Do you think a referendum on abortion would be passed?(not how you'd vote)

beach_walker

Itzy wrote: »

As I said before, I see a lot of People hopping around in argument against abortion, but if you're alive and living in poverty, well to hell with you.

There should really be some kind of ticker going for how many times this line will be dropped into the thread.

ProfessorPlum

CaraMay wrote: »

People can have kids without doctors around and did have for thousands of years but you can't have a heart transplant without one. Pregnant is a medical condition by choice not necessity

Well, that's kind of like saying that meningitis isn't a medical condition, people have been having meningitis for thousands of years.

Doesn't really make sense, does it?

joe40

My personal opinion is that we already have abortion in Ireland it is just carried out in another jurisdiction so that we can wipe our hands of it.

An earlier poster made an analogy with a kidney donor, to extend that comparison, I would not be compelled to provide a blood donation to save another's life since it would be an assault on me if it was done without my wishes.

However the original question was hypothetical "do you think it would pass"

I would like to hear peoples opinions on another hypothetical question. "would the vote pass if only women were allowed to vote on this issue.

I ask this because I am surprised how many women I hear who are actually against abortion. Lucinda being one high profile example.

PhoenixParker

Spudman_20000 wrote: »

Pregnancy is not a medical condition though, and nor should it be ever classified as one. That's where your comparison falls down.

Not really.

The person in my story with the medical condition is the fetus not the pregnant lady. The fetus cannot survive without what is basically a life support machine more advanced then anything medical science has yet invented. The pregnant lady is a perfectly healthy individual who is being compelled to undergo medical treatments as a result of someone else's inability to function without a life saving treatment that depends on pregnant lady's organs.

However I should also add that pregnancy is very much a medical condition requiring multiple and frequent visits to medical practitioners even for a normal healthy pregnancy. It may not have been treated as a medical condition for thousands of years but you can read up on historical maternal mortality for a clear outline of why it is and should be treated as a medical condition today.

Coat22

I think there's an assumption here that because same sex marriage was legalised then it follows that the same liberal movement would vote for abortion but I doubt that's the case.

Personally I've always been of the opinion that it should be. I'm personally against it but let it be on the individuals conscience to decide and lets move on from this issue taking up so much time in our parliament when plenty of other things are just as pressing.

CaraMay

Yeah it's hardly refugee camp status poverty. The poverty line reminds me of the woman on the rte news complaining her daughter waited 7 years for a consultants appointment and the was standing in front of the largest tv I've ever seen. I would have spent money on a private consultant for my child before buying a 50+ inch tv. Poverty is all relative.

CaraMay

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Well, that's kind of like saying that meningitis isn't a medical condition, people have been having meningitis for thousands of years.

Doesn't really make sense, does it?

No it's not?

Rabo Karabekian

Coat22 wrote: »

I think there's an assumption here that because same sex marriage was legalised then it follows that the same liberal movement would vote for abortion but I doubt that's the case.

Personally I've always been of the opinion that it should be. I'm personally against it but let it be on the individuals conscience to decide and lets move on from this issue taking up so much time in our parliament when plenty of other things are just as pressing.

I think there's an assumption of a liberal attitude to social aspects that can be a little naive to rely on, but I definitely think we are in a different situation, in terms of people's social beliefs, than with the previous generation, or many generations prior to that.

I definitely don't think a referendum on repealing the 8th would be passed quite so comfortably as with the marriage equality bill, and I don't think we'll see many businesses happy to promote such a referendum, regardless of the viewpoints of the owners. I'd also be very interested to see whether there will be quite such an enthusiastic response from emigrants to come back home to vote.

anothernight

CaraMay wrote: »

My cousin was told her child would be severely handicapped if born and the option of a termination was mentioned. The child is now 3 and perfectly healthy.

My friend had cystitis and it resolved on its own. Time to ban antibiotics?

ProfessorPlum

CaraMay wrote: »

No it's not?

Why not? If I have meningitis, I can choose to stay away from doctors, and see how I get on. Generally the results would be much better if I engaged with health professionals. The same goes if I am pregnant.

Millions of women all over the world would very much love to be able to avail of medical services in their pregnancies. Your attitude belittles them, their lost lives, health and babies.

CaraMay

anothernight wrote: »

My friend had cystitis and it resolved on its own. Time to ban antibiotics?

Apples and oranges. Abortion stops a human being born. Antibiotics cure an infection.

CaraMay

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Why not? If I have meningitis, I can choose to stay away from doctors, and see how I get on. Generally the results would be much better if I engaged with health professionals. The same goes if I am pregnant.

Millions of women all over the world would very much love to be able to avail of medical services in their pregnancies. Your attitude belittles them, their lost lives, health and babies.

Oh cop on.

You choose not to attend a doctor when you've meningitis then it's s decision about your own future. Abortion is a decision about someone else's future.

anothernight

CaraMay wrote: »

Apples and oranges. Abortion stops a human being born. Antibiotics cure an infection.

Whoosh.

My point is that a single anecdote is pretty much meaningless. Your cousin's child survived. Someone else's child might have died. Yet another person's child might have died and killed the mother in the process.

CaraMay

anothernight wrote: »

Yet another person's child might have died and killed the mother in the process.

That's very rare. A lot more babies are aborted than mothers killed. I do think parents should have choices when it comes to fetal abnormalities but my point stands that the professionals can't always predict it accurately.

ProfessorPlum

CaraMay wrote: »

Oh cop on.

You choose not to attend a doctor when you've meningitis then it's s decision about your own future. Abortion is a decision about someone else's future.

CaraMay wrote: »

Pregnant is a medical condition by choice not necessity

What do you think you're talking about again?

I think I'm trying to point out to you that pregnancy is certainly a medical condition.

You on the other hand are very confused!

CaraMay

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

What do you think you're talking about again?

I think I'm trying to point out to you that pregnancy is certainly a medical condition.

You on the other hand are very confused!

Don't be silly.

I'm saying you can probably get through pregnancy without seeing a doctor but you can hardly get through meningitis without intervention. You are being awkward for the sake of it now

anothernight

Anyway, to answer the OP's question...

I honestly don't know whether it would pass. At present, it would be a very narrow margin either way, and the result would probably depend on wording more than anything. Give it another 20 years and I think it would definitely pass.

Regulating medical procedures through the constitution is really not a good idea.

The Randy Riverbeast

I always find it strange how incompetent so many doctors seems to be when the pro life people tell me how they are wrong so often. Have yet to see any actual facts rather than anecdotes though so maybe it's just over exaggerated.

Back to the question, it depends. If we want to continue attempting to put legislation into the constitution that causes a problem eventually then I think something like rape and FFA could be added in. It would be better to just legislate for abortions but if we tried to remove it from the constitution we would have those crazy religious groups telling us we'll be getting post birth abortion. We saw with the marriage referendum that you can lie and nothing can be done.

ProfessorPlum

anothernight wrote: »

Whoosh.
Yet another person's child might have died and killed the mother in the process.

CaraMay wrote: »

That's very rare. A lot more babies are aborted than mothers killed. I do think parents should have choices when it comes to fetal abnormalities but my point stands that the professionals can't always predict it accurately.

Well if it's very rare, we shouldn't worry about it then, should we?

Although I think it would be really nice if medical professionals could make health choices for pregnant women in their best interests, unhindered by the threat of criminalisation and prison.

Sorry - just me being silly again!

ProfessorPlum

CaraMay wrote: »

Don't be silly.

I'm saying you can probably get through pregnancy without seeing a doctor but you can hardly get through meningitis without intervention. You are being awkward for the sake of it now

It's quite possible to get through meningitis without medical intervention. I'm refuting your point. Sorry if you find that awkward.

anothernight

CaraMay wrote: »

That's very rare. A lot more babies are aborted than mothers killed. I do think parents should have choices when it comes to fetal abnormalities but my point stands that the professionals can't always predict it accurately.

Of course it's very rare. That's exactly why I mentioned it. I would hope anecdotes aren't used to stop people having a choice on how to deal with their pregnancy. We can only hope eh?

Huntergonzo

RobertKK wrote: »

The point being is it is not black and white which if one combined your sister's experience (which was awful news) and my own sister, it shows it is not simply straightforward as made out in the media most of the time.

I agree that fatal fetal abnormatily isn't always straightforward and the media certainly can't always be trusted. But I think we have to trust medical professionals as much as possible, especially highly qualified and experienced doctors, their professional opinions on FFA carry far more weight than yours, mine or a regular journalist.

Spudman_20000

Itzy wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, has there ever been a time where you've considered abortion as an option, be it for medical reasons or otherwise?

Are you asking me have I personally considered it? If so, then I have in respect of envisioning a very real scenario where it might have to be considered, and I've actively taken preemptive steps to ensure I'd never have to take that option.

If you're asking me in general, then if I'm being honest, yes, I would agree there are extreme medical circumstances where abortions may be necessary.

I've avoided stating that up until now to avoid the usual weary "so your like, tots for abortion in certain circumstances but not for others or whatevs? That's like, you know, so hypocritical or whatever" comments. Of course this isn't a black and white "no-brainer" issue as many have already said on this thread.

If the issue was to come down to a simple yes or no, then on balance, I'd be against abortion.

Another legitimate concern is that by allowing abortion in certain circumstances, we slowly erode away at the issue until we reach a point where abortion on demand is allowed. This has been shown to happen on a multitude of issues down through history. And this is backed up by the fact that those who agree with abortion under certain conditions would also agree with abortion on demand.

RobertKK

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

I always find it strange how incompetent so many doctors seems to be when the pro life people tell me how they are wrong so often. Have yet to see any actual facts rather than anecdotes though so maybe it's just over exaggerated.

Back to the question, it depends. If we want to continue attempting to put legislation into the constitution that causes a problem eventually then I think something like rape and FFA could be added in. It would be better to just legislate for abortions but if we tried to remove it from the constitution we would have those crazy religious groups telling us we'll be getting post birth abortion. We saw with the marriage referendum that you can lie and nothing can be done.

Post birth abortion, that would be classified as murder, not abortion.

The Randy Riverbeast

RobertKK wrote: »

Post birth abortion, that would be classified as murder, not abortion.

If you want to be logical about it then yes, you are right.

Unfortunately a lot of people aren't. We still have people who think planned parenthood are the best buy of body parts despite investigations finding nothing.

eviltwin

A question for those who are against the introduction of abortion.

If you see the act as the killing of a child/baby, do you think that it should be treated as the killing of any living child/baby and that the women should be imprisoned or face legal sanctions?

And if not, why not?

I ask because not even the most militant anti abortion campaigner I know would want to see women jailed so there is a disconnect there, already there is a distinction between born children vs unborn children. It doesn't make sense to me.

beach_walker

eviltwin wrote: »

A question for those who are against the introduction of abortion.

If you see the act as the killing of a child/baby, do you think that it should be treated as the killing of any living child/baby and that the women should be imprisoned or face legal sanctions?

And if not, why not?

I ask because not even the most militant anti abortion campaigner I know would want to see women jailed so there is a disconnect there, already there is a distinction between born children vs unborn children. It doesn't make sense to me.

I'm against euthanasia/suicide. I don't think those who survive their attempts should be locked up (as would hopefully be the case for attempted murder).

thattequilagirl

I think the whole debate is framed wrongly. Instead of asking "Should abortion be legal or illegal?", the question should be "How can we reduce the number of abortions?"

I think abortion on request should be available to any woman who, in consultation with a doctor, decides she needs it.

To reduce the number of women seeking abortion, we could take steps including

- emphasising a father's responsibilities both parental and financial from an early age so women don't feel abandoned if men disappear (this would be done in conjunction with giving fathers vastly improved custody/access rights)

- ensuring access to reasonably priced childcare

- reducing the stigma around single motherhood/young mothers

- increased home help for mothers of newborns

Now I'm not saying we should do any or all those things, just that practical steps aimed at alleviating the fears people have during unwanted pregnancies would be much more effective than keeping it illegal and pretending that abortions that happen in London or Liverpool aren't really our problem.

smash

thattequilagirl wrote: »

To reduce the number of women seeking abortion, we could take steps including

- emphasising a father's responsibilities both parental and financial from an early age so women don't feel abandoned if men disappear (this would be done in conjunction with giving fathers vastly improved custody/access rights)

This swings around in circles to the other side of the coin which is "If abortion is available and both parties can't agree and a woman decides not to undergo the procedure, then should the man have a right to walk away from the situation without consequence?" There are as much men who don't want to be fathers as there are women who don't want to be mothers.

CaraMay

eviltwin wrote: »

A question for those who are against the introduction of abortion.

If you see the act as the killing of a child/baby, do you think that it should be treated as the killing of any living child/baby and that the women should be imprisoned or face legal sanctions?

And if not, why not?

I ask because not even the most militant anti abortion campaigner I know would want to see women jailed so there is a disconnect there, already there is a distinction between born children vs unborn children. It doesn't make sense to me.

Hi evil twin

I guess the difference for me is that the fetus relies on one person to survive whereas a born child can be raised by anybody. I don't believe in abortion as contraception tbh but I do see how it could be necessary in other circumstances.

My gut tells me it's wrong to mirder a child whether born or not and that it's not fair to use the 'it's my body' line as an excuse. Yes it's your body but it is a short term incubator for a baby. A baby of your making. To me that's a whole human being who won't be around in 10 years time because of the 'mothers' decision.

I've a number of friends and family members who are adopted and I'm glad their mothers had / chose to have them. Thinking about them being aborted just upsets me no end.

I guess, as I don't agree with abortion other than for medical / mental health reasons eg after rape etc then I think of its against the laws of the land then people should be treated accordingly.

C