nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

RobertKK

The citizens assembly voted to replace or amend the 8th amendment.

50% voted to replace or amend
44% voted to repeal
Rest preferred to not state an opinion

Now deciding how it will be replaced or amended
: Let the Dail legislate on the rights of the unborn
: Amend the provision in the constitution.

Meltdown on twitter by Repealthe8th people.

Mod- This thread has descended in to petty name calling. We've tried to let this thread run without too much mod interference but now it's on our radar we will be watching. From here on the name calling stops. If you can't debate civilly we will remove your right to post.

__________________

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

.......

This post has been deleted.

Edward M

....... wrote: »

Not only dishonest and uninformed but sadly incapable of crunching the most basic numbers.

Over 2000 GPs in Ireland, approx 4000 abortions sought annually. 1-2 abortions sought per GP per year.

Even if only 100 GPs agreed to handle abortion services, its less than 1 abortion per week handled per GP.

She raises some valid questions though, especially the one re the affirming that the fetus is no more than 12 weeks.
I can see GPs referring a lot of cases on to gynecology to deal with the issue if its passed.
Perhaps that would be best all round as she pointed out that a GP surgery is an unsafe place for emergency treatment if necessary.
I think the implementation of an abortion policy has to be done right, the basic premise of how it will be handled has to be included in any pre vote material on the issue.
Some, and maybe even a large percentage of GPs don't want to take the responsibility of the repercussions of bad side affects possible from an abortion?
There is a difference in being in favour of abortion and having to administer it!

Hooks Golf Handicap

Why is everyone missing the point:

If we have repeal then 5,000 Irish Women will have abortions next year.
If repeal is rejected then 5,000 Irish Women will have abortions next year.

True question is whether we want Irish women to suffer the hardship of travel during this sensitive time.

ohnonotgmail

Edward M wrote: »

She raises some valid questions though, especially the one re the affirming that the fetus is no more than 12 weeks.
I can see GPs referring a lot of cases on to gynecology to deal with the issue if its passed.
Perhaps that would be best all round as she pointed out that a GP surgery is an unsafe place for emergency treatment if necessary.
I think the implementation of an abortion policy has to be done right, the basic premise of how it will be handled has to be included in any pre vote material on the issue.
Some, and maybe even a large percentage of GPs don't want to take the responsibility of the repercussions of bad side affects possible from an abortion?
There is a difference in being in favour of abortion and having to administer it!

This is not a new situation. all of these issues have been solved in other countries.

Edward M

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

This is not a new situation. all of these issues have been solved in other countries.

Ah, I know that, but this a voting issue here.
The best way to convince people who might not vote in favour of repeal is to convince them that its not just a matter of going in to the doc and picking up a pill and of you go, abort.
Based on the article linked it is as important to pick the issues out of it that are valid and address them, criticising the good doctor because of her stance alone is not the best option.
Clear up the fears she raises perhaps is the best thing.

.......

This post has been deleted.

seamus

Edward M wrote: »

Clear up the fears she raises perhaps is the best thing.

She doesn't raise any fears though. If there is a shortage of available GPs, then the gaps will be filled by specialist services.

There is nothing substantial in her article that requires addressing. GPs will not be required to offer the services if they don't want to.

The services will follow the same procedures they use in every other developed country in the world. Emergency services are provided by hospitals.

Problem solved.

.......

This post has been deleted.

pleas advice

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

If we have repeal then 5,000 Irish Women will have abortions next year.
If repeal is rejected then 5,000 Irish Women will have abortions next year.

if its available here, i'd say there will be an increase in numbers.

Hooks Golf Handicap

pleas advice wrote: »

if its available here, i'd say there will be an increase in numbers.

Or a decrease in those buying online & self administering.
Actually knowing Ireland the GP's will probably charge €60 for the consult €200 for the pills so people will still go online.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

pleas advice wrote: »

if its available here, i'd say there will be an increase in numbers.

And you have every right to say it, but saying it does not make it true of course. The question is whether there is any actual arguments, evidence, data or reasoning you can offer to suggest any credibility in the claim.

In fact I have seen evidence to the contrary. "US abortion rate is lowest since Roe v Wade" is a recent headline for example. While a study published in Lancent concluded "Making abortion illegal does not reduce the number of terminations women have"

Back in 2007 meanwhile a New York Times article reported that "A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not"

There are of course many reasons for this. But one good one is that the people who failed to keep abortion illegal in those places still wanted to prevent abortions. So they tend to turn their eye towards initiatives and changes in a society that would reduce the number of abortions happening.

I have been a member of several groups trying for many years to improve sexual education in our schools for example. To make it not just MUCH more comprehensive and modern, but also MUCH earlier in the curriculum.

Resistance to such ideas tended paradoxically so far to come from (like the church) people also against abortion. They have some nonsense crass idea that sexual education that is comprehensive and EARLY in education is somehow an infringement on the maintenance of childhood innocent. A nonsense that they never care to unpack or discuss.

But if abortion becomes legal then such people tend to become more pliable and amenable, in my experience at least, to discussion about such initiatives that they were so far again. Because for all they seem to hate the idea of education, they hate the idea of abortion more. So they are more inclined to give lee way on one hate to account for the other.

Hooks Golf Handicap

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No DPP is going to make a martyr of anyone in this situation, it's exactly what the repeal side want, someone to hang their hat on.
These cases get lost down the back of radiator.

Maybe I'm making this up but wasn't their someone who documented themselves procuring & taking the tablets on Twitter or FB.
Authorities just ignored it.

.......

This post has been deleted.

pleas advice

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And you have every right to say it, but saying it does not make it true of course..

that was basically the point i was making to the other poster

Loafing Oaf

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oh right I didn't know that. Was pretty sure they wouldn't have to be installing ultrasound machines in GP surgeries though...

Zubeneschamali

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

No DPP is going to make a martyr of anyone in this situation

So we have a clause in the Constitution which requires we have a law, we enact the law (PLDPA), and then... we just drop it down behind a radiator? No enforcement? Nod and a wink?

What's the point in keeping the 8th then?

AnneFrank

it's a no for me anyway after alot of soul searching

eviltwin

AnneFrank wrote: »

it's a no for me anyway after alot of soul searching

Maybe wait until you know what you are actually being asked to vote on.

nozzferrahhtoo

pleas advice wrote: »

that was basically the point i was making to the other poster

No idea what you mean here. The point of you saying that the numbers would go up, was that the numbers probably won't go up?

Well..... ok..... but the rest of my post still stands in terms of the fact that there seems to be no evidence the numbers will go up and plenty of evidence and reasoning as to why the opposite often happens.

pilly

Coming from a very strong pro-choice view even I would have to agree that abortion figures probably will go up. It's not logical to me to presume otherwise.

pleas advice

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No idea what you mean here. .

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

If we have repeal then 5,000 Irish Women will have abortions next year.
If repeal is rejected then 5,000 Irish Women will have abortions next year.

this was said, with nothing to back it up.

it has been (somewhat) backed up now. but, are there any studies on the immediate (short to medium term) effects on abortion rates from legalising abortion in a country?

Hooks Golf Handicap

AnneFrank wrote: »

it's a no for me anyway after alot of soul searching

Whilst I disagree with you voting no I appreciate you've posed yourself the question.
Whatever your reasons I respect them & even though we'll cancel each other out come voting day I'm delighted you're part of the debate.

.......

This post has been deleted.

seamus

pilly wrote: »

Coming from a very strong pro-choice view even I would have to agree that abortion figures probably will go up. It's not logical to me to presume otherwise.

Indeed, but not the casual, "Oh I think I'll go get an abortion before my manicure" way that the pro-life campaign want to portray.

Rather all of those women who cannot travel for an abortion due to age, ill-health, disability or lack of money will be able to safely and legally access it.

Realistically the "official" figures will increase, but it will be next to impossible to say whether there's any actual increase, since we have no idea how many unaccounted-for abortions currently take place.

pilly

seamus wrote: »

Indeed, but not the casual, "Oh I think I'll go get an abortion before my manicure" way that the pro-life campaign want to portray.

Rather all of those women who cannot travel for an abortion due to age, ill-health, disability or lack of money will be able to safely and legally access it.

Realistically the "official" figures will increase, but it will be next to impossible to say whether there's any actual increase, since we have no idea how many unaccounted-for abortions currently take place.

I agree. Someone else said in another thread that women will be having abortions JUST BECAUSE. Like that makes an ounce of logical sense. As if women are going to rush to get pregnant so they can have an abortion because it's the latest thing. :rolleyes:

Hooks Golf Handicap

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So we have a clause in the Constitution which requires we have a law, we enact the law (PLDPA), and then... we just drop it down behind a radiator? No enforcement? Nod and a wink?

What's the point in keeping the 8th then?

Jaysus, the outcry was bad enough when Deirdre Barlow was behind bars & she was a fictional character.

Were a woman convicted of procuring an illegal abortion in this state:
(1) The world's media would be encamped laughing at the little religious state which tries to pretend it's progressive. We'd become a laughing stock & be compared to Iran.
(2) We would have created a martyr instantly & handed victory to the repeal side.
(3) Tourism & our attractiveness for FDI would take a major whack.
(4) World leaders would actively question our attitude to women's human rights.
(5) The reputation damage would take decades to recover from.

The DPP is in a difficult spot, if they bring a case forward they know the likelihood of prosecution, there is no political will for the backlash.

Back of the radiator, the Irish solution to the Irish problem.

Zubeneschamali

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

Back of the radiator, the Irish solution to the Irish problem.

I don't disagree about the DPP, but the real solution is obviously to repeal the 8th and the PLDPA properly.

.......

This post has been deleted.