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

Strike For Repeal?

13567…29

Comments

  • #62
    PoorAuldDivil
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43 ✭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'.


  • #63
    ted1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,259 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #64
    The Legend Of Kira
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 726 ✭✭✭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 .


  • #65
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,771 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #66
    __Alex__
    Closed Accounts Posts: 473 ✭✭__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.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [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


  • #68
    Anita Blow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,935 ✭✭✭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.


  • #69
    meeeeh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #70
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,739 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #71
    SEPT 23 1989
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,039 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    The Legend Of Kira
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 726 ✭✭✭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


  • #73
    mahamageehad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,673 ✭✭✭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.


  • #74
    The Legend Of Kira
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 726 ✭✭✭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 .


  • #75
    Earthhorse
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,717 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #76
    Dirty Dingus McGee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭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.


  • #77
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,567 Mod ✭✭✭✭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!


  • #78
    ted1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,259 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #79
    thee glitz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,294 ✭✭✭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.


  • #80
    Earthhorse
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,717 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #81
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,705 ✭✭✭✭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 .


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    zanador
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 505 ✭✭✭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.


  • #83
    mahamageehad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,673 ✭✭✭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.


  • #84
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,711 ✭✭✭✭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)


  • #85
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,705 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #86
    mahamageehad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,673 ✭✭✭mahamageehad


    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)

    Theoretically yes. I would involve them updating or replacing the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act (which i'm just going to call the Act), but it could happen. It would be nonsensical though, there would be no benefit for them to do that. The Act is so restrictive currently that if any of the women allowed an abortion by its terms were refused an abortion, they would literally die. The Act only allows abortion when the other choice is death, and I'd wager that most civilised countries that don't allow abortion have some variation of the aforementioned Act. It also means however that the government could repeal the 8th, and not touch the Act. In that case, we'd have a nice expensive referendum with no tangible result. Repealing the 8th actually would put no obligation on the government to review, change or update the Act.


  • #87
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,024 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    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.

    Women who wish to abort due to fatal foetal abnormality also have to travel.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #88
    Dirty Dingus McGee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Dirty Dingus McGee


    ted1 wrote: »
    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.



    We effectively have a choice between 2 major parties and both FF and FG are very similar so this could be a way of them gaining the support they need to get a majority.Their policies overall are not wildly different so you end up very much the same overall regardless of which one is voted in so this sort of issue could be a tipping point.

    If it's that big an issue then it should really be a more important part of election campaigns.


  • #89
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,711 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    mahamageehad wrote: »
    Theoretically yes. I would involve them updating or replacing the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act (which i'm just going to call the Act), but it could happen. It would be nonsensical though, there would be no benefit for them to do that. The Act is so restrictive currently that if any of the women allowed an abortion by its terms were refused an abortion, they would literally die. The Act only allows abortion when the other choice is death, and I'd wager that most civilised countries that don't allow abortion have some variation of the aforementioned Act. It also means however that the government could repeal the 8th, and not touch the Act. In that case, we'd have a nice expensive referendum with no tangible result. Repealing the 8th actually would put no obligation on the government to review, change or update the Act.

    So if the government could technically make it more difficult to access an abortion. Wouldn't the people with repeal campaign be better off to set out what they want.


  • #90
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,147 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    mahamageehad wrote: »
    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.

    I presume the fear that a lot of people have is once the eight amendment is removed from the constitution society will never have the opportunity to express their opinion on the matter again. It will be left to the whims of politicians with an eye to the latest opinion poll or hard case rather than medical experts or the will of the people.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Advertisement
  • #91
    jameorahiely
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 825 ✭✭✭jameorahiely


    mahamageehad wrote: »
    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.

    Does the 8th cover Nebraska too, where abortion is legal?
    Another disgusting case where a woman was used as an incubator :rolleyes:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3063170/Doctors-moms-body-functioning-baby-survive.html


Advertisement