The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Zubeneschamali

seamus wrote: »

I assured her that her assessment is in fact correct and the only people who care enough to campaign on the pro-life side are in fact the religious extremists and the insane.

Just to note that although I don't have a religious bone in my body, I do know religious people and I don't think they are all mad, some of them are very nice, and I'm sure their pro-life views are sincere, if not very consistent.

I would not like the thread to devolve into allegations that religious people are all mad.

Annasopra

bertieinexile wrote: »

You seem to believe that there would be no change in the rate of abortions obtained by irish women if the 8th was repealed and we had abortion on demand/request.

The pro choice side seem totally confused - or, to be generous, split- on this.
Half of them think we already have the rate of abortion they have in the uk - it's just hidden and would become visible after abortion was legalised.
Half of them think we have a much lower rate of abortion than they have in the uk and our culture would keep it low after legalisation.

Most of the public believe we have a much lower rate than in the uk - hence the power of the "1 in 5" posters.
Most of the public also believe that if something is legalised the number of people doing it increases.

Not really sure what your point is at all.

We dont have accurate statistics on Irish rates because many in UK conceal their address, many goto other countries and of course the pills are not statistically counted here.

To be honest I think Irish people are moving beyond the last 35 years to a place (for many) that it happens in UK and should happen here safely and legally.

robarmstrong

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Not really sure what your point is at all

Plot twist, there is no point, just random speculation and statements with no proof or facts to back it up. Onus is on him to prove it but my psychic medium powers are informing me that he shall not, unfortunately.

Annasopra

bertieinexile wrote: »

Most of the public also believe that if something is legalised the number of people doing it increases.

I think pro life people deliberately try to encourage this belief. Factually it is completely incorrect and is nothing less than a myth. I would love to see some data on "most of the public" though

Annasopra

robarmstrong wrote: »

Plot twist, there is no point, just random speculation and statements with no proof or facts to back it up. Onus is on him to prove it but my psychic medium powers are informing me that he shall not, unfortunately.

I think its a way of moving his repetitive mantra from 24 weeks to 1 in 5.

bertieinexile

seamus wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote:

The 8th amendment was the first thing I got to vote on when I turned 18, and I voted against it.

My son is now 17, too young to vote this time, but we were in the car yesterday and passed a heap of new No posters and he was asking did anyone actually believe No could win, and I was explaining that yes, it is a real possibility. He thinks the pro-lifers are all a bit mad.

Had exactly the same conversation with my wife last night

For a moment there I thought you were saying your wife was 17.
It's a slippery slope, I tell ya!

robarmstrong

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I think its a way of moving his repetitive mantra from 24 weeks to 1 in 5.

Channeling the inner Floyd Mayweather Jr with all dat dodgin' :cool:

Zubeneschamali

bertieinexile wrote: »

There is so much shouting and roaring on this thread and then, every now and again, you come across a post that actually means something.
Thanks for that mohawk.
Not every hero wears a cape.

Note that mohawk posts that she made a choice. Most women in Ireland get to make that choice, thanks to the 13th amendment and the liberal abortion regime in the UK.

The 8th means some women do not get that choice: women already in hospital, women in prison, women in Direct provision whose visas won't allow travel, women in abusive relationships with a partner who won't allow travel, women with children and no support to mind them while they take a trip, women who simply can't afford it.

Bertie is certainly right about one thing: if all these women got the same choices that people like me take for granted, the abortion rate would go up.

Because right now, we are forcing these women to continue pregnancies which they would terminate given the choice. Voting No means trying to keep forcing those women to stay pregnant.

dudara

I was looking at a lot of new Anti-Choice posters that have gone up around work. I can’t see any names and addresses on the posters, either of the publisher or printer. Does this mean they’re technically illegal? Surely they can’t be making a mistake as simple as that?

seamus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Just to note that although I don't have a religious bone in my body, I do know religious people and I don't think they are all mad, some of them are very nice, and I'm sure their pro-life views are sincere, if not very consistent.

I would not like the thread to devolve into allegations that religious people are all mad.

Indeed I'd like to clarify that my intention was very much to define religious extremists and insane people as two distinct groups.
The latter are a very distinct subgroup of the pro-life side who are more driven to fight repeal on the basis that it's some grand George Soros conspiracy to commit genocide and usher in the rise of the lizard people, rather than being in possession of at least some form of cogent reasoning.

I don't judge the rest of the pro-life side on what that group particularly says, because you don't get to choose which groups align themselves on your side, and you can't silence the embarrassing ones.

Back on-topic, "No" posters have started appearing with a Dr Siobhan Crowley on them, claiming that the foetal heartbeat starts at 22 days.

Considering that no heart exists at 22 days, this is a failure in very basic biology. Which is being put up and published on posters all over the country, with said doctor's name and face attached. I wonder if she approved that quote and if she's happy to have such a medically ignorant quote attached to her, considering that medicine is her livelihood.

Shadowstrife

seamus wrote: »

Had exactly the same conversation with my wife last night

She was worried that she was living in a bubble because it seemed to her that all of the pro-life campaign were "batsh1t crazy". And she wouldn't be a campigner at all or someone to get involved in online conversations. So it's not like she's picking some sources and blocking others.

I assured her that her assessment is in fact correct and the only people who care enough to campaign on the pro-life side are in fact the religious extremists and the insane.

Most Dubs and city moderates/ liberals will wake up on May 26th like David Cameron and Hillary Clinton before them.

The Pro-Life side is nothing to be sneered at. This vote will either be very close, or a win for the No side.

erica74

LOTS of Vote Yes "Vote for Care" posters gone up over night around Waterford and Kilkenny. Put up by togetherforyes.ie. Delighted to see prochoice posters going up around the place at last!

gmisk

dudara wrote: »

I was looking at a lot of new Ant-Choice posters that have gone up around work. I can’t see any names and addresses on the posters, either of the publisher or printer. Does his mean they’re technically illegal? Surely they can’t be making a mistake as simple as that?

According to DCCAE YES

Does the name and address of the printer and publisher have to be printed on the poster?
Yes. Legislation requires that every notice, bill, poster or similar document having reference to a referendum or Dáil, local or European parliament election or distributed for the purpose of furthering the candidature of any candidate at an election must have printed on its face the name and address of the printer and of the publisher thereof. The omission of the name and address of the printer and publisher is an offence.

What is the penalty if the name and address of the printer and publisher is not printed on the poster?
Where a person is guilty of an offence, such person shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €634.87 or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.

Looks like I am going to be reporting a LOT of posters on my way home

baylah17

Shadowstrife wrote: »

Most Dubs and city moderates/ liberals will wake up on May 26th like David Cameron and Hillary Clinton before them.

The Pro-Life side is nothing to be sneered at. This vote will either be very close, or a win for the No side.

I dont care how close the vote is so long as it passes, 50%+1 vote is all we need.

pjohnson

seamus wrote: »

Indeed I'd like to clarify that my intention was very much to define religious extremists and insane people as two distinct groups.
The latter are a very distinct subgroup of the pro-life side who are more driven to fight repeal on the basis that it's some grand George Soros conspiracy to commit genocide and usher in the rise of the lizard people, rather than being in possession of at least some form of cogent reasoning.

I don't judge the rest of the pro-life side on what that group particularly says, because you don't get to choose which groups align themselves on your side, and you can't silence the embarrassing ones.

Back on-topic, "No" posters have started appearing with a Dr Siobhan Crowley on them, claiming that the foetal heartbeat starts at 22 days.

Considering that no heart exists at 22 days, this is a failure in very basic biology. Which is being put up and published on posters all over the country, with said doctor's name and face attached. I wonder if she approved that quote and if she's happy to have such a medically ignorant quote attached to her, considering that medicine is her livelihood.

I would hope a lot a patients are leaving that practice.

Sofiztikated

seamus wrote: »

Indeed I'd like to clarify that my intention was very much to define religious extremists and insane people as two distinct groups.
The latter are a very distinct subgroup of the pro-life side who are more driven to fight repeal on the basis that it's some grand George Soros conspiracy to commit genocide and usher in the rise of the lizard people, rather than being in possession of at least some form of cogent reasoning.

I don't judge the rest of the pro-life side on what that group particularly says, because you don't get to choose which groups align themselves on your side, and you can't silence the embarrassing ones.

Back on-topic, "No" posters have started appearing with a Dr Siobhan Crowley on them, claiming that the foetal heartbeat starts at 22 days.

Considering that no heart exists at 22 days, this is a failure in very basic biology. Which is being put up and published on posters all over the country, with said doctor's name and face attached. I wonder if she approved that quote and if she's happy to have such a medically ignorant quote attached to her, considering that medicine is her livelihood.

She's off by about 20 days or so.

But as she's part of the Medical Alliance for the eighth, and is on record as saying "Abortion is life-ending. It is never life-saving. This proposal is about opening the door to wide-ranging abortion and nothing more,” Dr Siobhán Crowley, a GP, told a press conference in Dublin yesterday" I'd say she's fine with her face and spiel to be on the posters.

Zubeneschamali

baylah17 wrote: »

I dont care how close the vote is so long as it passes, 50%+1 vote is all we need.

The 8th was passed 67-33% back in 1983. I think that even if the referendum is defeated this time, it will be at most a 50-50 squeaker. While this would be a disappointment, it would also be progress, and a signal to folks that the 8th is beatable.

If not this year, soon.

Triceratops Ballet

Yeah I really feel we're talking 40 something to 50 something either way.
I'm nervous but optimistic

Shadowstrife

^ Sorry, but 'soon' isn't good enough. Too much time has passed with this stupid law in place. We have to canvass as much as possible.

pleas advice

seamus wrote: »

Back on-topic, "No" posters have started appearing with a Dr Siobhan Crowley on them, claiming that the foetal heartbeat starts at 22 days.

Considering that no heart exists at 22 days, this is a failure in very basic biology..

22 days from conception, possibly?

Zubeneschamali

Shadowstrife wrote: »

^ Sorry, but 'soon' isn't good enough.

I think it is better to aim high but prepare yourself for the worst. Defeat this time is possible, and not a cause for despair. Change is inevitable in the longer term.

Shadowstrife

pleas advice wrote: »

22 days from conception, possibly?

I find it amusing how they never bring up Identical Twins.

Triceratops Ballet

Zubeneschamali wrote:

I think it is better to aim high but prepare yourself for the worst. Defeat this time is possible, and not a cause for despair. Change is inevitable in the longer term.

I agree, push as hard as possible but if it doesn't pass the campaign resumes the next day.

Annasopra

dudara wrote: »

I was looking at a lot of new Ant-Choice posters that have gone up around work. I can’t see any names and addresses on the posters, either of the publisher or printer. Does his mean they’re technically illegal? Surely they can’t be making a mistake as simple as that?

Yes. It is illegal under the electoral act 1992 and the referendum act 1994

AtomicHorror

Sofiztikated wrote: »

She's off by about 20 days or so.

But as she's part of the Medical Alliance for the eighth, and is on record as saying "Abortion is life-ending. It is never life-saving. This proposal is about opening the door to wide-ranging abortion and nothing more,” Dr Siobhán Crowley, a GP, told a press conference in Dublin yesterday" I'd say she's fine with her face and spiel to be on the posters.

A GP that stands over a medical non-fact should be stuck off.

bertieinexile

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I agree, push as hard as possible but if it doesn't pass the campaign resumes the next day.

Regina? Is that you?

kylith

pleas advice wrote: »

22 days from conception, possibly?

I think there's blood flow, but calling it a heartbeat is a bit of a stretch.

Triceratops Ballet

bertieinexile wrote:

Regina? Is that you?

Why yes, I have a public profile and have decided to post her disguised as a dinosaur to post anonymously! Good spot Cora!

*rolls eyes

AtomicHorror

kylith wrote: »

I think there's blood flow, but calling it a heartbeat is a bit of a stretch.

Actually I think there can be a beat from as early as 21 days, though why that matters, I don't know. You won't pick up anything on an ultrasound until about 6 or 7 weeks though.

gmisk

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Yeah I really feel we're talking 40 something to 50 something either way.
I'm nervous but optimistic

I think you are right I think 55/45 is possible....but we will see.....every vote will be important!
I think it will be a lot closer than the marriage referendum 62/38.