Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Dilemma of the Undecideds in the abortion referendum

Options
2456725

Comments

  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,882 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    lufties wrote: »
    Ever read the journal.ie? I used to think it was an actual news site years ago. They publish 4 or 5 yes articles a day. A recent one was about 'toxic masculinity'. The bias and outright agenda promoting is something Stalins Russia would have been proud of.
    In fact I'll bet in other rags like the independent, and Irish times its the same crap.

    Stay on topic please. This thread is about undecided voters in the abortion referendum.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    A very high percentages of laws are about dictating what other people can do and where, from drug laws to licensing laws, prostitution laws, smoking laws, drink driving laws and on and on.

    That’s not a very good argument.

    And all the shift in most societies is towards liberaliseing drug laws. The smoking ban is there to protect the other people around you. If smoking was completely harmless to people other than the smoker, no one would care. Drink driving is similar. Its for the greater good of the people you very may well hit. Get locked and drive around your private property all you like.

    Prostitution, like many other things, should be an issue between the prostitute and customer. No need for the law unless someone is being forced , which again comes back to protecting the innocent.

    In short, make you're own decisions with regard to yourself, but if I'm standing on the street and what you're doing may kill or injure me, regulation is needed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    Snotty wrote: »
    Media are hugely bias towards a "Yes" and I am getting very sick of it and not just on this topic, it's being spoke down to every topic with their liberal agenda. The media used to have an ethical code of presenting both sides and then just an editorial that may have given opinion, every piece now is an editorial.

    I would have been in the yes camp but not I'm not so sure. I'm not saying the debates have swayed me, but some of the yes arguments are terrible and there's almost a "vote yes because we say so, that's why" feel to their campaign.
    I honestly think neither answer is right and that might mean a No vote from me, but my wife is pushing the debate to me, so I'll digest on it more.

    I have to agree with the bolded. Full disclosure, I'm a yes, and a vocal yes voter but the campaign has been an absolute shambles in my eyes. It's almost as if the decision was taken to be more low key, dare I say it, vanilla for fear of playing to the stereotype of the radical, blue haired feminist. Sadly this means no solid arguments are made and some of the more, lacking in logic, arguments of the no side aren't challenged in the mainstream for fear of coming across badly. It's bland, boring consensus campaigning and I fear it may cost us a yes result.


  • Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    P_1 wrote: »
    . Sadly this means no solid arguments are made t.

    Only one is needed. You look after you, and give others the choice to do the same.regardless of your beliefs, don't take away others ability to make their own choices.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,299 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    P_1 wrote: »
    . Sadly this means no solid arguments are made t.

    Only one is needed. You look after you, and give others the choice to do the same.regardless of your beliefs, don't take away others ability to make their own choices.

    If only it were that simple.. conservative types are always very worried about what others are doing.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    Only one is needed. You look after you, and give others the choice to do the same.regardless of your beliefs, don't take away others ability to make their own choices.

    In a lifetime of trying I would never have come up with something as simple, concise and elegant as that. I doff my cap


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    And all the shift in most societies is towards liberaliseing drug laws. The smoking ban is there to protect the other people around you. If smoking was completely harmless to people other than the smoker, no one would care. Drink driving is similar. Its for the greater good of the people you very may well hit. Get locked and drive around your private property all you like.

    Prostitution, like many other things, should be an issue between the prostitute and customer. No need for the law unless someone is being forced , which again comes back to protecting the innocent.

    In short, make you're own decisions with regard to yourself, but if I'm standing on the street and what you're doing may kill or injure me, regulation is needed.

    What about the sugar tax?

    And anti abortion people think there’s a second injured party in abortion.

    Actually most probably do with regards to late term abortions. Which is why your argument leaves me cold, as does the hands of my uterus arguments, although I’d be in favour of up to 12 week termination.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    P_1 wrote: »
    In a lifetime of trying I would never have come up with something as simple, concise and elegant as that. I doff my cap

    Except it ignores the other party in abortion debates, and that society does place restrictions on what people do with their body, or money all the time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    And anti abortion people think there’s a second injured party in abortion.

    Actually most probably do with regards to late term abortions. Which is why your argument leaves me cold, as does the hands of my uterus arguments, although I’d be in favour of up to 12 week termination.

    But it all circles back to letting the people actually involved in the situation decide for themselves who or what parties are involved. Jim in South cork shouldn't have any input in my life anymore than I should or would want to have in his.

