Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

end of the road wrote: »

some will have been in favour, others won't but will have believed that the 8th needed to be removed on it's own merrit. either way, we still weren't technically asked if we wanted abortion. it was only a defacto vote, and defacto is not an actual.

Excellent way of completely ignoring the questions Susie asked of you.

Loafing Oaf

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

We'll see. Hasn't worked out well for Renua anyway.

It cuts both ways. As far as I can see, candidates neither gain nor lose votes in general elections by their stances on 'social issues'. Renua were perceived as a single-issue party so there was no reason to vote for them.

I think this is different. A lot of people have been politicised by the Repeal campaign.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I think this is different. A lot of people have been politicised by the Repeal campaign.

even if that is true, i really would be surprised if it's enough to do any meaningful damage to both major political parties, especially when there are actual serious issues such as housing which are more important and which effect way more people then abortion ever will.

.......

end of the road wrote: »

even if that is true, i really would be surprised if it's enough to do any meaningful damage to both major political parties, especially when there are actual serious issues such as housing which are more important and which effect way more people then abortion ever will.

Eh, according to you during the run up to the referendum abortion was THE single biggest most important issue EVER.

How has the murder of children (your take on it pre referendum) suddenly become so unimportant?

I can go back and find your posts if you wish?

....... wrote: »

Eh, according to you during the run up to the referendum abortion was THE single biggest most important issue EVER.

How has the murder of children (your take on it pre referendum) suddenly become so unimportant?

I can go back and find your posts if you wish?

it's still important, but it being important doesn't mean it will be automatically an election issue. lots of things that are important aren't election issues. public transport being a famous example.

Loafing Oaf

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I think this is different. A lot of people have been politicised by the Repeal campaign.

But, realistically, how many of those would have previously been voting for McGrath or the Healy Reas, or would have been likely to do so at the next election? Are you suggesting many of Mattie's erstwhile supporters will have been shocked and horrified to learn of his strong anti-abortion stance? I'm not sure you understand what unseating a popular sitting TD entails.

I made no mention of McGraths or Healy-Raes - but it is possible that they will lose votes over this nonetheless.

The main effect will be where there is a choice of 2 FF or 2 FG candidates, and one is pro-choice and the other isn't. I expect the latter to lose votes.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I made no mention of McGraths or Healy-Raes - but it is possible that they will lose votes over this nonetheless.

The main effect will be where there is a choice of 2 FF or 2 FG candidates, and one is pro-choice and the other isn't. I expect the latter to lose votes.

them losing a few votes isn't in doubt. what is in a bit of doubt is whether those votes will be enough to make any real difference to the election prospects of the pro-life tds.

smacl

end of the road wrote: »

some will have been in favour, others won't but will have believed that the 8th needed to be removed on it's own merrit. either way, we still weren't technically asked if we wanted abortion. it was only a defacto vote, and defacto is not an actual.

Odd choice of words. De facto means as a matter of fact, actually or in reality, as opposed to legally or theoretically. So what you're saying is that as a matter of fact people did vote for abortion, regardless of the wording on the ballot paper. I agree entirely, that is exactly what happened.

smacl

end of the road wrote: »

even if that is true, i really would be surprised if it's enough to do any meaningful damage to both major political parties, especially when there are actual serious issues such as housing which are more important and which effect way more people then abortion ever will.

Of course it won't damage the two major political parties as they both advocated for repeal which was in accordance with the popular vote. Housing is an entirely different issue and hence a straw man in this context.

smacl wrote: »

Odd choice of words. De facto means as a matter of fact, actually or in reality, as opposed to legally or theoretically. So what you're saying is that as a matter of fact people did vote for abortion, regardless of the wording on the ballot paper. I agree entirely, that is exactly what happened.

only in theory did people vote for abortion. we were only asked if we wanted the politicians to be able to legislate for it or not once the 8th would be repealed. we weren't asked on specific legislation, or whether we actually wanted abortion itself or not.

smacl wrote: »

Of course it won't damage the two major political parties as they both advocated for repeal which was in accordance with the popular vote. Housing is an entirely different issue and hence a straw man in this context.

it is also unlikely to do much damage to pro-life tds as people only voted to repeal the 8th, and that, along with abortion, are unlikely to be main political issues. i used housing as an issue that was likely to be an election issue compared to abortion and the 8th amendment.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

only in theory did people vote for abortion. we were only asked if we wanted the politicians to be able to legislate for it or not once the 8th would be repealed. we weren't asked on specific legislation, or whether we actually wanted abortion itself or not.

