The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Cupcake_Crisis · 24-05-2018 10:46AM

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.

We’re still feeling the pinch of the recession that started in 2007, that’s 11 years. That’s a long time to be living in poverty.

SusieBlue · 24-05-2018 10:46AM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Plenty of sources out there if you bothered to look.
Only had to watch Pat Kenny last night and the audience member who said his mother was pressurized as a teenager to end his life until they changed their minds at the last minute. No different really to the pressure behind a woman's entry into a mother and baby home.

I think you missed one very crucial element there though - that woman had a choice.

Penn · 24-05-2018 10:46AM

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.

The trouble is, the No side are now saying that if there's a No vote on Friday, they'd be willing to look at and work towards allowing abortion in the cases of rape or FFA.

However, this is clearly false and is nothing more than a ploy to get people who are on the fence because of that issue to vote No. Then once a No vote is returned, the No side will not work towards allowing abortion in those cases and will use the No vote in this referendum as a justification for doing so, by saying that the people had the chance to allow for abortion but voted against it.

The No side (and to be clear, I'm speaking about the majority of the most prominent members of the No side, not just No voters) don't want abortion under any circumstances, and opposed the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act just a few years ago. They oppose all abortions altogether for their own moral/religious reasons and the suggestion that they'd turn around in the event of a No vote on Friday and not oppose another referendum for abortion in those "hard cases" is utterly laughable.

They don't want abortion in Ireland under any circumstances, and if there's a No vote on Friday, regardless of the 12 week period, we won't be able to allow abortion for those situations for a number of years.

How many women must suffer under those conditions, and for how much longer? I get the opposition to healthy babies under 12 weeks being aborted. I disagree with it, but I get it. However what women in those situations, real women in some of the hardest situations any person can be forced to face, must go through under the current 8th Amendment is something which disturbs me far more than healthy pregnancies when the foetus is only 12 weeks gestated or less being terminated due to the choice of the mother.

storker · 24-05-2018 10:47AM

SusieBlue wrote: »

Pat was rude to her, .

I think he was getting frustrated with her. But bound as he was to respect time limits, he was correct in warning her that if she didn't stop she would get no speaking time in part 3. That's how bad she was. Anyone, like the poster you responded to, who thinks Regina even approached Steen-like levels of interruption and refusal to shut up when told, is deluding themselves. Or maybe they were watching it in a parallel universe...

uptherebels · 24-05-2018 10:47AM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Plenty of sources out there if you bothered to look.
Only had to watch Pat Kenny last night and the audience member who said his mother was pressurized as a teenager to end his life until they changed their minds at the last minute. No different really to the pressure behind a woman's entry into a mother and baby home.

Ah the usual anti choice tactic of wild claims but no evidence to back it up

Shurimgreat · 24-05-2018 10:47AM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

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.

Voting Yes means abortion on demand up to 12 weeks. Just so people are clear. Most abortions, likely over 90% will have nothing to do with the hard cases.
Its abortion on demand through the back door.

I'm as liberal as the next person, but this is a step too far for me.

SusieBlue · 24-05-2018 10:48AM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Voting Yes means abortion on demand up to 12 weeks. Just so people are clear. Most abortions, likely over 90% will have nothing to do with the hard cases.
Its abortion on demand through the back door.

I'm as liberal as the next person, but this is a step too far for me.

Are you lobbying to repeal the 13th and 14th amendment, too then?

antiskeptic · 24-05-2018 10:49AM

murpho999 wrote: »

Fetuses are not fully viable at 12 weeks.

So if we have abortions in the cases of rape, how does a woman prove the pregnancy is a result of rape?

Must there be a gardai investigation complete within a 12 week period resulting in a conviction to allow an abortion within 12 weeks?

It's impossible.

How do you tell if someone is suicidal? By qualitative assessment

Zubeneschamali · 24-05-2018 10:49AM

Stonedpilot wrote: »

It wont go away. Will always be an issue. Especially if No wins which I think it will by very small margin.

Oh, I agree, if No wins, we will get another 5 years of this turned up to 11.

I mean when Yes eventually wins and the sky does not fall, the No side will evaporate, just like the anti-divorce campaign and the anti-SSM campaign, leaving just the Ionanists talking to themselves and the occasional novena or vigil.

Grayditch · 24-05-2018 10:49AM

I'm not sure why Pat Kenny got a hard time over Steen. She was running over time and interrupting everyone else, so he put the door down.

I can see why the No side think he might not have handled the rest of it well, but I'm not sure what else he could do with the strict rules on broadcasting debates, with regard to how she was disrupting

Dressing gown · 24-05-2018 10:49AM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I think you will agree that many abortions are not the woman's 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 woman's choice and abortion on demand and women's choice are not always linked.

Many women are pressurised into abortion because of the shaming culture in Ireland. There is clearly still a large demographic of people that are prolife. How do you think that makes the sisters and daughters of those families feel when faced with a crisis pregnancy? So what do they do? They have an abortion in secret and alone because they do not want their prolife families to be shamed by their abortion. I know of this happening in my own family. If abortion became legal here and dialogue opened up the pressure on women could only reduce. This trend for many on the yes side is coming from a place where women do not want to be told what to do anymore. We have had enough. Empowering women is giving them the strength to stand up to the pressure you mistakenly try to use to support the no side. Empower your women and vote yes.

AtomicHorror · 24-05-2018 10:50AM

Penn wrote: »

The trouble is, the No side are now saying that if there's a No vote on Friday, they'd be willing to look at and work towards allowing abortion in the cases of rape or FFA.

However, this is clearly false and is nothing more than a ploy to get people who are on the fence because of that issue to vote No. Then once a No vote is returned, the No side will not work towards allowing abortion in those cases and will use the No vote in this referendum as a justification for doing so, by saying that the people had the chance to allow for abortion but voted against it.

They didn't do it during the Oireachtas Committee discussions, or the Citizen's Assembly deliberations or in the 35 years of prohibition prior to that. What they did do was try to block every single minute change proposed since 1983.

Why anyone would believe this now is beyond me.

erica74 · 24-05-2018 10:51AM

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.

What's the "short term" to you? I'm not talking about recessions. I'm talking about financial hardship, which is an every day thing. Both my husband and I work full time and, although we don't want children, we couldn't afford to have a child if we wanted. There are many many people in this same position.

badtoro · 24-05-2018 10:52AM

Hector Savage wrote: »

https://twitter.com/MickeyVaugn/status/999329305351122944

This disgusting racist misandric pig would almost make me change my mind .....

Your mans Twitter account has vote No on it.

Yet ranty pants is meant to be on the Yes side.

:pac:

Bit of perverse, sorry, reverse psychology going on there.

My take on all these things is to vote your conscience. Everything else is just someone elses opinion.

storker · 24-05-2018 10:52AM

Grayditch wrote: »

I'm not sure why Pat Kenny got a hard time over Steen. She was running over time and interrupting everyone else, so he put the door down.

I can see why the No side think he might not have handled the rest of it well, but I'm not sure what else he could do with the strict rules on broadcasting debates, with regard to how she was disrupting

I think he also had to intervene when he head misinformation being introduced, which is fair enough in a moderator, I think. He may also have been bearing in mind the controversy over the Sean Gallagher tweet during the presidential race.

Shurimgreat · 24-05-2018 10:52AM

uptherebels wrote: »

Ah the usual anti choice tactic of wild claims but no evidence to back it up

Are you seriously telling me in the history of abortion worldwide, no husband, boyfriend or parents have pressurized their female partner or female daughter, who was not a victim of rape or incest and who had a viable foetus, into having an abortion?

I'm really looking forward to your answer on this one.

uptherebels · 24-05-2018 10:52AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

How do you tell if someone is suicidal? By qualitative assessment

It's great that you didn't actually answer the question.
How do you determine someone has been raped inside 12 weeks?

gmisk · 24-05-2018 10:53AM

https://twitter.com/TeilHarder/status/998209496789987333?s=19
Yet more nasty dirty tricks from the no campaign

ohnonotgmail · 24-05-2018 10:53AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

How do you tell if someone is suicidal? By qualitative assessment

surely that is was a psychiatrist is trained to do?

erica74 · 24-05-2018 10:54AM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Plenty of sources out there if you bothered to look.
Only had to watch Pat Kenny last night and the audience member who said his mother was pressurized as a teenager to end his life until they changed their minds at the last minute. No different really to the pressure behind a woman's entry into a mother and baby home.

It's your claim, you provide the backup for the claims you make. That's the rule on boards, across the whole site. So essentially, your backup to the claim you've made about "many" is that one woman was pressurized.

murpho999 · 24-05-2018 10:55AM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Plenty of sources out there if you bothered to look.
Only had to watch Pat Kenny last night and the audience member who said his mother was pressurized as a teenager to end his life until they changed their minds at the last minute. No different really to the pressure behind a woman's entry into a mother and baby home.

That is one case and look what happened.

The mother made a choice not to travel.

Of course some abortions come from pressure but not all. Why just use this?

Stonedpilot · 24-05-2018 10:55AM

Hector Savage wrote: »

I agree !

But surely you can't be happy this fool is on the yes side ? ??

You think she's beneficial to the cause ?

Shes an unhinged loon. Feminist rallies often have them. The eyeballs bulging out of her skull is alarming.

Truth is there are fruitcakes on both sides. Im sure many think Im one.

The yes dont acknowledge this. Theres actually someone on this who thinks all No voters are blood related.

Seriously!

Of the tens of thousands who will vote No on Friday they are all blood related.

Must be a big old Turkey at Christmas eh with em all around!.

Cupcake_Crisis · 24-05-2018 10:55AM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Voting Yes means abortion on demand up to 12 weeks. Just so people are clear. Most abortions, likely over 90% will have nothing to do with the hard cases.
Its abortion on demand through the back door.

I'm as liberal as the next person, but this is a step too far for me.

Incorrect. Voting yes means you’re agreeing to let the government legislate. If you’re so offended by the 12 weeks get out and campaign for more restrictive legislation when the time comes.

You also never answered me when I asked how you would propose to legislate for rape cases.

The_Kew_Tour · 24-05-2018 10:56AM

I be glad when it's all over with YES winning hopefully.

Both sides have been childish from time to time.

But that does not change facts for me

antiskeptic · 24-05-2018 10:56AM

SusieBlue wrote: »

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 what I said at all.

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.

Your dodging:

What the No side say or dont say isnt relevant to the whether or not the electorate ought be offered a question which reflects their wishes.

a) Do you think the current question accurately reflects the question the electorate would like put to them?

b) If no, do you think such a question ought to be put to them - notwithstanding the eggs broken in the making of that omlette

uptherebels · 24-05-2018 10:56AM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Are you seriously telling me in the history of abortion worldwide, no husband, boyfriend or parents have pressurized their female partner or female daughter, who was not a victim of rape or incest and who had a viable foetus, into having an abortion?

I'm really looking forward to your answer on this one.

I'm not saying anything.
You claimed many women are pressurised into getting abortions it's on you to show evidence of this.
If it's so common evidence should be easy to source.
So what's the problem?

erica74 · 24-05-2018 10:56AM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Voting Yes means abortion on demand up to 12 weeks. Just so people are clear. Most abortions, likely over 90% will have nothing to do with the hard cases.
Its abortion on demand through the back door.

I'm as liberal as the next person, but this is a step too far for me.

Bum sex again.

PhoenixParker · 24-05-2018 10:56AM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Voting Yes means abortion on demand up to 12 weeks. Just so people are clear. Most abortions, likely over 90% will have nothing to do with the hard cases.
Its abortion on demand through the back door.

I'm as liberal as the next person, but this is a step too far for me.

We have abortion on demand up to 12 weeks.
Online pills and constitutionally protected travel to England ensure that. The 8th does not prevent abortion on demand merely makes abortion unsafe and dangerous. It also creates those hard cases you abhor.

Abortion, on request, in cooperation with a woman's own medical team, an opportunity to provide support and counselling, a check on gestation & a waiting period of 72 hours is absolutely 100% an improvement on the current situation.

I'll be voting yes.

nozzferrahhtoo · 24-05-2018 10:57AM

murpho999 wrote: »

That is one case and look what happened.

The mother made a choice not to travel.

Of course some abortions come from pressure but not all. Why just use this?

Indeed. Equally it can be said there are people who DID want an abortion but were pressured into not having one. Pressuring people into decisions they do not want to make is what is the "evil" here, not cherry picked cases in one direction or the other.

Zubeneschamali · 24-05-2018 10:57AM

SusieBlue wrote: »

The fact of the matter is that the No side are basing their whole argument on the fact that the current proposal is "too extreme".

I invite anyone tempted by this line to go and read the final report from the Citizen's Assembly.

The 12 week proposal is a compromise. Many at the assembly wanted a later cut-off. A majority said socioeconomic factors are a valid reason for abortion. Some suggested adopting the UKs wording on health.

There were many suggestions with plenty of backing more extreme than this.

And the no restrictions option was done so as to avoid a box-ticking exercise where you oblige women to select mental health, rape, incest, socioeconomic factors etc to get "permission", adding a layer of bureaucracy and inviting people to lie to access services.

Isn't this better than the UK system people complain about? 12 weeks no questions asked, no lies. Then, Irish doctors (who have proven with PoLDPA that they will not lie to get late abortions on demand) will deal with medical cases.

The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Comments