Leo Varadkar announces abortion referendum

Christy42

Absolam wrote: »

I think it's fair to say it's extraordinarily controversial, hence the Times "the consensus in the Oireachtas is that the assembly's recommendations were an overly-liberal interpretation of the current thinking of middle Ireland on the issue." The Times which has been fairly consistently pro choice also asked "Why did members of the Citizens’ Assembly recommend a more liberal abortion regime than the Irish public would appear to want?" When we consider the full substantive recommendations of the Assembly;
That Article 40.3.3° should not be retained in full. (87%)
That Article 40.3.3° should be replaced or amended. (56%)
That Article 40.3.3° should be replaced with a constitutional provision that explicitly authorises the Oireachtas to legislate to address termination of pregnancy, any rights of the unborn, and any rights of the pregnant woman. (57%)
we can see why the Independent noted an issue of concern for the pro choice camp; the Assembly "has voted in favour of changing the constitutional clause which effectively criminalises abortion – but stopped short of repealing the law entirely."

I think we'll have no shortage of controversy over how much or how little of the Assembly's views are put before the public before we get to a referendum. And there will certainly be those who think placing a matter like this in the hands of career politicians rather than the people would be a grave mistake.

I feel like if the times was truly that pro choice it would surely have pointed out that anything less than what England has would result in those with the money travelling over.

Even as is, if I thought a woman should be allowed an abortion on mental health grounds I would recommend England over risking get a pro life psychiatrist. I have no idea what the odds are and if this is the best decision but the current system does not feel me with faith either. I figure until we have at a minimum the English system the rich will travel instead of risking getting caught in the tracks of the Irish system

Absolam

Christy42 wrote: »

I feel like if the times was truly that pro choice it would surely have pointed out that anything less than what England has would result in those with the money travelling over.

Well, I don't think you need to consistently repeat the rhetoric in order to be pro choice, certainly the Times hasn't been shy about discussing the fact that Irish women travel to the UK for abortion; only a few weeks ago it had an article on how the numbers travelling to Britain for abortion have fallen to 1980 levels.

Christy42 wrote: »

Even as is, if I thought a woman should be allowed an abortion on mental health grounds I would recommend England over risking get a pro life psychiatrist. I have no idea what the odds are and if this is the best decision but the current system does not feel me with faith either. I figure until we have at a minimum the English system the rich will travel instead of risking getting caught in the tracks of the Irish system

I'm not sure what risk there actually is of 'getting a pro life psychiatrist', if any at all. Given that it takes three doctors to decide that being pregnant is placing a woman's life at risk and that only an abortion can avert that risk, I doubt there are many psychiatrists who will provide a diagnosis they know to be untrue.

Christy42

Absolam wrote: »

Well, I don't think you need to consistently repeat the rhetoric in order to be pro choice, certainly the Times hasn't been shy about discussing the fact that Irish women travel to the UK for abortion; only a few weeks ago it had an article on how the numbers travelling to Britain for abortion have fallen to 1980 levels.
I'm not sure what risk there actually is of 'getting a pro life psychiatrist', if any at all. Given that it takes three doctors to decide that being pregnant is placing a woman's life at risk and that only an abortion can avert that risk, I doubt there are many psychiatrists who will provide a diagnosis they know to be untrue.

True but I don't really think you can use whst else they printed to add weight to your stance.

I do agree the odds are probably low but I don't see why you take the chance if you had the money to go to England. Didn't some psychiatrists say they would never recommend an abortion? Can't find the link at the moment though.

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

I"the consensus in the Oireachtas is that the assembly's recommendations were an overly-liberal interpretation of the current thinking of middle Ireland on the issue."

quoting the IT

The Oireachteas are a bunch of cautious old fogeys, years behind "middle ireland"

Syphonax

A big no from me on this.

Absolam

Christy42 wrote: »

True but I don't really think you can use whst else they printed to add weight to your stance.

My stance that they've been fairly consistently pro choice? I'd say what they've printed is the only thing that could add weight to it, or take it away.

Christy42 wrote: »

I do agree the odds are probably low but I don't see why you take the chance if you had the money to go to England. Didn't some psychiatrists say they would never recommend an abortion? Can't find the link at the moment though.

That goes for pretty much everything; if you have the money you can get whatever you want, even if it's not what you need.

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

quoting the IT

The Oireachteas are a bunch of cautious old fogeys, years behind "middle ireland"

Did the IT really say that?

I myself think the Oireachteas stay well aware of the moods of "middle Ireland" so they know just what to say to get themselves re-elected.

NuMarvel

Absolam wrote: »

I think it's fair to say it's extraordinarily controversial, hence the Times "the consensus in the Oireachtas is that the assembly's recommendations were an overly-liberal interpretation of the current thinking of middle Ireland on the issue." The Times which has been fairly consistently pro choice also asked "Why did members of the Citizens’ Assembly recommend a more liberal abortion regime than the Irish public would appear to want?" When we consider the full substantive recommendations of the Assembly;
That Article 40.3.3° should not be retained in full. (87%)
That Article 40.3.3° should be replaced or amended. (56%)
That Article 40.3.3° should be replaced with a constitutional provision that explicitly authorises the Oireachtas to legislate to address termination of pregnancy, any rights of the unborn, and any rights of the pregnant woman. (57%)
we can see why the Independent noted an issue of concern for the pro choice camp; the Assembly "has voted in favour of changing the constitutional clause which effectively criminalises abortion – but stopped short of repealing the law entirely."

I think we'll have no shortage of controversy over how much or how little of the Assembly's views are put before the public before we get to a referendum. And there will certainly be those who think placing a matter like this in the hands of career politicians rather than the people would be a grave mistake.

The Assembly's constitutional recommendations aren't an issue for pro-choice campaigners. They've welcomed the recommendations. And going by comments on social media at the time, many campaigners didn't think the Assembly would go this far.

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

Did the IT really say that?

No, the bit I quoted from your post was a quote from the IT.

AnGaelach

NuMarvel wrote: »

I can't see anything controversial in their constitutional proposal, but I can envisage resistance from politicians nonetheless. They've been happy to stay as far away from the matter as possible, so I can see them being uncomfortable proposing a constitutional amendment that puts the matter squarely in their hands. But anything else would be a snub to the Assembly they themselves set up, so I imagine this is the type of amendment we'll be voting on.

What? They've shown themselves to be way out of touch with the electorate as a whole, the Repeal side didn't expect that outcome in their wildest wet dreams. Hell, even Sinn Féin (the most liberal of the 3 big parties) opened fire on them for not having the democratic mandate/the Dáil being a Citizen's Assembly.

Both the political class and the electorate have proven to be much more resistant to those changes proposed by the CA.

If it's phrased with a "12-week limit" that doesn't require any reason, I can see this being defeated by quite a large margin.

Absolam

NuMarvel wrote: »

The Assembly's constitutional recommendations aren't an issue for pro-choice campaigners. They've welcomed the recommendations. And going by comments on social media at the time, many campaigners didn't think the Assembly would go this far.

So you disagree with the Independent? I imagine even that much disagreement is indicative that there's no lack of controversy so. You may also disagree with The London-Irish Abortion Rights Campaign who said: “We are disappointed that after six months of deliberations – which included the heartfelt testimony of women forced to travel for abortions – that the Citizens' Assembly has opted against recommending the Repeal of the Eighth Amendment", or Colm O’Gorman, Director of Amnesty In Ireland, who tweeted that he was “gravely concerned last session has introduced and inflated uncertainty [regarding the] repeal option at this stage before critical vote”. And that's before we even look at the opinions of the pro life side.

No... I think the notion that there's nothing controversial in the proposal is entirely unfounded I'm afraid.

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, the bit I quoted from your post was a quote from the IT.

So it was your own opinion you were offering. Reassuring for The Old Lady at least.

NuMarvel

AnGaelach wrote: »

What? They've shown themselves to be way out of touch with the electorate as a whole, the Repeal side didn't expect that outcome in their wildest wet dreams. Hell, even Sinn Féin (the most liberal of the 3 big parties) opened fire on them for not having the democratic mandate/the Dáil being a Citizen's Assembly.

Both the political class and the electorate have proven to be much more resistant to those changes proposed by the CA.

If it's phrased with a "12-week limit" that doesn't require any reason, I can see this being defeated by quite a large margin.

Their constitutional proposal doesn't make any reference to a 12 week limit. In fact, the Assembly voted against the idea that specifics should be in the Constitution at all.

And as for the Assembly being out of touch, based on the results of the first ballot, they seem to be right on the money. Support for leaving the 8th as is runs at an average of 15%; it was 13% in the Assembly.

Absolam wrote: »

So you disagree with the Independent? I imagine even that much disagreement is indicative that there's no lack of controversy so. You may also disagree with The London-Irish Abortion Rights Campaign who said: “We are disappointed that after six months of deliberations – which included the heartfelt testimony of women forced to travel for abortions – that the Citizens' Assembly has opted against recommending the Repeal of the Eighth Amendment", or Colm O’Gorman, Director of Amnesty In Ireland, who tweeted that he was “gravely concerned last session has introduced and inflated uncertainty [regarding the] repeal option at this stage before critical vote”. And that's before we even look at the opinions of the pro life side.

No... I think the notion that there's nothing controversial in the proposal is entirely unfounded I'm afraid.

The IFPA, Repeal the 8th Coalition, National Women's Council, and Amnesty International all welcome the outcome of the Assembly:

The Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA) welcomed the overwhelming support from the Citizens’ Assembly for reform of Ireland’s abortion laws.

The publication of the Citizen’s Assembly report on the Eighth Amendment has been welcomed by the Coalition to Repeal the Eighth Amendment.

Amnesty International today welcomed the recommendations put forward by the Citizens’ Assembly

NWCI has today welcomed the Citizens Assembly report on the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.

Absolam

NuMarvel wrote: »

The IFPA, Repeal the 8th Coalition, National Women's Council, and Amnesty International all welcome the outcome of the Assembly:

So there are differences of opinion; like I said, that certainly indicates that the idea there is nothing controversial is the proposal is thoroughly unfounded.

NuMarvel

Absolam wrote: »

So there are differences of opinion; like I said, that certainly indicates that the idea there is nothing controversial is the proposal is thoroughly unfounded.

I show you how all the main pro choice groups welcome the recommendations of the Assembly and you think it's proof of "differences of opinion". Grand so then.

Absolam wrote: »

like I said, that certainly indicates that the idea there is nothing controversial is the proposal is thoroughly unfounded.

You've provided absolutely nothing to support your conclusion.

Absolam

NuMarvel wrote: »

I show you how all the main pro choice groups welcome the recommendations of the Assembly and you think it's proof of "differences of opinion". Grand so then. .

Are they different from the opinions I quoted?

NuMarvel wrote: »

You've provided absolutely nothing to support your conclusion.

Other than evidence of the fact that even within the opposing sides there are differences of opinion of course.

NuMarvel

Absolam wrote: »

Are they different from the opinions I quoted?

No they're not, because you haven't shown any opinion from pro choice groups that objects to the result of the Assembly's deliberations. All you have shown are a group expressing disappointment at the results of one of the ballots (not even the final relevant ballot at that) and a person expressing concern at the process.

So, to bring us back full circle, you have provided nothing to support the claim that the Assembly's recommendations are an issue of concern for pro choice groups. On the other hand, I've provided links to organisations welcoming the Assembly's recommendations, including may I add, organisations that count the group and the person referred to above as members.

Absolam wrote: »

Other than evidence of the fact that even within the opposing sides there are differences of opinion of course.

As above, you haven't even provided evidence of that. However, even if you did, a difference of opinion doesn't back up your assertion. Having a difference of opinion doesn't make something controversial.

Absolam

NuMarvel wrote: »

No they're not, because you haven't shown any opinion from pro choice groups that objects to the result of the Assembly's deliberations. All you have shown are a group expressing disappointment at the results of one of the ballots (not even the final relevant ballot at that) and a person expressing concern at the process.

Oh now, they're still different opinions, you can't pretend they're not just because you've now decided you want to only consider opinions from pro choice groups that objects to the result of the Assembly's deliberations. I never said they were, I said the recommendation was controversial, hence the opinions put forward in the papers.

NuMarvel wrote: »

So, to bring us back full circle, you have provided nothing to support the claim that the Assembly's recommendations are an issue of concern for pro choice groups. On the other hand, I've provided links to organisations welcoming the Assembly's recommendations, including may I add, organisations that count the group and the person referred to above as members.

Hardly full circle; that the Assembly's recommendations are an issue of concern for pro choice groups is your assertion, not mine. If you'd like to go full circle my assertion was; I think it's fair to say it's extraordinarily controversial, hence the Times "the consensus in the Oireachtas is that the assembly's recommendations were an overly-liberal interpretation of the current thinking of middle Ireland on the issue." The Times which has been fairly consistently pro choice also asked "Why did members of the Citizens’ Assembly recommend a more liberal abortion regime than the Irish public would appear to want?" When we consider the full substantive recommendations of the Assembly we can see why the Independent noted an issue of concern for the pro choice camp; the Assembly "has voted in favour of changing the constitutional clause which effectively criminalises abortion – but stopped short of repealing the law entirely." I think we'll have no shortage of controversy over how much or how little of the Assembly's views are put before the public before we get to a referendum. And there will certainly be those who think placing a matter like this in the hands of career politicians rather than the people would be a grave mistake.

NuMarvel wrote: »

As above, you haven't even provided evidence of that. However, even if you did, a difference of opinion doesn't back up your assertion. Having a difference of opinion doesn't make something controversial.

And the evidence for what I did say is above; we're seeing newspaper articles, people attacking the perspicacity of the Oireachtas, fifteen pages of this thread, all as a result. Practically the definition of controversial.

NuMarvel

Absolam wrote: »

Oh now, they're still different opinions, you can't pretend they're not just because you've now decided you want to only consider opinions from pro choice groups that objects to the result of the Assembly's deliberations. I never said they were, I said the recommendation was controversial, hence the opinions put forward in the papers..

This all stated when you questioned my statement that pro choice groups welcomed the Assembly's outcome. I've backed up what I've said. The most you've done is shown that people expressed opinions on different matters, which hardly counts as a difference in opinion.

Absolam wrote: »

Hardly full circle; that the Assembly's recommendations are an issue of concern for pro choice groups is your assertion, not mine.

You'll have to quote the post where I said that, because I'm sure I said the exact opposite.

Absolam wrote: »

If you'd like to go full circle my assertion was; I think it's fair to say it's extraordinarily controversial, hence the Times "the consensus in the Oireachtas is that the assembly's recommendations were an overly-liberal interpretation of the current thinking of middle Ireland on the issue." The Times which has been fairly consistently pro choice also asked "Why did members of the Citizens’ Assembly recommend a more liberal abortion regime than the Irish public would appear to want?" When we consider the full substantive recommendations of the Assembly we can see why the Independent noted an issue of concern for the pro choice camp; the Assembly "has voted in favour of changing the constitutional clause which effectively criminalises abortion – but stopped short of repealing the law entirely." I think we'll have no shortage of controversy over how much or how little of the Assembly's views are put before the public before we get to a referendum. And there will certainly be those who think placing a matter like this in the hands of career politicians rather than the people would be a grave mistake.

And the part I responded to, by highlighting it in the quoted post was:

"we can see why the Independent noted an issue of concern for the pro choice camp; the Assembly "has voted in favour of changing the constitutional clause which effectively criminalises abortion – but stopped short of repealing the law entirely."

I've shown it's not an issue of concern. So yes, we have come full circle, unless you have something that shows that is an issue of concern.

Absolam wrote: »

And the evidence for what I did say is above; we're seeing newspaper articles, people attacking the perspicacity of the Oireachtas, fifteen pages of this thread, all as a result. Practically the definition of controversial.

There's been very little said, here or elsewhere, about the Assembly's constitutional proposal; most of the comment has been about the legislative recommendations. So my assertion that the Assembly's constitutional proposal isn't controversial stands.

Absolam

NuMarvel wrote: »

This all stated when you questioned my statement that pro choice groups welcomed the Assembly's outcome. I've backed up what I've said. The most you've done is shown that people expressed opinions on different matters, which hardly counts as a difference in opinion.

Actually, it started when you said you couldn't see anything controversial in their constitutional proposal, and I replied to that. You replied with your statement that pro choice groups welcomed the Assembly's outcome, which was something of a non sequitur, but I can see why you wanted to shift your ground.

NuMarvel wrote: »

You'll have to quote the post where I said that, because I'm sure I said the exact opposite.

I'm sure your opinion is the opposite. Still, here you go.

NuMarvel wrote: »

So, to bring us back full circle, you have provided nothing to support the claim that the Assembly's recommendations are an issue of concern for pro choice groups.

As you can see, I never made any such claim; the assertion originated entirely from you. Anyways, since we can all read what you said and I said, would you mind terribly if we moved past all the revisionist nonsense? I'm happy to stipulate that what you said is what's in black and white on the page already and can see no need to argue differently.

NuMarvel wrote: »

And the part I responded to, by highlighting it in the quoted post was: "we can see why the Independent noted an issue of concern for the pro choice camp; the Assembly "has voted in favour of changing the constitutional clause which effectively criminalises abortion – but stopped short of repealing the law entirely."
I've shown it's not an issue of concern. So yes, we have come full circle, unless you have something that shows that is an issue of concern.

You've shown you disagree with the Independents assessment, certainly. I'm inclined to agree that anyone who is pro choice and supports full repeal will be concerned that the proposal does not go far enough, but maybe I'm wrong, maybe everyone attending "Repeal the 8th" rallies in the last few weeks thought they were attending "Amend the 8th" rallies.

NuMarvel

Absolam wrote: »

Actually, it started when you said you couldn't see anything controversial in their constitutional proposal, and I replied to that. You replied with your statement that pro choice groups welcomed the Assembly's outcome, which was something of a non sequitur, but I can see why you wanted to shift your ground.
I'm sure your opinion is the opposite. Still, here you go.

I've dealt with this in my previous post. Sorry to hear that you missed the highlighted part, but I've been clear about what I was saying and responding to.

Absolam wrote: »

As you can see, I never made any such claim; the assertion originated entirely from you. Anyways, since we can all read what you said and I said, would you mind terribly if we moved past all the revisionist nonsense? I'm happy to stipulate that what you said is what's in black and white on the page already and can see no need to argue differently.

I asked for a link to where I made this claim and you haven't been able to provide one. Only one of us is engaging in revisionist nonsense, and it's not me.

Absolam wrote: »

You've shown you disagree with the Independents assessment, certainly. I'm inclined to agree that anyone who is pro choice and supports full repeal will be concerned that the proposal does not go far enough, but maybe I'm wrong, maybe everyone attending "Repeal the 8th" rallies in the last few weeks thought they were attending "Amend the 8th" rallies.

I've dealt with this in previous posts. Pro choice groups are in favour of the Assembly's constitutional recommendations. That is as plain as day. One comment in one newspaper before the Assembly's final constitutional recommendation was known doesn't support anything you say.



I've been very clear about what I'm saying. If it hasn't sunk in at this point, it probably never will, so there's little point in me trying to engage any further. If you have something new to offer, I'll be happy to discuss. If you're just going to continue rehashing this issue, I refer you to this and my previous posts on the matter.

Absolam

NuMarvel wrote: »

I've dealt with this in my previous post <...> my previous posts on the matter.

Like I said, what you said is what's in black and white on the page already, I've no intention in following you on your revisionist adventure.