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

Bannasidhe

Martin Micropenis wrote: »

Those scenarios are all consequences of the 8th.
You won't find many no voters actually happy that people have to go through them.

They are happy enough vote to retain them so no, I don't think they are that unhappy about putting women and those who love them through them at all.

joe40

I remember listening to a mother of a severely disabled child and her abiding hope was that she would outlive the child.

This was because there would not be sufficient care available for the child (now an adult) when the parent dies. It is very easy to judge people, but they have a right to make the best decision for themselves and the unborn.
We all heard of the awful story of the foster childs rape last week, the awful stories of neglect in nursing homes.
We're not great at the after care part. It is easy to be a no voter, when it doesn't affect you.

NAGDEFI

dudara wrote: »

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.

To abort a baby is not humane for No Voters. Is it not a case of an individual having a right to kill for no other reason than the pregnancy is inconvenient for her? No rape, FFA etc.

If perhaps a panel of doctors were to decide on individual cases.

Water John

In Savita's case, the majority of medics would have intervened, which would have been correct. But then that is a matter of opinion.
Once sepsis was diagnosed, and this may have been late in the day, intervention would be the norm. Sadly for Savita, the 8th held sway, in the minds of those charged with her welfare.

Zubeneschamali

Sanguine Fan wrote: »

Seriously?

And there was I thinking we lived in a constitutional democracy, with a parliament that decided on things like referendums?

Who was it then? The Priory of Sion?

William Binchy came up with the 8th (and still supports it).

The Citizen's Assembly came up with this proposal.

And you are not funny.

baylah17

NAGDEFI wrote: »

dudara wrote: »

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.

To abort a baby is not humane for No Voters. Is it not a case of an individual having a right to kill for no other reason than the pregnancy is inconvenient for her? No rape, FFA etc.

If perhaps a panel of doctors were to decide on individual cases.

The only people who need to decide are the women involved

kylith

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 "eradicated" is actually used in the reports.

Of diagnosed cases. Not all women will be tested. Also, Iceland in particular has a small number of births annually so the termination of one foetus with DS could be 100% of diagnosed cases.

dudara

NAGDEFI wrote: »

To abort a baby is not humane for No Voters. Is it not a case of an individual having a right to kill for no other reason than the pregnancy is inconvenient for her? No rape, FFA etc.

I understand their views. I don’t agree with them. And yes pregnancy can be “inconvenient” for women. Why do you think so many women currently have abortions and have been having them for millennia? I don’t think it’s pleasant, but I can also understand being terrified of a pregnancy that you don’t want and having it forced upon you.

suicide_circus

If they had asked "do you want to fully legalise abortion for medical reasons" there would be very little debate.

NAGDEFI

baylah17 wrote: »

The only people who need to decide are the women involved

In your opinion. Society has a duty to protect its weakest members such as the unborn. It's a moral imperative for many. Ultimately a democracy is judged on its treatment of minorities and the weaker elements in society.

Yours is but an opinion. Mine is also an opinion. There is no absolute right in either of our statements.

BabysCoffee

Doctors for Choice member Dr Tiarnan Murray explains the No posters in this video
https://youtu.be/BkF7BNCFP40

Ken.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

They are happy enough vote to retain them so no, I don't think they are that unhappy about putting women and those who love them through them at all.

That user has closed his account Banna. In case you were expecting or waiting for a reply.

NAGDEFI

dudara wrote: »

I understand their views. I don’t agree with them. And yes pregnancy can be “inconvenient” for women. Why do you think so many women currently have abortions and have been having them for millennia? I don’t think it’s pleasant, but I can also understand being terrified of a pregnancy that you don’t want and having it forced upon you.

For me those are not valid enough reasons for abortion, like FFA or Rape. There are 2 lives involved.

PhoenixParker

People talk about rare cases and how the repeal side is focused on those in order to somehow trick people into abortion for all.

First, the committee considered that and determined that the only way to help rare cases is to allow limited abortion on request.

Second, because of the numbers involved rare cases are not that rare. Nearly 64,000 babies were born in Ireland. If something has a 1 in 1000 chance of happening in a pregnancy it affected about 64 Irish women last year, that's without including those who miscarry or abort. I've seen a statistic that says 115 women travelled due to ffa in 2016. How many more couldn't or chose not to travel? How many others were affected by the 8th due to a pregnancy from rape, an incomplete miscarriage etc.?


There are hundreds of women every year being affected by these "rare" issues. They deserve a better constitution.

kylith

NAGDEFI wrote: »

To abort a baby is not humane for No Voters. Is it not a case of an individual having a right to kill for no other reason than the pregnancy is inconvenient for her? No rape, FFA etc.

If perhaps a panel of doctors were to decide on individual cases.

~5000 a year? The pregnancy would be complete and the child in college by the time they got through the backlog.

qxtasybe1nwfh2

NAGDEFI wrote: »

To abort a baby is not humane for No Voters. Is it not a case of an individual having a right to kill for no other reason than the pregnancy is inconvenient for her? No rape, FFA etc.

If perhaps a panel of doctors were to decide on individual cases.

How can a panel of doctors have the right to decide what’s a good enough reason? How do you prove to them that the baby is a result of rape? Why can’t a woman decide herself she wants on every or not? Doesn’t a baby deserve to be born to a parent that wants it? People are acting like it’s the same as getting a pet or something when actually having a baby is a life changing decision.

Abortions will still happen, people will continue to go to England.

gctest50

BabysCoffee wrote: »

Doctors for Choice member Dr Tiarnan Murray explains the No posters in this video

Need more like that

Wrongway1985

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

Not sure why just England (apart from being closest for procedure) keeps popping up bar a few exceptions countries considered developed all have the pregnant woman's wishes considered. Guess what Irish people happily live in those countries!

I don't know how anyone could say abortion will be normalized, abortion isn't what I'd call normal it is required when there's issues with the mother or child. Following a normal path would be bringing a child to term sadly that can't always be the case. Being aware that our women have abortions anyway by travelling legally or taking illegal substances and allowing it to continue as a result of the eighth that is not normal lads.

If a rape victim takes a pill to terminate pregnancy she could potentially get 14 years far more than an attacker might receive is that normal?

Achasanai

NAGDEFI wrote: »

To abort a baby is not humane for No Voters. Is it not a case of an individual having a right to kill for no other reason than the pregnancy is inconvenient for her? No rape, FFA etc.

If perhaps a panel of doctors were to decide on individual cases.

Somebody already mentioned the impracticality of this, which is one (very good) point. But another would be why would any woman subject herself to this if she can simply get abortion pills online? I'm assuming this was taken into account by the Assembly in recommending for the 12 weeks.

dudara

NAGDEFI wrote: »

For me those are not valid enough reasons for abortion, like FFA or Rape. There are 2 lives involved.

There is one human life, and one potential for human life. It’s a grey area when that potential becomes definite and I know developments in our society and our science will change and re-define our boundaries over time. Right now, I believe 12 weeks is an acceptable (for me) limit. I may not think the same in 10 years.

Once a woman becomes pregnant she loses her rights, and actually becomes one of the weakest, most vulnerable members of society under the 8th. Whatever you feel about abortion, I cannot see how you would disagree with this.

Zubeneschamali

Sanguine Fan wrote: »

Yes it does. Just go back to the pre-1983 status quo.

But that's not what we are being asked to vote on, is it?

No, not quite. The 8th made our old anti-abortion law unConstitutional, so it was replaced by the PLDPA. Otherwise, it's right back where we were with abortion law in the remit of the Dail.

PhoenixParker

NAGDEFI seems to have deleted the panel of doctor's comment.

Perhaps he's realised that the proposals for abortion up to 12 weeks already require the approval of a doctor before the abortion can take place.

Zubeneschamali

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!

You should call an Irish friend and ask them how to use the word gobsmacked.

NAGDEFI

dudara wrote: »

There is one human life, and one potential for human life. It’s a grey area when that potential becomes definite and I know developments in our society and our science will change and re-define our boundaries over time. Right now, I believe 12 weeks is an acceptable (for me) limit. I may not think the same in 10 years.

Once a woman becomes pregnant she loses her rights, and actually becomes one of the weakest, most vulnerable members of society under the 8th. Whatever you feel about abortion, I cannot see how you would disagree with this.

I do disagree. The 8th provides for equality but the mother's life takes precedence in any medical emergency. Of course you will get human error.

NAGDEFI

There were posts on this thread i reported 4 posts which used language towards No voters here such 'Go fcuk off', 'peanut sized brain No supporters' and the like yesterday evening.

Why is this thread not regulated like other threads? I got an infraction for calling those who went out during storm Ophelia as idiots. Why is there no regulation here?

I just googled and see boards.ie is owned by Distilled Media, who in turn own The Journal which is frequently quoted here for pro Yes side arguments.

Is Boards.ie a fair non biased forum or a sham where No supporters are cowed into submission?

Zubeneschamali

NAGDEFI wrote: »

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

translation: I'm losing.

dudara

A medical emergency that puts her life at risk. An emergency that puts her health at risk does not qualify. You actually have to be dying before a woman’s rights supersedes that of the child she is carrying. Tell me how that does not make her vulnerable?

Dressing gown

Achasanai wrote: »

Somebody already mentioned the impracticality of this, which is one (very good) point. But another would be why would any woman subject herself to this if she can simply get abortion pills online? I'm assuming this was taken into account by the Assembly in recommending for the 12 weeks.

Because counterfeit medicines are a massive business. Not simple. Not safe. For mother or fetus.

PhoenixParker

NAGDEFI wrote: »

I do disagree. The 8th provides for equality but the mother's life takes precedence in any medical emergency. Of course you will get human error.

It doesn't take precedence in any medical emergency, it takes precedence where her life is in danger. There are many medical emergencies where ones life is not in danger.

Poorly controlled type 1 diabetes during pregnancy resulting in blindness. Repeated epileptic seizures due to the sudden withdrawal of medication due to pregnancy being honour.

NuMarvel

suicide_circus wrote: »

If they had asked "do you want to fully legalise abortion for medical reasons" there would be very little debate.

If that was the question, you can be sure the No side would still be campaigning against it, saying it's the thin end of the wedge, it'll lead to abortion up to birth, it'll be a mess, etc, etc, etc. Everyone on the No side now previously objected to legislating for the woman's right to life in pregnancy, so I see no reason for believing they'd be fine with abortion in non-life threatening situations.

More to the point, good luck to you if you think you can come up with a constitutional provision that can cover that without causing problems in the futures. This is what people don't understand. We're not being asked in what circumstances we think abortion should be allowed. We're being asked what should our constitution say about it.