Atheist voting No [See mod note in OP]

Zubeneschamali

antiskeptic wrote: »

A nuanced referendum allows for alteration to permit hard cases without the poosibility of the soft.

If there is one thing that the 8th and the history around it should tell you, it is that this sentence is wrong.

Hitman3000

Two polls released yesterday showing the repeal campaign has a comfortable lead. Vicky Phelan and the parents of Savita supporting a YES will further strengthen the repeal campaign. I expect the NO side to become more shrill and ramp up the emotive b.s. in the remaining. Thankfully I think it will be pointless.

antiskeptic

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Two polls released yesterday showing the repeal campaign has a comfortable lead. Vicky Phelan and the parents of Savita supporting a YES will further strengthen the repeal campaign. I expect the NO side to become more shrill and ramp up the emotive b.s. in the remaining. Thankfully I think it will be pointless.

The first poll listed occurred between 10th and 16th May. The IT poll was later 14th/15th May (though published earlier). It bridged last Mondays RTE debate so we don't know the full effect of that.

Didnt see when the 2nd of your polls was taken.

The point of news is thats its new. What an utter rag.

antiskeptic

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If there is one thing that the 8th and the history around it should tell you, it is that this sentence is wrong.

Nobody believes that should we want to permit legislation for e.g. ffa that we have to open the way to a.o.b.

You'd have better luck selling encyclopedias door to door

blanch152

antiskeptic wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that with all the technology and all the information at your disposal you couldnt get it together to avoid an unwanted pregnacy?

Are you now claiming 100% effectiveness for contraception?

It would be amazing if after taking a pill, putting in a diaphragm, a female condom and then a male condom, before taking another pill in the morning, that anyone would enjoy sex at all.

antiskeptic wrote: »

And even if you can't, you suppose a 100,000 in the UK can't, every year. Every year.

One of the thing that amazes me in this campaign are the people who simultaneously appear to believe two incompatible things


(1) Ireland should be independent because we are different to the British

(2) The abortion rate in Britain is instantly transferable to Ireland and the Irish will copy the British rates.

antiskeptic

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, no. If anyone genuinely believed a fetus had an equal right to life with a woman, they would be campaigning against the 13th and 14th amendments. If 170,000 child murderers were walking around free in Ireland, people would be absolutely losing their minds.

But no-one really believes it, it is just part of the religious tripe that people pick up as children and kinda sorta pretend to believe later.

We're in an era where the country can countenance abortion on demand and you think a campaign against the MAP is something to focus on.

Don't give up the day job!

Hitman3000

antiskeptic wrote:

Didnt see when the 2nd of your polls was taken.

Both released yesterday. RTE player 6 one news will give you all the info you want.

Zubeneschamali

antiskeptic wrote: »

We're in an era where the country can countenance abortion on demand

We have had abortion on demand since 1967 for the price of a trip to England. We voted to ensure that stayed legal via a Constitutional Amendment in 1992 when the 8th unintentionally interfered with that abortion regime.

I am glad that we are finally in an era where we can countenance admitting it out loud and dealing with it honestly.

Loafing Oaf

antiskeptic wrote: »

The first poll listed occurred between 10th and 16th May.

The point of news is thats its new. What an utter rag.

You're calling the Sunday Times a rag because it published a poll taken between the 10th and the 16th of May on Sunday the 20th of May?

antiskeptic

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

You're calling the Sunday Times a rag because it published a poll taken between the 10th and the 16th of May on Sunday the 20th of May?

Irish Times poll was surveyed 14/15th and published on the 17th. They didnt quite catch all the RTE debate viewed by a significant number of people / was a clear victory (leaving aside the bunfight aspect) for No.

This other poll ran from 10th - 16th, 5 of its 7 days miss the debate. And its being rolled out by The Journal on the 21st.

Read all about it ...

blanch152

antiskeptic wrote: »

Irish Times poll was surveyed 14/15th and published on the 17th. They didnt quite catch all the RTE debate viewed by a significant number of people / was a clear victory (leaving aside the bunfight aspect) for No.

This other poll ran from 10th - 16th, 5 of its 7 days miss the debate. And its being rolled out by The Journal on the 21st.

Read all about it ...

I would guess that the NO vote lost significant ground because of the RTE debates.

The trivialisation of complex issues both through the behaviour of the pro-life supporters and the simplistic bullying of their representatives will have caused many people thinking of voting no to reconsider. As I said in another post, the YES vote could be well over 55% on the day.

Hitman3000

antiskeptic wrote:

Irish Times poll was surveyed 14/15th and published on the 17th. They didnt quite catch all the RTE debate viewed by a significant number of people / was a clear victory (leaving aside the bunfight aspect) for No.

Do you think Vicky Phelan coming out in support of a Yes, Savitas parents supporting a Yes, will be a further positive for the Yes campaign or a hindrance?

Loafing Oaf

antiskeptic wrote: »

Irish Times poll was surveyed 14/15th and published on the 17th. They didnt quite catch all the RTE debate viewed by a significant number of people / was a clear victory (leaving aside the bunfight aspect) for No.

This other poll ran from 10th - 16th, 5 of its 7 days miss the debate. And its being rolled out by The Journal on the 21st.

Read all about it ...

Not sure where The Journal comes into this. If you're calling them a rag because they leech off content created by others you'd certainly have a case, but I don't see how that's specific to this story...

antiskeptic

blanch152 wrote: »

I would guess that the NO vote lost significant ground because of the RTE debates.

The trivialisation of complex issues both through the behaviour of the pro-life supporters and the simplistic bullying of their representatives will have caused many people thinking of voting no to reconsider. As I said in another post, the YES vote could be well over 55% on the day.

The Irish Times, of all people, disagree with you. Fillip to No they called it.

antiskeptic

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Not sure where The Journal comes into this. If you're calling them a rag because they leech off content created by others you'd certainly have a case, but I don't see how that's specific to this story...

It is older, less representative 'news'. It was the Sun Biz Post who published in on the 20th I gather- not the S.Times.

Older/less representative poll published 3 days after the IT poll.

Erring towards propaganda

antiskeptic

Speaking of polls. Anyone know where you can read the actual IT poll rather than just IT reporting of it.

I mean, one can't be too careful..

Overheal

antiskeptic wrote: »

Whats being pointed out is that 100,000 failure of contraceptive abortions p a. In the UK are indicative of an attitude which doesnt treat pregnancy avoidance as a top priorty.

Little wonder. Although people might want to avoid pregnancy to an extent, there is an exit route should the contraceptives (and your use of them)fail.

Can't we suppose that with easier access, societal acceptance, increased safety and less cost, Irish focus on pregnancy avoidance might diminish? If not, why not.

Hi. Earlier you claimed that the combined efficacy of the pill and the male condom was 99.9%. What was your source for that?

DarkScar

Overheal wrote: »

Hi. Earlier you claimed that the combined efficacy of the pill and the male condom was 99.9%. What was your source for that?

Didn't take long to find a calculation for it, assuming the two methods do not confound:
http://www.mathscareers.org.uk/article/statistically-safe-sex/
Says over 99.99%

Overheal

DarkScar wrote: »

Didn't take long to find a calculation for it, assuming the two methods do not confound:
http://www.mathscareers.org.uk/article/statistically-safe-sex/
Says over 99.99%

With typical use still fails at 1.2%. Thank you for addressing my point.

DarkScar

Overheal wrote: »

With typical use still fails at 1.2%. Thank you for addressing my point.

So you're agreeing that with better sex education contraception would be 99.99% percent effective.
Thanks for the consensus.

Overheal

DarkScar wrote: »

So you're agreeing that with better sex education contraception would be 99.99% percent effective.
Thanks for the consensus.

If rainbows always lead to lollipops and unicorns, sure. Very wishful thinking, extremely wishful thinking, to assume perfect use will be a reality in the majority of cases.

DarkScar

Overheal wrote: »

If rainbows always lead to lollipops and unicorns, sure. Very wishful thinking, extremely wishful thinking, to assume perfect use will be a reality in the majority of cases.

If you hate sex education so people can have this proven 99.99% successful contraception that's fine. Sounds a bit no vote to me though.

blanch152

DarkScar wrote: »

If you hate sex education so people can have this proven 99.99% successful contraception that's fine. Sounds a bit no vote to me though.

Still doesn't sort rape .

Overheal

DarkScar wrote: »

If you hate sex education so people can have this proven 99.99% successful contraception that's fine. Sounds a bit no vote to me though.

Who said I hate sex education? You can have all the sex education you want, by all means, but don't put words in my mouth.

All the sex education in the world won't stop someone from forgetting to take their pill once in a while, forget to refill the prescription some night, or prevent a condom from slipping off. By all means keep at it though, but don't pretend it reflects reality. As an engineer, I don't think you'd appreciate it if I designed a car that was only meant to be driven under the most ideal of conditions by the most perfectly trained motorists, do you? (Sure why even do the failure mode effect analysis, if everyone is going to follow the plan in my head! Why have an airbag if nobody will crash if they all just drive perfectly!) So, why would you expect society to design its laws around a fantasy rather than a reality? This is why pure economic theories never existed (captialism, communism, etc) - because of the anarchists, and the people who don't fit the 'ideal consumer' model you wrote down on paper. What's the 'perfect use' scenario for a condom, anyway? What sexual position? Which positions are more likely to cause failure? How lubricated will the partner be during each and every use? How forceful are yer man's thrusts, what angle, what coefficient of friction are we to assume? What kind of 'suction' forces are at play? All sorts of fluid dynamic and mechanical variables at play.

In short, the perfect-use figures don't reflect reality, which itself has been captured quite regularly over the years by outfits like the CDC and others, to give us these "typical use" rates - that is, the *real* rates of failure. That's your sex education, right there: the real-world research and statistical data on how often birth control realistically fails.

antiskeptic

DarkScar wrote: »

If you hate sex education so people can have this proven 99.99% successful contraception that's fine. Sounds a bit no vote to me though.

Its not so much about hating sex education as it is about not being all that concerned about crisis pregancies coming about.

If you really, really cherished the life in the womb and really, really cherished the women who find themselves in crisis then you would absolutely do your best to deal with the issue on as many fronts as you could. And you wouldn't ever stop.

You wouldnt throw your hands up and say we fitted seat belts to cars - what more can we do? No, you'd go on to inventing inertia reel seatbelts - recognising that usage of standard seatbelts is frequently less than optimal. And when deaths still occur you'd move on to headrests, then crumple zones, then air bags, then child seats, then collision avoidance systems. Heck, you might even go so far as self driving cars!

YES is the lazy, cheap option. It says damn the baby and damn the mother. It says we as a society are content to stop at seatbelts version 1.0. And let the crashes commence.

The Specialist

antiskeptic wrote: »

YES is the lazy, cheap option. It says damn the baby and damn the mother. It says we as a society are content to stop at seatbelts version 1.0. And let the crashes commence.

The irony of your post is delicious, just change the first word to No and you are spot on.

Overheal

antiskeptic wrote: »

Its not so much about hating sex education as it is about not being all that concerned about crisis pregancies coming about.

If you really, really cherished the life in the womb and really, really cherished the women who find themselves in crisis then you would absolutely do your best to deal with the issue on as many fronts as you could. And you wouldn't ever stop.

You wouldnt throw your hands up and say we fitted seat belts to cars - what more can we do? No, you'd go on to inventing inertia reel seatbelts - recognising that usage of standard seatbelts is frequently less than optimal. And when deaths still occur you'd move on to headrests, then crumple zones, then air bags, then child seats, then collision avoidance systems. Heck, you might even go so far as self driving cars!

YES is the lazy, cheap option. It says damn the baby and damn the mother. It says we as a society are content to stop at seatbelts version 1.0. And let the crashes commence.

Actually I think you made the case for Yes, as abortions being just another line of defense in your car safety analogy, with sex education being defensive driving education, collision avoidance systems being your contraception, and collision mitigation systems such as airbags being your options in an actual crisis.

antiskeptic

Overheal wrote: »

Actually I think you made the case for Yes, as abortions being just another line of defense in your car safety analogy, with sex education being defensive driving education, collision avoidance systems being your contraception, and collision mitigation systems such as airbags being your options in an actual crisis.

Abortion is the 007 option. Ejecting the driver from the car as soon as they panic. No attempt to brake, no steering around the obstacle.

The Irish School of Motoring

Unfortunate for the other passengers

The Golden Miller

Excuse my ignorance here, but in the event of a No vote will things actually stay as is? Since the hard cases have come to wider prominence even since 2013 and most people see certain cases as needing an abortion, surely the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act 2013 will be amended and liberalised further, or something similar will be brought in to cover the hard cases?

antiskeptic

The Specialist wrote: »

The irony of your post is delicious, just change the first word to No and you are spot on.

For my post to be ironic you would have to deal with all of it.

I mean Mary Lou is pro-life ... if we cherry pick what she says