The Dilemma of the Undecideds in the abortion referendum

Overheal · 21-05-2018 01:02AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Fact check. I was under the impression that the 1 in 5 was a misrepresentation because they were EXCLUDING miscarriage.

The correct figure is that for every 4 live births there is one abortion

An inaccurate figure. Still an appalling vista for anyone who values life on the womb.

1 in 5

Source?

spacecoyote · 21-05-2018 07:16AM

the_pen_turner wrote: »

i would be very interested to see an opinion poll where they had a middle of the road option that allowed for rape and fatal fetal abnoralities and medial need to the mother.

my guess is that a lot of the yes would move to that as well as a lot of no.

im a no voter but would vote yes to the above . i have heard loads of people say the same.
it would be interesting to see how many of either side truly want the full abortion or no abortion. most people would be in the middle

See, I don't get this argument.

If you're in the middle, then the logical decision is to vote YES. Voting NO means nothing changes & your in the middle cases are still blocked.

If you vote YES, you're not voting for so-called abortion on demand, you're voting to remove a piece of legislation & for a discussion to happen on what legislation will replace it. The proposal may be for unrestricted up to 12 weeks, but the key word there is proposal.

So you can vote YES & then campaign, lobby, organise & speak to your local TD & fight for the version you're happy with. We might end up with something youre not entirely happy with, but voting NO means that nothing changes at all.

And by-the-by, I hate the use of the term "Hard cases". If people think that there are "easy cases" of abortion then the NO campaign have done a great job with their branding.

bleary · 21-05-2018 07:55AM

Savita was placed on less effective antibiotics prescribed for maternity cases rather than the more effective antibiotics that may have headed off her infection. Thst was one of the options denied because of the 8th.
Because she was pregnant although miscarrying and despite her informed wishes to terminate

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/health/savita-should-have-had-stronger-antibiotics-inquest-told-1.1358386%3fmode=amp

Irish women are not allowed to make decisions about their healthcare because doctor's were required to give absolutely equal weighting to the unborn right to life.
I am in favour of right to life, I just really don't think they're equal and this amendment has made women's health poorer over the years in many ways . Ultimately it has been up to the medical team on a daily basis to interpret the 8th rather than the woman primarily , with them to support her.

antiskeptic · 21-05-2018 08:00AM

spacecoyote wrote: »

See, I don't get this argument.

If you're in the middle, then the logical decision is to vote YES. Voting NO means nothing changes & your in the middle cases are still blocked.

If you vote YES, you're not voting for so-called abortion on demand, you're voting to remove a piece of legislation & for a discussion to happen on what legislation will replace it. The proposal may be for unrestricted up to 12 weeks, but the key word there is proposal.

So you can vote YES & then campaign, lobby, organise & speak to your local TD & fight for the version you're happy with. We might end up with something youre not entirely happy with, but voting NO means that nothing changes at all.

And by-the-by, I hate the use of the term "Hard cases". If people think that there are "easy cases" of abortion then the NO campaign have done a great job with their branding.

You sound like Simon Harris: abortion on the grounds of disability (and when they develop a test for attractiveness , intelligence, hair colour) won't be permitted.

Nobody believes you

GreeBo · 21-05-2018 08:21AM

Do any of the no voters here actually believe that repealing the 8th will increase the number of Irish women having abortions?

fergus1001 · 21-05-2018 08:31AM

a simple one, the next time there is a case like Savita, she might be called Mary and she might be from down the road

if the referendum is defeated on friday no voters will have caused her death and will have blood on their hands, simple

Fr Tod Umptious · 21-05-2018 08:33AM

GreeBo wrote: »

Do any of the no voters here actually believe that repealing the 8th will increase the number of Irish women having abortions?

I don't know

But what it will do is allow the government of the day to legislate with regards to abortion, and the government of the day may pass legislation that results in more abortions.

lawred2 · 21-05-2018 08:37AM

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I don't know

But what it will do is allow the government of the day to legislate with regards to abortion, and the government of the day may pass legislation that results in more abortions.

Or less

spacecoyote · 21-05-2018 08:38AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

You sound like Simon Harris: abortion on the grounds of disability (and when they develop a test for attractiveness , intelligence, hair colour) won't be permitted.

