Abortion - Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution

JDD

J C wrote: »

Trying to draw artificial lines of 'this far and no further' will probably ultimately fail ... as the inexorable movement in all countries, towards abortion on demand at all stages before birth and euthanasia at all ages after birth is proving.
Canada has abortion on demand without gestational limit ... and Belgium has euthanasia at all ages from birth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada

http://diversityhealthcare.imedpub.com/children-and-euthanasia-belgiums-controversial-new-law.php?aid=3729

How is there an “exorable movement in all countries towards abortion on demand”? Canada never had a time limit on abortions. The UK time limit has not changed since it was legalized in 1967. The US time limit has not been extended since Roe v Wade. Even in Belgium, your example of a liberal country, the time limit of 12 weeks has not changed since abortion was legalized in 1990.

Ireland’s very strict divorce laws have not changed since legalization over 20 years ago.

Why do you think Ireland will be any different to any other European nation?

SusieBlue

J C wrote: »

True ... but there is also the option of adoption. I have reared my own family, at this stage, so I wouldn't personally adopt ... but there are many couples out there who would be very glad to do so.

I am so sick of this nugget of genius being offered up as an alternative.

There is no domestic adoption in Ireland. The most recent statistics available to us (2016) show that just 5 infants were adopted that year.

Between progressions in fertility treatments giving couples who struggle to conceive more options, the average family size reducing each year, and many couples opting not to have kids at all, there is little to no appetite for adoption in this country.

On top of that, married couples cannot give their child up for adoption. And in any case, in order to do so, you have to declare yourself an unfit parent. Meaning you are also surrendering existing older children you have, and any children you may have in the future.

When you also factor in how tedious, expensive, and time consuming adoption is, its no wonder most couples seeking to do so, do it internationally, from countries such as Vietnam and Russia.

In order to stop 4k abortions happening every year, you need to find 4k perspective adoptive parents for those children. Which won't happen, so really, you'd be putting 4k extra children in to foster care, into a system already buckling under the pressure.

Regardless, none of those scenarios are of help to a woman who will not or can not remain pregnant, so its irrelevant.

So where are all these couples you speak of? Please do some actual research before throwing out such ridiculous statements, you are doing your side no favours at all.

Zubeneschamali

SusieBlue wrote: »

Please do some actual research before throwing out such ridiculous statements, you are doing your side no favours at all.

No, no, J C, ignore SusieBlue here, you are doing a great job for repeal!

oscarBravo

Love nor Money wrote: »

*(12 weeks is better than nothing: if only it was enshrined in the constitution with defined exceptions for ffa and serious health of mother I'd happily replace 8th amendment)

The Constitution isn't a goddamn shrine, and it's no place for detailed legislation.

Is it really too much to ask that people stop thinking of it as little more than a way to prevent future governments from enacting policies that the current electorate disapprove of? Because that's not what a constitution is for.

Wildlife Actor

volchitsa wrote: »

How could she be charged with travelling when the travel agent refused to sell her the ticket and instead reported her to the guards? She didn't travel because she was prevented from doing so.

Something which he could not have done if her stated reason had been that she intended to have an abortion.

IOW the right is indeed to travel for an abortion, not for anything provided it is legal in the country of destination.

Ah look now. The Constitutional provision reads "This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel
between the State and another state." it confers no right. It limits the effect of the 8th amendment.

You now accept that Gail O'Rorke was not charged with travelling and the only point you can make is that she would have been charged? Well, how about this: she wouldn't have been charged with travelling. If travelling was a step in effecting the crime it would have been evidence against her. It was not a separate offence.

NuMarvel

Love nor Money wrote: »

*(12 weeks is better than nothing: if only it was enshrined in the constitution with defined exceptions for ffa and serious health of mother I'd happily replace 8th amendment)

This has been raised before in this or other threads, and the long and short of it is that the constitution isn't the place to set out the grounds for abortion. The last 35 years alone should be proof of that, what with the 4 referendums, multiple court cases, and numerous breaches of internationally recognised human rights that the 8th has caused.

The Journal has a good article on the legal advice from the Attorney General back in 1983 here. As you can see, he was emphatically not in favour, and proposed something far more straight forward. Most of his comments can apply just as well to suggestions like yours, especially this (my emphasis added)

The overall reason, which crops up in almost every facet of any attempted solution is that the subject matter of the amendment sough is of such complexity, involves so many matters of medical and scientific, moral and jurisprudential expertise as to be incapable of accurate encapsulation into a simple constitution-type provision.

