The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Mr. CooL ICE

New thread. Old thread is here.

Here are the rules, following from the last thread:

• If you were threadbanned from previous threads, you are still threadbanned here
• There are far more pro-choice than pro-life posters. Everybody on the majority side needs to understand that those in the minority could have 20+ people expecting a reply to them. There is no sitewide or AH rule that specifies that people must reply to every post directed at them so don't go around badgering people. On the other hand, this doesn't give anybody the right to soapbox either
• No petty namecalling. It's a sitewide rule, but was rampant across the previous two incarnations of this thread. There will be a zero tolerance approach to this going forward
• Relating to above - do try to avoid antagonizing swaths of posters with sweeping, generalised statements. They rarely add anything to discussion
• No discussion of poster's being from the states or their timezones, etc. It's a cheap shot and derails discussion
• Please try to read the latest posts before replying. Replying to a post that is two days old when the discussion has moved on doesn't translate well in threads that move quickly
• No calling out trolls/suspected reregs. Report the post and move on
  

==========

If someone need help of any kind in a crisis pregnancy, the Crisis Pregnancy agency's website is http://positiveoptions.ie/.

And if you've had an abortion and need to talk to someone about it, the Irish Family Planning Association has 10 centres nationwide that offer free counselling.

==========

There is a detailed FAQ available called AboutThe8th. Disclaimer: it was written by two Pro-Repeal supporters, but is written to be as objective as possible and cites the word of law whenever possible. It is recommended you read this site if you have any questions. If you have a question to ask about the upcoming referendum that is not explained here, feel free to post.

Other than above, here is a FAQ compiled from commonly asked questions in previous threads.

Q: I don't trust politicians. Why should I trust the politicians to legislate?
A: Politicians have a huge amount of power as it stands, but any motion put forward in the Dáil is always put to a vote. Politicians are representative of, and answerable to the people. Technically, politicians could lower the age of consent down to 10 if they wanted, but doing so would be political suicide. They'd be just as likely to raise the cutoff date of abortion.

Q: Why can't people just use contraceptives?
A: No contraceptive is 100% effective. Accidents can, and will happen. Even if an accident happens, such as the condom bursting, the MAP might not work depending on where the woman is in her cycle.

Q: Women will just use abortion as a contraceptive!
A: That's not a question, but abortion is not a contraceptive. Contraceptives help prevent pregnancies from occurring, but do nothing if the woman is pregnant.

Q: This will just bring abortion to Ireland!
A: There is already abortion in Ireland. There have been around 60 legal abortions in total in the last couple of years that have been performed here.

Q: Why can't the women just give the babies up for adoption? Why do they have to abort?
A: Adoption rates in this country are really, really low. If the 3000+ women a year that travel abroad to the UK gave their baby/babies up it would be a minimum of 3000+ babies left up for adoption in a country where the rates simply are not up to where they need to be in order for this to be a viable option. Also, where a woman already has children, she would have to deem herself unfit to care for any of her children before adoption is considered, which is one of many reasons why adoption is not a feasible solution.

Q: Why can't we just focus on sex education and free contraceptives?
A: Regardless of education or contraceptives, pregnancies will happen, you cannot completely eradicate accidental pregnancies, there is always a chance that contraception will fail regardless of how educated each party is regarding intercourse.

Q: If it is repealed, can a doctor deny a woman an abortion?
A: Absolutely. The doctor will have the right to conscientiously object to the procedure; she will then have to be referred to other doctors.

Q: The health service is already under pressure! Will allowing abortion will create longer waiting list for everybody?
A: Women in Ireland, when they fall pregnant, already have the right to free consultations with a GP and a hospital professional. So the fact they will be visiting their GP anyway means their visit in relation to abortion would add zero extra pressure to our waiting lists.

Q: If repeal passes, will there be abortion clinics near me, like in the UK?
A: Under the proposals for abortion up to 12 weeks, we would be dealing with medical abortions. That is performed using a pill which essentially induces miscarriage. Therefore no clinics are required. Surgical abortion performed for medical necessity could be performed exactly as they already are now in Ireland.

ohnonotgmail

Mr.H wrote: »

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.

again you are very poor on facts. the 8 were given an abortion under section 7 of the act. Section 7 says

7. (1) It shall be lawful to carry out a medical procedure in respect of a pregnant woman in accordance with this section in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended where—

(a) subject to section 19 , two medical practitioners, having examined the pregnant woman, have jointly certified in good faith that—

(i) there is a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman’s life from a physical illness, and

(ii) in their reasonable opinion (being an opinion formed in good faith which has regard to the need to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable) that risk can only be averted by carrying out the medical procedure,

and

(b) that medical procedure is carried out by an obstetrician at an appropriate institution.

So it is not just a case of the woman being ill it is a case where there is a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman’s life from a physical illness.

Mr.H

Cupcake_Crisis wrote:

You’ve yet to provide sources for these women who weren’t at deaths door.

I was only way to work FFS. Westbrook all have time to just sit around on the internet. I need time to respond instead of thinking I've run off.

I can try to get a link in awhile but on my phone and at work it isn't a quick thing. So bare with me and a promise a link.

ohnonotgmail

Mr.H wrote: »

I was only way to work FFS. Westbrook all have time to just sit around on the internet. I need time to respond instead of thinking I've run off.

I can try to get a link in awhile but on my phone and at work it isn't a quick thing. So bare with me and a promise a link.

No need to post a link, Seamus already did that and it showed that you were wrong in your analysis.

Zubeneschamali

Mr.H wrote: »

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.

Everyone is "at risk of falling ill", so I can see already that you are, shall we say, not summarizing the report entirely accurately. Looking it up:

Here it is as a pdf, the figures are:

Section of the Act Number of terminations
7 – risk from physical illness 8
8 – emergency from physical illness 16
9 – risk from suicide 1
Total 25

So, what does section 7 say? It is summarized earlier in that very same report:

- when there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the woman arising from a physical illness – section 7 of the Act;

This is a really small report - just 2 pages of relevant text and a title page. i find it hard to believe anyone capable of finding and reading that report could misunderstand it so completely.

ohnonotgmail

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Everyone is "at risk of falling ill", so I can see already that you are, shall we say, not summarizing the report entirely accurately. Looking it up:

Here it is as a pdf, the figures are:

Section of the Act Number of terminations
7 – risk from physical illness 8
8 – emergency from physical illness 16
9 – risk from suicide 1
Total 25

So, what does section 7 say? It is summarized earlier in that very same report:

- when there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the woman arising from a physical illness – section 7 of the Act;

This is a really small report - just 2 pages of relevant text and a title page. i find it hard to believe anyone capable of finding and reading that report could misunderstand it so completely.

One can only imagine it was done deliberately.

Zubeneschamali

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

One can only imagine it was done deliberately.

You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment. :pac:

amcalester

Mr.H wrote: »

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.

From the report...

This exception applies only in three distinct and precise circumstances:
- when there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the woman arising from a
physical illness – section 7 of the Act;
- when there is an immediate risk to the life of the woman arising from a physical
illness – section 8 of the Act; or
- when there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the woman arising from
suicide intent – section 9 of the Act.

and then the number of abortions under each exception

7 – risk from physical illness 8
8 – emergency from physical illness 16
9 – risk from suicide 1

You will notice that each exception is where there is a risk to the live of the woman and there is no exception for risk to health of the woman.

SOURCE

Mr.H

seamus wrote:

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

That's funny. You misinterpret the figures and blame me for doing the same.

seamus wrote:

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.

Firstly it was claimed only 37 women had legal abortions in Ireland under this law. The actual figure is approx 25 a year in the last 3 years. The actual figure is 77 since 2014.

26 women had abortions in 2016. I apologies I thought that report was 2017. Far from a lie though to be fair.

