Voting No doesn't prevent abortion, it just exports it. I have a relation who had to go to England for basic healthcare when a much wanted pregnancy turned out to have a fatal foetal abnormality. That is unacceptable, outrageous and disgusting. It must end.
#NeverStopNotGivingUp
I 100% agree with this but is it not a valid argument that the current post-referendum legislation plans (eg. unrestricted up to 12 weeks) not go too far?Originally Posted by Mr A
The danger is (although it looks less likely than it did before) is that situations like the one you mention above will not be properly dealt with as even though some, like myself, accept that things need to change but don't agree that things should change as much as is being planned, assuming the referendum passes.
The referendum is on repealing the 8th. While the 8th remains we continue exporting our problems and treating women like dirt. As for the planned legislation afterward, it probably doesn't go far enough. The citizen's assembly sat through a mass of testimony and evidence and went further, we should have stuck with that. Terminations do not happen lightly.
#NeverStopNotGivingUp
First of all what happened with your relative was horribly wrong. I'm pulling a figure out of my ass here but if this was a referendum on allowing terminations in cases of fatal foetal abnormality I'd expect it to pass with 80%+ of the vote. You are right. It is unacceptable, outrageous and disgusting, and it must end.
I'm therefore not referring to your example when i say this. I feel that the world healthcare doesn't even come close to covering the sheer tragedy of that situation. But if there is one phrase which i feel is holding back the Yes campaign it is "denying women access to healthcare" to refer to on-demand abortion. As someone in the middle it grates on me.
The constitution is obviously wrong. The unborn child and the mother should not enjoy an equal right to life. When my children were born I knew that there was the potential for things to go wrong. If that had come to pass and I was asked to make a decision there is no way in hell the life of my unborn children had equal value to the life of my wife.
But that is not to say that the unborn child should have no rights at all. This referendum is about redefining the balance between those competing but obviously unequal rights, and people are struggling to decide what is right. To me the "denying women healthcare" line makes it sound (correctly or incorrectly) like those saying it regard abortion as akin to having a mole removed or something. If the Yes campaign want a victory they should stop saying that. It is not helping their cause.
Last edited by backstothewall; 17/05/2018 at 10:49 PM.
Bring Back Belfast Celtic F.C.
Backstothewall I know that you’re a decent guy and a conscientious poster and I would say this to a friend or relative,so don’t take this the wrong way but your position is extraordinarily arrogant.You are not in the middle in any way shape or form.This issue requires nothing of you other than to support the rights of the women around you.You will never get pregnant,nor carry a child through gestation nor go though labour, you stood in a delivery suite like the rest of us,useless as all f**k.Well done!That experience should have shown you how little your involvement in this process is.How about this...shut up about your involvement in women’s right to autonomy over their own bodies,get behind the women in your life,trust and support them,back them to take wise and considered decisions....as you would expect them to trust and support you.Our country is evolving into an enlightened,compassionate place,unrecognizable from the one I grew up in.These women need healthcare provided in their own country,you don’t like it being called ‘healthcare’ well tough,you’re not a women in a crisis situation who needs help from her medical advisors,get over yourself.
backstothewall's identity has nothing to do with what is right and wrong. If morality is to be centred around identity then morality doesn't exist at all. Anyone who surrenders to such a notion is an idiot, and anyone who believes that someone should give up the right to take a moral stance on issues that are of concern to society simply because of the nature of his/her genitalia is sexist...because of his/her skin colour is racist...and so on.
Last edited by The Fly; 18/05/2018 at 12:16 PM.
Coincidentally enough, Together For Yes, Sinn Fein and also ROSA all have new posters up overnight in my area.
I'm not taking anything the wrong way but moving on from here I don't see what is to be gained by referring to each others thoughts on this using words like arrogant or stupid.
It's an emotive issue for everybody and Adam was understandably nervous about this thread but we've managed to get to page 3 of a thoughtful debate without him having to bring the mod hammer out. Why don't we all get back to playing the ball rather than the man.
I understand why the term grates on you, but I'd say it is actually helping their cause.
Framing the referendum as a question of denying women healthcare is pretty shrewd (not necessarily true all the time, but when has that ever mattered in a referendum?), because instinctively, nobody wants to deny women healthcare. "Autonomy over their own bodies" is another example of that too - who would vote against that? So they want to frame the issue in that way.
Both sides will use the most effective terms they can to get votes. That means effective in terms of emotional impact as much as anything else, and neither side will be that concerned about whether their language or claims stand up to scrutiny all that much.
Last edited by osarusan; 18/05/2018 at 9:38 AM.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
I was asked the other day to pray that the'No' vote wins
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.
Luckily we have my musings from Feb 9th to clear up any doubt.
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.
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.
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks