Leo Varadkar announces abortion referendum

Persephone kindness

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/abortion-referendum-to-be-held-next-year-varadkar-says-1.3119981?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Foireachtas%2Fabortion-referendum-to-be-held-next-year-varadkar-says-1.3119981

It's to be held 2018.

I guess we could make this the general thread for it

Persephone kindness

He has stated previously he is pro-life. I don't know what form the ref will take. But it's to be pushed to be ready for next year. The issue of fetal abnormalities will be addressed by the govt.

I realize Leo is pro life. I hope he will be reasonably neutral though. I don't know if it is what pro choicers are looking for. But I hope it's at least open enough to allow some option within the first trimester. I have a feeling it will be restricted to problem pregnancies though.

Eyes Down Field

I would like abortion to be an option of Irish women as long as it's funded by the individual and not the tax payer, similar to laser eye surgery.

Persephone kindness

Eyes Down Field wrote: »

I would like abortion to be an option of Irish women as long as it's funded by the individual and not the tax payer, similar to laser eye surgery.

Wow ...that's pretty awesome thanks! :P
I was expecting much harsher!

JupiterKid

I'm not looking forward to the campaigns on both sides in the run up to the referendum. It will get ugly.

tomwaterford

You want a serious look at yourself if you vote againest abortion in cases where the baby wont live any length/be still born



(this is alot more common than people realise,have a friend what works in a shop what specilises in selling stuff for new borns~cribs prams etc)

Peregrinus

tomwaterford wrote: »

You want a serious look at yourself if you vote againest abortion in cases where the baby wont live any length/be still born

I don't think we've ever had a referendum in which people could vote against that. A wording referring to that case has never been put to the people.

pilly

Persephone kindness wrote:

He has stated previously he is pro-life. I don't know what form the ref will take. But it's to be pushed to be ready for next year. The issue of fetal abnormalities will be addressed by the govt.

I don't think it will be down to just him to decide the wording though will it?

seamus

pilly wrote: »

I don't think it will be down to just him to decide the wording though will it?

No, and Taoisigh basically never run things as a one-man show like this.

Whatever the wording, governments want to put forward referenda that will pass. A failed referendum is a black mark against a government.

So the wording will be something which aims to at least please the majority, even if it isn't everything they might want.

Realistically they should be aiming to completely lock it up. List the main concerns that will come up and then phrase it in such a way that eliminates those concerns.

That's what they did for the wording of the marriage equality amendment, and a result we have a clean and bulletproof article in the constitution which has no weird loopholes or unintended consequences.

touts

Predictions:
If he proposes to allow abortion in the case of Fatal Fetal Abnormality it will pass.

If he tacks on rape and incest as the media often do then it will fail narrowly with the turning point being some people who were conceived due to rape or incest go on the TV and radio and ask why they are not deemed worthy of existence just because of something their father did.

He will be the shortest lasting Taoiseach in history if he proposes abortion on demand.

It will be a dirty nasty campaign from both sides whatever the proposal.

Yourself isit

touts wrote: »

Predictions:
If he proposes to allow abortion in the case of Fatal Fetal Abnormality it will pass.

If he tacks on rape and incest as the media often do then it will fail narrowly with the turning point being some people who were conceived due to rape or incest go on the TV and radio and ask why they are not deemed worthy of existence just because of something their father did.

He will be the shortest lasting Taoiseach in history if he proposes abortion on demand.

It will be a dirty nasty campaign from both sides whatever the proposal.

I don't know. I think abortion on demand could pass. For the first trimester

touts

Yourself isit wrote: »

I don't know. I think abortion on demand could pass. For the first trimester

Won't even get out of the Dail but if it does it will have a slight majority in favour among those under 40 but a heavy majority against among the over 40s. That will be enough to defeat it. Might pass in about 10 years but not now.

Inquitus

touts wrote: »

Won't even get out of the Dail but if it does it will have a slight majority in favour among those under 40 but a heavy majority against among the over 40s. That will be enough to defeat it. Might pass in about 10 years but not now.

