The Dilemma of the Undecideds in the abortion referendum

blanch152 · 23-05-2018 11:47PM

fergus1001 wrote: »

does that include taking down yes posters ? I have seen where yes posters once were are now occupied by no posters

Don't know, but three times in the last two days I have seen people putting up NO posters, didn't see them taking down YES posters. The money is being poured into this campaign by the NO side.

Got talking to some NO campaigners in the city centre over the last few days too. One was British, the other American. Asked them how they could afford to come over here and campaign, and they clammed up. If you are spending money in UK to pay someone to canvass over here, it doesn't count for referendum purposes.

Charmeleon · 23-05-2018 11:52PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm afraid I still can't get my head around how easily some people can convince themselves that what they consider a baby deserves to die because its mother was raped.

I guess there’s a little bit of utilitarian reasoning in all of us. In a rape there are only victims and perpetrators, the abortion is another far reaching consequence of the heinous actions of the perpetrator. Blame him for the fallout, not the mother or the state that already failed to protect her and the unborn child, who can be considered another victim of the mans actions. Just like the UN, I think, blames perpetrators for genocide and all the consequences that flow from it, including any retribution and punishment.

blanch152 · 23-05-2018 11:54PM

brianhere wrote: »

Anyway the last quote seemed to be popular so maybe I will include another:

Complete nonsense, because we are not talking about interpretation of law, we are talking about hard constitutional provisions.

What the NO side fail to acknowledge (and this is another of their lies), there is no discretion in constitutional law, and the courts have been clear on this. The only way to have an abortion law that only deals with hard cases such as FFA and rape is to first repeal the 8th.

Until the NO side admit this, their hard cases bad law position is just more hypocrisy.

GreeBo · 23-05-2018 11:55PM

Can anyone explain to me the logic behind the NO campaign's argument that we don't need abortion we had more support services?

I mean if I don't want a baby, irrespective of how you feel about abortion, how condescending is it to think that someone else can talk me into wanting one?
Is it basically the Mrs Doyle approach?

Or the other alternative of giving them up for adoption...I don't see any NO campaigners out supporting any of these unwanted children who are in state care.

It's almost like they desperately care about them right up to the point where they might actually have to get involved. It's real easy to say what someone else should do when commenting from your ivory tower.

Charmeleon · 23-05-2018 11:56PM

Or they could amend it, just like they did to accommodate travel and information which did not involve repealing.

GreeBo · 23-05-2018 11:57PM

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

By disgusting images, do you mean images of what about fetuses look like?

Presumably if so is it not the case that the yes campaign objects to it because it highlights the reality, and as such the truth of what this vote is about?

How about if the yes campaign used pictures of unwanted kids in state orphanages since that's their wonderful alternative to abortion?

Thankfully they haven't lowered themselves to the same level as the other side.

ArmaniJeanss · 23-05-2018 11:57PM

fergus1001 wrote: »

does that include taking down yes posters ? I have seen where yes posters once were are now occupied by no posters

Well, theres a certain level of natural wastage with posters anyway so they may only last a few days (they get hit by buses, the wind blows them down, kids mess with them).
So lets say there's nothing untoward going on and no-one is taking down the other sides posters ; what will happen then is that the side with more money will be able to put replacement ones up whilst the other side won't so over time the former will outnumber the latter.

Is there anything untoward happening - I haven't seen anything directly but I have seen an entire estate (Corduff) where every Yes poster went missing overnight on the main through road last week which seemed curious - but I've no evidence.

Martina1991 · 23-05-2018 11:59PM

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

By disgusting images, do you mean images of what about fetuses look like?

If the yes side used images of the women who have died because of he 8th there would be upraor.

Images of women's abdomens cut open, bodies rotting due to sepsis. A lifeless women who bled to death.

Hey that's the reality.

Mr.Nice Guy · 24-05-2018 12:10AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm afraid I still can't get my head around how easily some people can convince themselves that what they consider a baby deserves to die because its mother was raped.

I assure you nothing in this debate comes to me easily.

MayoSalmon · 24-05-2018 12:13AM

GreeBo wrote:

How about if the yes campaign used pictures of unwanted kids in state orphanages since that's their wonderful alternative to abortion?

Ask an adopted person would they rather of been aborted than alive today...

listermint · 24-05-2018 12:14AM

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Ask an adopted person would they rather of been aborted than alive today...

Ughhhgg so much effort in one sentence .

I just.....

GreeBo · 24-05-2018 12:27AM

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Ask an adopted person would they rather of been aborted than alive today...

Ask a banana would it rather be an orange...

Ask Hitler's mother would she rather she had had an abortion...

Am I doing it right?

no.8 · 24-05-2018 12:53AM

dublinbuster wrote:

they are NO voters! the media has pushed a yes vote HARD the silent majority think differently juts tonight i had yes campaigners call to the door, i smiled agreed with them and sent them on the way, dont need the aggro i will be voting no

Had the same but OPPOSITE experience with NO voters knocking around and talking about 800 years of ruling by those telling us what to do, etc. Etc. What that has to do with a very personal family/mothers choice in the 21st century I do not know.
I will be voting yes

Overheal · 24-05-2018 01:22AM

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

By disgusting images, do you mean images of what about fetuses look like?

Presumably if so is it not the case that the yes campaign objects to it because it highlights the reality, and as such the truth of what this vote is about?

Not in the case of a 12 week fetus no. The imagery is generally way overzealous.

Never mind that 12 weeks would be the proposed legislative cut-off, not the norm.

Hotblack Desiato · 24-05-2018 01:37AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Actually I opposed it.

Thanks for your response.

I wouldn't have had a clue about the possible role of the 8th in Savita's or anyone else's death. I wouldn't have had a clue what the amendment was going to do to the 8th - other than the notion for the potential for abortion on demand.

That's disappointing, in a democracy we have a duty to inform ourselves about what governments are doing in our name. What happens between elections (representations and lobbying) is at least as important as elections themselves. Referendums are the obvious exception.

It may well be, as some have suggested, that the actual legislation will be toned back in practice. Perhaps. But now, as then, there are things I can't countenance.

Stating your opposition to what is proposed now is fine. I wish we (society) could have had a more informed and less alarmist discussion as to what was actually on the table five years ago. Compromise might have brought about a consensus, but the No-to-this side became the No-to-any-change side and ironically weakened their own position by forcing an absolutist last stand.

1. I don't believe the 8th killed Savita.

We'll agree to differ. If the causal chain had been broken at the first link... and her pregnancy was doomed when she presented there.

I don't believe the law change of 2013 has altered in any significant way, the possibility for a doctor to terminate well in time.

I'm not sure it does either, which is one of the reasons I don't accept it, but imho providing any quantity of legal clarity can only be an improvement.

2. I don't suppose that any watering down of legislation-to-come is going to change anything fundamentally. Women who are currently prepared to travel at whatever gestation, will, if denied here, still travel. The only thing that can happen down the line is that the same "bring them home' argument is wheeled out. And the law will be liberalized further in response. First the wedge, then the rest. Heck, I've worked in Corporate World! So now is the time to try to halt it

Halt abortion in general or halt a UK-like regime? Or halt an acceptable compromise which is what is proposed now following a repeal vote? Well whatever we do, we won't really halt it will we? and that's without mentioning internet abortion pills.

3. The aforementioned suicide ideation issue is an example of something that might appear "soft" but turns out not to open the floodgates. It strikes me as strange that rape cases can't similarly be catered for. The objection has been: how do you tell that someone has been raped / things will be tied up in court until her subsequent kid leaves primary school. It strikes me as strange that you can't insert an amendment to cater for other hard cases. But then again, this isn't really about hard cases. Hard cases are a Trojan Horse and always have been.

The objection to 'hard cases' implies that there are 'easy cases' which "slutty women" will take advantage of to slip through the net.
Just give women choice already, then we can stop judging them and their choices and circumstances of which we usually know feck all.

Hotblack Desiato · 24-05-2018 02:00AM

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Very little talk of 'babies' and a lot more on 'foetuses'.

If you want to pin your hopes on 'baby' while in the first trimester, grand, but it often doesn't work out. My OH's miscarriage rate is 60% and that's just the ones we know about. Nobody in the catholic ethos maternity hospital was under a pretence that they were really babies either, neither were we, there was loss and regret but nothing comparable to an actual baby. And we were told to shrug our shoulders and try again and we did. If it wasn't for those miscarriages, my son wouldn't be here.

In many cases if women hadn't aborted a pregnancy that wasn't right for them, they wouldn't have had their subsequent children. If you want to make an argument for all possible zygotes to be born then you'll have to ban all contraception.

I was quite shocked to see someone on social media from the Yes side remark that "a parasite should not have more rights than the host". I find this really low and troubling discourse, which leaves me with a sour taste.

Biologically that's what it is. It has a serious effect on the health of its host, and that's all going well. e.g. stealing calcium from the woman's teeth and bones. There are many more potential problems, like gestational diabetes... shall I go into piles, epesiotomies, vaginal tears, caesarian scars? Yet when the circumstances are not unbearable for them, women still do this. It's only when it's impossible or unbearable that they seek abortion.

She couldn't bring herself to have the abortion in the end and we saw her son there on the programme with her.

She had a choice, and exercised it. Huge difference to being forced into pregnancy and birth.

They then went and interviewed another woman who did have an abortion when she became pregnant. Her reasoning was, "I was worried about what it would do to my career prospects." I have a real problem with that latter attitude as to me it is a license to avoid taking responsibility for one's actions. I respect freedom and people having choice but when it constitutes taking a life because it's deemed an inconvenience, I don't know if I can endorse that. And a Yes vote empowers the government to enable such a system.

That just proves you don't really respect the freedom and choice of women though.

Ultimately it's not your choice to make or your choice to live with, one way or the other.

Hotblack Desiato · 24-05-2018 02:04AM

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

By disgusting images, do you mean images of what about fetuses look like?

Should the public space be polluted with images of what your anus looks like?

Hotblack Desiato · 24-05-2018 02:09AM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Well, theres a certain level of natural wastage with posters anyway so they may only last a few days (they get hit by buses, the wind blows them down, kids mess with them).

None of which is possible if the posters were put up properly in the first place, unless kids in your area are in the habit of carrying 2.5m ladders around.

Yes posters in my area were systematically taken down and No posters put up on the same poles. That was no coincidence and no accident.

jill_valentine · 24-05-2018 02:25AM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Well, theres a certain level of natural wastage with posters anyway so they may only last a few days (they get hit by buses, the wind blows them down, kids mess with them).
So lets say there's nothing untoward going on and no-one is taking down the other sides posters ; what will happen then is that the side with more money will be able to put replacement ones up whilst the other side won't so over time the former will outnumber the latter.

Is there anything untoward happening - I haven't seen anything directly but I have seen an entire estate (Corduff) where every Yes poster went missing overnight on the main through road last week which seemed curious - but I've no evidence.

Posters in D8 were burned, from the "Yes" in the right hand corner upwards, and some fell apart. Within days No posters - sometimes two and three of the same ones - took their place. There's also a construction site around the corner where Yes posters from all over the street have visibly "blown in" under the scaffolding while No posters were mysteriously untouched by the same weather phenomena.

