The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Martina1991

ifElseThen wrote:

You didn't abort by preventing egg and sperm joining.

What about the morning after pill. No one bats an eyelid at that. Conception could occur in that case.

If you can take a pill in week 1. What's the difference in taking a pill before week 12.

freshpopcorn

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Get a hold of what though? You said some TD's/parties are for late term abortions (on demand) whereas this isn't the case at all.

Let the pro-life people say what they like, thankfully most people are educated enough in ireland to see through thier lies.

Repealing the 8th (imo) will be a slam dunk.

I have my views on the matter and you have yours. We're not going to agree on the matter!

ForestFire

Martina1991 wrote: »

What about the morning after pill. No one bats an eyelid at that. Conception could occur in that case.

If you can take a pill in week 1. What's the difference in taking a pill before week 12.

about 11 weeks?:)

Has there been a recent update in then morning after pill? From memory I though it had to be taken within 3 days and each day after reduces the chances of it working.

Also it takes 48-72 hours for sperm to reach the egg, Is the pill designed to work before this? or can it still be effective after the egg is fertilised?

Akrasia

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It seems so and I hope so. I hate this idea.... though I see in many cases why we have it..... that people who own a PRIVATE business should be COMPELLED to engage in any given business transaction. Be it affording abortion pills to women, or baking cakes for homosexuals. My deep feelings and rationale on that has always been that if you own and run your own business, it should be ENTIRELY up to you A) Who you deal with and Why you choose to deal or not deal with them.

But in the case of people who do NOT make cakes for homosexuals or serve pills to women for reasons of unsubstantiated nonsense like gods or personal bias..... I reserve the right to vote with my feet, invite others to follow my footsteps, for us all to go elsewhere....... and for us to enjoy the mirth and schadenfreude involved in watching a bigot go out of business and so forth.

However if some GP was, for example, working for the State I would NOT hope to have him/her/them allowed to opt out. That is not your own business, it is the states, and you should do the job you were hired for in my view. I no more think a GP working for the state should be allowed opt out than I think a man hired by a butcher should be let show up on the first day and declare "By the way I am Muslim so I will not be touching or working with your pork in any way, sowwy'boucha". Both should be fired instantly if they refuse to do the work they were hired to do in my view.

voting with your feet and shutting down bigotted businesses works when public attitudes to the discriminated group are positive, but in areas where the prevailing attitude is prejudice, then refusing to serve people for x personal reason could be seen as a positive reason by their customer base while a liberal inclusive business owner might suffer.

This is the reason why it is illegal to refuse to serve members of the travelling community in a shop or bar. Travellers have not got a lot of public sympathy amongst large sections of the Irish public.

If it was allowed to discriminate then you would have the vast majority of bars refusing service, and the few bars who allow them, being seen as 'traveller pubs' and losing a lot of their customer base.

If it was allowed to discriminate against gay people in wedding cakes, hotel venues you could see christian groups organising boycotts of the shops and suppliers who are facilitating the gay weddings, especially in smaller towns and villages in more insular parts of Ireland.

I think any GP should be obliged to give their patient medical advice that suits their needs, not the religious views of the GP. When you're a professional you operate under a license which has conditions attached, that you abide with the laws and regulations in your industry and follow best practice and behave in your clients best interests with honesty and good faith.

GPs shouldn't be allowed to refuse to prescribe contraception to cancer patients (for example) because they're catholic. And they shouldn't be allowed to refuse to prescribe abortion pills to women experiencing crisis pregnancy or couples who have a diagnosis of fetal abnormalities who decide that they do not wish to carry that pregnancy to term.

captbarnacles

Agree with Akrasia. If you feel your religious beliefs will interfere with your job when assessing treatment options for patients then don't be a doctor.

Akrasia

ForestFire wrote: »

about 11 weeks?:)

Has there been a recent update in then morning after pill? From memory I though it had to be taken within 3 days and each day after reduces the chances of it working.

Also it takes 48-72 hours for sperm to reach the egg, Is the pill designed to work before this? or can it still be effective after the egg is fertilised?

The morning after pill can work to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, which would be the termination of a 'conceived' pregnancy

But then, a large percentage of fertilized eggs don't successfully implant or spontaneously abort later on even without any medical intervention, (up to 50% of all pregnancies according to some studies) so there are a lot of lost souls floating around of 'human life' that died completely unknown and unloved because the mother never even knew that she was pregnant.

ForestFire

captbarnacles wrote: »

Agree with Akrasia. If you feel your religious beliefs will interfere with your job when assessing treatment options for patients then don't be a doctor.

You do know every doctor takes an Oat? How you or each doctor interpret this oat might be different and another topic for debate, but and as far as I know the Oat is not based on religious beliefs?

Water John

Yes, there was debate before, as to the fact that the MAP prevented implantation and so was an abortifaciant. Reason some chemists wouldn't stock it.

See Simon Coveney supports Repeal, just doesn't agree with the 12 weeks. Same as Michael Creed and Heather Humphries.
http://www.thejournal.ie/simon-coveney-abortion-3827872-Feb2018/

nozzferrahhtoo

Akrasia wrote: »

voting with your feet and shutting down bigotted businesses works when public attitudes to the discriminated group are positive, but in areas where the prevailing attitude is prejudice, then refusing to serve people for x personal reason could be seen as a positive reason by their customer base while a liberal inclusive business owner might suffer.

That is the other side of the coin indeed but I do not think we can usefully do anything about that, at least not in a way that over rides the concern that I think PERSONAL business owners should be allowed deal with who they like when they like.

The whole concept of free business for me is that I have stock or skills that belongs to me, and I should be able to keep my possession of it until a time of MY choosing. It is MINE. I do not like the moves we have made towards compelling people to sell when they do not want to sell.

I understand WHY we make those moves.... as a reflex action against bigotry and the mistreatment of minorities and so forth. And I can not fault the intention. Just the execution. I think we need to find a better way.

Akrasia wrote: »

I think any GP should be obliged to give their patient medical advice that suits their needs

That part I am less ready to disagree with for sure. I was more talking about a GP engaging in the ACT of supplying or prescribing such a pill. That a GP should conform to the standards of truth and reality is something else for me. The GP should absolutely be compelled to give the correct advice and information where possible. And IF That correct advice is "You need this pill" then I am happy for such a PRIVATE individual to say "You need this pill, you can not get it from me as I do not stock it or prescribe it, but here are your options as to where you can go..........."

And I would hope that all the Yelp or whatever other reviews the patient writes will inform women everywhere "This doctor does not offer the full range of services a woman may require, so go elsewhere if you can" and his business will fail justifiably as a result.

You would not go to an eye doctor and DEMAND he look at your lungs. Lungs are just not a service he provides. Similarly if a doctor wants to set up saying "This is not a service I provide, but I am compelled by medical proprietry to show you the best ways you CAN get that service" then I have moral sympathies towards that situation rather than compromise me ideal that someone setting up a private business should have to provide goods or services they do not want to.

I dunno, it just seems like me going into a cake shop that does not sell nut based products and demanding "It is a cake that I want, you are a cake shop, so provide!" and them saying "Sorry sir, nut based cakes are just not a service we provide". THEY setup THEIR business to provide a specific set of products and services..... why do I get to demand services outside their own remit?

There is also the work ability aspect of things. If a doctor DOES refuse to prescribe something how can we be sure what reasons he had for doing it? He could just declare that it was his medical opinion it was not the right move for some arbitrary reason or another? All he would have to show is that HE believed it was the right medical decision, or?

Loafing Oaf

ForestFire wrote: »

You do know every doctor takes an Oat?

Surprisingly, some aren't that big into healthy eating!:p

freshpopcorn

Water John wrote: »

See Simon Coveney supports Repeal, just doesn't agree with the 12 weeks. Same as Michael Creed and Heather Humphries.
http://www.thejournal.ie/simon-coveney-abortion-3827872-Feb2018/

So, does this mean that Simon will be voting Yes or No?

If it means he's voting No one of Cork's most liberal constituencies could have two TD's who'd be wanting to keep the eighth!

Zubeneschamali

freshpopcorn wrote: »

So, does this mean that Simon will be voting Yes or No?

He'll be voting Yes, and arguing against the 12 week legislation.

freshpopcorn

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

He'll be voting Yes, and arguing against the 12 week legislation.

Thanks, for clearing that up for me!

seamus

ForestFire wrote: »

You do know every doctor takes an Oat?

No, they don't.

The Hippocratic Oath is an historical relic that's not used any more.

Some doctors may take a modern form of the oath in a ceremonial context, but there is no obligation on them to do so, and any such oath has no legal power.

I see you've been drinking from the Iona soup, David Quinn loves to talk about the oath that nobody takes.

ForestFire

seamus wrote: »

No, they don't.

The Hippocratic Oath is an historical relic that's not used any more.

Some doctors may take a modern form of the oath in a ceremonial context, but there is no obligation on them to do so, and any such oath has no legal power.

I see you've been drinking from the Iona soup, David Quinn loves to talk about the oath that nobody takes.

Can you not just correct my point without resorting to insults please.

I don't know anything about Iona or the David person you speak of.

Tipperary animal lover

Hi all, as a gay male I've got to say that I'll be voting to repeal, I stay out of the arguments at this stage it's getting crazy with what is been pulled out of the hats from both sides, I've faith in the women of this country to do the right thing as they see it, so I choose to give them my vote, we've come along way from the depressing sh*te hole this country was in back in the 80s, the very best to both sides with there campaign, just wish it was the middle of May now and get this vote over with(as it doesn't affect me either way). All the best.

freshpopcorn

Tipperary animal lover wrote: »

just wish it was the middle of May now and get this vote over with(as it doesn't affect me either way). All the best.

Your not the only one!

nozzferrahhtoo

Tipperary animal lover wrote: »

just wish it was the middle of May now and get this vote over with(as it doesn't affect me either way). All the best.

I loved a post earlier in the thread that said something like "I have been waiting for this election for decades and now it is finally here, I am sick of it already". Gave me a smile.

I suppose if we want to be pedantic though it DOES affect you. It is a change to your/our constitution. That therefore affects us all. A constitution is precious and it belongs to all of us, so changing it affects all of us.

In fairness though, the moderator team has been doing a good job of keeping abortion discussion to this single mega thread for the most part. Which is good, because anyone truly sick of it only has to ignore one thread whereas those interested in it do not have to go running all over the place. Good work those mods!

swampgas

seamus wrote: »

No, they don't.
... Iona soup, David Quinn loves to talk about the oath that nobody takes.

I haven't heard much from the Ionanists in the media lately - I wonder if they're pursuing a new strategy. I always got the impression during the marriage equality debate that they were using it as an exercise to prepare for the abortion campaign.

eviltwin

swampgas wrote: »

I haven't heard much from the Ionanists in the media lately - I wonder if they're pursuing a new strategy. I always got the impression during the marriage equality debate that they were using it as an exercise to prepare for the abortion campaign.

Yeah surprised by this too. DQ was everywhere during the SSM campaign. I have seen his Iona colleague Maria Stern speaking about this, probably they think having a woman argue against Repeal gives their argument more weight.

nozzferrahhtoo

Actually with the amount of lies coming from such sources during the SSM campaign I actually suspected they might come late on the scene for this one. Because they want less time for the lies and distortions to be rebutted and used against them to show how dishonest they are.

