Outright lies in Campaign

Hotblack Desiato · 10-05-2018 10:12AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is patently and obviously untrue.

No-one except the loonies assassinating doctors in the United States really believes that. The Supreme Court spelled out in the X case what it would really mean, and we immediately amended the Constitution so that it wouldn't apply.

No-one bar the lunatic fringe really believes there are 170,000 women walking around free who are murderers. No-one wants those women jailed for murder. No-one wants pregnant women prevented from travelling outside the jusrisdiction to "murder their children".

It is all just extreme rhetoric - dangerous, but not to be taken literally.

Nobody really believes this. They are not protesting outside Irish IVF clinics about the thousands of zygotes 'murdered' every year.
Nobody is calling for death certificates, funerals and headstones for six-week miscarriages.
Nobody is calling for the investigation of every menstrual period as a potential homicide.
Nobody is calling for the 14 years in POLDPA to be increased to a life sentence, it's "murder" after all...

It is a self-evident lie that abortion is "murder", even the 1861 Act did not treat it as so, nobody in our society really regards it as so, yet it is the lie you will hear repeated most often in this campaign.

Akrasia · 10-05-2018 01:34PM

The biggest lie that is repeated in every sentence of the 'Pro Life' literature is that an unborn foetus is a baby.

A seed isn't a sapling, a sapling isn't a tree.

An embryo isn't a baby, a zygote isn't a baby, a blastocyst isn't a baby, a fetus isn't a baby. A baby is a baby.

guestwifi · 10-05-2018 01:40PM

Akrasia wrote: »

The biggest lie that is repeated in every sentence of the 'Pro Life' literature is that an unborn foetus is a baby.

A seed isn't a sapling, a sapling isn't a tree.

An embryo isn't a baby, a zygote isn't a baby, a blastocyst isn't a baby, a fetus isn't a baby. A baby is a baby.

So when does a fetus stop being a fetus and become a baby? Serious question, because I've read about cases where a child is removed from its mothers womb weeks/months before they're due to be naturally birthed....what's removed, a baby or a fetus?

Akrasia · 10-05-2018 02:01PM

guestwifi wrote: »

So when does a fetus stop being a fetus and become a baby? Serious question, because I've read about cases where a child is removed from its mothers womb weeks/months before they're due to be naturally birthed....what's removed, a baby or a fetus?

A fetus becomes a baby when it is born. If there is an early stage miscarriage (before 24 weeks in Ireland and the UK, 20 weeks in the US, or 28 weeks according to the WHO. It depends on what is considered the point of viability) or abortion, a baby isn't born, miscarriage happens before the point where a baby is viable outside the womb, but it's more of a social choice whether to call it a fetus or a baby. I would decide based on how the woman herself wants to refer to it.

If a woman has to abort her pregnancy after 24 weeks, she will almost certainly have a very tragic reason for doing so. Either relating to complications with the developing fetus, or threats to her own life.

Vojera · 10-05-2018 02:08PM

If you really believe you have right on your side, surely you have no need to lie? That's what I don't understand about the No side. If they really have the strength of their convictions, there's no need for dishonesty.

It's really frustrating. If someone wants to vote No, that's fine, that's their right. But it should be for a real reason, not based on lies.

guestwifi · 10-05-2018 03:05PM

Akrasia wrote: »

A fetus becomes a baby when it is born. If there is an early stage miscarriage (before 24 weeks in Ireland and the UK, 20 weeks in the US, or 28 weeks according to the WHO. It depends on what is considered the point of viability) or abortion, a baby isn't born, miscarriage happens before the point where a baby is viable outside the womb, but it's more of a social choice whether to call it a fetus or a baby. I would decide based on how the woman herself wants to refer to it.

If a woman has to abort her pregnancy after 24 weeks, she will almost certainly have a very tragic reason for doing so. Either relating to complications with the developing fetus, or threats to her own life.

So you're saying that, for whatever reason, if a fetus is removed from the womb unnaturally but is capable of surviving it is possible to still refer to it as a fetus rather than a baby? I take issue with this.

To be upfront, I'm one of the undecideds who is leaning more toward a Yes vote than a No, but when I read statements like this I feel very uncomfortable. I agree that some sections of the No campaign are deliberately being misleading, but there's no doubt in my mind that some sections of the Yes side are being equally misleading. This is a case of that I believe, and one that raises questions about just how far the Yes side want to take the legalisation of abortion.

NuMarvel · 10-05-2018 03:24PM

guestwifi wrote: »

So you're saying that, for whatever reason, if a fetus is removed from the womb unnaturally but is capable of surviving it is possible to still refer to it as a fetus rather than a baby? I take issue with this.

After birth, it is technically a neonate, or newborn. A month later it's an infant.

Baby is a general term and doesn't have a precise medical meaning. Women can use whatever term they wish, at whatever stage they want. After all, many mothers still call their youngest child the baby of the family, loooong after they've reached adulthood.

guestwifi wrote: »

To be upfront, I'm one of the undecideds who is leaning more toward a Yes vote than a No, but when I read statements like this I feel very uncomfortable. I agree that some sections of the No campaign are deliberately being misleading, but there's no doubt in my mind that some sections of the Yes side are being equally misleading. This is a case of that I believe, and one that raises questions about just how far the Yes side want to take the legalisation of abortion.

I don't see how using different terminology is misleading. The constitution refers to it as the unborn, the medical term is foetus (depending on its stage of development), someone people will call it a baby.

I certainly don't see how you make the leap that the use of different terminology is masking some ulterior motives. The T4Y group supports the proposed legislation, so we know how far they want to take it, as you put it. Will others want other changes? Possibly, just as you'll have No politicians who'd want to make it more restrictive. But anyone who wants something other than what's proposed, one way or the other, is going to have to convince more than half the TDs in the Dail to support it, and I don't see that happening.

hatrickpatrick · 10-05-2018 04:14PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is patently and obviously untrue.

No-one except the loonies assassinating doctors in the United States really believes that. The Supreme Court spelled out in the X case what it would really mean, and we immediately amended the Constitution so that it wouldn't apply.

No-one bar the lunatic fringe really believes there are 170,000 women walking around free who are murderers. No-one wants those women jailed for murder. No-one wants pregnant women prevented from travelling outside the jusrisdiction to "murder their children".

It is all just extreme rhetoric - dangerous, but not to be taken literally.

I really wish you were right, but based on the pro-life folks I know, there are far more "abortion is morally equivalent to shooting an adult human in the face" types around than you'd think.

Zubeneschamali · 10-05-2018 04:19PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I really wish you were right, but based on the pro-life folks I know, there are far more "abortion is morally equivalent to shooting an adult human in the face" types around than you'd think.

Nope, not buying it. If 170,000 child murderers were prowling our streets, I'd be doing more than saying a Rosary. We have not had one, not one single solitary case of an Irish prolifer taking the law into their own hands here.

They do not believe this guff no matter what they say.

hatrickpatrick · 10-05-2018 04:50PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Nope, not buying it. If 170,000 child murderers were prowling our streets, I'd be doing more than saying a Rosary. We have not had one, not one single solitary case of an Irish prolifer taking the law into their own hands here.

They do not believe this guff no matter what they say.

Hopefully. But would you agree that they do tend to say it fairly often? "Abortion is murder" is pretty much the mantra.

If they don't believe that abortion is murder then why would they have a problem with it to begin with, indeed? Going back to the example of DS - selective abortion to avoid genetic mutations is only a problem if one believes that it involves taking a life. If it doesn't involve taking a life, then why would it matter at all? It doesn't really make sense - if a foetus doesn't count as a human life, then surely destroying one is entirely inconsequential to everybody except the woman who chooses to do it. If someone opposes the destruction of a foetus, it logically follows that they believe a foetus to count as a human life. If somebody believes in defending the eighth amendment, which literally states that a foetus is of equal importance to its mother - a teenage or adult human being - then surely the only logical conclusion is that they believe the two to be of equal moral or philosophical value, as human lives?

Defending or supporting the eighth doesn't make any sense if somebody doesn't believe that. The only other reason to defend it is because it has a side effect of effectively "punishing" sexual immorality by forcing there to be potential consequences of it - people who support it for that reason are in my view as downright evil as those who oppose the cervical cancer jab because getting an STD is "justice" against a person who commits the "wrong" of engaging in sexual activity. In other words, the threat of getting cancer is a good thing as a "deterrent" against the "wrong" of underage, unmarried, or promiscuous sexual activity.

Personally I'd like to believe that there are more people in the former camp than the latter on the retain side. Believing the life of a foetus to be of equal value to the life of an already-born human is surely less reprehensible than opposing choice because one gets some sort of vindictive pleasure out of knowing that a person who engages in sexual activity might have their life seriously f*cked up as a consequence. And I do personally know at least one person who believes in the equal importance of the life of a foetus to that of a born human - she believes this fundamentally because as an adopted child, she believes that she would have been 'killed' if abortion had been legal here when her mother was pregnant. It's not a view that I agree with, but I mean it's understandable from an emotional point of view and very difficult to argue against - we don't spend any time trying to convince eachother to change our minds because we both know it's a lost cause and would be a source of unnecessary drama.

But the point is, people who equate a foetus with a fully born human baby are definitely out there. That's why people use the phrase "babies" when discussing the "victims" of abortion. And in my view, that's kinda a good thing, because any alternative reason for opposing abortion - which does not refer to a life being taken - logically can only relate to wanting to police consensual sexual activity. And personally, I find that particular ideology utterly sickening.

If somebody doesn't believe that abortion is murder, and they're not anti-sex social authoritarians, then is there honestly any possible third reason to oppose repealing the eighth? I'm struggling to think of one, perhaps you might be able to?

Akrasia · 10-05-2018 05:11PM

guestwifi wrote: »

So you're saying that, for whatever reason, if a fetus is removed from the womb unnaturally but is capable of surviving it is possible to still refer to it as a fetus rather than a baby? I take issue with this.

To be upfront, I'm one of the undecideds who is leaning more toward a Yes vote than a No, but when I read statements like this I feel very uncomfortable. I agree that some sections of the No campaign are deliberately being misleading, but there's no doubt in my mind that some sections of the Yes side are being equally misleading. This is a case of that I believe, and one that raises questions about just how far the Yes side want to take the legalisation of abortion.

Any fetus that is born viable is a baby. The distinction is between miscarriage and still birth is based on different interpretations of what the definition of viable is. Babies have a less than 10% survival rate at 22 weeks (although with very severe likelihood of long term health complications) and by 24 weeks its closer to 50% of fetus are viable outside the womb.

If a fetus dies inside the womb after the 24 week period, it dies as a fetus and is delivered as a stillborn baby.

Almost nobody advocates for abortion of healthy fetus after 24 weeks unless there are very tragic reasons for doing so, either a risk to the health or life of the mother, or a severe complication with the fetus that the parents and doctors decide is serious enough to warrant a termination

finbar10 · 10-05-2018 06:01PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Hopefully. But would you agree that they do tend to say it fairly often? "Abortion is murder" is pretty much the mantra.

If they don't believe that abortion is murder then why would they have a problem with it to begin with, indeed? Going back to the example of DS - selective abortion to avoid genetic mutations is only a problem if one believes that it involves taking a life. If it doesn't involve taking a life, then why would it matter at all? It doesn't really make sense - if a foetus doesn't count as a human life, then surely destroying one is entirely inconsequential to everybody except the woman who chooses to do it. If someone opposes the destruction of a foetus, it logically follows that they believe a foetus to count as a human life. If somebody believes in defending the eighth amendment, which literally states that a foetus is of equal importance to its mother - a teenage or adult human being - then surely the only logical conclusion is that they believe the two to be of equal moral or philosophical value, as human lives?

Defending or supporting the eighth doesn't make any sense if somebody doesn't believe that. The only other reason to defend it is because it has a side effect of effectively "punishing" sexual immorality by forcing there to be potential consequences of it - people who support it for that reason are in my view as downright evil as those who oppose the cervical cancer jab because getting an STD is "justice" against a person who commits the "wrong" of engaging in sexual activity. In other words, the threat of getting cancer is a good thing as a "deterrent" against the "wrong" of underage, unmarried, or promiscuous sexual activity.

Personally I'd like to believe that there are more people in the former camp than the latter on the retain side. Believing the life of a foetus to be of equal value to the life of an already-born human is surely less reprehensible than opposing choice because one gets some sort of vindictive pleasure out of knowing that a person who engages in sexual activity might have their life seriously f*cked up as a consequence. And I do personally know at least one person who believes in the equal importance of the life of a foetus to that of a born human - she believes this fundamentally because as an adopted child, she believes that she would have been 'killed' if abortion had been legal here when her mother was pregnant. It's not a view that I agree with, but I mean it's understandable from an emotional point of view and very difficult to argue against - we don't spend any time trying to convince eachother to change our minds because we both know it's a lost cause and would be a source of unnecessary drama.

But the point is, people who equate a foetus with a fully born human baby are definitely out there. That's why people use the phrase "babies" when discussing the "victims" of abortion. And in my view, that's kinda a good thing, because any alternative reason for opposing abortion - which does not refer to a life being taken - logically can only relate to wanting to police consensual sexual activity. And personally, I find that particular ideology utterly sickening.

If somebody doesn't believe that abortion is murder, and they're not anti-sex social authoritarians, then is there honestly any possible third reason to oppose repealing the eighth? I'm struggling to think of one, perhaps you might be able to?

That's all very black and white. The world and people's opinions more typically tend towards shades of grey. Even for murder there are degrees (outright premeditated murder, manslaughter, justified self-defence etc.). I'd say that many people would view the progression from fertilized egg to full human as a matter of degree (with perhaps it being progressively being a more serious thing to kill a foetus and desiring increasingly greater protection with development; not much difference between an eight month old foetus and a newborn). Absolute positions on either side are cleaner and simpler to hold, but any tradeoff between notions of bodily autonomy and right to life, no matter how it's drawn, is going to be ugly (only least worst options and being unsatisfactory no matter where one draws the line).

I'd say many people out there hold both the notions that the status quo is unsatisfactory/untenable but also are uncomfortable/squeamish with that's proposed. A lot of people are conflicted on this I'd say. An amendment of the eighth probably would have been a more satisfactory compromise for a lot of people (loosening the eighth in specified ways for the harder cases but still tying the hands of the Oireachtas in certain ways in possible legislation). I'd have been happy to support it. It probably would have easily won with a 70-80% majority.

Unfortunately, this is an all-or-nothing proposition (suiting both extremes; gives one side everything it wants and the other the best chance of a victory). IMO any exceptions should be laid out in the eighth (not all protection for the unborn removed entirely). A Yes vote is, I think, most likely a vote for a typical liberal European abortion regime within about 10 years, which is a step too far for me.

Other people may wrestle with the conflict between bodily autonomy and right to life and reluctantly and uneasily decide voting yes is the least worst option, but not me anyway (I feel we'd be handing over power to the Oireachtas in a too open-ended way).

Akrasia · 10-05-2018 06:08PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And I do personally know at least one person who believes in the equal importance of the life of a foetus to that of a born human - she believes this fundamentally because as an adopted child, she believes that she would have been 'killed' if abortion had been legal here when her mother was pregnant. It's not a view that I agree with, but I mean it's understandable from an emotional point of view and very difficult to argue against

If contraception was legal and easily available she probably wouldn't have been born either.

Every individual human that is alive is alive because of an astronomical number of statistically improbabilities. If your friends parents had chosen to live in a different house, or if they had not met where they met etc etc, and even on the level of a different sperm reaching the egg would have resulted in a different person being conceived.

It makes sense to give humans human rights, but it makes no sense to give potential humans human rights.

oscarBravo · 10-05-2018 06:32PM

finbar10 wrote: »

I'd say many people out there hold both the notions that the status quo is unsatisfactory/untenable but also are uncomfortable/squeamish with that's proposed. A lot of people are conflicted on this I'd say. An amendment of the eighth probably would have been a more satisfactory compromise for a lot of people (loosening the eighth in specified ways for the harder cases but still tying the hands of the Oireachtas in certain ways in possible legislation). I'd have been happy to support it. It probably would have easily won with a 70-80% majority.

I would have voted against such a proposition, for pretty much the same reasons you'd vote for it. Firstly, the idea that the Constitution is a mechanism for preventing future governments from enacting legislation that we're squeamish about today is the sort of nonsense that really has to stop. As I've said before: the Constitution exists to restrict government power, not government policy.

Second, putting legislation in the Constitution is a recipe for more X cases. It's impossible to succinctly express in a short paragraph or two the immensely complicated nuances around the difficult balance between a living human's right to bodily integrity and a potential human's right to a future life.

Finally, there's something horribly hypocritical and inconsistent about allowing termination of a pregnancy in the case of rape or incest, and denying it for other reasons. At least "no abortion ever" is morally consistent. Deeply unempathetic, but consistent.

A Yes vote is, I think, most likely a vote for a typical liberal European abortion regime within about 10 years, which is a step too far for me.

The good news is that, even in a typically liberal abortion regime, you'll never be forced to have an abortion you don't want - as opposed to the current situation, where people can be forced to have a pregnancy they don't want.

finbar10 · 10-05-2018 07:44PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

I would have voted against such a proposition, for pretty much the same reasons you'd vote for it.

You're entitled to your opinion!

Firstly, the idea that the Constitution is a mechanism for preventing future governments from enacting legislation that we're squeamish about today is the sort of nonsense that really has to stop. As I've said before: the Constitution exists to restrict government power, not government policy.

Or because they have a sense that the foetus is to some degree a human life and deserves some protection (maybe that's where the unease or squeamishness comes from, rather than necessarily being "nonsense" due to poor understanding of constitutional law). Rights go in constitutions too. Of course, the argument is whether this should be a right. This arguably isn't necessarily a matter of pure policy. Rights aren't always enumerated either. For example, the German constitutional court has interpreted a degree of protection from the unborn from the right to life in the Basic Law eternity clauses. It's kind of a constitutional fudge. They allow the parliament not to punish abortion in the first trimester as long as there is state-regulated mandatory counselling with the purpose of discouraging termination and protecting fetal life, and only after that for serious risk to health and rape etc. The German regime is relatively restrictive (and cannot really be loosened given the approach of the court). So there's a degree of constitutional protection for the unborn.

Without the eighth, it would have been open to the courts here to develop similar case law here in past decades. However, in the first opportunity to do so recently, they explicitly said the eighth was the only protection, which it is proposed to remove.

Second, putting legislation in the Constitution is a recipe for more X cases. It's impossible to succinctly express in a short paragraph or two the immensely complicated nuances around the difficult balance between a living human's right to bodily integrity and a potential human's right to a future life.

Sure, I'm aware of that. If you draw a line, then are always going to be cases right at the boundary of that line that will trigger court cases. That's going to be the case for any line (if there are lines).

Let's say we add a clause to the eighth that permits the Oireachtas to legislate for termination before X weeks, then what about pregancies right at that boundary?

Or if we add a clause for FFA permitting legislation for, say, "conditions affecting the foetus that is likely to lead to the death of the foetus either before birth or shortly after birth", then, while there's certain leeway in legislation as to how long after birth (or the assessment procedure, perhaps an independent panel of doctors), and maybe court cases will sometimes be triggered, but there'll be limits to how far this can slip. Legislation can change over time to serious non-fatal abnormalities and so on.

And, similarly, for a clause for a "serious risk to the health of the mother". If it's in the constitution, while there's leeway for interpretation, there are limits to how far the legislation and actual implementation in practice can move from this.If it's just in legislation, the experience elsewhere is that the law and implementation tends to shift over time. If there's a clause for "serious threat to the life of the mother" in the Irish constitution, I'd be confident this would remain relatively restrictive (even if there are some court cases). If it's just some legislation, IMO the law itself and definitely how it's enforced will morph over time.

Finally, there's something horribly hypocritical and inconsistent about allowing termination of a pregnancy in the case of rape or incest, and denying it for other reasons. At least "no abortion ever" is morally consistent. Deeply unempathetic, but consistent.

Well, that doesn't necessary make your viewpoint any more consistent than mine. Full protection from conception is the only truly consistent, though rather absolutist, position. Any other line (12 weeks, quickening, going through the birth canal) is somewhat arbitrary.

The good news is that, even in a typically liberal abortion regime, you'll never be forced to have an abortion you don't want - as opposed to the current situation, where people can be forced to have a pregnancy they don't want.

That sounds like an argument for bodily autonomy trumping everything else: woman wants an abortion, she gets an abortion. The only approaches are the woman never gets the abortion (except maybe for danger to her life), the woman always get the abortion, or "it depends" (sometimes she may be "forced").

You seem to be in one of the final two camps. If you are in the "it depends" camp, I guess we simply differ as to whether the "it depends" should have a constitutional basis or not.

finbar10 · 10-05-2018 07:50PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Second, putting legislation in the Constitution is a recipe for more X cases. It's impossible to succinctly express in a short paragraph or two the immensely complicated nuances around the difficult balance between a living human's right to bodily integrity and a potential human's right to a future life.

One final point. I'm not so sure that having some constitutional protection for the unborn is as unworkable as claimed. The presentation by Brian Murray SC to the Citizens Assembly comes to mind in this regard.

A youtube of his presentation can be seen here. The section on options for amending the eighth is towards the end (from 31:20 onwards). His talk mostly cropped up in the media regarding the question of whether to just delete the eighth or insert a short provision instead (a lot of the talk discusses how a simple deletion might be treated by the courts, obviously all prior to the recent supreme court decision). However, he enumerates other possibilities such as amending the eighth. The paper going with his talk is here. Here's an excerpt from his comments on amending the eighth:

40. Clearly, the effect of amending but not repealing Article 40.3.3, will depend on the exact nature of the amendments proposed. There are a large number of possible forms an amendment could assume. The
nature of these amendments will depend on whether the Assembly decides to make recommendations and if so, what those recommendations are.

...