From those 26. 1 was a suicide risk. Not exactly life threatening as suicide risks live amongst us unfortunately. By that I mean not enough is done to help them regardless of being pregnant. 8 were at risk of physical illness. Those are exact words from the report you linked.

So again, where is my lie?

The 37 number is the lie.

Dressing gown

Mr.H wrote: »

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.

Unless you work in the field I am afraid your opinion on the nature of the terminations is just that, an opinion. Death from suicide in Ireland was until very recently stated as “death by misadventure”. Facts and statistics are all fine but they miss the human element which is the missing reality in your argument.

If it were really the case that only a handful of women required terminations to ensure their survival I’m not sure why so many professionals in the field of obstetrics and midwifery would be calling on a yes vote. They work in an extremely tough field and the end result they work toward is the delivery of a healthy baby to a healthy woman. It makes no sense that the people that devote their lives to saving babies and women would call for and end to the law that prevents abortion, unless they deem it an absolute necessity to enable them to do their jobs unfettered.

Now you can point me to the professionals that advocate a no vote but when you dig a little deeper into their backgrounds the majority of them seem to consider the teachings of a third party as relevant in their professional outlook which I would suggest is a conflict of interest.

Mr.H

ohnonotgmail wrote:

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

Try reading what was linked before pretending I lied.

Or just point to my lie

Mr.H

Cupcake_Crisis wrote:

You’ve yet to provide sources for these women who weren’t at deaths door.

Source was provided by someone else

ohnonotgmail

Mr.H wrote: »

That's funny. You misinterpret the figures and blame me for doing the same.



Firstly it was claimed only 37 women had legal abortions in Ireland under this law. The actual figure is approx 25 a year in the last 3 years. The actual figure is 77 since 2014.

26 women had abortions in 2016. I apologies I thought that report was 2017. Far from a lie though to be fair.

From those 26. 1 was a suicide risk. Not exactly life threatening as suicide risks live amongst us unfortunately. By that I mean not enough is done to help them regardless of being pregnant. 8 were at risk of physical illness. Those are exact words from the report you linked.

So again, where is my lie?

The 37 number is the lie.

The phrase "at risk of physical illness" is a paraphrased version of the real reason. the real reason is

when there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the woman arising from a physical illness

you will note the words "risk to the life". the fact that you continue to claim that is only down to "physical illness" despite this been pointed out to several times now can only be construed as a deliberate attempt to mislead by you

LuckyLloyd

Leroy42 wrote: »

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.

Yes, I think this is the bottom line. A No vote keeps things as they are, which means thousands of women every year would continue to face extremely distressing situations and hard choices bereft of support structures they should be entitled to. A No vote is, at core, a deliberate decision to knowingly condemn women to those situations so that absolutist moral principles can be upheld. The associated noise about 'find medical solutions to the things that happen babies' or 'give more support' have rang increasingly hollow as the campaign has wore on.

What rings equally hollow is the 'kill babies at six months'; 'eliminate all babies with down syndrome' type scare mongering. Factually these things aren't true and have very compelling responses in 'past 22 weeks, it's "delivery" not abortion'; and 'you simply can't test for down syndrome successfully within 12 weeks after which it would be illegal'. The risk is always that certain people don't hear those responses, but I believe the strong polling is indicative of people getting to hear them and understanding them.

Which it brings one to the conclusion that the constitution is too inflexible an instrument for legislating the complexities and nuances of this issue, that is what the Oireachtas is designed for. The No side should move their opposition to that theatre and accept that the implementation of a constitutional block (and failed efforts to increase that block to cover risk of suicide in 92 and 02) were misguided and have ultimately failed. Term limits, allowable reasons, due process are all things that can be changed and amended via legislation as the state changes over the decades to come.

ohnonotgmail

Mr.H wrote: »

Try reading what was linked before pretending I lied.

Or just point to my lie

I have done so several times already. You seem to keep (conveniently) ignoring them.

Mr.H

SusieBlue wrote:

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.

My pointing to the 9 is just proving that you don't need to be at deaths door to get a termination.

ohnonotgmail wrote:

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.

Not true. Physical illness yes. Risk to life because of it, not necessarily.

ELM327

ELM327 wrote: »

##REDACTED## will say she's lying.
Or not post for a few days and ignore.


There is no factual riposte for the facts, which are that the 8th blocks a full spectrum of treatments for the mother.
The fact that a 10 week old foetus (which is at that point the size of a small grape for context - I know, I've seen one) has an "advocate" disgusts me.

I have been warned for this post.
It is not the first heavy handed warning I have received on this thread.
Accordingly, I shall not be posting on this thread again (no need to worry about threadbanning ).


Enjoy everyone and I hope the vote goes the right (YES) way on the 25th of May.
(I'd plead with anyone genuinely on the fence to read the "in her shoes" facebook page)



Níl aon Tír saoirse, gan saoirse na mban.
God bless.


#repealthe8th
#togetherforyes
#compassionwins
#trustourwomen
#tá

ohnonotgmail

Mr.H wrote: »

My pointing to the 9 is just proving that you don't need to be at deaths door to get a termination.



Not true. Physical illness yes. Risk to life because of it, not necessarily.

I'm not going to continue to post the same thing again and again. reported for trolling.

Zubeneschamali

Mr.H wrote: »

Physical illness yes. Risk to life because of it, not necessarily.

- when there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the woman arising from a
physical illness – section 7 of the Act;

This is the actual text of the report that you conveniently could not link to from your phone to back up your claim.

You are 100% wrong.

kylith

Mr.H wrote: »

. 8 were at risk of physical illness. Those are exact words from the report you linked.

I’m sorry, you appear to be misreading it: it says risk FROM physical illness, not risk OF physical illness. I.e. their lives were at risk because of a physicall illness.

amcalester

Mr.H wrote: »

My pointing to the 9 is just proving that you don't need to be at deaths door to get a termination.



Not true. Physical illness yes. Risk to life because of it, not necessarily.

Incorrect. All 3 reasons for exceptions are where there is a risk to life.

This exception applies only in three distinct and precise circumstances:

- when there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the woman arising from a physical illness – section 7 of the Act;
- when there is an immediate risk to the life of the woman arising from a physical illness – section 8 of the Act; or
- when there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the woman arising from suicide intent – section 9 of the Act.

The source of that risk can be physical illness or suicide but the risk must be to the woman's life, not her health.

Mr.H

ohnonotgmail wrote:

you will note the words "risk to the life". the fact that you continue to claim that is only down to "physical illness" despite this been pointed out to several times now can only be construed as a deliberate attempt to mislead by you

I have no intention of misleading.

My only point is that this shows you don't have to be on deaths door. That is undeniable.

What about the 37 figure?

Mr.H

ohnonotgmail wrote:

I'm not going to continue to post the same thing again and again. reported for trolling.

Trolling?

See the pettiness in here at times. Where have I been trolling anyone?

You don't need to post anything of you don't want to. Grow up and stop acting like a spoilt child who can't take differing opinions.

Zubeneschamali

Mr.H wrote: »

My only point is that this shows you don't have to be on deaths door. That is undeniable.

You said that "at risk of physical illness" is a reported reason given for legal abortion today, and you were 100% wrong.

Just admit it and move on.

Mr.H

amcalester wrote:

The source of that risk can be physical illness or suicide but the risk must be to the woman's life, not her health.

All I am stating is that you don't need to be near death before action can be taken.

And yes I will be voting bed to repeal. My views are probably closer to pro life on the spectrum. But I also believe logic and logically yes is the better outcome despite the probably affects from the immature section of society.

amcalester

Mr.H wrote: »

I have no intention of misleading.

My only point is that this shows you don't have to be on deaths door. That is undeniable.

What about the 37 figure?

You originally claimed that if there was a risk to a woman's health an abortion could be performed, you were proven wrong on this and now you've changed it to the woman doesnt have to be on deaths door.

You're changing the goalposts.

seamus

Mr.H wrote: »

That's funny. You misinterpret the figures and blame me for doing the same.

No, I haven't misinterpreted any figures.

I apologies I thought that report was 2017. Far from a lie though to be fair.

No, that's cool. I never accused you of lying.

From those 26. 1 was a suicide risk. Not exactly life threatening as suicide risks live amongst us unfortunately.

Suicide risk is not life threatening?
So a person says that they're planning on killing themselves, and medical professionals confirm that their intent is serious. But you think their life is not at risk?

That's stretching it. A lot. Again, the text of the law is there in the report - it's not just a case that someone has to be suicidal; there must be a real and substantial risk to their life.

By that I mean not enough is done to help them regardless of being pregnant. 8 were at risk of physical illness. Those are exact words from the report you linked.

So either you're just not reading the report or you're deliberately misrepresenting it.

Those are not the exact words from the report. So which is it: Are you lying, or did you not read the report?

Annabella1

For those undecided I will say simply this

Look at the numbers obstetricians,doctors and midwives calling for a yes vote

Professionals who deal with traumatised women every week facing difficult trips overseas without adequate medical support at home

The yes/no split isn't even close

Dressing gown

Mr.H wrote: »

I have no intention of misleading.

My only point is that this shows you don't have to be on deaths door. That is undeniable.

What about the 37 figure?

I would deny it there you go it is deniable.

Do you actually know how dangerous being pregnant and going through childbirth is? Did you know in Victorian times 1 in 3 women used to die in childbirth? Are you familiar with the current statistics on maternal mortality? You dismissed risk of suicide for the woman that had an abortion in 2016 at risk (because lots of people are at risk of it or something along those lines) but did you know that suicide is the leading cause of maternal deaths in the developed world?

http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/Perinatal_depression_mmh_final.pdf (See top of page 3)

You are interpreting that statistics to meet your own conscience. If you will keep telling yourself that so you can sleep at night thats fine, but the “in her shoes” page is full of stories of women denied healthcare. Tell them your “9” abortions proves anything.

ohnonotgmail

Mr.H wrote: »

All I am stating is that you don't need to be near death before action can be taken.

And yes I will be voting bed to repeal. My views are probably closer to pro life on the spectrum. But I also believe logic and logically yes is the better outcome despite the probably affects from the immature section of society.

"is a real and substantial risk to the life".

ohnonotgmail

seamus wrote: »

No, I haven't misinterpreted any figures.

No, that's cool. I never accused you of lying.
Suicide risk is not life threatening?
So a person says that they're planning on killing themselves, and medical professionals confirm that their intent is serious. But you think their life is not at risk?

That's stretching it. A lot. Again, the text of the law is there in the report - it's not just a case that someone has to be suicidal; there must be a real and substantial risk to their life.

So either you're just not reading the report or you're deliberately misrepresenting it.

Those are not the exact words from the report. So which is it: Are you lying, or did you not read the report?

I think it is very clear which it is.

Nettle Soup

I heard the giant 'No' sign that appeared on Ben Bulben has been removed. The idiots that put it there should be ashamed.

NaFirinne

Quick question - do you have to be an Irish citizen to vote on this referendum?

The reason why I'm asking is I have a few Spanish friends who are now registered to vote and have received there voting cards to vote on friday.

Basically a guy just called round to the door asked who lives in the house - took all there names and now they can go an vote.

So my question is are any Eu Nationals now eligible to vote in Ireland as long as they have an address here?

LuckyLloyd

NaFirinne wrote: »

Quick question - do you have to be an Irish citizen to vote on this referendum?

The reason why I'm asking is I have a few Spanish friends who are now registered to vote and have received there voting cards to vote on friday.

Basically a guy just called round to the door asked who lives in the house - took all there names and now they can go an vote.

So my question is are any Eu Nationals now eligible to vote in Ireland as long as they have an address here?

