Poll: would you vote to "re-peel da ate"

Crea · 17-09-2016 03:21PM

No

Yes from me.
My sister was 30 weeks pregnant when she found out that her baby had a fatal foetal abnormality. She didn't want to have an abortion but did want an early induction as this was the only way she could have given birth to a live baby and get to spend a few precious minutes with her child. The doctors wouldn't touch her as it is against the law. So she kept going with the pregnancy hoping against hope that baby would live to full term but sadly he died at 37.5 weeks and she had to endure a stillbirth. It was barbaric.

Samaris · 17-09-2016 03:45PM

No

Crea wrote: »

Yes from me.
My sister was 30 weeks pregnant when she found out that her baby had a fatal foetal abnormality. She didn't want to have an abortion but did want an early induction as this was the only way she could have given birth to a live baby and get to spend a few precious minutes with her child. The doctors wouldn't touch her as it is against the law. So she kept going with the pregnancy hoping against hope that baby would live to full term but sadly he died at 37.5 weeks and she had to endure a stillbirth. It was barbaric.

That is a tragic situation and I hope your sister has been able to recover from it. I don't know that the Eighth would have made much difference to it, given it was an early induction (that would have resulted in the baby's death, but that was inevitable anyway), but it does show that there are other things that also need working on as well as just the abortion/no abortion question. There needs to be a lot more discussion about pregnancy and all the associated issues that can and do arise around it, rather than just bringing it down to the Eighth specifically. I suppose it's a good place to start though.

17-09-2016 03:55PM

Repeal? No
Replace? Yes

The lawyer Conor O'Mahony has said that repeal is not as simple as the catchy soundbite suggests.

http://constitutionproject.ie/?p=380

Thus, it is entirely within the bounds of possibility that the repeal of the Eighth Amendment, without any substitution of an alternative provision, would leave the constitutional right to life of the unborn intact. What would have changed is that there would no longer be an express reference to the “equal right to life of the mother”

Aidan Holland · 17-09-2016 04:02PM

Yes. I would repeal it and have no issue with abortion whatsoever. I think we should adopt the system that they have in the uk except for one thing. Abortion is free on the NHS and with all things free there are open to abuse like women having 11 or 12 abortions.

RobertKK · 17-09-2016 04:04PM

What would replace the 8th amendment?

To simply remove it, I would vote no, given I don't know what would be allowed with it removed.

rainbow kirby · 17-09-2016 04:11PM

No

eviltwin wrote: »

The 8th is about more than just abortion.

It's affecting the care given to every single pregnant woman in Ireland and her options during pregnancy and labour.

It needs to be consigned to history.

^ This.

It's been in the constitution for 33 years too long.

Outlaw Pete · 17-09-2016 04:13PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Repeal? No
Replace? Yes

Absolutely but as far as I'm aware, it needs to be repealed first in order to be replaced and so on that basis I would vote to repeal. In the same way Sections 58 and 59 of Offences Against the Person Act were repealed a few years back to make way for the newer Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act.

TDs were asked the question a couple of months ago and some said similar:

"I am opposed to repealing the Eighth Amendment for many reasons … such an action would be wholly disproportionate and would remove the last vestiges of constitutional protection for the life of the unborn child. A major concern here is that in all the talk of removing the Eighth Amendment, there has been a complete absence of any proposed mechanism to even acknowledge the life of the unborn child – a human person – at the constitutional level" - Mattie McGrath

”I think we need a sense of what would be proposed to be put in place of the existing constitutional provision.” - John Lahart

It very much depends on what is proposed to replace the amendment.” - Alan Farrell,

"The question of whether or not to repeal the Eighth Amendment is not one with a simple yes or no answer. Those who advocate its repeal have not presented any proposal on what it would be replaced with" - Micheál Martin

“I’ve no problem with it being repealed but it needs to replaced something else that protects [the] unborn” - Pat Casey

You can read the rest of the responses here.

El_Duderino 09 · 17-09-2016 04:15PM

No

Jesus. wrote:

I've only ever heard women interested in this topic. Don't think blokes give a sh1t tbh (generally speaking).

That might be true for you but not for me. The lads I talk to would almost all be In favour of repealing the 8th. Social circles I suppose.

marienbad · 17-09-2016 04:16PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

What would replace the 8th amendment?

To simply remove it, I would vote no, given I don't know what would be allowed with it removed.

As far as I am aware abortion was already illegal before the 8th . The constitutional change at that time was simply an older generation, aware of demographic changes , trying to tie future generations to a specific ethos.

Does repealing the 8th not return us to the status quo ante bellum ,so to speak ?

17-09-2016 04:19PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Absolutely but as far as I'm aware, it needs to be repealed first in order to be replaced and so on that basis I would vote to repeal.

I suspect we'd do the two in one referendum.

E.g.

"It is proposed to delete Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution and to insert in its place the following : [...]"

I'd vote for almost any kind of liberalisation, but I think the present campaign is just too vague on what they're suggesting as a replacement.

mzungu · 17-09-2016 04:20PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I will.. but if the beginnings of this campaign are anything to go by then I can see a lot of people voting 'No' in reaction to how it is being framed. Already as part of the campaign we've seen remarks like "It's a Woman's Body", "Stop Letting 'Old Men' Decide What Women Should Do With Their Bodies", "A stethoscope is a crucifix on your belly", "The laws of the church have no place on your flesh", "A veterinarian will abort a calf if a cow is falling ill, how is it that livestock is worth more to this land than us?" etc etc.

That kind of nonsense is cringingly sanctimonious and extremely disingenuous, not least because we already have the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act which means abortions are legal in cases where there is a risk to the life of the mother (including suicide) and so to suggest that Ireland cares more for pregnant cattle than it does for pregnant women, well, it's just really yet more martyrdom quite frankly. Today I even seen one woman childishly tweeting Enda Kenny asking him if it was okay if she used Haemorrhoid Cream.

People are already weary enough after the revelations in recent times that politicians are more than happy to mislead the electorate with regards to where new abortion legislation is likely to lead and so couple that with repealing the 8th being framed in such a dishonest and exclusionary fashion, and it really could just ultimately turn a lot of 'Yes' voters into 'No' voters. Which is a shame as new clearer abortion laws are undoubtedly needed, particularly with regard to certain serious fetal abnormalities.

I agree there. The Repeal side are really shooting themselves in the foot so far. If they keep that up they better hope there won't be a referendum in the near future, as they won't stand a chance of winning. Throwing out slurs on Twitter and in various newspaper opinion pieces does them no favours when it comes to getting those on the fence to come onside. They are doing all the work for the pro-life camp so far.

RobertKK · 17-09-2016 04:22PM

marienbad wrote: »

As far as I am aware abortion was already illegal before the 8th . The constitutional change at that time was simply an older generation, aware of demographic changes , trying to tie future generations to a specific ethos.

Does repealing the 8th not return us to the status quo ante bellum ,so to speak ?

It would leave the government of the day open to change abortion law given their stance on it.

marienbad · 17-09-2016 04:30PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

It would leave the government of the day open to change abortion law given their stance on it.

Exactly , and there was never any danger of an Irish government making abortion in any way accessible .

But after 30 years of debate any stigma has continuously been eroded , so in effect the amendment was counter productive .

It is now only a matter of time until we are like the rest of Europe . People are tired of the hypocrisy ,word games , medical/legal cock ups

Outlaw Pete · 17-09-2016 04:31PM

mzungu wrote: »

They are doing all the work for the pro-life camp so far.

Indeed and even in debates the Pro Choice side (after they stop talking about how women should be able to do what they want with 'their bodies' and how Catholic Ireland is to blame) don't even know the figures that they should well know.

On Vincent Browne, for example, Ruth Coppinger TD seemed to not have a clue what she was talking about with regards to abortion and Down Syndrome and despite her constantly saying that what Cora Sherlock was saying was untrue, as it happened it was in fact she who was giving out stats which The Journal said was "Mostly FALSE".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TX-tBQrI8QI

RobertKK · 17-09-2016 05:03PM

marienbad wrote: »

Exactly , and there was never any danger of an Irish government making abortion in any way accessible .

But after 30 years of debate any stigma has continuously been eroded , so in effect the amendment was counter productive .

It is now only a matter of time until we are like the rest of Europe . People are tired of the hypocrisy ,word games , medical/legal cock ups

The problem then is, in removing the 8th amendment one would be placing trust in present but also future governments, and I would argue a lot of people don't trust government in general.

El_Duderino 09 · 17-09-2016 05:11PM

No

RobertKK wrote:

The problem then is, in removing the 8th amendment one would be placing trust in present but also future governments, and I would argue a lot of people don't trust government in general.

I generally do trust the government to do a decent job. But with something like this you have to look at voter demographics.

The voters in the gay marriage referendum were an exceptional bunch. They didn't turn out again in the general election. The government would have to keep the older and more conservative people in mind when passing legislation on abortion. The electorate could pass further reaching replacement legislation than the government could.

I would trust the electorate to come out and support repeal the 8th.

marienbad · 17-09-2016 05:19PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

The problem then is, in removing the 8th amendment one would be placing trust in present but also future governments, and I would argue a lot of people don't trust government in general.

If that is the problem , and I don't necessarily agree that it is , then solve that problem ,

Not use the constitution for issues it is not capable of handling .

Dick phelan · 17-09-2016 05:27PM

Depends on what will replace it, i support abortion up to very early stages, say 12 weeks, after that i think unless the baby has a FFA it should not be allowed, i think the abortion laws in Canada, UK are frankly barbaric, to allow a perfectly healthy 20 + week old baby to be aborted is horrible imo, there is a nasty side to abortion which the pro choice side will never discuss, it's all about the women's choice, her body ect but when something is capable of living outside the womb which babies of 20 + weeks have it is unjustifiable to take it's life just because it doesn't suit the mother.

mailforkev · 17-09-2016 05:36PM

No

So-called "moral" issues like this have no place in a written constitution. They're issues that legislation should be taking care of. Legislation can change with the times much more easily.

So if we do manage to get the 8th amendment overturned, the last thing we need is replacement text inserted. We need proposed legislation instead.

PucaMama · 17-09-2016 05:42PM

No, because I do not trust our government to replace it with something acceptable. I believe they would just replace it with whatever got them the most votes in the next election.

mailforkev · 17-09-2016 05:46PM

No

PucaMama wrote: »

No, because I do not trust our government to replace it with something acceptable. I believe they would just replace it with whatever got them the most votes in the next election.

TBH, I don't trust them to replace it with something acceptable either, although I suspect from a very differing view.

PucaMama · 17-09-2016 05:48PM

mailforkev wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

No, because I do not trust our government to replace it with something acceptable. I believe they would just replace it with whatever got them the most votes in the next election.

TBH, I don't trust them to replace it with something acceptable either, although I suspect from a very differing view.

Probably, but still we can have our opinions

marienbad · 17-09-2016 05:49PM

No

PucaMama wrote: »

No, because I do not trust our government to replace it with something acceptable. I believe they would just replace it with whatever got them the most votes in the next election.

what do you consider acceptable ?

PucaMama · 17-09-2016 05:56PM

marienbad wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

No, because I do not trust our government to replace it with something acceptable. I believe they would just replace it with whatever got them the most votes in the next election.

what do you consider acceptable ?

Obviously rules around access to abortion like time limits, and not abortion on demand like the uk

17-09-2016 06:16PM

I have complicated feelings about abortion that neither the pro-life crowd, nor I suspect, a majority of the pro-choice people would approve of.

I think early abortion has little or no ethical or moral implications. The earlier the better, and I think abortion pills should be available on a widespread basis so that the decision and the action can be made and acted on as soon as possible.

I think abortion at 24 weeks is utterly repugnant. I find people comparing fetuses of 20 weeks gestation to rocks to be callous in the extreme. A rock can never be a child, and to refuse to acknowledge the spark of humanity that is central to pregnancy is nothing short of denial. In my opinion.

From 11-12 weeks on (and I know it's probably a very arbitrary sounding limit), I find the concept of abortion increasingly horrific.

I don't expect others to share my view, nor do I want any woman pregnant by rape, or carrying a child with catastrophic abnormality, forced to endure the torture of forced pregnancy, nor do I ever want a fetus to trump the life already being lived by it's mother in a medical emergency. There should also be a certain amount of discretion involved, to cater for the extraordinary situations that sometimes occur, particularly where very young girls and vulnerable women are concerned.

So how I would vote would depend entirely on how the proposed new laws are framed, I would want strict limits on abortions after the three month mark in order to feel comfortable with my own morality around this issue. Unfortunately, my moral choices also conflict with my desire not to dictate to others what to do in a difficult situation.

A line must always be drawn when it comes to the time limit where abortions are performed. I can't stomach the thought of a potentially viable human being having it's life ended in the same place it's supposed to be safest. I also can't stomach the idea of women being denied early abortions, should they need them.

endacl · 17-09-2016 06:19PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

It would leave the government electorate of the day open to change abortion law given their stance on it.

Better.

mzungu · 17-09-2016 06:22PM

Candie wrote: »

I have complicated feelings about abortion that neither the pro-life crowd, nor I suspect, a majority of the pro-choice people would approve of.

I think early abortion has little or no ethical or moral implications. The earlier the better, and I think abortion pills should be available on a widespread basis so that the decision and the action can be made and acted on as soon as possible.

I think abortion at 24 weeks is utterly repugnant. I find people comparing fetuses of 20 weeks gestation to rocks to be callous in the extreme. A rock can never be a child, and to refuse to acknowledge the spark of humanity that is central to pregnancy is nothing short of denial. In my opinion.

From 11-12 weeks on (and I know it's probably a very arbitrary sounding limit), I find the concept of abortion increasingly horrific.

I don't expect others to share my view, nor do I want any woman pregnant by rape, or carrying a child with catastrophic abnormality, forced to endure the torture of forced pregnancy, nor do I ever want a fetus to trump the life already being lived by it's mother in a medical emergency. There should also be a certain amount of discretion involved, to cater for the extraordinary situations that sometimes occur, particularly where very young girls and vulnerable women are concerned.

So how I would vote would depend entirely on how the proposed new laws are framed, I would want strict limits on abortions after the three month mark in order to feel comfortable with my own morality around this issue. Unfortunately, my moral choices also conflict with my desire not to dictate to others what to do in a difficult situation.

A line must always be drawn when it comes to the time limit where abortions are performed. I can't stomach the thought of a potentially viable human being having it's life ended in the same place it's supposed to be safest. I also can't stomach the idea of women being denied early abortions, should they need them.

Aye, it is a complex issue but I would imagine the vast majority of the 'on the fence' voters would most likely agree a lot of the above.

RobertKK · 17-09-2016 06:47PM

endacl wrote: »

Better.

Yeah, like the electorate who voted in a government that argued before the election it would burn the bondholders.
The electorate is stupid if it believes election promises.

El_Duderino 09 · 17-09-2016 06:51PM

No

Candie wrote:

From 11-12 weeks on (and I know it's probably a very arbitrary sounding limit), I find the concept of abortion increasingly horrific.

Candie wrote:

A line must always be drawn when it comes to the time limit where abortions are performed. I can't stomach the thought of a potentially viable human being having it's life ended in the same place it's supposed to be safest. I also can't stomach the idea of women being denied early abortions, should they need them.

Fair post.

Where exactly would you draw the line though? There must be a reason for drawing a line somewhere or else it IS arbitrary. '19 weeks and 6 days is ok but 20 weeks is repugnant' is a non runner for me simply because it requires a 'finger in the air' reading.

I think the cut off is at birth. The point where the child is no longer relying on the grace of one other human to begin their life is the cut off for me. Once born other people can get involved so the choice is no longer solely down to the mother.

We are masters of our own destiny as a species. We need as few arbitrary rules as possible.

linpoo · 17-09-2016 06:51PM

I'm probably being ignorant here but is the whole repeal the 8th just for cases of fatal foetal abnormality and in cases of rape? Or is it to allow anyone to get an abortion?

Poll: would you vote to "re-peel da ate"

Comments