Irish referendum - abortion - should men vote?

[Schtinkay]

Fabulous news. Finally a referendum in Ireland to decriminalise abortion. About bloody time.

But should men be allowed to vote on an issue that is about controlling rights, freedoms and bodies of women?

I don't think so. Very interested in thoughts.

The next ten months are going to be hell. The marriage referendum campaigning got heated enough at times, and some of the posters from the no side were horrible. This is a much more divisive issue.

There certainly is a view in Ireland that 'bloody feminists' will hijack the referendum and send people, who apparently have no mind of their own, into voting no. It's an incredibly sinister approach to take and one I'm always suspicious of.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/27/ireland-abortion-referendum-not-done-deal-repeal-the-8th-political-hostility

I think the problem lies in the Dail. This is a political issue, there is no doubt about that.

There was a discussion on Woman's Hour this morning regarding the forthcoming referendum. It's at the start.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b095ptt7

We don't even know what we're going to be voting on yet. That will be the first battle.

Existential No not women play nice but more women or indeed men who support repealing the 8th should play smart.

The marriage equality ref was a masterclass in how to conduct a campaign that was measured and spoke to peoples common decency.

If the pro choice movement decide to go in a direction that is more hectoring (and before anyone says would you say it about a man, I would use the same word to describe David Quinn in the Iona Institute) then they risk alienating those who are on the fence.

I also wouldn't be so sure that it will pass. The citizens assembly made a recommendation based on hours or testimony, there is no way that is going to get through the noise of a campaign.

When we tell the truth and stand up for out human rights we are called strident and hectoring and overly feminist.

If you're on the fence about whether to let people have the most basic human rights I don't want to play nice or play smart with you. I want to punch you in the face until you get a hold of yourself.
But that is why I am a behind the scenes worker and not one of the people who makes speeches.

The marriage equality ref in Ireland was a political decision in that all the parties got behind it. Leo Varadkar, the current taoiseach, is against gay couples adopting and has always been pro-life.

He was not the one to call the citizen's assembly, but has acknowledged that something has to be done about it.

There is a pro choice rally in Dublin this Saturday. I wonder if the gardai will get the numbers wrong regarding the attendance figures. I'm tempted to get in my car, get onto the ferry and go.

Hectoring? What like they do in politics?

I think a lot of people in Ireland, especially in the cities, are really fed up with the church hence the low attendance figures. Magdalen laundries, abusive priests moved from parish to parish, and dead children in Tuam are not going to help the pro lifers. My mother thinks it should be legalised up to 12 weeks, no questions asked, and free! Heavens, this from a life long Catholic. She's fed up with the hypocrisy. She's 92 and voted remain. As a family, we have homes both side of the border.

I firmly believe that if the majority of people in the country were exposed to the same evidence as the citizens assembly were- evidence from experts, and religious groups, and people who regretted their abortions and people who had to travel because of fatal foetal abnormalities, the whole confused lot- they would come to the same conclusion and it would be repealed.

In reality, they're unlikely to be exposed to 5% of that information. They will get emotive, angry messages from both sides. Currently there are crazy American speakers trying to hold a meeting talking about their experience of being conceived because of rape, or conceiving a child they carried to term and love due to rape, and how that means abortion should be illegal. Instead of issuing a statement to the effect that they respect their personal views but they do not speak for the majority, the repeal movement have tried to mobilise people to shut them down and they have now had to cancel two meetings in Dublin hotels because staff have been issued with death threats. Being on the side of silencing free speech is never a good way to influence people.

I understand why people are angry. I know a few of the v crazy far right religious Iona types and they are enraging. But the current message of a lot of the repeal side is basically, screw you, you hate women and we are going to win.

And this vote is not going to be won or lost by the people who hate women. It's the people who think that when life starts is a continuum, and there are competing claims, and who need to have more information and statistics and stories about the reality of the choices women like them (and most of them are women) or their friends and loved ones have to make. I'm really worried those people are currently being ignored, instead of targeted.

The marriage equality referendum made a lot of progress by speaking to people openly and acknowledging their concerns- the call a granny campaign was masterful. But repeal, while it has had some success with women talking about their experiences, seems to be reluctant to engage with the fact some of these women will have had doubts, and engage with the doubts and concerns of their audience. It is defiant in its tone- and I really honestly do understand why, but it is going to get people's backs up, and I fear it is going to let the crazies win.

What about women who are infertile , can they vote on an issue that will never affect them?

I don't know whether the polling would be the same in Ireland, but in the UK Gallup and MORI consistently find that it's men who would vote for relaxing the current constraints on abortion. So perhaps having men able to vote will swell the "Yes" votes, even though I understand the principle behind the OP's suggestion

So would you advise a man who is pro-choice and planning to vote for the abolishment of the amendment to abstain instead?

It's not about how men would vote, the original post was about the idea that it's nothing at all to do with men, as they will never be in the position to want an abortion. It was a theoretical question about whether men should be able to vote on an issue of women's health.

I agree with both the OP and Assinated. However it's a referendum, which means a public vote. And it's about the 8th amendment to the constitution. A referendum to change the constitution.

I agree with those who say that medical procedures regarding a woman's body should never be 'enshrined' in the constitution anyway. It's bizarre.

It's not about how men would vote, the original post was about the idea that it's nothing at all to do with men, as they will never be in the position to want an abortion. It was a theoretical question about whether men should be able to vote on an issue of women's health.

For many women, it is also a theoretical question as they have never been in a position where they would want an abortion.

Men should have no say over whether an individual woman should be able to terminate her pregnancy, but neither should other women. It should be an individual choice.
Many, many women in Ireland are opposed to allowing free access to abortion. Why is it acceptable for them to have a vote on other women's health? Why would their vote be worth more than the vote of a man who sees the need for abortion to be legal?

Men can never be in the position to want an abortion, in the same way as women will never get prostate cancer.

I don't understand the rationale behind any of this. If the point is that a man should never be able to tell a woman what to do with her body, then what about women who vote against legalisation? Why is it okay for them to tell other woman (eg. on religious grounds) what they can or cannot do?

I appreciate that the prevailing view here is that this nothing more than a question of bodily autonomy, but surely that's putting the cart before the horse? Lots of people hold the (non-religiously motivated) view that the foetus' rights are as important as the woman's. I don't agree with them, but I don't think they'be batshit crazy either. If 'what rights does the foetus have?' is part of the moral equation, then surely men should be allowed a view on the subject as well as women. If the answer is (effectively) 'none' or 'fewer than the woman' then, brilliant, that's democracy in action.

I'm always amused that bodily autonomy is used only when it comes to feminism.

"I'm always amused that bodily autonomy is used only when it comes to feminism."

Don't understand?

Men never use bodily autonomy when it comes to basic civil rights. However, when women try to use this term they are termed 'feminists'. No. They want to be seen as humans, just like men are.

Where have I branded anyone a feminist, Elendon? And where have I suggested that that is a bad thing?

I still don't know what you mean Elendon.

@Assassinatedbeauty. Straight people voted in the Irish same-sex wedding referendum, and I'd bet that female MPs have voted in the commons on exlusively mens' issues or childless MPs have voted on childrens' issues.

What exclusively men's issues would that be?

I'm sorry no one gets what I mean. I can't explain it further.

I really want to understand what you mean- but I just don't.

I think Elendon means that men don't feel they need a reason to ask for their basic human rights, whereas we have to quote things like bodily autonomy?