Amend so as to allow more freedom to the Oireachtas to permit abortion but only in defined circumstances :
43. An amendment to allow the Oireachtas more freedom to permit abortion in defined circumstances, would maintain a right to life of the unborn in the Irish Constitution, and would thus continue to limit the power of the Oireachtas to legislate in the area. However, by defining in the Constitution the circumstances in which abortion is permissible but expanding those circumstances beyond the present Constitutional position, it would become possible to have lawful abortion in Ireland in a broader range of situations than is presently possible. Just how broad those range of circumstances would be, would depend on the assessment of whether, and if so when, abortion should be permitted. What is important to emphasize about this option, is that the Oireachtas would not be free to define the circumstances in which abortion is permitted. These circumstances would be specified in the Constitution itself.

Clearly he's talking about this as a serious possibility (certainly it doesn't seem like he thinks the approach of amending the eighth would be mad). I think it could be done if there was the political will.

oscarBravo · 10-05-2018 08:51PM

finbar10 wrote: »

If it's just some legislation, IMO the law itself and definitely how it's enforced will morph over time.

Yes. That's what laws do. That's what governments are for: to allow laws to morph over time.

The mistake we've made up until now is to prevent laws from morphing over time in response to the edge cases that have inevitably resulted from trying to encompass vastly complicated medical issues in terse paragraphs of constitutional law.

If lawmaking is kept where it belongs - with the legislature - then laws can adapt to changing circumstances and unintended consequences without the tedium and divisiveness of a referendum campaign each time.

Full protection from conception is the only truly consistent, though rather absolutist, position. Any other line (12 weeks, quickening, going through the birth canal) is somewhat arbitrary.

Yes, but arbitrary lines in time are well-established legal practice - legal drinking age, the right to vote, age of consent...

Can you imagine a child having a different set of human rights depending on whether it was conceived in the course of a rape? The adult child of a rapist being denied the right to vote, let's say? Some arbitrary distinctions make objective sense; others less so.

That sounds like an argument for bodily autonomy trumping everything else: woman wants an abortion, she gets an abortion. The only approaches are the woman never gets the abortion (except maybe for danger to her life), the woman always get the abortion, or "it depends" (sometimes she may be "forced").

You seem to be in one of the final two camps. If you are in the "it depends" camp, I guess we simply differ as to whether the "it depends" should have a constitutional basis or not.

Not just on that basis, no. We disagree on whether it should have a constitutional basis, and as to on what it depends.

finbar10 wrote: »

One final point. I'm not so sure that having some constitutional protection for the unborn is as unworkable as claimed.

I didn't say it was unworkable, I said it's a bad idea. Just because we could do something doesn't mean we should.

NuMarvel · 10-05-2018 09:09PM

finbar10 wrote: »

Without the eighth, it would have been open to the courts here to develop similar case law here in past decades. However, in the first opportunity to do so recently, they explicitly said the eighth was the only protection, which it is proposed to remove.

They said the 8th is the only constitutional protection. They also said that does not prevent the Oireachtas from providing for legislative protections. As was the case in Ireland since 1861.

Removing the 8th doesn't mean the unborn can't have protections and the lack of a constitutional provision doesn't automatically render any legislation with term limits unconstitutional.

finbar10 wrote: »

Full protection from conception is the only truly consistent, though rather absolutist, position.

And yet the 8th doesn't offer full protection from conception. It doesn't offer any protection at that point. The protections of the 8th don't kick in until implantation (meaning thousands of frozen embryos have zero protections). Even then it doesn't offer full protections, because it's subject to the woman's freedom to travel for abortion, of all things.

12 weeks may be arbitrary, but in reality so is the status quo.

Hotblack Desiato · 11-05-2018 02:28AM

guestwifi wrote: »

To be upfront, I'm one of the undecideds who is leaning more toward a Yes vote than a No, but

It is remarkable how many posters on boards in the last week are professing this position. It should be a category all its own in the opinion polls, really.

Overheal · 11-05-2018 03:03AM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It is remarkable how many posters on boards in the last week are professing this position. It should be a category all its own in the opinion polls, really.

That’s the “I’m voting no but don’t want to be jumped on in the conversation” stance.

Have heard an interesting spectrum of views from the No crowd and it all follows the same basic trend:

- life deserves not to be interfered with but I voice no objection to contraceptives

- life begins at conception, but I won’t tell you if I consider pill regimens to be an abortifacient, even though it interferes with a fertilized eggs ability to bond to the uterine wall

- the Bible says life begins at conception but I don’t know where it says that

- women should just choose not to have sex if they don’t want to conceive; what is this rape that you speak of

- woman should just be more responsible; what do you mean contraceptives aren’t 100% effective

- nobody dies from not having an abortion; the fact that someone died from not having an abortion is secondary to the flawed reasons she was denied it (aka the cause of death is irrelevant to the cause of the cause of death - obviously!!)

- I’m grand with abortions for rape or incest but repeal means I have to open the door to the possibility the Daíl might legalize euthanasia of toddlers on demand

- contraceptives are 100% effective is you just use them right but I’m not going to say which ones you need to use or how in order to get that level of performance

- abstinence! Duh! No, it doesn’t matter if I’m celibate why do you ask. Again what is this rape you speak of

- Irish maternity death rates are some of the best in the world when you don’t count women getting abortions abroad or the terminal cancer they developed while being denied treatments during their pregnancy

- abortions will cause logjams in the healthcare waiting lists; what do you mean people need to book appointments for prenatal and postnatal care; what are these birth defects and genetic diseases you speak of

- how is a zygotes life any less important than that of a third trimester fetus; what is this fetal viability you prattle on about

- hard cases make bad laws but let me tell you why late term abortions decide this whole issue for me

Basically, it’s a political decision founded, from what I can tell, on cognitive dissonance, whereas the yes side seems to understand these choices are never easy and the consequences are not cheerful. The no side seems under the spell that they are saving lives and there are no fatal consequences to voting no in the slightest

11-05-2018 06:31AM

Overheal wrote: »

That’s the “I’m voting no but don’t want to be jumped on in the conversation” stance.

Have heard an interesting spectrum of views from the No crowd and it all follows the same basic trend:

- life deserves not to be interfered with but I voice no objection to contraceptives

- life begins at conception, but I won’t tell you if I consider pill regimens to be an abortifacient, even though it interferes with a fertilized eggs ability to bond to the uterine wall

- the Bible says life begins at conception but I don’t know where it says that

- women should just choose not to have sex if they don’t want to conceive; what is this rape that you speak of

- woman should just be more responsible; what do you mean contraceptives aren’t 100% effective

- nobody dies from not having an abortion; the fact that someone died from not having an abortion is secondary to the flawed reasons she was denied it (aka the cause of death is irrelevant to the cause of the cause of death - obviously!!)

- I’m grand with abortions for rape or incest but repeal means I have to open the door to the possibility the Daíl might legalize euthanasia of toddlers on demand

- contraceptives are 100% effective is you just use them right but I’m not going to say which ones you need to use or how in order to get that level of performance

- abstinence! Duh! No, it doesn’t matter if I’m celibate why do you ask. Again what is this rape you speak of

- Irish maternity death rates are some of the best in the world when you don’t count women getting abortions abroad or the terminal cancer they developed while being denied treatments during their pregnancy

- abortions will cause logjams in the healthcare waiting lists; what do you mean people need to book appointments for prenatal and postnatal care; what are these birth defects and genetic diseases you speak of

- how is a zygotes life any less important than that of a third trimester fetus; what is this fetal viability you prattle on about

- hard cases make bad laws but let me tell you why late term abortions decide this whole issue for me

Basically, it’s a political decision founded, from what I can tell, on cognitive dissonance, whereas the yes side seems to understand these choices are never easy and the consequences are not cheerful. The no side seems under the spell that they are saving lives and there are no fatal consequences to voting no in the slightest

Ah now, don’t make generalizations. I was going saying the same thing a few weeks ago, I was undecided which way I was going to vote (I was leaning very towards no) but now after doing more research I am going to vote yes.

The Bishop Basher · 11-05-2018 09:52AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah now, don’t make generalizations. I was going saying the same thing a few weeks ago, I was undecided which way I was going to vote (I was leaning very towards no) but now after doing more research I am going to vote yes.

That'll be ok then..

I think it's just the voters being dissuaded from voting yes who are lying and don't have a valid opinion.

Those being persuaded in favour are obviously far more honest and their opinions are deemed valid.

Vojera · 11-05-2018 11:46AM

This tweet claiming No campaigners were asked to leave the grounds of TCD solely because they were No campaigners.
https://twitter.com/ARmastrangelo/status/991370780330967040

Oh wait, no, it's because only TCD staff and students are allowed to campaign (for anything) on campus, and these individuals couldn't prove they were either.
https://twitter.com/AarRogan/status/994570421264617473

guestwifi · 11-05-2018 01:57PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It is remarkable how many posters on boards in the last week are professing this position. It should be a category all its own in the opinion polls, really.

