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?

1…910121415…29

Comments

  • #332
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,777 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    RobertKK wrote: »
    https://twitter.com/NicoleOConor/status/839515950688964608
    https://twitter.com/nora__claire/status/839516265345609728
    https://twitter.com/ZaraKing/status/839435333859176449

    Quite crude.


    Because the anti choice side are so classy with their headlines and posters.

    https://twitter.com/bryanfox10/status/839559449530535941


    Pro-abort ‘witches’ toured Ireland handing out illegal abortion pills.


  • #333
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,777 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    anna080 wrote: »
    But there very much is a middle ground. Some people are pro-choice, but once it gets past a certain amount of weeks (i.e. when the foetus could survive outside the womb) some people can't be on board with that, so how do those people vote? It's a middle ground which the Repeal crowd do not want to address. It's crucial and it's integral to the referendum, yet nobody wants to have a conversation about it.

    No. Repealing the 8th does not make abortion legal. It just makes it possible to legislate for it,.

    Personally I'd have two referendum the same day. One to repeal and the second would be an advisory one that the government can use to determine which new legislation (if any) is needed.


  • #334
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Grayson wrote: »
    No. Repealing the 8th does not make abortion legal. It just makes it possible to legislate for it,.

    Personally I'd have two referendum the same day. One to repeal and the second would be an advisory one that the government can use to determine which new legislation (if any) is needed.

    Yes. I'm aware. My point is the middle ground do exist- they are people who are pro choice, but want to how many weeks they are supporting abortion up until before they cast their votes.
    Failing to acknowledge this integral crux may in middle ground pro choicers casting a "no to Repeal" vote, as some people do not support abortion after so many weeks.
    These are crucial voters- swing voters in some cases. But nobody is willing to address their concerns, just "we just want to Repeal and the government can legislate".


  • #335
    BetterThanThou
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 944 ✭✭✭BetterThanThou


    I'm all for legalising abortion, I've always felt that way, but the protest in Dublin today was not the right way to go about getting that done as far as I'm concerned.
    This protest was clearly planned out to cause as much disruption to as many people as possible, a large percentage of those are innocent people who agree with them, in addition to that, it's clearly cost the country and the city a significant loss, a loss which I can guarantee will be made up by cutting services to the people.
    The correct way of dealing with this issue would be for people to vote for the candidates that share their ideologies, but I'd imagine a large percentage of people involved in the march today aren't even registered to vote.


  • #336
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,777 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    anna080 wrote: »
    Yes. I'm aware. My point is the middle ground do exist- they are people who are pro choice, but want to how many weeks they are supporting abortion up until before they cast their votes.

    I've mentioned it before here but you'd be very hard pressed to find anyone who's pro choice who believes in no term limits for terminations.

    In general on these boards I see 12-13 weeks mentioned. That because firstly it's before brain activity really kicks in and also because in the US over 90% of terminations are carried out before that point. (Most of the ones that occur after 13 weeks in the US are due to lack of access. The women have to travel so far they can't arrange it before that point)

    I'd allow it after for fatal foetal abnormalities and when the woman's life is in danger, with a doctors approval of course.


  • Advertisement
  • #337
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,777 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    BetterThanThou wrote: »
    The correct way of dealing with this issue would be for people to vote for the candidates that share their ideologies, but I'd imagine a large percentage of people involved in the march today aren't even registered to vote.

    Why would you think that people who are politically active are not registered to vote?

    Ad good luck finding a pro choice candidate. Especially outside Dublin. Plus then you might have to vote for someone you detest because they support one issue that you do.

    The nuts thing is that this is a health issue. It shouldn't be a politics issue.


  • #338
    mzungu
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,310 Mod ✭✭✭✭mzungu


    Grayson wrote: »
    I've mentioned it before here but you'd be very hard pressed to find anyone who's pro choice who believes in no term limits for terminations.

    In general on these boards I see 12-13 weeks mentioned. That because firstly it's before brain activity really kicks in and also because in the US over 90% of terminations are carried out before that point. (Most of the ones that occur after 13 weeks in the US are due to lack of access. The women have to travel so far they can't arrange it before that point)

    I'd allow it after for fatal foetal abnormalities and when the woman's life is in danger, with a doctors approval of course.
    Has anybody in the Repeal movement said they are in favour of the above? I would agree btw, but I am just wondering why they aren't outlining their plan to voters.

    Plus, didn't Claire Daly say 24 weeks the other day?


  • #339
    20Cent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,940 ✭✭✭20Cent


    BetterThanThou wrote: »
    I'm all for legalising abortion, I've always felt that way, but the protest in Dublin today was not the right way to go about getting that done as far as I'm concerned.
    This protest was clearly planned out to cause as much disruption to as many people as possible, a large percentage of those are innocent people who agree with them, in addition to that, it's clearly cost the country and the city a significant loss, a loss which I can guarantee will be made up by cutting services to the people.
    The correct way of dealing with this issue would be for people to vote for the candidates that share their ideologies, but I'd imagine a large percentage of people involved in the march today aren't even registered to vote.

    What way do you think it should be done?
    Stopping traffic for an hour or so isn't going to mean cuts in services ridiculous. A large percentage not even registered to vote, where does that insight come from?


  • #340
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,777 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    mzungu wrote: »
    Has anybody in the Repeal movement said they are in favour of the above? I would agree btw, but I am just wondering why they aren't communicating this stuff.

    Plus, didn't Claire Daly say 24 weeks the other day?

    Most of it's covered here.

    http://www.abortionrightscampaign.ie/2016/08/06/abortion-faqs/

    I don't know what Claire Daly said but honestly I find her a bit annoying.

    I have friends involved in the campaign and they're pretty much on the same page as me.


  • #341
    20Cent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,940 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Gardai saying 10 to 12,000 took part not bad for a wednesday.


  • Advertisement
  • #342
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,819 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    The issue of "Up until how many weeks?" seems to be fairly important to a lot of people but it's a tricky one to solve because the current answer would be 0.

    It's more an issue of "If abortion on demand becomes legal at some point in the future, what time-limit will there be on it?"

    I get the impression that if that could be answered/guaranteed in some way (say 14/16 weeks) people would be more likely to vote to repeal.

    Perhaps, as Hatrickpatrick suggested, an amendment which states that the right to life starts at 14/16 weeks (except in cases of risk to life, and possibly rape and FFA)...I just wonder if legislation outlawing abortion on demand completely (as is the case now) would then be unconstitutional, but I don't know enough about the law.


  • #343
    Live65a846d0ee
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 209 ✭✭Live65a846d0ee


    The fact that abortion is illegal in this country in this day and age tells everything you need to know. No thanks, I will look at every other successful European country while you abuse your women in this country, absolute abuse as woman are forced to carry a child they don't want. Worst womans right in Europe, religious freaks talking ****e here.


  • #344
    Live65a846d0ee
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 209 ✭✭Live65a846d0ee


    osarusan wrote: »
    The issue of "Up until how many weeks?" seems to be fairly important to a lot of people but it's a tricky one to solve because the current answer would be 0.

    It's more an issue of "If abortion on demand becomes legal at some point in the future, what time-limit will there be on it?"

    I get the impression that if that could be answered/guaranteed in some way (say 14/16 weeks) people would be more likely to vote to repeal.

    Perhaps, as Hatrickpatrick suggested, an amendment which states that the right to life starts at 14/16 weeks (except in cases of risk to life, and possibly rape and FFA)...I just wonder if legislation outlawing abortion on demand completely (as is the case now) would then be unconstitutional, but I don't know enough about the law.


    It will not be legal because of religion and religious freaks who have nothing better to do then to tell people to breed non stop and ha e kids even if they don't want to. The only place for them is the concentration camp so their eyes are opened to reality.


  • #345
    Prime Irish Beef
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭Prime Irish Beef


    I find the timeline thing interesting. I know people who are prolife who have taken the contraceptive pill. I always figured if you were prolife, then you would most definitely be against the morning after pill?

    Obviously, there are many shades of grey but for those who argue life starts at conception, I do find it kinda weird that this pill is okay but abortion is not.


  • #346
    mzungu
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,310 Mod ✭✭✭✭mzungu


    osarusan wrote: »
    The issue of "Up until how many weeks?" seems to be fairly important to a lot of people but it's a tricky one to solve because the current answer would be 0.

    It's more an issue of "If abortion on demand becomes legal at some point in the future, what time-limit will there be on it?"

    I get the impression that if that could be answered/guaranteed in some way (say 14/16 weeks) people would be more likely to vote to repeal.

    Perhaps, as Hatrickpatrick suggested, an amendment which states that the right to life starts at 14/16 weeks (except in cases of risk to life, and possibly rape and FFA)...I just wonder if legislation outlawing abortion on demand completely (as is the case now) would then be unconstitutional, but I don't know enough about the law.
    No limit as it stands.

    From the link provided a few posts above:
    What should be the time limit on abortion access?

    The Abortion Rights Campaign opposes gestational limits because we do not believe there should ever be a time limit on accessing healthcare.

    When given the choice, women access abortion services as early as possible. In countries where abortion is legal and accessible, late term abortions are very rare. In the U.S 92% of abortions are carried out within the first 13 weeks of pregnancy.

    However, sometimes the need for an abortion does not become apparent until later in pregnancy. For example, a diagnosis of foetal impairment is often only given after the 22 week scan. These cases are extremely rare but they do happen. Approximately 1.2 and 1.4 percent of abortions occur at or after twenty-one weeks gestation in the U.S. and U.K. respectively.

    Attempts to enforce legal time limits for abortion are often enacted with a view to lower the number of abortions. However, there is no evidence that this is effective. This also suggests somehow there exists a ‘correct’ number of abortions, further separating the procedure from routine medical care. Indeed ‘late-term’ abortions are subject to intensified stigma. Overall arbitrary limitations compound stigma and prevent women from accessing the highest possible standards of care.

    There is no right or wrong time to have an abortion, just as no one reason for accessing abortion services outweighs the other. Studies have shown that there are a variety of reasons that women need to access later term abortions.

    Due to our restrictive laws and cost of travel, women who live in Ireland actually tend to have abortions later than those who live in the UK. 1/3 of Irish abortions are carried out at 10 weeks compared to 1/5 of UK women. Liberalising abortion laws here would mean abortions are carried out earlier as they would be more easily accessible.

    - See more at: http://www.abortionrightscampaign.ie/2016/08/06/abortion-faqs/#sthash.ViSHxSje.dpuf


  • #347
    Sweetemotion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,556 ✭✭✭Sweetemotion


    Live65a846d0ee wrote: »
    The fact that abortion is illegal in this country in this day and age tells everything you need to know. No thanks, I will look at every other successful European country while you abuse your women in this country, absolute abuse as woman are forced to carry a child they don't want. Worst womans right in Europe, religious freaks talking ****e here.

    Women in this country are more likely to be religious than men.


  • #348
    Live65a846d0ee
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 209 ✭✭Live65a846d0ee


    Sweetemotion wrote: »
    Women in this country are more likely to be religious than men.


    Yes and what is the cause for this? Christianity. If religion didn't exists this wouldn't be an issue at all. Now they have to demand no abortions from other women as they are brainwashed beyond repair. The only fix is concentration camp with hard teaching of real life values camp for some eye opening. Hardcore measures for hardcore indoctrinated people.


  • #349
    mzungu
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,310 Mod ✭✭✭✭mzungu


    Live65a846d0ee wrote: »
    Yes and what is the cause for this? Christianity. If religion didn't exists this wouldn't be an issue at all. Now they have to demand no abortions from other women as they are brainwashed beyond repair. The only fix is concentration camp with hard teaching of real life values camp for some eye opening. Hardcore measures for hardcore indoctrinated people.
    You are implying they don't have agency. Which is simply not true.


  • #350
    Sweetemotion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,556 ✭✭✭Sweetemotion


    Live65a846d0ee wrote: »
    Yes and what is the cause for this? Christianity. If religion didn't exists this wouldn't be an issue at all. Now they have to demand no abortions from other women as they are brainwashed beyond repair. The only fix is concentration camp with hard teaching of real life values camp for some eye opening. Hardcore measures for hardcore indoctrinated people.


    So, you want to abuse the women of this country also?

    Sounds logical I guess...


  • #351
    MightyMandarin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,723 ✭✭✭MightyMandarin


    Grayson wrote: »
    Because the anti choice side are so classy with their headlines and posters.

    https://twitter.com/bryanfox10/status/839559449530535941


    Pro-abort ‘witches’ toured Ireland handing out illegal abortion pills.
    RobertKK wrote: »
    https://twitter.com/NicoleOConor/status/839515950688964608
    https://twitter.com/nora__claire/status/839516265345609728
    https://twitter.com/ZaraKing/status/839435333859176449

    Quite crude.


    I really do wish people would stop paying attention to the ****ing idiots on either side of the debate who are both as cringeworthy as each other.

    It does nothing to benefit the debate in any way, which should be one in which the only questions discussed are of a moral, ethical and legal nature.

    This is why most people avoid the matter altogether, because both campaigns are ever-ready to make this a mud-slinging fest and find 'who's the most annoying protester' and use that to confirm their opinion on the whole bloody debate.


  • Advertisement
  • #352
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    The Abortion Rights Campaign opposes gestational limits because we do not believe there should ever be a time limit on accessing healthcare.
    Which completely ignores the reason why many if not most would take issue with late term abortions where the foetus is beyond the survivable outside the womb stage.
    There is no right or wrong time to have an abortion,
    What the actual hell? So according to this statement and while they might not approve of it(though I'm giving benefits of the doubt there), they'd be OK with a healthy foetus being aborted at say 30 weeks, or beyond? Apparently there's no right or wrong time. Get off the stage.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #353
    mzungu
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,310 Mod ✭✭✭✭mzungu


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Which completely ignores the reason why many if not most would take issue with late term abortions where the foetus is beyond the survivable outside the womb stage.

    What the actual hell? So according to this statement and while they might not approve of it(though I'm giving benefits of the doubt there), they'd be OK with a healthy foetus being aborted at say 30 weeks, or beyond? Apparently there's no right or wrong time. Get off the stage.

    That would be pretty much the size of it.

    Also, in cases where the child will have a disability:
    Should abortions be allowed for someone who knows their baby will have a serious illness, condition or disability?

    Abortion should be available where a woman asks for one. If a woman feels unable to raise a child with a serious illness or condition she should be entitled to an abortion if she feels that is the right choice for her.

    We should not be here to judge the decisions made by women but rather ensure they have the agency and legal right to make those decisions. Whatever the reason for abortion the pregnant person is the best position to make decisions about their own circumstances and capacity.

    Abortion due to disability or serious illness in the foetus is rare. A study carried out in 2009 in the UK showed that only 1% of abortions were carried out due to disability.

    - See more at: http://www.abortionrightscampaign.ie/2016/08/06/abortion-faqs/#sthash.ViSHxSje.FmWTpLeq.dpuf
    None of that will play well to middle Ireland. They might want to start rowing back on that kind of stuff.


  • #354
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,819 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    mzungu wrote: »
    No limit as it stands.

    From the link provided a few posts above:

    I don't really see what this has to do with my point.

    I'm not commenting on what some campaigners say- I'm commenting on what I see as the complicated nature of trying to implement a time-limit on the (future) legality of a procedure that is currently completely illegal.


  • #355
    Live65a846d0ee
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 209 ✭✭Live65a846d0ee


    Sweetemotion wrote: »
    So, you want to abuse the women of this country also?

    Sounds logical I guess...



    It is not abuse just re-education.


  • #356
    Live65a846d0ee
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 209 ✭✭Live65a846d0ee


    Anyway there is no way that abortion will ever be legal in this country due to brainwashed freaks. The only abortion that might be legal is one under extremely strict criteria which wouldn't much difference, planes to the UK would still be flying.


  • #357
    Sweetemotion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,556 ✭✭✭Sweetemotion


    Live65a846d0ee wrote: »
    It is not abuse just re-education.


    What values would you be teaching these women, that have been forced into concentration camps for "re-education"?


  • #358
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    How the Hell could abortions be facilitated in a country that cannot find beds for seriously ill people? https://www.inmo.ie/trolley_ward_watch


  • #359
    meeeeh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Which completely ignores the reason why many if not most would take issue with late term abortions where the foetus is beyond the survivable outside the womb stage.

    What the actual hell? So according to this statement and while they might not approve of it(though I'm giving benefits of the doubt there), they'd be OK with a healthy foetus being aborted at say 30 weeks, or beyond? Apparently there's no right or wrong time. Get off the stage.
    So how many of those do you know of happening? How many countries allow late term abortion unless there are some very serious medical reasons and more than one doctor signs on them. Not to mention that late term abortion is already allowed under current law. I'm all for debate but this kind of scaremongering doesn't help anyone.


  • #360
    mzungu
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,310 Mod ✭✭✭✭mzungu


    osarusan wrote: »
    I don't really see what this has to do with my point.

    I'm not commenting on what some campaigners say- I'm commenting on what I see as the complicated nature of trying to implement a time-limit on the (future) legality of a procedure that is currently completely illegal.
    Fair enough, I misread your post.


  • Advertisement
  • #361
    Here we go
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 286 ✭✭Here we go


    Live65a846d0ee wrote: »
    It will not be legal because of religion and religious freaks who have nothing better to do then to tell people to breed non stop and ha e kids even if they don't want to. The only place for them is the concentration camp so their eyes are opened to reality.

    As someone who's pro life I find this a cheap argument it as Notting to do with religion or sexism or a lack of respect for women it's the belief that the unborn are just as important as me or you or anyone else and should be protected I feel terrible for women who find them selfs in a situation where they feel they need an abortion but as bad as I feel for them I feel worse for the child who I belive is a life haveing zero say there life over before it enters the world


Advertisement