List of nutty claims by Ireland's pro-life supporters

Aindriu

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
8,633
One of the No side's biggest lie is the abortion at 6 months crap.

22 weeks is NOT 6 months. Plus, anything after 12 weeks has to be for the protection of the mother's life or feotal abnormalities.
 


fergal1790

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
1,743
We've had a number of wild conspiracy theories proposed by this lot over the course of this campaign.
Off the top of my head I can recall the following:

  • The Citizens Assembly was a fix
  • The media are agin' them
  • Silenced on twitter
  • Facebook ban on all referendum adverts was a targeted attack on the No side
  • The referendum Commission are compromised

Can you think of any more wildly paranoid claims they've made?
If you have an abortion you will grow a MICKEY AND BALLS.
 

CookieMonster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
33,861
It's almost worth having a discussion on media balance - one which is untied from this or the next referendum.

Let's suggest that a proposal has 90% support, with 5% against it and the rest as "won't be voting" or "don't know".

Should the 5% have 50% airtime?

Or the other measure: each party gets the same airtime. In the scenario I suggest, all parties support the proposal. Would giving them airtime not have the appearance of bias?
That would be a good topic for another thread.
 

Tommy12345

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2011
Messages
1,068
I'd be totally "Yes", but in general unless I understand completely the ramifications of a Constitutional Amendment my default w be to retain the status quo.

Bear in mind, though, that when a legislative basis is put in place, there is far greater scope for the people to vote in TDs to undo it than to force a referendum on the issue.
A Yes vote would relinquish our ability ever again to vote directly and exclusively on this issue.
 

Tommy12345

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2011
Messages
1,068
It's almost worth having a discussion on media balance - one which is untied from this or the next referendum.

Let's suggest that a proposal has 90% support, with 5% against it and the rest as "won't be voting" or "don't know".

Should the 5% have 50% airtime?

Or the other measure: each party gets the same airtime. In the scenario I suggest, all parties support the proposal. Would giving them airtime not have the appearance of bias?
It's not just a question of airtime, it's the slanted way in which issues are framed, news is broken and guests are interviewed.

For an example of the latter, take a listen to Pat Kenny's recent interview of Peter Boylan and then to his interview the following day of Maria Steen. Completely different tone, completely different style of questioning.
 

Tommy12345

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2011
Messages
1,068
Do not trust the politicians pushing this . Vote No .
Especially when the Taoiseach states as his view that a doctor treating a pregnant woman should only start seeing two patients in the mix when viability has been reached - and that a foetus is a baby only if the mother's thinking makes it so.
 

CatullusV

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
5,458
It's not just a question of airtime, it's the slanted way in which issues are framed, news is broken and guests are interviewed.

For an example of the latter, take a listen to Pat Kenny's recent interview of Peter Boylan and then to his interview the following day of Maria Steen. Completely different tone, completely different style of questioning.
I'll catch up with them in the next day or so. In the meantime, I must take what you say to be true.

I'm aware that some broadcasters are unable or unwilling to prevent their opinion coming into play.

I'll open a thread on the issue when the dust has died down on this referendum.
 

Finbar10

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
2,581
We've had a number of wild conspiracy theories proposed by this lot over the course of this campaign.
Off the top of my head I can recall the following:

  • The Citizens Assembly was a fix
  • The media are agin' them
  • Silenced on twitter
  • Facebook ban on all referendum adverts was a targeted attack on the No side
  • The referendum Commission are compromised

Can you think of any more wildly paranoid claims they've made?
We probably haven't reached peak hyperbola yet, but we're getting there! ;)

IMO the citizen's assembly wasn't a fix, but it did suffer from a problem with self-selection bias. If one has to wade through 40 refusals for every 1 person who signs up, then obviously members are more likely to be far more interested (for or against) in its headline topic, abortion, than the typical punter. I argued here prior to its formation that, because of this, its recommendations would be either very limited or expansive (depending on the ratio of core pro-choice to pro-life in the population), and that it would be representative of those really interested in the topic as opposed to the population in general.

You also have polling companies trying to sign up people (with employees under time pressures). In the first citizen's convention, there were instances of related people (and one couple both in it). Here, again, it sounded like some interviewer, probably under pressure, signed up some relatives. A company review claimed to find no further issues or further sloppy methodology (they would say that wouldn't they :) ).

IMO no conspiracy. However, they should probably make more of a point and go out of their way to make it be *seen* that it is so. The Ancient Athenians went out of their way to create a special lottery like machine (the kleroterion) so that everyone could see that citizens were being really drawn randomly. Iffy methodology does naturally lead to conspiracy theories, even if not justified.

On the media, I would have thought it obvious the print media were (though they do throw in some percentage of NO pieces)? Didn't the Irish version of the UK Times actually declare for NO? However, the Couglan judgment does constrain the broadcast media. IMO the NO side has gotten a fair crack of the whip there. Some presenters, admittedly, are rather poor at putting aside their own obvious YES bias, e.g. Pat Kenny and Matt Cooper, but nonetheless the NO side still has gotten a fair crack of the whip. Coughlan is an important democratic safeguard.

On Facebook, confining ads to Ireland seemed like a sensible strategy to me.

We don't really know what motivated google's complete ban. Perhaps it was purely a PR move designed to avoid bad international press after a possible NO vote likening its involvement to BREXIT or Trump's victory. But one can't rule out more cynical motives by such companies either. It wouldn't be that implausible tbh if company views on the issue influenced in part the decision.

On the referendum commission being compromised, I don't think so. The @ireland account idea probably seemed like a good idea to the judge and civil servants involved. A bit unfortunate though. Is this likely to have a blind of impact of the outcome? Very unlikely I would have thought! :) Twitter actually makes this place look rational and calm by comparison! :lol: I doubt too many of those roaring at each other on twitter (or hiding behind the repeal shield) are undecideds or fence-sitters!
 
Last edited:

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,430
One of the No side's biggest lie is the abortion at 6 months crap.

22 weeks is NOT 6 months. Plus, anything after 12 weeks has to be for the protection of the mother's life or feotal abnormalities.
Read the proposed legislation before making a twit of yourself.... yet again.
Because you obviously haven't bothered.
 

Aindriu

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
8,633
Read the proposed legislation before making a twit of yourself.... yet again.
Because you obviously haven't bothered.
I was talking about the posters!
As for you people who want to force a raped women to carry the pregnancy to term if she doesn't want to, or give birth to a child that is already dead or will die very shortly after birth, shame on you!
 

Massey

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2018
Messages
821
I saw one of them tweet that the repeal move was a conspiracy to kill Irish babies so that foreners will be able to take over.
 

CookieMonster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
33,861
I saw one of them tweet that the repeal move was a conspiracy to kill Irish babies so that foreners will be able to take over.
That's a common one.
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
47,680
The FB and Google business is something I don't understand.
It applies to both sides.
There's an allegation IT and RTÉ are biased for yes.
However, there's a Commission.
Who are now tweeting from a private Twitter account owned by a repeal campainger and where all of last week's tweets by another repeal campainger now have the refcom logo beside them.

At @Ireland Twitter account if anyone is interested.
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
47,680
Any claim by ger12 can be filed under nutty or lies, you may want to expand on that OP.
That's why The Times UK ran a piece confirming that prolife Twitter accounts were shadowbanned by Twitter.
 

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,430
I was talking about the posters!
As for you people who want to force a raped women to carry the pregnancy to term if she doesn't want to, or give birth to a child that is already dead or will die very shortly after birth, shame on you!
Doubling down on your dribbling nonsense, I see.
There should be a mimimum qualification for posting - maybe the exclusion of brainfarts?
 

Uganda

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
9,608
We've had a number of wild conspiracy theories proposed by this lot over the course of this campaign.
Off the top of my head I can recall the following:


  • [
  • The media are agin' them
    [


Can you think of any more wildly paranoid claims they've made?
Are you seriously suggesting that the Irish Times is playing an even bat with this one?

Just count the column inches devoted in yesterdays paper to those arguing for Yes and compare it with the the column inches allocated to No, and then tell me they are balanced.
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
47,680
Didn't RedC have to apologise after it was discovered that it added substitutes from the friends and families of one of its people?

Feel free to have another hissy fit about the dastardly No side but at least do some research first.
Yes it did. And the Oireachtas Committee couldn't find a pro life doctor to give evidence.
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
47,680
One of the No side's biggest lie is the abortion at 6 months crap.

22 weeks is NOT 6 months. Plus, anything after 12 weeks has to be for the protection of the mother's life or feotal abnormalities.
It's up to viability on the UKs mental health clause.

The risk to mental health should be decided by the woman as per Mr Boylan.

The Bill is clear, online for everyone to access.

It in no way mitigates against abortion for disability.
 


Most Replies

Top