Do people care about this 'abortion' bill?

RandomName2

Every day there's the thing about the "protection of Life during Pregnancy" bill in the media.

Some people getting very hot under the collar about it. Politicians forcing the bill through, death threats written in blood sent to TDs.

Anybody here care? Seems like a non-issue that should've been out of the way long ago to me.

kneemos

They haven't gone far enough in terms of incest and unviable foetus's is all most care about I'd say.

Genghiz Cohen

It is hugely important.
Not just for women's right but for everyones, this has been ignored for 20 years and it took a woman's death to finally get it talked about.
We voted twice and we were twice ignored because we didn't give the wanted answer.

Should we have to wait for the worst to happen before legislation is enacted every time, or should we demand better from the government?

We should pay close attention to those who will vote against the legislation, they are going against the voce of the people and should not be re-elected. Why should we have leaders who ignore what we want?

kylith

The legislation is too restrictive, they've done the bare minimum mandated by the High Court.

We need another abortion referendum

Uriel.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Every day there's the thing about the "protection of Life during Pregnancy" bill in the media.

Some people getting very hot under the collar about it. Politicians forcing the bill through, death threats written in blood sent to TDs.

Anybody here care? Seems like a non-issue that should've been out of the way long ago to me.

In what way? As whatever an individual's opinion is, it's a far from a non issue. And if your opinion is "meh" then in what way could it/should it have been "out of the way"?

Genghiz Cohen

kneemos wrote: »

They haven't gone far enough in terms of incest and unviable foetus's is all most care about I'd say.

They have gone exactly as far as the Supreme Court ordered.

EDIT: MAy have been the High Court as pointed out by kylith.

jobeenfitz

It's not my business if my next door neighbour or any other woman has an abortion.

I'v had enough and am switching off any programme's about abortion.

Uriel.

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

It is hugely important.
Not just for women's right but for everyones, this has been ignored for 20 years and it took a woman's death to finally get it talked about.
We voted twice and we were twice ignored because we didn't give the wanted answer.

Should we have to wait for the worst to happen before legislation is enacted every time, or should we demand better from the government?

I agreed with the above but the below is just not how democracy works. TDs if they feel uncomfortable with a proposed law/policy shouldn't vote for it just because (their party tells them etc..). Perhaps a TD is voting on his own accord or perhaps as the majority of his constituents wish him/her to vote that way. while the people have voted in favour of having limited abortions that doesn't mean all 166 TDs should blindly vote through legislation.

We should pay close attention to those who will vote against the legislation, they are going against the voce of the people and should not be re-elected. Why should we have leaders who ignore what we want?

eviltwin

I'm a woman of child bearing age so, yeah it's hugely important to me. What eventually becomes law as a result of this bill will directly impact the care I can expect to have in a pregnacy.

Laneyh

RandomName2 wrote: »

Every day there's the thing about the "protection of Life during Pregnancy" bill in the media.

Some people getting very hot under the collar about it. Politicians forcing the bill through, death threats written in blood sent to TDs.

Anybody here care? Seems like a non-issue that should've been out of the way long ago to me.

I wouldn't say its a non-issue. Perhaps to you its a no brainer
It won't be out of the way for a long time if ever - the abortion debate will run and run.

It's better than nothing and will hopefully clarify a few points but I would say it will certainly need to be revisited again

kneemos

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

They have gone exactly as far as the Supreme Court ordered.

EDIT: MAy have been the High Court as pointed out by kylith.

Might as well do it right when they're doing it,most people are in favour of having the legislation extended.

Uriel.

kneemos wrote: »

Might as well do it right when they're doing it,most people are in favour of having the legislation extended.

Are they? extended to what?

kneemos

Uriel. wrote: »

Are they? extended to what?

Just said to what and yes 85% in a recent poll.

vitani

Uriel. wrote: »

I agreed with the above but the below is just not how democracy works. TDs if they feel uncomfortable with a proposed law/policy shouldn't vote for it just because (their party tells them etc..). Perhaps a TD is voting on his own accord or perhaps as the majority of his constituents wish him/her to vote that way. while the people have voted in favour of having limited abortions that doesn't mean all 166 TDs should blindly vote through legislation.

I'm uncomfortable with any TD voting against this particular legislation because they don't agree suicide needs to be included in it. We've had two referendums about this issue, and they got the opportunity to have their say and vote in those along with everybody else. Why should their own personal opinion now carry more weight than what the majority of people voted for?

I'm undecided about the whip system in general, and I am happy that some TDs do really think about legislation before blindly voting for it, but this particular piece of legislation is following on from a Supreme court ruling, a European Court of Human Rights recommendation and two referendums. I don't understand why they think they have the right to ignore all of that in favour of their own personal beliefs.

