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

Dressing gown

We definitely don’t want to end up like England. They have crazy laws over there like restrictions on the use of words deemed sensitive when used in a company name. These sensitive words require approval of the Secretary of State before they can be used. For instance words like “institute” or “institution”.

“institute or institution - approval for use of these words is normally given only to those organisations which are carrying out research at the highest level or to professional bodies of the highest standing. You will need to show that there is a need for the proposed institute and that it has appropriate regulations or examination standards. You will need evidence of support from other representative and independent bodies.“

Totally unethical we would not want to interfere with the autonomy of an organisation over what they call themselves-that’s their business.

We only what to interfere with what women do with their bodies.

Just her

SusieBlue wrote: »

Do you believe it should have an equal right to life as its mother?

Do you accept that the wording in the constitution has and will continue to cause confusion during medical emergencies because the line isn't clear for doctors?

And do you accept that if a woman is unwell or has a threat to her health (not her life, her health) that the only person who should have a say in whether she continues with her pregnancy is herself?

And if you don't agree with that, can you see that you are categorically putting the rights of the fetus over the rights/health of the mother? So they aren't actually equal at all?

This is what it all boils down to. Its a badly worded dangerous piece of text. It needs to go.

I believe that hard cases make bad laws. Also that pro choice tend to concentrate on these cases to further their cause. But their cause isn't just about these cases. Far from it. I believe pro choice utilise the difficult cases to usher in abortion on demand. 97 to 98 percent of abortions in the UK are carried out under threat to mental health. One in 5 or 6 pregnancies. Essentially abortion on demand. I have heard Irish obstetricians coming out to say that the 8th hasn't affected their treatment of pregnant women. The foetus/baby is being granted no rights at all.

seamus

erica74 wrote: »

I think the Together for Yes leaflets, delivered to houses this week, are very informative and educational.

I haven't seen one of these leaflets, but someone I know who's a strong "No" purely because the church says so, didn't throw her T4Y leaflet straight in the bin. I spotted the corner of it sticking out from a pile in her kitchen.

So that's something

meeeeh

Flying Fox wrote: »

I think on a national level the Yes side needs to do more to counter the No lies. We're doing our best on the doors but there needs to be a concerted effort from above. There is an emphasis on compassion and on FFA, rape, etc, but people have genuine concerns about 12 weeks and they need to be answered properly. I have found in conversations with people that when they are given the reasoning behind the 12 weeks, the comparison to the rest of Europe, and the stats on abortion rates in other countries after legalisation, they tend to come round to Yes. We need to actively address this and not just talk about compassion.

I think that's probably vital for this campaign. People who agree with abortion in hard cases need to be persuaded that they are not doing damage (in their mind) by voting yes. And they are not because women who want an abortion will have an abortion. The question is if they are afforded proper health care or not. My personal experience is not overly relevant but in this case it might be. I had a very bad miscarriage and lost a serious amount of blood. My husband found me passed out in the shower. I ended in hospital, had a procedure and needed blood transfusion because of loss of blood. Imagine a woman who in secret in their own home takes a pill and has some complications. She doesn't want to tell her family and friends and she is afraid to look for medical help. Is anyone here prepared to sacrifice the life of that woman as something that unfortunately happens. The same woman could safely discuss their intent to end pregnancy with their gp, she might even change her mind when all options are discussed but whatever she would decide, it would be a lot safer than ordering pill on the internet and doing it in secrecy. Sometimes the impression is given that pill is an easy option, it is not, it's messy and very draining and sometimes dangerous. I never had an abortion but the pill is basically the same to miscarriage. I decided for a procedure under anaesthetic even the next time when it was maybe not strictly necessary because I didn't want to go through the whole thing again. There is no choice between abortion and no abortion, the choice is what kind of health care we provide to those in crisis pregnancy.

Zubeneschamali

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.

Here is my basic reason: I am married, and I have 3 kids. When my wife was pregnant, her life was not of equal value to the life of her unborn at, for example, 8 weeks.