Quite odd then that you and others on the No side spent a lot of time arguing the specifics of the proposed legislation. Why do that if it was not the legislation we were voting for?

smacl wrote: »

Of course it won't damage the two major political parties as they both advocated for repeal which was in accordance with the popular vote.

It'll damage some individuals, especially in FF.

lazygal

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It'll damage some individuals, especially in FF.

My father is a lifelong FF voter.
After the marriage equality and repeal referendum votes he's not one any more. He was really annoyed by the backwardness of the party generally. I doubt he's alone.

Have to laugh at eotrs signature.

The deliverer of nonstop contradictory nonsense would be wholly more accurate.

If the referendum was solely to repeal the 8th and to allow politicians the ability to legislate, why did you vote No? You consistently stated you'd have voted yes if it wasn't for the "proposed" legislation (which was basically a draft, an idea to be worked on and improved).

Why don't you just honestly come out and say you genuinely have no idea what you're on about and save us all the nonsense of having this back and forth?

robarmstrong wrote: »

If the referendum was solely to repeal the 8th and to allow politicians the ability to legislate, why did you vote No? You consistently stated you'd have voted yes if it wasn't for the "proposed" legislation (which was basically a draft, an idea to be worked on and improved).

i already explained it, not my problem if you haven't the ability to read posts.

robarmstrong wrote: »

Why don't you just honestly come out and say you genuinely have no idea what you're on about and save us all the nonsense of having this back and forth?

because it would be inaccurate.

lazygal wrote: »

My father is a lifelong FF voter.
After the marriage equality and repeal referendum votes he's not one any more. He was really annoyed by the backwardness of the party generally. I doubt he's alone.

Wrecking the economy twice in 40 years wasn't enough?

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

the voters only voted to repeal the 8th. after that, anything else is a defacto vote. we were not specifically asked on the ballot paper whether we wanted abortion or whether we wanted to fund it.
Carol Nolan is not insulting the intelligence of the electorate and her call for a vote as to whether we should have to fund abortions is not going against any democratic decisian. in fact, her call for a referendum on that specific issue is very democratic IMO.
i think realistically the vast majority of the yes and no voters won't be making abortion an election issue. tax cuts, public services as a whole and local issues will be the main stay. if politicians focus on those, then even if some of them do vote no, they will mostly be fine.

Any voter here with a degree of intellect knew both before AND after the referendum that a majority vote in favour of deleting the 8th knew exactly what would happen, abortion legislation would follow. Even the anti-abortion TD's and Senators in the Oireachtas knew the score as they were shouting it from the rooftops, staging political walkouts from the chambers when their filibuster time-wasting efforts failed in the chambers. You can choose now to run out the claim that the people were not asked specifically asked on the ballot papers to vote on abortion but that wouldn't have washed then and doesn't now. The only reason [IMO] for anyone to try run that claim now is to fill page space.

As for the "the vast majority of the yes and no voters won't be making abortion an election issue" well, truly & realistically that was shown by the referendum result expected by the voters, incl the TD's and Senators voters who opposed it. along with David & Co.

Edit. Thought about mine above and felt it right to add that the opponents to abortion are of no mean intellect and quite brainy, despite the fact that putting their opinion and belief into law of one/both effectual types here would have tied down the rights of the majority of woman here in the first place and of the majority of the populace in the 2nd place, something done in the early 80's and then reversed in May by the people.

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

some will have been in favour, others won't but will have believed that the 8th needed to be removed on it's own merrit. either way, we still weren't technically asked if we wanted abortion. it was only a defacto vote, and defacto is not an actual.

The problem with that argument is that the vote result was liable to, and did in fact, move from de facto to de jure after the initial waiting period while opponents of the referendum result tried to overturn it in the courts [who rejected the overturning of the peoples vote] and prevent it from becoming de jure by presidential signature. Those anti-abortion campaigners who took the court cases knew full well that if the referendum result was overturned, they would be praising the saving of babies from abortion, not the saving of the 8th as it was only a tool which served the "save the babies" campaign. As I wrote in my last post, the argument that no one actually voted on abortion [or as you choose to put it - technically asked if we wanted abortion] is page-filling only.

Loafing Oaf

aloyisious wrote: »

As for the "the vast majority of the yes and no voters won't be making abortion an election issue" well, truly & realistically that was shown by the referendum result expected by the voters, incl the TD's and Senators voters who opposed it. along with David & Co.

But that doesn't prove it'll be an issue at the next election. The whole thing will be settled definitively once the legislation passes and I predict will immediately disappear off the political agenda. I don't buy the idea that there will be loads of yes voters looking to retrospectively punish the handful of TDs who end up voting against the legislation; people are always focused on the future at general elections.

end of the road wrote: »

i already explained it, not my problem if you haven't the ability to read posts.

because it would be inaccurate.

I haven't the ability to read posts? That's rich coming from someone who has a very selective ability to read posts.

It would be inaccurate would it? You're definitely one to go up on a pedestal about something being inaccurate. Each and every time you have attempted to even come up with anything other than absolute contradictory drivel that you believe resembles a valid argument you have been beaten pillar to post, largely due to the sheer amount of lies and nonsense you've spewed across numerous threads.

Is abortion murder?

If we only voted to remove the 8th, why did you vote no if you agreed the 8th should have been removed? Was it due to purposed legislation?

This is exactly what the vote entailed.

Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy.

“If a majority votes Yes, this will allow the Oireachtas to pass laws regulating the termination of pregnancy. These laws need not limit the availability of termination to circumstances where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother.

This was to replace Article 40.3.3

Tell me again it wasn't clear exactly what we were voting on.

end of the road wrote: »

this is irrelevant and inaccurate junk which has no relevance to anything.

i explained all of that in previous posts.

It's not irrelevant nor is it inaccurate. You have a long history of making wild, unsubstantiated claims in relation to this subject. You really need to just keep your mouth shut at this stage as you've made it abundantly clear you cannot debate on this matter.

No, you didn't explain it all in previous posts so I'll ask you again.

Are you saying all we voted on was to "repeal the 8th" and that there was no mention of abortion, despite the evidence I have shown you? Are you denying the evidence I have displayed to you which can be easily found on RefCom.ie?

end of the road wrote: »

either way, we still weren't technically asked if we wanted abortion.

Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy.
“If a majority votes Yes, this will allow the Oireachtas to pass laws regulating the termination of pregnancy. These laws need not limit the availability of termination to circumstances where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother."

Right so we were "technically asked if we wanted abortion" due to the following below which again, references the above proposed replacement of Article 40.3.3 -

original?width=479&version=3974459

The phrase "Do you approve of the proposal to amend the Constitution contained in the undermentioned Bill?" really, really stands out.

[Deleted User]

I'm also still waiting for him to provide evidence for his claim that a majority of people actually oppose abortion.
Or that a majority of people who voted in the opposite direction to him actually really agreed with him
Or otherwise that his opinion is not in more of a minority than the cranks who oppose gay marriage or divorce.
For some reason he ignored my post.

aloyisious

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But that doesn't prove it'll be an issue at the next election. The whole thing will be settled definitively once the legislation passes and I predict will immediately disappear off the political agenda. I don't buy the idea that there will be loads of yes voters looking to retrospectively punish the handful of TDs who end up voting against the legislation; people are always focused on the future at general elections.

I believe you're right. I meant that most of the YES vote moved on down the road in May and won't be into begrudery, thought humans being human, there will be a few of fixation or score-fixing. I didn't mean for anyone to think that my post meant I thought people wouldn't have moved on since the vote. I didn't have any thought at all about the next election or any after it.

robindch

Mod:

robarmstrong wrote: »

[...] You really need to just keep your mouth shut at this stage [...]

Please be civil. The forum rules are here - please read.

Bredabe

I see on Twitter, a couple from NI with an FFA diagnosis having to travel for termination services.
Heartbreaking!