Referendum on the 8th amendment.

[Charlie Darwin]

How do people feel this is going? It's a week out and I get the feeling all the noise is coming from the 2 extremes and the media. The middle ground seem to have totally disengaged.

Low turnout likely as a result?
Well it's a simple yes or no question. Surely it's to be expected that the two extremes will make the noise? There's hardly going to be anybody campaigning for maybe.

[backstothewall]

Yeah Fly, moral stances can be taken by anyone about any perceived moral issue,but that stance can be called ludicrous if necessary, based on that persons identity.Pregnancy is a woman’s issue exclusively,with obvious exceptions like male medical experts etc.Joe soap going around wringing his hands and gnashing his teeth about his ‘moral dilemma’ is ridiculous because he considers this ‘dilemma’ from the lofty and luxurious position of knowing he’ll never be in the actual situation.He’s proposing to cast judgement on something he can’t possibly understand.Thats where the arrogance lies (and apologies here backtowalsall I may have been a little heavy-handed above).The arrogance is actually accidental,what’s required is for men to realize the disadvantage they are at in this debate and to be self aware enough to be guided by the women’s voices around them.I’m sure that women would take that approach if involved in a male-only issue that would affect the lives of their fellow male citizens for generations.

I reject the premises that this is a female only issue. Presenting it as such is another example of the sort of language that is costing yes the votes of swing voters.

As I said above the unborn should not have anything like equal rights to the mother. That is clearly ludicrous and the constitution is wrong. But they should enjoy some rights.

I'm not saying that because I'm some sort of religious crusader on secondment from Opus Dei. I'm actually an atheist. I am a firm yes for marriage equality. I want to get the church out of our schools.

But this is an issue for all of us and men rightly get a say in it. The fact that I even have to say it is unfortunate.

I had hoped for a yes campaign that would put it's emphasis on the protections that will be put in place, while bringing us into line with the rest of Europe. I could have been a yes for that. Instead what I got was being told that because i don't support unrestricted abortion on demand that i want to deny women healthcare and that i have no right to an opinion because i am a man.

And for the record the No campaign are no better. I guess I expected it of them though.

[Fizzer]

A bit dramatic and total rubbish.I’m confused at your outrage which seems to occur without a hint of self-consciousness or sense of irony given the decades of intolerance that have preceded this.The issue concerns women’s bodies and their right to bodily integrity,not men’s bodies,surely it isn’t too much of a stretch to accept that women’s views in relation to their own bodies carry greater validity than that of a man’s? How can it possibly be controversial to you to suggest that a woman’s perspective on her own body is more important than yours? Your suggesting some kind of oppression here which is frankly ludicrous,surely you have the maturity to be able to see that.
The whole male dilemma thing is nonsense,there is no dilemma,those who profess to be engaged in it are actually totally cool with abortion,have been for years....so long as it’s preceded by a flight to the UK.Have they ever intervened to try to stop it,or protested against it or reported it...not if they have any decency or humanity about them.Its total hypocracy to force women to go abroad to be cared for.Calling people out for outdated paternalistic attitudes is not you and your mates being oppressed.Take whatever view or side you like but deal with the fact that people in this country are going to stand up to such views.

[Fizzer]

It’s my opinion on his perspective or lack of a sensible one....I don’t have any choice but to tolerate it,it’s a free country,or hopefully about to take the next step to becoming one.I may have overstated it but I think it’s alarming that many men don’t realize the importance of listening to women on this issue.I’ll leave it at that,I hope ye do the right thing lads.

[The Fly]

It’s my opinion on his perspective or lack of a sensible one....I don’t have any choice but to tolerate it,it’s a free country,or hopefully about to take the next step to becoming one.I may have overstated it but I think it’s alarming that many men don’t realize the importance of listening to women on this issue.I’ll leave it at that,I hope ye do the right thing lads.

Yes you have your opinion on the issue, but you think his view doesn't and more significantly - shouldn't matter. All because he's male.

Abortion is the issue it is because it involves another life. Inherent in the bodily autonomy argument is the notion that the other life is property. One doesn't have to look too far back into history to find another example of that kind of thinking

[backstothewall]

Ok so aside from the egotistical waffle,the constitution is wrong you say,so you’ll be voting yes? Sound.

As said above I won't be voting due to me being disenfranchised by virtue of living in the wrong green field. But I'm sure there are many more like me who do get a vote.

If repeal is defeated 51:49 the high horse attitude from the yes campaign will be the reason it fails. My imaginary vote was there to be had. If there had been no campaigning at I would probably have been a yes.

But they have managed to convince me that I would vote no if I had the opportunity. The approach taken by the yes campaign reminds me of student politics. It is the most ineffective political campaign I can remember (and I remember back as far as the 1992 UK general election).

I suspect yes will still prevail. The people who do this for a living will take over next week and correct the course by speaking in more nuanced language but they will have to do that to save yes from themselves

[mark12345]

I was asked the other day to pray that the'No' vote wins

[osarusan]

I have very very little time for the "I was going to vote to repeal, but after seeing the behaviour of the campaign, now I'm going to vote the other way" argument. I strongly suspect that the person saying it was never going to vote that way in the first place.

We saw it endlessly in the SSM campaign, people who were apparently so put off by the Yes campaign that they changed their vote, but yet the behaviour of the No campaign somehow had no effect on them.

Either way, you are voting on an issue, and people should vote on that issue, not the campaign.

[backstothewall]

Luckily we have my musings from Feb 9th to clear up any doubt.




I'm not sure how i would vote if i had one. One one hand I am broadly pro-life as i said above, but on the other I don't think this issue has any business being addressed in the constitution of any country. It would probably depend on the question being asked on the ballot and the legislation being proposed.


Nothing has changed about that statement. I'm a yes to the question on the ballot. I'm a no to the proposed legislation. A couple of modest changes to the proposed legislation could still change my mind.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Positive polling today, and I'm feeling a lot better about the vote than I was this time last week. I would cautiously expect a 52/53% yes.

[mark12345]

Positive polling today, and I'm feeling a lot better about the vote than I was this time last week. I would cautiously expect a 52/53% yes.


A couple of thoughts on the issue:

I have no right as an individual to tell any woman (or man for that matter) what they should or should not do with their own body.
For any individual to have that right, or power shall we say, would be draconian.
We live in a free society where that sort of personal power is not granted to individuals or groups of individuals, like say the government.
However there is another body involed here, is there not? That's the essence of the debate.

From an economic point of view: Should the Irish government announce tomorrow morning that it will be revoking all convictions that were ever issued by the courts against drunk drivers, reimbursing the guilty for any lost monies they might have incurred, and reinstating them to jobs and marriages they may have lost because of those convictions? That would be sort of crazy, wouldn't you say? How much of an uproar would that cause among the populace. People should own up to the consequences of their decisions and must be held accountable for their actions. Fair to say? Well that does not apply apparently in the case of unwanted pregnancies. One can make a mistake, and another, and another, and the tax payers will continue to pay for those mistakes. Is there a difference between that and drunk drivers? Just saying.

From a religious point of view: The government is asking it's citizens (those citizens who claim abortion is against their religion) to pay their taxes to help a process which goes against their religion.
Does the Irish government demand the same type of financial levy from all religious groups in the country, if they claim something goes against their religion?
I'd be very interested to know the truth on that one.

[Charlie Darwin]

I have very very little time for the "I was going to vote to repeal, but after seeing the behaviour of the campaign, now I'm going to vote the other way" argument. I strongly suspect that the person saying it was never going to vote that way in the first place.

We saw it endlessly in the SSM campaign, people who were apparently so put off by the Yes campaign that they changed their vote, but yet the behaviour of the No campaign somehow had no effect on them.

Either way, you are voting on an issue, and people should vote on that issue, not the campaign.
It's tone policing and it's bizarre. If I was a cynical man (and I am) I'd say it's certain people's way of stifling debate and creating doubt to encourage people not to turn out.

[Charlie Darwin]

Does the Irish government demand the same type of financial levy from all religious groups in the country, if they claim something goes against their religion?
I'd be very interested to know the truth on that one.
Well, fairly obviously, yes. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, etc all fund the Catholic supremacy of our schools and hospitals.

[osarusan]

It's tone policing and it's bizarre. If I was a cynical man (and I am) I'd say it's certain people's way of stifling debate and creating doubt to encourage people not to turn out.

I don't think it's bizarre, I think it's a fairly crude (and desperate) attempt to instill doubt in campaigners by implying that their behaviour is costing their own side votes from the soft or undecided voters.

Like I said, we saw it repeatedly during the SSM campaign - a whole load of voters who were apparently so shocked by the behaviour of some in the Yes campaign that they changed their votes to No, but somehow remained unaffected by the ridiculous behaviour of some elements of the No campaign.

[Mr A]

Are there any concrete examples of poor behaviour from the Yes side? I know there are angry voices there, but since the 8th amendment endangers and in some cases outright kills women that strikes me as entirely appropriate.

Meanwhile the No side have been removing posters, protesting outside maternity hospitals, and lying like there's no tomorrow (I guess when you have God on your side you can do what you want).

Oh, and saving terminations in cases of a fatal foetal condition are murder. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a417adaa-5c69-11e8-881d-a1499f0c9519

But yeah, the yes side has a tone problem.

[dahamsta]

I've tossed several posts from this thread int he bin. If you don't have anything of value to add, don't add it.

[dahamsta]

To be fair people from the Yes side have removed posters too, and that giant NO from the hill that was put up over the weekend.

I've been tempted to take down / black out a few of the more objectionable No posters myself, but I haven't thus far.T

The behaviour of the No side has been exactly as I'd expect. Pathetic behaviour.

[NeverFeltBetter]

To be fair people from the Yes side have removed posters too, and that giant NO from the hill that was put up over the weekend.

I've been tempted to take down / black out a few of the more objectionable No posters myself, but I haven't thus far.T

The behaviour of the No side has been exactly as I'd expect. Pathetic behaviour.

It's not at all clear what happened there though, it could easily have just come apart and blown away.

Connected, it's been amusing seeing the few Love Both reps asked about the Ben Bulben/Crosses thing trip over themselves to disassociate their movement from the actions of this one guy. They know their losing votes with every stunt.

[jbyrne]

The behaviour of the No side has been exactly as I'd expect. Pathetic behaviour.

you cant tar all the No side with the same brush. one may / may not agree with what they have said but many No speakers have talked a fair bit of sense in an intelligent and controlled manner.
just as much "pathetic" behaviour on the Yes side. last Mondays Claire Byrne "debate" is case in point.... both sides let themselves down badly

[NeverFeltBetter]

Claire Byrne was undoubtedly disgraceful TV, but I'm genuinely baffled that people think it was a 50/50 situation in terms of blame. The guilt there lies with No, and with Byrne herself.

[dahamsta]

you cant tar all the No side with the same brush.

I can't tar everyone that wants to vote No with the same brush, but I can tar most organisations leading the No charge with that brush -- their posters are almost universally untrue or misleading (or simply gross; or confusing for children, whose schools they are often placed outside; or hurtful for pregnant people, whose hospitals they are often placed outside), and their comments to the media (and in the pulpit) are the same.

I'm sure some No voters are simply misguided by them. Not all, but a fair number. Take the lies out of the equation and I'd lay good odds the poll numbers would change significantly.

[jbyrne]

I'm sure some No voters are simply misguided by them. Not all, but a fair number. Take the lies out of the equation and I'd lay good odds the poll numbers would change significantly.

again, same could be said for both sides

[sbgawa]

Was the Finn Harps twitter account hacked this morning or did they really just tweet a Together for yes tweet ?

[nigel-harps1954]

again, same could be said for both sides

Can I ask what lies you'd like to see the Yes side remove?

[backstothewall]

Can I ask what lies you'd like to see the Yes side remove?

Only one example but that the 8th amendment was the reason for the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar.

A coroner has ruled that she died because of medical negligence. The courts awarded huge damages against the HSE because of that negligence. Even with the 8th ammendment and some of the most restrictive laws in the western world the courts have ruled that Savita Halappanavar could and should have been offered an abortion.

[jbyrne]

Can I ask what lies you'd like to see the Yes side remove?

that aborting a perfectly viable unborn child up to 12 weeks isn't wrong.
ever seen a live 12 week scan?

[backstothewall]

There are plenty of liers on the No side tbf. We've just had Bernie Smith on Radio Ulster spouting blatant lies about a link between abortion and breast cancer.

[nigel-harps1954]

that aborting a perfectly viable unborn child up to 12 weeks isn't wrong.
ever seen a live 12 week scan?

Is that it? I've two kids and we've also had one miscarriage. I've seen my fair share of scans to know what's there, what size it is, and what features it does and doesn't have.

For what it's worth, I'm a strong yes campaigner, but I've trouble with the 12 week part of the proposed legislation. That's not what I'm voting for. I'm voting for the removal of the eighth amendment.

Where's the lies though you speak of?

[nigel-harps1954]

Only one example but that the 8th amendment was the reason for the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar.

A coroner has ruled that she died because of medical negligence. The courts awarded huge damages against the HSE because of that negligence. Even with the 8th ammendment and some of the most restrictive laws in the western world the courts have ruled that Savita Halappanavar could and should have been offered an abortion.

I disagree with this. It might not have saved her, but an abortion would have allowed earlier intervention and given her a chance.

Every side has their opinion on this one, but I prefer to listen to many, many experts, as well as the official inquest into her death which ruled the eighth amendment had a large part to play in her death.

[jinxy lilywhite]

The 8th amendment has not saved one life as all it has done is force women and couples to travel to the UK to access an termination.
Whatever their justification for this is for it is another shame on this nation in that the state is not providing help and support to those who need it.
This is also a class issue as people who can afford to travel can travel to the UK for a couple of hundred euros with the help of a credit card or a short term loan.
People who cant afford it try to access the abortion pills and take them unsupervised or even worse not really know what is in them.

Coming from some folk on the no side you would swear that women are ticking killing machines in that if this goes through every single menstrual women alive will get pregnant and have an abortion because that is what they do and they cant be trusted. And this mantra is being spouted by female contributors on the No side.

I believe that we should allow each individual woman power and authority over their own body

[jbyrne]

but I've trouble with the 12 week part of the proposed legislation. That's not what I'm voting for. I'm voting for the removal of the eighth amendment.


by knowing that the 12 week no restriction will apply after the legislation that's effectively already been agreed is passed you are in fact voting for it.

I actually agree that the 8th should be removed but not in the situation that allows unrestricted 12 week abortions. would probably vote yes otherwise.

[nigel-harps1954]

by knowing that the 12 week no restriction will apply after the legislation that's effectively already been agreed is passed you are in fact voting for it.

Proposed legislation.

Besides, because it makes me uncomfortable, that should be no reason why it's not brought in. Many others need it for many other circumstances. It's not all black and white.


I actually agree that the 8th should be removed but not in the situation that allows unrestricted 12 week abortions. would probably vote yes otherwise.

If you agree the 8th should be removed, then you should vote yes. It's as simple as that. If you vote no, we're stuck with the 8th. I don't see what's difficult to understand about that.

[NeverFeltBetter]

I would actually bet money that 12 weeks will be reduced or altered in someway when it comes before the Dail. There's enough No and on the fence Fine Gael, Fianna Fail, Sinn Fein and Independent TD's that they'll want to smooth the way with concessions.

But that doesn't matter. As stated, we're not voting on legislation, we're voting on getting rid of the 8th.

[jbyrne]

If you agree the 8th should be removed, then you should vote yes. It's as simple as that. If you vote no, we're stuck with the 8th. I don't see what's difficult to understand about that.

a bit condescending if you don't mind.
if the referendum is defeated it will be revisited soon enough, I would guess, but with the 12 weeks unrestricted idea removed. That's my thinking anyway.


I would actually bet money that 12 weeks will be reduced or altered in someway when it comes before the Dail. There's enough No and on the fence Fine Gael, Fianna Fail, Sinn Fein and Independent TD's that they'll want to smooth the way with concessions.

But that doesn't matter. As stated, we're not voting on legislation, we're voting on getting rid of the 8th.

The 12 weeks wont be altered as the voting public, assuming the vote passes, will argue that they thought that voting yes would lead to 12 week unrestricted as that's what is being widely stated by those in power.
You are voting on Friday to allow (or not) the Dail legislate for abortion as that's what will come out of a repeal of the 8th. The legislators have already told you what they plan to legislate for, therefore you are effectively voting on the proposed legislation.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Like how voting to save the Seanad has resulted in the Seanad reform promised by its campaigners, and expected by those who voted No? That was a similar issue in terms of a disconnect between what was actually being voted on, and how various parties and groups tried to frame it.

You can argue back and forth about what a Yes means, but at the end of the day the only thing I'm actually voting on is repeal of the 8th. If the Dail turns around and legislates something other than what the (current) largest party, that lacks a majority, has proposed then so be it. I won't be happy, but I won't be able to say with a straight face "Every Yes voter voted for abortion laws up to 12 weeks". And that's if the current Dail even gets to vote on such legislation, which it very well might not. Hell, it actually wouldn't bother me too much, because once the 8th is gone, legislation can be altered whenever the Oireachtas deems fit, and we elect a new Oireachtas much more frequently than we have abortion referendums.

If Yes wins, at least 45% of the country will still have voted No, and there are sizable amounts of Yes voters who aren't all that keen on 12 weeks. There's plenty of GE vote-grabbing potential in all that, and I think it's naive to assume TD's won't want a piece of it.

[nigel-harps1954]

a bit condescending if you don't mind.
if the referendum is defeated it will be revisited soon enough, I would guess, but with the 12 weeks unrestricted idea removed. That's my thinking anyway.


The 12 weeks wont be altered as the voting public, assuming the vote passes, will argue that they thought that voting yes would lead to 12 week unrestricted as that's what is being widely stated by those in power.
You are voting on Friday to allow (or not) the Dail legislate for abortion as that's what will come out of a repeal of the 8th. The legislators have already told you what they plan to legislate for, therefore you are effectively voting on the proposed legislation.

I don't think that was condescending in the slightest, to be honest. I genuinely don't see what's difficult to understand, if someone is against the 8th in it's current form, then yes should be your vote. Otherwise, the government have already stated, there will not be another referendum. We cannot go another 30 years before we see another vote on this.

The only thing I have to defend the 12 week proposed legislation, is that it's all we'll have to deal with cases of rape or incest. 12 weeks on demand doesn't sit well with me, as I already said, I'd prefer a slightly stricter set of rules, but it's a hell of a lot better than what we currently have.

What you have to remember, is that we're not voting on the proposed legislation. That would still have to pass in government. There's enough opposition to the 12 week proposed legislation, I too believe there'll be an alteration to that before it would ever be passed, as Neverfeltbetter already suggested.

[backstothewall]

I disagree with this. It might not have saved her, but an abortion would have allowed earlier intervention and given her a chance.

Every side has their opinion on this one, but I prefer to listen to many, many experts, as well as the official inquest into her death which ruled the eighth amendment had a large part to play in her death.

Your posts are usually excellent and very well thought out Nigel, but I think you are genuinly misinformed about this.

Everyone may well have an opinion but there was an inquest that looked at the facts. That inquest did not rule that the 8th was the problem. It blamed the doctors.

There was no need for her to die. A termination would have saved her, and she should have been given one

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22213630

[OwlsFan]

Pure speculation based on nothing.

Based on the fact that it's 21 weeks in the UK and we have a habit of following the UK in most respects and there will be push for that. Of that I have no doubt.


Vile.

Holocaust means destruction or slaughter on a mass scale. 56 million abortions worldwide last year. Looks like a holocaust to me. That's vile.


ah the classic 'I know someone" argument - Lets Force all women to carry babies cos I knew someone who was grand like.

At least you acknowledge that they are babies - many YES voters just say they are fetuses. Yes, I do know someone who was a rape baby who people seem to think should have died because of who her father was (including many on the no side) . It brings home the reality of what a YES vote means. These are real people we are talking about.


It's available in most of the civilized world - not just England/Scotland/Wales - I agree we should make up our own mind. Euthanasia can be more humane in some circumstances. Separate issue.

Ah, the classic sure everyone else is doing it so why don't we. Once again the point about Euthanasia is misinterpreted. It is dealing with the argument that Irish women go to the UK for abortions, therefore we should have it here to save them the journey. I have seen that in so many arguments, particularly Varadkar's. Irish people go to Switzerland for euthanasia. Irish people go to Holland for drugs or prostitution. Should we make them legal here to save them the journey. The argument is whether abortion is right or wrong. Not whether we should make something available here because it's available elsewhere.


Have you read the proposed legislation? A women can kill a child up to birth? No.

You (deliberately) misunderstand the point. Many of the YES posters say "stop policing women's bodies" with no other message. Taking that message to its extreme means a baby can be killed anytime up to its conception as otherwise the woman's body is being policed because apparently a baby is part of the body and not a separate entity in its own right. I am talking about the message - not the legislation.


Do you make all your judgments in life based on TV3 docs? What are you saying exactly - If you vote YES - are you no better than yer wan on the New Innocent. - Is the issue in any way nuanced at all?

Edit - sorry the programme you are referring is actually a drama series - so its not even real life. Clearly you are on a wind up.

The point, again ignored, is that "get rid" was not in the UK drama to shock but just as part of an overall conversation between two women and is obviously in common parlance. That is the way things will go. It was like talking about putting out the rubbish bin.

It's an emotive issue and one where I think people are entitled to air their views (on both sides) without being the subject of vituperative comments.

[harry crumb]

Our rates of abortion are lower than most of our European neighbours.

Reason : 8th Amendment.

Hard cases are tragic but what is being proposed is unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks which I cannot countenance.

[Real ale Madrid]

Based on the fact that it's 21 weeks in the UK and we have a habit of following the UK in most respects and there will be push for that. Of that I have no doubt.



Holocaust means destruction or slaughter on a mass scale. 56 million abortions worldwide last year. Looks like a holocaust to me. That's vile.



At least you acknowledge that they are babies - many YES voters just say they are fetuses. Yes, I do know someone who was a rape baby who people seem to think should have died because of who her father was (including many on the no side) . It brings home the reality of what a YES vote means. These are real people we are talking about.



Ah, the classic sure everyone else is doing it so why don't we. Once again the point about Euthanasia is misinterpreted. It is dealing with the argument that Irish women go to the UK for abortions, therefore we should have it here to save them the journey. I have seen that in so many arguments, particularly Varadkar's. Irish people go to Switzerland for euthanasia. Irish people go to Holland for drugs or prostitution. Should we make them legal here to save them the journey. The argument is whether abortion is right or wrong. Not whether we should make something available here because it's available elsewhere.



You (deliberately) misunderstand the point. Many of the YES posters say "stop policing women's bodies" with no other message. Taking that message to its extreme means a baby can be killed anytime up to its conception as otherwise the woman's body is being policed because apparently a baby is part of the body and not a separate entity in its own right. I am talking about the message - not the legislation.



The point, again ignored, is that "get rid" was not in the UK drama to shock but just as part of an overall conversation between two women and is obviously in common parlance. That is the way things will go. It was like talking about putting out the rubbish bin.

It's an emotive issue and one where I think people are entitled to air their views (on both sides) without being the subject of vituperative comments.

Comparing the difficult choice that some women have to make in sometimes terrible or extenuating circumstances- to a holocaust is deeply offensive. You would want to take a good long hard look at yourself.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Speaking to a friend whose been canvassing throughout the campaign in the Dublin commuter belt tonight, she's not at all convinced Yes is in front, she felt the responses she was getting were more in the 51-49 range. She's had some bad experiences in the last few weeks, ranging from verbal abuse to physical threats.

[sbgawa]

Yes miles ahead. Full media , all political parties on message. It was over before it began

[CraftyToePoke]

Speaking to a friend whose been canvassing throughout the campaign in the Dublin commuter belt tonight, she's not at all convinced Yes is in front, she felt the responses she was getting were more in the 51-49 range. She's had some bad experiences in the last few weeks, ranging from verbal abuse to physical threats.

But will people respond, openly to a stranger on their door step, about this issue, the same way they will in the privacy of a voting booth ? I am not so sure they will.

[The Fly]

The abortion debate is essentially a moral and values driven issue, and I don’t find it a particularly complex or difficult one. I’ll preface my contribution by stating my own position. I would, on balance and with a heavy heart, allow the option of abortion for the well known exceptions. But - let’s be very clear - that is not what is proposed to replace the current provision, and I would not allow exceptions to override all else for a general rule.

At the core of this debate is the value of human life itself, and a person’s arbitrary decision that it is inconvenient to have a child does not trump the independent right to life of the unborn. Their level of personal discomfort with having a child has no impact morally on the definition of whether that person is a life or not.

The idea that the definition and value of human life can be dependent on an individual’s emotional state or convenience is one of grave significance. Either human life has intrinsic value or it doesn’t and anytime you draw any line other than the conception of the child, you end up drawing a false line that can also be applied to adults. Bluntly, the suggestion that human beings have the subjective capacity to define as life that which they wish to preserve is a dangerous one with consequences for society as a whole.

Such statements can still appear abstract to some. Let me present the following case:

I have come to regard the liberalisation of abortion laws as thee most significant act in rubber stamping the decline of a nation as we know it, or knew it. It's my strong contention that when a society deviates from the established view regarding the sanctity of life, or, in more secular terms, a simple objective definition to life, then society will also deviate from other established values as a logical consequence. The implication is not only glaringly obvious but is borne out by the demographic statistics for other nations.

Take our nearest neighbour as an example. In Britain the marriage rate has tumbled and the divorce rate has risen since the late ‘60s and early '70s. Today, the percentage of marriages that end in divorce stands at 42%. The number of children born out of marriage has dramatically increased, to a point where it is nearly level pegging with its wedded counterpoint. Over 20% of all pregnancies end in abortion. This is despite the reasons for the introduction of the 1967 Abortion Act running along similar lines to those espoused for the repeal of the 8th amendment. These statistics find parallel across the ‘Western World’ with the average divorce rate in the EU currently standing at 44%, and America at just over 50%.

However, Ireland’s divorce rate is still remarkably low at 12-13%, despite almost 25 years since the divorce referendum. It is also of interest to note that Ireland also has the highest natural birth rate in the EU; the only country which comes close to replenishing it’s own population (the necessary 2.1 figure) without the need for immigration.

Why the difference? As religion and faith in general have declined across the Western World, the current ‘rights’ based progressive ethos has emerged to try and fill the gap. It has helped to bring many undoubted advancements, the emancipation of gay people being the most obvious one. However, this ethos has a very serious flaw. Together with the economic and legal changes that have run alongside and been spurred by it, it has fostered a culture of entitlement. In other words, an increasing mentality of self-involvement, self-interest and narcissism. This is reflected in the decline of the family and the collapse of the birth rate. The other Western nations have been in decline, anthropologically speaking, for some time now.

The decline of the family heralds the growth of the state. The ever expanding state brings ever increasing debt. The low birth rate together with increasing life expectancy greatly enhances the need for immigration; and the demographic & cultural change that results from that leads to the kind of stark political changes we have seen across Europe and America in recent times. These societies lack the same cohesion they once had and have become more fractured. It's for this reason that I'd counsel against this glee, for want of a better word, regarding the decline of the Catholic church and, in more general terms, the decline of religion and faith. As Edmund Burke said - “Society is indeed a contract. It is a partnership . . . not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.”

It’s almost painful to see how some people are so willing to throw out the best of what has gone before. I hate the smug and glib inferences that the morality and values of our parents, grandparents and beyond, was somehow inferior in comparison to that of the current 'enlightened', 'more compassionate' and 'modern’ populace. This is the same Enlightened generation that is increasingly content to subcontract the care of children, the elderly, the vulnerable and the dependent out to others. To have seen the effects of large scale immigration elsewhere, where immigrants allow the wealthy and middle classes amongst the ‘natives’ to live in the style they have grown accustomed to, whilst those ‘natives’ at the bottom who aren’t so entitled and are willing to do the more menial work can no longer compete with the cheaper imported labour. Then of course, the demographics start to change, the culture starts to change, and their country doesn’t feel like it used to anymore and the immigrants, the majority of whom only want to better their own lives and that of their family, suddenly become unwelcome.

But hey….we’re ‘modern’!

The central point is that morality and value systems are very important and there are consequences for society when they change. The insidious side of the rights based ethos is demonstrated best by the abortion debate. We live in an age where all forms of contraceptives, from condoms to the morning after pill, are widely and virtually freely available and sex education is, to the best of my knowledge, mandatory in schools. Despite this, it is claimed that abortion is an urgent requirement. With such facilities and such information flow so readily available, can the “right to choose” not be properly located in the choice to use effective contraception; or in adoption; or, and I don’t mean to be prudish, in abstinence?

Indeed it is proposed by many that abortion is akin to a human right. This suggestion is delusional and dangerously absurd. For abortion to be a human right, one has to disengage the most fundamental human right of all – the right to life – and to dehumanise the defenceless human in utero in preference to the freedom of choice of the parent or parents. Moreover, if the most important of all the human rights is so easily upended, what the fate of the subsequent human rights, so hard-earned over the last 70 years.

It is not rights that make the character, it’s responsibility, and one of the hallmarks of a cohesive society is the correct balance between human rights and human responsibilities. The granting of a right to abort the unborn, outside of the exceptions, represents a complete negation of responsibility. While it may be argued that this assertion is too judgemental in any individual circumstances, the removal of the right to life of the unborn to enable others to exercise a lesser right of choice, will also remove society’s obligations of responsibility.

Therefore, we now stand atop the slippery slope. The slope other nations have already travelled down!

[NeverFeltBetter]

But will people respond, openly to a stranger on their door step, about this issue, the same way they will in the privacy of a voting booth ? I am not so sure they will.

It's a fair point, but after SSM I don't really buy into "silent" voters as a significant block.

[backstothewall]

It's a fair point, but after SSM I don't really buy into "silent" voters as a significant block.

The last opinion polls overestimated the yes vote by an average of 8% in the SSM referendum. If that is repeated this could be extremely close

[NeverFeltBetter]

I certainly don't buy the last opinion poll in terms of the Yes lead, though the "wisdom of crowds" portion was interesting. That seems very unscientific to me, but got SSM dead on. If it was right again it might become a very prevalent method of referendum polling.

[jbyrne]

What you have to remember, is that we're not voting on the proposed legislation. That would still have to pass in government.

sorry, but we are effectively voting on the legislation. why issue the heads of the legislation before the referendum otherwise?
If yes wins the government and others will see it as a mandate for the heads of legislation already proposed. Look how the anti brexiters in the UK parliament have had to subsequently row in behind brexit even though they campaigned against it before the UK referendum. politicians will not, in any great numbers, want to go against the will of the people.

even if the proposed legislation was defeated its enevitable that it would pass some day in the not too distant future. sure PBP have already stated that they will only support the no restriction up to 12 weeks for 5 years and push for a longer unrestricted period after that 5 years is up.

[NeverFeltBetter]

I definitely don't like this growing perception that Yes has it all sown up. A Miriam Lord article in the IT today was practically a victory lap in written form. They can crow mid-day Saturday, not before.

[sbgawa]

Its not even going to be close.
i'd say 60% + for yes.
No voters are as likely to not bother going to the polls as its a foregone conclusion as yes voters.