The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

FrancieBrady · 22-05-2018 04:26PM

jjmcclure wrote: »

In some cases, YES. I believe some will try to use mental health reasons to obtain an abortion. This is not about all women, but some certainly.

Regardless, unrestricted abortion up to 3 months is also unacceptable in my view. I have already made my views clear about FFA and rape/incest.

You realise what the country would be like if we didn't offer choices just because a few might abuse them?

That is a plainly pathetic and rather clingy reason to not act on these matters tbh.

Dressing gown · 22-05-2018 04:27PM

Malaya Red Sandlot wrote: »

There are a lot of people who have concerns about unlimited abortions up to 12 weeks and are unwillingly voting Yes because they feel it's better than leaving the status quo unchanged. But surely it would be better to vote No and then demand that the Government give this more thought and come up with a better proposal.

Malaya Red Sandlot just to clarify, the 12 weeks point is 10 weeks after conception. Pregnancy is 40 weeks in total. 12 weeks is not 3 months as plenty allude to-or if you want to believe that then pregnancy is 10 months. Lisa Chambers explained it very clearly last night on TV3 that the figure came about from looking at the widespread use of the abortion pills which can be used up to that time, the time limits used in other jurisdictions and To cater for instances of rape and incest in a non traumatising way. If you consider that if we made it 10 weeks for instance, we would end up with a farce of women continuing to illegally order online pills up to that point anyway. It is about having a safe environment for the abortions to take place for Irish women. I would strongly recommend you look at catch up player or whatever to see how she has explained it.

Secondly, we cannot do anything to help those “hard cases” until the 8th repealed because any legislation that attempts to do so would very easily be challenged as unconstitutional for contravening the 8th amendment.

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 22-05-2018 04:28PM

robarmstrong wrote: »

By voting No you are essentially denying the hard cases.

You are denying the hard cases access to abortion by voting to retain the 8th Amendment. It really isn't that difficult to grasp.

Neither was the point I was making, which you appear unwilling to 'grasp'.

bruschi · 22-05-2018 04:28PM

Malaya Red Sandlot wrote: »

You really are rude and patronising. The Government have clearly stated what they will do if the eighth amendment is removed. So obviously that has to be taken into account, by any intelligent person, when voting on Friday.

you said they should give this more thought and that the 8th laws should be clarified as to what they mean. There has been 35 years to sort out the mess. voting no and asking them to think a bit more about it is not the solution.

The 8th is the problem at the moment, at least with that gone the cases of proposals for abortion laws can be changed up or down or whatever way they want. Voting no does not make them go back to the drawing board on it, it just keeps a really prohibitive legislation force more pregnant women to have problems.

Guy:Incognito · 22-05-2018 04:29PM

jjmcclure wrote: »

Regardless, unrestricted abortion up to 3 months is also unacceptable in my view. .

So everyone else should live by your views?

That's the thing about giving people a choice. They can choose what's best for them, not have it closed for them by people with no business having a say in their choices

robarmstrong · 22-05-2018 04:29PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You realise what the country would be like if we didn't offer choices just because a few might abuse them?

That is a plainly pathetic and rather clingy reason to not act on these matters tbh.

No cars because sure some people might wreck them or use them to transport drugs/perform illegal activities.

No alcohol because sure some people might become alcoholics.

No self defense laws because sure some people might provoke people!

It's nonsensical, really needs to be discarded as an idea or reason to act in regards to the 8th.

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 22-05-2018 04:31PM

bruschi wrote: »

you said they should give this more thought and that the 8th laws should be clarified as to what they mean. There has been 35 years to sort out the mess. voting no and asking them to think a bit more about it is not the solution.

The 8th is the problem at the moment, at least with that gone the cases of proposals for abortion laws can be changed up or down or whatever way they want. Voting no does not make them go back to the drawing board on it, it just keeps a really prohibitive legislation force more pregnant women to have problems.

Exactly!

Timberrrrrrrr · 22-05-2018 04:31PM

jjmcclure wrote: »

In some cases, YES. I believe some will try to use mental health reasons to obtain an abortion. This is not about all women, but some certainly.

Regardless, unrestricted abortion up to 3 months is also unacceptable in my view. I have already made my views clear about FFA and rape/incest.

So a desperate woman who is in a desperate situation may take desperate measures to terminate a pregnancy that she feels she cannot go on with?

I have no issue with that.

robarmstrong · 22-05-2018 04:31PM

Malaya Red Sandlot wrote: »

Neither was the point I was making, which you appear unwilling to 'grasp'.

