Ireland Split by Abortion Referendum So Hot That Google and Facebook Have Banned Campaign Ads

On Friday, Ireland will be asked to vote on repealing the constitutional ban on abortion. It’s such a bitter fight that Facebook and Google have banned ads.

DUBLIN, Ireland—My wife and I were driving through the center of the city, remarking, yet again, on the number of pictures of fetuses plastered all over Dublin ahead of Friday’s referendum that seeks to remove Ireland’s constitutional ban on abortion. “I just don’t think it’s right to kill another human being,” piped up a voice from the backseat.

In recent weeks, everyone here in Ireland has grown used to hearing this kind of declaration emanating from the lips of the “Vote No” (anti-abortion) side.

But this was my 12-year-old son talking.

My wife and I looked at each other in amazement, and exchanged a silent message to tread carefully.

“Why do you think that, mate?” I asked.

He repeated the vote “No” message: Fetuses can kick, yawn, and smile, and it’s not fair to kill them.

My wife said that sometimes women who have been raped are forced to have children, and they shouldn’t be.

“Yes, but that’s not the babies’ fault, is it?” he replied.

My wife gently asked my son where he was getting his information. She said this didn’t sound like him talking. Had a campaigner against the repeal of the 8th Amendment approached him on the street? At school?

Long silence. He didn’t want to tell us, he said, because he thought we’d get angry.

We promised we wouldn’t.

Even longer silence. Then, eventually, “YouTube.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ireland-split-by-abortion-referendum-so-hot-that-google-and-facebook-have-banned-campaign-ads?ref=home


Very interesting article

It's interesting to note that the main people who do not want abortion and are always at the front of demo's are Men, why ?

nicko wrote:It's interesting to note that the main people who do not want abortion and are always at the front of demo's are Men, why ?

cause Abortions give women rights and control over their body and life, it means they aren't enslaved to the patriarchy, they can actually have a career and not have their life derailed by unwanted pregnancy.
there are still pathetic men in this world that think women should be barefoot pregnant and chained to the kitchen

what is even worse is when the Anti Abortion nutjobs are also anti birth control.
like How Medieval can you be

nicko wrote:It's interesting to note that the main people who do not want abortion and are always at the front of demo's are Men, why ?

I think the whole argument on abortion, is done poorly by anti-abortionists

I mean, I agree its wrong to take an unborn life, but its also wrong to force a woman to carry something they do not want to. The one thing the anti-abortionists miss. Is the impact of forcing women to carry and give birth. Is to millions of unwanted children. This never enters the ethical debate and how its to me even worse. How people could argue to have tens of millions of babies born. That are unwanted without love and ending up basically in care. Many of them in the third world starving to death. Its basically even more ethically wrong and irresponsible to force a woman to carry a child into this world. When we have an issue with its population and that nobody is going to be able to care for that child.

Its why the anti-abortion argument, will always lose on this issue

Some believe there's a person at conception, some believe there isn't a person until the foetus can survive alone. I read somewhere that what we would call conciousness, is not possible until 22 weeks or so, even though there are movements they are not voluntary, if this is so I don't have a problem as such with abortion, even though I think that if it is required it should take place as early as possible, as later abortions can be traumatic for all concerned. I'm sure most women don't take this decision lightly.

Vintage wrote:Some believe there's a person at conception, some believe there isn't a person until the foetus can survive alone. I read somewhere that what we would call conciousness, is not possible until 22 weeks or so, even though there are movements they are not voluntary, if this is so I don't have a problem as such with abortion, even though I think that if it is required it should take place as early as possible, as later abortions can be traumatic for all concerned.  I'm sure most women don't take this decision lightly.

That is a really fair and interesting point Vintage and agree.
At the end of the day the argument always stems on the unborn life being carried and not on the carrier, the woman. Again the view to me, is there is no ethical argument to back abortion itself, but there is also no ethical argument to force a woman to carry something they do not want to carry within them.

Like I say, its more unethical to force women to bring into this world tens of millions of unwanted babies, Where in many cases, they will starve and die. Let alone the harm many would go through and the cost of this to care for many without any real love when in care. That is even worse to me. We have to have some clarity on this issue. So is abortion wrong to do? Of course, but is it also wrong to force a women to carry something they do not want? Of course. Yet what is even worse is being so negligent, that we should force women to carry unwanted babies into this world. Also neglected the fact this would also increase the amount of suicide in women, as it would, based around conflicts.

No person has a right to decide what a woman decides with her own body and the biggest cure of poverty, is the empowerment of women.

Didge wrote:

Vintage wrote:Some believe there's a person at conception, some believe there isn't a person until the foetus can survive alone. I read somewhere that what we would call conciousness, is not possible until 22 weeks or so, even though there are movements they are not voluntary, if this is so I don't have a problem as such with abortion, even though I think that if it is required it should take place as early as possible, as later abortions can be traumatic for all concerned.  I'm sure most women don't take this decision lightly.

That is a really fair and interesting point Vintage and agree.
At the end of the day the argument always stems on the unborn life being carried and not on the carrier, the woman. Again the view to me, is there is no ethical argument to back abortion itself, but there is also no ethical argument to force a woman to carry something they do not want to carry within them.

Like I say, its more unethical to force women to bring into this world tens of millions of unwanted babies, Where in many cases, they will starve and die. Let alone the harm many would go through and the cost of this to care for many without any real love when in care. That is even worse to me. We have to have some clarity on this issue. So is abortion wrong to do? Of course, but is it also wrong to force a women to carry something they do not want? Of course. Yet what is even worse is being so negligent, that we should force women to carry unwanted babies into this world. Also neglected the fact this would also increase the amount of suicide in women, as it would, based around conflicts.

No person has a right to decide what a woman decides with her own body and the biggest cure of poverty, is the empowerment of women.

Nobody should be obliged to perform an abortion on a woman either. If it's her body, she should be responsible for it.

sorry ragga...thats another FALSE "religiousist" argument....NO ONE...even in england, is forced to perform an abortion against their beliefs. your point has zero validity and is just stuff and nonsense.....

in the same way that a catholic Dr (for instance ) does NOT have to prescribe the pill...he must however pass the patient on to another DR.

Lord Foul wrote:sorry ragga...thats another FALSE "religiousist" argument....NO ONE...even in england, is forced to perform an abortion against their beliefs. your point has zero validity and is just stuff and nonsense.....

It's nothing to do with religion. Women should not have the right to expect others to sort out their abortions for them. They shouldn't allow themselves to get pregnant in the first place.

Oh, and if a woman wants an abortion, she should pay for it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:sorry ragga...thats another FALSE "religiousist" argument....NO ONE...even in england, is forced to perform an abortion against their beliefs. your point has zero validity and is just stuff and nonsense.....

It's nothing to do with religion. Women should not have the right to expect others to sort out their abortions for them. They shouldn't allow themselves to get pregnant in the first place.

Huh?

“Women should not have the right to expect others to sort out their abortions for them”

So people who smoke should not have the right to expect others to sort out their lungs for them?
So people who climb rocks should not have the right to expect others to sort out their broken limbs for them?

And on and on and on.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's nothing to do with religion. Women should not have the right to expect others to sort out their abortions for them. They shouldn't allow themselves to get pregnant in the first place.

Huh?

“Women should not have the right to expect others to sort out their abortions for them”

So people who smoke should not have the right to expect others to sort out their lungs for them?
So people who climb rocks should not have the right to expect others to sort out their broken limbs for them?

And on and on and on.

Correct. They should be grateful for the treatment they get, but all this abortion on demand is absurd.

so, what you are actually saying ragga is that we should scrap the "free at point of need" NHS??

Lord Foul wrote:so, what you are actually saying ragga is that we should scrap the "free at point of need" NHS??

Pregnancy isn't an illness or an injury, so it should be paid for privately IMO.

it is if its caused by rape....

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


That is a really fair and interesting point Vintage and agree.
At the end of the day the argument always stems on the unborn life being carried and not on the carrier, the woman. Again the view to me, is there is no ethical argument to back abortion itself, but there is also no ethical argument to force a woman to carry something they do not want to carry within them.

Like I say, its more unethical to force women to bring into this world tens of millions of unwanted babies, Where in many cases, they will starve and die. Let alone the harm many would go through and the cost of this to care for many without any real love when in care. That is even worse to me. We have to have some clarity on this issue. So is abortion wrong to do? Of course, but is it also wrong to force a women to carry something they do not want? Of course. Yet what is even worse is being so negligent, that we should force women to carry unwanted babies into this world. Also neglected the fact this would also increase the amount of suicide in women, as it would, based around conflicts.

No person has a right to decide what a woman decides with her own body and the biggest cure of poverty, is the empowerment of women.

Nobody should be obliged to perform an abortion on a woman either. If it's her body, she should be responsible for it.

Who is forcing them?

Anyway, I'd be very surprised if the public vote against the repeal of the eighth amendment.

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, I'd be very surprised if the public vote against the repeal of the eighth amendment.

I am waiting for you to answer my question

Who is forcing them?

Are you going to care for all unwanted children?

Women don't just get pregnant because they are lazy or irresponsible and how are they supposed to manage in countries with inadequate birth control or none at all? Even with birth control it isn't always 100%.
What about the other half of the equation shouldn't men take control of their fertility too?
There will be abortion whether its legal where you are or if you can manage to travel to obtain it,
worst of all is for the women and girls who are desperate enough to go the back street route and loose their lives or the ability to have a child later on.

Vintage wrote:Women don't just get pregnant because they are lazy or irresponsible and how are they supposed to manage in countries with inadequate birth control or none at all? Even with birth control it isn't always 100%.
What about the other half of the equation shouldn't men take control of their fertility too?
There will be abortion whether its legal where you are or if you can manage to travel to obtain it,
worst of all is for the women and girls who are desperate enough to go the back street route and loose their lives or the ability to have a child later on.

Great point

The reality is and has been for years as one of the cures to poverty, is empowerment of women to have control over their own bodies. Men should also be responsible with this when having sex.

Well, I think men equally end up having children they didn't want at least initially if not at all.
They have been many men in the past that have had shotgun weddings and end up with everyone involved regretting it. Taking the newborn away from its mother is pretty horrible as well as we can see by all the desperate attempts by mothers trying to trace babies they gave away or were forced to give away and children trying to trace their birth mothers, I suppose things may have changed a bit now but not much emotionally.

Abortions for all in Ireland now. They won the vote

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, I'd be very surprised if the public vote against the repeal of the eighth amendment.

I take it you are surprised......

one in the eye for the religious turbo nuts. At last ireland gets a toe hold into the 21st century

They won...good.
It will save the 9 women a day coming to England to have the procedure, also the 5 a day who buy pills online to end their pregnancy.
Having an abortion is hard enough without doing it furtively.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/24/nine-day-women-have-travel-abortions-ireland-prepares-referendum/

Lord Foul wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, I'd be very surprised if the public vote against the repeal of the eighth amendment.

I take it you are surprised......

one in the eye for the religious turbo nuts. At last ireland gets a toe hold into the 21st century

Er no - I'm not surprised. Perhaps you misunderstood my post.

Lord Foul wrote:
it is if its caused by rape....

And, also :

Incest;
Imminent threats to the mother's health, if she carries to full term (though, this is the one allowable reason in Ireland..);
Severe disabilities already known, with the unborn foetus..

Raggs, and like minded dogmatists, see no justifiable reasons ? Even when most churches already do..

Then, there are those mothers in areas of extreme poverty, or negative circumstances, when nobody else is prepared or available to care for "unwanted" babies...