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

freshpopcorn

vicwatson wrote: »

Same as

By any chance did it arrive with a "no" pamphlet? I've heard stories that An Post were requested to deliberately include a no leaflet with the voting cards

Be interested to know if there's any truth to it. mine arrived with a no leaflet

We got our Voting cards a week ago.
We got Yes/No information on Monday.
I saw on facebook somebody got their polling card with the Yes booklet. So, it can work either way.

Good to see this video of Frank, my dad worked with him in the building trade for a couple of years and he was always a gentleman.

https://m.facebook.com/Repeal8Galway/posts/169317263746335

Sheeps

First of all, thanks everyone for the response to my last post and I'm sorry for the twitter annotations, but I'll use them rather than multi quote which tends to break the readability of the thread.

@Ave Sodalis I think that's a pretty good rationalisation for the situation. Thank you. I think justifications like that make a stronger argument.

@Dressing gown An appeal to authority doesn't do it for me. If I were to hear their justification for why abortion is justifiable then perhaps it may persuade me, but not the fact that they've called for it alone. That being said I'll do my own research to find out exactly they've arrived at that stance they have. As you pointed out they are a reputable upholder of generally sound moral principal, so it's probably a very decent place to start looking for answers.

@gmisk Most of the human stories I've read on abortion don't really do it for me. I think it's an appeal to people's emotion, that the no side are also quite guilty of. I just feel that for any story where empathy serves the story teller, the empathy could be applied to the opposite side if the story were told in a different way. I couldn't bring myself to make a decision based on the way someone feels or felt in a situation, which is very often the narrative in these stories.

While I'm really looking for a very emotionless logical reason I don't feel like I'm going to get one from either side.

FingerDeKat

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Mine still hasn't arrived, nor has anyone else's in the house.

Same here.

I despair reading some of the comments here.

Vote yes.It's the right thing to do.

mc25

The Black Oil wrote: »

Read a No leaflet today. It talked about the health service being overstretched and how abortion on demand would add to this. Lovely attitude towards women, really.

Don't mean to sound flippant here; but wouldn't the thousands of extra babies put an even bigger strain on the health service?

(Apologies as this sounds like the economic argument for abortion - which I don't agree with!)

Ave Sodalis

Overheal wrote: »

Your neighbors?

I'd hate to think postmen were choosing what houses deserve a vote

I'm not sure... I'll see tomorrow

Kiwi in IE

antiskeptic wrote: »

What you don't appear to recommend reading is the HSE investigative report into Savita Halappinavar's treatment.

It points the finger at all sorts and recommends looking at everything, up to and including the Constitution, to prevent reoccurrance.

It has nothing negative to say about the 8th. Not one thing.

It anyone thinks otherwise then the thread in the Politics forum (Elections and Referendums: Outright lies...) is where I'll be

The outcome was medical negligence due to the failure to pick up sepsis in time!

Thing that we all know, despite that ‘pro lifers’ pretend not to, is that if she had been in the UK, or any other European country except Malta (and perhaps Poland, not sure where they stand in this situation), she would not have been left miscarrying an unviable pregnancy for an unreasonable, unsafe period of time due to the presence of a continued heartbeat and the 8th Amendment, and therefore she would not have developed sepsis in the first place!

Ave Sodalis

mc25 wrote: »

Don't mean to sound flippant here; but wouldn't the thousands of extra babies put an even bigger strain on the health service?

(Apologies as this sounds like the economic argument for abortion - which I don't agree with!)

Pretty much. Pregnant women would have to go to their GPs anyway. It's just another misleading "fact".

antiskeptic

gmisk wrote: »

Antiskeptic lots of other people have read it and responded to you directly....

In her shoes are real life stories by real woman and couples effected by this amendment, or are you suggesting they aren't genuine?

Like the 'genuine' story of noel the nurse that the no side trotted out.... Working all those years as a nurse...come on lol

I'm not doubting horror stories. The question is whether its the 8th to blame or something downstream of the 8th.

a) the 8th doesn't appear implicated in Savita Halappanavar or Michelle Hartes cases

b) Given the 2013 Act and the current medical guidelines derived from it, we're in an entirely different setting. Yes are arguing from the past

Overheal

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not doubting horror stories. The question is whether its the 8th to blame or something downstream of the 8th.

a) the 8th doesn't appear implicated in Savita Halappanavar or Michelle Hartes cases

b) Given the 2013 Act and the current medical guidelines derived from it, we're in an entirely different setting. Yes are arguing from the past

Might as well say the sky doesn't seem blue if you keep your eyes shut.

antiskeptic

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

The outcome was medical negligence due to the failure to pick up sepsis in time!

Thing that we all know, despite that ‘pro lifers’ pretend not to, is that if she had been in the UK, or any other European country except Malta (and perhaps Poland, not sure where they stand in this situation), she would not have been left miscarrying an unviable pregnancy for an unreasonable, unsafe period of time due to the presence of a continued heartbeat and the 8th Amendment, and therefore she would not have developed sepsis in the first place!

The official report disagree with you. I stress you.

Who should I believe?

antiskeptic

Overheal wrote: »

Might as well say the sky doesn't seem blue if you keep your eyes shut.

See you over in politics. Looking forward to you quoting the report.

The Black Oil

mc25 wrote: »

Don't mean to sound flippant here; but wouldn't the thousands of extra babies put an even bigger strain on the health service?

(Apologies as this sounds like the economic argument for abortion - which I don't agree with!)

Good luck to you if you're a woman dealing with post-partum depression or the even less well understood post-partum psychosis. Both heighten risk for suicide (watch this doc), no automatic screening for either. Not hearing any lobbying or newspaper columns from the oppressed to improve that situation, funnily enough.

Overheal

antiskeptic wrote: »

See you over in politics. Looking forward to you quoting the report.

Run along now.

freshpopcorn

Regarding canvasing/etc in my area.
The main difference this time compared to the marriage referendum is from what I have seen.
Yes has about six-eight people this time compared to over twenty for the marriage one. All are young enough apart for one man.
No, people are the same as last time but they have about four extra young people. So, they also six=eight.
From what I know of the groups some seem nice and enough and others wouldn't be the nicest.
Both sides tell the truth/accept people's believes/tell lies/hassle people/etc.

Ave Sodalis

antiskeptic wrote:

See you over in politics. Looking forward to you quoting the report.

So you can try and tell people that that isn't what the report says, that what you say is what the report says (even though it's written in plain english). What was the last one? That the law and the 8th have nothing to do with each other (or was it very little to do with each other?) and therefore the report doesn't mention the 8th (even though it does). Or was it that the professor wasn't a lawyer therefore his "opinion" doesn't count? Do you plan on stretching what it says even more?

Just her

NuMarvel wrote: »

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.

What assertions are you talking about? So I'm not allowed to say I think something will happen, but you are allowed to say ' no that definitely won't happen in the future, provide precedents or it's not possible!' but on the other hand when it is asserted that one in 5 or 6 babies could be aborted in Ireland if the amendment is repealed, as that is what happened in England, a precedent no less, do you accept that is something that could happen?!

Overheal

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

So you can try and tell people that that isn't what the report says, that what you say is what the report says (even though it's written in plain english). What was the last one? That the law and the 8th have nothing to do with each other (or was it very little to do with each other?) and therefore the report doesn't mention the 8th (even though it does). Or was it that the professor wasn't a lawyer therefore his "opinion" doesn't count? Do you plan on stretching what it says even more?

He does. That's all you can do when your argument hangs on by its last thread is to stretch it till it breaks.

Ave Sodalis

Just her wrote:

What assertions are you talking about? So I'm not allowed to say I think something will happen, but you are allowed to say ' no that definitely won't happen in the future, provide precedents or it's not possible!' but on the other hand when it is asserted that one in 5 or 6 babies could be aborted in Ireland if the amendment is repealed, as that is what happened in England, a precedent no less, do you accept that is something that could happen?!

Of course it's possible. It's also possible that the age of consent will drop to 5, and drinking age will drop to 12... but it's very very unlikely.

gmisk

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not doubting horror stories. The question is whether its the 8th to blame or something downstream of the 8th.

Yes are arguing from the past

Downstream of the 8th? Honestly I have never heard such nonsense.

Do you think a woman should have to travel to the UK due to a FFA and have the ashes delivered home to her while she is alone by a UPS man?
You tell that woman and people like her they haven't been effected by the 8th amendment!
Sure just tell them it's a downstream effect!
The only side stuck in the past are the No side imo, just look at the groups and people they are aligned with!

Just her

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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

Another poster wanted proof / evidence that the reason why UK abortion law went from 28 to 24 weeks was because doctors could keep babies alive from 24 weeks

Just her

Esmeralda Inexpensive Balloonist wrote: »

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.

Oh right, well I don't know how many times I heard the argument of women are traveling to England for abortions and therefore Ireland should bring in abortion. So when England provides abortions up to 24 weeks , in my opinion, the next argument will be women are traveling to England past 12 weeks for abortion therefore Ireland should provide it. That's just my opinion before anyone starts asking for evidence and precedents and back up !!

Just her

Macha wrote: »

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.

I'm really not.

Kiwi in IE

antiskeptic wrote: »

The official report disagree with you. I stress you.

Who should I believe?

Report said she died due to medical negligence, as sepsis was not picked up and treated in time. She would not have died if the sepsis has been treated in a timely fashion. This is fact.

However without the 8th Amendment, she would not have developed sepsis.

Do you think it is acceptable to put women at risk of life threatening illness, left miscarrying an unviable foetus often for days, because of the ideological value some people (not necessarily the miscarrying woman) place on heartbeat of an unviable foetus? In the vast, vast majority of western countries, an immediate termination would have been offered, as that is the best, safest practice in that situation.

If you think that this is a acceptable way to treat the wives, mothers, sisters and daughters of Ireland (and those like Savita who were unfortunate enough to be here, and would very likely still be alive if that had happened to her somewhere else), then go ahead and vote no. I hope you are never in a position where the risk to the life or health of a woman you love causes you to regret that vote!

Hellrazer

Sheeps wrote: »

While I'm really looking for a very emotionless logical reason I don't feel like I'm going to get one from either side.

Well heres an emotionless logical reason.

Forget about what each sides tactics are in pulling on peoples heart strings and think about this. Its about choice. And that is about a womans choice. The choice to do what she wants with her own body.

Forget about whether its killing a fully formed baby(No campaign) or just a bunch of cells (Yes campaign) and see it for what it is.

Im completely pro choice. I have 3 daughters and I firmly believe that they should grow up having a choice in their reproductive health up to and including termination if that's what they want.

Ave Sodalis

Just her wrote:

Oh right, well I don't know how many times I heard the argument of women are traveling to England for abortions and therefore Ireland should bring in abortion. So when England provides abortions up to 24 weeks , in my opinion, the next argument will be women are traveling to England past 12 weeks for abortion therefore Ireland should provide it. That's just my opinion before anyone starts asking for evidence and precedents and back up !!

The current proposed legislation will cover just about all the reasons women go to the UK within the proposed time frame. Travel to the UK after 12 weeks is usually due to having to gather the funds/time to travel, or due to FFA.

Just her

NuMarvel wrote: »

So you'll research the statements of other posters, but not your own. Grand so...



I know that you're not doing anything in this regard, because no one is. No one calling for women to be stopped from having abortions abroad. No one is calling for women who have illegal abortions to stand trial. In fact, many No campaigners have said the opposite and don't want women to be stopped or put on trial.

Seriously what are you talking about? I believed I was being challenged on why the English law went from 28 to 24 weeks so that is why I posted the link. What statement of my own would you like researched? Can I not have an opinion, no? It's like your using no campaigners heart and humanity against them. They aren't looking to put women on trial therefore .... what??

Kiwi in IE

Sheeps wrote: »

While I'm really looking for a very emotionless logical reason I don't feel like I'm going to get one from either side.

It is not logical or desirable to afford a life that requires full dependence on a host, separate rights that may be contrary to the rights of that host.

And consent! Women have the right to consent to all matters concerning their bodies. Foetus that is not viable outside the woman’s body requires her consent to remain inside!

Dressing gown

Just her wrote: »

Oh right, well I don't know how many times I heard the argument of women are traveling to England for abortions and therefore Ireland should bring in abortion. So when England provides abortions up to 24 weeks , in my opinion, the next argument will be women are traveling to England past 12 weeks for abortion therefore Ireland should provide it. That's just my opinion before anyone starts asking for evidence and precedents and back up !!

From the official statistics on abortion in England and Wales for 2016:

“Gestation
 Ninety-two per cent of abortions were carried out at under 13 weeks gestation and 81%
were carried out at under 10 weeks, which is slightly higher than in 2015 at 80%, and considerably higher than 2006 at 68%.”

Over that 10 year period the trend has been for the abortion to take earlier in the pregnancy.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/679028/Abortions_stats_England_Wales_2016.pdf

Pregnancy tests are improving all the time. So we are only going to detect pregnancy earlier and earlier. Viability dates have and will continue to be taken into account (it would be unethical not to). Pregnancy is not that much craic either so I don’t think it’s a strong argument to suggest that there will be a movement to legislate for abortion without medical reasons after 12 weeks in Ireland.

Sheeps

Hellrazer wrote: »

Well heres an emotionless logical reason.

Forget about what each sides tactics are in pulling on peoples heart strings and think about this. Its about choice. And that is about a womans choice. The choice to do what she wants with her own body.

Forget about whether its killing a fully formed baby(No campaign) or just a bunch of cells (Yes campaign) and see it for what it is.

Im completely pro choice. I have 3 daughters and I firmly believe that they should grow up having a choice in their reproductive health up to and including termination if that's what they want.

This is another argument I can't reconcile. I think that same argument can be made to justify smoking, drinking and drug use during pregnancy.

Whether someone is pregnant of their own free will, an accident or by force, the situation about free will over your own body is not the same once there's another life involved. I don't agree that a woman should have control over another human life like that simply because it resides inside of her.