The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

nullzero

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

because women are the only gender that can get pregnant. Context is key.

That's again not answering the question I asked. Why is it a good idea to r trust somebody predicated solely on their gender? I don't need a lesson on basic biology.

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

Why would you trust a person predicated solely on their gender?

When men start having babies I’ll trust them too!

gctest50

Digital_Guy wrote: »

........


So less than 3% of pregnancies resulted in an abortion in 1967.

In 2016, that was 20%.

What does that tell you?

(1960s) Hospitals would draft in extra staff on Fridays in A&E departments across the UK to deal with the influx of women being harmed by abortions they sought out on payday

Just her

bennyl10 wrote: »

figure is wildly inaccurate

it counts every abortion in the uk, not including the amount of those that come form other countries such as here,
the figure also factors in all pregnancies, without noting those which have were miscarried, ectopic or stillborn.

the actual figure of abortions vs those born healthily in the uk is closer to 1 in 10/11

Just taking the figures for England and Wales abortions for 2016 from the NHS website is 185,596. The figures for England and Wales live births on the ons website is 696,271. Which gives a figure of 21% abortions to total of 696, 271.

How may I ask did you factor in miscarriages, abortions from other countries, ectopic and stillborn to arrive at 1 in 10/11?

Berserker

Overheal wrote: »

IF YOU TRUST WOMEN VOTE YES!

This kind of one line nonsense annoys me. Would you trust one of the scissor sisters?

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

When men start having babies I’ll trust them too!

The same answer which has been given by everyone else. Are you sharing a hive mind?
Again not answering the question.

nullzero

Berserker wrote: »

This kind of cheap one line nonsense annoys me. Would you trust one of the scissor sisters?

Implicitly, they can get pregnant therefore they are trustworthy.

NuMarvel

bennyl10 wrote: »

the oireachtas will yes

the people will get a say at general election time
just like every other law

Just on a point of order, the people can have a say at any point, not just at election time. I keep using the example of the new maternity hospital, because this was a change that was pure people power. It wasn't at an election, and it wasn't during a vote in the dail, yet there was still a pretty quick u-turn.

And to really labour the point, referendums are the worst tool to determine public policy. They boil everything down to a simple Yes or No answer, so nuance and context gets thrown out the window. Plus, it's politicians, not the people are the ones who decide what question is asked, and when.

nullzero

Try_harder wrote: »

Its the converse of Women cant be trusted with their own bodies, so we must tell them!

Again, look at the question...

PhoenixParker

Berserker wrote: »

This kind of one line nonsense annoys me. Would you trust one of the scissor sisters?

I would trust them to make decisions about their own healthcare.
That’s the trust we’re talking about.

tigger123

nullzero wrote: »

Implicitly, they can get pregnant therefore they are trustworthy.

The Trust Women mantra/slogan is a response to the argument that if we introduce abortion women will be getting them willy nilly.

So, to counter this, the response is Trust Women, ie, Trust Women to make responsible decisions about their own bodies.

Dressing gown

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Back to misrepresenting what I said I see.

If I could copy and paste every time you’ve gone on about the “small”!numbers “tiny” percentages etc I’d just clutter up this thread with pages of quotations.

The fact is the numbers we are talking about here are massive. Abortion affects thousands of Irish women every year. Small percentages of big numbers are still big numbers of people being affected by this. Unless you know someone personally (and i would guess you probably will at some stage in your life) the hard cases are friends and family, real people to all of us. I just don’t think it’s good enough for us to turn our backs on them when the other people that want an abortion are having them anyway. It’s a no brainier for me and I’m sorry if you are struggling with your conscience but my conscience is raging that people don’t care enough about the hard cases. Everyone meets their own maker. Let the other people make their own choices but please choose to help the families that have no choice.

Sofiztikated

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Our health services are poor at the moment. If recent history is anything to go by many abortions here will be botched and poorly carried out. Our public health system is badly stretched as is. Very few of our healthcare professionals are trained in abortion services.

I know this post has probably been buried, but here's my take on it.

I was born with a condition that affects 1 in 50,000 live birthday. The corrective surgery I had was one of the first carried out in Ireland, and at the time was riskier and took longer than open heart surgery. But the medical professionals opted to do it, and it's now routine. You can't hold back on procedures, because you want to wait for people to be trained first. How else do you train?

Secondly, maternity services are trained in it, as the procedure is similar to the ones carried out now, for miscarriages.

Thirdly, surgical abortions are less common, as the majority are in the form of pills.

Digital_Guy

Basically, when abortion wasn't legal in the UK, the abortion rate was probably around a few percent.

Now it's around 20%.

It's not that hard to draw conclusions from that. It became acceptable.

Guy:Incognito

nullzero wrote: »

That's not addressing the question I asked. But the emotive response is duly noted.

The woman ultimately has to go through the procedure.

Why would you need or want a say in the health choices of a woman you don't know (or one you do know that isn't your partner, or in an unfortunate case your underage daughter)

nullzero

PhoenixParker wrote: »

I would trust them to make decisions about their own healthcare.
That’s the trust we’re talking about.

Men have no reproductive rights, if a consenting couple get pregnant and the woman decides motherhood isn't for her is she free to terminate against her partners wishes? Of course because the man has no say at all.

gmisk

No campaign - spend spend spend!!!!

https://twitter.com/LizCarolan/status/999728233162706945?s=19

Guy:Incognito

Digital_Guy wrote: »

Basically, when abortion wasn't legal in the UK, the abortion rate was probably around a few percent.

Now it's around 20%.

It's not that hard to draw conclusions from that. It became acceptable.

When prohibition was in place in America no one drank........

There are no gay people in some African countries..........

nullzero

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The woman ultimately has to go through the procedure.

Why would you need or want a say in the health choices of a woman you don't know (or one you do know that isn't your partner, or in an unfortunate case your underage daughter)

I addressed that above.

Guy:Incognito

nullzero wrote: »

I addressed that above.

No you didn't.

If a woman isn't your partner or underage child, why would you want or need a say?

nullzero

tigger123 wrote: »

The Trust Women mantra/slogan is a response to the argument that if we introduce abortion women will be getting them willy nilly.

So, to counter this, the response is Trust Women, ie, Trust Women to make responsible decisions about their own bodies.

Humans don't always make the correct long term decisions in favour of making the more convenient shirt term decision which at the time seems the correct decision. Humans are fallible and it takes two to make a baby, and men have no rights to their children in this country.

PhoenixParker

nullzero wrote: »

Men have no reproductive rights, if a consenting couple get pregnant and the woman decides motherhood isn't for her is she free to terminate against her partners wishes? Of course because the man has no say at all.

Because it’s her healthcare and she’s the one who is pregnant.

Men have reproductive rights when it comes to healthcare for their reproductive system.
They can treat stis, treat their cancers and get help with whatever is malfunctioning. . .

pleas advice

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

So, you don’t trust them to have choice over their wombs, but you do trust them to not lie about being raped?

i thought we should TRUST women?

bennyl10 wrote: »

figure is wildly inaccurate

it counts every abortion in the uk, not including the amount of those that come form other countries such as here,
the figure also factors in all pregnancies, without noting those which have were miscarried, ectopic or stillborn.

the actual figure of abortions vs those born healthily in the uk is closer to 1 in 10/11

figure EXCLUDES miscarriages, but includes stillborn. it DOES take into account abortions provided to non-nationals.

including miscarriages, the figure is about 1 in 7,

nullzero

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

No you didn't.

If a woman isn't your partner or underage child, why would you want or need a say?

What say does a a person unrelated to the situation ever have in anything.
You want to get a new bike, I don't get to say anything about it, it's nothing to do with me and I don't know you.
You're using emotive BS to try invalidate a simple point.

Stonedpilot

Just back from walk. Met yes and no canvassers out. Spoke to both. The No side were bit friendlier as well I told them Im a No vote.

Interestingly Both said its slightly in favour of No the people they spoke to over last week. That surprised me to be honest. Both said those with minds made up no point debating so both going for the "undecided" as such.
This was in a town of like 25,000 in the midlands.

Try_harder

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Just back from walk. Met yes and no canvassers out. Spoke to both. The No side were bit friendlier as well I told them Im a No vote.

Interestingly Both said its slightly in favour of No the people they spoke to over last week. That surprised me to be honest. Both said those with minds made up no point debating so both going for the "undecided" as such.
This was in a town of like 25,000 in the midlands.

Midlands a No- Not surprising.

Hotblack Desiato

retro:electro wrote: »

I won’t be celebrating. For the SSM result I celebrated as it was a joyous occasion. There was bunting and banners and prosecoo popping. But what do we toast to this time?

That women have a say in their healthcare when they're pregnant.

They don't now.

That alone is a cause for celebration, whether we subsequently get an abortion law or not.

tigger123

nullzero wrote: »

Humans don't always make the correct long term decisions in favour of making the more convenient shirt term decision which at the time seems the correct decision. Humans are fallible and it takes two to make a baby, and men have no rights to their children in this country.

Not really. It's the women's decision.

You're kinda shifting the argument there with the bolded part.

Shurimgreat

Dressing gown wrote: »

If I could copy and paste every time you’ve gone on about the “small”!numbers “tiny” percentages etc I’d just clutter up this thread with pages of quotations.

The fact is the numbers we are talking about here are massive. Abortion affects thousands of Irish women every year. Small percentages of big numbers are still big numbers of people being affected by this. Unless you know someone personally (and i would guess you probably will at some stage in your life) the hard cases are friends and family, real people to all of us. I just don’t think it’s good enough for us to turn our backs on them when the other people that want an abortion are having them anyway. It’s a no brainier for me and I’m sorry if you are struggling with your conscience but my conscience is raging that people don’t care enough about the hard cases. Everyone meets their own maker. Let the other people make their own choices but please choose to help the families that have no choice.

Using emotive language won't alter much. Yes I do know of hard cases. It doesn't mean we should put every babys life at risk particulalry thousands and thousands who have nothing whatsoever to do with hard cases.

Have a referendum for the hard cases and legislate for them.

Guy:Incognito

nullzero wrote: »

Humans don't always make the correct long term decisions in favour of making the more convenient shirt term decision which at the time seems the correct decision. Humans are fallible and it takes two to make a baby, and men have no rights to their children in this country.

How about I make you decisions for you in case you make the wrong ones?

nullzero

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Because it’s her healthcare and she’s the one who is pregnant.

Men have reproductive rights when it comes to healthcare for their reproductive system.
They can treat stis, treat their cancers and get help with whatever is malfunctioning. . .

And women don't have the right to treatment for comparable problems?
Men have no rights to their children and women are favored legally in instances of marital breakdown etc... Men have no reproductive rights but its not a hip trendy issue.

antiskeptic

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Just back from walk. Met yes and no canvassers out. Spoke to both. The No side were bit friendlier as well I told them Im a No vote.

Interestingly Both said its slightly in favour of No the people they spoke to over last week. That surprised me to be honest. Both said those with minds made up no point debating so both going for the "undecided" as such.
This was in a town of like 25,000 in the midlands.

Saw a graphic on twitter which
Indicates No need 55-65% in the midlands to be on track for a win

joe40

Digital_Guy wrote: »

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Actual uk abortion stats, linked numerous times in this thread

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/679028/Abortions_stats_England_Wales_2016.pdf

Those are comparing the past few years and not giving the actual picture.

In 1967 when it was brought in, the abortion rate was less than 3%.

In 2016, it was over 20%.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedkingdom.html

Thoughts?

Did Britain, pre 1967 have a neighbouring country to which it had easy access to in order to get an abortion. Did they have an actual constitutional right to travel to that country to get an abortion.
Our abortion rates are probably at an equilibrium now, a yes vote won't significantly increase numbers of abortions but will make it more humane and safer.

Guy:Incognito

nullzero wrote: »

What say does a a person unrelated to the situation ever have in anything.
You want to get a new bike, I don't get to say anything about it, it's nothing to do with me and I don't know you.
You're using emotive BS to try invalidate a simple point.

You're using your vote to decide what a woman can do.

nullzero

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

How about I make you decisions for you in case you make the wrong ones?

How about you come up with an intelligent argument and we'll take it from there, no emotive BS.

Hotblack Desiato

Gintonious wrote: »

So is there an area around the polling station that you aren't allowed to have posters? Because they are right outside the 2 near me.

100m from the entrance of the polling station, this applies from 30 minutes before the polls open. Call the Gardai if this is violated.

Shurimgreat

Shurimgreat wrote: »

We were born and grew up in Catholic Ireland and the Dail reflected that. We were safe enough.
Todays and future Dails are very different with a strong influence from left wing parties and liberals in parties like FG. They want and will introduce abortion on demand.

Hmmm safe enough in good old catholic Ireland were we, you might want to tell that to the men and women who were abused by the religious orders that they were perfectly safe and fine in your opinion.

nullzero

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

You're using your vote to decide what a woman can do.

Emotive nonsense.

antiskeptic

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

How about I make you decisions for you in case you make the wrong ones?

Isn't that what your yes vote aims to achieve t/m

pleas advice

Try_harder wrote: »

Its the converse of Women cant be trusted with their own bodies, so we must tell them!

it's not just 'their' bodies, is it though?
if it was, do you really think anyone would have a problem with it?

(i asked this in a previous thread, got some seriously misandric, vitriolic responses)

vicwatson

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

100m from the entrance of the polling station, this applies from 30 minutes before the polls open. Call the Gardai if this is violated.

And it will be


Section 147 of the Electoral Act 1992 iirc

gctest50

antiskeptic wrote: »

Isn't that what your yes vote aims to achieve t/m

It's not going to make it compulsorary

Mtx

Abortion parties are repulsive

Guy:Incognito

nullzero wrote: »

How about you come up with an intelligent argument and we'll take it from there, no emotive BS.

Do you have "emotive bs" copied and ready to paste at the end of every reply?

You are using your vote to tell women you don't know what they can and can't do with their own health. That's fact.
Replay again all you want with your catchphrase, it won't make it any more true or what I say any less so.

tigger123

nullzero wrote: »

And women don't have the right to treatment for comparable problems?
Men have no rights to their children and women are favored legally in instances of marital breakdown etc... Men have no reproductive rights but its not a hip trendy issue.

This referendum came from a grass roots campaign - there is literally no better example out there of what can be done when people stop complaining about something, and start lobbying and marching about it.

If you feel that the issue of men's rights needs similar attention, you should start a similart campaign.

The Taoiseach himself said today that political system didn't want to grab the nettle on abortion, but were forced into it by the pressure from below.

antiskeptic

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

100m from the entrance of the polling station, this applies from 30 minutes before the polls open. Call the Gardai if this is violated.

The statute you (iirc) put up only referred to elections not referenda.

Dunno what constitutional amendment you'd need to repeal to liberalize and widen the remit of that law.

nullzero

tigger123 wrote: »

Not really. It's the women's decision.

You're kinda shifting the argument there with the bolded part.

I mentioned above that in consentual relationship where a pregnancy occurs and the woman just doesn't fancy having a child should the father have no say?

One instance I can think of is the late Jonathan Philbin Bowman, his partner became pregnant and didn't want to be a mother, he raised his son himself and his partner went off traveling and doing her own thing. Does a man not deserve to be a father?

Kh1993

Save the 8th out tonight in my area. Interestingly, they stuck to the main road (pricier houses) and skipped our cul de sac (considered more working class).

Guy:Incognito

antiskeptic wrote: »

Isn't that what your yes vote aims to achieve t/m

How is me saying to a woman "you choose what's best for you" in any way me making a decision for her?

namloc1980

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

100m from the entrance of the polling station, this applies from 30 minutes before the polls open. Call the Gardai if this is violated.

No it's 50 metres.