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
8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1
Options
Comments
-
Triceratops Ballet wrote: »There's nothing disingenuous about it, the 8th amendment affects the standard of care women receive during pregnancy in this country regardless of if abortion is involved or not. Pregnant women are explicitly excluded from the HSE's policy on consent because of the 8th amendment, meaning they have no right to consent/even be informed about the medical interventions they are subject to during labour. Women have had to go to the high court to have their rights to not have a c-section against their wishes vindicated.
I never said that wasn't the case, but we are not voting on abortion, that remains a fact.
Since we are all aware of what legislation is being proposed, yet have absolutely no guarantee about what legislation will actually be enacted
then we are certainly aware that the intention is that abortion will be legalised in the event of the 8th Amendment being repealed.
So to say that we are not voting on abortion may be factually true, but to fail to qualify that statement with any comment that it is proposed to introduce abortion in the event of repeal is absolutely disingenuous, since it certainly neglects to present the facts.
[/I][/I]Wrongway1985 wrote: »Honestly what's the reasoning here? ALL women should suffer as SOME can't be trusted?
We should trust women to know what's best for THEMSELVES in the result of pregnancy in their circumstances. YOUR personal opinion of them maybe being either kind or a snake is absolutely irrelevant.
One the stupidest posts I've read all day.
Really? I would suggest that you might want to consider women as equals. Ergo, certainly some women can be trusted, and some cannot.
I've no idea where you got the idea that I mentioned the words "kind" or "a snake".
I merely find it totally ridiculous that anyone should think we should trust all women, which is what is inferred by the slogan.
Imagine the uproar if we suggested we should "Trust Men", just because they're men?
Which half of a partnership should we trust if there is a disagreement about abortion, then?I think the term 'trust women' is in relation to their own health & pregnancy. Not anything else.
Why do you not trust women to do what is the right thing for them?
Who do you think should decide what's right for women?
Of course legislation will be brought in by politicians, that's why we vote them in.
That's their job.
It's an overly simplistic, and, to a certain extent, offensive statement.
Reality is, it takes two people to procreate. Thus, in the majority of cases, there will be two people involved in the decision to continue with, or terminate a pregnancy.
Many women/men will agree on a choice. Many will disagree, and the heartbreak that arises from these decisions will affect men just as much as women. Then there's the issue of the women who are pressured into abortion by partners or families.
The whole "Trust women" slogan is so simplistic, it's downright insulting.
Trust women and everything will be fine? Where's the talk about aftercare for women who need it?
Where's the talk about ensuring that abortion is really that woman's choice?
Where's the protection to ensure that an abusive partner isn't forcing a woman to have an abortion?
Where's the consideration of how fathers are going to feel, if they really want these babies?
Where's the help when partners disagree about the birth of, say, a handicapped child?
Just "Trust women", and lobby politicians, and it'll all be grand?
If abortion is legalised in Ireland, it will create at least as many problems as it is introduced to allegedly solve.
Particularly since it is proposed to introduce abortion on demand.
As to why I don't trust ALL women? (I am a woman btw).
A friend of mine in the UKs' eldest son and his girlfriend were expecting a baby. At that time, abortion was legal until 28 weeks.
The father was delighted. He decorated a nursery, bought all the baby clothes, the pram, the pushchair - everything, right down to nappies.
At 27 wks+ gestation, she walked in one day, and informed him that she had an abortion - and he was absolutely devastated! As was his Mother, who had promised to babysit the child to allow them to work, or even raise the child if they felt unable to.
Should we trust a woman who would make such a monumental decision, without any discussion, just because she is a woman? She was in a long-term partnership.
Should that father have had no rights?
The whole thing is an absolute can of worms - and that's long before we even consider the women and men of the future, that we are never going to be in a position to trust, or otherwise.No we're not, we are not voting on restricting travel for women in Ireland
So - keep exporting and stay a joke of a country
or take the training wheels off ?
How about sit down and have a reasonable discussion about how much power we want to give politicians on what is a very emotive subject?
Because Carte Blanche is way too far for a lot of people.
What is wrong with voting on amending the Constitution, and voting on potential abortion legislation on the same day, for example?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.
The proposed legislation suggests that abortion will be made available for any reason up to 12 weeks.
I don't like what is being proposed. There is no guarantee that I would like any amendments that might, but probably wouldn't , be proposed.
I'm not happy about the tragedies that the 8th has caused - I'm just less happy about the proposed solution.0 -
-
PhoenixParker wrote: »NAGDEFI seems to have deleted the panel of doctor's comment.
Perhaps he's realised that the proposals for abortion up to 12 weeks already require the approval of a doctor before the abortion can take place.
No i haven't.0 -
A medical emergency that puts her life at risk. An emergency that puts her health at risk does not qualify. You actually have to be dying before a woman’s rights supersedes that of the child she is carrying. Tell me how that does not make her vulnerable?
That needs to be looked into. But not the present abortion motion on demand.0 -
Need to legalise abortion in Britain due to abortion pills...
https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/staggering-number-of-women-seeking-abortion-pills-online-in-great-britain_uk_59c23ffce4b087fdf5094748/A “staggering” number of women in Britain are illegally seeking abortion pills online to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, a new study has revealed.
The flawed 8th amendment committee used illegal abortion pills as the reason for the 12 weeks unrestricted abortion.
Yet we see in Britain the trade in illegal abortion pills is rising as at an enormous rate. Legal abortion doesn’t stop women buying illegal abortion pills.
It is like legal cigarettes doesn’t stop the trade of illegal cigarettes.
The reasoning by the people on the committee who recommended the 12 weeks is fundamentally flawed.0 -
Advertisement
-
Dressing gown wrote: »Because counterfeit medicines are a massive business. Not simple. Not safe. For mother or fetus.
These pills are genuine and are provided by service that can be trusted. The pills themselves are also safe and when used properly they very rarely have unintended side effects.
The issue is that if a woman or girl does need medical attention, the 14 year prison sentence could dissuade them from seeking that attention until the situation escalates. And they also found that there was no appetite for enforcing the law. So what's the point in keeping a law that's potentially putting someone's health or life at risk and which no one seems to want to use.
Hence their recommendation to allow abortion on request up to 12 weeks. That's effectively what's happening right now anyway, but making it legal removes potential barriers to medical attention. And those barriers can't be removed while the 8th is in place, because the 8th requires significant criminal penalties.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: ».........
The proposed legislation suggests that abortion will be made available for any reason up to 12 weeks.
I don't like what is being proposed.
.
Abortion is available now and will be even if the 8th is retained0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »translation: I'm losing.
Childish point scoring attempts.
You're neither interested in women's welfare or unborn babies, just winning in your own little game.0 -
I have asked this question before, but would be interested in hearing from people that agree with our constitutional right to travel, but are still going to vote No.
I understand the people that consider abortion the same as murder, they will vote no and would people quite happily take away the right to travel.
For others though if women are going to England in their thousands every year and an unknown number accessing abortion pills online, why keep up this farce. It is a uniquely irish solution to an Irish problem.
We as a country should make a position one way or the other. Abortion is a crime so remove the right to travel have guards stationed at airports and ports to enforce our laws.
Or pass this referendum.0 -
Need to legalise abortion in Britain due to abortion pills...
https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/staggering-number-of-women-seeking-abortion-pills-online-in-great-britain_uk_59c23ffce4b087fdf5094748/
The flawed 8th amendment committee used illegal abortion pills as the reason for the 12 weeks unrestricted abortion.
Yet we see in Britain the trade in illegal abortion pills is rising as at an enormous rate. Legal abortion doesn’t stop women buying illegal abortion pills.
It is like legal cigarettes doesn’t stop the trade of illegal cigarettes.
The reasoning by the people on the committee who recommended the 12 weeks is fundamentally flawed.
You're using literally every ridiculous argument against allowing abortions in the state. The fact is Robert, thousands of women travel to the UK for abortions. Illegal abortion doesn't prevent abortion in any way. You've also omitted some of the reasons why. So difficulty obtaining abortions for whatever reason will increase people taking it into their own hands.Lisa*, who is 25 years old explained: “Unfortunately, my local area is somewhat out of the way. I do not drive and cannot afford the public transport to attend the 3-4 appointments that they require to complete the abortion. I also have a young child at home who requires a lot of attention due to being premature.
“I’m really desperate and I’ve been told there is a three week wait, I’m really distressed and I just want the procedure over and done with.”
Women who are ineligible for free, non-emergency NHS services faced the additional issue of not being able to afford abortion care. These women tended to be either undocumented immigrants or have been admitted under a visa program. The minimum cost of an abortion would be approximately £545.
Leila*, who is 22 years old and living in England explained: “I completely lack the money for services and I am not a resident of UK. I am completely alone and really need help.”0 -
Advertisement
-
These pills are genuine and are provided by service that can be trusted. The pills themselves are also safe and when used properly they very rarely have unintended side effects.
The issue is that if a woman or girl does need medical attention, the 14 year prison sentence could dissuade them from seeking that attention until the situation escalates. And they also found that there was no appetite for enforcing the law. So what's the point in keeping a law that's potentially putting someone's health or life at risk and which no one seems to want to use.
Hence their recommendation to allow abortion on request up to 12 weeks. That's effectively what's happening right now anyway, but making it legal removes potential barriers to medical attention. And those barriers can't be removed while the 8th is in place, because the 8th requires significant criminal penalties.
In the UK the highest sentence for an illegal abortion is up to life imprisonment, illegal abortions are happening in Britain.0 -
pitifulgod wrote: »You're using literally every ridiculous argument against allowing abortions in the state. The fact is Robert, thousands of women travel to the UK for abortions. Illegal abortion doesn't prevent abortion in any way. You've also omitted some of the reasons why. So difficulty obtaining abortions for whatever reason will increase people taking it into their own hands.
It is not ridiculous, it is reality.
The argument about illegal abortion pills, doesn't stop them being purchased in places where they are legal.0 -
There were posts on this thread i reported 4 posts which used language towards No voters here such 'Go fcuk off', 'peanut sized brain No supporters' and the like yesterday evening.
Why is this thread not regulated like other threads? I got an infraction for calling those who went out during storm Ophelia as idiots. Why is there no regulation here?
I just googled and see boards.ie is owned by Distilled Media, who in turn own The Journal which is frequently quoted here for pro Yes side arguments.
Is Boards.ie a fair non biased forum or a sham where No supporters are cowed into submission?
I'd say you'd be better off posting in the feedback forum about your concerns. I doubt the mods would be happy to discuss this on this particular thread.0 -
Abortion is available now and will be even if the 8th is retained
Indeed. But I'm not being asked to vote on that. I'm being asked to vote the repeal the 8th, with absolutely no guarantee what legislation may be introduced, be it immediately, or in the future.
It is suggested that abortion be permitted or any reason, up to 12 weeks gestation.
I don't agree with that - so I will vote as conscientiously as I can, in the full and certain knowledge that I'm stuck in a catch 22 situation, and not happy with the result of the referendum, no matter what way it pans out.0 -
These pills are genuine and are provided by service that can be trusted. The pills themselves are also safe and when used properly they very rarely have unintended side effects.
The issue is that if a woman or girl does need medical attention, the 14 year prison sentence could dissuade them from seeking that attention until the situation escalates. And they also found that there was no appetite for enforcing the law. So what's the point in keeping a law that's potentially putting someone's health or life at risk and which no one seems to want to use.
Hence their recommendation to allow abortion on request up to 12 weeks. That's effectively what's happening right now anyway, but making it legal removes potential barriers to medical attention. And those barriers can't be removed while the 8th is in place, because the 8th requires significant criminal penalties.
Having worked in the pharmaceutical industry I would never buy medicine off the internet. You can say they are safe all you like, but with risk of haemorrhage or infection or a failed termination doing who knows what to the fetus a ‘sure it’ll be grand’ attitude really doesn’t cut it.
My point is an attitude that the status quo works because you can get them off the net is not good enough. Our country needs to take responsibility for the women that find themselves needing this service. It should be regulated by an entity in this country, not abroad.0 -
I'd say you'd be better off posting in the feedback forum about your concerns. I doubt the mods would be happy to discuss this on this particular thread.
The mods should regulate this thread like any other and i'll point it out to them here.
If the language came from the No side i'd say the same. Telling posters to GFY is not on. Any other thread i've been on and you'd be warned straight away for such conduct.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »What is wrong with voting on amending the Constitution, and voting on potential abortion legislation on the same day, for example?
There is no provision in our constitution for that type of vote and it would have no legal weight. Politicians wouldn't be bound by it, and juding by the rest of your post I presume you want this to be binding in some way.
There is a provision in the Constitution for proposed legislation to be voted on in a referendum in certain circumstances, but it wouldn't work in this case. The legislation would first have to be passed by the Oireachtas; but they can't do that while the 8th is in place because they can't pass legislation that is unconstitutional.Deleted User wrote: »The proposed legislation suggests that abortion will be made available for any reason up to 12 weeks.
I don't like what is being proposed. There is no guarantee that I would like any amendments that might, but probably wouldn't , be proposed.
I'm not happy about the tragedies that the 8th has caused - I'm just less happy about the proposed solution.
If you want change, the long and short of it is that you have to get rid of the 8th first. Nothing can happen while it's in place, and it's not feasible to alter the constitution to specify the circumstances in which abortion should be permitted.
The options are either maintain the status quo, or remove the 8th and campaign to have the laws changed to your suiting. There really isn't a viable third option.0 -
I have asked this question before, but would be interested in hearing from people that agree with our constitutional right to travel, but are still going to vote No.
I understand the people that consider abortion the same as murder, they will vote no and would people quite happily take away the right to travel.
For others though if women are going to England in their thousands every year and an unknown number accessing abortion pills online, why keep up this farce. It is a uniquely irish solution to an Irish problem.
We as a country should make a position one way or the other. Abortion is a crime so remove the right to travel have guards stationed at airports and ports to enforce our laws.
Or pass this referendum.
How on earth would you enforce a ban on the right to travel?
Pregnancy test every woman at the airport, and refuse to let any pregnant woman travel, because she "might" have an abortion?
I can't see that working, somehow!0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: ».............
with absolutely no guarantee what legislation may be introduced, be it immediately, or in the future.
You can't go around like that - the sky won't fall down
Leo could go execute half the Dail in the morning and go full dictator - not going to happen either0 -
Deleted User wrote: »I have asked this question before, but would be interested in hearing from people that agree with our constitutional right to travel, but are still going to vote No.
I understand the people that consider abortion the same as murder, they will vote no and would people quite happily take away the right to travel.
For others though if women are going to England in their thousands every year and an unknown number accessing abortion pills online, why keep up this farce. It is a uniquely irish solution to an Irish problem.
We as a country should make a position one way or the other. Abortion is a crime so remove the right to travel have guards stationed at airports and ports to enforce our laws.
Or pass this referendum.
How on earth would you enforce a ban on the right to travel?
Pregnancy test every woman at the airport, and refuse to let any pregnant woman travel, because she "might" have an abortion?
I can't see that working, somehow!
The above is like something straight out of The Handmaid's Tale 😫0 -
Advertisement
-
But how else can it be done.Deleted User wrote: »Abortion is available now and will be even if the 8th is retained
Indeed. But I'm not being asked to vote on that. I'm being asked to vote the repeal the 8th, with absolutely no guarantee what legislation may be introduced, be it immediately, or in the future.
It is suggested that abortion be permitted or any reason, up to 12 weeks gestation.
I don't agree with that - so I will vote as conscientiously as I can, in the full and certain knowledge that I'm stuck in a catch 22 situation, and not happy with the result of the referendum, no matter what way it pans out.
Would you be happy with another referendum to simply make the 8th workable for you. Sort of like the 12th 13th and 14th amendment and then wait nearly 20 years for legislation.
All complex issues are handled by legislation, by politicians voted in by us
A government could make drink diving legal, but I don't worry about that since it would only get 2 votes in the dail.0 -
There is no provision in our constitution for that type of vote and it would have no legal weight. Politicians wouldn't be bound by it, and juding by the rest of your post I presume you want this to be binding in some way.
There is a provision in the Constitution for proposed legislation to be voted on in a referendum in certain circumstances, but it wouldn't work in this case. The legislation would first have to be passed by the Oireachtas; but they can't do that while the 8th is in place because they can't pass legislation that is unconstitutional.
If you want change, the long and short of it is that you have to get rid of the 8th first. Nothing can happen while it's in place, and it's not feasible to alter the constitution to specify the circumstances in which abortion should be permitted.
The options are either maintain the status quo, or remove the 8th and campaign to have the laws changed to your suiting. There really isn't a viable third option.
I would absolutely want it to be binding. I've seen too many politicians promise one thing, and do the complete opposite to be naïve enough to trust that they would do what they say.
I'm sure they could agree legislation, without passing it, and add the proviso "In the event of the 8th being repealed" followed by whatever option/s they thought were acceptable on the ballot paper.0 -
-
BabysCoffee wrote: »The above is like something straight out of The Handmaid's Tale ��
???0 -
It is not ridiculous, it is reality.
The argument about illegal abortion pills, doesn't stop them being purchased in places where they are legal.
Did you read the article you posted?
The numbers quoted were not particularly high considering the size of the UK population and associated legal abortion rate. The reasons cited were lack of access to abortion e.g. distance to the clinics and lack of transport.
The US experienced similar issues.
The answer is better more extensive access provided in as many locales as possible not further restrictions.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »How on earth would you enforce a ban on the right to travel?
Pregnancy test every woman at the airport, and refuse to let any pregnant woman travel, because she "might" have an abortion?
I can't see that working, somehow!
It isn't a question of how would we do it, it's if we'd want to in the first place.
So, would you? If you could, would you stop a woman traveling abroad in the name of protecting the unborn?0 -
Dressing gown wrote: »Having worked in the pharmaceutical industry I would never buy medicine off the internet. You can say they are safe all you like, but with risk of haemorrhage or infection or a failed termination doing who knows what to the fetus a ‘sure it’ll be grand’ attitude really doesn’t cut i.
My point is an attitude that the status quo works because you can get them off the net is not good enough. Our country needs to take responsibility for the women that find themselves needing this service. It should be regulated by an entity in this country, not abroad.
My point (which you were referring to initially) is that if women had to choose between a panel of doctors assessing for a 12 week abortion, they would probably still choose getting the pills online, regardless of the legality or of the risks.0 -
But how else can it be done.
Would you be happy with another referendum to simply make the 8th workable for you. Sort of like the 12th 13th and 14th amendment and then wait nearly 20 years for legislation.
All complex issues are handled by legislation, by politicians voted in by us
A government could make drink diving legal, but I don't worry about that since it would only get 2 votes in the dail.
Crossed posts. So, I'll say it again.
I can't see why politicians can't hold the referendum, and, on the same day, have a binding vote on proposed legislation, with whatever legal disclaimer they need, giving people the choice of whether or not they agree with the proposed legislation, in the event of the 8th being repealed.
I think the right to life is the most fundamental right there is, and giving control of it to any group is not wise.
It is something that should be democratically decided.
BTW, a government did decide to guarantee the banks, How did that work out for us?0 -
For me those are not valid enough reasons for abortion, like FFA or Rape. There are 2 lives involved.
How would abortion in the case of rape work? Let’s be practical here. Would rape have to be proven? If so, how long would that take? If it doesn’t have to be proven, then that means you won’t know if the woman looking for the abortion has been raped or not.
Seriously, how would it work? I’m all ears.0 -
Advertisement
-
suicide_circus wrote: »If they had asked "do you want to fully legalise abortion for medical reasons" there would be very little debate.
I think that’s naive. There have been posters on this very forum who have said that the foetus deserves a chance at life in every circumstance (and I mean every) and that the current, very restrictive provisions are enough.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement