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

darem93 · 13-05-2018 02:57PM

I see Vote No signs recycled from the Marriage Equality referendum up in Blacklion in Cavan that just have the stuff about children deserving a mother and a father scribbled out. Talk about scraping the barrel...

I definitely think I'll go out and canvass for the first time next weekend. I just feel like I have to do something.

smartz · 13-05-2018 03:14PM

January wrote: »

So... Any no voter here, tell us again how the 8th amendment doesn't affect women who are pregnant with health issues?

I think ye've done a fairly good job at driving them all away!:D

Sofiztikated · 13-05-2018 03:16PM

darem93 wrote: »

I see Vote No signs recycled from the Marriage Equality referendum up in Blacklion in Cavan that just have the stuff about children deserving a mother and a father scribbled out. Talk about scraping the barrel...

I definitely think I'll go out and canvass for the first time next weekend. I just feel like I have to do something.

I'd nearly guarantee whoever put then back up, would be the first ones to bleat about adoption as an alternative.

Sofiztikated · 13-05-2018 03:17PM

smartz wrote: »

I think ye've done a fairly good job at driving them all away!:D

What's your opinion?

smartz · 13-05-2018 03:18PM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

What's your opinion?

I'm still undecided

B0jangles · 13-05-2018 03:18PM

Just ran into a huge crowd of Loveboth-ers on Bray seafront - they've a special bus with a professionally-applied branded decals all over it, all their canvassers have special branded high-vis jackets and handfuls of glossy leaftlets.

Must be nice to have all that money!

Pity their canvassers aren't so well supplied with facts as they are with shiny things to wear - one of them tried to convince me and a crowd of onlookers that the 2013 act covered risks to a woman's health, as well as to her life. The response was... not positive from the onlookers.

Sofiztikated · 13-05-2018 03:19PM

smartz wrote: »

I'm still undecided

Is there anything I could do to help?

13-05-2018 03:26PM

smartz wrote: »

I'm still undecided

Plenty getting banned for trolling, lying, rereg and generally being a dick.

Robertkk normally comes in with a one liner or two depending on what John McGuirk etc, or with stats that he doesn't have a link to, similar enough to the SSM refurendum. Also Dublin and Kilkenny in the hurling today and the last time I checked Dublin winning, but given it Kilkenny that might not last, so he might be at/watching the match.

Any question you want answers to?

January · 13-05-2018 03:27PM

smartz wrote: »

I'm still undecided

Any questions, or concerns?

smartz · 13-05-2018 03:36PM

January wrote: »

Any questions, or concerns?

Okay, what would peoples main concerns be with a regime which allowed termination in the case of rape/incest/FFA/health concerns but not otherwise? Is it purely because (1) you feel it is unworkable/logistically impossible or (2) because you feel the woman's right to choose, based on social/economic/familial circumstances, outweighs the unborn/fetus' right to life?

13-05-2018 03:38PM

darem93 wrote: »

I see Vote No signs recycled from the Marriage Equality referendum up in Blacklion in Cavan that just have the stuff about children deserving a mother and a father scribbled out. Talk about scraping the barrel...

I definitely think I'll go out and canvass for the first time next weekend. I just feel like I have to do something.

Sounds like someone had a row with their printer/supplier/treasurer, but hey it's recycling I guess.

Any Yes posters up since your last trip to Dublin and home/post in the previous thread?

Timberrrrrrrr · 13-05-2018 03:39PM

smartz wrote: »

Okay, what would peoples main concerns be with a regime which allowed termination in the case of rape/incest/FFA but not otherwise? Is it purely because (1) you feel it is unworkable/logistically impossible or (2) because you feel the woman's right to choose, based on social/economic/familial circumstances, outweighs the unborn/fetus' right to life?

It's just this for me, if a woman decides she does not want to be pregnant then I have no issue with her terminating said pregnancy for whatever her reasons may be

13-05-2018 03:40PM

smartz wrote: »

Okay, what would peoples main concerns be with a regime which allowed termination in the case of rape/incest/FFA but not otherwise? Is it purely because (1) you feel it is unworkable/logistically impossible or (2) because you feel the woman's right to choose, based on social/economic/familial circumstances, outweighs the unborn/fetus' right to life?

Your forgetting health.

But to me 1 is unfortunately unworkable

wexie · 13-05-2018 03:43PM

smartz wrote: »

Okay, what would peoples main concerns be with a regime which allowed termination in the case of rape/incest/FFA but not otherwise? Is it purely because (1) you feel it is unworkable/logistically impossible or (2) because you feel the woman's right to choose, based on social/economic/familial circumstances, outweighs the unborn/fetus' right to life?

For me I just don't think it'd be workable at all.

What standards would you set for someone to 'prove' it was rape or incest?
Who would get to decide? Where would these people come from?
How would you ensure you're not raising the threshold to access services by the process of 'proving' rape or incest? How would you stop this process from interfering with any ongoing or future prosecution?

More importantly how long would it take? Could you do it quick enough to make sure it'd be done within the 12 weeks? Where would these resources come from?

And with regards choice, how would you support a woman (or couple) in raising and having a child they don't think they can raise and or support? What professional support would there be for the parents stuck with a child they didn't want? What services for the child stuck with parents that didn't want it?

The list is endless really

Sofiztikated · 13-05-2018 03:45PM

smartz wrote: »

Okay, what would peoples main concerns be with a regime which allowed termination in the case of rape/incest/FFA but not otherwise? Is it purely because (1) you feel it is unworkable/logistically impossible or (2) because you feel the woman's right to choose, based on social/economic/familial circumstances, outweighs the unborn/fetus' right to life?

Honestly, for me, its a little of column a and a little of column b.

There's no real workable solution to a, and we will still have a situation that we have now. And with b, there's a million and 1 reasons for not wanting to continue a pregnancy.

It wasnt me123 · 13-05-2018 03:48PM

smartz wrote: »

Okay, what would peoples main concerns be with a regime which allowed termination in the case of rape/incest/FFA/health concerns but not otherwise? Is it purely because (1) you feel it is unworkable/logistically impossible or (2) because you feel the woman's right to choose, based on social/economic/familial circumstances, outweighs the unborn/fetus' right to life?

Both of these things.

But I would put the woman's right to body autonomy first.

But also, how would you police terminations for specifics - back to the rape committees - its unworkable.

I just think it should be a level playing field, equality for all. We don't restrict medical treatment to a man for any reason, why is it okay to do it to a woman. Don't women count?

Repeal all the way

eviltwin · 13-05-2018 03:52PM

smartz wrote: »

Okay, what would peoples main concerns be with a regime which allowed termination in the case of rape/incest/FFA/health concerns but not otherwise? Is it purely because (1) you feel it is unworkable/logistically impossible or (2) because you feel the woman's right to choose, based on social/economic/familial circumstances, outweighs the unborn/fetus' right to life?

I support a woman's right to have a termination for any reason. It's a personal decision so should be kept between a woman and her doctor.

January · 13-05-2018 03:54PM

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

Both of these things.

But I would put the woman's right to body autonomy first.

But also, how would you police terminations for specifics - back to the rape committees - its unworkable.

I just think it should be a level playing field, equality for all. We don't restrict medical treatment to a man for any reason, why is it okay to do it to a woman. Don't women count?

Repeal all the way

This would be for me too, scenario a is unworkable but over and above that, I believe a woman should have the right to choose, for herself, whether she wants to continue a pregnancy or not.

dudara · 13-05-2018 03:57PM

smartz wrote: »

Okay, what would peoples main concerns be with a regime which allowed termination in the case of rape/incest/FFA/health concerns but not otherwise? Is it purely because (1) you feel it is unworkable/logistically impossible or (2) because you feel the woman's right to choose, based on social/economic/familial circumstances, outweighs the unborn/fetus' right to life?

It’s a bit of both for me. Option 1 has a certain “niceness” about it. It feels better but when I thought about it before, it just really isn’t workable. Too many “what ifs”.

Ultimately for me, it’s option 2. If a woman doesn’t want to be pregnant, I don’t see why she should be made stay pregnant. If we have a society where we make women stay pregnant against their will, then IMO we are failing women. Having a 12 week period where a woman can choose freely allows the space to make decisions before the impact is too high. Restrictions thereafter (to the point of viability) will still allow women who need to access an abortion for the valid permitted reasons to get one.

Tom Mann Centuria · 13-05-2018 03:58PM

Scenario of rape/incest/health, state pays, option of unwanted pregnancy individual pays. Woman's choice regardless.

January · 13-05-2018 04:01PM

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

Option 1 state pays, option 2 individual pays. Woman's choice regardless.

Well, it hasn't been announced yet what way it will work.

I envision that medical abortions before 12 weeks will be available on the Drugs Payment and General Medical schemes after 12 weeks it will be surgical or induction/cesarean so we'll be looking at hospital charges for public procedures.

darem93 · 13-05-2018 04:03PM

DubInMeath wrote: »

Sounds like someone had a row with their printer/supplier/treasurer, but hey it's recycling I guess.

Any Yes posters up since your last trip to Dublin and home/post in the previous thread?

There's definitely still a lot more No posters down here, but the amount of Yes ones that have gone up in the past two weeks has been amazing. I have to say fair play to Together For Yes, they're really doing a fantastic job.

smartz · 13-05-2018 04:05PM

wexie wrote: »

For me I just don't think it'd be workable at all.

What standards would you set for someone to 'prove' it was rape or incest?
Who would get to decide? Where would these people come from?
How would you ensure you're not raising the threshold to access services by the process of 'proving' rape or incest? How would you stop this process from interfering with any ongoing or future prosecution?

Interesting points, I' not fully convinced it is entirely unworkable though. Obviously if the same standards of criminal cases are upheld then the process would take too long and risk retraumatising the victim. But is a simple assertion is all that is required then that may be avoided. Obviously such a system is open to abuse but I don't believe many woman would abuse it.

erica74 · 13-05-2018 04:07PM

smartz wrote: »

Okay, what would peoples main concerns be with a regime which allowed termination in the case of rape/incest/FFA/health concerns but not otherwise? Is it purely because (1) you feel it is unworkable/logistically impossible or (2) because you feel the woman's right to choose, based on social/economic/familial circumstances, outweighs the unborn/fetus' right to life?

A regime which allows abortion only in those specific circumstances would be unworkable. In what manner would a woman or girl be expected to "prove" she has been raped or the victim of incest? Just on rape and incest alone, if a woman or girl is raped or the victim of incest, and ends up pregnant, you're relying on her doing everything immediately and it all going seamlessly so as not to waste any precious time and unfortunately, that's not realistic.
When I was raped, I buried it deep inside myself and it was years before I even accepted that I had been raped. I was "fortunate" that I was on oral contraception, however, the man who raped me didn't use a condom and I ended up with an STI. If I had ended up pregnant, I would have gone straight away to the UK for an abortion. If I had the option of abortion here but had to first present myself to a committee and prove myself, I probably would have opted to travel to avoid the additional trauma of "making my case" for an abortion.

What sort of questions would be asked of a woman or girl seeking an abortion in the circumstances you outlined?

And I do feel the woman or girl's right to choose should be No. 1.

Calina · 13-05-2018 04:07PM

In principle, this matter should be at the discretion of the woman concerned, her med team and whoever she chooses to confide in.

In the UK some 2 per cent of rape complaints result in a conviction. I would not want to rely on any system to assess rape/or not rape because typically society in the form of the court system tends to give the benefit of the doubt to the man in rape cases. Given recent discussions how do you think a woman who gets an abortion post rape is likely to be treated if she gets a permitted abortion but in the subsequent rape trial the person charged with the rape walks free?

Imo people who suggest we can limit abortion on the basis of ascertaining whether a rape has taken place or not are delusional. We already seem to let a lot of rapists walk free.

However, IME online discussions, people who talk about a rape exclusion don't want abortion at all. They don't want the exclusion but want you to think they might consider repeal 'but it goes too far'. If we found a way to do a rape exclusion, they would find another excuse like the risk of false rape accusations.

Sofiztikated · 13-05-2018 04:08PM

smartz wrote: »

Interesting points, I' not fully convinced it is entirely unworkable though. Obviously if the same standards of criminal cases are upheld then the process would take too long and risk retraumatising the victim. But is a simple assertion is all that is required then that may be avoided. Obviously such a system is open to abuse but I don't believe many woman would abuse it.

And who makes this assertion?

smartz · 13-05-2018 04:10PM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

And who makes this assertion?

The victim.

13-05-2018 04:12PM

darem93 wrote: »

There's definitely still a lot more No posters down here, but the amount of Yes ones that have gone up in the past two weeks has been amazing. I have to say fair play to Together For Yes, they're really doing a fantastic job.

Thanks for the reply away in the UK at the moment, my wife said she seen more up but normally goes Dundalk/Drogheda direction and noticed more of both up, just wondering what it's like up your way.

bootpaws · 13-05-2018 04:13PM

smartz wrote: »

Okay, what would peoples main concerns be with a regime which allowed termination in the case of rape/incest/FFA/health concerns but not otherwise? Is it purely because (1) you feel it is unworkable/logistically impossible or (2) because you feel the woman's right to choose, based on social/economic/familial circumstances, outweighs the unborn/fetus' right to life?

Probably echoing what a lot of others have said, but it's both.

As has been stated many times, allowing only for rape/incest is unworkable and also for me it doesn't really stand up to any kind of scrutiny.

The reason for conception in all reality has no impact on the foetus. You either consider it a being with value equal to that of a grown woman and rights independent of hers, or you don't. Considering it requires the body of the woman or girl in order to grow and develop further, I personally don't believe it is entitled to rights independent of hers in the early weeks of gestation.

In the case of our proposed legislation, abortion on request would only be available up to 12 weeks. At 12 weeks, a foetus has no functioning brain or nervous system. It does not feel pain, and it is not sentient.

To equate that to a grown woman or, in some cases, a child who has been raped, is not at all reasonable imo. If the pregnancy is interrupted at that stage, the only one who has any physical feelings during the procedure is the woman or girl having the termination. The foetus feels nothing and knows nothing.

But more importantly, I just genuinely believe that there is no freedom in a life without choice. If you have something as personal and life-changing as a pregnancy and the birth of a child decided for you, whose life are you living really? Not one you had much of a say in.

13-05-2018 04:14PM

smartz wrote: »

Interesting points, I' not fully convinced it is entirely unworkable though. Obviously if the same standards of criminal cases are upheld then the process would take too long and risk retraumatising the victim. But is a simple assertion is all that is required then that may be avoided. Obviously such a system is open to abuse but I don't believe many woman would abuse it.

To whom would they need to make the assertion to?

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

Comments