Proposed abortion Referendum

I think a lot of people have issues with the "no questions asked" abortions upto 12 weeks and even from 12-24 weeks abortion is allowed if the health of a woman is at risk, including mental health. I am not saying there are circumstances where a woman can suffer from serious health issues, but it could also facilitate an abortion as I cannot see health care professionals argue with a woman in this case.

So I was watching Claire Byrne Live last night and a thought occurred to me....what would happen if the NO vote won? Given our penchant for getting referenda "wrong", would we not get to vote again but on a more conservative option?
 
If the No side win, things will go quiet for 2 or 3 years before the Yes side would start again but I couldn't see a referendum being held in 5 to 7 years at the earliest. But there would definitely be another one
 
When I see a poster with a pill suggesting you can get 14 years for partaking thereof, I say "that's it, I'm voting No, I mean has anybody ever even been questioned by police for so doing?".

When I see a poster of a 9 week old foetus talking about yawning and kicking, I say "that's it, I'm voting Yes, there is no way that foetus has rights equal to a 9 week old baby"
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
When I see a poster with a pill suggesting you can get 14 years for partaking thereof, I say "that's it, I'm voting No, I mean has anybody ever even been questioned by police for so doing?".
Click to expand...
The transformation of Amnesty Ireland from human rights champion to abortion crusader - gamekeeper turned poacher - will cause them irreparable damage. Their poster proclaims that an abortion pill carries a 14 year sentence. This swerves the reality that, while no one has every been jailed for abortion, an abortion pill carries a certain death sentence for the unborn child.
 
Where did I state that there was no compassion on the No side
It did get coverage, what wasn't pointed out in a lot of the articles was that Iarfhlaith O'Neill worked with the Pro-Life campaign in 1983 so not exactly without history in this regard.
The attacks on MSM is straight out of the Trump/Putin/Brexit book and fails to recognise all the money being spent from outside the State on Google/YouTube/Facebook ads that the No campaign were planning on. If you're against the Google decision it means you're happy with our democracy being undermined. And yes I was against Amnesty using money from outside the State to campaign for a referendum, but that wasn't campaigning in a referendum, there is a difference.
 
Delboy said:
If the No side win, things will go quiet for 2 or 3 years before the Yes side would start again but I couldn't see a referendum being held in 5 to 7 years at the earliest. But there would definitely be another one
Click to expand...

There won't be another referendum for a lot longer than that....There is no political capital in this subject. Whatever you might think about politicians and their views, it does take political bravery to bring this to the Country and publically express views on this subject from either side. No matter what they say, they will offend half the Country and voters. Notice the number of politicians saying nothing on the subject one way or another.......
 
Like it or not he mainstream media are largely on the yes side. Facebook banned ads from outside and Google could have done the same. Social media was more of a level playing field, that has now changed. That the yes side has welcomed the Google decision says it all. It has interfered with the referendum and to suggest that an objection to corporate censorship in the midst of the campaign equates to being "happy with our democracy being undermined" is silly.
 
michaelm said:
Social media was more of a level playing field, that has now changed.
Click to expand...

Much of the social media spending was coming from outside the state from vested interests with no connection to Ireland or in order to bypass our legislation on such advertising. The spending patterns prior to the ban were far from level, with 63% in favour of a no vote.

One of the real dangers of reliance on social media and news scraping apps for the purposes of education on such matters is a complete lack of balance. The algorithms involved record your history, know what articles you're read, how long you've spent reading them, any that you've reacted to or shared. They tune your individual feed to those preferences. So if you start off veering one direction or the other on issues such as this, such social media feeds will only serve to reinforce your existing views, after all, the providers sole aim in producing these feeds is to get you clicking into articles so that they earn commission from the advertising contained within.

We've seen how outside influences have manipulated other elections, I see nothing wrong with restricting the influence of vested interests from outside the state regardless of their stance.
 
Leo said:
I see nothing wrong with restricting the influence of vested interests from outside the state regardless of their stance.
Click to expand...
Me neither. We should restrict such. Google should have just banned ads from outside, like Facebook did. There is little balance in the traditional media, who have been conditioning the public for years to embrace abortion. This is why the no side have had to focus on social media.
 
michaelm said:
There is little balance in the traditional media, who have been conditioning the public for years to embrace abortion.
Click to expand...
I agree with that.

michaelm said:
This is why the no side have had to focus on social media.
Click to expand...
I think that the Christian Right in the USA are prime drivers in this area so I agree with adverts from outside Ireland being banned.
 
Purple said:
I think that the Christian Right in the USA are prime drivers in this area so I agree with adverts from outside Ireland being banned.
Click to expand...
That's not like you Purple. Where is that different from the Chinese banning television performances from outside the state where they don't like the social message?
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
That's not like you Purple. Where is that different from the Chinese banning television performances from outside the state where they don't like the social message?
Click to expand...

Well I doubt China would be in the middle of a referendum for a start...Or at least a referendum where the result is still to be decided...
 
Sunny said:
Well I doubt China would be in the middle of a referendum for a start...Or at least a referendum where the result is still to be decided...
Click to expand...
True, true, but Purple's objection did not seem to be against outside influence per se but just against it coming from the Christian Right.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
True, true, but Purple's objection did not seem to be against outside influence per se but just against it coming from the Christian Right.
Click to expand...

Well I suppose we could balance the ad's from the Christian Right with ad's from the.....What is the opposite of the Christian Right movement???
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
True, true, but Purple's objection did not seem to be against outside influence per se but just against it coming from the Christian Right.
Click to expand...
I was just highlighting that the adverts were coning from powerful outside groups with a particular agenda.
I have as much (or more) of a problem with most of the adverts from the Yes side.
The fact that the Irish media is overwhelmingly in favour of repealing the 8th is a problem in that there is no attempt at balanced reporting from our National Broadcaster or the IT.
 
dereko1969 said:
And yes I was against Amnesty using money from outside the State to campaign for a referendum, but that wasn't campaigning in a referendum, there is a difference.
Click to expand...

Is there a difference though? Presumably had they not received the money to lobby for a referendum, they would instead have had to use their own funds to do so. Instead those own funds can be used directly in the referendum itself. Is it not the same net effect?
 
Leo said:
We've seen how outside influences have manipulated other elections, I see nothing wrong with restricting the influence of vested interests from outside the state regardless of their stance.
Click to expand...
The vast majority of the MSM here is on the yes side and not even attempting to hide it. I can see why one side were very upset at the Google ban and the other much less so.
Ads from 3rd parties outside the state should have been banned but Google went further- their stats must be showing the NO side getting some traction.
Google have deliberately interfered in this referendum and no amount of press releases from them stating the opposite can hide that.
 
michaelm said:
The transformation of Amnesty Ireland from human rights champion to abortion crusader - gamekeeper turned poacher - will cause them irreparable damage.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I used to be a member but I'd never support them now due to their simplistic misrepresentation of the facts.
 
dereko1969 said:
And yes I was against Amnesty using money from outside the State to campaign for a referendum, but that wasn't campaigning in a referendum, there is a difference.
Click to expand...
What's the difference?
They had two heaps of money. One was spent on campaigning for a referendum, the other in a referendum. The piles of money are interchangeable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register