have the right to choose and the period in which elective abortion is allowed gives them that. But, as the pregnancy develops, there has to be be a cut-off point where the respective rights of the mother and unborn have to be balanced as much as possible.

Beyond the cut-off point, abortion should remain an option if needed to protect the health or life of the mother. It is unconscionable to have laws which protect an unborn to the extent where continuing with a pregnancy can damage the health or put at risk the life of the mother.

From viability on, if a pregnancy needs to be terminated, every effort should be made to deliver a baby which is healthy as possible.








Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 11, 2018, 01:13:38 AM
... 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?

It is a minimal intervention. If you do not accept the idea of minimal intervention than you can justify abortion to 9 months, or infanticide.
Stopping a pregnancy starting is a different order of magnitude from ending one.
Morning after pills are a different thing to abortion pills. Morning after pills are designed to stop ovulation and prevent a pregnancy rather than terminate a zygote or embryo.

You didn't address the question of how, if you believe life begins at conception, you can believe that abortion is justified based on grounds of rape.

Please stop scaremongering about "justifying abortion to 9 months" or infanticide. That's hysterical stuff.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 11, 2018, 01:16:35 AM
My offer to humble gallsman is not exclusive to this discussion - it's been an ongoing thing with him.  Most of his responses to me in discussions start with an insult. He doesn't know how to play the ball and I'd be happy to play the man if we ever did cross paths.  It's unfair to push that on anyone who votes no. And to be fair there are a fair few aggressive yes voters on this thread.

It's not hard to debate and discuss like adults. I have to draw a line somewhere and say enough is enough if I am being continually insulted. I wouldn't stand for it in person and I certainly am within my rights to call it out here.

I saw this earlier and I didn't have time to respond in your defence, after others came in.

I can understand your reaction to the personal insults. For someone else then to come in and link your response - on what is clearly a personal issue -  to the wider 'no' vote campaign, is deliberately misleading and provocative.

There are one or two posters here over the years who I have found opinionated, abrupt and abrasive in their debating manner and I have had fall outs as a consequence. However there is a new breed of posters here that have taken those aforementioned 'qualities' to new depths. It doesn't do much for the standard of the debate or the reputation of the forum itself.

It's tough when people won't pretend to be nice to you when you hold a hard to defend position, isn't it?

Cry me a river kid, I've got three times the abuse thrown at me and you don't hear me complaining.

You accept therefore that you were deliberately misleading and provocative, and you do so because of the abuse you receive?

I despair.

For someone who’s trying very hard to portray themselves as the voice of reason you really don’t understand basic facts about the female reproductive system.

I doubt you’ll have the balls to apologise for attacking me based off your own lack of knowledge, though.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 11, 2018, 01:21:37 AM
My offer to humble gallsman is not exclusive to this discussion - it's been an ongoing thing with him.  Most of his responses to me in discussions start with an insult. He doesn't know how to play the ball and I'd be happy to play the man if we ever did cross paths.  It's unfair to push that on anyone who votes no. And to be fair there are a fair few aggressive yes voters on this thread.

It's not hard to debate and discuss like adults. I have to draw a line somewhere and say enough is enough if I am being continually insulted. I wouldn't stand for it in person and I certainly am within my rights to call it out here.

I saw this earlier and I didn't have time to respond in your defence, after others came in.

I can understand your reaction to the personal insults. For someone else then to come in and link your response - on what is clearly a personal issue -  to the wider 'no' vote campaign, is deliberately misleading and provocative.

There are one or two posters here over the years who I have found opinionated, abrupt and abrasive in their debating manner and I have had fall outs as a consequence. However there is a new breed of posters here that have taken those aforementioned 'qualities' to new depths. It doesn't do much for the standard of the debate or the reputation of the forum itself.

The wider "No" campaign have been only too willing to throw insults around and employ gutter tactics.

Have a look at the Twitter feeds of some of the main figures in the No campaign if you don't believe me.

Have a look at what's happening outside hospitals where people are being routinely intimidated by headbangers thrusting giant pictures of dead foetuses in their faces.

There are no "Yes" campaigners going around thrusting pictures of dead women in people's faces.

Have a look at some of the No campaign's propaganda, lies and deliberate attempts to misinform, as well as their dishonest attempts to gather online information about undecided voters in an attempt to microtarget them.

And yes, it is one side which is overwhelmingly to blame for the poisonous atmosphere around the campaign.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: whitey on May 11, 2018, 01:40:34 AM
Plenty of No voters have legitimate concerns and well thought out arguments for their decision

If the bullying going on here is representative of whats happening in broader society that could cost the Yes side a few percentage points. It happened with Brexit and it happened with Trump


Those are working out well.....!!!!

Won't disagree with you on that.

Not too much respect for others opinions on here. If you do have a different opinion you're either stupid, uninformed, fascist, bigoted, misogynistic.....take your pick
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 11, 2018, 02:11:50 AM


1stly the UN declaration of human rights is not ground zero point for all human rights, its not like human rights began in 1948, they have been around for as long as civilsation has been around and will evolve with generations, human rights are in no way constrained by this declaration they can be built upon and Ireland did this by affording protection to the unborn.
So you imply human rights are unchanging.

Yet the Roman Catholic Church gave no rights to the unborn up 166 days until 1869.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the gold standard setting out the rights of humans. You can dismiss it if you want, but by doing so you are adopting your own personal, arbitrary definition of what human rights are.

Quote
The bit of being born free as I said is a well used phrase regarding civil liberties as it is in the case to intro designed to introduce  the main point of Article #1 which is that we should behave to each other in the spirit of brotherhood, could a new born child suddenly start behaving with conscience and brotherhood? Of course not! it develops over time.

Article 1 or any other Article is not a precondition to all the other rights, every one is entitled to each one regardless of whether they have access the one previous or not
The word born is included because that's exactly what it refers to when deciding when human rights begin.

The UN has called Ireland's abortion laws "cruel, inhuman and degrading".

I've already explained that you cannot afford the same absolute right to life for the unborn as for born humans without trampling all over the rights of women.

Ireland is a massive outlier in its constitutional provision. It has been a predictable disaster.

Five years ago, pretty much the entirety of those involved in the current No campaign campaigned to stop the Government legislating for abortion even in cases where there was a threat to the life of the mother. That right there was a two fingers to human rights.

You'll forgive me if I don't take any proclamations on "human rights" from the No side seriously, given that they've already proved they aren't interested in them.

Quote
And lastly and most significantly it is a declaration of Human Rights that means all humans should be able to experience these rights at the relevant point in their life, and as I have said an unborn child no matter the stage of development is a unique human so my interpretation is that any relevant rights should extend to them also in this case that would be the right to life.
You're saying this. This is your own unique, arbitrary definition of personhood.

A one hour old zygote is clearly not a person.


Quote
I said that 14 years may be an appropriate punishment in some extreme cases...for most tho probably not but it depends on each individual circumstance, take another read I thought I made myself perfectly clear. BTW this is not a debate about law enforcement, it is debate about law.
Again, see the Jennifer Crichton case. Life imprisonment for killing a baby. You will get very few people who disagree that prison is an appropriate punishment for killing a baby.

Yet the No side is at pains to stress they don't want women imprisoned for having an abortion. This makes no sense if they consider a zygote to be a human being.

So, why are the No side clearly differentiating between aborting an unborn and killing a baby in terms of punishment, if they believe abortion is murder?

This drives a coach and horses through their claims that an unborn should have the same rights as a born baby.

Quote
I agree there are complications both moral and legal with rape incest etc etc and I would like there to be a solution for these women. I also agree there are situations when women's health should be put first but again it depends on the situation.
To make exceptions for rape and incest requires an end to the 8th Amendment, because it is by definition an admission that the unborn has an equal right to life as that of the mother.

It is also a statement that not all unborns are equal, because an unborn that is the product of a rape did not choose to be the product of a rape.

Quote
Abortion is happening in Ireland illegally everyone knows that, but that does not make it against the law, it does not make it right. All types of crimes happen in Ireland everyday, it does not mean that we should make them legal.
Laws need to reflect reality. I want laws to reflect reality. You don't.

The constitution already affords the right to abortion in cases of threat to life. It already affords the right to travel for an abortion and the right to information about abortion. So the constitution actully sees no problem with abortion, only with the location of that abortion.

This is farcical.

It's also farcical and cowardly to not deal with the reality of the already widespread self-administering of abortion here. It is sticking your fingers in your ears and whistling away to yourself obliviously.

And it puts women in a tragic dilemma which could have terrible health consequences for them. It would be a disgrace for this state to wash its hands of those women.
 
Quote
But in actually fact all these things are actually irrelevant to your reasoning on abortion as you just believe that a woman should be able to choose to terminate her pregnancy up to 18 weeks (is there any rational to that gestational point or just because you feel that way?) for no reason what so ever or just because she doesn't want the hassle of the child, to spite a partner, wrong gender whatever.
Yes, there's loads of rationale as to why I believe it should be 16 or 18 weeks. It affords a generous right to choose for the woman during a period of the pregnancy when the foetus is not a sentient being. I'm guided by medical science on this.

Quote
I got to wonder why you make such a point about Healthcare when at the end of the day the reason for your position is that you believe that a woman's right to choose overrides an unborn child's to life.
There are loads of reasons for my position.

Belief in the right to choose. The evidence that women are denied healthcare. The reality that abortion is already happening and will not cease to happen with a No vote. Protecting women's lives and respecting them. The bleedin' obvious evidence that the current constutional situation is a dumb, inflexible sledgehammer that makes bad law.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: omaghjoe on May 11, 2018, 07:24:28 AM


1stly the UN declaration of human rights is not ground zero point for all human rights, its not like human rights began in 1948, they have been around for as long as civilsation has been around and will evolve with generations, human rights are in no way constrained by this declaration they can be built upon and Ireland did this by affording protection to the unborn.
So you imply human rights are unchanging.

Yet the Roman Catholic Church gave no rights to the unborn up 166 days until 1869.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the gold standard setting out the rights of humans. You can dismiss it if you want, but by doing so you are adopting your own personal, arbitrary definition of what human rights are.

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.

Quote
Quote
The bit of being born free as I said is a well used phrase regarding civil liberties as it is in the case to intro designed to introduce  the main point of Article #1 which is that we should behave to each other in the spirit of brotherhood, could a new born child suddenly start behaving with conscience and brotherhood? Of course not! it develops over time.

Article 1 or any other Article is not a precondition to all the other rights, every one is entitled to each one regardless of whether they have access the one previous or not
The word born is included because that's exactly what it refers to when deciding when human rights begin.

The UN has called Ireland's abortion laws "cruel, inhuman and degrading".

I've already explained that you cannot afford the same absolute right to life for the unborn as for born humans without trampling all over the rights of women.

Ireland is a massive outlier in its constitutional provision. It has been a predictable disaster.

Five years ago, pretty much the entirety of those involved in the current No campaign campaigned to stop the Government legislating for abortion even in cases where there was a threat to the life of the mother. That right there was a two fingers to human rights.

You'll forgive me if I don't take any proclamations on "human rights" from the No side seriously, given that they've already proved they aren't interested in them.

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
Quote
Quote
And lastly and most significantly it is a declaration of Human Rights that means all humans should be able to experience these rights at the relevant point in their life, and as I have said an unborn child no matter the stage of development is a unique human so my interpretation is that any relevant rights should extend to them also in this case that would be the right to life.
You're saying this. This is your own unique, arbitrary definition of personhood.

A one hour old zygote is clearly not a person.

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


Quote
Quote
I said that 14 years may be an appropriate punishment in some extreme cases...for most tho probably not but it depends on each individual circumstance, take another read I thought I made myself perfectly clear. BTW this is not a debate about law enforcement, it is debate about law.
Again, see the Jennifer Crichton case. Life imprisonment for killing a baby. You will get very few people who disagree that prison is an appropriate punishment for killing a baby.

Yet the No side is at pains to stress they don't want women imprisoned for having an abortion. This makes no sense if they consider a zygote to be a human being.

So, why are the No side clearly differentiating between aborting an unborn and killing a baby in terms of punishment, if they believe abortion is murder?

