The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Timberrrrrrrr · 21-05-2018 12:35PM

pleas advice wrote: »

7000 people who choose vs 7000 unborn who will never get that choice

Upping the numbers to suit yourself now?

The fact is (and has been pointed out in all threads) the NO camp lose interest in all living people as soon as they are born.

neonsofa · 21-05-2018 12:35PM

Akrasia wrote: »

A better question is, do you think she should be forced to become a mother as a punishment for her personal irresponsibility?

Better yet. Should the child be subjected to that type of lifestyle just because the mother should be taught some kind of lesson?

....... · 21-05-2018 12:36PM

This post has been deleted.

Cupcake_Crisis · 21-05-2018 12:37PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Abortion didn't cross your mind but on what basis do you think others should be denied that choice?

And even if you have a good argument, we aren't really denying anybody the choice, just making it more difficult. 3k women a year are forced to travel to obtain the service, a no vote does nothing, repeat nothing, to deal with this reality.

I think you misinterpreted my post, I’m strongly pro choice.

neonsofa · 21-05-2018 12:38PM

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

It was an option for me too, I could have afforded the trip. I just chose not to take it! This assumption that women will be lining up for abortions “just cos” boils my blood.

Exactly! And people assuming that I'm pro life just because I experienced a crisis pregnancy and chose not to terminate.... Everybody deserves to make the choice that is right for them. Not be forced to do what I did because certain people deem it the correct decision.

Leroy42 · 21-05-2018 12:39PM

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

I think you misinterpreted my post, I’m strongly pro choice.

You are right I did, I apologise for my misunderstanding.

juanjo · 21-05-2018 12:39PM

pleas advice wrote: »

7000 people who choose vs 7000 unborn who will never get that choice

It seems you're happy not giving those 7000 women any choice either.

Mr.H · 21-05-2018 12:40PM

Calina wrote:

Risk of _death_ due to serious illness I believe you have been informed with the actual legislation cited on more than obe occasion. Please stop leaving out the risk of death bit in order to suggest the legislation is looser than it actually is. You trivialise the cases of the women concerned.

The very post you quoted, I said the was a risk of death.

Having a risk of death does not mean you have to be almost dead. There is the difference.

ohnonotgmail wrote:

You haven't accepted anything at all. You are still arguing about the reason.

No I really am not. I am arguing that yes you can have an abortion in this country when there is a chance you could become physically ill and potentially die. But you do not having be almost dead. That is my point throughout

Cupcake_Crisis · 21-05-2018 12:42PM

neonsofa wrote: »

Exactly! And people assuming that I'm pro life just because I experienced a crisis pregnancy and chose not to terminate.... Everybody deserves to make the choice that is right for them. Not be forced to do what I did because certain people deem it the correct decision.

If more people adopted this approach the world would be a better place!

Mr.H · 21-05-2018 12:44PM

SusieBlue wrote:

You didnâ€™t answer my question. Do you think people who are that careless and irresponsible make good parents and do you think itâ€™s in the best interests of innocent babies to be forced on unwilling, reckless parents similar to the person in your anecdote??

Adoption still exists and so do a large percentage of wanna be parents.

Calina wrote:

And suggesting both are lifestyle choices?

Yes. If you want to stay part of a group that it's acceptable to mutilate women (also called castration medically), then yes it's a lifestyle choice.

....... · 21-05-2018 12:47PM

This post has been deleted.

kylith · 21-05-2018 12:48PM

Mr.H wrote: »

Adoption still exists and so do a large percentage of wanna be parents.

That is not a solution to an unwanted pregnancy.

bruschi · 21-05-2018 12:48PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

The form needs to be signed by a Garda does it not, it is not simply a case of someone calling to your house.

The garda, I would imagine, would need to see proof of age, nationality etc before signing off. Could this is overridden of course, as stated previously the whole system is incredible weak and wasteful. On a large scale? I would imagine that the amount of double registered Irish is far more of a problem.

well I can tell you that this isnt always the case. My wife, non EU and at the time not an Irish citizen was receiving polling cards and was registered and was fully able to vote. she never applied for it, no one ever came to say they were registering her nor did she ever fill out a form or see a garda. The address on it was one used when we made our planning application and for a while I was receiving 2 polling cards to 2 different polling stations but coming to the same address. The second one has stopped coming now, but my wife (who has since become an Irish citizen) is still receiving a polling card despite still never registering to vote. This will be her first time actually using the voting system here though.

amcalester · 21-05-2018 12:48PM

Mr.H wrote: »

The very post you quoted, I said the was a risk of death.

Having a risk of death does not mean you have to be almost dead. There is the difference.

No I really am not. I am arguing that yes you can have an abortion in this country when there is a chance you could become physically ill and potentially die. But you do not having be almost dead. That is my point throughout

I'm back.

You're wrong again.

There has to be a risk to the life of the women and that risk can be caused by an illness, but the women has to already be so physically ill that the illness is a risk to her life.

If the women is at risk of an illness that may, further down the line, also be a risk to her life she is not entitled to an abortion. Doctors have to wait until that risk develops from a risk of an illness to a risk to her life caused by the illness.

....... · 21-05-2018 12:50PM

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail · 21-05-2018 12:50PM

Mr.H wrote: »

The very post you quoted, I said the was a risk of death.

Having a risk of death does not mean you have to be almost dead. There is the difference.

No I really am not. I am arguing that yes you can have an abortion in this country when there is a chance you could become physically ill and potentially die. But you do not having be almost dead.

You really dont get it or dont want to get it. For section 7 to come into play the women must already be physically ill. Physically ill to the point where there is a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman’s life. That is a little more than potentially.

Mr.H wrote: »

That is my point throughout

you really cant help yourself. You continually denied that it involved a risk to mothers life. You continually downplay the circumstances required.

SusieBlue · 21-05-2018 12:51PM

Mr.H wrote: »

Adoption still exists and so do a large percentage of wanna be parents.

.

That’s a cop out of an answer. Adoption is non existent in this country and is of no help to a woman who can’t stay pregnant.

You said you don’t agree with women such as your ‘friend’ having abortions.
I asked do you think women like that made good parents, and now you’re harping on about adoption.

So you don’t want women like that to be allowed abortions, but you agree they don’t make good parents.
So really you just want to punish women.
At least be honest about what your motives are, because if you had the best interests of children at heart you would not be forcing them onto unwilling mothers.

Macha · 21-05-2018 12:55PM

....... wrote: »

Given that the stats show that more than half of women who present for abortion in the UK cite "contraceptive failure" as the reason, then yes, I think your friend is very much a minority.

On top of contraceptive failure you will have women aborting because they thought they could no longer get pregnant and did, who had something happen after they got pregnant (such as loss of job or home or partner or child) who do not want to continue with the pregnancy, women with FFA, rape and incest victims, women who became sick or there was a life threatening reason to abort. There will be women who cant afford another child, cant afford a disruption to studies or career etc.... Loads of different reasons.

But its simply not credible that a woman would live her life using abortion rather than say, having an IUD inserted. She would be risking permanent irreversible damage to her reproductive system.

It would be a huge ordeal to have to travel to the UK for an abortion and not easy on the body either, plus the costs involved are not low, so to suggest that she lives her life this way is just not credible.

No one is refusing to use contraception and then flying to the UK for an abortion multiple times per year for multiple years.

I had a missed miscarriage last year (discovered at 12 weeks) and had to take what are effectively the pills used for a medical abortion. The first one lowers your progesterone and just generally stops you feeling pregnant. But the second one, which you take about 2 days later, basically puts you into full labour in 5 minutes flat. Even though I'd been prescribed heavy painkillers and have experienced real labour pains, I was totally shocked and almost in too much pain to get a glass of water to take the painkillers. I then had to wear what were almost nappies for a week while everything came out. I was out of work for over a week. In the end, it didn't work and I still had to have a procedure done a few weeks later under general anaesthetic.

The idea that any sizeable number of women would not only choose to do this over the use of contraception but do it repeatedly is so ignorant and offensive, I don't know where to begin.

gmisk · 21-05-2018 12:56PM

Mr H, can you answer this honestly.
Are you truly a Yes voter in this referendum?

bruschi · 21-05-2018 12:57PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

maybe so, but this was within the last 5 years and was a good while after the planning process. A very strange way for it to come about, just adding names without even checking firstly if they are citizens or secondly that they are registered or not already.

Whiplash85 · 21-05-2018 12:58PM

Anyone know what the expected turnout will be?

It wasnt me123 · 21-05-2018 01:00PM

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

I moved my (one and only registration) vote from one county to another last year and the new county have sent me two polling cards now :pac::pac:

I used the specified procedure with no funny business. Iv also got a card for a woman who moved out years ago.

Its a mess.

thats three more yes votes!

January · 21-05-2018 01:02PM

Macha wrote: »

I had a missed miscarriage last year (discovered at 12 weeks) and had to take what are effectively the pills used for a medical abortion. The first one lowers your progesterone and just generally stops you feeling pregnant. But the second one, which you take about 2 days later, basically puts you into full labour in 5 minutes flat. Even though I'd been prescribed heavy painkillers and have experienced real labour pains, I was totally shocked and almost in too much pain to get a glass of water to take the painkillers. I then had to wear what were almost nappies for a week while everything came out. I was out of work for over a week. In the end, it didn't work and I still had to have a procedure done a few weeks later under general anaesthetic.

The idea that any sizeable number of women would not only choose to do this over the use of contraception but do it repeatedly is so ignorant and offensive, I don't know where to begin.

I've had an abortion using those pills. It wouldn't be something I'd like to experience again...

Zubeneschamali · 21-05-2018 01:04PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

You are right I did, I apologise for my misunderstanding.

Hey, is that allowed?

:D:D

Bannasidhe · 21-05-2018 01:06PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Largely "lifestyle"

juanjo wrote: »

Like changing your haircut and going for coffee and pastries to that trendy popup café?

I seem to recall that in the previous referendum this particular poster was complaining about Yes voters advocating for change to suit a certain "lifestyle"...ironically a "lifestyle" that is unlikely to lead to crises pregnancies...

I'm not sure if he disapproves of a) All "lifestyles" on general principles, b)Any "lifestyles" different to his own, or c) "Lifestyles" doesn't mean what he thinks it means.

Cupcake_Crisis · 21-05-2018 01:08PM

January wrote: »

I've had an abortion using those pills. It wouldn't be something I'd like to experience again...

Having spoken to women who have taken those tablets, be it for miscarriage or termination, the overwhelming consensus is that it’s horrific. In my opinion, those saying that women will be doing this routinely have no idea what entails

gmisk · 21-05-2018 01:10PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I seem to recall that in the previous referendum this particular poster was complaining about Yes voters advocating for change to suit a certain "lifestyle"...ironically a "lifestyle" that is unlikely to lead to crises pregnancies...

I'm not sure if he disapproves of a) All "lifestyles" on general principles, b)Any "lifestyles" different to his own, or c) "Lifestyles" doesn't mean what he thinks it means.

I think I have an idea what you are getting at here

Get back in the sea with this "lifestyle" sh#te! or even worse "lifestyle choice".
It is people living their lives trying to do the best they can its as simple as that.

I am going to go with (b) and small spattering of (c)

Zubeneschamali · 21-05-2018 01:12PM

Whiplash85 wrote: »

Anyone know what the expected turnout will be?

Nobody ever knows, it is just guesswork.

The 8th was rather low in 1983, just 54%. Many men apparently thought is was a "women's issue".

After the X case, the turnout for the 12th, 13th, 14th was up at 68%. Some amendments have been below 30% turnout!

Mr.H · 21-05-2018 01:27PM

gmisk wrote:

Mr H, can you answer this honestly. Are you truly a Yes voter in this referendum?

Truthfully yes.

I have already stated that my opinions probably fall on the pro life side of the spectrum. But I do believe from a logic point of view that we need to repeal it. But just because I am voting yes doesn't mean that we shouldn't talk about the issues.

The last time I was in this forum I got lots of random posters reporting me. Needless to say I wasn't even given a warning. These posters just didn't like what I was saying so reported me. It has happened again just today someone hot agreeing just reporting me. I mean why can't we disagree without it getting petty.

Do I think there should be abortion free to anyone? No I don't.
Do I think abortion will become a contraceptive like it is in many countries? Yes I do.

Why am I voting yes? Because repealing the 8th and legalising abortion are two different things. It is necessary to repeal before it can be legislated but voting yes doesn't mean we are voting for abortion. We will never get the choice to legalise abortion. That is what the dail is for.

So yes I am voting yes. But everyone has a right to vote whatever way they want. If you (the royal you. Not you personally) are really pro choice you should understand that.

Mr.H · 21-05-2018 01:28PM

kylith wrote:

That is not a solution to an unwanted pregnancy.

It is a solution for an unwanted child.

The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Comments