The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

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.

Another "I'm on the fence but really no" poster.

You would have to be living under a rock not to have some inkling of what the 8th amendment is about - stop the codology.

you have to be 18 to vote, of course an unborn baby can't vote - what sort of nonsence is that.

You are not on the fence, go look through the thread and read the InHerShoes posts on FB and then tell me you are still on the fence.

When all these "on the fence" posters post, End of the Road and Graces7 like them - go figure.

All this on the fence sh*te just derails the thread. Be honest, say yes or no and then debate it.

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

When all these "on the fence" posters post, End of the Road and Graces7 like them - go figure.

To be fair, I think those posters just thank anything that doesn't mention anything positive about the repeal side of things, I've agreed with end of the road on a couple of points, he's open to abortion and does agree it should be made available to my partner, which I understand, appreciate and respect despite his vote for No.

I just don't understand how anyone can read the stories of Michelle Harte or Savita Halappanavar or any of the women from TFMR or any of the women in the #InHerShoes and go "yep that's exactly the outcome I want for women in this country".

It's also worth repeating (maybe?) that the vote is just to repeal the 8th. The government has proposed abortions up to 12 weeks be allowed but that's not guaranteed to pass (particularly if SF don't alter their stance).

circular flexing wrote: »

I just don't understand how anyone can read the stories of Michelle Harte or Savita Halappanavar or any of the women from TFMR or any of the women in the #InHerShoes and go "yep that's exactly the outcome I want for women in this country".

It's also worth repeating (maybe?) that the vote is just to repeal the 8th. The government has proposed abortions up to 12 weeks be allowed but that's not guaranteed to pass (particularly if SF don't alter their stance).

SF will alter their stance, maybe they kick out Peadar Toibin and any other dissenters.

Savita was not due to the 8th amendment, no one here has been able to produce an official report which blames the 8th, given it was hospital mismanagement of sepsis that caused her death and the reason the hospital had to compensate her family.

pitifulgod wrote: »

There's literally no reason to assume there was anything dodgy about the repeal campaign raising 500k with the crowd funding a few weeks back... I've contributed about 200 this year. The campaign raised 582k in a week,this was spread across 15000 people. That's about 39 euro a person, you think the people at the repeal marches aren't willing to donate 50 quid?




What about Michelle Harte?

I don't know of her case. But hard cases make bad law.

I guess people have more money than whatever...

RobertKK wrote: »

SF will alter their stance, maybe they kick out Peadar Toibin and any other dissenters.

Savita was not due to the 8th amendment, no one here has been able to produce an official report which blames the 8th, given it was hospital mismanagement of sepsis that caused her death and the reason the hospital had to compensate her family.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/eighth-amendment-played-major-role-in-savita-s-death-1.3261037

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/savita-died-because-of-eighth-amendment-claims-leading-doctor-36241339.html

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/author-of-savita-halappanavar-report-says-8th-amendment-contributed-to-her-death-810432.html

Saying she died from sepsis and not because of the 8th is like saying I have arthritis because of the hard work I was doing, not because of the person who gave me the hard work. It's like saying someone with cancer died of an infection, not of cancer. It's like saying someone with osteoporosis who broke their arm when they tripped was because they fell, not because the osteoporosis.

kylith wrote: »

Here’s a mad idea Robert: lots of people agree with Repeal and donated. That’s only 10,000 people donating €50 each.

Amazing that the anti-repeal side managed to get the country plastered with posters at the drop of a hat, what with them not having any cash.


Really? Got a link there? As far as I’m aware most of the anti-repeal haven’t even registered with SIPO.

While we’re here: what are the Yes campaign lies? How many parents should have to watch their child die of a FFA?

The retain side had been fundraising for months, not just a week like together for Yes.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0315/947793-eighth-amendment-primetime/

Pro-retain groups expect to spend more than €1.5m in the forthcoming referendum on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution.

A number of prominent pro-repeal organisations refused to take part in an RTÉ Prime Time survey on referendum funding, but those that did, say they will spend around €500,000 during the campaign.

The Coalition to Repeal the Eighth Amendment declined to provide any details of the source of its funding or its spending plans.

It also refused interview requests.

The Abortion Rights Campaign, which returned a €23,450 donation from George Soros' Open Societies Foundation following a request from the Standards in Public Office Commission (SIPO), declined to take part in the survey.

Foreign donations to third-party organisations are prohibited in referendum campaigns.

SIPO regulates political funding in Ireland.

Most large organisations involved in the campaign said they have, or will register with SIPO.

pitifulgod wrote: »

Pregnant women with cancer cannot participate in drug trials even if they're willing to have the necessary abortion. These are not niche cases, they're pretty normal cases.


https://m.independent.ie/regionals/goreyguardian/news/abortion-nightmare-for-cancer-sufferer-michelle-27340507.html

Since the amount people donated varied, it's not unbelievable that they raised that sum.

I donated 50 euro and I've never donated a cause like this in my life

Gintonious wrote: »

I see Save the 8th are now calling for Dr Peter Boylans resignation...I wonder why?

Resign from what? Isn't he retired?

RobertKK wrote: »

1. Yes posters and no mention of abortion - it is a lie to say people are voting for compassion when it involves allowing the unborn to be terminated and dumped as medical waste, but the latter bit isn't mentioned.

2. It is not unrestricted abortion.

3. A majority of GPs are willing to become abortionists.

4. The yes campaign telling men to talk to the women in one's life pesuming they are all yes voters. None of them are in my life.

5. There is no illegal activity involving money on the Yes side.

1. How is that a lie? Its asking for compassion for women in **** circumstances.

2. Asking for unrestricted access, and it looks like restricting it to 12 weeks, and a 3 day waiting period, which could push someone outside those 12 weeks. Not a lie.

3. You said they weren't willing, which was pointed out it was a training or scheduling issue, not an unwillingness, and a contrary poll was posted. Again, not a lie.

4. How is asking men who happen to be pro repeal to speak to people a lie? Seriously?

5. You'd have proof of this illegal activity? As far as I'm aware, money was returned. And SIPO are currently happy.

Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it a lie.

Do we have time to run through the ACTUAL lies from the enforced birth side? The ones that have been demonstrated time and time again, with actual facts showing you how and why they are lies?

pleas advice wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0327/950308-draft_abortion_bill/


also, if it isn't unrestricted abortion, could you give an example of when a woman might be refused an abortion in those 12 weeks?

That link doesn't explain how it's a lie. That's pretty much what Sofiztikated said.

If the restriction was only to FFA, you'd be arguing that it's not restricted and to point out the example of where a woman with a FFA pregnancy might be refused abortion within the FFA allowance. Or if the restriction was to rape victims, you'd be asking where a rape victim would be refused an abortion.

pleas advice wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0327/950308-draft_abortion_bill/


also, if it isn't unrestricted abortion, could you give an example of when a woman might be refused an abortion in those 12 weeks?

If the pregnancy was determined to be 11 weeks and 5 days, that 3 day cooling off could be the difference in accessing it or not.

I'd defer to someone who knew better though, and if anyone could clear that up, I'd be much appreciated.