Claire Byrne Live (RTE1)

elperello

pinkypinky wrote: »

Isn't that the hospital where lots of babies died shortly after birth a few years ago?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/multiple-failures-identified-in-report-into-baby-deaths-at-galway-hospital-1.3482993

Some details here.

vicwatson

M.Cribben wrote: »

Pathetic scaremongering from An Taoiseach.

http://www.thejournal.ie/varadkar-abortion-pills-prosecution-4013432-May2018/

He's basically saying if the vote doesn't go his way, we'll throw you in jail by enforcing a law that has never been enforced in the history of the State. Democracy in action.

AAND what he actually said

“The law “hasn’t been enforced yet, but it could be enforced in the future”” this is a FACT

drunkmonkey

vicwatson wrote: »

AAND what he actually said

“The law “hasn’t been enforced yet, but it could be enforced in the future”” this is a FACT

Name any law that's been enforced, there is no judge going to send someone down for 14yrs, it's blatant scaremongering by Leo. Graham Dwyer will be out in less.

retro:electro

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Name any law that's been enforced, there is no judge going to send someone down for 14yrs, it's blatant scaremongering by Leo. Graham Dwyer will be out in less.

If you don’t think it’s right for women to be sentenced to 14 years for taking abortion pills you should vote yes. This referendum is a legal question, it’s less about killing babies vs saving babies and is more about do women have the right to access appropriate medical care in their home country. If I found out I was pregnant with my rapist’s baby right now my country would have no choice but to turn its back on me, it legally cannot help me and if I tried to help myself I can be prosecuted. If you think this is extreme then why are you voting no? People need to get to grips about what this amendment actually entails and the fact that you can still be pro-life but want to see it repealed. I honestly thank god that this referendum wasn’t this time last year because I’m pretty certain I would have voted No, and if you searched hard enough through my post history I’m sure you’d come across some pretty stupid posts of mine where I was ignorant of reality.

The reality is women shouldn’t have to be dying in order to have their rights prioritied. Right now the only pregnant women Ireland prioritises above a foetus is the woman who is dying. The woman who is only kind of dying but not dead enough will have to die a little more before she can receive life saving care, and by then it could be too late. I think everyone goes through a “pro-life” stage, where you consider yourself a baby saver and abortion is murder. Yes abortion isn’t pleasant and it’s **** that it even has to happen but retaining the 8th won’t make abortion disappear. You can still be pro- life in a county that is catered for a Yes vote but you do not have a choice in a county that has legislated towards pro-life principles.

Bríd Smith put a bit of a spanner in the works for the yes side during Claire Byrne. Mary Lou was trying to woo undecided voters to yes by arguing that the women of Ireland could be trusted not to go for abortion at the rate it happens in UK, saying that they would each have good reason to opt for it. Then Bríd, who couldn’t hide her sentiments to save her life (and is honest to a fault), interurupted with a sentiment that equates to abortion should be for anyone at any time without regard to any reference to anybody’s morality. Mary Lou was being strategic, Bríd said it as she feels it, but it was an own goal at that minute for the yes side.

retro:electro

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Bríd Smith put a bit of a spanner in the works for the yes side during Claire Byrne. Mary Lou was trying to woo undecided voters to yes by arguing that the women of Ireland could be trusted not to go for abortion at the rate it happens in UK, saying that they would each have good reason to opt for it. Then Bríd, who couldn’t hide her sentiments to save her life (and is honest to a fault), interurupted with a sentiment that equates to abortion should be for anyone at any time without regard to any reference to anybody’s morality. Mary Lou was being strategic, Bríd said it as she feels it, but it was an own goal at that minute for the yes side.

Brid was being realistic, what is one person’s moral dilemma is a walk in the park to another. Who are we to judge what people can and can’t cope with? Having an abortion isn’t a decision any women ever takes lightly. Don’t worry, there won’t be drive through clinics opening up where you can pop in for a McBortion with a side order of fries on your way home from work.

end of the road

vicwatson wrote: »

AAND what he actually said

“The law “hasn’t been enforced yet, but it could be enforced in the future”” this is a FACT

could be, but won't be.

retro:electro wrote: »

If you don’t think it’s right for women to be sentenced to 14 years for taking abortion pills you should vote yes. This referendum is a legal question, it’s less about killing babies vs saving babies and is more about do women have the right to access appropriate medical care in their home country. If I found out I was pregnant with my rapist’s baby right now my country would have no choice but to turn its back on me, it legally cannot help me and if I tried to help myself I can be prosecuted. If you think this is extreme then why are you voting no? People need to get to grips about what this amendment actually entails and the fact that you can still be pro-life but want to see it repealed. I honestly thank god that this referendum wasn’t this time last year because I’m pretty certain I would have voted No, and if you searched hard enough through my post history I’m sure you’d come across some pretty stupid posts of mine where I was ignorant of reality.

The reality is women shouldn’t have to be dying in order to have their rights prioritied. Right now the only pregnant women Ireland prioritises above a foetus is the woman who is dying. The woman who is only kind of dying but not dead enough will have to die a little more before she can receive life saving care, and by then it could be too late. I think everyone goes through a “pro-life” stage, where you consider yourself a baby saver and abortion is murder. Yes abortion isn’t pleasant and it’s **** that it even has to happen but retaining the 8th won’t make abortion disappear. You can still be pro- life in a county that is catered for a Yes vote but you do not have a choice in a county that has legislated towards pro-life principles.

actually if you don’t think it’s right for women to be sentenced to 14 years for taking abortion pills you can still vote no as the law isn't going to be enforced. never going to happen.
many people see the referendum as many things, regardless of what it is technically about, and will vote accordingly. i actually blame the government for that, because of their insistence on legislation for abortion on demand up to 12 weeks.
you can already access medical care, the problem is interpretation of the law. we have already heard from some doctors who have caried out abortions under the 8th, nobody had to be dying before those abortions were caried out. those women's rights were prioritized, do note there is no right to an abortion for any reason however.
some may go through a pro-life stage before changing their minds, others go through a pro-abortion stage and then change their minds, some have their stance and don't change. everyone's different
retaining the 8th doesn't have to make abortion disappear, it just has to keep it illegal in ireland. it does that effectively. it's a myth that those of us voting no believe that abortion will suddenly disappear, we don't believe that, we just want it to remain illegal except in certain circumstances, and the government believes differently.

retro:electro wrote: »

Brid was being realistic, what is one person’s moral dilemma is a walk in the park to another. Who are we to judge what people can and can’t cope with? Having an abortion isn’t a decision any women ever takes lightly. Don’t worry, there won’t be drive through clinics opening up where you can pop in for a McBortion with a side order of fries on your way home from work.

we judge what people can and cope with, can and can't do, all on a daily basis via the laws of the land which enforce morals whether people agree or not with them. sometimes the laws are good and others bad but really in this specific case disagreement with morals isn't a good reason to remove the law given what is involved.

retro:electro

end of the road wrote: »

actually if you don’t think it’s right for women to be sentenced to 14 years for taking abortion pills you can still vote no as the law isn't going to be enforced. never going to happen.

If you believe abortion is murder then why wouldn’t you want someone to go to jail for 14 years for murdering an innocent baby?

drunkmonkey

retro:electro wrote: »

If you don’t think it’s right for women to be sentenced to 14 years for taking abortion pills you should vote yes. (that hasn't happened and will not happen)

This referendum is a legal question, it’s less about killing babies vs saving babies and is more about do women have the right to access appropriate medical care in their home country. (your going to kill more than you save, data from other countries tells us that, as a parent I don't believe the proper supports are in there to help mothers and parents as it is when there's a problem, I'd like to see a world class health service first before we add something new)

If I found out I was pregnant with my rapist’s baby right now my country would have no choice but to turn its back on me, it legally cannot help me and if I tried to help myself I can be prosecuted. (Under what is proposed you will still not be able to have an abortion if your raped, if the Minister for Health is to be believed, If you can provide some documentation to say Rape babies will be terminated i'd love to see it)

If you think this is extreme then why are you voting no? (Respect for good friends who wouldn't be here without the 8th they've told me so)

People need to get to grips about what this amendment actually entails and the fact that you can still be pro-life but want to see it repealed. (You can't it's a complete contradiction, you have no clue what happens after the 8th is repealed, pull up anyone saying they know what will happen because there lying, they have no idea)

The reality is women shouldn’t have to be dying in order to have their rights prioritied. Right now the only pregnant women Ireland prioritises above a foetus is the woman who is dying. The woman who is only kind of dying but not dead enough will have to die a little more before she can receive life saving care, and by then it could be too late. (that's not factually true, you don't need to be on the cusp of death)

You can still be pro- life in a county that is catered for a Yes vote but you do not have a choice in a county that has legislated towards pro-life principles. (you can't, you either respect life or you don't, it's not a pick & mix)

There are 0 guarantees about what happens when there's a yes vote, your voting on letting the Government do what they want in relation to abortion nothing else. The rest it just wishful thinking from the yes side.

From a political standpoint Abortion is good for the Economy and society. This saves the government a lot of money over the next 20 years.

drunkmonkey

retro:electro wrote: »

If you believe abortion is murder then why wouldn’t you want someone to go to jail for 14 years for murdering an innocent baby?

Why not petition for the law to be changed to a twenty euro on the spot fine. You don't need to repel the 8th to fix that law.

end of the road

retro:electro wrote: »

If you believe abortion is murder then why wouldn’t you want someone to go to jail for 14 years for murdering an innocent baby?

i don't know, you would have to find someone of that view and put the question to them. it is a rather daft view, but people are of that view it seems and i still think you can disagree with a punishment and vote no to repeal if that's how you feel.

retro:electro

end of the road wrote: »

i don't know, you would have to find someone of that view and put the question to them. it is a rather daft view, but people are of that view it seems and i still think you can disagree with a punishment and vote no to repeal if that's how you feel.

I am discussing it with someone of that view: you.

To quote your good self from another thread:

end of the road wrote: »

people who kill another human being are often called murderers dispite the law possibly not agreeing.

end of the road wrote: »

because they are killing another human being, the developing unborn child.



how is it a low blow? if the child was born and she killed it that's exactly what she would be called. why should it be different because the child is unborn?

Strange. I don’t usually make allowances for cold blooded child killers and insist the get a slap on the wrist and a fine for murder. It’s almost as if you know you’re taking complete and utter bollox.

Galwayguy35

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Pat Kenny, I think. I expect he'll do a better job than Clare Byrne. Certainly couldn't be any worse. I have no idea whether she's biased in favour of retaining the 8th, and was unable to hide it, or simply tried too way hard with the whole 'balance' thing. Either way, I don't think I've ever seen a presenter with so little control over what was happening around them.

Cooper and Yates are having the debate next Monday, Pat Kenny is due to have another one as well next week, maybe on Wednesday and the Prime Time debate is tomorrow night.

Simon Harris needs to get himself on at least one of these programmes to argue for a Yes vote.

Galwayguy35

end of the road wrote: »

i don't know, you would have to find someone of that view and put the question to them. it is a rather daft view, but people are of that view it seems and i still think you can disagree with a punishment and vote no to repeal if that's how you feel.

You don't have to agree with a persons decision but we have no right to tell a person what do do with their own body, I was one of the undecided people myself but voting Yes is the right thing to do.

retro:electro

retro:electro wrote: »

Brid was being realistic, what is one person’s moral dilemma is a walk in the park to another. Who are we to judge what people can and can’t cope with? Having an abortion isn’t a decision any women ever takes lightly. Don’t worry, there won’t be drive through clinics opening up where you can pop in for a McBortion with a side order of fries on your way home from work.

Knowing the woeful health system in Ireland that has frail elderly waiting 8 years for cataract op, we will have a 10 month waiting list for termination, it won’t be available in this county or that county, and de lahvlahn will have de line hoppin.

drunkmonkey

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Cooper and Yates are having the debate next Monday, Pat Kenny is due to have another one as well next week, maybe on Wednesday and the Prime Time debate is tomorrow night.

Simon Harris needs to get himself on at least one of these programmes to argue for a Yes vote.

I don't think Kenny should host anything after this https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/pat-kenny-claims-his-newstalk-radio-show-was-targeted-in-an-organised-way-by-prolife-campaigners-36912575.html

I think the hosts should be neutral and not getting into battles with either side. Let the guests do the battling and be fair in your time to both.

Harris need to appear so does Leo but i'm sure they won't put anyone too hard up against them. Leo & Harris are hardly what you'd consider role models for putting people first. I don't believe for 1 second either of them knew anything about multi million euro settlements going through the courts under their watch.

BarryD2

drunkmonkey wrote: »

From a political standpoint Abortion is good for the Economy and society. This saves the government a lot of money over the next 20 years.

Now, that is utterly pathetic.

drunkmonkey

BarryD2 wrote: »

Now, that is utterly pathetic.

There's less crime, good for the economy.

There's fewer poor people, good for the economy.

Both good for society.

It will effect the poor more than any other group. This is one of the yes sides arguments for abortion the poor can't afford to travel, it doesn't take a genius to work out the rate of of low income women having abortions will rise.

Sorry if simple economics offends you, it's crule but true. Not something I'll lose sleep over as I voted to give them a chance.

vin33

BarryD2 wrote: »

Now, that is utterly pathetic.

Obviously distasteful, but I recall being in New York in the late 80s and it was very dangerous and intimidating. 10 years later and very safe.
I've read of studies putting this down to the introduction of the pill. So the previous argument may not be that far fetched.

RabbleRouser2k

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Cooper and Yates are having the debate next Monday, Pat Kenny is due to have another one as well next week, maybe on Wednesday and the Prime Time debate is tomorrow night.

Simon Harris needs to get himself on at least one of these programmes to argue for a Yes vote.

Much of it was really a travesty, tbqh. I've noticed that many Irish papers, particularly the Indo, feel it was a disaster for the Yes side, in that they've printed so many 'Vote Yes' stories today. As well as stories that show the Pro-lifers in a negative light.

I think it was bad from the start-Claire had to reprimand people for using the word 'liars', on the Yes and No side. (I think when Mattie McGrath used it, she had to say 'enough').

The Yes side have nobody as able to talk as Maria Steen. She can approach issues with understanding and knowledge of both sides, even if you disagree with her, you can see her side.
That's the No sides strength and the yes side's weakness. They don't have a Maria Steen. She even spoke about an instance where an ectopic pregnancy she had was ended because her life was in danger. And it didn't require the 8th being repealed.

Brid Smith was unhelpful, and when they tried to use the age old 'Savita' defense-that was easily defeated by the No crowd. That was a massive slap to the Yes argument.

There's a few more debates, both on RTe and TV3. I think the Undecided's would have been swayed very easily by the No side.

hullaballoo

Arghus wrote: »

I watched it last night. It was a very depressing spectacle. The No side seemed to be allowed spout whatever guff they wanted and then leave the Yes side so busy trying to correct their basic falsehoods that they didn't know whether they were coming or going.

They were well prepared, but it's always an advantage in formats like last nights to be able to rely on half baked appeals to emotion as the basis of your arguments: the other side don't stand a chance with their "facts" and "reality".

My respect for Peter Boylan went up immeasurably after the farce that was last night. How he managed to keep his composure in the face of some of the utterly ludicrous claims he had to listen to was utterly amazing. Maria Steen was more a less allowed free reign to say whatever she felt like and she took full advantage.

The real low point was Dr. - can you believe that! - John Monaghan pettily chiding Dr. Boylan - "you should go back to school" - after Dr. Boylan had made the fair and reasonable point that a 12 week old foetus is not a fully formed human being. Christ Almighty, Dr. Monaghan if a foetus can be considered good as gold after 12 weeks, then what exactly is it doing in the womb for the remaining 24? Catching up on some reading with its fully formed brain? Get a grip man and grow some sense. How is that lad an obstetrician? It was clearly an attempt to try to settle some old scores and factual reality be dammed if it got in the way.

Last night made me utterly, even more so, determined to vote Yes. I have some sympathy for people who feel conflicted and who will vote No: no matter what either extreme side of the argument says it's an eithical grey area. But I really hate, hate, hate, that brand of No voter who will utterly shamelessly say or claim anything to try to browbeat the other side, they're the lowest of the low, and there was a lot of that on display last night.

This.

John Monaghan delivered me and for a long part of my life, I believed he was the be all and end all of obstetricians. Genuinely, I did, because my mother believed in him. Recently, she sent me a whatsapp of him saying "I don't care how you vote but this is wrong" and I am happy to say she is, in relation to this aspect, 1000% correct.

The next family meeting will be awkward but this goes beyond that.

Olsky

vin33 wrote: »

Obviously distasteful, but I recall being in New York in the late 80s and it was very dangerous and intimidating. 10 years later and very safe.
I've read of studies putting this down to the introduction of the pill. So the previous argument may not be that far fetched.

That was the hypothesis out forward in a pop psychology book called Freakeconomics. That Roe vs Wade and the introduction of abortion in the early 70s led to a reduction of crime rates in New York city in the late 80s. Only a guess from writers though. Causation not necessarily proven. Ed Koch would put it down to zero tolerance policy.

drunkmonkey

It was never debunked after numerous challenges. Without getting into the freakenomics debate abortion rates are higher among women from low income backgrounds that is a fact where abortion is legal.

Ireland is a little different as in we have a good social welfare system that does not necessarily mean you'll be destitute if you decide to keep the baby like some countries.
Reports also suggest that poor women who don't have an abortion end up even worse off over the first few years compounding the financial problem, so it's a case of we either open our wallets and give them as much help as we can financially or we facilitate the abortions.

Being poor won't get you an abortion if the 8th is repelled so it's hard to know what's going to happen to the majority of women who'll want one.

It's sad it boils down to money in the end for a lot of women.

drunkmonkey

Independent finally admits No side won, ministers unhappy refuse to enter any more debates they may lose.
Independent also move tonight's prime time to next Tuesday https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/you-cannot-have-this-whooping-jeering-and-hollering-on-such-a-sensitive-matter-ministers-attack-rt-after-debate-win-for-no-36915427.html

I'm expecting to see Harris thrown a few softies, they won't want Maria up against, I'd say he refused to appear if she's there.

Mr E

Once again, I think we've moved past the Claire Byrne debate into a discussion about the referendum itself (and as such, is off topic for this forum).

If you want to continue discussion about the referendum, use the threads in After Hours, Politics and Politics Café.

Edit: Opened again. No more referendum talk (unless the next CBL is about the referendum, obviously!)

RabbleRouser2k

I've been increasingly frustrated by Claire-she seems out of her depth on so much issues. And never seems to get on good people to debate, only lay-people. When she gets on knowledgable folks on a subject, she can't contain the discussion.

Her 'debates' often turn into farce, the likes of which Brass Eye would have satirised.

A pre-cursor to the past discussion (Won't go into details because I don't want to annoy the mods) was the 'Vegan vs Meat' debacle-she essentially mocked the guy who was omnivore, with a statement she pulled from the papers and which omnivore guy never said on the show. We don't know the context of the original comment either.

Her absolute weakness as a presenter showed last Monday, and the worst of her weaknesses came to the fore.
It was like a trainwreck, and considering the media reaction, I wouldn't be surprised if her show doesn't continue for much longer.

alan partridge aha

The media reaction would be because the NO side won the debate. I have found her to be very fair compared to the likes of Cooper and Kenny.

RabbleRouser2k

alan partridge aha wrote: »

The media reaction would be because the NO side won the debate. I have found her to be very fair compared to the likes of Cooper and Kenny.

I agree, completely.

I actually don't see the fairness on her show, tbh. There's always 'one person defending a position, two people defending opposing position'. If she was being equal, she'd have two on each side.

What I mean regarding questions on her show is that in the past year or so, she's lost a court case (while trying to spin it as a win) and her show has gone from 'respectable' to 'Tabloid' to 'Jerry Springer' in the span of 6 months.

I'd imagine even RTE are worried now-when she starts costing them money, in court cases, I'd imagine even they would want to steer her away from shows that will sue her.

Muahahaha

I think Claire Byrne might have set a new record for complaints about a single show

RTÉ received a massive 1,277 complaints in relation to the Claire Byrne Live Referendum Special.

The programme, which broadcast on May 14, stood out because of the often raucous behaviour of the audience.

There were also some fraught exchanges between the panellists including Dr John Monaghan, Dr Peter Boylan, Sinn Féin’s Mary Lou McDonald and the Iona Institute’s Maria Steen.

johnpatrick81

I’ve honestly avoided her show since, it was that bad. They didn’t apologize either did they? Terribly managed. So unprofessional all round.