8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1

ELM327 · 01-05-2018 10:25AM

mach1982 wrote: »

Here are stats for abortions in England and Wales fro 2016.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/679028/Abortions_stats_England_Wales_2016.pdf

The 1 in 5 posters says in England not England and Wales.

Also has any one who going to vote Yes looked up online what the procedure for an abortion is . I know that any medical procedure that is going to carried out on me or some I care about I will always google it so I understand what is going on .

1 abortion, 4.5 live births and 4.5 stillborn/miscarriage/FFA
Try again.

This 1 in 5 BOLLOX has been debunked multiple times on thread so far. Can we get the OP updated?

Triceratops Ballet · 01-05-2018 10:25AM

Call me Al wrote: »

I attended a county gaa match a few weeks back. There were renua and repeal stands and canvassers with flyers outside the grounds side by side along the footpath. The abuse directed at the repeal stand by a group of football supporters was absolutely disgusting and intimidating. One older man took his phone out to record them whilst shouting abusive names at them. It was just awful to witness and the place teeming with young children.
Even my father, who is against repeal, was shocked at their behaviour.

It's made me more determined to wear my repeal gear tbh.

Triceratops Ballet · 01-05-2018 10:31AM

mach1982 wrote: »

Here are stats for abortions in England and Wales fro 2016.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/679028/Abortions_stats_England_Wales_2016.pdf

The 1 in 5 posters says in England not England and Wales.

Also has any one who going to vote Yes looked up online what the procedure for an abortion is . I know that any medical procedure that is going to carried out on me or some I care about I will always google it so I understand what is going on .

sidenote- I love this attitude of "yes voters are all just a bunch of ignorant trendy sheep, they couldn't possibly know what's at stake here, only no voters are fully informed of the reality of the situation, if they only knew it was killing babies...if they only knew"

NuMarvel · 01-05-2018 10:43AM

optogirl wrote: »

Why? I've had brain surgery & I'm fooked if I'm going to watch the procedure on youtube

I can't even bear to watch people getting stiches. If the legalisation of procedures was dependent on me watching a video, then sorry guys and gals, you're stuck with leeches.

Water John · 01-05-2018 10:45AM

And the No side are, ever so helpful to put up an 'independent fact' site and messaging system. for the undecided.
Totally dishonest.

qxtasybe1nwfh2 · 01-05-2018 10:54AM

mach1982 wrote: »

Here are stats for abortions in England and Wales fro 2016.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/679028/Abortions_stats_England_Wales_2016.pdf

The 1 in 5 posters says in England not England and Wales.

Also has any one who going to vote Yes looked up online what the procedure for an abortion is . I know that any medical procedure that is going to carried out on me or some I care about I will always google it so I understand what is going on .

I know exactly what abortion is and the different ways it is done depending on how far gone the pregnancy is. I will still be voting to repeal.

PhoenixParker · 01-05-2018 10:57AM

Had an abortion procedure in Ireland myself following a miscarriage.

Will be voting repeal.

Am disgusted and horrified by the tactics of the no side in front of maternity hospitals.

Wrongway1985 · 01-05-2018 10:57AM

mach1982 wrote: »

The 1 in 5 posters says in England not England and Wales.

But England is big bad England they need to hammer this home. You couldn't possibly trust the English. The Wendy Grace woman seemed to do this on the late late on the debate on the issue we can't become like Britain etc (despite being available in all EU countries bar here and Malta).

AtomicHorror · 01-05-2018 11:36AM

HonestKevin wrote: »

No. You don't have to be black to be passionate about defending against racisim. I don't want my tax money being spent on women wanting to abort an unborn baby based solely on the color of the unborn babies skin.

A man walks down a footpath and sees a black person approach, and he decides to cross the road to the opposite footpath to avoid them, because he is afraid of black people.

Your taxes pay for both paths and the road, the law allows him to walk where he will, with some reasonable conditions with regard to safety. Your taxes pay to defend his right to move freely. This man has used the taxpayers infrastructure and protections to express his racism. Would you prevent people from using paths and roads generally, or just prevent them from using them in a racist way? Or would you merely, as we would, express your disgust?

If we've agreed as a society that certain actions are legal, we can't concern ourselves with whether the motivation for taking a legal action is acceptable or not. Does allowing the man choice on where to walk constitute "support" for racism?

Now, if the man expresses to others that he acted due to racist motivation, society is entitled to judge and condemn him. He will face the social consequences. If he expresses this in a manner that the law considers hate speech, he will face legal consequences.

The same would apply to your racist abortion scenario. We will probably not know the motivation, but if we come to know it, we can respond via the social and legal consequences mentioned above. Not to block it, but to respond to the expression.

Allowing a choice between two options is not "support" for either specific choice, nor is it "support" for the motivation behind the choice.

As an aside, your ongoing attempt to link abortion and pro-choice generally to racism is revolting. Adding that to your continued insistence that pro-choice people consider babies conceived under various circumstances to be somehow lesser, which is a lie you knowingly repeat... well, you're gathering a nice collection of adjectives, "Honest" Kev.

gmisk · 01-05-2018 11:44AM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

A man walks down a footpath and sees a black person approach, and he decides to cross the road to the opposite footpath to avoid them, because he is afraid of black people.

Your taxes pay for both paths and the road, the law allows him to walk where he will, with some reasonable conditions with regard to safety. Your taxes pay to defend his right to move freely. This man has used the taxpayers infrastructure and protections to express his racism. Would you prevent people from using paths and roads generally, or just prevent them from using them in a racist way? Or would you merely, as we would, express your disgust?

If we've agreed as a society that certain actions are legal, we can't concern ourselves with whether the motivation for taking a legal action is acceptable or not. Does allowing the man choice on where to walk constitute "support" for racism?

Now, if the man expresses to others that he acted due to racist motivation, society is entitled to judge and condemn him. He will face the social consequences. If he expresses this in a manner that the law considers hate speech, he will face legal consequences.

The same would apply to your racist abortion scenario. We will probably not know the motivation, but if we come to know it, we can respond via the social and legal consequences mentioned above. Not to block it, but to respond to the expression.

Allowing a choice between two options is not "support" for either specific choice, nor is it "support" for the motivation behind the choice.

As an aside, your ongoing attempt to link abortion and pro-choice generally to racism is revolting. Adding that to your continued insistence that pro-choice people consider babies conceived under various circumstances to be somehow lesser, which is a lie you knowingly repeat... well, you're gathering a nice collection of adjectives, "Honest" Kev.

This guy has been blocked I am pretty sure...so he wont get to reply...what a loss....

AtomicHorror · 01-05-2018 11:47AM

gmisk wrote: »

This guy has been blocked I am pretty sure...so he wont get to reply...what a loss....

Ah, I missed that- apologies to the mod.

01-05-2018 12:03PM

gctest50 wrote: »

so, when they put this this into storage they were ?

Up to about 17 weeks the cardiac cells are just beating away spontaneously

Ah jaysus that's a terrible comparison. A synthetic heart is not the same at all as a real heart. There's an ongoing debate worldwide about whether such things are ethical. Just because we can create life in our own image, does that mean we should?

01-05-2018 12:03PM

Well actually its a pretty good comparison considering abortion is similarly contentious

Ave Sodalis · 01-05-2018 12:07PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah jaysus that's a terrible comparison. A synthetic heart is not the same at all as a real heart. There's an ongoing debate worldwide about whether such things are ethical. Just because we can create life in our own image, does that mean we should?

Considering that they're created in order to reduce the chances of rejection with a transplant, and also to ensure there is enough organs there to be transplanted. The latter being a problem because not everyone opts to be an organ donor, because they can do that...

ForestFire · 01-05-2018 12:09PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

No, it is about the eighth. That’s the whole point of he referendum. The hint is in the name - repeal or retain the EIGHTH amendment.

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Pity this isn't a vote on abortion then.

Put abortion aside for a sec, what do you think of the 8th amendment?

The referendum is on the regulation of termination of pregnancy.

You cannot claim the the referendum is nothing to do with abortion.
It is one of the core changes we will be voting on.

It is also about many other thing as a result of repealing the 8th, inc. Woman's healthcare etc, but trying to deny its about abortion is just silly.

01-05-2018 12:10PM

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Considering that they're created in order to reduce the chances of rejection with a transplant, and also to ensure there is enough organs there to be transplanted. The latter being a problem because not everyone opts to be an organ donor, because they can do that...

Well I think that poster was saying the stopping of that synthetic heart is the same as stopping the heart of a fetus. I don't think they equate. What keeps coming up in these debates is what is considered "life". Is it binary? Is it a scale? Is a heart beating evident of that? We all have varying opinions.

gctest50 · 01-05-2018 12:21PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

.............

Is a heart beating evident of that?...

ah sorry that kinda my point :

- until about 17 weeks cardiac cells are beating spontaneously

- they will also beat for the craic in a dish :

Triceratops Ballet · 01-05-2018 12:24PM

ForestFire wrote: »

The referendum is on the regulation of termination of pregnancy.

It's not though. Referenda are only held to amend the constitution. We are voting on repealing or retaining an existing article in the constitution.

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

That is the text we are voting on. It is factually incorrect to say we are voting on abortion.

ForestFire wrote: »

You cannot claim the the referendum is nothing to do with abortion.
It is one of the core changes we will be voting on.

It is also about many other thing as a result of repealing the 8th, inc. Woman's healthcare etc, but trying to deny its about abortion is just silly.

Following a yes vote in the referendum there is a proposal to introduce legislation to regulate abortion in Ireland. There is legislation that has been proposed for this, but it has not been passed. We are not voting on this legislation.

In the event of a victory for yes and if the legislation were to fail to pass through the houses of government, it would not be made law. If the government were to fall (it is a minority government and this is the kind of issue that could collapse a government) the incoming government would have no obligation to proceed with the proposed legislative changes.
In either of those instances abortion would still be illegal in Ireland save for the circumstances it is currently legal but womens rights during pregnancy would no longer be compromised.
The 8th amendment is about so much more than abortion, and reducing it to that is disingenuous.

ForestFire · 01-05-2018 12:36PM

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

It's not though.

It is factually incorrect to say we are voting on abortion.

The 8th amendment is about so much more than abortion, and reducing it to that is disingenuous.

You have contradicted yourself in your post, and I never said it was only about abortion or reduce it to that did I? I included "the much more" in my post, but it does include abortion?

But my point is you cannot say it is nothing to do with abortion when it clearly is.

Triceratops Ballet · 01-05-2018 12:40PM

ForestFire wrote: »

But my point is you cannot say it is nothing to do with abortion when it clearly is.

I didn't say it was nothing to do with abortion, I said we're not voting on abortion

ELM327 · 01-05-2018 12:52PM

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I didn't say it was nothing to do with abortion, I said we're not voting on abortion

It's another diversion tactic IMO.
Anyone who has read anything of the actual referendum commission literature or the text of the proposed amendment will be aware that this is not a referendum on abortion.

This is a referendum with 2 impacts:

Whether or not to remove the impediments to women's health during pregnancy
Whether or not to allow the Oireachtas permission to legislate for abortion.

It's perfectly plausible that REPEAL wins, the government falls after the budget with no legislative changes for abortion. So the amendment is gone meaning doctors can actually save the mother, but no abortion is legal.

ForestFire · 01-05-2018 12:53PM

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I didn't say it was nothing to do with abortion, I said we're not voting on abortion

Your first statement was "Pity this isn't a vote on abortion then." with no further clarification.

This is not correct and disingenuous to claim the vote is not about abortion.
The vote will have a big impact on abortion in this country so to claim we are not voting on abortion is wrong.

The independent referendum commission states:-

"The proposed change to the Constitution concerns the regulation of termination of pregnancy."

ELM327 · 01-05-2018 12:58PM

ForestFire wrote: »

Your first statement was "Pity this isn't a vote on abortion then." with no further clarification.