If you want any kind of change to our abortion law, then a Yes vote is the only viable option. And if you're not in favour of what's proposed to follow a Yes vote, then you are free to campaign and lobby politicians both after the referendum and at every general election afterwards to have it made more restrictive.

volchitsa

Love nor Money wrote: »

Ah look now. The Constitutional provision reads "This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel
between the State and another state." it confers no right. It limits the effect of the 8th amendment.

You now accept that Gail O'Rorke was not charged with travelling and the only point you can make is that she would have been charged? Well, how about this: she wouldn't have been charged with travelling. If travelling was a step in effecting the crime it would have been evidence against her. It was not a separate offence.

I've no idea how you think your version of what happened would prove your claim any better though : an average of 10 women every single day do what Gail O'Rorke was prevented from doing ie, travel abroad for a service which is legal there but illegal in Ireland. The women travelling for an abortion can do so thanks to the 13th. The 13th didn't apply for Gail O'Rorke's purpose, since sne was prevented from travelling.

The only possible conclusion is that the 13th concerns abortion only.

Or maybe you think that it is only assisted suicide which is excluded, rather than only abortion which is allowed?

If do, can it be invoked if parents want to take an Irish born minor to a country where child marriage is legal, have them marry over there and then have the marriage recognized in Ireland?

Wildlife Actor

volchitsa wrote: »

What happens at 10 weeks, or are you just expecting everyone else to accept your personal opinion as legal basis for law?

Well the collective "personal opinion" of the citizens assembly is 12 weeks. What magic happens at 12 weeks? We take the view - and that is all it is, albeit based on the available medical evidence, that the ball of cells has developed to such extent that it is a human. Of course its imperfect, of course it's based on people's opinions. But civilisations must choose their fundamental laws and ultimately it's a matter of the collective "personal opinion."

And @Oscarbravo

Of course its complicated and legislation is better equipped to deal with specifics. However this is a hard hard question, and people are entitled not to leave a lot of leeway to the legislature. How come the promises of politicians have now become so reliable?

As some us senator said, to every difficult human problem there is an answer that is clear, uncomplicated and wrong.

volchitsa

Love nor Money wrote: »

Well the collective "personal opinion" of the citizens assembly is 12 weeks. What magic happens at 12 weeks? We take the view - and that is all it is, albeit based on the available medical evidence, that the ball of cells has developed to such extent that it is a human. Of course its imperfect, of course it's based on people's opinions. But civilisations must choose their fundamental laws and ultimately it's a matter of the collective "personal opinion."

You made a specific claim about 10 weeks, whereas the CA simply picked 12 weeks as a reasonable compromise. Like the age of consent, nobody thinks something magic happens at 16 (or 17 as the case may be) but it seems to provide enough leeway to minimize the risk of harm being done.

At 12 weeks the fetus is nowhere near being viable nor sentient, while the woman has had a reasonable length of time to reach a considered decision without being panicked into it by lack of time.

Also, technically, a first trimester abortion is much simpler and safer for the woman than a later one.

Just some of the reasons to legislate for 12 weeks without necessarily believing that something "magic" happens at that stage of pregancy.

Wildlife Actor

volchitsa wrote: »

I've no idea how you think your version of what happened would prove your claim any better though : an average of 10 women every single day do what Gail O'Rorke was prevented from doing ie, travel abroad for a service which is legal there but illegal in Ireland. The women travelling for an abortion can do so thanks to the 13th. The 13th didn't apply for Gail O'Rorke's purpose, since sne was prevented from travelling.

The only possible conclusion is that the 13th concerns abortion only.

Or maybe you think that it is only assisted suicide which is excluded, rather than only abortion which is allowed?

If do, can it be invoked if parents want to take an Irish born minor to a country where child marriage is legal, have them marry over there and then have the marriage recognized in Ireland?

We're getting further and further away from where this started, which was you accusing another poster of hypocrisy for not wanting to reverse the 13th amendment.

I can't speak for the other poster but, while I agree with you that the logical conclusion of opposing abortion in Ireland is inconsistent with being comfortable with it abroad, I do not think that you can assume that those who oppose fully liberalised abortion think that it's fine abroad. For myself I would have voted against the 13th but I am realistic enough to know that it will not be reversed. Acceptance of that reality is not satisfaction with it.

.......

This post has been deleted.

volchitsa

Love nor Money wrote: »

We're getting further and further away from where this started, which was you accusing another poster of hypocrisy for not wanting to reverse the 13th amendment.

I can't speak for the other poster but, while I agree with you that the logical conclusion of opposing abortion in Ireland is inconsistent with being comfortable with it abroad, I do not think that you can assume that those who oppose fully liberalised abortion think that it's fine abroad. For myself I would have voted against the 13th but I am realistic enough to know that it will not be reversed. Acceptance of that reality is not satisfaction with it.

AFAIAC, just now I am discussing your claim that the 13th is a general right to travel and not a right to travel for abortion. Do you now accept that this cannot possibly be the case, or Gail O'Rorke could have invoked it against the refusal of the travel agent to let her travel, and indeed against the guards for abusive arrest?

The rest of this post is also wrong, BTW - we can't possibly prevent all murders, but we don't decide to ignore them for that reason, still less insert a right to commit some kinds of murder into our constitution.

Wildlife Actor

....... wrote: »

Why?

If its murder, as you seem to think, then why are you not campaigning to get rid of it?

I'm not campaigning to save the 8tg amendment either. Too busy to save all the world...

Wildlife Actor

volchitsa wrote: »

AFAIAC, just now I am discussing your claim that the 13th is a general right to travel and not a right to travel for abortion. Do you now accept that this cannot possibly be the case, or Gail O'Rorke could have invoked it against the refusal of the travel agent to let her travel, and indeed against the guards for abusive arrest?

The rest of this post is also wrong, BTW - we can't possibly prevent all murders, but we don't decide to ignore them for that reason, still less insert a right to commit some kinds of murder into our constitution.

You've mischaracterised what I said. I never said 13th was a general right to travel. Go check my oosts. The right to travel preexisted 1983 (how many times do I have to repeat myself). Along comes the 8th amendment. Questions raised in x case as to whether travel trumped by 8th (prob yes in my view). People voted to give priority to right to travel in abortion cases. It limits the 8th amendment. Doesn't create a new right. Nothing to do with assisted suicide.

The Gail O Rorke case is a red herring in this context.

It's only marginally more hypocritical to allow travel in abortion cases than to refuse to prosecute suspects here for foreign murders. We cannot at a practical level solve all the world's problems.

oscarBravo

Love nor Money wrote: »

Of course its complicated and legislation is better equipped to deal with specifics. However this is a hard hard question, and people are entitled not to leave a lot of leeway to the legislature.

No, people are not entitled to any such thing. I'll repeat: that's not what the Constitution is for.

There are lots of things I'd rather our elected representatives didn't do, but I'm not campaigning to have clauses inserted into the Constitution to prevent them from doing them - not because I trust them, but because that's not what the Constitution is for.

How come the promises of politicians have now become so reliable?

Who said they were reliable? If we had a clause in the Constitution to prevent politicians from passing every law we don't trust them not to pass, the Constitution would be bigger than the statute book.

A Constitution is designed to limit the power of the government, not its policies. I know I'm screaming down a well trying to get that point across to an electorate that doesn't understand the point and wouldn't care if it did, but "enshrining" bad law in the Constitution is orders of magnitude worse than letting a government enact a bad law.

volchitsa

Love nor Money wrote: »

You've mischaracterised what I said. I never said 13th was a general right to travel. Go check my oosts. The right to travel preexisted 1983 (how many times do I have to repeat myself). Along comes the 8th amendment. Questions raised in x case as to whether travel trumped by 8th (prob yes in my view). People voted to give priority to right to travel in abortion cases. It limits the 8th amendment. Doesn't create a new right. Nothing to do with assisted suicide.

The Gail O Rorke case is a red herring in this context.

It's only marginally more hypocritical to allow travel in abortion cases than to refuse to prosecute suspects here for foreign murders. We cannot at a practical level solve all the world's problems.

It's infinitely more hypocritical, because nobody is saying a person living in England who has an abortion in England should later be prosecuted in Ireland.

We have put a clause in our law that effectively allows Irish women to have abortions as long as they have a few quid to pay for it. So we're ok with abortions really. Imagine doing the same thing for FGM or child sex abuse?

Meanwhile, if a woman is miscarrying in Ireland, and her health is being destroyed, we won't intervene because killing a fetus (in Ireland) is worse than leaving the woman infertile.

It's a textbook demonstration of hypocrisy.

end of the road

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but married couples in Ireland can not have their children adopted, so what in that case?
Women of child bearing age in Ireland also find it very difficult to find a doctor to perform sterilisation in the event that they don't ever want to have children, or don't want to have any more, so is your solution for them celibacy?

the solution is to change those issues so that those who may need to avail of them can do so. someone who wants to be sterilised should be able to have that procedure done.

