Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…267268270272273…324

Comments

  • #8072
    Malayalam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,188 ✭✭✭Malayalam


    I don't know how the referendum will go - I knew Trump would win, and Brexit would pass, from gauging the mood on many online forums and the fringes of the internet, but this one is much closer.
    The main reason why it is very difficult to really gauge the outcome (in my mind, I mean) is that people who would vote No, are keeping their mouths shut and their opinions to themselves, especially on social media for fear of the abuse and ostracisation that they will attract. Not might, but will. So, the polls are likely to be somewhat similar in that the social and political atmosphere favours Yes voters openly admitting their preference. Just my opinion.


  • #8073
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,109 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Hannibal_Smith wrote: »
    Why can't it be softened? There's the right to life of the unborn, but that has already been diluted by legislation which says where the mother's life is in immediate danger. Why can't legislation go further, without permitting abortion.

    It can't all just be over if there's a No vote?


    Because it's constitutional law that states that not only are the two lives equal , the state must actively defend to the best of her ability, the right of the unborn to be born.


    There's no wiggle room as it's constitutional law and it's precise.


    The only reason the woman's life can be protected at all is because of the 13th and 14th amendment, and because the lives are stated as equal.


  • #8074
    Hannibal_Smith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,426 ✭✭✭Hannibal_Smith


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Hannibal_Smith wrote: »
    If the no side wins, is it possible to expand on the law concerning abortion? For example, to allow medical professional treat a woman who has taken abortion pills without fear of jail time for anyone. I appreciate that invites a higher amount of people taking unknown drugs alone, but at least if they do and they go wrong they can get help.

    Or can we soften the 'serious threat to life of the woman', to threat to the woman's life?

    It's not ideal, but if Yes lose, at about hands completely tied for another 40 or so years until another referendum? Can we campaign to soften the laws?

    We cannot bring in any laws which are unconstitutional. So long as the unborn has protection in the constitution, the law cannot go against that.

    But would bringing in a law saying that you can treat women who have taken tablets that you haven't prescribed, going against the constitution?


  • #8075
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Hannibal_Smith wrote: »
    Why can't it be softened? There's the right to life of the unborn, but that has already been diluted by legislation which says where the mother's life is in immediate danger. Why can't legislation go further, without permitting abortion.

    It can't all just be over if there's a No vote?

    The key word is "immediate".

    The 8th only allows the brakes to be applied to a pregnancy when the car is about to hit the woman. Not when it is heading in her direction and likely to hit her.


  • #8076
    meeeeh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    I think at the moment yes side still has lead, the polls would always tighten anyway. But my completely amateur guss is there will be something like 52-48 in it. Hopefully I'd attendance is good for yes, otherwise it will swing for no.

    Anyway our family:

    Oh yes
    Mil yes
    Sil yes
    Her husband is probably yes (guess)
    And FIL I am guessing no, but I haven't got a clue.
    I can't vote


  • Advertisement
  • #8077
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,109 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Hannibal_Smith wrote: »
    But would bringing in a law saying that you can treat women who have taken tablets that you haven't prescribed, going against the constitution?
    That one would have to go to the Attorney General, due to the severity of the 8th.


    How far does "The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right." go?


    Those two words would suggest to me that you cannot bring in anything to help anyone have a termination. And it's why the two subsequent changes required referenda.


  • #8078
    wexie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,480 ✭✭✭wexie


    Hannibal_Smith wrote: »
    But would bringing in a law saying that you can treat women who have taken tablets that you haven't prescribed, going against the constitution?

    why there need to be a law for that?

    I'd imagine if someone presents with any kinds of problems from any kind of medication they should be helped no?

    Would be kinda ****ty if someone's brought into A&E with a suspected overdose and they're told....well....we're really sorry but this isn't your medication...we can't help you?


  • #8079
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Hannibal_Smith wrote: »
    Why can't it be softened? There's the right to life of the unborn, but that has already been diluted by legislation which says where the mother's life is in immediate danger. Why can't legislation go further, without permitting abortion.

    The right to life of the unborn has not, cannot be diluted by legislation. If any legislation is in conflict with the Constitution, that law is invalid.

    The consideration for the woman's life being in danger is because she has an equal right to life in 40.3.3 of the constitution, not because legislation diluted anything.


  • #8080
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    wexie wrote: »
    Would be kinda ****ty if someone's brought into A&E with a suspected overdose and they're told....well....we're really sorry but this isn't your medication...we can't help you?

    That is not the problem. The problem is that anyone at the hospital could report to the police that a woman has presented at the hospital after giving herself abortion pills, and she could go to jail for 14 years.

    Fear of that could keep women from visiting a doctor.


  • #8081
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #8082
    PressRun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,198 ✭✭✭PressRun


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    Me - Yes
    Boyfriend - Yes
    Dad - Yes
    3 brothers - Yes
    Aunty - Yes
    Mam - No (so far)

    I have another brother and sister who can't vote, but my sister is following the referendum and would be in favour of repeal if she could.

