The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

AnGaelach wrote: »

It's a pretty standard tactic - they try to paint you as some kind of 70 year old puritan if you're pro-life. I'm only in my 20s and I've been accused of being a sexual puritan who wants to use women as breeding mares before (not in this thread, but other ones certainly). It's ridiculous at this stage.

To be fair, we've seen clear examples of some very unkind characterization of women by some posters on your side of the divide. The responses to those are directed at those who make the comments and those who support those comments.

You notably did not thank the poster who slurred women seeking abortions as "hussies", so naturally you are not the target of criticism of that user or those who agreed with him

dav3 wrote: »

Where this leaves you, is up to you. But you certainly can’t distance yourself from a religious organisation who were responsible for running a campaign to amend the state constitution 1983, an amendment that we are currently discussing.

Ah, so I'm guilty-by-association?

I'll have you know that you're actually infringing on my Constitutional right to disassociation.

seamus wrote: »

As a matter of interest; since the vote will be on giving the Dail the comptency to legislate on abortion (more restrictive or less restrictive), what's your opinion on that?

If you're generally pro-life (as I am), why would you ever accept a scenario where the rights of the unborn is nothing more than a political football that can be exchanged in horse-trading? Our other Constitutional rights are not left up to the Dáil to decide, because they shouldn't be within the realm of the Dáil to decide. I don't think a political party should be able to make abortion more or less restrictive based solely on horse-trading. I don't think our rights should be diminished like that.

dav3

AnGaelach wrote: »

I'm lapsed Catholic at best, I don't look to the Church for moral direction, and I'm in my 20s... Yet I'm anti-abortion. Where does this place me in your black/white model?

The leaders of the Catholic church and it’s devotees played and intrinsic part in amending the constitution. Although they’ve tried to fight subsequent referendum via proxies and the usual names and organisations, when a referendum is eventually called, they should be leading the charge to keep the 8th amendment as they were in 1983 when they lead a campaign of fear and misinformation.
If the Catholic church’s stance has changed since then, they should let us know. We all know this is not the case, and as they are primarily responsible for amending the 8th in 1983 they should be brought to the forefront of any debate to explain their reasons for keeping this amendment in place.

Where this leaves you, is up to you. But you certainly can’t distance yourself from a religious organisation who were responsible for running a campaign to amend the state constitution 1983, an amendment that we are currently discussing.

seamus

Geuze wrote: »

You'd need to convince me to vote for limited abortion, beyond what is already available.

As a matter of interest; since the vote will be on giving the Dail the comptency to legislate on abortion (more restrictive or less restrictive), what's your opinion on that?

You won't be asked to vote to make abortion more available, just to ensure that we don't have to have a national referendum every time someone discovers a flaw in the constitution in relation to abortion.

Geuze

AnGaelach wrote: »

I'm lapsed Catholic at best, I don't look to the Church for moral direction, and I'm in my 20s... Yet I'm anti-abortion. Where does this place me in your black/white model?

I agree.

I am similar, I am not mass-going, I see myself as a reasonable person.

I was against SSM, and would be against abortion-on-demand.

You'd need to convince me to vote for limited abortion, beyond what is already available.

seamus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But when one side consists of a bunch of hypercatholic pre Vatican 2 dinosaurs, and the other side consists of everybody else, this "balance" is entirely artificial.

Take the SSM referendum - the only way to have a balanced debate would be no debate. The anti crew were mad, just letting them speak destroyed their own side.

The issue here is the level of nepotism that goes around broadcasting circles. The same reason why we see the same old presenters getting the same old jobs in RTE again and again and no space being made for new talent.

At a national level, Iona are nobodies. They have no specific affiliation or remit under the catholic church, no membership, unclear sources of funding, and seem to exist entirely as a platform for two or three conservative catholic journalists. They don't "do" anything except comment on stuff.

So the question has to be asked as to why anyone gives them the time of day? Why do Iona seem to appear every time anything with a remotely religious slant is being discussed? Why not Una Bean Mic Mathuna? Or the Irish Countrywomens' Association? They are as big and influential to the Irish population as Iona are.

Enter Tom Savage. A former priest, husband of Terry Prone, father of Anton Savage and founder/director of the communications clinic. A PR firm who represent a lot of Irish people, including many of those in RTE, Fine Gael, and with strong links to those in Iona and other bodies.

Oh and of course, Tom was also a broadcaster on RTE and a member of the board up until 2014.

So it would be fair to say that Tom and his company had/have significant influence within RTE when it comes to getting people on air. In fact, I don't think it would be unfair to say that RTE just ring the communications clinic and ask them who should go on air.

Tom died 4 weeks ago, and while I've no doubt Terry Prone is still best buds with a lot of the senior figures in RTE and Iona, it'll be interesting to see if the links start to wane and Iona find themselves being squeezed out in favour of other conservative political commentators.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But when one side consists of a bunch of hypercatholic pre Vatican 2 dinosaurs, and the other side consists of everybody else, this "balance" is entirely artificial.

I'm lapsed Catholic at best, I don't look to the Church for moral direction, and I'm in my 20s... Yet I'm anti-abortion. Where does this place me in your black/white model?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So was their failure to round up opposition due to the fact it was so popular, or did it end up so popular because the anti side were so pathetic?

I had no problem with gay marriage but to be completely fair, it would be social suicide to come out against it (abortion is much more nuanced so there might be a more "open" argument for/against it) so of the 37% of people who voted against it, the majority certainly didn't tell their friends or family they were voting that way.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Haven't seen one user refer to women (who have become pregnant through consensual sex) in that manner, or anything close to it.

It's a pretty standard tactic - they try to paint you as some kind of 70 year old puritan if you're pro-life. I'm only in my 20s and I've been accused of being a sexual puritan who wants to use women as breeding mares before (not in this thread, but other ones certainly). It's ridiculous at this stage.

Zubeneschamali

kunst nugget wrote: »

It's not that the folks in RTÉ believe they have to have a balanced debate - all radio stations are required by the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland to have balanced coverage with both sides being given equal treatment.

But when one side consists of a bunch of hypercatholic pre Vatican 2 dinosaurs, and the other side consists of everybody else, this "balance" is entirely artificial.

Take the SSM referendum - the only way to have a balanced debate would be no debate. The anti crew were mad, just letting them speak destroyed their own side.

eviltwin

NuMarvel wrote: »

The 50/50 balance rule only applies during referendum campaigns. Outside of that, the rules are that broadcasters must be fair and objective. But as the BAI said, there's no automatic requirement for balance or equal airtime to be fair.

does that apply across the board? I can't see ,for example, Spirit FM, which has a strong Christian ethos, taking on a balanced view on this issue

kunst nugget wrote: »

RTÉ would be following the BAI guidelines to avoid complaints being upheld against them.

I think they have a duty to push the envelope and exercise some discretion though, complaints or otherwise.

kunst nugget wrote: »

No, it wouldn't mean that his opinion would have to be aired, it just means that if it is aired, equal coverage has to be given to an opposing argument. Like I said, I think the problem has been with the previous couple of a referendum (Marriage Equality, Children's Rights) only fringe groups were in the opposition camp which lead to them being given a lot of media power - it didn't do much damage to the outcome of the votes.

In which case we can hope that the loonies are crowded out by more moderate No's... well ok, I hope so.

In theory that is what should happen since this is a more divisive topic, but I guess we'll see if RTE get that quite soon.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

But was that the BAI or RTE's fear of the BAI erring on the side of caution?

RTÉ would be following the BAI guidelines to avoid complaints being upheld against them.

NuMarvel wrote: »

The 50/50 balance rule only applies during referendum campaigns. Outside of that, the rules are that broadcasters must be fair and objective. But as the BAI said, there's no automatic requirement for balance or equal airtime to be fair.

They seem to get a lot of complaints from both sides any time this issue is raised outside of referenda about balance and fairness if only one side of the argument is being favoured. Hasn't Ray D'arcy been stung a couple of times in relation to it?

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Sure, but if, for the sake of argument, a TD wished to opine that we should vote no because it is the will of the faeries, does BAI require that his opinion get an airing, or is it sufficient that equal time and exposure be granted to the no side, but with discretion as to the bonkersness of the actual voices given a platform?

No, it wouldn't mean that his opinion would have to be aired, it just means that if it is aired, equal coverage has to be given to an opposing argument. Like I said, I think the problem has been with the previous couple of a referendum (Marriage Equality, Children's Rights) only fringe groups were in the opposition camp which lead to them being given a lot of media power - it didn't do much damage to the outcome of the votes.

NuMarvel

kunst nugget wrote: »

It's not that the folks in RTÉ believe they have to have a balanced debate - all radio stations are required by the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland to have balanced coverage with both sides being given equal treatment.

The 50/50 balance rule only applies during referendum campaigns. Outside of that, the rules are that broadcasters must be fair and objective. But as the BAI said, there's no automatic requirement for balance or equal airtime to be fair.

kunst nugget wrote: »

In referenda like the one for the Marriage Equality one, it did end giving a lot of power to fringe groups like the Iona Institute as they were one of the few groups opposing it but thems the breaks.

But was that the BAI or RTE's fear of the BAI erring on the side of caution?

kunst nugget wrote: »

I still think the fair and balanced approach is the only way to go - it stops dissent about unfair treatment in the media if the vote goes against them.

I hope so. My only worry on it, is that in the US elections, DJT was getting knocked down in the polls when directly debating his opponent, but as soon as the debates ended, so did his declining polls. Unless the direct confrontation of a dishonest/illogical/post-factual side is near-continuous to an exhausting extent, the effect of that challenge in polling seems to be very short-lived. I'm just not so convinced anymore that granting fringe voices a platform is as wise or effective as we assume.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

This I know, but I don't have to like how "balanced" is interpreted by a spineless organisation that fears complaints more than it respects expertise or good journalism.

There will be plenty of voices on the No side with a coherent argument to make. We won't want for balance.

In referenda like the one for the Marriage Equality one, it did end giving a lot of power to fringe groups like the Iona Institute as they were one of the few groups opposing it but thems the breaks.

I still think the fair and balanced approach is the only way to go - it stops dissent about unfair treatment in the media if the vote goes against them.

eviltwin

AtomicHorror wrote: »

This was something that came to my mind last week as well.

Although I'm happy with the outcome of the CA, I still do think that a sample so small cannot be considered statistically representative of the population.

What I think would be really interesting would be any data on the participants attitudes on entry into the CA. And then of course equivalent polling on exit.

Was the wording of the ballots known at the start of the CA meetings on Article 40.3.3? Was any entry polling done?

It would be very interesting to see if the CA were similar to the general populace in attitudes and whether access to experts moved people's position on various matters.

They were asked before they were selected on their views on abortion. Anyone with links to a pro choice or pro life campaign was not selected.

kunst nugget wrote: »

It's not that the folks in RTÉ believe they have to have a balanced debate - all radio stations are required by the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland to have balanced coverage with both sides being given equal treatment.

Sure, but if, for the sake of argument, a TD wished to opine that we should vote no because it is the will of the faeries, does BAI require that his opinion get an airing, or is it sufficient that equal time and exposure be granted to the no side, but with discretion as to the bonkersness of the actual voices given a platform?

NuMarvel

dav3 wrote: »

It was similar to the Citizen’s Assembly where one side of the debate was unable to put their points across in a meaningful manner. They, like the same-sex marriage referendum relied on misinformation and false facts.

As an aside, there are disgraceful attempts to undermine the Citizens’ Assembly by certain people in the media. One point being that the outcome does not tally with previous polls.

This is a false equivalence. The only way you can compare a poll and the outcome of the Citizen’s Assembly would be to expose the people taking to poll to the same facts, logic and evidence by leading experts and then poll them and compare it to the Citizens’ Assembly outcome. I imagine we would get the same results as the Assembly.

When you expose people to misinformation and fearmongering, having a skewed poll on abortion is inevitable. The attempts to discredit the Citizen’s Assembly should be challenged at every opportunity.