This is not correct and disingenuous to claim the vote is not about abortion.
The vote will have a big impact on abortion in this country so to claim we are not voting on abortion is wrong.

The independent referendum commission states:-

"The proposed change to the Constitution concerns the regulation of termination of pregnancy."

I'll assume you're ignoring my post so, standard tactics from a NO side poster.

ELM327 wrote: »

It's another diversion tactic IMO.
Anyone who has read anything of the actual referendum commission literature or the text of the proposed amendment will be aware that this is not a referendum on abortion.

This is a referendum with 2 impacts:
Whether or not to remove the impediments to women's health during pregnancy

Whether or not to allow the Oireachtas permission to legislate for abortion.

It's perfectly plausible that REPEAL wins, the government falls after the budget with no legislative changes for abortion. So the amendment is gone meaning doctors can actually save the mother, but no abortion is legal.

01-05-2018 01:02PM

ELM327 wrote: »

It's another diversion tactic IMO.
Anyone who has read anything of the actual referendum commission literature or the text of the proposed amendment will be aware that this is not a referendum on abortion.

This is a referendum with 2 impacts:
Whether or not to remove the impediments to women's health during pregnancy

Whether or not to allow the Oireachtas permission to legislate for abortion.

It's perfectly plausible that REPEAL wins, the government falls after the budget with no legislative changes for abortion. So the amendment is gone meaning doctors can actually save the mother, but no abortion is legal.

Save the mother... by performing an abortion?

ELM327 · 01-05-2018 01:04PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Save the mother... by performing an abortion?

Which at 28 weeks for instance could lead to a live birth.
It's not all about aborting foetuses.

Ye pro birthers should be more aware of this!

gctest50 · 01-05-2018 01:05PM

Have to love the :

"REAL NEWS honest like " stuff

http://www.twitter.com/TheLiberal_x/status/990522304387059713

A religious anti-choice page is paying Facebook to push fake "RTE NEWS" videos from a YouTube channel impersonating @rtenews - even registering a misleading Gmail address.

Zubeneschamali · 01-05-2018 01:10PM

gctest50 wrote: »

Have to love the :

"REAL NEWS honest like " stuff

"RTE REAL TRUE Breaking News... "

:D:D

01-05-2018 01:10PM

ELM327 wrote: »

It's another diversion tactic IMO.
Anyone who has read anything of the actual referendum commission literature or the text of the proposed amendment will be aware that this is not a referendum on abortion.

This is a referendum with 2 impacts:
Whether or not to remove the impediments to women's health during pregnancy

Whether or not to allow the Oireachtas permission to legislate for abortion.

It's perfectly plausible that REPEAL wins, the government falls after the budget with no legislative changes for abortion. So the amendment is gone meaning doctors can actually save the mother, but no abortion is legal.

I'm all for voting yes but it boggles my mind that you can claim this isn't about abortion. It seems to me that's a diversion tactic like you said yourself. I genuinely thought you were pro-life when I read the beginning of that post.

Am I mistaken in thinking this is opening the door to termination of pregnancy up until 12 weeks?

Triceratops Ballet · 01-05-2018 01:11PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Save the mother... by performing an abortion?

ELM327 wrote: »

Which at 28 weeks for instance could lead to a live birth.
It's not all about aborting foetuses.

Ye pro birthers should be more aware of this!

I think this is a terminology issue, abortion refers to the termination of a pregnancy. All pregnancies are terminated, some naturally (birth and miscarraige) some by chemical induction (chemical/medical abortion), some by physical induction (surgical abortion, breaking a womans waters through physical intervention, c-section etc)

seamus · 01-05-2018 01:15PM

Anti-choicers standing outside maternity hospitals over the last couple of days holding up big banners with pictures of foetuses and talking about killing babies.

While women are attending these hospitals knowing their unborn child is dying or even giving birth to stillborn or terminally ill children.

The love both campaign are just pure animals. No compassion, no love. Just scumbags.

This is as bad as the time they put an anti-abortion ad outside the rape crisis centre.

8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1

Comments