Nobody believes you

I'm not going to get into a muck-throwing spat with you. You can think whatever you want about me & my opinions, I've read enough of your posts on here to know that you're not one of the people who could ever be classed as "undecided"

The reality is, the NO campaign have created a more effective emotion based brand in general. They've played into our countries deeply entrenched catholic views. Yes, we may be a much more liberal country in many ways than in past generations, but even most liberal people still have some degree of a latent catholic guilt built in.

The YES campaign generally put forward the argument of "let people make choices about their own lives". I think its a sensible & rational approach, but it doesn't have the emotional punch of a lot of what the NO campaign put forward.

How about this proposal for the NO campaign:

There is an insistence that there are multiple alternative options available for all people stuck in this situation (adoption, grandparents taking on the baby, etc...). Create a new option...

If you vote NO, you go on a national register.

If any person gets pregnant & says they don't want this baby, because there is no legislation to protect that choice, the people on the register get no choice either.

It becomes a random lottery, if you vote no, your name is drawn & you have to take on any baby born to a parent forced into the decision. There would be no preference given to people who want to adopt. The mother got no choice to carry the child to term, you get no choice but to care for the child once its born.

You can't say no, you don't get additional state support, and if you do say no, or are found to neglect the child, its a criminal offence, punishable with a term equivalent to an illegal abortion.

(see where I'm going here)

spacecoyote · 21-05-2018 08:42AM

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I don't know

But what it will do is allow the government of the day to legislate with regards to abortion, and the government of the day may pass legislation that results in more abortions.

Would you rather have a properly regulated & legislated system, or continue down the route of sending people abroad, or even worse, having people ordering random pills over the internet when they literally don't know what they are getting sent or are taking & could be doing considerably worse damage to themselves.

ancapailldorcha · 21-05-2018 09:06AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Nobody believes you

Statements like this aren't constructive. No more please.

antiskeptic · 21-05-2018 09:14AM

bleary wrote: »

Savita was placed on less effective antibiotics prescribed for maternity cases rather than the more effective antibiotics that may have headed off her infection. Thst was one of the options denied because of the 8th.

Problem.

Your link doesnt support your contention. It says the antibiotics recommended for maternal cases was administered. Without saying the stronger drugs were withheld because of the 8th. It doesnt say why they werent administered

Irish women are not allowed to make decisions about their healthcare because doctor's were required to give absolutely equal weighting to the unborn right to life.

The proposed legislation wont alter that. Its still doctors who will be doing the deciding post 12 weeks

I am in favour of right to life, I just really don't think they're equal and this amendment has made women's health poorer over the years in many ways . Ultimately it has been up to the medical team on a daily basis to interpret the 8th rather than the woman primarily , with them to support her.

This conflicts with maternal health outcomes in Ireland being amonst the best in the world.

You dont know what the net effect of a new regime would be. You can suppose better because women wont have to travel,for instance but thats a simplistic view. You'd be about-turning health culture for a start.

Only time would tell us how things would be

DeadHand · 21-05-2018 09:30AM

GreeBo wrote: »

Do any of the no voters here actually believe that repealing the 8th will increase the number of Irish women having abortions?

I believe it will.

A greater ease and immediacy of access removes a lot of time for reflection and second thoughts. It may also create a culture whereby an abortion is seen as a mundane, quickly reached for solution.

I know in my own case one of my daughters would definitely have been aborted had a facility been more accessible. She’s the tallest and brightest in her class now and says eerily mature things.

Obviously, this won’t be proven until abortion comes in (and it will come in, if not this time then another time).

I’m torn on it. I recognize the inevitability of it and the fact that Irish abortion exists, just not in Ireland. We should look after our own people and our own problems instead of exporting them.

I am also hesitant to vote for a measure that I believe will extinguish an untold number of lives at source and reduce my nation significantly. I think economically productive Irish people need to have more children, not fewer, and this is the group that will be most reduced by legal, in state abortion.

bobbysands81 · 21-05-2018 09:34AM

DeadHand wrote: »

I think economically productive Irish people need to have more children, not fewer, and this is the group that will be most reduced by legal, in state abortion.

That comment is up there with some of the most insane things I’ve read on this website.

antiskeptic · 21-05-2018 09:37AM

Hospitals are like the food industry. They run to budgets.

In the food industry, a process called HACCP (hazard analysis critical control path) is utilised. It helps counteract the tendency for budgets, human sloppiness, desire for increased output and the like from dangerously impacting on food safety.

