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

erica74

Sanguine Fan wrote: »

I wrote 'encouraged', not 'made'.

Do you understand the psychological stress a pregnant woman experiences, especially if she has just been told there is a problem?

You make it sound as if she and her medic can discuss the options rationally and without emotion.

The real world is not like that.

I'm not so sure you're in the real world.

Sanguine Fan

NuMarvel wrote: »

It actually is.

The pre-1983 status quo was that abortion was a matter for the Oireachtas. There was nothing in our constitution about the rights of the unborn. The referendum we're being asked to vote on is to say that abortion is a matter for the Oireachtas. It restores the status quo.

You're wrong. We are being asked to insert a new clause in the Constitution, i.e. one that was not there before 1983. It reads:

"Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy."

Sounds innocuous, doesn't it?

Actually, it seems woolly to me. A bit like the 8th amendment in fact.

'Frying pan' and 'fire' come to mind. :eek:

Sanguine Fan

erica74 wrote: »

I'm not so sure you're in the real world.

Well, one of us isn't, that's for sure!

gctest50

Sanguine Fan wrote: »

You're wrong. We are being asked to insert a new clause in the Constitution, i.e. one that was not there before 1983. It reads:

"Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy."

Sounds innocuous, doesn't it?

Actually, it seems woolly to me. A bit like the 8th amendment in fact.

'Frying pan' and 'fire' come to mind. :eek:

More FUD i see


same old tactics

erica74

eeepaulo wrote: »

I posted this before, Professor Sabaratnam Arulkumaran who did the report into savita's death, this was what he said in the joint comittee



So he certainly thought it swayed good medical practice

No doctor's hands should ever be tied up like that, ever. It is madness to think of a doctor trying to interpret law when also trying to save someone's life when time is speeding by.
Can anyone imagine what that medical team went through during that? Obviously Savita's family and friends suffered a devastating loss and I would imagine that medical team are haunted every day by what happened. Haunted by an easily preventable death caused by our constitution.

Sanguine Fan

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

You cannot diagnose Downs before 12 weeks.

My point exactly. But not so long ago, it could not be diagnosed at all pre-birth.

But medical science advances inexorably.

Sanguine Fan

gctest50 wrote: »

More FUD i see


same old tactics

Huh?

_Dara_

Sanguine Fan wrote: »

Huh?

Indeed.

kylith

Sanguine Fan wrote: »

But look. Moving a basic human right from the constitution into the legislative chamber fills me with horror.

How much horror do you rethink a woman feels with the constitution removing her human rights?

Sanguine Fan

_Dara_ wrote: »

Indeed.

And it's goodnight from me...

patrickSTARR

Sanguine Fan wrote: »

If that was all we were being asked to vote on, I would not be in the undecided camp. I would vote 'Yes'.

But look. Moving a basic human right from the constitution into the legislative chamber fills me with horror. It's not that I don't get the fact that there are women suffering because of the wretched amendment, not to mention the medical wimps scared of being put in jail for doing their jobs, despite the present law.

It's the fact that the only way the legislators have come up with to deal with this is by making abortion available for any reason up to twelve weeks. And you can bet your bottom dollar that when medical science can detect abnormalities, like Down Syndrome, within this period, women will be encouraged to abort them.

Is that worse than the status quo? That's my dilemma.

Im on the fence on this vote, but I share the same concerns.

Abortion will be more normalised and the fact it could be available in this country to abort help healthy mothers abort healthy babies is my main concern.

Just because England has abortion, doesn't not mean its ok for us to follow suit.

The reason Im on the fence is because some women whos lives are in danger need the 8th removed.

I fear its a no win vote for me. But Im leaning on No

A foetus has a heart beat at 12 weeks, I cant say its ok to abort it no matter what the personal circumstances are of the mother. If shes not fit, that's not the unborn babies reason to die.

NAGDEFI

Sanguine Fan wrote: »

Is anyone else frustrated by the tone of the campaigns (around Dublin anyway)? The 'No' side seem to think that pro-choice people are baby-killers. The 'Yes' people present abortion as an extension of women's health care, ignoring completely the second human life involved.

