The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Edward M wrote: »

And with my mouth full of dinner too.:)

Cabbage, shpuds and some chewy mutton no doubt...keep it country eh!!

When talking of public representatives, esp Cabinet Ministers, it should be noted that none to date, have said they oppose the repeal of the 8th. Simon Coveney and Michael Creed have agreed with the repeal, but express disquiet with the legislation proposed to follow. Richard Bruton I see, has been said not to have yet expressed an opinion. That is incorrect, as I heard him say yesterday, he supports the repeal and the Bill being proposed by Simon Harris.
It is important to differentiate between Repealing the 8th of the Constitution and the subsequent decisions by the Oirecahtas, as to the law it will put in place.
Minister Harris and the Govt, may not have the majority in the Houses of Oireachtais to carry the 12 week window. They may have to negotiate and settle for less. That will be decided, after the Referendum, if Repeal is carried.
It certainly, won't be more.

....... wrote: »

What complacency?

People have been upset about the 8th for 35 years now. I was out with a bunch of pensioners recently and they were all furious about it. Support is going to come from unexpected places.

No one knows how big the number of people that will look at loads of reports of a landslide win and not make the effort to go vote because it's a done deal and one vote won't make a difference

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Well that can't be Right! Sure haven't we had several posters over multiple threads state as a fact that if the 8th is repealed we will have abortion on demand right up to 9 months :pac:

Given some of the characters coming out of the woodwork on this one, its a pity there isn't abortion on demand up to 70 years.

So.. two old men. Neither likely to be caught up in a crisis pregnancy.
Anyone with a relevant opinion?

I think it will be as most people seem to be pro-abortion nowadays but I can't agree with it personally, I mean, it's not exactly a million miles away from killing a baby is it? Just because the baby doesn't have a birth cert yet doesn't make it ok to sentence him or her to death!

Some babies survive the abortion, so there's 'comfort care', I don't understand how any human being with any empathy can turn a blind eye to this. It's all gone wrong hasn't it?

Rezident wrote: »

I think it will be as most people seem to be pro-abortion nowadays but I can't agree with it personally, I mean, it's not exactly a million miles away from killing a baby is it? Just because the baby doesn't have a birth cert yet doesn't make it ok to sentence him or her to death!

Well, yes, at the gestation period we're looking at it's a couple of centimetres long, has only recently lost its tail, and doesn't have a functioning brain. It's pretty far from killing a newborn baby.

Rezident wrote: »

Some babies survive the abortion, so there's 'comfort care', I don't understand how any human being with any empathy can turn a blind eye to this. It's all gone wrong hasn't it?

Not at 12 weeks, they don't. What you may be thinking of is babies that are delivered early due to a FFA and won't survive long. Some babies 'survive abortion' in that the pregnancy is far enough along that the fetus can be delivered early and put into care.

Rezident wrote: »

I think it will be as most people seem to be pro-abortion

I have debated the issue of abortion in formal and informal settings, public and private, on and off line for nearly 20 years now. I have not yet met a SINGLE person who identifies with the term "pro abortion".

Rezident wrote: »

I mean, it's not exactly a million miles away from killing a baby is it?

Ripping up a blue print is not the same as knocking down a house. There is a lot of "narrative" in the word "baby" that simply does not apply to a fetus. There are many differences of note between killing one, and the other.

Rezident wrote: »

Some babies survive the abortion

It depends what you mean by "survived the abortion". Medical abortions for example can simply just fail to do their job. That is not really a baby "surviving the abortion" so much as the abortion failed to take place at all and it is not a case of "Comfort care".

Rarely but in late term abortions yes there is a small survival rate. And usually these abortions are performed for some level of medical necessity and not just because someone felt like performing it.

This has NOTHING AT ALL to do with providing abortion to women at 12, 16, or 20 weeks of gestation. Go count for me the fetal survival rate of surgical abortion at 12 weeks and let me know what figure you come back with. For reference: ZERO is the figure I have come up with so far. A figure I hope lays your concerns to rest as you genuinely do seem upset and worried by these things, in part for no good reason at all. And the only thing I hate to see more than someone suffering.... is someone suffering needlessly.

chalkitdown1 wrote: »

I hate the term "unborn child". Do the people who use it also refer to children as 'ungrown adults'?

A new one that I've noticed cropping up over the last few weeks is "preborn child".

ELM327 wrote: »

As a male... it will never directly impact me.
It should not be up to me however to tell someone else what to do.

the two positions here don't really make sense to me to be honest


is it that only people that could be directly impacted by preganancy should be allowed a say in the regime here

or is it that there should just be completely unrestricted access and no one should be in a position to restrict anyone else from doing what they want?

Riskymove wrote: »

the two positions here don't really make sense to me to be honest


is it that only people that could be directly impacted by preganancy should be allowed a say in the regime here

or is it that there should just be completely unrestricted access and no one should be in a position to restrict anyone else from doing what they want?

I don't know what a preganancy is. Is that your new word? Bored with "Pro-Abortion" already are we?

Billy86 wrote: »

I really don't understand this one... in the marriage referendum we had people telling us it would be closer than expected and that no would have a big chance of winning without much to back it up beyond "people in favour being too aggressive and putting neutrals off" and other assorted bogeymen arguments about the laws of nature, the history or marriage and adoptions - nearly all of which were false arguments.

We're hearing the same here, yet the fact is the marriage referendum was a landslide vote beyond even what many on the 'yes' side expected, and won in every single area bar one - where it only lost by something like 1-2%.

How does that lead you to believe that the repeal side are less likely to win in this referendum?

The poll that was released was released at the weekend discussed here and people showed polls of the marriage referendum. Most polls in the marriage referendum were well into the 60% or even 70%. So seeing a poll just in the mid 50% would have me worried.
People I know who voted No in the marriage referendum will vote vote No in this one and I knew of a good few Yes voters(who basically did it for there son/nephew/etc) who won't be voting this time around.
I just can see a good few areas going No in the referendum and it will take Dublin to pull it over the line.