8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1

Nettle Soup

I have to say our TDs are keeping a very low profile on this referendum. Especially the Yes TDs. They don't want to touch this thorny issue. It shows considerable cowardice.

spookwoman

RobertKK wrote: »

What percentage of abortions are for life threatening illnesses?

Physical and mental illness can be a life threatening and I believe 97% of abortions in the uk are for that

Overheal

RobertKK wrote: »

What percentage of abortions are for life threatening illnesses?

...enough?

The 8th prohibits 100% of abortions does it not?

RobertKK

Overheal wrote: »

Do they? Because I’ve been informed of a lot of cases where they were put in jeopardy for a zygote. Where some have even died because hospitals are so indoctrinated on prioritizing life of a fetus over a dying woman.

So why does Ireland have such a good record?


http://www.thejournal.ie/maternal-deaths-mortality-rate-ireland-pro-life-campaign-statistics-2921139-Aug2016/

Claim: Ireland has had a “phenomenal” record on maternal mortality, up to the introduction of abortion legislation in 2013
Verdict: Mostly TRUE

RobertKK

Overheal wrote: »

...enough?

The 8th prohibits 100% of abortions does it not?

No, it simply limits.

Grayson

RobertKK wrote: »

It was totally wrong but either side could have done that.

As much as I disagree with you on most things, I've never thought you would be the kind of person who would be ok with that stuff. I might think your wrong but I've never thought if you as bad.
I would disagree on who put it up though. Although technically it could have been either side, it's far more likely that it's someone who's pro life.

RobertKK

spookwoman wrote: »

Physical and mental illness can be a life threatening and I believe 97% of abortions in the uk are for that

Even the architect of the UK abortion legislation doesn't believe that is the real reason.

ASISEEIT

If it was 12 weeks in this referendum it would pass for defo.
A lot of no voter's do realise that without of the safety valve of England there would be hundreds
OF harrowing stories .
However the yes side gives the impression that people can bonk away without consequences? That they cant bring themselves to admit that the one in five statistic in the UK is horrific. How many of these abortions are over 12 weeks? Why cant people learn decent contraception? What real excuse do they have in the uk or ireland today. I accept that in the past access to contraception and moral condemnation of unmarried mothers was a factor but today?
Absolutism is a sure way to alienate people and both sides on this forum are doing a fantastic job of that.

pitifulgod

RobertKK wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/rosa-abortion-pill-bus-2404333-Oct2015/
http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-pills-bus-3216154-Feb2017/

Just wondering as Rosa and some other repeal campaigners were eating then like sweets in the past, and without medical supervision.

I wasn't personally a fan of them doing that for safety reasons tbh. But the reality is many women are currently taking the abortion pill with no medical support. Taking medications with no medical support is dangerous. These are all facts.

Sofiztikated

RobertKK wrote: »

So why does Ireland have such a good record?


http://www.thejournal.ie/maternal-deaths-mortality-rate-ireland-pro-life-campaign-statistics-2921139-Aug2016/

Ireland’s average MMR from 1985-2015 was 9
That’s worse than some countries with relatively liberal abortion regimes, such as Canada and Belgium (8), Sweden (6)
It’s the same as that of Denmark (9), another European country with a relatively liberal abortion regime
It’s also better than some countries with relatively liberal abortion regimes, such as the UK and Netherlands (11), and France (12)
Malta, the only other European country with an abortion regime roughly as restrictive as Ireland’s, had an average MMR of 13, the same as Singapore, which has a relatively quite liberal abortion regime.

MMR (I'll never not see that as Measles Mumps and Rubella) isn't the be all and end all.

spookwoman

RobertKK wrote: »

Even the architect of the UK abortion legislation doesn't believe that is the real reason.

That was from 2007
might want to look at newer articles oct 2017

"I introduced the Abortion Act 50 years ago this week. This is why it now needs extending
Northern Ireland’s lack of access to abortion and the fact that we won’t decriminalise it altogether in England and Wales puts us miles behind our European neighbours who allow all women to access abortions on request"
........

"The time has surely come to update the 50-year-old reform by decriminalising abortion altogether. Will parliaments at Westminster and Holyrood listen?"

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/abortion-act-northern-ireland-law-referendum-a8020826.html

RobertKK

Grayson wrote: »

As much as I disagree with you on most things, I've never thought you would be the kind of person who would be ok with that stuff. I might think your wrong but I've never thought if you as bad.
I would disagree on who put it up though. Although technically it could have been either side, it's far more likely that it's someone who's pro life.

Thank you.
If it was a no person, it is the equivalent of turning up at the start of a marathon and then shooting oneself in both feet...there could be someone that stupid/deluded.

If a yes person, it could serve a purpose, discredit no, but there was this tweet by Gemma O'Doherty.
https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/993871652365717505

Whoever, it was wrong.

spookwoman

RobertKK wrote: »

Thank you.
If it was a no person, it is the equivalent of turning up at the start of a marathon and then shooting oneself in both feet...there could be someone that stupid/deluded.

If a yes person, it could serve a purpose, discredit no, but there was this tweet by Gemma O'Doherty.
https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/993871652365717505

Whoever, it was wrong.