SusieBlue

We've had 35 years to change those issues. It hasn't happened. I, and most of society, have no intention of waiting another 35 years.

end of the road

SusieBlue wrote: »

We've had 35 years to change those issues. It hasn't happened. I, and most of society, have no intention of waiting another 35 years.

well seeing as people don't seem to be interested in setting up such campaigns, or at least if they are i haven't heard of them, we probably will be waiting another 35 years. abortion on demand certainly won't be making those issues go away.

Triceratops Ballet

it's two strands of the same problem, women not being able to access elective medical treatment they want because their baby making abilities are valued over their desires.

.......

This post has been deleted.

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

well seeing as people don't seem to be interested in setting up such campaigns, or at least if they are i haven't heard of them, we probably will be waiting another 35 years. abortion on demand certainly won't be making those issues go away.

You're the one continually telling us the solution is to address these problems. What campaigns have you or any other No voter started or participated in? What campaigns will you start after the referendum campaign?

Wildlife Actor

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, people are not entitled to any such thing. I'll repeat: that's not what the Constitution is for.

There are lots of things I'd rather our elected representatives didn't do, but I'm not campaigning to have clauses inserted into the Constitution to prevent them from doing them - not because I trust them, but because that's not what the Constitution is for. Who said they were reliable? If we had a clause in the Constitution to prevent politicians from passing every law we don't trust them not to pass, the Constitution would be bigger than the statute book.

A Constitution is designed to limit the power of the government, not its policies. I know I'm screaming down a well trying to get that point across to an electorate that doesn't understand the point and wouldn't care if it did, but "enshrining" bad law in the Constitution is orders of magnitude worse than letting a government enact a bad law.

A constitution is for what a constitution is. The people may choose the level of detail to which it descends. In fact you'll see that on certain mundane issues our constitution is quite detailed. The reason it does not generally do so is its inflexibility. But gun control in America is an example of where the generality of a Constitution can be a curse.

As to power vs policies, the line between the two is not as clear as you suggest. The boundaries of power are a matter of policy. Here, a nice clean boundary on the power to legislate works an injustice from the point of view of those who consider human rights to commence at a date after conception and before birth.

volchitsa

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Only by declaring themselves unfit parents, though, UIAM, so that their other children would likely also be taken from them.

However, it doesnt solve the issue of an unwanted pregnancy. So it is not a solution to an unwanted pregnancy for most women.

Sterilisation is not an option for a woman who may want to have a child later on. We dont have 100% fail safe contraception and until we do we need to accept reality.

We need to deal with reality. Not these silly ill thought out "solutions" that are not solutions at all.

Indeed.

volchitsa

Love nor Money wrote: »

A constitution is for what a constitution is. The people may choose the level of detail to which it descends. In fact you'll see that on certain mundane issues our constitution is quite detailed. The reason it does not generally do so is its inflexibility. But gun control in America is an example of where the generality of a Constitution can be a curse.

As to power vs policies, the line between the two is not as clear as you suggest. The boundaries of power are a matter of policy. Here, a nice clean boundary on the power to legislate works an injustice from the point of view of those who consider human rights to commence at a date after conception and before birth.

IMO the gun control problem in America is a very good example of why calling something a "right" does not mean it should be put in the constitution without being well tested first. There is a problem of "future-proofing" that means that only the most basic rights should be listed, and extrapolating the "right" of the fetus was always very controversial, precisely because it creates a conflict with the rights of women to healthcare.

end of the road

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

it's two strands of the same problem, women not being able to access elective medical treatment they want because their baby making abilities are valued over their desires.

that maybe the opinion of some in relation to sterilisation, and it's not one i'd share, given i believe it should be availible for anyone who wants it.
but i believe for most against abortion it's simply about upholding as much as is practical to do so, the unborn's right to life, and no more.

J C

end of the road wrote: »

that maybe the opinion of some in relation to sterilisation, and it's not one i'd share, given i believe it should be availible for anyone who wants it.
but i believe for most against abortion it's simply about upholding as much as is practical to do so, the unborn's right to life, and no more.

... and that's what the 8th amendment says :-

‘The states acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.’

NuMarvel

J C wrote: »

... and that's what the 8th amendment says :-

‘The states acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.’

And up until 1992, it was practicable to restrict the distribution of information about abortion in other countries, and to issue injunctions preventing women from having abortions overseas.

Triceratops Ballet

J C wrote: »

... and that's what the 8th amendment says :-

‘The states acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.’

yeah and it's an airy fairy statement with no definitive meaning that has resulted in numerous cases of doctors not knowing what the best course of action is and womens healthcare being compromised.
It's a ridiculous piece of text that has resulted in our nation requiring a maternity care system that revolves around a small number of hospitals that are straining under the pressure and failing Irish women every day, some in "small" ways such as inducing labour/performing c-sections to fit the consultant's schedule some in big ways such using the dead body of a mother as an incubator

Zubeneschamali

NuMarvel wrote: »

And up until 1992, it was practicable to restrict the distribution of information about abortion in other countries, and to issue injunctions preventing women from having abortions overseas.

And if it is practicable, the State guarantees to do it. The Attorney general cannot simply say "It was perfectly possible to stop X, but folks didn't like it, so I won't do it again". He was legally obliged to do it again.

And despite ducking its responsibilities for 20 years, the Oireachteas was obliged to pass laws imposing something like the 14 year jail sentences for abortion in Ireland contained in in the POLDPA.

And while the AG might not personally want to prosecute women under that act, if a case (say someone who gets pills off the internet) is reported to the AGs office, they are legally obliged to investigate, prosecute and jail people. Anything less is a failure in the Constitutional duty to defend and vindicate the equal right to life of the unborn.

Don't like the idea? Repeal the 8th. Please don't defend the 8th and then say, when some teenager is up in court facing 14 years in jail, that you never meant that to happen.

NuMarvel

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And if it is practicable, the State guarantees to do it. The Attorney general cannot simply say "It was perfectly possible to stop X, but folks didn't like it, so I won't do it again". He was legally obliged to do it again.

And despite ducking its responsibilities for 20 years, the Oireachteas was obliged to pass laws imposing something like the 14 year jail sentences for abortion in Ireland contained in in the POLDPA.

And while the AG might not personally want to prosecute women under that act, if a case (say someone who gets pills off the internet) is reported to the AGs office, they are legally obliged to investigate, prosecute and jail people. Anything less is a failure in the Constitutional duty to defend and vindicate the equal right to life of the unborn.

Don't like the idea? Repeal the 8th. Please don't defend the 8th and then say, when some teenager is up in court facing 14 years in jail, that you never meant that to happen.

It's staggering to see a number of No supporters, including TDs and Senators, saying they don't want to criminalise women, when as you've rightly pointed out, the 8th requires it. I honestly can't decide is it genuine ignorance of how the law works or wilful duplicity to hide the consequences of a harsh law.

Sappy404

Does anyone know if it's possible to vote from another polling station? We're away on holiday in Wexford that week and we're looking at a ~€70 outlay for changing the arrangements. Coming back to Dublin for the day and going back down isn't really an option as we're taking the train.

NuMarvel

Sappy404 wrote: »

Does anyone know if it's possible to vote from another polling station? We're away on holiday in Wexford that week and we're looking at a ~€70 outlay for changing the arrangements. Coming back to Dublin for the day and going back down isn't really an option as we're taking the train.

You can only vote at the polling station you're registered at. And changing your polling station to your holiday probably isn't a runner for numerous practical reasons. Anyone around who could give you a lift or anything?

TadhgOMurchu

The Irish Times 21 April 2018:

Ms Nell McCafferty said: “There is no conversation these days about abortion.”

She recalled the 1983 abortion referendum campaign, when “the pro-lifers were going around showing videos and telling us all that babies are being dismembered in the womb through abortion.

“I thought, ‘Nonsense.’”

She said she recently googled what a pregnancy looks like at 12 weeks. “They [the babies] suck their wee thumbs and they have toenails, fingernails and arms and legs.”

She said that in an abortion “they scrape the contents of the womb. The pro-lifers are right. Out come the wee arms and legs, and I thought: ‘Oh God, is this what I am advocating?’”

Hotblack Desiato

Link please? because I remember reading an IT article by her a couple of weeks ago and the last thing I'd have taken away from it was that Nell has become anti-choice in her more senior years.

Mary Kenny has gone from feminist firebrand to full catholic alright.

NuMarvel

TadhgOMurchu wrote: »

The Irish Times 21 April 2018:

Ms Nell McCafferty said: “There is no conversation these days about abortion.”

She recalled the 1983 abortion referendum campaign, when “the pro-lifers were going around showing videos and telling us all that babies are being dismembered in the womb through abortion.

“I thought, ‘Nonsense.’”

She said she recently googled what a pregnancy looks like at 12 weeks. “They [the babies] suck their wee thumbs and they have toenails, fingernails and arms and legs.”

She said that in an abortion “they scrape the contents of the womb. The pro-lifers are right. Out come the wee arms and legs, and I thought: ‘Oh God, is this what I am advocating?’”

And she said this in the paragraphs following that excerpt:

When asked, Ms McCafferty confirmed that she would be voting to repeal the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits abortion, in the forthcoming referendum on the issue.

“I believe that abortion is necessary and [it is necessary] to have it [available] as freely, legally and widely as possible.”

recedite

A certain amount of cognitive dissonance is necessary in order to be both well informed and pro-choice.

That's why they get offended when they see images of foetuses.

On the other hand, pro-lifers find often find it strange that pro-choicers can be offended by an image which reminds them of an unpleasant act, but not be offended by the act itself.

robarmstrong

recedite wrote: »

On the other hand, pro-lifers find often find it strange that pro-choicers can be offended by an image which reminds them of an unpleasant act, but not be offended by the act itself.

I'm assuming it would boil down to pro-choicers finding it strange that pro-lifers feel the need to intentionally lie on posters, misrepresent statistics, have shills come in and say they are of a certain profession only to be outed as fakes.

As a pro-choice voter but pro-life mindset (I'm looking to repeal for reasons to do with my partner which I've outlined in another thread I can PM you the link to if you'd like) I find it odd that the pro-life campaign insists upon lying left right and centre and continue to utilize the scare-mongering tactics.

I feel that they would be better off using the actual facts and representation of statistics along with genuine points of discussion e.g what if a father doesn't want the mother to have an abortion, what are his rights, rather than lie, call people baby murderers and rinse and repeat.

The entire campaign could have been a lot more respectable, reasonable and promoted genuine, intelligent debates and conversations, but one side chose to lie and twist at every turn, which is a shame. A referendum such as this does not deserve that kind of representation, it deserves honesty.

Zubeneschamali

robarmstrong wrote: »

The entire campaign could have been a lot more respectable, reasonable and promoted genuine, intelligent debates and conversations, but one side chose to lie and twist at every turn, which is a shame.

I hope they are soundly beaten and learn a lesson, but they were soundly beaten in the SSM referendum and it doesn't seem to have taught them anything.

recedite

That's a long list of gripes; I wouldn't know where to start with that.

I was just referring to the posters that are commonly to be seen on lamp posts around the place. You know, the ones with an image of a live foetus, in utero. I've heard several people complaining about them.

DickSwiveller

TadhgOMurchu wrote: »

The Irish Times 21 April 2018:

Ms Nell McCafferty said: “There is no conversation these days about abortion.”

She recalled the 1983 abortion referendum campaign, when “the pro-lifers were going around showing videos and telling us all that babies are being dismembered in the womb through abortion.

“I thought, ‘Nonsense.’”

She said she recently googled what a pregnancy looks like at 12 weeks. “They [the babies] suck their wee thumbs and they have toenails, fingernails and arms and legs.”

She said that in an abortion “they scrape the contents of the womb. The pro-lifers are right. Out come the wee arms and legs, and I thought: ‘Oh God, is this what I am advocating?’”

She's right. The pro-choicers can hide behind their euphemistic slogans but this is the reality.

end of the road

robarmstrong wrote: »

I'm assuming it would boil down to pro-choicers finding it strange that pro-lifers feel the need to intentionally lie on posters, misrepresent statistics, have shills come in and say they are of a certain profession only to be outed as fakes.

As a pro-choice voter but pro-life mindset (I'm looking to repeal for reasons to do with my partner which I've outlined in another thread I can PM you the link to if you'd like) I find it odd that the pro-life campaign insists upon lying left right and centre and continue to utilize the scare-mongering tactics.

I feel that they would be better off using the actual facts and representation of statistics along with genuine points of discussion e.g what if a father doesn't want the mother to have an abortion, what are his rights, rather than lie, call people baby murderers and rinse and repeat.

The entire campaign could have been a lot more respectable, reasonable and promoted genuine, intelligent debates and conversations, but one side chose to lie and twist at every turn, which is a shame. A referendum such as this does not deserve that kind of representation, it deserves honesty.

if that happened, then of course you would be correct. regardless of the side. however, apart from the 1 idiot who faked his credentials on the pro-life side, i haven't saw any of the rest of those you mention happening. pro-life have not lied, engaged in scaremongering, nor misrepresented statistics. they have put forward facts, which were backed up, and which checked out. they didn't go down well however, which is sort of understandible, i suppose.
there haven't been shills and bots on boards from either side, from what i can see either. just people who have come late to threads to ask questions (some of the threads are very long so it would take time to answer) yet on one thread have been met in return with hysteria, paranoia, and the rest, the like i have never witnessed during my 7 years on this sight. both campaigns are no more or less respectible then each other, however both have a minority of individuals who have gone way way overboard but who do not represent either campaign.
lots of good, genuine and intelligent debates and conversations have been given from the pro-life side and elements of the pro-choice side across many fora and most of us have discussed civily each other's point of view. unfortunately for some of the pro-choice campaign, they are more interested in throwing out slogans and shouting everyone else down rather then discussing the actual issues.

robarmstrong

end of the road wrote: »

if that happened, then of course you would be correct. regardless of the side. however, apart from the 1 idiot who faked his credentials on the pro-life side, i haven't saw any of the rest of those you mention happening. pro-life have not lied, engaged in scaremongering, nor misrepresented statistics. they have put forward facts, which were backed up, and which checked out. they didn't go down well however, which is sort of understandible, i suppose.
there haven't been shills and bots on boards from either side, from what i can see either. just people who have come late to threads to ask questions (some of the threads are very long so it would take time to answer) yet on one thread have been met in return with hysteria, paranoia, and the rest, the like i have never witnessed during my 7 years on this sight. both campaigns are no more or less respectible then each other, however both have a minority of individuals who have gone way way overboard but who do not represent either campaign.
lots of good, genuine and intelligent debates and conversations have been given from the pro-life side and elements of the pro-choice side across many fora and most of us have discussed civily each other's point of view. unfortunately for some of the pro-choice campaign, they are more interested in throwing out slogans and shouting everyone else down rather then discussing the actual issues.

Sorry, but the pro-life side have not backed up their facts and in turn when these are proven to be wrong or intentionally misrepresented, they very coyly deflect any further incoming questions.

There's nothing wrong with saying "64% of babies are prenatally diagnosed with Down Syndrome, 90% of these babies are aborted" - that is a factual statement and one I would be of agreement with as it is a valid point.

"90% of babies with Down Syndrome are aborted" is a blatant misrepresentation of facts and is scaremongering. You'd be lying if you said it isn't scaremongering.

The 1 in 5 has also been proven extremely misleading as the figure intentionally excludes miscarriages and stillbirths as they know it with leave the figure lower than 1 in 5, again, misleading and scaremongering.

In fact any individual that I've come across and discussed with who acknowledged these "facts" were not as factual as they seemed really opened my eyes and I learned that some individuals who are voting no are doing so not because they don't agree with abortion, but because if the mother decides to have an abortion the father does not want, he is left with little to no recourse, which I think would be a much better leg for the pro-life campaign to stand on.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

if that happened, then of course you would be correct. regardless of the side. however, apart from the 1 idiot who faked his credentials on the pro-life side, i haven't saw any of the rest of those you mention happening. pro-life have not lied, engaged in scaremongering, nor misrepresented statistics. they have put forward facts, which were backed up, and which checked out. they didn't go down well however, which is sort of understandible, i suppose.
there haven't been shills and bots on boards from either side, from what i can see either. just people who have come late to threads to ask questions (some of the threads are very long so it would take time to answer) yet on one thread have been met in return with hysteria, paranoia, and the rest, the like i have never witnessed during my 7 years on this sight. both campaigns are no more or less respectible then each other, however both have a minority of individuals who have gone way way overboard but who do not represent either campaign.
lots of good, genuine and intelligent debates and conversations have been given from the pro-life side and elements of the pro-choice side across many fora and most of us have discussed civily each other's point of view. unfortunately for some of the pro-choice campaign, they are more interested in throwing out slogans and shouting everyone else down rather then discussing the actual issues.

Just off the top of my head, the "1 in 5 pregnancies end in abortion" poster, the "90% of babies with DS are aborted" poster, and the one where they ask would you be ok with murdering a 6 month old baby poster were all proven to be lies with zero factual basis.

end of the road

robarmstrong wrote: »

The 1 in 5 has also been proven extremely misleading as the figure intentionally excludes miscarriages and stillbirths as they know it with leave the figure lower than 1 in 5, again, misleading and scaremongering.

the figure is about abortions, so therefore it is not going to include miscarriages and stillbirths as they are natural occurrences. i don't see anything misleading about that.

robarmstrong wrote: »

In fact any individual that I've come across and discussed with who acknowledged these "facts" were not as factual as they seemed really opened my eyes and I learned that some individuals who are voting no are doing so not because they don't agree with abortion, but because if the mother decides to have an abortion the father does not want, he is left with little to no recourse, which I think would be a much better leg for the pro-life campaign to stand on.

there isn't much if anything that can be done to help the fathers in this situation unfortunately. so the pro-life campaign wouldn't really get anywhere by focusing on that, as much as i agree it is a genuine issue.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Just off the top of my head, the "1 in 5 pregnancies end in abortion" poster, the "90% of babies with DS are aborted" poster, and the one where they ask would you be ok with murdering a 6 month old baby poster were all proven to be lies with zero factual basis.

i don't think the figures were proven to be lies, it was more that some wanted other factors to be included as part of the figures and were unhappy that they weren't included. those factors presumably weren't included because they didn't need to be, as they weren't truely part of the abortion issue.

robarmstrong

end of the road wrote: »

the figure is about abortions, so therefore it is not going to include miscarriages and stillbirths as they are natural occurrences. i don't see anything misleading about that.



there isn't much if anything that can be done to help the fathers in this situation unfortunately. so the pro-life campaign wouldn't really get anywhere by focusing on that, as much as i agree it is a genuine issue.

The figure heavily references pregnancies, you can't say 1 in 5 of all pregnancies in England and Wales end in abortion without including miscarriages and stillbirths, it's hardly "all" pregnancies then, it's misleading.

I think you're wrong on helping the father's, I think there is something that could be done providing it was focused on, but it's nice to see we agree on something, it's a genuine issue and to be honest it's worrying that it has flown under the radar.

Timberrrrrrrr

recedite wrote: »

A certain amount of cognitive dissonance is necessary in order to be both well informed and pro-choice.

That's why they get offended when they see images of foetuses.

On the other hand, pro-lifers find often find it strange that pro-choicers can be offended by an image which reminds them of an unpleasant act, but not be offended by the act itself.

I've seen ehats left of people who have been blown apart by massive explosions, the fetus images don't bother me.

I have a 6 year old son, I wouldn't want him to see either.

Try to understand that, adults can block out the images, young people (you know, the ones the anti-choice crowd claim to be protecting) cannot.

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

A certain amount of cognitive dissonance is necessary in order to be both well informed and pro-choice.

I am HIGHLY informed and VERY much pro choice on this matter. Please regale me with the dissonance I must be suffering from. I certainly have not been made aware of it in the past.

recedite wrote: »

That's why they get offended when they see images of foetuses.

It might be wiser and, lets face it, more honest if we ask the people who are "offended" what they are offended by, rather than have your agenda driven version of it.

I get offended by lies and distortions for example. And the fact many of the images I have seen used against abortion................. over the 25 years I have been aware of the topic........... are not representative of the fetus we normally abort, is an example of this. When over 80% of abortions happen in or before week 10, 92% of abortions happen in or before week 12, and the near totality by week 16........ why do we get images of the fetus on such posters from MUCH later in the process? Like 24 weeks and later? I think you know why. I think we both know why an image of a fetus, especially one to scale, of a 10 week old fetus.... you know one actually representative of the vast majority of abortions...... would not serve their agenda. Quite the opposite I suspect. It would actually serve ours. But seemingly we have more decorum and taste than to use such things.

I also think that as parents it is our job to guide our children out of their innocence and into their adulthood. Where possible we should be let use our knowledge of where our child is at, to make decisions about what they are ready for. Bloody pictures of human innards all over posters in our high streets........ or from youth defence in your face right in them middle of family festivals in Galway town........ or those stands they used to have by Central Bank in Dublin......... bypass that process. If I was campaigning for healthier eating in Ireland I would not be plastering pictures of patients having open heart surgery in front of kids either.

So yea invent any narrative you like about why you want to imagine people are offended by certain imagery. The rest of us can speak for what our ACTUAL issue is with them however.

recedite wrote: »

On the other hand, pro-lifers find often find it strange that pro-choicers can be offended by an image which reminds them of an unpleasant act, but not be offended by the act itself.

What is strange about that exactly? Sex is not an unpleasant act but people would be offended by images of actual sex all over the place. Heart Surgery is unpleasant and no one really wants to be browsing images of them either. So there is nothing at all strange about people not being offended by an act, pleasant OR unpleasant, but not wanting to see imagery of it. Hell most of society seems to be doing what you "find strange" given very few people seek out imagery of how their meat is killed butchered and packaged. Another act people are not offended by, but are offended by imagery of.

Do you often call things that happen most of the time, in most people, in most placed, "strange" then? OR just when it fits a narrative you have going?

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.