Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

1…225226228230231…332

Comments

  • #6812
    Edward M
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,837 ✭✭✭Edward M


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    I think this is one of the most honest statements I have read.

    If, as next of kin, it is a case of the woman or the fetus... how many of us in all honesty would say save the fetus?

    I wouldn't.

    Its stating the obvious though I feel.
    Repealing the eighth would romp home in a referendum imo
    What a lot of voters might have and indeed do have issue with is what is proposed to replace it.


  • #6813
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Edward M wrote: »
    Its stating the obvious though I feel.
    Repealing the eighth would romp home in a referendum imo
    What a lot of voters might have and indeed do have issue with is what is proposed to replace it.

    I agree.

    The message needs to be clear that as long as the 8th is there things will continue exactly as they have been. Now, while that suits some people, I think they are in a minority.

    A No vote is a vote to ensure that:

    Women can, and will, be denied medical treatment.
    Rape victims can, and will, be forced through extra trauma.
    Suicidal women will be forced to endure a 'reviews by experts'.

    People will have to stand helplessly by as a Constitutional clause means their wife/partner/daughter/sister's life will have to be medically deemed 51% likely to end before a pregnancy that threatens their life can be terminated.

    Can you imagine being in that room? It's the stuff of nightmares.


  • #6814
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Edward M wrote: »
    I could easily say I don't think his wifes health is worth more than my unborn.

    To clarify, I do of course mean if my wife were pregnant, I would put her life and health above the life of her unborn.

    I meant "any" in the sense of any regardless of healthy, healthy as far as we know, Downs, FFA, whatever. Regardless of the health or otherwise of the unborn, my wife comes first.


  • #6815
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    I think this is one of the most honest statements I have read.

    If, as next of kin, it is a case of the woman or the fetus... how many of us in all honesty would say save the fetus?

    I wouldn't.

    This is why many Catholic women over the years have chosen to attend the Rotunda rather than Holles St (when they got a choice), to avoid the Catholic Ethos which was, traditionally, save the baby for baptism.

    This ethos is no longer in force if you ask the Master of Holles St., but you'll remember the fuss about having the Nuns at St. Vincent's in charge of the National Maternity Hospital recently, and we all remember the unofficial comments made to Savita Hallapanavar.


  • #6816
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,771 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Embarrassing for the Irish Examiner which was recently bought by the Irish Times, and the poll they printed on their front page that 75% of doctors supported 12 week abortion limit.
    It turned out it was a twitter poll where anyone could log in and claim they were a doctor and vote as there was no verification of one was or wasn’t a doctor.
    So this is a clear example of fake news being splashed across a national newspaper when the poll was open to be anyone but claimed it was only doctors who were asked.

    https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/75-of-doctors-support-12-week-access-to-abortion-466855.html

    They used a twitter poll and also a link where one could say they were a doctor and then vote.
    Here is the twitter poll
    https://twitter.com/imt_latest/status/956898931639808001

    But it is splashed across a national newspaper as a proper poll, lol. A paper owned by the Irish Times...


  • Advertisement
  • #6817
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Embarrassing for the Irish Examiner which was recently bought by the Irish Times, and the poll they printed on their front page that 75% of doctors supported 12 week abortion limit.
    It turned out it was a twitter poll where anyone could log in and claim they were a doctor and vote as there was no verification of one was or wasn’t a doctor.
    So this is a clear example of fake news being splashed across a national newspaper when the poll was open to be anyone but claimed it was only doctors who were asked.

    https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/75-of-doctors-support-12-week-access-to-abortion-466855.html

    They used a twitter poll and also a link where one could say they were a doctor and then vote.
    Here is the twitter poll
    https://twitter.com/imt_latest/status/956898931639808001

    But it is splashed across a national newspaper as a proper poll, lol. A paper owned by the Irish Times...

    The IMT survey was based on a proper survey, and not the twitter poll. The Twitter poll had 93 votes, whereas the IMT survey referred to in the headline had 388 respondents. The results don't match either.
    Out of 388 respondents, a total of 285, or 73%, said they are in favour of the divisive new rule, while 96, or 25%, said they are opposed, with just seven survey takers, or 2%, saying they have no view on the matter.

    Maybe next time, try reading the article before telling us they got it wrong, yeah?


  • #6818
    baylah17
    Closed Accounts Posts: 790 ✭✭✭baylah17


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    RobertKK wrote: »
    Embarrassing for the Irish Examiner which was recently bought by the Irish Times, and the poll they printed on their front page that 75% of doctors supported 12 week abortion limit.
    It turned out it was a twitter poll where anyone could log in and claim they were a doctor and vote as there was no verification of one was or wasn’t a doctor.
    So this is a clear example of fake news being splashed across a national newspaper when the poll was open to be anyone but claimed it was only doctors who were asked.

    https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/75-of-doctors-support-12-week-access-to-abortion-466855.html

    They used a twitter poll and also a link where one could say they were a doctor and then vote.
    Here is the twitter poll
    https://twitter.com/imt_latest/status/956898931639808001

    But it is splashed across a national newspaper as a proper poll, lol. A paper owned by the Irish Times...

    The IMT survey was based on a proper survey, and not the twitter poll. The Twitter poll had 93 votes, whereas the IMT survey referred to in the headline had 388 respondents. The results don't match either.
    Out of 388 respondents, a total of 285, or 73%, said they are in favour of the divisive new rule, while 96, or 25%, said they are opposed, with just seven survey takers, or 2%, saying they have no view on the matter.

    Maybe next time, try reading the article before telling us they got it wrong, yeah?
    Way to go on cou texting the no sides nasty and misleading propaganda.


  • #6819
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    The results don't match either.
    The IMT survey is 75% in favour when you exclude the "no opinion"s


  • #6820
    keano_afc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,711 ✭✭✭keano_afc


    seamus wrote: »
    The IMT survey is 75% in favour when you exclude the "no opinion"s

    The Journal and the Irish Times have pulled this "survey" from their online versions. Its the very definition of fake news.


  • #6821
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    keano_afc wrote: »
    The Journal and the Irish Times have pulled this "survey" from their online versions. Its the very definition of fake news.

    Except for the fake part?


  • Advertisement
  • #6822
    applehunter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,056 ✭✭✭applehunter


    I don't trust our media to report on the referendum fairly.

    That poll today is another example of why.


  • #6823
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,916 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    applehunter wrote: »
    I don't trust our media to report on the referendum fairly.

    That poll today is another example of why.


    what in particular was unfair about the poll in the examiner?


  • #6824
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    seamus wrote: »
    The IMT survey is 75% in favour when you exclude the "no opinion"s

    Considering Robert couldn't tell the difference between a poll that had 93 votes and a news report referring to a survey of 383 responses, I don't think he went so far as to calculate the results after excluding don't knows. :D
    keano_afc wrote: »
    The Journal and the Irish Times have pulled this "survey" from their online versions. Its the very definition of fake news.

    The only thing that's been confirmed as fake so far is Robert's assertion that the result was based on the Twitter poll. It clearly wasn't.

    If you have evidence of other problems with the survey, feel free to share.


  • #6825
    keano_afc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,711 ✭✭✭keano_afc


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    what in particular was unfair about the poll in the examiner?

    That we're led to believe it was a poll of doctors. It was a poll of people who read a magazine, which could be anybody.


  • #6826
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    applehunter wrote: »
    I don't trust our media to report on the referendum fairly.

    That poll today is another example of why.

    Ah sure, you always have Alive! for indepth, impartial, and comprehensive coverage of the important issues of the day :D


  • #6827
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,916 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    keano_afc wrote: »
    That we're led to believe it was a poll of doctors. It was a poll of people who read a magazine, which could be anybody.


    who do you think reads the Irish Medical Times?


  • #6828
    keano_afc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,711 ✭✭✭keano_afc


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    who do you think reads the Irish Medical Times?

    Anybody who buys it.


  • #6829
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,916 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    keano_afc wrote: »
    Anybody who buys it.


    and who do you think buys? Are there a lot of non-medical people buying it? if you have some info please share it?


  • #6830
    keano_afc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,711 ✭✭✭keano_afc


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    and who do you think buys? Are there a lot of non-medical people buying it? if you have some info please share it?

    Anybody who wants to buy the magazine can buy it.

    What percentage of the respondents were doctors? You seem to know more about it than me.


  • #6831
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    keano_afc wrote: »
    Anybody who buys it.

    In 2016, it had a circulation of fewer than 7k copies. It's a trade publication that sells mostly through subscriptions.

    Where would you put the number of non medical professionals who bought that issue and responded to a poll expressly aimed at medical professionals?

    The straw grasping going on by pro life posters isn't screaming confidence, I must say.


  • Advertisement
  • #6832
    keano_afc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,711 ✭✭✭keano_afc


    Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »
    In 2016, it had a circulation of fewer than 7k copies. It's a trade publication that sells mostly through subscriptions.

    Where would you put the number of non medical professionals who bought that issue and responded to a poll expressly aimed at medical professionals?

    The straw grasping going on by pro life posters isn't screaming confidence, I must say.

    What percentage of the respondents were doctors? The headline insinuates that all who replied were medical doctors. You dont dispute that?


  • #6833
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    keano_afc wrote: »
    What percentage of the respondents were doctors? The headline insinuates that all who replied were medical doctors. You dont dispute that?

    It's a very reasonable implication for the reasons I pointed our. Any chance of you answering my question?


  • #6834
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,916 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    keano_afc wrote: »
    Anybody who wants to buy the magazine can buy it.

    What percentage of the respondents were doctors? You seem to know more about it than me.

    The IMT is free for doctors. Others have to pay €300 a year for a subscription. I doubt you can buy it in a shop. Its a specialist trade publication.


  • #6835
    applehunter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,056 ✭✭✭applehunter


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    what in particular was unfair about the poll in the examiner?

    It's not in any way a scientific poll but is presented as such in bold print on the front page of the Examiner

    "75% of doctors support 12 week access (to abortion)"


  • #6836
    uptherebels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,063 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    applehunter wrote: »
    I don't trust our media to report on the referendum fairly.

    That poll today is another example of why.
    why ? because they don't agree with you?:rolleyes:


  • #6837
    keano_afc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,711 ✭✭✭keano_afc


    Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »
    It's a very reasonable implication for the reasons I pointed our. Any chance of you answering my question?

    I have no idea what the breakdown of respondents was. Nobody does. Thats the point. So to put "75% of doctors", when nobody knows how many doctors took the survey, is misleading.


  • #6838
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,916 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    applehunter wrote: »
    It's not in any way a scientific poll but is presented as such in bold print on the front page of the Examiner

    "75% of doctors support 12 week access (to abortion)"

    So if they changed it to "75% of doctors who responded to a poll support 12 week access (to abortion)" would that be fair? a little bit wordy for a headline. Which is why people usually read the rest of the article. Well except RobertKK of course :)


  • #6839
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,916 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    keano_afc wrote: »
    I have no idea what the breakdown of respondents was. Nobody does. Thats the point. So to put "75% of doctors", when nobody knows how many doctors took the survey, is misleading.


    It is a reasonable assumption that the vast majority who responded were doctors.


  • #6840
    keano_afc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,711 ✭✭✭keano_afc


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    It is a reasonable assumption that the vast majority who responded were doctors.

    Its an unreasonable and inaccurate assumption to present a % figure as fact in a national newspaper, when the reality is not the case.


  • Advertisement
  • #6841
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,916 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    keano_afc wrote: »
    Its an unreasonable and inaccurate assumption to present a % figure as fact in a national newspaper, when the reality is not the case.


    unreasonable in your opinion. You dont know that the reality is not the case.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement