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

Mrsmum wrote: »

Met a neighbour at a bbq today. He said he tells all the Yes crowd he's voting yes and all the No crowd he's voting no but what he'll do in the ballot booth is his own business. I'd say he's not the only one doing that.

A recent study by a group of Christians in the united states revealed that the majority of women (over 70%) who seek abortions consider themselves Christians, and that over 50% of them actively hide this information from their convents with over 40% of them believing their convents are not equipped to give them sound support or advice on the matter.

http://deadstate.org/christian-group-conducts-study-finds-out-that-christians-have-the-most-abortions/

So yeah I think it is fair to say people may not be upfront with others on the street about their views and experiences.

threescompany wrote: »

“ a significant proportion of the population?” A bit of an exaggeration.
Anyway, It boils down to perspective & opinion.

In my opinion , denying people abortions does not equate to denying people healthcare. Healthcare is care that is required when someone is ill, incapacitated, has an ongoing health condition etc. These are the people that require healthcare. Abortions and healthcare are not the same thing. There are of course exceptions in a minority of cases , FFA , incest etc.
I do believe our government should be providing women with adequate care in this regard and they are not...... but generally when a woman chooses to have an abortion, and healthy fetuses are aborted this is not denying healthcare ...... I appreciate I am in a minority and the 8th will be repealed. But that’s where I stand. I’m not some cruel heartless person. Of course people should be treated appropriately & compassionately when pregnancies result in FFA’s, invest etc. of course there should be medical management of these rare situations. It boils down the fact that I cannot vote to legalize unrestricted abortion. It’s morally wrong. There are other options. What about adoption?? What about a greater awareness & educating these women to CHOSE contraception & not CHOSE whether to abort or not. In this day, with all the contraception, i just don’t accept that it’s right. I see what you’re saying...... it’s a hard difficult referendum..... I don’t make my decision lightly but I suppose I’m just different to you all ( or most of u )

And what about the compassion for the woman who can barely afford to live week to week and can’t afford another child without putting her existing children into poverty?
Or the woman having a crisis because she doesn’t want children?
Or the woman who is in an abusive relationship and doesn’t want to bring a baby into a home with domestic violence?
Or the 16 year old girl who is still a child herself and got caught after her first fumble with her first boyfriend?
Are none of them deserving of help and compassion?

I don’t agree with you that abortion is morally wrong.
Why should I live my life restricted by your morals? I’m not forcing mine on you?

Adoption is non existent in this country.
For a woman that does not want a baby, and does not want to be pregnant, termination is the only option.
No amount of money or faux support thrown at her will change that. We aren’t the ones left holding the baby, she is.
We can either trust and respect her decision or send her to the Ryanair departure gates and let British doctors look after her.
Both scenarios have the same outcome.

Regardless of all this, the 8th has an effect and impact on maternity care for EVERYONE. It needs to go.

Andrew Beef wrote: »

That is a ridiculous argument!

Just because some women are choosing to commit an illegal and immoral act either via the internet by ordering pills or via a trip to the UK, it is not justification for changing our country into one which readily accepts the unnecessary termination of a viable baby’s life.

The 8th needs to go but we do not need unrestricted access to abortion up to 12 weeks.

If we get rid of the 8th, taking the unborn rights out of our constitution and replace it with an article that allows them, the politicians, to legislate further on this complex matter. Our we mad!!! Look at this week alone and the disgraceful crisis of the cervical check and now Tony is going on holidays. How can we trust any of the politicians. Repealing the 8th will allow any government, current and future, to amend 12 weeks unstructed abortion to 40 weeks. That is what we are voting on.

VOTE NO and let the government make a better proposal to the people. Let them go back to the drawing board.

VOTE NO

threescompany wrote: »

“ a significant proportion of the population?” A bit of an exaggeration.
Anyway, It boils down to perspective & opinion.

In my opinion , denying people abortions does not equate to denying people healthcare. Healthcare is care that is required when someone is ill, incapacitated, has an ongoing health condition etc. These are the people that require healthcare. Abortions and healthcare are not the same thing. There are of course exceptions in a minority of cases , FFA , incest etc.
I do believe our government should be providing women with adequate care in this regard and they are not...... but generally when a woman chooses to have an abortion, and healthy fetuses are aborted this is not denying healthcare ...... I appreciate I am in a minority and the 8th will be repealed. But that’s where I stand. I’m not some cruel heartless person. Of course people should be treated appropriately & compassionately when pregnancies result in FFA’s, invest etc. of course there should be medical management of these rare situations. It boils down the fact that I cannot vote to legalize unrestricted abortion. It’s morally wrong. There are other options. What about adoption?? What about a greater awareness & educating these women to CHOSE contraception & not CHOSE whether to abort or not. In this day, with all the contraception, i just don’t accept that it’s right. I see what you’re saying...... it’s a hard difficult referendum..... I don’t make my decision lightly but I suppose I’m just different to you all ( or most of u )

I'm just taking your adoption point here, lots of ppl think this is an option, but it's not as simple as FHE would have ppl believe.

For a married woman to put her child up for adoption she has to have her husband's consent(even if it's not his child or they are separated), if they are together, they have to declare there is a problem in their home, that makes it a better option for the child to be out of that situation, this leaves the door open for their other children to be taken into care. Private adoption is costly, and have such outdated rules for placement, its inaccessible for most people.

Adoption in the public services mean interacting with social services at an early stage in the pregnancy(so decisions have to be made early) in the majority of cases, after birth the child is placed in a care situation and those are dependent on staff, environment, number and type of other children in the facilities. Mostly its babies who are adopted and the process for adoptive parents is so long and arduous that often times its just less painful for perspectives to adopt from abroad. Meaning that lots of kids are outside the optimum ages for prospective parents(while this is by no means all, it's very very common). This often is why kids grow up in care and can have such issues in readjusting to the outside world. While many kids are placed in foster care, even the best possible foster homes cant replace a stable loving home and moving a child from foster is beyond painful for all involved.

Even if a child is adopted from an early age, there can be psychological issues with being different from their family and/or overwhelming feeling of abandonment, often lifelong. These issues are hard to find support for here and have consequences for the youngsters ability to bond as an adult.

threescompany wrote: »

Anti choice brigade..... Really do you have to be so rude? I’m entitled to make a point without reading snide comments. Also Is offering alternative soloutuons not the intelligent thing to do in a debate??

You want to deny women any choice so it's a perfectly acceptable title

"alternative soloutuons" is such a crass, much peddled pro-life solution to an issue which is not all about what to do with it once its born

Killester1 wrote: »

Repealing the 8th will allow any government, current and future, to amend 12 weeks unstructed abortion to 40 weeks.

Ah, fearmongering never gets old. It doesn't stop them from making it 10 weeks either then. Or 6.

Killester1 wrote: »

Repealing the 8th will allow any government, current and future, to amend 12 weeks unstructed abortion to 40 weeks. That is what we are voting on.

VOTE NO and let the government make a better proposal to the people. Let them go back to the drawing board.

VOTE NO

Post reads like scaremongering. A person who actually believes this really has a big problem with women.

Even if it was legal it would not happen in reality. Does anyone truly believe a woman would wait until the end of the pregnancy before getting an abortion? Wait until she is showing and everyone in her life knows she is pregnant. For anyone reading this and believes that women are going to be looking for abortions at 40 weeks please think about it logically.

DubInMeath wrote: »

Justin Barrett, Declan Ganley and John McGuirk all consider themselves politicians or political activists, so we shouldn't be trusting them and anything they say either.

A couple of weeks ago, Leo announced that he was giving the YES campaign 50,000e to 100,000e depending how their campaign was going......tax payers money. My taxes. How is that fair and democratic?