Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

1…9293959798…324

Comments

  • #2822
    pitifulgod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭pitifulgod


    RobertKK wrote: »
    So are you saying people who are for repeal should be referred to as being "pro abortionist"?

    It is a very liberal abortion law that is being proposed and Catherine Noone uses the hastag together for yes, there was a person from together for yes on Morning Ireland and was supporting abortion to be allowed up to birth.

    It was very stupid of Senator Noone to go to church and complain that the church teaches church teachings inside a church, and make a comment about the age of the priest.
    I prefer to think it is her rabid support for repeal that caused her to be blind to what she posted, rather than assume the view came from being simply stupid.
    It's not incredibly liberal, you're just trying to make it out as such. It's in line with other pretty moderate abortion policies in Europe... You would classify any abortions as extreme based on postings to date.


  • #2823
    Simi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,020 ✭✭✭Simi


    bertieinexile wrote: »
    Thats an argument that makes sense to a lot of people with the same doubts about this that you have.


    Oh yes it is. thee glitz already referred to the Nice and Lisbon referendums which we got to vote on twice. Even more relevant were the two divorce referendums in 1986 and 1995 where we didn't give the right answer the first time around
    .
    .


    Finally, here, in my opinion, is the middle ground of Ireland telling the pro choice side - politicians, media and the rest - what it is they actually want.

    This is a very obvious and transparent lie being put forward by the no side. 'People' want a more restrictive regime and If you vote no now, the government will come back with a new proposal for a more restrictive regime that will satisfy all your reservations! Ignoring the fact that everyone will have differing opinions of what that more restrictive regime should look like and won't magically come to some sort of consensus. It's simply not going to happen.

    The proposed legislation is supported by most people as has been shown time and again in opinion polls. The people on this thread claiming to be in 'the middle' are in actuality against abortion on pretty much all grounds.

    I believe that most people, some of whom are uneasy about the proposed legislation, can see how damaging the eight amendment has been and continues to be to women in pregnancy and understand the need for it's immediate repeal regardless of what legislation follows.


  • #2824
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,771 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    pitifulgod wrote: »
    It's not incredibly liberal, you're just trying to make it out as such. It's in line with other pretty moderate abortion policies in Europe... You would classify any abortions as extreme based on postings to date.

    It is abortion on request/demand up to 12 weeks, then mental health grounds and other reasons beyond that and no time limit.

    Sinead Kennedy from Together for Yes on Morning Ireland was asked:
    "But no protection in law specifically for the unborn up until the point of birth?"
    Sinead Kennedy: "Yeah, I think it seems to be a very reasonable proposal, again, putting trust where it belongs"

    Yes nothing extreme there...


  • #2825
    Simi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,020 ✭✭✭Simi


    RobertKK wrote: »
    It is abortion on request/demand up to 12 weeks, then mental health grounds and other reasons beyond that and no time limit.

    Sinead Kennedy from Together for Yes on Morning Ireland was asked:
    "But no protection in law specifically for the unborn up until the point of birth?"
    Sinead Kennedy: "Yeah, I think it seems to be a very reasonable proposal, again, putting trust where it belongs"

    Yes nothing extreme there...

    The only reason with no time limit in the proposed legislation is for FFA. Abortions for health or risk to life are limited to viability ~24 weeks with early delivery after that point, except in emergencies where there is an immediate threat to the life of the woman. Abortions for rape, incest and any other reasons are limited to 12 weeks. But you already knew all that!

    Abortions performed outside of these circumstances will be punishable by up to 14 years in prison for the person performing the abortion. That sounds like a pretty strong protection to me.


  • #2826
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,649 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    RobertKK wrote: »
    It is abortion on request/demand up to 12 weeks, then mental health grounds and other reasons beyond that and no time limit.

    Sinead Kennedy from Together for Yes on Morning Ireland was asked:
    "But no protection in law specifically for the unborn up until the point of birth?"
    Sinead Kennedy: "Yeah, I think it seems to be a very reasonable proposal, again, putting trust where it belongs"

    Yes nothing extreme there...

    By definition, it's not extreme when it's similar to law in the rest of Europe, and is more restrictive than many of those.

    How many countries have specific legal protection for the unborn in legislation, never mind in their constitution?

    ”I enjoy cigars, whisky and facing down totalitarians, so am I really Winston Churchill?” (JK Rowling)



  • Advertisement
  • #2827
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,771 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Simi wrote: »
    This is a very obvious and transparent lie being put forward by the no side. 'People' want a more restrictive regime and If you vote no now, the government will come back with a new proposal for a more restrictive regime that will satisfy all your reservations! Ignoring the fact that everyone will have differing opinions of what that more restrictive regime should look like and won't magically come to some sort of consensus. It's simply not going to happen.

    The proposed legislation is supported by most people as has been shown time and again in opinion polls. The people on this thread claiming to be in 'the middle' are in actuality against abortion on pretty much all grounds.

    I believe that most people, some of whom are uneasy about the proposed legislation, can see how damaging the eight amendment has been and continues to be to women in pregnancy and understand the need for it's immediate repeal regardless of what legislation follows.
    A total of 40pc said unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks was 'about right', while 8pc said it 'did not go far enough', a combined 48pc in favour.

    However, 33pc said unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks 'went too far' and a further 19pc were undecided - a combined 52pc against or unsure.

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/poll-shows-strong-support-in-favour-of-abortion-referendum-but-12-week-proposal-splits-public-36615455.html


  • #2828
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    Simi wrote: »
    The only reason with no time limit in the proposed legislation is for FFA. Abortions for health or risk to life are limited to viability ~24 weeks with early delivery after that point, except in emergencies where there is an immediate threat to the life of the woman. Abortions for rape, incest and any other reasons are limited to 12 weeks. But you already knew all that!

    Even in emergencies where there is immediate threat to the life of the woman after 24 weeks it will be termination of pregnancy (most likely via cesarean) not an abortion.


  • #2829
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,771 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    volchitsa wrote: »
    By definition, it's not extreme when it's similar to law in the rest of Europe, and is more restrictive than many of those.

    How many countries have specific legal protection for the unborn in legislation, never mind in their constitution?

    Clearly not enough when one sees how many abortions takes place.


  • #2830
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,771 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Simi wrote: »
    The only reason with no time limit in the proposed legislation is for FFA. Abortions for health or risk to life are limited to viability ~24 weeks with early delivery after that point, except in emergencies where there is an immediate threat to the life of the woman. Abortions for rape, incest and any other reasons are limited to 12 weeks. But you already knew all that!

    Abortions performed outside of these circumstances will be punishable by up to 14 years in prison for the person performing the abortion. That sounds like a pretty strong protection to me.

    ...and who is going to perform these abortions, a poll found 65% of GPs said they would not.
    There are already waiting lists for some to see their own doctor and the state thinks they should become abortionists to make waiting time longer.


  • #2831
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,649 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Clearly not enough when one sees how many abortions takes place.

    So the proposed legislation is not extreme at all then, is it?

    By any usual definition of extreme, as in, on the outer limits of something.

    As opposed to a redefinition closer to "things I don't like", right?

    ”I enjoy cigars, whisky and facing down totalitarians, so am I really Winston Churchill?” (JK Rowling)



  • Advertisement
  • #2832
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,649 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    RobertKK wrote: »
    ...and who is going to perform these abortions, a poll found 65% of GPs said they would not.
    There are already waiting lists for some to see their own doctor and the state thinks they should become abortionists to make waiting time longer.

    They said they weren't trained to do so, which is fair enough.
    They didn't say it was because of massive principled opposition.

    ”I enjoy cigars, whisky and facing down totalitarians, so am I really Winston Churchill?” (JK Rowling)



  • #2833
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    RobertKK wrote: »
    ...and who is going to perform these abortions, a poll found 65% of GPs said they would not.
    There are already waiting lists for some to see their own doctor and the state thinks they should become abortionists to make waiting time longer.

    Your stats are wrong. Again.

    According to this article 65 percent of 497 GP's who responded to the survey in a closed forum would not provide abortions if the legislation was enacted. There were some 3,200 GP's that didn't even respond to the poll.


  • #2834
    gctest50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,597 ✭✭✭gctest50


    RobertKK wrote: »
    .........

    Yes nothing extreme there...

    Bit scared that the training wheels might be coming off the country ?

    No one telling us how to live .........ooooo......ooooooo....

    Some sort of weird throwback with some people - upset they missed out on the English ruling them

    and they will fight when any reduction in control comes around - scared the whole place will turn into hell


  • #2835
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,771 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Simi wrote: »
    The only reason with no time limit in the proposed legislation is for FFA. Abortions for health or risk to life are limited to viability ~24 weeks with early delivery after that point, except in emergencies where there is an immediate threat to the life of the woman. Abortions for rape, incest and any other reasons are limited to 12 weeks. But you already knew all that!

    Abortions performed outside of these circumstances will be punishable by up to 14 years in prison for the person performing the abortion. That sounds like a pretty strong protection to me.

    btw this 'trust women' argument is not going to work. People usually trust people they know they can trust, people don't trust women or men just because someone says they must 'trust women'.
    It just makes one think about trust, politicians will control abortion if repeal wins, does one trust politicians who flip flop and tell lies to get elected?
    Trust women, one would find a lot of women who wouldn't trust other women in a random matter that is being asked, just as one wouldn't trust a random man if asked to.
    Trust avoids the argument which is about the unborn and their current status of a right to life.


