Is there anyone on Boards who voted "No" because of Abortion?

Tony EH

...Anyone?

I ask, because in every conversation on why Lisbon was run again, the issue of abortion is brought up as a reason why people voted "No" and that's why the referendum "had" to be held again and I find that it's brought up OVERWHELMINGLY by the "Yes" side.

Now, I've talked to a lot of people about Lisbon over the last year or so and I have yet to come across a single person who said they voted "No" because of abortion.

So, if there is anyone on Boards.ie who voted "No" against Lisbon on reasons of abortion, can you make a post please?

...and I'm not pointing fingers or anything, I am just genuinely interested.

P. Breathnach

Those idiotic enough to vote no because of fears of abortion might not be idiotic enough to admit it.

Besides, they probably don't know how to use a computer.

meglome

There were at least two polls done by respected international pollsters and abortion was one of the issues given. Personally I've always fully understood it to be a non-issue but I'm only speaking for myself. So to say the Yes side brought it up would be the Yes side bringing it up based on evidence that the Irish public were initially fooled into believed it was possible. No one that I've come across on the Yes side ever thought it was a real issue.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Those idiotic enough to vote no because of fears of abortion might not be idiotic enough to admit it.

Besides, they probably don't know how to use a computer.

Well that covers it really.

Sam Vimes

A friend asked me yesterday "Does that mean abortion is legal here now?". She voted yes anyway because she's not anti-abortion but she had a vague idea that it made it legal. It would be much more the older generation who would vote no for that reason

Fuhrer

I voted yes because I thought I was guaranteed an abortion for all!

Tony EH

OK, so we've had the usual "Yes" voter attempts to turn a thread into a slagging match.

So, I'll ask again.

Are there any "No" voters on here that voted "No" because of abortion?

drkpower

Pro-life/anti-abortion movement has always been fearful/paranoid that abortion would sneak in 'through the back door'. In many ways, it is not an unreasonable fear given the way in which abortion was introduced in the US via the constitutional right to (marital) privacy. In fact, it was the fear that abortion would be introudced here by such 'sneaky' means that led the pro-life movement to eventually assist in introducing the first pro-life amendment.

So, while their fears are unfounded (as far as I can see) vis-a-vis Lisbon, it is somehat understandable that they would be extra-cautious to avoid any changes that may have a chance, even a remote chance, of causing abortion to be legalised.

Tony EH

But. that's not the question.

cooperguy

I doubt it. No voters who actually bother to come on to a politics forum would (in general) have some clue whats in the treaty. Apart from the hit-and-run posts that is.

drkpower

Tony EH wrote: »

But. that's not the question.

No; but it is an answer of sorts. The thought processes of many pro-lifers make it inevitable that they would vote No on the vague chance that Lisbon might affect the status quo on abortion. The research done post-Lisbon simply confirms that logic.

You may find some, none or many people on here that confirm this also, but this site is not especially representative of the population so you cant really extrapolate much from a question asked here!

Tony EH

drkpower wrote: »

No; but it is an answer of sorts. The thought processes of many pro-lifers make it inevitable that they would vote No on the vague chance that Lisbon might affect the status quo on abortion. The research done post-Lisbon simply confirms that logic.

You may find some, none or many people on here that confirm this also, but this site is not especially representative of the population so you cant really extrapolate much from a question asked here!

Nor, can I extrapolate much from the answer you've given. It suggests that there are huge numbers of pro-lifers in Ireland and I just don't see a case for that.

The problem is that this abortion nonsense is always trotted out by the "Yes" camp as a main reason why a "No" was delivered the last time. That would suggest that a significant number of "No" voters voted "No" because of that issue. That also suggests that because there are a significant number of "No" voters on boards, then there must be some who voted "No" because of that issue.

I have yet to see anyone, here or elsewhere say they voted "No" because of abortion and I am genuinely interested if there is anyone on here who did so.

Anyway the question still stands.

The Raven.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It would be much more the older generation who would vote no for that reason

Perhaps, but among that 'older generation' are some of the many women who travelled to England for abortions over the years. They also include the Pro Choice, who are being obviously ignored. They would possibly be more inclined to vote Yes. Feminism has been around for quite a while.

I doubt very much if people would want to admit here that they voted No because of the abortion issue after all the ridicule that has gone on.

drkpower

Tony EH wrote: »

Nor, can I extrapolate much from the answer you've given. It suggests that there are huge numbers of pro-lifers in Ireland and I just don't see a case for that.

The problem is that this abortion nonsense is always trotted out by the "Yes" camp as a main reason why a "No" was delivered the last time. That would suggest that a significant number of "No" voters voted "No" because of that issue. That also suggests that because there are a significant number of "No" voters on boards, then there must be some who voted "No" because of that issue.

I have yet to see anyone, here or elsewhere say they voted "No" because of abortion and I am genuinely interested if there is anyone on here who did so.

Anyway the question still stands.

There are huge numbers of pro-lifers in Ireland!! You are aware of a number of referendums we have on the subject since the 80s, yes....?!

And abortion is one of the reasons, perhaps not a main reason though.

You seem to think that ansers to this question on Boards, whatever they may be, will inform your position. That is very unlikely given the demographic of Boards. But that doesnt change the reality that there are hundreds of thousands of pro-lifers out there and a number of them, perhaps a small number, voted No because of abortion. It is logical and there is research to support the position.

The anecdotal evidence you have from talking to friends/colleagues and seing responses on this side shouldnt change that reality.

kryogen

Tony EH wrote: »

...Anyone?

I ask, because in every conversation on why Lisbon was run again, the issue of abortion is brought up as a reason why people voted "No" and that's why the referendum "had" to be held again and I find that it's brought up OVERWHELMINGLY by the "Yes" side.

Now, I've talked to a lot of people about Lisbon over the last year or so and I have yet to come across a single person who said they voted "No" because of abortion.

So, if there is anyone on Boards.ie who voted "No" against Lisbon on reasons of abortion, can you make a post please?

...and I'm not pointing fingers or anything, I am just genuinely interested.

No, idnt vote no cause of abortion......or minimum wage or conscription or euthanasia or whatever else gets thrown up over the next few days

turgon

Tony EH wrote: »

The problem is that this abortion nonsense is always trotted out by the "Yes" camp as a main reason why a "No" was delivered the last time.

So in effect your asking did anyone vote to Lisbon 2 because of abortion, and not getting an answer, your then giving out that the yes side claimed abortion was a big deal in Lisbon 1.

mickoneill30

Tony EH wrote: »

I ask, because in every conversation on why Lisbon was run again, the issue of abortion is brought up as a reason why people voted "No" and that's why the referendum "had" to be held again and I find that it's brought up OVERWHELMINGLY by the "Yes" side.

Is it brought up OVERWHELMINGLY by the yes side? Have you got links?

I'd say it was a factor to the same people that were affected by the €1.84 posters and the tank posters. Those posters probably did more harm than good this time around to the No side.

I'd say posting your question on Boards is the wrong forum or not going to get a proper result. If somebody knows enough about researching the Lisbon treaty to read up on forums like the EU threads on Boards then they're not going to be under any illusion about Lisbon allowing abortion.

Tony EH

A cursory glance across any of the relevant topics on here will show that the abortion issue is always brought up as a reason that a "No" vote was delivered.

In addition, if abortion was such an issue for "No" voters last year, why is I cannot find (then or now) a single person who vote no for that reason?

imokyrok

The research conducted after Lisbon 1 suggests that abortion was only an issue for a small number of no voters. The biggest reason cited was lack of information /knowledge about the treaty contents. This would be in line with my own anecdotal experience also.

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_245_en.pdf
http://www.dfa.ie/uploads/documents/Publications/Post%20Lisbon%20Treaty%20Referendum%20Research%20Findings/5.pdf

Jev/N

According to the Táiniste yesterday evening, abortion was one of the prevalent reasons for voting no in both of the Donegal constituencies!


Quoting a status update from Facebook:

"Abortions for some, miniature European flags for others"

Sam Vimes

Tony EH wrote: »

A cursory glance across any of the relevant topics on here will show that the abortion issue is always brought up as a reason that a "No" vote was delivered.

In addition, if abortion was such an issue for "No" voters last year, why is I cannot find (then or now) a single person who vote no for that reason?

Because you didn't do a nationwide survey I suspect. No one ever said it was a majority issue, the figure was 6% iirc but it was still an issue. As others have said the biggest issue by far in all surveys was lack of information, which is of course not a reason to throw the treaty in the bin, it's a reason to give them more time to educate themselves, which is exactly what they did

imokyrok

Here's a no voter who believes Lisbon will bring abortion.
eamo127

Lies form the NO side? The yes side were wailing continuously that we would be economically ruined if we didn't vote yes. Some neck indeed. I look forward to the jobs we were promised as well as the first challenge by a foreigner to our abortion laws in the our now all powerful eu court. Remember, eu law supersedes Irish law so we won't have a say in the matter.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055699869&page=23

turgon

Tony EH wrote: »

In addition, if abortion was such an issue for "No" voters last year, why is I cannot find (then or now) a single person who vote no for that reason?

Have you looked at every post from every Lisbon thread in the last 18 months? When you say "I cannot find," what exactly are you doing to look?

Tony EH

turgon wrote: »

Have you looked at every post from every Lisbon thread in the last 18 months? When you say "I cannot find," what exactly are you doing to look?

Talking to people. Like I'm doing here. I'm raising the question.

turgon

Tony EH wrote: »

Talking to people. Like I'm doing here. I'm raising the question.

You claimed that you found no one who voted No because of abortion first time around. Have you gone back in time and probed the Boardsies of times past? Just "talking to people" on an open thread isnt the kind of rigorous study that statistics necessitate. If you really wanted such data you would have to trawl old threads or send petitions via PM to No voters. People arent going to admit to voting No for abortion on an open thread, as they desire confidentiality.

And also, your statistical conclusions are fundamentally flawed. Your conclusion appears to be tthat: "Boards.ie Yes siders are wrong in giving abortion as a reason some people voted No because no Boards.ie user voted No because of abortion."

We need to be more rigorous, as statistics and maths demand rigor. Your statement should correctly read the following: "Boards.ie Yes siders are wrong in giving abortion as a reason some Boards.ie members voted No because no Boards.ie user on the EU forum I talked to voted No because of abortion." But then your argument falls apart because no one claims that Boards.ie users voted No because of Abortion, we apply this reason to the whole electorate.

So to rectify your statement in your favor it reads: "Boards.ie Yes siders are wrong in giving abortion as a reason some people voted No because no one I surveyed voted No because of abortion." In which case a "real world" survey with an adequate sample size of 500+ No voters is necessary. This is because Boards.ie, and the EU Forum, arent representative of the population.

Tony EH

All very fancy crap, but it does nothing to address the question.

If abortion was such a prevalent reason why voters voted "No" and IT IS always dragged up as a reason why we "had" to vote again on Lisbon, then why is there such an absence of people saying that that was the reason the voted "No".

I should have. by now, met at least a few people who voted "No" because of abortion.

turgon

Tony EH wrote: »

All very fancy crap, but it does nothing to address the question.

It does really. What you are proposing is effectively a statistical analysis of voter motive. I was merely pointing out how your analysis was flawed.

Tony EH wrote: »

If abortion was such a prevalent reason why voters voted "No" and IT IS always dragged up as a reason why we "had" to vote again on Lisbon, then why is there such an absence of people saying that that was the reason the voted "No".

Well this is the realm of opinion. I have 3 reasons for this. Firstly, given the Yes side bias here and the way that ignorance is looked so harshly down on, someone who voted No because of abortion is not going to admit it. In public at least. Which is why I suggested PMing people.

Secondly, the Boards.ie demographic is different to that of the general populace. Members are younger etc. Also on the EU forum the average poster is a lot more informed than the average elector. So a member of Boards is far more likely to know that abortion is not effected, and is thus less likely to base his vote on abortion.

Finally, anyone who did vote because of abortion isnt here anymore. You should have asked last week. These people arent interested in politics, they are only interested in pushing an agenda. A lot of posters will evaporate over the next few days, as they can no longer push their agenda.

Steviemak

The only organisation I saw actively concerned about abortion were COIR. Although, I did see Declan Ganley probed on the issue and as is his way he refused to state that abortion would not come in as a result of Lisbon.

For what its worth my aunt is in a right wing Catholic group called 'The Way' and she voted solely based on the abortion issue. But I can tell you now she does not represent any sort of a mainstream view - on any issue:D

Fighting Irish

having abortion as a choice is a good thing

turgon

Fighting Irish wrote: »

having abortion as a choice is a good thing

Oh God, lets not start this again...

drkpower

Tony EH wrote: »

I should have. by now, met at least a few people who voted "No" because of abortion.

That depends on the circles within which you mix.
I never met anyone who voted against the Good Friday Agreement on the basis that we were selling out to the Unionists but those who hold that view certainly do exist.

Its a big world out there. Just because you dont come across people who hold certain positins does not mean that they do not exist.

K-9

Look, you need to understand the mindset of groups like Coir and Catholic fundamentalists.

You probably should ask this question on Politics.ie as NO voters on here don't fall for crap like that.

K-9

PS. Run a Referenda on Abortion and you'll get an idea of how it is important to people.

It's only 14 years ago Divorce came in by 8,000 odd votes.

wolfpawnat

Nope - I voted no for legitimate reasons!

Boskowski

I did.

If my parents had aborted me there's no way I could have been voting.

tobytobe

If abortion does eventually become available here which I believe it will, then anyone against it now will presumably always be against it and won't be forced to go out and get one because it is more readily available. It won't be made obligatory any more than Divorce has been. I am sure that those against Divorce before are still against it now and have not felt pressured into getting one just because it became legal to do so? It seems that Abortion is being used not as the serious issue that it is, but more of a crass blackmailing tool to beat the voting public with.

K-9

tobytobe wrote: »

If abortion does eventually become available here which I believe it will, then anyone against it now will presumably always be against it and won't be forced to go out and get one because it is more readily available. It won't be made obligatory any more than Divorce has been. I am sure that those against Divorce before are still against it now and have not felt pressured into getting one just because it became legal to do so? It seems that Abortion is being used not as the serious issue that it is, but more of a crass blackmailing tool to beat the voting public with.

Abortion would be a very emotional and divisive issue. Exactly why it and Neutrality are mentioned.

imokyrok

It would be an ugly campaign alright but polls suggest that the majority of the electorate want abortion available in Ireland at least in certain circumstances. So it will happen eventually but the politicos will drag their feet as long as they can. In fact it will probably need something like Coir to force another vote to proscribe womens freedom in some way to get it on the political agenda.

Sam Vimes

tobytobe wrote: »

If abortion does eventually become available here which I believe it will, then anyone against it now will presumably always be against it and won't be forced to go out and get one because it is more readily available. It won't be made obligatory any more than Divorce has been. I am sure that those against Divorce before are still against it now and have not felt pressured into getting one just because it became legal to do so? It seems that Abortion is being used not as the serious issue that it is, but more of a crass blackmailing tool to beat the voting public with.

The problem with that logic is that this is how a pro-life person sees it:

If murder does eventually become available here which I believe it will, then anyone against it now will presumably always be against it and won't be forced to go out and murder someone because it is more readily available. It won't be made obligatory any more than Divorce has been. I am sure that those against Divorce before are still against it now and have not felt pressured into getting one just because it became legal to do so? It seems that murder is being used not as the serious issue that it is, but more of a crass blackmailing tool to beat the voting public with.

Handsome Bob

I reckon not, personally nearly all of the people I know who voted no first time around because of abortion were people from the older generations. All of them voted Yes this time around, although they were still hazy on the issue (or non-issue), it's amazing how much fear and self-interest can turn someone's head!

RandomName2

Is there anyone outside of boards who voted yes due to anything contained within the Lisbon Treaty?

mickoneill30

RandomName2 wrote: »

Is there anyone outside of boards who voted yes due to anything contained within the Lisbon Treaty?

Yes.

Sam Vimes

RandomName2 wrote: »

Is there anyone outside of boards who voted yes due to anything contained within the Lisbon Treaty?

On the yes side I don't consider that to be that important. Someone saying "Europe has been good to us" or "It'll be good for the country" is fine imo. Europe has been extremely good for us so if they ask to make a change I don't need to go searching for compelling reasons to allow them to make it, I need to be given a good reason why I shouldn't. In the absence of anything in this treaty that I have a major objection to I'll say yes by default.

When an organisation that's been as good for Ireland as the EU has asks for something the question shouldn't be "Why should I?", it should be "why not?". If a good answer can be given to the second question then we should of course vote no but if no good answer is forthcoming or if all the answers turn out not to be true then we we shouldn't.

Long Onion

Looks like Dana hasn't posted for a while eh?

Fighting Irish

turgon wrote: »

Oh God, lets not start this again...

The same could be said for 99% of statements posted on boards.ie

Fighting Irish

imokyrok wrote: »

It would be an ugly campaign alright but polls suggest that the majority of the electorate want abortion available in Ireland at least in certain circumstances. So it will happen eventually but the politicos will drag their feet as long as they can. In fact it will probably need something like Coir to force another vote to proscribe womens freedom in some way to get it on the political agenda.

I thought the majority were against it?

marco_polo

Fighting Irish wrote: »

I thought the majority were against it?

Against it on demand, but not in cases where the there is serious risk to the mothers life.

tobytobe

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The problem with that logic is that this is how a pro-life person sees it:

If murder does eventually become available here which I believe it will, then anyone against it now will presumably always be against it and won't be forced to go out and murder someone because it is more readily available. It won't be made obligatory any more than Divorce has been. I am sure that those against Divorce before are still against it now and have not felt pressured into getting one just because it became legal to do so? It seems that murder is being used not as the serious issue that it is, but more of a crass blackmailing tool to beat the voting public with.

I suppose that would be true if murder and abortion were the same thing

tobytobe

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The problem with that logic is that this is how a pro-life person sees it:

If murder does eventually become available here which I believe it will, then anyone against it now will presumably always be against it and won't be forced to go out and murder someone because it is more readily available. It won't be made obligatory any more than Divorce has been. I am sure that those against Divorce before are still against it now and have not felt pressured into getting one just because it became legal to do so? It seems that murder is being used not as the serious issue that it is, but more of a crass blackmailing tool to beat the voting public with.

I suppose that would be true if murder and abortion were the same thing.

It's funny how people and the powers that be in our untouchable church bang on about abortion being murder as if to imply that unborn children are considered to have the same rights as living people...it is a shame then isn't it, that stillborn children are not thought of in the same way because stillborn children are are not considered in this country as being real births. So if you abort your baby you are murdering it, but if it dies during delivery it never existed???? Typical of this country and its double standard

Sam Vimes

tobytobe wrote: »

I suppose that would be true if murder and abortion were the same thing.

To you it's not but to others it is. I'm not saying abortion is murder but an awful lot of people see no distinction whatsoever between the two so your sentence is never going to convince any of them.

tobytobe wrote: »

It's funny how people and the powers that be in our untouchable church bang on about abortion being murder as if to imply that unborn children are considered to have the same rights as living people...it is a shame then isn't it, that stillborn children are not thought of in the same way because stillborn children are are not considered in this country as being real births. So if you abort your baby you are murdering it, but if it dies during delivery it never existed???? Typical of this country and its double standard

Yes it is a double standard. The point where a foetus stops being a clump of cells and becomes a human with rights is more or less arbitrary.

tobytobe

Sam Vimes wrote: »

To you it's not but to others it is. I'm not saying abortion is murder but an awful lot of people see no distinction whatsoever between the two so your sentence is never going to convince any of them.



Yes it is a double standard. The point where a foetus stops being a clump of cells and becomes a human with rights is more or less arbitrary.

No I am not trying to convince anyone with my sentence any more, I assume than you were when you re-worded it, but I wanted to back up my reasoning behind my argument. I am totally pro-"opinion" whatever it may be, in all matters but it does sort of highlight how emotive matters are used to swing opinion when it might not be appropriate to do so or without considering the emotions of people who feel that they or people who apparently never existed are forgotten about because it doesn't have a place in the debate. That's all.

Fighting Irish

marco_polo wrote: »

Against it on demand, but not in cases where the there is serious risk to the mothers life.

ah right

How do they get around the thought of "its ok to kill one person to save another person" ?