nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Strike For Repeal?

fatknacker

Anyone gonna? I've the day off anyway but I probably wouldn't have stroked if I hadn't, although I would like everyone to have abortions. Whoops, I mean, choice for abortions.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Tigger

freshpopcorn wrote: »

This is something I often wondered. If we did repeal the eighth amendment. Could the government make it harder than ever to get an abortion?
If we left it up to the government to legislate for when the amendment was repealed.
(I hope that makes scene)

Well there was a time when women didn't nessiciarly have the right to leave the state if the were pregnant and suspected of planning to get a termination.

freshpopcorn

This is something I often wondered. If we did repeal the eighth amendment. Could the government make it harder than ever to get an abortion?
If we left it up to the government to legislate for when the amendment was repealed.
(I hope that makes scene)

mahamageehad

Tigger wrote: »

I'd assume that unless you need rather than want (need and want being defined by i Donno ?; doctors) that you will have to pay for the procedure. The idea of
A waiting list is horrible .

While the thought of a waiting list may be horrible, we're talking about a time sensitive procedure in most cases unfortunately. Clinics in the UK were turning Irish women away earlier this year because Jan and Feb are the busiest times for abortion. Source: https://www.her.ie/news/uk-abortion-clinics-will-begin-turn-away-irish-women-331776

The want/need issue is a more interesting topic to me. The pro-choice case argues that want and need are the same thing in the case of abortion, but most only support it until a certain time. Many pro-lifers would agree with abortion in a case where it's "needed" (usually when the mother's life is at risk) but would abhor the idea of someone "wanting" an abortion. Both sides have grey areas and in my experience, most people fall just left or right of the middle.

Currently the possibility of an abortion comes down to two things, the 8th amendment and the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act. The 8th amendment puts the life of the foetus on par with the mother and therefore restricts what the legislation can allow for. The Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act defines in what circumstances a woman in Ireland can get an abortion - life-threatening physical illness, medical emergency and suicide-risk. Two doctors need to certify that it's necessary. Unfortunately it doesn't cover every case, and that, for me, is the issue. What about the 14 year old that was raped, but she's not "quite" suicidal enough? What about the couple that have been trying for a baby, only to fall pregnant with a child that won't be able to survive outside the womb? There was also that disgusting case a while ago where they kept a brain-dead woman alive as a macabre human incubator. That was a direct result of the 8th amendment.

Really, doctors and lawmakers and other educated, diverse people (men and women) should be arguing this out on moral, ethical and legal grounds. There are plenty of case studies from other countries. Why should something like this come down to popular vote? It seems almost disrespectful of the complexity of the situation. As long as the 8th amendment is in the constitution, it'll always be treated as a bargaining chip. In my opinion, the 8th should be repealed. The Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act (which only allows for extremely limited abortion as above) would then become the legislation we rely on. It would allow us in time to open up the conversation to talk about rape victims, or fatal fetal abnormalities and more, without immediately phrasing it as allowing or banning abortion.

zanador

I am 100% pro-choice. The fact that so many women travel to Britain for abortions is a point. It's happening whether one likes it or not and we should be supporting these women within our society, not turning a blind eye and pretending it doesn't happen because some one else is picking up the pieces for us.

I am not a fan of militancy on either side of the argument.

Tigger

Earthhorse wrote: »

So you'd be okay with abortion if women had to pay to get one here?

I'd assume that unless you need rather than want (need and want being defined by i Donno ?; doctors) that you will have to pay for the procedure. The idea of
A waiting list is horrible .

Earthhorse

thee glitz wrote: »

The government isn't forcing anyone to pay to travel abroad for an abortion. If you just want one though, as opposed to having a serious need for one, you will have to travel abroad. There's no good enough reason why the government, ie every taxpayer, should subsidise that.

So you'd be okay with abortion if women had to pay to get one here?

thee glitz

Earthhorse wrote: »

Ah, why should anyone anything?

Why should women be made pay for the government's inadequacies by having to travel abroad for abortion?

The government isn't forcing anyone to pay to travel abroad for an abortion. If you just want one though, as opposed to having a serious need for one, you will have to travel abroad. There's no good enough reason why the government, ie every taxpayer, should subsidise that.

ted1

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

If people care so much about this then why don't they simply have a massive petition before every election pledging that the people who sign the petition will only vote for the party that promises to fix the issue.If parties see massive loss of votes because of something like this they'd act fairly quickly.

We're great in this country for complaining afterwards about things but seem to be quite poor at using our vote for getting what we want.

Because there's lot of issues that go on in the country and picking a government based on an abortion issue is about as daft as picking one based on water charges. As it means housing, health , welfare , taxes, defence, industry, agriculture etc all get kicked to the kerb and we all suffer.

johnnyskeleton

Zaph wrote: »

Fair enough, but why should the local Spar, for instance, be made pay for the government's inadequacies if all their staff decide to go on strike over something unrelated to their employment?

I dont think its an actual picket style strike. Its more like:

Employee: can i swop shifts on wednesday to protest abortion?
Employer: yeah thats a great idea just call it a holdiay we'll manage
Both: yay!

Dirty Dingus McGee

If people care so much about this then why don't they simply have a massive petition before every election pledging that the people who sign the petition will only vote for the party that promises to fix the issue.If parties see massive loss of votes because of something like this they'd act fairly quickly.

We're great in this country for complaining afterwards about things but seem to be quite poor at using our vote for getting what we want.

Earthhorse

Zaph wrote: »

Fair enough, but why should the local Spar, for instance, be made pay for the government's inadequacies if all their staff decide to go on strike over something unrelated to their employment?

Ah, why should anyone anything?

Why should women be made pay for the government's inadequacies by having to travel abroad for abortion? I'm sure the local Spar, for instance, will get over it.

The Legend Of Kira

On the " term limits 2" argument,, I recall a debate between Cora Sherlock & Ruth Coppinger on the Vincent Browne show last summer-the " term limits " question was put to Ruth by Cora, Ruth didn,t really give a proper definite answer & looked rather weak .

mahamageehad

The "how many weeks" argument really shows why this campaign will likely fail. There's two problems- firstly, the majority of people that would be voting believe that this is a vote to allow abortion and want to know exactly what kind of abortion they are allowing. There's a lot of ignorance in what exactly is potentially up for repeal. The 2013 act is almost never referenced. For those that understand that repealing the 8th doesn't legalise abortion, many of those don't trust the government to implement abortion legislation to their satisfaction. There's also the (admittedly appealing) argument that by covering this in the constitution, we won't have to hear about it every bloody general election. "I'll introduce abortion for everyone!" "The last government messed up by bringing in abortion, vote for me and I'll make it illegal again". Ugh.

Secondly, it shows how flimsy the goal of the repeal side is. Basically, lots of different people have different reasons for wanting to repeal, and different goals. When asked a question like that, they're not all singing from the same hymn sheet which, to the undecided, looks weak and seems lacking in integrity. The extreme pro lifers and extreme pro choicers really need to quieten down to have any hope of convincing the undecided middle, but snowballs chance of that id say.

The Legend Of Kira

kylith wrote: »

I agree that people don't have a right not to be offended but do you think that images of miscarried or stillborn fetuses* are OK to be shown on the street where children can see them? I was fcking traumatised as a child by the YD posters on College Green.

Would you be saying the same if the Repeal side were showing pictures of women who died of septicaemia after a back street abortion?

*Which is what YD's photos are of, but they pass them off as aborted because they're much later term and therefore more developed and upsetting to people.

Would you be saying the same if the Repeal side were showing pictures of women who died of septicaemia after a back street abortion?

I would actually, as I said in my other post .

whatever side the debate you re on ; I think people on both sides have a equal right to make & present their arguments .

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102844649&postcount=50

SEPT 23 1989

RobertKK wrote: »

There should be a referendum and TV coverage should show all the facts including an actual abortion so people know exactly what they are voting for or against.

A strike is an excuse for a day off work as it is not about work conditions.

Clare Daly who is often on TV and radio talking about this, when asked about time limits, argues that there should be no time limits on abortion.
The 24 weeks time limit in the UK is controversial in itself given babies born at 22 weeks can survive with the right care if born prematurely.

The ending of a healthy baby's life at 24 weeks is disgusting and the majority of this country would not stand for it

kylith

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

I understand & get some people will find those posters offensive, however that said I don,t think people have a right to be free from being offended, from looking at online footage from yesterday,s counter protest in the South east some people just looked the other way when they saw them as in Irnoreing them.

I agree that people don't have a right not to be offended but do you think that images of miscarried or stillborn fetuses* are OK to be shown on the street where children can see them? I was fcking traumatised as a child by the YD posters on College Green.

Would you be saying the same if the Repeal side were showing pictures of women who died of septicaemia after a back street abortion?

*Which is what YD's photos are of, but they pass them off as aborted because they're much later term and therefore more developed and upsetting to people.

meeeeh

RobertKK wrote: »

There should be a referendum and TV coverage should show all the facts including an actual abortion so people know exactly what they are voting for or against.

Hysterics make bad laws. But maybe that's the intention.

Anita Blow

Absolutely support repealing the 8th but I despise the campaign. I find it needlessly polarising. There is no nuance in their argument- it's either you're with us or against us and they show no real understanding of the genuine reservations people have about abortion. Also I don't think the average Irish person who may be on the fence can relate in any way to the faces of the campaign. Each campaign video is headed by a bunch of Trinity Arts student feminists, which rightly or wrongly a lot of people dismiss off-hand for various reasons.

[Deleted User]

Jayop wrote: »

It's a religious vs non-religious argument and sex has no bearing on whether you support it or not.

bullsh!t
It's not simply a religious argument. Some idiots on both sides say it is, but it's pretty condescending towards a huge majority of people who have a non religious based opinion on the matter.

Nice try

__Alex__

meeeeh wrote: »

Well if they are not then they deserve the dignity of not being used as a cheap prop in advertising campaign. It might be also upsetting to someone who had miscarriage.

However this would be beyond compassion, understanding or consideration of extreme pro life groups. Louise O'Neill is an idiot but extreme prolifers are much worse.

+1. I can't understand why anyone who believes life begins at conception would be OK with pro-life groups using those shock tactic images in their campaign. It's most bizarre.

RobertKK

There should be a referendum and TV coverage should show all the facts including an actual abortion so people know exactly what they are voting for or against.

A strike is an excuse for a day off work as it is not about work conditions.

Clare Daly who is often on TV and radio talking about this, when asked about time limits, argues that there should be no time limits on abortion.
The 24 weeks time limit in the UK is controversial in itself given babies born at 22 weeks can survive with the right care if born prematurely.

The Legend Of Kira

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

I agree with you in principle however in this instance the banners contained graphic and upsettng images. Personally I think that's too much for small kids or people feeling very sensitive about the issues of abortion or miscarriage. While I absolutely support their right to campaign and put their view forth I do understand why there's a problem with graphic pictures being displayed publicly where people don't have a choice to expose themselves to them or not.

kylith wrote: »

They asked them to take down the banners because they were too graphic. If they're anything like the pictures YD used to have up when they were on College Green I can see why. Photos of stillborn foetuses are not appropriate for public display. There is nothing to stop them from using other banners.

I understand & get some people will find those posters offensive, however that said I don,t think people have a right to be free from being offended, from looking at online footage from yesterday,s counter protest in the South east some people just looked the other way when they saw them as in Irnoreing them.

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Who's this fool Laura Silver with her "Galway Police" drivel.

A journalist from the Uk who,s travelling around in the Rosa bus covering the story .

ted1

kylith wrote: »

They asked them to take down the banners because they were too graphic. If they're anything like the pictures YD used to have up when they were on College Green I can see why. Photos of stillborn foetuses are not appropriate for public display. There is nothing to stop them from using other banners.

Cigarette packages are very graphic too. Yet the state insist on that.

PoorAuldDivil

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nope. But I didn't expect one tbf as she never engages with people who disagree with her on Twitter. Mutes them usually.

Normally she drowns them out with her 'Primal Scream'.

meeeeh

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Sure they're only "clumps of cells" shortly after a woman has a "medical procedure".

Well if they are not then they deserve the dignity of not being used as a cheap prop in advertising campaign. It might be also upsetting to someone who had miscarriage.

However this would be beyond compassion, understanding or consideration of extreme pro life groups. Louise O'Neill is an idiot but extreme prolifers are much worse.

[Deleted User]

Big Jim Larkin wrote: »

How exactly are unemployed people and students going to strike?

Hmmmm. Maybe by refusing to give in to their carnal desires for 24 hours?

Widdershins

No, I have to earn a living and I work for myself and nobody would know I was on strike. And the campaign's all over the place and that's a bit off putting. *runs*

Outlaw Pete

thee glitz wrote: »

Did you get a reply?

Nope. But I didn't expect one tbf as she never engages with people who disagree with her on Twitter. Mutes them usually.

thee glitz

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Or perhaps she genuinely didn't know about the act, which while worrying, isn't all that surprising.

Did you get a reply?

Outlaw Pete

kylith wrote: »

Photos of stillborn foetuses are not appropriate for public display.

Sure they're only "clumps of cells" shortly after a woman has a "medical procedure".

osarusan wrote: »

I get the impression that there are many people who don't know about the 2013 Act, and who consequently think that repealing the 8th amendment will see us fall into that black hole.

Absolutely and LON was seemingly playing on that fact just yesterday and so I replied to her with the following:

https://twitter.com/CineIreland/status/838764449876045824

Or perhaps she genuinely didn't know about the act, which while worrying, isn't all that surprising.