Stages in the production process subject HACCP controls are closely monitored. Standards are maintained, budgets can go to hell (dump the days production if failure found - tough), human sloppiness countered by externally audited systems.

Outside of HACCP stages however, its a relative free for all. HACCP is a pain in the arse if your a budget man or a production man.

Current health philosophy is forced, like budget and production people in food are forced by HACCP, to fight tooth and nail for mother and child. Budget doesnt come into it. The numbers waiting on trollies doesnt come into it, time in an eye-wateringly expensive intensive care bed doesnt come into it. Its life.

Equal right to life is the healthcare industry's HACCP.

Diminish the value of life in the womb and you change the culture. Budget men under pressure, managers with pressure on beds can and will apply pressure to have expensive, resource consuming cases ... em ..expedited. They aren't doctors, they are managers with targets to hit.

I spent 20 years in the food industry, most of it as a departmental manager. In not a single one of the many thousands of meetings I must have attended was the word 'nutrition' mentioned. Managers with targets to reach don't give a fig about sonething they don't have to give a fig about - especially if giving a fig impacted negatively on achieving targets.

It's not that people are bad. It's that they're human

ArmaniJeanss · 21-05-2018 09:41AM

DeadHand wrote: »

I believe it will.

A greater ease and immediacy of access removes a lot of time for reflection and second thoughts. It may also create a culture whereby an abortion is seen as a mundane, quickly reached for solution.

I know in my own case one of my daughters would definitely have been aborted had a facility been more accessible. She’s the tallest and brightest in her class now and says eerily mature things.

Obviously, this won’t be proven until abortion comes in (and it will come in, if not this time then another time).

I’m torn on it. I recognize the inevitability of it and the fact that Irish abortion exists, just not in Ireland. We should look after our own people and our own problems instead of exporting them.

I am also hesitant to vote for a measure that I believe will extinguish an untold number of lives and reduce my nation significantly. I think economically productive Irish people need to have more children, not fewer, and this is the group that will be most reduced by legal, in state abortion.

Not having had your first daughter doesn't necessarily mean you wouldn't have eventually had the same amount of children though. So we can't directly correlate say 5K abortions a year as being 5K less children that 'reduces the nation'.

e.g., A woman choosing not to have a kid at 18 may lead her to having 3 kids at 29, 32 and 35 that she otherwise wouldn't have felt able to have with a financially burdensome near-teenager around, and having missed out the career financing stability that being childfree in her early/mid20s gave her.
It's not necessarily a nice way of looking at it though.

guestwifi · 21-05-2018 10:31AM

road_high wrote: »

Yea...right :rolleyes:

Yep, of course you, as a person who's never met me and knows nothing about me, should know my mind better than myself. Your post is just another example of the Yes side being obnoxious.

GreeBo · 21-05-2018 10:57AM

DeadHand wrote: »

I believe it will.

A greater ease and immediacy of access removes a lot of time for reflection and second thoughts. It may also create a culture whereby an abortion is seen as a mundane, quickly reached for solution.

Whats easier than taking a pill that gets delivered to your door?

Martina1991 · 21-05-2018 12:25PM

DeadHand wrote:

I am also hesitant to vote for a measure that I believe will extinguish an untold number of lives at source and reduce my nation significantly. I think economically productive Irish people need to have more children, not fewer, and this is the group that will be most reduced by legal, in state abortion.

I better get a move on. I'm 26 and still no babies. I'm not doing my job for my country.

Sorry guys.

hatrickpatrick · 21-05-2018 01:11PM

DeadHand wrote: »

I am also hesitant to vote for a measure that I believe will extinguish an untold number of lives at source and reduce my nation significantly. I think economically productive Irish people need to have more children, not fewer, and this is the group that will be most reduced by legal, in state abortion.

This one I will never understand. Smaller generations = less competition for urban living space = lower rents, property prices and grocery inflation. This is a no-brainer for me at least - everyone's quality of life should rise a little if population declines overall.

LuckyLloyd · 21-05-2018 01:11PM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I'm sure Savita's husband is only delighted to see his deceased wife's image on 'yes' posters and booklets and her name plastered all over the Irish media after pleading for people to stop referring to her case.

Martina1991 wrote: »

Source? Because her parents are supporting a Yes vote

And no further response. Typical.

hatrickpatrick · 21-05-2018 01:32PM

AllForIt wrote: »

OP, maybe the media is reflecting the strength of public opinion on the issue.

I would argue (and I come from a family which is about 50/50 journalists and politicians / civil servants, so maybe the values I was raised with are somewhat unusual) that merely reflecting the majority public opinion at a given moment in time is a gross dereliction of duty by the media itself. Providing balanced coverage rather than a majority echo chamber should, at least in my view, be one of the fundamental pillars of journalistic ethics.

Apply what you're saying here to other historically controversial issues and you'll see why - imagine, for instance, if the media had simply reflected the strength of public opinion on the issue of civil rights in Northern Ireland rather than providing any balanced coverage? Indeed, from what I learned in history in school, the BBC (which I would now regard as one of the most balanced journalistic outlets, so clearly their culture must have changed) were utterly biased towards the Unionist and UK government side, to the point of choosing whether to use the word "killed" or "murdered" after an incident literally based on the criteria of "who's side was the victim on and who's side was the killer on?"

I don't know as much about the United States media at the time, but I'd be fairly sure that something similar would have happened when black people were resisting oppression for the first time - they were probably either ignored or disparaged by the establishment media, seeing as the establishment at that time was overwhelmingly white.

IMO it should be obvious that a media which is led by public opinion and not merely clinically reflecting facts and offering all sides an equal opportunity to set out their stall - with as much prominence and respect given to stalls on both sides - is a media which is not performing one of its primary functions in a democratic society. That's why I'll always condemn the media for having a leftie bias despite being a hardcore leftie myself.

I think it's a real shame that more people don't do this, especially among lefties - because given the pendular nature of politics, it's only a matter of time before the left finds itself on the "uncool" side of the political aisle, and if the media "reflects the strength of public opinion" when that time comes, we're going to find ourselves just as sidelined and shut out from mainstream discourse as the right wing is currently finding itself.

GreeBo · 21-05-2018 01:49PM

DeadHand wrote: »

I know in my own case one of my daughters would definitely have been aborted had a facility been more accessible. She’s the tallest and brightest in her class now and says eerily mature things.

Would your attitude be somehow different if she turned into Myra Hindley?

If it would be then that renders the argument useless as you cant decide after you give birth.

DeadHand wrote: »

I am also hesitant to vote for a measure that I believe will extinguish an untold number of lives at source and reduce my nation significantly. I think economically productive Irish people need to have more children, not fewer, and this is the group that will be most reduced by legal, in state abortion.

You are, again, missing the point that these people are *already* having abortions in large numbers. You cant even argue that you dont want them in Ireland since there are more people self-administering them than travelling to the UK these days.

Though the IONA institute would like you to believe that the drop in women travelling is unrelated to the increase in people ordering abortion pills.:rolleyes:

People who want and can support babies should have whatever number of babies they want and can support. Suggesting anything else is frankly bizarre.

antiskeptic · 21-05-2018 02:36PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's why I'll always condemn the media for having a leftie bias despite being a hardcore leftie myself.

It's meant to be the forth estate. Not an Anti-8th estate agent

antiskeptic · 21-05-2018 03:03PM

From another liberal leaner:

The Guardian wrote:

The eighth amendment protects “the right to life of the unborn”, and means legal abortion is impossible in Ireland, even in cases of rape or fatal foetal abnormality.

"Cor blimey! Roight showa of knukulldraggerz, fhem Oirish" - thinks Guardian reader to hisself

The Guardian wrote:

Two opinion polls released on Sunday showed the yes campaign increasing its lead, appearing to reverse a trend that had suggested the race had tightened in recent weeks.

Licked straight from Da Juurnil. Old news rendered fake news

blondeonblonde · 21-05-2018 06:17PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

The crude form of words allows legislation within a boundary set by the words. A crude form of words to permit legislation arounf ffa's for example.

Thats not possible?

So adjust legislation for ffa's when constitutionally permitted to legislate in that category

What people chose to do outside the confines of this society regulates itself isnt this societies fault. People have their own agency.

It is managed with suicide ideation, apparently. 77 cases since the legislation under the 8th. It need not be that the legislation is 100% right in every circumstance - the balance is struck between what we desire to hold and what we feel ought to be relinquished. As best we can

The above should cover this.

It's clear enough that there is not going to be a meeting of our minds on this issue but I'll have another go!

"The crude form of words allows legislation within a boundary set by the words. A crude form of words to permit legislation arounf ffa's for example.

