drunkmonkey wrote: » The only confusion is on the yes side. If a doctor is confused they need to educate themselves as they have no right being in a maternity ward. On my last point I wasn't clear I was speaking about if there is a choice to make between the woman and the babys life not every mother will take the option to save themselves over their child if it's viable. That needs to be legislated for. If a woman want's herself terminated or knows she's going to die durning birth. (this probably isn't an issue now with the amount of C sections). I know how your drawing your conclusion and in a perfect world your right to think that way but people will be doing it for all kinds of reasons, a lot for financial and due to their circumstances. The facts are it will be mainly young and poor women.
facehugger99 wrote: » You do realise the proposed amendment won't make abortion compulsory?
Triceratops Ballet wrote: » yeah the majority do and will continue to do so. People won't be forced to have abortions if the 8th is repealed. If the 8th is repealed people will simply have the choice. Women will be entitled to informed consent with regard to treatment during their pregnancies, couples will continue to have children. Unfortunate couples who are dealing with an FFA pregnancy will not be required to travel should they decide to end the pregnancy, they can avail of the termination here and bury the much wanted baby here at home. Those who chose to see it through will remain to have that option. We won't have women or the families of women having to go to the hight court to have their rights to bodily autonomy respected. The sky will not fall in and the world will continue to turn and we'll just be a country that treats it's women a little better.
Mark Hamill wrote: » His signature is daft as a brush. With the 8th amendment, no one has any choice.
end of the road wrote: » but a country which hugely devalues life. we don't need abortion on demand to implement a system that treats women the best we possibly can, we can do so much better.
SusieBlue wrote: » And do you really think that its an awful thing, if a young, poor woman has an abortion? Or do you think the alternative, which is forcing her to remain pregnant against her will, better? And do you think that outcome is in the best interests of the babies being born to unwilling mothers? Because that's the bit that I don't understand. You can't claim to LoveBoth and in your next breath say you realise that young, poor women will suffer the most because of this law and that you're ok with that.
drunkmonkey wrote: » Yes I do think it's awful for social or financial reasons. I don't think any woman should have to decide abortion is an option over paper. That says to me we don't have the proper health care and social structures in place to support women. That's the bit I think needs to be fixed first. We'll look back if there's a yes vote and realise were after missing an opportunity to really support women all through their lives.
Triceratops Ballet wrote: » So where are the supports? the 8th came in in 1983 that's 35 years and women are still having abortions because they can't afford another child. It's all well and good to say this is what we should be doing, maybe it is, but we're not doing it we haven't done it in the last 35 years
drunkmonkey wrote: » Yea Leo where are the supports? Why hasn't it been done.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Personally, I am totally against paper / financial abortions as they give men a way of not facing up to their responsibilities. Given that one of the reasons I don't think it should be legal for healthy women to abort healthy babies is because I feel they should accept the responsibility that they have created a baby, why would I then out of the other side of my mouth say that I think men should have a way of running away from theirs. That would be hypocritical in my eyes.
Triceratops Ballet wrote: » So where are the supports? the 8th came in in 1983 that's 35 years and women are still having abortions because they can't afford another child. It's all well and good to say this is what we should be doing, maybe it is, but we're not doing it we haven't done it in the last 35 years, before that we locked these women up in laundries to pay for their "sins" we need to face up to the fact that we as a country are actively failing these women and provide them with the care and understanding that they are asking for
RocketRaccoon wrote: So now it's gone from abortions in case of FFA or health risks to the mother or baby to just abortions for all who can't afford to raise a child? As I said months ago in this thread, this will end up as a lot of women getting abortions instead of just using contraception.
Triceratops Ballet wrote: » It hasn't gone from anything to anything women have always and will always seek to end pregnancies for a myriad of reasons since the dawn of time. I haven't changed my stance in the slightest I support the right to choose always have always will. Your claim that women/couples will choose abortion over contraception is baseless hyperbole
Smertrius wrote: » its last week and the no people are going around the houses handing out flyers saying no, this is against the rules of the referendum
RocketRaccoon wrote: Its not baseless anything. I've seen it with my own eyes in England. Laughing and joking while waiting for the procedure and proudly saying it wasn't the first.
Smertrius wrote: its last week and the no people are going around the houses handing out flyers saying no, this is against the rules of the referendum
RocketRaccoon wrote: As I said months ago in this thread, this will end up as a lot of women getting abortions instead of just using contraception.
Martina1991 wrote: » Disgusting comment. Have you read any account of women who have had an abortion. Surgical or via pills. The pain, the bleeding, the isolation, the shame, no health support for fear of prosecution. And you think so little of women that we would choose that over a condom.
RocketRaccoon wrote: I don't need to have read anything.
Triceratops Ballet wrote: » Is it? I had a flyer yesterday and today
Martina1991 wrote: » Then you are completely ignorant. And do not care about any woman effected by the 8th.
end of the road wrote: we very much do care about woman effected by the 8th. that is why we are voting no, because we can do so so much better then the proposals being offered to replace it. we want the best possible solutions and the best possible outcomes. the proposals being put forward are an insult as they allow (all be it up to 12 weeks) abortion on demand. we can do better then that. we are better then that.
RocketRaccoon wrote: » Its not baseless anything. I've seen it with my own eyes in England. Laughing and joking while waiting for the procedure and proudly saying it wasn't the first.
Martina1991 wrote: » We can do better? Like What? Forcing a women to carry a pregnancy against her will and risk her life. Forcing victims of rape and abuse to have babies they didn't want or can't cope with. Forcing women who carry wanted pregnancies who have FFA to carry to term for months knowing the baby will die.
Martina1991 wrote: » The no side never consider the circumstances of the women in crisis.
end of the road wrote: we do, hence we know we can do better then abortion on demand and are striving for genuine help and support for those people.
end of the road wrote: » nope, by insuring those can be legislated for and no changes can be made without a referendum. that at least would get many of us no voters on side. we do, hence we know we can do better then abortion on demand and are striving for genuine help and support for those people.
yesto24 wrote: » I know women whos form of contraception is abortion.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)