Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Igotadose wrote: »

Just watched a video by Simon Harris on Twitter. I am not up on how Ireland gets laws done; what he said was, he's planning on bringing legislation to the Cabinet next week, and introduce it to the Dail next month.

Once its introduced to the Dail, what happens? Endless amending/prevaricating/stalling, or a vote or ... Considering the # of anti-women types in the Dail, who earn their money suppressing women's rights and will likely do everything in their power to prevent the legislation, will it be passed by next year?

I'd say it will,
There's a very clear mandate from the people, its not like the ref passed 51/49.

Many FF TD's took alot of flack for there no stance during the ref and now if they go against the clear mandate it'll screw the party big time for elections and they know it.
You'll get people like Mattie trying to amend it but the vast majority of TD's know they are onto a winner to back something that won by such a landslide.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well it speaks to a posters credibility, does it not?

I mean we're not in a court of law here. If you were having a chat among friends and one person refused to state their position on a certain issue clearly, at some point the rest of the group would drop the subject and move on. Unless you were deliberately trying to make things so uncomfortable for that person that they'd feel obliged to get their coat and go home....

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I mean we're not in a court of law here. If you were having a chat among friends and one person refused to state their position on a certain issue clearly, at some point the rest of the group would drop the subject and move on. Unless you were deliberately trying to make things so uncomfortable for that person that they'd feel obliged to get their coat and go home....

But he claims he's explained his position, we're just waiting on the link to the post to show this

Igotadose wrote: »

Considering the # of anti-women types in the Dail, who earn their money suppressing women's rights and will likely do everything in their power to prevent the legislation, will it be passed by next year?

I think you're wildly overstating the likely opposition here. The legislation will pass on schedule, with an overwhelming majority and minimal fuss...

[Deleted User]

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I mean we're not in a court of law here. If you were having a chat among friends and one person refused to state their position on a certain issue clearly, at some point the rest of the group would drop the subject and move on. Unless you were deliberately trying to make things so uncomfortable for that person that they'd feel obliged to get their coat and go home....

But it's not like these poster is being chased on this topic everywhere.
People are asking him to clarify his position on abortion on threads about abortion.

If he doesn't want to state his position, then maybe shouldn't keep posting on the subject...

end of the road

Igotadose wrote: »

Just watched a video by Simon Harris on Twitter. I am not up on how Ireland gets laws done; what he said was, he's planning on bringing legislation to the Cabinet next week, and introduce it to the Dail next month.

Once its introduced to the Dail, what happens? Endless amending/prevaricating/stalling, or a vote or ... Considering the # of anti-women types in the Dail, who earn their money suppressing women's rights and will likely do everything in their power to prevent the legislation, will it be passed by next year?

i have little time for most of the politicians but there aren't any anti-women types in the dail as they don't get elected these days and haven't for the past long time thankfully.
there isn't any politician earning any money suppressing women's rights given no women's rights are being or have been suppressed for quite a while now.

Cabaal wrote: »

I'd say it will,
There's a very clear mandate from the people, its not like the ref passed 51/49.

Many FF TD's took alot of flack for there no stance during the ref and now if they go against the clear mandate it'll screw the party big time for elections and they know it.
You'll get people like Mattie trying to amend it but the vast majority of TD's know they are onto a winner to back something that won by such a landslide.

i'd be surprised if it would screw ff much at elections. unless people want more of the same from fg and are a 1 issue voter then over all most people would get over it and either ff will be in at the next election or the one after.
what i reccan will be the decider for a lot of people is performance on issues over all and fg haven't done that well. housing/homeless crisis, cuts to policing, a health service that is still in crisis etc . of course many of us will know ff won't be much different but when people are board of fg, then ff is the alternative, that is how the electorate works.

King Mob wrote: »

But it's not like these poster is being chased on this topic everywhere.
People are asking him to clarify his position on abortion on threads about abortion.

If he doesn't want to state his position, then maybe shouldn't keep posting on the subject...

On the specific sub-question of whether abortion = murder. I think it's perfectly possible for a person to have strong and well-thought out 'pro-life' views without having a definitive answer to that one...

ohnonotgmail

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

On the specific sub-question of whether abortion = murder. I think it's perfectly possible for a person to have strong and well-thought out 'pro-life' views without having a definitive answer to that one...

They have posted nearly a dozen times that abortion is murder. they deny ever saying that. Do you think that is credible?

[Deleted User]

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

On the specific sub-question of whether abortion = murder. I think it's perfectly possible for a person to have strong and well-thought out 'pro-life' views without having a definitive answer to that one...

Sure, but maybe someone could say that rather than ignore the question along with all other questions they find difficult.

Also, I don't think that as the case here, as EOTR had stated emphatically on one side several times over in great detail. But they later stated that he never said any of that stuff (despite it being pointed out directly) and has completely ignored any request for clarification of this issue.
Just lame attempts to wave it off as "out of context" followed by more ignoring.

So I don't think this is a case of him not having a definitive answer. It's more a case of him being caught out in a lie and arguing in bad faith.

Again, if he doesn't want people to keep pointing out his lack of clarification and, at best, confusing and contradicting statements... then maybe he should get his coat like you suggest.

An_Toirpin wrote: »

The waiting period may save many lives. I think we should be very grateful for it.

Then again, the women may just continue to travel abroad until such time as the waiting period is quietly dropped despite any objections from Mattie McGrath and his allies. It's obvious that the women have been doing that since the 36th referendum was approved of by popular vote.

Under His Eye wrote: »

Pickets on abortion clinics and the harassment of the people attending/working at said clinics will be the no sides next move.

Given how Simon Harris made plain he was bringing in legislation to prevent any such harassment of medical facilities at the time there was a protest opposite Holles St Maternity Hospital, I expect them to push their luck and have a court order issued against them. It'll be good to see if they, as individuals, want to be prisoners of conscience in Mountjoy prison.

Igotadose wrote: »

Just watched a video by Simon Harris on Twitter. I am not up on how Ireland gets laws done; what he said was, he's planning on bringing legislation to the Cabinet next week, and introduce it to the Dail next month.

Once its introduced to the Dail, what happens? Endless amending/prevaricating/stalling, or a vote or ... Considering the # of anti-women types in the Dail, who earn their money suppressing women's rights and will likely do everything in their power to prevent the legislation, will it be passed by next year?

Its entirely possible that there has/will be a meeting of minds in Leinster House whereby a deal is struck that will bypass any attempts of stonewalling or filibustering the passing of legislation. Deputies/senators will be given x amount of time to state a case and if they go over the time, the chair will instruct them to let the next deputy/senator speak.

If a deputy resists, the chair can put a vote to the floor to expel the obstructer from the house/senate for x days. I can see if that's done, the allies will either walk out in protest or STFU.

deirdremf

Igotadose wrote: »

Just watched a video by Simon Harris on Twitter. I am not up on how Ireland gets laws done; what he said was, he's planning on bringing legislation to the Cabinet next week, and introduce it to the Dail next month.

Once its introduced to the Dail, what happens? Endless amending/prevaricating/stalling, or a vote or ... Considering the # of anti-women types in the Dail, who earn their money suppressing women's rights and will likely do everything in their power to prevent the legislation, will it be passed by next year?

aloyisious wrote: »

Its entirely possible that there has/will be a meeting of minds in Leinster House whereby a deal is struck that will bypass any attempts of stonewalling or filibustering the passing of legislation. Deputies/senators will be given x amount of time to state a case and if they go over the time, the chair will instruct them to let the next deputy/senator speak.

If a deputy resists, the chair can put a vote to the floor to expel the obstructer from the house/senate for x days. I can see if that's done, the allies will either walk out in protest or STFU.

I'd be thoroughly surprised if any legislation is enacted before the next general election.
Many FG types are anti-abortion, and Vradkar cannot afford to alienate them by putting legislation through that they don't like.

So my guess is that a bill will be brought to the Dáil, and then let sit until after the election; they'll go through the motions alright, but not too speedily. Then after the next election it will be passed in probably a wishywashy form.

deirdremf wrote: »

Igotadose wrote: »

Just watched a video by Simon Harris on Twitter. I am not up on how Ireland gets laws done; what he said was, he's planning on bringing legislation to the Cabinet next week, and introduce it to the Dail next month.

Once its introduced to the Dail, what happens? Endless amending/prevaricating/stalling, or a vote or ... Considering the # of anti-women types in the Dail, who earn their money suppressing women's rights and will likely do everything in their power to prevent the legislation, will it be passed by next year?

aloyisious wrote: »

Its entirely possible that there has/will be a meeting of minds in Leinster House whereby a deal is struck that will bypass any attempts of stonewalling or filibustering the passing of legislation. Deputies/senators will be given x amount of time to state a case and if they go over the time, the chair will instruct them to let the next deputy/senator speak.

If a deputy resists, the chair can put a vote to the floor to expel the obstructer from the house/senate for x days. I can see if that's done, the allies will either walk out in protest or STFU.

I'd be thoroughly surprised if any legislation is enacted before the next general election.
Many FG types are anti-abortion, and Vradkar cannot afford to alienate them by putting legislation through that they don't like.

So my guess is that a bill will be brought to the Dáil, and then let sit until after the election; they'll go through the motions alright, but not too speedily. Then after the next election it will be passed in probably a wishywashy form.

Prepare to be thoroughly surprised.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The waiting period is a farce and should be removed.

Staunchly pro-choice TD Kate O'Connell highlights the difficulty with doing this

Fine Gael TD Kate O’Connell also spoke about the issue and said that, while she voted for the proposal, “it’s almost completely at odds with my belief that you should trust a woman to make her decision.”

O’Connell added that she wanted to hear more evidence about the potential harm of the three-day wait but cautioned that politicians should be careful about changing things that the public voted on.

“I would argue that we spent a lot of time at the Eighth Committee making it very clear to people of Ireland what we’re putting before them and we put before them that there would be a three-day cooling off period, and I think any change to that would have to be very deeply considered at this point,” she said.

If the mooted change to the proposed legislation was in a more restrictive direction, would people on here not be up in arms on the grounds that the minister told us specifically what would be in the legislation and now he was talking about changing it...

Oh I get it, a Dail commitee decided something (which the Dail has not yet even voted on) and that position must be stuck with, right or wrong.

If the waiting period does pass into law, and a future Dail wants to amend it, by your logic there should be another referendum first.

Neither of these propositions makes any sense at all. We voted specifically to write into the constitution that the Oireachtas has the right to legislate for abortion, we did not vote to insert specific restrictions and conditions into the constitution.

deirdremf wrote: »

Many FG types are anti-abortion, and Vradkar cannot afford to alienate them by putting legislation through that they don't like.

A few FG types are anti-abortion, but they were quiet enough during the campaign never mind after losing so spectacularly, and Varadkar cannot afford to alienate the majority of the electorate by failing to legislate rapidly or watering it down to a form that the electorate don't like.

deirdremf wrote: »

I'd be thoroughly surprised if any legislation is enacted before the next general election.
Many FG types are anti-abortion, and Vradkar cannot afford to alienate them by putting legislation through that they don't like.

So my guess is that a bill will be brought to the Dáil, and then let sit until after the election; they'll go through the motions alright, but not too speedily. Then after the next election it will be passed in probably a wishywashy form.

Does that indicate that you think the thoughts and minds of the larger portion of the population is still against abortion being legalized or is it just speculation on the mindset of F/G where it comes to a coalition govt and it's FF supporters?

Iona researcher taking a case against Twitter that is likely based on stuff that went on before/during the ref

http://www.thejournal.ie/iona-institute-twitter-4243639-Sep2018/

A RESEARCH OFFICER for the Iona Institute has filed a case in the High Court against Twitter.

Dr Angelo Bottone, a philosophy lecturer, confirmed yesterday that he was taking the social media giant to court.

deirdremf

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

A few FG types are anti-abortion, but they were quiet enough during the campaign never mind after losing so spectacularly, and Varadkar cannot afford to alienate the majority of the electorate by failing to legislate rapidly or watering it down to a form that the electorate don't like.

I don't agree. You might be talking about TDs, I was talking about their electorate. FG is traditionally the party that was closest to the institutional church. While Vrad and his likes are not so, many of FG's voters are very traditional rightwing types.

aloyisious wrote: »

Does that indicate that you think the thoughts and minds of the larger portion of the population is still against abortion being legalized or is it just speculation on the mindset of F/G where it comes to a coalition govt and it's FF supporters?

I'm just referring to FG's need to keep its traditional electorate on board while trying to attract a younger age group with different views on sexuality & marriage, abortion and related matters.
The younger generation of FG TDs are dealing well with this transition, but they are ahead of a lot of their older voters who might feel more attracted to Micheál Martin's FF as a result and could cross that divide if Vradkar alienates them on this subject. Remember that there is virtually no difference between FF and FG on almost everything else at this stage, and particularly in relation to the economy and to running society. The barriers that kept FG and FF voters in their different pools have disappeared, and this means that a single issue such as this one could cause one to hemorrhage votes to the other party.

smacl

deirdremf wrote: »

The younger generation of FG TDs are dealing well with this transition, but they are ahead of a lot of their older voters who might feel more attracted to Micheál Martin's FF as a result and could cross that divide if Vradkar alienates them on this subject. Remember that there is virtually no difference between FF and FG on almost everything else at this stage, and particularly in relation to the economy and to running society. The barriers that kept FG and FF voters in their different pools have disappeared, and this means that a single issue such as this one could cause one to hemorrhage votes to the other party.

I think the fact that the repeal vote won by such a large majority followed by FG enjoying an 11 point advantage over FF at last count clearly shows that this is not the case and that FG are politically quite astute. Depending on the more traditional values ostensibly held by the grey vote doesn't look likely to be a great election strategy.

deirdremf wrote: »

I don't agree.

Well, let's move on from beliefs to evidence, shall we?

You might be talking about TDs, I was talking about their electorate.

According to the RTE exit poll, 74.9% of FG voters voted for repeal. That's more than SF. There is no more motivation for FG to delay or restrict the legislation than there is for SF. Both would seriously p!ss off the vast majority of their voters if they did.

000ff0b8-614.jpg?ratio=2

FG is traditionally the party that was closest to the institutional church.

Love to know where you're getting that from. It was FF which banned contraception and introduced a theocratic constitution. There were always protestants and liberals in FG. In the 70s and 80s FG was in favour of allowing divorce and contraception, FF and the RCC vehemently opposed these.

While Vrad and his likes are not so, many of FG's voters are very traditional rightwing types.

If by right wing you mean religion-inspired social conservatives, there's nothing like as many of those around these days and I see no evidence that they're more likely to support FG than FF. FF parliamentary party split down the middle on abortion, many of the rural FF TDs were convinced that even if the whole country voted repeal, their constituencies would not. Some in FF (not Micheal Martin) want to explicitly make it a warm house for rural conservatives, there is no such movement in FG.

I'm just referring to FG's need to keep its traditional electorate on board while trying to attract a younger age group with different views on sexuality & marriage, abortion and related matters.

If you were writing this 40 years ago referring to Garret Fitzgerald's leadership, it would make sense.

The younger generation of FG TDs are dealing well with this transition, but they are ahead of a lot of their older voters who might feel more attracted to MicheMartin's FF as a result and could cross that divide if Vradkar alienates them on this subject.

Remember almost half of over 65s voted for repeal, so you can't paint all older voters with the same brush.

Why didn't all of these disaffected social conservative FG voters vote for Renua - which was 'FG gene pool' anyway?

deirdremf wrote: »

I don't agree. You might be talking about TDs, I was talking about their electorate. FG is traditionally the party that was closest to the institutional church. While Vrad and his likes are not so, many of FG's voters are very traditional rightwing types.
.

and yet FG brought in two refs which the church opposes in a massive way.
I'm not sure your traditional view stands up to reality.

Marriage ref was in 2015, last election was in 2016 by your logic FG should have be killed off by those very traditional rightwing types...that didn't happen.

Its very clear you are mixing up FG and FF because you are wayyyyyyyy off the mark with FG on this one

There is a very valid reason why this is a thing on the internet

deirdremf wrote: »

I don't agree. You might be talking about TDs, I was talking about their electorate. FG is traditionally the party that was closest to the institutional church. While Vrad and his likes are not so, many of FG's voters are very traditional rightwing types.

I'm just referring to FG's need to keep its traditional electorate on board while trying to attract a younger age group with different views on sexuality & marriage, abortion and related matters.
The younger generation of FG TDs are dealing well with this transition, but they are ahead of a lot of their older voters who might feel more attracted to Micheál Martin's FF as a result and could cross that divide if Vradkar alienates them on this subject. Remember that there is virtually no difference between FF and FG on almost everything else at this stage, and particularly in relation to the economy and to running society. The barriers that kept FG and FF voters in their different pools have disappeared, and this means that a single issue such as this one could cause one to hemorrhage votes to the other party.

I think that the average F/G and FF voter outside the large urban centres have changed their voting choices from the absolute loyalty you imagine they all have. I know that there are traditionalists in the parties and in thought when it comes to beliefs and voting but I know that a large proportion of the rural voters have been swayed by their realizing that their mentors have been lying to them about morality, duty and truth for decades and the Pols themselves have lately woken up to that new fact when it comes to voting on moral issues.

The position has changed for the here and now, the Pols are now leaders following the voters. Your last sentence could be read as highlighting that fact; F/G would be to the rear with Michael and FF ahead of them in the game.

lazygal

My dad is a staunch FF voter but he voted yes to repeal and marriage equality putting him in direct conflict with the views of the anti choice FF TD in the constituency. He's looking forward to asking him why he won't represent the views of all his constituents the next time he comes knocking on the door to look for his vote. I doubt he's the only older voter in the same position.

The two local FF TDs for me lobbied for NO in the refs,
One of them even tied to play both sides during 2015 ref as he posed with Yes campaigners for a photo op and then continued to lobby for no,

I know of plenty of older voters who certainly don't support them and they'd also be FF,

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Oh I get it, a Dail commitee decided something (which the Dail has not yet even voted on) and that position must be stuck with, right or wrong.

If the waiting period does pass into law, and a future Dail wants to amend it, by your logic there should be another referendum first.

Neither of these propositions makes any sense at all. We voted specifically to write into the constitution that the Oireachtas has the right to legislate for abortion, we did not vote to insert specific restrictions and conditions into the constitution.

No because political parties who wish to amend the pending legislation in a future Dail can put their proposals before the voters in the preceding general election campaign so they could reasonably claim to have a mandate for those changes.

IMO the only abortion legislation Simon Harris can reasonably claim to have mandate for is the draft one he released before the referendum. So I think the realpolitik of the situation is that he has to stick as closely as possible to that draft in the actual legislation. Which seems to be what he intends to do. Even if he privately believes the three-day waiting period to be a load of nonsense.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/harris-rules-out-change-to-three-day-wait-for-abortions-1.3634952

The waiting period was part of the draft legislation published by the Government before the referendum. The Government’s view is that people voted in the referendum having considered the draft legislation, and that it should not be changed at this stage, Mr Harris’s office said.

The 'having a mandate for a specific item of a specific piece of legislation' idea is bollox, general election or not. People vote on any of a vast range of issues, parties may (or may not) have specific positions on my pet issue before an election but nobody can know beforehand which parties and independents will end up in government or can predict what compromises they will have to make to form a government.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

No because political parties who wish to amend the pending legislation in a future Dail can put their proposals before the voters in the preceding general election campaign so they could reasonably claim to have a mandate for those changes.

Right, so lets apply that to reality.

2011 GE FG outlined in their manifesto that they planned to bring in water charges, it was clear as day for everyone to read, people voted for them and they crushed FF and they ended up in Gov.
Now based on what you're saying they had a mandate to bring in those changes, after all it was something the people voted for right?

Tell me, how did that work out for them?

A ref on the other hand is far more clear cut, support for change as part of a ref gives a far, more clear mandate.