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

PucaMama · 17-09-2016 06:56PM

linpoo wrote: »

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?

It's to allow anyone to have an abortion

PucaMama · 17-09-2016 06:57PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

From birth is far too late. WHO say a child is viable from 24 weeks or from 500g in weight.

RobertKK · 17-09-2016 06:58PM

linpoo wrote: »

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?

It goes from one end of just FFA being allowed to the other end where the argument is there should be no limits on abortion from reason to time limit.

That is why it is going to be so controversial, and why what replaces it if it was removed is needed before any vote.

Elliott S · 17-09-2016 06:59PM

No

MintyMagnum wrote: »

My brother & I were adopted, as were 2 of our cousins. My best friend in primary school & my best friend in secondary were both adopted. 4 of my work colleagues were adopted and one of my exes.

So I have mixed feelings about 'abortion on demand' considering myself and ten other people I know closely would probably not be alive today if it was available here when we were conceived.

The thing is, it's not as neat as "Sure, can't they put the child up for adoption?". There are very compelling reasons why many women don't want to go through with a pregnancy once they have decided they don't want to raise a child themselves.

17-09-2016 06:59PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

I couldn't support a fetus having it's life ended the day before it's due. I just can't assign no value to that life, and that's what we do if we say it's okay to end that life. Yes, I know it's not independent life, but a fetus just before birth can survive outside the uterus with little risk of harm.

I know we won't agree on this, but that's okay. We all have our line in the sand.

My line in the sand for most cases, would be 12 weeks. The point at which an embryo becomes a fetus and most of the major physical systems are developing. My reservations are on a scale, from 12 weeks onwards it becomes increasingly repugnant to me.

Again, I don't expect others to feel the same but it's an emotive issue and I can't feel any differently about it than the way I do. I don't seek to persuade anyone, just giving my own feelings on how I would vote, and why.

Elliott S · 17-09-2016 07:10PM

No

Elaina Bald Standby wrote: »

Would love to see some extra legislation attached to give men rights over their choices as well, a so called male abortion/opt out phase,were they can legally state they don't want the child and from then aren't financially or any other way obligated.Then its up to the mother what she wants to do. In an equal society this is what we need, why should the mother be able to choose if a man will be obligated because she had the child(he has no choice) or if she will have an abortion (he still has no choice).

Sweden has already started discussing this politically
https://www.rt.com/news/334720-legal-male-abortion-sweden/

I think this is a good idea BUT the father will need to decide this and make it clear very early on in the pregnancy. Much like there should be a window outside which an abortion can't happen, there should be a window for deciding to opt out of fatherhood. No deciding at seven months into the pregnancy that you don't want to be a father. The opt out period for fatherhood needs to be shorter than the abortion window to give the mother time to arrange an abortion if she so wishes. Allowing there to be a fatherhood opt out also should come with the agreement that ultimately, the decision to have an abortion comes down to the woman. It's an inequality but one that just can't be corrected without taking charge of a woman's body for her.

El_Duderino 09 · 17-09-2016 07:13PM

No

PucaMama wrote:

From birth is far too late. WHO say a child is viable from 24 weeks or from 500g in weight.

'Viable' is a massive canard for me. The fact is that when the foetus/baby/child/person is inside the mother they are completely dependent on her for life. The choice to continue the pregnancy is hers alone. Once the birth happens then others can nourish and care for the child so the choice is no longer solely the mother's to make.

linpoo · 17-09-2016 07:14PM

PucaMama wrote: »

It's to allow anyone to have an abortion

Oh thanks I didn't realize that. I think it should only be allowed in cases of ffa or rape.

PucaMama · 17-09-2016 07:15PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

PucaMama wrote:

From birth is far too late. WHO say a child is viable from 24 weeks or from 500g in weight.

'Viable' is a massive canard for me. The fact is that when the foetus/baby/child/person is inside the mother they are completely dependent on her for life. The choice to continue the pregnancy is hers alone. Once the birth happens then others can nourish and care for the child so the choice is no longer solely the mother's to make.

Viable meaning if the pregnancy ended then the child could survive without the mother once it got the medical support it needed. Then the mother could leave it. End of her input in the child's life.

Elliott S · 17-09-2016 07:15PM

No

mzungu wrote: »

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.

There are hardliners on each side of this debate, as always! Why do you think that only the hard line pro-choice campaigners will repel people to the other side?

El_Duderino 09 · 17-09-2016 07:21PM

No

Candie wrote:

I couldn't support a fetus having it's life ended the day before it's due. I just can't assign no value to that life, and that's what we do if we say it's okay to end that life. Yes, I know it's not independent life, but a fetus just before birth can survive outside the uterus with little risk of harm.

It can survive... But it isn't surviving independently. That's the line in the sand for me.

Candie wrote:

My line in the sand for most cases, would be 12 weeks. The point at which an embryo becomes a fetus and most of the major physical systems are developing. My reservations are on a scale, from 12 weeks onwards it becomes increasingly repugnant to me.

Seems arbitrary. Maybe I'm missing something. Why not when it gets a heartbeat or when it grows fingers or whatever? Is any one a better reason than the other? If not then I don't think it sounds like a reasonable line I the sand.

Candie wrote:

Again, I don't expect others to feel the same but it's an emotive issue and I can't feel any differently about it than the way I do. I don't seek to persuade anyone, just giving my own feelings on how I would vote, and why.

You can't FEEL differently? Even a reasoned argument couldn't change how you FEEL about it? I always worry about letting feelings rule over reason

Why bother to discuss it then? I don't mean this to discourage discussion. I mean it to question the basis of the feeling

Grayson · 17-09-2016 07:23PM

No

linpoo wrote: »

Oh thanks I didn't realize that. I think it should only be allowed in cases of ffa or rape.

It's not for anyone to get an abortion.

Abortion is illegal in this country. There are laws against it. If the 8th is removed then it's still illegal. Those laws are still in place. The difference is that it is then possible to legislate for abortion.

It may be that they will legislate for abortion under any circumstances. It's unlikely but possible. I say unlikely because we haven't got a political leader with the balls to do it. It would certainly cost some votes and no politician in Ireland would risk it. It's probable that they would allow it in cases of FFA and maybe rape.

At the moment it's not possible to legislate for FFA (or anything else) because of the 8th.

PucaMama · 17-09-2016 07:29PM

Grayson wrote: »

linpoo wrote: »

Oh thanks I didn't realize that. I think it should only be allowed in cases of ffa or rape.

It's not for anyone to get an abortion.

Abortion is illegal in this country. There are laws against it. If the 8th is removed then it's still illegal. Those laws are still in place. The difference is that it is then possible to legislate for abortion.

It may be that they will legislate for abortion under any circumstances. It's unlikely but possible. I say unlikely because we haven't got a political leader with the balls to do it. It would certainly cost some votes and no politician in Ireland would risk it. It's probable that they would allow it in cases of FFA and maybe rape.

At the moment it's not possible to legislate for FFA (or anything else) because of the 8th.

It would be acceptable to many myself included to legislate for cases where the child is already dead or will definitely die, where the mother will die, or where she was raped. Also maybe until 12 weeks for if she just doesn't want it. However the other reasons like disabilities that won't result in the child dieing soon after birth, or like many cases in a certain community in the uk because the child is the wrong sex (many clinics now won't disclose the sex) or just not wanting it after that time limit the law should stay as it is.

17-09-2016 07:30PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It can survive... But it isn't surviving independently. That's the line in the sand for me.

Seems arbitrary. Maybe I'm missing something. Why not when it gets a heartbeat or when it grows fingers or whatever? Is any one a better reason than the other? If not then I don't think it sounds like a reasonable line I the sand.

You can't FEEL differently? Even a reasoned argument couldn't change how you FEEL about it? I always worry about letting feelings rule over reason

Why bother to discuss it then? I don't mean this to discourage discussion. I mean it to question the basis of the feeling

I'm not seeking to discuss it, or defend my choices. I don't need anyone to agree with me or approve of my reasoning.

I've been in too many of these inevitably circular discussions - too many of them aren't discussions, but an attempt to get every one to agree with one interpretation of what pro-choice means - too often that's 'pro MY choice'.

mzungu · 17-09-2016 07:42PM

Elliott S wrote: »

There are hardliners on each side of this debate, as always! Why do you think that only the hard line pro-choice campaigners will repel people to the other side?

Yep, hardliners on both sides, and it seems they are the ones who are firing the first shots so far. The pro-choice side have taken to ostracising those who agree with them on repealing the 8th, simply because they had they audacity to state that abortion is ending a life. Link: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/why-my-fellow-repealers-cant-face-the-facts-around-abortion-35039115.html

So, the movement behind the 8th seem so cocksure of themselves, they are now fighting their own side...for having the nerve to air an independent opinion. There were articles posted earlier This is not the SSM, this is an issue with a hell of a lot of grey areas. The Repeal side so far are taking a totalitarian stance that will not play well with middle Ireland. Nobody likes to be belittled.

On the other hand, you have the pro-life side who have shedloads of ammunition (see the link to 90% of down syndrome babies aborted in the UK) also in the past three years 30 have been aborted due to cleft -palates. Link (Sorry it's the DM, but the figures are correct): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3761905/Fury-number-abortions-cleft-lip-babies-rises-new-womb-tests-offered.html

As posted earlier in the thread, some of the soundbites so far from the Repealers have been taking pot shots at the church....and this is a bad move. A fair chunk of the electorate will be mass goers, not really a good idea to be alienating them at this early stage.

So. there are hardliners on both sides, but only one is engaging in personal attacks (to both their own side and the opposing side) and that style of Twitter herd mentality bullying won't fly. It is the undecideds who they have to aim the campaigns at, and some will be swayed by ad campaigns and live debates. So when the Repealers come out with their false stats (see Ruth Coppinger YouTube video a few pages back) and general bluster and BS, that will be easily swept aside by the pro-lifers.

So, yes. I do think the pro-choice side are handing the momentum away. It is all their own doing though, and you can't blame the church for this one.

I would hope for their own sake they start to tweak their strategy a bit more, it needs it.

marienbad · 17-09-2016 07:44PM

No

mzungu wrote: »

Yep, hardliners on both sides, and it seems they are the ones who are firing the first shots so far. The pro-choice side have taken to ostracising those who agree with them on repealing the 8th, simply because they had they audacity to state that abortion is ending a life. Link: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/why-my-fellow-repealers-cant-face-the-facts-around-abortion-35039115.html

So, the movement behind the 8th seem so cocksure of themselves, they are now fighting their own side...for having the nerve to air an independent opinion. There were articles posted earlier This is not the SSM, this is an issue with a hell of a lot of grey areas. The Repeal side so far are taking a totalitarian stance that will not play well with middle Ireland. Nobody likes to be belittled.

On the other hand, you have the pro-life side who have shedloads of ammunition (see the link to 90% of down syndrome babies aborted in the UK) also in the past three years 30 have been aborted due to cleft -palates. Link (Sorry it's the DM, but the figures are correct): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3761905/Fury-number-abortions-cleft-lip-babies-rises-new-womb-tests-offered.html

As posted earlier in the thread, some of the soundbites so far from the Repealers have been taking pot shots at the church....and this is a bad move. A fair chunk of the electorate will be mass goers, not really a good idea to be hurling abuse at them.

So. there are hardliners on both sides, but only one is engaging in personal attacks (to both their own side and the opposing side) and that style of Twitter herd mentality bullying won't fly. It is the undecideds who they have to aim the campaigns at, and some will be swayed by ad campaigns and live debates. So when the Repealers come out with their false stats (see Ruth Coppinger YouTube video a few pages back) and general bluster and BS, that will be easily swept aside by the pro-lifers.

So, yes. I do think the pro-choice side are handing the momentum away. It is all their own doing though, and you can't blame the church for this one.

I would hope for their own sake they start to tweak their strategy a bit more, it needs it.

So you are a no then ?

eviltwin · 17-09-2016 07:46PM

No

PucaMama wrote: »

It's to allow anyone to have an abortion

Not true. Repealing the 8th doesn't pave the way for abortion on demand. You might want to learn a bit more about it before you come out with misinformation like that

PucaMama · 17-09-2016 07:47PM

eviltwin wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

It's to allow anyone to have an abortion

Not true. Repealing the 8th doesn't pave the way for abortion on demand. You might want to learn a bit more about it before you come out with misinformation like that

That's your opinion. My opinion is that unless they have something good to replace it then yes it is.

Clampdown · 17-09-2016 07:49PM

No

I definitely would and think our abortion laws are a national shame.

It's amazing how strongly people feel about this, including myself. If I find out someone is 'pro-life', I could never consider being good friends with them. Especially if they're men.

eviltwin · 17-09-2016 07:53PM

No

PucaMama wrote: »

That's your opinion. My opinion is that unless they have something good to replace it then yes it is.

The 8th is not a matter of opinion, it's law, it's fact.

We didn't have abortions on demand before and we won't after. Abortion has to be legislated for before it can become available and seeing the government won't legislate for cases like ffa there is nothing to fear about abortion on demand.

PressRun · 17-09-2016 07:55PM

No

Repeal it. It's a load of nonsense that should never have been written into the constitution in the first place.

El_Duderino 09 · 17-09-2016 07:58PM

No

PucaMama wrote:

Viable meaning if the pregnancy ended then the child could survive without the mother once it got the medical support it needed. Then the mother could leave it. End of her input in the child's life.

If the pregnancy ended then were in agreement. If the pregnancy is ongoing then it is completely dependant on the mother. Viability doesn't enter into it because it is dependant. Once born viability is a consideration.

It doesn't matter to me whether the pregnancy is a day old or a day before birth would occur. Viability is a canard as long as it hasn't been born. That makes viability an interesting question but completely irrelevant to abortion - for me at least.

fits · 17-09-2016 08:03PM

No

Candie Id be of a similar opinion to you. Im 25 weeks pregnant at present and have been scanned countless times so have had a really good view of how the babies are developing. From weeks 7-12, the progression was from blob to baby. After 12 weeks they become increasingly more human-like. Now at 25 weeks, I genuinely feel like they are little humans in there, they sleep, they wake, they wriggle, they respond to sounds. Yes they are still not very developed, but to me they are definitely little humans.

At the same time I would never force a woman to undergo a pregnancy against her wishes. It really is quite something to go through. So I do strongly believe it should be freely available up to 12 weeks, and only in exceptional circumstances after that, with good support for whatever people choose to do.

El_Duderino 09 · 17-09-2016 08:04PM

No

Candie wrote:

I'm not seeking to discuss it, or defend my choices. I don't need anyone to agree with me or approve of my reasoning.

I've been in too many of these inevitably circular discussions - too many of them aren't discussions, but an attempt to get every one to agree with one interpretation of what pro-choice means - too often that's 'pro MY choice'.

Fair enough. You don't have to discuss or have a reason for any feelings.

Winterlong · 17-09-2016 08:07PM

No

I remember my 80 year old grandad going to vote in the last abortion referendum. He really wanted to be sure the country stayed pure for future generations. And here we are, two generations later and his vote is still negatively impacting us.
Repeal the 8th, but only allow fertile people to vote.

PucaMama · 17-09-2016 08:17PM

Clampdown wrote: »

I definitely would and think our abortion laws are a national shame.

It's amazing how strongly people feel about this, including myself. If I find out someone is 'pro-life', I could never consider being good friends with them. Especially if they're men.

Why are men only allowed be pro choice?? Men can have their opinions too.

PucaMama · 17-09-2016 08:19PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

PucaMama wrote:

Viable meaning if the pregnancy ended then the child could survive without the mother once it got the medical support it needed. Then the mother could leave it. End of her input in the child's life.

If the pregnancy ended then were in agreement. If the pregnancy is ongoing then it is completely dependant on the mother. Viability doesn't enter into it because it is dependant. Once born viability is a consideration.

It doesn't matter to me whether the pregnancy is a day old or a day before birth would occur. Viability is a canard as long as it hasn't been born. That makes viability an interesting question but completely irrelevant to abortion - for me at least.

A child a day from birth is exactly the same developmentally as a newborn. How can you justify killing it.

Grayson · 17-09-2016 08:20PM

No

PucaMama wrote: »

Why are men only allowed be pro choice?? Men can have their opinions too.

When you say opinion do you mean opinion or do you mean fact? Because you get them confused.

PucaMama · 17-09-2016 08:21PM

Winterlong wrote: »

I remember my 80 year old grandad going to vote in the last abortion referendum. He really wanted to be sure the country stayed pure for future generations. And here we are, two generations later and his vote is still negatively impacting us.
Repeal the 8th, but only allow fertile people to vote.

Everyone is entitled to their vote.

PucaMama · 17-09-2016 08:22PM

Grayson wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

Why are men only allowed be pro choice?? Men can have their opinions too.

When you say opinion do you mean opinion or do you mean fact? Because you get them confused.

I don't get what that has to do with men having an opinion on abortion

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

Comments