Repeal The 8th Amendment (1 Viewer)

[Lili Marlene]

People going for an abortion are more likely to change their mind if they can get it in their own country rather than going all the way to another country so if one is pro-life you should want to bring it back here in order to save the babbies.

 

[therealjohnny]

Janer had a change of heart years ago and is now pro choice!
.

Really? That's mad

yes! yes it is!

 

[egg_]

I heard from a different source that the number was 1.26%

That's probably the percentage of women who've had abortions in the last year (way lower, cos obvs only a certain percentage of women become pregnant in any year)

But yeah, the 20% stacks up no matter where I look - the guardian says 'there were 185,824 abortions were carried out on women and girls in England and Wales' in 2015, and the UK office of national statistics says 'there were 696,271 live births in England and Wales in 2016' (and 3,112 stillbirths). The number of abortions is approximately equal to 20% of the number of abortions + live births + still births

 

[nuke terrorist]

I didn't know there was more than 1 Vote No group until that protest outside Holles St the other day which caused one group to denounce the other group (whom they were working harmoniously with up to that point).

They don't have any leeway. Basically, the 8th gets repealed or it doesn't. If it doesn't, the status quo remains, which would be shit beyond belief. Not just in terms of this issue, but also in terms of those championing the No side (ganley, quinn and a whole chohort of ring-wing, religious nuts) having their influence win out. The thoughts of it disgusts me.

Trinity did a big voter registration drive over the past couple of days. The amount of Yes/Ta badges being worn around town would gladden the heart.

As with the marriage equality vote, the emphasis is rightly being put on the kiddos. The could, and hopefully will, swing this the right way.

PS: Jane moved to Sweden. She's to be found on twitter these days.

PPS: Fuck twitter

yeah, of course you're right there is no middle ground in a situation like this.
i just can't believe anyone could have no sense of reason.
i suppose the question i asked comes into play AFTER repeal.
i'd like to think the vote no folks won't have any cred then. wishful thinking.

also a couple of people mentioned Janer: some years ago i saw him expressing
support for pro choice views on here or Eirecore several times.
he genuinely wanted to make amends for the nonsense he said before.
he was sorry and seemed totally on board with abortion rights.
i thought it was only fair to mention this.

 

[ann post]

YAAAAWWWWWNNNNN

 

[Unicron]

Really? That's mad


+1

For example - the "one in five babies are aborted in the UK" number is actually true ... well, the use of the word "babies" is questionable but there are 250-odd abortions per 1000 live births in the UK according to the WHO, see WHO European health information at your fingertips.

This morning I saw some video containing some doctor speaking for Repeal criticising the 'No' campaign and saying "I don't know where they got the 'one in 5' number". I wanted to post a comment saying 'LOOK IT UP, YOU PRICK! It took me under a minute to find' but I was afraid to, because if I did everyone would attack me for hating women or some shit

They've fudged those numbers, it's only true if you don't count miscarriages (about 1 in 6 pregnancies end in miscarriage, and 1 in 4 for women who know they are pregnant) and stillbirths (about 1 in 200 pregnancies in the UK end in stillbirth) and given their general opinion of what is a baby and when life begins it's "odd" for them to not count them.

The real figure is more likely to be 1 in 6 (that is to say that about as many UK pregnancies end in miscarriage as they do with an abortion), which is still a significant figure and no one could deny that a large number of abortions happen in the UK but my personal position is that I think women should have a right to choice so my answer to those posters is, "yeah, and?"

 

[egg_]

it's only true if you don't count miscarriages (about 1 in 6 pregnancies end in miscarriage, and 1 in 4 for women who know they are pregnant) and stillbirths (about 1 in 200 pregnancies in the UK end in stillbirth) and given their general opinion of what is a baby and when life begins it's "odd" for them to not count them

Lookit dude, I'm pro-choice, and you can argue back and forth about details, but what I'm getting at is this - their claim is broadly true, and easy to verify, but our side is dismissing it on the internet. We are being dishonest. It's bad form

 

[Unicron]

Lookit dude, I'm pro-choice, and you can argue back and forth about details, but what I'm getting at is this - their claim is broadly true, and easy to verify, but our side is dismissing it on the internet. We are being dishonest. It's bad form

I'm not having a go at you and I'm arguing with you. And I'm not saying it isn't broadly true, though it is off by a not insignificant amount in the region of 4%. A more accurate figure of 1 in 6 would still look "good" on their posters and get the same point across, which is there are lots of abortions in England..

 

[rettucs]

Lookit dude, I'm pro-choice, and you can argue back and forth about details, but what I'm getting at is this - their claim is broadly true, and easy to verify, but our side is dismissing it on the internet. We are being dishonest. It's bad form

it's like anything though. If someone dismisses the claim, they will need to back it up with something more than 'IT'S A LIE'.

But that goes for both sides. I have no problem engaging with someone with an opposing view provided they don't talk at you, and are willing to consider your viewpoint, as you are theirs. Just common decency, really.

The problem I have with campaigners on both sides is that, if they start telling you you're wrong (or a murderer) cos you don't agree with them, then they can fuck off. Campaigners should only be there to outline their viewpoint and to answer questions.

I'm voting Yes and would never consider anything other than that, but some of the Yes campaigners need to have a long, hard look at themselves, every bit as much as the No side (albeit, it's hard to argue against the No side having a nasty streak above and beyond the Yes side.

Pretty sure we had a similar thread before discussing, specifically, the tactics employed by pro-lifers/anti-choicers.

 

[Anthony]

And yet still the Brits give out about how crowded it is these days!

 

[egg_]

I'm not having a go at you and I'm arguing with you. And I'm not saying it isn't broadly true, though it is off by a not insignificant amount in the region of 4%. A more accurate figure of 1 in 6 would still look "good" on their posters and get the same point across, which is there are lots of abortions in England..

Heh ok, perhaps I'm being a little sensitive

 

[Unicron]

Heh ok, perhaps I'm being a little sensitive

I'm just a nerd who is anal about precision in numbers.

 

[Unicron]

I should say, I'm not toooooooo bothered by the 1 in 5 posters even though I think the figure is incorrect. What does bug me very much is the people saying that the 8th had nothing to do with Savita's death and that she died of sepsis.

And why was it that she contracted such a serious case of sepsis? Because she couldn't get an D&C because there was still a foetal heartbeat.

 

[Lili Marlene]

I should say, I'm not toooooooo bothered by the 1 in 5 posters even though I think the figure is incorrect. What does bug me very much is the people saying that the 8th had nothing to do with Savita's death and that she died of sepsis.

And why was it that she contracted such a serious case of sepsis? Because she couldn't get an D&C because there was still a foetal heartbeat.

my no campaigners told me this is detectable at 9 days, before a person even knows they are pregnant. I was going to get into the argument about what a "heart" is but stopped myself. Pretty sure by the end of this campaign the heartbeat will be detectable 6 months before conception

 

[rettucs]

I should say, I'm not toooooooo bothered by the 1 in 5 posters even though I think the figure is incorrect. What does bug me very much is the people saying that the 8th had nothing to do with Savita's death and that she died of sepsis.

And why was it that she contracted such a serious case of sepsis? Because she couldn't get an D&C because there was still a foetal heartbeat.

exactly and the whole 'Love Both' thing is bollox. It should be 'Love Both but fuck the mother if something goes wrong'.

 

[Anthony]

If love both was a thing then this referendum wouldn't even be happening. It's confusing that love both isn't a YES slogan.

 

[rettucs]

That's probably the percentage of women who've had abortions in the last year (way lower, cos obvs only a certain percentage of women become pregnant in any year)

But yeah, the 20% stacks up no matter where I look - the guardian says 'there were 185,824 abortions were carried out on women and girls in England and Wales' in 2015, and the UK office of national statistics says 'there were 696,271 live births in England and Wales in 2016' (and 3,112 stillbirths). The number of abortions is approximately equal to 20% of the number of abortions + live births + still births

I had a read of one of those docs (the one with stats from 2017). From what I read there the numbers in the 'No' posters are, at best misleading, at worst, a lie. The tagline on the poster is 'Don't bring this here'.

But, of the numbers outlined, 93% of terminations took place in the first 13 weeks. That's 7% that could not happen here as it would be forbidden by law. And, of the 93% figure, it doesn't outline how many happened after week 12, which would also be forbidden by law here, should the 8th be repealed.

I think we're looking moreso at a '1 in 9' rate, rather than the '1 in 5' they claim (including what Ian said in that figure), if the comparison was done on a like for like basis.

 

[Burgerbarbaby]

7 days left to register. Get sorted if you haven’t already.

Sorted. Strewth.

 

[egg_]

my no campaigners told me this is detectable at 9 days, before a person even knows they are pregnant. I was going to get into the argument about what a "heart" is but stopped myself.

Yeah, no point. Arguments don't work for changing opinions. Looked it up though and it looks like the earliest a heartbeat can be detected (via an internal ultrasound) is 6 weeks. Probably would be a good idea to have a laptop by the door in case 'no' campaigners call

 

[egg_]

I think we're looking moreso at a '1 in 9' rate, rather than the '1 in 5' they claim (including what Ian said in that figure), if the comparison was done on a like for like basis.

Obvs there's a slippery-slope argument involved here too. Will more Irish women have abortions because they're more easily available? They very well might. On the other hand the slippery slope scenario didn't really play out for divorces (divorce:marriage ratio is 13 here versus 42 for the UK) so maybe it won't for abortions either

Heartbeat detectable at 9 days is, by contrast, plain old horseshit.