  • #2836
    Simi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,020 ✭✭✭Simi


    RobertKK wrote: »
    ...and who is going to perform these abortions, a poll found 65% of GPs said they would not.
    There are already waiting lists for some to see their own doctor and the state thinks they should become abortionists to make waiting time longer.

    This 'argument' has already been put forward in this thread or the previous one. Someone with a much better grasp of mathematics than me worked out that even with non compliance from 65% of GP's, a GP providing abortions would deal with ~ 2 cases per year. That's not exactly going to break the GP service now is it?


  • #2837
    Simi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,020 ✭✭✭Simi


    RobertKK wrote: »
    btw this 'trust women' argument is not going to work. People usually trust people they know they can trust, people don't trust women or men just because someone says they must 'trust women'.
    It just makes one think about trust, politicians will control abortion if repeal wins, does one trust politicians who flip flop and tell lies to get elected?
    Trust women, one would find a lot of women who wouldn't trust other women in a random matter that is being asked, just as one wouldn't trust a random man if asked to.
    Trust avoids the argument which is about the unborn and their current status of a right to life.

    I'm going to assume you quoted my post by accident, as I didn't use the word trust once?

    But just fyi, I trust women to make the decision that is best for them and their family and so do the majority of people I've spoken to!


  • #2838
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,771 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    gctest50 wrote: »
    Bit scared that the training wheels might be coming off the country ?

    No one telling us how to live .........ooooo......ooooooo....

    Some sort of weird throwback with some people - upset they missed out on the English ruling them

    and they will fight when any reduction in control comes around - scared the whole place will turn into hell

    It will be the people who decide the referendum, it will be pro-choice/liberal leaning people who will use abortion if legalised which kind of makes it like a eugenics for pro-choice/liberals to have an overall lower birth rate.
    Marie Stopes who has abortion clinics named after her was very against abortion but for eugenics...personally I support neither and wouldn't campaign for less liberals to be born.


  • #2839
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,649 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    RobertKK wrote: »
    btw this 'trust women' argument is not going to work. People usually trust people they know they can trust, people don't trust women or men just because someone says they must 'trust women'.
    It just makes one think about trust, politicians will control abortion if repeal wins, does one trust politicians who flip flop and tell lies to get elected?
    Trust women, one would find a lot of women who wouldn't trust other women in a random matter that is being asked, just as one wouldn't trust a random man if asked to.
    Trust avoids the argument which is about the unborn and their current status of a right to life.

    I agree it is a bit oddly expressed, but in reality what it means is that the default position where patients and their next of kin have the final say in whether or not medical treatment is given should also apply to pregnant women.

    It's not about trusting them to look after your wallet, it's about trusting them to look after their own families better than an outsider would. Including taking difficult decisions like turning off life support or ending a pregnancy.

    ”I enjoy cigars, whisky and facing down totalitarians, so am I really Winston Churchill?” (JK Rowling)



  • #2840
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,771 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Simi wrote: »
    I'm going to assume you quoted my post by accident, as I didn't use the word trust once?

    But just fyi, I trust women to make the decision that is best for them and their family and so do the majority of people I've spoken to!

    You replied to a tweet that had a Sinead Kennedy quote that had mentioned trust.
    The argument being when it comes to abortion and time limits to 'trust' women.


  • #2841
    gctest50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,597 ✭✭✭gctest50


    RobertKK wrote: »
    It will be the people who decide the referendum, it will be pro-choice/liberal leaning people who will use abortion if legalised which kind of makes it like a eugenics for pro-choice/liberals to have an overall lower birth rate.
    Marie Stopes who has abortion clinics named after her was very against abortion but for eugenics...personally I support neither and wouldn't campaign for less liberals to be born.


    RobertKK wrote: »
    ], it will be pro-choice/liberal leaning people who will use abortion if legalised which kind of makes it like a eugenics for pro-choice/liberals


    a) if legalised ? abortion is available to those who can travel - stop scaremongering


    b) Any source for your prediction of increase over todays rate

    c) it not a hysterectomy


  • Advertisement
  • #2842
    drillyeye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 408 ✭✭drillyeye


    Ave Sodalis wrote: »



    It's taken out and replaced.

    It's never going back in unless there's a referendum held in future. Any part of the constitution, or its amendments can be changed through referendum. The government cannot change the constitution itself. Maybe it won't be put back in, maybe it will. However, referendums are expensive and time consuming, so it will only be touched again with enough public interest.

    Appreciate the answer. Its pretty much what I thought already.

    The thing is though, if its removed from the constitution, whats to say that it needs a referendum to change? I mean, couldn't it just be legislated by a government without input from the public?

    That's a good point about divorce, but that is a much clearer "yes or no" deal, whereas abortion has a spectrum of potential changes.

