Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Leo Varadkar announces abortion referendum

Options
123468

Comments

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    pilly wrote: »
    In what way?


    No restrictions, medical, legal or bureaucratic for 90 days.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    I would like to see it amended to allow the Dáil pass exceptions on a two thirds majority or something like that. It retains the protection of life that so many are concerned about yet ensures there is a mechanism to introduce exceptions for various reasons.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    How does that make it badly constructed?


  • Registered Users Posts: 921 ✭✭✭benjamin d


    Does anyone think legislation will be anything other than badly constructed? Anything less than the British system will result in people still traveling, which will mean our legislation has failed. There's no way we'll have a more liberal system than Britain no matter what.
    No restrictions, medical, legal or bureaucratic for 90 days.

    That sounds fair enough to me.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,096 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    Absolam wrote: »
    I think it's already perfectly obvious to everyone that legislation to allow rape victims access to abortion is unworkable if it's based on their actually being rape victims rather than simply saying they are rape victims. I can't see any attempt being made to frame that idea either in the Constitution or legislation. Permitting abortion on the basis of a preceding criminal act is unworkable, as it takes to long to prove the criminal act. More likely potential liberalisation will be based on immediately demonstrable criteria such as ffa, where the right to life exists but cannot be vindicated by any action of the State.

    But opinion polls are consistently showing just as strong support for access to abortion for rape victims as for women with FFA. Can our politicians get away with saying "it's too diificult to legislate for abortion rights for rape/incest victims without broad liberalisation of abortion law, so we're not even going to try"?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    But opinion polls are consistently showing just as strong support for access to abortion for rape victims as for women with FFA. Can our politicians get away with saying "it's too diificult to legislate for abortion rights for rape/incest victims without broad liberalisation of abortion law, so we're not even going to try"?
    Sure... nobody wants to say they don't feel bad for rape victims. But will people let that persuade them to make abortion available to people who are preying on their sympathies and lying to game the system? Maybe not so much. Placing such a stark choice before the public means politicians don't need to get away with saying "it's too diificult to legislate for abortion rights for rape/incest victims without broad liberalisation of abortion law, so we're not even going to try"... they can let the public decide they don't even need to try.

    I don't think anyone is naive enough to imagine that leading propositions (from both sides) like yours above won't be torn to shreds and pilloried as cynical attempts at manipulating sentiment by the opposition.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,019 ✭✭✭ct5amr2ig1nfhp


    Should we not decriminalise euthanasia first before an abortion referendum?


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Absolam wrote: »
    Sure... nobody wants to say they don't feel bad for rape victims. But will people let that persuade them to make abortion available to people who are preying on their sympathies and lying to game the system? Maybe not so much.

    Just make it freely available to all.

    Covers FFA, rape, incest, everyone.

    And banning it does no good, folks just travel to England unless blocked somehow.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,096 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    Just make it freely available to all.

    Covers FFA, rape, incest, everyone.

    And banning it does no good, folks just travel to England unless blocked somehow.

    But would the Irish people vote for that is the question. It's easy for activists like Colm O'Gorman and Ailbhe Smyth to push for that kind of broad liberalisation of the law, they won't have to take the flak if the referendum goes down...


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    But would the Irish people vote for that is the question.

    Make them vote against it. Then again in 5 years, 10.

    We all know it is happening eventually.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Just make it freely available to all. Covers FFA, rape, incest, everyone. And banning it does no good, folks just travel to England unless blocked somehow.
    Certainly the opinion of some, if, I suspect, very very few. Can't see it carrying a public vote though. In fact, I can't see such a proposition even making it to a public vote.
    But would the Irish people vote for that is the question. It's easy for activists like Colm O'Gorman and Ailbhe Smyth to push for that kind of broad liberalisation of the law, they won't have to take the flak if the referendum goes down...
    Personally, I don't think so. Hard cases is where the sympathy lies for abortion; terrible tales of suffering that make people want to help. Tales of a need for a flat tummy come Majorca time to be paid for from taxpayers pockets aren't going to win hearts, and that's only the tip of how 'make it freely available to all' will be portrayed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    We all know it is happening eventually.
    There are certainly some people intent on constantly telling us it is :D
    I imagine some even think if they do it hard enough it will become a self fulfilling prophecy, but I've yet to meet a prophet who isn't a charlatan.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,096 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    Make them vote against it. Then again in 5 years, 10.

    We all know it is happening eventually.

    Well all bar Absolam, perhaps, but I'm afraid that approach would only put off the glorious/evil day...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Which was a referendum to make things more restrictive.
    And it was rejected.
    But rejected by the tiniest of margins. So when you have 49.6% of the population wanting a more restrictive regime compared to the status quo, it shows that the status quo has hit the right balance. And therefore there is not going to be another referendum anytime soon.
    I think its fair to speculate that if that particular referendum (the 25th) had been defeated by a large majority, we would have had another one in the meantime proposing a further liberalisation.

    Of course that was 15 years ago, so the time has come for a new test of public opinion anyway, regardless of that result.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,487 ✭✭✭Mutant z


    It's about time this issue was put to the general public, we should give women of this country the choice to decide what they want to do with their own bodies.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Should we prevent men from voting then? ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    recedite wrote: »
    Should we prevent men from voting then? ;)

    In the SSM referendum, most people who voted were straight, and most straight people who voted supported SSM. This is the best way to put the cavemen back in their box - we will never hear a word out of Iona about gays again.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Because... they haven't said anything at all about homosexuality or marriage since the referendum? The pro choice proponents here have been adamant that a referendum that doesn't deliver what they want won't keep them from continuing to campaign. I wonder why pro life proponents would be presumed to lack the same dedication?

    Anyway, I don't think shutting Iona up (unlikely as that is) is quite the right reason for 'allowing' men to participate in a referendum.....


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Absolam wrote: »
    The pro choice proponents here have been adamant that a referendum that doesn't deliver what they want won't keep them from continuing to campaign. I wonder why pro life proponents would be presumed to lack the same dedication?

    How's the campaign to ban divorce again coming along? Contraception? Gay marriage? Gay adoption? Homosexual acts? Votes for women?

    The opposition to all of these measures evaporated as soon as they were passed and normalized. We sometimes hear from the "Bring back hanging!" crew, but not often, nor are they taken seriously anymore.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    How's the campaign to ban divorce again coming along? Contraception? Gay marriage? Gay adoption? Homosexual acts? Votes for women? The opposition to all of these measures evaporated as soon as they were passed and normalized. We sometimes hear from the "Bring back hanging!" crew, but not often, nor are they taken seriously anymore.
    I don't know there are any campaigns to do those things, though I imagine Iona might support a couple if there were.

    So, should the right to life not be overturned in the referendum do you think opposition to it will evaporate as well? It's hard to imagine only people you disagree with give up when they lose a referendum. Is that more prophetic wishful thinking? I suspect there are still some pro choice campaigners around since 1983, though maybe not so may anti-suffragists from 1918, so I'm going to say I think those who oppose measures that will result in the deaths of others will probably continue to do so, even if a referendum goes against them.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Absolam wrote: »
    I don't know there are any campaigns to do those things, though I imagine Iona might support a couple if there were.

    That is my point!

    None of the campaigners changed their minds on these issues, they just got beaten. They lost. And since progressives move on to the next change, conservatives have always abandoned their lines and retreated to defend against the next change.

    So when abortion is liberalised, i expect Iona to start defending segregated bathrooms from transgender/gender queer attack.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    And since progressives move on to the next change, conservatives have always abandoned their lines and retreated to defend against the next change.
    That is pretty much the definition of conservatism/conservation. You can't "conserve" something after it has gone. If you did that, you'd be a "Restorative" :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    recedite wrote: »
    That is pretty much the definition of conservatism/conservation. You can't "conserve" something after it has gone. If you did that, you'd be a "Restorative" :D

    Which shows that most opposition to those things was simply opposition to (fear of?) social change of any sort, rather than any principled opposition to the issue itself. For all but the very few deeply religious who would actually like a theocracy.
    I'm confident that most of the current opposition to abortion rights comes from the same motivation, and will disappear once a workable abortion law has been seen not to lead straight to the end of society as we know it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Which shows that most opposition to those things was simply opposition to (fear of?) social change of any sort, rather than any principled opposition to the issue itself.
    To some extent, but not entirely. Take the recently deceased Des Hanafin, as an example. Principled to the end, and he never changed his position AFAIK. But nowadays totally out of sync with current mainstream society. Many of today's "progressives" will be tomorrow's "conservatives".

    Its a mistake to think that change is always good and progressive, while conservatism is always bad and regressive. Take the global warming issue. Trump wants to keep guzzling fossil fuels; that is a conservative position in some ways, but it leads to climate change.
    Others want to change old habits in order to "conserve" CO2 levels at current levels. Even though global CO2 levels and temperatures have fluctuated wildly over planet earths history. Perhaps Trump is the driver of change on this one, so does that that mean he is progressive?


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,096 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    recedite wrote: »
    To some extent, but not entirely. Take the recently deceased Des Hanafin, as an example. Principled to the end, and he never changed his position AFAIK?

    But was he or anyone else actively campaigning to re-outlaw divorce over the last 20 years? I don't see why abortion should be any different once a regime of abortion on demand/request in the early weeks of pregnancy has been introduced.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    That is my point! None of the campaigners changed their minds on these issues, they just got beaten. They lost. And since progressives move on to the next change, conservatives have always abandoned their lines and retreated to defend against the next change. So when abortion is liberalised, i expect Iona to start defending segregated bathrooms from transgender/gender queer attack.
    The campaigners against the 8th got beaten. They lost. Yet they'll come back again for this referendum. I think that's generally the way with most idealists, whether you think they're right or or wrong, or progressive or conservative, doesn't make any difference I think. Should abortion never be legalised, I don't expect those who want it to campaign for something else, I think they'll hold onto their opinions. And vice versa. Imagining that those who supports liberal abortion are part of a crusading progressive team moving from one great freedom to the next, whist those who oppose it are some sort of retreating conservative bloc is just that... pure imagination. Like the prophecies that accompany it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,096 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    Absolam wrote: »
    The campaigners against the 8th got beaten. They lost. Yet they'll come back again for this referendum. I think that's generally the way with most idealists, whether you think they're right or or wrong, or progressive or conservative, doesn't make any difference I think.

    But surely the Irish historical experience is that it makes a massive difference. Is anyone now actively seeking the re-outlawing of divorce, or contraception or gay sex. Conversely, if the second divorce referendum had gone the other way, can you say with confidence there wouldn't have been another referendum within the last 20 years.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    recedite wrote: »
    To some extent, but not entirely. Take the recently deceased Des Hanafin, as an example. Principled to the end, and he never changed his position AFAIK. But nowadays totally out of sync with current mainstream society. Many of today's "progressives" will be tomorrow's "conservatives".

    This has been answered by others but since it's addressed to me, just to be clear, I didn't say individuals would consciously change their minds about these issues, but that they generally don't appear to care enough about the lost issues to spent time trying to revisit them, and prefer to move to whatever has been declared to be their next "last stand".
    Its a mistake to think that change is always good and progressive, while conservatism is always bad and regressive. Take the global warming issue. Trump wants to keep guzzling fossil fuels; that is a conservative position in some ways, but it leads to climate change.
    Others want to change old habits in order to "conserve" CO2 levels at current levels. Even though global CO2 levels and temperatures have fluctuated wildly over planet earths history. Perhaps Trump is the driver of change on this one, so does that that mean he is progressive?
    Literally WTF? I didn't say any such thing, so this comes over as something of a mad rant TBH. :confused:

    But just FYI the word "change" in "climate change" refers to a completely different thing from somebody wanting change in society.

    And like really, WTF again. :eek:


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,849 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    recedite wrote: »
    That is pretty much the definition of conservatism/conservation. You can't "conserve" something after it has gone. If you did that, you'd be a "Restorative" :D

    I believe they prefer the label "Reactionary".


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,487 ✭✭✭Mutant z


    recedite wrote: »
    Should we prevent men from voting then? ;)

    Of course not, all citizens of this country men and women are entitled to vote on this matter.


Advertisement