Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

recedite wrote: »

That "hairspitting semantics" is the reason for giving extremely easy to access abortion up to 6 months, and also the factually correct figure of 97% of abortons in England (as used by the No campaign) which you tried to describe as lies and scaremongering just a few posts back.
A risk to "health" is a very low bar.

For example, going outside during the day this bank holiday weekend without wearing sunscreen poses a serious risk to health.

You’re trying to tell me that deranged woman on the Sky interview was correct in suggesting only 3% of pregnancies in the UK end in a live birth??? Please clarify and substantiate.

Overheal wrote: »

As far as the posters go yes, the No side was engaged in misleading information, based on hair-splitting semantics about what they see as a 'mental health loophole' in another country's laws.

That "hairspitting semantics" is the reason for giving extremely easy to access abortion up to 6 months, and also the factually correct figure of 97% of abortons in England (as used by the No campaign) which you tried to describe as lies and scaremongering just a few posts back.
A risk to "health" is a very low bar.

For example, going outside during the day this bank holiday weekend without wearing sunscreen poses a serious risk to health.

PopePalpatine

That'll be Fr McKevitt on the van rentals blacklist.

Cabaal

Anything interesting in Alive today?

https://twitter.com/electionlit/status/1002582389808422913?s=09

Cabaal

Isn't it funny when no voters catch themselves out

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107145444&postcount=4988

recedite wrote: »

Actually I quoted the Act being used in England, and I pointed out the significance of the word health being used in it, as opposed to life as was used in the 8th.
You on the other hand said in your post "with nary a mention on the posters of that only being reserved for risks to the mother".
So a simplistic disregard of those facts as outlined. You just cut out both of the words and then confidently claim that it was the No side engaging in dodgy editing.

As far as the posters go yes, the No side was engaged in misleading information, based on hair-splitting semantics about what they see as a 'mental health loophole' in another country's laws.

What's your point here? It would be a slightly lower % if we include the figures for those who didn't ask for the diagnosis, but how does that affect your case?

I'm not even going to argue this point because its ridiculous. Most people are going to say DS should be aborted because of what they are, or else they are going to say DS should have the same rights as anyone else. So the figure should be close to 100% or close to 0%.

My point is quite obvious.

"about 30% of births of children with Down’s Syndrome have no prenatal diagnosis." http://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-babies-abortion-3823611-Feb2018/

Which according to my pleb math would mean at most, 90% of 70% (63%) of fetuses that have DS are aborted in the UK. Far cry from 90%.

Facts matter, is my point.

Ironically, 63% is representative of the vote. Take from that what you will.

It is quite obvious that the staff/hospital policy was based around a fixation on the foetal heartbeat.
And Professor Sabaratnam Arulkumaran in turn fixated upon their fixation with the foetal heartbeat. None of which has anything to do with the 8th amendment.

A year after her death, and 21 years after it was made clear that abortion was legal whenever there was a threat to the mothers life, the Dail finally passed a law clarifying the matter. A law that was entirely compatible with the 8th.

While true that the 2013 law might have given Savita a better outcome, that doesn't seem to have stopped the electorate from wanting to legalize abortion in vastly more cases or wanting to repeal the 8th.

The Professor was quite right that the hospital fixation with the fetal heartbeat was the direct result of them worried about the legal ramifications of aborting a fetus with a heartbeat under the 8th amendment. You could be a gentlemen and acknowledge the 8th played some role in her death, or keep digging yourself a hole. The choice is yours, I'm all for choice.

Overheal wrote: »

So not factual, scaremongering.

Actually I quoted the Act being used in England, and I pointed out the significance of the word health being used in it, as opposed to life as was used in the 8th.
You on the other hand said in your post "with nary a mention on the posters of that only being reserved for risks to the mother".
So a simplistic disregard of those facts as outlined. You just cut out both of the words and then confidently claim that it was the No side engaging in dodgy editing.

Overheal wrote: »

Again, this is not the fact. 90% of those that are diagnosed prenatally are aborted. This is not equivalent to saying 90% of DS fetuses are aborted.

What's your point here? It would be a slightly lower % if we include the figures for those who didn't ask for the diagnosis, but how does that affect your case?

I'm not even going to argue this point because its ridiculous. Most people are going to say DS should be aborted because of what they are, or else they are going to say DS should have the same rights as anyone else. So the figure should be close to 100% or close to 0%.

Overheal wrote: »

I'm unfamiliar with the latter case but it is entirely too clear the 8th did cause Savita's doctors to fixate on a fetal heartbeat rather than looking at the symptoms Savita was exhibiting. This has been made abundantly clear by the inquiry and particularly the head of the inquiry who said exactly as much.

It is quite obvious that the staff/hospital policy was based around a fixation on the foetal heartbeat.
And Professor Sabaratnam Arulkumaran in turn fixated upon their fixation with the foetal heartbeat. None of which has anything to do with the 8th amendment.

A year after her death, and 21 years after it was made clear that abortion was legal whenever there was a threat to the mothers life, the Dail finally passed a law clarifying the matter. A law that was entirely compatible with the 8th.

recedite wrote: »

On that last point (abortion up to six months) it remains to be seen how the new provisions will be interpreted, but wording justifying abortion which specified a risk to the health (as opposed to the life, and including mental health) of the mother is exactly what brought in the very liberal abortion regime in England. Far more liberal that what was expected when that wording was first introduced in the 1960's.
97% of abortions in England take place under "grounds C" It remains to be seen whether the Irish law will differ significantly from that cited above. If not, then we can expect abortion up to six months on similarly ambiguous grounds.

So not factual, scaremongering.

The 90% for Downs Syndrome in the UK is accurate, and it is closer to 100% in some Scandinavian countries. Some posters in this thread have said they want to see 100% abortion for DS, and frankly that is quite a common opinion IMO.

Again, this is not the fact. 90% of those that are diagnosed prenatally are aborted. This is not equivalent to saying 90% of DS fetuses are aborted.

Whether that is a holocaust depends on your opinion on abortion itself, so that is obviously a very subjective matter. Those who believe a DS foetus has a right to life will view it as a holocaust, and would be quite correct to do so, based on that premise.

Correct - it is scaremongering. EOTR just pretended to claim that the No campaign was not engaged in any scaremongering, and ran a very truthful and factual campaign. This falls into that.

Also the lies referring to cases such as Savita and the pregnant braindead woman, claiming the 8th amendment caused them.
In fact, the latter foetus was terminated while the 8th remained in force, and Savita could have had a legal abortion in Ireland when the sepsis was first diagnosed.

I'm unfamiliar with the latter case but it is entirely too clear the 8th did cause Savita's doctors to fixate on a fetal heartbeat rather than looking at the symptoms Savita was exhibiting. This has been made abundantly clear by the inquiry and particularly the head of the inquiry who said exactly as much. Personally, I'm quite tired of deniers suggesting the 8th had no hand in her death. Y'all sound like inauguration truthers or flat earthers at this point, but worse as you're belittling the death and memory of someone and her family's tragedy.

Also the morning after pill could be used by rape victims up to implantation (up to 1-2weeks after the rape)

And what do you suppose the efficacy of the MAP is at 2 weeks? More No campaign lies.

FFA abortion could have been legalised under the 8th if similar limited provisions were made generally for the terminally ill (assisted suicide)

The government appears to have not thought so, else why hold a referendum and a Citizens Assembly to accomplish what could be done by legislation?

IMO most of the electorate did not understand these finer points, and were led to believe that the 8th must go in order to allow any abortion for cases of FFA and rape.

Your opinion.

Lets just say a "feel good factor" continuing from the SSM referendum, and a desire to conform with norms in other neighbouring countries, and the current vogue to "stick it to the RCC" all played in favour of a Yes vote. The boring and negative facts cited by the No campaign made for a poor alternative.

Probably the biggest factor was the failure of our politicians and the legal system to fully explore and to clarify the true extent of abortion constitutionally permissable under the 8th, which has in reality been quite extensive since 1992.

Your speculation.

Overheal wrote: »

Like 97% of babies in the UK who are healthy are actually aborted. Or that repeal would lead to a holocaust. Or that abortion is murder (personal favorite), even though murder is specifically an unlawful killing. Or that 90% of DS babies are aborted (I now see they've amended that finally to 'diagnosed', but that doesn't undo the posters or the messengers - and that was a post YOU THANKED). Or scaremongering about abortion up to 6 months with nary a mention on the posters of that only being reserved for risks to the mother.
Oh yes a very truthful and factual campaign altogether. It's a wonder it backfired on them.

On that last point (abortion up to six months) it remains to be seen how the new provisions will be interpreted, but wording justifying abortion which specified a risk to the health (as opposed to the life, and including mental health) of the mother is exactly what brought in the very liberal abortion regime in England. Far more liberal that what was expected when that wording was first introduced in the 1960's.
97% of abortions in England take place under "grounds C"

the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman (section 1(1)(a))

It remains to be seen whether the Irish law will differ significantly from that cited above. If not, then we can expect abortion up to six months on similarly ambiguous grounds.
The 90% for Downs Syndrome in the UK is accurate, and it is closer to 100% in some Scandinavian countries. Some posters in this thread have said they want to see 100% abortion for DS, and frankly that is quite a common opinion IMO.
Whether that is a holocaust depends on your opinion on abortion itself, so that is obviously a very subjective matter. Those who believe a DS foetus has a right to life will view it as a holocaust, and would be quite correct to do so, based on that premise.

Lies on the Yes side have included those Amnesty Ireland volunteers spreading misinformation about FFA (saying there was no heartbeat) as EOTR already linked to.

Also the lies referring to cases such as Savita and the pregnant braindead woman, claiming the 8th amendment caused them.
In fact, the latter foetus was terminated while the 8th remained in force, and Savita could have had a legal abortion in Ireland when the sepsis was first diagnosed.

Also the morning after pill could be used by rape victims up to implantation (up to 1-2weeks after the rape)
FFA abortion could have been legalised under the 8th if similar limited provisions were made generally for the terminally ill (assisted suicide)
IMO most of the electorate did not understand these finer points, and were led to believe that the 8th must go in order to allow any abortion for cases of FFA and rape.

All the above points have been gone over in fine detail in this thread over the last few years, so I won't be explaining them again.

Lets just say a "feel good factor" continuing from the SSM referendum, and a desire to conform with norms in other neighbouring countries, and the current vogue to "stick it to the RCC" all played in favour of a Yes vote. The boring and negative facts cited by the No campaign made for a poor alternative.

Probably the biggest factor was the failure of our politicians and the legal system to fully explore and to clarify the true extent of abortion constitutionally permissable under the 8th, which has in reality been quite extensive since 1992.

mcmoustache

King Mob wrote: »

So the two claims we are directly addressing just above your post...
They don't exist? You've struck with selective blindness? You can show they are true, even though they are clearly blatant lies?

Who do you think you are fooling? Genuine question here. Who do you think will actually buy your assertion?

Nobody's buying it but that's not his intention. Look at his post history on other topics - it'll be obvious what he's up to.

Now for the other side of the border when it comes to the issue of abortion. https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/couple-allegedly-warned-they-may-not-be-allowed-to-marry-in-catholic-church-if-they-support-abortion-in-northern-ireland-36959793.html

While reading what the papers said last night on the politics of N/I re abortion, ref the Belfast protest, I read a piece about a top-level DUP member giving a bashing to what was described as the RCC-supported Republic's constitution on the issue of abortion. Allegedly she was against the constitution's position on abortion. I went back to the 3 irish papers and can't find the report now, it seems to have disappeared. It mentioned her by her pre-marriage name and contradicted her currently expressed position.

I had a look at what is do-able by deputies during legislative movement in the Dail and it seem's Mattie can put down amendments without a time restraint. He'll probably try to run the clock out unless all the parties get him, as an independent, to accept the will of the people as expressed on the 25th May.

There's this quote re FF party line: https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/fianna-fail-td-says-martin-will-not-apply-party-whip-on-abortion-laws-36966344.html

There's this for us later this year: https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/another-two-referendums-likely-this-year-36952103.html

Zubeneschamali

aloyisious wrote: »

It remains to be seen if Mattie McGrath will be equally fully compliant

Obviously he will not.

I think the Government should just announce that the Dáil will sit until this gets to committee stage - no holidays for Mattie until he shuts up.

Silly of John McGuirk to get short with the questioner, taking his anger out on the wrong person as to how the "nursing credentials" got past his co-workers in the campaign.

One of the Pols on RTE's Sean O'Rourke Show now explaining how he will go along with the abortion legalization now after he voted NO because of the decision of the people in the referendum. The ability, which is good, in good conscience to cross the divide because of the people's freely given judgement. It remains to be seen if Mattie McGrath will be equally fully compliant with the peoples judgenment or harry them with "constructiveness" proposals in the Dail. I very much doubt if he will stand by the majority decision of the people, even of those in his own constituency.

gctest50

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The level of lying by some prochoicers was off the charts tbf.

https://twitter.com/MickeyVaugn/status/998524284204142592

hmmm

NursePollyRgn did a lot of digging and found a Pattern of lies

https://twitter.com/NursepollyRgn/status/973004582677831680

Here in case you can't see twitter cos firewallz

Serious offence to present yourself as a nurse :

Fraud :

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

the public didn't see through anything as there was nothing to see through. there were no lies misinformation or scaremongering from our side, just facts, truth and reality. no voters voted to support both women and unborn, so we voted to support women as well.

You mean apart from the lies and miss information and scaremongering you tried to spread on here?
I don't know how many times I've asked this but hopefully if I ask enough you will prove me wrong - did you ever find any sources to back up the claims you were making on here that you refused to provide evidence for?

end of the road wrote: »

the public didn't see through anything as there was nothing to see through. there were no lies misinformation or scaremongering from our side, just facts, truth and reality. no voters voted to support both women and unborn, so we voted to support women as well.

Like 97% of babies in the UK who are healthy are actually aborted. Or that repeal would lead to a holocaust. Or that abortion is murder (personal favorite), even though murder is specifically an unlawful killing. Or that 90% of DS babies are aborted (I now see they've amended that finally to 'diagnosed', but that doesn't undo the posters or the messengers - and that was a post YOU THANKED). Or scaremongering about abortion up to 6 months with nary a mention on the posters of that only being reserved for risks to the mother.

Oh yes a very truthful and factual campaign altogether. It's a wonder it backfired on them.

[Deleted User]

end of the road wrote: »

because it's not a lie. the no campaign told the truth and gave facts. uncomfortable facts absolutely but facts they are.

So the two claims we are directly addressing just above your post...
They don't exist? You've struck with selective blindness? You can show they are true, even though they are clearly blatant lies?

Who do you think you are fooling? Genuine question here. Who do you think will actually buy your assertion?

BBC 1 news [10PM] is covering a protest in Belfast by Pro-choice women during which it is reported the taking by them of pills. It only goes that far in respect of the pills. It seem's, from Newsnight and Question-Time programmes, that the issue of N/I law on abortion being out of kilter with the rest of the UK is becoming an even hotter potato that before with the result and knock-on effect of the referendum on the thoughts of N/I women. The Question-time part of the programme on the N/I abortion topic was a mainland audience population Q&A discussion, not an N/I audience population Q&A discussion.

It was interesting that in the Beeb news item that the one person talked to by the PSNI at the Belfast protest was a Dutch Doctor who surrendered whatever pills, or medicinal pills, she had in her possession. The N/I woman interviewed at the protest was not in the same frame of mind in respect of whatever pills she had in her possession. The main indicator of what the pills were was the shown box. I have no idea as to what the actual abortifacient pill container sleeve [my title for the plastic covering holding the pills] look's like, and ditto for the cardboard box.

Outlaw Pete

The level of lying by some prochoicers was off the charts tbf.

https://twitter.com/MickeyVaugn/status/998524284204142592

end of the road

mcmoustache wrote: »

That's a lie. A very easily debunked lie. Why lie about something like that when there are plenty of other more believable lies you could be telling?

because it's not a lie. the no campaign told the truth and gave facts. uncomfortable facts absolutely but facts they are.

mcmoustache

end of the road wrote: »

there were no lies misinformation or scaremongering from our side, just facts, truth and reality.

That's a lie. A very easily debunked lie. Why lie about something like that when there are plenty of other more believable lies you could be telling?

Mark Hamill

recedite wrote: »

Personally I'd frown upon the former, but would have no problem with the latter.
Neither involves culling the undesirables, so not directly comparable with selective abortion anyway.

So you might frown on one, but you aren't actually against either though?

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

The researchers are saying there that an "early full term pregnancy" confers some protection against breast cancer, not that abortion increases the risk.
IMO the human body "expects" to work in a certain way. Organs that are under used or over used are more likely to give trouble.

so you agree that the poster saying "Abortion increases breast cancer risks and deaths" is a lie?

aloyisious wrote: »

the public passing the premises and seeing the combined A4 sheet images in it's window, might walk away with the impression that women having abortions have an increased risk of breast cancer...

The researchers are saying there that an "early full term pregnancy" confers some protection against breast cancer, not that abortion increases the risk.
IMO the human body "expects" to work in a certain way. Organs that are under used or over used are more likely to give trouble.