What's somewhat encouraging is that the first poll after the Assembly concluded showed broadly similar results to the opinions of the Assembly members.

The Claire Byrne Live poll showed that, when don't knows were excluded, 60% of people favoured access to abortion with no restrictions with 40% against. The result from the Assembly was 64% in favour, 36% against. There is a caveat with that, because the Don't Knows in the CB Live poll were at 17%, so sizeable enough to make a different either way. But it's a good start just one day later.

I think it would be beneficial for everyone if the media used the CA criteria; reasons and timeframes, for future polls. It's what the Oireachtas will be looking at, so it will build a better picture of public opinion.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Folks in RTE believe that they have to have a "balanced" debate with views on both sides given equal and respectful treatment.

It's not that the folks in RTÉ believe they have to have a balanced debate - all radio stations are required by the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland to have balanced coverage with both sides being given equal treatment.

dav3 wrote: »

As an aside, there are disgraceful attempts to undermine the Citizens’ Assembly by certain people in the media. One point being that the outcome does not tally with previous polls.

This is a false equivalence. The only way you can compare a poll and the outcome of the Citizen’s Assembly would be to expose the people taking to poll to the same facts, logic and evidence by leading experts and then poll them and compare it to the Citizens’ Assembly outcome. I imagine we would get the same results as the Assembly.

When you expose people to misinformation and fearmongering, having a skewed poll on abortion is inevitable. The attempts to discredit the Citizen’s Assembly should be challenged at every opportunity.

This was something that came to my mind last week as well.

Although I'm happy with the outcome of the CA, I still do think that a sample so small cannot be considered statistically representative of the population.

What I think would be really interesting would be any data on the participants attitudes on entry into the CA. And then of course equivalent polling on exit.

Was the wording of the ballots known at the start of the CA meetings on Article 40.3.3? Was any entry polling done?

It would be very interesting to see if the CA were similar to the general populace in attitudes and whether access to experts moved people's position on various matters.

dav3

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Folks in RTE believe that they have to have a "balanced" debate with views on both sides given equal and respectful treatment.

The gay marriage referendum was strange that way, since they were unable to dig out anyone half-way normal to oppose it with "balance", although they tried.

So was their failure to round up opposition due to the fact it was so popular, or did it end up so popular because the anti side were so pathetic?

It was similar to the Citizen’s Assembly where one side of the debate was unable to put their points across in a meaningful manner. They, like the same-sex marriage referendum relied on misinformation and false facts.

As an aside, there are disgraceful attempts to undermine the Citizens’ Assembly by certain people in the media. One point being that the outcome does not tally with previous polls.

This is a false equivalence. The only way you can compare a poll and the outcome of the Citizen’s Assembly would be to expose the people taking to poll to the same facts, logic and evidence by leading experts and then poll them and compare it to the Citizens’ Assembly outcome. I imagine we would get the same results as the Assembly.

When you expose people to misinformation and fearmongering, having a skewed poll on abortion is inevitable. The attempts to discredit the Citizen’s Assembly should be challenged at every opportunity.

kunst nugget wrote: »

There's pretty strict rules in place in terms of balanced reporting in relation to referenda (or even potential referenda like repeal the 8th) where both sides have to get equal airing - organisations on both sides seem to monitor the airwaves obsessively and make complaints if they think the other side is getting preferential treatment.

This I know, but I don't have to like how "balanced" is interpreted by a spineless organisation that fears complaints more than it respects expertise or good journalism.

There will be plenty of voices on the No side with a coherent argument to make. We won't want for balance.

Zubeneschamali

dav3 wrote: »

This applies to the same half dozen names, that we all know, constantly on the airwaves attempting to misinform and muddy the waters when it comes to the abortion debate.

Folks in RTE believe that they have to have a "balanced" debate with views on both sides given equal and respectful treatment.

The gay marriage referendum was strange that way, since they were unable to dig out anyone half-way normal to oppose it with "balance", although they tried.

So was their failure to round up opposition due to the fact it was so popular, or did it end up so popular because the anti side were so pathetic?