The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

The Legend Of Kira

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

What exactly is horrible about the billboards & what if any type of pro life billboards would you find acceptable ? when they used some graphic posters in the past people say its " horrible " & when they use non graphic images some people still take offence, for example this is a new billboard van being driven around town at the moment & some people are still taking offence over it even though there is no graphic images on display .

What is proposed is abortion up to 12 weeks.  you cannot test for downs before 12 weeks.  Its a complete red herring from the No side.

At the moment that,s the proposal, what I haven,t heard anyone say is what,s to stop a future government legalising for abortion access further then 12 weeks ?

ohnonotgmail

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Just in my opinion and I know people will jump down my throat over this but the reason that the pro-life campaign are using these poster is they'd claim that future governments could easily extended the twelve week rule which could result us ending up like the UK!

Easily?? I really dont think so. That is just scaremongering.

ohnonotgmail

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

At the moment that,s the proposal, what I haven,t heard anyone say is what,s to stop a future government legalising for abortion access further then 12 weeks ?

if at some point in the future there is a proposal to extend it beyond 12 weeks then they can show as many pictures of cute kids as they like. But for now it just shows the complete dishonesty of the No side. It is just a slippery slope argument.

Shadowthrone

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

At the moment that,s the proposal, what I haven,t heard anyone say is what,s to stop a future government legalising for abortion access further then 12 weeks ?

That argument can go both ways, what's to stop them making it illegal again in future too?

Simple fact is, it doesn't belong in the constitution, let the government legislate and let the people respond to their legislation. we are the voters and we have the power to influence their decisions. But as a country we forget that all to often and simply bow down every time they throw out a petty excuse or threat.
Some day the population may grow a back bone... but that conversation doesn't belong in this thread

freshpopcorn

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Easily?? I really dont think so. That is just scaremongering.

I can see the pro life campaign bring it up in debates. They'll make it sound easier than it will actually be but it will create doubt and scaremongering might work for them whether you like it or not.

SusieBlue

Scaremongering over something the government may or may not do in the future is ridiculous.

We need to vote on the wording we have in front of us. The current recommendation is 12 weeks. Downs cannot be detected at that gestation. Voting "no" to repeal in fear of a future government increasing the limit is a cop out.

If you aren't ok with abortion, then just admit it. Its dishonest to make excuses.

It reminds me of the marriage referendum, actually.

"I have no problem with gay marriage and would vote yes, but what's to stop a future government legalising marriage to dogs/trees/the sofa? Can't take the risk".......... Its just a cop out.

NuMarvel

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

At the moment that,s the proposal, what I haven,t heard anyone say is what,s to stop a future government legalising for abortion access further then 12 weeks ?

What's to stop a government closing all public hospitals and telling people to take care of themselves?

The Legend Of Kira

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

What exactly is horrible about the billboards & what if any type of pro life billboards would you find acceptable ? when they used some graphic posters in the past people say its " horrible " & when they use non graphic images some people still take offence, for example this is a new billboard van being driven around town at the moment & some people are still taking offence over it even though there is no graphic images on display .

It's offensively inaccurate for one thing.

I'd imagine it's also potentially deeply distressing for people with Down Syndrome and their families.

And seeing as what's being proposed is abortion available up to a point in pregnancy where Down syndrome can't be screened for, it's got nothing to do with the matter at hand, and is a blatantly cynical, manipulative move.

The pro-choice campaign seems to be sticking to the high road and using text, graphics etc in their campaign.

The new billboard van driving around town states 

" In Britain 90% of babies with down syndrome are aborted " 

How accurate is this claim ? well according to the factcheck by the journal.ie after a tv debate on this issue, they found the claim to be accurate .

[font=Georgia, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]" Claim 1:[/font][font=Georgia, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif] 90% of Down Syndrome diagnoses in England end in termination – Cora Sherlock[/font]
[font=Georgia, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]Verdict:[/font][font=Georgia, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif] Mostly TRUE "[/font]

http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-down-syndrome-fatal-foetal-abnormality-cora-sherlock-ruth-coppinger-eighth-amendment-vincent-browne-2842048-Jun2016/

S. Goodspeed

Is it clear what will happen (or what is proposed to happen post a yes vote) in the case of fatal foetal abnormalities detected after the 12 week period? Can these be medically addressed at any point during the term or will the 12 week limit apply?

Full disclosure I am leaning to the 'no' side at the moment, I am not conservative or religious or sexist but struggle with the idea of a cut off for when a foetus becomes an individual deserving of certain rights and protection. I currently believe that right should apply from point of conception given the lack of any sound alternatives - the 12 week seems pretty arbitrary.

In the case of FFA though i (like 90% + of Irish people) am firmly in favour of allowing doctors to abort / extract as required. I dont think this should even come under the "pro choice" banner as there is not really a choice to be made in reality (although if the mother for some reason wants to continue carrying and it does not risk her life then that should be her right).

SusieBlue

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

The new billboard van driving around town states " In Britain 90% of babies with down syndrome are aborted " how accurate is this claim ? well according to the factcheck by the journal.ie after a tv debate on this issue, they found the claim to be accurate .
[font=Georgia, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]" Claim 1:[/font][font=Georgia, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif] 90% of Down Syndrome diagnoses in England end in termination – Cora Sherlock[/font]
[font=Georgia, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]Verdict:[/font][font=Georgia, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif] Mostly TRUE "[/font]

http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-down-syndrome-fatal-foetal-abnormality-cora-sherlock-ruth-coppinger-eighth-amendment-vincent-browne-2842048-Jun2016/

Its not relevant because Downs Syndrome can neither be detected nor test for at 12 weeks. So its a moot point.

pitifulgod

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

In reply to pitigulgod & Kylith, this week a young man who is a member of Down syndrome Ireland expressed a different point of view.

"" [font=Georgia, serif]A young man with Down syndrome has lent his voice to the Save the Eighth campaign.[/font]
[font=Georgia, serif]Conor O'Dowd, from Drogheda, Co Louth, and his father Michael yesterday appealed to voters not to repeal the Eighth Amendment.[/font]
[font=Georgia, serif]
"I took today off college to be here. This is a very important day. I am against abortion," Conor told a press conference in Dublin yesterday. Michael took issue with a statement released by Down Syndrome Ireland last week saying the use of the image of a girl with Down syndrome on pro-life campaign pamphlets was "disrespectful to both children and adults with Down syndrome ". The group said people with Down syndrome "should not be used as an argument for either side of this debate".[/font]
[font=Georgia, serif]"I'm a member of Down Syndrome Ireland. I've sat on the board in the past. There are very different views in Down Syndrome Ireland ... but I won't be silenced," said Michael.
He said the organisation's CEO, Gary Owens, was "relatively new" and was doing a "good job", but added, "I think he's made a mistake".[/font]

[font=Georgia, serif]"We would not have felt obliged to speak out were it not for the relentless campaign from some quarters telling us to remain silent. This past week, it has felt like our existence is inconvenient for some supporters of the abortion referendum, and that they would rather we went away and were quiet.[/font]
[font=Georgia, serif]
"We will not. It is a cold, hard, undeniable fact that when abortion is introduced, a disproportionate impact is suffered by those children diagnosed with some form of disability."

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/we-wont-be-silenced-on-the-eighth-insists-student-with-down-syndrome-36549791.html[/font]

Considerable distress will be caused to many including those who have or are affected by down syndrome. That is what Down Syndrome Ireland considers to be the issue. You pretended as if the outrage is over nothing, there's a genuine reason for concern. You'll also find there are people with down syndrome or families with members who have down syndrome that are pro choice. Plenty of people oppose being forced into unwanted pregnancies.

January

FFA's will have no term limit under the current proposal.

ohnonotgmail

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

The new billboard van driving around town states

" In Britain 90% of babies with down syndrome are aborted "

How accurate is this claim ? well according to the factcheck by the journal.ie after a tv debate on this issue, they found the claim to be accurate .

[font=Georgia, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]" Claim 1:[/font][font=Georgia, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif] 90% of Down Syndrome diagnoses in England end in termination – Cora Sherlock[/font]
[font=Georgia, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]Verdict:[/font][font=Georgia, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif] Mostly TRUE "[/font]

http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-down-syndrome-fatal-foetal-abnormality-cora-sherlock-ruth-coppinger-eighth-amendment-vincent-browne-2842048-Jun2016/

It still has absolutely nothing to do with what is being voted on.

zedhead

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

The new billboard van driving around town states 

" In Britain 90% of babies with down syndrome are aborted " 

How accurate is this claim ? well according to the factcheck by the journal.ie after a tv debate on this issue, they found the claim to be accurate .

[font=Georgia, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]" Claim 1:[/font][font=Georgia, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif] 90% of Down Syndrome diagnoses in England end in termination – Cora Sherlock[/font]
[font=Georgia, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]Verdict:[/font][font=Georgia, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif] Mostly TRUE "[/font]

http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-down-syndrome-fatal-foetal-abnormality-cora-sherlock-ruth-coppinger-eighth-amendment-vincent-browne-2842048-Jun2016/

90% of DS diagnoses and 90% of babies with DS are 2 wildly different statistics. There is a cohort of people who will not test before birth and so 0% of these are aborted due to the diagnosis. You could argue that those who are choosing to have the test have already considered abortion if it came back postive and that is why they are being tested and so the figures are skewed.

Also as mentioned DS cannot be detected before 12 weeks so it does not apply here.

freshpopcorn

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Scaremongering over something the government may or may not do in the future is ridiculous.

We need to vote on the wording we have in front of us. The current recommendation is 12 weeks. Downs cannot be detected at that gestation. Voting "no" to repeal in fear of a future government increasing the limit is a cop out.

If you aren't ok with abortion, then just admit it. Its dishonest to make excuses.

It reminds me of the marriage referendum, actually.

"I have no problem with gay marriage and would vote yes, but what's to stop a future government legalising marriage to dogs/trees/the sofa? Can't take the risk".......... Its just a cop out.

This is just my opinion but the marriage referendum was more clear cut. It basically asked would you allow marriage regardless of gender people knew exactly what they were voting on. If the No side tried to use the line could future governments allow people marry trees/etc well to the best of my knowledge they couldn't without bringing it people in a referendum.
This time around the No side will point out that future governments can extend the twelve week limit without consulting the people and they'd point out we could easily end up like the UK. They'll make it sound very easy and create doubt.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

The new billboard van driving around town states 

" In Britain 90% of babies with down syndrome are aborted " 

How accurate is this claim ? well according to the factcheck by the journal.ie after a tv debate on this issue, they found the claim to be accurate .

90% of diagnoses and 90% of pregnancies/babies are two different things.

They could have a more accurate poster saying that roughly 50% of pregnancies/babies with Down Syndrome are aborted but the actual truth doesn't pack the same punch, and this is a group and campaign that HAS TO lie and mislead because it's their only chance of getting what they want.

SusieBlue

S. Goodspeed wrote: »

Is it clear what will happen (or what is proposed to happen post a yes vote) in the case of fatal foetal abnormalities detected after the 12 week period? Can these be medically addressed at any point during the term or will the 12 week limit apply?

Full disclosure I am leaning to the 'no' side at the moment, I am not conservative or religious or sexist but struggle with the idea of a cut off for when a foetus becomes an individual deserving of certain rights and protection. I currently believe that right should apply from point of conception given the lack of any sound alternatives - the 12 week seems pretty arbitrary.

In the case of FFA though i (like 90% + of Irish people) am firmly in favour of allowing doctors to abort / extract as required. I dont think this should even come under the "pro choice" banner as there is not really a choice to be made in reality (although if the mother for some reason wants to continue carrying and it does not risk her life then that should be her right).

Genuine question and I'm not disputing your belief, but are you happy for the life of the foetus to have equal rights to the mother, at the expense of that woman's bodily autonomy? Therefore taking priority over the woman's needs and wants?

Because this is the bit I struggle with.
The woman is living and breathing and I'm just not comfortable with this living woman suffering or losing her rights at the expense of a fetus that cannot even grow into a baby without her.
It just doesn't sit right with me that the contents of her womb is prioritised over what the living woman wants.
Now, when the baby can survive independently - that's a different ball game. But a mere weeks old pregnancy, causing huge distress, suffering and anguish to the living, breathing woman?
I can't help myself. I'm on the womans side and I'm happy to trust her to do what she feels is necessary, whatever that may be.

The Legend Of Kira

pitifulgod wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

In reply to pitigulgod & Kylith, this week a young man who is a member of Down syndrome Ireland expressed a different point of view.

"" [font=Georgia, serif]A young man with Down syndrome has lent his voice to the Save the Eighth campaign.[/font]
[font=Georgia, serif]Conor O'Dowd, from Drogheda, Co Louth, and his father Michael yesterday appealed to voters not to repeal the Eighth Amendment.[/font]
[font=Georgia, serif]
"I took today off college to be here. This is a very important day. I am against abortion," Conor told a press conference in Dublin yesterday. Michael took issue with a statement released by Down Syndrome Ireland last week saying the use of the image of a girl with Down syndrome on pro-life campaign pamphlets was "disrespectful to both children and adults with Down syndrome ". The group said people with Down syndrome "should not be used as an argument for either side of this debate".[/font]
[font=Georgia, serif]"I'm a member of Down Syndrome Ireland. I've sat on the board in the past. There are very different views in Down Syndrome Ireland ... but I won't be silenced," said Michael.
He said the organisation's CEO, Gary Owens, was "relatively new" and was doing a "good job", but added, "I think he's made a mistake".[/font]

[font=Georgia, serif]"We would not have felt obliged to speak out were it not for the relentless campaign from some quarters telling us to remain silent. This past week, it has felt like our existence is inconvenient for some supporters of the abortion referendum, and that they would rather we went away and were quiet.[/font]
[font=Georgia, serif]
"We will not. It is a cold, hard, undeniable fact that when abortion is introduced, a disproportionate impact is suffered by those children diagnosed with some form of disability."

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/we-wont-be-silenced-on-the-eighth-insists-student-with-down-syndrome-36549791.html[/font]

Considerable distress will be caused to many including those who have or are affected by down syndrome. That is what Down Syndrome Ireland considers to be the issue. You pretended as if the outrage is over nothing, there's a genuine reason for concern. You'll also find there are people with down syndrome or families with members who have down syndrome that are pro choice. Plenty of people oppose being forced into unwanted pregnancies.

As Michael was quoted in the article 

"" There are very different views in Down Syndrome Ireland ""

[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The new posters on the billboard van driving around, they would of getting permission from the young boys parents/guardians to use his image on their billboard, given that they would of given such permission to use his image chances are his parents/guardians take the pro life position, if some parents/guardians of a son or daughter who has down syndrome take the repeal the 8th position that,s their business & are entitled to their opinion, but other parents/guardians might take a different position & lend their support to the pro life side in their own way such as allowing their sons image to be used in new billboards .[/font]

ohnonotgmail

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

As Michael was quoted in the article

"" There are very different views in Down Syndrome Ireland ""

[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The new posters on the billboard van driving around, they would of getting permission from the young boys parents/guardians to use his image on their billboard, given that they would of given such permission to use his image chances are his parents/guardians take the pro life position, if some parents/guardians of a son or daughter who has down syndrome take the repeal the 8th position that,s their business & are entitled to their opinion, but other parents/guardians might take a different position & lend their support to the pro life side in their own way such as allowing their sons image to be used in new billboards .[/font]

and still completely irrelevant

zedhead

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

As Michael was quoted in the article 

"" There are very different views in Down Syndrome Ireland ""

[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The new posters on the billboard van driving around, they would of getting permission from the young boys parents/guardians to use his image on their billboard, given that they would of given such permission to use his image chances are his parents/guardians take the pro life position, if some parents/guardians of a son or daughter who has down syndrome take the repeal the 8th position that,s their business & are entitled to their opinion, but other parents/guardians might take a different position & lend their support to the pro life side in their own way such as allowing their sons image to be used in new billboards .[/font]

How do you know they would have gotten permission and not just used a stock photo? Isn't that what they did in the marriage equality referendum - use a stock photo of 'parents & a baby' to demonstrate their point and the models came out to say they did not agree.

Water John

I think people know, at this point, that the anti repeal side will use whatever tactics they think will see their side prevail. Basically the end, will justify the means. The SSM and even divorce were simply, symptoms of the, slippery slope. For them, this is the war.

S. Goodspeed

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Genuine question and I'm not disputing your belief, but are you happy for the life of the foetus to have equal rights to the mother, at the expense of that woman's bodily autonomy? Therefore taking priority over the woman's needs and wants?

Because this is the bit I struggle with.
The woman is living and breathing and I'm just not comfortable with this living woman suffering or losing her rights at the expense of a fetus that cannot even grow into a baby without her.
It just doesn't sit right with me that the contents of her womb is prioritised over what the living woman wants.
Now, when the baby can survive independently - that's a different ball game. But a mere weeks old pregnancy, causing huge distress, suffering and anguish to the living, breathing woman?
I can't help myself. I'm on the womans side and I'm happy to trust her to do what she feels is necessary, whatever that may be.

Thanks for the measured response and question WhiteRoses.

If the pregnancy in any way physically endangers the life of the woman or would likely cause material, permanent damage (very hard to define and legislate for this I know) then am absolutely in favour of abortion.

I currently struggle though to place more value on the woman's mental distress, life disruption, 'temporary' pain / suffering above the actual life of a fetus / baby. I appreciate that this is definitely where being a man does not help me empathise with the woman (though many better men than I obviously can).

swampgas

People who want to terminate will still travel if repeal doesn't occur, or even if repeal does occur but the legislation is too restrictive. This is their right, as guaranteed by the constitution.

Why aren't the anti-repeal people also campaigning for the removal of the right to travel for those choosing to terminate because of DS? Does their concern for DS babies vanish at the border?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

As Michael was quoted in the article 

"" There are very different views in Down Syndrome Ireland ""

[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The new posters on the billboard van driving around, they would of getting permission from the young boys parents/guardians to use his image on their billboard, given that they would of given such permission to use his image chances are his parents/guardians take the pro life position, if some parents/guardians of a son or daughter who has down syndrome take the repeal the 8th position that,s their business & are entitled to their opinion, but other parents/guardians might take a different position & lend their support to the pro life side in their own way such as allowing their sons image to be used in new billboards .[/font]

Not necessarily. Took me ten seconds to find the little girl from a previous campaign of the same organisation on shutterstock.



Presumably after what happened in the SSM referendum they've stopped using stock photos, but I actually can't find an image of the poster (rather than a photo of it with a crowd in front) on their FB or anywhere to do a reverse image search, which is making me slightly suspicious tbh.

Cabaal

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

What exactly is horrible about the billboards & what if any type of pro life billboards would you find acceptable ? when they used some graphic posters in the past....

In the past?
They are still using them at every opportunity

This recent display for example

whatdoicare

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

Not necessarily. Took me ten seconds to find the little girl from a previous campaign of the same organisation on shutterstock.



Presumably after what happened in the SSM referendum they've stopped using stock photos, but I actually can't find an image of the poster (rather than a photo of it with a crowd in front) on their FB or anywhere to do a reverse image search, which is making me slightly suspicious tbh.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/child-with-down-syndrome-to-feature-in-anti-abortion-billboard-campaign-1.3372867

The Irish Times claims he is Joseph Cronin and his mam Catriona gave full permission to use his image. They're all part of Renua and all that crowd.

Bannasidhe

Cabaal wrote: »

In the past?
They are still using them at every opportunity

This recent display for example

Éire??

Who the actual uck calls it Éire?

Cabaal

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Éire??

Who the actual uck calls it Éire?

The American who made the photo no doubt?

January

S. Goodspeed wrote: »

Thanks for the measured response and question WhiteRoses.

If the pregnancy in any way physically endangers the life of the woman or would likely cause material, permanent damage (very hard to define and legislate for this I know) then am absolutely in favour of abortion.

I currently struggle though to place more value on the woman's mental distress, life disruption, 'temporary' pain / suffering above the actual life of a fetus / baby. I appreciate that this is definitely where being a man does not help me empathise with the woman (though many better men than I obviously can).

'temporary' pain/suffering. You are aware pregnancy does not only cause temporary pain/suffering? People have been left incontinent from tearing during childbirth and much worse.

The Legend Of Kira

zedhead wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

As Michael was quoted in the article 

"" There are very different views in Down Syndrome Ireland ""

[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The new posters on the billboard van driving around, they would of getting permission from the young boys parents/guardians to use his image on their billboard, given that they would of given such permission to use his image chances are his parents/guardians take the pro life position, if some parents/guardians of a son or daughter who has down syndrome take the repeal the 8th position that,s their business & are entitled to their opinion, but other parents/guardians might take a different position & lend their support to the pro life side in their own way such as allowing their sons image to be used in new billboards .[/font]

How do you know they would have gotten permission and not just used a stock photo? Isn't that what they did in the marriage equality referendum - use a stock photo of 'parents & a baby' to demonstrate their point and the models came out to say they did not agree.

If they didn,t get permission, Im guessing chances are they d be leaving themselves open to be sued- which I doubt they would be foolish like that; so chances are they get permission to use other people,s images in their billboards .