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

nozzferrahhtoo · 16-05-2018 07:33PM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I was actually going to sit this referendum out, as a man it is not something I am ever going to have to worry about as a primary concern.

Thanks for that post, I am glad to hear what your decision is and why you have made it!

I would point out one thing though. We are voting here to change, or not change, your constitution. A document core to Ireland itself, one that we all in a sense "own" and one that historically our nation fought hard to even have.

I can only speak for myself but I know that alone makes it "something I have to worry about as a primary concern". It is a document that means a lot I think, and if we are about to change it, or not, we all need to take that fact alone seriously even before considering what change we are actually voting on.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I am anti-abortion but I am also pro-choice.

I have written almost word for word that exact sentence at least 50 times over 5 different threads. I am glad I am not the only one saying it

A few others have too. So thank you. Again.

Time and time again I point out that we have common ground, yes and no side. And when things get divisive we should remember that common ground....

WE ALL want less (ideally no) abortions happening. I just disagree that a "no" vote or even an abstained vote are the right means by which to attain that goal.

sightband · 16-05-2018 07:34PM

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

I seen a NO poster today telling me a fetus doesn't form a heart until it's nearly a month old. So they keep helping me to reinforce my convictions to vote YES.

your signature is way too long pal. I got to the second sentence and lost interest. try something short and catchy like "Action is the foundational key to all success.” or some such other ****.

gctest50 · 16-05-2018 07:34PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't want to start another abortion thread, this is for discussing the images and posters that is being promoted from both sides of the debate.

Regardless of what your view on abortion is, I think we can all agree it is a brutal thing to happen, not only for the woman but for the life inside of her.

Despite this, both sides of the debate want us to think that abortion is a cuddly thing, something about Love and love hearts.

The Brutal reality is that abortion is Brutal and there is nothing loving about it, any woman choosing abortion as her option would have struggled with the decision for a long time because it is a tough choice to make and not one that can be taken lightly.

Sites like Boards.ie would ban me if I posted an abortion picture, but why? Why hide from the reality of what we are being asked to vote for? Abortion isn't nice, it isn't loving, it is pleasant, its the act of using medicine or a surgical procedure to remove something from the womb.

Showing an image of an aborted baby is the harsh reality of what you are being asked to vote on, why dress it up as something loving?

Here in the above picture more censorship of the reality of abortion, what are they scared off, The Truth?

Im not going to lecture anyone on how to vote, but I don't see why the truth cant be shown, and I hate seeing these love hearts and mention of Love spread across lamposts everywhere.

The main reason is it may be upsetting to women who have had a miscarriage

nozzferrahhtoo · 16-05-2018 07:35PM

Just her wrote: »

Could I ask pro choice advocates if the there is a point in pregnancy at which they are uncomfortable with abortion

IT depends if you mean abortion sought out of choice or abortion sought out of medical necessity to protect the life of the mother.

In terms of the latter, no, I believe the mothers life should take precedence always and whatever needs to be done to save her should be done. If that can be achieved without killing her future child GREAT! If not, then so be it.

In terms of choice to terminate a pregnancy however I only become uncomfortable with it at the point when there is ANY Reason to suspect the fetus has stopped being a biological entity only, and started being a sentient one.

This doubt starts to come into play around 24-28 weeks. 80% of chosen abortion happens however at 10 weeks and 98% by 16 weeks. So for the most part there is a HUGE gap between when abortions happen, and when I would personally be uncomfortable with it.

Hope that answer helps. Any questions, I would be glad to answer.

Sheeps wrote: »

So we should feel comfortable with 1 in 6 and not 1 in 5.

I would find questionable the concept that we should "feel comfortable" with any medical intervention that is happening to anyone, whether by choice or by necessity. There is no reason we should or would "feel comfortable" with abortion regardless of whether it is 1 in 5, 1 in 6, or 1 in 1000. The ideal would be that no one have any abortion for any reason ever.

And that is the ideal we should ALL work towards, pro choice or against. I just think the 8th is a failure to strive for that ideal, it barely (if at all) prevents any abortions happening, it just makes them happen in more dangerous and isolating contexts.

wexie · 16-05-2018 07:38PM

Just her wrote: »

I felt like the post I was replying to sounded as if we would have a say again when they said 'lets talk about abortion then'. My point is I don't believe we will have a say in anything if it is repealed, which you appear to agree with.

Well....as much say as in any other legislation. There'd be nothing to stop you from contacting your local TD and lobby. Which I guess may or may not be worth much.

Either way, suggesting or believing that the legislation as proposed will be passed is somewhat disingenuous and (I believe) unrealistic.

I'd be shocked if turns out there won't be problems with some independent TD's from Ballybackarseofnowhere (we all know who I mean right?) trying to throw spanners into the works.

Logo · 16-05-2018 07:39PM

fxotoole wrote: »

No.

If you vote yes, you can lobby to have the legislation drafted in a way that doesn't allow for "abortion on demand" or abortion up to 6 months.

I'm not sure if you're inexperienced or just not clued in but when you vote yes then you are voting for a 72 hour decision period before abortion within three months into pregnancy, and up to six months.

NyOmnishambles · 16-05-2018 07:39PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Here in the above picture more censorship of the reality of abortion, what are they scared off, The Truth?

You chose your example of censorship poorly given that it was placed outside a maternity hospital where you regularly have people who are in distress due to problems with their pregnancy going by
They were asked to have empathy but refused to remove it hence it being covered

16-05-2018 07:41PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have always loved the idea that bravery is not the lack of fear. It is proceeding despite fear. That alone should tell you the kind of person you are.

As for advice and so forth I am not sure I can offer any myself, but Atheist Ireland did a series of videos with speakers for the "yes" side. And the final speaker of the group was someone who DOES do campaigning door to door like you will.

So perhaps her talk, around 14 minutes long, will be helpful and maybe even inspiring for you! The speaker in the link is Bernadette Grogan of Together For Yes. Would appreciate a general review of what you thought of the video and her words actually.

ha ha, that reminds me of a film george clooney was in. he says something along the lines of, This is how it works, you're afraid of the act, you do it anyway and there in comes the bravery, if no one had any fear then there'd be no bravery..it's true though..

wexie · 16-05-2018 07:41PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

WE ALL want less (ideally no) abortions happening. I just disagree that a "no" vote or even an abstained vote are the right means by which to attain that goal.

The rhetoric that yes voters want abortions really really boils my proverbials.

Nobody wants there to be abortions, just some people recognise sometimes there might be a need for them.

pearcider · 16-05-2018 07:43PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't want to start another abortion thread, this is for discussing the images and posters that is being promoted from both sides of the debate.

Regardless of what your view on abortion is, I think we can all agree it is a brutal thing to happen, not only for the woman but for the life inside of her.

Despite this, both sides of the debate want us to think that abortion is a cuddly thing, something about Love and love hearts.

The Brutal reality is that abortion is Brutal and there is nothing loving about it, any woman choosing abortion as her option would have struggled with the decision for a long time because it is a tough choice to make and not one that can be taken lightly.

Sites like Boards.ie would ban me if I posted an abortion picture, but why? Why hide from the reality of what we are being asked to vote for? Abortion isn't nice, it isn't loving, it is pleasant, its the act of using medicine or a surgical procedure to remove something from the womb.

Showing an image of an aborted baby is the harsh reality of what you are being asked to vote on, why dress it up as something loving?

Here in the above picture more censorship of the reality of abortion, what are they scared off, The Truth?

Im not going to lecture anyone on how to vote, but I don't see why the truth cant be shown, and I hate seeing these love hearts and mention of Love spread across lamposts everywhere.

That picture sums up the yes side. Head in the sand and not the type to ever have kids anyway.

gctest50 · 16-05-2018 07:47PM

Logo wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're inexperienced or just not clued in but when you vote yes then you are voting for a 72 hour decision period before abortion within three months into pregnancy, and up to six months.

And when you vote "no", those that can afford it and aren't near death will keep getting the ferry, plane or get safe pills illegally

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/abortion-referendum/my-circumstances-were-the-same-as-savita-halappanavar-s-1.3492038

‘My circumstances were the same as Savita Halappanavar’s’

I had symptoms of septicaemia but was refused care, as my baby still had a heartbeat

SusieBlue · 16-05-2018 07:48PM

pearcider wrote: »

That picture sums up the yes side. Head in the sand and not the type to ever have kids anyway.

Not the type to ever have kids... as if that’s some sort of authority on someone’s morals.... Jesus wept!

whiskeyman · 16-05-2018 07:48PM

pearcider wrote: »

That picture sums up the yes side. Head in the sand and not the type to ever have kids anyway.

And that post sums up the No side.
I've kids, as do many of my friends and family and we're all voting YES.

But in saying that, both campaigns are shoddy and full of headjobs.

Overheal · 16-05-2018 07:48PM

pearcider wrote: »

That picture sums up the yes side. Head in the sand and not the type to ever have kids anyway.

Head in the sand for covering up lies?

Seen a bunch of No voters under the illusion that a baby is fully developed at 12 weeks. Do you think the No posters are giving them an education?

fxotoole · 16-05-2018 07:51PM

sightband wrote: »

I never understood the ridiculous adulation for that repeal love heart cartoon like logo or image or whatever it is. Irrespective of whatever side you are on, its a sh*t logo. There's nothing bubbly, sweet, happy or loving about abortion for anyone no matter what spin you put on it and that's what it stinks of, its like the fu*kin wrapper of a chocolate bar.

Then why do the No side use the "Love Both" branding? It's not about something bubbly and sweet like loving babies, its about a serious medical procedure not being provided in a safe environment for women who chose to undergo said procedure.

Overheal · 16-05-2018 07:52PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

In the vast majority of cases, people get pregnant because they willingly engaged in an activity in which pregnancy was a possibility.

It seems a bit churlish to be decrying the cost of a maternity dress, a consequence arising out of a choice you made.

And back to slut-shaming with a bit of window dressing

wexie · 16-05-2018 07:53PM

whiskeyman wrote: »

But in saying that, both campaigns are shoddy and full of headjobs.

I think that's just the nature of any campaign really, it draws those most passionate about a subject to the forefront and passion and reason don't always make good bedfellows.

Certainly not when it comes to something as emotionally laden as abortion or SSM...

hatrickpatrick · 16-05-2018 07:53PM

Just her wrote: »

Could I ask pro choice advocates if the there is a point in pregnancy at which they are uncomfortable with abortion, i.e at how many weeks would they disagree with abortion, if at all. Apologies I'm sure this has been asked before but I wouldn't know where to start to find answers on the thread

Personally I'd have issues with it beyond the first trimester, as that's roughly when I'd start to believe that an individual life, or "soul" if you will, has been created. Up until that point, I just don't believe that it counts as an individual life any more than any previous phase of reproduction does - a fertilised egg, an unfertilised egg / sperm, etc.

The issue I'd have with the legislation is that from my own understanding of it, it in practice limits abortion without a stated reason to more or less 10 weeks, since unless I'm mistaken the legislation insists upon a period of time to elapse between an abortion being requested and one being granted - this I have a fundamental moral opposition to, I believe that when a person requests a healthcare decision such as this, it should be provided to them at the earliest realistic opportunity. Inserting such a clause into the legislation seems to me (maybe others can offer alternative explanations) to be geared towards the "you might change your mind" stuff, which in my view just isn't something the state should get involved in or use as an excuse to restrict individual freedom.

For the record, I'd apply the same to sterilisation and vasectomy - I'm sick of hearing stories about people who are either flat-out denied these procedures or else have to go through a gauntlet of people attempting to talk them out of it because "you're too young" / "you might change your mind" / "you haven't had kids" etc. I don't believe in a society which holds my hand in this manner, if I decide to do something to my own body and I make a "that is my final answer" declaration, it shouldn't be for the state or anyone else to say "well now, wait a day or two and see if you still feel that way". That implies, once again, at least some degree of authority over my own body resting with somebody other than me, and I disagree with this on a fundamental philosophical level.

So in other words, the legislation which has been proposed is acceptable to me but I'd prefer if state mandates "cooling off periods" or whatever weren't part of it, that smacks of "we still don't fully trust you to make up your own mind about your own body" and that just irks me on a visceral level.

Note: I wouldn't have any problem with a doctor advising a patient to take such a period to think the decision over, that's just sound medical advice which is ultimately up to the patient whether to abide by or ignore. But I'm not ok with it being enshrined in legislation as a compulsory thing, that's a fundamental denial of personal agency.

Bannasidhe · 16-05-2018 07:55PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't want to start another abortion thread, this is for discussing the images and posters that is being promoted from both sides of the debate.

Regardless of what your view on abortion is, I think we can all agree it is a brutal thing to happen, not only for the woman but for the life inside of her.

Despite this, both sides of the debate want us to think that abortion is a cuddly thing, something about Love and love hearts.

The Brutal reality is that abortion is Brutal and there is nothing loving about it, any woman choosing abortion as her option would have struggled with the decision for a long time because it is a tough choice to make and not one that can be taken lightly.

Sites like Boards.ie would ban me if I posted an abortion picture, but why? Why hide from the reality of what we are being asked to vote for? Abortion isn't nice, it isn't loving, it is pleasant, its the act of using medicine or a surgical procedure to remove something from the womb.

Showing an image of an aborted baby is the harsh reality of what you are being asked to vote on, why dress it up as something loving?

Here in the above picture more censorship of the reality of abortion, what are they scared off, The Truth?

Im not going to lecture anyone on how to vote, but I don't see why the truth cant be shown, and I hate seeing these love hearts and mention of Love spread across lamposts everywhere.

Would you like to see pictures of childbirth cos that's pretty brutal too?
I went through it willingly and swore never again was I doing that. 30 stitches was just one of the highlights - and it wasn't a C Section so you can work out where those stitches were yourself.

Imagine going through it unwillingly? Let's put that on a poster shall we? It's the Truth.

o1s1n · 16-05-2018 07:56PM

pearcider wrote: »

That picture sums up the yes side. Head in the sand and not the type to ever have kids anyway.

So you think it's okay to put up graphic images outside of maternity hospitals?

Dressing gown · 16-05-2018 07:56PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't want to start another abortion thread, this is for discussing the images and posters that is being promoted from both sides of the debate.

Regardless of what your view on abortion is, I think we can all agree it is a brutal thing to happen, not only for the woman but for the life inside of her.

Despite this, both sides of the debate want us to think that abortion is a cuddly thing, something about Love and love hearts.

The Brutal reality is that abortion is Brutal and there is nothing loving about it, any woman choosing abortion as her option would have struggled with the decision for a long time because it is a tough choice to make and not one that can be taken lightly.

Sites like Boards.ie would ban me if I posted an abortion picture, but why? Why hide from the reality of what we are being asked to vote for? Abortion isn't nice, it isn't loving, it is pleasant, its the act of using medicine or a surgical procedure to remove something from the womb.

Showing an image of an aborted baby is the harsh reality of what you are being asked to vote on, why dress it up as something loving?

Here in the above picture more censorship of the reality of abortion, what are they scared off, The Truth?

Im not going to lecture anyone on how to vote, but I don't see why the truth cant be shown, and I hate seeing these love hearts and mention of Love spread across lamposts everywhere.

I for one have three young kids. I And the state censor what they are exposed to. Claim to care for the foetus but not to protect my innocent living children? Yeah ok.

pitifulgod · 16-05-2018 07:57PM

pearcider wrote: »

That picture sums up the yes side. Head in the sand and not the type to ever have kids anyway.

The images are intended to upset. I'd commend them. There are plenty who have had miscarriage, abortions, ffa etc who really do not need to be confronted with foetuses at every corner. ICBR literally pulled the exact same crap outside of a National Maternity hospital, truly demonstrates how little their respect for women is.

nozzferrahhtoo · 16-05-2018 07:57PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Sites like Boards.ie would ban me if I posted an abortion picture, but why?

Deleted User wrote: »

Here in the above picture more censorship of the reality of abortion, what are they scared off, The Truth?

I think the error in play in your post, and reason you are asking a question you likely could answer for yourself, is that you are too narrowly focused on abortion here.

There are A LOT of pictures that people would ban you for posting on boards.ie, or would rush to cover up if you held 8 foot glossy photos of them in public especially in public in front of children. That simple fact has nothing to do with abortion.

If you do not believe me then try it sometime. Start posting photos of.... or walking around the city with glossy pictures of....... open heart surgery, the realities of intense cancer treatment, brain surgery, vascetomies, maybe even a close up of a few bloody ingrowing toenail removals, an autopsy, hell even naked people one of the most natural and unoffensive things in the world, someone defecating, or any number of other things.

The problem here is NOT the censorship of pictures related to abortion. Quite the opposite. The problem here is you seemingly thing abortion related photography should somehow be exempt from the rules, laws, standards and even just basic common etiquette and decorum that everything else is held to. Why is THAT do you think?

hatrickpatrick · 16-05-2018 07:58PM

Overheal wrote: »

And back to slut-shaming with a bit of window dressing

Antiskeptic has at least been very transparent as to his/her views on the subject - this is the kind of person I alluded to several pages ago regarding the exaltation of sex to some kind of higher or sacred status not just by the individual, but also their insistence that others do the same. It's an attitude I find abhorrent and which I believe has caused untold harm and suffering to many generations of human beings.

It's one of the things I like about where things seem to be headed - personally I take sex fairly seriously and am not into one night stands etc unless I feel like there's potential for something more beyond that, but as far as I'm concerned if you or anyone else chooses to view sex as a purely recreational activity between two or more people, on no higher a "philosophical" or "spiritual" level than playing a game of pool or going out for a few drinks to enjoy one's self, that should be entirely your decision and not something that society gets involved in, preaches, or dictates in any way to individuals.

This is anathema to certain types of people, and while I recognise that, I feel that they don't recognise that their own stance - "my worldview is somehow the 'right' one, therefore those who don't live by it are somehow 'wrong'" is equally anathema. I personally find it utterly abhorrent.

Macha · 16-05-2018 07:58PM

gctest50 wrote: »

The main reason is it may be upsetting to women who have had a miscarriage

Thank you yes, I had a late missed miscarriage last year and lay on the floor of my bathroom in severe pain, bleeding, and in shock at how much blood and pain there was. I would be so upset to see those images.

Love both? Yeah right.

Bannasidhe, totally agree. I had a caesarean and the anaesthetist grabbed my partner's phone and started taking photos and, ahem, we have some pretty graphic photos of my son's birth now...

Calina · 16-05-2018 08:02PM

Logo wrote: »

fxotoole wrote: »

No.

If you vote yes, you can lobby to have the legislation drafted in a way that doesn't allow for "abortion on demand" or abortion up to 6 months.

I'm not sure if you're inexperienced or just not clued in but when you vote yes then you are voting for a 72 hour decision period before abortion within three months into pregnancy, and up to six months.

No you are not. You are voting to remove the 8th amendment from the constitution or not. Any subsequent legislation will have to go through the Dail and it is not at this point set in stone. Either you understand what a referendum does and what Dail process does or you do not.

Bannasidhe · 16-05-2018 08:02PM

pearcider wrote: »

That picture sums up the yes side. Head in the sand and not the type to ever have kids anyway.

My Mother is voting Yes.
So are her daughters.
And grandson.

Or we would if my mother ever had kids, which obviously she didn't due to being a Yes voter (and No voter back in '83 so she's incorrigibly Pro-Choice).

Paranoid Bob · 16-05-2018 08:03PM

Aniya Moldy Trowel wrote: »

That's my point really. There will be women who will choose to end their baby's life because it is inconvenient to have a baby. That certainly doesn't sit easy with me. Lots of things irrevocably change a person's life, and I don't think that is a reason to end another human's life. And yes, I know a lot of posters will come on here and say 'it's not a baby/human' etc. But to me it is, so there is no way I would ever see an abortion so that a girl could continue her studies, does not want to be a mother as okay.

I don't think anybody should be forced to bring up a child, and I do think it's a shame that so few babies are available for adoption any more. On that subject, a few people have posted that the realities of adoption are not fully understood. I'm genuinely interested in clarification on that. Obviously there will be stories of some adoptions which haven't worked out, just as there will be non adopted adults who will have stories of difficult childhoods. But I would have grown up at a time when many of the girls I went to school with, kids on the road etc would have been adopted and they all seemed to have happy childhoods and grow up to be normal adults.

I do agree that situations where vulnerable children are passed from foster home to foster home because a parent refuses to consent to adoption are wrong. That is definitely an area that needs reform.

Aniya Moldy Trowel,

If I understand you correctly then I think all the concerns you raise can be answered by changing the law; and the proposed law can be changed.

The immediate problem is that women across the country are having their healthcare needs delayed or denied, sometimes even when they are not pregnant. That is surely not a good thing and the only way to fix that is to repeal the 8th.

So; repeal the 8th first, then campaign for the law that suits your conscience. Remember that even if this referendum passes the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act is still the law of the land until the new bill is passed. There is time and opportunity to change it.

Personally I think the proposed legislation is fair. Unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks is contentious I grant you. After 12 weeks the proposal is quite restrictive. Abortion is absolutely forbidden after the pregnancy reaches viability. Between 12 weeks and viability two doctors have to agree that the woman's health is at risk and that an abortion is an effective way to remove that risk.

Repeal the 8th; then fix the legislation so we are not putting women's health at unnecessary risk while limiting abortion to an extent that our society is comfortable with.

Hellrazer · 16-05-2018 08:05PM

wexie wrote: »

The rhetoric that yes voters want abortions really really boils my proverbials.

Nobody wants there to be abortions, just some people recognise sometimes there might be a need for them.

That sums up my thoughts exactly. However I would also like to add that while there is sometimes a "need " for them there is also sometimes a "want" for them aswell whether that be someone that isn't at the right time in their life to be able to look after a child or a victim of a crime or just that person who doesn't actually want to be pregnant.

These people should have that right to decide regardless of the circumstances.

The No parade are going on like some Nazi dictatorship where they want to "control" womens choices.

What the yes people need to get across is that its about choice.

However Ive heard too many yes advocates asked the question is the referendum about introducing abortion on demand and so far from what Ive seen and heard is that the question is avoided or deflected. That's hurting the yes side campaign. Lets be straight here--it is about introducing abortion on demand.

But that abortion on demand still has to be the womans choice.

Overheal · 16-05-2018 08:05PM

Read someone trying to scaremonger saying doctors will be “forced” to perform abortions in 6 months time.

Dragged out of bed they will be. Held at gunpoint, etc.

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

Comments