fits wrote: » Its a legally binding ruling and the government have to respond meaningfully to it this year. However with the parliament we have, I am not sure how far things will get.
angeldelight wrote: » It is such an exceedingly frustrating issue. There's a whole generation of us who have not had our chance to vote on this
sunshine and showers wrote: » At this stage, no women currently of childbearing age have voted on it. Barring any exceptions who are having babies at 50 years of age.
ted1 wrote: » Or men.
ted1 wrote: » Or men. UN findings aren't legally binding any carry little weight. Notice how Saudi Arabia, Quatar, Russia etc get ignored.
Das Kitty wrote: » I think it might be sooner than we think, tbh. Enda is stalling while we're in this temporary government. He's putting together this citizens' committee rubbishy so he'll have some sort of BS response for the UN about action taken. You just know that fecking committee is going to be half Iona heads, even though they're clearly the noisy minority. BUT, I reckon we'll have a vote in next couple of years, and I reckon the vote will favour repealing.
eviltwin wrote: » I wonder if he's waiting for the result of the Brexit vote next week and how a vote to Leave might impact issues like this here?
sullivlo wrote: » I'm having odd dreams recently. Very long story. I *think* I heard an interview with Enda on the wireless last night where he said they'd discuss it but that they didn't want to rush a decision to put it to the electorate under pressure from the opposition, as he reckoned it would be Lisbon Mark 2 and that repealing wouldn't pass as not enough people would understand the question and they don't know what to replace it with. That could have been a dream though :pac: Fwiw, I think there will be an election soon. However I think the repealing of the 8th will entirely depend on what they propose to replace it with. If it was written in terms of "abortions for all" (& miniature American flags for others), then I don't think it would pass. However if it were to include rape, incest, FFA, etc etc then it might scrape past. My reasons for thinking that? Quite simply my social circle / colleagues. Many of them are rational beings who agree that it should be repealed and that abortion should be available on demand. However a significant number of them think that it should only be in certain cases, and some are vehemently pro life. Combined with the "older" vote, the fact that the "no" campaign will play bully tactics, and voter apathy amongst the young folk, I think it will struggle. The marriage equality passed, but by a tighter margin than polls suggested. That was because everyone knew someone who is in a same sex relationship. But very few can relate in a similar way to abortion.
Stheno wrote: » sunshine and showers wrote: » At this stage, no women currently of childbearing age have voted on it. Barring any exceptions who are having babies at 50 years of age. Ah I'm 42 and remember voting in the referendum after the X case when I was in college
Pat Mustard wrote: » I don't know why he has also pointed out that the UNHR Committee finding is non-binding, though. An unhelpful statement by the Taoiseach.
sullivlo wrote: » The marriage equality passed, but by a tighter margin than polls suggested. That was because everyone knew someone who is in a same sex relationship. But very few can relate in a similar way to abortion.
allym wrote: » That they know of. Statistics would imply that everyone knows someone who has had an abortion, however the shame associated with it means that a lot of people wouldn't disclose this. So I think that most people probably can relate to it they just don't realise it yet.
meeeeh wrote: » It's different. You are gay whole life, while abortion is one off experience. While people might be friends with someone who had it, they could disagree with abortion. It wouldn't affect the relationship or how they vote because it's a temporary thing. There is always reasoning that women can still travel so their life won't be adversely affected. (I know that is not true but it's always possible to rationalize opposition to abortion in that way).
meeeeh wrote: » I didn't say I agree with the sentiment. But it's easy for someone who is pro life to rationalize that way even though someone they know might be affected by abortion. I'm not going into unnecessary abortion squabbles because unavailability of abortion is completely alien to me and I don't have right to vote to change that. My point is you can wheel out all the personal stories and they probably will help in case of fetal fatal abnormalities, incest or rape (good luck getting many to talk about that) but general availability of abortion will be much tougher sell. I just don't believe that personal aspect will be as effective as in gay marriage referendum. Especially because providers will drag personal stories into debates too and probably effectively up to a point. I'm firm believer into abortion on demand up to certain time and with medical certification after that but I was crying in the car (and I don't cry often) listening to a story of abortion survivor on Pat Kenny couple of weeks ago. I could see how someone could be swayed the other way listening to that. Anyway I just don't believe the situation is that comparable to the other referendum, I think this one will have to be won more appealing rationally than emotionally. I hope I am clear enough now so I don't end up being accused to be like racists, bigots and I don't know who else again.
meeeeh wrote: » I didn't say I agree with the sentiment. But it's easy for someone who is pro life to rationalize that way even though someone they know might be affected by abortion.
meeeeh wrote: » I might be wrong but to me it actually seems that women drive the pro life movement. Or maybe they decided it's more effective to put women at the forefront of it in the media appearances. I even know what type of women it will be, they will be softly spoken, they will talk about love, understanding and support constantly and practice none.
Allie Fresh Sauerkraut wrote: » The pro-life movement wheel out the women and the young people to be the public face. They're many things but they're not stupid enough to not see that having old men be the face of the movement doesn't play well. If you look at photos of pro life rallies, you see the crowd of heads getting greyer the further back it goes
