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

tigger123 wrote: »

There's a whole host of Yes campaigners willing to debate then I'm sure.

There has been rising concern among some pro-repeal groups and supporters that the referendum could be swayed in its decisive weeks towards a No vote by an avalanche of online ads.

Facebook’s move is likely to be directly related to this fear: and a fear that if the referendum were defeated, the company would face questions about its role in influencing votes, as it has in the US and UK.

In the past fortnight, there has been a rising sense of pessimism in some repeal quarters that the campaign was slipping away from them. Yesterday, the transparency campaigner Gavin Sheridan tweeted that it was now his view that the No side would win the campaign because its online spending was dwarfing that of the Yes campaign.

Overheal wrote: »

Which wasn’t going to go up or down based on the sale of these ads.

Besides even if that’s what you want to pretend to bemoan (earning yourself some disrespect now for this obvious farce) you still get plenty of tax revenue from the sale and distribution of those leaflets. So, chin up.

spookwoman wrote: »

You must feel like you are modding the conspiracies forum

NuMarvel wrote: »

In order for it to be necessary, the doctors also have to be sure that there is a real and substantial risk to the woman's life AND that a termination is the only way to avert that risk.

Simply being diagnosed with cancer isn't sufficient reason. They not only have to be satisfied there's a real and substantial risk, but that a termination is the only way to avert it. It is not at all outside the realms of possibility that doctors could deny cancer treatment until the foetus has reached viability and then start treatment after early delivery.

It is nowhere near as clear cut as you're making it out to be. There's a reason that the master of Holles Street compared the current laws to medical roulette.

NuMarvel wrote: »

Mrsmum wrote: »

But in that act, regarding cancer:
Two physicians, one an obstetrician and the other a specialist in the field of the relevant condition, must concur.[17] For example, if the woman has cancer, the two physicians would be an obstetrician and an oncologist. Where relevant, the specialists must also consult the woman's general practitioner (GP). The termination would be an elective procedure performed at an appropriate institution.
How is this not allowing for abortion if the doctors say it is necessary ?

In order for it to be necessary, the doctors also have to be sure that there is a real and substantial risk to the woman's life AND that a termination is the only way to avert that risk.

Simply being diagnosed with cancer isn't sufficient reason. They not only have to be satisfied there's a real and substantial risk, but that a termination is the only way to avert it. It is not at all outside the realms of possibility that doctors could deny cancer treatment until the foetus has reached viability and then start treatment after early delivery.

It is nowhere near as clear cut as you're making it out to be. There's a reason that the master of Holles Street compared the current laws to medical roulette.

mohawk wrote: »

Can I just add to some of your well put points.

The problem with cancer sometimes (and I apologise in advance if it comes across crudely or insensitive ) is that the woman might not be dying 'fast' enough for doctors to intervene. A hypothetical woman's would more then likely could survive the pregnancy, however at a huge cost to her chances in terms of long term survival. A change in the treatment plan could result in what could be a stage 3 now being a stage 4.

RobertKK wrote: »

According to the Irish Times the worry is No will be winning and it was the online campaign that would swing it for No.

indy_man wrote: »

Another thing, the problem is not that Ireland needs abortion, a bigger problem is that England needs to stop its extremely liberal abortion policy. Why do we have to follow their example blindly thinking that we need it also, what has it achieved for them? Eventually the UKs abortion policy will be a disaster for that nation, the amount of UK and Irish unborn children terminated will be worse than the great holocaust and eventually they will need to end it. You know that certain Imans in Europe and the UK have declared the fall of the native western population and the rise of their population a great miracle from Alla. Those guys have sharia law in mind for the UK and Europe, its already well underway in Belgium, Holland and other places. There won’t be much choice then. If we say NO now maybe we can be a light for our neighbours in the UK and help them see sense and stop their unrestricted abortion policy before its too late.

joe40 wrote: »

Sharia law man is back again.
Abortion will have no affect on population. Most women that want kids in Europe in general would have maybe 2 or 3.
Just a guess 4 would be considered a big family.
Abortion allows them to plan when to have kids, it doesn't affect overall numbers. The days of women having 6 plus kids are over.

Overheal wrote: »

How is it any more convenient from one side over the other, going forth? Neither side has the outlet now. Or are you alleging that the No side doesn’t have the numbers to orchestrate a field campaign? What’s your beef, really?

RobertKK wrote: »

According to the Irish Times the worry is No will be winning and it was the online campaign that would swing it for No.