You weren't making a point, so there's nothing to grasp.

I made a point to you and I might as well have made it to a wall and got a better response.

I stated voting No is denying the hard cases because it will keep the current 8th.

You said nobody is denying the hard cases.

The current 8th amendment is. Where's your point?

spookwoman · 22-05-2018 04:34PM

Malaya Red Sandlot wrote: »

Exactly!

Then you are agreeing the 8th needs to go which means a yes vote

Zubeneschamali · 22-05-2018 04:36PM

Malaya Red Sandlot wrote: »

There needs to be more clarity around the eighth amendment and what medical staff can do to treat women whose health is in danger. Waiting until they are at death's door before doctors can intervene is not satisfactory.

Then we have to repeal the 8th, since it does not recognize the health of the mother, only her life.

bruschi · 22-05-2018 04:38PM

Malaya Red Sandlot wrote: »

Exactly!

I take it by your excited tones you feel that the government can do whatever they want and this is a reason to vote no.

So lets take your hypothetical view. Vote no, make them go back and "think about it some more". Vote again on abortion to 4 weeks and only in hard cases. It goes through. The government can then change the legislation to whatever they want and make it the same as now. The only thing stopping them is the 8th and the 8th is not a good system for pregnant women who actually want children.

Its up to TDs and government to vote on proposals, but this cant be done until the 8th is removed.

Zubeneschamali · 22-05-2018 04:39PM

jjmcclure wrote: »

Available up to 6 month on "unspecified mental health grounds" = unrestricted abortion up to 6 months.

If women and panels of doctors are just going to lie, we have unrestricted abortion up to birth right now. The 8th allows abortion for suicidal women without any age restriction today.

But women and panels of doctors do not use that to lie for unrestricted abortion up to 9 months today. Why do you imagine they will after the 8th is repealed?

Especially when unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks will be available without lying?

Hotblack Desiato · 22-05-2018 04:39PM

jjmcclure wrote: »

Available up to 6 month on "unspecified mental health grounds" = unrestricted abortion up to 6 months.

It's not unrestricted.

Hotblack Desiato · 22-05-2018 04:44PM

jjmcclure wrote: »

In some cases, YES. I believe some will try to use mental health reasons to obtain an abortion.

Why would they try to do that after 12 weeks when they could have requested an abortion before 12 weeks?

Regardless, unrestricted abortion up to 3 months is also unacceptable in my view.

Ah. Right. So women can't win. You deny them a legal path to abortion and then castigate them if they try to work around the law.

22-05-2018 04:47PM

bruschi wrote: »

Its up to TDs and government to vote on proposals, but this cant be done until the 8th is removed.

There has been legislation passed by govt allowing termination of pregnancy (in certain cases) with the 8th in place so I don't know what to make of this statement.

spookwoman · 22-05-2018 04:48PM

Update on tonight debate looks like cora is gone

https://twitter.com/KevDoyle_Indo/status/998968196710445056

jjmcclure · 22-05-2018 04:49PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So everyone else should live by your views?

That's the thing about giving people a choice. They can choose what's best for them, not have it closed for them by people with no business having a say in their choices

You aren't choosing between chocolate or vanilla ice cream, tayto or walkers, you are choosing to end a life. I know the pro-choice lobby don't accept that, but it can't be denied that its a life. Should we be able to choose euthanasia for our elderly parents because the are casing unspecified mental health issues (such as stress) to us? Someone earlier argued that they "didn't know any woman who grieved the same way over a miscarriage as they would over a child" I know at least two who do, every day!

Hotblack Desiato · 22-05-2018 04:50PM

Edz87 wrote: »

There has been legislation passed by govt allowing termination of pregnancy (in certain cases) with the 8th in place so I don't know what to make of this statement.

Those "certain cases" are where the woman will likely die without a termination.

Of course five years ago many of those who are now No campaigners were campaigning against this law. In other words they were happy to allow pregnant women to die.

22-05-2018 04:52PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Those "certain cases" are where the woman will likely die without a termination.

Of course five years ago many of those who are now No campaigners were campaigning against this law. In other words they were happy to allow pregnant women to die.

Ok but the government can hypothetically widen the scope of cases where termination can be permissible, seeing as its done it before?

Guy:Incognito · 22-05-2018 04:55PM

jjmcclure wrote: »

You aren't choosing between chocolate or vanilla ice cream, tayto or walkers, you are choosing to end a life. I know the pro-choice lobby don't accept that, but it can't be denied that its a life. Should we be able to choose euthanasia for our elderly parents because the are casing unspecified mental health issues (such as stress) to us? Someone earlier argued that they "didn't know any woman who grieved the same way over a miscarriage as they would over a child" I know at least two who do, every day!

But again, your making the choice for others that it's a life or at what stage it's considered a life . What a woman you don't know chooses to do in her own situation will never affect you and you shouldnt want to interfere with her choices. You don't know her situation
People need to be let make their own decides and to deal with the consequences of them.

You wouldn't appreciate me making decisions for you and saying "you wouldn't have liked that decision anyway" . Its not my place.

gandalf · 22-05-2018 04:56PM

spookwoman wrote: »

Update on tonight debate looks like cora is gone

https://twitter.com/KevDoyle_Indo/status/998968196710445056

I bet RTE capitulate like they always do with the I-own-her institute.

Dressing gown · 22-05-2018 04:56PM

jjmcclure wrote: »

You aren't choosing between chocolate or vanilla ice cream, tayto or walkers, you are choosing to end a life. I know the pro-choice lobby don't accept that, but it can't be denied that its a life. Should we be able to choose euthanasia for our elderly parents because the are casing unspecified mental health issues (such as stress) to us? Someone earlier argued that they "didn't know any woman who grieved the same way over a miscarriage as they would over a child" I know at least two who do, every day!

This is where you are wrong. We actually have very little say in whether a given woman will have an abortion or not. If that is her will, she will have it regardless. What we do have a say in is whether we cast her out to the UK to procure her abortion (which is her constitutional right to do), or confine her to order pills online and take her own life in her hands on doing so, or for the most vulnerable women, to take whatever means they can obtain to try to terminate their pregnancy. They are the options if we vote no.
If we vote yes we can ensure those citizens of our country are not left to achieve their aims under dangerous circumstances.

Re those women grieving miscarriages, I am very sorry for them and it may have been me that made that earlier comment. But I also said I grieved more acutely for my miscarriage than I did for my father. I stand over saying I would never recover if I lost one of my children but I have largely recovered from losing my miscarriage. No one else in my life bubble treated my miscarriage as a baby, not the church, not the state. But when it comes to abortion both place equal value on a 12 week old foetus to that of the mother? That is total hypocrisy.

FrancieBrady · 22-05-2018 04:56PM

jjmcclure wrote: »

You aren't choosing between chocolate or vanilla ice cream, tayto or walkers, you are choosing to end a life. I know the pro-choice lobby don't accept that, but it can't be denied that its a life. Should we be able to choose euthanasia for our elderly parents because the are casing unspecified mental health issues (such as stress) to us? Someone earlier argued that they "didn't know any woman who grieved the same way over a miscarriage as they would over a child" I know at least two who do, every day!

And I know many women who simply do not believe that they are 'ending a life' in the same way that your spurious and emotive example of a third party being allowed to choose to end the life of an elderly person.

Your beliefs around when a life begins, are your own and you should not be trying to impose them on anybody.

FrancieBrady · 22-05-2018 04:59PM

gandalf wrote: »

I bet RTE capitulate like they always do with the I-own-her institute.

I don't see a problem tbh, if they wish to sub Maria for Cora. So be it.

pleas advice · 22-05-2018 04:59PM

gandalf wrote: »

I bet RTE capitulate like they always do with the I-own-her institute.

:rolleyes:

munsterlegend · 22-05-2018 05:01PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't see a problem tbh, if they wish to sub Maria for Cora. So be it.

Not surprised really. She was by far the best speaker on Claire Byrne live and wouldn't be surprised if Simon Harris is pressing for her not to be on either behind the scenes

Hotblack Desiato · 22-05-2018 05:04PM

Edz87 wrote: »

Ok but the government can hypothetically widen the scope of cases where termination can be permissible, seeing as its done it before?

No, it can't go any further while the 8th is in place, because it gives the zygote/embryo/foetus an equal right to life as that of the woman.

spookwoman · 22-05-2018 05:05PM

munsterlegend wrote: »

Not surprised really. She was by far the best speaker on Claire Byrne live and wouldn't be surprised if Simon Harris is pressing for her not to be on either behind the scenes

think they pulled this stunt before during the marriage ref. its to try and throw things off. Change the speaker then the questioning and answers change

pjohnson · 22-05-2018 05:06PM

Ah Cora was great yesterday on Matt Cooper. She admitted that she would force a raped 14 year old carry the foetus to term if she could.

The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Comments