Brian? · 24-05-2018 02:37AM

lufties wrote: »

Its becoming like Orwell's 1984. If you are anyway conservative, its seen as bigotry. Have you watched tubridy ramp up the liberal propaganda week in week out? There's also an anti male agenda. I wonder who is driving this. I personally think there's a plot to turn men into weak betas, in order to have more control on the populace. It is not natural for men to be bashed constantly as being 'wrong' about everything. Women on the other hand can do no wrong, and are considered shrinking violence.
My philosophy is very simple, what the government wants, vote or think the exact opposite is in your interest.

Have you read 1984? It really doesn’t seem like you have.

Can your explain more about “weak beta” men? I’m not sure I get you point

joeguevara · 24-05-2018 02:41AM

I had 4 no campaigners knock on my door last week armed with their pamphlets. I invited them in saying I am undecided and said that as they were the first people to knock on my door I wanted to hear what they had to say.

They went into a monologue for about 15 minutes quoting bible verses, talking about murder and death of a soul. They got a shock when I interrupted them and asked about Genesis. With a look of confusion I asked them was it true that genesis says that a soul is delivered when a baby takes its first breath by the Holy Spirit blowing in their nostrils. I then asked why they are saying it happens at conception.

I then asked about limbo. I said why up until 10 years ago unbabtised babies went to limbo for eternity rather than heaven because their souls weren’t fully formed. The look of shock on their face was priceless and tension palpable. I said I have no problem with their beliefs but to stop lying and using scaremongering tactics. They left wondering wtf was after happening.

NIMAN · 24-05-2018 02:58AM

You need to get out more.

joeguevara · 24-05-2018 03:10AM

NIMAN wrote: »

You need to get out more.

Just back from a month in Argentina. But I do love arguing with ignorant zealots.

oscarBravo · 24-05-2018 10:24AM

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I assure you nothing in this debate comes to me easily.

OK, to be fair, it was a glib remark on my part.

But my point stands: the only logical consistent position on abortion for someone who considers a zygote to be a person is "never under any circumstances". The idea that someone could be opposed to abortion on the basis that it's murdering babies in the womb, unless the mother was raped, in which case murder away - makes no sense to me.

If I was still undecided - and, in case it's not obvious, I'm not - I'd ask myself the same question I usually do when faced with a complicated problem: what's the consensus among domain experts?

In this case, the domain experts are the medical profession. Now, I know both sides can find a spokesperson with a pithy quote to support their position, but I'm talking about the arching consensus. And, worldwide, the consensus of the medical profession is that access to abortion services is an important part of reproductive health.

There's not a lot of point voting on the basis of how you feel about abortion - abortions are already happening, and will continue to happen. The question we'll be answering tomorrow is: do we want to continue to pretend they don't happen by exporting them to the UK or importing unlicensed medication, or do we want to join the vast majority of countries that offer their citizens and residents access to the medical care they need?

ArthurDayne · 24-05-2018 10:48AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, to be fair, it was a glib remark on my part.

But my point stands: the only logical consistent position on abortion for someone who considers a zygote to be a person is "never under any circumstances". The idea that someone could be opposed to abortion on the basis that it's murdering babies in the womb, unless the mother was raped, in which case murder away - makes no sense to me.

If I was still undecided - and, in case it's not obvious, I'm not - I'd ask myself the same question I usually do when faced with a complicated problem: what's the consensus among domain experts?

In this case, the domain experts are the medical profession. Now, I know both sides can find a spokesperson with a pithy quote to support their position, but I'm talking about the arching consensus. And, worldwide, the consensus of the medical profession is that access to abortion services is an important part of reproductive health.

There's not a lot of point voting on the basis of how you feel about abortion - abortions are already happening, and will continue to happen. The question we'll be answering tomorrow is: do we want to continue to pretend they don't happen by exporting them to the UK or importing unlicensed medication, or do we want to join the vast majority of countries that offer their citizens and residents access to the medical care they need?

Exactly. For me personally this was a starting point when I first started to question what had been taught to me as a child and teenager at a Catholic school regarding abortion.

I am no longer a religious person but, if God does exist, it would seem a cruel joke that he crafted us a marvellous brain and complex feelings of empathy if he did not intend us to use them. I simply thought to myself, if my sister is raped and becomes pregnant, can I look her in the eye and say "You must have this baby" ? Could I ever find myself telling her after an abortion "You have committed murder"?

The logic then can be rolled back -- if I could not say these things to my sister, then I have accepted that the foetus within her is not a person, but merely a potential person. If she did not wish to go through with creating a person inside her body, then it was a decision for her and her alone. So . . . whether my sister has been raped or the pregnancy was the result of consensual sex and is just merely inconvenient, logical consistency tells me that it is up to my sister to consent to whether she feels sincerely ready and willing to allow a potential person to become a person inside her own body.

If I am wrong, then so be it. But I grew tired of being told what to believe about life from people who I have now grown to understand know precisely as f**k all about it as I do. It is a matter of choice -- and a choice for the person whose body will be harbouring the creation of a new person.

Ash.J.Williams · 24-05-2018 11:17AM

Altar of sacrifice... Awesome

brianhere · 24-05-2018 12:13PM

blanch152
"Complete nonsense, because we are not talking about interpretation of law, we are talking about hard constitutional provisions.

What the NO side fail to acknowledge (and this is another of their lies), there is no discretion in constitutional law, and the courts have been clear on this. The only way to have an abortion law that only deals with hard cases such as FFA and rape is to first repeal the 8th.

Until the NO side admit this, their hard cases bad law position is just more hypocrisy."

Ok so the argument goes that we don't have flexibility in constitutional law and hence we need statute law to deal with the complex hard cases. So now in response the government wants to scrap the 8th and have published at least the heads of a bill to deal with all this, so this is the new flexible, fine-tuned statute to address hard cases.

Except it doesn't, there is nothing there about these cases, they simply threw their hands in the air and declared that it was impossible to deal with these cases in law, either constitutional or statute, so that solves that theory? You don't get the impression at all that you are being played here, that they are only filling the airwaves with all these exceptional, often hypothetical cases, as a wedge to destroy the prohibition on abortion in general?

Anyway I thought I'd give another quote from the link in the OP to see what people think:

"Is the unborn foetus/baby a human life worthy of protection?

I guess that gets to the heart of the issue. Maybe if you are still undecided it means you still struggle to fall either side of this conundrum, and so possibly it might help to halve this question, as it were. Instead of facing the full question of whether the abortion is killing the unborn, and whether that is wrong or right if you accept it is a killing, then why not ask yourself what attitude you would take to some step less than killing. Say, for the sake of argument, that either a mother or a doctor or whoever decides to injure the unborn by blinding him/her. With the advancement of medical science with its scanning and drugs and what have you, its probably not impossible to deliberately injure an unborn child, if you wanted to, short of killing him/her. Then a few years later you bump into that person on the street, using a cane to get around.

Do you think that step of blinding that person was wrong? Do you think that person should have had legal protection when they were unborn and do you think those that injured him/her should be punished? If your answer is yes then obviously you should vote No to retain legal protection for the unborn. And clearly to kill that person, an abortion, is a more serious step that to cause injury, you couldn't treat that more leniently than the blinding?

Another element that might inform your view of whether or not the unborn is a person worthy of legal protection, is to take on board the curious consensus that has grown up around this referendum. To date the debate has been dominated by emotional outpourings, to a degree by both sides. The Yes side has highlighted a large number of cases where mothers went to the UK to have an abortion and how difficult it was for them taking home the ashes or body of their baby, how emotionally wrenching they felt it to be as they tried to organise proper funeral arrangements etc. Meanwhile the No side has highlighted the stories of people who survived abortions, or greatly regretted them etc. In any case the strange thing is that both sides here are accepting the humanity of the unborn, the Yes side are surprisingly happy to highlight all these cases where people have mourned the death of the unborn. But isn't that itself a sign of the unborn's humanity, you don't mourn the loss of just some part of a woman's body like this? Internationally an interesting example comes from Mikhail Gorbachev. In 2014 he gave an interview where he became emotional talking about the great trauma he, and his wife Raisa, always suffered as a result of an abortion of their first baby way back in 1953, 61 years before.(1)

Surely these stories themselves show you at least how important the unborn child is, that their lives are worthy of some sort of legal protection?"
( http://www.politics.ie/forum/elections/263893-manifesto-undecideds.html .)

GreeBo · 24-05-2018 12:44PM

brianhere wrote: »

blanch152
"Complete nonsense, because we are not talking about interpretation of law, we are talking about hard constitutional provisions.

What the NO side fail to acknowledge (and this is another of their lies), there is no discretion in constitutional law, and the courts have been clear on this. The only way to have an abortion law that only deals with hard cases such as FFA and rape is to first repeal the 8th.

Until the NO side admit this, their hard cases bad law position is just more hypocrisy."

Ok so the argument goes that we don't have flexibility in constitutional law and hence we need statute law to deal with the complex hard cases. So now in response the government wants to scrap the 8th and have published at least the heads of a bill to deal with all this, so this is the new flexible, fine-tuned statute to address hard cases.

Except it doesn't, there is nothing there about these cases, they simply threw their hands in the air and declared that it was impossible to deal with these cases in law, either constitutional or statute, so that solves that theory? You don't get the impression at all that you are being played here, that they are only filling the airwaves with all these exceptional, often hypothetical cases, as a wedge to destroy the prohibition on abortion in general?

Anyway I thought I'd give another quote from the link in the OP to see what people think:

Sorry but that quote at the end regarding mothers blinding their babies is just scaremongering nonsense.

The no side continually brings up examples of people who "wouldn't be here now" if they had been aborted.

My answer to thats is "so what?"?

What about all the people who *aren't* here now because their mother had a different child instead? Or used contraception or whatever?

Its equally as logical to use examples of people who society could have done without. If Hitler's mother had aborted him maybe his replacement could have cured cancer or solved hunger. What about that person? You dont seem to give a fiddlers for their rights.

What does that do for your argument?

spacecoyote · 24-05-2018 12:49PM

brianhere wrote: »

blanch152
"Complete nonsense, because we are not talking about interpretation of law, we are talking about hard constitutional provisions.

What the NO side fail to acknowledge (and this is another of their lies), there is no discretion in constitutional law, and the courts have been clear on this. The only way to have an abortion law that only deals with hard cases such as FFA and rape is to first repeal the 8th.

Until the NO side admit this, their hard cases bad law position is just more hypocrisy."

Ok so the argument goes that we don't have flexibility in constitutional law and hence we need statute law to deal with the complex hard cases. So now in response the government wants to scrap the 8th and have published at least the heads of a bill to deal with all this, so this is the new flexible, fine-tuned statute to address hard cases.

Except it doesn't, there is nothing there about these cases, they simply threw their hands in the air and declared that it was impossible to deal with these cases in law, either constitutional or statute, so that solves that theory? You don't get the impression at all that you are being played here, that they are only filling the airwaves with all these exceptional, often hypothetical cases, as a wedge to destroy the prohibition on abortion in general?

Anyway I thought I'd give another quote from the link in the OP to see what people think:

Your blinding a baby in the womb argument, to my mind, is completely stupid & not an equivalency at all.

If someone is going through with a pregnancy, its because they want to have a baby. Why would you intentionally injure someone who is going to live?

If someone is going to have an abortion, they do not want to have that baby.

You're comparing apples with oranges.

The fundamental point of all of this is, you believe that you're right, and everyone has to abide by your beliefs. Its a closed-minded viewpoint.

My question to you is...are you pro-life or pro-birth? Do you care what happens to a child after its born, or just care that its born in the first place.

I suspect its the second, as I don't see a lot of the pro-lifers out there doing anything to help the hundreds/thousands of unwanted children in this country. In fact, the last few weeks have seen anecdotally, the opposite. People refusing to support a charity like amnesty, who are actually out there helping people & children in need, just because they say that we should repeal.

SusieBlue · 24-05-2018 12:53PM

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I am still undecided. A week ago I would have classed myself as an undecided leaning yes; this week I'd class myself as an undecided leaning no.

I've no issue with the so-called 'hard cases' of women needing abortions for rape or when they know their baby is likely to die soon after birth, but my moral compass has a hard time justifying ending the life of a baby on the basis that it is considered an inconvenience.

I listened to the commentator Peter Hitchens - not one I'd normally be influenced by as we have very different politics - and he flagged something up about how those who push for abortion often use deliberately dehumanising language. I have noticed this myself. Very little talk of 'babies' and a lot more on 'foetuses'. I was quite shocked to see someone on social media from the Yes side remark that "a parasite should not have more rights than the host". I find this really low and troubling discourse, which leaves me with a sour taste.

Another moment that gave me pause for thought this past week was that BBC NI Spotlight programme. They interviewed one woman who had originally been pro-abortion but then found herself with an unexpected pregnancy. She couldn't bring herself to have the abortion in the end and we saw her son there on the programme with her. She mentioned how she was soon graduating from university, and remarked that the extra time she had to mull over her options had enabled her to come to the decision to keep the child - something she was glad to do; she noted that had she had the option of an abortion in the same hospital she likely would have taken it and forever regretted doing so. They then went and interviewed another woman who did have an abortion when she became pregnant. Her reasoning was, "I was worried about what it would do to my career prospects." I have a real problem with that latter attitude as to me it is a license to avoid taking responsibility for one's actions. I respect freedom and people having choice but when it constitutes taking a life because it's deemed an inconvenience, I don't know if I can endorse that. And a Yes vote empowers the government to enable such a system.

What worries me about voting No is those hard cases, and the thought of women here having to rely on compassionate care across the water because they can't get it at home. And the fact that if it is a No vote, then it might take 15-20 years for the next referendum and that's a lot of pain for couples to go through. So then I think to myself maybe I should vote Yes for those cases, as it will mean something will at least be done for them.

I am not certain what my mindset is going to be on Friday morning. I want to make the right moral call and I've gone back-and-forth on this numerous times the past number of weeks. I wish I had more time to mull it over and listen to perspectives. It may come down for me to the moment I'm in the booth and staring at the paper.

I appreciate that you are undecided on the matter, but I feel its important to make one thing very clear.

The whole basis of the No campaign is that the government proposal is too extreme, too liberal, and they are asking us to vote No and ask for something better.

At the same time, they have made it quite clear that they would be happy to force a 12 year old child, pregnant as a result of rape, carry her child to term.
They have also stated they would force mothers with FFA babies to carry to term, with some wishy washy nonsense about how its better for women to grieve that way.
They are misrepresenting their position, in order to trick people into thinking a more restricted option will be supported by them.
This isn't the case.

So if you were to vote No in the hope that the government will propose abortion only in cases of FFA or Rape, just know that the Pro-Life side have made it clear they will campaign against that too.
They have made it clear they don't agree with abortion in any circumstance whatsoever.
Except next time, they will have the hard cases on all their posters.
And given the crude, inaccurate, shock tactics they used with no concern or sensitivity this time around, can you imagine what they'll come up with next time?

A lot of No voters I've spoken to are under the impression that with a better, more conservative proposal, there will be no disagreement and both sides would be in favour of it.
This isn't the case. And the No side are counting on people believing them to make this current referendum fail.

They are against abortion in every single circumstance.
They will never agree to it, and a future campaign by them will be even nastier than the one we're having now.

The Dilemma of the Undecideds in the abortion referendum

Comments