This drives a coach and horses through their claims that an unborn should have the same rights as a born baby.
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.

Quote
Quote
I agree there are complications both moral and legal with rape incest etc etc and I would like there to be a solution for these women. I also agree there are situations when women's health should be put first but again it depends on the situation.
To make exceptions for rape and incest requires an end to the 8th Amendment, because it is by definition an admission that the unborn has an equal right to life as that of the mother.
It is also a statement that not all unborns are equal, because an unborn that is the product of a rape did not choose to be the product of a rape.
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

Quote
Quote
Abortion is happening in Ireland illegally everyone knows that, but that does not make it against the law, it does not make it right. All types of crimes happen in Ireland everyday, it does not mean that we should make them legal.
Laws need to reflect reality. I want laws to reflect reality. You don't.

The constitution already affords the right to abortion in cases of threat to life. It already affords the right to travel for an abortion and the right to information about abortion. So the constitution actully sees no problem with abortion, only with the location of that abortion.

This is farcical.

It's also farcical and cowardly to not deal with the reality of the already widespread self-administering of abortion here. It is sticking your fingers in your ears and whistling away to yourself obliviously.

And it puts women in a tragic dilemma which could have terrible health consequences for them. It would be a disgrace for this state to wash its hands of those women.
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???
 
Quote
Quote
But in actually fact all these things are actually irrelevant to your reasoning on abortion as you just believe that a woman should be able to choose to terminate her pregnancy up to 18 weeks (is there any rational to that gestational point or just because you feel that way?) for no reason what so ever or just because she doesn't want the hassle of the child, to spite a partner, wrong gender whatever.
Yes, there's loads of rationale as to why I believe it should be 16 or 18 weeks. It affords a generous right to choose for the woman during a period of the pregnancy when the foetus is not a sentient being. I'm guided by medical science on this.

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.

Quote
Quote
I got to wonder why you make such a point about Healthcare when at the end of the day the reason for your position is that you believe that a woman's right to choose overrides an unborn child's to life.
There are loads of reasons for my position.

Belief in the right to choose. The evidence that women are denied healthcare. The reality that abortion is already happening and will not cease to happen with a No vote. Protecting women's lives and respecting them. The bleedin' obvious evidence that the current constutional situation is a dumb, inflexible sledgehammer that makes bad law.

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.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Rufus T Firefly on May 11, 2018, 08:26:06 AM
For someone who’s trying very hard to portray themselves as the voice of reason you really don’t understand basic facts about the female reproductive system.

I doubt you’ll have the balls to apologise for attacking me based off your own lack of knowledge, though.

I have never, ever, got into a debate on this forum on the female reproductive system. Your comment therefore is as bizarre as it is....dare I say it ...misleading and provocative.

I'm sensing a theme here.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: magpie seanie on May 11, 2018, 08:36:21 AM
For someone who’s trying very hard to portray themselves as the voice of reason you really don’t understand basic facts about the female reproductive system.

I doubt you’ll have the balls to apologise for attacking me based off your own lack of knowledge, though.

I have never, ever, got into a debate on this forum on the female reproductive system. Your comment therefore is as bizarre as it is....dare I say it ...misleading and provocative.

I'm sensing a theme here.


Rufus - like myself, you've been round here a long time. We don't always agree but I think we have a healthy respect for each other so please take this as it is intended. Put Syferus on ignore and do not engage. He ruins every adult discussion around here if people reply to him so best not to. As someone on the same "side" I find his comments disgusting and embarrassing and undermining the cause he purports to argue for. Cheers.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Rufus T Firefly on May 11, 2018, 08:42:01 AM
Rufus - like myself, you've been round here a long time. We don't always agree but I think we have a healthy respect for each other so please take this as it is intended. Put Syferus on ignore and do not engage. He ruins every adult discussion around here if people reply to him so best not to. As someone on the same "side" I find his comments disgusting and embarrassing and undermining the cause he purports to argue for. Cheers.

Understood. Sounds like sound advice. Thanks Seanie.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: trueblue1234 on May 11, 2018, 08:48:00 AM
Am I missing something here?

Iceman made a made a personal threat against gallsman to "humble him" if he ever met him in person.

Syferus then says "I'd say you'd finish him like a woman finishes an embryo with the morning after pill".

A woman doesn't "finish an embryo" with the morning after pill, that's the whole point. Some posters really aren't the sharpest. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that comment.

Most No supporters have very little effort to engage on substantive points here, with some preferring to engage in constant victim playing while dishing out personal abuse themselves.

But apparently it's the No supporters who are being "bullied".

Victim playing on the internet is pretty much always the tool of thse who are losing the argument. It's a classic alt-right technique.

And it's soooo boring.

Classic case of some lads being able to give it but not take it.
If you don't believe Syf was making a deliberately antagonizing post to Iceman in his post then we can leave it there. We won't agree on it. It's his MO in most posts. And your generalisation of the No camp on here is also BS. There's been numerous posts by posters on why they feel they should vote no, and others who have explained that they might vote yes but have issues with some of it. Your attempt to whitewash all No voters as victim playing whinges is disingenuous. Just because you might not agree with their viewpoint doesn't make it it any less of an opinion than your own.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Milltown Row2 on May 11, 2018, 09:05:14 AM
Am I missing something here?

Iceman made a made a personal threat against gallsman to "humble him" if he ever met him in person.

Syferus then says "I'd say you'd finish him like a woman finishes an embryo with the morning after pill".

A woman doesn't "finish an embryo" with the morning after pill, that's the whole point. Some posters really aren't the sharpest. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that comment.

Most No supporters have very little effort to engage on substantive points here, with some preferring to engage in constant victim playing while dishing out personal abuse themselves.

But apparently it's the No supporters who are being "bullied".

Victim playing on the internet is pretty much always the tool of thse who are losing the argument. It's a classic alt-right technique.

And it's soooo boring.

Classic case of some lads being able to give it but not take it.
If you don't believe Syf was making a deliberately antagonizing post to Iceman in his post then we can leave it there. We won't agree on it. It's his MO in most posts. And your generalisation of the No camp on here is also BS. There's been numerous posts by posters on why they feel they should vote no, and others who have explained that they might vote yes but have issues with some of it. Your attempt to whitewash all No voters as victim playing whinges is disingenuous. Just because you might not agree with their viewpoint doesn't make it it any less of an opinion than your own.

Syf/sid, an Axis or the same person?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: longballin on May 11, 2018, 09:42:17 AM
Mother Ireland still tramping on it's women. https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/0511/962713-cabinet-meeting-on-cervical-cancer-controversy/
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Mayo4Sam on May 11, 2018, 10:09:58 AM
My offer to humble gallsman is not exclusive to this discussion - it's been an ongoing thing with him.  Most of his responses to me in discussions start with an insult. He doesn't know how to play the ball and I'd be happy to play the man if we ever did cross paths.  It's unfair to push that on anyone who votes no. And to be fair there are a fair few aggressive yes voters on this thread.

It's not hard to debate and discuss like adults. I have to draw a line somewhere and say enough is enough if I am being continually insulted. I wouldn't stand for it in person and I certainly am within my rights to call it out here.

I saw this earlier and I didn't have time to respond in your defence, after others came in.

I can understand your reaction to the personal insults. For someone else then to come in and link your response - on what is clearly a personal issue -  to the wider 'no' vote campaign, is deliberately misleading and provocative.

There are one or two posters here over the years who I have found opinionated, abrupt and abrasive in their debating manner and I have had fall outs as a consequence. However there is a new breed of posters here that have taken those aforementioned 'qualities' to new depths. It doesn't do much for the standard of the debate or the reputation of the forum itself.

The wider "No" campaign have been only too willing to throw insults around and employ gutter tactics.

Have a look at the Twitter feeds of some of the main figures in the No campaign if you don't believe me.

Have a look at what's happening outside hospitals where people are being routinely intimidated by headbangers thrusting giant pictures of dead foetuses in their faces.

There are no "Yes" campaigners going around thrusting pictures of dead women in people's faces.

Have a look at some of the No campaign's propaganda, lies and deliberate attempts to misinform, as well as their dishonest attempts to gather online information about undecided voters in an attempt to microtarget them.

And yes, it is one side which is overwhelmingly to blame for the poisonous atmosphere around the campaign.

Well this is blatantly not true, both sides are equally odious from what I can see and completely unaware that their tactics are almost identical.

If you’re voting yes you’re a baby murderer, how could you kill a baby that has hands and feet, it’ll be abortion on demand next.

If you’re voting no then you’re killing mothers by not allowing them the right to life in cases of FFA

Both poisonous extremes. Sid you seem to be completely oblivious that you do exactly what you accuse the NO side of. Yer both at it, it would put me off voting altogether

Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 11, 2018, 10:23:44 AM
My offer to humble gallsman is not exclusive to this discussion - it's been an ongoing thing with him.  Most of his responses to me in discussions start with an insult. He doesn't know how to play the ball and I'd be happy to play the man if we ever did cross paths.  It's unfair to push that on anyone who votes no. And to be fair there are a fair few aggressive yes voters on this thread.

It's not hard to debate and discuss like adults. I have to draw a line somewhere and say enough is enough if I am being continually insulted. I wouldn't stand for it in person and I certainly am within my rights to call it out here.

I saw this earlier and I didn't have time to respond in your defence, after others came in.

I can understand your reaction to the personal insults. For someone else then to come in and link your response - on what is clearly a personal issue -  to the wider 'no' vote campaign, is deliberately misleading and provocative.

There are one or two posters here over the years who I have found opinionated, abrupt and abrasive in their debating manner and I have had fall outs as a consequence. However there is a new breed of posters here that have taken those aforementioned 'qualities' to new depths. It doesn't do much for the standard of the debate or the reputation of the forum itself.

The wider "No" campaign have been only too willing to throw insults around and employ gutter tactics.

Have a look at the Twitter feeds of some of the main figures in the No campaign if you don't believe me.

Have a look at what's happening outside hospitals where people are being routinely intimidated by headbangers thrusting giant pictures of dead foetuses in their faces.

There are no "Yes" campaigners going around thrusting pictures of dead women in people's faces.

Have a look at some of the No campaign's propaganda, lies and deliberate attempts to misinform, as well as their dishonest attempts to gather online information about undecided voters in an attempt to microtarget them.

And yes, it is one side which is overwhelmingly to blame for the poisonous atmosphere around the campaign.

Well this is blatantly not true, both sides are equally odious from what I can see and completely unaware that their tactics are almost identical.

If you’re voting yes you’re a baby murderer, how could you kill a baby that has hands and feet, it’ll be abortion on demand next.

If you’re voting no then you’re killing mothers by not allowing them the right to life in cases of FFA

Both poisonous extremes. Sid you seem to be completely oblivious that you do exactly what you accuse the NO side of. Yer both at it, it would put me off voting altogether

It's not enough to just state blandly that "both sides" are equally odious, when the evidence so clearly suggests otherwise.

Facts not feelings please.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 11, 2018, 10:42:30 AM
Am I missing something here?

Iceman made a made a personal threat against gallsman to "humble him" if he ever met him in person.

Syferus then says "I'd say you'd finish him like a woman finishes an embryo with the morning after pill".

A woman doesn't "finish an embryo" with the morning after pill, that's the whole point. Some posters really aren't the sharpest. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that comment.

Most No supporters have very little effort to engage on substantive points here, with some preferring to engage in constant victim playing while dishing out personal abuse themselves.

But apparently it's the No supporters who are being "bullied".

Victim playing on the internet is pretty much always the tool of thse who are losing the argument. It's a classic alt-right technique.

And it's soooo boring.

Classic case of some lads being able to give it but not take it.
If you don't believe Syf was making a deliberately antagonizing post to Iceman in his post then we can leave it there. We won't agree on it. It's his MO in most posts. And your generalisation of the No camp on here is also BS. There's been numerous posts by posters on why they feel they should vote no, and others who have explained that they might vote yes but have issues with some of it. Your attempt to whitewash all No voters as victim playing whinges is disingenuous. Just because you might not agree with their viewpoint doesn't make it it any less of an opinion than your own.
Like a lot ultra-conservative reactionaries on this forum, Iceman has a strong tendency to of throw in not only deliberately antagonistic comments, but bilious threats, which are actually unintentionally hilarious, and he certainly did here. I've no problem with antagonistic comments, we're big boys and girls here, but by threatening other people, you only make a fool of yourself. And like other conservative reactionaries he tends to not debate and not answer valid questions. For example, I posed some very reasonable questions to him about his views, which he has made no attempt to answer.

The reality is that most No posters are strangely reticent to actually debate, and do prefer to play the victim. And that's what the wider No camp does.

The same tired, cliched, reality-denying technqiues, over and over and over and over again. Gaslighting, I believe it's called.

These are the techniques of people whose views are based on dogma, not facts.

You still haven't told me what was wrong with Syferus's comment.

It was delightfully withering, actually - which, to be absolutely fair, is all Iceman deserves.







Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: AZOffaly on May 11, 2018, 11:09:21 AM
Are you referring to all No voters here sid? Because if you are, then you are referring to me,and I would take exception to that. I also wouldn't count myself as ultra conservative. I'd be slightly left of centre on social issues. I think the No voters would be across a fair portion of the spectrum. I also think a Venn Diagram of voters would show a fairly significant intersection of No Voters appearing in the 'Voted Yes on Marriage Equality' section.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: trueblue1234 on May 11, 2018, 11:18:42 AM
Am I missing something here?

Iceman made a made a personal threat against gallsman to "humble him" if he ever met him in person.

Syferus then says "I'd say you'd finish him like a woman finishes an embryo with the morning after pill".

A woman doesn't "finish an embryo" with the morning after pill, that's the whole point. Some posters really aren't the sharpest. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that comment.

Most No supporters have very little effort to engage on substantive points here, with some preferring to engage in constant victim playing while dishing out personal abuse themselves.

But apparently it's the No supporters who are being "bullied".

Victim playing on the internet is pretty much always the tool of thse who are losing the argument. It's a classic alt-right technique.

And it's soooo boring.

Classic case of some lads being able to give it but not take it.
If you don't believe Syf was making a deliberately antagonizing post to Iceman in his post then we can leave it there. We won't agree on it. It's his MO in most posts. And your generalisation of the No camp on here is also BS. There's been numerous posts by posters on why they feel they should vote no, and others who have explained that they might vote yes but have issues with some of it. Your attempt to whitewash all No voters as victim playing whinges is disingenuous. Just because you might not agree with their viewpoint doesn't make it it any less of an opinion than your own.
Like a lot ultra-conservative reactionaries on this forum, Iceman has a history of throwing in not only deliberately antagonistic comments, but bilious threats, which are actually unintentionally hilarious, and he certainly did here. And like other conservative reactionaries he tends to not debate and not answer valid questions. For example, I posed some very reasonable questions to him about his views, which he has made no attempt to answer.

The reality is that most No posters are strangely reticent to actually debate, and do prefer to play the victim. And that's what the wider No camp does.

The same tired, cliched, reality-denying technqiues, over and over and over and over again. Gaslighting, I believe it's called.

These are the techniques of people whose views are based on dogma, not facts.

You still haven't told me what was wrong with Syferus's comment.

It was delightfully withering, actually - which, to be absolutely fair, is all Iceman deserves.

You keep saying this but this thread has shown debate, people have explained why they have issues / concerns over the ruling. Your inability to accept that makes it hard to move forward. You might not agree with some of the debate that the No camp have put forward, which is fair enough. But you constantly give out that they are whingers and then you go on to belittle them. People in the no camp aren't doing it to be contrary and their basis, rightly or wrongly is with regards to life. If their view on when life begins differs from yours, that's fine. That's the reason they hold a different viewpoint, it's not out of any vindictive plan to restrict the rights of women across the country for no reason. I felt initially that I would vote no, but have swayed to yes. But I understand where a lot of the issues that No supporters struggle with. You can debate and still feel empathy with the other side.

With regards to the comment from Syf, I found it in bad taste (Although I'll admit I had picked it up as an early abortive nature rather than preventative when first reading it so apologies to Syf on that). So I'll hold my hands up on that.




Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 11, 2018, 11:48:22 AM
Are you referring to all No voters here sid? Because if you are, then you are referring to me,and I would take exception to that. I also wouldn't count myself as ultra conservative. I'd be slightly left of centre on social issues. I think the No voters would be across a fair portion of the spectrum. I also think a Venn Diagram of voters would show a fairly significant intersection of No Voters appearing in the 'Voted Yes on Marriage Equality' section.
I didn't refer to all No voters. I refer to most No voters.

I think you'll find a way more significant crossover between No voters in the marriage referendum and No voters in this referendum.

I'd say pretty much 100% of those who voted No in 2015 and who can still vote, will be voting No this time.

At most there is around 10% of the voters in 2015 who may vote No this time and current polls show it will be significantly less than that.

Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Mayo4Sam on May 11, 2018, 11:56:40 AM
Ok, so here is a selection of tweets with #repealthe8th


At a repeal panel talk recently one of the speakers said the No campaign were already making post-referendum plans for further reducing women's rights in Ireland if they win. She said they will be pushing for women to be jailed for the 14 years. THAT'S what's at stake here.


Look at them. Not one will get pregnant as a result of rape. Not one of them will have their cancer treatment stopped because they are pregnant. Not one of them will have a crisis pregnancy. Not an ounce of compassion among any them. “ Support women” my arse. #Repeal8th

#voteno nazi bus is in Carlow with its brit yellow reg, the amount of lads trying to tell me to vote against my sisters, mothers, daughters and friends, f**k off. #VoteYes #repeal8th #menforyes

When women/men on RTÉ say they haven’t decided yet b/c they haven’t heard enough - here! - dailymail.co.uk/debate/article…  see also comments 7 re 1940s and 10 re 1960s. My question: Does Éire want 2b the latest Nazi regime? #8thAmendment #Repeal8th  #Abortion #IrishDoctors #protectlife

One thing I’ve learned this month: the Venn diagram of anti-choice, racist, homophobic and misogynistic people: ⭕️ #RepealThe8th #together4yes #TogetherForYes #Repeal8th

I have an intellectually-disabled daughter. She cannot understand consent. If she were ever pregnant, it would be through rape. If that ever happened, would you come to my house and tell me what is best for my child? Because that is what your No vote means, in practice. /1

The last one is particularly annoying, so we should legislate for disabled people who get raped, FFS, that is not how things work!


For balance the other side is just as bad

Yes, cry. Cry for all the babies that will be killed as a result if our Constitution is changed. Yes, cry for all the babies already killed in Ireland, in the first 2 weeks of life, and in our hospitals after the 2013 Act .#repealthe8th,#savethe8th,#ProLife

You are right. The deliberate killing of unborn babies is an atrocity. Every baby killed in their mothers womb is a sacrifice to Satan.#repealthe8th, #savethe8th, #prolife

Uhm ... I am trying to remember the last time a European republic chose to un-person a category of human being that previously were recognised as holders of right to life? Oh well of to google histories ... or may be a trip? Wannsee?

Are we really going to place unborn babies in a subhuman class and strip them of all constitutional rights?
The objective being to allow them to be lawfully killed with no restriction as to reason.
Progressive?

Much easier for a tyranny to destroy children in some quick fix kill than invest in measures to support them; the latter of which can be politically risky. So it's a way of pressurising poor people to kill their children. In sum, abortion is a hyper-austerity measure. #savethe8th
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 11, 2018, 12:02:21 PM
Am I missing something here?

Iceman made a made a personal threat against gallsman to "humble him" if he ever met him in person.

Syferus then says "I'd say you'd finish him like a woman finishes an embryo with the morning after pill".

A woman doesn't "finish an embryo" with the morning after pill, that's the whole point. Some posters really aren't the sharpest. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that comment.

Most No supporters have very little effort to engage on substantive points here, with some preferring to engage in constant victim playing while dishing out personal abuse themselves.

But apparently it's the No supporters who are being "bullied".

Victim playing on the internet is pretty much always the tool of thse who are losing the argument. It's a classic alt-right technique.

And it's soooo boring.

Classic case of some lads being able to give it but not take it.
If you don't believe Syf was making a deliberately antagonizing post to Iceman in his post then we can leave it there. We won't agree on it. It's his MO in most posts. And your generalisation of the No camp on here is also BS. There's been numerous posts by posters on why they feel they should vote no, and others who have explained that they might vote yes but have issues with some of it. Your attempt to whitewash all No voters as victim playing whinges is disingenuous. Just because you might not agree with their viewpoint doesn't make it it any less of an opinion than your own.
Like a lot ultra-conservative reactionaries on this forum, Iceman has a history of throwing in not only deliberately antagonistic comments, but bilious threats, which are actually unintentionally hilarious, and he certainly did here. And like other conservative reactionaries he tends to not debate and not answer valid questions. For example, I posed some very reasonable questions to him about his views, which he has made no attempt to answer.

The reality is that most No posters are strangely reticent to actually debate, and do prefer to play the victim. And that's what the wider No camp does.

The same tired, cliched, reality-denying technqiues, over and over and over and over again. Gaslighting, I believe it's called.

These are the techniques of people whose views are based on dogma, not facts.

You still haven't told me what was wrong with Syferus's comment.

It was delightfully withering, actually - which, to be absolutely fair, is all Iceman deserves.

You keep saying this but this thread has shown debate, people have explained why they have issues / concerns over the ruling. Your inability to accept that makes it hard to move forward. You might not agree with some of the debate that the No camp have put forward, which is fair enough. But you constantly give out that they are whingers and then you go on to belittle them. People in the no camp aren't doing it to be contrary and their basis, rightly or wrongly is with regards to life. If their view on when life begins differs from yours, that's fine. That's the reason they hold a different viewpoint, it's not out of any vindictive plan to restrict the rights of women across the country for no reason. I felt initially that I would vote no, but have swayed to yes. But I understand where a lot of the issues that No supporters struggle with. You can debate and still feel empathy with the other side.

With regards to the comment from Syf, I found it in bad taste (Although I'll admit I had picked it up as an early abortive nature rather than preventative when first reading it so apologies to Syf on that). So I'll hold my hands up on that.
The No side were the ones who started whinging here - let's get that straight. And that's the case in the wider campaign.

Ultimately their objections come down to a particular moral belief that a one hour old zygote deserves the same rights as a born woman.

That's pretty much it.

There are a whole host of serious issues with the 8th Amendment. I haven't seen one addressed properly, either here or in the wider campaign.

I have seen no positive case from the No campaign for keeping the 8th Amendment, only scaremongering and fear against the Yes side.

If the 8th Amendment didn't exist, what would be the positive case for introducing it?

Same as with the ban on contraception, the ban on divorce, the criminalisation of homosexuality, the failure to legislate for abortion where there was a threat to life.

If there were referendums now on banning contraception, divorce, homosexuality, same sex marriage or on overturning the X Case, ie abolishing the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, what do you think the results of any of these would be?

The same people who wanted to ban all those things are for banning abortion. Figures.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: trueblue1234 on May 11, 2018, 12:21:38 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 11, 2018, 12:33:01 PM
Ok, so here is a selection of tweets with #repealthe8th


At a repeal panel talk recently one of the speakers said the No campaign were already making post-referendum plans for further reducing women's rights in Ireland if they win. She said they will be pushing for women to be jailed for the 14 years. THAT'S what's at stake here.

14 years is the penalty on the books for abortion. That's a fact. If you want to keep abortion banned, it's illogical and hypocritcal not to want to imprison women who have abortions.


Look at them. Not one will get pregnant as a result of rape. Not one of them will have their cancer treatment stopped because they are pregnant. Not one of them will have a crisis pregnancy. Not an ounce of compassion among any them. “ Support women” my arse. #Repeal8th

A perfectly legitimate view, and one I hold. For one to consider the real issues at play here and to still think the 8th Amendment is a good thing, I think ultimately, yes you have to leave compassion and empathy at the door.

#voteno nazi bus is in Carlow with its brit yellow reg, the amount of lads trying to tell me to vote against my sisters, mothers, daughters and friends, f**k off. #VoteYes #repeal8th #menforyes

When women/men on RTÉ say they haven’t decided yet b/c they haven’t heard enough - here! - dailymail.co.uk/debate/article…  see also comments 7 re 1940s and 10 re 1960s. My question: Does Éire want 2b the latest Nazi regime? #8thAmendment #Repeal8th  #Abortion #IrishDoctors #protectlife

I've seen the Nazi slurs thrown around a lot more on the No side than on the Yes side - feminists are frequently referred to as Nazis (plenty of times on this forum by the way) and No supporters frequently call the Yes side "Nazis". Calling others "Nazis" and "fascists" (and, simultaneously and rather ironically, "communists") is a very big thing particularly with the conservative religious right in America, and it has spread to Ireland. I don't agree with calling anybody a Nazi, but there certainly a lot more similarities between that sort of ideology and the No side - given that the 8th Amendment is very similar to actual Nazi policy, as well as the perpetual imagined victimhood, the misgogynism, the attempts to impose your views on others through the constituion and law, the bullying tactics, the links to all sorts of right-wing groups with abhorrent agendas for society in general.



One thing I’ve learned this month: the Venn diagram of anti-choice, racist, homophobic and misogynistic people: ⭕️ #RepealThe8th #together4yes #TogetherForYes #Repeal8th

There is a very strong crossover. Not all No supporters are racist or homophobic, but pretty much 100% of racists and homophobes in this country are supporting No. When it comes down to the issues, the inescapable conclusion I come to is that to vote No, you have to be on some level a misogynist or at leastprepared to support misogynism. Most no voters would clearly feel otherwise, but ultimately, they are supporting a misogynistic constitutional provision with deeply misogynistic outomes.

I have an intellectually-disabled daughter. She cannot understand consent. If she were ever pregnant, it would be through rape. If that ever happened, would you come to my house and tell me what is best for my child? Because that is what your No vote means, in practice. /1

It is.

The last one is particularly annoying, so we should legislate for disabled people who get raped, FFS, that is not how things work!

I'm sorry? You are suggesting that the the law in this country should make no provision whatsoever for such cases. That is cowardice and wilful abdication of responsibility and the very essence of why the 8th Amendment doesn't work.

You are saying in other words that a disabled woman who is raped and made pregnant as a result, should be forced to carry that pregnancy to term. And you wonder why Yes voters think that No voters lack compassion and empathy....


Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 11, 2018, 12:50:02 PM
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.








Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Mayo4Sam on May 11, 2018, 12:54:57 PM
I've seen the Nazi slurs thrown around a lot more on the No side than on the Yes side - feminists are frequently referred to as Nazis

My point was that both sides are horrible, your response is basically "well they started it"

I'm sorry? You are suggesting that the the law in this country should make no provision whatsoever for such cases. That is cowardice and wilful abdication of responsibility and the very essence of why the 8th Amendment doesn't work.

You are saying in other words that a disabled woman who is raped and made pregnant as a result, should be forced to carry that pregnancy to term. And you wonder why Yes voters think that No voters lack compassion and empathy....


So I work in an industry where we write risk assessments for everything. You can never write everything that could possibly happen, you just can't

Likewise with laws, you can never legislate for everything, the amount of disabled women who get raped will be less that 0.0001%.
We do make provision for rape and we do make provision for abortion.


One thing I’ve learned this month: the Venn diagram of anti-choice, racist, homophobic and misogynistic people: ⭕️ #RepealThe8th #together4yes #TogetherForYes #Repeal8th

There is a very strong crossover.


It is outrageous that anyone would think there is a strong crossover, my mam is voting No, she is literally none of the above. This is exactly the counter balance for the No side calling people baby murders

Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: The Boy Wonder on May 11, 2018, 01:07:47 PM
It will be interesting to see how voting patterns will pan out across the country and whether there will be any noticeable Dublin/country divides or indeed social class divides.

There are some who believe that socio-economic factors might be a factor in some womens’ choosing to have abortions in the first 12 weeks as exemplified by the following extract from a letter to yesterday’s Indo from a medical professional :

“In my experience, terminations in the first trimester (12 weeks) are undertaken for social reasons – loss of education possibilities, shame on the family name, or potential employment opportunities – and these women come from the more leafy areas of our cities.
In the poorer areas, women tend to use termination as a last option but then they may not have the chances that their wealthier sisters have.
First-trimester terminations are not a healthcare issue but are, in my opinion, a social decision”.


I’m sure that this letter writer’s opinion will be deemed very non-politically correct at best but I do believe there is more than a grain of truth in what he says.

Question to Sid – why do you have to shoot down every contribution that is contrary to your own beliefs ?  You continually demonstrate an intolerance to those who have chosen to vote NO. Your bombarding this thread with multiple posts is akin to continual interruptions and shouting down the oppositions in a real debate scenario – you would be shown the door very quickly in such a situation.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: trueblue1234 on May 11, 2018, 01:18:05 PM
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.


Whinging - complain persistently and in a peevish or irritating way. 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.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 11, 2018, 01:23:09 PM


Question to Sid – why do you have to shoot down every contribution that is contrary to your own beliefs ?  You continually demonstrate an intolerance to those who have chosen to vote NO. Your bombarding this thread with multiple posts is akin to continual interruptions and shouting down the oppositions in a real debate scenario – you would be shown the door very quickly in such a situation.
This is a discussion forum.

Points are there to be debated.

If I see a point that I don't agree with, why shouldn't I engage with it and question it?

Your post here is the very definition of the "whinging" from the No side that I'm talking about.  You appear to believe you should not be questioned. You deliberately and mendaciously brand debate as "bullying" to portray yourself as a victim.

That's not an attempt to debate - it's an attempt to shut down debate.

Belief systems are there to be questioned. You can have any belief system you want - but if you can't defend it, you shouldn't then expect others to take it seriously.



Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 11, 2018, 01:30:41 PM
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"?

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Tony Baloney on May 11, 2018, 01:39:41 PM
Who pays for the abortion up to 12 weeks without justification?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: magpie seanie on May 11, 2018, 01:42:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Rossfan on May 11, 2018, 01:54:37 PM
Getting tighter folks
Yes 40.66%
No  39.56%
Undecided  19.78%

Sid's posts are obviously having an effect.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: trueblue1234 on May 11, 2018, 02:03:24 PM
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"?

Quote
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.

 


Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 11, 2018, 02:28:42 PM

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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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".

Quote
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:

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.



Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 11, 2018, 02:37:33 PM
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

Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 11, 2018, 02:46:37 PM
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"?

Quote
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.



 
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: trueblue1234 on May 11, 2018, 03:13:04 PM
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"?

Quote
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.   
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 11, 2018, 03:42:47 PM

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.

Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: trueblue1234 on May 11, 2018, 04:04:22 PM

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.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 11, 2018, 05:02:41 PM
Should win over any undecideds:

Quote
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.”



Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 11, 2018, 05:12:54 PM
"Both sides are equally bad".   ;D

Quote
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/

Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: armaghniac on May 11, 2018, 06:06:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: trileacman on May 11, 2018, 11:38:00 PM
... 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.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: whitey on May 12, 2018, 01:25:00 AM
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
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 12, 2018, 01:39:38 AM
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

..err, you do know you’re describing exactly what you yourself have done multiple times in this thread and probably thousands of times in the US thread, right?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: macdanger2 on May 12, 2018, 01:48:24 AM
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, you're never going to change the minds of those people. However, by tarring everyone who considers voting no with the same brush, you lose any chance you had of convincing the soft no's and undecideds to vote yes.

In another post you've compared the No campaign to trump/Brexit campaigns and yet you're reacting in the same manner as the Clinton / anti-brexit campaigns, a different approach might be more effective.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: whitey on May 12, 2018, 02:24:32 AM
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

..err, you do know you’re describing exactly what you yourself have done multiple times in this thread and probably thousands of times in the US thread, right?

That is a false statement.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 12, 2018, 02:41:50 AM
There's a direct lineage from every regressive campaign going back to at least the 1970s to the current No campaign.

That lineage encompasses opposition to contraception, the 1983 8th Amendment referendum, the 1986 and 1995 divorce referendums, the 1992 abortion referendums on the right to travel for an abortion and the right to information, opposition to the decriminalisation of homosexuality, the 2002 referendum which attempted to eliminate the right of a suicidal woman to an abortion established in the X Case, opposition to the introduction of same sex civil partnerships, opposition to the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act in 2013 and the same sex marriage referendum in 2015.

The same faces pop up again and again and again leading these campaigns and they've lied copiously and been wrong every single time.

The old guard of Una Bean Mhic Mhathuna, Alice Glenn, William Binchy, Des Hanafin, then the likes of Patricia Casey, John Waters and the vile Youth Defence mob of Niamh Nic Mhathuna and Justin Barrett, and in the last decade or so David Quinn and the IONA "Institute", Ronan Mullen, and Declan Ganley.

All highly reactionary ultra-conservative Roman Catholics. If they had their way, women would still have to organise contraceptive trains.

None of these people gave or give a flying fook about the immense harm they cause/d to Irish people. And they're still trying.

None of them have or had anything to offer Irish people except fear, embarrassment, shame and misery.

The day they are finally routed once and for all cannot come quick enough.


Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 12, 2018, 03:19:25 AM
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, you're never going to change the minds of those people. However, by tarring everyone who considers voting no with the same brush, you lose any chance you had of convincing the soft no's and undecideds to vote yes.

In another post you've compared the No campaign to trump/Brexit campaigns and yet you're reacting in the same manner as the Clinton / anti-brexit campaigns, a different approach might be more effective.

I don’t agree with some of Sid’s characterisations but there’s a big misconception here that people are genuinely open to being proven wrong on anything, or that people are trying to win over others.

People just keep shouting the same preconceived notions over and over again - that’s why I stopped trying to convince anyone of anything on this site a long time ago. I think AZ is one of the only posters in this thread that even attempted to process the other side’s arguments fully. A thread with probably dozens of posters. Not a great hit rate, is it?

For a lot of the people the topic may change but the same petty personal bickering doesn’t, the topic then becomes simply the current set dressing to a running battle rather than anything even important. It’s just a venue to play out the same old shďt yet again.

If you go into it with the expectation that you’re going to be able change opinions you’re only going to wind yourself up. The only healthy way to treat this sort of forum is as a place to say your piece and move on.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: longballin on May 12, 2018, 07:59:47 PM
Monsignor Dermot Farrell, Bishop of Ossory, says abortion after rape was far worse than rape for women who experienced both. The ignorance, arrogance and cruel attitude of some church leaders towards women is staggering and will drive thousands more people to vote YES.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: armaghniac on May 13, 2018, 12:44:35 AM
Monsignor Dermot Farrell, Bishop of Ossory, says abortion after rape was far worse than rape for women who experienced both. The ignorance, arrogance and cruel attitude of some church leaders towards women is staggering and will drive thousands more people to vote YES.

No, he said that was the case for some women he had met, are you calling these women liars?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: RedHand88 on May 13, 2018, 01:57:55 AM
Monsignor Dermot Farrell, Bishop of Ossory, says abortion after rape was far worse than rape for women who experienced both. The ignorance, arrogance and cruel attitude of some church leaders towards women is staggering and will drive thousands more people to vote YES.

I'm not religious and don't need the Catholic Church to tell me that abortion is morally wrong.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 13, 2018, 02:50:14 AM
Monsignor Dermot Farrell, Bishop of Ossory, says abortion after rape was far worse than rape for women who experienced both. The ignorance, arrogance and cruel attitude of some church leaders towards women is staggering and will drive thousands more people to vote YES.

I'm not religious and don't need the Catholic Church to tell me that abortion is morally wrong.

..and yet it’s not. I wonder would these big words be said to a woman who has had an abortion, or if the strength of your convictions only exsist in the abstract?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: gallsman on May 13, 2018, 08:03:44 AM
Monsignor Dermot Farrell, Bishop of Ossory, says abortion after rape was far worse than rape for women who experienced both. The ignorance, arrogance and cruel attitude of some church leaders towards women is staggering and will drive thousands more people to vote YES.

