The Dilemma of the Undecideds in the abortion referendum

groovyg

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I'm sure Savita's husband is only delighted to see his deceased wife's image on 'yes' posters and booklets and her name plastered all over the Irish media after pleading for people to stop referring to her case

I don’t think Praveen lives in this ****hole country anymore. who would blame him, after he lost his wife and unborn baby he then had to deal with racist bigots

https://www.thejournal.ie/praveen-halappanavar-receiving-abusive-letters-from-campaigners-977966-Jul2013/

Martina1991

antiskeptic wrote: »

Can I take the answering with a question to mean you now agree you don't have to be dying?

No i don't agree.

Substantial risk to me is threat to someones life i.e. strong possibility of death.

You seem to be claiming substantial risk is not threat to life and abortion was allowed in these circumstances.

LeinsterDub

DarkScar wrote: »

Why, do you have some problem conducting an argument using facts and logic in the absence of knowing something about the identity of who you are arguing with?
You're admitting your opinion is more about the person that the argument to be honest.

I don't have an issue with logic and facts but this debate will and always come down to women's rights versus the subjective rights of what may or may not be a human life.

antiskeptic

SusieBlue wrote:

This can be interpretated differently by different doctors, causing confusion about what is and isn’t acceptable.

Don't you suppose the same thing will occur after repeal? Doctors are going to have to decide on risk post 12 weeks and they will interpret differently. Death and serious health risk is still on the cards

It seems to me that the problem is one of clarifying unto unified approach.

lufties

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

lufties wrote: »

Ever read the journal.ie? I used to think it was an actual news site years ago. They publish 4 or 5 yes articles a day. A recent one was about 'toxic masculinity'. The bias and outright agenda promoting is something Stalins Russia would have been proud of.
In fact I'll bet in other rags like the independent, and Irish times its the same crap.

Stay on topic please. This thread is about undecided voters in the abortion referendum.

It is a post about the referendum. Oh I forgot, his site is connected with the journal.ie..and probably other establishment propaganda sites.

Banned.

antiskeptic

Martina1991 wrote: »

No i don't agree.

Substantial risk to me is threat to someones life i.e. strong possibility of death.

Substantial to me means having substance. This risk is the kind of risk which can lead to death. A common cold is not a substantial risk

The guidelines stating the risk need not need be immediate or inevitable gives further clues.

The question is whether anyone has figured out how to interpret in a clinical setting

You seem to be claiming substantial risk is not threat to life and abortion was allowed in these circumstances.

The risk (as opposed to death) not having to be immediate inevitable leads me to suppose the doctor can act way back along the line.

Point is, clarifcation needed as to what is permitted today - before we begin to think of blaming the 8th

SusieBlue

antiskeptic wrote: »

Don't you suppose the same thing will occur after repeal? Doctors are going to have to decide on risk post 12 weeks and they will interpret differently. Death and serious health risk is still on the cards

It seems to me that the problem is one of clarifying unto unified approach.

A woman will be able to decide herself based on the risks after speaking with her doctor, if the referendum passes.
There will be no need for different interpretations because pre 12 weeks she can request an abortion and continue treatment.

antiskeptic

SusieBlue wrote: »

A woman will be able to decide herself based on the risks after speaking with her doctor, if the referendum passes.
There will be no need for different interpretations because pre 12 weeks she can request an abortion and continue treatment.

I was speaking of post 12. Savita was 17 weeks

blanch152

antiskeptic wrote: »

The doctors treating susie dont deal in the complex interplay. The have guidelines and navigation of those guidelines needs to be set out clearly before time.

That didnt happen in Savitas day and there is no reason to suppose anythings different today.

The 8th is innocent until proven guilty and there was a lot guilty in Savita before you got to looking at the 8th.

What you don't understand is that once you repeal the 8th, you can have the exact same legislation in place banning abortion, adjust it slightly for hard cases, and adjust the medical guidelines accordingly.

If the 8th remains in place, you have the risk of some gob****e from Youth Defence or some other pro-life organisation suing the doctor and the hospital on behalf of the unborn (or taking a judicial review, more likely). Why do you want to put those women through that, when removing the 8th and keeping the legislation would solve the problem for you?

blondeonblonde

antiskeptic wrote: »

The HSE report into Savita's death shows us where the problems lay.

It doesnt implicate the 8th. I prefer comment from experts outside the context of a referendum.

HSE Report stated the following:

The investigation found three key causal factors in Savita’s death, including:

that there was inadequate assessment and monitoring of Savita, and that the clinical team failed to devise and follow a plan of care


the failure to offer all management options to Savita


a non-adherence to clinical guidelines related to the prompt and effective management of sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock when it was diagnosed.


Does "the failure to offer all management options to Savita" not include the failure to offer an abortion?? Which was not an option due to the 8th??

blanch152

antiskeptic wrote: »

Don't you suppose the same thing will occur after repeal? Doctors are going to have to decide on risk post 12 weeks and they will interpret differently. Death and serious health risk is still on the cards

It seems to me that the problem is one of clarifying unto unified approach.

The difference after repeal is if doctors are interpreting guidelines too liberally, the Oireachtas can enact laws to restrict them, and doesn't have to wait for some 5-year trip through the courts to the Supreme Court to clarify the law.

You have just absolutely made the case for Repeal.

antiskeptic

blanch152 wrote: »

What you don't understand is that once you repeal the 8th, you can have the exact same legislation in place banning abortion, adjust it slightly for hard cases, and adjust the medical guidelines accordingly.

I dont see that as a likely outcome. Id prefer a constitutional amendment that went x far and no further.

If the 8th remains in place, you have the risk of some gob****e from Youth Defence or some other pro-life organisation suing the doctor and the hospital on behalf of the unborn (or taking a judicial review, more likely). Why do you want to put those women through that, when removing the 8th and keeping the legislation would solve the problem for you?

See above.

antiskeptic

blanch152 wrote: »

The difference after repeal is if doctors are interpreting guidelines too liberally, the Oireachtas can enact laws to restrict them, and doesn't have to wait for some 5-year trip through the courts to the Supreme Court to clarify the law.

You have just absolutely made the case for Repeal.

I was supposing them doing as they are supposedly doing now - interpreting them too tightly. Too liberal now and in the future means potential legal action against them.

We dont know if the law is the problem now. The cases cited occurred pre the law/ guideline change of 2013.

And we dont know if the law now is as good as it could be. It seems we need people to die before we find out.

antiskeptic

blondeonblonde wrote: »

HSE Report stated the following:

The investigation found three key causal factors in Savita’s death, including:

that there was inadequate assessment and monitoring of Savita, and that the clinical team failed to devise and follow a plan of care


the failure to offer all management options to Savita


a non-adherence to clinical guidelines related to the prompt and effective management of sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock when it was diagnosed.


Does "the failure to offer all management options to Savita" not include the failure to offer an abortion?? Which was not an option due to the 8th??

No option is not a management option. I take failure to offer management options to mean they were there but mot offered.

Blaming (or even part blaming) the 8th needs more than some vague reference.

blondeonblonde

antiskeptic wrote: »

I dont see that as a likely outcome. Id prefer a constitutional amendment that went x far and no further.



See above.

It's easy to say you want it x far and no further but what does that actually mean? How far? What circumstances?

As I see it, you are just kicking the can down the road bin search of a form of words that would work for every occasion.

We are where we are precisely because of a constitutional amendment in the shape of the 8th, of which the Attorney general said at the time of its introduction that the wording was imprecise, unclear, and likely to give rise to unanticipated consequences as well as confusion amongst doctors as regards medical treatment.

The way to deal with the issue is through legislation regardless of whether or not you see that as a likely outcome.

AnneFrank

I wonder how many are actually undecided, I was asked my view in work on Friday and said I was voting no, a few others got pretty aggro as seems to be the way with the yes side, so then some said I don't know.But later they approached me individually and told me they were voting no but didn't want the grief.

blondeonblonde

antiskeptic wrote: »

No option is not a management option. I take failure to offer management options to mean they were there but mot offered.

Blaming (or even part blaming) the 8th needs more than some vague reference.

Eh? You referred to the HSE report yourself?? Was that vague??

Regardless it would be worth your while reading Peter Sutherland's comments at the time of the 8ths introduction. To say they were prescient is an understatement. See quote below:



Mr Sutherland further stated, “the wording is ambiguous and unsatisfactory. It will lead inevitably to confusion and uncertainty, not merely amongst the medical profession, to whom it has of course particular relevance, but also amongst lawyers and more specifically the judges who will have to interpret it. Far from providing the protection and certainty which is sought by many of those who have advocated its adoption it will have a contrary effect”.23

antiskeptic

blondeonblonde wrote: »

It's easy to say you want it x far and no further but what does that actually mean? How far? What circumstances?

The proposed legislation is an example of some folk going a certain distance and no further.

Without debating specifics I'd go for difficult cases and not abortion on demand.

My issue is this being waay to far. And there being no problem setting something shy of abortion on demand to the people.

If that can't be so (and I don't believe that) then its a No from me

As I see it, you are just kicking the can down the road bin search of a form of words that would work for every occasion.

.

The proposed form of words 'doesnt work for me' anything like an another form of words 'won't work for me,. There are degrees of 'not working' and the proposed words really don't work for me.You can't please all of the people all the time no matter what.

We are where we are precisely because of a constitutional amendment in the shape of the 8th, of which the Attorney general said at the time of its introduction that the wording was imprecise, unclear, and likely to give rise to unanticipated consequences as well as confusion amongst doctors as regards medical treatment.

Then alter it. I dont believe you have to have abortion on demand in order to avoid confusion. Thats a crock

The way to deal with the issue is through legislation regardless of whether or not you see that as a likely outcome.

Im not sure how you skip past 'likely outcome'. If you hold a extremely negative outcome as likely then you pull up the drawbridge - having balanced actual and claimed current negatives (such the 8th killed anyone) with the likely negative outcomes.

Im not inclined towards wishful thinking.

listermint

AnneFrank wrote: »

I wonder how many are actually undecided, I was asked my view in work on Friday and said I was voting no, a few others got pretty aggro as seems to be the way with the yes side, so then some said I don't know.But later they approached me individually and told me they were voting no but didn't want the grief.

I don't think this happened.

Why

Because you've been super vocal on all the other threads in this matter actually your line of posting is similar, you've been there all week and beyond yet this is the first time you mentioned this incident in work.

Yawn

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's not at all obvious to me.

To be fair, I'm as vehement a Repeal supporter as anyone and I'd have to agree that it is obvious. The media has in general been biased in favour of left-leaning views for several years, to the point of making right leaning folk feel as if they're being more or less discriminated against, which I've been saying for years is going to have a harmful effect on politics.

Ask yourself this, in all honesty - if the equal time and prominence thing was applied to the print media just as much as to the TV media, do you honestly believe that it wouldn't cause a massive shift in how, for instance, the Irish Times presents its content? Breda O'Brien and John Waters, much as I despise both of them and Waters in particular, would never be featured in that first "blob" of content on the website that the likes of Una Mullally is frequently featured in, just to take one example.

It's subtle stuff, but it's pretty obvious if you approach this from a purely journalistic interest and leave your political views out of it. It's very similar to how so many people believe that the mainstream media is anti-male and pro-SJW - they may give both sides the same number of articles (or maybe not, I don't know) but the ones which are featured prominently tend to skew far more towards one side than the other.

Now, I personally would like to believe that this is more about what generates good clickbait than an actual deliberate attempt to manipulate people by presenting a skewed picture on behalf of the editors - I reckon it's far more likely to be a "this will rustle peoples' jimmies, to the front page we go" mentality. But personally, I'd argue that it'd be very difficult to deny that such a distortion does exist in the print media world at the moment.

hatrickpatrick

Noo wrote: »

Please for the love of god don't vote no just because youre fed up with the yes campaign and want to stick it to them. You're a grown man.

You have the choice to vote yes or no. I believe if you are on the fence then you should afford that choice to others and get it passed. Someday your wife may thank you.

I agree 100% with this and I will of course be voting yes. But can I just ask, if one day soon the leftie side does in fact blow an election by pissing people off enough through aggressive and intolerant messaging - something I'd argue has already happened in that I would believe 100% that this contributed hugely to the Trump and Brexit results - at what point would you be willing to condemn the leftie side for its voter-haemmorhaging tactics just as much as you'd condemn those who vote based on one campaign or other having rubbed them the wrong way?

I'm not here to justify it, I'm a leftie myself and I'll be devastated personally if this referendum doesn't pass on Friday, but in politics it's perfectly acceptable to call out bad behaviour by one's own side - indeed, this is something which needs to happen more often. The "vote with us or you're scum, simple as that" attitude by many vocal Repeal folk - and don't deny that these people exist, I live in what some might call a liberal "bubble" and I can absolutely tell you just from scrolling Instagram that they do exist and are numerous in number - can achieve absolutely nothing but an embittering of attitudes and ultimately a losing of elections.

EDIT: Personally I've made a point of telling any No canvassers I've met over the last week that while there's no possibility of changing my mind so they shouldn't waste any of their day chatting to me, I have massive respect for them for going out and campaigning despite the unbelievable and unacceptable hostility they're facing. And I'm not denying that of course there are douchebags on the right wing, there always have and there always will be, but the difference is that douchebags on the left are given a free pass by the mainstream media, and that's just fundamentally wrong.

Let me give you a real world example: Those idiots who bragged on Facebook about vandalising No posters. Why were there never any front page articles about how utterly despicable this behaviour is in a Democratic society? Indeed, as far as I'm concerned, ripping down the opposition's election posters in this manner should be considered a serious crime under the elections act.

Are there any other Yes voters here who are similarly appalled by what some of the more radical folk on our side of the fence have been engaging in - and in mainstream society's total failure to call them out or hold them accountable for it?

blanch152

antiskeptic wrote: »

I dont see that as a likely outcome. Id prefer a constitutional amendment that went x far and no further.


.

That is what people thought they were doing in 1983.

The point is you don't know what the future holds, what it is going to be like, what science can do and what people will be happy with. If you put a different wording in place, you are stuck with it regardless.

blondeonblonde

antiskeptic wrote: »

The proposed legislation is an example of some folk going a certain distance and no further.

Without debating specifics I'd go for difficult cases and not abortion on demand.

My issue is this being waay to far. And there being no problem setting something shy of abortion on demand to the people.

If that can't be so (and I don't believe that) then its a No from me

.

The proposed form of words 'doesnt work for me' anything like an another form of words 'won't work for me,. There are degrees of 'not working' and the proposed words really don't work for me.You can't please all of the people all the time no matter what.



Then alter it. I dont believe you have to have abortion on demand in order to avoid confusion. Thats a crock



Im not sure how you skip past 'likely outcome'. If you hold a extremely negative outcome as likely then you pull up the drawbridge - having balanced actual and claimed current negatives (such the 8th killed anyone) with the likely negative outcomes.

Im not inclined towards wishful thinking.

The point is that an amendment to the constitution is too blunt an instrument in which to insert some crude form of words to satisfy your or anybody's idea of what abortion in this country should be.

Legislation can at least be amended if there are issues with legality or interpretations whereas once in the constitution there is no going back.

Besides all of that, the reality is that there is abortion in this country and availability of abortion to those who have the means to travel to our neighbours in the UK. Whether or not you accept that the 8th has resulted in the death of anybody, it has and does endanger the health and create additional risks to the lives of women in this country by virtue of its existence.

You are talking about altering the constitution to some form of words that will do what exactly? Deal with difficult cases? It's not possible... How can the constitution deal with cases of rape or incest? How could rape be investigated and proved within the timeframe?

If you want to say that there is some form of words that will be able to deal with these types of cases then you will need to "debate the specifics" and not simply trot out the line that you'd go for difficult cases and not abortion on demand.

DarkScar

groovyg wrote: »

I don’t think Praveen lives in this ****hole country anymore. who would blame him, after he lost his wife and unborn baby he then had to deal with racist bigots

Did he leave ****hole Ireland (8 maternal deaths per 100,000 births) for that utopian paradise India (174 maternal deaths per 100,000 births) I wonder?

Infini

In all honestly my own reasons for voting for repeal is that I generally look at the whole subject abstractly and feel that the reason the No side is losing the argument is because all they seem to do is push negative crap like 90% abortions of downs babies, inaccurate informating like 20% of babies in the UK aborted (notwithstanding the fact that its rather unreliable since they're including MISCARRIAGES in that skewing the figure), and generally trying to emotionally sway people with the whole baby thing (not withstanding the actual fact that a baby has to be born to be considered a baby in the first place). Their whole argument is based on fearmongering, emotional armtwisting and hyperbole which I find undermines them entirely. It also somewhat repels me as I generally dislike those who use obvious bull to try and twist people to their cause.

The Yes side on the other hand has not really shown any kind of negativity whatsoever, its all based on respect and compassion and logical well taught out facts. The constitution was NEVER the proper place for such a divisive topic and the ones that wanted it there in the pro-life lobby wanted it only because they wanted to control and shut down any leeway on this topic. They say that its to protect "babies" but I can detect the real motivation just from looking at this whole thing. This isnt England, what happens there isnt what will happen here, there will be no 6 month abortion on demand because the limit is 12 weeks, similar to other districts and mainly because of the horrible factor of rape. The only abortions that would happen close to 6 months arent those based on demand but on essentially failed pregnancies like Fatal Fetal Abnormality or in cases where the mother life is in danger and aborting is the only option which basically has made the fetus dead to rights and in both scenario's its better to just end it quickly rather than drag it on out. On the latter the whole Savita fiasco basically solidified my position on this because it was clear that the 8th was the primary factor in causing medics to hesistate and delay intervention till it was too late and by the time they did septis set in and killed her. I certainly wouldnt want any more of that happening ever again. I certainly wouldnt want my family to suffer in the event something went wrong in this regard.

I generally wont hate anyone who votes NO in this and other's shouldn't either. I generally only reserve my revulsion for the Pro-life lobby itself who put out BS to try to push their agenda. Some people might vote NO because of distrust of the government etc from past experiences but the best way to convince them isnt to get upset but respect them that you disagree explaining your reasoning and if they wont listen its not worth getting worked up over.

DarkScar

Infini wrote: »

and generally trying to emotionally sway people with the whole baby thing

And the yes side generally tries to emotionally sway people with the whole woman thing.
Anybody who doesn't think both sides are playing the emotional card is having a laugh at this stage.

DarkScar

blondeonblonde wrote: »

Does "the failure to offer all management options to Savita" not include the failure to offer an abortion?? Which was not an option due to the 8th??

If it wasn't an option, how was there a failure to offer it to her?

DarkScar

One thing I'd like to ask is if anybody has ever had their vote turned by an election poster? In any election, ever?
They are a total waste of paper and an eyesore.

blondeonblonde

DarkScar wrote: »

If it wasn't an option, how was there a failure to offer it to her?

Irrespective of that, the fact is that the 8th Amendment was a complicating factor insofar as it created a fear amongst the doctors present that their actions in treating Savita could harm the unborn baby that she had requested to be aborted due to the complications.

If she had been granted the abortion that she requested then she would be alive today.

Overheal

antiskeptic wrote: »

No option is not a management option.

I agree. Vote Yes for options

DarkScar

blondeonblonde wrote: »

Irrespective of that, the fact is that the 8th Amendment was a complicating factor insofar as it created a fear amongst the doctors present that their actions in treating Savita could harm the unborn baby that she had requested to be aborted due to the complications.

If she had been granted the abortion that she requested then she would be alive today.

It is equally true that if the doctors had followed existing legal precedent, soon to be written into legislation, they would have performed an abortion. Why didn't the Galway University Hospital management know this?

AllForIt

OP, maybe the media is reflecting the strength of public opinion on the issue.

Personally, it's no wonder the undecided remain undecided because as I said on the AH thread I have heard abysmal arguments on both sides. I for one am not a Yes voter in disguise as an undecider. I simply haven't made up my mind.

antiskeptic

blondeonblonde wrote: »

The point is that an amendment to the constitution is too blunt an instrument in which to insert some crude form of words to satisfy your or anybody's idea of what abortion in this country should be.

The crude form of words allows legislation within a boundary set by the words. A crude form of words to permit legislation arounf ffa's for example.

Thats not possible?

Legislation can at least be amended if there are issues with legality or interpretations whereas once in the constitution there is no going back.

So adjust legislation for ffa's when constitutionally permitted to legislate in that category

Besides all of that, the reality is that there is abortion in this country and availability of abortion to those who have the means to travel to our neighbours in the UK. Whether or not you accept that the 8th has resulted in the death of anybody, it has and does endanger the health and create additional risks to the lives of women in this country by virtue of its existence.

What people chose to do outside the confines of this society regulates itself isnt this societies fault. People have their own agency.

You are talking about altering the constitution to some form of words that will do what exactly? Deal with difficult cases? It's not possible... How can the constitution deal with cases of rape or incest? quoteHow could rape be investigated and proved within the timeframe?

It is managed with suicide ideation, apparently. 77 cases since the legislation under the 8th. It need not be that the legislation is 100% right in every circumstance - the balance is struck between what we desire to hold and what we feel ought to be relinquished. As best we can

If you want to say that there is some form of words that will be able to deal with these types of cases then you will need to "debate the specifics" and not simply trot out the line that you'd go for difficult cases and not abortion on demand.

The above should cover this.

antiskeptic

Infini wrote: »

In all honestly my own reasons for voting for repeal is that I generally look at the whole subject abstractly and feel that the reason the No side is losing the argument is because all they seem to do is push negative crap like 90% abortions of downs babies, inaccurate informating like 20% of babies in the UK aborted (notwithstanding the fact that its rather unreliable since they're including MISCARRIAGES in that skewing the figure), and generally trying to emotionally sway people with the whole baby thing (not withstanding the actual fact that a baby has to be born to be considered a baby in the first place). Their whole argument is based on fearmongering, emotional armtwisting and hyperbole which I find undermines them entirely. It also somewhat repels me as I generally dislike those who use obvious bull to try and twist people to their cause.

The Yes side on the other hand has not really shown any kind of negativity whatsoever, its all based on respect and compassion and logical well taught out facts. The constitution was NEVER the proper place for such a divisive topic and the ones that wanted it there in the pro-life lobby wanted it only because they wanted to control and shut down any leeway on this topic. They say that its to protect "babies" but I can detect the real motivation just from looking at this whole thing. This isnt England, what happens there isnt what will happen here, there will be no 6 month abortion on demand because the limit is 12 weeks, similar to other districts and mainly because of the horrible factor of rape. The only abortions that would happen close to 6 months arent those based on demand but on essentially failed pregnancies like Fatal Fetal Abnormality or in cases where the mother life is in danger and aborting is the only option which basically has made the fetus dead to rights and in both scenario's its better to just end it quickly rather than drag it on out. On the latter the whole Savita fiasco basically solidified my position on this because it was clear that the 8th was the primary factor in causing medics to hesistate and delay intervention till it was too late and by the time they did septis set in and killed her. I certainly wouldnt want any more of that happening ever again. I certainly wouldnt want my family to suffer in the event something went wrong in this regard.

I generally wont hate anyone who votes NO in this and other's shouldn't either. I generally only reserve my revulsion for the Pro-life lobby itself who put out BS to try to push their agenda. Some people might vote NO because of distrust of the government etc from past experiences but the best way to convince them isnt to get upset but respect them that you disagree explaining your reasoning and if they wont listen its not worth getting worked up over.

Fact check. I was under the impression that the 1 in 5 was a misrepresentation because they were EXCLUDING miscarriage.

The correct figure is that for every 4 live births there is one abortion

An inaccurate figure. Still an appalling vista for anyone who values life on the womb.

1 in 5

Infini

DarkScar wrote: »

And the yes side generally tries to emotionally sway people with the whole woman thing.
Anybody who doesn't think both sides are playing the emotional card is having a laugh at this stage.

Wont deny they will try to sway by getting people to consider the woman's condition of course but there is a difference. The Yes side generally ask people to consider the woman's dilemma but the NO side push pictures of babies/fetus in your face and in effect trying to emotionally blackmail and dont even come across as making much of a case for the NO side beyond that.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Fact check. I was under the impression that the 1 in 5 was a misrepresentation because they were EXCLUDING miscarriage.

The correct figure is that for every 4 live births there is one abortion

An inaccurate figure. Still an appalling vista for anyone who values life on the womb.

1 in 5

The journal pointed out this a few weeks ago that the actual figures are obscured due to the miscarriages being recorded there as the same as abortions so this will significantly obcure the actual rate of requested abortions. Another thing to consider which is important is that the UK has the highest teenage birth rate in Europe with only the US and NZ being higher in the western world. This tends to bloat the stats further. The UK is always the comparison but this isnt the UK and Ireland would most likely be closer to France or Germany in abortion should be legalised here which is much lower.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pregnancy_in_the_United_Kingdom

DarkScar wrote: »

One thing I'd like to ask is if anybody has ever had their vote turned by an election poster? In any election, ever?
They are a total waste of paper and an eyesore.

I'd be honest I'd wish they'd just ban the posters they hang on the lamp poles they just clutter up the place, are a general annoyance and really dont do any favours.

antiskeptic

9

Infini wrote: »

Wont deny they will try to sway by getting people to consider the woman's condition of course but there is a difference. The Yes side generally ask people to consider the woman's dilemma but the NO side push pictures of babies/fetus in your face and in effect trying to emotionally blackmail and dont even come across as making much of a case for the NO side beyond that.



The journal pointed out this a few weeks ago that the actual figures are obscured due to the miscarriages being recorded there as the same as abortions so this will significantly obcure the actual rate of requested abortions. Another thing to consider which is important is that the UK has the highest teenage birth rate in Europe with only the US and NZ being higher in the western world. This tends to bloat the stats further. The UK is always the comparison but this isnt the UK and Ireland would most likely be closer to France or Germany in abortion should be legalised here which is much lower.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pregnancy_in_the_United_Kingdom




I'd be honest I'd wish they'd just ban the posters they hang on the lamp poles they just clutter up the place, are a general annoyance and really dont do any favours.

Have you got something more authorative than The Journal. No disrespect but..

I see teen pregnancies in Sweden stand below France (4% vs 6% ) yet they've the highest abortion rate by a country mile.

Fann Linn

antiskeptic wrote: »

9

Have you got something more authorative than The Journal. No disrespect but..

I see teen pregnancies in Sweden stand below France (4% vs 6% ) yet they've the highest abortion rate by a country mile.

Is that the Wall Street Journal, or the other one with all those spelling mistakes?

DarkScar

Infini wrote: »

Wont deny they will try to sway by getting people to consider the woman's condition of course but there is a difference. The Yes side generally ask people to consider the woman's dilemma but the NO side push pictures of babies/fetus in your face and in effect trying to emotionally blackmail and dont even come across as making much of a case for the NO side beyond that.

I know you're trying your damnedest here to illustrate some supposed yawning chasm between the two sides on this, but literally all you're saying is one side push emotional stuff X while the other side push emotional stuff Y.

antiskeptic

DarkScar wrote: »

I know you're trying your damnedest here to illustrate some supposed yawning chasm between the two sides on this, but literally all you're saying is one side push emotional stuff X while the other side push emotional stuff Y.

If ever a true word. Rape, ffa, maternal death. All sacrificed on the altar of abortion on demand.

antiskeptic

Fann Linn wrote: »

Is that the Wall Street Journal, or the other one with all those spelling mistakes?

I'll refer to it as De Juurnil in future to differentiate

☺

Overheal

antiskeptic wrote: »

Fact check. I was under the impression that the 1 in 5 was a misrepresentation because they were EXCLUDING miscarriage.

The correct figure is that for every 4 live births there is one abortion

An inaccurate figure. Still an appalling vista for anyone who values life on the womb.

1 in 5

Source?

spacecoyote

the_pen_turner wrote: »

i would be very interested to see an opinion poll where they had a middle of the road option that allowed for rape and fatal fetal abnoralities and medial need to the mother.

my guess is that a lot of the yes would move to that as well as a lot of no.

im a no voter but would vote yes to the above . i have heard loads of people say the same.
it would be interesting to see how many of either side truly want the full abortion or no abortion. most people would be in the middle

See, I don't get this argument.

If you're in the middle, then the logical decision is to vote YES. Voting NO means nothing changes & your in the middle cases are still blocked.

If you vote YES, you're not voting for so-called abortion on demand, you're voting to remove a piece of legislation & for a discussion to happen on what legislation will replace it. The proposal may be for unrestricted up to 12 weeks, but the key word there is proposal.

So you can vote YES & then campaign, lobby, organise & speak to your local TD & fight for the version you're happy with. We might end up with something youre not entirely happy with, but voting NO means that nothing changes at all.

And by-the-by, I hate the use of the term "Hard cases". If people think that there are "easy cases" of abortion then the NO campaign have done a great job with their branding.

bleary

Savita was placed on less effective antibiotics prescribed for maternity cases rather than the more effective antibiotics that may have headed off her infection. Thst was one of the options denied because of the 8th.
Because she was pregnant although miscarrying and despite her informed wishes to terminate

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/health/savita-should-have-had-stronger-antibiotics-inquest-told-1.1358386%3fmode=amp

Irish women are not allowed to make decisions about their healthcare because doctor's were required to give absolutely equal weighting to the unborn right to life.
I am in favour of right to life, I just really don't think they're equal and this amendment has made women's health poorer over the years in many ways . Ultimately it has been up to the medical team on a daily basis to interpret the 8th rather than the woman primarily , with them to support her.

antiskeptic

spacecoyote wrote: »

See, I don't get this argument.

If you're in the middle, then the logical decision is to vote YES. Voting NO means nothing changes & your in the middle cases are still blocked.

If you vote YES, you're not voting for so-called abortion on demand, you're voting to remove a piece of legislation & for a discussion to happen on what legislation will replace it. The proposal may be for unrestricted up to 12 weeks, but the key word there is proposal.

So you can vote YES & then campaign, lobby, organise & speak to your local TD & fight for the version you're happy with. We might end up with something youre not entirely happy with, but voting NO means that nothing changes at all.

And by-the-by, I hate the use of the term "Hard cases". If people think that there are "easy cases" of abortion then the NO campaign have done a great job with their branding.

You sound like Simon Harris: abortion on the grounds of disability (and when they develop a test for attractiveness , intelligence, hair colour) won't be permitted.

Nobody believes you

GreeBo

Do any of the no voters here actually believe that repealing the 8th will increase the number of Irish women having abortions?

fergus1001

a simple one, the next time there is a case like Savita, she might be called Mary and she might be from down the road

if the referendum is defeated on friday no voters will have caused her death and will have blood on their hands, simple

Fr Tod Umptious

GreeBo wrote: »

Do any of the no voters here actually believe that repealing the 8th will increase the number of Irish women having abortions?

I don't know

But what it will do is allow the government of the day to legislate with regards to abortion, and the government of the day may pass legislation that results in more abortions.

lawred2

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I don't know

But what it will do is allow the government of the day to legislate with regards to abortion, and the government of the day may pass legislation that results in more abortions.

Or less

spacecoyote

antiskeptic wrote: »

You sound like Simon Harris: abortion on the grounds of disability (and when they develop a test for attractiveness , intelligence, hair colour) won't be permitted.

Nobody believes you

I'm not going to get into a muck-throwing spat with you. You can think whatever you want about me & my opinions, I've read enough of your posts on here to know that you're not one of the people who could ever be classed as "undecided"

The reality is, the NO campaign have created a more effective emotion based brand in general. They've played into our countries deeply entrenched catholic views. Yes, we may be a much more liberal country in many ways than in past generations, but even most liberal people still have some degree of a latent catholic guilt built in.

The YES campaign generally put forward the argument of "let people make choices about their own lives". I think its a sensible & rational approach, but it doesn't have the emotional punch of a lot of what the NO campaign put forward.

How about this proposal for the NO campaign:

There is an insistence that there are multiple alternative options available for all people stuck in this situation (adoption, grandparents taking on the baby, etc...). Create a new option...

If you vote NO, you go on a national register.

If any person gets pregnant & says they don't want this baby, because there is no legislation to protect that choice, the people on the register get no choice either.

It becomes a random lottery, if you vote no, your name is drawn & you have to take on any baby born to a parent forced into the decision. There would be no preference given to people who want to adopt. The mother got no choice to carry the child to term, you get no choice but to care for the child once its born.

You can't say no, you don't get additional state support, and if you do say no, or are found to neglect the child, its a criminal offence, punishable with a term equivalent to an illegal abortion.

(see where I'm going here)

spacecoyote

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I don't know

But what it will do is allow the government of the day to legislate with regards to abortion, and the government of the day may pass legislation that results in more abortions.

Would you rather have a properly regulated & legislated system, or continue down the route of sending people abroad, or even worse, having people ordering random pills over the internet when they literally don't know what they are getting sent or are taking & could be doing considerably worse damage to themselves.