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

hardtrier wrote: »

With the greatest respect to this lady's bereaved, you say she was "wasn't allowed a termination so she could participate in a cancer treatment trial". A termination is not medical treatment. As for, "You cannot murder that which has not been born.", try telling that to the mother of a stillborn baby.

hardtrier wrote: »

With the greatest respect to this lady's bereaved, you say she was "wasn't allowed a termination so she could participate in a cancer treatment trial". A termination is not medical treatment. As for, "You cannot murder that which has not been born.", try telling that to the mother of a stillborn baby.

hardtrier wrote: »

Is it easier to say, "acquire a service" than to spell it out and say, "take away the life they have chosen to create"? If people choose to create a baby, then they need to accept that they have done it.

robarmstrong wrote: »

You're guaranteed three things in life.

Death.
Taxes.
New posters coming out of the woodwork to post nonsense on this thread.

hardtrier wrote: »

With the greatest respect to this lady's bereaved, you say she was "wasn't allowed a termination so she could participate in a cancer treatment trial". A termination is not medical treatment. As for, "You cannot murder that which has not been born.", try telling that to the mother of a stillborn baby.

hardtrier wrote: »

You clearly confuse natural family planning with the "rhythm method". Can't say it surprises me. Probably many more like you on here.

robarmstrong wrote: »

I'm about to nod off for bed, but feel free to share my story and see what kind of response you get from the individual.

I won't hold my breath!

MonsterCookie wrote: »

totally understand your position and really hope you are doing ok.

I get that these guys look out of touch with reality, but the suggestion that they should not have an opinion simply because they are of a certain age and gender does not sit well with me.

If it was a bunch of grey haired ladies, would people object on the grounds that they are not directly impacted?

For avoidance of doubt, I'm voting yes but if i was to argue for a no vote, i think I'd be told i shouldn't have a view.

hardtrier wrote: »

With the greatest respect to this lady's bereaved, you say she was "wasn't allowed a termination so she could participate in a cancer treatment trial". A termination is not medical treatment. As for, "You cannot murder that which has not been born.", try telling that to the mother of a stillborn baby.

NoVoter wrote: »

I'll be voting NO in the referendum. There, I said it - the worst words you can say on Boards! That I feel I can't post that statement under my usual username says a lot I think about the referendum atmosphere generally, and Boards in particular.

If I’m voting No, surely that means that I am (according to various posters here) an ancient, rosary clutching, God bothering, Mass going, woman hating, “disgusting” human being? That I disagree with same sex marriage and divorce and simply parrot what the local priest tells me? Well, no – I am an atheist and have no problem whatsoever with SSM and divorce. And while I certainly cannot claim to be in the first flush of youth, I do think I have a few years to go yet before being labelled ancient! I think the Yes side do themselves no favours by constantly shouting these ad hominem insults – surely they can appreciate that there is a substantial difference between opposing SSM (a ‘positive’ thing with no downsides), and opposing abortion – the deliberate taking of a human life? Can they not see that a person can be opposed to Church influence in society, yet still – partly or wholly – agree with their position on abortion?
I’d have a lot more respect for the Yes side if they were honest about their position – if you think a woman should be allowed to abort for whatever reason she likes, you are entitled to that opinion and should vote accordingly. Yet, in this thread (and I only dip in and out – I don’t have time to see all posts), I see constant lies and misleading statements from Yes posters – generally in the form of themselves labelling No claims as mistruths (and calling for posters who question their ‘truths’ to be censured). Let’s start with the most common:

The No claim that 1 in 5 pregnancies in England are aborted. This is automatically rejected as ‘lies’ etc – but it’s true. Not alone that, but the articles which have been linked in this thread as disproving the statistic actually back it up! Go on, read the (hopelessly biased) Irish Times’s Fact Check – it’s there in black and white: 21% of pregnancies known to the authorities are aborted. Yet the fact that miscarriage figures (an unknowable variable) are not included is taken as grounds to rubbish the stat – even though the No campaign themselves have stated that they are not counting miscarriages.

That Downs Syndrome babies cannot be aborted under the proposed legislation. A bizarre claim given the DS abortion rates in countries with abortion. The usual misleading ‘fact’ peddled is that DS cannot be diagnosed before 12 weeks, and that the legislation will not allow abortions for DS after that timeframe. The former is particularly disingenuous and plays upon the differences between the words ‘diagnosis’ and ‘screening’ – while the tests are not routinely available in public hospitals, put your hand in your pocket and you most certainly can get a strong indicator, and even a diagnosis depending on tests done, of DS in advance of the 12 week ‘no reason necessary’ limit. The claim that DS babies will not be aborted after 12 weeks is also laughable – it’ll just be slipped in under the mental health ground (more below).

That Ireland will not be introducing abortion on demand if we vote Yes. Of course we will! Believe it or not I’ve seen some people claim that we won’t have abortion on demand in the first 12 weeks because there’ll be a 3 day cooling off period – eh?! First 12 weeks are abortion on demand – hopefully we can all agree on that? After 12 weeks, it’s customary for Yes posters to mutter something about serious threat to health, two doctors, etc when the likelihood of abortion on demand after 12 weeks is raised. Yet, the proposed legislation makes clear that abortion will be offered until 24 weeks where there is a serious threat to the health of the mother – including on the grounds of mental health. This is a hugely vague caveat which I will have little doubt is a wide open door to abortion on demand up to 24 weeks. Why? Because this is exactly the same system as they have in the UK, where all abortions (including first 12 weeks) must be certified as necessary by two doctors on similar grounds. Yet, for all the talk from Yes campaigners about fatal abnormalities and threats to physical health of mothers etc, the TLDR of abortion figures from England is that 97% of abortions there are performed on mental health grounds – i.e. these are all healthy babies and only a tiny number of abortions are necessary due to foetal abnormalities or threats to the mother’s physical health. The mental health clause is widely regarded as resulting in de facto abortion on demand in the UK. Want to abort because you want a boy, not a girl – no problem. Downs Syndrome – no problem. Any other reason you want – no problem, we’ll just tick the mental health box. And yet, a more liberal abortion regime is proposed for Ireland!

That the proposed legislation will facilitate abortion on demand up to 24 weeks (not immediately, but it will happen) is why I am voting No. I support abortion in cases of FFA and rape / incest, yet such cases are hugely rare despite the attempts of the Yes side to inflate their importance. If that is what was proposed I would vote Yes – but it’s not.

As I said earlier, I have no issues with Yes voters who are honest with themselves. A Yes to the referendum is a yes to abortion on demand up to 24 weeks. If you are in favour of this, fair enough – I disagree, but we’re all entitled to our opinion.

I have no doubts BTW that the outcome in a few weeks will be a Yes – I think the margin of their victory may surprise even the Yes campaigners. But I won’t be doing the ‘cool’ thing – and will be voting No to abortion on demand.

No doubt I’ll be subjected to abuse and vitriol now for daring to question the Yes establishment – please forgive my lack of immediate reply…..I’ve got work to do!

#trendyhashtag

RobertKK wrote: »

Interesting from Pat Leahy in the Irish Times about Google and Facebook:



Added to that Together for Yes released their statement welcoming the help from Google and it was dated on Tuesday and not Wednesday when Google announced publicly their decision.

It is speculated that the companies believe No could win and didn't want to be blamed for it, as the Yes side would be hostile.

RobertKK wrote: »

Added to that Together for Yes released their statement welcoming the help from Google and it was dated on Tuesday and not Wednesday when Google announced publicly their decision.