Strike For Repeal?

Was there ever a stage when this thread was about the actual strike to repeal, which at least is a new and somewhat more interesting topic than whether boards.ie agrees on abortion ( spoiler alert boards.ie does not agree on abortion)

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Abortion will never be treated as just a health issue between a woman and her GP because the State recognises the right to life of the unborn even if an abortion were never sought by the woman in question. The 8th amendment recognises their equal right to life, and repealing it wouldn't take away the right to life of the unborn.

The states recognition of right to life of the unborn is as open to challenge as any other state position, whether that is taken care of in a repeal of the eighth is obv debatable but if everything on this issue is insistently framed on the right-to-life basis it merely guarantees in the longer run that this is where the battle will be fought.

Ayuntamiento wrote: »

All abortions are supposed to have some kind of legitimate reason behind them whether it's physical or medical.
'Abortion on demand' makes it sound like it's on a par with a drive through McDonald's experience. I really don't believe there are women out there who go around 'demanding' abortions. I believe it's ultimately a decision borne out of absolute desperation.

I trust in the obstetricians of this country to listen to their patients and arrive at good decisions.
I understand that there needs to be a cut-off point. I'm not an obstetrician myself so I would never presume to give an arbitrary cut-off point as you requested.

This debate needs more experts talking rather than relying on how you and I feel about it.

see thats simply not true, single mothers are looked after by the state.
when i was younger a 17 year okld i knew became pregnant, she was whisted off to engleand for an aborting (on demand ), she wd upper middle class parents and she could have raised that baby, it was simply more no to. a year later she had a baby to the same boy that she didnt have the first to.
her first abortion wasnt out of of desperate need , this is prooven by the fact that she raise the second kid to be a fine young man. her parents simply told her "no" after letting her get rid of the "problem"
if there was such a need then she couldnt have had the second so sucessfully

first pregnancy would have been only 6 months older than the second child was
nothing cjhanged in the interim it was simply more convienient it was contraception after the fact , it was abortion on demant and loads of bortions are on demand

so if you and your group dont cop on and realise that the middle dont want to see late second trimester abortion in this country you will probably lose the human rights to reproductive choice whice are:

the right to first or very early second trimester terminatrion
and the right to have a fatally flawed fetus terminated

both of which i would like to see avainable in this country (but not for free thats a different story)

but if ye keep pushing this agenda of we should be allowed do whatever we like, well then ye will lose

dont thisnk that the same sex marraige thing is an indicator of change , there was nothing that i as a middle or my peers would even think of bringing up as a reason to vote against it
but it still only passed 62-38

either ye ask for a qualified refferundum or it will fail

ie ask for the 8th to be changed to x rather than deleted

Deleted User wrote: »

Was there ever a stage when this thread was about the actual strike to repeal, which at least is a new and somewhat more interesting topic than whether boards.ie agrees on abortion ( spoiler alert boards.ie does not agree on abortion)

there were less people in attendance than on the thread

One eyed Jack

Ayuntamiento wrote: »

Our constitution needs an overhaul in general. There's all kinds of bs about blasphemy and the place of women in society that need a massive overhaul. I have no intention of living my life under the constraints of an out-dated and misogynistic document that bears no reflection on modern life.

There's plenty in the Irish Constitution is a reflection of modern Irish society. I don't know how you construe it as a misogynistic document when there's plenty in there too about protecting the rights of women and promoting a fairer society for every member of Irish society, including the unborn, which may well be female. That's something I doubt you've considered - in other countries, abortion is used as a method of family planning where boys are more valued and girls are aborted -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-selective_abortion

Deleted User wrote: »

Was there ever a stage when this thread was about the actual strike to repeal, which at least is a new and somewhat more interesting topic than whether boards.ie agrees on abortion ( spoiler alert boards.ie does not agree on abortion)

Good luck with trying to separate the two!
I used to think that abortion was one of those issues where the belief is so polarized that you could argue and argue but nobody would ever change their viewpoint.

I've actually been surprised at how many people I previously knew to be pro-life that have moderated significantly, to the point where they would vote to repeal the 8th.
My own father is a farmer from rural Ireland in his 60s and he has told me he'd vote to repeal! He only ever had daughters and the idea of couples with fatal fetal abnormalities having to go abroad breaks his heart.

kylith

Tigger wrote: »

there were less people in attendance than on the thread

There are 11,000 people on the thread? :eek: Most popular Boards thread ever, methinks!

Ayuntamiento wrote: »

Good luck with trying to separate the two!
I used to think that abortion was one of those issues where the belief is so polarized that you could argue and argue but nobody would ever change their viewpoint.

I've actually been surprised at how many people I previously knew to be pro-life that have moderated significantly, to the point where they would vote to repeal the 8th.
My own father is a farmer from rural Ireland in his 60s and he has told me he'd vote to repeal! He only ever had daughters and the idea of couples with fatal fetal abnormalities having to go abroad breaks his heart.

i'm the opposite
i thought i was pro chouce before this but the thought of killing a perfectly healthy 24 week or even 20 week old fetus breaks my heart.
I agree on the fatal fetal issue tho. but if its all in or all out i know id have a hard choice

Tigger wrote: »

If I vote to repeal the amendment what weeks do you think abortion on demand should be allowed up until?

If the 8th amendment is repealed, it doesn't automatically allow abortions. It only came into being in 1980s, the legislation before that made it an offence. So any question of abortion after the repeal of the amendment are separate to that repeal.
Abortion can be legislated for, if there is a need, once the 8th amendment is repealed.

kylith wrote: »

There are 11,000 people on the thread? :eek: Most popular Boards thread ever, methinks!

fake news number
show me a pic with 11,000 people in it

also the thread has had 26,000 views btw

the news said there were 2,000

then this hppened

* This article was ammended on Thursday, March 9th. An earlier version of this story stated 2,000 people marched from the Garden of Remembrance in Parnell Square to Leinster House on Wednesday night. On Thursday, the Repeal the Eighth coalition estimated there had been about 8,000 at this march. On Wednesday night, the group said gardaí had informed organisers the attendance was between 10,000 and 12,000, based on numbers stretching from O’Connell Bridge to Parnell Square. A Garda spokesman said the force could not confirm attendance numbers in relation to such events.

so the group claimed 11,000 and claimed the Garda told them but the Garda said they couldn't confrm

tere were very few i saw the numbers on the trafic cams and on the ariel views

again i'm pro chooce up to a point but ye are over playing your hands here

kylith

Tigger wrote: »

i'm the opposite
i thought i was pro chouce before this but the thought of killing a perfectly healthy 24 week or even 20 week old fetus breaks my heart.
I agree on the fatal fetal issue tho. but if its all in or all out i know id have a hard choice

No one is arguing for aborting healthy 24 week fetuses. One person has said that they personally wouldn't have an issue with it, but even they said that they think that a time limit between 16 and 20 weeks would be best.

Tigger wrote: »

fake news number
show me a pic with 11,000 people in it

also the thread has had 26,000 views btw

The first two pictures show possible capacity on bridge, the third is of the actual crowd marching.
17097891_607090102813763_8739845988950799741_o.jpg?oh=b61d1a8e3a3a40d2f3602c5ba61e9634&oe=596F048D

17097891_607090102813763_8739845988950799741_o.jpg?oh=b61d1a8e3a3a40d2f3602c5ba61e9634&oe=596F048D

Lovindublin reports around 15,000 people.

ETA: Just realised that they're counting the 5,000 at 12:30 and c10,000 at 17:30
https://lovindublin.com/news/over-15-000-people-turned-out-for-dublins-repeal-the-8th-protest-yesterday

Also, 26,000 view =/= 26,000 people.

Tigger wrote: »

i'm the opposite
i thought i was pro chouce before this but the thought of killing a perfectly healthy 24 week or even 20 week old fetus breaks my heart.
I agree on the fatal fetal issue tho. but if its all in or all out i know id have a hard choice

I think that's a strawman argument if ever there was one. Do you really believe that 24wk abortions happen routinely in jurisdictions where abortion is allowed? And do you really believe that 24wk abortions would become par for the course if we repealed the 8th?

If so then you're ill-informed on both counts and you should educate yourself properly on the topic.
Abortions at such a late point are the exception to the rule and are almost always in the case where the fetus has severe health issues that are incompatible with life.

kylith wrote: »

No one is arguing for aborting healthy 24 week fetuses. One person has said that they personally wouldn't have an issue with it, but even they said that they think that a time limit between 16 and 20 weeks would be best.

The first two pictures show possible capacity on bridge, the third is of the actual crowd marching.

Lovindublin reports around 15,000 people.
https://lovindublin.com/news/over-15-000-people-turned-out-for-dublins-repeal-the-8th-protest-yesterday

Also, 26,000 view =/= 26,000 people.

i knowe 26,000 views isnt 26,000 people
that was the point

i dont know what that pic is supposed to show, it seems to show a segment three times a big as the crowd
lovin dublin are not a news provider of record

Richard Hillman

"Lovin Dublin" are leftists. They called Donald Trump a Nut job for criticising Castro after he died. Lovely man was Castro

Ayuntamiento wrote: »

I think that's a strawman argument if ever there was one. Do you really believe that 24wk abortions happen routinely in jurisdictions where abortion is allowed? And do you really believe that 24wk abortions would become par for the course if we repealed the 8th?

If so then you're ill-informed on both counts and you should educate yourself properly on the topic.
Abortions at such a late point are the exception to the rule and are almost always in the case where the fetus has severe health issues that are incompatible with life.

abortion on demand is the most likley reason for abortion
but you ignore that because rights

fair enough i'm only telling ye that you are pissing off the middle transiant voters and that i can see a the new thoughtfull pro-lifres coming on the radio and tv already to make their points

hatrickpatrick

Why in God's name would somebody who wanted an abortion for a non-medical / unforeseen reason wait until six months into their pregnancy to get one? Even if they had no thought at all for the fetus, I can only imagine that the physical mechanics of getting one at that stage are, for the mother, a nasty, nasty business. That's one of the many reasons I reckon most proponents of abortion on demand would be on board with term limits - I can't see anyone who just doesn't want to give birth or have a child waiting until so late into their pregnancy to get it done.