Overheal wrote: »

That’s the “I’m voting no but don’t want to be jumped on in the conversation” stance.

Are we not allowed to still be considering the arguments from both sides? Would you have made that statement had I said "I'm one of the undecideds who's leaning towards a No, but"....I'm still leaning towards a Yes, no thanks to some of the Repealers I've come across though, they're as bad (if not worse) than many of the pro-lifers I've encountered.

NuMarvel · 11-05-2018 02:01PM

guestwifi wrote: »

Are we not allowed to still be considering the arguments from both sides? Would you have made that statement had I said "I'm one of the undecideds who's leaning towards a No, but"....I'm still leaning towards a Yes, no thanks to some of the Repealers I've come across though, they're as bad (if not worse) than many of the pro-lifers I've encountered.

The issue is that, to date, most posters who say they're undecided/on the fence turn out to No voters in disguise and wind up merchants.

I have no doubt there are genuine people in this point, but the actions of No voters means others can't be sure if these people are genuine.

Anne1982h · 11-05-2018 02:07PM

Came home to a booklet from the pro life side that to me seems to be full of lies - again no accountability but this booklet of inaccurate information going out to voters homes. In particular I take huge issue with the section on how cancer and pregnancy are all good and chemotherapy can be administered. There is a woman saying she had cancer and chemo while pregnant and all was good. This directly goes against my own experience where I was told to make sure not to get pregnant in case I had cancer as I wouldn’t be treated properly for it ( by a consultant in a gynecology ward) and a friend with cancer has been told to make sure she doesn’t get pregnant for over 6 months after she finishes treatment and goes into remission. Maybe the woman in question had a very mild very early stage cancer. It is so disingenuous to put that in a booklet when it is clearly not true.

guestwifi · 11-05-2018 02:07PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

The issue is that, to date, most posters who say they're undecided/on the fence turn out to No voters in disguise and wind up merchants.

I have no doubt there are genuine people in this point, but the actions of No voters means others can't be sure if these people are genuine.

Understandable in that case, I'm new to Boards so can't argue against that, from what I've seen here the forum is open to allowing both sides to speak so I'm not sure why No voters would not feel free to say they're on that side. Out in the real world I can understand why they'd be hesitant though, I do know some people on the No side who definitely say they're voting Yes for an easier life, much like Trump and Brexit voters.....

Vojera · 11-05-2018 02:48PM

Anne1982h wrote: »

Came home to a booklet from the pro life side that to me seems to be full of lies - again no accountability but this booklet of inaccurate information going out to voters homes. In particular I take huge issue with the section on how cancer and pregnancy are all good and chemotherapy can be administered. There is a woman saying she had cancer and chemo while pregnant and all was good. This directly goes against my own experience where I was told to make sure not to get pregnant in case I had cancer as I wouldn’t be treated properly for it ( by a consultant in a gynecology ward) and a friend with cancer has been told to make sure she doesn’t get pregnant for over 6 months after she finishes treatment and goes into remission. Maybe the woman in question had a very mild very early stage cancer. It is so disingenuous to put that in a booklet when it is clearly not true.

Not to mention that "chemo" covers a plethora of medicines. Different active ingredients, different doses, etc. So one person being told they can have cancer treatment throughout pregnancy doesn't mean that the other women recounting their stories about how they were denied treatment because they were pregnant are lying.

Cancer isn't one disease. It doesn't have one treatment. It's dishonest to say that pregnancy never prevents women getting the treatment they need.

Here's just one example:
https://twitter.com/sineadgleeson/status/994500833260769281

The One Doctor · 11-05-2018 03:26PM

I get the impression that voting will be tight, but it'll come down to a Yes in the end.

I'll be voting Yes, but still I'm uneasy about giving women the right to kill their own fetus. Both sides of this campaign are leaning on heartstrings (and telling big lies) to get their points across, and the only sensible point of view I've heard so far is from Leo Varadkar: 'Safe, legal and rare'.

It's a bit worrying to have a sane person at the helm of the country.

The reason I'm voting Yes is that in the unlikely event that my daughter needs a termination in the future, I'd prefer that she be able to access the service with the minimum of fuss and maximum of safety. Also, in the case of chromosomal disorders or FFAs there should be the option for the woman to be able to terminate the pregnancy.

Hotblack Desiato · 11-05-2018 04:46PM

Women already have that right, they have to travel to another country to exercise it.

How many countries have one part of their constitution saying that X is a crime, and the next part saying that citizens have an absolute right to travel to another country to do X?

It's insane.

Outright lies in Campaign

Comments