The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

SusieBlue · 23-05-2018 01:28PM

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

I can't fathom why yes voters are so confident of getting a result because of how things are looking online and on the streets etc. You seem to be underestimating the older generation of Ireland and the power with which they will come out to vote for this.

I don't see anyone here overly confident. I think it will be extremely close either way, I'm not predicting anything higher than a 53% majority for the winning side.

Either way, neither side are gonna win by much.

jimgoose · 23-05-2018 01:29PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

...And the No campaign seems to have deflated in the same time...

The "No" campaign has zip. Nada. Bobkes. Jack Shit. Except tea and sympathy, and be off with you to The England like a nice little cailín and get yourself sorted out for yourself there now where the nice people don't have to be looking at you, the dirt a' you. The veneer is painfully thin, and it is possible that people are now seeing through it. We live in hope.

Sardonicat · 23-05-2018 01:29PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

The Yes campaign in the last week seems to have definitely picked up steam. I'm seeing Yes badges everywhere on the way to work!

And the No campaign seems to have deflated in the same time. I really was expecting something massively aggressive from them last week, but it hasn't materialised, and last week was a number of PR trip-ups for them. And that's persisting this week, with the hullabaloo over Sherlock's (non) appearance on Prime Time.

Definitely, definitely, definitely not in the bag yet, but it's within our grasp. And I'm finding the debate last night to be a great opportunity to start chats for yes with work colleagues!

My guess is that those behind the No campaign are fully expecting to loose and are currently regrouping and planning their lobbying campaign re legislation.

The fun and games will really begin after the 8th is gone. Trust me. I was around in 83 and 92. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

PhoenixParker · 23-05-2018 01:30PM

Cleft lip frequently occurs in conjunction with far more serious conditions. They all end up listed on the statistics and pro lifers seize on it as an example of the perfidity of women.

And there may indeed be some women who feel tgey can't cope with the feeding difficulties, operations, and hospital visits that are needed with a cleft palate.

Who knows and can judge what else is going on in her life better then her? Maybe she's a single mother with 4 kids, 1 autistic, no family support and miles from a hospital?

Every case is different, every life story unique. Let women work with their doctor's and families to decide what is best.

BarleySweets · 23-05-2018 01:30PM

Just her wrote: »

Ok thanks for your reply. It's just this sentient argument comes up and Id like to know is there a point in arguing it or are yes voters for abortion regardless of sentience

I’ve seen you bring up this sentience argument a lot. It smacks of you trying to derail the topic. What’s your angle here? I’d be interested in hearing your actual views on the issue.

jimgoose · 23-05-2018 01:31PM

Sardonicat wrote: »

My guess is that those behind the No campaign are fully expecting to loose and are currently regrouping and planning their lobbying campaign re legislation.

The fun and games will really begin after the 8th is gone. Trust me. I was around in 83 and 92. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

I look forward to them making even bigger gowls of themselves, and hopefully to a few getting arrested or taking a baton to the side of the noggin. I'm buying the popcorn.

jimgoose · 23-05-2018 01:32PM

woejus wrote: »

Repeal is just the start of the fight, if passed...

Some of these people are starting to piss me off a small bit. If it gets right bad Leo should deploy the army. You can't beat a 5.56mm NATO to the spleen to make even a nutter re-evaluate their priorities.

nullzero · 23-05-2018 01:34PM

PhoenixParker wrote: »

And there may indeed be some women who feel tgey can't cope with the feeding difficulties, operations, and hospital visits that are needed with a cleft palate.

You're not painting a particularly flattering picture of women there.
How inconvenient to have to take a child to hospital for treatment.
If somebody were to actually think that way then perhaps parenthood and by extension conception of a child is something they should avoid.
That's the thing about being a parent, you come last every time, your own convenience isn't on the table once a baby is born.

SusieBlue · 23-05-2018 01:35PM

nullzero wrote: »

You're not painting a particularly flattering picture of women there.
How inconvenient to have to take a child to hospital for treatment.
If somebody were to actually think that way then perhaps parenthood and by extension conception of a child is something they should avoid.
That's the thing about being a parent, you come last every time, your own convenience isn't on the table once a baby is born.

Very useless advice to someone who is already pregnant. Hindsight, my friend.

Hotblack Desiato · 23-05-2018 01:36PM

Trasna1 wrote: »

It does occur, not it may occur.

You're picking up on the wrong sense of the word 'may'.

Shouldn't they legislate for it though seeing that it's happening? Argument sound familiar?

