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

amcalester

ASISEEIT wrote: »

What facts? Somebody came up with a figure of 75 a year rape pregnancies. My figure of 12 is in irish times letters today. Anyway we can all agree that rape pregancies are quite small in the over all scheme of things but to hear the yes side you would think them sizeably proportionate.

So because the number is small we should ignore it?

Yet you’re the one talking about abortion after 12 weeks. What are those numbers?

ASISEEIT

amcalester wrote: »

And they will still be able to do just that after the referendum.

And others who feel differently will have more options than they do now.[/quote

There is no agreed definition or prognosis of FFA . If most of you were honest youd admit you never heard term until recently and its still like rape a tiny proportion of births . But hey lets make the womb a dangerous place to be a baby to satisfy 001% of women/men

wexie

ASISEEIT wrote: »

What facts? Somebody came up with a figure of 75 a year rape pregnancies. My figure of 12 is in irish times letters today. Anyway we can all agree that rape pregancies are quite small in the over all scheme of things but to hear the yes side you would think them sizeably proportionate.

No somebody didn't 'come up' with the figure of 75...someone mentioned the number of 75 and backed it up with e-vi-dence....(if you find that to be too many syl-la-bles just try to sound it out)

That's not quite the same as what you did is it now?

ASISEEIT

wexie wrote: »

No somebody didn't 'come up' with the figure of 75...someone mentioned the number of 75 and backed it up with e-vi-dence....(if you find that to be too many syl-la-bles just try to sound it out)

That's not quite the same as what you did is it now?

Ah lets resort to ad hominem attacks and lets spend weeks talking about tiny percentages. Lets ignore the question i asked you to describe the reality of abortion or lets ignore fact that legislation goes beyond 12 weeks.
Lets ignore beating hearts or fact that the abirtionist must count the legs and arms after he/she has done the deed. Lets ignore it. Lets ignore the fact that 99.5% of pregnancies have nothing to do with rape or FFA . Lets not take responsibility for our actions . We are all victims today anyway

January

Legislation goes beyond 12 weeks for serious risk to health or life of the mother or with FFA. 8% of abortions happen after 12 weeks with 0.2 percent happening after 20 weeks. Tiny percentages.

Ken.

Mod-ASISEEIT do not post in this thread again. Reason-Trolling

Dressing gown

ASISEEIT wrote: »

Its stopping it here . Only a fool would say that having abortion available here would not increase numbers of women having abortions. Its like saying that having more pubs and off licenses doesn't increase alcholism

It would definitely increase the numbers. At the moment it is only those with means that can travel. There are no voters that are squeamish about it but comfort themselves that going to England is an option instead anyway. But I was having a look at abortion stats in Scotland, and the majority of women having abortions are those from deprived backgrounds. So, yes I believe the figures will go up, but those women from deprived backgrounds deserve to have a choice as well and at the moment they don’t and that is wrong.

mohawk

In town earlier today. Quite a large number of no campaigners about. One group I saw it was 80% men. Kinda pissed me off if I am honest. Not one of them will ever have a surgical incision made on their genitalia without giving their consent. They will never personally experience health complications as a result of a pregnancy. Very easy the think in absolutes on issues that will not affect you.

I know everyone entitled to their own opinion and all that jazz but it is frustrating sometimes.

amdublin

ASISEEIT wrote: »

PhoenixParker wrote: »

I am not sure where Nettle Soup is getting their figures from, they are not what the Rape Crisis themselves have in their own report.

This is the 2013 report for the Rape Crisis Centre which on page 24 says they counselled 75 women who became pregnant as a result of rape in that year alone.

http://www.rcni.ie/wp-content/uploads/RCNI-National-Statistics-2013.pdf

And that's only the people they counselled.

Taking into account the age of consent, one can also look at the number of women who give birth before the age of 17 (about 100 a year according to the CSO) and the number attending for abortion in the UK in the under 17 age bracket (somewhere between 10 and 66).

There are several women a week facing the issue of pregnancy as a result of rape. Many of them do choose not to abort, but the idea that they should be forced to go through with the pregnancy is abhorrent.

Claiming rape and actually being raped are two very different things. The child growing who will recoil in self defence as its scraped out is not to figure in your thinking at all ? The innocent?
If a woman was genuinely raped let her go to England as there is no definitive way of proving she was ? Is there ?

The lack of compassion for women is strong in this one

Dressing gown

ASISEEIT wrote: »

Ah lets resort to ad hominem attacks and lets spend weeks talking about tiny percentages. Lets ignore the question i asked you to describe the reality of abortion or lets ignore fact that legislation goes beyond 12 weeks.
Lets ignore beating hearts or fact that the abirtionist must count the legs and arms after he/she has done the deed. Lets ignore it. Lets ignore the fact that 99.5% of pregnancies have nothing to do with rape or FFA . Lets not take responsibility for our actions . We are all victims today anyway

I don’t know if you have the time but if you do you should have a look at the official publications setting out information on abortions in England and Wales and Scotland over the last number of years. Pregnancy tests have advanced to the degree that you can tell if you are pregnant 1/2 weeks after conception-I did (by the way at that stage the pregnancy is classed as 4/5 weeks as it is dated from the first day of your last period). In addition, abortion technology has moved on. The vast majority of abortions are now medical abortions where pills are taken and the Fetus is aborted intact. In addition, the majority of abortions take place under 10 weeks. These figures are driving further and further earlier into pregnancy. I think the earlier abortions are done the better for all involved no? But by making women travel for abortions the opposite occurs. It’s less compassionate. Not more.

You can say you would prefer no abortion. That is your view. But as long as there is sex there will be abortion. Better to regulate how it is happening here than pretend it isn’t happening.

Ken.

Mod-Ladies and gents and other:D Please stop replying to asiseeit. S/he is banned from the thread and cannot reply.

Zerbini Blewitt

For what it’s worth, I can no longer tell the difference between a genuine anti-choice poster and a piss-take troll.

They seem, to me, to post an almost identical range of alternative facts & similar ethically-insulting Handmaid's tale 'beliefs'

January wrote: »

https://www.facebook.com/ROSALimerick/videos/185621482084641/?sk=h_chr

It's not about religion tho'...

"Blessed be the fruit" :rolleyes:

Shadowstrife

Yesers, Yes Voters everywhere, get out there and canvass if you can. Go to your local stall/ events and do flyers/ leaflets.

Keyboard warrior antics does not accomplish anything, only feeds the trolls.

gmisk

ASISEEIT wrote: »

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Please do continue.

No. Its obvious . Numbers tiny but the pro suck out the baby and put in a miniature body bag brigade want to focus on less than .001% pregnancies so we can go ahead and slaughter 20% of babies like they do in Uk.

Slaughter come on!
Also if you believe the 1 in 5 figure on face value more fool you, it has been proven to be total BS.

gmisk

Apologies can ignore only seeing poster is banned... But the 1 in 5 posters are BS

joe40

Far be it from me to question site moderation, you guys know a lot more about this than me, But that last "no" supporter was expressing exactly the sort of arguments expressed by the no side. His arguments were effectively countered at every stage by other posters here.
I think for undecideds reading this forum to see no voters spouting vile unsubstantiated nonsense, might sway them to the yes side.
I know if I was undecided some of the posts from no supporters on this forum would push me to a yes. I would like to see more on here.
I was not on the previous threads but the standard of argument from the no side is very poor.

Obviously the thread is not partisan and you want to maintain civil discourse.

amcalester

joe40 wrote: »

Far be it from me to question site moderation, you guys know a lot more about this than me, But that last "no" supporter was expressing exactly the sort of arguments expressed by the no side. His arguments were effectively countered at every stage by other posters here.
I think for undecideds reading this forum to see no voters spouting vile unsubstantiated nonsense, might sway them to the yes side.
I know if I was undecided some of the posts from no supporters on this forum would push me to a yes. I would like to see more on here.
I was not on the previous threads but the standard of argument from the no side is very poor.

Obviously the thread is not partisan and you want to maintain civil discourse.

It’s not really the mods job to sway voters, rather they are here to facilitate discussion.

It’s not the mods fault that few No voters can post arguments that stand up to scrutiny.

That they then start hurling insults and trolling is definitely not their fault.

ad hominem

ad hom

I've seen this phrase used by a number of people who got banned from this and the earlier thread, same person each time or part of a script?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

It's the best argument out there imo. Anything else is contentious.

Actually what I wrote "They won't" was incorrect, they already don't.

Plenty of pro life people believe that nothing including even a woman's health should be grounds for repeal. As one such poster on here said trust some, and not anyone under a certain age in their opinion.

fritzelly

January wrote: »

https://www.facebook.com/ROSALimerick/videos/185621482084641/?sk=h_chr

It's not about religion tho'...

What was the average age there? Around 60+?

It wasnt me123

Just back from the anniversary mass - no talk of Save the 8th. But did you know there is a Rosary Around Ireland for the Unborn happening. Do they really think an auld prayer would have saved Savita and all the other "victims" of the 8th amendment. Talk about being out of touch. How many people under 60 do you think will be attending that Rosary? None I expect.

Nettle Soup

I am so glad the Roman church is getting involved. It can only be good for the Yes side.

RobertKK

Good news for the No side.

Poll in tomorrow's Sunday Independent:

Yes 45%
No 34%
Undecided 18%

sabat

It's probably too late in the day to be saying this but the self-congratulatory group sneering by the Yes side against religious and older people won't win a single extra vote but may well cost them a percent or two.

January

RobertKK wrote: »

Good news for the No side.

Poll in tomorrow's Sunday Independent:

Yes 45%
No 34%
Undecided 18%

No still under 20 percent I wouldn't call that good news.

RobertKK

January wrote: »

No still under 20 percent I wouldn't call that good news.

11% between Yes and No with undecided and the 3% who wouldn't say included.

thee glitz

joe40 wrote: »

Obviously the thread is not partisan

Ah lad, it does smell of it at least a little.

AnneFrank

thee glitz wrote: »

Ah lad, it does smell of it at least a little.

More than a little.

gmisk

RobertKK wrote: »

Good news for the No side.

Poll in tomorrow's Sunday Independent:

Yes 45%
No 34%
Undecided 18%

OK that is first time no have been over 30 percent?
That is fairly worrying to me. Hopefully gives people a kick up the backside to go and vote.
Like I said before it's going to be close... Gonna stick to my 55ish yes...

AnneFrank

gmisk wrote: »

OK that is first time no have been over 30 percent?
That is fairly worrying to me. Hopefully gives people a kick up the backside to go and vote.
Like I said before it's going to be close... Gonna stick to my 55ish yes...

I've thought that the whole way through, but there is a huge amount of silent no voters out there and they could make the difference