I disagree, I think we are now progressive enough to give woman rights over their own bodies and allow abortion on demand in the first trimester.

Bobeagleburger

It'll be passed on fetal abnormalities for sure and rightly so.

The rest will follow in time.

touts

Inquitus wrote: »

I disagree, I think we are now progressive enough to give woman rights over their own bodies and allow abortion on demand in the first trimester.

That's the problem right there. The word progressive. It's passive aggressive name calling. "I"m better than you because I'm progressive". Now that's not to say the other side don't also have their tags. "Pro Life". As if someone in this is anti life. The campaigners on both sides will trade both open and passive aggressive insults and the general public will just wish the whole issue will go away.

flutered

pilly wrote: »

I don't think it will be down to just him to decide the wording though will it?

did he not give harris the job of coming up with the fine print when he kerpt him in health, a p[oisened chalice is called the health ministery, bur to add an abortion ref on top of that, makes the job unreal, as there are three sides to it, the pro, the anti and the special requirement sides

flutered

touts wrote: »

Predictions:
If he proposes to allow abortion in the case of Fatal Fetal Abnormality it will pass.

If he tacks on rape and incest as the media often do then it will fail narrowly with the turning point being some people who were conceived due to rape or incest go on the TV and radio and ask why they are not deemed worthy of existence just because of something their father did.

He will be the shortest lasting Taoiseach in history if he proposes abortion on demand.

It will be a dirty nasty campaign from both sides whatever the proposal.

you are correct, nasty it will be, in my pov it will be worse thnt nasty

Persephone kindness

touts wrote: »

Predictions:


He will be the shortest lasting Taoiseach in history if he proposes abortion on demand.

No he wouldn't. It's not that lots would be against it it's just not an issue people would feel strong enough on to bring a govt down. Not by a long shot.

Persephone kindness

It's either a ref to repeal totally. In which case nothing is in it's place or amend.

I would suspect it will be amended to define the unborn a later date of gestation and balance the right to health of the mother.

He said he was opposed to “unrestricted access to abortion in Ireland and effectively to abolishing the Eighth Amendment”.

Basically what the #repeal campaign wants a total repeal. That means nothing in it's place. In reality eventually abortion would be between a woman and her doctor with no regulation.

I doubt that will happen ...there are strengths to an amendment for pro choicer. If an amendment is written recognizing the woman's right to life and health and defining the unborn to later than conception it is in the constitution. And harder for legislators to make pro life legislation. Where as if it is totally repealed there is not a lot to stop govt less liberal in the future write pro life legislation.

Abortion simply in cases of rape or incest is impossible to actually do in the real world. And hypocritical. You could not establish rape. And bear in mind all girls under the age of 18 legally cannot consent ..they are automatically 'statutory rape victims'

All girls under the age of 18 would be able to get abortions if the partner was older lets say the girl was 16 and he was 19.
I suggest a time limit.

I think he will find you cannot discriminate between abortions within reason in the real world. And it's better to be clear. Even fetal abnormalities ..or if a woman gets cancer and needs treatment obv a pregnancy is a strain on her body.

I think there will be some option of choice in the first trimester. That will cover all rape incest.

Then after than it will be only in the case a life or death issue.


This was before the savita halappanavar case and a few year ago.Here is him saying in 20 yrs time abortion law will have to be diff here.

The unions are backing Claire Daly. The union are made up of 50% of women.

Women are more mobilized in societies in fractures now they have more power.

Persephone kindness

flutered wrote: »

you are correct, nasty it will be, in my pov it will be worse thnt nasty

Of course not. Sure all pro-lifers are with the best of intent. Difference does not have to breed conflict

wordofwarning

The thing is no one is entirely pro life or entirely pro-choice. People draw the line somewhere in the middle. Most pro-choice people don't believe in ultra late abortions. Likewise most pro-life people believe in some forms of abortions but not all.

I know people love to bring up Leo said about abortion in 2010. Therefore he is anti-choice. At the end of the day, he is not some thick TD. He is a fully qualified doctor who has put some thought into his reasonings of why disagrees with some forms of abortion. Not everyone can respect that though.

benjamin d

Allowing abortion in the case of rape is

1) completely unworkable - the child would likely be at school by the time a rape is categorically proven.

2) utterly repugnant, reprehensible, and the worst example of people desperate to find "middle ground". The religious wackos of Youth Defence and the Iona Institute et. al at least have a principled reason for their beliefs, nasty and all as they are.
Anyone who tries to convince you that allowing for abortion in cases of rape is ok but not allowing abortion as a decision between a woman and her doctor is at best someone who has given no thought whatsoever to the issue, or a complete idiot.

Persephone kindness

wordofwarning wrote: »

The thing is no one is entirely pro life or entirely pro-choice. People draw the line somewhere in the middle. Most pro-choice people don't believe in ultra late abortions. Likewise most pro-life people believe in some forms of abortions but not all.

I know people love to bring up Leo said about abortion in 2010. Therefore he is anti-choice. At the end of the day, he is not some thick TD. He is a fully qualified doctor who has put some thought into his reasonings of why disagrees with some forms of abortion. Not everyone can respect that though.

Of course.


Regarding late term abortions. These will always be highly controversial. And are very rare and even in the States only 7 states have no gestational age limit.

I would be in favor early gestational age limit perhaps 8 weeks for elected abortion. IN the states it is 21 -24 depending on the state and then 7 states with no gestational age limit.

Bear in mind now you will still have premature assisted delivery of non viable fetuses.These are often conflated with abortions or late term abortions. They are not abortions they are preterm births. And every assistance must be given to women for assisted premature births.



I would like to see us discuss the balance of right to health and life of women in medically complicated scenarios too though at all stages of pregnancy.

I would not be in favor of abortion with no gestational age limit.

I have no idea if what I would want will be similar to the shape the amendment will take.( I assume it is going to be an amendment.)

judeboy101

Yourself isit wrote: »

I don't know. I think abortion on demand could pass. For the first trimester

They'll roll out every special Olympics winner as an argument against that option

jimmycrackcorm

It will be very interesting to see what the format of the referendum question(s) will be.

What both sides will have to inevitably accept is that some sort of compromise will be needed.

PeterTheNinth

Eyes Down Field wrote: »

I would like abortion to be an option of Irish women as long as it's funded by the individual and not the tax payer, similar to laser eye surgery.

Yeah and if you look from a purely economical point of view, introducing abortion will probably save the State a fortune in benefits supporting unwanted children.

mikemac2

Persephone kindness wrote: »

And bear in mind all girls under the age of 18 legally cannot consent ..they are automatically 'statutory rape victims'

17

Persephone kindness

judeboy101 wrote: »

They'll roll out every special Olympics winner as an argument against that option

And we should let them and we can talk about it

17

Thank you

red ears

JupiterKid wrote: »

I'm not looking forward to the campaigns on both sides in the run up to the referendum. It will get ugly.

Im dreading having to listen to ronan mullen shout over people.

Peregrinus

PeterTheNinth wrote: »

Yeah and if you look from a purely economical point of view, introducing abortion will probably save the State a fortune in benefits supporting unwanted children.

Seriously? Fifty years ago pro-choice advocates in the US and the UK were arguing that the availablity of abortion would mean that "every child is a wanted child", that there would be reductions in the numbers of children in state care, in cases of child abuse and in other social problems. None of that came to pass, and it won't in Ireland either.

Peregrinus

Persephone kindness wrote: »

Abortion simply in cases of rape or incest is impossible to actually do in the real world. And hypocritical. You could not establish rape. And bear in mind all girls under the age of 18 legally cannot consent ..they are automatically 'statutory rape victims'

No, no, no. Never assume that the language used in American cop shows has any relevance to the situation in Ireland. We don't have "statutory rape" here, and under-17s are perfectly capable of legally consenting. If you're actually charged with the rape of an under-17 year old, it's a defence to show consent. However if you face the lesser charge of engaging in a sexual act with an under-17 year old, whether they consented or not is irrelevant.