What kind of abortion legislation ought we expect?

Podge_irl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Lets suppose the demonstrably accurate RTE poll is accurate too on this 50/50 split.

52/48 split

You are being disingenuous in the extreme at this point. The only actual question the referendum asked was whether we wanted the issue to be decided by the Oireachtas. We said yes by a massive margin. Now the issue is being decided by the Oireachtas in the normal manner. The normal manner does not involve taking an opinion poll and deciding to give a 48% minority what they want.

You can go back and forth and up and down on this all you want. The only shred of evidence you have been able to put forth that the Irish people do not want the proposed legislation is an exit poll that says 52% of Irish people do in fact explicitly want the proposed legislation.

This is all ignoring the 66% of people who voted yes knowing full well the proposed legislation. If the proposed legislation was more conservative would more people have voted yes? Who cares!?

fritzelly

No matter what anyone says this guy will just keep repeating the same tripe

Don't feed the trolls.

antiskeptic

Podge_irl wrote: »

52/48 split

You are being disingenuous in the extreme at this point. The only actual question the referendum asked was whether we wanted the issue to be decided by the Oireachtas. We said yes by a massive margin. Now the issue is being decided by the Oireachtas in the normal manner. The normal manner does not involve taking an opinion poll and deciding to give a 48% minority what they want.

You can go back and forth and up and down on this all you want. The only shred of evidence you have been able to put forth that the Irish people do not want the proposed legislation is an exit poll that says 52% of Irish people do in fact explicitly want the proposed legislation.

This is all ignoring the 66% of people who voted yes knowing full well the proposed legislation. If the proposed legislation was more conservative would more people have voted yes? Who cares!?

Clearly the politicians who stage managed the result are relying on your sense of what constitutes democracy to railroad things home.

They dreamt up the 'Citizens Assembly' , they stacked the Joint Committee, they drilled the hard cases for all they were worth.

And knew they could rely on large numbers of democratic apprentices / voter exhaustion to sail over the finish line

They dont get Oscars for this. They get reelection.

Simon for Taoiseach! The cry is already going up

Podge_irl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Clearly the politicians who stage managed the result are relying on your sense of what constitutes democracy to railroad things home.

They dreamt up the 'Citizens Assembly' , they stacked the Joint Committee, they drilled the hard cases for all they were worth.

And knew they could rely on large numbers of democratic apprentices / voter exhaustion to sail over the finish line

You have a very high opinion of the Irish electorate anyway. They are, I suppose, notorious for having a high opinion of politicians and trusting them implicitly. The government is also perfectly entitled to support a particular side in a referendum.

My sense of what constitutes democracy is based on understanding what Irish democracy actually is. That is why I am not obsessed by exit polls for a referendum and how they should impact legislation. However it seems from your perspective, having seen the No side lose massively you have adjusted tack to questioning the concept of our representative democracy in general. It is an interesting turn though it will lead nowhere.

antiskeptic

Podge_irl wrote: »

You have a very high opinion of the Irish electorate anyway. They are, I suppose, notorious for having a high opinion of politicians and trusting them implicitly. The government is also perfectly entitled to support a particular side in a referendum.

My sense of what constitutes democracy is based on understanding what Irish democracy actually is. That is why I am not obsessed by exit polls for a referendum and how they should impact legislation. However it seems from your perspective, having seen the No side lose massively you have adjusted tack to questioning the concept of our representative democracy in general. It is an interesting turn though it will lead nowhere.

You don't seem to mind that your Yes (for aor12)rests on the back of 100 poor saps recruited for the purposes of obtaining a.o.r.

Nor that this is what our 'democracy' is'.

Don't take me too much to task that I set my sights a tad higher.

Overheal

antiskeptic wrote: »

You don't seem to mind that your Yes rests on the back of 100 poor saps recruited for the purposes of obtaining a.o.r.

Nor that this is what our 'democracy' is'.

Don't take me too much to task that I set my sights a tad higher.

You’re pretending the Citizens Assembly is what spoiled the vote? Let’s go back to your bible - the RTÉ exit polling:

“73% were in favour of making abortion available in cases of rape or incest; 71% in cases of fatal foetal abnormality, 67% between 12 and 24 weeks gestation where there was a risk to the health of the woman; but only 52% were in favour of abortion being available on request up to 12 weeks.

Even No voters were in favour of abortion in cases of rape or incest, by 40 to 38%.

Asked when they decided how to vote, 75% said they always knew; 8% said following the Savita Halappanavar case; 1% said following the Citizens' Assembly; 1% said following the Oireacthas committee; 12% said during the Referendum campaign.”

Really rocking the vote there and destroying democracy alright. Never mind it’s formation strikes me as a fair system - one boards even employed some years ago for Feedforward, and it brought the site the DRP, but I digress.

As for this gump about 52% on 12 weeks - was it you or some other No person who said they’d be fierce happier if it was 10 weeks for some reason? Ergo we could surmise folks might not mind “AOD” at all if, for one, it was for a shorter period, or two, it was called something less facetious and misleading. AOD implies forced compliance by doctors and doesn’t capture the concept of waiting periods et all. Given that, 52% seems like a great result. Either way there will surely be a continued discussion about the new legislation.

antiskeptic

Overheal wrote: »

You’re pretending the Citizens Assembly is what spoiled the vote? Let’s go back to your bible - the RTÉ exit polling:

I'm not saying a gamed CA spoiled the vote. I'm saying the gamed CA/OJC were key elements in a political strategy aimed at sliding in their (not our) aor12 agenda.

I'm saying a less liberal aor proposal would have resulted in:

a) a bigger differential when people were asked their views on it during the RTE poll

b) consequently, a bigger overall landslide (better reflecting thus, the will of the people)

Asked when they decided how to vote, 75% said they always knew; 8% said following the Savita Halappanavar case; 1% said following the Citizens' Assembly; 1% said following the Oireacthas committee; 12% said during the Referendum campaign.”

Really rocking the vote there and destroying democracy alright.

1. People always said they knew.

That 75% is made up of Yes and No voters. The Yes who always knew were going to vote YES even if a less liberal proposal was put in place of aor12. The alternative for them was retention of the 8th.

The No who always knew which way there were going to vote didn't always know the proposals. So we can't assume that just because they always knew they were going to vote No, they actually would have, in a "watered down" situation. They would have had to weigh up the watered down vs. the prospect of losing.

In short: the 'always Yes' would always be Yes. The 'always No' not necessarily No, if the proposals had been less liberal


2. Citizens Assembly Onwards

We have 14% influenced by everything that rolled out post the CA - which formed the basis of both the ballot and the proposals.

Clearly we would see a swing towards Yes in the measure the proposals were less liberal.


A referendum is a matter for the people. It is not the same thing as voting the government in to legislate on our behalf. This is reflected in:

- the government distancing itself by means of the CA and OJC (even if gaming both)

- the government parties not voting on a party basis, whatever about as individuals

The Governments job is to do it's best to seek out the will of the people. It is not it's job to coerce the people down a path it itself desires

The Government, in gaming the means whereby it would distance itself, is gaming at least some aspect of the referendum. Post 84 lays out the mechanism by which the Government gamed the referendum.

The RTE split shows the result of this gaming. The Government, if it hadn't gamed the referendum to achieve aor12, would have

- achieved a larger overall landslide

- would have avoided a split on the aor proposal element. They could have achieved a landslide across a less liberal board.

The Government would have done the job it is paid to do. Even if it wasn't the result it wanted.

As for this gump about 52% on 12 weeks - was it you or some other No person who said they’d be fierce happier if it was 10 weeks for some reason? Ergo we could surmise folks might not mind “AOD” at all if, for one, it was for a shorter period, or two, it was called something less facetious and misleading.

Whatever about your phrasing, you make my point: less No's in the event of less liberal legislation.

It's called democracy - the will of the people expressing itself. Not having that will manipulated with crass subterfuge.



Questions for you:

Given the Yes's would always vote Yes, do suppose a less liberal proposal would have increased the overall landslide and widened the gap of the RTE poll?



Do you think the top political brass gamed the referendum by way of the CA?

AOD implies forced compliance by doctors and doesn’t capture the concept of waiting periods et all.

Waiting periods!! 2nd only to "abortion on the grounds of disability won't be permitted" :pac:

Paranoid Bob

antiskeptic wrote: »

It will depend heavily on whether these politicians are democrats or not.

It will also depend on the media to an extent. Whilst stoking up the celebrations at the moment, they are not unused to turning to tear down that which they so recently built up. New stories are more important than anything else, so a little stirring it up isn't beyond them.

I think it will depend most heavily on whether there are actually any realistic amendments proposed.


We have been hearing throughout the campaign that the no camp had a wording for the referendum to support the 'hard cases' without providing abortion without restriction as to reason up to twelve weeks.
They have an opportunity now to frame that as an amendment to the legislation.


In other words; it is time to put up or shut up.

volchitsa

KevinCavan wrote: »

Wholesale abortion for whoever wants it for first three months of pregnancy.

You have to get pregnant first. Wholesale might be difficult.

davedanon

antiskeptic wrote: »

Clearly the politicians who stage managed the result are relying on your sense of what constitutes democracy to railroad things home.

They dreamt up the 'Citizens Assembly' , they stacked the Joint Committee, they drilled the hard cases for all they were worth.

And knew they could rely on large numbers of democratic apprentices / voter exhaustion to sail over the finish line

They dont get Oscars for this. They get reelection.

Simon for Taoiseach! The cry is already going up

"Large numbers of democratic apprentices?" Oh, you mean the young people who were politicized by the issue and registered to vote YES in their droves?

"Voter exhaustion". Funny, I thought that people positively had a spring in their step as they rocked up to vote 2:1 YES.

As for your laughable attempts to paint the Citizens' Assembly, which did an absolutely sterling job of teasing out the issues in a calm and measured way, as some sort of partisan pro-repeal echo-chamber...


Considering that it was your side that employed all the negative tactics, made us put up with those shameful and dishonest posters, turned calm debate into a riot, and employed Cambridge Analytica people to try and swing the vote, you have a bloody nerve.

But I see you've been banging on about this exit poll forever, and no doubt you'll still be at it next week and the week after.

antiskeptic

davedanon wrote: »

"Large numbers of democratic apprentices?" Oh, you mean the young people who were politicized by the issue and registered to vote YES in their droves?

I meant the large number of people who wouldn't know the wool had been pulled over their eyes. All ages. You, for example.

"Voter exhaustion". Funny, I thought that people positively had a spring in their step as they rocked up to vote 2:1 YES.

Yeah. But I'd bet you they wouldn't be keen on the idea of a referendum / further national ding-doinging on the key proposal. Which was a tie.

A tie. On the cornerstone proposal. The Big Kahuna. The proposal which would lead to 95% (or some such) of all abortions. The Government (and you) have achieved a landslide mandate for .. legalizing a fraction of all abortions. The big 'un was snuck in under a cloak

As for your laughable attempts to paint the Citizens' Assembly, which did an absolutely sterling job of teasing out the issues in a calm and measured way, as some sort of partisan pro-repeal echo-chamber...

I don't suppose the 100 patsys who constituted the assembly were a pro-repeal echo chamber. Not. at. all.

I'm sure they were doing their (uninitiated) best. Nevertheless, they'd have been buttered up and given "due respect and consideration". Buckets and buckets of it. While being gently steered to the desired result. Due consideration is a very small price to pay for "respectability" of result.

The Dutch have an expression for how someone is, on the one hand, made feel respected, part of something big and important. Whilst all the while rings are being run around them.

Such a person has "had a feather stuck up his arse".






The biggest danger involving a Citizens Assembly is that it worked for the Government. Coming soon to a contentious issue near you. It's a quango folks. No mistake about it.

Overheal

antiskeptic wrote: »

I meant the large number of people who wouldn't know the wool had been pulled over their eyes. All ages. You, for example.

Yeah. But I'd bet you they wouldn't be keen on the idea of a referendum / further national ding-doinging on the key proposal. Which was a tie.

A tie. On the cornerstone proposal. The Big Kahuna. The proposal which would lead to 95% (or some such) of all abortions. The Government (and you) have achieved a landslide mandate for .. legalizing a fraction of all abortions. The big 'un was snuck in under a cloak

I don't suppose the 100 patsys who constituted the assembly were a pro-repeal echo chamber. Not. at. all.

I'm sure they were doing their (uninitiated) best. Nevertheless, they'd have been buttered up and given "due respect and consideration". Buckets and buckets of it. While being gently steered to the desired result. Due consideration is a very small price to pay for "respectability" of result.

The Dutch have an expression for how someone is, on the one hand, made feel respected, part of something big and important. Whilst all the while rings are being run around them.

Such a person has "had a feather stuck up his arse".

The biggest danger involving a Citizens Assembly is that it worked for the Government. Coming soon to a contentious issue near you. It's a quango folks. No mistake about it.

You're straying into Conspiracy Theories now. It is my understanding this 100 person assembly was 1 chair, 33 people selected by the parties and then 66 randomly selected citizens. Did they manipulate the selection process and hand-pick a bunch of pro-repeal people, or, do we gather from the polls and the vote that a wide swath of voters believe in legalizing abortion in some degree or another and the people that were randomly picked reflected a cross-section of society? Going by the polling about 3/4ths of the chamber would have already believed in abortions for 'the hard cases' with 52% of them being willing to agree to abortion with limited restrictions up to 12 weeks gestation - you yourself hold that polling to be a "demonstrably accurate RTE poll", and we can go ahead and surmise surely that the CA was comprised similarly - so why wouldn't they gravitate towards proposals that reflect that? 86% of voters (including those of the assembly, surely) had said they "always knew" their stance on abortion or had changed their mind after the Savita case. (https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/0526/966120-eighth-amendment-referendum/)

I'm not sure what wool has been pulled over peoples eyes, especially that which you are of course, 'woke', to seeing. Care to provide some falsifiable thesis statement to that effect? What was the big conspiracy? Who was in on it? And how does that manipulate the voting public to not be duly informed when making their choices, even in the face of outright lies in the campaign?

seamus

Overheal wrote: »

Did they manipulate the selection process and hand-pick a bunch of pro-repeal people, or, do we gather from the polls and the vote that a wide swath of voters believe in legalizing abortion in some degree or another and the people that were randomly picked reflected a cross-section of society?

Just to note that they did manipulate the selection process a bit. Anyone who was involved in any campaign was excluded from being a member.

I know because I saw people from the abortion rights campaign spitting feathers beforehand that some of their members had been told they weren't eligible.

Chances are anyone involved in pro-life campaigns were similarly excluded.

If you think about it, it makes sense. If you're trying to get a group of random people to listen to arguments on a topic and come up with a reasonable conclusion, it doesn't make sense to select people who have already heard all the arguments and have made their mind up. A bit like jury selection; if someone declared "guilty" or "not guilty" before the trial had even started, they'd be excluded.

In many ways this is probably how it came out so rounded and close to representative; because the outcomes weren't skewed in any given direction by campaigners. In the main population, 1000 campaigners in 1,000,000 people isn't going to skew stats. But in an assembly of 100 people, just 1 campaigner can cause the strength of their position to be overstated.

The Bishop Basher

Was speaking to my mother about the results yesterday. We hadn't really discussed the referendum prior to that. She's in her late 70's but well clued in on current affairs and politics. When I mentioned the fact that we're now likely to get 12 weeks unrestricted abortion she recoiled in horror and said "I didn't vote for that".

I advised her that she did.

I probably should have discussed it more with her prior to the vote but none of us discussed this one much in our family. It was too contentious. I knew what way she was voting and assumed she had the facts. I don't know where the source of miscommunication was and what led her to believe that she wasn't voting yes for unrestricted access up to 12 weeks but it came from somewhere.

She's only person and it's only one anecdote but I can't imagine she's alone.

I could be well wide of the mark but I suspect that any government that thinks it can sneak unrestricted abortion in on the back of a referendum to remove the 8th will be severely punished at any subsequent election.

The 2 are not one of the same no matter how much this "government" attempted to make it so..

Also what's with all these changing positions.. Leo changed his, the Sinn Fein Ard Fheis is being brought forward so they can change theirs. Politicians and parties are not usually in the habit uturns least of all doing them together.

Also why the rush ? We currently have the least productive Dail in terms of passing legislation in the history of the state and yet they're all on the radio yesterday talking about working through the Summer to get this completed

Somethings not adding up..

antiskeptic

.
.

"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many, to so few" - Leo Varadkar on The Citizens's Assembly.

100 people.

If 100 people is deemed sufficient to extract a representative-of-the-nation view on even a yes/no question, then why does it take RTE polling 4000 people to achieve the same result? Waste of licence payers money?

All RTE needed to do was select 100 people according to the same wunder-criteria used by Red C ( the company tasked with pulling Jerry-the-Democrat- Buttimer's rabbit out of a hat). They don't do this of course, for the very suggestion would be laughed out of a 1st year pollster degree course.

Maybe I'm wrong, in which we can expect a Red C-change in numbers surveyed in future polls.



100 people.

How does one decide what is representative of the populaton in the first place? Red C said 99 was an insufficient number to be representative over the few criteria given (location, social class, age etc). They put a +/- 10% figure on it. A +/- 10% opinion poll would be thrown in the bin, it wouldn't be used as the foundation for a referendum

Let's say religion is a factor in peoples deliberations (and religion isn't a selection criteria). What does that do to your +/- figures? Its FUBAR's them is what.

Isn't there a reasonable chance, over such a negligible number, of weighting badly one way or the other? That you pick an inordinate amount of knuckledraggers for example?

How many other factors should go into representation on such a matter. Liberal vs conservative, education level, voting on previous related subjects, etc. And who decides that the factors chosen are sufficient? Doubtlessly, the creators of this Frankensteinian Assembly poured over longtitudinal studies on the matter before settling on their strategy. One can search hard...

If 100 people isn't sufficient to extract a representative view on a yes/no question, what chance on a complex, multi faceted issue?





100 people.

Who decided that 100 people were fit to carry out this task in the first place? Where's the precedence? Where's the dry runs and field trials. Where's the cutting of teeth on a simpler subject. Where's the post-match analysis? The iterative process?

Do you think man landed on the moon simply because somebody thought to invent a rocket?

Do you think that Citizen Assembly Very Important Priority No.4 (i.e."how referenda are to be carried out") ought to include an assessment of the appropriateness of resting so much on the musings of 100 people? Or course not - for that would be circular reasoning. This is more sinister than mere circularity.





100 people

In years leading up to this referendum you have activism on the part of YES and NO. NO, however, have less reason for activism that YES, since NO is the status quo. Whilst you might be active as soon as there's an immediate threat to the status quo (eg: POLDPA), you're not activating to obtain something you've already got.

Who is more likely to accept an unpaid opportunity to sit on the Citizens Assembly? Someone who, whilst not a member of an advocacy group, is, nonetheless activated. Or someone who is not.

There are any number of ways in which a simplistic selection process can weight the assembly. This is just another one.

What thought went into the factors that might skew the selection? And how were these countered? Well it seems that little thought went into it - something perfectly reflected in the list of criteria by which someone would be selected





100 angry men

Anyone who has seen the film has seen a something of a cross section of the community. Ignorance, stupidity, bias, intelligence, reasonableness, passivity, etc.

The opportunity for a very small number of people to influence the majority cannot be avoided. Some people are personable, some people are better at vocalizing an opinion, some people are leaders. Some people are followers.

And when your dealing with but 100 people, the numbers potentially holding disproportionate sway over the rest are tiny. Dime to a dollar that RED C weren't instructed to select for that.

splinter65

Rennaws wrote: »

Was speaking to my mother about the results yesterday. We hadn't really discussed the referendum prior to that. She's in her late 70's but well clued in on current affairs and politics. When I mentioned the fact that we're now likely to get 12 weeks unrestricted abortion she recoiled in horror and said "I didn't vote for that".

I advised her that she did.

I probably should have discussed it more with her prior to the vote but none of us discussed this one much in our family. It was too contentious. I knew what way she was voting and assumed she had the facts. I don't know where the source of miscommunication was and what led her to believe that she wasn't voting yes for unrestricted access up to 12 weeks but it came from somewhere.

She's only person and it's only one anecdote but I can't imagine she's alone.

I could be well wide of the mark but I suspect that any government that thinks it can sneak unrestricted abortion in on the back of a referendum to remove the 8th will be severely punished at any subsequent election.

The 2 are not one of the same no matter how much this "government" attempted to make it so..

Also what's with all these changing positions.. Leo changed his, the Sinn Fein Ard Fheis is being brought forward so they can change theirs. Politicians and parties are not usually in the habit uturns least of all doing them together.

Also why the rush ? We currently have the least productive Dail in terms of passing legislation in the history of the state and yet they're all on the radio yesterday talking about working through the Summer to get this completed

Somethings not adding up..

It’s the unrestricted bit that slipped under the radar I think, thanks to careful management of wording.
You can see it on Facebook and Twitter.
A lot of people think they voted for 12 weeks for the hard cases.
In Scotland last year there were 11,000 abortions. 300 were hard cases.

pleas advice

Rennaws wrote: »

Was speaking to my mother about the results yesterday. We hadn't really discussed the referendum prior to that. She's in her late 70's but well clued in on current affairs and politics. When I mentioned the fact that we're now likely to get 12 weeks unrestricted abortion she recoiled in horror and said "I didn't vote for that".

I advised her that she did.

I probably should have discussed it more with her prior to the vote but none of us discussed this one much in our family. It was too contentious. I knew what way she was voting and assumed she had the facts. I don't know where the source of miscommunication was and what led her to believe that she wasn't voting yes for unrestricted access up to 12 weeks but it came from somewhere. ..

Shur everything on the NO posters was a pack of lies, we were told. Repeal for the hard cases, your not voting for abortion on request, is what they said....

NuMarvel

To answer the question asked, i.e. "What kind of abortion legislation ought we expect?", we can expect the legislation that was proposed to pass.

We know that many TDs who campaigned for a No vote are now going to vote in favour of this legislation, or at the very least, not oppose or delay it. Couple that with those who were in favour of it from the outset, and those who kept quiet about their intentions but will almost certainly vote yes, and I can't see why we would expect anything else.

Chips Lovell

Have to say, I completely underestimated the Citizen's Assembly when it was set up. I assumed at the time that it was Kenny's way of kicking any kind of controversial constitutional issue to touch (and I suspect Kenny thought so too).

But it has consistently provided very considered output that's managed to reflect very well the feelings of the nation and resulted in real and lasting change.

I'm kind of happy to admit I was wrong.

blanch152

antiskeptic wrote: »

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Yes, indeed, you are correct. The referendum was last Friday with the result on Saturday, yet some are trying to re-run it as a limited abortion referendum. More than a little pathetic at this stage.

NuMarvel

splinter65 wrote: »

It’s the unrestricted bit that slipped under the radar I think, thanks to careful management of wording.
You can see it on Facebook and Twitter.
A lot of people think they voted for 12 weeks for the hard cases.

The RTE exit poll say otherwise:

Among Yes voters, the most important issues were the right to choose (84%), the health or life of the woman (69%), and pregnancy as a result of rape (52%).

The evidence says that Yes voters in the main were informed and they ranked the woman's right to choose above all other factors.

blanch152

splinter65 wrote: »

It’s the unrestricted bit that slipped under the radar I think, thanks to careful management of wording.
You can see it on Facebook and Twitter.
A lot of people think they voted for 12 weeks for the hard cases.
In Scotland last year there were 11,000 abortions. 300 were hard cases.

Unsubstantiated desperation.

There is no evidence that a lot of people think they voted for 12 weeks for the hard cases. Anyone who invested any time in reading the Citizen's Assembly Report would know the reasons for the 12 weeks proposal and there was plenty in all of the media about the abortion pill safety issue.

Are you now trying to say that in general Irish people are stupid and didn't read the material and didn't know what they were voting for? Because that is exactly what it sounds like.

antiskeptic

splinter65 wrote: »

A lot of people think they voted for 12 weeks for the hard cases.
In Scotland last year there were 11,000 abortions. 300 were hard cases.

A lot? It wouldn't be 100 would it?

antiskeptic

Numarvel wrote:

The evidence says that Yes voters in the main were informed and they ranked the woman's right to choose above all other factors.

Choose what? Oh, it didn't say

blanch152

antiskeptic wrote: »

A lot? It wouldn't be 100 would it?

I would have said yourself and splinter were the only two to vote YES thinking it was for hard cases, but then I realised you both voted NO.

It seems to me that there are a huge number of NO voters claiming they voted YES for hard cases or wanted to. They should have thought of that when the referendum legislation was going through the Dail or they should have published their draft legislation for hard cases when the government published theirs. But they didn't.

Even now, when they are crying and wailing for legislation for hard cases only, we still haven't seen draft legislation. Why? Because they are making it up as they go along in pure desperation.

The Bishop Basher

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Have to say, I completely underestimated the Citizen's Assembly when it was set up. I assumed at the time that it was Kenny's way of kicking any kind of controversial constitutional issue to touch (and I suspect Kenny thought so too).

But it has consistently provided very considered output that's managed to reflect very well the feelings of the nation and resulted in real and lasting change.

I'm kind of happy to admit I was wrong.

I agree with you entirely..

Especially the fact that it was an unintended consequence. I certainly wouldn't give the village idiot any kudos. He was, as you say, just kicking it as far away from himself as he could like he always did..

But I also don't believe this referendum gave them the mandate for unrestricted abortions that the government think it gave.

I'm open to being wrong on this too though. I suppose only time will tell.

Chips Lovell

I suppose we'll have to differ on that.

I was surprised at the Citizen's Assembly recommendations on abortion and thought that they were probably too liberal for the electorate. Turns out they were spot on.

Zubeneschamali

I think antiskeptic's ire should be directed at the No campaign. They did everything they could to make it crystal clear we were voting on Abortion on Demand. In fact, they told us we were voting for abortion all the way up to 6 months. They said we would be able to abort handicapped fetuses. Dismember healthy babies up to birth. They put this stuff on every pole in the country.

And we voted Yes.

Now they are completely snookered by their own campaign rhetoric. Whatever the Government bring in will be mild compared to what the No campaign said we were voting Yes to.

The Bishop Basher

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I was surprised at the Citizen's Assembly recommendations on abortion and thought that they were probably too liberal for the electorate. Turns out they were spot on.

I thought that too till I had that chat with my mother..

It shone a light for me on a significant disconnect between the two that I wasn't previously aware of.

People voted to repeal the 8th. We know that much for certain.

People are assuming as a natural extension of that, that they also voted for unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks.

I'm not saying they didn't, I'm just saying i'm not as sure about that as others seem to be.

Time will tell..

seamus

Rennaws wrote: »

I thought that too till I had that chat with my mother..

It shone a light for me on a significant disconnect between the two that I wasn't previously aware of.

People voted to repeal the 8th. We know that much for certain.

People are assuming as a natural extension of that, that they also voted for unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks.

I'm not saying they didn't, I'm just saying i'm not as sure about that as others seem to be.

Time will tell..

As Zubenschmali says above you though, the No campaign pushed a very strong message that the choice wasn't between "no abortion" and "12 weeks on demand". It claimed that there were alternatives, that another referendum could bring about abortion for the "hard cases", without the proposed liberal regime.

And people didn't side with them; there was no "undecided" swing to the No side at the last minute.

So it's pretty clear that while some people probably voted Yes in spite of the 12 week limit, most people were not concerned about the 12 week limit. Because otherwise it would have been far closer.

Chips Lovell

In fairness, your mother is a sample size of one.

NuMarvel

Rennaws wrote: »

I thought that too till I had that chat with my mother..

It shone a light for me on a significant disconnect between the two that I wasn't previously aware of.

People voted to repeal the 8th. We know that much for certain.

People are assuming as a natural extension of that, that they also voted for unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks.

I'm not saying they didn't, I'm just saying i'm not as sure about that as others seem to be.

Time will tell..

What we know of the RTE Exit poll strongly suggests people were in favour of, or at least not opposed to, the 12 weeks when they voted.

The 52% support for the 12 weeks question is probably the clearest evidence of that. And it doesn't follow that 48% of people were opposed to it, because we don't know the question asked or the options provided. For example, was it a simple Yes/No question or did the people have the option of saying Don't Know? That was a factor in other exit poll questions, so it could easily be one here as well.

But other aspects of the poll suggest people are in favour of an on-request model. 62% of all voters cited the woman's right to choose as being the most important factor in their decision, 84% of Yes voters said that. Those factors far outweighed abortion in exceptional cases, such as rape or FFA.

And add to that the constant coverage the 12 weeks aspect received in the media, especially earlier this year when the government's announcement about the referendum was anticipated.

Is it possible some people were unaware of the 12 weeks? Sure. It is likely that significant numbers were unaware? I don't see how based on the information we have.

davedanon

Rennaws wrote: »

I thought that too till I had that chat with my mother..

It shone a light for me on a significant disconnect between the two that I wasn't previously aware of.

People voted to repeal the 8th. We know that much for certain.

People are assuming as a natural extension of that, that they also voted for unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks.

I'm not saying they didn't, I'm just saying i'm not as sure about that as others seem to be.

Time will tell..

It seems to me that you, and antiskeptic, have no idea how statistics and probability work. First, you admit that your mother 'is only one person', but you're 'sure that there are more'. Then you move on from that to citing your mother's sole opinion as evidence of 'a significant disconnect that you werent' aware of'. This is known as 'begging the question', or circular logic. You assume something to be true, then make assumptions or logical jumps based on that.

As for Antiskeptic, you are right. A Red C poll based on 100 people would be seen as totally inadequate. The reason larger datasets are more accurate and reliable is because statistical anomalies, clustering and so forth, gets ironed out. The difference is that these 100 people in the CA weren't being polled. They were being asked to listen to a series of experts, testimonies, medical evidence and personal experiences, and then to come to a conclusion. They ALL HEARD THE SAME EVIDENCE. This is why the conclusions of 100 people could be trusted more than the random opinions of 100 random people. Can you imagine if 5000 people had been selected for the CA? how would you even accommodate them in the same building. A reasonable, manageable number was required. 100 seems like more than enough to me.

Anyway, judging from the Irish Times piece about cross-party consensus emerging for a swift enactment of the same legislation that Harris published pre-referendum that appeared today, it looks like your fears were unwarranted. That pesky exit poll isn't going to be the massive wrench in the works that you hoped.

Or, of course, it could be all be further evidence that the MASSIVE CONSPIRACY to hoodwink the Irish people which all this evidently was is proceeding apace.

It all depends on which -land you want to live in. Ire, or La-la.

davedanon

antiskeptic wrote: »

Choose what? Oh, it didn't day

The fact that you even post this is extremely telling. There are no words missing from the end of that statement.

It's right to choose.

People weren't voting on the nuts and bolts of the proposals. That's why your exit poll chunderings are sheer nonsense. The Right to Choose trumped all other considerations. Everything else flows from that.

splinter65

Rennaws wrote: »

I thought that too till I had that chat with my mother..

It shone a light for me on a significant disconnect between the two that I wasn't previously aware of.

People voted to repeal the 8th. We know that much for certain.

People are assuming as a natural extension of that, that they also voted for unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks.

I'm not saying they didn't, I'm just saying i'm not as sure about that as others seem to be.

Time will tell..

Time indeed will tell. Only time.

ArmaniJeanss

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't suppose the 100 patsys who constituted the assembly were a pro-repeal echo chamber. Not. at. all.

I'm sure they were doing their (uninitiated) best. Nevertheless, they'd have been buttered up and given "due respect and consideration". Buckets and buckets of it. While being gently steered to the desired result. Due consideration is a very small price to pay for "respectability" of result.

The Dutch have an expression for how someone is, on the one hand, made feel respected, part of something big and important. Whilst all the while rings are being run around them.

Such a person has "had a feather stuck up his arse".

Can anyone recall the username of the boards.ie poster who was one of the 100, and kept us updated on a weekly basis back in the day (not just on abortion, on everything they discussed).
Because I think it'd be instructive for some to read his posts, and for him to be given a chance to respond to these sly attacks if he wants.

The Bishop Basher

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

In fairness, your mother is a sample size of one.

Never claimed otherwise..

You obviously missed the point i was making but not too worry..

I'm not overly arsed so happy to jump out of this discussion..

Seems like everyone here has it all sewn up already..

Next 6 months should be plain sailing so

ArmaniJeanss

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Can anyone recall the username of the boards.ie poster who was one of the 100, and kept us updated on a weekly basis back in the day (not just on abortion, on everything they discussed).
Because I think it'd be instructive for some to read his posts, and for him to be given a chance to respond to these sly attacks if he wants.

I remember now, poster RangeR.

Heres his posts about it
https://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?user=32602&sort=newest&date_to=&date_from=&query=%2A%3A%2A&forum=99
It came across as a thorough and dedicated set of work that they did, not patsies by any means.

splinter65

Rennaws wrote: »

Never claimed otherwise..

You obviously missed the point i was making but not too worry..

I'm not overly arsed so happy to jump out of this discussion..

Seems like everyone here has it all sewn up already..

Next 6 months should be plain sailing so

Yes. Every abortion will be a hard case, they’ll all be sub 12 weeks, there won’t be very many anyway, all the GPs will fall into line, we have oodles of GP appointments for women wanting abortions, and no one will complain that the 12 weeks is too restrictive.
It’s going to be plain sailing all the way.

swampgas

splinter65 wrote: »

Yes. Every abortion will be a hard case, they’ll all be sub 12 weeks, there won’t be very many anyway, all the GPs will fall into line, we have oodles of GP appointments for women wanting abortions, and no one will complain that the 12 weeks is too restrictive.
It’s going to be plain sailing all the way.

Whatever difficulties we have to address as we go forward, they will be a lot easier to fix with the 8th out of the way. How can anyone argue that the status quo was working?

The Bishop Basher

splinter65 wrote: »

Yes. Every abortion will be a hard case, they’ll all be sub 12 weeks, there won’t be very many anyway, all the GPs will fall into line, we have oodles of GP appointments for women wanting abortions, and no one will complain that the 12 weeks is too restrictive.
It’s going to be plain sailing all the way.

We don't even have a proper government let alone a government that can pass complex legislation.

Our health system is falling apart, women are actually dying as a direct result of the cervical smear scandal and yet it takes a vote on abortion to get them all incensed enough to consider working through the Summer to get things done quickly..

I just don't get it.

pleas advice

Surgical abortion before 12 weeks? What is that??

splinter65

pleas advice wrote: »

Surgical abortion before 12 weeks? What is that??

Not everyone can have the abortion pill. If you’ve heart or blood pressure problems or even IBS for example you can’t have it, so surgery it will have to be.

blanch152

splinter65 wrote: »

Simon Harris is the best little boy in the class this week (pesky cervical smear scandal ..) I’m sure Super Simon will have it all sorted out by the time the summer break comes.....

splinter65 wrote: »

Not everyone can have the abortion pill. If you’ve heart or blood pressure problems or even IBS for example you can’t have it, so surgery it will have to be.

The bitterness at the result runs deep in some.

Your posts have become a little incoherent, and it is difficult to discern which of several arguments you are making are serious and which are just throwing toys out of pram.

splinter65

blanch152 wrote: »

The bitterness at the result runs deep in some.

Your posts have become a little incoherent, and it is difficult to discern which of several arguments you are making are serious and which are just throwing toys out of pram.

As Mary Lou would say “let me make myself perfectly clear” then.
Simon Harris was the devil personified only 10 days ago when the cervical smear scandal was raging and now he’s the hero of the hour for the same people.
Not everyone can take the abortion pill.
Argue with me there.

blanch152

splinter65 wrote: »

As Mary Lou would say “let me make myself perfectly clear” then.
Simon Harris was the devil personified only 10 days ago when the cervical smear scandal was raging and now he’s the hero of the hour for the same people.
Not everyone can take the abortion pill.
Argue with me there.

Simon Harris was never the devil personified. I don't know where you are getting that from. As is becoming clearer by the day, decisions made in 2008 and incompetence of officials since are the main reasons for the cervical smear scandal. Harris and FG may yet get the credit for sorting out another women's health issue, don't underestimate their ability to bounce back from this.

As for the abortion pill, what is your basis for this. As I understand it, the Medicines Board will have to approve an abortion pill for use in Ireland and offer appropriate guidelines. They haven't done so yet, and I am not aware of your qualifications to second-guess them.

Incoherent remains my conclusion, as you and a few others are desperately looking around for any reason, any cause, to try and delay or change the legislation despite the people having spoken clearly.

antiskeptic

davedanon wrote: »

The fact that you even post this is extremely telling. There are no words missing from the end of that statement.

It's right to choose.

People weren't voting on the nuts and bolts of the proposals. That's why your exit poll chunderings are sheer nonsense. The Right to Choose trumped all other considerations. Everything else flows from that.

How to you get from right to choose to right to choose on everything. When the word aren't actually there.

Inference?

antiskeptic

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Can anyone recall the username of the boards.ie poster who was one of the 100, and kept us updated on a weekly basis back in the day (not just on abortion, on everything they discussed).
Because I think it'd be instructive for some to read his posts, and for him to be given a chance to respond to these sly attacks if he wants.

I'd welcome the opportunity.

However, it misses the point. Haircut 100 (a.k.a. the poster you refer to) would be asked, just as you are being asked, to deal with this.

It would help the YES viewpoint enormously if he was a statistician.

antiskeptic

I wonder what the legal standing of the referendum result would be if it could be shown that the Citizens Assembly was utterly unfit-for-purpose?

What if it could be shown that on a sufficient number of fronts (both in it's set up and in it's operation), that it was the brainchild and job-of-work of pro-choice politicians?

davedanon

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wonder what the legal standing of the referendum result would be if it could be shown that the Citizens Assembly was utterly unfit-for-purpose?

What if it could be shown that on a sufficient number of fronts (both in it's set up and in it's operation), that it was the brainchild and job-of-work of pro-choice politicians?

If my granny had balls....


D.E.S.P.E.R.A.T.E