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

Diogenesthedog wrote: »

Well no actually. A lot of No folks vote no on religious grounds. Moreover I can't experience pregnancy- I can never have first hand experience. As I said I'm abstaining from voting because I'm honestly torn on the issue and I won't celebrate either outcome.

If the referendum was about inserting the 8th into our constitution for the first time, how would you vote?

Ffs, there are NOT "two bodies" at play. When the foetus is fully formed/viable, and can survive independent of the woman, then there are two bodies. But our proposed legislation does not refer to a fully formed foetus.

Up to 12 weeks, which is what our proposed legislation is, there is no viable "second body." There is a developing body that relies heavily on the existing body of the woman to nurture and support its further development.

We cannot force women to give their bodies up for this if they do not want to.

NuMarvel wrote: »

If the referendum was about inserting the 8th into our constitution for the first time, how would you vote?

Interesting hypothetical question. I guess it would depend what would the current 8th be replacing. Either way I'm not happy with the 8th as it stands.

Diogenesthedog wrote: »

The current status quo is out-dated, inflexible and needs to be changed asap.

The only way change can happen is if the 8th is repealed.

Diogenesthedog wrote: »

Interesting hypothetical question. I guess it would depend what would the current 8th be replacing. Either way I'm not happy with the 8th as it stands.

Then you undoubtedly need to vote to repeal, and then campaign/lobby for legislation you deem appropriate when the time comes.

January wrote: »

Abstaining is basically voting no though, it means that you agree with the status quo as it is at the moment.

No it's not. Voting no is...well voting no.

Diogenesthedog wrote: »

I've decided to remain neutral in the third Irish civil war. I'm non religious, bi sexual and centre left. However I only think abortion should be used in extreme circumstances. The posters say "it's my body"- that's a fallacy. There's two bodies at play.( Also contraception is cheap and plentiful) If a woman is raped, or if her life is in any form of danger then my all means abort. Otherwise just give the kid up for adoption. I will say however that some elements of the pro life side do themselves no favours whatsoever. Either way I won't celebrate if it's a yes vote or a no vote. Current termination laws need to be more flexible but I am not comfortable with the new amendment being presented to us either.

Saying there are two bodies in play is a heck of a red herring. There’s a reason for the distinction between embryo and fetus for example. You may as well argue that a slice of bread is a toasted Reuben sandwich for how apt the two body analogy is here.

Contraception is not cheap and plentiful, nor is it failproof.



Nor will doctors let you go through with some of them. users on this thread were denied tubal ligation (tied tubes/female sterilization) because they were “too young” and despite already having 4 children, 2 of which by c-section, happily married, one consultant shot back at her, “but what if you get a divorce and want children with your new lover?”

There are obstacles to obtaining contraceptives you aren’t factoring and failure rates you aren’t factoring either.

Adoption in Ireland.... how do I say this? It’s non-existent. First off, let’s rule out woman who already have children: how do they have kids already and then put their “extras” up for adoption? In fact the Irish legal system from my understanding requires the woman to declare herself a legally unfit parent to put the child up for adoption - which puts *all* the kids up for adoption. But let’s move on, do you know how many Irish adoptions are secured annually? Less than 10. I urge you to research the matter more thoroughly before thinking you can ‘just’ do anything regarding adoption.

Finally it seems like a contradiction in personal values to think the “two body” right to life etc logic, and then say “well if it was rape sure yeah ‘murder it’ I suppose”

eviltwin wrote: »

If you don't vote to change then you are allowing things to remain as they are, can't you see that?

No, I'm allowing my fellow citizens to decide without my input.

Diogenesthedog wrote: »

If it disabled her then I'd totally agree that would be cause for abortion. However if someone wanted an abortion because it coincided with her skiing holiday then I don't think that's adequate grounds.

If someone wanted an abortion because it coincided with her skiing holiday and the only reason she couldn't access that abortion was because it was illegal, what do you think will happen when she has an unwanted child next time she's due to go on holz?

Or will the glowing warmth of unwanted motherhood kick her instincts into overdrive and make her the wonderful mother You always knew she'd become?

Diogenesthedog wrote: »

If it disabled her then I'd totally agree that would be cause for abortion. However if someone wanted an abortion because it coincided with her skiing holiday then I don't think that's adequate grounds.

What system do you suppose is workable to discern when a woman comes in for an abortion, whether it is for a reason you or I deem acceptable, and th skiiing holiday? Do we subject her life to a complete audit? Do we require a police report, court verdict etc in the case of rape?

Diogenesthedog wrote: »

If it disabled her then I'd totally agree that would be cause for abortion. However if someone wanted an abortion because it coincided with her skiing holiday then I don't think that's adequate grounds.

How do you decide of it's going to disable her or not?

By the time she is disabled, its too late.

Current termination laws need to be more flexible but I am not comfortable with the new amendment being presented to us either.

No new amendment is being presented to you.

What is being presented to you is a choice between the 1983 amendment being removed or not. You are not voting on any legislation and if you want changes to the current legal framework you should vote to repeal.

What you do have is an indication of what future legislation may look like. It has been heavily discussed but it will still have to subject to Dail process and can be changed.

But only if we remove the 8th amendment. We will not be putting anything into the constitution as a result of this. We will allow the legislature to tune the legislation.