It's probably too much to expect any common ground between two such polarised positions. But surely everyone can agree that there are some (rare) situations where terminating a pregnancy is the better course of action. And these cases cannot be decided in a court or a voting station. They are between the woman and her doctor, and we must assume good faith on both their parts.

The problem with the current referendum proposal is that it is a blunt object. Either we have no abortion at all or anyone who is pregnant can get one for any reason. I don't like either alternative.

Was it beyond the wit of the geniuses in Leinster House to come up with something better than this?

Excellent Post. The middle ground is lost. Everywhere it's like 1930s politics with people fleeing to the extremes.

NuMarvel

Sanguine Fan wrote: »

You're wrong. We are being asked to insert a new clause in the Constitution, i.e. one that was not there before 1983. It reads:

"Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy."

Sounds innocuous, doesn't it?

Actually, it seems woolly to me. A bit like the 8th amendment in fact.

'Frying pan' and 'fire' come to mind. :eek:

So you want outright repeal? Somehow I find that hard to believe...

eeepaulo

patrickSTARR wrote: »

Im on the fence on this vote, but I share the same concerns.

Abortion will be more normalised and the fact it could be available in this country to abort help healthy mothers abort healthy babies is my main concern.

Just because England has abortion, doesn't not mean its ok for us to follow suit.

The reason Im on the fence is because some women whos lives are in danger need the 8th removed.

I fear its a no win vote for me. But Im leaning on No

A foetus has a heart beat at 12 weeks, I cant say its ok to abort it no matter what the personal circumstances are of the mother. If shes not fit, that's not the unborn babies reason to die.

As someone who's on the fence do you have any positives for a yes vote?

BabysCoffee

Sanguine Fan wrote: »

Sofiztikated wrote: »

The 8th was, is and always will be, known as failure of an amendment.

If that was all we were being asked to vote on, I would not be in the undecided camp. I would vote 'Yes'.

But look. Moving a basic human right from the constitution into the legislative chamber fills me with horror. It's not that I don't get the fact that there are women suffering because of the wretched amendment, not to mention the medical wimps scared of being put in jail for doing their jobs, despite the present law.

It's the fact that the only way the legislators have come up with to deal with this is by making abortion available for any reason up to twelve weeks. And you can bet your bottom dollar that when medical science can detect abnormalities, like Down Syndrome, within this period, women will be encouraged to abort them.

Is that worse than the status quo? That's my dilemma.

Would you choose to abort a baby with Down Syndrome?

Would your wife, daughter, sister, friends choose to abort a baby with Down Syndrome?

Trust women to make the right decision for themselves.

Hooks Golf Handicap

Read up on the new NIPT test for down syndrome.

Abortion rates as high as 99% in Iceland and 98% in Denmark.

The word "eratidicated" is actually used in the reports.

NuMarvel

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Excellent Post. The middle ground is lost. Everywhere it's like 1930s politics with people fleeing to the extremes.

A Yes vote is the middle ground, it's not an extreme.

thee glitz

Sanguine Fan wrote: »

Is anyone else frustrated by the tone of the campaigns (around Dublin anyway)? The 'No' side seem to think that pro-choice people are baby-killers. The 'Yes' people present abortion as an extension of women's health care, ignoring completely the second human life involved.

A bit with the No side - they could be more positive, but I can see why they're doing it.

The Yes side have to completely ignore the unborn to sell abortion for any reason. One of their posters, hilariously, mentions 'Equality', without explanation, like it was just dropped in there out of habit. Presumably it's a different Equality than the 8th affords.

The problem with the current referendum proposal is that it is a blunt object. Either we have no abortion at all or anyone who is pregnant can get one for any reason. I don't like either alternative.

Was it beyond the wit of the geniuses in Leinster House to come up with something better than this?

The politically easier route is to go with the CA. If there's a No vote, they might come up with something better and redo the referendum.

Triceratops Ballet

Sanguine Fan wrote:

It doesn't matter, because if you would put adherence to an unjust law before your conscience then you should be gobsmacked!

Doctors, just like the rest of us, don't get to pick and choose what laws/constitutional articles they obey and which they don't. The fact is if their actions are deemed unconstitutional, it does not matter what a judge or jury thinks personally, they are bound by the constitution and compelled to act upon it which means sending them to jail for up to 14 years. The same is true for any woman found in possession of abortion pills.

Dressing gown

patrickSTARR wrote: »

Im on the fence on this vote, but I share the same concerns.

Abortion will be more normalised and the fact it could be available in this country to abort help healthy mothers abort healthy babies is my main concern.

Just because England has abortion, doesn't not mean its ok for us to follow suit.

The reason Im on the fence is because some women whos lives are in danger need the 8th removed.

I fear its a no win vote for me. But Im leaning on No

A foetus has a heart beat at 12 weeks, I cant say its ok to abort it no matter what the personal circumstances are of the mother. If shes not fit, that's not the unborn babies reason to die.

What hasn’t been explained clearly enough is the constitution is absolute. There is no wiggle room consideration of circumstance. Legislation serves the purpose of making the law. It is flexible. But the constitution is wrong on this. Health of the born has to come first. I cannot fathom that a mother to many children could be allowed to die for the sake of a very young fetus who would probably die anyway. Those scenarios happen and are wrong. Let the government legislate to better match the beliefs of society. But please help those women that you agree need your help.

Outlaw Pete

erica74 wrote: »

Imagine being a pregnant woman making your way into your maternity hospital. You're going in for another scan to see if your baby still has a heartbeat. See, you found out recently that your baby will not survive outside of the womb as some of the vital organs have not developed correctly. You are returning to your maternity hospital to see if there's still a heartbeat because until there is no heartbeat, the medical team looking after you can't do anything for you. You are returning to your maternity hospital wondering if today is the day you find out that your baby is dead. You are still foolishly hoping that maybe today the doctor will tell you they made a mistake and the baby is actually fine, a mistake was made. You are torn between that hope and the other side of you, the side that knows the reality. You're processing what feels like 100 different emotions and 1000 different thoughts when, at the entrance to your maternity hospital, you are greeted by gruesome images of foetuses and babies, at who knows what stage of gestation or birth. You begin to question yourself, question everything everyone has said to you about your baby, question everything you have said to yourself about your baby.

Does anyone think that that is right?

All you prochoicers go on about are these rare cases. You talk about little else. However, if you were all as concerned about those women (who deal with such pregnancies) as you'd clearly like everyone to believe, then why not just seek to repeal the 8th on the basis that those women alone would have access to abortion? Why tag '12 weeks for any woman for any reason' on also? I mean, isn't that risking losing the referendum? For the very women that this repeal is supposed to be all about?

To me that makes me doubt the sincerity of those who have spoke about nothing but the rare cases over the years, as I feel if prochoicers were genuine they'd have never risked losing this referendum by trying to get abortion on demand in at up to 12 weeks. They'd have left that foranother day and first ensured that the 8th was appealed for the women who needed it to be.


Mod-Banned

Triceratops Ballet

Outlaw Pete wrote:

All you prochoicers go on about are these rare cases. You talk about little else. However, if you were all as concerned about those women (who deal with such pregnancies) as you'd clearly like everyone to believe, then why not just seek to repeal the 8th on the basis that those women alone would have access to abortion? Why tag '12 weeks for any woman for any reason' on also? I mean, isn't that risking losing the referendum? For the very women that this repeal is supposed to be all about?

I would support a repeal in any circumstances, with or without legislation because the 8th amendment is not about edge cases it affects every pregnant woman in the country

Ave Sodalis

Sanguine Fan wrote: »

My point exactly. But not so long ago, it could not be diagnosed at all pre-birth.

But medical science advances inexorably.

Downs may or may not be diagnosable before 12 weeks in the distant future. It's doubtful.

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

Read up on the new NIPT test for down syndrome.

Abortion rates as high as 99% in Iceland and 98% in Denmark.

The word "eratidicated" is actually used in the reports.

And it will be 0% in Ireland

thee glitz wrote: »

A bit with the No side - they could be more positive, but I can see why they're doing it.

The Yes side have to completely ignore the unborn to sell abortion for any reason. One of their posters, hilariously, mentions 'Equality', without explanation, like it was just dropped in there out of habit. Presumably it's a different Equality than the 8th affords.

Not a single person in the Yes side have been ignoring the unborn. Also, selling abortion?!

The politically easier route is to go with the CA. If there's a No vote, they might come up with something better and redo the referendum.

Or it'll be put aside and not looked at again until something else serious happens.

Triceratops Ballet

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I would support a repeal in any circumstances, with or without legislation because the 8th amendment is not about edge cases it affects every pregnant woman in the country

Think pete was banned from the previous thread but sure that can be confirmed.

BabysCoffee

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

erica74 wrote: »

Imagine being a pregnant woman making your way into your maternity hospital. You're going in for another scan to see if your baby still has a heartbeat. See, you found out recently that your baby will not survive outside of the womb as some of the vital organs have not developed correctly. You are returning to your maternity hospital to see if there's still a heartbeat because until there is no heartbeat, the medical team looking after you can't do anything for you. You are returning to your maternity hospital wondering if today is the day you find out that your baby is dead. You are still foolishly hoping that maybe today the doctor will tell you they made a mistake and the baby is actually fine, a mistake was made. You are torn between that hope and the other side of you, the side that knows the reality. You're processing what feels like 100 different emotions and 1000 different thoughts when, at the entrance to your maternity hospital, you are greeted by gruesome images of foetuses and babies, at who knows what stage of gestation or birth. You begin to question yourself, question everything everyone has said to you about your baby, question everything you have said to yourself about your baby.

Does anyone think that that is right?

All you prochoicers go on about are these rare cases. You talk about little else. However, if you were all as concerned about those women (who deal with such pregnancies) as you'd clearly like everyone to believe, then why not just seek to repeal the 8th on the basis that those women alone would have access to abortion? Why tag '12 weeks for any woman for any reason' on also? I mean, isn't that risking losing the referendum? For the very women that this repeal is supposed to be all about?

To me that makes me doubt the sincerity of those who have spoke about nothing but the rare cases over the years, as I feel if prochoicers were genuine they'd have never risked losing this referendum by trying to get abortion on demand in at up to 12 weeks. They'd have left that foranother day and first ensured that the 8th was appealed for the women who needed it to be.

Every woman in Ireland needs the 8th repealed. This is about bodily autonomy for all women.

Ave Sodalis

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

All you prochoicers go on about are these rare cases. You talk about little else. However, if you were all as concerned about those women (who deal with such pregnancies) as you'd clearly like everyone to believe, then why not just seek to repeal the 8th on the basis that those women alone would have access to abortion? Why tag '12 weeks for any woman for any reason' on also? I mean, isn't that risking losing the referendum? For the very women that this repeal is supposed to be all about?

To me that makes me doubt the sincerity of those who have spoke about nothing but the rare cases over the years, as I feel if prochoicers were genuine they'd have never risked losing this referendum by trying to get abortion on demand in at up to 12 weeks. They'd have left that foranother day and first ensured that the 8th was appealed for the women who needed it to be.

As has been explained repeatedly, you CANNOT legislate for many of those cases. How exactly do you plan on legislation for cases of rape? What about all the many different cases? Do you just wait for something to crop up and go "oh yeah, maybe we should stick that into legislation at some stage"? DO you really think that'll happen given how long it took for them to think that maybe the 8th isn't such a good idea?

Ken.

Mod-Outlaw Pete is thread banned and now forum banned, please don't reply to him/her.

NAGDEFI

NuMarvel wrote: »

A Yes vote is the middle ground, it's not an extreme.

it is a matter of personal opinion.

dudara

I think it would be incredibly difficult (and woolly) to write a law that allows specific access to abortion. There will always be an edge case or reason that would require amendment.

Also, none of these would cater for the case where a woman just does not want to be pregnant. I know this point is what many anti-choice campaigners focus on. It’s also true. A woman might not want to be pregnant, no other reason. And the anti-choice campaign want to make her have a pregnancy and birth she does not want. That is enforcing her to live a life she does not want. That is not humane in my book.

For me, I think abortion up to 12 weeks, with strong restrictions thereafter strikes the best balance and I would hope to see it enacted after repealing the 8th.

It wasnt me123

patrickSTARR wrote: »

Im on the fence on this vote, .........
I fear its a no win vote for me. But Im leaning on No

I cant say its ok to abort it no matter what the personal circumstances are of the mother. .........

Clearly you are not on the fence.

One checks out and another checks in.

What happened to the suggestion that a poster has to be posting for at least 50 posts before being able to post in this thread.