In my opinion if the referendum is passed, legislation will be introduced and the whole issued will largely disappear from the public agenda. Those who will remain opposed to abortion will not be able to overcome the general feeling that the issue has been resolved.
If the referendum is not passed, the issue will remain on the public agenda, we can expect to see a rerun in some form or other within a few years.
Assuming you don't understand the point rather than it doesn't suit your argument . . a constitutional amendment such as the one suggested by Mitchell would easily pass and would enable the Oireachtas to legislate for termination is hard cases. No need for anyone to be in front of a judge. Indeed, such a law could be made impervious to challenge were the Council of State to rubber-stamp it.Yes because asking a woman just being told that their child will not survive outside the womb or will be have severe abnormalities that leave no chance of survival that they will have to go in front of a judge and explain why they don't want to carry on the pregnancy and ask for permission to terminate is not cruel at all.
a constitutional amendment such as the one suggested by Mitchell would easily pass
I don't see how 'exceptional and proportionate' could be applied to rape/incest in a way that would be acceptable to both 'sides'. Abortions are best done as early as possible so time will be critical. Would all self-declared rapes be exceptional circumstances?Gay Mitchell's article in yesterday's Indo had a tilt at it . .
"If the proposed constitutional amendment on abortion was something like 'in exceptional circumstances, and by proportionate means as provided by law, provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancies', the stated objective of the Taoiseach to have limited abortion available could be achieved, and the middle-ground would likely find this a better option. It seems highly improbable that a law governing the valid health needs of the mother, or one dealing with rape, or pregnancies where the overwhelming medical evidence is that a baby will not survive outside the womb, would be struck down by the courts, should "exceptional and proportionate" be the measure.
Assuming you don't understand the point rather than it doesn't suit your argument . . a constitutional amendment such as the one suggested by Mitchell would easily pass and would enable the Oireachtas to legislate for termination is hard cases. No need for anyone to be in front of a judge. Indeed, such a law could be made impervious to challenge were the Council of State to rubber-stamp it.
Maybe you're right Leo. I suppose the 2002 referendum was rejected as both pro-life and pro-choice voted it down. Still I think the majority of people are in the middle rather than hard yes or hard no, and I think this middle would happily carry a pragmatic compromise where hard cases could be addressed without introducing a liberal regime.
And by the way, you stated you were campaign manager on 5 EU referendums. If you professionally employed on either side of this referendum, you should declare it because you are not just expressing views.
Why do we in ireland have so many referendums on social issues and spend so much time ruminating over them. I mean I switch on the Joe duffy show and every day for weeks the whole show has been taken up with this referendum, its just too much. I know abortion is an important issue but really we spend way too much time on this stuff. The biggest thing to happen ireland in the last 40 years was the financial collapse nearly a decade ago, yet there was virtually no discussion about what was happening in the media in the years before hand, there were many warning signs by many people . I doubt other countries would spend so much time on these issues to the detriment of other important issues that also need attention
And by the way, you stated you were campaign manager on 5 EU referendums. If you professionally employed on either side of this referendum, you should declare it because you are not just expressing views.
Sorry, I thought that was clearer. An excerpt from Gay Mitchell's Indo article. He argues that a different amendment could have been fashioned - and he gives an example - to allow the Oireachtas to legislate for hard cases. He suggests that the people reject this extreme proposal and that a more balanced proposal can be put in the future, as has happened before. For clarity, I'm not part or any campaign or political grouping. I'm not interested in your vote Sunny; I imagine you'll vote with your conscience, as will I.At first I thought that but I think that was actually an excerpt from an article by Gay Mitchell...
At first I thought that but I think that was actually an excerpt from an article by Gay Mitchell...
Sorry, I thought that was clearer. An excerpt from Gay Mitchell's Indo article. He argues that a different amendment could have been fashioned - and he gives an example - to allow the Oireachtas to legislate for hard cases. He suggests that the people reject this extreme proposal and that a more balanced proposal can be put in the future, as has happened before. For clarity, I'm not part or any campaign or political grouping. I'm not interested in your vote Sunny; I imagine you'll vote with your conscience, as will I.
The people from the yes side right beside them were saying absolutely nothing. I think even if I was inclined to vote No, I would have switched just because of that one person.......
The Show Compassion Vote Yes slogans have the same effect on me... I have very little respect for people who polarise a debate by pitching it as virtue only possible on one side.
You don't know me. While I'm vehemently pro-life I'm also a pragmatist and a realist. I would vote for abortion in hard cases over a liberal abortion regime as fewer unborn children would be aborted. I would find that conscionable. But I would then argue that the abortion option was a poor one and that better options should be supported and promoted. The problem with Protection of Life in Pregnancy act is that it provides for abortion on suicidal ideation when abortion is not appropriate for such.But stop making arguments that a different wording to the amendment would mean you might vote otherwise. You wouldn't. You would still vote no just like you were probably against the protection of life in pregnancy bill.
It looks like Yes is easily over the line. It seems the middle-ground - who will decide this - have been persuaded that this is really just about hard cases and is otherwise restrictive. The last hope for the No side is to appeal to the middle-ground that this is actually extreme and a step to far, that politicians can do better and that women and unborn children deserve better. I think that's a reasonable argument.Suddenly now though, you are all for amendments proposed by Gay Mitchell.
Surely that is to be expected, particularly in a referendum as momentous as this. There will be people on both sides whose enthusiasm will get the better of them. That a brash comment might prompt you to reverse your vote seems a tad fickle. Surely people need to filter the noise, distill what is actually being proposed, and vote according to what they think is right.I agree there are problems on both sides.
I think it is a reasonable argument also Michael but having heard all the arguments in the past week I have come down on the side that it would be better to vote Yes. I don't agree that those in the middle have been persuaded that this is really just about hard cases and is otherwise restrictive. I am well aware that a Yes vote will mean the introduction of a situation very comparable with most other European countries - for me it has never been just about hard cases and as I stated before on this thread I would be against abortion in principle. However I have been persuaded in that regard by the arguments that a) abortion is already here and for various reasons would be better suited if handled by the medical profession in this country and b) there is no hard evidence that legalising abortion in a country leads to more abortions in that country (in fact the evidence in Portugal seems to suggest the opposite due to more effort being made on preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place).It looks like Yes is easily over the line. It seems the middle-ground - who will decide this - have been persuaded that this is really just about hard cases and is otherwise restrictive. The last hope for the No side is to appeal to the middle-ground that this is actually extreme and a step to far, that politicians can do better and that women and unborn children deserve better. I think that's a reasonable argument.