    Boyfriends family are a bit weird, no idea how they'll vote, if they even bother.

    That I know of

    Mam - Yes
    Dad - Yes
    Aunt - Yes

    Me and my brother aren't in Ireland right now, but both would be Yes voters. All my friends at home are voting Yes. I'm honestly not sure if I know any No voters.


  • #8083
    erica74
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭erica74


    meeeeh wrote: »
    And Savita's family asked not to use her name for the campaign. While I understand the wishes of both, I think they are rightly ignored. Savita Halapanavar's medical treatment and questions around children with ds are relevant for the discussion.

    However I'm always uneasy about using images of children for the campaign they are not able to understand. As I am uneasy about parents plastering pics of their kids all over fb. But that goes for any child not just children with ds.

    Savita's family gave permission for her story and image to be used as part of the Yes campaign and if you Google them, you'll see they are strong supporters of the Yes campaign.
    meeeeh wrote: »
    I could be wrong on that, I thought there was some request. Anyway similar case would be I think Miss C (One of the court cases) who is now against abortion and is not overly happy she is used as an argument for repeal. But weather she is happy or not her case makes some good reasons for repeal.

    My point is that a lot of people will be hurt by discussion about this referendum but if there are valid points about their situation they should be discussed. We can't just ignore parts of reality because someone's feelings are hurt.

    There's a big difference between Savita and Miss C. Miss C is not identifiable so using her story isn't identifying her.

    On the other hand, an image of a child or adult with down syndrome is relatable to a child or adult with down syndrome. Many of whom are fully capable of able understand what this Referendum is about and may find it upsetting to see themselves in those posters. In fact, Down Syndrome Ireland have said that people with down syndrome and their families have said they find it upsetting.


  • #8084
    meeeeh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    PressRun wrote: »
    That I know of

    Mam - Yes
    Dad - Yes
    Aunt - Yes

    Me and my brother aren't in Ireland right now, but both would be Yes voters. All my friends at home are voting Yes. I'm honestly not sure if I know any No voters.

    You do but they won't tell you. That's was the mistake around Trump, nobody wanted to admit they voted for him but many people did.


  • #8085
    gmisk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,383 ✭✭✭✭gmisk


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    That is not the problem. The problem is that anyone at the hospital could report to the police that a woman has presented at the hospital after giving herself abortion pills, and she could go to jail for 14 years.

    Fear of that could keep women from visiting a doctor.


    I know it is northern ireland (not ROI) but people there have been charged in connection with using abortion pills, I would think similar is possible here.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-37789341


  • #8086
    Hannibal_Smith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,426 ✭✭✭Hannibal_Smith


    ELM327 wrote: »

    The only reason the woman's life can be protected at all is because of the 13th and 14th amendment, and because the lives are stated as equal.

    Ah ok...I thought it was legislation that brought the woman up to (somewhat) equal standing.


  • #8087
    captbarnacles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,972 ✭✭✭captbarnacles


    You can over 3-1 now for a No vote. Interesting.


  • #8088
    wexie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,480 ✭✭✭wexie


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    That is not the problem. The problem is that anyone at the hospital could report to the police that a woman has presented at the hospital after giving herself abortion pills, and she could go to jail for 14 years.

    Fear of that could keep women from visiting a doctor.

    ah....yes....

    I don't know what to say really. I find the whole thing absolutely mindboggling and the more I hear about it the more it becomes clear that it's a piece of really very terrible, poorly thought out, poorly implemented and completely outdated legislation.

    I think I may take a break from this thread, I don't cope well with being confronted with stupidity and unfairness :o
    I like to think good of people and a lot of them seem to just go out of their way to prove me wrong


  • #8089
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,718 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    meeeeh wrote: »
    You do but they won't tell you. That's was the mistake around Trump, nobody wanted to admit they voted for him but many people did.

    I am somebody who is seen as approachable regarding things. I have being told by people they are voting Yes/No and don't know how to tell their friends/family.


  • #8090
    meeeeh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    erica74 wrote: »
    Savita's family gave permission for her story and image to be used as part of the Yes campaign.



    There's a big difference between Savita and Miss C. Miss C is not identifiable so using her story isn't identifying her.

    On the other hand, an image of a child or adult with down syndrome is relatable to a child or adult with down syndrome. Many of whom are fully capable of able understand what this Referendum is about and may find it upsetting to see themselves in those posters. In fact, Down Syndrome Ireland have said that people with down syndrome and their families have said they find it upsetting.

    Sorry but so what. I find many things upsetting but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed. This btw has nothing to with this referendum but seriously annoys me how free speech is curtailed because someone could be upset.


  • #8091
    Malayalam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,188 ✭✭✭Malayalam


    I don't understand how people would not tolerate their partner (or close friend, or family member) voting differently from them on matters of conscience. There are so many reasons why one would vote either Yes or No, and to not tolerate one's partner assigning more weight to one aspect over another in contravention of one's own morally weighted stance seems ...well...incredibly intolerant. My opinions often differ fundamentally from my husbands on many areas and vice versa, and thank goodness we afford each other the freedom to have our own opinions without thrashing the gaff.


  • Advertisement
  • #8092
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    meeeeh wrote: »
    You do but they won't tell you. That's was the mistake around Trump, nobody wanted to admit they voted for him but many people did.
    I'm skeptical that the "silent no" would exist tbh.

    I can understand someone lying to canvassers so they'll go away, but within family if someone was ashamed of their opinion, then that says that they know it's wrong. It just seems unlikely that someone would hide it.

    I think the main surprise with Trump came about because the campaigning sought to deliberately box people off. The Trump campaign didn't waste its time trying to turn Clinton voters onto Trump; it hotboxed and energised the Trump voters. As a result, while the Clinton voters saw a joke of man who stood no chance of getting elected, the Trump voters saw a crook (and a woman, of course) who was going to tear their country apart and must be resisted at all costs.

    The "No" campaign here are attempting the same thing, but I'm not sure they're getting the traction. Especially since their main tools in Google and Facebook have been taken from them.

    If you look back at the marriage referendum threads on boards, some of the most prolif(e)ic posters on this thread, were on that thread making similar claims about a huge silent No vote, that people were afraid to express a different opinion, that the bullying tactics of the Yes side were putting people off.

    Vapourware. If there was a huge silent "No", they didn't go to the polls.

    This is obviously a different debate - a far more complicated one - but the same unsubstantiated claims keep coming up.


  • #8093
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #8094
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Malayalam wrote: »
    My opinions often differ fundamentally from my husbands on many areas and vice versa, and thank goodness we afford each other the freedom to have our own opinions without thrashing the gaff.

    So if you're a Yes voter, and he's a No... how's that going to work if you ever need an abortion?


  • #8095
    gmisk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,383 ✭✭✭✭gmisk


    captbarnacles wrote: »
    You can over 3-1 now for a No vote. Interesting.
    Id say that is a good sign....but it is just that, doesnt mean a tap unless people go out and vote Yes!
    The bookies got it wrong on brexit and trump no reason to think they are right this time.


  • #8096
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,807 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    meeeeh wrote: »
    Sorry but so what. I find many things upsetting but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed. This btw has nothing to with this referendum but seriously annoys me how free speech is curtailed because someone could be upset.

    What you on about, free speech isn't being curtailed.
    DSI made a non-binding request, everyone is free to ignore it. Everyone is also free to think badly or not of any organisation who ignored DSI's wishes.


  • #8097
    Hannibal_Smith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,426 ✭✭✭Hannibal_Smith


    Hannibal_Smith wrote: »
    ELM327 wrote: »

    The only reason the woman's life can be protected at all is because of the 13th and 14th amendment, and because the lives are stated as equal.

    Ah ok...I thought it was legislation that brought the woman up to (somewhat) equal standing.


    Back again lol...what about the Protection of Life During Pregnancy? How could that was brought in? That was as a result of the X case wasn't it? But was only brought in after Savitas death? I accept it doesn't go far enough, but it did bring in situations where abortion was allowed.


  • #8098
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,109 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    So if you're a Yes voter, and he's a No... how's that going to work if you ever need an abortion?


    She'd have one if she wanted?


    Malayalam wrote: »
    I don't understand how people would not tolerate their partner (or close friend, or family member) voting differently from them on matters of conscience. There are so many reasons why one would vote either Yes or No, and to not tolerate one's partner assigning more weight to one aspect over another in contravention of one's own morally weighted stance seems ...well...incredibly intolerant. My opinions often differ fundamentally from my husbands on many areas and vice versa, and thank goodness we afford each other the freedom to have our own opinions without thrashing the gaff.


    If my partner's morality did not align with granting healthcare and bodily autonomy to women, then I'd have to seriously consider my stance in the relationship. If someone could be so callous.


    This is not a "Matter of conscience" as some try to paint, it's a human rights issue. Women's rights are human rights, same as gay rights are human rights.
    "Matter of conscience" is a phrase used in the SSM referendum, and is used here too, to excuse discrimination.


  • #8099
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    DS Ireland were free to ask that people leave children with DS out of the debate.
    No campaigns were free to ignore it and put their pictures on every second lamp post.

    I am free to complain that the No campaign are scum for doing that.

    Free speech for everyone!


  • #8100
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,718 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    My best friend school friend is voting Yes and his girlfriend is voting No.
    I think they had a little tiff over it but seem to be back on track now. He got a terrible land tough when he found out. He expressed his views on social media before telling her.


  • Advertisement
  • #8101
    PressRun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,198 ✭✭✭PressRun


    meeeeh wrote: »
    You do but they won't tell you. That's was the mistake around Trump, nobody wanted to admit they voted for him but many people did.

    I'm honestly not sure. A lot of the company I keep are people who are actively involved in campaigning, people who opposed the 8th when it was first brought in, etc. I mean, I might have a neighbour who is voting No, but I wouldn't say that I know them.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement