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

wexie

Just her wrote: »

I'm new to this but is it not normal to argue on this forum?!

well....I think the aim is debate...

Just turns out as arguing most of the time

:pac:

Ave Sodalis

Just to let people know that this is NOT a government information booklet:

Hellrazer

NuMarvel wrote: »

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

There is talk in the UK about reducing the upper limit to 20 weeks.

meeeeh

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

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

The difficulty is that UK actually doesn't have abortion on demand. Every abortion has to be signed off by two doctors that there is evidence woman will be in serious difficulty if pregnancy is continued (or something similar). It's a technicality used by no side to claim that Irish abortion will be more liberal when it suits (technically correct but in practice UK policy seems more liberal). And at the same time UK is used to scaremonger how bad things will be and how healthy babies will be aborted up to six months.

The proposed legislation is not modelled on UK and rightly so because theirs is a bit of a mess. At the same time comparisons with UK are not particularly helpful because they are very unequal society with the highest number of teenage pregnancies in Europe. As such they are not the country which we would want to emulate.

I come from a country with similar (a bit more liberal) laws as purposed in Ireland. Healthy pregnancies can be terminated up to 12 weeks with no questions asked after that it has to be approved by medical professionals for different reasons. The number of abortions fell significantly from very high numbers through the decades because the education is better, contraception is provided free and living standard is better. If people want reduce the number of abortions the solution is not to pretend they don't exist and export the problem. The solution is free contraception, good education and clear understanding and complete healthcare for women who find themselves in crisis pregnancy. And that can be provided only if the eight is repealed.

erica74

splinter65 wrote: »

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.

Excellent idea, those voters will now have access to facts, rational discussion and reasonable debate without reading a thread clogged up with No side nonsense that is not relevant to the actual upcoming referendum.

up for anything

My dad is 93 and his take on it is "if we trust the women to have and rear the babies then why can't we trust them to do the right thing for themselves?" This is a man who loves babies, dressed his full term stillborn first child and son and found the holiest ground he could to bury the baby himself to bring my mother comfort, he went through miscarriages with my mother and raised five children. He welcomed two of his unmarried daughters' babies during the 70s, welcomed his unmarried granddaughter's baby in the 90s and four years ago when I told him my daughter (yet another granddaughter) was going to be a single mother, he immediately said, "Good, you can never have too many babies. Tell her to leave it here and her grandmother and I will mind it while she gets on with making a life for them". So for him to say, "why can't we trust women to do what's right for themselves" including having an abortion if necessary means something based on his lifetime of experience.

Overheal

splinter65 wrote: »

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.

What are you expecting? The toys will come to life? Everyone will take off their masks to reveal their lizard personas?

Hellrazer

Overheal wrote: »

What are you expecting? The toys will come to life? Everyone will take off their masks to reveal their lizard personas?

Says the mod of conspiracy theories :D

Overheal

Hellrazer wrote: »

Says the mod of conspiracy theories :D

You better be careful what you’re inssinuating there!

Ave Sodalis

Hellrazer wrote: »

Says the mod of conspiracy theories :D

Says the mod of A&PI on a post about lizard people :D

Just her

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.

What kind of evidence do you expect me to provide of future happenings? These TDs have gone on the record and said they will lobby for further liberalisation in 5 years. Do you not believe them?

Ave Sodalis

Just her wrote: »

What kind of evidence do you expect me to provide of future happenings? These TDs have gone on the record and said they will lobby for further liberalisation in 5 years. Do you not believe them?

Evidence of it happening elsewhere would be good, particularly countries where there are similar cultural aspects. Stats of the relative increase in later term abortions would be good too.

Overheal

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Says the mod of A&PI on a post about lizard people :D

:eek:

Overheal

Just her wrote: »

What kind of evidence do you expect me to provide of future happenings? These TDs have gone on the record and said they will lobby for further liberalisation in 5 years. Do you not believe them?

Maybe you read it differently than I did, but I read it as no change to legislation for at least five years. Not “five years and a day, let’s have abortions for all at the last second, third abortion is a free set of steak knives; 90 day grace period where if you change your mind you can euthanize your newborn etc”

That’s five years to observe and monitor what is happening with abortion issues in Ireland under these changes in the law, before assessing what, *if any* changes should be made beyond that point. If things are going fine there’s no reason not to just continue on.

Just her

NuMarvel wrote: »

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?



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.



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.

I believe the timeframe was reduced from 28 to 24 weeks in the UK when they were able to save babies at an earlier gestation so they were 'viable' earlier. I have no time to find an answer to whoever asked how many other countries it happens in that it was increased. I just did a quick Google of the UK law as that is the one most talked about in this referendum. Excuse me if I don't have time to Google the limits and increases/decreases in every other country!!

fxotoole

Just her wrote: »

What kind of evidence do you expect me to provide of future happenings? These TDs have gone on the record and said they will lobby for further liberalisation in 5 years. Do you not believe them?

It's very unlikely their lobbying will succeed, given they are such a small, politically irrelevant party.

P_1

splinter65 wrote: »

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.

It must be a shame not to be able to whoop and cheer over rational argument as what happened in RTE on Monday.

erica74

Just her wrote: »

I believe the timeframe was reduced from 28 to 24 weeks in the UK when they were able to save babies at an earlier gestation so they were 'viable' earlier. I have no time to find an answer to whoever asked how many other countries it happens in that it was increased. I just did a quick Google of the UK law as that is the one most talked about in this referendum. Excuse me if I don't have time to Google the limits and increases/decreases in every other country!!

Well what did you form your opinion based on? You surely researched the matter and educated yourself in order to arrive at that opinion?

Macha

Just her wrote: »

What kind of evidence do you expect me to provide of future happenings? These TDs have gone on the record and said they will lobby for further liberalisation in 5 years. Do you not believe them?

I guess evidence that it's a real risk. As I said, the opinion of a party of 6 TDs is not enough to become government policy, which is what it would need to be.

So, you're scaremongering.

NuMarvel

Just her wrote: »

I believe the timeframe was reduced from 28 to 24 weeks in the UK when they were able to save babies at an earlier gestation so they were 'viable' earlier. I have no time to find an answer to whoever asked how many other countries it happens in that it was increased. I just did a quick Google of the UK law as that is the one most talked about in this referendum. Excuse me if I don't have time to Google the limits and increases/decreases in every other country!!

If you had no time to find an answer to the question you were asked, you should have just said that, instead of posting a link to a newspaper article with no commentary.

In any case, you now have the answer to your question; none. What's more, there's plenty of precedent in Irish law for politicians being slow to change abortion laws. Don't forget, it took us 20 years to update our laws about allowing abortion when a woman's life is at risk!

If you're going to say we should vote no because politicians might change the laws in the future, then at the very least you should be able to cite relevant examples to support the likelihood of that happening. I'm sure current and future politicians will lobby to either expand or limit the laws from what's proposed. But that's nowhere near the same as saying they're likely to be successful. Or that it would lead to an increase in later term abortions.

TL:DR - There are no precedents to back up your assertions, and being able to back up your assertions is the minimum we should expect on a matter as serious as this.

gmisk

up for anything wrote: »

My dad is 93 and his take on it is "if we trust the women to have and rear the babies then why can't we trust them to do the right thing for themselves?" This is a man who loves babies, dressed his full term stillborn first child and son and found the holiest ground he could to bury the baby himself to bring my mother comfort, he went through miscarriages with my mother and raised five children. He welcomed two of his unmarried daughters' babies during the 70s, welcomed his unmarried granddaughter's baby in the 90s and four years ago when I told him my daughter (yet another granddaughter) was going to be a single mother, he immediately said, "Good, you can never have too many babies. Tell her to leave it here and her grandmother and I will mind it while she gets on with making a life for them". So for him to say, "why can't we trust women to do what's right for themselves" including having an abortion if necessary means something based on his lifetime of experience.

Wow thank you so much for sharing that story.
Your dad sounds like a bit of a legend and a gent you must be very proud

Just her

erica74 wrote: »

Well what did you form your opinion based on? You surely researched the matter and educated yourself in order to arrive at that opinion?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9582428/Abortion-24-week-limit-QandA.html

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Just her wrote: »

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9582428/Abortion-24-week-limit-QandA.html

Not to put words in another poster's mouth, but I think the question wasn't "how did you form your opinion that the limit in the UK came down", but "how did you form your opinion that the limit in Ireland could go up".

I know you're saying that none of us can know sure what will happen in the future and that's true, but certain things are more likely than others. One benefit of being so behind other countries is that we can look to their laws and history to see what's more likely to happen.

Bannasidhe

Just her wrote: »

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9582428/Abortion-24-week-limit-QandA.html

I am confused - what does this have to do with the proposed legislation in Ireland?

c.p.w.g.w

Images of Dead Fetus and beyond disgraceful, i support the NO sides right to campaign...But horrid images that young children will see is an abhorrent campaign tactic.

Also the amount of actual science they tend to ignore is terrible too.

But some YES campaigners have also done some bad things, but covering up an imagine that may upset/shock a child is certainly well with the remit of being a decent human being

Dressing gown

Program on BBC2 now

Bannasidhe

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

But some YES campaigners have also done some bad things, but covering up an imagine that may upset/shock a child is certainly well with the remit of being a decent human being

Serious question, what bad things do you think Yes campaigners have done?
I ask in case they are genuine 'bad' things we can change in the campaign or if it's a case of individuals who are voting Yes doing things you disapprove of..

Sheeps

I'm undecided as to how I will vote and as much as I'd like to see a solution for hard cases and the stories of women being supported through the horrific time that they go through when they travel to the UK, but I really do have a lot of difficulty trying to reconcile why the constitution shouldn't apply to a child inside the womb. I'd be grateful if someone please explain or rationalise it for me with out an appeal to emotion.

Ave Sodalis

Sheeps wrote: »

I'm undecided as to how I will vote and as much as I'd like to see a solution for hard cases and the stories of women being supported through the horrific time that they go through when they travel to the UK, but I really do have a lot of difficulty trying to reconcile why the constitution shouldn't apply to a child inside the womb. I'd be grateful if someone please explain or rationalise it for me with out an appeal to emotion.

There are too many different reasons for having an abortion. Even within what's generally considered valid reasons. If we put it in our constitution, it takes too long to change (if ever) should a problem arise. We will just be patching mistakes again, rather than actually fixing the problems.

SusieBlue

Sheeps wrote: »

I'm undecided as to how I will vote and as much as I'd like to see a solution for hard cases and the stories of women being supported through the horrific time that they go through when they travel to the UK, but I really do have a lot of difficulty trying to reconcile why the constitution shouldn't apply to a child inside the womb. I'd be grateful if someone please explain or rationalise it for me with out an appeal to emotion.

I don’t know if this will alleviate any of your concerns, but before the 8th was voted into law the unborn didn’t have a constitutional right to life.

Despite this, abortion was still illegal, and crimes that were committed that caused a woman to miscarry her baby were prosecuted.
Babies born extremely premature still received excellent, life saving care.

The 8th being removed doesn’t mean it suddenly won’t be a crime to cause a woman to lose her baby or that sick, premature babies won’t be cared for properly.