Enda Kenny put it very well when he said that he serves the people, not the Church, and that his book is the Constitution.

kylith

jobeenfitz wrote: »

It's not my business if my next door neighbour or any other woman has an abortion.

I'v had enough and am switching off any programme's about abortion.

"It's not my business" is the reason why women carrying babies with fatal abnormalities have to travel to the UK to have a termination, and to try to recover from it in a hotel, surrounded by strangers. "It's not my business" is what has rape victims forced to carry their attacker's child to term if they can't afford to travel.

I truly, truly hope that it never becomes your business, but there are probably women in your own family who have travelled.

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm a woman of child bearing age so, yeah it's hugely important to me. What eventually becomes law as a result of this bill will directly impact the care I can expect to have in a pregnacy.

Likewise. It terrifies me that if I fell ill while pregnant I could, would have to be under law, told 'well that's just tough, there's nothing we can do until you're dying', and then you have to just hope that you're not dying too quickly for them to save you. Can you imagine someone saying that to a man? 'I'm sorry, we can't help you until you can prove you're actively dying.'

Uriel.

kneemos wrote: »

Just said to what and yes 85% in a recent poll.

Sorry missed you're earlier post. Is the 85% of people seeking what you mention when they favour extension or are there other elements

TommyKnocker

Uriel. wrote: »

Are they? extended to what?

Extended to cover pregnancy arising from

• Rape
• Incest
• Unviable foetus

In all of the above cases IMHO, the woman should have the right to a medical termination if she so desires, performed in this country at least and at the maternity hospital of her choice at best.

mickos

kylith wrote: »

"It's not my business" is the reason why women carrying babies with fatal abnormalities have to travel to the UK to have a termination, and to try to recover from it in a hotel, surrounded by strangers. "It's not my business" is what has rape victims forced to carry their attacker's child to term if they can't afford to travel.

I truly, truly hope that it never becomes your business, but there are probably women in your own family who have travelled.

I think you are missing the point. I agree with "It's not my Business" if a woman wants to have an abortion. It has been the church controlled state making it their business, which has got us to where we are.

Uriel.

vitani wrote: »

I'm uncomfortable with any TD voting against this particular legislation because they don't agree suicide needs to be included in it. We've had two referendums about this issue, and they got the opportunity to have their say and vote in those along with everybody else. Why should their own personal opinion now carry more weight than what the majority of people voted for?

I'm undecided about the whip system in general, and I am happy that some TDs do really think about legislation before blindly voting for it, but this particular piece of legislation is following on from a Supreme court ruling, a European Court of Human Rights recommendation and two referendums. I don't understand why they think they have the right to ignore all of that in favour of their own personal beliefs.

Enda Kenny put it very well when he said that he serves the people, not the Church, and that his book is the Constitution.

The Constitutional referendum (and the various rulings) only provides for a concept (an important one). The legislation provides for giving affect to that concept, but a concept can be affected in a multitude of ways. Perhaps some people don't agree with the mechanisms for example.

Also, we all have to abide by the laws of the land (plenty don't of course) but we don't have to agree with them. I am not sure a TD should be hounded for following a path they or the people they represent want.

While "the church" and the "ordinary people" may seem like the only two sides in this, and there are extremists on both ends, it's not solely a church/bible thing versus the rest of us. There's plenty of people interested and indeed affected that straddle the middle grounds (or on the extreme ends but not influenced by the church).

And then there are plenty of course, who are just "meh" about the whole thing.

kneemos

Uriel. wrote: »

Sorry missed you're earlier post. Is the 85% of people seeking what you mention when they favour extension or are there other elements

No idea just glanced the poll on the telly a couple of weeks ago.Don't know what the pro lifers would get up to if proper legislation was being passed rather than this insignificant and possibly unworkable bill.

Uriel.

kneemos wrote: »

No idea just glanced the poll on the telly a couple of weeks ago.Don't know what the pro lifers would get up to if proper legislation was being passed rather than this insignificant and possibly unworkable bill.

Join (some) their Muslim brethern and fight with Al Quieda?

Mardy Bum

Uriel. wrote: »

While "the church" and the "ordinary people" may seem like the only two sides in this, and there are extremists on both ends, it's not solely a church/bible thing versus the rest of us.

This line gets trotted out the whole time. The only extremists have been those on the "pro life/ Kill your local TD" side

rox5

kylith wrote: »

"It's not my business" is the reason why women carrying babies with fatal abnormalities have to travel to the UK to have a termination, and to try to recover from it in a hotel, surrounded by strangers. "It's not my business" is what has rape victims forced to carry their attacker's child to term if they can't afford to travel.

I truly, truly hope that it never becomes your business, but there are probably women in your own family who have travelled.

I think what she meant by "It's not my business" is that it is not her business to dictate if a woman wants to have an abortion for whatever reason, whether it is for medical reasons or if it was just for her own interest. All these pro-life people though seem to think that it IS their business, for whatever reason and that is why there is no proper abortion law. Like if I found out a friend or neighbour wants an abortion, I would not judge or make it my business as it is not my place to say anything.

ei9go

Nothing can happen in Ireland until there is a referendum to remove abortion from the constitution

"Catholic Hospital Argues Fetuses Are Not People In Malpractice Suit "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/23/catholic-hospital-argues-_n_2534383.html

Money comes first, have a read.

jobeenfitz

kylith wrote: »

"It's not my business" is the reason why women carrying babies with fatal abnormalities have to travel to the UK to have a termination, and to try to recover from it in a hotel, surrounded by strangers. "It's not my business" is what has rape victims forced to carry their attacker's child to term if they can't afford to travel.

I truly, truly hope that it never becomes your business, but there are probably women in your own family who have travelled.


Likewise. It terrifies me that if I fell ill while pregnant I could, would have to be under law, told 'well that's just tough, there's nothing we can do until you're dying', and then you have to just hope that you're not dying too quickly for them to save you. Can you imagine someone saying that to a man? 'I'm sorry, we can't help you until you can prove you're actively dying.'

Maybe my post was vague. When I say "its not my business" what I meant is that I should not stand in the way of any woman who needs/wants to have an abortion. Just for the record I would vote yes to abortion. I think it should be a decision for the individual woman or couple in the case of unwanted pregnancy. I also believe exporting the problem to England is our governments cowardly way of dealing wth this issue.

vitani

Uriel. wrote: »

The Constitutional referendum (and the various rulings) only provides for a concept (an important one). The legislation provides for giving affect to that concept, but a concept can be affected in a multitude of ways. Perhaps some people don't agree with the mechanisms for example.

Also, we all have to abide by the laws of the land (plenty don't of course) but we don't have to agree with them. I am not sure a TD should be hounded for following a path they or the people they represent want.

While "the church" and the "ordinary people" may seem like the only two sides in this, and there are extremists on both ends, it's not solely a church/bible thing versus the rest of us. There's plenty of people interested and indeed affected that straddle the middle grounds (or on the extreme ends but not influenced by the church).

And then there are plenty of course, who are just "meh" about the whole thing.

The concept in this scenario is that abortion is permitted when the life of the mother is at risk, and that is including from the risk of suicide.

http://www.thejournal.ie/fine-gael-brian-walsh-abortion-suicide-888649-Apr2013/

This particular politician says that he doesn't agree with suicide being included as a premise, and claims that it will lead to a more liberal regime down the road. That's not a 'mechanism', in my eyes. It's him prioritising his own moral viewpoint and fears over the results of two referendums.

This is an odd situation because it's rare enough for the people to be asked to vote in a referendum in the first place, and it's why this issue is really getting to me.

Taking emotion out of it and looking at a different referendum we had here - say, the one on judge's pay. What happens if a TD has a severe moral objection to the very concept of paying judges less money? Does he get to vote against legislation, even though the majority of the people voted in favour of it? And if so, how is that democratic or representative?

FouxDaFaFa

It's hugely important to me. I'm young and have no plans to have children any time soon (if ever) but it really scares me that if I become pregnant I could get to the stage where I am about to die before someone can legally help me.

I could have horrible health problems for the rest of my life because I wasn't "dying" so it was okay not to intervene or give me a say in the matter.

Likewise, the fear that if I were raped or had a pregnancy I wished to continue only to hear that the foetus would die that I would be told "we can't do anything to help you. Go to England".

Fcuk that. I should be entitled to have a medical procedure done in my own country.

jobeenfitz

The reason I, personally have had enough of the abortion debate is that it just can't be debated rationally here in Ireland. Some people have entrenched views and will jump down your throat if you dare to dissagree with them. Granted it is mostly the Pro-life side that show this trait but not exclusively. Yes you may have strongly held views and you may be pizzed off with the other side but calm down and get off your high horses and give your ego's a rest, please.

Mint Sauce

I was told during the last Abortion Referendum that because I was a man, I should not have a say, as it doesn't effect me. My response was it could be my sister, my cousin, my neice, if I was off an older age, my daughter, so yes it does effect me. Thats point one covered.

Point two covers my views on abortion generally. Whilst I am against abortion when using as a lifestyle choice, ie, accidental pregnancy, cant afford a child, etc, I wound not judge a person who decided to go down that route. As a health choice, ie, the welfare of the mother or baby, or both, this I would support.

Point 3, and this is a bit of a side one. On a previous thread, I spoke of a group, that were so against abortion on any grounds, they were proposing a Hospice environment, for say a place for familys in the case of a mothers or child life being at risk if the pregnancy continued. Now tbh, they had religious principles, but if they are so against it, how come they are not proposing the banning of the morning after pill? Considering the view of life begining at inception, surly the morning after would be then viewed as a possible form of abortion.

FreshKnickers

Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!

smileyj1987

Meh just make it legal and let people decided if they want to have abortions or not . It really is that simple .

Pumpkinseeds

kylith wrote: »

The legislation is too restrictive, they've done the bare minimum mandated by the High Court.

We need another abortion referendum

I agree, but until a substantial percentage of our elderly population dies off we're never going to get anywhere. I'd love to see the results of a referendum based on the votes of women of child bearing age. That would be a far more accurate representation of what women want.

Bannasidhe

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I agree, but until a substantial percentage of our elderly population dies off we're never going to get anywhere. I'd love to see the results of a referendum based on the votes of women of child bearing age. That would be a far more accurate representation of what women want.

My 79 year old mother is, and always has been, outspokenly pro-choice. Plenty of young people are not pro-choice. It's not as simple as a stark generational thing.

Manach

Given how the legal "limited" abortion regimes panned out, as say in the UK - then there will be a much more limited numbers of a younger generation to represent.

Pumpkinseeds

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My 79 year old mother is, and always has been, outspokenly pro-choice. Plenty of young people are not pro-choice. It's not as simple as a stark generational thing.

There are always exceptions to the rule, however, whenever I see news coverage of pro-life rallys or pass people waving there pro-life placards while distributing leaflets, they are mostly in there 60's and older. I just can't get over the sanctimonius attitude of the pro-life brigade. This belief of 'well you got caught out and you're pregnant so now you're stuck with the baby whether you want it or not'. Bloody ridiculous in this day and age.

Bannasidhe

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

There are always exceptions to the rule, however, whenever I see news coverage of pro-life rallys or pass people waving there pro-life placards while distributing leaflets, they are mostly in there 60's and older. I just can't get over the sanctimonius attitude of the pro-life brigade. This belief of 'well you got caught out and you're pregnant so now you're stuck with the baby whether you want it or not'. Bloody ridiculous in this day and age.

Oh I agree. Just wanted to point out that not all of the older generation support the pro-birth campaign.

Uriel.

vitani wrote: »

The concept in this scenario is that abortion is permitted when the life of the mother is at risk, and that is including from the risk of suicide.

http://www.thejournal.ie/fine-gael-brian-walsh-abortion-suicide-888649-Apr2013/

This particular politician says that he doesn't agree with suicide being included as a premise, and claims that it will lead to a more liberal regime down the road. That's not a 'mechanism', in my eyes. It's him prioritising his own moral viewpoint and fears over the results of two referendums.

This is an odd situation because it's rare enough for the people to be asked to vote in a referendum in the first place, and it's why this issue is really getting to me.

Taking emotion out of it and looking at a different referendum we had here - say, the one on judge's pay. What happens if a TD has a severe moral objection to the very concept of paying judges less money? Does he get to vote against legislation, even though the majority of the people voted in favour of it? And if so, how is that democratic or representative?

I actually think that that is democracy in action. If he votes against the proposed legislation, he will surely lose the party whip, no longer being a government TD. At the next election he will face his electorate and they will then decide his faith and whether they agreed with his stance (or not).

The Government of the day dictates the policy/legal agenda (for the most part) and they stand before the people and if 1. The people don't like thheir agenda, they won't get voted in and 2. If they renege and/or the people don't like how they implement the agenda, they run the risk of losing out the next time as a result.

I believe that in an democratic society the people's representatives should get their say,but of course that should come with consequences.

kylith

jobeenfitz wrote: »

Maybe my post was vague. When I say "its not my business" what I meant is that I should not stand in the way of any woman who needs/wants to have an abortion. Just for the record I would vote yes to abortion. I think it should be a decision for the individual woman or couple in the case of unwanted pregnancy. I also believe exporting the problem to England is our governments cowardly way of dealing wth this issue.

I apologise, I did misunderstand. I thought that you meant 'not my business' in an 'I don't want to know' way rather than an 'it's a decision everyone should make for themselves' way. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

Tarabuses

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I agree, but until a substantial percentage of our elderly population dies off we're never going to get anywhere. I'd love to see the results of a referendum based on the votes of women of child bearing age. That would be a far more accurate representation of what women want.

So maybe euthanasia too?