    Do you genuinely believe, even if it was an option which it wouldn't be, that any sound thinking woman would just decide, for no reason , after being pregnant for 8 months " do you know what, I don't fancy this anymore, think I'll have an abortion"? Is that how you think the women in your life think( from that you can extrapolate for the rest of the women in the country )? No one is even asking for a law that would allow that anyway and there's no evidence to say anyone would use it even if it was.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,299 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    P_1 wrote: »
    In a lifetime of trying I would never have come up with something as simple, concise and elegant as that. I doff my cap

    Except it ignores the other party in abortion debates, and that society does place restrictions on what people do with their body, or money all the time.

    How does it ignore the other party?

    If they don't want abortions they are free to make that decision to not have abortions..


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,309 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    P_1 wrote: »
    I have to agree with the bolded. Full disclosure, I'm a yes, and a vocal yes voter but the campaign has been an absolute shambles in my eyes. It's almost as if the decision was taken to be more low key, dare I say it, vanilla for fear of playing to the stereotype of the radical, blue haired feminist. Sadly this means no solid arguments are made and some of the more, lacking in logic, arguments of the no side aren't challenged in the mainstream for fear of coming across badly. It's bland, boring consensus campaigning and I fear it may cost us a yes result.

    I think YES may be falling into the brexit camp of of course we’re going to win so don’t need to go the extra yard.


  • Registered Users Posts: 26 guestwifi


    I was truly an undecided until I sat down last Monday night to watch the Claire Byrne Live special.

    I'll be voting No this Friday.


  • Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    guestwifi wrote: »
    .

    I'll be voting No this Friday.

    Why?


  • Registered Users Posts: 26 guestwifi


    Why?


    I found the No side raised issues that I hadn't considered before, both the on stage panel and some of the doctors in the audience. On their suggestion I tried to read the actual framework document that will form the basis of the legislation if passed, I'm not one for legal documents but it seems most of what they claim is in there is actually in there.


    I did my best to leave emotion out of it and tried to disregard anyone using emotional arguments, from both sides, both seemed guilty of it.


    And I don't think it held any sway in my decision, at least I hope not and I will continue to reflect on it, but I found some of the Yes contributors to be obnoxious, Brid Smith for example, all too ready to drag the debate into the mud.


    Unless something drastic happens in the meantime I will be voting No. To be honest though, I've had enough of this referendum now, not sure how much more I'll be interacting with it aside from casting my vote.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    I'm voting yes but when asked I just say I haven't decided. I don't want anyone annoying me about it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,923 ✭✭✭✭zell12




  • Registered Users Posts: 20,929 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    zell12 wrote: »
    Of course...

    Balls... I actually opened your link after and realised you're a racist


  • Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    guestwifi wrote: »
    I found the No side raised issues that I hadn't considered before, both the on stage panel and some of the doctors in the audience. On their suggestion I tried to read the actual framework document that will form the basis of the legislation if passed, I'm not one for legal documents but it seems most of what they claim is in there is actually in there.


    I did my best to leave emotion out of it and tried to disregard anyone using emotional arguments, from both sides, both seemed guilty of it.


    And I don't think it held any sway in my decision, at least I hope not and I will continue to reflect on it, but I found some of the Yes contributors to be obnoxious, Brid Smith for example, all too ready to drag the debate into the mud.


    Unless something drastic happens in the meantime I will be voting No. To be honest though, I've had enough of this referendum now, not sure how much more I'll be interacting with it aside from casting my vote.

    You will always find a group in any profession that will be on the no side. What about all the doctors on the yes side? Including very high level ones running hospitals.


    Will it affect you if a yes vote is passed? It's that simple for me. A no vote imposes the opinions and will of one group on the other. A yes vote allows people to decide what's best of themselves.

    I've yet to come across a no argument that held up for me. Lots of scaremongering is all it is.its all about forcing others to live their lives by your rules.


    It's like the marriage equality referendum. When you drill down, there's no reason to oppose it, if it passes , your life stay the same. Whether you are the biggest homophobe in the world, 2 people you don't know of the same sex being married has no bearing on your life. This has been borne out by the complete lack of any of the scaremongering coming true and the whole host of "issues" people had being completely forgotten once evidemce proved them wrong. There's no forced same sex marriage, same as there's no forced abortions, so it comes down to allowing people to make their own choices for their circumstances and not using your vote to put them throuhh unessecary suffering.


  • Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    zell12 wrote: »

    Yeah, those bloody random foreigners that have never been affected by our laws just picking Ireland on the spin of a globe to give their opinion on................


    Thank **** we don't have any American religious zealots trying to influence anything to do with the campaign........


  • Registered Users Posts: 26 guestwifi


    You will always find a group in any profession that will be on the no side. What about all the doctors on the yes side? Including very high level ones running hospitals.

    True, but I found the experts on the No side to be more convincing. And I wasn't aware that Dr. Boylan's five predecessors have all taken an opposing view to him.

    Will it affect you if a yes vote is passed? It's that simple for me. A no vote imposes the opinions and will of one group on the other. A yes vote allows people to decide what's best of themselves.

    It may affect me, as it may affect you (depending on age I guess). And having watched the debate I'm solidly of the opinion that it's not just about the mother/couple, it's about the child too.
    It's like the marriage equality referendum. When you drill down, there's no reason to oppose it, if it passes , your life stay the same. Whether you are the biggest homophobe in the world, 2 people you don't know of the same sex being married has no bearing on your life. This has been borne out by the complete lack of any of the scaremongering coming true and the whole host of "issues" people had being completely forgotten once evidemce proved them wrong. There's no forced same sex marriage, same as there's no forced abortions, so it comes down to allowing people to make their own choices for their circumstances and not using your vote to put them throuhh unessecary suffering.

    The marriage referendum was about two people of the same gender, in love, being granted the same rights as two straight people to enter a contract of marriage. This referendum is about allowing the termination of life, life that has no voice to defend itself. I respect your opinion, but having watched the experts on both sides I've come to my decision.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 24,299 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    zell12 wrote: »

    Who do you think is funding the NO campaign?


  • Registered Users Posts: 372 ✭✭blondeonblonde


    guestwifi wrote: »
    I found the No side raised issues that I hadn't considered before, both the on stage panel and some of the doctors in the audience. On their suggestion I tried to read the actual framework document that will form the basis of the legislation if passed, I'm not one for legal documents but it seems most of what they claim is in there is actually in there.


    I did my best to leave emotion out of it and tried to disregard anyone using emotional arguments, from both sides, both seemed guilty of it.


    And I don't think it held any sway in my decision, at least I hope not and I will continue to reflect on it, but I found some of the Yes contributors to be obnoxious, Brid Smith for example, all too ready to drag the debate into the mud.


    Unless something drastic happens in the meantime I will be voting No. To be honest though, I've had enough of this referendum now, not sure how much more I'll be interacting with it aside from casting my vote.

    I don't know which Repeal supporters you found to be obnoxious, Brid Smith spoke very well about her own experience of abortion although I'll grant you that she shouldn't have started calling Maria Stein a liar as it detracted from what was otherwise a very good contribution.

    I saw an interesting No poster recently underneath which was listed a website link to abortionnever.ie and it really made me angry because it is such a blinkered view point.

    It's all well and good to say abortion should never happen & in an ideal world it would never happen. I don't know anyone that thinks that abortion is an inherently good thing but the fact is that it is taking place here in Ireland and there are people boarding planes & boats to avail of abortion in the UK . And they are doing so for a multitude of reasons - whether for a crisis pregnancy, or a fatal fetal abnormality or because of rape or simply because they find themselves in a situation where they cannot contemplate a pregnancy.

    Who are we to judge those people and there decisions? Who are we to say you must keep your baby and damn the consequences & negative effects on your mental & physical health?

    The status quo is just not acceptable, abortion is here in Ireland and it is here to stay. It's only a matter of time before someone is hurt or dies due to being forced to contemplate taking abortion pills in an unregulated environment. Not to mention the impact of the 8th on healthcare.

    Nobody is voting to make abortion mandatory in Ireland. We need to grow up as a society, acknowledge the facts before us and do the decent thing by providing proper health care to women in a difficult situation. Please don't bury your head in the sand and hope that abortion goes away.

    It won't.

    VOTE YES


  • Registered Users Posts: 26 guestwifi


    ...


    VOTE YES


    No. Thanks anyway.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,509 ✭✭✭the_pen_turner


    i would be very interested to see an opinion poll where they had a middle of the road option that allowed for rape and fatal fetal abnoralities and medial need to the mother.

    my guess is that a lot of the yes would move to that as well as a lot of no.

    im a no voter but would vote yes to the above . i have heard loads of people say the same.
    it would be interesting to see how many of either side truly want the full abortion or no abortion. most people would be in the middle


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,024 ✭✭✭Owryan


    I'm one of the undecided, gave my reasons in another thread. I am not pro life, do not accept that the constitution is the place for issues such as abortion or even divorce. There should be no barrier to abortion in specific instances such as FFA. I was concerned that the 12 weeks would eventually be extended but other posters have presented a balanced argument against this.

    But there is definitly a bias in the media, just from twitter yesterday the Irish Times had a story praising people coming home to vote yes, even though some of them have lived outside Ireland for years,they also praised an american lady who was here campaigning for yes. But, in another article they were criticising non nationals for looking for a no vote.


  • Registered Users Posts: 988 ✭✭✭brendanwalsh


    There's a large unfortunate bunch of people who would be happy for abortion in cases of rape and FFA, however do not want the liberal abortion regime being proposed in this referendum. We are unfortunately left with no option but to vote no and tell the government go back to the drawing board.

    Equally the yes vote is being rammed down our throats which has resulted in a lot of silent no voters


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,658 ✭✭✭✭OldMrBrennan83


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,299 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    There's a large unfortunate bunch of people who would be happy for abortion in cases of rape and FFA, however do not want the liberal abortion regime being proposed in this referendum. We are unfortunately left with no option but to vote no and tell the government go back to the drawing board.

    Equally the yes vote is being rammed down our throats which has resulted in a lot of silent no voters

    Or you could of course take such nonsense out of the Constitution and you know vote for politicians to implement such policy changes.. you know through legislation.


  • Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    guestwifi wrote: »
    True, but I found the experts on the No side to be more convincing. And I wasn't aware that Dr. Boylan's five predecessors have all taken an opposing view to him.
    Is there a link for that part? I didn't see the debate , which position are they his predecessors in?

    The attitudes towards people's healthcare and women's in particular have come on leaps and bounds in the last couple of decades ( from a very low base, which is why a lot more needs to be done). Id pu5 a lot more weight behind people currently in the field than those gone long before tbh.in most things, not just healthcare. But healthcare is constantly evolving.
    Peter Boylan is an expert on this and in a good position to give his view. I'd consider Rhona Mahony an expert. The 1300 physicians spoken about in the first Google result that wast from the no side I'd consider a good indicator.


    guestwifi wrote: »
    it may affect me, as it may affect you (depending on age I guess). And having watched the debate I'm solidly of the opinion that it's not just about the mother/couple, it's about the child too.

    You're deciding that for someone else though. You're against abortion. That's fine. So it will never affect you.

    YOU don't know what situation other people find themselves in that they've decided the best option for them is a termination. I don't see why anyone would want to involve themselves in that decision that a stranger has to make.
    guestwifi wrote: »
    the marriage referendum was about two people of the same gender, in love, being granted the same rights as two straight people to enter a contract of marriage. This referendum is about allowing the termination of life, life that has no voice to defend itself. I respect your opinion, but having watched the experts on both sides I've come to my decision.
    It doesn't need an expert tbh. You have an opinion on it being a termination of a life. I have a different one. I have to ( or more specifially, the women i know, including my brothers girlfirend currently in england having to deal with a situation alone , (in the sense of having her whole family for support, hes with her,)that our country refuses to help her with) life based on your opinion. You don't, and will never, regardless of th eoutcome, have to live yours based on my opinion.



    I'm a man. I'm 37 with 2 kids. I've (my partner) had all the kids I plan on having. I could very easily just say " not my problem " about all this, but it's something that needs to be changed for other people's sake.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    i would be very interested to see an opinion poll where they had a middle of the road option that allowed for rape and fatal fetal abnoralities and medial need to the mother.

    my guess is that a lot of the yes would move to that as well as a lot of no.

    im a no voter but would vote yes to the above . i have heard loads of people say the same.
    it would be interesting to see how many of either side able to want the full abortion or no abortion. most people would be in the middle
    Thats just casting aside all the women that need or feel an abortion is the best option for them at the time in their circumstances.

    Why would you want to dictate what's best for these women that you don't know ( and ones you do know but worn tell you)


Advertisement