markodaly wrote: » We amended the Constitution to get rid of capital punishment, did we not? See Criminal law. Most of our human rights legalisation has been imported from the EU, we have had no say in it.
markodaly wrote: » Let us be honest here, the reason most people left Ireland was for economic reasons not social reasons. I am sure it played a part for some, but getting a job was foremost in peoples thinking. Also, the election of Mary Robinson was at a time where the Celtic Tiger was about to unleash itself. Again, economic reasons bringing people back.
seamus wrote: » I guess the question though is what's your alternative? You can't put it in the constitution; we've already been down that road. What makes this instance any different to another where the government legislates? Why are the government to be given the power on all other aspects of healthcare law, criminal law, human rights legislation, but on abortion law for some reason they just can't be trusted?
Bannasidhe wrote: » It's giving those who are currently abroad an opportunity to determine the kind of Ireland they will return to. I am of the generation that voted against the 8th and promptly got the hell out of Ireland as what I personally experienced while campaigning for choice convinced me that there was no place in 80s Ireland for anyone who was even slightly liberal in their world view. I wasn't alone. I worked, lived... and played... among people from all parts of the Republic who felt ourselves to be in exile. It says a lot that a generation found Thatcher's Britain more welcoming than our native land. It's no coincidence that most of us returned after the election of Mary Robinson as we sensed change was in the air. We voted for divorce. We voted for the right to travel and get information. We voted for the Ireland we wanted and now another generation need to know this is their chance. PLC know that and are afraid.
Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: » Assuming you got pregnant in the middle of a four week cycle, at four weeks pregnant you'd be about two weeks late, would you not check at that point? My cycle isn't very regular, I'll know what week to expect a period but not what day. I'd still be checking if it didn't show up that week. Edit: That said, at very busy times, it can be surprisingly easy to lose track of what happened when, I can imagine it's very possible to get into the second month of pregnancy before you really start paying attention.
CruelCoin wrote: » Cheers for the clarifications guys, but the short answer to my question is yes, there will be no delays?
CruelCoin wrote: » My partner would fall under this. Rod in arm, she hasn't had a period in years. Cheers for the clarifications guys, but the short answer to my question is yes, there will be no delays?
pilly wrote: » Very possible. Especially if you're using contraception and you're not worried about it. Some women don't get any periods.
Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: Edit: That said, at very busy times, it can be surprisingly easy to lose track of what happened when, I can imagine it's very possible to get into the second month of pregnancy before you really start paying attention.
Hoboo wrote: » In reality though politicians have often made decisions regardless of public support. The last 10 years alone has proven that. I'm not a fan of the government holding the cards in this instance.
pilly wrote: » 4 weeks is ridiculous tbh, unless you knew you'd had highly risky sex you wouldn't be taking a pregnancy test at 4 weeks.
rainbow kirby wrote: » Yep, 4-6 weeks is fairly standard if your cycle is regular. I found out at 7 weeks with my first son and that was considered late.
Most women don't know they're pregnant before 8 weeks.
NuMarvel wrote: » Politicians won't be in any rush to change it unless there's considerable public support.
anna080 wrote: » Most women? Or some women? The vast majority of women will have realised they’re pregnant by that stage.
CruelCoin wrote: » Is there any sign of a commitment to a speedy turnaround if you're seeking an abortion?Most women don't know they're pregnant before 8 weeks. Then, take the time for deliberating, getting a doctors appointment, getting referred to a specialist, getting on the waiting list and actually having the procedure done, the 12 week window will sail the majority of women by. There may soon be legal access to abortion. just not practical access.
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
CruelCoin wrote: » Is there any sign of a commitment to a speedy turnaround if you're seeking an abortion? Most women don't know they're pregnant before 8 weeks. Then, take the time for deliberating, getting a doctors appointment, getting referred to a specialist, getting on the waiting list and actually having the procedure done, the 12 week window will sail the majority of women by. There may soon be legal access to abortion. just not practical access.
Hoboo wrote: » OK so nothing has been set in stone yet. And going by whats currently on the table, abortion being legalised will therefore up to the government to decide? And depending on what government of the the day, that could go either way? Cheers.
Grayson wrote: » To be fair very few pro lifers are pro lifers in the same way the catholic church are. A lot would allow contraception. Same about the morning after pill. There's many that would allow a termination in the first few weeks. Most people on both sides of the argument see it as a very nuanced argument with a lot of grey areas. But it's a good tool for pro lifers to turn it into a black and white argument.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » The Oireachteas Committee thinks yes. The Citizen's Assembly thinks maybe not, and recommended replacing the 8th with an explicit clause saying the Oireachteas can legislate, and that seems to be the path the Government are taking.
Hoboo wrote: » Can I ask something. If they 8th is repealed, will that give the government the power to legislate on abortion?
JDD wrote: » To be fair to the catholic/Christian pro-lifers, they'd be against the morning after pill and IVF, for the very reason that they think a fertilized egg has a soul. The church has always been consistent on that front. There's no marches against the morning-after pill or IVF for a few reasons. In relation to the morning-after pill, well, that ship has sailed as far as the legislation is concerned. And I suppose from a pragmatic point of view, they might prefer someone to take the morning after pill then go for a termination further along in the pregnancy. Even pro-lifers I'm sure believe there's a scale of wrongdoing here, even if they would never admit it openly. As for IVF, they know they're on to a losing game. The aim of IVF is to actually conceive a child, something they hold in very high regard. They would look particularly heartless to prevent a childless couple from conceiving. That said, the catholic church have always been against IVF.