Like the angle of making the SSM campaign as being about the children. We had a LOT Of time to get into the media and other forums to explain why this was a distortion of what was actually being voted on.

So I had a kind of inward prediction that they would pedal their distortions later in the process this time, to erode the rebuttal time we would have and maximize the impact of their scare mongering. They realized they shot their load too soon last time, and will cut it down a bit this time.

All just my feeling I hasten to add. Nothing I can cite events or quotes for to substantiate. Just an impression I was left with.

freshpopcorn

swampgas wrote: »

I haven't heard much from the Ionanists in the media lately - I wonder if they're pursuing a new strategy. I always got the impression during the marriage equality debate that they were using it as an exercise to prepare for the abortion campaign.

Same thing here. I haven't seen/heard much about them since one of the was on the Brendan O'Connor show last year. They are actually gone scarily quiet!

seamus

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Same thing here. I haven't seen/heard much about them since one of the was on the Brendan O'Connor show last year. They are actually gone scarily quiet!

They're very conscious of not allowing people to become aware that the pro-life campaign is being run by religious interests. David Quinn and Iona are synonymous with religious conservatism.

Hence why all of the pro-life material is coming from various shell organisations. You can see on Twitter though that he'll pick a topic of the week (such as Down's Syndrome) that just incredibly coincides with the latest material that comes out.

Both Youth Defence and Iona have prepped their door-to-door campaigners to go heavy on the "poor babbies" narrative and avoid all talk of religion.

Loafing Oaf

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Same thing here. I haven't seen/heard much about them since one of the was on the Brendan O'Connor show last year. They are actually gone scarily quiet!

I suggested earlier that they might have been wrongfooted by the government's decision to propose 'abortion on demand' up front. Likely many of the counter-arguments they had stockpiled were along the lines of "We've seen in other countries how apparently limited abortion regimes turn into abortion on demand in the blink of an eye." But they should have had enough time to adjust their position at this stage...

Akrasia

It's the same reason the Socialist Workers Party has a new brand for every campaign they get involved in. They know that nobody likes the SWP, so they call themselves 'People before profit' or the 'anti austerity alliance' or the 'Irish anti war movement' but they are all fronts for the same group of activists.

The 'anti repeal' side will be a 'coalition' that will include some contrarians from various social sectors but fundamentally, it will be directed by religious conservatives running astroturf campaigns to spread their message at arms length

And just to confuse everyone even more, they'll go on and on about 'foreign' money from amnesty international or 'George Soros' or Chuck Feeney interfering in Irish politics.

B0jangles

Akrasia wrote: »

And just to confuse everyone even more, they'll go on and on about 'foreign' money from amnesty international or 'George Soros' or Chuck Feeney interfering in Irish politics.

On this last part; as I'm sure you know, this is an old political tactic - accuse your opponent of something you are actively doing yourself; if your opponent points out that you the one who is actually doing it, they usually end up looking either defensive or childish.

applehunter

George Soros is indirectly trying to change our constitution. Media seem to be ok with this.

At least Chuck Feeney is actually of Irish heritage.

bennyl10

applehunter wrote: »

George Soros is indirectly trying to change our constitution. Media seem to be ok with this.

At least Chuck Feeney is actually of Irish heritage.

Yes., the campaign to repeal us all Soros...
Remove the tin foil hat

pitifulgod

applehunter wrote: »

George Soros is indirectly trying to change our constitution. Media seem to be ok with this.

At least Chuck Feeney is actually of Irish heritage.

Yawn, George Soros obsession of some is hilarious. Plenty of Irish men and women are happily trying to change the constitution as it's currently unfit for purpose when it comes to women's rights.

brendanwalsh

I personally think abortion is disgusting. The description of surgical abortion really makes me feel uncomfortable and the pictures I have seen online of litttle babies chopped into pieces is disturbing. I would have no qualms for a person to get abortion if they were raped or the child had a disease incompatible with life. But abortion on demand is something I will have to vote against.