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/elections_and_referenda/voting/registering_to_vote.html#l862a3

The type of election you can vote in depends on your citizenship.
The following people are eligible to vote:

- Irish citizens can vote in every election and referendum
- British citizens may vote at D, European and local elections
- Other EU citizens may vote at European and local elections*
- Non-EU citizens can vote at local elections only.

*If you are an EU citizen, other than an Irish or British citizen, and you were not registered to vote in previous European elections in Ireland, you must also complete a declaration, Form EP1, to guard against double voting in the election. The local council will register you to vote in your local constituency and send the information in your declaration to your home EU Member State. You can also get the form from your local authority.

Your post sounds misinformed / product of scare mongering to me.

Cupcake_Crisis

Mr.H wrote: »

All I am stating is that you don't need to be near death before action can be taken.

And yes I will be voting bed to repeal. My views are probably closer to pro life on the spectrum. But I also believe logic and logically yes is the better outcome despite the probably affects from the immature section of society.

If you don’t need to close to death, why are women being left until they’re close to death before medical staff will intervene?

Leroy42

Has there been any surge in the registered voters for this? IIRC there was quite a uptake before the Equality Ref?

Mr.H

ohnonotgmail wrote:

"is a real and substantial risk to the life".

Why should I talk to you? You reported me for trolling FFS. I mean if you wanna debate fine but how do I know you won't just randomly report me again just because you get wound up by differing views.

It's OK to not agree on everything but to be childish and report people just because you don't agree with their pathetic.

Annabella1 wrote:

Look at the numbers obstetricians,doctors and midwives calling for a yes vote

The percentage of those medical professionals on record of calling for yes is very very low. Something like 10%. Claire byrne debate is my resource. Boylan is the one that claimed it iirc.

amcalester wrote:

You're changing the goalposts.

Don't mean to. Sorry if it comes across that way.

I did say health and not life. For that I am sorry. I did mean serious health risk. Which again doesn't change the fact savita was entitled to a termination.

Only Irish citizens can vote in referendums I think. Spanish sounds well dodgy.

The type of election you can vote in depends on your citizenship. The following people are eligible to vote:

Irish citizens can vote in every election and referendum
British citizens may vote at Dáil, European and local elections
Other EU citizens may vote at European and local elections*
Non-EU citizens can vote at local elections only.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/elections_and_referenda/voting/registering_to_vote.html

The register seems to be a complete mess I think.

I registered last year (moved from my old address in another county) and have recieved two voting cards with another for a woman who hasnt lived here in years.

SusieBlue

My friend manages a playschool, she arrived at work this morning to their premises absolutely covered in No posters. This creche is in a business park and no other offices in the proximity were targeted.
A car parked in the car park was also covered in No posters, and seems to be owned by the person who put the posters up.
She rang the guards immediately, and they are investigating.
The car reg is registered to someone who lives 55km away from the creche.

Many parents were absolutely furious this morning, threatening to remove their children, they were saying if this was what the creche was promoting, they didn't want their children attending.
The guards told her that other playschools and montessoris in the area were targeted as well.

LoveBoth, as classy as always.

Dressing gown

NaFirinne wrote: »

Quick question - do you have to be an Irish citizen to vote on this referendum?

The reason why I'm asking is I have a few Spanish friends who are now registered to vote and have received there voting cards to vote on friday.

Basically a guy just called round to the door asked who lives in the house - took all there names and now they can go an vote.

So my question is are any Eu Nationals now eligible to vote in Ireland as long as they have an address here?

I was told by the woman in the DLR county council office that you have to be an Irish citizen to vote in a referendum.

gmisk

NaFirinne wrote: »

Quick question - do you have to be an Irish citizen to vote on this referendum?

The reason why I'm asking is I have a few Spanish friends who are now registered to vote and have received there voting cards to vote on friday.

Basically a guy just called round to the door asked who lives in the house - took all there names and now they can go an vote.

