Strike For Repeal?

For the posters that are against repealing, but happy to replace or update, what wording would you be happy with? I personally want it repealed and removed, and then we'll be using the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act which is currently very restrictive. Then we can start to legislate for edge cases like fatal fetal abnormalities. Having this covered by legislation will allow us to comprehensively cover different scenarios, and not require another bloody referendum to include an edge case that previously hadn't come to light.

Some raised a very interesting idea earlier about have 2 votes on the same day- one for repeal and one advisory vote on the wording of legislation.

Live65a846d0ee wrote: »

Ireland is at the upper level look at the percentages.

So we've gone from "Ireland has the highest faith level of any country in Europe" to kinda upper level, though as has been pointed out more recent stats show us in the middle. Give it enough time and you may yet recognise reality.

The only countries higher are tiny city states and countries not even in European Union(Turkey lol?)

"LOL" indeed. Italy, Poland, Greece etc are "tiny city states"? WooooooooooK.

munchkin_utd wrote: »

similarly in Russia the abortion rates are way above the average in other parts of the world as its free to access, whereas condoms or the pill isn't.

since then its reduced to only about a million abortions a year.

I'm pro choice and pro repeal, but I certainly don't believe it should be free. Is that an idea that one of the campaign groups are pushing? That's a bloody awful idea.

mahamageehad wrote: »

For the posters that are against repealing, but happy to replace or update, what wording would you be happy with? I personally want it repealed and removed, and then we'll be using the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act which is currently very restrictive. Then we can start to legislate for edge cases like fatal fetal abnormalities. Having this covered by legislation will allow us to comprehensively cover different scenarios, and not require another bloody referendum to include an edge case that previously hadn't come to light.

Some raised a very interesting idea earlier about have 2 votes on the same day- one for repeal and one advisory vote on the wording of legislation.

Are you joking now? The abortion should be free for all not restricted to scenarios which make up 3 cases per year.

Wibbs wrote: »

So we've gone from "Ireland has the highest faith level of any country in Europe" to kinda upper level, though as has been pointed out more recent stats show us in the middle. Give it enough time and you may yet recognise reality.

"LOL" indeed. Italy, Poland, Greece etc are "tiny city states"? WooooooooooK.

Do some research before posting indoctrinated garbage, look at the colored map and you will see the correlation between a SECULAR society and RELIGIOUS society and see the differences in law.

minikin

The Central Statistics Office have reported that yesterday around lunchtime was the most productive Irish workplaces have been in years, "**** just got done, it was like the olden days" according to their official report.

Live65a846d0ee wrote: »

Of course, same as brexit will not happen and Donald Trump will not win.

If anything I would argue the No vote will get through precisely because of a similar Trump/Brexit effect. That is a chunk of the population disillusioned with politicians and being told how to vote and a lean to the Right are more likely to favour the No camp. The Yes camp are currently the ones on the preachy "right way to think/vote" path.

mahamageehad wrote: »

I'm pro choice and pro repeal, but I certainly don't believe it should be free. Is that an idea that one of the campaign groups are pushing? That's a bloody awful idea.

I dunno how it could be otherwise M. At least for a fair percentage of the Irish population on medical cards.

Wibbs wrote: »

I dunno how it could be otherwise M. At least for a fair percentage of the Irish population on medical cards.

I thought people on the medical card still had to pay for contraceptive procedures such as implant and coil? The last thing I would want to do is liken abortion to contraception because I'm firmly opposed to that, but surely a voluntary procedure should be charged? I can understand the cost being waived in cases where there is no way the pregnancy can continue (ectopic) or if the baby wouldn't survive outside the womb but in general it should not be free.

The_Kew_Tour

Live65a846d0ee wrote: »

Ireland is at the upper level look at the percentages. The only countries higher are tiny city states and countries not even in European Union(Turkey lol?)

You have been proven wrong.

Let it go. Its ok, its happened to us all

RobertKK

One thing I think is unfair is when certain people (don't want to generalise which would also be unfair) think the following:
The marriage referendum passed and that means repeal the 8th has a great chance.
It is like saying porridge is a healthy and popular breakfast, so that means takeaway for breakfast is also good, when neither are comparable.
On the day of the marriage referendum results, repeal the 8th started trending on twitter. The result was not even fully in when people who are campaigners for the repeal side believed the two are comparable.
Two men or two women marrying each other is not comparable to abortion which is a life and death issue. There is nothing nice about abortion.
But on that marriage referendum results day, there were certain people who compared the two as if people who voted for SSM would also automatically be for repealing the 8th.
It is such a simple way to look at things, people deserve credit and should be viewed as complex beings who can hold a wide variety of varying opinions and views.
I got blocked on twitter by some that results day for replying and saying they are not comparable, some did not want to hear a different opinion. They wanted an echo chamber.
It is like the repeal and replace Obamacare in the US. Here the repeal side want repeal, but fail to see the need for something to replace it with so people actually know what they are voting for.
Even if one opposes abortion, there are a lot of others who oppose the idea of no time limits which is argued by the repeal side.
For whatever side, it is never good letting the extreme position be the actual position.
It is like when Ruth Coppinger argued that the state should have nationalised Dell. People just think 'that is a crazy position to hold'.
She and others now argue 'it is the woman's choice and there should be no time limit'.
That is in the 'nationalise Dell' territory.

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

You have been proven wrong.

Let it go. Its ok, its happened to us all

I have nothing to say to a man who believes that all women should not be allowed to have a choice in the matter if they get pregnant. The words out or your mouth speak for themselves in this case meaning that it requires no further explanation as you expose yourself. The fact that you think that answers all the questions anyone might have.

The_Kew_Tour

Live65a846d0ee wrote: »

I have nothing to say to a man who believes that all women should not be allowed to have a choice in the matter if they get pregnant. The words out or your mouth speak for themselves in this case meaning that it requires no further explanation as you expose yourself. The fact that you think that answers all the questions anyone might have.

Lol. Oh dear

RobertKK wrote: »

Two men or two women marrying each other is not comparable to abortion which is a life and death issue. There is nothing nice about abortion.
But on that marriage referendum results day, there were certain people who compared the two as if people who voted for SSM would also automatically be for repealing the 8th.
It is such a simple way to look at things, people deserve credit and should be viewed as complex beings who can hold a wide variety of varying opinions and views.

+1. I was a hard Yes in the SSM vote, but will as things stand so far a No voter on the 8th and a straw poll among mates throws up the same pattern.

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Lol. Oh dear

No The_Kew_Tour, you've been told!! Best go out and impregnate someone against their will immediately just to show you understand the point.

Idbatterim wrote: »

my mum worked in an abortion clinic in Germany in the seventies and said some of the women used it as another fork of contraception. Disgusting.

This is my fear, abortion should be treated as akin to taking a pill or putting on a condom.

And I as said I worry that many of the Pro Abortion crowd do think it is that simple.

mahamageehad wrote: »

I'm pro choice and pro repeal, but I certainly don't believe it should be free. Is that an idea that one of the campaign groups are pushing? That's a bloody awful idea.

Agreed. I don't see how any service could sustainable if we didn't have to pay for it.

If you're making a choice to avail of any service you should have to contribute in some way.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Agreed. I don't see how any service could sustainable if we didn't have to pay for it.

If you're making a choice to avail of any service you should have to contribute in some way.

You mean taxes like in every other country in the world?

RobertKK wrote: »

One thing I think is unfair is when certain people (don't want to generalise which would also be unfair) think the following:
The marriage referendum passed and that means repeal the 8th has a great chance.
It is like saying porridge is a healthy and popular breakfast, so that means takeaway for breakfast is also good, when neither are comparable.
On the day of the marriage referendum results, repeal the 8th started trending on twitter. The result was not even fully in when people who are campaigners for the repeal side believed the two are comparable.
Two men or two women marrying each other is not comparable to abortion which is a life and death issue. There is nothing nice about abortion.
But on that marriage referendum results day, there were certain people who compared the two as if people who voted for SSM would also automatically be for repealing the 8th.
It is such a simple way to look at things, people deserve credit and should be viewed as complex beings who can hold a wide variety of varying opinions and views.
I got blocked on twitter by some that results day for replying and saying they are not comparable, some did not want to hear a different opinion. They wanted an echo chamber.
It is like the repeal and replace Obamacare in the US. Here the repeal side want repeal, but fail to see the need for something to replace it with so people actually know what they are voting for.
Even if one opposes abortion, there are a lot of others who oppose the idea of no time limits which is argued by the repeal side.
For whatever side, it is never good letting the extreme position be the actual position.
It is like when Ruth Coppinger argued that the state should have nationalised Dell. People just think 'that is a crazy position to hold'.
She and others now argue 'it is the woman's choice and there should be no time limit'.
That is in the 'nationalise Dell' territory.

I actually remember posting something to a similar effect when the gay marriage vote went through, the ink was hardly dry before people started talking about repeal. Now, I don't believe that the gay marriage vote sparked the repeal stuff, it's been bubbling for some time, driving by a number of high profile cases. However, I do think that some people involved have the idea that "liberal Ireland is liberal". I dunno, potentially narcissist layabouts who feel encouraged that since people agreed with them once, they will always. Being a SJW has become a full time hobby for some too.

Similarly to gay marriage, people will be asked to vote on something that largely doesn't directly affect them. Maybe that's why people are assuming it'll go the same way? Most of my friends are for repeal but I've also spoken to a lot that either don't understand the vote (they think it'll immediately allow abortion on demand) or they can't stand the thoughts of abortion. A lot though just don't care. To be honest, gay marriage did not pass by a massive margin and that was essentially a simple issue. I would guess if a vote was called tomorrow it would fail. How far it would fail would depend on the wording. The gay marriage campaigners did one thing right- they got people out to vote. So far, outside of the extremists, people seem to be about as willing to engage in this topic as they would be with a steaming bag of shïte.

RobertKK

Live65a846d0ee wrote: »

You mean taxes like in every other country in the world?

I watched Cecile Richards on CNN last night. The head of Planned Parenthood in the US, she made it clear they received no tax money for abortions.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

This is my fear, abortion should be treated as akin to taking a pill or putting on a condom.

And I as said I worry that many of the Pro Abortion crowd do think it is that simple.

Agreed. I wouldn't consider myself pro abortion to be honest. If someone confided in me that they were pregnant and didn't know what to do, i would never be the first one to bring up abortion. I think it should be restricted by time and circumstance. What I haven't seen people talk about though is recurrence. I believe it should be tracked, people found to be having multiple abortions should be investigated. Seems harsh, but I think it's necessary. I linked to this report earlier in this thread, but according to official stats from the UK for 2015, 38% of women that had an abortion in 2015 had previously had at least one abortion. That's more than 1 in 3, that's shockingly high to me. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/570040/Updated_Abortion_Statistics_2015.pdf

osarusan

mahamageehad wrote: »

I would guess if a vote was called tomorrow it would fail. How far it would fail would depend on the wording.

We don't even know what the vote would be for though. The citizen's assembly meet one more time, then they pass their comments on to the Dail who will debate it some more.

I don't know when we will actually reach a referendum, or what the issues/options to even be voted on will be at the time.

It might be a straight "Repeal the 8th, Yes or No?" Or might be a "Repeal / Amend like this / Amend like this".

We don't know so I don't really know what the campaigning is for right now.

I think there is an appetite for change, but moderate change. I would not be surprised if there was even appetite for abortion on demand with early time limits. I think this because the 'Up until how many weeks?' question seems to me to imply that people are not completely opposed to the idea of abortion on demand, but are concerned about the time-limits involved.

On the Repeal campaign so far, the apparent regularity of the 'Up until how many weeks?' question from potential voters suggests to me that a) there are a number of people who mistakenly think that repealing the 8th would immediately result in abortion on demand being legal, and b) that, as I said, the issue of time-limits is important to people when considering the issue.

From what I can see, the Repeal campaign's response to a) is to actually perpetuate the idea that it's all a bit confusing really, we need to repeal first and then work it out - when this is not the case.

Their response to b) is to say that well it depends doesn't it, and who's to say really.

They seem to be failing to understand what people's reservations are, and rather than try and identify the extent of (what I believe to be) the appetite for change, they are going to ask people to take a step that is too for for a lot of them.

osarusan wrote: »

On the Repeal campaign so far, the apparent regularity of the 'Up until how many weeks?' question from potential voters suggests to me that a) there are a number of people who mistakenly think that repealing the 8th would immediately result in abortion on demand being legal, and b) that, as I said, the issue of time-limits is important to people when considering the issue.

From what I can see, the Repeal campaign's response to a) is to actually perpetuate the idea that it's all a bit confusing really, we need to repeal first and then work it out - when this is not the case.

Their response to b) is to say that well it depends doesn't it, and who's to say really.

They seem to be failing to understand what people's reservations are, and rather than try and identify the extent of (what I believe to be) the appetite for change, they are going to ask people to take a step that is too for for a lot of them.

All of the above is exactly why I think a vote, any vote, right now would fail. There is a shocking amount of people who have only seen the extremes of the abortion debate and believe that repealing the 8th leads to immediate abortion for all, while keeping it in place stops all abortion forever. The extremes from both sides are doing a very poor job.

Campaign isn't really the right word for the repeal crowd for now, they're more a movement that's trying to push for a vote. I believe a vote isn't actually possible til 2018 at the earliest though. Once a vote is actually announced, then some of the more neutral elements will have to come into play- unbiased facts. My worry is that people will be fatigued by then. Until then we can expect more of this arguing while getting nowhere. All that it's achieving is making people in the middle isolated and uncomfortable.

MightyMandarin

Live65a846d0ee wrote: »

I have nothing to say to a man who believes that all women should not be allowed to have a choice in the matter if they get pregnant. The words out or your mouth speak for themselves in this case meaning that it requires no further explanation as you expose yourself. The fact that you think that answers all the questions anyone might have.

What an utterly pathetic answer. Even on a minute point where you were clearly proven wrong, you couldn't admit it.

Live65a846d0ee wrote: »

You mean taxes like in every other country in the world?

Yes absolutely. I don't understand people who think everything should be handed to them for free, that's not how the world works.