The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Sebastian Dangerfield wrote: »

This is a key point. We are not putting 12 weeks into the constitution, we are entrusting responsibility for it to the representatives that we elect. So it can just as easily be toughened as well as softened, if the will of the people is to do so.

Every "No" leaflet that has come through our door has mentioned that politicians can't be trusted with this. Well guess what - that's how a democracy works. We entrust politicians with our finances, our health, our infrastructure, and everything in between. So if the current batch can't be trusted, why don't Iona and co set up a political party who they feel can be trusted, and see how they get on at the ballot box? Because they'd be run from 99% of doors they knocked on, that's why - their views are not representative of Irish people, and I'm delighted that's the case.

Isnt that what Renua is? look how well they have done

Just her wrote: »

Ok thanks for answering. What's if her health wasn't in danger and she wanted an abortion regardless, not necessarily your wife but generally speaking, would you be against abortion then.

Without being able to experience it myself, I can really only think in scenario terms (a teenage girl etc.). In every case I've thought of, I can't think of a valid reason why the mothers wishes, in the context of what's being proposed here, shouldn't prevail.

But then I fundamentally disagree with the idea that a woman takes a decision like this lightly. If you disagree with me, and believe that a woman would use availability of abortion for convenience or instead of birth control, you're bound to come to a different conclusion.

Watching the RTe debate and I thought the minister did quite well.

The no side, and I understand some of their position, continue to give nothing in the way of a solution to the issue we face beyond continually stating that the solution cannot be the death of the baby.

I gave sympathy with that, but it solves nothing.

cournioni wrote: »

Of course, the perfect solution is to kill the unborn regardless of context.

Actual people are more important than potential ones.
Born citizens shouldn't have their bodily autonomy compromised and their rights restricted because there happens to be a 10 week gestated fetus the size of a grape in their uterus.

If you personally see more importance in said grape sized fetus than you do in a living breathing woman, I fully support this.
When you yourself, or your wife, are receiving maternity care, you can make it clear to medical professionals that you want the unborn to be prioritised over the care of the woman you love.
But I don't think you should be allowed make that decision on behalf of strangers.

Just her wrote: »

Also cleft lip has been reported as a reason for some late term abortion s

do you have a source for that? I find that very hard to believe.

....... wrote: »

If the sperm and egg came together and created a conscious sentient being immediately, then I would be against abortion.

Thanks for reply

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

From the other thread in the mens forum I had an idea you were a disgusting human. This post confirms it.

would you describe the poster as a "deplorable", maybe?

rgace wrote: »

Something I am not clear on myself so I have ventured into this madhouse.

We are voting to remove any rights for a foetus from the constitution, so what reasoning is there for preventing a termination after 12 weeks?

Would this leave the legislation open to a challenge in the courts?

No it won’t. (Well people can challenge any legislation in the courts for any reason they like, of course, because we live in a democracy that allows unrestricted access for all citizens to our judicial systems but the 12-week limit won’t be found to be unconstitutional or lacking in any way by any court, going by the draft legislation details).

The 12-week limit is picked for many reasons that feed into each other due to practicality of the options available and also to reduce the impact both on the woman involved and the wider hospital system too.

The vast majority of women discover that they’re pregnant within the first 10 weeks. Late periods can be caused by a lot of different factors but two late periods is pretty much the latest that anyone will be unaware for (unless she’s dreadfully unlucky with regard to her cycle). So that influences the 12-week limit. Also, 90% of abortions are done in the first 10 weeks, and the limit needs to be at least 10 weeks plus 2 weeks extra for late pregnancy discovery, potential appointment delays or medicinal failures/delays (the pills work 93% of the time and there’s a limit (I think it’s two or three doses per pregnancy, not sure though), so if you happen to be the one who lands in that 7% failure rate multiple times, you might need to get a medical abortion, adding delays upon delays) etc. Plus, a majority of countries that allow abortion have 12 weeks as a limit, it works fine for them so it’ll be difficult for anybody to challenge that limit in court if they think 12-weeks is too short a limit. Accordingly, there is no compelling reason to provide abortion after 12 weeks as the vast vast majority of cases are easily handled in tat timeframe. Leaving only medical emergencies as the ones that require abortion later than 12 weeks.

Especially so due to the fact that after 10-12 weeks the pills aren’t effective, so medical abortion is necessary. So having a longer period than 12 weeks might accidentally encourage some to wait till the last possible moment when they’ll need to have a surgical procedure rather than just taking some pills. Obviously hospitals don’t have much capacity at the best of times for extra surgical procedures, but also for the health of the woman involved, taking pills is far easier to recover from that having a medical procedure.

Igotadose wrote: »

Unlikely. They'll lay low for a bit, then once the legislation debates start, "they'll be baaa-ack." This is how the no no's earn their living, they're not going to mess up their public personas and get thrown from the gravy train.

Repeal is just the start of the fight, if passed