The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Legalise abortion without restriction?

Put that to the people and see how it gets on

Again, the opposition not understanding what's happening.

This won't be put to the people. The referendum will be whether to amend 40.3.3 to allow the Oireachtas to legislate.

Then the Oireachtas will legislate for abortion without restriction! Haha, yeah right. No, they're spineless and they'll take a much safer path, at least to begin with.

eviltwin wrote: »

And today the anti choice groups are saying the CA was rigged.

I understand people being upset or angry at the result but to spout blatant rubbish like that is just sour grapes.

Ya I agree. There is hypocrisy on both sides to be fair.

notjustsweet wrote: »

I think the person who is currently alive and can walk and talk and has feelings should be our priority.

They already are a priority when it comes to risk of life, including suicide:

Risk of loss of life from physical illness
Two physicians, one an obstetrician and the other a specialist in the field of the relevant condition, must concur. For example, if the woman has cancer, the two physicians would be an obstetrician and an oncologist. Where relevant, the specialists must also consult the woman's general practitioner (GP). The termination would be an elective procedure performed at an appropriate institution.

Risk of loss of life from physical illness in emergency
In a medical emergency, a single physician must both provide the diagnosis and perform the termination.

Risk of loss of life from suicide
Three physicians must concur; an obstetrician, a psychiatrist with experience treating women during or after pregnancy, and another psychiatrist. At least one of them should consult the woman's GP with her consent. The termination would be an elective procedure performed at an appropriate institution.

I genuinely can't understand how anyone can call themselves pro life but not care about the lives of women who have suffered a life altering attack, but care more about a bundle of cells.

The 'bundle of cells' argument is, and has always been, absurd, do we always have to have it on these threads? Technically we all just a bundle of cells. A fetus has a heartbeat and brain waves. To describe them as just a bundle of cells just shows a desire to dehumanize fetuses so as to diminish the act of abortion.

circadian wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me how some people are obsessed with what others do with their bodies.

A fetus is not a part of a woman's body, they are human beings with their own bodies and nobody should be able to chose to pull the limbs off their bodies, still their heartbeat and brainwaves just because their life is inconvenient to them. The one person a developing human being should be able to count on to protect them is their "mother".

On one thread I find myself arguing that a man was harshly treated by receiving six years in prison for kissing and intimately touching a 15-year-old girl and yet here some of those same people, who found my opinion on the other thread so shocking, seemingly have no problem with a defenseless baby in the womb having it's body pulled apart and it's bloody remains binned. What a fcuking world.





The above is a fetus at 24 weeks (legal to murder them at this stage in the UK) and it'll be said that well the majority of abortions happen long before that, as if that somehow makes the others okay. It doesn't. Sentience, viability, ability to feel pain etc etc... are all red herrings. A fetus is a human being. They are alive. We declare death on the absence of a heartbeat and therefore we should accept that the presence of one means a life has begun.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The above is a fetus at 24 weeks (legal to murder them at this stage in the UK) and it'll be said that well the majority of abortions happen long before that, as if that somehow makes the others okay.

In what scenarios will a 24 week fetus be aborted?

I can tell you one- denial of access to early term abortions, as happens in Ireland. Aside from that, by 24 weeks you're only looking at termination of wanted pregnancies, which will be for some pretty catastrophic circumstances.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It doesn't. Sentience, viability, ability to feel pain etc etc... are all red herrings. A fetus is a human being. They are alive. We declare death on the absence of a heartbeat and therefore we should accept that the presence of one means a life has begun.

By this definition, brain-dead patients on respirators also have an equal right to life. "We" (who, are we exactly? not doctors I suspect) do not have that simplistic views of life and death.

Those "red herrings" are scientifically measured, real and relevant facts.

January wrote: »

2% of abortions happened after 20 weeks in Australia in 2015, 53 of those 2% (of which the total number was 96) were for probable or actual fetal abnormality.

0.01% of abortions in England and Wales happened after 20 weeks, again 2015.

Those are the latest statistics available. Late term abortions either happen because of threat to the mothers health or for FFA.

You cant just use facts on those who view women as incubators.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The CA counts based on those who express an opinion, and the sum of the yes votes is 52 out of a total of 81, which is 64%.

I agree - it's still a majority. That's not what you said originally - beware statistcs from disreputable sources, esp the Indo.

thee glitz wrote: »

I agree - it's still a majority. That's not what you said originally - beware statistcs from disreputable sources, esp the Indo.

My stat was from the CA itself. Of course abstainers are not counted. Please stop patronising me.

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

I'm f*ckin shaken tbh. Very pleasantly surprised in my fellow Irish men and women. The sense of momentum in the repeal movement has been striking and great to witness, but I wasn't sure to what degree it was reflecting wide spread changing attitudes.

I'm sure Cora and Leo and all the other 'orrible ***** will piss and moan and spread their hate to the end of their days, but this is another nail in the coffin of everything those fundy shítheads stand for. I'm delighted.

It could be exactly what they want, they now get to play the full on narrative they have been running with.

If it goes to a referendum it is now crystal clear that is full on abortion rather than the middle ground of the medical item.

Its going to be an interesting and pretty divisive item when the referendum does hit.

eviltwin wrote: »

I'd say she and her followers are really shaken by the recommendations. They weren't expecting it at all.

I'm so happy and relieved this evening. I just really hope now that the rest of the country shows the same willingness to think about the issues and not follow the bloody bishops!
But I have a lot more hope that they will than I did even a couple of years ago.
I was in despair after the Ms Y fiasco. Today I'm relieved and hopeful that my country won't continue to shame itself over its unforgivable treatment of women.