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.Originally Posted by nigel-harps1954
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.
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.
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.
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.
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
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.
Last edited by jbyrne; 23/05/2018 at 1:10 PM.
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.
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
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.
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
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.
Forget about the performance or entertainment. It's only the result that matters.
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.
Yeah man, they call gambling a disease, but it's the only disease where you can win a bunch of money.
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.
Last edited by Real ale Madrid; 24/05/2018 at 2:52 PM.
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.
Yes miles ahead. Full media , all political parties on message. It was over before it began
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 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!
Last edited by The Fly; 24/05/2018 at 1:02 PM.
It's a fair point, but after SSM I don't really buy into "silent" voters as a significant block.
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
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
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.
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.
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.
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
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.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks