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
1…1920222425…324

Comments

  • Options
    #632
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    Deleted User wrote: »
    joe40 wrote: »
    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giving people the choice of whether or not they agree with the proposed legislation, in the event of the 8th being repealed.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?
    But even if we were to vote directly on legislation, it can be changed by dail vote at a future date. We would have to.put a new amendment into the constitution and this topic is too complex for that


  • Options
    #633
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Deleted User wrote: »
    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    I'm sure they could agree legislation, without passing it, and add the proviso "In the event of the 8th being repealed" followed by whatever option/s they thought were acceptable on the ballot paper.

    And like I've said, this wouldn't be binding.

    The constitution allows binding referendums on two things: i) what's in our constitution, or ii) legislation that's been passed by the Oireachtas and referred to a referendum in accordance with Article 27. What you're proposing meets neither of those criteria, so it can't be binding.

    Like I said, the options are either maintain the status quo, or remove the 8th and campaign to have the laws changed to your suiting. The former means nothing changes, and nobody really wants that. The latter means things might change more than you'd like, but also means you can campaign to change them to your suiting.

    There really, really, really isn't a viable third option.


  • Options
    #634
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,730 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    PhoenixParker wrote: »
    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.

    Yes I did read it.
    In 2016, 375 doses were intercepted, compared with five in 2013.

    Only close to a 7,500% increase in the number of illegal abortion pills intercepted in Britain which suggests it is a rapidly growing thing in Britain where abortion is legal.


  • Options
    #635
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Only close to a 7,500% increase in the number of illegal abortion pills intercepted in Britain which suggests it is a rapidly growing thing in Britain where abortion is legal.

    375 cases out of a population of something like 20 million girls and women of child bearing age is not a "rapidly growing thing". No matter how much you torture percentages to suit your agenda.


  • Options
    #636
    NAGDEFI
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭NAGDEFI


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    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.

    Let the doctors assess the mental state of the person and likelihood of rape. Major onus on them. All you have to offer is abortion on demand.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #637
    PhoenixParker
    Registered Users Posts: 2,671 ✭✭✭PhoenixParker


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Yes I did read it.



    Only close to a 7,500% increase in the number of illegal abortion pills intercepted in Britain which suggests it is a rapidly growing thing in Britain where abortion is legal.

    Talking about % change from a very small number is statistical nonsense.
    The largest number mentioned is 500 which of 185000 abortions is tiny though worrying.

    As I said and will reiterate the problem seems to arise from restricted abortion access due to non-legal impediments. The solution there, as here is to make abortion safer by removing those impediments.


  • Options
    #638
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,730 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    375 cases out of a population of something like 20 million girls and women of child bearing age is not a "rapidly growing thing". No matter how much you torture percentages to suit your agenda.

    Wrong, 375 interceptions up from 5 three years earlier, how many were not intercepted?


  • Options
    #639
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    AllForIt wrote: »

    Then again, I'm a man, I'm gay, and the issue doesn't affect me in my own personal life. So I've decided that those of you who are personally affected by the issue should make the decision, not me.

    I hope that my abstaining is not taken as anything other than abstaining.

    As a lesbian I'm glad that people didn't take that attitude when it came to the Mar Ref.

    As a gay I would have thought you would appreciate that a person should have the right to do as they wish with their own body.


  • Options
    #640
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,730 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    PhoenixParker wrote: »
    Talking about % change from a very small number is statistical nonsense.
    The largest number mentioned is 500 which of 185000 abortions is tiny though worrying.

    As I said and will reiterate the problem seems to arise from restricted abortion access due to non-legal impediments. The solution there, as here is to make abortion safer by removing those impediments.

    It is not statistical nonsense, it is true.

    Well in some cases and it is an increasing problem in Ireland, is the waiting list to see your GP.


  • Options
    #641
    PhoenixParker
    Registered Users Posts: 2,671 ✭✭✭PhoenixParker


    NAGDEFI wrote: »
    Let the doctors assess the mental state of the person and likelihood of rape. Major onus on them. All you have to offer is abortion on demand.

    Aside from the hideous specter such a proposal presents in terms of forcing women to beg for medical treatment after a hugely traumatic experience,

    determining whether a rape has occurred is a legal matter for which people spend years studying to qualify.

    Doctors train in medicine not the law. They have precisely zero qualifications or experience to determine whether a rape has occurred unless they’re observing clinical indicators which may not exist or will be long gone before a pregnancy manifests.

    You’re basically suggesting doctors act as the prosecution lawyer, judge and jury ignoring that they are DOCTORS.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #642
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    NAGDEFI wrote: »
    Let the doctors assess the mental state of the person and likelihood of rape. Major onus on them. All you have to offer is abortion on demand.

    Exactly as hare-brained as I thought it would be.


  • Options
    #643
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    RobertKK wrote: »
    It is not statistical nonsense, it is true.

    Well in some cases and it is an increasing problem in Ireland, is the waiting list to see your GP.

    An increase in interceptions isn’t by itself evidence of anything other than an increase in interceptions.

    Perhaps they have just gotten better at intercepting the pills.


  • Options
    #644
    DOS
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 191 ✭✭DOS


    Whatever way you're voting, the huge majority have not got a feckin clue what this is about.

    We're being asked to take power from the people (Our Constitution) and give that power to a handful of incompetent knobs in Dail Eireann.

    That I don't like. I'm voting no.

    They can come back after with an alternative proposal, such as an amendment to the existing provision in the constitution. The provision of the right to life should never be taken out of our constitution.


  • Options
    #645
    NAGDEFI
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭NAGDEFI


    PhoenixParker wrote: »
    Aside from the hideous specter such a proposal presents in terms of forcing women to beg for medical treatment after a hugely traumatic experience,

    determining whether a rape has occurred is a legal matter for which people spend years studying to qualify.

    Doctors train in medicine not the law. They have precisely zero qualifications or experience to determine whether a rape has occurred unless they’re observing clinical indicators which may not exist or will be long gone before a pregnancy manifests.

    You’re basically suggesting doctors act as the prosecution lawyer, judge and jury ignoring that they are DOCTORS.

    Doctors and psychiatrists are best qualified to assess the mental state of a patient. No to abortion on demand. Also i personally believe an innocent baby shouldn't be killed because of rape bar where the mother's life is in jeopardy. You don't get a solicitor to assess suicidal tendencies etc. Putting caps on a word shouting at someone changes nothing.


  • Options
    #646
    NAGDEFI
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭NAGDEFI


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    Exactly as hare-brained as I thought it would be.

    I'd prefer that option to a murderous one.

    It's only hare brained in your mind because your desired outcome is abortion on demand and you can't see beyond that.

    Rubbish phrases like bodily autonomy, reproductive rights etc don't change the fact that it's the legalisation of killing one of the weakest elements in society.


  • Options
    #647
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    NAGDEFI wrote: »
    Let the doctors assess the mental state of the person and likelihood of rape. Major onus on them. All you have to offer is abortion on demand.

    There are no standard medical indicators for rape, so I don't see why you expect doctors to be in a position to make the determination. Rape, by its nature is a violent act, but not all rapes leave physical marks.

    What's more, the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre isn't in favour of this type of approach, and I think they're best placed to make the determination for what's best for rape victims:
    If there is to be special consideration of those who have suffered rape, this requires the pregnant rape victim to make a report and to claim that the rape occurred.

    Requiring a pregnant rape victim to share the traumatising experience about her rape and subsequent pregnancy has the potential to not only re-traumatise, re-trigger and re-victimise her; it also leaves her in a situation where she has to convince people that her story justifies access to support.

    If after exploring all of her options, a woman decides that she cannot go through with a pregnancy resulting from the crime of rape, we should not add any hurdles or barriers to the process.


  • Options
    #648
    Wrongway1985
    Registered Users Posts: 6,350 ✭✭✭Wrongway1985


    Deleted User wrote: »

    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?

    Women including you should have governance over their own body. I guess I'll have to explain the obvious...you didn't mention those words but kind is a trusting word, whereas Snake is the opposite :) .

    Men are essential in pro creation sure but they aren't required to carry a child thats the womans body, if there is a disagreement over abortion that doesn't strike me as a realistic stable environment for a child.

    Maybe trust men should be a slogan for fathers who are desperate to have access to their children but have no legal rights when it comes to the unmarried ones but thats another story.


  • Options
    #649
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    DOS wrote: »
    They can come back after with an alternative proposal, such as an amendment to the existing provision in the constitution.

    Gee, no one's made that suggestion in about.. 3 minutes? :rolleyes:

    It's been explained, only just tonight, why this isn't a runner. Is it too much to ask people read at least some of the thread first?
    NAGDEFI wrote: »
    Doctors and psychiatrists are best qualified to assess the mental state of a patient. No to abortion on demand.

    Many No voters say that allowing abortion on the basis of the mental state of the patient will lead to abortion on demand. So I'll give you credit for not trotting out that ol' chestnut and for putting some faith and trust in doctors.


  • Options
    #650
    NAGDEFI
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭NAGDEFI


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    There are no standard medical indicators for rape, so I don't see why you expect doctors to be in a position to make the determination. Rape, by its nature is a violent act, but not all rapes leave physical marks.

    What's more, the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre isn't in favour of this type of approach, and I think they're best placed to make the determination for what's best for rape victims:

    The whole area needed to be looked into, not abortion on demand offered to all. There must be some best practice by some nation in the world on rape and crisis pregnancy.


  • Options
    #651
    erica74
    Registered Users Posts: 2,619 ✭✭✭erica74


    NAGDEFI wrote: »
    Let the doctors assess the mental state of the person and likelihood of rape. Major onus on them. All you have to offer is abortion on demand.

    That's a great idea, a rape victim must present her case to a panel of doctors having been through one of the most traumatic experiences of her life.
    NAGDEFI wrote: »
    Doctors and psychiatrists are best qualified to assess the mental state of a patient. No to abortion on demand. Also i personally believe an innocent baby shouldn't be killed because of rape bar where the mother's life is in jeopardy. You don't get a solicitor to assess suicidal tendencies etc. Putting caps on a word shouting at someone changes nothing.

    So you believe that a woman should be forced to carry her rapist's baby? In what way does it personally affect you if a rape victim aborts her rapist's baby?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #652
    thee glitz
    Registered Users Posts: 2,294 ✭✭✭thee glitz


    Ave Sodalis wrote: »
    Not a single person in the Yes side have been ignoring the unborn. Also, selling abortion?!

    The posters, the ones on the street advocating for Yes votes, they ignore it.
    Or it'll be put aside and not looked at again until something else serious happens.

    That could happen either - it would be whatever the government wants. If the 8th is preventing intervention which would stop avoidable deaths, then that should be a priority. As it is, that's not the case. It's a fair question to ask why.


  • Options
    #653
    NAGDEFI
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭NAGDEFI


    erica74 wrote: »
    That's a great idea, a rape victim must present her case to a panel of doctors having been through one of the most traumatic experiences of her life.



    So you believe that a woman should be forced to carry her rapist's baby? In what way does it personally affect you if a rape victim aborts her rapist's baby?

    It's morally wrong imo to kill an innocent baby. We make decisions for our constitution not on how they effect us individually but for what we perceive to be the common good.


  • Options
    #654
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    NAGDEFI wrote: »
    I'd prefer that option to a murderous one.

    It's only hare brained in your mind because your desired outcome is abortion on demand and you can't see beyond that.

    Nope, it's hare-brained because there is no one way a woman who has been raped acts. A doctor shouldn't be put in the position of deciding whether a woman is lying about it or not.

    A rape provision would be completely unworkable. With your suggestion, you've done nothing but underline that.

    Oh and women who have a crisis pregnancy (be it financial or medical or due to personal problems or rape) are among the most vulnerable in society. But fuck them, right?


  • Options
    #655
    ouxbbkqtswdfaw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭ouxbbkqtswdfaw


    No mention of the word abortion in the independent guide to the referendum.


  • Options
    #656
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    crbphqm4y1f8ea wrote: »
    No mention of the word abortion in the independent guide to the referendum.

    Because we are not voting on abortion.

    We are voting to retain or repeal a clause in the Constitution and allow Government to legislate.

    Repeal will not make abortion legal. It will return us to the situation that was in place in 1983 - when abortion was illegal.

    What it will do, if Repeal wins, is enable government to legislate on abortion.


  • Options
    #657
    NAGDEFI
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭NAGDEFI


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    Nope, it's hare-brained because there is no one way a woman who has been raped acts. A doctor shouldn't be put in the position of deciding whether a woman is lying about it or not.

    A rape provision would be completely unworkable. With your suggestion, you've done nothing but underline that.

    Oh and women who have a crisis pregnancy (be it financial or medical) are among the most vulnerable in society. But fuck them, right?

    Great. We'll return to the suggestion I'm more comfortable with. The baby is innocent and doesn't deserve to be killed bar the mother's life is in danger.


  • Options
    #658
    ouxbbkqtswdfaw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭ouxbbkqtswdfaw


    The word abortion more correctly describes the procedure more so than termination.


  • Options
    #659
    erica74
    Registered Users Posts: 2,619 ✭✭✭erica74


    NAGDEFI wrote: »
    It's morally wrong imo to kill an innocent baby. We make decisions for our constitution not on how they effect us individually but for what we perceive to be the common good.
    erica74 wrote: »
    So you believe that a woman should be forced to carry her rapist's baby? In what way does it personally affect you if a rape victim aborts her rapist's baby?

    Do you not want to answer that question?


  • Options
    #660
    DOS
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 191 ✭✭DOS


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Because we are not voting on abortion.

    We are voting to retain or repeal a clause in the Constitution and allow Government to legislate.

    Repeal will not make abortion legal. It will return us to the situation that was in place in 1983 - when abortion was illegal.

    What it will do, if Repeal wins, is enable government to legislate on abortion.

    INCORRECT. Sections 58 and 59 of the 1861 offences against the persons act have been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #661
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    NAGDEFI wrote: »
    Great. We'll return to the suggestion I'm more comfortable with. The baby is innocent and doesn't deserve to be killed bar the mother's life is in danger.

    So not to include rape victims. How does that jive with your whole "weakest in society" spiel?

    Some of the weakest in society seems to be your philosophy.

    You don't believe in the protection of all the weakest members of our society.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement