The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

seamus

NuMarvel wrote: »

The results don't match either.

The IMT survey is 75% in favour when you exclude the "no opinion"s

keano_afc

seamus wrote: »

The IMT survey is 75% in favour when you exclude the "no opinion"s

The Journal and the Irish Times have pulled this "survey" from their online versions. Its the very definition of fake news.

pilly

keano_afc wrote: »

The Journal and the Irish Times have pulled this "survey" from their online versions. Its the very definition of fake news.

Except for the fake part?

applehunter

I don't trust our media to report on the referendum fairly.

That poll today is another example of why.

ohnonotgmail

applehunter wrote: »

I don't trust our media to report on the referendum fairly.

That poll today is another example of why.

what in particular was unfair about the poll in the examiner?

NuMarvel

seamus wrote: »

The IMT survey is 75% in favour when you exclude the "no opinion"s

Considering Robert couldn't tell the difference between a poll that had 93 votes and a news report referring to a survey of 383 responses, I don't think he went so far as to calculate the results after excluding don't knows.

keano_afc wrote: »

The Journal and the Irish Times have pulled this "survey" from their online versions. Its the very definition of fake news.

The only thing that's been confirmed as fake so far is Robert's assertion that the result was based on the Twitter poll. It clearly wasn't.

If you have evidence of other problems with the survey, feel free to share.

keano_afc

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what in particular was unfair about the poll in the examiner?

That we're led to believe it was a poll of doctors. It was a poll of people who read a magazine, which could be anybody.

NuMarvel

applehunter wrote: »

I don't trust our media to report on the referendum fairly.

That poll today is another example of why.

Ah sure, you always have Alive! for indepth, impartial, and comprehensive coverage of the important issues of the day

ohnonotgmail

keano_afc wrote: »

That we're led to believe it was a poll of doctors. It was a poll of people who read a magazine, which could be anybody.

who do you think reads the Irish Medical Times?

keano_afc

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

who do you think reads the Irish Medical Times?

Anybody who buys it.

ohnonotgmail

keano_afc wrote: »

Anybody who buys it.

and who do you think buys? Are there a lot of non-medical people buying it? if you have some info please share it?

keano_afc

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and who do you think buys? Are there a lot of non-medical people buying it? if you have some info please share it?

Anybody who wants to buy the magazine can buy it.

What percentage of the respondents were doctors? You seem to know more about it than me.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

keano_afc wrote: »

Anybody who buys it.

In 2016, it had a circulation of fewer than 7k copies. It's a trade publication that sells mostly through subscriptions.

Where would you put the number of non medical professionals who bought that issue and responded to a poll expressly aimed at medical professionals?

The straw grasping going on by pro life posters isn't screaming confidence, I must say.

keano_afc

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

In 2016, it had a circulation of fewer than 7k copies. It's a trade publication that sells mostly through subscriptions.

Where would you put the number of non medical professionals who bought that issue and responded to a poll expressly aimed at medical professionals?

The straw grasping going on by pro life posters isn't screaming confidence, I must say.

What percentage of the respondents were doctors? The headline insinuates that all who replied were medical doctors. You dont dispute that?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

keano_afc wrote: »

What percentage of the respondents were doctors? The headline insinuates that all who replied were medical doctors. You dont dispute that?

It's a very reasonable implication for the reasons I pointed our. Any chance of you answering my question?

ohnonotgmail

keano_afc wrote: »

Anybody who wants to buy the magazine can buy it.

What percentage of the respondents were doctors? You seem to know more about it than me.

The IMT is free for doctors. Others have to pay €300 a year for a subscription. I doubt you can buy it in a shop. Its a specialist trade publication.

applehunter

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what in particular was unfair about the poll in the examiner?

It's not in any way a scientific poll but is presented as such in bold print on the front page of the Examiner

"75% of doctors support 12 week access (to abortion)"

uptherebels

applehunter wrote: »

I don't trust our media to report on the referendum fairly.

That poll today is another example of why.

why ? because they don't agree with you?:rolleyes:

keano_afc

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

It's a very reasonable implication for the reasons I pointed our. Any chance of you answering my question?

I have no idea what the breakdown of respondents was. Nobody does. Thats the point. So to put "75% of doctors", when nobody knows how many doctors took the survey, is misleading.

ohnonotgmail

applehunter wrote: »

It's not in any way a scientific poll but is presented as such in bold print on the front page of the Examiner

"75% of doctors support 12 week access (to abortion)"

So if they changed it to "75% of doctors who responded to a poll support 12 week access (to abortion)" would that be fair? a little bit wordy for a headline. Which is why people usually read the rest of the article. Well except RobertKK of course

ohnonotgmail

keano_afc wrote: »

I have no idea what the breakdown of respondents was. Nobody does. Thats the point. So to put "75% of doctors", when nobody knows how many doctors took the survey, is misleading.

It is a reasonable assumption that the vast majority who responded were doctors.

keano_afc

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is a reasonable assumption that the vast majority who responded were doctors.

Its an unreasonable and inaccurate assumption to present a % figure as fact in a national newspaper, when the reality is not the case.

ohnonotgmail

keano_afc wrote: »

Its an unreasonable and inaccurate assumption to present a % figure as fact in a national newspaper, when the reality is not the case.

unreasonable in your opinion. You dont know that the reality is not the case.

pilly

keano_afc wrote: »

Its an unreasonable and inaccurate assumption to present a % figure as fact in a national newspaper, when the reality is not the case.

You should sue. :rolleyes:

keano_afc

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

unreasonable in your opinion. You dont know that the reality is not the case.

So you think when printing the results of a survey newspapers should pluck figures from their ar$e and cite "reasonable assumption"?

ohnonotgmail

keano_afc wrote: »

So you think when printing the results of a survey newspapers should pluck figures from their ar$e and cite "reasonable assumption"?

The figure wasnt plucked from their arse. It was plucked from the people who responded. The IMT know which of the respondents are doctors because they would be on their free list. So it is a reasonable assumption.

keano_afc

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The figure wasnt plucked from their arse. It was plucked from the people who responded. The IMT know which of the respondents are doctors because they would be on their free list. So it is a reasonable assumption.

I respectfully disagree

NuMarvel

keano_afc wrote: »

Its an unreasonable and inaccurate assumption to present a % figure as fact in a national newspaper, when the reality is not the case.

Oh, the irony of an anti-repealer complaining about inaccurate percentages being cited as fact on a public platform...

.......

This post has been deleted.

keano_afc

NuMarvel wrote: »

Oh, the irony of an anti-repealer complaining about inaccurate percentages being cited as fact on a public platform...

Its got to be up there with pro-Repealers who dispute these percentages when presented by certain groups, being perfectly happy to accept the same thing in a national newspaper.

NuMarvel

keano_afc wrote: »

Its got to be up there with pro-Repealers who dispute these percentages when presented by certain groups, being perfectly happy to accept the same thing in a national newspaper.

There's evidence to back up the problems with the statistics being cited by anti-repealers.

On the other hand, I'm still waiting for you, or anyone else, to cite evidence of the problems with this survey.

.......

This post has been deleted.

keano_afc

NuMarvel wrote: »

There's evidence to back up the problems with the statistics being cited by anti-repealers.

On the other hand, I'm still waiting for you, or anyone else, to cite evidence of the problems with this survey.

The survey says 75% of doctors say X.

This is a lie. Thats the problem.

NuMarvel

keano_afc wrote: »

The survey says 75% of doctors say X.

This is a lie. Thats the problem.

I'm aware of what your problem with it is. I'm asking you to provide evidence that it's wrong.

seamus

keano_afc wrote: »

The survey says 75% of doctors say X.

This is a lie. Thats the problem.

Considering the survey won't even be published until tomorrow, you're making a lot of declarations about what it does and doesn't say.

Where's your evidence that it's a lie?

Candamir

keano_afc wrote: »

The survey says 75% of doctors say X.

This is a lie. Thats the problem.

FFS

The survey asks medical doctors what their opinion is on a subject.
‘Are you a medical doctor’ - yes/no
‘Do you Support 12 week access.....’ - yes/no/don’t know

At some point you have to either believe (a) that people who answer surveys are generally honest, and the survey is therefore an accurate representation of their feelings, or (b)that they’re telling lies and therefore surveys are useless.

If you believe (b) then disregard all survey/poll/non concrete evidence from here on out. Including pretty much everything you see on the various prolife posters.

You can also include everything that comes out of the CSO, as that’s also only a survey. If you keep going down this path, you’ll soon find you can’t really believe anything much at all!

Loafing Oaf

keano_afc wrote: »

The survey says 75% of doctors say X.

This is a lie. Thats the problem.

Because it can only say this definitively if they polled every single doctor in the country? By this standard, pretty much every headline on an opinion poll news story is a lie...

keano_afc

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Because it can only say this definitively if they polled every single doctor in the country? By this standard, pretty much every headline on an opinion poll news story is a lie...

Well no, because opinion polls generally say who they are polling.

Saying 75% of doctors say X is a lie because they have no evidence that only doctors were polled.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Welp, successfully scuppered any discussion of yet more evidence showing that medical professionals consistently support repeal, so job done. If it wasn't that it would have been something else. Phrasing of the question, who asked it, whether it was in fact 61.3% and not 62%, what day of the week it was, if the respondents had been personally victimised by Una Mulally.

It happens every survey.

NuMarvel

keano_afc wrote: »

Well no, because opinion polls generally say who they are polling.

Saying 75% of doctors say X is a lie because they have no evidence that only doctors were polled.

Considering you don't have a clue how the poll was conducted, or what was asked, you are making a massive jump to a conclusion there.

One would also point out the irony of someone using lack of evidence as justification for saying something is a lie when they can't present any evidence to back up their own statements.

Captain Obvious

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

Welp, successfully scuppered any discussion of yet more evidence showing that medical professionals consistently support repeal, so job done. If it wasn't that it would have been something else. Phrasing of the question, who asked it, whether it was in fact 61.3% and not 62%, what day of the week it was, if the respondents had been personally victimised by Una Mulally.

It happens every survey.

That's why they shouldn't really be accepted as evidence of anything, merely an indicator. The unfortunate fact is that it is pretty easy to get any answer you want depending on what question you ask and who you ask. I doubt there is any doubt a majority of doctors would support it though, if even just for the additional medical options it would give people.

Delirium

keano_afc wrote: »

That we're led to believe it was a poll of doctors. It was a poll of people who read a magazine, which could be anybody.

you know many plumbers that subscribe to the Irish Medical Times?

frag420

Delirium wrote: »

you know many plumbers that subscribe to the Irish Medical Times?

Are you referring to pipe surgeons?

erica74

I can't remember if I've contributed to this thread already, I think I may have at different stages.
The conversation about the 8th is everywhere, it's hard to escape it, whether you want to or not.

Throughout my life, I have often thought of how the 8th could have impacted me. My brother sexually abused me for years when I was a child. I often think about if I had ended up pregnant as a result of the abuse. The resulting baby would have been a baby born from incest with who knows what sort of severe health problems and I would have been a seriously damaged person as a result, I am damaged enough as is.

When I think of the 8th, I think of other young girls, young women and women in general who are being abused, by a partner or a family member and the impact the 8th (as it is) may have on them.

I fully support abortion, abortions for every woman who wants one, no matter what the reason. My experience is just one of a thousand reasons why a woman might seek an abortion.
I think back to being 10 years old and not understanding a fucking thing about my life and I am scared for myself. It's a terrifying thought. What if.

Loafing Oaf

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

Welp, successfully scuppered any discussion of yet more evidence showing that medical professionals consistently support repeal, so job done. If it wasn't that it would have been something else. Phrasing of the question, who asked it, whether it was in fact 61.3% and not 62%, what day of the week it was, if the respondents had been personally victimised by Una Mulally.

It happens every survey.

The thing is, it's their own cause their hurting in the long run by deluding themselves about the strength of their position. There seems to be a narrative emerging among the pro-lifers that even if the referendum and the 12-week legislation pass, the proposed abortion regime will never come into effect because there won't be enough GPs to make it work. Nitpicking about the details of this survey's methodology will help to sustain that narrative, but if it turns out to be a false hope...

ohnonotgmail

Delirium wrote: »

you know many plumbers that subscribe to the Irish Medical Times?

Those that want to be able to fit a bathroom while looking through the letterbox?

Water John

Maybe saw doctors (a real term), did the survey too.
My sympathies with you experiences, Erica.

Ash.J.Williams

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Sorry, there is no argument here, at all. If the mother's life is at risk due to her pregnancy an abortion should be performed immediately. There is no debate here. Risking her life for the sake of a fetus is not acceptable, especially when the trauma the woman is going through could kill the fetus anyway.

I'm not talking about a foetus I'm sayin if the birth will kill the mother and the baby can live, then it's not a definite decision

keano_afc

The IMT have deleted the poll. They won't even stand over it themselves. It seems it's only accepted by the good people on boards.ie. Thank goodness for anonymous internet chat forums.

captbarnacles

Do Iona oppose the right to travel?