No, he said that was the case for some women he had met, are you calling these women liars?

I would imagine that he's not, but is instead calling Monsignor Farrell a liar.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: manfromdelmonte on May 13, 2018, 08:26:14 AM
Monsignor Dermot Farrell, Bishop of Ossory, says abortion after rape was far worse than rape for women who experienced both. The ignorance, arrogance and cruel attitude of some church leaders towards women is staggering and will drive thousands more people to vote YES.
I wouldn't pay any need to what a bishop says
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Itchy on May 13, 2018, 10:26:18 AM
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/knocking-on-doors-in-hostile-territories-what-its-like-to-canvass-for-the-referendum-when-local-voting-trends-are-against-you-36894899.html

Was reading the above with interest and good to hear that face to face the debate is being had and the Twitter bile is not being repeated. I also read with interest no FF or FG canvassing going on. Doesn't that tell you all you need to know about those spineless cowards, intent to sit in the fence and see how the wind blows. No solid conviction on this hugely important issue. I don't know how anyone could vote for people like that.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Rossfan on May 13, 2018, 10:33:13 AM
1- because the one issue no and yes campaigners won't be standing for election
2-kutehoorism.

I see it's 50/50 now leaving out the undecideds.
Syf and Sid doing a great job!!
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Tubberman on May 13, 2018, 10:46:27 AM
Monsignor Dermot Farrell, Bishop of Ossory, says abortion after rape was far worse than rape for women who experienced both. The ignorance, arrogance and cruel attitude of some church leaders towards women is staggering and will drive thousands more people to vote YES.

I'm not religious and don't need the Catholic Church to tell me that abortion is morally wrong.

+1
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: gallsman on May 13, 2018, 10:50:25 AM
There is absolutely nothing immoral or wrong about allowing a woman autonomy over her own body.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 13, 2018, 10:57:53 AM
Monsignor Dermot Farrell, Bishop of Ossory, says abortion after rape was far worse than rape for women who experienced both. The ignorance, arrogance and cruel attitude of some church leaders towards women is staggering and will drive thousands more people to vote YES.

No, he said that was the case for some women he had met, are you calling these women liars?

I would imagine that he's not, but is instead calling Monsignor Farrell a liar.

Monsignor Farrell is clearly a liar.

At the same time though, it would be perfectly logical that a Roman Catholic bishop would believe that a rape victim having an abortion is worse for the victim than the actual rape itself - in all cases.

To be a believing Roman Catholic, you have to believe such.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Tubberman on May 13, 2018, 10:58:49 AM
There is absolutely nothing immoral or wrong about allowing a woman autonomy over her own body.

Agreed
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 13, 2018, 11:01:25 AM
There is absolutely nothing immoral or wrong about allowing a woman autonomy over her own body.
100%. It's actually the genuinely moral position.

Also, countries in which abortion is banned or highly restricted have a higher rate of abortion than countries in which there is access to safe, legal abortion.

But sure ignorance is bliss, as they say.

Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: whitey on May 13, 2018, 11:14:53 AM
There is absolutely nothing immoral or wrong about allowing a woman autonomy over her own body.

You (and others on the Yes side) view it as just HER body.......many others (on the No side) view it as TWO separate people.




Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: gallsman on May 13, 2018, 11:16:35 AM
There is absolutely nothing immoral or wrong about allowing a woman autonomy over her own body.

You (and others on the Yes side) view it as just HER body.......many others (on the No side) view it as TWO separate people.

I'm quite familiar with the argument.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: longballin on May 13, 2018, 12:44:51 PM
Monsignor Dermot Farrell, Bishop of Ossory, says abortion after rape was far worse than rape for women who experienced both. The ignorance, arrogance and cruel attitude of some church leaders towards women is staggering and will drive thousands more people to vote YES.

No, he said that was the case for some women he had met, are you calling these women liars?

I don't believe him. It is v cynical of him - is actually sick.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: The Boy Wonder on May 13, 2018, 12:47:15 PM
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.

The above is an excellent contribution from trileacman in my opinion.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 13, 2018, 01:10:44 PM
Rape is not a trojan horse for anything.

Ultimately there is only one argument for keeping the 8th Amendment.

That is that you believe a one hour old zygote should be exactly equal in status and rights to the fully grown woman carrying it and that this right should be imposed on every pregancy across the board. And in practice it gives the zygote (and the embryo and foetus it later develps into) greater rights than the woman.

That is not a fact based argument - it is an absolutist, dogmatic moral argument that few people agree with.

It is an argument that even fewer people can sustain with a straight face when questioned.

By necessity such an argument involves the belief that it is thus acceptable to impose all sorts of horrible things on women - denial of access to cancer treatment, forcing rape and incest victims to carry a pregnancy against their will, forcing women for whom a pregnancy is a serious risk to their health to carry that pregnancy to term, threat of imprisonment of women, and abandonment of women who have abortions inside this state.

A No vote is a statement that all of those things are acceptable.



Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Rufus T Firefly on May 13, 2018, 01:16:51 PM
I also read with interest no FF or FG canvassing going on. Doesn't that tell you all you need to know about those spineless cowards, intent to sit in the fence and see how the wind blows. No solid conviction on this hugely important issue. I don't know how anyone could vote for people like that.

I disagree. I realize there are very emotive and embittered arguments going on here, but one thing I think we can agree on is that there are two contrasting sides of firmly held beliefs. Surely in that instance, this should be a matter of conscience for each individual and should therefore be apolitical. The stance of FF and FG is in contrast to Sinn Fein who discipline party members who vote against the party's support for legislation that liberalises abortion. 
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 13, 2018, 01:21:57 PM
I also read with interest no FF or FG canvassing going on. Doesn't that tell you all you need to know about those spineless cowards, intent to sit in the fence and see how the wind blows. No solid conviction on this hugely important issue. I don't know how anyone could vote for people like that.

I disagree. I realize there are very emotive and embittered arguments going on here, but one thing I think we can agree on is that there are two contrasting sides of firmly held beliefs. Surely in that instance, this should be a matter of conscience for each individual and should therefore be apolitical. The stance of FF and FG is in contrast to Sinn Fein who discipline party members who vote against the party's support for legislation that liberalises abortion.

One is a firmly held belief that each individual should be allowed to exercise their firmly held belief.

The other is a firmly held belief that the firmly held belief of some should be imposed on everybody else.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Dougal Maguire on May 13, 2018, 01:23:20 PM
You've hit the nail on the head there Rufus. There are a lot of pro life people within SF who have real difficulties with the Party stance. To discipline them for having these views, which are matters of individual conscience is very wrong
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 13, 2018, 01:54:02 PM
If somebody truly believes "keeping the 8th Amendment" is about "saving lives", the logical follow up to that is that they must believe that the 13th Amendment should be overturned.

Anything else would be highly illogical and would contradict the stated aim of "saving lives".

The 13th Amendment specifically grants the right to travel in order to have an abortion.

By overturning the 13th Amendment, women would no longer have the right to travel outside Ireland to obtain an abortion.

How can one claim to want to keep the 8th Amendment to "save lives" and yet think that the 13th Amendment is acceptable?

Because the 13th Amendment specifically grants Irish citizens the right to travel to have an abortion, ie. it enshrines the right of Irish citizens to have an abortion, full stop.

Do those Irish "unborn babies" now simply not matter because their lives are taken outside the state?

If you're a No voter and favour keeping the 13th Amendment, your problem is not with abortion at all - it's with the location of abortion.

Which isn't an anti-abortion or "pro-life" position at all.


Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: armaghniac on May 13, 2018, 02:05:10 PM
If somebody truly believes "keeping the 8th Amendment" is about "saving lives", the logical follow up to that is that they must believe that the 13th Amendment should be overturned.

Anything else would be highly illogical and would contradict the stated aim of "saving lives".

The 13th Amendment specifically grants the right to travel in order to have an abortion.

By overturning the 13th Amendment, women would no longer have the right to travel outside Ireland to obtain an abortion.

How can one claim to want to keep the 8th Amendment to "save lives" and yet think that the 13th Amendment is acceptable?

Because the 13th Amendment specifically grants Irish citizens the right to travel to have an abortion, ie. it enshrines the right of Irish citizens to have an abortion, full stop.

Do those Irish "unborn babies" now simply not matter because their lives are taken outside the state?

If you're a No voter and favour keeping the 13th Amendment, your problem is not with abortion at all - it's with the location of abortion.

Which isn't an anti-abortion or "pro-life" position at all.

This is a good example of the bollix logic associated with this matter. There are things you can do abroad that you cannot do here, it is not the business of government to restrict people with fast cars from driving them to Germany to do 200kmh on the autobahn.
The whole point of independence is that you can have different laws than other places, yet you have the SF  advocating that laws be cannot be different than England.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 13, 2018, 06:35:18 PM
If somebody truly believes "keeping the 8th Amendment" is about "saving lives", the logical follow up to that is that they must believe that the 13th Amendment should be overturned.

Anything else would be highly illogical and would contradict the stated aim of "saving lives".

The 13th Amendment specifically grants the right to travel in order to have an abortion.

By overturning the 13th Amendment, women would no longer have the right to travel outside Ireland to obtain an abortion.

How can one claim to want to keep the 8th Amendment to "save lives" and yet think that the 13th Amendment is acceptable?

Because the 13th Amendment specifically grants Irish citizens the right to travel to have an abortion, ie. it enshrines the right of Irish citizens to have an abortion, full stop.

Do those Irish "unborn babies" now simply not matter because their lives are taken outside the state?

If you're a No voter and favour keeping the 13th Amendment, your problem is not with abortion at all - it's with the location of abortion.

Which isn't an anti-abortion or "pro-life" position at all.

This is a good example of the bollix logic associated with this matter. There are things you can do abroad that you cannot do here, it is not the business of government to restrict people with fast cars from driving them to Germany to do 200kmh on the autobahn.
The whole point of independence is that you can have different laws than other places, yet you have the SF  advocating that laws be cannot be different than England.

You literally compared basic healthcare to driving a fast car. Wooooow.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 13, 2018, 08:53:40 PM
If somebody truly believes "keeping the 8th Amendment" is about "saving lives", the logical follow up to that is that they must believe that the 13th Amendment should be overturned.

Anything else would be highly illogical and would contradict the stated aim of "saving lives".

The 13th Amendment specifically grants the right to travel in order to have an abortion.

By overturning the 13th Amendment, women would no longer have the right to travel outside Ireland to obtain an abortion.

How can one claim to want to keep the 8th Amendment to "save lives" and yet think that the 13th Amendment is acceptable?

Because the 13th Amendment specifically grants Irish citizens the right to travel to have an abortion, ie. it enshrines the right of Irish citizens to have an abortion, full stop.

Do those Irish "unborn babies" now simply not matter because their lives are taken outside the state?

If you're a No voter and favour keeping the 13th Amendment, your problem is not with abortion at all - it's with the location of abortion.

Which isn't an anti-abortion or "pro-life" position at all.

This is a good example of the bollix logic associated with this matter. There are things you can do abroad that you cannot do here, it is not the business of government to restrict people with fast cars from driving them to Germany to do 200kmh on the autobahn.
The whole point of independence is that you can have different laws than other places, yet you have the SF  advocating that laws be cannot be different than England.
It was the 8th Amendment itself which originally introduced the ban on travel for abortion.

From your postings, it's obvious that you consider abortion to be murder.

Which is why it's now so surprising and bizarre that you're comparing it to breaking the speed limit in another country.

You haven't actually addressed the point at all here, by the way.

The point is, if one claims to want to keep the 8th Amendment to "save lives", it's totally illogical to be in favour of keeping the 13th Amendment, which allows the right to travel to "take a life", as "pro-lifers" would see it - especially as this actually was the pre-1992 position in this country, so theoretically, it is a position it can return to if there is enough support for it.

That the pre-1992 position on travel was unworkable is neither here nor there - the 8th Amendment itself is unworkable and is being ignored by thousands of Irish women having abortions inside this state, and yet you and others still favour keeping it.

If you support one farcical and unworkable constitutional provision, sure you might as well follow that logic to its natural conclusion and support the re-imposition of a second unworkable one, which would at least make your position consistent, if no less farcical.

Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: armaghniac on May 13, 2018, 09:29:06 PM
Thousands of people travel to Las Vegas to gamble, that is not necessarily a justification for introducing similar gambling in Ireland. 
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 13, 2018, 09:59:36 PM
Thousands of people travel to Las Vegas to gamble, that is not necessarily a justification for introducing similar gambling in Ireland.

You do realise how scummy these comparisons are, right? Are you just trying to offend at this stage?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: longballin on May 13, 2018, 10:01:05 PM
Thousands of people travel to Las Vegas to gamble, that is not necessarily a justification for introducing similar gambling in Ireland.

wtf!  :o
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: armaghniac on May 13, 2018, 10:21:39 PM
Thousands of people travel to Las Vegas to gamble, that is not necessarily a justification for introducing similar gambling in Ireland.

You do realise how scummy these comparisons are, right? Are you just trying to offend at this stage?

I am making the point that laws do not have to be the same as in other places.  If you feel my comparison is not valid then you can argue your case, you obviously feel you cannot when you resort to abuse.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: BennyCake on May 13, 2018, 10:23:31 PM
Thousands of people travel to Las Vegas to gamble, that is not necessarily a justification for introducing similar gambling in Ireland.

You do realise how scummy these comparisons are, right? Are you just trying to offend at this stage?

I am making the point that laws do not have to be the same as in other places.  If you feel my comparison is not valid then you can argue your case, you obviously feel you cannot when you resort to abuse.

+1
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 13, 2018, 10:25:27 PM
Thousands of people travel to Las Vegas to gamble, that is not necessarily a justification for introducing similar gambling in Ireland.

You do realise how scummy these comparisons are, right? Are you just trying to offend at this stage?

I am making the point that laws do not have to be the same as in other places.  If you feel my comparison is not valid then you can argue your case, you obviously feel you cannot when you resort to abuse.

You’re not making any point whatsoever.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: armaghniac on May 13, 2018, 11:42:24 PM
Thousands of people travel to Las Vegas to gamble, that is not necessarily a justification for introducing similar gambling in Ireland.

You do realise how scummy these comparisons are, right? Are you just trying to offend at this stage?

I am making the point that laws do not have to be the same as in other places.  If you feel my comparison is not valid then you can argue your case, you obviously feel you cannot when you resort to abuse.

You’re not making any point whatsoever.

Why respond to me, then?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 13, 2018, 11:53:09 PM
Thousands of people travel to Las Vegas to gamble, that is not necessarily a justification for introducing similar gambling in Ireland.

You do realise how scummy these comparisons are, right? Are you just trying to offend at this stage?

I am making the point that laws do not have to be the same as in other places.  If you feel my comparison is not valid then you can argue your case, you obviously feel you cannot when you resort to abuse.

You’re not making any point whatsoever.

Why respond to me, then?

Because what you posted compared healthcare with gambling or driving a fast car. Stop digging the hole you created for yourself deeper - you said something that is entirely indefensible.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: whitey on May 14, 2018, 01:24:16 AM
Thousands of people travel to Las Vegas to gamble, that is not necessarily a justification for introducing similar gambling in Ireland.

You do realise how scummy these comparisons are, right? Are you just trying to offend at this stage?

I am making the point that laws do not have to be the same as in other places.  If you feel my comparison is not valid then you can argue your case, you obviously feel you cannot when you resort to abuse.

You’re not making any point whatsoever.

Why respond to me, then?

Because what you posted compared healthcare with gambling or driving a fast car. Stop digging the hole you created for yourself deeper - you said something that is entirely indefensible.

WTF are you ranting about.....hes right.....just because something is legal in another country, doesnt mean it should automatically be legal in Ireland. 

Following your logic 14 year olds should be able to get married, regular joe soaps should be allowed to own automatic weapons, prostitution should be legal, euthenasia should be legal ...etc, etc.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 14, 2018, 10:13:58 AM
You get the feeling a lot of posters here would like this state to be like a real life version of The Handmaid's Tale.

Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Premier Emperor on May 14, 2018, 11:29:42 AM
This is a good example of the bollix logic associated with this matter. There are things you can do abroad that you cannot do here, it is not the business of government to restrict people with fast cars from driving them to Germany to do 200kmh on the autobahn.
The whole point of independence is that you can have different laws than other places, yet you have the SF  advocating that laws be cannot be different than England.

You literally compared basic healthcare to driving a fast car. Wooooow.
You compared basic healthcare to abortion. Wooooow.
Basic healthcare, having an ingrown toenail removed, getting the wax in your ears removed, having a 10 inch long baby with all its organs fully formed hoovered out.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Premier Emperor on May 14, 2018, 11:34:04 AM
Thousands of people travel to Las Vegas to gamble, that is not necessarily a justification for introducing similar gambling in Ireland.

You do realise how scummy these comparisons are, right? Are you just trying to offend at this stage?

I am making the point that laws do not have to be the same as in other places.  If you feel my comparison is not valid then you can argue your case, you obviously feel you cannot when you resort to abuse.

You’re not making any point whatsoever.

Why respond to me, then?

Because what you posted compared healthcare with gambling or driving a fast car. Stop digging the hole you created for yourself deeper - you said something that is entirely indefensible.

WTF are you ranting about.....hes right.....just because something is legal in another country, doesnt mean it should automatically be legal in Ireland. 

Following your logic 14 year olds should be able to get married, regular joe soaps should be allowed to own automatic weapons, prostitution should be legal, euthenasia should be legal ...etc, etc.
Ignore him. He's just pretending to be offended because a stupid point by Sid got torpedoed.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: thebigfella on May 14, 2018, 11:36:37 AM
This is a good example of the bollix logic associated with this matter. There are things you can do abroad that you cannot do here, it is not the business of government to restrict people with fast cars from driving them to Germany to do 200kmh on the autobahn.
The whole point of independence is that you can have different laws than other places, yet you have the SF  advocating that laws be cannot be different than England.

You literally compared basic healthcare to driving a fast car. Wooooow.
You compared basic healthcare to abortion. Wooooow.
Basic healthcare, having an ingrown toenail removed, getting the wax in your ears removed, having a 10 inch long baby with all its organs fully formed hoovered out.

FFS does that mean by full term the baby is aprox 3 foot long?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 14, 2018, 11:47:33 AM
Thousands of people travel to Las Vegas to gamble, that is not necessarily a justification for introducing similar gambling in Ireland.

You do realise how scummy these comparisons are, right? Are you just trying to offend at this stage?

I am making the point that laws do not have to be the same as in other places.  If you feel my comparison is not valid then you can argue your case, you obviously feel you cannot when you resort to abuse.

You’re not making any point whatsoever.

Why respond to me, then?

Because what you posted compared healthcare with gambling or driving a fast car. Stop digging the hole you created for yourself deeper - you said something that is entirely indefensible.

WTF are you ranting about.....hes right.....just because something is legal in another country, doesnt mean it should automatically be legal in Ireland. 

Following your logic 14 year olds should be able to get married, regular joe soaps should be allowed to own automatic weapons, prostitution should be legal, euthenasia should be legal ...etc, etc.
Ignore him. He's just pretending to be offended because a stupid point by Sid got torpedoed.

My point was ignored. Nobody on the No side has dealt with it.

In response the poster armaghniac made a "point" that makes mere stupidity seem positively intellectual.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: armaghniac on May 14, 2018, 11:56:52 AM
My point was ignored. Nobody on the No side has dealt with it.

I dealt with it

Quote
In response the poster armaghniac made a "point" that makes mere stupidity seem positively intellectual.

Once again, you can refute my point if you wish. Calling me stupid is not a refutation.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 14, 2018, 12:05:05 PM
My point was ignored. Nobody on the No side has dealt with it.

I dealt with it

Quote
In response the poster armaghniac made a "point" that makes mere stupidity seem positively intellectual.

Once again, you can refute my point if you wish. Calling me stupid is not a refutation.
You didn't.

Calling my post "ballix" is not a refutation - that's what you did.



Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: whitey on May 14, 2018, 12:16:11 PM
Thousands of people travel to Las Vegas to gamble, that is not necessarily a justification for introducing similar gambling in Ireland.

You do realise how scummy these comparisons are, right? Are you just trying to offend at this stage?

I am making the point that laws do not have to be the same as in other places.  If you feel my comparison is not valid then you can argue your case, you obviously feel you cannot when you resort to abuse.

You’re not making any point whatsoever.

Why respond to me, then?

Because what you posted compared healthcare with gambling or driving a fast car. Stop digging the hole you created for yourself deeper - you said something that is entirely indefensible.

WTF are you ranting about.....hes right.....just because something is legal in another country, doesnt mean it should automatically be legal in Ireland. 

Following your logic 14 year olds should be able to get married, regular joe soaps should be allowed to own automatic weapons, prostitution should be legal, euthenasia should be legal ...etc, etc.
Ignore him. He's just pretending to be offended because a stupid point by Sid got torpedoed.

Offended? Who's offended?



Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 14, 2018, 12:41:08 PM
Thousands of people travel to Las Vegas to gamble, that is not necessarily a justification for introducing similar gambling in Ireland.

You do realise how scummy these comparisons are, right? Are you just trying to offend at this stage?

I am making the point that laws do not have to be the same as in other places.  If you feel my comparison is not valid then you can argue your case, you obviously feel you cannot when you resort to abuse.

You’re not making any point whatsoever.

Why respond to me, then?

Because what you posted compared healthcare with gambling or driving a fast car. Stop digging the hole you created for yourself deeper - you said something that is entirely indefensible.

WTF are you ranting about.....hes right.....just because something is legal in another country, doesnt mean it should automatically be legal in Ireland. 

Following your logic 14 year olds should be able to get married, regular joe soaps should be allowed to own automatic weapons, prostitution should be legal, euthenasia should be legal ...etc, etc.
Ignore him. He's just pretending to be offended because a stupid point by Sid got torpedoed.

Offended? Who's offended?
Pretty much the entirety of the No side.

Delicate snowflakes that they are.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Premier Emperor on May 14, 2018, 12:47:43 PM
Thousands of people travel to Las Vegas to gamble, that is not necessarily a justification for introducing similar gambling in Ireland.

You do realise how scummy these comparisons are, right? Are you just trying to offend at this stage?

I am making the point that laws do not have to be the same as in other places.  If you feel my comparison is not valid then you can argue your case, you obviously feel you cannot when you resort to abuse.

You’re not making any point whatsoever.

Why respond to me, then?

Because what you posted compared healthcare with gambling or driving a fast car. Stop digging the hole you created for yourself deeper - you said something that is entirely indefensible.

WTF are you ranting about.....hes right.....just because something is legal in another country, doesnt mean it should automatically be legal in Ireland. 

Following your logic 14 year olds should be able to get married, regular joe soaps should be allowed to own automatic weapons, prostitution should be legal, euthenasia should be legal ...etc, etc.
Ignore him. He's just pretending to be offended because a stupid point by Sid got torpedoed.

Offended? Who's offended?
The Syferus fella.
Mock outrage at a very valid point.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 14, 2018, 12:54:50 PM
Thousands of people travel to Las Vegas to gamble, that is not necessarily a justification for introducing similar gambling in Ireland.

You do realise how scummy these comparisons are, right? Are you just trying to offend at this stage?

I am making the point that laws do not have to be the same as in other places.  If you feel my comparison is not valid then you can argue your case, you obviously feel you cannot when you resort to abuse.

You’re not making any point whatsoever.

Why respond to me, then?

Because what you posted compared healthcare with gambling or driving a fast car. Stop digging the hole you created for yourself deeper - you said something that is entirely indefensible.

WTF are you ranting about.....hes right.....just because something is legal in another country, doesnt mean it should automatically be legal in Ireland. 

Following your logic 14 year olds should be able to get married, regular joe soaps should be allowed to own automatic weapons, prostitution should be legal, euthenasia should be legal ...etc, etc.
Ignore him. He's just pretending to be offended because a stupid point by Sid got torpedoed.

