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

PlaneSpeeking

Mrsmum wrote: »

Touchee wrote: »

But that is fine for you! You can make that choice of suffering all you want.
However, I should also have a choice of not suffering, if that is what I want.

By 'suffering' I mean no pregnancy is a walk in the park but that alone imo (and we all have our own opinions which we will take into the ballot booth with us) is a pretty poor reason to stop the baby in it's tracks.

Oh you really have zero clue!

AnneFrank

ELM327 wrote: »

No, there will be nothing further heard, like after the divorce and SSM referenda.
Unless there's a no vote, in which case the campaign for another referendum in 3-5 years when more godbotherers will have died off will begin in earnest.

Haha you really keep pushing the god thing, that has no basis in my decision to vote no, maybe the other 26% !!

January

ELM327 wrote: »

No, there will be nothing further heard, like after the divorce and SSM referenda.
Unless there's a no vote, in which case the campaign for another referendum in 3-5 years when more godbotherers will have died off will begin in earnest.

Stahp, 3-5 years? How long was it between Lisbon 1 and 2? We'll be campaigning for another referendum asap if this one is defeated. It's just too important an issue to let lie for another few years.

PlaneSpeeking

AnneFrank wrote: »

ELM327 wrote: »

No, there will be nothing further heard, like after the divorce and SSM referenda.
Unless there's a no vote, in which case the campaign for another referendum in 3-5 years when more godbotherers will have died off will begin in earnest.

Haha you really keep pushing the god thing, that has no basis in my decision to vote no, maybe the other 26% !!

Likewise my Catholicism has nothing to do with my vote here being yes or my yes vote in the previous equal marriage vote.

However I'm telling the truth so....

Mrsmum

BabysCoffee wrote: »

Would you agree with a woman having an abortion if due to epileptic seizures she might end up brain damaged due to having to come off her medication? Oh and she also has 3 children who need her well & healthy and a husband who wants her around in full health for the next maybe 40 years or so.

Yes if a doctor says she is in danger of that happening, the as far as practicable rule should apply imo.

Mrsmum

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Oh you really have zero clue!

Well I have had four children plus five miscarriages so I know at least as much from personal experience as many people on here.

PhoenixParker

Mrsmum wrote: »

Yes if a doctor says she is in danger of that happening, the as far as practicable rule should apply imo.

Her life is not at risk.
Nothing the doctor can do.

January

January wrote: »

Stahp, 3-5 years? How long was it between Lisbon 1 and 2? We'll be campaigning for another referendum asap if this one is defeated. It's just too important an issue to let lie for another few years.

If we lose this one, I can see another referendum in a couple of years but with an amendment to the constitution to cover FFA only. That will pass easily but I'd say there'll be a reluctance from politicians to go any further. BUT I'm hoping this campaign will make women realise they can speak out about their experiences and the campaign to repeal will be even stronger next time. Still confident we can do it this time though!

amcalester

Mrsmum wrote: »

Well I have had four children plus five miscarriages so I know at least as much from personal experience as many people on here.

You know enough to confirm your own views but not enough to consider all aspects.

That’s clear from your repeated denials that women are being denied treatment despite not being pregnant.

BabysCoffee

Mrsmum wrote: »

Yes if a doctor says she is in danger of that happening, the as far as practicable rule should apply imo.

Thankfully when the 8th is repealed the as far as practicable clause won't come in to it. It will be purely the choice of the woman with guidance from her doctor and the support of her partner and children along with I'm sure the relief of her extended family & loving friends.

Mrsmum

ELM327 wrote: »

No worries there, 27%.
You're diverting again.

At least you or your child wasn't killed by the church and buried in a sewer in tuam.
Or abused for their whole life in the magdelene laundries.

Love , care, compassion and human rights will win.
Your doctored photos, lies, and trolling will lose.
We have love on our side.

#trustourwomen
#repealthe8th

Absolutely nothing to do with anything I have written in my posts. And you say I'm diverting !

Touchee

Mrsmum wrote: »

By 'suffering' I mean no pregnancy is a walk in the park but that alone imo (and we all have our own opinions which we will take into the ballot booth with us) is a pretty poor reason to stop the baby in it's tracks.

Regardless of the reason, I should have a choice. Before a pregnancy, we are women with full autonomy over our bodies. As soon as we become pregnant, we somehow lose that autonomy and have to be told by other people what we can or cannot do. The loss of autonomy is so obvious, as it has been specifically included in the Constitution.

This is so unfair => denying me my right to do whatever I please with my body. I have a mental block while trying to understand why so many people have the right to vote on my body.

You are defending the pregnancy, I am defending the woman. The pregnancy would not exist without a woman's womb. As such, we cannot hold more value on the pregnancy over the woman.

Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, but I cannot understand why do I have to be dictated by other people on what I can do with my body.

justshane

wexie wrote: »

Which one? The putting the rocks down in 'repeal' or the removing of said rocks?

Or both?

The removing of the rocks. If someone puts in considerable effort to make a sign fair play to them, leave it. If the rock formation said vote no and was removed then I'd still find the act pathetic.

Mrsmum

Mrsmum wrote: »

For me it depends on the seriousness of your sickness. It's a balancing act whereby the woman's life should never ever be at risk so if the pregnancy is downright dangerous to the woman, the doctor treating her should operate on the "as far as practicable" rule for the baby's life. The ideal is for yourself and your baby to be fine. All pregnant women suffer to a greater or lesser degree in order to produce offspring, it's part of the price we pay and it's usually worth it. I don't think it's right to end the baby's life because a woman is having a very tough pregnancy but as above if that tips over into real concern that's the point the doctor puts the woman first.

Personally, if my health is at risk then I want the right to decide what medical treatment is best for me. Taking into account ALL information from medical professionals.
Are you seriously saying that you think I should actually be dying before I get treatment?

PlaneSpeeking

Mrsmum wrote: »

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Oh you really have zero clue!

Well I have had four children plus five miscarriages so I know at least as much from personal experience as many people on here.

Yet you did not believe me that my pain was real or worth saving. You'll note I'm affording you the respect you denied me earlier.

Richard Hillman

Richard Hillman wrote: »

2. People will show up 12+ weeks pregnant to a doctor and say they are depressed, may I please have an abortion.
.

By people, you obviously mean women.
So, why do you think that a woman who can request an abortion at anytime before 12 weeks of pregnancy, would somehow wait till she is 20 weeks before asking for an abortion?
Exactly what do you think of women?

PlaneSpeeking

Just taken my pain meds just so I can do some housework.

Leaving myself at risk of opiate addiction or overdose (sometimes 2 make no difference and I'll take more- or a mix of them plus codeine just so I can exist).

Love Both my hole. I don't matter.

amcalester

bubblypop wrote: »

Exactly what do you think of women?

Not much it would appear.

Mrsmum

Touchee wrote: »

Regardless of the reason, I should have a choice. Before a pregnancy, we are women with full autonomy over our bodies. As soon as we become pregnant, we somehow lose that autonomy and have to be told by other people what we can or cannot do. The loss of autonomy is so obvious, as it has been specifically included in the Constitution.

This is so unfair => denying me my right to do whatever I please with my body. I have a mental block while trying to understand why so many people have the right to vote on my body.

You are defending the pregnancy, I am defending the woman. The pregnancy would not exist without a woman's womb. As such, we cannot hold more value on the pregnancy over the woman.

Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, but I cannot understand why do I have to be dictated by other people on what I can do with my body.

My answer to you is Because someone else is depending on you to put their life before your need to have the same rights to bodily autonomy as a man who cannot by biology have that life inside him. We should value what we are incredibly able to do rather than reducing it to nothing.

Ps don't mean to leave anyone hanging and not replied to but other things to do today.

kylith

Mrsmum wrote: »

For me it depends on the seriousness of your sickness. It's a balancing act whereby the woman's life should never ever be at risk so if the pregnancy is downright dangerous to the woman, the doctor treating her should operate on the "as far as practicable" rule for the baby's life. The ideal is for yourself and your baby to be fine. All pregnant women suffer to a greater or lesser degree in order to produce offspring, it's part of the price we pay and it's usually worth it. I don't think it's right to end the baby's life because a woman is having a very tough pregnancy but as above if that tips over into real concern that's the point the doctor puts the woman first.

I’m not talking about ‘a tough pregnancy’. I’m talking about miscarriages turning septic. I’m talking about epileptic women having to come off the medication that stops their seizures. I’m talking about ARM against medical best practise. That is what the 8th means.

PlaneSpeeking

Mrsmum wrote: »

Touchee wrote: »

Regardless of the reason, I should have a choice. Before a pregnancy, we are women with full autonomy over our bodies. As soon as we become pregnant, we somehow lose that autonomy and have to be told by other people what we can or cannot do. The loss of autonomy is so obvious, as it has been specifically included in the Constitution.

This is so unfair => denying me my right to do whatever I please with my body. I have a mental block while trying to understand why so many people have the right to vote on my body.

You are defending the pregnancy, I am defending the woman. The pregnancy would not exist without a woman's womb. As such, we cannot hold more value on the pregnancy over the woman.

Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, but I cannot understand why do I have to be dictated by other people on what I can do with my body.

My answer to you is Because someone else is depending on you to put their life before your need to have the same rights to bodily autonomy as a man who cannot by biology have that life inside him. We should value what we are incredibly able to do rather than reducing it to nothing.

Not. All. About. Foetuses.

Can't make that too clear. But still if you are capable of putting a mythical non existent entity above a real living human then I don't think you'll ever see reason.

I have a friend who is a paramedic. Its akin to him attending an RTA and refusing to treat someine just in case a nephilim needed assistance somewhere in Narnia.

ELM327

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Not. All. About. Foetuses.

Can't make that too clear. But still if you are capable of putting a mythical non existent entity above a real living human then I don't think you'll ever see reason.

I have a friend who is a paramedic. Its akin to him attending an RTA and refusing to treat someine just in case a nephilim needed assistance somewhere in Narnia.

This post reminded me of this image.
Slightly NSFW due to mild language content

ELM327

January wrote: »

Stahp, 3-5 years? How long was it between Lisbon 1 and 2? We'll be campaigning for another referendum asap if this one is defeated. It's just too important an issue to let lie for another few years.

I was trying to be conservative (no pun intended)
Yes there should be another one straight away, as soon as the referendum commission is made full time and given the power to remove blatantly false billboards or other sources of misinformation

Moiratat

Mrsmum wrote: »

My answer to you is Because someone else is depending on you to put their life before your need to have the same rights to bodily autonomy as a man who cannot by biology have that life inside him. We should value what we are incredibly able to do rather than reducing it to nothing.

Ps don't mean to leave anyone hanging and not replied to but other things to do today.

Did I not value my baby? So I reduced him or her to nothing? Despite if I carried my child to term and somehow wasn't viciously beaten to miscarry by my abusive rapist "boyfriend", I would've been left homeless and unable to care for my sisters and brother who are now living their best life possible because of a sacrifice I had to make. Do not belittle my decision because I loved my baby and in an ideal world I would have kept that child but we do not live in an ideal world, far from it actually, we live in a world where I had to make the most heart wrenching decision of my life in secrecy and terror and live with myself in disgust and shame after with a large percentage of my country believing I'm a murderer.
Please don't take this as aggressive as this is my experience of the eighth and the pain it has caused me.

RobertKK

The debate can't be about the hard cases when what is proposed is to replace the 8th with the majority of abortions being healthy women aborting healthy unborn.
The hard cases which are a very small percentage can't be used as a reason to go from one position where abortion is allowed in certain cases to abortion for any reason at all. From a position where all human life has a value, to where certain human life is disposable if desired because one can kill the unborn life rather than it being required.

pjohnson

The repeal side seems to be focused on infighting today? Why are people arguing over who's reason to tick "Yes" is better? Should focus not be getting people to tick yes?

ELM327

Moiratat wrote: »

Did I not value my baby? So I reduced him or her to nothing? Despite if I carried my child to term and somehow wasn't viciously beaten to miscarry by my abusive rapist "boyfriend", I would've been left homeless and unable to care for my sisters and brother who are now living their best life possible because of a sacrifice I had to make. Do not belittle my decision because I loved my baby and in an ideal world I would have kept that child but we do not live in an ideal world, far from it actually, we live in a world where I had to make the most heart wrenching decision of my life in secrecy and terror and live with myself in disgust and shame after with a large percentage of my country believing I'm a murderer.
Please don't take this as aggressive as this is my experience of the eighth and the pain it has caused me.

It's down to 27% now, so not that large anymore
Rest assured as each year passes the number gets less and less.

I know I'm only a randomer in a forum, but you did the right thing for you and your family unit, at the time. This is why we need to trust our women, as they will make the right decision for themselves.

The only right you do not have currently is to have the termination here. Your right to an abortion is enshrined in our constitution.

ELM327

RobertKK wrote: »

The debate can't be about the hard cases when what is proposed is to replace the 8th with the majority of abortions being healthy women aborting healthy unborn.
The hard cases which are a very small percentage can't be used as a reason to go from one position where abortion is allowed in certain cases to abortion for any reason at all. From a position where all human life has a value, to where certain human life is disposable if desired because one can kill the unborn life rather than it being required.

These rights are already enshrined in our constitution. See the 12th and 13th amendment. If that is your position why are you not campaigning for repeal of those 2 amendments (right to travel and to procure information on abortion).

pjohnson wrote: »

The repeal side seems to be focused on infighting today? Why are people arguing over who's reason to tick "Yes" is better? Should focus not be getting people to tick yes?

Agreed. There was one poster , a mod (not of this forum, but still, you'd expect better), who seemed determined to argue with everyone. But we've left it at that. We are all on the one page, REPEAL.

#togetherforyes

Richard Hillman

bubblypop wrote: »

By people, you obviously mean women.
So, why do you think that a woman who can request an abortion at anytime before 12 weeks of pregnancy, would somehow wait till she is 20 weeks before asking for an abortion?
Exactly what do you think of women?

.

Q1. Economic changes. Relationship issues. Doesn't like the sex of the baby. Many reasons.

Q2. I think some are nice and some are not nice.

RobertKK

ELM327 wrote: »

These rights are already enshrined in our constitution. See the 12th and 13th amendment. If that is your position why are you not campaigning for repeal of those 2 amendments (right to travel and to procure information on abortion).

It is enshrined that abortion can happen in certain cases, there is not censorship of information if it is asked for, and women can't be stopped travelling because it is impracticable for starters.
It doesn't mean we have to go down the wrong road because others have.