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

Most single Irish women choose to rear the child themselves as opposed to adoption nowadays. They aren't forced by society or family anymore to give the child up for adoption. So they now have a, free choice between these two alternatives, which they did not have, in the past.

Sofiztikated wrote: »

In what country in the world is there a fathers "right" to keep a woman pregnant when she doesn't want to me? That sounds a little off to me.

I'm sure Daesh Lite Saudi Arabia would be one.

RobertKK wrote: »

, the 8th amendment could have been amended for cases like FFA and rape

But how do you amend for rape? We’ve been through this many times. If you wait for a conviction then the child would likely be a toddler, if you require a Garda report then there will be a surge in false reports, if you take the woman’s word for it how is it different to the proposed legislation?

DubInMeath wrote: »

So would you agree with bringing back mother and baby homes?

Why does there have to be a mother and baby home for a child to be adopted?
You do realize that a lot of women who had an unplanned pregnancy all over the world were quite satisfied with the mother and baby home, two of my aunts included?

kylith wrote: »

But how do you amend for rape? We’ve been through this many times. If you wait for a conviction then the child would likely be a toddler, if you require a Garda report then there will be a surge in false reports, if you take the woman’s word for it how is it different to the proposed legislation?

Do you think women would go to the Gardai and say I was raped, they do whatever they do for evidence and ask if they knew the rapist or if they could give a description. Your post says we can't trust women, I don't think that is what you wanted to say with that post, given the Yes campaign use the trust women slogo, but that is what it says.
Members of the government said the main reason some of them backed 12 weeks unrestricted was not due to rape but due to abortion pills.

RobertKK wrote: »

I just want want you to know, I admire honesty and it is a great trait and thank you for that.
I missed this reply yesterday so I was not ignoring it. Apologies/sorry if you thought I was.

I know there are people on the Yes side here who deep down feel the way about repeal as I do about retaining the 8th. I know it is waste of their time and mine to even believe any of us will change opinion.
Morally we are all different, but I don’t think it being different is a reason for me or others to look at other people differently. We all reach positions in life based on life experience, how we were raised and I accept that, as we all want to be accepted.
Anyway to answer the edit part, I can’t vote yes and then pretend I didn’t know a yes vote would remove all the power from the people on what is a life and death issue. As the judges in their signed statement yesterday said, the 8th amendment could have been amended for cases like FFA and rape which would have been a far more certain vote for a successful referendum. It would be easier to change people’s opinion based on that. But this referendum if a yes goes way beyond that and voting yes would make me complicit with something I don’t agree with, that is how it affects me and I don’t want to have anything to do with what is proposed.

Thanks again for your post. It was far easier to not post that.

Cheers for getting back to me, much appreciated. Honestly, I'd like to not be as combatant about this as I am, it's our country, I'd much rather we could all get along.

Setting aside the abortion issue, the 8th amendment isn't fit for purpose, and amending the amendment, to possibly amend it again when the next ****storm hits really isn't the best way to go. We both know it's far too complex an issue to put it there.

As it stands, the amendment affects every woman in Ireland. You can say it's not, or it shouldn't, but it does. Time and time again, we've presented evidence to you that it does. You HAVE to agree with me on that. I'm not talking about what might, or could, or should happen. I'm talking about what HAS and IS happening. Voting to retain the 8th continues that.

There was time to present arguments to the Citizens Assembly, but Retain refused. That was a chance to do some real talking. A proper argument could have been made for AMEND, but there was nothing offered. So how could anyone expect there to be any talk AFTER a vote?

The proposed legislation isn't that liberal. Yes, I understand that anything that's not your default IS more liberal, but it's really not THAT liberal.

The data from anywhere suggests that 12 weeks is what the vast majority do, no matter how strict or liberal, so it's a good base line.

As regards reasons for a termination to that point? That's where we are never going to agree. I genuinely don't care, up to the 12 week mark. It's their lives, it's their situations. Now, might there be some I look at and go, "Huh, really?" but it's not enough that I demand they live by my morals on this.

I hope you can understand why I get frustrated at you. But as another poster said, fair play for sticking around.

splinter65 wrote: »

Being dead is better then being alive. Where are you getting this? What is wrong with you? You are going through the list of anti repeal claims and conjuring up ludicrous arguments to oppose them.
Have you any clue about how offensive that would be to millions of adoptive parents and adoptees all over the world?
“I think it would have been kinder of your mother to have killed you rather than give you a chance at life”.
Jesus.
I know I don’t have to read this thread or contribute but really and truly... there are no depths.

IMO Being dead is very different from never having been born.

Untold billions upon billions of people have not been born, and we know nothing of them, nor have they missed anything, since they never really existed in the first place.

I would count miscarried and aborted foetuses among those nonexistent people - they got a bit closer to living than the fertilised egg that never implanted, which got a bit closer than the sperm that came second in the race, or the egg that was released just when the couple had a massive row and didn't have sex for three days.

But none of them are anything like a person who has had a life, even a short one, and relationships with other people, even just a baby with its parents, and who then die.

By your logic we should mourn as deaths all those miscarriages nobody ever even knew about.

Ally Dick wrote: »

Yes

Are you being serious here or sarcastic?


Like, a man rapes a women, she gets pregnant - do you think he should then be allowed to apply to the court to have her locked up for the duration of the pregnancy to stop her going to the UK for an abortion?

(I would have taken it as irony only I see a long term prolife poster gave it a like, so that person seems to be taking it seriously, and agreeing with the suggestion.)

erica74 wrote: »

Vile.



Vile.



I'm not going to get too far into this because it's off topic.
What's the problem with euthanasia? Euthanasia is ending a life to relieve pain and suffering, you'd obviously rather someone suffer.
If euthanasia was legalised here, nobody would be forced into it if they don't want it, the same way as nobody will be forced to have an abortion if they don't want one.

The main reason euthanasia is legal hardly anywhere is because the potential for family members forcing/“persuading” family members to agree to be euthanized is so high it’s just not something anyone wants to have anything to do with.
Why did you thinks it’s not universally allowed?

ricero wrote: »

Still not decided on what to vote for.

My biggest fear for repealing the 8th would be an abortion on demand scenario and then abortions being paid for by the medical card within a decade.

It depends on what you mean by "On Demand?"

What is suggested to go in legislation is up 12 weeks, a 72 hr cooling off period.

And why the medical card?

DubInMeath wrote: »

Physical, sexual and mental abuse. Happens our foster care system and retirement homes due to lack of resources.

If your ok with your taxes being spent on mother and baby homes why are you against them being used for children’s allowance for the third and subsequent child people have?

Your alleging that you have witnessed or have other evidence that people are being physically sexually and mentally abused in state run care homes? Have you reported this to the Gardai?
In response to your other point I am in favor of a benefits cap for the better welfare of born children.
It’s improving living conditions for children in other countries,
What is the point you are trying to make?