8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1

amcalester

ELM327 wrote: »

The numbers are not the issue.
There could conceivably have been 9 terminations in Ireland last year. There were 37 in total since the PLDP act.


What is the issue, is that he claimed they were not "at death's door" sick, just that their health - not their life - was endangered. And I don't think there will be a way he can prove that.

Poorly phrased on my part, I actually meant a link to show that there was risk to health of the women rather than the life. I assumed that a link to the numbers would substantiate (or not) his claim.

ELM327

amcalester wrote: »

Poorly phrased on my part, I actually meant a link to show that there was risk to health of the women rather than the life. I assumed that a link to the numbers would substantiate (or not) his claim.

As it turns out, it's been debunked since.
Another lie, another fake "FACT" for the pro birthers.

seamus wrote: »

That's incorrect on two counts:

1. That's the data for 2016, not 2017.

2. The actual text is, "when there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the woman arising from a physical illness", or "when there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the woman arising from suicide intent"

9 women did not get an abortion on 2016 because there was a risk to their health. They got an abortion because their lives were in actual danger.

The report is here, knock yourself out:
https://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/PLDP-Annual-Report-2016.pdf

Please make sure you have your facts right before making statements that are so sure of themselves.

seamus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I am shocked, SHOCKED, that somebody on the No side has misused statistics or not understood what they meant.

To be fair, Mr. H has said he's in support of repeal, and I have no reason to believe otherwise.

But we need to be clear on the facts; the 8th only permits terminations when the mother's life is in actual danger.

gmisk

realitykeeper wrote: »

The proof will be in the future (as opposed to the pudding). If you are right, the coming decades will be better than the past. If I am right, the future will make the Magdalene laundries seem like paradise lost.

Ah yeah I would say we will be sitting around harking back to the good old days of the Magdelene laundries

ohnonotgmail

seamus wrote: »

To be fair, Mr. H has said he's in support of repeal, and I have no reason to believe otherwise.

But we need to be clear on the facts; the 8th only permits terminations when the mother's life is in actual danger.

I would be beyond shocked if they came back and admitted they were wrong. And maybe i'm just a little bit wary of a poster who claims to be pro repeal but then comes out pro life talking points.

LuckyLloyd

The polls are solid, this week is all about staying as calm as possible while being firm on the facts. I expect the No side to try every dirty trick in the TV debates on Tuesday and Wednesday, but it's important for Repeal advocates to stay calm and positive. This week needs to be about getting people out to vote.

ELM327

seamus wrote: »

To be fair, Mr. H has said he's in support of repeal, and I have no reason to believe otherwise.

But we need to be clear on the facts; the 8th only permits terminations when the mother's life is in actual danger.

He has stated that, but his attempts to give reasons for the 8th to stay, present (since debunked) evidence for it being fit for purpose, and out and out lies, coupled with the unsubstantiated criticism of Dr Boylan would all point to a no voter in disguise.


Other than the join date, he fits perfectly the standard MO of "I'm on the fence... here's all the problems with the YES side... the 8th is doing its job fine" kind of poster.

ELM327

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I would be beyond shocked if they came back and admitted they were wrong. And maybe i'm just a little bit wary of a poster who claims to be pro repeal but then comes out pro life talking points.

Yeah I agree, and have stated so below. I've worded my post carefully as I do not want to fall foul of moderator guidelines.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The polls are solid, this week is all about staying as calm as possible while being firm on the facts. I expect the No side to try every dirty trick in the TV debates on Tuesday and Wednesday, but it's important for Repeal advocates to stay calm and positive. This week needs to be about getting people out to vote.

+1
The stunts are getting worse, i'd say they've got a few more dirty tricks.

Cupcake_Crisis

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The polls are solid, this week is all about staying as calm as possible while being firm on the facts. I expect the No side to try every dirty trick in the TV debates on Tuesday and Wednesday, but it's important for Repeal advocates to stay calm and positive. This week needs to be about getting people out to vote.

In my opinion that’s the best thing the yes side can do. The no side will pull something out of the bag this week no doubt, and I think it’s up to the yes side not to rise to the bait. We have undoubtedly run the more compassionate campaign and I believe that will show on Friday. This week should be about ensuring people get to polling stations.

Timberrrrrrrr

realitykeeper wrote: »

The proof will be in the future (as opposed to the pudding). If you are right, the coming decades will be better than the past. If I am right, the future will make the Magdalene laundries seem like paradise lost.

Well going by your previous predictions I think we can all look forward to a very rosy future!

What happened to the imminent economic crash that you promised would happen in 2017? Not seen you in that thread in a good 5/6 months :pac:

ELM327

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

In my opinion that’s the best thing the yes side can do. The no side will pull something out of the bag this week no doubt, and I think it’s up to the yes side not to rise to the bait. We have undoubtedly run the more compassionate campaign and I believe that will show on Friday. This week should be about ensuring people get to voting stations.

Agree.


This referendum will be won on turnout.
If it's a high turnout the YES side is likely to win.
If it's low (Like in '83) the NO side is likely to win.


If you look at the campaign the NO side has run, it's not about convincing people to vote no, as much as it is to create misdirection and doubt among borderline YES voters. Even the latest posters "It's too extreme - vote no" address this directly.


As an avid follower of political theory and strategy I have to admire the NO campaign. (Obviously on a moral and realistic level it's vile). They have operated within the guidelines that exist - NONE - they have targeted their chosen identified "Most effective audience" to get the most bang for their dollars. If this is won by the NO campaign, it's a real victory for spin and skullduggery over the facts.

Dressing gown

B0jangles wrote: »

It's actually even worse than you might have thought:

Edit: Warning - extremely disturbing account of prolongued miscarriage leading to massive infection

Beyond heartbreaking and surely medical negligence in any country with sane healthcare laws. If you are undecided and read nothing else on this thread please read this story. And then make up your own mind on the right thing to do.

SusieBlue

Mr.H wrote: »

I did read the post.

Did you not read mine?

25 legal abortions last year alone. Only 16 were immediate risk to life. Meaning 9 were not at risk.

As for the sexist comment at the end. I know of men who were misdiagnosed and mistreated in this healthcare system. Likewise if anything ever happened to my girlfriend do you not think I would suffer?

My grandfather sat on a bed in a hallway of one-off the bigger hospitals in Ireland. He had chest pains and was not seen by anyone because his chest pains were not constant. We had to lie and tell them the pain was constant just to get him seen to. He had a mild heart attack. This was only a couple of months after two brain surgeries were they almost missed a bleed.

This is not about men versus women.

This is not a gender issue. We need to fix healthcare in this country for everyone!

Lets use the 2016 statistics, for arguments sake.
There were 63,897 births that year. We know that roughly 4k women seek terminations abroad each year, so lets take roughly 68k as the amount of Irish pregnancies that occurred.

Do you really think that 25 legal abortions is proportionate to that figure?
Or do you think its safe to assume that a portion of the 4k who travelled were of women whose health was at risk, but the risk wasn't sufficient for her to be granted an abortion here?
Anecdotal evidence would lead me to believe the latter.
9 non risk abortions is an absolutely tiny figure when compared to 63k births and 4k abortions.
I could confidently say at least some of those who travelled for terminations did so because their risk wasn't deemed to be sufficient enough here.

Hooks Golf Handicap

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The polls are solid, this week is all about staying as calm as possible while being firm on the facts. I expect the No side to try every dirty trick in the TV debates on Tuesday and Wednesday, but it's important for Repeal advocates to stay calm and positive. This week needs to be about getting people out to vote.

At least the Yes campaign are not doing the Theresa May on it & are still debating.
Would have been attractive to just retreat after this weekends polls.


Harris will do a solid enough job of laying down the facts although Coveny or Martin would do a more emotive job.


Recognising it's all or nothing you can expect the pro-lifers to ram home the baby killing mantra this week despite it not being part of the debate.


I expected the church to score a big own goal with lashing of fire & brimstone from the pulpits last weekend which would only harden the liberal majority but they've been more measured, obviously recognising how toxic they are to the youth of the country.

Zubeneschamali

ELM327 wrote: »

The stunts are getting worse, i'd say they've got a few more dirty tricks.

The 8th passed with a low turnout in 1983. The 12th, 13th and 14th brought a much higher turnout after the X case scandal, and the prolife side lost all three.

I think much of their campaign has not been intended to convince anyone of anything, it has been to turn off voters who find the whole spectacle sickening.

They are hoping that undecideds and soft Yes voters will be thoroughly fed up with the whole mess, and that a depressed turnout will favour their side with its core of, let's say, strongly motivated voters.

ohnonotgmail

SusieBlue wrote: »

Lets use the 2016 statistics, for arguments sake.
There were 63,897 births that year. We know that roughly 4k women seek terminations abroad each year, so lets take roughly 68k as the amount of Irish pregnancies that occurred.

Do you really think that 25 legal abortions is proportionate to that figure?
Or do you think its safe to assume that a portion of the 4k who travelled were of women whose health was at risk, but the risk wasn't sufficient for her to be granted an abortion here?
Anecdotal evidence would lead me to believe the latter.
9 non risk abortions is an absolutely tiny figure when compared to 63k births and 4k abortions.
I could confidently say at least some of those who travelled for terminations did so because their risk wasn't deemed to be sufficient enough here.

Just to clarify there were not 9 non-risk abortions in 2016. 8 were where
there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the woman arising from a
physical illness and the other were where there was a risk to life due to suicide.

Cupcake_Crisis

ELM327 wrote: »

Agree.


This referendum will be won on turnout.
If it's a high turnout the YES side is likely to win.
If it's low (Like in '83) the NO side is likely to win.


If you look at the campaign the NO side has run, it's not about convincing people to vote no, as much as it is to create misdirection and doubt among borderline YES voters. Even the latest posters "It's too extreme - vote no" address this directly.


As an avid follower of political theory and strategy I have to admire the NO campaign. (Obviously on a moral and realistic level it's vile). They have operated within the guidelines that exist - NONE - they have targeted their chosen identified "Most effective audience" to get the most bang for their dollars. If this is won by the NO campaign, it's a real victory for spin and skullduggery over the facts.

Bang on in the last paragraph. They’ve run a dirty campaign, but a very effective one. I’ve spoken to people who are voting no based on the lies, or half truths, that are being spun by the no side.

And I have to say, I do kind of admire their ability to answer an almost completely different question than they are asked AND get away with it!

Leroy42

The No campaign have not come up with an answers of how to deal with the actual problems we face. Apart from 'support', of which no one seems to have cared very much about until now. And who is going to pay for all this support (I know this isn't about money but when one of the solutions is support surely we should have some idea what that entails?)

I saw one clip on this thread of an RTE debate where a woman said what was she do if faced with FFA. The No person stated support. At this the woman said what support exactly? Will I be forced to stay indoors, should I avoid other people so they don't continue to ask about the pregnancy.

And this is where I am at. I am against the idea of abortion, I think it should only be used in special circumstances. But I admit that I am not qualified, either through education or experience, to make a call on exactly what those circumstances should be.

I have comforted by the fact that despite all the doom-mongers on the divorce ref and the Equality ref, that the world hasn't fallen apart. That our legislators still take account of our inherently conservative nature. Our divorce laws are pretty strict (5 years) and by consequence the rates are low. Why would the introduction of abortion lead to our politicians suddenly going all out to give a free for all?

Voting No achieves nothing in the way of a solution. It simply accepts the current situation. That anybody would accept that 3k+ women every year should be sent off to a foreign country seems strange to me. WOuld I prefer it not to be the case that these 3k+ women needed these procedure? Yes, but simply wishing it doesn't make it so.

Despite the 8th, we continue to see abortions in Ireland. So the 8th is not achieving it stated aim. It is not fit for purpose. And when you consider that most on the no side accept that under certain circumstances abortion can be justified it makes the continued existence of the 8th even more strange.

Mr.H

ELM327 wrote:

The numbers are not the issue. There could conceivably have been 9 terminations in Ireland last year. There were 37 in total since the PLDP act.

There was 25 terminations last year. The figure 9 represents people who were not in immediate danger of their lives. To be fair 1 did threaten to kill herself if she didn't get it. The other 8 were at risk of falling ill.

I can't get the source right now as I am at work and I'm using my phone. But if you just google legal abortions in Ireland and go to the department of health site, the stats are there.

37 since it was introduced but 25 alone last year? I'm sceptical about the only 37.

Mr. CooL ICE

Mod: Thread has moved close to the 10k limit. New thread is over here.