Outright lies in Campaign

RDM_83 again

oscarBravo wrote: »

"On both sides. On both sides."

If you see lies from the Repeal campaign, feel free to point them out.

Well I would consider this poster a lie or at the very least extremely misleading.

https://i.redd.it/zjoqe3tpops01.png

That's a figure per year they use without stating so , the pro-life figure is also inaccurate but pretty close to the actual figure (working out miscarriage rates though makes it very uncertain though).

PopePalpatine

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

https://irishelectionliterature.com/2017/01/26/leaflet-from-cherish-all-the-children-equally-republican-progressive-pro-life/ looks to be the same slogan from back in 2017.

"Republican. Progressive. Pro-life"

Continuity Iona? The Real SPUC? Republican Youth Defence?

here they are on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Cherishallthechildrenequally/

And Twitter: https://twitter.com/hashtag/cherishallthechildrenequally

Huh, and here was me thinking Peadar Tobin had split from SF.

Zubeneschamali

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Well I would consider this poster a lie or at the very least extremely misleading.

https://i.redd.it/zjoqe3tpops01.png

I would consider that a rather amateurish photoshop job rather than a poster.

RDM_83 again

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I would consider that a rather amateurish photoshop job rather than a poster.

Didn't spot that ! You may be right but it was from a pro-choice choice source saw initially

seamus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I would consider that a rather amateurish photoshop job rather than a poster.

Yeah, I'd seen it posted a few times online, but only now I can see it clearly, it's obviously a photoshop job.

I wonder did someone do a quick mock-up of an idea for a counter-campaign, but then someone else decided to spread it around.

Hotblack Desiato

robp wrote: »

The percent of abortion that are late are high

No they're not. If you are claiming otherwise, please provide figures.

but the numbers involved are no less shocking because so many abortions occur.

Shocking is a matter of opinion, an emotional judgement.

I don't care what the figures are, as long as every woman has a real choice whether to continue with a pregnancy or not. Calling figures 'shocking' is just another way of judging and shaming the women who made the difficult, but right for them, choice to terminate a pregnancy.

The fact is that risk of death from abortion is not zero and increases in late abortions.

The risk of death from giving birth is not zero either.

If those reports are true they are rare aberration.

Once is once too many.

The Michelle Harte was one and hence money was paid out. if it was Irish policy the HSE would not have paid out.

They've paid out to the women who sought terminations for medical reasons and were denied, and that denial most certainly IS policy and is written into our constitution and laws.

Being asked to do a pregnancy test is not the say as being refused treatment and I do not find it all worrying.

Easy for you to say when it doesn't and won't affect you whatsoever.

Hotblack Desiato

"Cherish the children of the nation equally blah blah blah"

The 1916 proclamation writers meant protestants as well as catholics were "children of the nation", they were not referring to literal children.

That doesn't stop the hard of thinking from misinterpreting it ever since.

Anyway the 1916 proclamation is not law, never was law, is not the founding document of this republic (or the free state before it) and to all intents and purposes is irrelevant yet it is fetishised continually.

Supporters of physical force republicanism going on about the sanctity of life, that's a new level of irony...

looksee

The mock poster above is misleading anyway - it does not say 'per 1000 pregnant women' it says 'per 1000 women'. And I am a yes voter.

NuMarvel

looksee wrote: »

The mock poster above is misleading anyway - it does not say 'per 1000 pregnant women' it says 'per 1000 women'. And I am a yes voter.

Per 1000 women is usually how abortion rates are expressed.

gmisk

https://twitter.com/gavinsblog/status/990582509162418176
Seriously shady goings on here with save the 8th side....the website is now gone...

Anne1982h

Just adding to this thread. More lies from the pro life side. Setting up websites called undecided etc that claim to give unbiased facts - again a blatant attempt to lie and misinform voters that goes unchecked. It’s an absolute disgrace. According to 6:1 news last night some of the videos they put up used the RTÉ news logo to make them look like real news. I find it shocking that this is allowed. How many people will cast their vote in this election on the basis of lies and incorrect information from the pro life side

gmisk

Anne1982h wrote: »

Just adding to this thread. More lies from the pro life side. Setting up websites called undecided etc that claim to give unbiased facts - again a blatant attempt to lie and misinform voters that goes unchecked. It’s an absolute disgrace. According to 6:1 news last night some of the videos they put up used the RTÉ news logo to make them look like real news. I find it shocking that this is allowed. How many people will cast their vote in this election on the basis of lies and incorrect information from the pro life side

Thats what I posted about yesterday, it is pretty shocking and more to come I would think.

Red_Wake

Anne1982h wrote: »

Just adding to this thread. More lies from the pro life side. Setting up websites called undecided etc that claim to give unbiased facts - again a blatant attempt to lie and misinform voters that goes unchecked. It’s an absolute disgrace. According to 6:1 news last night some of the videos they put up used the RTÉ news logo to make them look like real news. I find it shocking that this is allowed. How many people will cast their vote in this election on the basis of lies and incorrect information from the pro life side

Link?

gmisk

https://twitter.com/gavinsblog/status/991251646658306048
Yet more dodgy going on from the no side on facebook and online.

Infini

I'll be honest I'll be glad should enough people vote to repeal this ammendment as the constitution was never the correct forum for this complicated and sensitive matter. Not to mention the good bit of satifaction of seeing the prolifers implode because they tried trump tactics and attempting to win with bullshyte and lose.

Said it before but the biggest reason I dislike the prolifers is thst they tend to resort to lies and utter nonsense when confronted with actual facts from credible sources and not excepts from the Daily BS.

Hotblack Desiato

It's not the lies so much, they are to be expected, it's that they go straight to abuse and personal attacks, e.g. petitioning for Prof Boylan to resign because he's pro-choice, or attacking that woman who told her story about how pregnancy seriously threatened her health and calling her a liar on the basis of absolutely nothing at all.

It's just nasty and along with the more graphic posters is repelling undecided voters they desperately need to attract.

gmisk

https://twitter.com/NursepollyRgn/status/986897947202936832
Yet more online shenanigans from the No side

Victor Meldrew

Infini wrote: »

I'll be honest I'll be glad should enough people vote to repeal this ammendment as the constitution was never the correct forum for this complicated and sensitive matter. Not to mention the good bit of satifaction of seeing the prolifers implode because they tried trump tactics and attempting to win with bullshyte and lose.

Said it before but the biggest reason I dislike the prolifers is thst they tend to resort to lies and utter nonsense when confronted with actual facts from credible sources and not excepts from the Daily BS.

I hope you are right, but I wonder if the online bombardment by the No crowd will be the winning move. Ireland is still deeply conservative, and there is no conflation between this and the Marriage equality referendum.

this is like 1983 all over again. utterly toxic and we are not even into the last weeks.

Wait for all the Down Syndrome scaremongering to emerge. Even though this has not been a feature in debate, it will be, and even though you can't test for DS until well before 12 weeks with any degree of reliability.

It is coming .

I hope this passes, A No vote is pure hypocrisy and just makes women risk pills on the internet. Abortion is here, a no vote just makes vulnerable women criminals.

tretorn

Downs syndrome can now be detected by blood tests and diagnosed well before twelve weeks.
If you are whinging about inaccuracies then you must not spread unfactual information yourself.
How many Downs babies are born in countries were abortion is available, very few and that will happen here too, we know this. We can learn from other countries experience, no point in closing our eyes the same way as you want people to close their ears to opinions they dont agree with.
Noone dragged prolife people to meetings, they went because they are prolife, concentrate on spreading your own information. Thats the way fo influence people.
Who are the people behind repeal, I know one is Ailbhe Smyth and the other is Orla something or other. How come they are not interviewed in the papers or on TV.

Fr Tod Umptious

Victor Meldrew wrote: »

I hope you are right, but I wonder if the online bombardment by the No crowd will be the winning move. Ireland is still deeply conservative, and there is no conflation between this and the Marriage equality referendum.

this is like 1983 all over again. utterly toxic and we are not even into the last weeks.

Wait for all the Down Syndrome scaremongering to emerge. Even though this has not been a feature in debate, it will be, and even though you can't test for DS until well before 12 weeks with any degree of reliability.

It is coming .

I hope this passes, A No vote is pure hypocrisy and just makes women risk pills on the internet. Abortion is here, a no vote just makes vulnerable women criminals.

Well the point that will be made by the No side in that regard is that any government will be able to decide the number of weeks to allow abortion, 12 is just a recommendation, so in future abortions could take place after a reliable DS test is done.

People need to remember that they are voting to give the government the power to legislate on abortion.

Hotblack Desiato

I remember 1983, although wasn't old enough to vote. It was completely toxic. Anti-amendment campaigners unable to get meeting venues, being shouted down with chants of 'MURDERERS', being physically attacked by bunches of thugs. Priests putting Vote Yes signs on the altars. It brought out the absolute worst elements of society and gave them free rein to do whatever they wanted to 'save babies'. And yes the thuggery, intimidation and abuse was entirely on the pro-amendment side.

At least these days most of the knuckle-draggers are content to restrict their activities to the online sphere.

oscarBravo

Victor Meldrew wrote: »

Wait for all the Down Syndrome scaremongering to emerge.

Oh look, you only had to wait one post.

I wonder how many of the "won't someone think of the Downs babies" brigade are listening to the adults with Downs who want to be able to access abortion services?

Victor Meldrew

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Well the point that will be made by the No side in that regard is that any government will be able to decide the number of weeks to allow abortion, 12 is just a recommendation, so in future abortions could take place after a reliable DS test is done.

People need to remember that they are voting to give the government the power to legislate on abortion.

I'm staunchly pro choice.

But I think we may be looking at an over-reach on the 26th. I was surprised by blanket repeal as a strategy.

I'd have gone for TFMR and strengthening the right to health as opposed to life of the mother, with provisions for Tablet abortion pills at a stretch up to 8 weeks.

That might be easier to get over the line as scruples would not be crossed. And possibly simple enough to get into the constitution. Even if I think there is no place for it there.

blanch152

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

People need to remember that they are voting to give the government the power to legislate on abortion.

What they need to remember is that that is all they are voting for

Ave Sodalis

Victor Meldrew wrote:

Wait for all the Down Syndrome scaremongering to emerge. Even though this has not been a feature in debate, it will be, and even though you can't test for DS until well before 12 weeks with any degree of reliability.

DS Ireland asked both sides to not use it, and for the most part, that's been respected.

tretorn wrote:

Downs syndrome can now be detected by blood tests and diagnosed well before twelve weeks. If you are whinging about inaccuracies then you must not spread unfactual information yourself.

Downs Syndrome cannot be diagnosed before 12 weeks. They can be screened at 10 weeks but they cannot be diagnosed until later. Even if that was a diagnostic tool, it takes a week or two to get results so it would be too late under the current proposed legislation.

Jolly Red Giant

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

DS Ireland asked both sides to not use it, and for the most part, that's been respected.

Not by the No - it is regularly raised at Saveth8th meetings, on protests, all the time by canvassers and when Yes campaigners are canvassing.

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Downs Syndrome cannot be diagnosed before 12 weeks. They can be screened at 10 weeks but they cannot be diagnosed until later. Even if that was a diagnostic tool, it takes a week or two to get results so it would be too late under the current proposed legislation.

I was out canvassing a couple of nights ago and several No people claimed that every foetus diagnosed with DS will be aborted and they will be aborted up to six months (which the legislation does not allow for - but that never stopped the No campaign).

My response to this is to pose the question - if there was a cure for DS that could be administered or carried out in utero would you object to the administration of this cure? Invariably the answer is no - to which I respond - so you are not against the elimination of DS, you just have a problem with how it is done (this usually brings a torrent of abuse).

So maybe @tretorn can address this - if a cure was available for DS that was administered in utero - would you support its use?

Now - one of the most vindictive acts of the campaign so far is the effort by John McGuirk to get people to make complaints about the nurse who exposed Fake Nurse Noel on twitter (and several other fake medics that Savethe8th attempted to use). McGuirk has been supplying her name and her nursing registration number to facilitate bogus complaints because she has exposed the lies he has promoted.



Then we have this beauty from Cora Sherlock's brother -

looksee

What a charmer, 'rather bulldoze the hospital' - hyperbole much? and self absorbed at that.

What does he mean by 'what we had to do' with the Catholic Adoption Agency?

finbar10

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Downs Syndrome cannot be diagnosed before 12 weeks. They can be screened at 10 weeks but they cannot be diagnosed until later. Even if that was a diagnostic tool, it takes a week or two to get results so it would be too late under the current proposed legislation.

The Harmony test can be taken from week 10. However, the similar Panorama test can be taken from week 9. As an IT article points out here, the results are available within 10 days (have to be sent to the UK or US for processing; though I guess these could potentially be done here if there's enough demand, reducing waiting times). Such tests are quite accurate. However, there is a certain probability of a false positive. The timeline is tight for 12 weeks, but I wouldn't say impossible (and no doubt technology will improve over time).

That potentially leads to a tricky decision at around 11 weeks if the result is positive. Go for the more accurate and more invasive amniocentesis test and know for certain, but perhaps be past 12 weeks by the time of the result, or just have an abortion prior to 12 weeks.

CeilingFly

I just don't get this downs syndrome / disability argument.

I've a relative that is disabled. She gets phenomenal care and love, but the heartache and restrictions on basic living of her parents is phenomenal.

Call me a cold hearted bastard, but if my wife was pregnant with a foetus that was likely to be disabled, then we'd abort it without a thought and try again.

That's REAL life.

If a disability showed up after birth, then we'd accept it and make the best of it. - We will also be looking after this relative once her parents are no longer able to do so (probably in 5 years)

And yes we discussed it in detail because of history in her family and even had details of our preferred UK clinic if the need arose.

That's cold facts and simply part of life. That we have to export such issues is just beyond belief.

gmisk

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

DS Ireland asked both sides to not use it, and for the most part, that's been respected.

I have had 3 pop up ads on different sites with Love Both focused on downs syndrome this morning...classy

Zubeneschamali

looksee wrote: »

What does he mean by 'what we had to do' with the Catholic Adoption Agency?

In the UK, there used to be 12 Catholic adoption agencies. They were hit by equality legislation and told they must consider gay adoptive parents. The Church said No, so they all either had to close or sever their ties with the Church.

I am guessing that Sherlock is suggesting that the Irish hospitals with Catholic connections should threaten to close, but it is an empty threat - the money to run those hospitals comes from the State, and if they "closed" they'd be open the next day without the Catholic ethos, a win for the public and the state.

Seth Brundle

Bloody hell...

A COUNTY councillor has defended claims that the abolition of the Eighth Amendment will lead to sex slavery becoming “normalised”.
Leitrim Independent Councillor, Des Guckian, said in an email to constituents that “Hitler would be very happy with the proposal to abolish the Eighth”.

He also said repeal of the Eighth would lead to girls being forced to have sex “on demand”.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/councillor-sex-slavery-will-be-normalised-if-8th-amendment-is-repealed-36886060.html

For Forks Sake

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Bloody hell...

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/councillor-sex-slavery-will-be-normalised-if-8th-amendment-is-repealed-36886060.html

Godwined his own statement. Impressive in an insane sort of way.

Meanwhile, down Wicklow way.....

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/simon-harris-criticises-obscene-abortion-posters-using-his-photograph-1.3487839

....


Minister for Health Simon Harris has described the graphic abortion-related imagery posted in his Wicklow constituency as “obscene, horrific and unethical”.

The poster campaign features a picture of Mr Harris on what looks like a Fine Gael election poster. Behind the Minister, there is an image of what appears to be an aborted foetus.

The posters, erected in north Co Wicklow ahead of the May 25th vote on the potential repeal of the Eighth Amendment, do not identify who erected them, which is in breach of the State’s electoral laws.

....

GhostyMcGhost

They say there's one in every family but they haven't met the sherlocks

Do they really truly believe the bollox that comes our of their mouths?

Bit cynical

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

So maybe @tretorn can address this - if a cure was available for DS that was administered in utero - would you support its use?

I'm not sure I understand the logic here. Why should a prolifer be against in utero treatments that don't take life?

gctest50

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Godwined his own statement. Impressive in an insane sort of way.
...,....,.

There's more :

“we are certainly not n****rs like in the eyes of the south of the United States " - Des Guckian



http://www.thejournal.ie/des-guckian-n-word-council-meeting-leitrim-3735185-Dec2017/

Here is the same cretin droning on about the Hippocratic oath






Irish doctors don't be having to take it

Hippocrates never said do-no-harm as far as we know

Hippocrates medicine was men-only

NIMAN

CeilingFly wrote: »

I just don't get this downs syndrome / disability argument.

I've a relative that is disabled. She gets phenomenal care and love, but the heartache and restrictions on basic living of her parents is phenomenal.

Call me a cold hearted bastard, but if my wife was pregnant with a foetus that was likely to be disabled, then we'd abort it without a thought and try again.

That's REAL life.