Offended? Who's offended?
The Syferus fella.
Mock outrage at a very valid point.
Syferus can speak for himself - I'm just laughing at the pig ignorant stupidity and inability to debate from the No side.

Keep it up, as somebody likes to say.

Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 14, 2018, 01:08:27 PM

Personally I'm all for free speech - that's why I support publicising the not at all insane comments of John Waters.  ;D

Hot on the heels of the comments of Councillor Des Guckian that if the 8th Amendment is abolished "it will lead to sex slavery" and that "Hitler would be very happy", and the comments of the Bishop of Ossory that a rape victim having an abortion is worse for her than the rape itself, such reasonable opinion should do a great deal to win over the undecideds.

Keep it up, please, No campaigners.

Quote
Comparisons between abortion and Holocaust spark walkouts during Limerick mass
https://www.irishcentral.com/news/john-waters-abortion-holocaust

https://www.limerickleader.ie/news/home/310605/appalling-holocaust-comments-at-limerick-mass-as-speech-prompts-several-to-walk-out.html

Quote
Churchgoers in Limerick were moved to walk out of Mass this weekend following comments from controversial Irish journalist John Waters which allegedly drew parallels between the repeal of the constitutional ban on abortion in Ireland and the Holocaust. 

Waters, a pro-life campaigner, had been invited to speak at three services at Our Lady of the Rosary Church, Ennis Road, by parish priest Fr Des McAuliffe but some parishioners were so appalled by his comments, they walked out.

“He drew parallels between repealing the eighth amendment and Nazism – referring to Auschwitz and the Holocaust. That was the most frightening part,” one parishioner told the Limerick Leader.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: whitey on May 14, 2018, 01:18:12 PM
Thousands of people travel to Las Vegas to gamble, that is not necessarily a justification for introducing similar gambling in Ireland.

You do realise how scummy these comparisons are, right? Are you just trying to offend at this stage?

I am making the point that laws do not have to be the same as in other places.  If you feel my comparison is not valid then you can argue your case, you obviously feel you cannot when you resort to abuse.

You’re not making any point whatsoever.

Why respond to me, then?

Because what you posted compared healthcare with gambling or driving a fast car. Stop digging the hole you created for yourself deeper - you said something that is entirely indefensible.

WTF are you ranting about.....hes right.....just because something is legal in another country, doesnt mean it should automatically be legal in Ireland. 

Following your logic 14 year olds should be able to get married, regular joe soaps should be allowed to own automatic weapons, prostitution should be legal, euthenasia should be legal ...etc, etc.
Ignore him. He's just pretending to be offended because a stupid point by Sid got torpedoed.

Offended? Who's offended?
The Syferus fella.
Mock outrage at a very valid point.
Syferus can speak for himself - I'm just laughing at the pig ignorant stupidity and inability to debate from the No side.

Keep it up, as somebody likes to say.

EH.....Im in favor of a Yes vote!

I voted Yes in the poll and have said at least half a dozen times on here that Im in favor of a Yes vote.

The issue I see with many of the Yes supporters is that unless everyone wholeheartedly agrees with every single nuance of their various arguments, they get painted as something theyre not.

It is a schoolyard bully tactic to shut down debate and silence any dissenting opinions (even of those who agree with them in principle but maybe not on every detail)

This is exactly what happened with Brexit and Trump and we know how those votes both turned out
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 14, 2018, 01:28:39 PM
Thousands of people travel to Las Vegas to gamble, that is not necessarily a justification for introducing similar gambling in Ireland.

You do realise how scummy these comparisons are, right? Are you just trying to offend at this stage?

I am making the point that laws do not have to be the same as in other places.  If you feel my comparison is not valid then you can argue your case, you obviously feel you cannot when you resort to abuse.

You’re not making any point whatsoever.

Why respond to me, then?

Because what you posted compared healthcare with gambling or driving a fast car. Stop digging the hole you created for yourself deeper - you said something that is entirely indefensible.

WTF are you ranting about.....hes right.....just because something is legal in another country, doesnt mean it should automatically be legal in Ireland. 

Following your logic 14 year olds should be able to get married, regular joe soaps should be allowed to own automatic weapons, prostitution should be legal, euthenasia should be legal ...etc, etc.
Ignore him. He's just pretending to be offended because a stupid point by Sid got torpedoed.

Offended? Who's offended?
The Syferus fella.
Mock outrage at a very valid point.
Syferus can speak for himself - I'm just laughing at the pig ignorant stupidity and inability to debate from the No side.

Keep it up, as somebody likes to say.

EH.....Im in favor of a Yes vote!

I voted Yes in the poll and have said at least half a dozen times on here that Im in favor of a Yes vote.

The issue I see with many of the Yes supporters is that unless everyone wholeheartedly agrees with every single nuance of their various arguments, they get painted as something theyre not.

It is a schoolyard bully tactic to shut down debate and silence any dissenting opinions (even of those who agree with them in principle but maybe not on every detail)

This is exactly what happened with Brexit and Trump and we know how those votes both turned out

Lolzers.

You are quite the snowflake.

I absolutely welcome different opinions, and if people want to throw out personal abuse, as the no side have been only too happy to do, I'm fine with that.

It just seems strange that there have been so few coherent opinions on the No side, and so few No supporting-posters who are willing to answer hard questions.

Very strange.



Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Premier Emperor on May 14, 2018, 01:29:25 PM
I've talked to dozens of people who are going to vote No, but are keeping their intentions private.
This is mainly because of how aggressive the Yes camp are to people who disagree with them.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 14, 2018, 01:41:52 PM
I've talked to dozens of people who are going to vote No, but are keeping their intentions private.
This is mainly because of how aggressive the Yes camp are to people who disagree with them.
You should probably get out more.

The No side are anything but silent. And they're not a majority.

The bullying that has gone on during this campaign from the No side has been an absolute disgrace.

Religious fundamentalists standing outside maternity hospitals in intimidating women by thrusting giant pictures of dead foetuses in their faces, widespread ripping down of Yes posters, widespread comparisons to Nazis (who incidentally, elements of the No campaign actually have links to - Justin Barrett is a regular attendee at neo-Nazi events in Germany).

One can only imagine the reaction of the No side had Yes campaigners used giant pictures of dead women.

So I think we can agree that there's no equivalence here whatsoever. The behaviour of the No campaign has been an utter disgrace.

When they have such little argument, gutter politics is the only thing left for them.

Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 14, 2018, 01:43:48 PM
Here's an another nice, reasonable view from Enda Sherlock, brother of leading No campaigner Cora Sherlock.


Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Billys Boots on May 14, 2018, 01:44:12 PM
I've talked to dozens of people who are going to vote Yes, but are keeping their intentions private.
This is mainly because of how aggressive the No camp are to people who disagree with them.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 14, 2018, 01:47:02 PM
And here's another very reasonable view from Enda Sherlock.

Don't recall Cora saying anything in objection to it...


Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: AZOffaly on May 14, 2018, 01:47:44 PM
Is that a troll account?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: whitey on May 14, 2018, 01:49:48 PM
Thousands of people travel to Las Vegas to gamble, that is not necessarily a justification for introducing similar gambling in Ireland.

You do realise how scummy these comparisons are, right? Are you just trying to offend at this stage?

I am making the point that laws do not have to be the same as in other places.  If you feel my comparison is not valid then you can argue your case, you obviously feel you cannot when you resort to abuse.

You’re not making any point whatsoever.

Why respond to me, then?

Because what you posted compared healthcare with gambling or driving a fast car. Stop digging the hole you created for yourself deeper - you said something that is entirely indefensible.

WTF are you ranting about.....hes right.....just because something is legal in another country, doesnt mean it should automatically be legal in Ireland. 

Following your logic 14 year olds should be able to get married, regular joe soaps should be allowed to own automatic weapons, prostitution should be legal, euthenasia should be legal ...etc, etc.
Ignore him. He's just pretending to be offended because a stupid point by Sid got torpedoed.

Offended? Who's offended?
The Syferus fella.
Mock outrage at a very valid point.
Syferus can speak for himself - I'm just laughing at the pig ignorant stupidity and inability to debate from the No side.

Keep it up, as somebody likes to say.

EH.....Im in favor of a Yes vote!

I voted Yes in the poll and have said at least half a dozen times on here that Im in favor of a Yes vote.

The issue I see with many of the Yes supporters is that unless everyone wholeheartedly agrees with every single nuance of their various arguments, they get painted as something theyre not.

It is a schoolyard bully tactic to shut down debate and silence any dissenting opinions (even of those who agree with them in principle but maybe not on every detail)

This is exactly what happened with Brexit and Trump and we know how those votes both turned out

Lolzers.

You are quite the snowflake.

I absolutely welcome different opinions, and if people want to throw out personal abuse, as the no side have been only too happy to do, I'm fine with that.

It just seems strange that there have been so few coherent opinions on the No side, and so few No supporting-posters who are willing to answer hard questions.

Very strange.

Believe whatever you want......this could be a lot closer than people think
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: gallsman on May 14, 2018, 01:50:22 PM
Don't know what your problem is, Sid. Sure to half the lads on here, there wouldn't be anything racist or homophobic about that post at all.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 14, 2018, 01:50:37 PM
This article by Diarmuid Ferriter should be compulsory reading.

The Pro Life Campaign’s definition of love is cruel
Diarmaid Ferriter: It is a strange kind of love that denies a teenage rape victim an abortion

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/the-pro-life-campaign-s-definition-of-love-is-cruel-1.3468389
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 14, 2018, 01:51:45 PM
Don't know what your problem is, Sid. Sure to half the lads on here, there wouldn't be anything racist or homophobic about that post at all.
Apparently those views are very "mainstream" now in the age of the hipster fascist.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Baile an tuaigh on May 14, 2018, 02:45:46 PM
Isn't it irony those who vote for abortion have already been born.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: gallsman on May 14, 2018, 02:53:59 PM
Isn't it irony those who vote for abortion have already been born.

No. Not at all.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Farrandeelin on May 14, 2018, 03:37:27 PM
Thousands of people travel to Las Vegas to gamble, that is not necessarily a justification for introducing similar gambling in Ireland.

You do realise how scummy these comparisons are, right? Are you just trying to offend at this stage?

I am making the point that laws do not have to be the same as in other places.  If you feel my comparison is not valid then you can argue your case, you obviously feel you cannot when you resort to abuse.

You’re not making any point whatsoever.

Why respond to me, then?

Because what you posted compared healthcare with gambling or driving a fast car. Stop digging the hole you created for yourself deeper - you said something that is entirely indefensible.

WTF are you ranting about.....hes right.....just because something is legal in another country, doesnt mean it should automatically be legal in Ireland. 

Following your logic 14 year olds should be able to get married, regular joe soaps should be allowed to own automatic weapons, prostitution should be legal, euthenasia should be legal ...etc, etc.
Ignore him. He's just pretending to be offended because a stupid point by Sid got torpedoed.

Offended? Who's offended?
The Syferus fella.
Mock outrage at a very valid point.
Syferus can speak for himself - I'm just laughing at the pig ignorant stupidity and inability to debate from the No side.

Keep it up, as somebody likes to say.

EH.....Im in favor of a Yes vote!

I voted Yes in the poll and have said at least half a dozen times on here that Im in favor of a Yes vote.

The issue I see with many of the Yes supporters is that unless everyone wholeheartedly agrees with every single nuance of their various arguments, they get painted as something theyre not.

It is a schoolyard bully tactic to shut down debate and silence any dissenting opinions (even of those who agree with them in principle but maybe not on every detail)

This is exactly what happened with Brexit and Trump and we know how those votes both turned out

Lolzers.

You are quite the snowflake.

I absolutely welcome different opinions, and if people want to throw out personal abuse, as the no side have been only too happy to do, I'm fine with that.

It just seems strange that there have been so few coherent opinions on the No side, and so few No supporting-posters who are willing to answer hard questions.

Very strange.

So it's a laughing matter now?
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 14, 2018, 03:41:52 PM
Thousands of people travel to Las Vegas to gamble, that is not necessarily a justification for introducing similar gambling in Ireland.

You do realise how scummy these comparisons are, right? Are you just trying to offend at this stage?

I am making the point that laws do not have to be the same as in other places.  If you feel my comparison is not valid then you can argue your case, you obviously feel you cannot when you resort to abuse.

You’re not making any point whatsoever.

Why respond to me, then?

Because what you posted compared healthcare with gambling or driving a fast car. Stop digging the hole you created for yourself deeper - you said something that is entirely indefensible.

WTF are you ranting about.....hes right.....just because something is legal in another country, doesnt mean it should automatically be legal in Ireland. 

Following your logic 14 year olds should be able to get married, regular joe soaps should be allowed to own automatic weapons, prostitution should be legal, euthenasia should be legal ...etc, etc.
Ignore him. He's just pretending to be offended because a stupid point by Sid got torpedoed.

Offended? Who's offended?
The Syferus fella.
Mock outrage at a very valid point.
Syferus can speak for himself - I'm just laughing at the pig ignorant stupidity and inability to debate from the No side.

Keep it up, as somebody likes to say.

EH.....Im in favor of a Yes vote!

I voted Yes in the poll and have said at least half a dozen times on here that Im in favor of a Yes vote.

The issue I see with many of the Yes supporters is that unless everyone wholeheartedly agrees with every single nuance of their various arguments, they get painted as something theyre not.

It is a schoolyard bully tactic to shut down debate and silence any dissenting opinions (even of those who agree with them in principle but maybe not on every detail)

This is exactly what happened with Brexit and Trump and we know how those votes both turned out

Lolzers.

You are quite the snowflake.

I absolutely welcome different opinions, and if people want to throw out personal abuse, as the no side have been only too happy to do, I'm fine with that.

It just seems strange that there have been so few coherent opinions on the No side, and so few No supporting-posters who are willing to answer hard questions.

Very strange.

So it's a laughing matter now?

You mustn’t have read much of Whitey’s back catalogue of hits to post this.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: whitey on May 14, 2018, 03:49:07 PM
So what exactly did I say?

I called bvllshit on ONE article shared on “In her Shoes” where the girls real time blog completely contradicted her Irish Times interview.....her blog has since been removed

I also said that some on the Yes side were attempting to stifle debate by jumping down the throat of anyone who didnt completely agree with them on EVERYTHING
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 14, 2018, 05:20:10 PM
So what exactly did I say?

I called bvllshit on ONE article shared on “In her Shoes” where the girls real time blog completely contradicted her Irish Times interview.....her blog has since been removed

I also said that some on the Yes side were attempting to stifle debate by jumping down the throat of anyone who didnt completely agree with them on EVERYTHING
And you were correctly called out for being a bullshitter.

Your claim to be a Yes supporter is about as convincing as Dougal Maguire's claim to not be an anti-semite.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: whitey on May 14, 2018, 05:22:49 PM
So what exactly did I say?

I called bvllshit on ONE article shared on “In her Shoes” where the girls real time blog completely contradicted her Irish Times interview.....her blog has since been removed

I also said that some on the Yes side were attempting to stifle debate by jumping down the throat of anyone who didnt completely agree with them on EVERYTHING
And you were correctly called out for being a bullshitter.

Your claim to be a Yes supporter is about as convincing as Dougal Maguire's claim to not be an anti-semite.

LOL.....thanks for proving my point
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 14, 2018, 05:28:11 PM
So what exactly did I say?

I called bvllshit on ONE article shared on “In her Shoes” where the girls real time blog completely contradicted her Irish Times interview.....her blog has since been removed

I also said that some on the Yes side were attempting to stifle debate by jumping down the throat of anyone who didnt completely agree with them on EVERYTHING
And you were correctly called out for being a bullshitter.

Your claim to be a Yes supporter is about as convincing as Dougal Maguire's claim to not be an anti-semite.

LOL.....thanks for proving my point
Stop trying to shut down debate.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: whitey on May 14, 2018, 05:35:34 PM
So what exactly did I say?

I called bvllshit on ONE article shared on “In her Shoes” where the girls real time blog completely contradicted her Irish Times interview.....her blog has since been removed

I also said that some on the Yes side were attempting to stifle debate by jumping down the throat of anyone who didnt completely agree with them on EVERYTHING
And you were correctly called out for being a bullshitter.

Your claim to be a Yes supporter is about as convincing as Dougal Maguire's claim to not be an anti-semite.

LOL.....thanks for proving my point
Stop trying to shut down debate.

Haha....good one......Im not the person jumping down everyones neck and insulting them for not agreeing with them.

People can have very good reasons for voting no.....thats the part you seem incapable of jnderstanding.....I have a friends here in the States who got a Downs Syndrome diagnosis about 25/30 years ago.  They got lots of pressure to terminate the pregnancy.....guess what, the foetus with Downs Syndrome graduated from Harvard Medical School last month
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 14, 2018, 06:18:58 PM
So what exactly did I say?

I called bvllshit on ONE article shared on “In her Shoes” where the girls real time blog completely contradicted her Irish Times interview.....her blog has since been removed

I also said that some on the Yes side were attempting to stifle debate by jumping down the throat of anyone who didnt completely agree with them on EVERYTHING
And you were correctly called out for being a bullshitter.

Your claim to be a Yes supporter is about as convincing as Dougal Maguire's claim to not be an anti-semite.

LOL.....thanks for proving my point
Stop trying to shut down debate.

Haha....good one......Im not the person jumping down everyones neck and insulting them for not agreeing with them.


You're just a troll with nothing to say.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: whitey on May 14, 2018, 06:23:12 PM
So what exactly did I say?

I called bvllshit on ONE article shared on “In her Shoes” where the girls real time blog completely contradicted her Irish Times interview.....her blog has since been removed

I also said that some on the Yes side were attempting to stifle debate by jumping down the throat of anyone who didnt completely agree with them on EVERYTHING
And you were correctly called out for being a bullshitter.

Your claim to be a Yes supporter is about as convincing as Dougal Maguire's claim to not be an anti-semite.

LOL.....thanks for proving my point
Stop trying to shut down debate.

Haha....good one......Im not the person jumping down everyones neck and insulting them for not agreeing with them.


You're just a troll with nothing to say.

Keep it up
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: BennyCake on May 14, 2018, 06:23:59 PM
So what exactly did I say?

I called bvllshit on ONE article shared on “In her Shoes” where the girls real time blog completely contradicted her Irish Times interview.....her blog has since been removed

I also said that some on the Yes side were attempting to stifle debate by jumping down the throat of anyone who didnt completely agree with them on EVERYTHING
And you were correctly called out for being a bullshitter.

Your claim to be a Yes supporter is about as convincing as Dougal Maguire's claim to not be an anti-semite.

LOL.....thanks for proving my point
Stop trying to shut down debate.

Haha....good one......Im not the person jumping down everyones neck and insulting them for not agreeing with them.


You're just a troll with nothing to say.

He's correct on that score.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: whitey on May 14, 2018, 06:30:43 PM
So what exactly did I say?

I called bvllshit on ONE article shared on “In her Shoes” where the girls real time blog completely contradicted her Irish Times interview.....her blog has since been removed

I also said that some on the Yes side were attempting to stifle debate by jumping down the throat of anyone who didnt completely agree with them on EVERYTHING
And you were correctly called out for being a bullshitter.

Your claim to be a Yes supporter is about as convincing as Dougal Maguire's claim to not be an anti-semite.

LOL.....thanks for proving my point
Stop trying to shut down debate.

Haha....good one......Im not the person jumping down everyones neck and insulting them for not agreeing with them.


You're just a troll with nothing to say.

He's correct on that score.

I was right on Trump, I was right on Brexit and Im right on the refferendum

Some people just dont like to hear opinions they disagree with
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 14, 2018, 06:38:31 PM

Some people just dont like to hear opinions they disagree with
As No supporters have proved conclusively on this thread with their reactions to facts they don't like.

Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: BennyCake on May 14, 2018, 06:51:55 PM
So what exactly did I say?

I called bvllshit on ONE article shared on “In her Shoes” where the girls real time blog completely contradicted her Irish Times interview.....her blog has since been removed

I also said that some on the Yes side were attempting to stifle debate by jumping down the throat of anyone who didnt completely agree with them on EVERYTHING
And you were correctly called out for being a bullshitter.

Your claim to be a Yes supporter is about as convincing as Dougal Maguire's claim to not be an anti-semite.

LOL.....thanks for proving my point
Stop trying to shut down debate.

Haha....good one......Im not the person jumping down everyones neck and insulting them for not agreeing with them.


You're just a troll with nothing to say.

He's correct on that score.

I was right on Trump, I was right on Brexit and Im right on the refferendum

Some people just dont like to hear opinions they disagree with

That actually looks like I was agreeing with Sid. I was agreeing with your point, whitey.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: whitey on May 14, 2018, 07:04:43 PM
So what exactly did I say?

I called bvllshit on ONE article shared on “In her Shoes” where the girls real time blog completely contradicted her Irish Times interview.....her blog has since been removed

I also said that some on the Yes side were attempting to stifle debate by jumping down the throat of anyone who didnt completely agree with them on EVERYTHING
And you were correctly called out for being a bullshitter.

Your claim to be a Yes supporter is about as convincing as Dougal Maguire's claim to not be an anti-semite.

LOL.....thanks for proving my point
Stop trying to shut down debate.

Haha....good one......Im not the person jumping down everyones neck and insulting them for not agreeing with them.


You're just a troll with nothing to say.

He's correct on that score.

I was right on Trump, I was right on Brexit and Im right on the refferendum

Some people just dont like to hear opinions they disagree with

That actually looks like I was agreeing with Sid. I was agreeing with your point, whitey.

Thanks.....its kinda bizzare.....Im probably in agreement with him (and Syf) 90% on this subject, but because I have the audactity to have a dissenting opinion on one facet of the campaign (about the Yes side also making $hit up) and because I think that the NO side have “some” valid points hes out with a burning pitchfork
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Premier Emperor on May 14, 2018, 10:13:00 PM
Quote
At the beginning of the campaign I argued that the sometimes hostile approach of not all, but many on the Yes side, more precisely those associated with fourth-wave feminism, will do little to convince the many undecided in the middle, that is, those which the opinion polls tell us remain undecided, of which I am one.

I suggested that science and fact, rather than rhetoric on social media, would do more to convince the middle ground than the occasionally smug approach adopted by some on the Yes side.
You know who you are.  ;D
The bigger the t**sers on the Yes side, the more likely that No will win.

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/facile-to-conflate-abortion-debate-and-cancer-scandal-36901093.html
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: sid waddell on May 14, 2018, 10:36:17 PM
The No side whooping, hollering, booing, shouting and talking over other speakers at every opportunity here on the RTE 1 debate.

That's been the modus operandi of their campaign from the start.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Premier Emperor on May 14, 2018, 10:51:34 PM
Maria Steen giving a masterclass in swatting away the Yes mob.
A great point from the audience too. If people actually witnessed what happened during an abortion, they wouldn't be voting for it.
Sid and Syferus will never address this. Instead they'll dress it up in cuddly language like 'compassion' and 'healthcare'.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Premier Emperor on May 14, 2018, 10:55:26 PM
It's surreal to think that we put Rhona Mahony and Peter Boylan in charge of the country's largest maternity hospital when they have expressed their utter contempt for the unborn child.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Syferus on May 14, 2018, 11:00:57 PM
It's surreal to think that we put Rhona Mahony and Peter Boylan in charge of the country's largest maternity hospital when they have expressed their utter contempt for the unborn child.

Way to demonise people because they don’t agree with your zealotry on abortion.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Puckoon on May 14, 2018, 11:01:31 PM
Maria Steen giving a masterclass in swatting away the Yes mob.
A great point from the audience too. If people actually witnessed what happened during an abortion, they wouldn't be voting for it.
Sid and Syferus will never address this. Instead they'll dress it up in cuddly language like 'compassion' and 'healthcare'.

The chick in the red? She wouldn’t be out of place on Fox News, such is her level of shite and absolute balderdash. She actually needs more stricter moderation from the host.
Title: Re: Eighth Amendment poll
Post by: Premier Emperor on May 14, 2018, 11:03:21 PM