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

It wasnt me123

goat2 wrote: »

I also know adopted people who had a beautiful life, given to them by their adoptive parents, and today with gay marriage legal, I should think that people in gay marriage can also adopt, I am not certain if they can, but I am sure thay would make great parents if they so wished to adopt a child to complete their family

Whats gay marriage got to do with adoptive children feeling rejected? As I was typying my response today I happened to be watching TV3 Long Lost Family - 39 year old man, feeling rejection, history of drug abuse, adoptive mother 41 when he was adopted - now I know its for tv but the mans rejection seemed real. Guess what, the mother that gave up the baby was Irish and it happened in 1975.

Because of all the legal hoops in Ireland, adoption is not a viable option.

Repeal all the way

Neyite

Pac1Man wrote: »

I'll be voting no anyways. I feel there's a certain obligation and responsibility to raise a child if you fall pregnant, whatever the circumstance.

And a mandatory minimum amount (not % -so if you get €250 a week and the legal minimum is €150, too bad) of the father's income should be provided to the woman who is obliged and responsible for said child for 18 years or longer if the child is in full time education. Whatever the circumstances...

Fair is fair.

She didn't get knocked up on her own like.

Overheal

Pac1Man wrote: »

I'll be voting no anyways. I feel there's a certain obligation and responsibility to raise a child if you fall pregnant, whatever the circumstance.

“Oh darn I was raped. Bamboozled again.”

Macha

goat2 wrote: »

I also know adopted people who had a beautiful life, given to them by their adoptive parents, and today with gay marriage legal, I should think that people in gay marriage can also adopt, I am not certain if they can, but I am sure thay would make great parents if they so wished to adopt a child to complete their family

The Adoption Rights Alliance fully supports repeal of the 8th amendment. My father was adopted and he's voting Yes.

Pac1Man

Dressing gown wrote: »

Not one you will ever have to endure yourself though right?

So my vote shouldn't count? Not how this works.

Montgolfier

I'm a man and I want women to have control over there own body. Not to be made to feel like criminal for a choice that only she can make.

Macha

Montgolfier wrote: »

I'm a man and I want women to have control over there own body. Not to be made to feel like criminal for a choice that only she can make.

Interestingly, as a woman, this is also why I'm voting yes.

Their bodies are not my bodies either.

cournioni

Montgolfier wrote: »

I'm a man and I want women to have control over there own body. Not to be made to feel like criminal for a choice that only she can make.

I’m undecided, and this outlook makes me feel uneasy every time. Why give a woman the choice to take away the life of a perfectly healthy living being, just because it’s “their body”.

To me, it is cruel and wrong to take away that life and the flippant way that it is being thrown about by the yes side is quite disturbing.

Pac1Man

cournioni wrote: »

I’m undecided, and this outlook makes me feel uneasy every time. Why give a woman the choice to take away the life of a perfectly healthy living being, just because it’s “their body”.

To me, it is cruel and wrong to take away that life and the flippant way that it is being thrown about by the yes side is quite disturbing.

Exactly. It's a choice being made for two people, one who has no say in the matter and who will definitely die.

What about the child's body?

Bizarre stuff.

volchitsa

Pac1Man wrote: »

Exactly. It's a choice being made for two people, one who has no say in the matter and who will definitely die.

What about the child's body?

Bizarre stuff.

At what stage are there two people? We're about terminations of pregnancy up to 12 weeks, which is a 10 week old fetus (embryo really).

cournioni

Martina1991 wrote: »

Another one from the forced birth brigade.

You have no idea how painful and traumatic pregnancy and childbirth are. Not to mention the responsibility of raising a child.

But you don't care because that's not your problem I suppose.

This post is appallingly arrogant and self righteous. This does the yes side no favors at all.

Muzzymor

If you believe the aborted child to be a human life, no amount of talk about "my body my choice" will make you think that killing it is ok, regardless of the circumstances. Just as a person killing a toddler because of financial or other stresses wouldn't be acceptable.

If you think the aborted foetus is just a bunch of nothing cells you surely don't care what anyone does to it.

