What will happen if it's rejected?

Aspro

The lead up to the upcoming abortion referendum smacks a lot of the other most recent referendum - on the Nice Treaty.

In both cases literature providing arguments as to why we should vote weren't (and in this case have not yet been) sent out until the last minute, leaving the electorate confused as to why we're having another referendum, and confused as to what they're voting for. The commission had five years to discuss it. The plebs have less than three weeks.

In 1992 before the referendum surrounding the X-case, Albert Reynolds warned that he would legislate for abortion if the woman was at risk of suicide if the referendum was rejected. No subsequent government did, and it was swept under the carpet. Bertie Ahern is now making the same comments re. liberal abortion regime if the referendum is rejected.

I believe if the majority vote no it will be swept under the carpet again because none of the big parties have the balls to legislate because they are afraid of losing the conservative wing of their support, while 1000's of Irish women will still be forced to travel to England to terminate a crisis pregnancy.

I think it's all a power game, playing around with women's lives.
What do you think?

Boston

Im pro life, and i have to say im voting No to this, its nothing to do with human rights or freedom of choise, its about control.
Its a throw back to the extremise that few can support.

Typedef

Re: What will happen if it's rejected?

There is a saying that goes. "The more things change the more they stay the same".
If the referendum is rejected, the independant TD's that forced the referendum in the first place will be up in arms, they will scream betrayal by Fianna Fial and refuse to support them in the next government.

In a socital sense I think it will probably mean that just like right now if a woman wants an abortion she will have to go to Britain or simply not have one. Will the fertilized embroys that exist in this country be afforded the same rights as one that has touched the side of a womb, no, will there be wholesale abortions in the instance of 'suicidal' cases, no ( as it stands now I'm not sure there has even been one such abortion).

Will the mother be able to have ectopic pregnancies removed in either case.... apparently so, but if the 'threat to the life of the mother' is deemed to be of a suicidal nature will the child be aborted, apparently if the referendum passes no, but as the law stands right now (it is possible/permissable).

Swing low, sweet chariot, coming for to carry me home..... Swing low... sweet chariot.... coming for to carry me home

The Gopher

Isnt it undemocratic to enact a law just after the voters have rejected it?Anyway-people who say that it dosent matter cos women go to Englkand are talking ****e.If its alot less effort than having to go to England more women will have abortions:(

mike65

I reckon the admendment will be rejected by a small majority on a woefull turnout (no more than 40% proberly). Women and girls
will keep going to England (home of Irelands unwanted!) and
there'll be another referendum in 5 years....:( and it'll keep going round like this because the politcal class, taken as a whole have no integrity or even decency on this issue.

I'm glad that as a blow-in I don't have the vote!

Mike.

smiles

I dont honestly think that it is a "power game to play with women's lives", why on earth would they *want* to do that? I mean women make up approximatly 50% of their voters.

And why would anyone want to play around with womens lives? I mean in all honest it is simply down to moral grounds and what people believe in. If the majority disagree with the sentiment then it will not be passed, and it is pointless to keep having elections year after year if the majority have shown their choice.

I think that if abortion is allowed under sucidal grounds that it would be abused greatly by women who are not in a "crisis" pregnancy, but simply want to avoid an inconveniance. To get to England cost relatively little these days, and if they are in a crisis then they will continue to do so.

<< Fio >>

Ri-ra

I mean in all honest it is simply down to moral grounds and what people believe in.

Simply? Hardly. The other big thread on abortion seems to point to complexity, if anything. It even seems to have persuaded some to think about their beliefs, whatever way they lean.

If the majority disagree with the sentiment then it will not be passed, and it is pointless to keep having elections year after year if the majority have shown their choice.

Things change, despite what you may be implying here.

smiles

Originally posted by Ri-ra
Simply? Hardly. The other big thread on abortion seems to point to complexity, if anything. It even seems to have persuaded some to think about their beliefs, whatever way they lean.

There's not one bit of that argument that is anything aside from peoples own morality and beliefs. Morals are complex, but the argument is simple. And yes, it does make people think, thats the whole point of these boards.

Originally posted by Ri-ra
Things change, despite what you may be implying here.

Of course things change! I said year after year, not that many opinions will change drastically in a few years. And i think that if they kept putting the same issue up for referendum then people would get irritated and stop voting, all except for perhaps the faniticals, who will tend get their way because the government annoyed people. Which is not what I for one want.

All that said, these are only my opinions and i'm always open to other ideas and reasons.

<< Fio >>

Aspro

Originally posted by smiles
And why would anyone want to play around with womens lives?

By not legislating on the 1992 Supreme Court judgment and leaving suicidal women in crisis pregnancies in a legal limbo this is what they are doing.

I mean in all honest it is simply down to moral grounds and what people believe in. If the majority disagree with the sentiment then it will not be passed, and it is pointless to keep having elections year after year if the majority have shown their choice.

There is no "simple" in regard to a crisis pregnancy and until you or someone close is in that position then sweeping statements are meaningless.

To get to England cost relatively little these days, and if they are in a crisis then they will continue to do so.

To get to England to have an abortion will cost you in the region of €1000 - women should not have this kind of financial strain as well as the emotional and psychological trauma of their situation.

And I believe the majority will reject this referendum, primarily because they have realised there is no black and white to the abortion issue. But then what happens? They keep throwing referendum after referendum back in our face until they get the result they want? Democracy my arsssse.

I think that if abortion is allowed under sucidal grounds that it would be abused greatly by women who are not in a "crisis" pregnancy, but simply want to avoid an inconveniance.

That's a very cynical and anti-woman statement to make. But then I don't blame you. If the Taoiseach has such a low opinion of women then it's bound to filter through. Statements like that were used by conservatives in 1995 around the time of the divorce referendum saying that families would be torn apart, and husbands and wives would be running away from each other for a divorce! As usual they were completely 'divorced' from reality:)

You say women make up approximately 50% of their voters - yeah, but they don't make up 50% of their financial backers or their 'moral guardians' in the catholic church. As we've seen with the Nice Treaty, the voice of the people is only accepted so long as it's the one they want to hear.

Xterminator

Originally posted by smiles
I mean in all honest it is simply down to moral grounds and what people believe in......

I think that if abortion is allowed under sucidal grounds that it would be abused greatly by women who are not in a "crisis" pregnancy, but simply want to avoid an inconveniance. To get to England cost relatively little these days, and if they are in a crisis then they will continue to do so.

It is not just a moral issue.
It is a practical issue too. Most people would agree that morally abortion is at best questionable. Other solutions should be sought first. But somtimes the situation is so bad, the option of abortion, seems to the mother to be the least worst option.


Also why do you assume the suicide clause would be greatly abused.

Is that the way we were warned if homosexual teachers were tolerated, our childeren would all 'catch' gay, or be attacked,?

The way , when homosexuality was decriminalised we were warned many people would suddenly start engaging in wild bouts of gay sex?

Is that the way we were warned that if divorce became legal, husbands and wivewould walk out on there family responsibilities on a whim.

Do you have such a low opinion of Irish women, that you think they would seek to fool there doctors, and such a low opinion of Irish doctors, that you think they would go along with such deceptions?
Do you have proof?
You said

To get to England cost relatively little these days, and if they are in a crisis then they will continue to do so.

, so if its so easy then why would the no's of abortions increase? After all you are saying yourself it is effectivly available on demand anyway, (by travelling).

I think that the reason i shall vote against the amendment is because it precludes those sucicidal from receiving the treatment that would save there lives (and their dignity).

X

smiles

By not legislating on the 1992 Supreme Court judgment and leaving suicidal women in crisis pregnancies in a legal limbo this is what they are doing.

I asked why they would want to do this, not how you think they are doing it.

There is no "simple" in regard to a crisis pregnancy and until you or someone close is in that position then sweeping statements are meaningless.

What I am saying is that the issue is one of what people morals tell them what to do. I'm not saying it is a simple issue, i'm saying that what causes the argument is simply the different moral decisions people make. Whether or not I have been in the situation is meaningless, what I said was not intended as a "sweeping statement". It was not meant to put down the arguement or to trivilise it, and i'm very sorry if it did, i know that this is a very sensitive issue and i would never mean to degrade it as you suggest.

To get to England to have an abortion will cost you in the region of €1000 - women should not have this kind of financial strain as well as the emotional and psychological trauma of their situation.

You're right, i'm not saying that they should have to do this, I was trying to point out that even in a crisis pregnancy there is still the option of going to England, and that they are not being completely cut off of all options. I'm not saying passing/rejecting this referndum is right or wrong.

And I believe the majority will reject this referendum, primarily because they have realised there is no black and white to the abortion issue. But then what happens? They keep throwing referendum after referendum back in our face until they get the result they want? Democracy my arsssse.

Agreed. There is no point in referendum after referendum over fringe issues in abortion cases. I think there needs to be an investigation into what the voters want, whether abortion be approve completely for anybody, for severe medical needs, for suicidal people, or whether it should be completely rejected. Only once the government has a clue about what people want should there be a clear, well documented/explained referendum on the entire issue.

quote:

---

I think that if abortion is allowed under sucidal grounds that it would be abused greatly by women who are not in a "crisis" pregnancy, but simply want to avoid an inconveniance.

---

That's a very cynical and anti-woman statement to make. But then I don't blame you. If the Taoiseach has such a low opinion of women then it's bound to filter through. Statements like that were used by conservatives in 1995 around the time of the divorce referendum saying that families would be torn apart, and husbands and wives would be running away from each other for a divorce! As usual they were completely 'divorced' from reality

It's not an anti-woman statement. I am a woman and I can see how easy it would be to abuse this situation. And it had absolutely nothing to do with the supposed low opinion of women that the Taoiseach has. I've yet to see any evidence of this, including your obviously dislike of him.

I'm not a politician, and not a conservative, and so i'm not campaigning for or against this referendum, i'm just discussion my opinion and the option of others.

You say women make up approximately 50% of their voters - yeah, but they don't make up 50% of their financial backers or their 'moral guardians' in the catholic church.

Whether or not they are the financial backers of the government has nothing to do with it. It's votes in a referendum that count, no matter how corrupt the government may be, we havent gotten to the stage where we lie about the polls.

As for moral guardians of the government, they are well entitled to their own moral standards, whether they be influenced by the Catholic church or not. They are elected by the majority of the country to govern it, moral standards and all. They must still try to be impartial, whether or not they agree with the issue.

The members of the government are only human and do have normal human failures, so I can accept that and try to evaulate what good they have done as well as the bad. No government will ever represent everyone, nor will they ever have the complete support of every single person in the country.

As we've seen with the Nice Treaty, the voice of the people is only accepted so long as it's the one they want to hear.

I don't even know where you're coming from with that one. If its that they are repeating the referendum over the Nice Treaty I think they are wise, the turn out for that was incredibly low, so in my opinion it was not a valid representation of the voice of the people. If you're talking about something else then please explain it.

<< Fio >>

Aspro

I asked why they would want to do this, not how you think they are doing it.

Why?
Because we live in a patriarchal society.
Because the catholic church is dominated by men.
And because the ideology and morality against abortion is dominated by religious right wing attitudes. Most religious hierarchies have men in control.
We may think we live in a more secular society but in many ways things haven't really changed.

It's not an anti-woman statement. I am a woman and I can see how easy it would be to abuse this situation.

It IS anti-woman. And I'm a man. You're statement infers that women aren't to be trusted, that they will somehow flippantly use abortion as a contraception alternative, that an wanted pregnancy is seen by them as an "inconvenience", as opposed to a crisis.

My obvious dislike of Ahern is not the point. He is saying if the referendum is rejected it will open up a liberal abortion regime - therefore he is saying that if women have access to abortion they will exploit it. This is saying "don't trust women".

The fact is, that 1000's of Irish women have to travel to England every year with a crisis pregnancy. If we ignore that or try to skirt round the issue we are saying "out of sight, out of mind". If we admit that it happens then we have to deal with that or else be hypocrites and keep exporting the problem.

You agree that there is no point in referendum after referendum and that people should be asked what they want. We WERE asked ten years ago and we said what we wanted but they didn't have the guts to legislate for it - the supreme court ruling on the X-case. So we do it all again.

They are elected by the majority of the country to govern it

Less than half the country voted for them in the last election as you point out in regard to the Nice Treaty. Why? Because people don't trust them and don't feel represented by them, and because they feel no matter which way they vote they won't have a say. So therefore the government isn't a valid representative of the voice of the people. And seeing as women make up a tiny percentage of the government, even less representative on this issue.

Nice was about the creation of a European economic superpower and was primarily being pushed by the European Round Table of Industrialists - it's about money.

This referendum is about women's lives and quality of life.

As the Americans say - go figure.

smiles

It is not just a moral issue.
It is a practical issue too. Most people would agree that morally abortion is at best questionable. Other solutions should be sought first. But somtimes the situation is so bad, the option of abortion, seems to the mother to be the least worst option.

I was just talking about whether or not abortion should be legalised, not about the other options available.

Also why do you assume the suicide clause would be greatly abused.

Well look at it this way, how many people travel to England to have abortions without being in a crisis situation? Of those people how many would have gotten an abortion in Ireland had it been available? They have to lie in England and say they are living in England to get an abortion, so why on earth wouldnt they simply lie and say that they are suicidal to avoid having to travel?

Is that the way we were warned if homosexual teachers were tolerated, our childeren would all 'catch' gay, or be attacked,?

The way , when homosexuality was decriminalised we were warned many people would suddenly start engaging in wild bouts of gay sex?

It has absolutely nothing to do with that and I think that would have been clear to anyone who read it and i resent that you would accuse me of that. What you say is nothing short of trolling and it disgusts me.

Do you have such a low opinion of Irish women, that you think they would seek to fool there doctors, and such a low opinion of Irish doctors, that you think they would go along with such deceptions?
Do you have proof?

I dont have a low opinion of Irish women, i am one. Since I know that they would seek to fool the doctors in england, where they go and lie to get an abortion, why on earth would the same thing not apply here?

Look at the situation, if a woman went into a clinic in Ireland and told the doctor she was suicidal and needed an abortion. Would the doctor be ALLOWED to turn around and say "No, you're not suicidal", they simply could not do that because of the cases where they are wrong. So in order to accommadate the needy then the rest would be allowed through.

so if its so easy then why would the no's of abortions increase? After all you are saying yourself it is effectivly available on demand anyway, (by travelling).

I didnt say the number of abortions would increase, i said the service in Ireland would be abused and the number of abortions in Ireland would increase (women could stay here and have the abortion rather than travelling to England)

I think that the reason i shall vote against the amendment is because it precludes those sucicidal from receiving the treatment that would save there lives (and their dignity).

I would vote against the amendement also, but I think there needs to be a lot of thought and basic planning put into effect before abortions are made available.

<< Fio >>

Lemming

Originally posted by smiles

Look at the situation, if a woman went into a clinic in Ireland and told the doctor she was suicidal and needed an abortion. Would the doctor be ALLOWED to turn around and say "No, you're not suicidal", they simply could not do that because of the cases where they are wrong. So in order to accommadate the needy then the rest would be allowed through.

It wouldnt' be as straight forward as that anyway smiles. Look at it this way. People commit murder/whatever and in court they plead insanity. They are then examined mentally to see if they are or not. Your average 16 year old from "the 'mun" (not wishing to stereotype, but just bear with me please) is not going to fool one of these people easily.

But I think what aspro is trying to say is that the referendum seems to be saying "ALL women cannot be trusted and will abuse the system left right and centre". Interestingly enough, the same excuse used in the divorce referendum by the anti-divorce camp who used the slogan "goodby daddy; hello divorce" saying that men all over the country would leave their families to shack up with some 18 year old.

I'd be interested in seeing the figures to date on how many women have cited suicidal tendencies in ireland since the X case??

Of course, no matter what you do or where you do it, there's always going to be someone who will abuse the/any system. that can't be legislated for, and has to be left in the trust of those making the decisions. In this case, the medical community

smiles

Why?
Because we live in a patriarchal society.
Because the catholic church is dominated by men.
And because the ideology and morality against abortion is dominated by religious right wing attitudes. Most religious hierarchies have men in control.
We may think we live in a more secular society but in many ways things haven't really changed.

I honestly think you're being a little bit absurd. Morality is individual, which has been heavuily influenced by the catholic churchs attutide. I don't think that because our society is somewhat patriarchal that it means to destroy womens lives, which is effectively what you are saying.

It IS anti-woman. And I'm a man. You're statement infers that women aren't to be trusted, that they will somehow flippantly use abortion as a contraception alternative, that an wanted pregnancy is seen by them as an "inconvenience", as opposed to a crisis.

LOL! What I said was that the women who already lie and go to england, will (in my opinion) simply lie here instead. I did not say "women aren't to be trusted". It's can be an incredibly difficult situation for someone to be in, and the pressure might put them in the mind that all they can do is lie to get out of it.

I did not say that they would "flippantly use abortion as a contraception alternative", please read what I say and do not make huge jumps to vastly different conclusions. Women are not stupid. They would not just forget about contraception as abortions are available. Abortion can be an incredibly traumatic experience, both mentally and physically, and so what you are saying is absurb. Accidents happen, and people who would be well able to have a baby, without being suicidal, might not want it. It's happened before and it will happen again.

My obvious dislike of Ahern is not the point. He is saying if the referendum is rejected it will open up a liberal abortion regime - therefore he is saying that if women have access to abortion they will exploit it. This is saying "don't trust women".

No, it's not. He is possibly making the same point I already made, I've already said now this is not saying "don't trust women".

The fact is, that 1000's of Irish women have to travel to England every year with a crisis pregnancy. If we ignore that or try to skirt round the issue we are saying "out of sight, out of mind". If we admit that it happens then we have to deal with that or else be hypocrites and keep exporting the problem.

yes. and i have agreed with this point over and over. All i'm saying is that there will be an exploitation of this.

You agree that there is no point in referendum after referendum and that people should be asked what they want. We WERE asked ten years ago and we said what we wanted but they didn't have the guts to legislate for it - the supreme court ruling on the X-case. So we do it all again.

Fair enough, i wasnt aware that we had had a referendum on this 10 years ago.

Just to be awkward and throw in another point: Why are you so upset about there being another referendum? Surely if it has passed once, then it will pass again, unless people have hanged their minds, in which case it shouldnt be passed.

Less than half the country voted for them in the last election as you point out in regard to the Nice Treaty. Why? Because people don't trust them and don't feel represented by them, and because they feel no matter which way they vote they won't have a say. So therefore the government isn't a valid representative of the voice of the people. And seeing as women make up a tiny percentage of the government, even less representative on this issue.

Thats waffle. People didnt vote because they are lazy. Not because they dont feel well represented, if there is a referendum then they point is that they do have a say.

"I'm wet, therefore it's raining!" logic reappers.

If people want to feel better represented then they will vote and say what they want, not the other way round.

Question: Will you vote in this referendum because you feel so strongly about it? Or will you not vote because you don't think it will be passed even if it does?

The government elections have the highest turn out, therefore they are a valid representation of what the majority of the country wants.

Nice was about the creation of a European economic superpower and was primarily being pushed by the European Round Table of Industrialists - it's about money.

Are you a socialist by any chance?

This referendum is about women's lives and quality of life.

As the Americans say - go figure.

I'm not quite sure what i'm meant to be figuring. Are you drawing a parallel between Nice and abortion? If so, please state it somewhat more clearly, i wouldnt want to misinterpret you.

<< Fio >>

smiles

It wouldnt' be as straight forward as that anyway smiles. Look at it this way. People commit murder/whatever and in court they plead insanity. They are then examined mentally to see if they are or not. Your average 16 year old from "the 'mun" (not wishing to stereotype, but just bear with me please) is not going to fool one of these people easily.

I did over simplify to make the point.

I know they would be mentally examined, etc. but what happens when the one person who is deemed not to be suicidal does indeed commit suicide? There would be holy war! the medical profession would be disgraced and pro-life and pro-choice would be put in arms over it all over again.

But I think what aspro is trying to say is that the referendum seems to be saying "ALL women cannot be trusted and will abuse the system left right and centre". Interestingly enough, the same excuse used in the divorce referendum by the anti-divorce camp who used the slogan "goodby daddy; hello divorce" saying that men all over the country would leave their families to shack up with some 18 year old.

I havent seen any campaign that actually says that people will abuse it left, right and centre. I havent said it because i know its not true, but you have to admit that it would transfer abortions from england to ireland.

Of course, no matter what you do or where you do it, there's always going to be someone who will abuse the/any system. that can't be legislated for, and has to be left in the trust of those making the decisions. In this case, the medical community

Yes, but for the one wrong decision then the whole set-up is thrown into jeopardy.

<< Fio >>

Lemming

Originally posted by smiles
it would transfer abortions from england to ireland

Out of sight out of mind. Problem still exists.

smiles

Originally posted by Lemming
Out of sight out of mind. Problem still exists.

I know, i'm not disputing that it's a problem.

Somehow i get the feeling everyone is reading what I write and jumping to conclusions

<< Fio >>

Aspro

I honestly think you're being a little bit absurd. Morality is individual, which has been heavuily influenced by the catholic churchs attutide. I don't think that because our society is somewhat patriarchal that it means to destroy womens lives, which is effectively what you are saying.

Morality may be individual, but so is a crisis pregnancy. Legislation is not individual, so cannot deal with each woman's individual situation. The church is against abortion in all circumstances. Without access to one a woman's life may be wrecked. I'm not trying to troll, but to me, this is the logical equation.

What I said was that the women who already lie and go to england, will (in my opinion) simply lie here instead. I did not say "women aren't to be trusted".

Now you're confusing me. "Women will lie" does not equal "women aren't to be trusted??

In my opinion Ahern is saying exactly this. What the hell is a "liberal abortion" regime ?(his words). I get images of doctors running around maternity hospitals advising abortions for every pregnancy. Women either have access by the 1992 judgment or they're not to be trusted, so we send them to England.

Are you going to put your cards on the table? You are either in favour of legislating for the x-case or you're anti-abortion. This is what we're presented with. This is what was voted on in 1992 and this is what imo has to be legislated for. In my opinion it should go further, but it took the worst case scenario (14 year old raped and become pregnant) to make people see this.

I'm not trying to put words into your mouth btw I'm just taking your contradictory opinions to their logical conclusion. The issue has been argued and argued and argued over for decades now, and I've heard every single argument a hundred times over and still the legislators ignore the facts.

: Why are you so upset about there being another referendum?

Because there was no need for one. Four independents had their shopping baskets out and Bertie wants to be in government for another five years.

Thats waffle. People didnt vote because they are lazy. Not because they dont feel well represented, if there is a referendum then they point is that they do have a say.

I am political. And I have politicised my friends through my beliefs and actions. They didn't vote before and the most common excuse was not "couldn't be arsed". It was "what's the point? They're all the same"

That's not laziness. If you see no choice, you don't bother.
Now they see a difference, they do. When they had a chance they all voted for Joe Higgins three years ago, and that was only a european election.

If people truly felt they were represented there would be a much larger turnout at elections. But most people just see all the favours done for big businessmen over the years while ordinary people struggled on with their lives.

Question: Will you vote in this referendum because you feel so strongly about it? Or will you not vote because you don't think it will be passed even if it does?

Of course I'll vote. And then I'll campaign for it to be legislated on. And I'll keep doing it - for every sister, girlfriend, mother or cousin who's ever had to go through this.
.

Are you a socialist by any chance?

Yes, I'm a socialist and proud of it. Socialist Party.

I'm not quite sure what i'm meant to be figuring. Are you drawing a parallel between Nice and abortion? If so, please state it somewhat more clearly, i wouldnt want to misinterpret you.

I mean profit always coming before people.

When it was a referendum who's benefits would mainly accrue to those who are rich and powerful the government had no problem pushing for it. Twice.

When its a referendum which mainly affects economically disadvantaged women, they're against it.

And if you want to call it a moral issue or a life issue - where's the governments morality when it comes to support for wars, armies, bombings i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan etc.

Why aren't they building houses and regulating rents so that lives are not destroyed through homelessness.

What I'm pointing to is hypocrisy.

smiles

The church is against abortion in all circumstances. Without access to one a woman's life may be wrecked. I'm not trying to troll, but to me, this is the logical equation.

Actually thats not quite correct:

"Abortion and the Right to Life" [Catholic Archbishops of Great Britian]
"The abortion that must be judged always unaccceptable to the upright moral consequence is the direct abortion, i.e. those procedures and techniques that are intended to sptop the unborn child's continuing to development. We are not speaking of cases where the interference with the unborn child is in fact and unintended, though forseen, side-effet of proceedures neessary to save the mother from some condition that threatens her life. For example, a treatment for cancer of the uterus can be justified even if it also causes a miscarriage."

May I reiterate, I do not follow the catholic churchs teaching in this matter, but i am simply outlining the facts as I have them (taken from my religion book actually - we've had many discussions on this is school)

quote:

---

What I said was that the women who already lie and go to england, will (in my opinion) simply lie here instead. I did not say "women aren't to be trusted".

---

Now you're confusing me. "Women will lie" does not equal "women aren't to be trusted??

Of course not. Show me any person in the world who is trustworthy and I promise you there will be hundreds of cases where they have lied. Stop trying to change the meaning of what I say so that you can try to argue with it.

In my opinion Ahern is saying exactly this. What the hell is a "liberal abortion" regime ?(his words). I get images of doctors running around maternity hospitals advising abortions for every pregnancy. Women either have access by the 1992 judgment or they're not to be trusted, so we send them to England.

When I hear a liberal abortion regime, I think of abortion being freely available for people who seek it. I dont know why on earth anyone would think otherwise.

Theres still a problem regardless of whether the ammendment is passed here or not.

Are you going to put your cards on the table? You are either in favour of legislating for the x-case or you're anti-abortion.

And I have "put my cards on the table" - if you care to read the other abortion thread you might have realised that.

I think that abortion is a necessity for some people in crisis situations. I do not however think that abortion should be legal for cases of inconvenience. I'm not "pro-choice" but i'm not "pro-life"

Also, that was a very big generalisation, What do you mean by "anti-abortion"? Anti-abortion in all cases are just in some?

I'm not trying to put words into your mouth btw I'm just taking your contradictory opinions to their logical conclusion. The issue has been argued and argued and argued over for decades now, and I've heard every single argument a hundred times over and still the legislators ignore the facts.

where have i been contradictory? Show me and i'll explain, or I will appoligise if i have been.
You *think* you've heard every argument, so why are you bothering to listen to mine? you seem to be completely closed to other ideas beyond your own.

Because there was no need for one. Four independents had their shopping baskets out and Bertie wants to be in government for another five years.

anti-government waffle. give an arguement rather than a sweeping statement.

I am political. And I have politicised my friends through my beliefs and actions. They didn't vote before and the most common excuse was not "couldn't be arsed". It was "what's the point? They're all the same"

That's not laziness. If you see no choice, you don't bother.
Now they see a difference, they do. When they had a chance they all voted for Joe Higgins three years ago, and that was only a european election.

fair play, well done.

I for one dont have friends like that.

If people truly felt they were represented there would be a much larger turnout at elections. But most people just see all the favours done for big businessmen over the years while ordinary people struggled on with their lives.

corruption will always be part of every government, whether we like it or not unfortunatly. I dont think that is the sole reason for a low turnout, if people are that dissatisfied then they will want to change it.

Of course I'll vote. And then I'll campaign for it to be legislated on. And I'll keep doing it - for every sister, girlfriend, mother or cousin who's ever had to go through this.

you'd make a great politician, but i think you missed my point.

I mean profit always coming before people.

When it was a referendum who's benefits would mainly accrue to those who are rich and powerful the government had no problem pushing for it. Twice.

When its a referendum which mainly affects economically disadvantaged women, they're against it.

Thats a bit of a stretch to link two totally different points.

This issue does not mostly affect economically disadvantaged women, it affects all women, and in fact all men to a lesser degree.

And if you want to call it a moral issue or a life issue - where's the governments morality when it comes to support for wars, armies, bombings i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan etc.

thats getting a little off topic.

Why aren't they building houses and regulating rents so that lives are not destroyed through homelessness.

What I'm pointing to is hypocrisy.

Regulation and control of rents will bankrupt the economy, it's all fine and well to support people but this causes huge problems, if prices aren't allowed to reach their normal (fluctuating) level then it causes problems for all the other sections of the economy.

<< Fio >>

Victor

Originally posted by Aspro
Why? Because we live in a patriarchal society. Because the catholic church is dominated by men. And because the ideology and morality against abortion is dominated by religious right wing attitudes. Most religious hierarchies have men in control. We may think we live in a more secular society but in many ways things haven't really changed.

I think you are drifting dangerously off-topic. And to counter your point, if so many people object to the "controlling influences" in this country, then those "controlling influences" no longer control, you defeat your own argument.

Typedef

It wouldnt' be as straight forward as that anyway smiles. Look at it this way. People commit murder/whatever and in court they plead insanity. They are then examined mentally to see if they are or not. Your average 16 year old from "the 'mun" (not wishing to stereotype, but just bear with me please) is not going to fool one of these people easily.

Actually a though occurs to me, wil suicidal tendencies and the application/ascription of such tendencies be fairly and equitably applied between rich and poor? Clearly no matter how professional a Doctor there is a chasm of difference between the treatment publc and private patients get, so will it be the case the private patients will simply by way of their bigger bill be able to wangle financially elitist abortions in Ireland? If you catch my drift.

Interestingly enough, the same excuse used in the divorce referendum by the anti-divorce camp who used the slogan "goodby daddy; hello divorce" saying that men all over the country would leave their families to shack up with some 18 year old.

Now I could say that the argument being used by the PDs that Sinn Fein in government means X or Y is that same as abortion, but the total incongruity of the two is glaring. By the criteria you set out above I might equate just about any conjunctive slogan to abortion as there seems to be about as much evidence connection abortion to divorce as any other issue.

Example: If you vote for Nice, the EU will do X, so that's why you must vote X way on abortion, because that side over there said the same thing on the Nice referendum, ergo agree with me.


So if I must agree with your view because of a slogan used during the divorce debate you must agree with my view by way of the logical conjunction above.

Sufficive to say I do not accep the congruity of the two instances.
/Glee\