Outlaw Pete wrote: » Why are you (along with almost all of the Irish/UK media) only telling half the story? Now, considering the media feasted on this story to begin with (both here and in the UK) why then was it that the outcome of the case was only reported in one paper? Didn't the rest feel that their readership would like to know that the girl went on to gave birth to a healthy baby? Surely that was newsworthy, no? Or maybe a happy ending was somewhat ideologically inconvenient for the prochoice biased media perhaps. Once they could no longer sanctimonious use the girl (and her situation) to further their agenda.... they moved on as if she never existed. Colour me surprised.
mahamageehad wrote: » 6 options being discussed: - Simple repeal, just take it out. Then PLPA2013 would be the relevant legislation and more could come later. - Repeal based on legislation entrenched in the constitution. Would possibly mean future referendums down the road. - Repeal based on legislation published in tandem with a referendum. Most people like this coz they know what they're voting for, but no guarantee legislation is implemented. - Repeal and replace on specific grounds (likely to be rape, incest, FFA etc) - Repeal and replace on broad grounds or with rebalancing of rights (no idea how this would work) - Repeal and replace with a provision giving exclusive power to Oireachtas to regulate It'll probo be a yes/no vote but there's some moves towards a preferendum which would give choices. And I'm sure you're good with tests! :P
January wrote: » And only recently another young girl was held against her will in a mental health facility after first being led to believe she was being granted an abortion but then being told she wasn't suicidal enough.
Abortion order teenager gives birth at seven months A suicidal girl gave birth to a baby three weeks after a legal order to terminate her seven-month pregnancy. The distressed 16-year-old was put in a psychiatric hospital when she was seeking an abortion. She was later discharged as it was determined she had no mental health disorder - just three days after being legally granted a termination on "suicide" grounds. The girl developed a close bond with the doctor who delivered the child seven months into the pregnancy. The case came to attention recently when details emerged about her committal, prompting debate about the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. However, the case also highlights issues about the existing abortion legislation and the resourcing of mental health services for children. A panel of experts, convened under the abortion legislation, concluded the teenager should have a termination as she was suicidal. At that point, she was almost 25 weeks pregnant. This is beyond the time limit for abortions in Britain. Within days, two other psychiatrists who assessed the girl's detention in psychiatric hospital concluded she was not suicidal. She was assessed by at least five psychiatrists over 12 days. The baby was born seven months into the pregnancy and is now living with the girl and her mother. The obstetrician who delivered the baby and handled the termination order has been praised for handling the case sensibly and compassionately.
Dotsie~tmp wrote: » 4 Might have a chance. Others. I doubt. Especially 1 and 2.
Strazdas wrote: » Not really. Governments are meant to govern and make all the key decisions, even if they are unpopular - the electorate don't run the country or make the laws, they merely send people to the Dáil to govern on their behalf.
Tigger wrote: » permutations are what id like to dscuss but theres a lot of allthe repeal going on fcuk it i dont vote sobwho cares im kinda nervous when i take tests
January wrote: » https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ms_Y And only recently another young girl was held against her will in a mental health facility after first being led to believe she was being granted an abortion but then being told she wasn't suicidal enough. These are well publicised cases. Don't tell me you don't know about them.
captbarnacles wrote: » 55+ I felt a bit sorry for them as they said they were being told to f**k off at most doors.
Dotsie~tmp wrote: » Your problem is with democracy then. Politicians are supposed to represent their constituents.
mahamageehad wrote: » So the committee voted tonight 15 to 5 (3 nos and 2 abstained) to not keep the 8th in it's current form. It's not repeal, but it is an acknowledgement that the status quo is no longer acceptable. The next stage is that 6 options on what to do next - premutations of repeal, replace etc. will be investigated.
Dotsie~tmp wrote: » http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/poll Any opinions on how the Ref might play out? Looks like a difficult one for repeal if question is overly liberal.
Strazdas wrote: » It's extraordinary that Ireland is tying itself up in knots in 2017 trying to legislate for this. It's making us look like the most dysfunctional country in Europe by some distance. Main problem is that political parties seem petrified of a voter backlash if they step out of line.
The Legend Of Kira wrote: » Out of interest, what age demographic were the save the 8th canvassers ?
captbarnacles wrote: » Had the first door to door campaigners this week from the save the 8th side and they were mostly pleasant, one walked off when I said I'd be voting to repeal and the other stayed to discuss. The discussion was mainly her trying to convince me abortions at 8 months plus happen all the time in England including for D babies. A man came over to join her after awhile. Both said they would imprison a suicidal girl if she wanted to go to England no matter how she became pregnant but they would send the offending father to jail forever as if that balanced it out?
freshpopcorn wrote: » Well in my opinion if the referendum is simply removing the 8th amendment and allowing the government to legislate.It will be a major advantage for the keep the 8th side because they can simply say oh the government can legalese for abortion in all cases/etc.
Tigger wrote: » clearly crazy people
NuMarvel wrote: » They wanted to imprison a pregnant girl and the father of her child even though neither of them appeared to have broken any laws. Those are not the opinions of rational people.
NuMarvel wrote: » I don't think people realise that a constitution is not an appropriate place to deal with complex clinical and moral issues. Look at what the 8th has done; it's 43 pretty straightforward words, and we've had 4 subsequent referendums, with at least one more on the way. Saying we should put something as complicated as FFA in there is basically saying please sir, lets have more referendums. Issues like this are more appropriately dealt with by parliaments and politicians. And while I can understand why people might be uncomfortable with that, they have to appreciate the alternative is worse. And besides, it's not as if people are completely without a voice. If a government legislates in a way people aren't happy with, they can be voted out and replaced.
freshpopcorn wrote: » Well from speaking to people/etc some people would happy voting to allow abortion in the cases of FFA for example and they'd like to be able to vote on the day for this. If the vote was just to repeal/remove the 8th the government could legislate to allow abortions in cases that they wouldn't feel comfortable with. So, they'd probably end up voting no! Does that make sense?
eviltwin wrote: » Why does it needs to be replaced by anything? I agree though it's pointless have repeated threads on abortion and the referendum when we don't as yet know what we are being asked to vote on.
freshpopcorn wrote: » I think wording will play a big part in this and that repealing with out knowing what exactly the 8th will be replaced with won't help the repeal campaign. What will happen if the repeal campaign fails? If it's by a good few percent will people be saying it's a land slide No similar to people saying it was a landslide Yes with the marriage referendum?
Sheeps wrote: » What was the pregnant woman's name?
