The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

seamus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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.

While it won't be 67-33 in favour of repeal, I'd be really surprised if it's a squeaker.

Everyone under the age of 53 - that's 70% of the voting population - have never voted on the 8th amendment.

Even if we assume that the remaining 30% of the population over 53 vote 67/33 against (which they won't), the rest of the population would have to vote 57/43 in order for the referendum to fail.
This would be a big downwards swing - the last polls puts it at 68/32. Even the most pessimistic recent poll was 61/39.

Definitely not a reason for complacency - turnout will make all the difference on the day, and any referendum can be defeated by apathy.

55/45 seems like a reasonable margin.

However, I do think the over-53s will surprise us. This is the generation who suffered some of the worst of the treatment from the church/medical cabal that oppressed and butchered pregnant women in the name of forced procreation.
We shouldn't underestimate the anger and experience in this group and their desire to not allow the same pain be inflicted on their children and grandchildren.

NuMarvel

gmisk wrote: »

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.

The last referendum we had about abortion, in 2002 where it was proposed to remove suicide as a ground, was rejected by an incredibly narrow margin. It was 50.4% against and 49.6% in favour, with a difference of 10,500 votes out 1.2 million. And that had some pro life groups campaigning for a No vote because of aspects of the proposed post-referendum law.

Whichever way the vote goes, I think it will be very tight. Not quite as tight as the 2002 referendum, but I can't see it going over 55/45 for either side.

gmisk

https://twitter.com/louiseckenny/status/983069528967008256
Just for the poster earlier who said John McGuirk was playing a blinder.....
absolutely owned by someone who actually knows what she is talking about!

Zubeneschamali

kylith wrote: »

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

There is a heartbeat from 4 weeks when there is barely anything to call a heart. By 12 weeks the heart has chambers. See wikipedia

I am not sure why this is some sort of important issue though.

bertieinexile

seamus wrote: »

However, I do think the over-53s will surprise us. This is the generation who suffered some of the worst of the treatment from the church/medical cabal that oppressed and butchered pregnant women in the name of forced procreation.
We shouldn't underestimate the anger and experience in this group and their desire to not allow the same pain be inflicted on their children and grandchildren.

Would that church/medical cabal that oppressed and butchered pregnant women in the name of forced procreation be the same one responsible for the maternity care that has made the World Health Organisation, for the last 30 years, rank Ireland around the sixth safest place in the world to give birth.

Between 1985 and 2015 Ireland has had between the 5th and 7th lowest Maternal Mortality Rate of 183 countries measured by the WHO.

Or is that another cabal you were thinking of.

dudara

gmisk wrote: »

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

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

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

Who do you report to? I’m assuming it’s the local council or via fixmystreet.ie

baylah17

bertieinexile wrote: »

Would that church/medical cabal that oppressed and butchered pregnant women in the name of forced procreation be the same one responsible for the maternity care that has made the World Health Organisation, for the last 30 years, rank Ireland around the sixth safest place in the world to give birth.

Between 1985 and 2015 Ireland has had between the 5th and 7th lowest Maternal Mortality Rate of 183 countries measured by the WHO.

Or is that another cabal you were thinking of.

Go tell that to Savitas family or the families of all the other victims of the 8th .

Repeal the 8th

gmisk

dudara wrote: »

Who do you report to? I’m assuming it’s the local council or via fixmystreet.ie

That I dont know, I have emailed Dublin City Council, will post back if I get a response.

optogirl

bertieinexile wrote: »

Would that church/medical cabal that oppressed and butchered pregnant women in the name of forced procreation be the same one responsible for the maternity care that has made the World Health Organisation, for the last 30 years, rank Ireland around the sixth safest place in the world to give birth.

Between 1985 and 2015 Ireland has had between the 5th and 7th lowest Maternal Mortality Rate of 183 countries measured by the WHO.

Or is that another cabal you were thinking of.

Women with FFA diagnoses have to TRAVEL TO THE UK to get adequate care. Or are we just going to go on ignoring that?

ohnonotgmail

bertieinexile wrote: »

Would that church/medical cabal that oppressed and butchered pregnant women in the name of forced procreation be the same one responsible for the maternity care that has made the World Health Organisation, for the last 30 years, rank Ireland around the sixth safest place in the world to give birth.

Between 1985 and 2015 Ireland has had between the 5th and 7th lowest Maternal Mortality Rate of 183 countries measured by the WHO.

Or is that another cabal you were thinking of.

So you choose to ignore the women who have died and/or suffered because of the 8th because their numbers are not sufficient to affect statistics? How many woman have to die or suffer for you to care about them?

Zerbini Blewitt

I think if everyone on the pro-life side plus undecideds had to attend 13 Saturdays of expert evidence (not practical to do ofc) - as the 99 individuals in the CA did:- the ref result would be 82% repeal/18% retain.

That is one of the main problems with referenda in general – the (apolitical?) cohort of the population who keep themselves comfortably ignorant of the issue or just stay away from the raw facts & knowledge of experienced professionals.

The way to at least try to deal with this, as suggested by Colm O’Gorman etc is keep talking to pro-life family / friends. It’s the only option really.

I agree also that the over 53’s will swing strongly away from the result in ’83. Most people (alive) who voted for the 8th were absolutely shocked, like everyone else by the appalling consequences that were airily hand-waved away by comic-book spoofers like Binchey at the time.

Trasna1

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

So you choose to ignore the women who have died and/or suffered because of the 8th because their numbers are not sufficient to affect statistics? How many woman have to die or suffer for you to care about them?

The numbers game is not relevant. Someone could easily counter that by asking what percentage of downs syndrome babies are you comfortable with being aborted?

It's not about numbers, even if it just affects one woman, surely that is too many. It's about compassion.

ohnonotgmail

Trasna1 wrote: »

The numbers game is not relevant. Someone could easily counter that by asking what percentage of downs syndrome babies are you comfortable with being aborted?

It's not about numbers, even if it just affects one woman, surely that is too many. It's about compassion.

that is precisely my point.

Edward M

Trasna1 wrote: »

The numbers game is not relevant. Someone could easily counter that by asking what percentage of downs syndrome babies are you comfortable with being aborted?

It's not about numbers, even if it just affects one woman, surely that is too many. It's about compassion.

That's the point as I see it too, numbers of either are irrelevant.
The eighth costs lives, health and wellbeing for god knows how many women, it needs to go, how can you show compassion for one while ignoring the other.
Its possible to lobby politically after repeal for what you see as fair in terms of abortion, just because the legislation that is proposed is there doesent mean it has to be the final solution.
If you care about saving lives, not just babies lives, but women's as well, and their health and wellbeing then repeal has to be your choice!

Madscientist30

bertieinexile wrote: »

swampgas wrote: »

If an abortion has the same moral value anywhere, and abortion is already de facto legal for elective abortions for those with the means to travel, then surely there is no value to restricting where those abortions occur?

If an abortion is going to happen anyway, why do you care where it occurs?

Surely, from a moral perspective, your energy would be better spent campaigning for the UK to ban abortion again?

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.

As evidence posted in this thread previously has shown, and of which you are well aware, it is actually the opposite...when abortion is legalised rates go down. Your whole Australia point is also nonsense, abortion rates in Australia are estimated only given the different collection and reporting mechanisms in the different states. There are no definitive official figures and plenty of issues with the methodology used to calculate the estimates. You will do and say anything to try to prove that women are only dying to abort up to 24 weeks. But the facts dont support you. Because they are not.

You really are coming across as having some serious chip on your shoulder about women's motivations. But that's your problem, no need for the rest of society to have it imposed on them. There is a theory out there that those that feel a strong need to interfere in the lives of others (say, for example in their reproductive choices) are in fact using it as a means to avoid some personal trauma or work they need to do on themselves, or to give themselves a sense of purpose that they have not been able to derive from their own achievements in life. I'm not suggesting that this is the case here, but it's interesting to think about in the context of the urge to control other people that many pro-life people seem obsessed with.

gctest50

AtomicHorror wrote: »

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.

It takes until about 17 weeks to get organised

Until then it's just spontaneous beating - cardiac cells are a bit special, they let sodium in until it reaches the threshold and then they contract

Madscientist30

bertieinexile wrote: »

seamus wrote: »

However, I do think the over-53s will surprise us. This is the generation who suffered some of the worst of the treatment from the church/medical cabal that oppressed and butchered pregnant women in the name of forced procreation.
We shouldn't underestimate the anger and experience in this group and their desire to not allow the same pain be inflicted on their children and grandchildren.

Would that church/medical cabal that oppressed and butchered pregnant women in the name of forced procreation be the same one responsible for the maternity care that has made the World Health Organisation, for the last 30 years, rank Ireland around the sixth safest place in the world to give birth.

Between 1985 and 2015 Ireland has had between the 5th and 7th lowest Maternal Mortality Rate of 183 countries measured by the WHO.

Or is that another cabal you were thinking of.

Yeah the church is great at keeping accurate records on crisis pregnancy and birth. No problems finding all the detaila for the babies buried in Tuam. It's also very easy to keep maternal mortality down by shipping any dangerous cases off to the UK for abortions. If the right to travel was removed then the rate wouldnt be long rising. Funnily enough women not born in Ireland are way overrepresented in the maternal deaths figures. The same group that often dont have the right to go to the UK for terminations.

RobertKK

gmisk wrote: »

https://twitter.com/louiseckenny/status/983069528967008256
Just for the poster earlier who said John McGuirk was playing a blinder.....
absolutely owned by someone who actually knows what she is talking about!

He got her to unblock, so maybe that poster was correct.

Madscientist30

Trasna1 wrote: »

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

So you choose to ignore the women who have died and/or suffered because of the 8th because their numbers are not sufficient to affect statistics? How many woman have to die or suffer for you to care about them?

The numbers game is not relevant. Someone could easily counter that by asking what percentage of downs syndrome babies are you comfortable with being aborted?

It's not about numbers, even if it just affects one woman, surely that is too many. It's about compassion.

How many Downs Syndrome children do you have Trasna?

RobertKK

Madscientist30 wrote: »

How many Downs Syndrome children do you have Trasna?

I grew up with an aunt who had DS and I find it disgusting how society views them, it is not compassion when in some countries with unrestricted abortion where 9 in 10 are aborted. It gives us a view that it is not compassion when abortion gives us a view what a lot of people really think about their lives. The abortion rates for DS just further adds a stigma to what is a valid life.

January

We had this issue in the other thread too... Can we not use the term 'down syndrome babies, down syndrome children, down syndrome people' etc. Don't let the disability define the person. The proper terms are children and people with Down's Syndrome.

robarmstrong

Has anyone else noticed that there has actually been paid pro-life shills/bot accounts? Not saying there is here but the whole discussion has been absolutely rife with individuals paid to spew out pro-life propaganda, why resort to that when the pro-choice side have not?

I've yet to see a pro-choice shill/bot anywhere, across twitter, facebook, different forums I frequent, anywhere.

A realistic fear of losing can drive a side to resort to underhanded tactics one might observe...

Ave Sodalis

RobertKK wrote:

I grew up with an aunt who had DS and I find it disgusting how society views them, it is not compassion when in some countries with unrestricted abortion where 9 in 10 are aborted. It gives us a view that it is not compassion when abortion gives us a view what a lot of people really think about their lives. The abortion rates for DS just further adds a stigma to what is a valid life.

Can we stop this line of argument right here before it becomes a discussion?

DS is not diagnosed before 12 weeks, it is not relevant. We were asked not to use DS. Pro-choice, and for the most part, pro-life have respected that wish. It would be pointless to discuss it here.

applehunter

robarmstrong wrote: »

Has anyone else noticed that there has actually been paid pro-life shills/bot accounts? Not saying there is here but the whole discussion has been absolutely rife with individuals paid to spew out pro-life propaganda, why resort to that when the pro-choice side have not?

I've yet to see a pro-choice shill/bot anywhere, across twitter, facebook, different forums I frequent, anywhere.

A realistic fear of losing can drive a side to resort to underhanded tactics one might observe...

ohnonotgmail

applehunter wrote: »

what is the relevance of repeal_shield? It blocks trolls, it is not a troll itself.

robarmstrong

Yeah not really sure what relevance repeal_shield has, all it does is block trolls rather than troll individuals?

EDIT:

It's also pretty useful as it filters out all the horrifically abusive pro-life individuals and doesn't block those who are reasonable and genuine with their discussions/tweets from engaging with the pro-choice side.

gctest50

robarmstrong wrote: »

Has anyone else noticed that there has actually been paid pro-life shills/bot accounts? Not saying there is here but the whole discussion has been absolutely rife with individuals paid to spew out pro-life propaganda, why resort to that when the pro-choice side have not?

I've yet to see a pro-choice shill/bot anywhere, across twitter, facebook, different forums I frequent, anywhere.

A realistic fear of losing can drive a side to resort to underhanded tactics one might observe...

Like employing John McGuirk

-seems to thrive on the whole " most horrific person to probably ever live "

Who has done things like this :

"Dear members,


................Two years ago a series of anonymous emails were sent from a ‘Concerned Histie’

to a group of approximately twenty people in the Hist, who were very active in the society and known to each other.

These emails were sent from an external computer and from an unknown email address.

These emails made specific allegations of sexual harassment against a member and made threats of further anonymous postings on internet sites utilised by
members, and also demanded resignations. Other allegations were also made.

The CHS is not in a position to comment on specific content, just on the broad details of what happened and as to what the official stance of the CHS is regarding what was printed in a newspaper that is circulated all around
College.

The emails caused serious hurt to the individuals named and damaged the CHS
greatly. The anonymous emails were dealt with internally and privately to
protect the image of the society, but most importantly to protect the
reputation of the individuals slandered in the electronic mail.

A full public offering of the emails would have been disastrous for the accused
individuals and owing to the small group of people that the emails were
circulated to; it was immediately known and quickly established that the
allegations were false.

The source of the emails was eventually traced. Following this, the individual
responsible for the emails sent an open email from his recognised TCD address, apologising for the hurt he had caused.

The CHS was not in a position to initiate disciplinary proceedings, as the Laws
of the Society do not provide for situations outside of our meetings. The CHS
cannot comment on what disciplinary measures the individuals affected by the
emails may have sought from College.


When the identity of the anonymous sender was revealed as John McGuirk he
apologised to both the individuals named, to everyone who received the emails
and finally to the society in general for the damage caused and this final
part, the apology to the society, was accepted by the CHS’

The CHS will make no further comment on the story and cannot comment for the
other individuals concerned.

Yours sincerely

Cathal McCann
Auditor
236th Session
College Historical Society"

PopePalpatine

robarmstrong wrote: »

Yeah not really sure what relevance repeal_shield has, all it does is block trolls rather than troll individuals?

No wonder the shower who hired Cambridge Analytica hate them, they're wasting their money!

RobertKK

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Can we stop this line of argument right here before it becomes a discussion?

DS is not diagnosed before 12 weeks, it is not relevant. We were asked not to use DS. Pro-choice, and for the most part, pro-life have respected that wish. It would be pointless to discuss it here.

Can use mental health grounds after 12 weeks.

RobertKK

I was blocked by repeal shield for no reason. They just want to protect idiots who are snowflakes and to avoid people being possibly influenced. Basically it is a device for weak minded people to use, as adults should be open to all opinions in a referendum, not just those they support.