What kind of abortion legislation ought we expect?

antiskeptic

RayCun wrote: »

Isn't there a Conspiracy Theories forum on boards? You'd clearly feel more at home there.

A conspiracy theory (e.g. the US government blew up the twin towers) has the characteristic of something outlandish taking the place of something that is as obvious as day.

Post 85 points out something that is as obvious as day.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107111234&postcount=85


Perhaps you've got a better suggestion as to how the country managed to vote by a 2:1 majority when the main subject to hand a) didn't even arise as an option b) only managed to achieve a 50/50 split?

Accident?

RayCun

Aliens. Definitely aliens.

Podge_irl

antiskeptic wrote: »

The question is whether there was a victory for a pre set political agenda. Or victory for democracy.

You seem in favour of the former.


If however the latter, would you see merit in the stitch-up argument presented. And that as a valid way to oppose the legislation proposed with malice aforethought?

I'm sorry, but last time I checked 52% was larger than 48%. Therefore, even if we give any credence to the core principal of your point (which I do not), the majority still want abortion on request. You have no leg to stand on with this argument.

antiskeptic

Podge_irl wrote: »

I'm sorry, but last time I checked 52% was larger than 48%.

You're missing the point (and clinging to a ridiculous lifeline).

Therefore, even if we give any credence to the core principal of your point (which I do not),

Normally, on a discussion forum, you give a reason for the position you hold. Now if you have a contention with anything I say, by way of the way this thing can be easily stitched together, then by all means.

the majority still want abortion on request.

A referendum gives the country what it votes for: repeal and the government legislate

An opinion poll gives politicians a guide to how to legislate. They are neither bound by the referendum. Nor need they decide they are going to please either side 100%.

They are entitled to find a middle ground, if wanting to give a bit to both.

RayCun

antiskeptic wrote: »

They are entitled to find a middle ground, if wanting to give a bit to both.

They proposed outline legislation before the referendum.

The referendum passed with a massive majority.

The middle ground have spoken.

The government have already said they are going to move on the legislation outlined before the referendum.

antiskeptic

RayCun wrote: »

They proposed outline legislation before the referendum.

The referendum passed with a massive majority.

The middle ground have spoken.

The government have already said they are going to move on the legislation outlined before the referendum.

All of which has a kind of stick-fingers-in-ear / cling-like-pooh-to-a-shovel feel about it.

The question of post 85 is whether the electorate were manipulated up the garden path to a result the government wanted.

Now I realise that you like the result. That's fair enough.


The question however, is whether you give a fig that the electorate were led down the garden path to that result. If the result is more important to you than the means by which it was obtained, then fair enough - you're not a democrat (which is your democratic right)

RayCun

lol

Podge_irl

antiskeptic wrote: »

You're missing the point (and clinging to a ridiculous lifeline).
Normally, on a discussion forum, you give a reason for the position you hold. Now if you have a contention with anything I say, by way of the way this thing can be easily stitched together, then by all means.

A referendum gives the country what it votes for: repeal and the government legislate

An opinion poll gives politicians a guide to how to legislate. They are neither bound by the referendum. Nor need they decide they are going to please either side 100%.

They are entitled to find a middle ground, if wanting to give a bit to both.

How am I clinging to a ridiculous lifeline? You are the one contending that a massive sweeping majority is not sufficient to bring in legislation that was announced before the referendum on the basis of an exit poll that shows a majority of people in favour of that legislation. The Citizen's Assembly, the Oireachtas committee, the referendum and even your beloved exit poll all had a majority in favour of what is about to happen.

Can you please explain why they should not move forward with the path they had outlined prior to the referendum that was carried with a massive majority? An exit poll showing also showing a majority in favour of it doesn't seem like a great reason.

antiskeptic

Podge_irl wrote: »

How am I clinging to a ridiculous lifeline?

The lifeline was 52% is sufficient support for a particular aspect of legislation.

The Citizen's Assembly,

Did you read about what the Citizen's Assembly was, who brought it about and why? Are you impressed by it's impressive sounding title. Or have you actually looked at what it was. A piddly little group of 100 citizens.

You've been remarkably silent on the idea that the referendum was stacked by the political top brass from the very outset. What have you to say about that - given you're pretty tight on the idea of democratic majorities of a percent or two

the Oireachtas committee,

Did you read about the Oireachtas Committee: the fact it was stacked, the fact that the chair is pro choice, the fact that they were following the recommendations of the aforementioned Assembly.

The Oireachtas Committee was like After Hours. An echo chamber for a preset view.

the referendum

Poo in > poo out?

Have you read post post 85? Do you object to it's basic conclusions?

and even your beloved exit poll all had a majority in favour of what is about to happen.

Clinging to a 52/48 split? I've heard of the resounding landslide of support. Unfortunately, it doesn't happen to attach itself to the most significant element of this whole affair.

Just for the hell of it. Let's suppose the 1.6% stated margin of error tends towards the No side (seeing as the RTE poll overshot the YES vote).

And it's now 50.4 / 49.6

Still full bore legislation because the majority of the electorate support it

:rolleyes:

fritzelly

Great how the No side are now trying to spin this as people didn't vote to allow abortion

They will just not give it up.

antiskeptic

fritzelly wrote: »

Great how the No side are now trying to spin this as people didn't vote to allow abortion

Oh they allowed abortion alright. What you're trying to spin out of a landslide is landslide support for the legislation published. Not possible, I'm afraid.

The question is whether they were shepherded into abortion on request by their desire to legislate for hard cases.

Goes together like a horse and carriage
You can't have one without the other

oscarBravo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Oh they allowed abortion alright. What you're trying to spin out of a landslide is landslide support for the legislation published.

The government published the outline of the legislation they intended to enact in the event of the referendum passing. The referendum passed by a landslide. The government will now enact the legislation they said they intended to enact.

It really is that simple. The anti-choice side lost, and lost hard. It's time to get over it.

antiskeptic

oscarBravo wrote: »

The government published the outline of the legislation they intended to enact in the event of the referendum passing. The referendum passed by a landslide. The government will now enact the legislation they said they intended to enact.

The chief word in what you say there is "government" Government consists of politicians.

It really is that simple. The anti-choice side lost, and lost hard. It's time to get over it.

How very democratic of you!

Now about the means whereby the government set about obtaining the result that it wanted (shielding direct exposure to the issue of abortion on request in the process). And the apparent fact that support is split on abortion on request...

Anyone?

fritzelly

People knew what would happen after the repeal and they voted 2:1 for it
Any sane person would class that as a landslide instead of picking figures from an exit poll of a few thousand people of which 62% stated the "right to choose" was the number one reason for selecting Yes. I could spin other numbers from the poll as well...oh wait that wasn't spin it's facts.

salmocab

antiskeptic wrote: »

The chief word in what you say there is "government" Government consists of politicians.







How very democratic of you!

You earlier in this thread said I was 'some democrat' and now this, the people have spoken and spoken by a significant number. This is democracy, you seem to think democracy is everyone agreeing with you and ignoring the will of the people, your like a child who had a goal disallowed and are now trying to change the offside rule and then heading off with the ball.

oscarBravo

antiskeptic wrote: »

The chief word in what you say there is "government" Government consists of politicians.

Fine. The politicians in the government published the draft legislation in advance of the referendum; in that full knowledge the people voted overwhelmingly for the referendum; the politicians in the government now have a clear mandate to enact the legislation that informed the referendum result.

Now about the means whereby the government set about obtaining the result that it wanted (shielding direct exposure to the issue of abortion on request in the process). And the apparent fact that support is split on abortion on request...

Look, I get that, having failed to keep a ban on abortion in the referendum, you're desperately trying to keep as much of that ban as possible in legislation. But, with all due respect, the "women shouldn't have a choice in whether or not they're pregnant" side lost the referendum.

You seem to think that somehow there's political advantage for the government in going back on its word, and telling the people "you know how you voted to allow abortion? Yeah, we're not going to do that."

That strikes me as the bizarrest of anti-choice fantasies. I can't think of any level on which it makes sense. Apparently it does to you, but hey.

antiskeptic

fritzelly wrote: »

People knew what would happen after the repeal and they voted 2:1 for it. Any sane person would class that as a landslide instead of picking figures from an exit poll of a few thousand people of which 62% stated the "right to choose" was the number one reason for selecting Yes. I could spin other numbers from the poll as well...oh wait that wasn't spin it's facts.

Unfortunately for that position, the exit poll actually mirrored the final result.

Unfortunately for that position, a landslide involving any number of factors on the YES side can't be assumed to be landslide support for every element of the YES side.

It's just not possible to use a pitchfork to extract a periwinkle. Much as you want it to be so.

fritzelly

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's just not possible to use a pitchfork to extract a periwinkle. Much as you want it to be so.

Strangely enough you are picking the numbers you like to suit your case - pretty much the whole No campaign from start to finish

antiskeptic

fritzelly wrote: »

Strangely enough you are picking the numbers you like to suit your case - pretty much the whole No campaign from start to finish

Its not my fault that the government worked to bury the issue of abortion on request in such a way that people couldn't vote on it.

I'm just working with the numbers as they rolled out.

Lets say it wasnt 50/50 on abortion on request. Lets say it was 70/30 against.

No one has said what they think the governments mandate for legislating on this particular issue would be in such an event.

Would you, as a democrat, like to say?

antiskeptic

salmocab wrote: »

You earlier in this thread said I was 'some democrat' and now this, the people have spoken and spoken by a significant number. This is democracy, you seem to think democracy is everyone agreeing with you and ignoring the will of the people, your like a child who had a goal disallowed and are now trying to change the offside rule and then heading off with the ball.

Unfortunately, you cannot extrapolate the result of one question onto another.

The people, in granting the government a mandate to legislate as advertised (by virtue of rejecting the 8th) aren't necessarily saying they are happy with what's advertised.



They are entitled now, to register any unhappiness they have, which they couldnt register due to the design of the referendum question, with the government.

Are they not?

Call me Al

antiskeptic wrote: »

All of which has a kind of stick-fingers-in-ear / cling-like-pooh-to-a-shovel feel about it.

The question of post 85 is whether the electorate were manipulated up the garden path to a result the government wanted.

Now I realise that you like the result. That's fair enough.


The question however, is whether you give a fig that the electorate were led down the garden path to that result. If the result is more important to you than the means by which it was obtained, then fair enough - you're not a democrat (which is your democratic right)

Funnily enough the only poster guilty of your first line in this thread is yourself OP.

Rehashing the same question into various permutations to suit the shiny new approach of the Iona Inst. solely to discredit yesterday's result is despicable, but I'm not surprised.

The save-the-8th campaign was comprehensively beaten and many of its activists are finding it hard to accept. But guess what... It's done. Their ideals surrounding abortion have been rejected. Many anti-repeal TDs who they may have looked to for support in attempting to circumvent the 12 week proposal have openly said they see the strong mandate given in the referendum and will now support the legislation proposed.

blanch152

antiskeptic wrote: »

Unfortunately for that position, the exit poll actually mirrored the final result.

Unfortunately for that position, a landslide involving any number of factors on the YES side can't be assumed to be landslide support for every element of the YES side.

It's just not possible to use a pitchfork to extract a periwinkle. Much as you want it to be so.

You are making the whole NO side out to be liars and hypocrites. They were the ones who told us that a YES vote meant "abortion on demand".

blanch152

antiskeptic wrote: »

Unfortunately, you cannot extrapolate the result of one question onto another.

The people, in granting the government a mandate to legislate as advertised (by virtue of rejecting the 8th) aren't necessarily saying they are happy with what's advertised.



They are entitled now, to register any unhappiness they have, which they couldnt register due to the design of the referendum question, with the government.

Are they not?

Those involved in the NO campaign are not entitled to register any unhappiness as they were the ones who told us that YES means abortion on demand.

If some of the YES campaigners were to say the government's legislation was too extreme, they would have credibility. Unfortunately, the liars and hypocrites in Love Both and the Catholic Church and the other NO campaigns have no such credibility.

pleas advice

blanch152 wrote: »

You are making the whole NO side out to be liars and hypocrites. They were the ones who told us that a YES vote meant "abortion on demand".

while the 'yes' side said it didn't..

Overheal

antiskeptic wrote: »

Its not my fault that the government worked to bury the issue of abortion on request in such a way that people couldn't vote on it.

I'm just working with the numbers as they rolled out.

Lets say it wasnt 50/50 on abortion on request. Lets say it was 70/30 against.

No one has said what they think the governments mandate for legislating on this particular issue would be in such an event.

Would you, as a democrat, like to say?

That’s a great way to address an argument about picking your own numbers to straw man your own argument: pluck some more numbers out of thin air to build up another straw man argument.

Not sure what you mean about the government burying anything however. Seems to have been as Democratic a process as you could get.

Paranoid Bob

I haven't seen in this thread some actions that to me seem quite obvious.

Some no campaigners have repeatedly said throughout the campaign that there are ways to word legislation to support the so-called 'hard cases' without having abortion up to twelve weeks with no restriction as to reason.
They have their opportunity now.

More than half of all FF TDs came out against this change to the constitution. I'm sure Fidelma Healey-Eames or Maria Steen can find one among that group who is willing to propose amendments to the legislation.

As ordinary citizens anyone who is interested in those amendments can lobby for them to be fairly debated.
I have already written to some politicians who have said that they expect the proposed legislation to be rubber-stamped, asking them to be more careful and deliberate in dealing with proposed amendments.

I voted yes on the basis that the 8th amendment was inhumane. It restricted the human rights of Irish women, compromised healthcare and should never have been in the constitution in the first place. I'm not delighted with the prospect of abortion without restriction up to twelve weeks. Having read some of the commission output I don't believe there are any reasonable counter-proposals, but some campaigners have said that there are and I'd like to see that those are considered.

So the politics of the situation as I see it:
1: The no side need to back up claims they made during the campaign and propose amendments.
2: The Oireachtas should consider these amendments fairly and openly.
3: As ordinary citizens anyone can lobby their representatives to see that these two things happen.

If Healey-Eames or Steen really can pull a rabbit out of the hat and propose something reasonable then the government would be well advised to consider it and the exit poll and adopt the amendments.

Personally I don't believe there is a rabbit in that hat, but the legislative process is there and should be used fairly.

Edward M

Paranoid Bob wrote: »

I haven't seen in this thread some actions that to me seem quite obvious.

Some no campaigners have repeatedly said throughout the campaign that there are ways to word legislation to support the so-called 'hard cases' without having abortion up to twelve weeks with no restriction as to reason.
They have their opportunity now.

More than half of all FF TDs came out against this change to the constitution. I'm sure Fidelma Healey-Eames or Maria Steen can find one among that group who is willing to propose amendments to the legislation.

As ordinary citizens anyone who is interested in those amendments can lobby for them to be fairly debated.
I have already written to some politicians who have said that they expect the proposed legislation to be rubber-stamped, asking them to be more careful and deliberate in dealing with proposed amendments.

I voted yes on the basis that the 8th amendment was inhumane. It restricted the human rights of Irish women, compromised healthcare and should never have been in the constitution in the first place. I'm not delighted with the prospect of abortion without restriction up to twelve weeks. Having read some of the commission output I don't believe there are any reasonable counter-proposals, but some campaigners have said that there are and I'd like to see that those are considered.

So the politics of the situation as I see it:
1: The no side need to back up claims they made during the campaign and propose amendments.
2: The Oireachtas should consider these amendments fairly and openly.
3: As ordinary citizens anyone can lobby their representatives to see that these two things happen.

If Healey-Eames or Steen really can pull a rabbit out of the hat and propose something reasonable then the government would be well advised to consider it and the exit poll and adopt the amendments.

Personally I don't believe there is a rabbit in that hat, but the legislative process is there and should be used fairly.

I think the public were well aware of the proposed legislation, like the 12 week limit and the special cases that would be allowed after that initial 12 week limit is up.
I think the margin of the victory for the yes side doesent leave much doubt that the proposals as presented are what people want and that should be enacted now as soon as possible.
Given that this current govts time might be up soon I think it should enacted as is proposed and no more hold ups with no delaying tactics from anybody, the people have spoken.

Podge_irl

antiskeptic wrote: »

The lifeline was 52% is sufficient support for a particular aspect of legislation.

I couldn't care less about the results in the exit poll. You do - and they show that there is majority support for abortion on demand. You can espouse as many hypotheticals as you want, the closest thing you have to support for your position still isn't enough.

The government said they were going to table this legislation if there was a Yes and there was an utterly resounding Yes. The vote won't be whipped - if you are so concerned then take it up with you TD. That is how the legislative process works.

seamus

Paranoid Bob wrote: »

Personally I don't believe there is a rabbit in that hat, but the legislative process is there and should be used fairly.

I do agree that the process should be applied fairly.

However, we do know that the No side have no workable alternative. So it's likely that any requests to amend the legislation will simply be delaying and obfuscation tactics, like the Healy-Raes are doing with the latest Road Traffic Bill. So there has to be a limit to how much we allow the legislative process to be abused.

FreudianSlippers

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This year's budget is the cut-off point for the confidence and supply arrangement, after that it's ultimately the opposition's call as to when to collectively pull the plug and pass a no confidence motion calling for a new election. Not saying it's necessarily likely to happen, but it becomes a genuine possibility once the budget goes through.

No. That's the rationale for a finger-in-the-air guess that an election will happen in 2019, but not the basis for a logical or rational statement that there is an imminent election.