A pregnancy at that stage has a very real chance of going nowhere. You don't even announce it to people in case you jinx it. It is not a baby.

The 8th says that legally, that 8 week unborn embryo has an equal right to life with my wife. It is blatantly, obviously wrong. It should be repealed.

Hotblack Desiato

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Slightly left of the point, but I think it's sad that women should have to be nicey nice when simply asking for the rights to bodily autonomy. It's something the men in our lives have by default but we have to to play nice to get it. Heaven forbid we should get angry about what we're being denied.

Yes, that argument has some merit but it's getting perilously close to the "I would have voted Yes if it wasn't for those in your face gheys" nonsense from three years ago.

Hotblack Desiato

kylith wrote: »

Their remit is to promote religion. How are they promoting religion here?

Well, as the 8th was motivated by religion and brought to us by hardline religious activists and the Roman Catholic Church...

Just her

wexie wrote: »

Or perhaps people just don't think that a foetus isn't a baby.

I also don't think that an egg is a chicken yet I fully accept that an egg might turn into a chicken.

A chicken isn't the same comparison as a baby, you wouldn't eat a baby

pjohnson

Just her wrote: »

A chicken isn't the same comparison as a baby, you wouldn't eat a baby

Well you avoided the point about potential/evolution impressively.

SusieBlue

Just her wrote: »

I believe that hard cases make bad laws. Also that pro choice tend to concentrate on these cases to further their cause. But their cause isn't just about these cases. Far from it. I believe pro choice utilise the difficult cases to usher in abortion on demand. 97 to 98 percent of abortions in the UK are carried out under threat to mental health. One in 5 or 6 pregnancies. Essentially abortion on demand. I have heard Irish obstetricians coming out to say that the 8th hasn't affected their treatment of pregnant women. The foetus/baby is being granted no rights at all.

But I'm not talking about hard cases?
My post didn't refer to hard cases at all. It actually refers to every single case. Every single pregnancy.
Every single pregnancy in this country is cared for under the guise that the fetus has a right to life equal to that of the mother.

So I'm asking, are you comfortable with this?
And do you accept that if a woman is unwell or has a threat to her health (not her life, her health) that the only person who should have a say in whether she continues with her pregnancy is herself?

And if you don't agree with that, can you see that you are categorically putting the rights of the fetus over the rights/health of the mother? So they aren't actually equal at all?

wp_rathead

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Slightly left of the point, but I think it's sad that women should have to be nicey nice when simply asking for the rights to bodily autonomy. It's something the men in our lives have by default but we have to to play nice to get it. Heaven forbid we should get angry about what we're being denied.

I do agree though in terms of the campaign, flies honey etc

fully agree, too passionate about having body autonomy and they'll be labeled "shrill"
if you wanna see "shrill" you should see a bunch of lads watching sport in a pub (I include myself)

Just her

Sofiztikated wrote: »

I'll generally call it a baby when referring to what's inside a woman.

The distinction is, when you are trying to be accurate, wording helps.

Why are you an adult at 18, but at 17 years, 354 days you are still a child? They're virtually the same thing.

If someone brought you to an empty site, and said there's my house, you'd be right to think he was wrong. You know what he means, but he's still wrong.

An empty site you could compare to an empty womb. What if the house was half built? Would you agree with him calling it his house then?

antiskeptic

SusieBlue wrote: »

Do you accept that the wording in the constitution has and will continue to cause confusion during medical emergencies because the line isn't clear for doctors?

The doctors aren't guided by the Constitution, they are guided by Medical Council Guidelines. Those guidelines have changed since Savita and Michelle. They sound pretty flexible to me: no need for the risk to life to be imminent, no need for the risk to life to be sure of transpiring.

Do you believe that Savita would happen under the current guidelines?

And do you accept that if a woman is unwell or has a threat to her health (not her life, her health) that the only person who should have a say in whether she continues with her pregnancy is herself?

Are you suggesting abortion on the basis of undefined threat to health, on the say so of the woman, up to delivery?

.......

This post has been deleted.

wexie

Just her wrote: »

A chicken isn't the same comparison as a baby, you wouldn't eat a baby

100% correct, a chicken isn't the same as a baby.

and neither is a foetus.

I think we might actually be getting somewhere

Sofiztikated

Was talking to my father in law yesterday about this, he was undecided, and one of the people I know that came through one of the M&B homes.

He saw the thing the other night.

His view on Steen? "She's exactly the type of person that shamed my mother into giving me up because she wasn't married, and is now trying to shame other young girls into making babies, and give them up too."

He's now a yes supporter.

.......

This post has been deleted.

meeeeh

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Yes, that argument has some merit but it's getting perilously close to the "I would have voted Yes if it wasn't for those in your face gheys" nonsense from three years ago.

There is no comparison to marriage referendum, the margin is so much tighter that undecided or reluctant voters matter. Reluctant yes voter will not help you if they decide not to go to the polling station and vote.

nozzferrahhtoo

Just her wrote: »

I believe that hard cases make bad laws. Also that pro choice tend to concentrate on these cases to further their cause.

Or could it be that you only focus on the pro choice people who do that, and so give yourself the impression the "tend to" do it?

I, for example, never do it. It simply is not an attribute of my position on abortion at all. But you very rarely acknowledge or respond to my points or posts.

I suspect there is a strong possibility you are seeing what you want to see.

Just her wrote: »

The foetus/baby is being granted no rights at all.

I keep trying to put myself in the position of being entirely against abortion.

And what I find time and time again is the assumption that IF I felt the fetus should have rights and IF I felt it was being denied them............ the first thing I would do is construct a clear and convincing argument as to WHY it should have them.

Is that an insane approach? And if not, could you suggest to me why that is EXACTLY the move people like yourself are not making?

Just her wrote: »

An empty site you could compare to an empty womb. What if the house was half built? Would you agree with him calling it his house then?

No, I would.... and in fact often do.... call it a construction site. As does everyone else I personally know. But even more subtely I would also recognize the difference between calling it a "house" and calling it a "home". And THAT is the kind of distinction you are brushing under the carpet between things like "fetus" and "Baby".

pjohnson

Just her wrote: »

Would you agree with him calling it his house then?

No?

wexie

Sofiztikated wrote: »

His view on Steen? "She's exactly the type of person that shamed my mother into giving me up because she wasn't married, and is now trying to shame other young girls into making babies, and give them up too."

That is probably one of the most correct analogies I've heard in this entire debate so far. And it goes for so many anti-choicers out there.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Just her wrote: »

A chicken isn't the same comparison as a baby, you wouldn't eat a baby

Which is not the criteria under which they're being compared.

I wouldn't eat a snake, so let's go with an egg is different from a snake even though it'll develop into one.

I've an awful feeling you're going to point out that babies aren't venomous and don't have scales or something but that really doesn't undermine the comparison.

Would you look at some of the videos on the Doctors For Choice pages on social media with an open mind and see what you think? They're probably better at presenting the arguments than multiple people responding to each of your posts here.

pjohnson

Esmeralda Inexpensive Balloonist wrote: »

I wouldn't eat a snake, so let's go with an egg is different from a snake even though it'll develop into one.

I've an awful feeling you're going to point out that babies aren't venomous and don't have scales or something but that really doesn't undermine the comparison.

Probably be snakes dont have legs now. Lets keep pre-empting the excuses :pac:

SusieBlue

antiskeptic wrote: »

The doctors aren't guided by the Constitution, they are guided by Medical Council Guidelines. Those guidelines have changed since Savita and Michelle.

Do you believe that Savita would happen under the current guidelines?

Oh would you give over. The medical council guidelines are made with the current laws at the forefront. The guidelines reflect the constitution.

And yes, I do believe it would happen under current guidelines. Here is one that happened in 2014, a woman with the same circumstances as Savita who thankfully didn't lose her life.

Are you suggesting abortion on the basis of undefined threat to health, on the say so of the woman, up to delivery?

If there was a known defined threat to the health of the woman I absolutely believe she should be offered a termination at any point of her pregnancy.

If that was to occur after 23 weeks it would result in an early delivery of a baby who would be given the best care possible. There would be no full term abortions like you're trying to imply.

wexie

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I keep trying to put myself in the position of being entirely against abortion.

And what I find time and time again is the assumption that IF I felt the fetus should have rights and IF I felt it was being denied them............ the first thing I would do is construct a clear and convincing argument as to WHY it should have them.

Is that an insane approach? And if not, could you suggest to me why that is EXACTLY the move people like yourself are not making?.

Because...well....it can't be done

You inevitably end up with : because I feel so, because the Church says etc. etc.
There simply aren't any logical arguments to support that position. Plenty of emotional ones, religious ones...not a single logical or scientific argument.

NOT

A

ONE

Hotblack Desiato

freshpopcorn wrote: »

He's very unsure about this tough in some ways he'd support abortion but in other ways he wouldn't but Maria Steen has a way of picking up the a la carte Catholic especially in this from what I've seen.
He's know idea who IONA are tough.

You should inform him that they're a hardline "Christian" (Catholic with, I think, 1 token Prod) group who basically want to turn Ireland into a 1930s-1950s style theocracy.

Whose funding is entirely opaque even though it has charitable status.

Which campaigns politically even though it has charitable status and other charities have been prevented from so much as hosting a mural.

Whose "patrons" write regular columns in the media attacking homosexuality, contraception, surrogacy, single parents, adoption by non-married or gay couples, non-Catholic education, or any move towards a more secular and equal society, etc. as well as abortion of course

Who play down and minimise the abuses of the Catholic Church in their statements and columns at every opportunity

Whose patron David Quinn supported a campaign stating "every child needs its father and mother" but has adopted two children himself from overseas.

Who opposed the referendum to give born children specific rights in the constitution - how's that for hypocrisy?

wexie

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You should inform him that they're a hardline "Christian" (Catholic with, I think, 1 token Prod) group who basically want to turn Ireland into a 193s-1950s style theocracy.

I think you're being a bit too charitable here.

Extremist is the word I'd use

And extremism (of any flavour) is bad mmmmkay?

erica74

Just her wrote: »

I believe that hard cases make bad laws. Also that pro choice tend to concentrate on these cases to further their cause. But their cause isn't just about these cases. Far from it. I believe pro choice utilise the difficult cases to usher in abortion on demand. 97 to 98 percent of abortions in the UK are carried out under threat to mental health. One in 5 or 6 pregnancies. Essentially abortion on demand. I have heard Irish obstetricians coming out to say that the 8th hasn't affected their treatment of pregnant women. The foetus/baby is being granted no rights at all.

I have posted about all cases, all situations, all circumstances, and, actually, the majority of Yes posters and leaflets I see speak about all cases, situations and circumstances. However, ultimately the reason is irrelevant. We are not making changes for individuals, we are making changes for all women, whether they have had an abortion or will have an abortion, for any and every reason.

Also, you seem to be implying that those women who have had an abortion under mental health grounds have swindled the system? How have you come to that opinion? What would qualify as under mental health grounds in your opinion?

Dressing gown

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Was talking to my father in law yesterday about this, he was undecided, and one of the people I know that came through one of the M&B homes.

He saw the thing the other night.

His view on Steen? "She's exactly the type of person that shamed my mother into giving me up because she wasn't married, and is now trying to shame other young girls into making babies, and give them up too."

He's now a yes supporter.

Nail on head by your dad. I think the support of shame whether overt or covert is what really sickens me about the no side.

Grayson

pleas advice wrote: »

Not just human DNA. It is a genetically separate human entity.

Using stuff like crispr you can easily create new unique human DNA at home. It's not hard. Just being unique DNA isn't hard.
That's why I said possessing DNA isn't enough.