Is there anyone on Boards who voted "No" because of Abortion?

K-9 · 04-10-2009 11:58pm

PS. Run a Referenda on Abortion and you'll get an idea of how it is important to people.

It's only 14 years ago Divorce came in by 8,000 odd votes.

wolfpawnat · 05-10-2009 12:00am

Nope - I voted no for legitimate reasons!

Boskowski · 05-10-2009 12:45am

I did.

If my parents had aborted me there's no way I could have been voting.

tobytobe · 05-10-2009 1:02am

If abortion does eventually become available here which I believe it will, then anyone against it now will presumably always be against it and won't be forced to go out and get one because it is more readily available. It won't be made obligatory any more than Divorce has been. I am sure that those against Divorce before are still against it now and have not felt pressured into getting one just because it became legal to do so? It seems that Abortion is being used not as the serious issue that it is, but more of a crass blackmailing tool to beat the voting public with.

K-9 · 05-10-2009 1:06am

tobytobe wrote: »

If abortion does eventually become available here which I believe it will, then anyone against it now will presumably always be against it and won't be forced to go out and get one because it is more readily available. It won't be made obligatory any more than Divorce has been. I am sure that those against Divorce before are still against it now and have not felt pressured into getting one just because it became legal to do so? It seems that Abortion is being used not as the serious issue that it is, but more of a crass blackmailing tool to beat the voting public with.

Abortion would be a very emotional and divisive issue. Exactly why it and Neutrality are mentioned.

imokyrok · 05-10-2009 10:29am

It would be an ugly campaign alright but polls suggest that the majority of the electorate want abortion available in Ireland at least in certain circumstances. So it will happen eventually but the politicos will drag their feet as long as they can. In fact it will probably need something like Coir to force another vote to proscribe womens freedom in some way to get it on the political agenda.

Sam Vimes · 05-10-2009 10:32am

tobytobe wrote: »

If abortion does eventually become available here which I believe it will, then anyone against it now will presumably always be against it and won't be forced to go out and get one because it is more readily available. It won't be made obligatory any more than Divorce has been. I am sure that those against Divorce before are still against it now and have not felt pressured into getting one just because it became legal to do so? It seems that Abortion is being used not as the serious issue that it is, but more of a crass blackmailing tool to beat the voting public with.

The problem with that logic is that this is how a pro-life person sees it:

If murder does eventually become available here which I believe it will, then anyone against it now will presumably always be against it and won't be forced to go out and murder someone because it is more readily available. It won't be made obligatory any more than Divorce has been. I am sure that those against Divorce before are still against it now and have not felt pressured into getting one just because it became legal to do so? It seems that murder is being used not as the serious issue that it is, but more of a crass blackmailing tool to beat the voting public with.

Handsome Bob · 05-10-2009 10:43am

I reckon not, personally nearly all of the people I know who voted no first time around because of abortion were people from the older generations. All of them voted Yes this time around, although they were still hazy on the issue (or non-issue), it's amazing how much fear and self-interest can turn someone's head!

RandomName2 · 05-10-2009 10:55am

Is there anyone outside of boards who voted yes due to anything contained within the Lisbon Treaty?

mickoneill30 · 05-10-2009 11:00am

RandomName2 wrote: »

Is there anyone outside of boards who voted yes due to anything contained within the Lisbon Treaty?

Yes.

Sam Vimes · 05-10-2009 11:39am

RandomName2 wrote: »

Is there anyone outside of boards who voted yes due to anything contained within the Lisbon Treaty?

On the yes side I don't consider that to be that important. Someone saying "Europe has been good to us" or "It'll be good for the country" is fine imo. Europe has been extremely good for us so if they ask to make a change I don't need to go searching for compelling reasons to allow them to make it, I need to be given a good reason why I shouldn't. In the absence of anything in this treaty that I have a major objection to I'll say yes by default.

When an organisation that's been as good for Ireland as the EU has asks for something the question shouldn't be "Why should I?", it should be "why not?". If a good answer can be given to the second question then we should of course vote no but if no good answer is forthcoming or if all the answers turn out not to be true then we we shouldn't.

Long Onion · 05-10-2009 2:18pm

Looks like Dana hasn't posted for a while eh?

Fighting Irish · 05-10-2009 3:15pm

turgon wrote: »

Oh God, lets not start this again...

The same could be said for 99% of statements posted on boards.ie

Fighting Irish · 05-10-2009 3:17pm

imokyrok wrote: »

It would be an ugly campaign alright but polls suggest that the majority of the electorate want abortion available in Ireland at least in certain circumstances. So it will happen eventually but the politicos will drag their feet as long as they can. In fact it will probably need something like Coir to force another vote to proscribe womens freedom in some way to get it on the political agenda.

I thought the majority were against it?

marco_polo · 05-10-2009 3:24pm

Fighting Irish wrote: »

I thought the majority were against it?

Against it on demand, but not in cases where the there is serious risk to the mothers life.

tobytobe · 05-10-2009 4:33pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The problem with that logic is that this is how a pro-life person sees it:

If murder does eventually become available here which I believe it will, then anyone against it now will presumably always be against it and won't be forced to go out and murder someone because it is more readily available. It won't be made obligatory any more than Divorce has been. I am sure that those against Divorce before are still against it now and have not felt pressured into getting one just because it became legal to do so? It seems that murder is being used not as the serious issue that it is, but more of a crass blackmailing tool to beat the voting public with.

I suppose that would be true if murder and abortion were the same thing

tobytobe · 05-10-2009 4:38pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The problem with that logic is that this is how a pro-life person sees it:

If murder does eventually become available here which I believe it will, then anyone against it now will presumably always be against it and won't be forced to go out and murder someone because it is more readily available. It won't be made obligatory any more than Divorce has been. I am sure that those against Divorce before are still against it now and have not felt pressured into getting one just because it became legal to do so? It seems that murder is being used not as the serious issue that it is, but more of a crass blackmailing tool to beat the voting public with.

I suppose that would be true if murder and abortion were the same thing.

It's funny how people and the powers that be in our untouchable church bang on about abortion being murder as if to imply that unborn children are considered to have the same rights as living people...it is a shame then isn't it, that stillborn children are not thought of in the same way because stillborn children are are not considered in this country as being real births. So if you abort your baby you are murdering it, but if it dies during delivery it never existed???? Typical of this country and its double standard

Sam Vimes · 05-10-2009 4:42pm

tobytobe wrote: »

I suppose that would be true if murder and abortion were the same thing.

To you it's not but to others it is. I'm not saying abortion is murder but an awful lot of people see no distinction whatsoever between the two so your sentence is never going to convince any of them.

tobytobe wrote: »

It's funny how people and the powers that be in our untouchable church bang on about abortion being murder as if to imply that unborn children are considered to have the same rights as living people...it is a shame then isn't it, that stillborn children are not thought of in the same way because stillborn children are are not considered in this country as being real births. So if you abort your baby you are murdering it, but if it dies during delivery it never existed???? Typical of this country and its double standard

Yes it is a double standard. The point where a foetus stops being a clump of cells and becomes a human with rights is more or less arbitrary.

tobytobe · 05-10-2009 4:49pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

To you it's not but to others it is. I'm not saying abortion is murder but an awful lot of people see no distinction whatsoever between the two so your sentence is never going to convince any of them.

Yes it is a double standard. The point where a foetus stops being a clump of cells and becomes a human with rights is more or less arbitrary.

No I am not trying to convince anyone with my sentence any more, I assume than you were when you re-worded it, but I wanted to back up my reasoning behind my argument. I am totally pro-"opinion" whatever it may be, in all matters but it does sort of highlight how emotive matters are used to swing opinion when it might not be appropriate to do so or without considering the emotions of people who feel that they or people who apparently never existed are forgotten about because it doesn't have a place in the debate. That's all.

Fighting Irish · 05-10-2009 7:52pm

marco_polo wrote: »

Against it on demand, but not in cases where the there is serious risk to the mothers life.

ah right

How do they get around the thought of "its ok to kill one person to save another person" ?

Stark · 05-10-2009 7:54pm

Fighting Irish wrote: »

ah right

How do they get around the thought of "its ok to kill one person to save another person" ?

If the mother dies, then the foetus will die too. It's a choice between two dead patients or one dead patient. Similar case when you have two siamese twins about to die and you can only save the stronger twin.

Furious-Dave · 05-10-2009 8:08pm

Seeing as this topic has started I'll post my opinion. Abortion is not a black and white issue. There are 2 situations where I believe abortion should be allowed. The most important one is in the case of pregnancy as a result of rape. No one has the right to demand that a woman/girl be forced to firstly go through the full pregnancy and secondly to go through the pain of childbirth just to satisfy other peoples moral beliefs. The second situation is where it can be proven that the child will be born with birth defects, and even then it could have to go before a judge. There may be other situations that I might agree but can't think of right now, but for now, in all other situations abortion should be illegal.

Edit: Ok perhaps a third situation is in medical emergency, as per Starks post.

Fighting Irish · 05-10-2009 8:17pm

Stark wrote: »

If the mother dies, then the foetus will die too. It's a choice between two dead patients or one dead patient. Similar case when you have two siamese twins about to die and you can only save the stronger twin.

But someone being killed isn't the same as someone dying from medical complications

drkpower · 05-10-2009 8:17pm

Fighting Irish wrote: »

How do they get around the thought of "its ok to kill one person to save another person" ? .

While the Constitution refers to the right to life of the mother and foetus being "equal", the Supreme C. has essentially decided that the mother's life is of superior value (or perhaps more accurately, that the mother's has superior rights). Where there is a "real and substantial" risk of the mother's death, an abortion is permitted even if though the corresponding risk to the child is absolute. So the current position in Irish law is that you are allowed to kill a person to probably save another person.

Fighting Irish · 05-10-2009 8:17pm

Furious-Dave wrote: »

Seeing as this topic has started I'll post my opinion. Abortion is not a black and white issue. There are 2 situations where I believe abortion should be allowed. The most important one is in the case of pregnancy as a result of rape. No one has the right to demand that a woman/girl be forced to firstly go through the full pregnancy and secondly to go through the pain of childbirth just to satisfy other peoples moral beliefs. The second situation is where it can be proven that the child will be born with birth defects, and even then it could have to go before a judge. There may be other situations that I might agree but can't think of right now, but for now, in all other situations abortion should be illegal.

Edit: Ok perhaps a third situation is in medical emergency, as per Starks post.

nullzero · 05-10-2009 8:25pm

I voted No, but I certainly didn't have abortion in mind.
Just another "look how stupid No voters are" type debate I'm afraid.
Some of us No voters can actually tie our own shoe laces. As long as someone is showing us how at the time that is:pac:

Furious-Dave · 05-10-2009 8:27pm

Fine

That was my moral belief. However, there is a fine line. My belief is that someone who has already gone through the psychological and physical trauma of rape should not be expected to go through pregnancy and childbirth.

marco_polo · 05-10-2009 8:37pm

nullzero wrote: »

I voted No, but I certainly didn't have abortion in mind.
Just another "look how stupid No voters are" type debate I'm afraid.
Some of us No voters can actually tie our own shoe laces. As long as someone is showing us how at the time that is:pac:

Maybe No voters should stop starting threads like this then

Wheely · 05-10-2009 8:51pm

Tony EH wrote: »

Nor, can I extrapolate much from the answer you've given. It suggests that there are huge numbers of pro-lifers in Ireland and I just don't see a case for that.

The problem is that this abortion nonsense is always trotted out by the "Yes" camp as a main reason why a "No" was delivered the last time. That would suggest that a significant number of "No" voters voted "No" because of that issue. That also suggests that because there are a significant number of "No" voters on boards, then there must be some who voted "No" because of that issue.

I have yet to see anyone, here or elsewhere say they voted "No" because of abortion and I am genuinely interested if there is anyone on here who did so.

Anyway the question still stands.

Sorry but your asking a loaded question which is based, to begin with, on an untrue assertion.

I have never said that "abortion nonsense" is the main reason that a No was delivered the last time. I'm on the Yes side.

The main reason for voting no last time was a lack of info, knowledge or understanding about the treaty. 42 % of those who voted No cited that as a reason.

Following this loss of the commissioner, workers rights, abortion, corporation tax and neutrality were cited as the highest other influencing factors in how someone voted. The situation on one was changed and the "guarantees", essentially clarifications, guranteed/clarified that our national position on these issues would not be affected by the Treaty.

That abortion was an issue at all, which it was like it or not, in and of itself shows that it was brought into the debate.

Like it or not only one poster in the campaign just gone had a picture of a foetus on it and it wasn't advocating a Yes vote.

Show me instances of where the Yes side claimed that the MAIN reason Lisbon had to be run again was due to the abortion factor?

nullzero · 05-10-2009 8:54pm

marco_polo wrote: »

Maybe No voters should stop starting threads like this then

Again, you're assuming all No voters are idiots who run around chasing their tales whilst you laugh at their stupidity.
There have been plenty of stupid threads started by Yes and No voters, that deosn't mean that everyone who voted Yes or No agree's with the crazies saying stupid things now does it?

Is there anyone on Boards who voted "No" because of Abortion?

Comments