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…3940424445…324

Comments

  • Options
    #1232
    BabysCoffee
    Registered Users Posts: 4,712 ✭✭✭BabysCoffee


    daheff wrote: »
    Having received the refcoms leaflet in the post the other day, have to say I’m not happy with either choice. I dont agree with 8th amendment, but I dont agree with giving the Dail the legislative powers to look after this area. TDs sway with the wind and could (and frequently do) implement bad legislation

    The first thing we all need to do is get rid of the abomination that is the 8th from the constitution. For the health & rights of women some of our worries will need to be put to the side until it is repealed. We owe this to all the women in our lives - our mother's, our wives our sisters, our daughters, our friends....


  • Options
    #1233
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    ELM327 wrote: »
    These elected representatives decide how much tax you pay, how late the pubs open, what you may or may not do, but yet you do not see fit for them to legislate on this issue? Delusion. Whether wilful or not I am unsure.

    They are trying round up the Down With This Sort Of Thing faction who will vote No because if the politicians are for it, I'm against it.

    These are the people who saved the Seanad when, after decades of moaning about politicians wasting money and looking after themselves with a 2nd house that was nothing but a rest-home for professional politicians temporarily out of the Dail, suddenly reversed gears when the politicians proposed to do away with it, because they Must Be Up To Something.


  • Options
    #1234
    wexie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,480 ✭✭✭wexie


    ELM327 wrote: »
    These elected representatives decide how much tax you pay, how late the pubs open, what you may or may not do, but yet you do not see fit for them to legislate on this issue? Delusion. Whether wilful or not I am unsure.

    Truth be told I don't trust the majority of our elected representatives to do most of those things either.

    But if we do manage to get the 8th repealed (please god :D) then it's hard to envision a scenario where they could manage to come up with something worse than we already have. I'd imagine they'll still manage to find a way to screw something up along the way regardless, but in the end it's going to have to be better than what we have now.


    ELM327 wrote: »
    If there's a NO vote now, I expect the same referendum again in 3-5 years, but there will be laws against putting lies on billboards and lies on US money being given to one side and not the other.

    As it is I find it absolutely outrageous this isn't already the case. It's absolutely mind boggling there isn't some law in place that would stop foreign entities interfering in our political processes, and not just interfering but interfering with arguments that can be proven to be blatant lies.


  • Options
    #1235
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #1236
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1237
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    I don't expect to meet prolifers in my social circles, but I don't go to Mass, bingo or play 25. They are out there.


  • Options
    #1238
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    spookwoman wrote: »
    You could feel many of the repeal were biting there lips when Caroline Simons spoke especially when she was on about threat to a womans health and at the end especially where the woman was telling her story and the man and his son were snickering behind her was the last straw. People were just glad that was the end because while the no side were on about compassion there was little or non shown to those women who had gone through hell.
    Were knew there was never going to be a fully biased chair either just gkad to see Fiona de Londras was very professional and didnt have a go at anyone in the audience
    There is another on the 17 this time organised by the repeal side with peter boylan etc which should be interesting.

    As i said before alot of people from repeal side didnt go due to who was holding it

    I can tell you that Fiona was absolutely dreading it as she knew she would be outnumbered. The presence of the Repeal supporters meant a lot to her and really gave her heart. Especially as a full on attack against her was launched on twitter calling her credentials into question and asking what right she had to even be involved as she is based in the U.K.

    Yeah - what would a Tipp woman educated in U.C.C who went on to become a human rights expert and law professor in two very prestigious universities know about it. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #1239
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #1240
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    daheff wrote: »
    Having received the refcoms leaflet in the post the other day, have to say I’m not happy with either choice. I dont agree with 8th amendment, but I dont agree with giving the Dail the legislative powers to look after this area. TDs sway with the wind and could (and frequently do) implement bad legislation

    Again: what bad legislation do you fear?

    Is it that they’ll allow for abortion after 12 weeks? Cos they have no restriction at all in Canada and over 90% of abortions are STILL before 12 weeks.

    IDK why some people think women would jump at the chance to have late-term abortions. A read of any testimonial will show that a termination before 12 weeks is a thoroughly unpleasant ordeal, and it only gets worse later in gestation.


  • Options
    #1241
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    RobertKK wrote: »
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/07/ireland-abortion-vote-trump-style-backlash-liberal-elite-patrick-mccabe
    One of Ireland’s most critically acclaimed novelists has warned that the country’s referendum on abortion in May could be a “Brexit/Trump” moment for Ireland, exposing similar divisions between rural voters and city-dwellers.

    Patrick McCabe, the author of bestsellers The Butcher Boy and Breakfast on Pluto, both made into feature films, said there was a danger that sections of the “metropolitan media in Dublin” could alienate voters in rural constituencies and help usher in a no vote against abortion reform.
    “The referendum is going to be interesting, and it is going to be tight. The Dublin media look upon the people from places such as where I am from like ‘local colour’; they are the types who they’d like to have at the party but would never like to see them having a ring around their daughter’s finger. They look down on these people for their uncouthness and boorishness; they say the same kind of things that their media counterparts in America would say about the deep south.”

    The Yes vote is pushed by the establishment which will lead to some backlash.
    He added: “I really don’t like this finger-wagging from the media elite. I don’t like the primness of it, and the liberals are very good at this primness. Maybe that is what the boy in the tractor in the rural parts of Ireland will look on and say, ‘If you keep wagging that finger, I will bite it off.’”
    I just read the article there and it just goes to show that critically acclaimed novelists can be dicks.
    He even got the "I don't support trump but...." line in.
    The previous poster who referenced the divorce referendum, is absolutely correct, there is a core of no voters that have opposed every social change imaginable, from contraception, divorce, SSM. They prophesy doom if the change occurs and then become very quiet afterwards.
    Nearly 50% of our population felt they had the right to tell people in marriage break down, they should have no divorce. A deeply personal situation that only affects the families involved and a large section of our electorate felt they had the right to decide what happens.
    I hope we are eventually moving on but the 32 Fianna fail TD publicly supporting "No" doesn't inspire confidence.
    The young people of Ireland are needed in this vote. That should make the difference.
    Also in relation to McCabe's comments, I'm from Donegal and his comments represent a section of rural Ireland, but not everyone, not by a long shot.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1242
    daheff
    Registered Users Posts: 5,844 ✭✭✭daheff


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    What bad legislation do you fear and, more importantly, why? Even the worst case scenario legislation I have heard anti choice people discuss seems to have little or no real world detriment.

    What is your most credible worst case scenario and why does it concern you?
    It concerns me because I am a citizen of the state. My worst case scenario is legislation that cause more unforeseen problems for people (pregnant vulnerable women mostly)
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »


    Did you miss my post above? Just curious because if you are simply ignoring it I can stop asking.
    Yes I missed it.
    ELM327 wrote: »
    We have the options from the citizens assembly which are:

    Leave it as the inhumane barbaric mess that it is now, or allow the elected representatives of the people decide.
    My problem is why are these the only 2 options?
    ELM327 wrote: »
    These elected representatives decide how much tax you pay, how late the pubs open, what you may or may not do, but yet you do not see fit for them to legislate on this issue? Delusion. Whether wilful or not I am unsure.

    Why is divorce the fifteenth amendment to the consitution? Why do we have the 8th amendment in the constitution now?

    So why do we need a constitution then if our elected representatives are so great?

    The Irish Constitution is the fundamental legal document that sets out how Ireland should be governed and the rights of Irish citizens.

    bubblypop wrote: »
    Actually, I do believe people should pay for their water, & I was pretty disgusted that the government backed down on it.

    To go off topic...we already do pay for water. And the majority (silent/ loud or otherwise) could see why IW was a mistake. We would end up privatising it like all the other countries and have large annual bills to pay for it.
    ELM327 wrote: »
    If you read the FAQ then you would/should not have asked the question.

    Politicians are bound to those that elect them, and you're delusional if you think politicians are not bound to their electorate for the term.

    I didnt ask a question. I made my point. I suspect your high horse is preventing you thinking that politicians are anything but bound to the electorate for their term of office.

    I'm going to stop posting here now because from what I can see of this thread, anybody who has any slightly different view than 'YES' seems to be shouted down. Its getting like the Marriage Equality (34th) referendum again. No room for debate or opinions.


    Just for the record, I voted in favour of the Equality amendment and will be voting to repeal the 8th. I just think that there options arent the right options.


  • Options
    #1243
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    kylith wrote: »
    Again: what bad legislation do you fear?

    Is it that they’ll allow for abortion after 12 weeks? Cos they have no restriction at all in Canada and over 90% of abortions are STILL before 12 weeks.

    IDK why some people think women would jump at the chance to have late-term abortions. A read of any testimonial will show that a termination before 12 weeks is a thoroughly unpleasant ordeal, and it only gets worse later in gestation.

    I am convinced that this "don't trust government" line is a cover for "don't trust women". As if the only thing stopping women from late term abortions because 'meh... enough being pregnant now feck it, I'll abort at 5/6/7/8/9 months' is legislation preventing that.


  • Options
    #1244
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,544 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    daheff wrote: »
    Why is divorce the fifteenth amendment to the consitution? Why do we have the 8th amendment in the constitution now?

    So why do we need a constitution then if our elected representatives are so great?

    The Irish Constitution is the fundamental legal document that sets out how Ireland should be governed and the rights of Irish citizens.
    So you support that a women's place is in the home, if the constitution is your source of reference.
    As referenced by Article 41
    “The State recognises that that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved. “The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.”


    The constitution was written by Dev and the council of bishops, in 1937.
    It does not represent Ireland as we are now, and should be burned and replaced with a new accurate one.

    Abortion, as with all issues of supposed " morality " should be dealt with in legislation and the houses of the Oireachtas. Not by constitution. The 8th is a terrible piece of legislation, even Mary Robinson said so in 1983. Knowing her background, it's hard to argue against her on human rights issues.


  • Options
    #1245
    gmisk
    Registered Users Posts: 32,211 ✭✭✭✭gmisk


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    I am convinced that this "don't trust government" line is a cover for "don't trust women". As if the only thing stopping women from late term abortions because 'meh... enough being pregnant now feck it, I'll abort at 5/6/7/8/9 months' is legislation preventing that.
    I think its more the "dont trust government" line is an attempt to sway people who are on the fence to vote No, irish people love to complain about politicians in general so not exactly surprising, and it might sway some unfortunately.


  • Options
    #1246
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    daheff wrote: »
    Why is divorce the fifteenth amendment to the consitution? Why do we have the 8th amendment in the constitution now?

    Because of the influence of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland after independence.


  • Options
    #1247
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,544 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    daheff wrote: »
    I'm going to stop posting here now because from what I can see of this thread, anybody who has any slightly different view than 'YES' seems to be shouted down. Its getting like the Marriage Equality (34th) referendum again. No room for debate or opinions.


    Just for the record, I voted in favour of the Equality amendment and will be voting to repeal the 8th. I just think that there options arent the right options.
    There is no room for debates or opinions, because you should not have the right to tell another woman what to do with her body.
    You should not have the right to dictate what level of care a pregnant women receives or does not receive.

    Currently the 8th gives you that right (and I, and every other citizen regardless of if they want that right or not) .


  • Options
    #1248
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,544 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    This article (from 2016, before the referendum palaver) is another reason why the 8th is not fit for purpose.
    https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/anthea-mcteirnan-the-eighth-amendment-shown-up-by-two-wise-men-1.2471284

    If you are not a yes voter (and in tears tbh) after reading that article then I don't know what is wrong with you.


  • Options
    #1249
    erica74
    Registered Users Posts: 2,619 ✭✭✭erica74


    "I don't trust the government" :pac:
    Alright, we're on the third thread and still nobody has provided any real and believable basis for their sudden mistrust of the government.

    Answer me this - what difference does it make to you personally whether or not any woman anywhere has an abortion?


  • Options
    #1250
    circadian
    Registered Users Posts: 6,918 ✭✭✭circadian


    erica74 wrote: »
    "I don't trust the government" :pac:
    Alright, we're on the third thread and still nobody has provided any real and believable basis for their sudden mistrust of the government.

    Answer me this - what difference does it make to you personally whether or not any woman anywhere has an abortion?

    It's the George Soros deep state. Duh!


  • Options
    #1251
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,159 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Parliamentary Democarcy, electing politicians isn't Utopia, but it's the best system we have been able to come with, as a human race. End of argument.
    Alternative is, go live on your own island that no country has claimed. You then can make your own laws for yourself.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1252
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,544 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    erica74 wrote: »
    "I don't trust the government" :pac:
    Alright, we're on the third thread and still nobody has provided any real and believable basis for their sudden mistrust of the government.
    There is none.
    And we have an FAQ pro forma answer to give them if they repeat the question

    Q: I don't trust politicians. Why should I trust the politicians to legislate?
    A: Politicians have a huge amount of power as it stands, but any motion put forward in the Dáil is always put to a vote. Politicians are representative of, and answerable to the people. Technically, politicians could lower the age of consent down to 10 if they wanted, but doing so would be political suicide. They'd be just as likely to raise the cutoff date of abortion.


  • Options
    #1253
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    circadian wrote: »
    It's the George Soros deep state. Duh!

    Something something SJW beta cuck snowflake, I win!


  • Options
    #1254
    optogirl
    Registered Users Posts: 2,975 ✭✭✭optogirl


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Something something SJW beta cuck snowflake, I win!

    This stuff drives me bonkers - why is social justice a bad thing? Dare to care about somebody outside of your own house & you're a virtue signaller.


  • Options
    #1255
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    optogirl wrote: »
    This stuff drives me bonkers - why is social justice a bad thing? Dare to care about somebody outside of your own house & you're a virtue signaller.

    And yet the entire No campaign is built on "caring" what other people do but they're the one calling people SJW's and virtue signalers.

    Bizarre.


  • Options
    #1256
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    gmisk wrote: »
    I think its more the "dont trust government" line is an attempt to sway people who are on the fence to vote No, irish people love to complain about politicians in general so not exactly surprising, and it might sway some unfortunately.

    But if you pose the hypothetical ' if there were no term limits do you think women will decide to get late term abortions just because they can...?' and watch the squirming.

    Because they do think just that but don't want to say it.


  • Options
    #1257
    Thirdfox
    Registered Users Posts: 7,110 ✭✭✭Thirdfox


    erica74 wrote: »
    "I don't trust the government" :pac:
    Alright, we're on the third thread and still nobody has provided any real and believable basis for their sudden mistrust of the government.

    Answer me this - what difference does it make to you personally whether or not any woman anywhere has an abortion?

    Because as a prospective father knowing that I will have no legal rights to prevent the abortion of my child affects me personally.

    Separately...

    Just a response I wanted to share when someone raised that my position "places the life of the unborn above that of the mother" and also asked about rape cases:

    Equally I can't understand that you can't see that if I were to wish to keep my unborn child - there is nothing I can legally do to prevent its destruction if the 8th is repealed. That a father (married or unmarried) has no say in how their child is disposed of is a travesty I am willing to fight tooth and nail against.

    My stance of supporting the status quo does not place the unborn's life above that of a woman's, it is why we allow abortions in Ireland already for circumstances where the life of the mother is at risk (either through suicide or as life-saving treatment is administered to the mother which may inadvertently cause the destruction of the unborn) - but your stance places the unborn's life clearly below that of the person carrying the child/foetus/cellular blob.

    The hard cases you present above are things I have considered and while they represent the extreme (and in the case of rape probably one of the strongest arguments for an expanded abortion regime in Ireland) I have in the end made my peace with the fact that unfortunately even within this hardest of hard cases - the unborn's life is not to be placed below a bodily autonomy argument - the rapist is the criminal and should be prosecuted accordingly (nor would I allow them any of the rights I would argue prospective fathers should get) but the unborn is not the criminal in this case. If you do not see a separate living entity as obtaining the right to life until being born, or from an arbitrary (12 week or otherwise) time period then of course it is similar to cutting your own nails - no-one in their right mind would be opposed to that. But if you do see these entities as possessing a right to life from potentially in/(con)ception then you could come to understand that this right to life being extinguished is abhorrent to many right thinking people.

    As for the medication point - it is why for some people taking medication it is mandatory to be on a contraceptive plan to ensure a pregnancy does not occur - it would be highly irresponsible of a medical practitioner to put their patient's health at risk but not following proper procedure - see roaccutane prescriptions - as a female patient I would be obligated to be on a presribed contraceptive plan or else the drug would not be given to me. Even as a male patient I had to sign a statement to the medical practitioner stating that I will not seek to foster a child while on the medication plan before the drugs were allowed to be prescribed. Arguing that abortion should be allowed because of medication conflation issues is cracking a nut with a sledgehammer. I am not against contraception - so this is a much simpler, humane and ethical way to solve the issue instead of allowing abortion on demand for these edge cases (which can be solved by non-abortive measures).

    Prevention is always better than cure - but the "cure" of abortion on demand necessitates the revoking of the right to life of a human entity - that is not something I am prepared to do without overwhelmingly important reasons and I have not seen anything from the yes camp to convince me such a reason exists.

    To answer you directly on the pregnancy as a result of rape I would say that yes you should keep the unborn child - you can choose to raise it with the support of your loving family or place it for adoption but it intrinsically has a right to life that cannot be extinguished by reasons outside of its control (being created from a criminal act). It is also why for fatal foetal abnormalities I can understand why an expansion of the abortion regime should be considered - the entity may not be regarded as "alive" or having any quality of life in the few hours of being born to passing away - even here the intrinsic value I place on human life means that while some FFA cases i.e. child being born with no brain I see an argument for expanding the abortion regime, I would wish to be very careful to distinguish between "no quality of life" and "very little quality of life" cases. FFA cases represent to me the actual hardest of hard cases as this drives directly at the meaning of life (of the unborn).

    The human right to life is a pillar of my moral and ethical outlook - it is why I am against the death penalty and why I am in favour of bodily autonomy with the right to choose death personally in assisted suicide. But choosing death on behalf of a distinct individual, without the legal input of the other person who created that individual is something I am willing to campaign hard against.


  • Options
    #1258
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,051 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Out here in West Kerry, not exactly a bastion of forward thinking, the most annoying thing I hear from 'undecideds' is 'It'll promote promiscuity.'

    I mean, really, did Father mc Fatherson tell you those words? And, why is it a bad thing for women, but not for men, to be 'promiscuous,' whatever the feck that means.

    No has one argument: "No." No reasons, no data, no facts, nothing to back them up. Just the status quo's been good to them. Pointing out things like "The Catholic Church wasn't anti-abortion till the 19th century, when women started working," nah... "Promiscuity BAD! Women's BAD!" Oh, and these laundry things are a great deal, so noooooo abortion bad!bad!bad!

    Next "undecided" brings that up is going to get an earful.

    Doing volunteer duty at the repeal booth this weekend in Dingle. Come one, come all. Plus Feile na Bealtaine's going on, it's a great time, lots of concerts/poetry readings/dance recitals/art installations/... all weekend. And maybe it won't be raining.


  • Options
    #1259
    wexie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,480 ✭✭✭wexie


    amcalester wrote: »
    And yet the entire No campaign is built on "caring" what other people do but they're the one calling people SJW's and virtue signalers.

    Bizarre.

    yeah but that's a load of bollocks isn't it? It's not about caring, it's not about loving both, it's not about empathy...

    It's about control and enforcing your personal beliefs on someone else even though their actions have no impact on you whatsoever.


  • Options
    #1260
    Triceratops Ballet
    Registered Users Posts: 4,894 ✭✭✭Triceratops Ballet


    Thirdfox wrote: »
    Because as a prospective father knowing that I will have no legal rights to prevent the abortion of my child affects me personally.

    Separately...

    Just a response I wanted to share when someone raised that my position "places the life of the unborn above that of the mother" and also asked about rape cases:

    Equally I can't understand that you can't see that if I were to wish to keep my unborn child - there is nothing I can legally do to prevent its destruction if the 8th is repealed. That a father (married or unmarried) has no say in how their child is disposed of is a travesty I am willing to fight tooth and nail against.

    What legal right do you have now? in theory the hypothetical woman concerned can hop on a plane and be in Liverpool in an hour and there's nothing you can legally do to stop her, in fact it's her constitutional right.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1261
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,051 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Thirdfox wrote: »
    Because as a prospective father knowing that I will have no legal rights to prevent the abortion of my child affects me personally.


    The human right to life is a pillar of my moral and ethical outlook - it is why I am against the death penalty and why I am in favour of bodily autonomy with the right to choose death personally in assisted suicide. But choosing death on behalf of a distinct individual, without the legal input of the other person who created that individual is something I am willing to campaign hard against.

    Choose wisely to reproduce and these problems go away, don't they? Make it a conscious choice and be in agreement *beforehand.* And, are you an attorney? Do you know if faced with this situation, you won't be able to sue to prevent abortion? Rather than getting a freebie from the Constitution?

    And, if the human right to life is so important, how do you resolve Savita H.'s case? She had a heartbeat, too. Would you force your partner to birth a FFA?

    Frankly, if you don't want uncertainty, adopt.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement