Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

from what i can see, there was no lies, misinformation and scaremongering by the no side. there was the brutal truth, facts and reality of abortion however. perhapse the reality was indeed to much to hear and see for the people, who knows.
i do believe it was a lot better then the fluffy language and all else put forward by the yes side which hid from the reality of what would happen once the 8th was repealed though. the yes side should have been fully open on every single reason why they wanted us to vote yes

That’s absolutely hilarious!

The foundation of the whole No campaign was based on lies, confusion, scaremongering and shock tactics.
The very essence of their position was to exaggerate and misrepresent in order to manipulate people into supporting them.

If one followed the LoveBoth line of thinking, anyone who voted Yes is a baby murderer.
Despite this, Yes still won by a landslide.

They are lying liars who lied and thankfully the Irish public didn’t buy into their garbage and made their own minds up.

PopePalpatine

Oh no it's not!

recedite

SusieBlue wrote: »

They are lying liars who lied...

And don't forget the lies... :pac:

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

from what i can see, there was no lies, misinformation and scaremongering by the no side. there was the brutal truth, facts and reality of abortion however. perhapse the reality was indeed to much to hear and see for the people, who knows.

Apart from the lies and misinformation you posted on here of course

end of the road

SusieBlue wrote: »

That’s absolutely hilarious!

The foundation of the whole No campaign was based on lies, confusion, scaremongering and shock tactics.
The very essence of their position was to exaggerate and misrepresent in order to manipulate people into supporting them.

If one followed the LoveBoth line of thinking, anyone who voted Yes is a baby murderer.
Despite this, Yes still won by a landslide.

They are lying liars who lied and thankfully the Irish public didn’t buy into their garbage and made their own minds up.

nope wrong fake news. the whole foundation of the no campaign was to show the reality of abortion and to show us all the possibilities it brings whether common or remote. they are truthing truthers who truthed and after that the people made their decisian. but the campaign did not lie but told the truth.

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

nope wrong fake news. the whole foundation of the no campaign was to show the reality of abortion and to show us all the possibilities it brings whether common or remote. they are truthing truthers who truthed and after that the people made their decisian. but the campaign did not lie but told the truth.

Feel free to post supporting evidence for all those claims you made that were in no way lies at all

unfortunately

aloyisious wrote: »

Re the Donegal vote result, it'd be interesting to figure out if it was a part of the supposed rural/urban divide on the voting or if it was because of it's historical "Ulster" link, given how the "north" aseem's to be the largest part of Ireland with a bias against abortion being made legal.

I believe Donegal the geographic county voted yes, but part of the constituency was cut off. But the reason it was more No is definately due to the lack of young people. I am from Donegal and live in Dublin I went home to vote but the number of my hometown friends that live abroad and hence cannot vote is ridiculous. I have a hard time naming people I went to school with who is still in the town and its one of the bigger towns.

end of the road

uptherebels wrote: »

Feel free to post supporting evidence for all those claims you made that were in no way lies at all

what claims?

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

what claims?

The ones you were banned for not supporting

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

FWIW I don't attach any importance to Harris's proposed legislation, because its not what we were voting on. People voted to give all future govts. a blank cheque on abortion, and that's what the current govt. have now.

OK. I'll take it as read that you aren't interested in giving a direct short one-line answer to a simple lead-nowhere-else question.

How you can claim in the same paragraph that you don't attach any importance to Simon Harris's proposed legislation, [which is purely about how and in what circumstances abortion can be legalized] AND that it is not what we were voting on is beyond me. The NO campaign included that proposed legislation as part of what they were campaigning against saying here and elsewhere that it was going to bring in AOD. It seem's like you have forgotten that line.

Claiming that deleting the 8th has nothing at all to do with the ability now given to Simon Harris and the Govt to bring in abortion legislation is rubbish. They had no way of doing so until the vote to delete the 8th was passed. It's a direct and consequentional result of the vote to delete the 8th and YOU know that to be a fact.

I suggest you try peddle your line [I don't attach any importance to Harris's proposed legislation, because its not what we were voting on] to the LoveBoth people or any of the other Vote No groups and see what response you get from them on it. They were certain that deleting the 8th meant legal abortion could be brought in and they fought against the deletion vote tooth and nail on that basis.


I'm done with debating the issue with you after that piece of nonsense from you.

aloyisious

unfortunately wrote: »

I believe Donegal the geographic county voted yes, but part of the constituency was cut off. But the reason it was more No is definately due to the lack of young people. I am from Donegal and live in Dublin I went home to vote but the number of my hometown friends that live abroad and hence cannot vote is ridiculous. I have a hard time naming people I went to school with who is still in the town and its one of the bigger towns.

Yes, I read/heard somewhere after the last constituency change there that Donegal lost voters to another county, and that it may well have included X amount of YES voters as a result. It also mean's that X amount of NO voters were probably transferred as well.

recedite

aloyisious wrote: »

OK. I'll take it as read that you aren't interested in giving a direct short one-line answer to a simple lead-nowhere-else question.

How you can claim in the same paragraph that you don't attach any importance to Simon Harris's proposed legislation, [which is purely about how and in what circumstances abortion can be legalized] AND that it is not what we were voting on is beyond me. The NO campaign included that proposed legislation as part of what they were campaigning against saying here and elsewhere that it was going to bring in AOD. It seem's like you have forgotten that line.

Claiming that deleting the 8th has nothing at all to do with the ability now given to Simon Harris and the Govt to bring in abortion legislation is rubbish. They had no way of doing so until the vote to delete the 8th was passed. It's a direct and consequentional result of the vote to delete the 8th and YOU know that to be a fact.

I suggest you try peddle your line [I don't attach any importance to Harris's proposed legislation, because its not what we were voting on] to the LoveBoth people or any of the other Vote No groups and see what response you get from them on it. They were certain that deleting the 8th meant legal abortion could be brought in and they fought against the deletion vote tooth and nail on that basis.


I'm done with debating the issue with you after that piece of nonsense from you.

The short answer is I'd have voted No to that particular referendum regardless of the draft proposal. I might have voted Yes to a different referendum question, lets say one that specified that the 8th applied from x number of weeks after conception (maybe up to 9 weeks) instead of from implantation as it was before (which is only maybe 1-2 weeks).
The situation now is that any govt. (technically any Dail) can legislate for any kind of abortion, without any limits. We'll just have to wait and see what happens.

AllForIt

SusieBlue wrote: »

That’s absolutely hilarious!

The foundation of the whole No campaign was based on lies, confusion, scaremongering and shock tactics.
The very essence of their position was to exaggerate and misrepresent in order to manipulate people into supporting them.

If one followed the LoveBoth line of thinking, anyone who voted Yes is a baby murderer.
Despite this, Yes still won by a landslide.

They are lying liars who lied and thankfully the Irish public didn’t buy into their garbage and made their own minds up.

There was tactics used on both sides and being someone who was conflicted I am in a position to to see them better than those who had their minds made up before the debate started.

The slogans that got on my nerves was 'women should have a choice', and 'we should trust women'. Fluffy nonsensical emotive arguments that aren't even arguments. Not to mention there was a view that men who don't agree with it took the view because it was all part of the continuing subjugation of women, which isn't true.

AllForIt

recedite wrote: »

The short answer is I'd have voted No to that particular referendum regardless of the draft proposal. I might have voted Yes to a different referendum question, lets say one that specified that the 8th applied from x number of weeks after conception (maybe up to 9 weeks) instead of from implantation as it was before (which is only maybe 1-2 weeks).
The situation now is that any govt. (technically any Dail) can legislate for any kind of abortion, without any limits. We'll just have to wait and see what happens.

I agree totally. I wouldn't have been conflicted in any way whatsoever if the termination period were set lower.

Edit: I'm just wondering if because the termination period is defined in legislation, does that mean the legislation might not necessarily be 12 weeks and even if it is initially could it be changed down the road?

SusieBlue

AllForIt wrote: »

There was tactics used on both sides and being someone who was conflicted I am in a position to to see them better than those who had their minds made up before the debate started.

The slogans that got on my nerves was 'women should have a choice', and 'we should trust women'. Fluffy nonsensical emotive arguments that aren't even arguments. Not to mention there was a view that men who don't agree with it took the view because it was all part of the continuing subjugation of women, which isn't true.

The Yes side never once misrepresented their aim.
They were transparent from the word go.
Their advertising campaign was clear, concise, and wasn’t graphic or hyperbole.
When compared to the No sides ‘license to kill’, ‘save my life, my heart is beating’ favorites, not to mention the disgraceful posters outside the maternity hospitals you might get an idea of what I’m talking about.

You are misrepresenting the slogans - the ‘trust women’ one.. It meant to trust women with their own healthcare, it wasn’t implying we should trust women on every single issue on every single topic. The choice one is pretty clear - I don’t see what’s fluffy about it?

Somegirl

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm offspring from a Donegal U/P family - Devon RC family ne temere union so have kin on both sides of out national christian divide. Despite their differences, a good few are decent folk.

Oh really? What part? I'm from Donegal (who voted yes by the way). And guessing by your response you aren't a huge Father Ted fan.

AllForIt

SusieBlue wrote: »

The Yes side never once misrepresented their aim.
They were transparent from the word go.
Their advertising campaign was clear, concise, and wasn’t graphic or hyperbole.
When compared to the No sides ‘license to kill’, ‘save my life, my heart is beating’ favorites, not to mention the disgraceful posters outside the maternity hospitals you might get an idea of what I’m talking about.

You are misrepresenting the slogans - the ‘trust women’ one.. It meant to trust women with their own healthcare, it wasn’t implying we should trust women on every single issue on every single topic. The choice one is pretty clear - I don’t see what’s fluffy about it?

Of course the Yes side wasn't graphic. Why wasn't it though? If the aborted foetus was noting but a clump of cells then don't you think it would be to the Yes sides advantage to show it as such? I would have thought that would be a powerful argument. And I would agree with it entirely if that is the case.

I don't know what you mean by trust women women with their own healthcare. That's what I mean by fluffy. The 'choice' thing was meaningless to me, it just means that it should be provided for.

end of the road

SusieBlue wrote: »

The Yes side never once misrepresented their aim.
They were transparent from the word go.
Their advertising campaign was clear, concise, and wasn’t graphic or hyperbole.
When compared to the No sides ‘license to kill’, ‘save my life, my heart is beating’ favorites, not to mention the disgraceful posters outside the maternity hospitals you might get an idea of what I’m talking about.

You are misrepresenting the slogans - the ‘trust women’ one.. It meant to trust women with their own healthcare, it wasn’t implying we should trust women on every single issue on every single topic. The choice one is pretty clear - I don’t see what’s fluffy about it?

i would have to disagree with the majority of that. the yes campaign mostly tried to hide from the reality that it wanted unrestricted abortion, using nonsensical slogans and arguments rather then being straight with the people that it wanted abortion on demand.
the trust women slogan for example was nonsense because 99% of people already trust women with their health care, but many do not recognise abortion on demand as health care (it's not if i'm honest) . where caried out for medical reasons and similar it most certainly is health care however. the choice one is also nonsensical given we don't give people the choice to harm or kill others in general. it was soundbites with no substance. the alternative campaigning with facebook pages and youtube was much better to be fair but the main campaign could have been more honest.

SusieBlue

AllForIt wrote: »

Of course the Yes side wasn't graphic. Why wasn't it though? If the aborted foetus was noting but a clump of cells then don't you think it would be to the Yes sides advantage to show it as such? I would have thought that would be a powerful argument. And I would agree with it entirely if that is the case.

I don't know what you mean by trust women women with their own healthcare. That's what I mean by fluffy. The 'choice' thing was meaningless to me, it just means that it should be provided for.

