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

splinter65 wrote: »

You don’t think there will be an increase in abortions because they will be instantly accessible?

I genuinely do not see a reason to think so. Unfortunately we may never really know because we simply do not have the figures on how many are happening NOW. Sure, some women who go to the UK for an abortion register with Irish Addresses.

But what of the women who do not? What of those who import pills illegally? What of the women who find "Coat Hanger" solutions or their equivalent?

So we have to work with estimates, guess work, or facts and figures from other jurisdictions. And none of those suggest all that much of an increase at all but they suffer from the same problem we do.... that the figures from "before" abortion was introduced, or in other areas where it was already there but was made more accessible..... are not as accurate as after. And further abortion statistics vary widely from state to state so trying to extrapolate anything from one state onto another is risky.

But we see many studies in both directions, such reports on studies that suggest making it legal or illegal has little impact on the figures. But we also have studies that focus on a small geographic area and suggest that fertility rates drop when abortion is increased. I was only reading such a study on New York this morning. But fertility rates, while seemingly a good way to measure the impact, are already variable so at best you can only build a correlation with abortion sometimes.

So just shouting "Of course" at it does not make it so I am afraid. We simply do not know. What many of us DO believe however is that whether the rates go up, down, or stay the same is irrelevant in many ways. It is still the right thing to do to bring some form of it in. If the rates at which it is used concern us.... and it should....... then we should address that in OTHER ways than the ineffectual and indefensible move of merely attempting to make it illegal.

splinter65 wrote: »

Loads of people walking around Ireland today who wouldn’t be here if the pregnancy could have been made to disappear with no questions asked as easily as it will be.

And there is loads of people NOT walking around Ireland today because we legalised contraception not all that long ago. So what is your point? The "Things would be otherwise if things were otherwise" line of "reasoning" has never impressed me and no one has yet suggested why it might or should.

We should base our debate and policy on affecting the future, not on equivocating over what would be different in the present had we done it in the past. The debate is complex enough, in other words, without playing that whatiffery game.

ELM327 wrote: »

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I wonder if NO wins what will happen , It won't win , i don't think it'll be even close but would you say the YES campaign would accept the nation vote ?
I'd imagine there would be huge marches like never seen here before,
All the mayhem that ensued after the Belfast rape trail would be multiplied by 10

If the no campaign wins I predict the following:

• Making the referendum commission a full time outfit
• Giving them power to remove falsehoods, lies, and inappropriate campaigning - posters, emails, online
• A rerun of the referendum within 18 months, but this time with no propoganda and out and out lies from the No side allowed (see above)
• A landslide YES victory.

YES will win there's no doubt and you more than likely correct

yourdeadwright wrote: »

YES will win there's no doubt and you more than likely correct

The liklihood is a 5 percentage point spread.
So there is doubt for sure!

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

an increase? possibly. A significant increase? I doubt it. Unless you know something that suggests otherwise.

Pretty impossible to gauge later even: on the US figures the abortion rates have the appearance of skyrocketing after Roe vs Wade but one must take into account that is also the period when recordkeeping begins for such procedures and they begin translating from under the table to over the table.

mikemac2 wrote: »

I heard John McGuirk from Save the Eighth campaign on Today FM for the first time

What an odious, argumentative chap with a head full of conspiracies.

Putting an spokesman like that out front & centre will cost his campaign votes. Has no businesses being a spokesman and he’s letting down his comrades with that behavior

Haven’t heard him but don’t be so sure: listeners who fear this stuff happening are the ones that rhetoric grips. That’s how the Rush Limbaugh’s and Sean Hannities of american broadcast drive the psyche of truthers who question the reality of Sandy Hook or the murder of Seth Rich. It’s all confirmation bias when it comes from a voiceless specter in your car speakers.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you think some women would prefer a surgical abortion to a medical one?

If a woman is more than 12 weeks pregnant then the GP will refer them to a maternity hospital. what happens after that is not down to the GP. they are not referring them for an abortion they are just referring them, the same as they do for all pregnant women.

If a woman is less than 12 weeks pregnant and has a medical card and their GP does not provide abortion services then the HSE will have to put in place a system that allows them to go a GP that does. You act like these are massive problems that are insurmountable.

Because of medication I’m on , I couldn’t take the abortion pill. I know 2 girls who took the abortion pill and won’t be taking it again.
I’m amused at the assumption that even though the medical card services can’t deal with people wanting to change GP right now because there’s a chronic shortage of GPs that they somehow vaguely WILL be able to cope with it when families want to move because their GP is going to opt out.

mikemac2 wrote: »

I heard John McGuirk from Save the Eighth campaign on Today FM for the first time

What an odious, argumentative chap with a head full of conspiracies.

He's a charmer, all right:

LIBERTAS’S main election spindoctor has described the party's failed Dublin candidate as “a psychotic bitch”. Press officer John McGuirk has taken a parting shot at the demoralised party, saying that Caroline Simons was the “worst candidate ever”.

Still twitter pals with Declan Ganley, though, retweeting each others foaming denunciation of Google wanting nothing to do with them.

Grayson wrote: »

It doesn't matter who wins, this issue isn't going away anytime soon. Look at the US.

The US is a different planet. Most of the pro-life activity HERE is American funded precisely because Mullen and co. pitch it to them that we are the first country with positive rights for the unborn in our Constitution and a model for prolifers everywhere. This was in fact one of the motivations for the mad wording of the 8th which has caused so much trouble.

Once they lose (maybe this time, maybe next), the Americans will have less reason to fund them here. Might as well spend the cash in the US at that point.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Still twitter pals with Declan Ganley, though, retweeting each others foaming denunciation of Google wanting nothing to do with them.

The blind hypocrisy of a free-market libertarian accusing Google of abusing their market position to push an agenda has made me very jovial today.

The glee from the Yes campaign and Yes people here is they know their side had a crap online campaign and they are appreciative of the help from the US giant that is Google.
There would be crying and gnashing of teeth here if it had happened to the Yes side.
Even the media which is biased toward Yes, admits what Google has done favours Yes.
Google claiming they didn't want to interfere in the referendum, interfered given they knew what they were doing favoured Yes when they made the decision.
This is what people here are missing, it would be no different if An Post came out today and said they were delivering no more referendum literature with the Yes campaign already having spent money on producing 1.6 million leaflets for every household, which are to be sent out next week.
The No side had already spent money on producing the ads which were to be shown next week and the week after, what will Google refund? The money they were paid for the advertising, or will they also pay the entire cost of producing the videos that were to be shown?

Changing policy during a referendum which favours one side is interference, especially right before the ads were to be shown.
It doesn't do the Yes side any favours as it raises questions about what is going on behind the scenes that something was done to favour one side over another. It isn't democratic either when it happened at this stage of the referendum when campaigns had their strategies all set and with campaigns entering the final stretch, there is nothing illegal with Irish advertisers using Google to campaign for No.
Yes welcomed it but maybe it will backfire as people view it as interference by Google.

RobertKK wrote: »

The No side had already spent money on producing the ads which were to be shown next week and the week after, what will Google refund? The money they were paid for the advertising, or will they also pay the entire cost of producing the videos that were to be shown?

It's not an internet ban, you can still put the ads out there.

RobertKK wrote: »

The glee from the Yes campaign and Yes people here is they know their side had a crap online campaign and they are appreciative of the help from the US giant that is Google.
There would be crying and gnashing of teeth here if it had happened to the Yes side.
Even the media which is biased toward Yes, admits what Google has done favours Yes.
Google claiming they didn't want to interfere in the referendum, interfered given they knew what they were doing favoured Yes when they made the decision.
This is what people here are missing, it would be no different if An Post came out today and said they were delivering no more referendum literature with the Yes campaign already having spent money on producing 1.6 million leaflets for every household, which are to be sent out next week.
The No side had already spent money on producing the ads which were to be shown next week and the week after, what will Google refund? The money they were paid for the advertising, or will they also pay the entire cost of producing the videos that were to be shown?

Changing policy during a referendum which favours one side is interference, especially right before the ads were to be shown.
It doesn't do the Yes side any favours as it raises questions about what is going on behind the scenes that something was done to favour one side over another. It isn't democratic either when it happened at this stage of the referendum when campaigns had their strategies all set and with campaigns entering the final stretch, there is nothing illegal with Irish advertisers using Google to campaign for No.
Yes welcomed it but maybe it will backfire as people view it as interference by Google.

I'd rather a crap online campaign than one that is filled with lies, inaccuracies and falsehoods at every turn Bob.

Don't be such a sore loser.

RobertKK wrote: »

The glee from the Yes campaign and Yes people here is they know their side had a crap online campaign and they are appreciative of the help from the US giant that is Google.
There would be crying and gnashing of teeth here if it had happened to the Yes side.
Even the media which is biased toward Yes, admits what Google has done favours Yes.
Google claiming they didn't want to interfere in the referendum, interfered given they knew what they were doing favoured Yes when they made the decision.
This is what people here are missing, it would be no different if An Post came out today and said they were delivering no more referendum literature with the Yes campaign already having spent money on producing 1.6 million leaflets for every household, which are to be sent out next week.
The No side had already spent money on producing the ads which were to be shown next week and the week after, what will Google refund? The money they were paid for the advertising, or will they also pay the entire cost of producing the videos that were to be shown?

Changing policy during a referendum which favours one side is interference, especially right before the ads were to be shown.
It doesn't do the Yes side any favours as it raises questions about what is going on behind the scenes that something was done to favour one side over another. It isn't democratic either when it happened at this stage of the referendum when campaigns had their strategies all set and with campaigns entering the final stretch, there is nothing illegal with Irish advertisers using Google to campaign for No.
Yes welcomed it but maybe it will backfire as people view it as interference by Google.

I'm also thankful to the russians for their abstaining, the martians, the people from the planet zog.

All of whom are not publishing ads for either side

splinter65 wrote: »

What who you refer to as the no people will continue to campaign against will be the almost instant call to increase the week limit to at least the UK limit of 24 weeks.
Yes, these “silly” people who don’t want unborn children aborted at 24 weeks will continue to wave “silly” placards about, you’ll just have to get over it.

If that's the cost of decent healthcare, then so be it.