The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Good point. Contraception is always preferable to abortion. Abortion should always be the worst case scenario given how violent it is.

Agreed. With 63k births in 2016, and only 4k abortions, we can see that abortion is clearly used as a last resort when there are no other options.
Many of those 63k births were unplanned pregnancies, but the mothers opted to go ahead.
Its only in dire circumstances where abortion is used here. Most women choose to have their babies, statistics reflect this.

Abortions have always happened and will continue to happen, regardless of the referendum result. The question is do we want to restrict, supervise and regulate the issue, or if we want to continue exporting it, pretending it isn't happening.

I am all in favour of dealing with extreme cases such as rape, incest, fatal fetal abnormalities, life of the mother at serious risk (non mental health cases) and in extreme mental health cases. And yes abortion on demand for those cases.

I am not in favour of abortion on demand used on healthy babies up to 12 weeks. As I said and its a fact, a lot of people walking around today who would not be because if abortion was available during recessions.

The only way to allow for cases of rape is to allow unrestricted abortion up till 12 weeks, so that women aren't under pressure to disclose what happened to them if they don't want to during an already awful time.
The citizens assembly came to this conclusion after hearing recommendations from experts on both sides.
The recommendations of the citizens assembly was used as a base for the current proposed legislation by the government.

Mental health is just as important as physical health. Its upsetting to see it dismissed (as usual) at a time when more people than ever are committing suicide.
Luckily the POLDPA Act already allows for abortion in cases where the woman in suicidal, since 2013. It hasn't opened any floodgates. If I remember correctly, less than 20 women have received abortions on the grounds of suicide since the act was brought in.

In any case, the 8th specifically states that the baby has a right to life equal to the mother. To allow changes for one or all circumstances (ffa, rape), we need to repeal. The Attorney General has explicitly stated that the 8th amendment is worded in a way that makes it impossible to legislate without repealing.

Abortion is far more extreme than contraception was my point.

And recessions are often temporary. It might be difficult economically to raise a child for a year or two but recessions always come to an end and women may end up regretting an abortion.

Statistically 97% of women do not experience regret after abortion, according to a study done by the Irish Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.
And regardless, we can't deny all women the choice just because a small minority might have regrets.
They don't need to be saved from themselves. They know whats best.

Water John wrote: »

The No side were simply short of media savvy people.

The fact is that the core of the No side is a really small incestuous group of ultraCatholic families, half of them related by blood and the other half by marriage.

Their reach and influence are far greater than their numbers because they are full time fronts for the Catholic Church, which can no longer wade into these debates and bate people with a crozier.

But these spokespeople really are the best they have got.

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Good point. Contraception is always preferable to abortion. Abortion should always be the worst case scenario given how violent it is.

How is abortion violent?
Do you have any idea how that would make a woman, who has had an abortion because of FFA, feel? Do you think those women (2 women every week travel from Ireland) want to read that?

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I am all in favour of dealing with extreme cases such as rape, incest, fatal fetal abnormalities, life of the mother at serious risk (non mental health cases) and in extreme mental health cases. And yes abortion on demand for those cases.

I am not in favour of abortion on demand used on healthy babies up to 12 weeks.

What about healthy babies who have been conceived through rape or incest?

Why do you make a distinction between the life of the mother at serious risk "non mental health cases" and "extreme mental health cases"?

Shurimgreat wrote: »

As I said and its a fact, a lot of people walking around today who would not be because if abortion was available during recessions.

And nobody would know otherwise because they just wouldn't exist. Do you regularly going around thinking of people who don't exist and have never existed?

Shurimgreat wrote: »

And recessions are often temporary. It might be difficult economically to raise a child for a year or two but recessions always come to an end and women may end up regretting an abortion.

And what about all the women who don't regret their abortion? What about all the women who had an abortion in order to provide financially for the children they already had? 1 to 2 years of financial hardship (and I don't agree it would just be 1 to 2 years) would have an effect on the other children, what about those children?

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Abortions on perfectly healthy babies up to 12 weeks in non "hard" or extreme cases is the sticking point stopping many from voting yes.

They are foetuses not babies. Why use that language?

Also, people who want to have a baby, will simply not have an abortion and have a child. Nothing will change there.

Those who are not in a position to have a baby, for whatever reason will choose an abortion. It's entirely personal.

Do people not realise that a child being born as unwanted is not a good thing?

Billy86 wrote: »

Look, love, you know well how giddy you fickle minded lady folk can get after a few glasses of Prosecco. All that is being said is that there is a very real possibility you might hit the end of the bottle, pop down the shops with the girls for a top up, get distracted by the shiny, flashing neon lights outside doctors offices on the way, and pop in for a bunch of quickie abortions that your tiny little minds will later get all confused and upset about. Bad upset too, not box of chocolates and and a movie upset.

This is the reality, and if insults you it is because you cannot handle the truth. We men trust you, but you need help reaching the top shelf and don't even get me started in your parallel parking, so obviously we have to look after your best interests when you are incapable of doing so yourself.

#respectforwomenvoteNO #lovebothuntilbornthenforgetaboutthem

Rhubarb rhubarb fist shake angry lefty lezbean femmynawzi rant against the pattyarchy marmalade marmalade obstreperous pink hair rambunctious angry face.

:mad:


... while you're here could you open this jar for me?... also I have a piano needs moving...

antiskeptic wrote: »

Agreed. So what. They are but a voice and I trust people to take their disingenuousness into account.

In the event people were given an option more reflective of their desire

They are explicitly stating that the proposal is to extreme, and to demand a more conservative answer from the government.
Then in their next breath they're saying they'd force a 12 year old pregnant child to remain pregnant.
They are willfully misrepresenting their position. There is no excuse for that.

Not to be trusted in a vote. So skew the question. Charming!

Not what I said at all.

That the no side doesnt agree irrelevant. What matterss is the outcome of a vote that is pitched in a fair, representative way.

You don't trust people to do that. Hence you don't want them given that option

Its extremely relevant. No are basing their campaign on the fact that the current proposal is too much.
Many people who I have spoken to, who are voting No, are doing so under the impression that should a proposal covering just FFA and Rape arise, all will agree.
They need to know this isn't the case.

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I think you will agree that many abortions are not the womans choice. We know that many women would like to keep their babies but are pressurized into having an abortion by their parents, boyfriends, husbands and so on. So not always the womens choice and abortion on demand and womens choice are not always linked.

How can you say this?

It's still the women's choice at the end of the day.

Shurimgreat wrote: »

The referendum would easily pass if it was just to do with terminally ill fetus's, rape and incest victims and the like. I would vote for it myself.

But the politicians are going for a two handed grab and trying to include abortion up to 12 weeks against babies who are perfectly viable and healthy and not caused by rape or incest. This is where the issue is for many and why I am voting No.

Nothing will be done about the cases in your first paragraph for at least a generation if the Vote is No.

With a Yes Vote the legislation can be discussed/debated/changed on a continual and ongoing basis with your TDs.

Honestly from what you've laid out about your concerns you've made a very decent case for Yes. You realise how bad the 8th is and that it needs to go first.

Shurimgreat wrote: »

The referendum would easily pass if it was just to do with terminally ill fetus's, rape and incest victims and the like. I would vote for it myself.

But the politicians are going for a two handed grab and trying to include abortion up to 12 weeks against babies who are perfectly viable and healthy and not caused by rape or incest. This is where the issue is for many and why I am voting No.

40 minutes earlier:

Shurimgreat wrote: »

A lot of information to process in this debate.

Am I right in thinking, if passed, there is a strong probability of abortion on demand to anyone who wants it up to 12 weeks?

That's certainly a quick turnaround...

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Can't afford in the short term. Half of children born today will live to be 100.
Recessions come and go and often last only a couple of years. So ending the life of a perfectly healthy person based on a short recession is extreme.

You're the one who keeps bringing up recessions. Even in times of prosperity, there are still people on the margin living in poverty.
It has nothing to do with recessions.

There are some people who live their whole lives on the breadline, living hand to mouth, and those are the people who cannot afford to have these babies.
Forcing them into it will not help, especially if they already have older born children.

They know their circumstances better than you do.
Weak offerings of "it will be ok in a few years" isn't good enough, and won't feed and clothe the baby in the meantime.