The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Shurimgreat · 24-05-2018 09:01PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Even if abortion is brought in, why do you think you are better placed to decide what's best than the women involved?

Another deliberate misrepresentation. Hard case women should have their own choice yes. Outside of those cases I'd like to see protection for the unborn from some of the clowns in the Dail who have zero respect for the unborn.

The unborn don't vote after all so why would our TDs be bothered protecting them?

bennyl10 · 24-05-2018 09:02PM

Digital_Guy wrote: »

I'm not....but I'm not in favour of what they are proposing after it's repealed. We already know what they want to introduce.

we have the proposed legislation
there's no guarantee it will get through the oireachtas

and if it does, and you dont agree, deal with ti at general elecetion time at the doorstep

TOMORROW IS NOT ABOUT THE LEGISLATION. IT IS SIMPLY ABOUT THE 8TH AMENDMENT
IT is simply about are we as a country happy to keep sending women on a boat, when we can very much offer that treatment here.

that is all

PhoenixParker · 24-05-2018 09:02PM

Digital_Guy wrote: »

What part of less than 3% vs over 20% is factually incorrect?

You're also misunderstanding or not getting what the % abortion rate means, as you're mentioning the 8 months of data part. It doesn't matter that it was only 8 months (and that's only one year anyway), because the % abortion rate refers to the rate of abortions as a percentage of pregnancies.

So less than 3% of pregnancies resulted in an abortion in 1967.

In 2016, that was 20%.

What does that tell you?

Your first post about the current abortion rate being a peak was factually incorrect.

The 3% figure is also factually incorrect because it doesn’t include the illegal abortions that took place in the first 4 months of 1968 or the illegal abortion that continued to take place after legalization because people continued to attend the existing back street operators.

nullzero · 24-05-2018 09:02PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

because women are the only gender that can get pregnant. Context is key.

That's again not answering the question I asked. Why is it a good idea to r trust somebody predicated solely on their gender? I don't need a lesson on basic biology.

Overheal · 24-05-2018 09:02PM

nullzero wrote: »

Why would you trust a person predicated solely on their gender?

When men start having babies I’ll trust them too!

gctest50 · 24-05-2018 09:03PM

Digital_Guy wrote: »

........

So less than 3% of pregnancies resulted in an abortion in 1967.

In 2016, that was 20%.

What does that tell you?

(1960s) Hospitals would draft in extra staff on Fridays in A&E departments across the UK to deal with the influx of women being harmed by abortions they sought out on payday

Just her · 24-05-2018 09:03PM

bennyl10 wrote: »

figure is wildly inaccurate

it counts every abortion in the uk, not including the amount of those that come form other countries such as here,
the figure also factors in all pregnancies, without noting those which have were miscarried, ectopic or stillborn.

the actual figure of abortions vs those born healthily in the uk is closer to 1 in 10/11

Just taking the figures for England and Wales abortions for 2016 from the NHS website is 185,596. The figures for England and Wales live births on the ons website is 696,271. Which gives a figure of 21% abortions to total of 696, 271.

How may I ask did you factor in miscarriages, abortions from other countries, ectopic and stillborn to arrive at 1 in 10/11?

Berserker · 24-05-2018 09:03PM

Overheal wrote: »

IF YOU TRUST WOMEN VOTE YES!

This kind of one line nonsense annoys me. Would you trust one of the scissor sisters?

nullzero · 24-05-2018 09:03PM

Overheal wrote: »

When men start having babies I’ll trust them too!

The same answer which has been given by everyone else. Are you sharing a hive mind?
Again not answering the question.

nullzero · 24-05-2018 09:04PM

Berserker wrote: »

This kind of cheap one line nonsense annoys me. Would you trust one of the scissor sisters?

Implicitly, they can get pregnant therefore they are trustworthy.

NuMarvel · 24-05-2018 09:04PM

bennyl10 wrote: »

the oireachtas will yes

the people will get a say at general election time
just like every other law

Just on a point of order, the people can have a say at any point, not just at election time. I keep using the example of the new maternity hospital, because this was a change that was pure people power. It wasn't at an election, and it wasn't during a vote in the dail, yet there was still a pretty quick u-turn.

And to really labour the point, referendums are the worst tool to determine public policy. They boil everything down to a simple Yes or No answer, so nuance and context gets thrown out the window. Plus, it's politicians, not the people are the ones who decide what question is asked, and when.

nullzero · 24-05-2018 09:05PM

Try_harder wrote: »

Its the converse of Women cant be trusted with their own bodies, so we must tell them!

Again, look at the question...

PhoenixParker · 24-05-2018 09:05PM

Berserker wrote: »

This kind of one line nonsense annoys me. Would you trust one of the scissor sisters?

I would trust them to make decisions about their own healthcare.
That’s the trust we’re talking about.

tigger123 · 24-05-2018 09:06PM

nullzero wrote: »

Implicitly, they can get pregnant therefore they are trustworthy.

The Trust Women mantra/slogan is a response to the argument that if we introduce abortion women will be getting them willy nilly.

So, to counter this, the response is Trust Women, ie, Trust Women to make responsible decisions about their own bodies.

Dressing gown · 24-05-2018 09:07PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Back to misrepresenting what I said I see.

If I could copy and paste every time you’ve gone on about the “small”!numbers “tiny” percentages etc I’d just clutter up this thread with pages of quotations.

The fact is the numbers we are talking about here are massive. Abortion affects thousands of Irish women every year. Small percentages of big numbers are still big numbers of people being affected by this. Unless you know someone personally (and i would guess you probably will at some stage in your life) the hard cases are friends and family, real people to all of us. I just don’t think it’s good enough for us to turn our backs on them when the other people that want an abortion are having them anyway. It’s a no brainier for me and I’m sorry if you are struggling with your conscience but my conscience is raging that people don’t care enough about the hard cases. Everyone meets their own maker. Let the other people make their own choices but please choose to help the families that have no choice.

Sofiztikated · 24-05-2018 09:07PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Our health services are poor at the moment. If recent history is anything to go by many abortions here will be botched and poorly carried out. Our public health system is badly stretched as is. Very few of our healthcare professionals are trained in abortion services.

I know this post has probably been buried, but here's my take on it.

I was born with a condition that affects 1 in 50,000 live birthday. The corrective surgery I had was one of the first carried out in Ireland, and at the time was riskier and took longer than open heart surgery. But the medical professionals opted to do it, and it's now routine. You can't hold back on procedures, because you want to wait for people to be trained first. How else do you train?

Secondly, maternity services are trained in it, as the procedure is similar to the ones carried out now, for miscarriages.

Thirdly, surgical abortions are less common, as the majority are in the form of pills.

Digital_Guy · 24-05-2018 09:07PM

Basically, when abortion wasn't legal in the UK, the abortion rate was probably around a few percent.

Now it's around 20%.

It's not that hard to draw conclusions from that. It became acceptable.

Guy:Incognito · 24-05-2018 09:07PM

nullzero wrote: »

That's not addressing the question I asked. But the emotive response is duly noted.

The woman ultimately has to go through the procedure.

Why would you need or want a say in the health choices of a woman you don't know (or one you do know that isn't your partner, or in an unfortunate case your underage daughter)

nullzero · 24-05-2018 09:07PM

PhoenixParker wrote: »

I would trust them to make decisions about their own healthcare.
That’s the trust we’re talking about.

Men have no reproductive rights, if a consenting couple get pregnant and the woman decides motherhood isn't for her is she free to terminate against her partners wishes? Of course because the man has no say at all.

gmisk · 24-05-2018 09:08PM

No campaign - spend spend spend!!!!

https://twitter.com/LizCarolan/status/999728233162706945?s=19

Guy:Incognito · 24-05-2018 09:08PM

Digital_Guy wrote: »

Basically, when abortion wasn't legal in the UK, the abortion rate was probably around a few percent.

Now it's around 20%.

It's not that hard to draw conclusions from that. It became acceptable.

When prohibition was in place in America no one drank........

There are no gay people in some African countries..........

nullzero · 24-05-2018 09:08PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The woman ultimately has to go through the procedure.

Why would you need or want a say in the health choices of a woman you don't know (or one you do know that isn't your partner, or in an unfortunate case your underage daughter)

I addressed that above.

Guy:Incognito · 24-05-2018 09:11PM

nullzero wrote: »

I addressed that above.

No you didn't.

If a woman isn't your partner or underage child, why would you want or need a say?

nullzero · 24-05-2018 09:12PM

tigger123 wrote: »

The Trust Women mantra/slogan is a response to the argument that if we introduce abortion women will be getting them willy nilly.

So, to counter this, the response is Trust Women, ie, Trust Women to make responsible decisions about their own bodies.

Humans don't always make the correct long term decisions in favour of making the more convenient shirt term decision which at the time seems the correct decision. Humans are fallible and it takes two to make a baby, and men have no rights to their children in this country.

PhoenixParker · 24-05-2018 09:13PM

nullzero wrote: »

Men have no reproductive rights, if a consenting couple get pregnant and the woman decides motherhood isn't for her is she free to terminate against her partners wishes? Of course because the man has no say at all.

Because it’s her healthcare and she’s the one who is pregnant.

Men have reproductive rights when it comes to healthcare for their reproductive system.
They can treat stis, treat their cancers and get help with whatever is malfunctioning. . .

pleas advice · 24-05-2018 09:14PM

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

So, you don’t trust them to have choice over their wombs, but you do trust them to not lie about being raped?

i thought we should TRUST women?

bennyl10 wrote: »

figure is wildly inaccurate

it counts every abortion in the uk, not including the amount of those that come form other countries such as here,
the figure also factors in all pregnancies, without noting those which have were miscarried, ectopic or stillborn.

the actual figure of abortions vs those born healthily in the uk is closer to 1 in 10/11

figure EXCLUDES miscarriages, but includes stillborn. it DOES take into account abortions provided to non-nationals.

including miscarriages, the figure is about 1 in 7,

nullzero · 24-05-2018 09:14PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

No you didn't.

If a woman isn't your partner or underage child, why would you want or need a say?

What say does a a person unrelated to the situation ever have in anything.
You want to get a new bike, I don't get to say anything about it, it's nothing to do with me and I don't know you.
You're using emotive BS to try invalidate a simple point.

Stonedpilot · 24-05-2018 09:14PM

Just back from walk. Met yes and no canvassers out. Spoke to both. The No side were bit friendlier as well I told them Im a No vote.

Interestingly Both said its slightly in favour of No the people they spoke to over last week. That surprised me to be honest. Both said those with minds made up no point debating so both going for the "undecided" as such.
This was in a town of like 25,000 in the midlands.

Try_harder · 24-05-2018 09:16PM

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Just back from walk. Met yes and no canvassers out. Spoke to both. The No side were bit friendlier as well I told them Im a No vote.

Interestingly Both said its slightly in favour of No the people they spoke to over last week. That surprised me to be honest. Both said those with minds made up no point debating so both going for the "undecided" as such.
This was in a town of like 25,000 in the midlands.

Midlands a No- Not surprising.

Hotblack Desiato · 24-05-2018 09:17PM

retro:electro wrote: »

I won’t be celebrating. For the SSM result I celebrated as it was a joyous occasion. There was bunting and banners and prosecoo popping. But what do we toast to this time?

That women have a say in their healthcare when they're pregnant.

They don't now.

That alone is a cause for celebration, whether we subsequently get an abortion law or not.

The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Comments