Delighted with the results, I haven't been campaigning but know many that have. Its been a real grass roots effort. The thing is if this referendum had not passed then it would not mean Irish women could not have abortions. They would continue having them in the UK. The hypocrisy of the No campaign is that our constitution explicitly allows for abortion. Just not in Ireland. They tried to muddy the water in the last few days to sway some undecideds, saying we should legislate for specific "hard cases" such as Fatal Foetal Abnormalities, Rape, Incest etc (which the government have been very clear we cannot do) and that the proposed legislation is too extreme. Of course if we found a way to do what they were suggesting you can be sure they would campaign against that too. Abortion is not yet legal, but it will be, and women who have no choice but to terminate will be finally given the compassion and care they need. We have hopefully seen the last of the situations that led to the unnecessary deaths of women such as Anne Lovett and Savita Halappanavar and countless others. I am incredibly proud of my country today, and its hard to believe how far we have progressed in the last 25 years when Catholic Ireland finally decriminalised homosexual sex. We are all already talking among ourselves to find out what is next? Hopefully we can take the church out of our schools and stop them from indoctrinating children before they are old enough to think for themselves. A law is in the works to remove the baptism barrier, currently catholic schools can choose baptised children ahead of non baptised, which sounds fair until you realise that almost 100% of schools are catholic run and so families have no choice but to baptise, inflating the Catholic Churches importance here.
Too many children are brought into this world because 2 people wanted a shag. Just because a women gets pregnant doesn't mean a child has to be born.
and I've got 3 kids so know excatly what amount of joy they bring....and been through miscarrisges as well & see scans at various ages of development.
ex wife was a midwife so know what is involved in an abortion & a d&c.
Worth reading chapter 4 in Freakonomics on the subject:
Chapter 4: The role legalized abortion has played in reducing crime, contrasted with the policies and downfall of Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu (Levitt explored this topic in an earlier paper entitled "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime," written with John Donohue.)
Certain states in the US repealed anti abortion legislation, and twenty (roughly?) years later there was a dramatic, sudden, reduction in the crime rate in those states. I guess the message is that wanted children are less likely to turn to crime than unwanted children.
Oh James you know I love and respect you but my hatred for Thomas Friedman knows no bounds!!!!!
I think this is a really spurious connection. To be fair, I don't know how much emphasis Friedman puts on, and I read at least some of that paper a very long time ago, but there are A LOT of factors that could lead to that reduction in crime. Better policing methods, more opportunities (ish, still not great) for women and minorities, an overall improvement in living conditions nationwide, and this one might sound out of left field but the removal of chemicals from everyday items, particularly the removal of lead from gasoline and paint in (some, because there are still a lot of homes with lead paint) homes. That's just top of my head, I'm sure I'm missing things.
I'm sorry if I'm misrepresenting what Friedman or Donohue et al are putting forth, but this feels like a really classic example of "Correlation is not Causation."
I would be wary about reading too much into the Irish decision from studies relating to other countries.
I'd be inclined to suggest that the relatively recent Irish history of "care" for unmarried mothers and unwanted children will have helped both undermine the power of religious organisations to influence the debate and to lay bare the hypocrisy of the State's claims to cherish and care for all its citizens. Throw in the too frequent (though one occurrence is too many) occasions where women and children have suffered and died because of the official approach to reproductive rights, in a small country, like Ireland, where every case will have an impact on ordinary people's views, and it's hard to see anything other than a Repeal vote, even in demographic groups that might be expected to have been more conservative.
I should point out that the "Yes" campaign were very keen to stress, firstly that Repeal of the Eighth was about making lawful and safe what was happening already, and, secondly, that the argument in favour of Repeal was heavily associated with a wider support for sex/reproductive education and counseling.
They voted "yes" to amend the abortion law, but I wonder if everyone knew what kind of amended law they wanted. It was such a close vote (when you take into account the people who didn't vote and those too young, who may be affected at a later date), maybe they should have another vote, or do a best of three.
They voted "yes" to amend the abortion law, but I wonder if everyone knew what kind of amended law they wanted. It was such a close vote (when you take into account the people who didn't vote and those too young, who may be affected at a later date), maybe they should have another vote, or do a best of three.
If you know what I mean
Erm, except that they didn't, they voted "yes" to amend the Constitution..
Oh, and for the fact that everyone is aware of the legislation proposed to give effect to the result (because it was laid out in detail before the vote). Also, while it is entirely possible that at least some of those who did not vote would have been likely to vote no, in this case (because of the polling pre vote - when it was felt that there was a narrowing in the gap between the two sides, that seemed to favour the "No" campaign), it is actually less likely than for those who might have been tempted to vote yes, or who were not willing to vote at all (there was a worry that a percentage of men felt that they should not vote).
And, for what it's worth, yesterday was not the first referendum.
The Eighth Amendment was introduced following a referendum in 1983, and there have been efforts to amend/repeal in 1992, 2002 and yesterday.
It's a Constitutional requirement that amendments be subject to referendum. If it seems worthwhile to further amend the Constitution, there'll be further referendums.
So, maybe they will have another vote, because no-one is afraid of a referendum, properly constituted and debated, about matters of Constitutional importance.
They voted "yes" to amend the abortion law, but I wonder if everyone knew what kind of amended law they wanted. It was such a close vote (when you take into account the people who didn't vote and those too young, who may be affected at a later date), maybe they should have another vote, or do a best of three.
If you know what I mean
Erm, except that they didn't, they voted "yes" to amend the Constitution..
Oh, and for the fact that everyone is aware of the legislation proposed to give effect to the result (because it was laid out in detail before the vote). Also, while it is entirely possible that at least some of those who did not vote would have been likely to vote no, in this case (because of the polling pre vote - when it was felt that there was a narrowing in the gap between the two sides, that seemed to favour the "No" campaign), it is actually less likely than for those who might have been tempted to vote yes, or who were not willing to vote at all (there was a worry that a percentage of men felt that they should not vote).
And, for what it's worth, yesterday was not the first referendum.
The Eighth Amendment was introduced following a referendum in 1983, and there have been efforts to amend/repeal in 1992, 2002 and yesterday.
It's a Constitutional requirement that amendments be subject to referendum. If it seems worthwhile to further amend the Constitution, there'll be further referendums.
So, maybe they will have another vote, because no-one is afraid of a referendum, properly constituted and debated, about matters of Constitutional importance.
I would be wary about reading too much into the Irish decision from studies relating to other countries.
I'd be inclined to suggest that the relatively recent Irish history of "care" for unmarried mothers and unwanted children will have helped both undermine the power of religious organisations to influence the debate and to lay bare the hypocrisy of the State's claims to cherish and care for all its citizens. Throw in the too frequent (though one occurrence is too many) occasions where women and children have suffered and died because of the official approach to reproductive rights, in a small country, like Ireland, where every case will have an impact on ordinary people's views, and it's hard to see anything other than a Repeal vote, even in demographic groups that might be expected to have been more conservative.
I should point out that the "Yes" campaign were very keen to stress, firstly that Repeal of the Eighth was about making lawful and safe what was happening already, and, secondly, that the argument in favour of Repeal was heavily associated with a wider support for sex/reproductive education and counseling.
The mrs is Irish and she feels very strongly for the yes vote, another situation is a pregnant mother ( 1 month gone ) is diagnosed with cancer and because she is pregnant cannot have chemo because she is pregnant, also if a baby is deemed to not survive outside the womb the expectant mother has no choice but to carry the baby - must be an horrendous thing to have to do.
My friend's wife has just given birth (had a cesarian) to welcome a beautiful healthy daughter into the world at just 7 months because of the need for Chemo to start. Both my friend and his wife said they wouldn't have dared to choose Chemo over bringing a wanted life into this world.
Also @paulie8290 surely you don't think it's right to make having a baby a punishment for all the teens and adults that have unprotected sex, potentially whilst out on a piss up or when a condom breaks or when a pill fails etc?!
Abortion whilst seemingly inhumane can stop a life being brought into the world unwanted, forcing a life to grow up unwanted is a sure way to have a kid grow up with personality and/or mental health disorders.
It's far too big an issue for a closed mind. We have to consider all options and abortion decisions should be accountable to the pregnant mother and the professional on a case by case basis.
Through what you say can I assume that you believe being an unwanted child, or growing up to have mental issues is a life not worth living?
Only the person who is living that life can truly answer that.
The rules and boundaries are set by society via the political process and the courts.
What this vote has done is delete a 35 year old constitutional amendment that comes from a different century, a different generation and a very different place in the history of the Irish state. A state which is not yet 100 years old and some might claim was a theocracy before WWII?
In the last century, the women went on shopping trips to the North for condoms and took the ferry for abortions - a lonely and very troubling journey. And one expects that this continues - I've met people who made that journey and it was troubling for me.
This opens up a debate which may well resonate across the western world, certainly the North. In other words, this is the start of a process and not a single vote.
In a political context, Varadkar has called this vote and won a two thirds majority. This on top of the work he and Coveney have been doing on Brexit can only lead one to envy political leadership and competence which appears to escape the UK right now.
Too many children are brought into this world because 2 people wanted a shag. Just because a women gets pregnant doesn't mean a child has to be born.
and I've got 3 kids so know excatly what amount of joy they bring....and been through miscarrisges as well & see scans at various ages of development.
ex wife was a midwife so know what is involved in an abortion & a d&c.
Worth reading chapter 4 in Freakonomics on the subject:
Chapter 4: The role legalized abortion has played in reducing crime, contrasted with the policies and downfall of Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu (Levitt explored this topic in an earlier paper entitled "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime," written with John Donohue.)
Certain states in the US repealed anti abortion legislation, and twenty (roughly?) years later there was a dramatic, sudden, reduction in the crime rate in those states. I guess the message is that wanted children are less likely to turn to crime than unwanted children.
Oh James you know I love and respect you but my hatred for Thomas Friedman knows no bounds!!!!!
I think this is a really spurious connection. To be fair, I don't know how much emphasis Friedman puts on, and I read at least some of that paper a very long time ago, but there are A LOT of factors that could lead to that reduction in crime. Better policing methods, more opportunities (ish, still not great) for women and minorities, an overall improvement in living conditions nationwide, and this one might sound out of left field but the removal of chemicals from everyday items, particularly the removal of lead from gasoline and paint in (some, because there are still a lot of homes with lead paint) homes. That's just top of my head, I'm sure I'm missing things.
I'm sorry if I'm misrepresenting what Friedman or Donohue et al are putting forth, but this feels like a really classic example of "Correlation is not Causation."
Too many children are brought into this world because 2 people wanted a shag. Just because a women gets pregnant doesn't mean a child has to be born.
and I've got 3 kids so know excatly what amount of joy they bring....and been through miscarrisges as well & see scans at various ages of development.
ex wife was a midwife so know what is involved in an abortion & a d&c.
Worth reading chapter 4 in Freakonomics on the subject:
Chapter 4: The role legalized abortion has played in reducing crime, contrasted with the policies and downfall of Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu (Levitt explored this topic in an earlier paper entitled "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime," written with John Donohue.)
Certain states in the US repealed anti abortion legislation, and twenty (roughly?) years later there was a dramatic, sudden, reduction in the crime rate in those states. I guess the message is that wanted children are less likely to turn to crime than unwanted children.
Oh James you know I love and respect you but my hatred for Thomas Friedman knows no bounds!!!!!
I think this is a really spurious connection. To be fair, I don't know how much emphasis Friedman puts on, and I read at least some of that paper a very long time ago, but there are A LOT of factors that could lead to that reduction in crime. Better policing methods, more opportunities (ish, still not great) for women and minorities, an overall improvement in living conditions nationwide, and this one might sound out of left field but the removal of chemicals from everyday items, particularly the removal of lead from gasoline and paint in (some, because there are still a lot of homes with lead paint) homes. That's just top of my head, I'm sure I'm missing things.
I'm sorry if I'm misrepresenting what Friedman or Donohue et al are putting forth, but this feels like a really classic example of "Correlation is not Causation."
Feakonomics was Levitt and Dubner wasn't it @SDAddick ? - I can't remember what Friedman's connection is to it?
I read the book way back (2006 maybe?) and only remember the chapter about the economics of crack dealing, and the one about purported abortion/crime link. I thought at the time the argument was quite well made, but I wasn't reading it too critically I suspect.
It feels like Ireland - a conservative Catholic country is becoming less religious. It has a mixed race gay PM and now this. The young are different to the old.
It feels like Ireland - a conservative Catholic country is becoming less religious. It has a mixed race gay PM and now this. The young are different to the old.
What the fuck
I can’t believe that ,
You mean they don’t sit in fields eating potatoes and looking for a pot of gold from a small ginger fella
It feels like Ireland - a conservative Catholic country is becoming less religious. It has a mixed race gay PM and now this. The young are different to the old.
What the fuck
I can’t believe that ,
You mean they don’t sit in fields eating potatoes and looking for a pot of gold from a small ginger fella
When did this happen
They may still do that, but the church is losing its iron grip on the country.
The Catholic religion is moving on it’s coming rd to being in line with the speed of change to what is important to its congregation
There are still those of years that like it the way it is and is something I would have thought is very difficult to manage
For many years the country was decades behind in many ways but weeks ahead in the programs neighbours and Home and away
Its brilliant that the residents of a great and beautiful country have yet again shown its maturity in such a Great way by answering a call to stand up and make a choice for good
Referendums are brilliant for giving the population a voice a simple yes or no I hope it’s what will continue for many other debates
They voted "yes" to amend the abortion law, but I wonder if everyone knew what kind of amended law they wanted. It was such a close vote (when you take into account the people who didn't vote and those too young, who may be affected at a later date), maybe they should have another vote, or do a best of three.
If you know what I mean
Erm, except that they didn't, they voted "yes" to amend the Constitution..
Oh, and for the fact that everyone is aware of the legislation proposed to give effect to the result (because it was laid out in detail before the vote). Also, while it is entirely possible that at least some of those who did not vote would have been likely to vote no, in this case (because of the polling pre vote - when it was felt that there was a narrowing in the gap between the two sides, that seemed to favour the "No" campaign), it is actually less likely than for those who might have been tempted to vote yes, or who were not willing to vote at all (there was a worry that a percentage of men felt that they should not vote).
And, for what it's worth, yesterday was not the first referendum.
The Eighth Amendment was introduced following a referendum in 1983, and there have been efforts to amend/repeal in 1992, 2002 and yesterday.
It's a Constitutional requirement that amendments be subject to referendum. If it seems worthwhile to further amend the Constitution, there'll be further referendums.
So, maybe they will have another vote, because no-one is afraid of a referendum, properly constituted and debated, about matters of Constitutional importance.
If you know what I mean.... ;-)
Granted, it is not a topic I have been closely following but does it mean that NI women will be able to cross the border to ROI and take advantage of less regulation there than in NI ?
They voted "yes" to amend the abortion law, but I wonder if everyone knew what kind of amended law they wanted. It was such a close vote (when you take into account the people who didn't vote and those too young, who may be affected at a later date), maybe they should have another vote, or do a best of three.
If you know what I mean
Erm, except that they didn't, they voted "yes" to amend the Constitution..
Oh, and for the fact that everyone is aware of the legislation proposed to give effect to the result (because it was laid out in detail before the vote). Also, while it is entirely possible that at least some of those who did not vote would have been likely to vote no, in this case (because of the polling pre vote - when it was felt that there was a narrowing in the gap between the two sides, that seemed to favour the "No" campaign), it is actually less likely than for those who might have been tempted to vote yes, or who were not willing to vote at all (there was a worry that a percentage of men felt that they should not vote).
And, for what it's worth, yesterday was not the first referendum.
The Eighth Amendment was introduced following a referendum in 1983, and there have been efforts to amend/repeal in 1992, 2002 and yesterday.
It's a Constitutional requirement that amendments be subject to referendum. If it seems worthwhile to further amend the Constitution, there'll be further referendums.
So, maybe they will have another vote, because no-one is afraid of a referendum, properly constituted and debated, about matters of Constitutional importance.
If you know what I mean.... ;-)
Granted, it is not a topic I have been closely following but does it mean that NI women will be able to cross the border to ROI and take advantage of less regulation there than in NI ?
True, but the point does stand. If I understand correctly, the Irish voted for 12 weeks - in this country it is 24 weeks. Everybody knew they were voting for 12 weeks, some will have wanted 24 weeks, some wouldn't have. There was a clarity in the result.
If you are going to look at the Brexit referendum, we voted to leave but it was less clear if that meant leaving the single market or a customs union of some kind. It simply wasn't.
Is anyone else looking forward to seeing what the voter turnout percentage is so we can all debate just how representative the vote actually is and whether or not those that didn't vote should have their non vote fall on the yes or no side?
This will be the largest by percentage turnout of any vote in Ireland’s history.
"I like the result in this referendum, it is valid."
"I don't like the result in that referendum, it is invalid."
Funny thing, democracy.
Yes but I can't find many saying what you are saying. But of course you are trying to simplify a difficult question. Everybody who wants a further vote on any agreement accepts it has to be done by the British people! If it happened, it surely is democratic! Having said that, this is for another thread. This one is about a historic Irish vote.
Comments
They tried to muddy the water in the last few days to sway some undecideds, saying we should legislate for specific "hard cases" such as Fatal Foetal Abnormalities, Rape, Incest etc (which the government have been very clear we cannot do) and that the proposed legislation is too extreme. Of course if we found a way to do what they were suggesting you can be sure they would campaign against that too.
Abortion is not yet legal, but it will be, and women who have no choice but to terminate will be finally given the compassion and care they need. We have hopefully seen the last of the situations that led to the unnecessary deaths of women such as Anne Lovett and Savita Halappanavar and countless others.
I am incredibly proud of my country today, and its hard to believe how far we have progressed in the last 25 years when Catholic Ireland finally decriminalised homosexual sex. We are all already talking among ourselves to find out what is next? Hopefully we can take the church out of our schools and stop them from indoctrinating children before they are old enough to think for themselves. A law is in the works to remove the baptism barrier, currently catholic schools can choose baptised children ahead of non baptised, which sounds fair until you realise that almost 100% of schools are catholic run and so families have no choice but to baptise, inflating the Catholic Churches importance here.
I think this is a really spurious connection. To be fair, I don't know how much emphasis Friedman puts on, and I read at least some of that paper a very long time ago, but there are A LOT of factors that could lead to that reduction in crime. Better policing methods, more opportunities (ish, still not great) for women and minorities, an overall improvement in living conditions nationwide, and this one might sound out of left field but the removal of chemicals from everyday items, particularly the removal of lead from gasoline and paint in (some, because there are still a lot of homes with lead paint) homes. That's just top of my head, I'm sure I'm missing things.
I'm sorry if I'm misrepresenting what Friedman or Donohue et al are putting forth, but this feels like a really classic example of "Correlation is not Causation."
I'd be inclined to suggest that the relatively recent Irish history of "care" for unmarried mothers and unwanted children will have helped both undermine the power of religious organisations to influence the debate and to lay bare the hypocrisy of the State's claims to cherish and care for all its citizens. Throw in the too frequent (though one occurrence is too many) occasions where women and children have suffered and died because of the official approach to reproductive rights, in a small country, like Ireland, where every case will have an impact on ordinary people's views, and it's hard to see anything other than a Repeal vote, even in demographic groups that might be expected to have been more conservative.
I should point out that the "Yes" campaign were very keen to stress, firstly that Repeal of the Eighth was about making lawful and safe what was happening already, and, secondly, that the argument in favour of Repeal was heavily associated with a wider support for sex/reproductive education and counseling.
If you know what I mean
Oh, and for the fact that everyone is aware of the legislation proposed to give effect to the result (because it was laid out in detail before the vote). Also, while it is entirely possible that at least some of those who did not vote would have been likely to vote no, in this case (because of the polling pre vote - when it was felt that there was a narrowing in the gap between the two sides, that seemed to favour the "No" campaign), it is actually less likely than for those who might have been tempted to vote yes, or who were not willing to vote at all (there was a worry that a percentage of men felt that they should not vote).
And, for what it's worth, yesterday was not the first referendum.
The Eighth Amendment was introduced following a referendum in 1983, and there have been efforts to amend/repeal in 1992, 2002 and yesterday.
It's a Constitutional requirement that amendments be subject to referendum. If it seems worthwhile to further amend the Constitution, there'll be further referendums.
So, maybe they will have another vote, because no-one is afraid of a referendum, properly constituted and debated, about matters of Constitutional importance.
If you know what I mean.... ;-)
The rules and boundaries are set by society via the political process and the courts.
What this vote has done is delete a 35 year old constitutional amendment that comes from a different century, a different generation and a very different place in the history of the Irish state. A state which is not yet 100 years old and some might claim was a theocracy before WWII?
In the last century, the women went on shopping trips to the North for condoms and took the ferry for abortions - a lonely and very troubling journey. And one expects that this continues - I've met people who made that journey and it was troubling for me.
This opens up a debate which may well resonate across the western world, certainly the North. In other words, this is the start of a process and not a single vote.
In a political context, Varadkar has called this vote and won a two thirds majority. This on top of the work he and Coveney have been doing on Brexit can only lead one to envy political leadership and competence which appears to escape the UK right now.
I read the book way back (2006 maybe?) and only remember the chapter about the economics of crack dealing, and the one about purported abortion/crime link. I thought at the time the argument was quite well made, but I wasn't reading it too critically I suspect.
I can’t believe that ,
You mean they don’t sit in fields eating potatoes and looking for a pot of gold from a small ginger fella
When did this happen
There are still those of years that like it the way it is and is something I would have thought is very difficult to manage
For many years the country was decades behind in many ways but weeks ahead in the programs neighbours and Home and away
Its brilliant that the residents of a great and beautiful country have yet again shown its maturity in such a Great way by answering a call to stand up and make a choice for good
Referendums are brilliant for giving the population a voice a simple yes or no I hope it’s what will continue for many other debates
Independence
Exit
Amendments
All simple questions
If you are going to look at the Brexit referendum, we voted to leave but it was less clear if that meant leaving the single market or a customs union of some kind. It simply wasn't.
"I don't like the result in that referendum, it is invalid."
Funny thing, democracy.
In fact, a lower turnout than Brexit