Proposed abortion Referendum

michaelm said:
I'm a solid No (surprise :)) and it is easy for me to vote against this broad stroke proposal . . I would be conflicted if this was solely focused on hard cases. I would rather spoil my vote than not vote. I think a third 'None of the Above' box on the ballot would win a plurality if not a majority of votes in this referendum.
Click to expand...
Fidelma Healy-Eames couldn't bring herself to lie on TV the other night and whilst looking for a "hard cases" solution wouldn't commit to voting for it. It's just a tactic to confuse the electorate, she and you wouldn't vote for it and that's why you're saying you'd be "conflicted".
The same people suggesting a preference for a hard cases referendum were against the right to travel (12/13th amendments) and information amendments. How people who were against the protection of life during pregnancy act can now turn around and say they'd consider a hard cases referendum instead are just bluffing.
 
While I don't believe that any right to life should be predicated on how one was conceived, and nor do I believe that euthanasia/abortion is the solution for children with life limiting conditions, I do have sympathy for hard cases and I would not vote against a regime to provide for such. But I'm not sure I could vote for it. So I guess you're probably right when you say "you wouldn't vote for it and that's why you're saying you'd be conflicted". Well done; although, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
 
dereko1969 said:
Fidelma Healy-Eames couldn't bring herself to lie on TV the other night and whilst looking for a "hard cases" solution wouldn't commit to voting for it. It's just a tactic to confuse the electorate, she and you wouldn't vote for it and that's why you're saying you'd be "conflicted".
The same people suggesting a preference for a hard cases referendum were against the right to travel (12/13th amendments) and information amendments. How people who were against the protection of life during pregnancy act can now turn around and say they'd consider a hard cases referendum instead are just bluffing.
Click to expand...

I think you're being a bit unfair there. You are quite right that a lot of the people at the forefront of the campaign would also not vote for it if it were just the hardcases. However - that does not represent the No vote generally.
As to how a handful of those would or would not vote in a hypothetical is neither here not there really. The issue is bigger than just those handfiul of individuals.
 
I find myself bemused at the euphoria surrounding this result. I agree with Yes on the basis that what women do in early pregnancy is none of my business. But let us not lose our moral compass here. In advance of this liberalisation of our laws let's hear some concerted denunciation of couples who will chose abortion simply because it interferes with their selfish lifestyle plans. It does happen you know.
 
Last edited:
Denunciation is sooo last century.

The celebrations I take it are re the liberation of women - I'm not trying to sound crass - but I think that's the general sense people are going with (it's not that anyone is happy as such that abortions are happening).

Anyway, I guess you can denounce away, but sure what good will it do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top