What benefit would your proposed law provide?

Zubeneschamali · 23-05-2018 01:36PM

nullzero wrote: »

This attitude is what could possibly cause a no vote to be carried. A lot of No voters don't agree with the situation as it stand and are happy for changes to be made that care for women in so called "hard cases", but aren't comfortable with a so called abortion on demand.

Yeah, that's what they say.

But in fact, all the prominent No folks were against the PoLDPA because it allows abortion in the hardest of hard cases, so actually, no I don't believe this at all.

It's just something to say that sounds more reasonable than "The Bishop said so".

Penn · 23-05-2018 01:38PM

jimgoose wrote: »

The "No" campaign has zip. Nada. Bobkes. Jack Shit. Except tea and sympathy, and be off with you to The England like a nice little cailín and get yourself sorted out for yourself there now where the nice people don't have to be looking at you, the dirt a' you. The veneer is painfully thin, and it is possible that people are now seeing through it. We live in hope.

As evident by many of them now claiming that they think abortion should be available in cases such as rape or FFA, but that this referendum goes too far so they're implying that if people vote No to this one, they won't stand in the way of another referendum allowing abortion under those circumstances.

Of course, they would absolutely stand in the way of such and would use the No vote in this one as justification for it and claim that people don't agree with abortion full stop.

Between that and the clusterf*ck of last night's PrimeTime situation, I think it's clear that they're panicking at this stage.

nullzero · 23-05-2018 01:38PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yeah, that's what they say.

But in fact, all the prominent No folks were against the PoLDPA because it allows abortion in the hardest of hard cases, so actually, no I don't believe this at all.

It's just something to say that sounds more reasonable than "The Bishop said so".

So all No voters have exactly the same opinions on everything?

BarleySweets · 23-05-2018 01:39PM

Sardonicat wrote: »

My guess is that those behind the No campaign are fully expecting to loose and are currently regrouping and planning their lobbying campaign re legislation.

The fun and games will really begin after the 8th is gone. Trust me. I was around in 83 and 92. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

They can lobby all they like but if Yes wins they’ll have no leg to stand on. 12-weeks is the minimum limit required to be considered adequate abortion legislation, it’s also the maximum required to handle well over 90% of abortion scenarios. So the government have been broadly considerate here in picking that term limit. No lobbying can change those requirements.

We just need to get everyone out voting. It’s tricky having it on a Friday in May because people who can’t make the polls before work will be awfully tempted to say ”Feck it, it’ll be grand, sure the No campaign collapsed this week” and skip voting after work once they see everyone else in the office head out for Friday evening dinner + beers after work. What’s more tempting, lounging in the sun boozing and gorging with your buddies, or traipsing across the city to vote? We all need to help that not be the case by encouraging as high a turnout as possible!

NuMarvel · 23-05-2018 01:40PM

Dole Scrounging Vegan Crossfitter wrote: »

Mod: RocketRaccoon taking a short holiday and won't be posting in this thread again.

In fairness, considering things ended for him in the Avengers movie, I think poor Rocket needs the holiday!

:D.

(Sorry, couldn't resist!)

(Also, not a spoiler!)

nullzero · 23-05-2018 01:40PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

Very useless advice to someone who is already pregnant. Hindsight, my friend.

That makes no sense.
Aborting a child because of a disability or in this case a cleft pallet is something that is not being offered under the proposed legislation in this country.
Are you espousing a view which allows terminations for these reasons? Surely we're skirting the edges of eugenics at this stage.

WithTheRanks · 23-05-2018 01:41PM

nullzero wrote: »

If somebody were to actually think that way then perhaps parenthood and by extension conception of a child is something they should avoid.

agreed, they should probably get an abortion

jimgoose · 23-05-2018 01:41PM

Penn wrote: »

As evident by many of them now claiming that they think abortion should be available in cases such as rape or FFA, but that this referendum goes too far so they're implying that if people vote No to this one, they won't stand in the way of another referendum allowing abortion under those circumstances...

<Goose clambers up on the roof of the County Hall with a megaphone, roars> STOP SCREWING AROUND WITH THE CONSTITUTION OVER WHAT IS A MATTER FOR THE LEGISLATURE!!

Trasna1 · 23-05-2018 01:42PM

Sardonicat wrote: »

My guess is that those behind the No campaign are fully expecting to loose and are currently regrouping and planning their lobbying campaign re legislation.

The fun and games will really begin after the 8th is gone. Trust me. I was around in 83 and 92. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

I disagree. Without the 8th these groups will be marginalised and deemed irrelevant to the discussion. Aside from the hardcore, this will fizzle out -although they may reform under an anti assisted dying campaign, which will probably be the last conservative domino to fall.

SusieBlue · 23-05-2018 01:42PM

nullzero wrote: »

That makes no sense.
Aborting a child because of a disability or in this case a cleft pallet is something that is not being offered under the proposed legislation in this country.
Are you espousing a view which allows terminations for these reasons? Surely we're skirting the edges of eugenics at this stage.

No, I'm not. At all.
I'm saying talking about how women should have avoided conception in the first place is absolutely useless advice to someone who is already pregnant.
The horse has bolted.

nullzero · 23-05-2018 01:43PM

WithTheRanks wrote: »

agreed, they should probably get an abortion

They could just not get pregnant.
Or should they have abortion after abortion until they have that goldilocks "just right" pregnancy?

PhoenixParker · 23-05-2018 01:43PM

nullzero wrote: »

You're not painting a particularly flattering picture of women there.
How inconvenient to have to take a child to hospital for treatment.
If somebody were to actually think that way then perhaps parenthood and by extension conception of a child is something they should avoid.
That's the thing about being a parent, you come last every time, your own convenience isn't on the table once a baby is born.

I agree, for me hospital visits and the extra care would be inconvenient but not remotely abortion worthy

but as I outlined can also see where a woman's specific and individual circumstances might render dealing with the medical treatment for a cleft lip not just difficult but virtually impossible.

As such I personally believe we should trust women to decide.

The legislators don't agree with me btw. Cleft lip won't fall within the proposed grounds for abortion after 12 weeks.

nullzero · 23-05-2018 01:44PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

No, I'm not. At all.
I'm saying talking about how women should have avoided conception in the first place is absolutely useless advice to someone who is already pregnant.
The horse has bolted.

I'm saying that if you have the attitude that a baby should be aborted for having a cleft pallet then you have no business making the decision to conceive in the first place.
I never mentioned what you're talking about.

ohnonotgmail · 23-05-2018 01:46PM

nullzero wrote: »

You're not painting a particularly flattering picture of women there.
How inconvenient to have to take a child to hospital for treatment.
If somebody were to actually think that way then perhaps parenthood and by extension conception of a child is something they should avoid.
That's the thing about being a parent, you come last every time, your own convenience isn't on the table once a baby is born.

you still haven't provided a source to support your claim that women are having abortions because the child has a cleft lip.

January · 23-05-2018 01:46PM

Some women may already have a child with a disability and wouldn't be able to raise another. Life is not black and white. It's not about 'inconvenience' open your eyes and see there is grey everywhere.

nullzero · 23-05-2018 01:46PM

PhoenixParker wrote: »

I agree, for me hospital visits and the extra care would be inconvenient but not remotely abortion worthy

but as I outlined can also see where a woman's specific and individual circumstances might render dealing with the medical treatment for a cleft lip not just difficult but virtually impossible.

As such I personally believe we should trust women to decide.

The legislators don't agree with me btw. Cleft lip won't fall within the proposed grounds for abortion after 12 weeks.

You are clearly wrong, there is a difference between cleft lip and pallet BTW.

Some of the posting here is bizarre.

BarleySweets · 23-05-2018 01:46PM

nullzero wrote: »

So all No voters have exactly the same opinions on everything?

Going by this thread they’ve all got very similar opinions alright, no matter how they word them they all boil down to one or many of very few common threads:

- sluts should keep their legs closed

- only a few girls ever have to deal with rape/incest so why bother introducing legislation for the rest of us

- abortion promotes promiscuity

- sure stop looking at the hard cases that die or end up crippled, look at the ones who went through hard cases and ended up fine with a bouncing babby in their arms

- the man in my church says God hates abortion and loves babies, and therefore I believe that you and Irish society as a whole should do what the man in my church says because he talks to God, don’t you know

- abortion will be a genocide on white Irish babies

123balltv · 23-05-2018 01:47PM

I'll be voting YES if for only for fetal syndrome/ rape etc

Healthy babies NO never.

nullzero · 23-05-2018 01:47PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you still haven't provided a source to support your claim that women are having abortions because the child has a cleft lip.

I didn't claim it. Someone else did and I said I found it highly unlikely that is would be true.

Jesus H Christ, can you not follow what's going on?

....... · 23-05-2018 01:47PM

This post has been deleted.

The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Comments