Strikes me that "abortion on demand will lead to horrific partial birth abortions and dead babies" is a ridiculous scare tactic by the pro-life side.

Tigger wrote: »

abortion on demand is the most likley reason for abortion
but you ignore that because rights

fair enough i'm only telling ye that you are pissing off the middle transiant voters and that i can see a the new thoughtfull pro-lifres coming on the radio and tv already to make their points

But there is no reason to believe that repealing the 8th is going to lead to 'abortion on demand'
I doubt very much that will ever happen in this country. I would think that maybe, eventually there could be abortion in limited circumstances. But I can't see the ' on demand' thing
Why would you think it would?

Tigger wrote: »

abortion on demand is the most likley reason for abortion
but you ignore that because rights

fair enough i'm only telling ye that you are pissing off the middle transiant voters and that i can see a the new thoughtfull pro-lifres coming on the radio and tv already to make their points

I welcome their viewpoints and I really hope that they are most vocal so that they get the opportunity to air their fears and have them addressed by the experts on the topic.

I have no interest in silencing them and perpetuating their ignorance.

Education will win us this campaign. The only people who fear facts are those in the pro-life camp.

bubblypop wrote: »

But there is no reason to believe that repealing the 8th is going to lead to 'abortion on demand'
I doubt very much that will ever happen in this country. I would think that maybe, eventually there could be abortion in limited circumstances. But I can't see the ' on demand' thing
Why would you think it would?

thats not the point im makig
im saying hat the idea that abortion should be a right to all women and should be free is painting it as on demand
im saying that the pro-choicers are starting to be as crazy s the pro lifer of my youth an dthe pro- lifers are becomming the rational (looking) ones

polarising things into us and them i not a good idea

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why in God's name would somebody who wanted an abortion for a non-medical / unforeseen reason wait until six months into their pregnancy to get one? Even if they had no thought at all for the fetus, I can only imagine that the physical mechanics of getting one at that stage are, for the mother, a nasty, nasty business. That's one of the many reasons I reckon most proponents of abortion on demand would be on board with term limits - I can't see anyone who just doesn't want to give birth or have a child waiting until so late into their pregnancy to get it done.

Strikes me that "abortion on demand will lead to horrific partial birth abortions and dead babies" is a ridiculous scare tactic by the pro-life side.

so you agree that there should be abortion on demand?

hatrickpatrick

Tigger wrote: »

so you agree that there should be abortion on demand?

Up to a certain point, absolutely. I mean come on, the brain and spinal cord don't even begin to form until five weeks into a pregnancy, before this period in my view it's absolutely ludicrous to start describing a zygote as a baby.

Here's a question: If life begins at conception as opposed to when the brain forms, then isn't the morning after pill just as much 'murder' as an abortion at 3 or 4 weeks?

Tigger wrote: »

thats not the point im makig
im saying hat the idea that abortion should be a right to all women and should be free is painting it as on demand
im saying that the pro-choicers are starting to be as crazy s the pro lifer of my youth an dthe pro- lifers are becomming the rational (looking) ones

polarising things into us and them i not a good idea

I don't see how you came to the conclusion that the current campaign has anything to do with abortion relative to the part of your piece that you bolded.
Women have abortions for significant and legitimate reasons, not because it simply suits them

One eyed Jack

Ayuntamiento wrote: »

I welcome their viewpoints and I really hope that they are most vocal so that they get the opportunity to air their fears and have them addressed by the experts on the topic.

I have no interest in silencing them and perpetuating their ignorance.

Education will win us this campaign. The only people who fear facts are those in the pro-life camp.

As someone who is none of these silly, divisive "camps", I can tell you that there's plenty of people who have no interest in facts and are only capable of telling other people to "go educate themselves" rather than actually address any of the questions and concerns that people actually have.

You're wrong if you think it's education will see the 8th amendment repealed, but actually being straight with people and answering their questions and listening to their concerns might just go some way towards a better understanding, rather than simply dismissing people with patronising and condescending remarks like "go educate yourself", which will have the opposite effect.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Up to a certain point, absolutely. I mean come on, the brain and spinal cord don't even begin to form until five weeks into a pregnancy, before this period in my view it's absolutely ludicrous to start describing a zygote as a baby.

Here's a question: If life begins at conception as opposed to when the brain forms, then isn't the morning after pill just as much 'murder' as an abortion at 3 or 4 weeks?

Qft

Ayuntamiento wrote: »

I don't see how you came to the conclusion that the current campaign has anything to do with abortion relative to the part of your piece that you bolded.
Women have abortions for significant and legitimate reasons, not because it simply suits them

All the women I know who had abortions did it because they didn't want a baby
Is that their right ? Yes I suppose it was but at what point should
They be told that the ship
Has sailed