Thats not possible?"

Again, as previously mentioned, the constitution is not the correct place for this as it is too restrictive and previous mistakes in this area have led us to where we are today

"What people chose to do outside the confines of this society regulates itself isnt this societies fault. People have their own agency"

I'm glad you mentioned this because you are referring precisely to what women are currently denied in this country - agency.

Either you are against abortion or you are pro choice. You cannot be against abortion on the one hand and then simply wash your hands of it because it is not happening in your back yard. It's very flippant to simply say that it is one's own agency (your word) to travel for an abortion whilst simultaneously denying women the agency to choose to have an abortion here.

Are you OK with women traveling to the UK? Are you OK with women using illegal abortion pills?

If your answer is no then I assume that you consider these acts to be "outside of the confines of society”? If so, then I trust that you would like the full extent of the law to be brought to bear on those who do take illegal abortion pills (I'm aware that traveling is legal). Do you wish to see women jailed for 14 years??

Conversely if the answer is yes, then you are not against Irish women having abortion. You are simply against Irish women having abortions in Ireland. Not in my back yard.

The reality is that Irish women have abortions. Keeping the 8th will not change that. They will continue to travel, they will continue to take pills in an unregulated and unsafe environment. You can talk about people having agency to do this and that's fine -people do have their own agency to commit all sorts of illegal acts. However, if you accept that they're illegal then you must stand over the consequences or at the very least demand that they be enforced.

Finally as regards rape cases and suicide ideation, (of which there have been 7 cases since the protection of life during pregnancy act - not 77) it's unacceptable that someone who has been raped or been a victim of incest has to say that they are going to kill themselves before they can be given medical treatment. These people have been through enough and should be treated with compassion and care. To subject them to a grilling by an obstetrician and two psychiatrists, all of whom have to agree, is both cruel and callous.

To any undecided voters out there, please remember that this referendum is not about you or your own personal situation or circumstances. You may never consider an abortion under any circumstances but please have the empathy to recognise that what suits you may not suit all. Others who find themselves in a difficult situation simply need a choice.

Vote yes.

pitifulgod · 21-05-2018 06:21PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Can I take the answering with a question to mean you now agree you don't have to be dying?

There's numerous obstetricians and gynaecologists that back up that the circumstances to allow an abortion tend to be the last minute.

DarkScar · 21-05-2018 07:37PM

blondeonblonde wrote: »

Conversely if the answer is yes, then you are not against Irish women having abortion. You are simply against Irish women having abortions in Ireland. Not in my back yard.

What earthly difference does it make if you are opposed to something that is legal in another country?

antiskeptic · 21-05-2018 07:47PM

pitifulgod wrote: »

There's numerous obstetricians and gynaecologists that back up that the circumstances to allow an abortion tend to be the last minute.

Is it beyond the capability of the claimants (given we've claimants aplenty on both side) to produce a few examples, redacted so as to protect the anonymity of the case?

The wiki page on the subject lists the number of suicide/emergency/other forming the number of abortions each year. Might I suppose emergency "last minute" and "other" something less than last minute?

"The Act specifies the number and specialty of medical practitioners who must concur that a termination is necessary to prevent a risk of death."

Prevent a risk of death. That means acting before the risk of death has arrived. Risk of death doesn't mean someone is one their deathbed. It means they enter the zone of risk. The Act aims to prevent someone entering the risk zone.

pitifulgod · 21-05-2018 08:13PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Is it beyond the capability of the claimants (given we've claimants aplenty on both side) to produce a few examples, redacted so as to protect the anonymity of the case?

The wiki page on the subject lists the number of suicide/emergency/other forming the number of abortions each year. Might I suppose emergency "last minute" and "other" something less than last minute?

"The Act specifies the number and specialty of medical practitioners who must concur that a termination is necessary to prevent a risk of death."

Prevent a risk of death. That means acting before the risk of death has arrived. Risk of death doesn't mean someone is one their deathbed. It means they enter the zone of risk. The Act aims to prevent someone entering the risk zone.

Michelle Harte was prevented from getting treatment due to being pregnant. It was pretty high profile. Also the C case... You're refusing to acknowledge Savita but the reality is if she had been allowed to have an abortion when requested, she would most likely be alive.

http://www.thejournal.ie/cancer-treatment-while-pregnant-4001479-May2018/

The Dilemma of the Undecideds in the abortion referendum

Comments