If a disability showed up after birth, then we'd accept it and make the best of it. - We will also be looking after this relative once her parents are no longer able to do so (probably in 5 years)

And yes we discussed it in detail because of history in her family and even had details of our preferred UK clinic if the need arose.

That's cold facts and simply part of life. That we have to export such issues is just beyond belief.

A thought popped into my head earlier today which I remembered after reading your comments.

I was driving past a big sign for a charity fundraiser, can't remember what it was exactly, but something like MS or CF.

There was a discussion on the radio at the same time about the Abortion Referendum, and I thought "if there was a test for every major illness or life limiting condition within 12 weeks, would it not be better to abort the foetus before 12 weeks, rather than continue to give birth to hundreds and thousands of people who are going to have a life of suffering, reliant on drugs to have any sort of a life, and have hundreds of charities constantly raising funds due to an overstretched health service?

Only putting the thought out there.

Macha

The other point about disabilities is that the social services to help care for these people are shocking in Ireland.

My son was born with a condition that needed emergency surg and quite a few hospitalisations in the last two years. We live in another European country and the services here are fantastic.

Last year while home, we ended up in Crumlin in what was I can say was quite a traumatic experience: misdiagnosis so back in the ambul the next day, took them 3 days to figure out what was wrong with him, then they didn't have the medicine until the next day, they let him home too early so back in an ambulance for the third time... I couldn't believe me eyes when I saw the conditions. Tiny rooms where you couldn't get the door shut, couldn't open the window and the place was overheated, walls all glass so zero privacy and light and noise flooding in all hours when what everyone needs is rest, one toilet for one ward and no ensuite (my son was quarantined and clung to me so this is more of a necessity than you think), no call bell for the nurse so I had to stand half in - half out of my son's room and shout down the hall, the nurses kept asking US what his last dose was and how much, what time etc (they are supposed to be at least looking after this as we were completely exhausted) .. I could go on.

And my son has a relatively manageable condition. I can't even imagine what it must be like in Ireland with a child or adult with a severe disability, trying to access basic care services that just don't exist.

NIMAN

Sorry to hear of your experiences Macha, but some would ask you the question, if you knew that your son would have this exact condition, would you have chosen an abortion if you knew inside 12 weeks?

don't answer if you don't want to.

Macha

No of course not and it's nothing like a life threatening condition. But, for example, if I were to get pregnant again and they told me the child would have a severe disability and I were living in Ireland, I physically and mentally would not be able to do it. My mother passed away recently and my partner is not Irish so we wouldn't have any significant family support to rely on.

Where we live now, I would get far more support from the state so I might come to a different conclusion. But the 'Love both' slogan is utter horse**** in today's Ireland. You are pretty much on your own.

NIMAN

Appreciate the reply.

The Bishop Basher

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

My response to this is to pose the question - if there was a cure for DS that could be administered or carried out in utero would you object to the administration of this cure? Invariably the answer is no - to which I respond - so you are not against the elimination of DS, you just have a problem with how it is done (this usually brings a torrent of abuse).

No offence but that has to be one of the most dishonest and flimsy arguments i've heard from either side to date..

You completely move the goal posts by jumping from "cure" to "elimination".

There's a world of a difference between administering a cure which allows for continuation and full enjoyment of life and a "cure" that is achieved by "elimination" or ending that life.

Would you opt for the latter ?

To be honest, as someone who has always been undecided on this issue i've received far more abuse from the repeal side just for being undecided. Maybe that's just because i've met more people in favour but it has got to the point where I don't discuss it honestly with anyone but my wife now. If anyone brings it up i'll just nod and silently "agree".

I can't wait till this thing is over.

gozunda

There is a definite problem with some of the claims on the posters I have seen put up

Anne1982h wrote:

...there’s a poster saying if you are opposed to abortion at six months vote no even though this isn’t what we are voting on. 

Posters like that are misleading on the issues with regard to the referendum and yet are permitted. The Advertising Standards Authority won't rule on these type of posters as they are non-commercial / advertising. What gives?

Ave Sodalis

finbar10 wrote:

The Harmony test can be taken from week 10. However, the similar Panorama test can be taken from week 9. As an IT article points out

It's still a screening test though, and not to be taken as a diagnosis.

seamus

Victor Meldrew wrote: »

I'm staunchly pro choice.

But I think we may be looking at an over-reach on the 26th. I was surprised by blanket repeal as a strategy.

I'd have gone for TFMR and strengthening the right to health as opposed to life of the mother, with provisions for Tablet abortion pills at a stretch up to 8 weeks.

That might be easier to get over the line as scruples would not be crossed. And possibly simple enough to get into the constitution. Even if I think there is no place for it there.

I'm not sure there is over-reach, tbh. Since the legislation came out, opinion polls have been asking if people support the 12-week limit, and that's been holding pretty steady around 60:40 in favour; far steadier than the actual referendum.

It would seem that up to half of the undecideds may not be people asking if they're comfortable with abortion, but whether the proposed amendment goes far enough to safeguard the right to a termination.

I don't think Ireland is quite as conservative as people think it is. The conservatives are just loud and well-funded.

Swanner wrote: »

No offence but that has to be one of the most dishonest and flimsy arguments i've heard from either side to date..

You completely move the goal posts by jumping from "cure" to "elimination".

There's a world of a difference between administering a cure which allows for continuation and full enjoyment of life and a "cure" that is achieved by "elimination" or ending that life.

Would you opt for the latter ?

Well you see, this is actually his point. Down's Syndrome has been dragged into this debate because pro-lifers have claimed that abortion will allow for the "elimination" of DS and claimed that it's a form of eugenics.

So his hypothetical is just asking for a bit of intellectual honesty: If it was possible to eliminate DS in the womb (it's not) and result in healthy babies without Down's Syndrome, would one support that?

If you answer "Yes", then you are not actually concerned about the elimination of Down's, and are just using it as a cynical football.

Hotblack Desiato

The eugenics thing is nonsense, eugenics was about the elimination of heritable traits. Downs is a more or less random mutatation, it cannot be eliminated.

Bit cynical

seamus wrote: »

I'm not sure there is over-reach, tbh. Since the legislation came out, opinion polls have been asking if people support the 12-week limit, and that's been holding pretty steady around 60:40 in favour; far steadier than the actual referendum.

It would seem that up to half of the undecideds may not be people asking if they're comfortable with abortion, but whether the proposed amendment goes far enough to safeguard the right to a termination.

I don't think Ireland is quite as conservative as people think it is. The conservatives are just loud and well-funded.
Well you see, this is actually his point. Down's Syndrome has been dragged into this debate because pro-lifers have claimed that abortion will allow for the "elimination" of DS and claimed that it's a form of eugenics.

So his hypothetical is just asking for a bit of intellectual honesty: If it was possible to eliminate DS in the womb (it's not) and result in healthy babies without Down's Syndrome, would one support that?

If you answer "Yes", then you are not actually concerned about the elimination of Down's, and are just using it as a cynical football.

I'm probably going to regret posting on this thread, but in fairness to the prolifers, I don't think they are concerned about the elimination of Downs Syndrome per se.

pleas advice

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The eugenics thing is nonsense, eugenics was about the elimination of heritable traits. Downs is a more or less random mutatation, it cannot be eliminated.

i know its stretching things, but

eugenics:
set of beliefs and practices that aims at improving the genetic quality of a human population.

The Bishop Basher

seamus wrote: »

If you answer "Yes", then you are not actually concerned about the elimination of Down's, and are just using it as a cynical football.

That's just an assumption on your part though..

If the primary focus of their argument is that they disagree with the eradication of Down Syndrome then yes, I agree, it is a cynical argument in that context.

If their primary focus however is actually about opposition to abortion itself, then it's more cynical to take your view as you're just misrepresenting theirs.

If you have no issue with abortion you will have no issue with the method of eradication but many do and will have an issue and for those that do, conflating some hypothetical magic cure for Down Syndrome with abortion as a means of eradicating it is frankly a little bizarre.

That said, with 90% of pre-diagnosed down syndrome babies being aborted in England and Wales, they're not too far off fully eradicating it. I'm not commenting on that one way or another. Each of those cases was a personal decision for those involved. But it is a fact nevertheless and one that causes me to pause for thought..

seamus

Swanner wrote: »

That said, with 90% of pre-diagnosed down syndrome babies being aborted in England and Wales, they're not too far off fully eradicating it. I'm not commenting on that one way or another. Each of those cases was a personal decision for those involved. But it is a fact nevertheless and one that causes me to pause for thought..

Well, remember that it's actually 57% are aborted, since 36% of babies with Down's are not diagnosed pre-natally. So they are rather far away from "eradicating" it - something which itself is not possible.