If you believe the unborn is a living being, the building blocks already set in motion which will become a fully formed human child as long as modern science doesn't destructively intervene,but you believe abortion is ok because of "my body my choice" you have managed to justify the taking of innocent human life and I find that terrifying.

I find it interesting/mindboggling when people who support abortion rights say that abortion is the hardest thing a woman can have to choose, or that abortion for superficial reasons or abortion of girls because you want a boy or abortion of children with down syndrome or other disabilities is somehow bad but abortion of a healthy child or abortion for none of the listed reasons isn't.

If you believe that an abortion isn't the killing of a child, then why is abortion any harder than any other mundane procedure one can have done to "their body"?
It suggests that deep down, in a place beyond soundbytes and politics and posturing, call it their heart or their gut or whatever, in a place where we all know what is right and what is wrong, even abortion rights proponents believe that abortion is the ending of a life, the killing of a baby.

The fact that people can believe that and still support abortion due to circumstance is chilling. I can understand if someone genuinely doesnt think the unborn is a living human but in that case there is no reason to think of abortion as any form of weighty decision any more than an enema etc.

volchitsa

cournioni wrote: »

I’m undecided, and this outlook makes me feel uneasy every time. Why give a woman the choice to take away the life of a perfectly healthy living being, just because it’s “their body”.

To me, it is cruel and wrong to take away that life and the flippant way that it is being thrown about by the yes side is quite disturbing.

But we voted in 1992 to allow that. If we vote no this time, in what way do we protect those 40+ unborn lives that will be aborted in June by Irish women in England or Holland or Eastern Europe?

cournioni

volchitsa wrote: »

At what stage are there two people? We're about terminations of pregnancy up to 12 weeks, which is a 10 week old fetus (embryo really).

This is the thing that leaves most people undecided and everyone’s opinion is different on it.

Personally, I believe that there is enough contraception out there in order for people stop pregnancy without the need for taking away the life of a perfectly healthy unborn. People need to be responsible for their own actions without resorting to taking life away from another living being.

cournioni

volchitsa wrote: »

But we voted in 1992 to allow that. If we vote no this time, in what way do we protect those 40+ unborn lives that will be aborted in June by Irish women in England or Holland or Eastern Europe?

Doesn’t matter what people do in other countries. I’m telling you what I think is right and wrong. I think it’s wrong to take a healthy living beings life away no matter where it is.

If the child has no chance at survival and puts the mother’s life at risk, then my opinion is different. Hence undecided.

Macha

cournioni wrote: »

volchitsa wrote: »

At what stage are there two people? We're about terminations of pregnancy up to 12 weeks, which is a 10 week old fetus (embryo really).

This is the thing that leaves most people undecided and everyone’s opinion is different on it.

Personally, I believe that there is enough contraception out there in order for people stop pregnancy without the need for taking away the life of a perfectly healthy unborn. People need to be responsible for their own actions without resorting to taking life away from another living being.

No contraception is 100% effective.Also rape?

Justin Credible Darts

My wife does not agree with Abortion, and I do not agree with it in principle seeing as a man I would never have one.

However, to dictate to others that they cannot have one simply because I dont like it is Wrong
I am not some God with the right to dictate how others live, people should have choice.

How dare any group tell a rape victim they must carry a rapists child for example.
If the No brigade dont agree with Abortion, then do not have one, just because it will be legal at some stage does not mean you have to have one.

Gay marraige is legal, don't mean I, as a straight man will leave my wife to marry a man just cos its there.
We get the No brigade don't like it, so don't have one, but let others decide what they want to do with their OWN bodies.

Macha

cournioni wrote: »

volchitsa wrote: »

But we voted in 1992 to allow that. If we vote no this time, in what way do we protect those 40+ unborn lives that will be aborted in June by Irish women in England or Holland or Eastern Europe?

Doesn’t matter what people do in other countries. I’m telling you what I think is right and wrong. I think it’s wrong to take a healthy living beings life away no matter where it is.

If the child has no chance at survival and puts the mother’s life at risk, then my opinion is different. Hence undecided.

What about the woman's health?

Muzzymor

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

My wife does not agree with Abortion, and I do not agree with it in principle seeing as a man I would never have one.

However, to dictate to others that they cannot have one simply because I dont like it is Wrong
I am not some God with the right to dictate how others live, people should have choice.

How dare any group tell a rape victim they must carry a rapists child for example.
If the No brigade dont agree with Abortion, then do not have one, just because it will be legal at some stage does not mean you have to have one.

Gay marraige is legal, don't mean I, as a straight man will leave my wife to marry a man just cos its there.
We get the No brigade don't like it, so don't have one, but let others decide what they want to do with their OWN bodies.

I don't understand this view.
You and your wife don't agree with abortion. Why? Presumably because you see it as the ending of a life? If not, then what is there for you to disagree with? Do you disagree with bunion removals too?

So you disagree with the ethics of abortion and then go on to say women should be free to have one and anyone who doesn't like abortion can just not have one.
Your muddled logic is akin to someone saying "if you don't like murder, then don't murder someone, problem solved".

You started by saying you and your wife disagree with abortion. Why is that? Why is abortion worse than any other medical procedure?

Sofiztikated

cournioni wrote: »

Doesn’t matter what people do in other countries. I’m telling you what I think is right and wrong. I think it’s wrong to take a healthy living beings life away no matter where it is.

If the child has no chance at survival and puts the mother’s life at risk, then my opinion is different. Hence undecided.

So my wife would have to be ready to die, before you'd allow a termination?

erica74

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This came about as a response to the graphic images being displayed outside hospitals by the No campaign. The inspiration was the way Radical Queers Resist dealt with the same shower outside Panti Bar and The George where they raised Rainbow flags up to block the images. Some members of Artist's against the 8th suggested angel costumes as had been used in the U.S. to block mourners from seeing the vileness that is Westboro Baptist Church when they were 'protesting' at the funerals of servicemen/women. A line of angels stands in front of the images and raises their wings.

Personally, I think it's a wonderful thing to do. It's a local initiative. Theatrical costumers in Dublin gave their time and expertise free, people worked together to make them and they are ready to respond should the need arise.

Exactly who the lunatics remind me of!

Pac1Man wrote: »

I'll be voting no anyways. I feel there's a certain obligation and responsibility to raise a child if you fall pregnant, whatever the circumstance.

What if you didn't plan to get pregnant? What if you are poor, what if you have health problems, what if the father of the child abuses you, what if you already have enough children?

cournioni wrote: »

This post is appallingly arrogant and self righteous. This does the yes side no favors at all.

But it's the truth. The poster obviously has no idea. It's very easy to tell someone else to do something when it doesn't affect you.

cournioni wrote: »

This is the thing that leaves most people undecided and everyone’s opinion is different on it.

Personally, I believe that there is enough contraception out there in order for people stop pregnancy without the need for taking away the life of a perfectly healthy unborn. People need to be responsible for their own actions without resorting to taking life away from another living being.

What if the contraception fails? Contraception is not 100% effective. You cannot add 2 methods of contraception together to make up 100% effectiveness. What if contraception wasn't used because the woman or girl was raped?

Contraception has been gone over and over and over in these threads. Are people really so uneducated about it?

Muzzymor wrote: »

If you believe the aborted child to be a human life, no amount of talk about "my body my choice" will make you think that killing it is ok, regardless of the circumstances. Just as a person killing a toddler because of financial or other stresses wouldn't be acceptable.

If you think the aborted foetus is just a bunch of nothing cells you surely don't care what anyone does to it.

If you believe the unborn is a living being, the building blocks already set in motion which will become a fully formed human child as long as modern science doesn't destructively intervene,but you believe abortion is ok because of "my body my choice" you have managed to justify the taking of innocent human life and I find that terrifying.

I find it interesting/mindboggling when people who support abortion rights say that abortion is the hardest thing a woman can have to choose, or that abortion for superficial reasons or abortion of girls because you want a boy or abortion of children with down syndrome or other disabilities is somehow bad but abortion of a healthy child or abortion for none of the listed reasons isn't.

If you believe that an abortion isn't the killing of a child, then why is abortion any harder than any other mundane procedure one can have done to "their body"?
It suggests that deep down, in a place beyond soundbytes and politics and posturing, call it their heart or their gut or whatever, in a place where we all know what is right and what is wrong, even abortion rights proponents believe that abortion is the ending of a life, the killing of a baby.

The fact that people can believe that and still support abortion due to circumstance is chilling. I can understand if someone genuinely doesnt think the unborn is a living human but in that case there is no reason to think of abortion as any form of weighty decision any more than an enema etc.

Killing a toddler would be murder.

Whatever reason a woman or girl has for needing an abortion should be her own private business.

Sofiztikated

Muzzymor wrote: »

I don't understand this view.
You and your wife don't agree with abortion. Why? Presumably because you see it as the ending of a life? If not, then what is there for you to disagree with? Do you disagree with bunion removals too?

So you disagree with the ethics of abortion and then go on to say women should be free to have one and anyone who doesn't like abortion can just not have one.
Your muddled logic is akin to someone saying "if you don't like murder, then don't murder someone, problem solved".

You started by saying you and your wife disagree with abortion. Why is that? Why is abortion worse than any other medical procedure?

I've stated before that I think adoption is the more difficult option, and is often cruel on both parties. But I don't let my morals and opinions affect those that do want to place a child for adoption.

Just because something isn't right for them, means it isn't right for someone else.

Montgolfier

cournioni wrote: »

I’m undecided, and this outlook makes me feel uneasy every time. Why give a woman the choice to take away the life of a perfectly healthy living being, just because it’s “their body”.

To me, it is cruel and wrong to take away that life and the flippant way that it is being thrown about by the yes side is quite disturbing.

Why give a woman a choice? Because she deserves one like any human being. This is why amnesty international want a yes vote.
The way I see it, is its about the law being part of medical procedure's.
My wife was told she had a missed miscarriage after her 9 week scan. Because the baby stopped developing after 6 weeks and her body believed she was still pregnant by the law she had to carry it for another week to check if it was alive.
Doctors and midwife told her their hands were tied by law. She was devastated, not only did get heart breaking news but her ordeal was dragged out another 2 weeks for no good reason. There are a lot more serious cases of fatal fetal abnormalities where women had to carry the pregency to full term.
These are the women who need a Yes vote!

And yes some women may get abortion on demand but guess what? They are also the people who will hop on a 30euro Ryanair flight to the UK.

You got to have faith in the good women out there, your mother, your sister, your daughter.

Paranoid Bob

cournioni wrote: »

I’m undecided, and this outlook makes me feel uneasy every time. Why give a woman the choice to take away the life of a perfectly healthy living being, just because it’s “their body”.

To me, it is cruel and wrong to take away that life and the flippant way that it is being thrown about by the yes side is quite disturbing.

As someone who plans to vote yes; this is the argument that brings me closest to changing my mind.

'Choice' is a very weak argument in support of abortion. There are lots of things we can choose to do that will get us into trouble with the law, and killing should definitely be one of them. That is a fair argument. Of course there are difficult cases, but the answer is not abortion the answer is better social support. (There are reasons that is unlikely to work, as described elsewhere in this thread, but that is not the point I'm making here).

That argument completely misses the biggest problems with the 8th amendment. The 8th does just affect pregnancies; it affects people who might be pregnant. There are plenty of stories of people refused or delayed treatments not because it will harm the child they are carrying, but because they might be pregnant. Even if those women are not pregnant their healthcare is compromised.

I hope you will agree, even if you believe that abortion must be avoided, that refusing or delaying healthcare just because you are a woman of childbearing age is not right.

So the current system has some big problems. I think the proposed system is good. It looks to me like a fair attempt to make the best of a bad situation. I respect that others may disagree; that the proposal goes too far.

Right now; we can't even explore any other options. The constitution binds us into an unfair system that is breaking the human rights of women. If we repeal the 8th then we can change the law until we find the balance that our country can be proud of.

Those are the choices; leave the 8th in place and continue to have all the problems described so well by the 'in her shoes' stories, or repeal the 8th and change the law until we find a better balance the properly reflects the needs of our society.

Justin Credible Darts

Muzzymor wrote: »

I don't understand this view.
You and your wife don't agree with abortion. Why? Presumably because you see it as the ending of a life? If not, then what is there for you to disagree with? Do you disagree with bunion removals too?

So you disagree with the ethics of abortion and then go on to say women should be free to have one and anyone who doesn't like abortion can just not have one.
Your muddled logic is akin to someone saying "if don't like murder, then don't murder someone, problem solved".

You started by saying you and your wife disagree with abortion. Why is that? Why is abortion worse than any other medical procedure?

Where have I said it was worse than any medical procedure ?
That's right I never said that. You just conjured up that.

If you actually read what I wrote I said it was just my personal opinion seeing as I will never be having one as a man.


Just because I might not agree in theory with abortion as a man, who am I to tell women what they can and cannot do.
The sheer arrogance of the no brigade that they think they have some god given right to lecture women on their bodies is beyond arrogant.


I know of 2 men voting yes, simply because of the arrogance of the No brigade.

volchitsa

cournioni wrote: »

Doesn’t matter what people do in other countries. I’m telling you what I think is right and wrong. I think it’s wrong to take a healthy living beings life away no matter where it is.

If the child has no chance at survival and puts the mother’s life at risk, then my opinion is different. Hence undecided.

But it's not other people on other countries, it's the same Irish people going to another country to commit an act that is considered killing in Ireland.

Gail O Rorke was not allowed travel to assist her friend's suicide in Switzerland but we allow (we had a referendum on it) women to take their unborn to England to kill them.

This "Ah we can't tell the English what to do" is just such a cop out. I'm not talking about the English. These are Irish women. Would you allow them take their daughters to Somalia or somewhere to have FGM carried out on them?

cournioni

Macha wrote: »

No contraception is 100% effective.Also rape?

Rape is another reason why I’m undecided.

If contraception doesn’t work then I’m afraid it’s a case of “if you play, you pay”. Unfortunate reality for people, but that is for sex educators to make clear to people. Not enough people in this country are accountable for their actions whether in work, life or in bed, they need to be.

Calina

cournioni wrote: »

volchitsa wrote: »

At what stage are there two people? We're about terminations of pregnancy up to 12 weeks, which is a 10 week old fetus (embryo really).

This is the thing that leaves most people undecided and everyone’s opinion is different on it.

Personally, I believe that there is enough contraception out there in order for people stop pregnancy without the need for taking away the life of a perfectly healthy unborn. People need to be responsible for their own actions without resorting to taking life away from another living being.

But it is not just about pregnancy. It is about women’s health treatment being affected too. There was a piece about a cystic fibrosis sufferer on In her shoes lately where here treatment was withdrawn. This is not equality. This is subservience. Guidelines for medical consent for pregnant women are different and slightly limited. This too is subservience.

If you genuinely feel things should be different for any case at all you should consider voting to repeal. The limitations can be tuned in legislation. It is an abuse of the constitution to try and put them in there precisely to tie the country’s hands which was what the objective was in 1983.

Calina

cournioni wrote: »

Macha wrote: »

No contraception is 100% effective.Also rape?

Rape is another reason why I’m undecided.

If contraception doesn’t work then I’m afraid it’s a case of “if you play, you pay”. Unfortunate reality for people, but that is for sex educators to make clear to people. Not enough people in this country are accountable for their actions whether in work, life or in bed, they need to be.

All for that provided the father is held accountable too in terms of the impact on his life, income and career.

Muzzymor

erica74 wrote: »

Killing a toddler would be murder.

Whatever reason a woman or girl has for needing an abortion should be her own private business.

If you believe that whatever is aborted is just a clump of cells and not a life then that is indeed true. I have no interest in anything that anyone does as long as it doesnt harm another.
Yet many abortion rights proponents also claim abortion is the hardest decision a woman can make. Often people claim that people aborting girls in China etc is wrong, or aborting for superficial reasons is wrong, if someone had 10 abortions people would have a gut reaction to that and all I am asking is why?

I believe that the ending of a life is wrong and my personal view is that once the process is set in motion and a baby is forming inside someone, to use modern science to destroy that is essentially killing a human. I accept that this is too abstract a thought for some.

But what I do not understand is people who say that abortion isn't ending a life because the foetus or whatever is just a bunch of nothing, but then go on to say that abortion is the hardest decision a woman can make. Why is that? What is so hard about getting a load of nothing, a non living thing taken out of your body?