So my question is are any Eu Nationals now eligible to vote in Ireland as long as they have an address here?

As per citizens info

British citizens may vote at Dáil elections, European elections and local elections;
Other European Union (EU) citizens may vote at European and local elections*
Non-EU citizens may vote at local elections only

I dont think someone knocking at your door and registering you is a thing....

ohnonotgmail

Mr.H wrote: »

Why should I talk to you? You reported me for trolling FFS. I mean if you wanna debate fine but how do I know you won't just randomly report me again just because you get wound up by differing views.

Talk to who you like. I'll keep on pointing out your lies.

gmisk

Leroy42 wrote: »

Has there been any surge in the registered voters for this? IIRC there was quite a uptake before the Equality Ref?

I think so if you look at queues posted online at colleges etc.
Also reports of long lines at Gardai Station even more so than with SSM ref

seamus

It is possible that someone ticked the wrong box on the form. Our registration system is abysmally loose.

Someone can fill in the registration form, tick the box to say they're an Irish citizen and there's a good chance nobody will question it.

That said, many EU citizens who've been here for a while will apply for naturalisation.

But it's just as likely that people are telling stories of "illegal fordeners voting in our referendum" to try and get people out to vote No.

gmisk

SusieBlue wrote: »

My friend manages a playschool, she arrived at work this morning to their premises absolutely covered in No posters. This creche is in a business park and no other offices in the proximity were targeted.
A car parked in the car park was also covered in No posters, and seems to be owned by the person who put the posters up.
She rang the guards immediately, and they are investigating.
The car reg is registered to someone who lives 55km away from the creche.

Many parents were absolutely furious this morning, threatening to remove their children, they were saying if this was what the creche was promoting, they didn't want their children attending.
The guards told her that other playschools and montessoris in the area were targeted as well.

LoveBoth, as classy as always.

Wow

Do they think this kind of crap works any more?
It might have in the past but I honestly don't think so anymore, hopefully it will have the opposite effect.

I would expect this kind of crap to ramp up in the last week especially as polls aren't looking good for them.

Leroy42

The form needs to be signed by a Garda does it not, it is not simply a case of someone calling to your house.

The garda, I would imagine, would need to see proof of age, nationality etc before signing off. Could this is overridden of course, as stated previously the whole system is incredible weak and wasteful. On a large scale? I would imagine that the amount of double registered Irish is far more of a problem.

gmisk

Leroy42 wrote: »

The form needs to be signed by a Garda does it not, it is not simply a case of someone calling to your house.

Yep.

People do not just knock on your door and register you to vote.... Lol

And as you say Gardai would need to see ID etc.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

On a large scale? I would imagine that the amount of double registered Irish is far more of a problem.

I moved my (one and only registration) vote from one county to another last year and the new county have sent me two polling cards now :pac::pac:

I used the specified procedure with no funny business. Iv also got a card for a woman who moved out years ago.

Its a mess.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

Has there been any surge in the registered voters for this?

"Unprecedented" according to RTE radio news this morning. 125,000 new voters since February. The online story doesn't have that number, but notes that it was 66,000 before the SSM referendum.

I am going to guess that most of these are not No voters, and they didn't register just to be undecided either.

Nettle Soup

gmisk wrote: »

Wow

Do they think this kind of crap works any more?
It might have in the past but I honestly don't think so anymore, hopefully it will have the opposite effect.

I would expect this kind of crap to ramp up in the last week especially as polls aren't looking good for them.

I think it already is having the opposite effect.
Some of these people seem warped by the whole issue and cannot see common sense. I blame the 1980s parents (and Rome)!!

amcalester

Mr.H wrote: »

Don't mean to. Sorry if it comes across that way.

I did say health and not life. For that I am sorry. I did mean serious health risk. Which again doesn't change the fact savita was entitled to a termination.

Fair enough and I don't want to keep arguing the point so I'll leave it at this but it's a risk to life not serious health risk, a subtle but important distinction.