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

crustybla

I was chatting with an aunt and an uncle today, having a coffee. My uncle asked what this abortion stuff was about as he didn't know what way to vote. I kept it very general, explained the 8th and what the vote is actually about and what will probably happen if it passes. I was surprised by his reaction, I don't know why but I assumed he was pro birth, but he said he was going to read about it properly but would most likely vote yes. He said all else aside, it sounded like a law from the 1800's.

My aunt stunned me. I assumed she may be pro choice. She got very animated, upset even, and spouted how young wans would be off having sex with no contraception, because they barely use it as it is, and all they have to go is pop in for an abortion any time they want. No mention of the fella's in all this. But I was amazed. My uncle laughed and told her to fcek back to the 30's for herself. I tried to reason with her but got nowhere.

In other news I got a bottle of Moet as a gift last week and I don't want to open it as you know, it will be gone then. I'm gonna open it next weekend if yes takes the vote. Actually even if no takes the vote I'll drink it as I'll need to be medicated!

Just her

Nermal wrote: »

A hip replacement is pretty brutal. You'd want a strong constitution to watch open-heart surgery. I saw a screw put in a broken femur once, and it looked like wet carpentry. Can we ban all those surgeries too? They're pretty gross.

I don't think they are comparable. A life is lost in an abortion.

Overheal

Just her wrote: »

I don't think they are comparable. A life is lost in an abortion.

A life is lost in malpractice too!

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Logo wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're inexperienced or just not clued in but when you vote yes then you are voting for a 72 hour decision period before abortion within three months into pregnancy, and up to six months.

You are voting to create the conditions where a vast range of legislation can be put in place, in the knowledge that what is currently proposed but by no means guaranteed to be put in place is access to abortion without restriction up until 12 weeks. In ten or fifteen years that legislation could be very different.

If you really think the 8th should be repealed then vote to repeal it, if you don't think it should be then don't. The result of the referendum will have consequences that vastly outlast this government and any legislation they propose.

Skylinehead

pearcider wrote: »

That picture sums up the yes side. Head in the sand and not the type to ever have kids anyway.

Mod: Don't post in here again please. Not worth the effort.

Macha

Esmeralda Inexpensive Balloonist wrote: »

You are voting to create the conditions where a vast range of legislation can be put in place, in the knowledge that what is currently proposed but by no means guaranteed to be put in place is access to abortion without restriction up until 12 weeks. In ten or fifteen years that legislation could be very different.

If you really think the 8th should be repealed then vote to repeal it, if you don't think it should be then don't. The result of the referendum will have consequences that vastly outlast this government and any legislation they propose.

Ah the slippery slope argument. What is the evidence that the legislation would be revisited in the coming years and made more liberal? Has that happened in many other countries?

Logo

crustybla wrote: »

I was chatting with an aunt and an uncle today, having a coffee. My uncle asked what this abortion stuff was about as he didn't know what way to vote. I kept it very general, explained the 8th and what the vote is actually about and what will probably happen if it passes. I was surprised by his reaction, I don't know why but I assumed he was pro birth, but he said he was going to read about it properly but would most likely vote yes. He said all else aside, it sounded like a law from the 1800's.

My aunt stunned me. I assumed she may be pro choice. She got very animated, upset even, and spouted how young wans would be off having sex with no contraception, because they barely use it as it is, and all they have to go is pop in for an abortion any time they want. No mention of the fella's in all this. But I was amazed. My uncle laughed and told her to fcek back to the 30's for herself. I tried to reason with her but got nowhere.

In other news I got a bottle of Moet as a gift last week and I don't want to open it as you know, it will be gone then. I'm gonna open it next weekend if yes takes the vote. Actually even if no takes the vote I'll drink it as I'll need to be medicated!

I've also spoke with aunts an uncles. Lucky for me they were erect and I didn't have to bury them,

It wasnt me123

Just her wrote: »

I don't live far from the hospital, are you talking petrol expenses to go to hospital appointments? I'd credit all women that have opted for abortion that it didn't come down to hospital petrol expenses. My friend gave me some maternity clothes and I bought a few pieces in sales.

I think you are just being argumentative. I was not married when I got pregnant but married the father by the time she was born.

I had a lot of trouble getting time off work for appointments - there is a problematic medical history in my family so they had to watch me closely - I was single, paying a mortgage, now I had to miss work for appointments, buy maternity clothes (we don't all want your friends hand me downs), buy items for the baby be it clothes, nappies, etc.

I was also fired from my job by Kirsten Fuller's dad because i had congratulated him on becoming a grandad, but Kirsten wasn't married at the time. What a disaster. This so called good catholic man couldn't get me out of the place quick enough because I had made it public that his pro life earth mother daugther was pregnant before the wedding. I was a contract employee so my contract was terminated on the spot.

So, pregnancy does impact a woman's life - its not inconsequential, its life altering, totally. I hate Barry Fuller and everything he stands for because he's a hypocrite and so is Kirsten - they don't give a monkeys for the woman, only the contents of the uterus.

And I wanted my baby, this is a much loved teenager now - but the bomb did hit, my life turned upside down so don't anyone pretend its just spit them out on Monday and adopt them on Tuesday. A woman's hormones control her emotions, up one day down the next, you have no control over them. Being pregnant is a life altering experience, good and bad, and only the pregnant woman should have control over her body, nobody else.

Repeal all the way

Paranoid Bob

Just her wrote: »

Could I ask pro choice advocates if the there is a point in pregnancy at which they are uncomfortable with abortion, i.e at how many weeks would they disagree with abortion, if at all. Apologies I'm sure this has been asked before but I wouldn't know where to start to find answers on the thread

I think viability is about the right place to draw the line.
What that says is that as soon as there is a fair chance to give the child a life; to have the child survive outside the womb; then abortion is no longer an option. The child must be delivered and must be given every chance.


Even then; it is not easy. Perhaps half of all children born at 24 weeks will die, and many of the survivors will have health issues. But that is the point where you can take the stress off the mother's body and give her the best health outcome while also giving the child a fair chance to survive.

Just her

Macha wrote: »

Ah the slippery slope argument. What is the evidence that the legislation would be revisited in the coming years and made more liberal? Has that happened in many other countries?

But how could anyone provide evidence that this could happen in the future? Looking at UK laws it appears legal up to 24 weeks , so I could foresee an argument being made next should it be repealed that Irish women are traveling for abortion after 12 weeks to England and therefore looking to get it extended on that basis here too.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Macha wrote: »

Ah the slippery slope argument. What is the evidence that the legislation would be revisited in the coming years and made more liberal? Has that happened in many other countries?

Not to my knowledge, I'd imagine it's far more likely that the 6 month limit would be reduced as the point of viability comes down than any more "liberal" laws be introduced.

I think you may have misunderstood me too, I'm not making a slippery slope argument, I'm saying that given Logo's putative position "I want the 8th repealed but I don't like the proposed legislation" then they should vote to repeal and campaign for the legislation they want.

fxotoole

Logo wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're inexperienced or just not clued in but when you vote yes then you are voting for a 72 hour decision period before abortion within three months into pregnancy, and up to six months.

What makes you think the law will be enacted within 72 hours? You do understand that any legislation needs to go through a significantly long discussion process through the houses of the Oireachtas before its made law, right?

Sounds to me like you're not too clued in yourself.

Ave Sodalis

Just her wrote: »

But how could anyone provide evidence that this could happen in the future? Looking at UK laws it appears legal up to 24 weeks , so I could foresee an argument being made next should it be repealed that Irish women are traveling for abortion after 12 weeks to England and therefore looking to get it extended on that basis here too.

12 weeks brings us in line with the rest of the EU. The UK is actually much higher than the average.

wexie

Esmeralda Inexpensive Balloonist wrote: »

Not to my knowledge, I'd imagine it's far more likely that the 6 month limit would be reduced as the point of viability comes down than any more "liberal" laws be introduced.

Aside from that though, I think perhaps we need to worry less about what might happen in the future and more about what is happening in the here and now.

Just her

Macha wrote: »

Ah the slippery slope argument. What is the evidence that the legislation would be revisited in the coming years and made more liberal? Has that happened in many other countries?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/people-before-profit-would-settle-for-proposed-abortion-law-for-five-years-470010.html

NuMarvel

crustybla wrote: »

I was chatting with an aunt and an uncle today, having a coffee. My uncle asked what this abortion stuff was about as he didn't know what way to vote. I kept it very general, explained the 8th and what the vote is actually about and what will probably happen if it passes. I was surprised by his reaction, I don't know why but I assumed he was pro birth, but he said he was going to read about it properly but would most likely vote yes. He said all else aside, it sounded like a law from the 1800's.

The abortion laws in place back when the 8th was passed dated from 1861, so he wasn't far wrong!

They've been replaced since, but the new laws are only a small bit better. And coincidentally, those new laws were universally opposed by everyone campaigning for a No vote now.

Just her wrote: »

I don't think they are comparable. A life is lost in an abortion.

If you really believed that, then why the heck aren't you campaigning about all the women who travel. Why aren't you calling for more Gardaí resources to track down the women who import and use the abortion pill?

With an estimated 5000 Irish women having abortions per year, why aren't you, or anyone else on the No side, doing any of the things we would expect someone to do if they genuinely thought abortion was the taking of a human life?

Just her

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

12 weeks brings us in line with the rest of the EU. The UK is actually much higher than the average.

Yeah but a lot of the yes argument was to do with women going to the UK for abortion they couldn't access here

nozzferrahhtoo

Just her wrote: »

But how could anyone provide evidence that this could happen in the future? Looking at UK laws it appears legal up to 24 weeks , so I could foresee an argument being made next should it be repealed that Irish women are traveling for abortion after 12 weeks to England and therefore looking to get it extended on that basis here too.

An interesting statistical fact that I tend to mention when the conversation turns to this is that the numbers related to abortion stay pretty constant regardless of whether a given country has no legal abortion, restrictive legal abortion, or very liberal legal abortion.

If you look at those statistics it seems that regardless of whether you look at a country like ours where it is functionally illegal, or a country like the UK with 24 weeks, or a country like Canada with theoretically no limit............. the majority of choice based abortions happen by week 10 most of the rest by week 12.

So a conversation CAN be had about the possibility of future limits going up and down in Ireland of course. And I strongly doubt it will happen that limits will be set now and increased significantly later.

But seemingly for the most part it would not actually matter in any way even if it did. Uptake will, given all the data from other countries, remain pretty much constant either way.

Just her wrote: »

Yeah but a lot of the yes argument was to do with women going to the UK for abortion they couldn't access here

Well in fairness it is not that a lot of the yes argument is based on that, so much as a lot of the rebuttals of the no argument is based on that. Which sounds a bit like the same thing but is actually quite different really.

For example a few people claim we should "vote no to prevent abortions". And given 5000 women a year are going abroad from Ireland to have abortions, or are doing it themselves in some awful way, or are importing pills to do it illegally and with the possibility of a 14 year jail term hanging over them......... the claim voting no will prevent anything of the sort is pretty much destroyed.

Zubeneschamali

Just her wrote: »

Looking at UK laws it appears legal up to 24 weeks , so I could foresee an argument being made next should it be repealed that Irish women are traveling for abortion after 12 weeks to England and therefore looking to get it extended on that basis here too.

Since 90+ % happen before 12 weeks in the UK, and most of the rest will be allowed here anyhow because they are for medical reasons like health of the mother or FFA, there will be zero pressure to change.

It took the politicians 25 years to deal with the X case, they are not revisiting this in a hurry.

And the UK is not the only country in the world - other countries like France legalised later and more restrictively than the UK, and French women basically stopped travelling to the UK anyhow:

Abortion in France is legal on demand up to 12 weeks after conception (14 weeks after the last menstrual period).[1] Abortions at later stages of pregnancy are allowed if two physicians certify that the abortion will be done to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; a risk to the life of the pregnant woman; or that the child will suffer from a particularly severe illness recognized as incurable.

splinter65

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

Why don't the No side show pictures of woman giving birth to a baby with the screaming & the blood & cutting the cord?

What deliveries have you been present at?

Ave Sodalis

Just her wrote: »

Yeah but a lot of the yes argument was to do with women going to the UK for abortion they couldn't access here

And? One does not relate to the other.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

NuMarvel wrote: »

They've been replaced since, but the new laws are only a small bit better. And coincidentally, those new laws were universally opposed by everyone campaigning for a No vote now.

That's a very good point actually, and it's been consistent from Iona, the likes of Eamonn McGuinness and so on, and not just on the issue of abortion.

Society: "We'd like to change situation A to situation B"

Iona et al: "Situation B would be a disaster! It will cause untold damage! It's dangerous! We're only looking out for you"

Some years later

Society: "We'd like to change from Situation B to Situation C"

Iona et al: "Situation B is so good though! It's the best way to deal with everything! The whole world is in awe of our Situation B!"

SusieBlue

splinter65 wrote: »

What deliveries have you been present at?

Is screaming, blood and cord cutting not normal, common features during most natural births?

Macha

Just her wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/people-before-profit-would-settle-for-proposed-abortion-law-for-five-years-470010.html

So a party with less than 4% of the first preference votes in the 2016 election and a sum total of 6 TDs wants more liberal abortion laws and that's your evidence?

Got anything else? Otherwise, I think we can put this one squarely in the 'scaremongering' box.

Zubeneschamali

SusieBlue wrote: »

Is screaming, blood and cord cutting not normal, common features during most natural births?

If the cord is the only thing cut your doing well.

P_1

Just her wrote: »

Yeah but a lot of the yes argument was to do with women going to the UK for abortion they couldn't access here

In a lot of cases women who have to travel to the UK to avail of healthcare are near the 12 week mark by virtue of them having to arrange a trip to a foreign jurisdiction in the first place.

With the 8th repealed I'd be astounded if the majority of procedures didn't take place before the 7 week mark.

NuMarvel

Just her wrote: »

But how could anyone provide evidence that this could happen in the future? Looking at UK laws it appears legal up to 24 weeks , so I could foresee an argument being made next should it be repealed that Irish women are traveling for abortion after 12 weeks to England and therefore looking to get it extended on that basis here too.

The UK law was originally 28 weeks, and then later reduced to 24 weeks, so the trend is that timeframes are reduced, not increased.

The majority of EU countries are at 12 weeks, and not a single European country who set their timeframe at 12 weeks has subsequently increased it. And many of them have had that timeframe for decades.

Besides which, the vast majority of abortions happen before 12 weeks, even in countries that have longer timeframes. So even if the timeframe was extended, it would have no practical difference. Why would a woman who wants an abortion intentionally delay having it?

Just her wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/people-before-profit-would-settle-for-proposed-abortion-law-for-five-years-470010.html

That doesn't answer the question you were asked, which was what other countries have increased their timeframes for abotion on request. Of course, the answer is none, hence the evasion.

Just her wrote: »

Yeah but a lot of the yes argument was to do with women going to the UK for abortion they couldn't access here

It's to do with that they have to travel, not where they're travelling to. Women travel to the UK because it's the closest country and we speak the same language. Not because they think their abortion laws are better.

I'm sure you know this though.

Just her

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

I think you are just being argumentative. I was not married when I got pregnant but married the father by the time she was born.

I had a lot of trouble getting time off work for appointments - there is a problematic medical history in my family so they had to watch me closely - I was single, paying a mortgage, now I had to miss work for appointments, buy maternity clothes (we don't all want your friends hand me downs), buy items for the baby be it clothes, nappies, etc.

I was also fired from my job by Kirs azten Fuller's dad because i had congratulated him on becoming a grandad, but Kirsten wasn't married at the time. What a disaster. This so called good catholic man couldn't get me out of the place quick enough because I had made it public that his pro life earth mother daugther was pregnant before the wedding. I was a contract employee so my contract was terminated on the spot.

So, pregnancy does impact a woman's life - its not inconsequential, its life altering, totally. I hate Barry Fuller and everything he stands for because he's a hypocrite and so is Kirsten - they don't give a monkeys for the woman, only the contents of the uterus.

And I wanted my baby, this is a much loved teenager now - but the bomb did hit, my life turned upside down so don't anyone pretend its just spit them out on Monday and adopt them on Tuesday. A woman's hormones control her emotions, up one day down the next, you have no control over them. Being pregnant is a life altering experience, good and bad, and only the pregnant woman should have control over her body, nobody else.

Repeal all the way

I wasn't trying to be argumentative, a couple of points were pulled out of one of my posts and I did my best to answer everyone! To the best of my knowledge all employers have to give a pregnant woman time off for all their appointments by law. I'm new to this but is it not normal to argue on this forum?!

NuMarvel

Macha wrote: »

So a party with less than 4% of the first preference votes in the 2016 election and a sum total of 6 TDs wants more liberal abortion laws and that's your evidence?

Got anything else? Otherwise, I think we can put this one squarely in the 'scaremongering' box.

We can't even guarantee that PBP will still be around in five years, never mind that they'd have sufficient clout to get more than half the Dáil and Seanad to vote through changes in abortion laws.

splinter65

I’ve just posted but I’d think it would be a good idea if it were my last post, and I’d encourage any other no voters to withdraw from this thread and leave the repeal enthusiasts to discuss the referendum amongst themselves, as there maybe undecided voters lurking around this thread who could benefit from reading the unchallenged thoughts of the “yes” team.