Deedsie wrote: » Before a referendum is held the exact legislation that will replace article 8th needs to be drafted so people know what we are voting for. Change is required 100%. I don't think I would vote for anything which allowed for the on demand/application abortion of a viable life after 6/7 weeks.
Absolam wrote: » So, if we repealed the 8th and replaced with legislation as you say, how would you feel about that legislation being replaced without your input 6 months later allowing abortion on demand up to, say, 25 weeks?
munchkin_utd wrote: » sure feck it, why sit at 25 weeks after conception. Maybe instead do like the romans. They didnt consider a child to be a human till months after birth so no bother at all terminating a childs existance once you got sick of the idea in practice.
Deedsie wrote: » Change is required 100% where the child wont survive, mother's health is endangered, rape/incest cases.
anna080 wrote: » I'm 100% pro choice but am starting to dispise the Repeal campaign. I don't identify with their approach and find them far too militant and not open to any genuine convsersation. They're damaging the campaign with their excessive militance. I'm pro choice, and in theory I think it's a great idea to march, but I feel like tomorrow will be hijacked by vain narcissists taking selfies and hashtaging Repeal on Instagram to let the world know omg look how liberal I am you guys. For me the campaign has lost its core.
20Cent wrote: » Can't get my head around two attitudes found about this. "I want the 8th repealed but I'm against the strike or repeal campaign." How the hell do you think there will be a referendum sitting at home thinking about it! Then there's "I want repeal but hate the feminists who take selfies in reprleal t shirts so would vote agaist it". That means you are actually against repeal don't let dislike or otherwise of one side dictate how to vote decide yourself.
Omackeral wrote: » Same. I'd vote pro choice but that's as far as I'd go. Wouldn't be taking days off work, wouldn't be changing profile pictures or raising awareness (or in some cases, be seen to be raising awareness). I'd simply use my privilege of having a vote and do it simply, quietly and respectfully without generating fuss or badgering others.
pilly wrote: » From reading this thread and others I think a referendum to repeal the 8th will fail because people are too unsure of what doing that means. I know my head is spinning with the numerous different scenarios that could occur afterwards. In principal though I will vote to repeal the 8th and let the legislation be drawn up from there.I don't think it's practical for the government to draw up the legislation before the 8th is repealed. It could be a huge waste of time and money. Can't help thinking if the 8th hadn't been put in there in the first place things would be much simpler. People honestly don't know what to do at the moment. As a consequence I feel a lot of people will not bother voting at all. Personally I'm not swayed by the loonies on either side, there are always extremes in any debate like this and then in the middle are the majority of us.
pilly wrote: » From reading this thread and others I think a referendum to repeal the 8th will fail because people are too unsure of what doing that means. <snip>
hatrickpatrick wrote: » 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?
Butters1979 wrote: » The is exactly the issue. Once we remove something from the constitution and replace it with legislation, that legislation can be changed at any time without a referendum. With the likes of Zappone and other regressive liberals in our government these days, there would be a push to jack it up to as high as possible. Championed by O'Neill and her type who see abortion as a victory over evil men. I don't trust our government with unborn babies lives if the constitutional protection is removed.
jameorahiely wrote: » Yes, but it is false to say no other country has an equilivant of the 8th. I wish the repeal crowd would get their facts straight. We are not the only country with the right to life enshrined in their constitution. Abortion is not illegal here. If they can manage to learn those 2 facts it would be a start.
bubblypop wrote: » As an example of how a embryo can affect a woman's medical treatment. A number of years ago, I had an ectopic pregnancy. I was told I needed emergency surgery. I was put under general anesthetic & the embryo removed. At no stage was I told that there was any other treatment available to me. There was, I found out long afterwards. I could have received medication had I been in any other country. In this country they wouldn't give it to me as it targeted the embryo, basically 'terminating' the pregnancy. So I had to have surgery & the after affects of surgery, because of that embryo was equal to me.
farmerwifelet wrote: » for me it breaks down like this - before it has a heart capable of beating its just potential. If it has a beating heart then leave it be. People talk about rights, baby's rights and a woman's right. But with right comes responsibility. If you have the right to have sex and get pregnant you should be responsible enough to not get pregnant if you don't want to. There are many options out there. Seriously how hard is it to use a contraceptive?
Deedsie wrote: » I'm definitely in favour of change from the current ridiculous situation. Also I think the repeal the 8th people maybe in for a shock as to how many people would be reluctant to vote in favour of change without a structured alternative abortion policy in place. People talking about the right to abort a perfectly viable child at 24 weeks makes me a little sick to be honest.
Tigger wrote: » The lady in question was dead so she didn't care and I'll bet you anything that if she wanted that baby then she would have done anything to let it live . If leaving it in her brain dead body had let it gestate then why not. She was already dead so there was no need to let her die. I have two more points 1 I'm pro choice generally but the rhetoric makes me confused 2 she was turned off under the current situation so It's a straw man argument to even bring it up. I'll vote to repeal on 1st trimester and on fatal fetal abnormal cases but not late second trimester unless it's a fata case. It seems to me That tats not what's Being discussed
Tigger wrote: » interesting so if the 8th didnt exist what woulf the cobstitutional situation be?
MightyMandarin wrote: » There's something that I've yet to have explained to me adequately. Considering contraception is legal already, why is that not enough for people who for whatever reason, just don't want to get pregnant? I mean assuming you take the two main precautions, a condom and the pill, the chances of becoming pregnant are minute at best. With regard to abortion on demand, I just have yet to be convinced that aside from the very small percentage of people who have been failed by contraception, abortion is just another form of contraception for people who didn't take the precautions at the time.
ArmaniJeanss wrote: » Eh, that would be democracy - if people vote for those regressive liberals in enough numbers to give them a majority then surely they'd be entitled to make those changes to the law. Conversely if enough people then vote for the Des Hanafin/Jack Chambers wing of FF then they'd be entitled to ban abortion completely if they want. Theres no particular reason for it to have ever been a constitutional issue.
mahamageehad wrote: » Firstly, contraceptives can fail, although I'll concede that's very rare. What about rape? Or should all women be put on the pill the minute they're of childbearing age just in case. Also, not all abortions are procured by people who are unhappy to be pregnant. What about the couple who have been trying for this baby for a long time, only to be told the baby won't be able to survive outside the womb. Shouldn't they have the choice of whether to carry a stillborn baby to term or to end their heartache early?
volchitsa wrote: » The "just dont take risks" argument, however true in one way, doesn't apply to other aspects of our lives - would someone who had a car accident be refused hospital treatment if it was felt he was the one responsible for the accident? So using it as a reason to punish someone for their carelessness by making them become a parent against their will always seems to me to be the very opposite of caring about children - which one has to assume is the only non religious reason for being pro life.
MightyMandarin wrote: » I've already said I think rape, fatal fetal abnormalities and serious risk to the mother's life should be circumstances in which an exception is made.
kylith wrote: » Not to mention that due to allergies and sensitivities not everyone can take hormonal contraception.
kylith wrote: » But that comes back to 'how do you prove rape?' If you wait till there's a conviction then that is the same as not allowing it, and what happens if a conviction can't be gotten? If you take a woman's word for it then there's no difference from abortion on request.
MightyMandarin wrote: » Even though it's a major decision to make, if people don't ever see themselves becoming parents, there's always the sterilisation or vasectomy route aswell, to effectively nullify any risk of pregnancy.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: Or if I were tomorrow to have sex with a girl of age 15.99999999999999 I could potentially end up on a sex offenders register, but if I cuddle her for 6 hours and wait until midnight it is a-ok??
MightyMandarin wrote: » There's a huge difference between stepping into a car and agreeing to have sex with someone. There's also a massive difference in the result as there's effectively a new party to the incident and their rights deserve to be protected imo, at least the most basic one. It still doesn't justify it for me. The way I see it, if people want to have sex but not kids, there are numerous ways to go about that, and assuming one is taking the adequate precautions to prevent a pregnancy, it shouldn't happen. Even though it's a major decision to make, if people don't ever see themselves becoming parents, there's always the sterilisation or vasectomy route aswell, to effectively nullify any risk of pregnancy.
Deedsie wrote: » If a doctor says that if this mother continues with this pregnancy it will endanger her life in my view the mother should be allowed to choose what she wishes to do.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4c2f272c464d99a9eee64a80fbe71a0c.svg)
