Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Dilemma of the Undecideds in the abortion referendum

Options
1…1718202223…25

Comments

  • Options
    #572
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,208 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Loafing Oaf wrote: »
    SF have brought their Ard Fheis forward to next month to settle policy on the 12-week legislation. Given the centralisation of power in the party and the prominent role Mary Lou has taken in the yes campaign, how likely is any motion supporting that legislation to be defeated? Can you imagine the shower of manure that would rain down on SF heads from all shades of the left if they were responsible for the defeat of the legislation in the Dail, given that Varadkar, Martin, Coveney etc. are supporting it?

    As far as the FG waverers go, well I'll refer you what happened when feet were held to the fire over POLDPA. Even some of the most loudly pro-life deputies like John O'Mahony and James Bannon trooped into the Ta lobby when threatened with expulsion. Okay the threat this time will instead be an ongoing legal and political crisis over the issue, which is not as immediate. But how likely is any TD who hasn't declared a position on the legislation up to now to stand up and defy the party leadership if the referendum is passed?


    There will be legislation passed, there is no doubt, but will it be passed unamended? It is amendments that pose the threat.


  • Options
    #573
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users Posts: 20,929 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    I don't have a uterus so I'm grand, unless it's possible that I get pregnant.
    and then what?


  • Options
    #574
    cournioni
    Moderators, Regional North East Moderators Posts: 12,739 Mod ✭✭✭✭cournioni


    ArthurDayne wrote: »
    Abortion on demand is already happening via travelling abroad -- such travel being protected by the Constitutional article that people are voting on today.

    All you are doing by voting No is voting to retain a constitutional article which in one line says it acknowledges the right to life of the unborn, but in the very next line effectively constitutionally protects citizens who seek information on services to 'kill their baby' and travel abroad to perform said 'killing'.

    By voting No -- you are not stopping abortion on demand. You are only preventing this country from making legislation which (a) reflects the current reality whether you accept it or not and (b) make laws which will provide a more humane framework for rape victims, women carrying a foetus with a fatal abnormality, and other horrific circumstances.

    Irish people are having abortions every single day -- and the Constitution is banning them in one line but letting the Brits do it for us in another. That is the reality. By voting no, you are voting to impose your own beliefs on the rest of us -- with your head firmly in the sand as to what is happening in this country.
    Again, we are not discussing those amendments, which I have already stated that I disagree with for Abortion on Demand.

    On the contrary, I believe your head is firmly in the sand if you believe one thing for a baby being deliberately killed at the same stage of development inside the womb and another for outside of the womb.


  • Options
    #575
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #576
    cournioni
    Moderators, Regional North East Moderators Posts: 12,739 Mod ✭✭✭✭cournioni


    ....... wrote: »
    Oh dear.

    Your research seems to be lacking.

    What we are voting on today includes the 13th and 14th Amendments.



    source

    And it is not pointless to bring in the UK when the 13th and 14th are also included in the article and when the reality is that women are procuring abortions under the UK regime daily.

    If you dont accept that this is the reality then it is simply you with your head in the sand.
    Oh dear. You should read my previous posts then. I have stated that I am unhappy with the options in front of me.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #577
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,640 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    cournioni wrote: »
    Again, we are not discussing those amendments, which I have already stated that I disagree with for Abortion on Demand.

    On the contrary, I believe your head is firmly in the sand if you believe one thing for a baby being deliberately killed at the same stage of development inside the womb and another for outside of the womb.







    Then don't demand an abortion.


    It could not be simpler for you if you tried.


  • Options
    #578
    cournioni
    Moderators, Regional North East Moderators Posts: 12,739 Mod ✭✭✭✭cournioni


    listermint wrote: »
    Then don't demand an abortion.


    It could not be simpler for you if you tried.
    Good of you to take time out to make a joke on this issue.


  • Options
    #579
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,037 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    It really was that simple for me.

    I want the ability to choose to terminate a pregnancy, up to the point that that pregnancy has a viable chance at survival on its own.

    If I leave it too late (for some unknown reason?) then my option is to give the child up for adoption or keep the child once born.

    If I make the decision (for *whatever* reason) that I dont want to have a child, again, before there is a viable chance of independent survival, then the decision should rest with the parents and no one else.


  • Options
    #580
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,640 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    cournioni wrote: »
    Good of you to take time out to make a joke on this issue.

    It actually wasnt a joke friend.

    Not at all.

    Quite simply don't have one if you don't agree with it.


    Good luck


  • Options
    #581
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #582
    Loafing Oaf
    Registered Users Posts: 16,016 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    blanch152 wrote: »
    There will be legislation passed, there is no doubt, but will it be passed unamended? It is amendments that pose the threat.

    Amendments that would effectively negate the '12-weeks unrestricted' aspect of the legislation? That would be in practice be the same as voting down the legislation and IMO just as unlikely to happen.


  • Options
    #583
    cournioni
    Moderators, Regional North East Moderators Posts: 12,739 Mod ✭✭✭✭cournioni


    listermint wrote: »
    It actually wasnt a joke friend.

    Not at all.

    Quite simply don't have one if you don't agree with it.

    Good luck
    You’re missing the point entirely then so.


  • Options
    #584
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    So, in turning down an 80/20 yes in favour of a 60/40 yes you are trusting women and men?

    No, space aliens.


  • Options
    #585
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users Posts: 14,329 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    ....... wrote:
    This post has been deleted.

    ArthurDayne wrote:
    By voting No -- you are not stopping abortion on demand. You are only preventing this country from making legislation which (a) reflects the current reality whether you accept it or not and (b) make laws which will provide a more humane framework for rape victims, women carrying a foetus with a fatal abnormality, and other horrific circumstances.

    Given that we have already have UK need about in demand then a no vote is simply an objection to that.

    A no vote is a valid response for that reason even in circumstances where one might believe abortion is justified.


  • Options
    #586
    AnneFrank
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,827 ✭✭✭AnneFrank


    cournioni wrote: »
    You’re missing the point entirely then so.

    You will just be attacked left and right for holding this view, one which i totally agree with.
    These threads are just a massive echo chamber for the young and naive, much like the journal.
    The result will speak for itself


  • Options
    #587
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    AnneFrank wrote: »
    You will just be attacked left and right for holding this view, one which i totally agree with.
    These threads are just a massive echo chamber for the young and naive, much like the journal.
    The result will speak for itself

    You being older does not make your opinion more superior, or valid, than anyone else's.
    What speaks for itself is your inability to not make personal comments and sly digs when discussing this issue.


  • Options
    #588
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Sinn Fein do not support abortion on demand up to 12 weeks. They need an Ard Fheis to change that. If there is a vote in the Dail next week on the Government proposal, Sinn Fein would have to vote against.

    There isn't going to be a vote next week, the legislation is not ready. The minister has said he will try to have a vote this year.

    SF will have an Ard Fheis before the vote and the rank-and-file will be told to give Mary Lou the backing she needs.


  • Options
    #589
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    You being older does not make your opinion more superior, or valid, than anyone else's.
    What speaks for itself is your inability to not make personal comments and sly digs when discussing this issue.

    Think your conflating democracy (in which everyones vote is equal) with wisdom. Per definition, an older person will, on average, be wiser than a younger one.


  • Options
    #590
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #591
    Pete29
    Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭Pete29


    So what are the chances the proposed legislation survives in its current form given a yes vote?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #592
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #593
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Meanwhile: Strong turnout reported in first hours of voting

    If Dublin votes at General Election levels, it'll be a big Yes win.


  • Options
    #594
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    AnneFrank wrote: »
    These threads are just a massive echo chamber for the young and naive

    So which way did YOU vote in 1983? I was a No.


  • Options
    #595
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Give me the opinion of an experienced doctor over a medical student


  • Options
    #596
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Give me the opinion of an experienced doctor over a medical student

    Better yet, how about we listen to the broad consensus of the medical profession as a whole?


  • Options
    #597
    Loafing Oaf
    Registered Users Posts: 16,016 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    Pete29 wrote: »
    So what are the chances the proposed legislation survives in its current form given a yes vote?

    As I've been saying to blanch 152, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't. As Simon Harris was saying the other day, no-one has put forward any alternative.


  • Options
    #598
    Pete29
    Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭Pete29


    Loafing Oaf wrote: »
    As I've been saying to blanch 152, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't. As Simon Harris was saying the other day, no-one has put forward any alternative.

    Doesn't it have to go through several committees and debates in both houses, though?


  • Options
    #599
    Loafing Oaf
    Registered Users Posts: 16,016 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    Pete29 wrote: »
    Doesn't it have to go through several committees and debates in both houses, though?

    I'm not fully au fait with the process but I can't see any political incentive for seriously watering down the legislation.


  • Options
    #600
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Pete29 wrote: »
    Doesn't it have to go through several committees and debates in both houses?

    Yes, of course, like any other legislation.

    But no-one on the No benches has suggested any improvements yet, they bet everything on a No vote. When yes wins with the current proposal as the only framework for the legislation even suggested, the Government will be in a strong position to say that is the legislation the public voted for, there is a mandate for it.

    FG TDs will back it or go the way of Lucinda. SF members will back it at an Ard Fheis if they know what's good for them. FF will split, but there will be enough to see it passed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #601
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Better yet, how about we listen to the broad consensus of the medical profession as a whole?

    I'm not sure what special contribution an cardiologist has to make.


Advertisement