8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1

Imagine being a pregnant woman making your way into your maternity hospital. You're going in for another scan to see if your baby still has a heartbeat. See, you found out recently that your baby will not survive outside of the womb as some of the vital organs have not developed correctly. You are returning to your maternity hospital to see if there's still a heartbeat because until there is no heartbeat, the medical team looking after you can't do anything for you. You are returning to your maternity hospital wondering if today is the day you find out that your baby is dead. You are still foolishly hoping that maybe today the doctor will tell you they made a mistake and the baby is actually fine, a mistake was made. You are torn between that hope and the other side of you, the side that knows the reality. You're processing what feels like 100 different emotions and 1000 different thoughts when, at the entrance to your maternity hospital, you are greeted by gruesome images of foetuses and babies, at who knows what stage of gestation or birth. You begin to question yourself, question everything everyone has said to you about your baby, question everything you have said to yourself about your baby.

Does anyone think that that is right? Does anyone think any person should be subjected to those images, particularly women coming and going from a maternity hospital? Do any of these idiots realise what they are doing when they stand with these images in the most inappropriate places imaginable? LoveBoth??

Repeal the 8th. The current laws are disgusting and cruel and affect everyone, it doesn't matter if you have a willy, this affects you. Educate yourself and vote.

yourdeadwright wrote: »

But there YES vote might hurt them , people have to realise not everyone has the same beliefs ,
Put the info out there and let people vote as the chose , Its a personal choice ,
As iv said my personal choice is not to vote but each to there own

How will it hurt them?

No-one will be forced to have abortions. Anyone who doesn't want an abortion will never have to have one.

Meanwhile if the foetus in my uterus starts to die, even though that death is inevitable, I have to continue to carry it while going back for repeated scans to check if it's dead enough for them to take it out.

I don't get a say over whether I will have someone stick their hand in me and rupture the membranes to speed up birth.

I don't get to have a say about whether or not someone can cut my vagina.

A woman on In Her Shoes the other day told of the agony she went through during labour because the foetus was positioned incorrectly and the midwife did nothing because the foetus wasn't in any distress. The midwife didn't even tell her. Like, never mind the woman who has been damaged internally, she's of secondary concern.

Put yourself in the shoes of a woman facing childbirth. Would you not be terrified of the 8th?

kylith wrote: »

How will it hurt them?

No-one will be forced to have abortions. Anyone who doesn't want an abortion will never have to have one.

Meanwhile if the foetus in my uterus starts to die, even though that death is inevitable, I have to continue to carry it while going back for repeated scans to check if it's dead enough for them to take it out.

I don't get a say over whether I will have someone stick their hand in me and rupture the membranes to speed up birth.

I don't get to have a say about whether or not someone can cut my vagina.

A woman on In Her Shoes the other day told of the agony she went through during labour because the foetus was positioned incorrectly and the midwife did nothing because the foetus wasn't in any distress. The midwife didn't even tell her. Like, never mind the woman who has been damaged internally, she's of secondary concern.

Put yourself in the shoes of a woman facing childbirth. Would you not be terrified of the 8th?

These are the arguments that should be used. The "Abortions are bad/good because" just go around and around. The real effects of the 8th are what people need to look at, not some fantasy about some young wan having a hape of abortions (or not having one, and then being subject to dole scrounging diatribe.)

The 8th was, is and always will be, known as failure of an amendment.

Remove the poxy thing, and legislate for it.

And the "I don't trust politicians" bolix? Catch yourself on. Noone trusts a politician. But if a piece of legislation that you don't like is written, it's an awful lot easier to get it changed, and that works both ways.

Sanguine Fan wrote: »

Dear Moderator,

Any chance of a quiet zone where those of us who are pissed off with both sides of this polarised debate could have a natter?

I am sick to death of the narrow-minded, self-righteous platitudes spewing out from both sides.

On another thread.

Not being a dick but you don't have to post here if you don't want to if you're undecided.

I understand you're unsure of which way to vote and I am absolutely not going to try to convert you/change your mind. Take some time, read up on facts (not opinions from either side), then make your decision, even if it's abstaining.

Dressing gown wrote: »

They literally cannot do their job with the eighth in place.

Why can't they? Any doctor worth his/her salt would do whatever he/she could to help a patient in dire need, even if that meant terminating a pregnancy.

If they were prosecuted for contravening the law, then let them make their case from the dock. There is not a jury in Ireland that would convict a medic for standing by his/her professional oath.

Sanguine Fan wrote: »

The problem with the current referendum proposal is that it is a blunt object. Either we have no abortion at all or anyone who is pregnant can get one for any reason. I don't like either alternative.

Was it beyond the wit of the geniuses in Leinster House to come up with something better than this?

Taking abortion out of the constitution doesn't mean someone will be able to get an abortion for any reason. There was an absolute ban on abortion in Ireland from 1861 to 1983 without it ever being mentioned in the Constitution.

Whatever your feelings on abortion itself, putting the grounds for abortion into the constitution is an incredibly bad idea. It's a bad fit. To once again steal from someone else's post, constitutional provisions that are shorter than a tweet aren't the place to deal with complex legal, medical, and ethical matters.

One only has to look at what's happened since the 8th was voted in. It was supposed to prevent a constitutional right to abortion being found, but ended up creating one. It became the basis of preventing the distribution of information about abortion, and for preventing someone having an abortion abroad, problems which we had to hold further referendums to fix. It's resulted in numerous court cases, and puts us in breach of internationally recognised human rights. And it reaches far beyond abortion and potentially impacts the care every pregnant receives. All that, and more, from just 43 words.

What we are being asked to vote on is absolutely the best option for the constitution. If you don't like what's proposed for subsequent legislation, you can lobby to have it changed now or at any time in the future. But if you vote No, don't expect another alternative to be put to a referendum in the future, because a feasible alternative for the constitution doesn't exist.

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Again you don't understand democracy do you ,
People have a choice to vote as they please and there choice is there choice weather you feel its right or wrong, If its the right choice for them its the right choice for them, regardless if they vote yes or no ,

Oh I understand it alright and you are absolutely entitled to your choice.

Pity that choice isn't for all. Women don't have a choice in everything.

What I was trying to say that sometimes someone elses choice impacts my choice. If you chose to vote no or not vote at all, that could quite possibly impact my choice to obtain medical treatment at some stage (not me but other child bearing women).

No need to be rude, I was putting my point of view across, not denying you your rights.

NuMarvel wrote: »

But if you vote No, don't expect another alternative to be put to a referendum in the future, because a feasible alternative for the constitution doesn't exist.

Yes it does. Just go back to the pre-1983 status quo.

But that's not what we are being asked to vote on, is it?

_Dara_ wrote: »

I seriously can’t believe that you think doctors will gladly risk going against the 8th amendment, Sanguine Fan. I can’t believe anyone actually thinks that. I’m truly gobsmacked. Truly.

Are you a doctor?

It doesn't matter, because if you would put adherence to an unjust law before your conscience then you should be gobsmacked!

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

No they can't.

Also, women will have a choice. They won't be made to abort.

I wrote 'encouraged', not 'made'.

Do you understand the psychological stress a pregnant woman experiences, especially if she has just been told there is a problem?

You make it sound as if she and her medic can discuss the options rationally and without emotion.

The real world is not like that.

Sanguine Fan wrote: »

Are you a doctor?

It doesn't matter, because if you would put adherence to an unjust law before your conscience then you should be gobsmacked!

I posted this before, Professor Sabaratnam Arulkumaran who did the report into savita's death, this was what he said in the joint comittee

I will start with Savita's case. It was very clear to me during the inquiry that the thing preventing the physician from proceeding was the legal issue because she repeatedly said she was concerned about the legal issue. I will give a little bit of explanation. The mother was sick. There was no question about that. Even at the last minute they were using a hand probe to see whether the baby's heartbeat was present or not. Any junior doctor would have said it was a serious condition and they must terminate. They were just keeping her going because of the mere fact the heartbeat was there. The legislation played a major role in making a decision. Somebody else might say they would have done the termination much earlier. That is a personal interpretation. It is why things are made difficult because of the legislation.

So he certainly thought it swayed good medical practice