The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

gandalf wrote: »

Former leader of Youth Defence, spoken at far right events in Europe, doesn't like immigrants or women. Tbh calling him a politician is a bit rich as I don't believe he has successfully been elected to anything. Failed politician and dubious human being would more apt. It's interesting examining the "leadership" of the forced birth brigade. An awful lot would linked to Opus Dei as well.

He's a rather "special" individual. When he's not getting photographed attending neo-nazi rallies, he is campaigning against literally anything you can think of.

He was vehemently opposed to divorce until the breakdown of his own marriage when he "changed his mind" about divorce. Convenient that.

I'm not convinced he's all there tbh.

Stab*City wrote: »

So let me get this straight the yes vote is to remove the text from law which says the unborns rights are equal to the mother? From a neutral standpoint looks like a bit of a raw deal for the unborn? I have noticed this is a very divisive subject even between people like myself who usually don't care about this stuff. (Voting)

The unborn only has the right to life. That's all, and it's equal to that of the mother as it stands. However, it's been proven time and time again that it's often the case that the mother's life is secondary to the foetus and her quality of life even lower in the list of importance. The mother has to be actively dying before an abortion is performed, so risk of dying, no matter how high, is not enough to cut it. As a result, healthcare for a pregnant woman is impacted by the 8th if there is any chance of a risk to the foetus.
Currently, the right to life triumphs even the quality of life of the foetus so one diagnosed with FFA does not qualify for an abortion in the country. Even if that foetus is born and will suffer before it dies.
If the 8th is repealed, foetus will lose it's right to life at a stage where they have no consciousness, no perception, no thought processes and no feelings. The only time it will be allowed further is in the case of FFA, or as we have it now, where the mother is actively dying. If the foetus is past the point of viability, it's more likely to be induced for the latter.

A woman doesn't wake up one morning and decide she couldn't be arsed and wants an abortion. There is usually a reason. It comes down to whether or not you value a 12 week old foetus, or a living breathing woman more. If you believe a woman should be able to have an abortion for any reason (rape, FFA, child pregnancies etc), then a Yes vote is the only option. Regardless of whether or not abortion becomes legal through legislation after the referendum, the 8th needs to go due to the impacts it has on born, breathing and feeling people.

Stab*City wrote: »

But the mother gets a vote and the chance to lobby and change opinion the unborn does not.

I'm just really on the fence about this. I want someone to convince me but both sides are doing a bad job.

Here you go, this is a post I put up previously on how the 8th currently is detrimental to women like my partner.

robarmstrong wrote: »

I don't agree with abortion myself but here's my situation.

My partner is 27 weeks pregnant with a baby girl, however before this we have suffered countless miscarriages due to her having a uterine abnormality (she has a heart shaped uterus) - basically this means that unless a baby implants in a certain area, my partner will lose the baby. All of our miscarriages have occured due to the baby implanting in an area that cannot support the size or volume of the amniotic sac which eventually will rupture due to the pressure placed upon it by the sides of the uterine wall (the latest we got to was 19 weeks).

Medical professionals have denied us access to abortions because technically my partner's health is not at risk nor is the babies (the baby will be absolutely fine and healthy, her waters will just break anyway and the baby will pass away). My partner does not meet the requirements for a legal abortion on Ireland because the medical professionals are of the opinion that due to the outcome of the pregnancy resting solely on where the baby implants, we can (and we currently are) having a successful pregnancy.

However this means that whenever the baby is not in the right place my partner is forced to carry it until she eventually miscarries it and has to deal with the heartbreak.

Despite my own views on abortion I do not think it is fair she has to suffer miscarriage after miscarriage instead of being able to legally have an abortion (where she will be surrounded by doctors and nurses with direct access to medical care versus randomly having her waters break and the baby passing shortly thereafter wherever she is) so I'm voting to repeal.

I hope this gives you a different bit of insight.

robarmstrong wrote: »

Terminate, not kill.

The 8th has shown no compassion to my partner's struggle nor has it shown any compassion towards others like herself.

You can keep using terms like "kill" or "murder" but that doesn't make it so, just because you believe it to be, doesn't mean it is.

My partner and women like her are not considered for safe and legal abortions, ideally I would like the 8th changed to include her, but it isn't. Instead I'm getting an unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks proposal, so I'm going to take it, I'm not going to wait on the whims of others who want different proposals, I'm voting yes.

What it seems to me is that some from the pro-life side show absolutely no compassion towards the women who genuinely suffer, and will vote to retain the 8th which in turn will leave them in the same place.

Whereas some from the pro-choice side show little to no compassion towards the unborn. Me? I show plenty of compassion towards the unborn, I didn't refer to the babies my partner miscarried as "fetuses" or any medical/scientific/legal term at any time. They were and always will be my babies.

Terminate is the nice language for kill. Though we know what the job of the terminator was in the terminator, kill Sarah connor so she couldn't give birth to John...


You argue for your case, but you are also arguing for healthy unborn by healthy women to be 'terminated', whether that is your wish or not your wish, I don't know.
But I can't vote to remove the 8th as I have to vote with my conscience and I can't have blood on my hands if Yes wins and healthy unborn lives are being 'terminated' because others see it as a choice.

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

The unborn only has the right to life. That's all, and it's equal to that of the mother as it stands. However, it's been proven time and time again that it's often the case that the mother's life is secondary to the foetus and her quality of life even lower in the list of importance. The mother has to be actively dying before an abortion is performed, so risk of dying, no matter how high, is not enough to cut it. As a result, healthcare for a pregnant woman is impacted by the 8th if there is any chance of a risk to the foetus.
Currently, the right to life triumphs even the quality of life of the foetus so one diagnosed with FFA does not qualify for an abortion in the country. Even if that foetus is born and will suffer before it dies.
If the 8th is repealed, foetus will lose it's right to life at a stage where they have no consciousness, no perception, no thought processes and no feelings. The only time it will be allowed further is in the case of FFA, or as we have it now, where the mother is actively dying. If the foetus is past the point of viability, it's more likely to be induced for the latter.

A woman doesn't wake up one morning and decide she couldn't be arsed and wants an abortion. There is usually a reason. It comes down to whether or not you value a 12 week old foetus, or a living breathing woman more. If you believe a woman should be able to have an abortion for any reason (rape, FFA, child pregnancies etc), then a Yes vote is the only option. Regardless of whether or not abortion becomes legal through legislation after the referendum, the 8th needs to go due to the impacts it has on born, breathing and feeling people.

I can sense a bit of pro choice in your arguments. Which is fine by me each to their own. Seems like all the info out there is biased which is hard to filter when making a decision be it a yes or no.

Im finding this really hard as i value both the woman and the unborns right to life.

IF A WOMAN WANTS AN ABORTION, THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE TO AN ABORTION.
I just heard someone on the radio talking about adoption as an alternative. Adoption means continuing with a pregnancy when you no longer want to be pregnant. If a woman wants an abortion, she no longer wants to be pregnant. Is that difficult to grasp?

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

But you can have blood, pain and suffering on your hands by voting No.

Which is not the truth.

Stab*City wrote: »

I can sense a bit of pro choice in your arguments. Which is fine by me each to their own. Seems like all the info out there is biased which is hard to filter when making a decision be it a yes or no.

Im finding this really hard as i value both the woman and the unborns right to life.

You said the unborn seems to be getting a raw deal. I explained the stakes for what happens (and is happening) if the 8th isn't repealed.

At the end of the day though, abortion is happening anyway. A No vote will not stop abortions, it will only stop safe ones. Those that cannot travel will resort to other means in order to cause an abortion. A No vote will have little to no effect on whether or not abortion happens.

robarmstrong wrote: »

I am arguing for the case that women have access to safe and legal abortions full stop. My main two reasons to vote are women like my partner to have access to this at any cost or means necessary, and that if my daughter ever needs to have access to a safe and legal abortion I would much prefer her to have one here than in a different country where she won't receive an ounce of aftercare or support.

You've agreed with abortion in some circumstances, yet ultimately you're voting No because it doesn't suit you. Abortion doesn't suit me either, but it doesn't matter if it suits me or not, what matters is that there are women in Ireland who require access to safe and legal abortion in Ireland but are currently being denied this due to the ultra-restrictive requirements in place already.

Common sense would dictate that these women (women with uterine abnormalities do not fall under grounds for health risks to mother or baby) have that access. The 8th dictates that they do not.

I believe it is morally wrong to take the lives of unborn, simply because one can, and then dress it up as a human right and life as a choice.

A vote for yes is currently a vote to allow abortion for any reason under the sun up to 12 weeks, most of these abortions will be of healthy unborn lives by healthy women.

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

How is it not the truth? You would want to have your head firmly buried in the sand not to see the effects of the 8th.

Yet many doctors, obstetricians and gynaecologists have come out in favour of the 8th and say the 8th never got in their way of providing healthcare to women.

RobertKK wrote: »

I believe it is morally wrong to take the lives of unborn, simply because one can, and then dress it up as a human right and life as a choice.

A vote for yes is currently a vote to allow abortion for any reason under the sun up to 12 weeks, most of these abortions will be of healthy unborn lives by healthy women.

I believe it is morally wrong to force women into carrying a pregnancy to full-term, simply because one can, and then dress it up as an unborn's right to life.

RobertKK wrote: »

Name one woman who died from the 8th.

No report found the 8th was responsible for hospital mismanagement of sepsis in the case of Savita.
Hospital mismanagement that led to Savita's death led to the hospital paying her family compensation for not doing the job they were required to do.

Wrong.

Early in the process the miscarriage was deemed inevitable, and when Savita requested an abortion, she was denied one. Why was the sepsis there? Because it's a risk of miscarriage. Why was it mismanaged? Because of the 8th and the hospital staff's refusal to grant her an abortion.

If they granted her the abortion when she requested it (before the sepsis was an issue) she'd still be alive today.

EDIT: Not so fun fact, you know what one of the leading prevention methods is in the case of septic miscarriages?

Abortion.