Well they could have countered the No sides posters of bloodied fetuses with the battered bodies/corpses of women who have suffered/died at the hands of the 8th.
That would most certainly have packed a punch, but they didn’t resort to such tactics.
The No side weren’t above it and based their whole campaign on said shock tactics.

The whole point of the Yes side was about a choice for women regarding their own healthcare. That was the very essence of it.
If you think it’s fluffy I don’t know what to say to you.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

i would have to disagree with the majority of that. the yes campaign mostly tried to hide from the reality that it wanted unrestricted abortion, using nonsensical slogans and arguments rather then being straight with the people that it wanted abortion on demand.
the trust women slogan for example was nonsense because 99% of people already trust women with their health care, but many do not recognise abortion on demand as health care (it's not if i'm honest) . where caried out for medical reasons and similar it most certainly is health care however. the choice one is also nonsensical given we don't give people the choice to harm or kill others in general. it was soundbites with no substance. the alternative campaigning with facebook pages and youtube was much better to be fair but the main campaign could have been more honest.

You still didn’t answer the aforementioned question of how the No side didn’t tell lies.

pauldla

end of the road wrote: »

i would have to disagree with the majority of that. the yes campaign mostly tried to hide from the reality that it wanted unrestricted abortion, using nonsensical slogans and arguments rather then being straight with the people that it wanted abortion on demand.
the trust women slogan for example was nonsense because 99% of people already trust women with their health care, but many do not recognise abortion on demand as health care (it's not if i'm honest) . where caried out for medical reasons and similar it most certainly is health care however. the choice one is also nonsensical given we don't give people the choice to harm or kill others in general. it was soundbites with no substance. the alternative campaigning with facebook pages and youtube was much better to be fair but the main campaign could have been more honest.

I got the impression that the Yes campaign wanted the issue moved out of the constitution and into legislation. Can you give examples please of the Yes campaign wanting 'unrestricted abortion'?

As for 'nonsensical slogans', surely 'unrestricted abortion' and 'abortion on demand' are both questionable terms, that veer towards the nonsensical? Perhaps the No campaign should also have realised that if they wanted to use 'Love Both' as a campaign slogan, they should have demonstrated some kind of love? Many of the comments and arguments put forward by No supporters weren't exactly dripping with the milk of human kindness...

(If we are talking slogans, we should remember that it was elements of the No camp who gave us the 'too posh to push' slogan. And then they wonder why they lost?).

end of the road

SusieBlue wrote: »

You still didn’t answer the aforementioned question of how the No side didn’t tell lies.

i did answer it.

pauldla wrote: »

I got the impression that the Yes campaign wanted the issue moved out of the constitution and into legislation. Can you give examples please of the Yes campaign wanting 'unrestricted abortion'?

As for 'nonsensical slogans', surely 'unrestricted abortion' and 'abortion on demand' are both questionable terms, that veer towards the nonsensical? Perhaps the No campaign should also have realised that if they wanted to use 'Love Both' as a campaign slogan, they should have demonstrated some kind of love? Many of the comments and arguments put forward by No supporters weren't exactly dripping with the milk of human kindness...

(If we are talking slogans, we should remember that it was elements of the No camp who gave us the 'too posh to push' slogan. And then they wonder why they lost?).

there were nasty individuals on both sides of the debate. they only represented themselves and not you or me or the majority. the 'too posh to push' slogan has been around for years. i remember hearing that years ago

King Mob

Again, accusing foreigners or planing to abort based on gender. Is that a claim you are OK with?

pauldla

end of the road wrote: »

i did answer it.



there were nasty individuals on both sides of the debate. they only represented themselves and not you or me or the majority. the 'too posh to push' slogan has been around for years. i remember hearing that years ago

Thanks for your reply.

That may be true, perhaps. But just to take the 'too posh to push' slogan, if it is being used by people on the No side, and if it is a reprehensible thing to say, than surely others on the No side should call them out on it? Can we see any examples of that? If not, could their silence be seen as a tacit support of the mindset that allows the use of 'too posh to push'?

Incidentally, you have missed a question I put to you in my earlier reply. I'll repeat it now: Can you give examples please of the Yes campaign wanting 'unrestricted abortion'?

