The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

juanjo

seamus wrote: »

It's all part of the playbook. Make it look like the No side are in tatters, that they're being destroyed in debates, and it will make the Yes voters complacent and mobilise the No voters.

It's all a tactic.

I don't think they are chess grandmasters as you kind of imply here, but I thank you for the reminder. This is the time when the YES cannot get confident and take the victory for granted. Look at trump and brexit, they are proof of how bad complacence is.

Akrasia

Shurimgreat wrote: »

There were two major recessions in this country since 1983. The one in the mid to late 80s and the one that started in 2008.

You'd wonder how many people walking around today might not be if abortion was freely available under the current proposals back then? During a downturn, abortion rates generally go up.

Contraception was illegal in ireland until 1980
How many people would be alive today if that law hadn't been changed?

AtomicHorror

Shurimgreat wrote: »

A lot of information to process in this debate.

Am I right in thinking, if passed, there is a strong probability of abortion on demand to anyone who wants it up to 12 weeks?

It's a medical intervention, not an entertainment package.

The proposed legislation will allow a woman to request a prescription for the abortion pill from her GP without giving a reason beyond being pregnant. There's a short waiting period.

The only difference between this and what is happening in Ireland already is the involvement of a GP to prescribe and provide aftercare if needed, and the removal of a criminal sentence for the woman.

Movementarian

Shurimgreat wrote: »

A lot of information to process in this debate.

Am I right in thinking, if passed, there is a strong probability of abortion on demand to anyone who wants it up to 12 weeks?

Unrestricted access to abortion up to 12 weeks is what is proposed under the draft legislation.

This will be after a mandatory 72 hour consulation/waiting period with a GP.

As others have pointed out before the use of 'on demand' language can serve to trivialise what is a massive decision that nobody takes lightly. And the reality is that people currently who want an abortion will get one but by having to travel or by taking illegal medication.

Read up on the refcom website if you would like to get the straightforward facts and the reason behind the 12 week threshold.

Personally I feel that providing women with safe legal access to abortion and in turn consulation and making it something that can be discussed will take the panic out of this whole situation. Having a reflection period knowing you have all options available I earnestly believe will lead to better choices for everyone.

Cupcake_Crisis

juanjo wrote: »

I don't think they are chess grandmasters as you kind of imply here, but I thank you for the reminder. This is the time when the YES cannot get confident and take the victory for granted. Look at trump and brexit, they are proof of how bad complacence is.

The yes side is anything but complacent today, extremely active both online and on the streets. So if that was their plan, it back fired astronomically

SusieBlue

antiskeptic wrote: »

So what? This is a democracy - you can campaign all you like. That dont mean the country has to go with you

The No side is misrepresenting their position. They are saying ask for a better proposer. If the government were to propose for just rape and FFA they wouldn't support that either.
They would oppose it. They admitted it. They are being disingenuous.

Your asking us to trust women. But you trust neither men nor women to vote for that which they think best? Curious.

At this point I think you are willfully misinterpreting the "trust women" slogan.
We are asking to trust women with decisions about their own healthcare.
Not implying they should be trusted on every single issue on every single topic.

I'd have no prob if neither side was allowed to campaign. What id like is a vote reflective of the express desire of the people

Do yoy want to make a truly democratic omlette or do you want to avoid breaking eggs?

So would I. I would just hate to see people think that voting No will lead to a more conservative regime which both sides will agree to.
The No side will never agree. And we'll have to do with all over again.
People need to be aware of that.

AtomicHorror

Shurimgreat wrote: »

There were two major recessions in this country since 1983. The one in the mid to late 80s and the one that started in 2008.

You'd wonder how many people walking around today might not be if abortion was freely available under the current proposals back then? During a downturn, abortion rates generally go up.

How many more people would be walking around today if we implemented a law mandating at least one birth per fertile woman?

What are "what if" arguments like this actually saying? Explain your point.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's actually not incorrect. I thought about posting this information myself, but knew it would really annoy and offend Yes voters so I didn't. But that doesn't make it incorrect.

Annabella1

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The Minister says he'll try to get legislation through during 2018, so 2019 they can start rolling out services.

There won't be any clinics, so protestors will have to content themselves with protests in O'Connell Street or the Dail.

50.1% win will be a mandate for the 12 week proposal - no way will they go with less.

Doctors will not resign since they will not be compelled to perform abortions.

Hospital cases will be handled in the normal ObGyn wards.

If it is a narrow win I don't see the 12 week going through

Rural government TD's will delay it

At least if the 8th is gone,they can leglisate for the 'hard cases'

The 12 week will come in time...

c68zapdsm5i1ru

DubInMeath wrote: »

Your forgetting that a lot of the no side say mental health doesn't exist.

No they don't.

SusieBlue

Malaya Red Sandlot wrote: »

Pat Kenny didn't seem to realise he was meant to be facilitating the debate, not taking part in it. I imagine someone had a word with him during the first ad break as his behaviour was disgraceful up until then.

Regina Doherty was breathtakingly rude and pushy.

How did you feel about Maria Steen? Seemed to me like she thought she it was her show.
She got the most air time out of all of them - granted that was because she kept rudely interjecting, interrupting people, and talking over people when her turn was over, but all the same, she got the best chance out of all of them to say her piece.

Stonedpilot

Hector Savage wrote: »

https://twitter.com/MickeyVaugn/status/999329305351122944

This disgusting racist misandric pig would almost make me change my mind .....

Whats real scary is feminst organisations allow misandrist unhinged lunatics like that speak for them. Eyeballs popping out of her head with rage on her expletive driven bs rant.

Likes or her doing more to sway people to No than any campaign ever could.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

SusieBlue wrote: »

How did you feel about Maria Steen? Seemed to me like she thought she it was her show.
She got the most air time out of all of them - granted that was because she kept rudely interjecting, interrupting people, and talking over people when her turn was over, but all the same, she got the best chance out of all of them to say her piece.

She only started interrupting when she had been repeatedly spoken over by Regina Doherty and cut short by Pat Kenny.

I thought Regina's comment about Maria trying to take over the show was ironic, to say the least.

antiskeptic

bnt wrote: »

Unclear what you're getting at here. Are you suggesting that a fertilised egg, with no neurons at all, is a human being?

Are you suggesting that its not? In your suggesting so, do you rely on a particular philosophical outlook? From whence that?

Ultimately you have a man declaring authoritativey what it is to be a man. Which is a bootstrap argument.

Youve an opinion. You might find it a convincing one for you. But others come to other conclusions.

We might all be wrong.

It sounds to me like you're taking the religious "vitalist" position, that there's some "spark" that makes "life" a black-and white, yes/no proposition. I don't share that viewpoint, as you can probably tell, but that's after a lot of thought and debate, not the result of a closed mind. An open mind is a good thing up to a point: too open, and any old crap could fall in ..! :pac:

Intriguing. Minds greater than yours or mine have concluded other than you but they must be closed because they come to a different view?

Since no one can say with any certainty what a man is humility is probably the best option.

Not your strong point!

Cupcake_Crisis

Malaya Red Sandlot wrote: »

She only started interrupting when she had been repeatedly spoken over by Regina Doherty and cut short by Pat Kenny.

I thought Regina's comment about Maria trying to take over the show was ironic, to say the least.

Tbf, she was cut off because she went over her time on numerous occasions

Shurimgreat

SusieBlue wrote: »

Do you ever wonder how many kids you'd have if you never ever used contraception? Do you miss those kids?

Good point. Contraception is always preferable to abortion. Abortion should always be the worst case scenario given how violent it is.

I am all in favour of dealing with extreme cases such as rape, incest, fatal fetal abnormalities, life of the mother at serious risk (non mental health cases) and in extreme mental health cases. And yes abortion on demand for those cases.

I am not in favour of abortion on demand used on healthy babies up to 12 weeks. As I said and its a fact, a lot of people walking around today who would not be because if abortion was available during recessions.

Abortion is far more extreme than contraception was my point.

And recessions are often temporary. It might be difficult economically to raise a child for a year or two but recessions always come to an end and women may end up regretting an abortion.

Shurimgreat

Annabella1 wrote: »

If it is a narrow win I don't see the 12 week going through

Rural government TD's will delay it

At least if the 8th is gone,they can leglisate for the 'hard cases'

The 12 week will come in time...

Abortions on perfectly healthy babies up to 12 weeks in non "hard" or extreme cases is the sticking point stopping many from voting yes.

Billy86

Dressing gown wrote: »

Oh, you are so right. Thank you for reminding me I have no mind of my own and should defer to my husband. I will definitely vote to let you make my mind up for me. An excellent point well made. I see the light now. Thank you oh wise one.

That is reassuring to hear, though at this hour I hope you are out of your dressing gown as the house needs cleaning, the childer need feeding, and that uterus of yours could use some more breeding. Remember, we're only saying this because we care. About you. And the baby. For nine months. No less, and no more.

#LoveBothUntilDeathDoUsPart #SayNoToChoice

_Dara_

RacoonQueen wrote: »

All the stories of FFA are dreadfully sad. But what gets me with the No side who are talking about their babies is that even if you repeal the 8th, you can still carry that baby to term. People can still choose to carry the sick baby to term, or, they can choose to induce early or abort. Repealing the 8th does not mean that they are going to force you to have an abortion if your baby is diagnosed with a FFA.

SusieBlue wrote: »

I’m sorry but I found that woman from the No side whose baby had FFA insufferable.
A Yes vote will not have had any effect on the decision she made.
It will not effect any future women who want to carry their FFA baby to term - they will still be allowed to do that.
You would think she’d have compassion for fellow mothers in a position similar to hers and respect them to make their own decision in such heartbreaking circumstances.

I wonder how she’d feel if she was forced to be induced when she got the diagnosis, against her will, instead of being allowed to carry to term like she wanted to.
There is no ‘one size fits all’ approach to this situation.
The lack of empathy was astounding.

Yes! Now I have such sympathy for the No side lady’s personal situation but I found her rude and incoherent. She, natch, didn’t mention that her situation would not have been altered if there was no eighth amendment. If the eighth amendment is repealed, she could still go through with her pregnancy. She showed no compassion for the Yes woman in her situation and then tried to whip up a frenzy against the amnesty dude. And she wasn’t even that clear on what had been said to her by canvassers. It honestly seemed to be exaggerated. And all sides of the debate have come up against extreme campaigners, it’ll happen.

AtomicHorror

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Whats real scary is feminst organisations allow misandrist unhinged lunatics like that speak for them. Eyeballs popping out of her head with rage on her expletive driven bs rant.

Likes or her doing more to sway people to No than any campaign ever could.

I think if you read the stories of what women have been subjected to, speak to women you know who have had similar experiences (if they trust you to be honest), and then think about it a bit, you should feel her rage too. I don't consider myself to be a particularly empathetic person, but I feel it. The more I learn, the angrier I feel at myself, my fellow men and the Stockholmed women who have colluded with us.

Rage is appropriate. Women have been treated horribly, and our reflex to start the "not all men..." routine is entirely inappropriate. We have been complicit, either by action, willful ignorance or by downplaying what our brothers have done.

Her rage is not her fault, it is ours.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The debates last night went very well again imo. Claire Byrne will hopefully learn from watching Pat Kenny chair a conversation of such significance in a firm and well informed manner.

For everyone on the Yes side, the issue now should really be about talking to your circle of family, friends, etc and making sure they're getting out to vote. Ask them if they're voting; how they're planning it in with work; etc. If the turnout is high, we will win.

On the contrary, I think Pat Kenny should watch Miriam O'Callaghan and David McCullagh in order to learn to how facilitate a debate without inserting yourself right into it.

antiskeptic

SusieBlue wrote: »

The No side is misrepresenting their position. They are saying ask for a better proposer. If the government were to propose for just rape and FFA they wouldn't support that either.
They would oppose it. They admitted it. They are being disingenuous.

Agreed. So what. They are but a voice and I trust people to take their disingenuousness into account.

In the event people were given an option more reflective of their desire

At this point I think you are willfully misinterpreting the "trust women" slogan.
We are asking to trust women with decisions about their own healthcare.
Not implying they should be trusted on every single issue on every single topic.

Not to be trusted in a vote. So skew the question. Charming!

So would I. I would just hate to see people think that voting No will lead to a more conservative regime which both sides will agree to.
The No side will never agree. And we'll have to do with all over again.
People need to be aware of that.

That the no side doesnt agree irrelevant. What matterss is the outcome of a vote that is pitched in a fair, representative way.

You don't trust people to do that. Hence you don't want them given that option

seamus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Hospital cases will be handled in the normal ObGyn wards.

Repealing the eighth will actually take pressure off maternity wards as it will mean less women requiring long-term hospitalisation where their terminally ill foetus can just be delivered humanely instead.

There are wards in maternity hospitals specifically for women who are going through a terminal pregnancy or difficult situation (e.g. having delivered stillborn), they don't mix them in with women who are cooing over healthy born babies if that can be at all avoided.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

Tbf, she was cut off because she went over her time on numerous occasions

She was cut off during the first section of the debate, often before she had a couple of sentences spoken.

_Dara_

Malaya Red Sandlot wrote: »

She only started interrupting when she had been repeatedly spoken over by Regina Doherty and cut short by Pat Kenny.

I thought Regina's comment about Maria trying to take over the show was ironic, to say the least.

Maria Steen got as much time as anyone last night. It was necessary to cut her off to give everyone equal time. Fair is fair. Kenny needed to be firm or she would have wittered on, eating in to somebody else’s time.

Dressing gown

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

Tbf, she was cut off because she went over her time on numerous occasions

I think PK lost his patience with Steen not respecting that she could not take over the show in the way that she did on CBL. Still, it made for unpleasant viewing seeing him turn his back on her like that. I did feel for her being disrespected in that way. From her face she was horrified. It’s not nice when people turn their backs on you when you need them to talk to you or help you. But that’s what we do to every Irish woman in a crisis pregnancy. It’s time to stop turning our backs on Irish women.

Shurimgreat

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not unsubstantiated at all.

https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/26/3/518/2467363

Economic reasons are often a key driver behind many abortions. I don't think anyone seriously disputes this, unless the Yes side are willing to lie about it or be economical with the truth which wouldn't be a first.

And linking it to parents not having sex is irrelevant. We are talking about abortion.

Zubeneschamali

RobertKK wrote: »

The most vocal politicians for Repeal the last number of years was Socialists like Ruth Coppinger

Taoiseach Leo Varadkar (for those of you following from the USA, the leader of our most right-wing major party) in the Dáil yesterday praised socialist TDs Ruth Coppinger and Claire Daly for their early work in putting the abortion issue on the political agenda in Leinster House, "perhaps at a time when many of us would have preferred not to deal with it".

Hector Savage

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Whats real scary is feminst organisations allow misandrist unhinged lunatics like that speak for them. Eyeballs popping out of her head with rage on her expletive driven bs rant.

Likes or her doing more to sway people to No than any campaign ever could.

Exactly, it's why I just tell myself :
Never mind these fools, do the right thing !!!

But the active Yes campaigners seriously - why do you give LUNATICS like this stage time ?????


If no manages to win, it will be because of deranged rants like this swaying the undeciders

Mrsmum

Malaya Red Sandlot wrote: »

She only started interrupting when she had been repeatedly spoken over by Regina Doherty and cut short by Pat Kenny.

I thought Regina's comment about Maria trying to take over the show was ironic, to say the least.

Pat kept threatening that the no side would be allowed no speaking time in part three as if to suggest they were speaking so much and he was totally wrong in that as evidenced by the fact he had to go from the yes to the no side and back around again all through the show to make the time equal. He used that threat to cut Maria Steen off several times in a very rude manner too. It was the audience members that asked the Yes side the awkward questions, not Pat.