She's Pro Life and from some of the stuff she posted in the past attacking people for no reason I have a large bowl of salt for anything she says

Sofiztikated

ASISEEIT wrote: »

If it was 12 weeks in this referendum it would pass for defo.
A lot of no voter's do realise that without of the safety valve of England there would be hundreds
OF harrowing stories .
However the yes side gives the impression that people can bonk away without consequences? That they cant bring themselves to admit that the one in five statistic in the UK is horrific. How many of these abortions are over 12 weeks? Why cant people learn decent contraception? What real excuse do they have in the uk or ireland today. I accept that in the past access to contraception and moral condemnation of unmarried mothers was a factor but today?
Absolutism is a sure way to alienate people and both sides on this forum are doing a fantastic job of that.

There ARE hundreds of harrowing stories.

Not one single person on the yes side has mentioned anything about there being no "consequences." in fact, we're very up front about the consequences of sex and pregnancy.

The 1 in 5 is incorrect.

Contraception fails.

And there's no absolutism on Yes side. If you want access to an abortion, grand. If you don't? That's grand too. It's only No that is dealing in absolutes. And we all know, only Sith deal in absolutes.

Grayson

Double post.

Grayson

ASISEEIT wrote: »

If it was 12 weeks in this referendum it would pass for defo.
A lot of no voter's do realise that without of the safety valve of England there would be hundreds
OF harrowing stories .
However the yes side gives the impression that people can bonk away without consequences? That they cant bring themselves to admit that the one in five statistic in the UK is horrific. How many of these abortions are over 12 weeks? Why cant people learn decent contraception? What real excuse do they have in the uk or ireland today. I accept that in the past access to contraception and moral condemnation of unmarried mothers was a factor but today?
Absolutism is a sure way to alienate people and both sides on this forum are doing a fantastic job of that.

I don't know about the UK but in the US something like 93% are before 12 weeks. And the majority of the remaining 7% are people who were unable to access it in the first 12 weeks either due to finance or location.

Also, in the US a Majority of women who get an abortion used contraception that failed and a majority are already mothers.

1 in 5 could also indicate what a necessary service it is and why we should have it.

As for 12 weeks, I think thats what the government want to legislate for isn't it? 12 weeks with no restrictions and the next 10 weeks for life threatening conditions.

Mrsmum

Grayson wrote: »

Just over 25 years ago I left school. It was a very Catholic school. During the last abortion referendum we had youth defense talk to us. So I was fully taught why abortion is wrong from the Catholic perspective. It took about 10 years for me to start changing my mind.

The reason I changed is because I wanted a logical, fact based opinion on this. I decided to start with the proposition that its wrong to kill a person. A baby is a person. A baby a day before birth is a person. So is an embryo one? So what makes a person. And what makes us human isn't just dna.
Catholics believe it's a person because a soul is there from the moment of conception. What's the non religious equivalent of a soul? It's a working brain. That's why every religion on earth agrees that a person who's brain dead is dead. It doesn't matter what state the body is in, its the brain that matters.for them the brain is the equivalent of the soul.

I've spent years thinking about this. And my opinions have changed as I've gotten new information. I look at it from a biological standpoint. A philosophical standpoint. And morally.
I really don't want to be wrong. If I thought abortion meant killing people I would be 100% against it. And it's the central pillar of any argument for or against abortion. When is an embryo/foetus a person? Because all of us agree that killing a person is wrong.

Comparing a brain dead person and a foetus is a strange comparison imo. I'm not a medic but from what I know when a person becomes brain dead all its other systems either have already or will then start to die also so heart, lungs etc wouldn't by themselves keep working for months after that. So a brain dead person exists in a dying body. But the foetus is a completely different case. Depending on how many weeks along, It's brain may be premature but the rest of its body is the opposite of dying and after weeks and months in its body if left alone everything will actually have developed more not died.

Igotadose

Grayson wrote: »

1 in 5 could also indicate what a necessary service it is and why we should have it.

1 in 5's demonstrably false - of live births I think the number's 16%. Of all pregnancies, probably much less due to miscarriages (not accounted for.)

Let's not be restating what's not true. It's what the No campaign lives off of.

pitifulgod

RobertKK wrote: »

Thank you.
If it was a no person, it is the equivalent of turning up at the start of a marathon and then shooting oneself in both feet...there could be someone that stupid/deluded.

If a yes person, it could serve a purpose, discredit no, but there was this tweet by Gemma O'Doherty.
https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/993871652365717505

Whoever, it was wrong.

O Doherty has spent the last few years being a conspiracy theorist so her credibility is shot at this stage tbh.

Overheal

RobertKK wrote: »

So why does Ireland have such a good record?


http://www.thejournal.ie/maternal-deaths-mortality-rate-ireland-pro-life-campaign-statistics-2921139-Aug2016/

8 maternal deaths per 100k love births. That’s still not 0.00000000% am I right?

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

8 maternal deaths per 100k love births. That’s still not 0.00000000% am I right?

Does that also capture a woman who succumbs to cancer that could have been treated during the pregnancy?

ASISEEIT

Sofiztikated wrote: »

There ARE hundreds of harrowing stories.

Not one single person on the yes side has mentioned anything about there being no "consequences." in fact, we're very up front about the consequences of sex and pregnancy.

The 1 in 5 is incorrect.

Contraception fails.

And there's no absolutism on Yes side. If you want access to an abortion, grand. If you don't? That's grand too. It's only No that is dealing in absolutes. And we all know, only Sith deal in absolutes.

Star wars ? Really. Condom plus the pill gives you practically 100% protection. Failing to use them properly is your fault. They don't let any idiot drive a car because you can take life but seemingly failing to spend an hour at a doctor's or watching a few online education videos entitles you to destroy a baby ? I just think the yes side should be more up front by admitting this ?

kylith

Mrsmum wrote: »

... I fall back on my 'What to expect when you're expecting" book, one of many handbooks for pregnant women and that tells me all I need to know about the developing contents of the womb. Actually you can look up the book online and see week by week videos of the developing baby. It doesn't matter to me what its size, if it is healthy and developing as it is designed to do I am against ending its life.

Weird. I have an app that gives me a little nugget of information every day. It continually reminds me how like a baby it _isn’t_.

‘It’s skeleton is turning from cartilage to bone’ highlights that it previously didn’t have a calcified skeleton. ‘It’s brain starts to control it’s heart’ highlights that previously the heartbeat was reflexive rather than controlled.

pjohnson

ASISEEIT wrote: »

Star wars ? Really. Condom plus the pill gives you practically 100% protection. Failing to use them properly is your fault. They don't let any idiot drive a car because you can take life but seemingly failing to spend an hour at a doctor's or watching a few online education videos entitles you to destroy a baby ? I just think the yes side should be more up front by admitting this ?

I too like Anchorman

gmisk

Together for yes fundraising now at 55k!

https://togetherforyes.causevox.com

hurler97

Igotadose wrote:

1 in 5's demonstrably false - of live births I think the number's 16%. Of all pregnancies, probably much less due to miscarriages (not accounted for.)

Igotadose wrote:

Let's not be restating what's not true. It's what the No campaign lives off of.

Journal.ie fact check found the 1 in 5 statement to be true and said 21.4% pregnancies ended in abortion

pitifulgod

ASISEEIT wrote: »

Star wars ? Really. Condom plus the pill gives you practically 100% protection. Failing to use them properly is your fault. They don't let any idiot drive a car because you can take life but seemingly failing to spend an hour at a doctor's or watching a few online education videos entitles you to destroy a baby ? I just think the yes side should be more up front by admitting this ?

98%, 1 in 50 chance of failing is actually pretty substantial given a potential pregnancy. I think most people who have had sex, don't need the details of conception explained. Regardless of how the pregnancy comes about, I don't believe in forcing women to continue it against their will.

gmisk

hurler97 wrote: »

Journal.ie fact check found the 1 in 5 statement to be true and said 21.4% pregnancies ended in abortion

That isn't true it was unproven

https://www.google.ie/amp/www.thejournal.ie/save-the-8th-poster-statistic-abortion-3951738-Apr2018/?amp=1

This has already been discussed here multiple times the 1 in 5 isnt accurate

Grayson

Mrsmum wrote: »

Comparing a brain dead person and a foetus is a strange comparison imo. I'm not a medic but from what I know when a person becomes brain dead all its other systems either have already or will then start to die also so heart, lungs etc wouldn't by themselves keep working for months after that. So a brain dead person exists in a dying body. But the foetus is a completely different case. Depending on how many weeks along, It's brain may be premature but the rest of its body is the opposite of dying and after weeks and months in its body if left alone everything will actually have developed more not died.

You do make an argument there but not one I'd countenance. You say that if you withdraw life support machines the person would die. There's two problems.

1) you kind of address this by saying there's no brain and a dying body. The body isn't always dying. Not as long as it's on life support. There have been many cases where a body has survived after support has been taken away. All higher functions are gone but the part that controls breathing etc is gone. Yet the person is considered brain dead.

2) the foetus is on life support. It's just biological rather than mechanical. It is however fully dependant on it. And if we used that standard for determining life then technically terminations are OK until 9 months so long as it's done by withdrawing life support.
So I wouldn't even mention that. The ability of a body to survive without support shouldn't, in my opinion, be a determining factor.

Mrsmum

kylith wrote: »

Weird. I have an app that gives me a little nugget of information every day. It continually reminds me how like a baby it _isn’t_.

‘It’s skeleton is turning from cartilage to bone’ highlights that it previously didn’t have a calcified skeleton. ‘It’s brain starts to control it’s heart’ highlights that previously the heartbeat was reflexive rather than controlled.

So that would be in the 7th to 8th month.

"Months 7 and 8: Transforming Cartilage to Bone
How are you doing on that calcium consumption? Keep downing those dairy products, because the majority of the calcium your baby gets from you is transferred during the third trimester — about 250 milligrams a day! She’s busy transforming cartilage to bone as well as developing muscle and building up a nice protective layer of fat".

Funny it wouldn't even be an abortion but a live birth at that stage.