Overheal

Odhinn wrote: »

https://twitter.com/DavQuinn/status/1000733731513085954

Once again Mr Quinn confuses granting freedom to do something with forcing everyone to do something.

Minority means something very different than what he thinks it means.

Overheal

end of the road wrote: »

nope wrong fake news. the whole foundation of the no campaign was to show the reality of abortion and to show us all the possibilities it brings whether common or remote. they are truthing truthers who truthed and after that the people made their decisian. but the campaign did not lie but told the truth.

I laughed real hard at this post. It’s almost like I hadn’t seen a bunch of third trimester abortion graphics being trotted about to oppose the prooosed legislation or claims that a fetus is “fully developed by 12 weeks” or that it could feel pain that early or etc etc

recedite

AllForIt wrote: »

I agree totally. I wouldn't have been conflicted in any way whatsoever if the termination period were set lower.

Edit: I'm just wondering if because the termination period is defined in legislation, does that mean the legislation might not necessarily be 12 weeks and even if it is initially could it be changed down the road?

Its not defined yet in any legislation (all we have is a proposal) but presumably it will be. And yes, any future govt. will have the option to change it to their own version. I'm assuming we will start off with something along the lines of what was proposed, although it might take a while for them to get it organised.

There will be talk now of "giving effect" to the referendum result and "the mandate" from the people. In fact the only direct result and the only direct mandate is that the 8th amendment is is now deleted from our constitution. The unborn have been stripped of all constitutional rights and whatever right to life they will have in future will be entirely at the whim of whatever govt. is in power.
A new "mandate" is created at every election, based on whatever promises politicians have made to get elected. Most people will be fine with that, it is after all the nature of representative democracy. But the constitution sets the limits and the parameters within which the politicians can operate. As far as abortion is concerned, there are none from now on.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

Its not defined yet in any legislation (all we have is a proposal) but presumably it will be. And yes, any future govt. will have the option to change it to their own version. I'm assuming we will start off with something along the lines of what was proposed, although it might take a while for them to get it organised.

There will be talk now of "giving effect" to the referendum result and "the mandate" from the people. In fact the only direct result and the only direct mandate is that the 8th amendment is is now deleted from our constitution. The unborn have been stripped of all constitutional rights and whatever right to life they will have in future will be entirely at the whim of whatever govt. is in power.
A new "mandate" is created at every election, based on whatever promises politicians have made to get elected. Most people will be fine with that, it is after all the nature of representative democracy. But the constitution sets the limits and the parameters within which the politicians can operate. As far as abortion is concerned, there are none from now on.

You mean like it is in every other country in the world?

NuMarvel

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You mean like it is in every other country in the world?

And like it was here up until 1983.

It's funny, I would have thought most No voters were traditionalists and would have welcomed a reversion to the early 80's status quo

blanch152

pauldla wrote: »

I got the impression that the Yes campaign wanted the issue moved out of the constitution and into legislation. Can you give examples please of the Yes campaign wanting 'unrestricted abortion'?

As for 'nonsensical slogans', surely 'unrestricted abortion' and 'abortion on demand' are both questionable terms, that veer towards the nonsensical? Perhaps the No campaign should also have realised that if they wanted to use 'Love Both' as a campaign slogan, they should have demonstrated some kind of love? Many of the comments and arguments put forward by No supporters weren't exactly dripping with the milk of human kindness...

(If we are talking slogans, we should remember that it was elements of the No camp who gave us the 'too posh to push' slogan. And then they wonder why they lost?).

The credibility problem for the Love Both campaign is that they showed zero understanding and zero empathy for women in crisis pregnancies, who had been raped, who had FFA babies on the way or who were suffering mental and physical health issues. Their love was for potential not for reality and was shown up as hypocritical.

end of the road wrote: »

There were nasty individuals on both sides of the debate. they only represented themselves and not you or me or the majority. the 'too posh to push' slogan has been around for years. i remember hearing that years ago

Who were the nasty individuals on the YES side?