    I'll check into it further myself of course, but this very well looks like a deal-breaker to me. I don't feel comfortable at all with the proposal, it is essentially "we'll take it out and then......sure who knows!"

    In fact, its a terrible proposition. Although I'd be in favour of certain changes being made, I am most certainly not in favour of a wild-west scenario where it could be changed and altered ad infinitum.

    I wonder how many people are aware of this!! This referendum is a dreadful idea, its about as vague as you could possibly get.


  • #2843
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    It's not vague at all, the government will be able to legislate for abortion in future. If a government tried to change the law and people didn't want that then it wouldn't happen. Just like the water charges were reversed, the national maternity hospital being ran by nuns was reversed etc etc.


  • #2844
    gctest50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,597 ✭✭✭gctest50


    In countries where abortions are legal on a woman’s request, 34 women in every 1,000 have one. In countries where abortions are always illegal or legal only if a woman’s life is in danger, 37 women in every 1,000 have one.


    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)30380-4/abstract


  • #2845
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,808 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    drillyeye wrote: »
    I don't feel comfortable at all with the proposal, it is essentially "we'll take it out and then......sure who knows!"

    In fact, its a terrible proposition. Although I'd be in favour of certain changes being made, I am most certainly not in favour of a wild-west scenario where it could be changed and altered ad infinitum.

    Your 'wild west' scenario is actually the way everything happens in any country - successive governments chop and change the previous ones legislation, make additions, clarifications and tweaks either to solve problems or because of pledges made during election campaigns. 100s of pieces of legislation pass through parliament every session.
    It's perfectly normal.


  • #2846
    drillyeye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 408 ✭✭drillyeye


    January wrote: »
    It's not vague at all, the government will be able to legislate for abortion in future. If a government tried to change the law and people didn't want that then it wouldn't happen. Just like the water charges were reversed, the national maternity hospital being ran by nuns was reversed etc etc.

    I fail to see how "they can legislate in the future" is not the very idea of vague.

    Essentially, people are being asked to remove the amendment from the constitution. And nothing more besides that.


  • #2847
    drillyeye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 408 ✭✭drillyeye


    ArmaniJeanss wrote: »
    Your 'wild west' scenario is actually the way everything happens in any country - successive governments chop and change the previous ones legislation, make additions, clarifications and tweaks either to solve problems or because of pledges made during election campaigns. 100s of pieces of legislation pass through parliament every session.
    It's perfectly normal.

    That's precisely my problem, then.


  • #2848
    Water John
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,831 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Drilleye, I think we all could see through your pretend ignorance, but I decided to answer your question, as fairly as possible anyway. Could see the line coming, oh we couldn't trust the politicians, vote no, from a mile off.

    Divorce is in the hands of politicians. Many are looking for the length of time, in a divorce, to be shortened, with a good while. Don't see the politicians jumping in quickly, to do so.
    If yes prevails, whatever law makes it through the Oireactais, will be how it will stay, for a long time.


  • #2849
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    Just another anti-choicer dressed up in sheep's clothing...


  • #2850
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    drillyeye wrote: »
    I fail to see how "they can legislate in the future" is not the very idea of vague.

    Essentially, people are being asked to remove the amendment from the constitution. And nothing more besides that.

    Well no, the wording being entered into the constitution if the referendum is passed will be
    Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancies

    It's not vague. If future governments feel the will of the country is make abortion more freely available past 12 weeks then they can enact legislation to do that, but again, as we've seen stuff like that has been voted down, not every law that is billed in governement is passed.


  • Advertisement
  • #2851
    drillyeye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 408 ✭✭drillyeye


    Water John wrote: »
    Drilleye, I think we all could see through your pretend ignorance, but I decided to answer your question, as fairly as possible anyway. Could see the line coming, oh we couldn't trust the politicians, vote no, from a mile off.

    Divorce is in the hands of politicians. Many are looking for the length of time, in a divorce, to be shortened, with a good while. Don't see the politicians jumping in quickly, to do so.
    If yes prevails, whatever law makes it through the Oireactais, will be how it will stay, for a long time.

    Don't be so fast with the presumptions. I merely asked the question, which as I stated, I was fairly sure I knew the answer to. I was after clarification.

    As I already said in relation to divorce, it is generally a yes or no, whereas abortion is a spectrum with too many potential variations to list.

    I'll say it again, the referendum is a terrible proposal. You simply saying "it will last a long time" isn't worth a jot.

    It brings into question the very need for a constitution at all. Why bother having one if it politicians can be trusted from month to month?

    I already stated that I'd be in favour of certain changes. But there is no criteria put forward, no indications that cant change in a day, no idea of whether it will be put back into a protected state within the constitution....

    Its a non-runner as far as I'm concerned. There is no way to have a conversation because, quite simply, there is nothing to talk about. (but I will check the information independently.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement