The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

spookwoman · 24-05-2018 01:13PM

Malaya Red Sandlot wrote: »

No, I asserted that the 8th was what was standing between protection for the unborn and legislators being able to try and go as far as they wanted.

Please stop putting words in my mouth and 'telling' me what I said. It's annoying and arrogant.

I'm not "telling" you what you said I posted a screenshot of what you said. Could say it's pretty arrogant to want to control other people's bodies.

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 24-05-2018 01:13PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

A No vote will be interpreted as a preference for the status quo. There certainly won't be anything to suggest it's the 12 weeks provision that voters have issue with, especially in the absence of any meaningful alternative proposals from groups or politicians on the No side.

The NO side have been quite vocal about the fact that many of those on that side have difficulties with that particular point and are therefore not prepared to vote Yes at this point. It might, hopefully, shape how legislators proceed after the expected Yes vote if it is a narrow margin and not a large one.

Noo · 24-05-2018 01:14PM

Malaya Red Sandlot wrote: »

It is what the Government have said will be there next proposal should there be a Yes vote.

The key word being "proposal". So deal with it then, when the fine details are being ironed out. Make your voice known to the government via your local TD, thats their job afterall.

Voting no pushes the whole problem under the rug for another 30 years. Im in prime child bearing age now, jesus I'll be nearly retired before the issue is raised again.

Noo · 24-05-2018 01:15PM

Malaya Red Sandlot wrote: »

The NO side have been quite vocal about the fact that many of those on that side have difficulties with that particular point and are therefore not prepared to vote Yes at this point. It might, hopefully, shape how legislators proceed after the expected Yes vote if it is a narrow margin and not a large one.

But you'd rather a NO outcome and just leave things the way they are?

Timberrrrrrrr · 24-05-2018 01:15PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

It also allows unrestricted abortion for the most spurious reasons such as not shaming the wider family or parents/grandparents.

Do you accept that most abortions have nothing to do with rape or incest? Or even fatal foetal abnormalities.

Time for the Yes side to start answering questions rather than deflecting.

You have my answers, you might not like them, but at least I answered. So now your turn.

A 15 year old girl, healthy in all ways gets pregnant tomorrow.

Her choices are

A: have the baby, struggle through her final years of school and hopefully (if she has family support) have a career.

B: Have an abortion, go onto 3 level education and have a career.

The girl chooses option A.

How does this affect You?

jaykay74 · 24-05-2018 01:16PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Yes side call for abortion on demand up to 12 weeks yet are outraged when someone calls for others to be aborted. Anyone else see the irony here?

Surely the irony is in those who oppose abortion calling for it in these cases no ? Is the guy advocating abortion in limited cases maybe?

ohnonotgmail · 24-05-2018 01:16PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Yes side call for abortion on demand up to 12 weeks yet are outraged when someone calls for others to be aborted. Anyone else see the irony here?

The Yes side want the CHOICE of abortion up to 12 weeks. This guys wishes for the FORCED abortion of those on the Yes side. you dont see the irony of that?

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 24-05-2018 01:16PM

spookwoman wrote: »

I'm not "telling" you what you said I posted a screenshot of what you said. Pretty arrogant to want to control other people's bodies.

You are arguing and quibbling when I explain that you've misunderstood what I was trying to say. That is disingenuous, rude, stubborn and arrogant.

I am not engaging with you any longer and putting you on ignore, as I really can't be bothered to go around and around and around in silly circles.

uptherebels · 24-05-2018 01:17PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Yes side call for abortion on demand up to 12 weeks yet are outraged when someone calls for others to be aborted. Anyone else see the irony here?

More amused that an anti abortionist is calling for those who don't agree with him to have been aborted

NuMarvel · 24-05-2018 01:17PM

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

Has anyone with all the scare talk of abortion on demand even mentioned the 72 hour consultation period with medical and psychological professionals from the moment a woman presents herself as wanting a termination.
The way the No campaign carry on you'd swear there's going to be a conveyor belt system of abortion.

The 72 hours is a waiting period only, a woman won't have to undergo any kind of consultation or counselling during that time. Obviously, she can if she wishes, but it's not mandatory. The only requirement is that the termination is carried out at least 72 hours after the doctor certifies that the pregnancy hasn't exceed 12 weeks.

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 24-05-2018 01:18PM

Noo wrote: »

But you'd rather a NO outcome and just leave things the way they are?

I'd rather a No vote and a proper conversation afterwards about how to deal with FFA, rape cases and also indeed about supporting mothers who do not want to keep their children through a huge review of our adoption and fostering services.

Permabear · 24-05-2018 01:18PM

This post has been deleted.

Fred Swanson · 24-05-2018 01:18PM

This post has been deleted.

kiers47 · 24-05-2018 01:18PM

Malaya Red Sandlot wrote: »

The NO side have been quite vocal about the fact that many of those on that side have difficulties with that particular point and are therefore not prepared to vote Yes at this point. It might, hopefully, shape how legislators proceed after the expected Yes vote if it is a narrow margin and not a large one.

Why should the margin of victory make a difference to how the legislators proceed if the yes win?

If the No side win by 1 vote what do the Yes side get?
Absolutely nothing. Women will still be exported abroad as is currently happening.

pleas advice · 24-05-2018 01:18PM

uptherebels wrote: »

Choose to do. It's nice to have choice

'...choice'

spookwoman · 24-05-2018 01:19PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

They can feck off as well but the woman still is the one to go through the pregnancy

ohnonotgmail · 24-05-2018 01:20PM

pleas advice wrote: »

'...choice'

Yeah, you're right, choice is a bad thing. People should just do what they are told. amirite?

Cupcake_Crisis · 24-05-2018 01:23PM

Malaya Red Sandlot wrote: »

That's my point. It will have to be debated and I think it's important that those debating it get a good picture of the percentage that voted yes and the percentage that voted No in the referendum.

But if it’s a no vote then there will be NO debate?

Noo · 24-05-2018 01:23PM

Malaya Red Sandlot wrote: »

I'd rather a No vote and a proper conversation afterwards about how to deal with FFA, rape cases and indeed supporting mothers who do not want to keep their children through a huge review of our adoption and fostering services.

But they were the same promises 35 years ago, and guess what! The no side disappeared and didnt make good on any of those things. They won so why bother, only to re emerge 35 years later and make those promises all over again. What makes it different this time round?

Shurimgreat · 24-05-2018 01:23PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

A 15 year old girl, healthy in all ways gets pregnant tomorrow.

Her choices are

A: have the baby, struggle through her final years of school and hopefully (if she has family support) have a career.

B: Have an abortion, go onto 3 level education and have a career.

The girl chooses option A.

How does this affect You?

Again what the Yes side fail to recognize and will seemingly always fail to recognize is there are two human lives at stake here, not one. The mother and the unborn.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
As for having a baby being the end of a womans career, nonsense. I personally know several women who had children while in secondary school including leaving cert and went on to be hugely successful and happy. At most they had to repeat a year, hardly the end of the world.

NuMarvel · 24-05-2018 01:24PM

Malaya Red Sandlot wrote: »

The NO side have been quite vocal about the fact that many of those on that side have difficulties with that particular point and are therefore not prepared to vote Yes at this point. It might, hopefully, shape how legislators proceed after the expected Yes vote if it is a narrow margin and not a large one.

The No side have massive campaigns against abortion for "vague mental health grounds" as well. 6 months is horrific one poster tells me. Vote no if you don't want to kill the unborn at 6 months, says another.

Other posters talk about the lack of constitutional rights and how we can't trust elected legislators.

And let's not forget their admission that they're opposed to abortion in cases of rape as well.

The 12 weeks may be why you're voting No, but there's nothing to indicate that's the majority opinion of no voters. And it's certainly not the sole or even main message of the No campaigns.

If it's a No vote, then it's the status quo. If you're happy with that, vote No. If you want change, then vote Yes. It really is that simple.

PhoenixParker · 24-05-2018 01:24PM

Malaya Red Sandlot wrote: »

I'd rather a No vote and a proper conversation afterwards about how to deal with FFA, rape cases and also indeed about supporting mothers who do not want to keep their children through a huge review of our adoption and fostering services.

We had a proper conversation.
These proposals are the result.

There he been 35 years to make proposals.
As the no side have admitted and stated, they wouldn't vote for them.

BarryD2 · 24-05-2018 01:26PM

Malaya Red Sandlot wrote: »

I'd rather a No vote and a proper conversation afterwards about how to deal with FFA, rape cases and also indeed about supporting mothers who do not want to keep their children through a huge review of our adoption and fostering services.

Well that's not how things will pan out if this ref is rejected. The 'pro life' groups will promptly thank all who supported their view, then shut up promptly.

You won't hear a stir outa them, nada. They'll watch and wait and prepare for another offensive in 10, 20, 35 years.

Shurimgreat · 24-05-2018 01:26PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The Yes side want the CHOICE of abortion up to 12 weeks. This guys wishes for the FORCED abortion of those on the Yes side. you dont see the irony of that?

Would it be ok if he said "The Yes side should be aborted before 12 weeks" ?

Timberrrrrrrr · 24-05-2018 01:27PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Again what the Yes side fail to recognize and will seemingly always fail to recognize is there are two human lives at stake here, not one. The mother and the unborn.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
As for having a baby being the end of a womans career, nonsense. I personally know several women who had children while in secondary school including leaving cert and went on to be hugely successful and happy. At most they had to repeat a year, hardly the end of the world.

That wasnt my question though was it?

My question was

How does her choice affect You?

juanjo · 24-05-2018 01:27PM

jaykay74 wrote: »

Surely the irony is in those who oppose abortion calling for it in these cases no ? Is the guy advocating abortion in limited cases maybe?

He should have added the word CHOICE around there somewhere and then he'd have had all our support!

But as expected he fell short.

eeepaulo · 24-05-2018 01:28PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Would it be ok if he said the Yes side should be aborted before 12 weeks?

No it wouldn't, the whole point is it's not his choice as to what happens to the woman's body, pay attention.

G.Leech · 24-05-2018 01:28PM

Did you know that Cristiano Ronaldo’s mother wanted to abort him?

In her autobiography, “Mother Courage”, Dolores Aveiro explains that a restrictive abortion laws and a doctor who strongly advised her against that course of action dissuaded her, giving rise to perhaps the greatest footballer of all time.

I’m a Guardian reader.

Here’s a quote from The Guardian;

“Lord Steel, architect of the 1967 Abortion Act, says today that abortion is being used as a form of contraception in Britain and admits he never anticipated "anything like" the current number of terminations when leading the campaign for reform.

The Liberal Democrat peer, whose bill legalising abortion in certain circumstances marks its 40th anniversary on Saturday, says an "irresponsible" mood has emerged in which women feel they can turn to abortion "if things go wrong".”

The Irish regime will be far more permissive.

What the Irish government is promoting is a fraud.

They have stitched you and your democratic rights up - big time.

The government seek to copper-fasten their right to make whatever laws they want be inserting a new clause into the fundamental rights section of the constitution.

In layman's’ terms, this is what is on the ballot paper;

“Are you;

(a) prepared to strike down the right-to-life of the most innocent and defenceless human beings in our midst - the unborn babies in the wombs of their mothers, so that,

(b) the Government and parliament may introduce lethal force to extinguish their lives?”

It supplants the unborn child’s fundamental right-to-life with a right-to-kill.

This will be the first time, anywhere in the world that killing babies in the womb will be deemed a “fundamental human right”.

Why are they opposed to you seeing the reality of what happens to a baby when it gets aborted?

Why don’t you google it? See how you feel …

It will bring in the slaughter of innocents, by sleight-of-hand, focusing constantly as they have on the hard cases which break all of our hearts.

Don’t be fooled.

Don’t sleep-walk into this.

Tragic as they are, those terrible hard cases will account for a tiny minority.

Send the government back to the drawing board. We deserve better.

The children of Ireland deserve better than this.

These abortion laws are hugely controversial not just in Ireland but around the world.

Irish Governments of the future will be able to make whatever abortion laws they like.

Worse still, application may be made to our courts, urging for more extreme abortions to be allowable. As it “termination of pregnancy” will be enshrined as a fundamental right - it will succeed.

Don’t forget abortion services are big business.

In the US, Planned Parenthood makes approximately $1.3 Billion per annum killing over 324,000 babies.

Do you want your taxes spent on this?

The destruction of our noble tradition of great Irish motherhood?

Beware of them exploiting Savita’s tragic case for their own ends.

An early termination of her pregnancy was the appropriate treatment and was lawful under the 8th amendment.

There will be plenty of unintended consequences to this.
When it comes to killing human beings, we should err on the side of caution.
“No public discourse or debate is possible in France about abortion. Since 1993, it is a criminal offence to try to dissuade a woman from having an abortion.” Irish Times

Beware of Group think.

Beware of euphemisms and deliberate confusion.

Many women regret their abortions.
Sharon Osbourne said it was “the worst thing [she] ever did”.

These poor young mothers often grieve in silence.
They need our support to opt for adoption.
Not to be expected to abort.
Abortion is final.
It hurts everyone.

Please choose life.

SusieBlue · 24-05-2018 01:29PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

It also allows unrestricted abortion for the most spurious reasons such as not shaming the wider family or parents/grandparents.

Do you accept that most abortions have nothing to do with rape or incest? Or even fatal foetal abnormalities.

Time for the Yes side to start answering questions rather than deflecting.

You have my answers, you might not like them, but at least I answered. So now your turn.

There is always a reason.
It might not be a reason you approve of, but that's frankly not your business.

Just to give an example of such reasons, we have domestic abuse, addiction issues, poverty, being underage, mental health problems, disability that would be worsened by gestating a pregnancy, inability to cope with the children they already have, just to name a few.

I absolutely accept that a lot of abortions aren't because of FFA or incest. In all my time posting on this issue, which has been years now, I have never denied that.

And the basis for that acceptance is that I see no benefit or logic in forcing women who do not want to be pregnant, to have babies.
By doing so you are weaponising precious children into punishments to bestowed onto their careless mothers.
Forced parenthood is not the basis for a stable, loving, childhood.
It isn't in the best interests of women or of babies.
Children should be loved and cherished and if a woman cannot offer that, I refuse to believe its better to bring a child into a world of neglect and instability.

You are basically forcing women whose circumstances you will never know or understand, to gestate a pregnancy and raise the subsequent child, just to keep your morals happy. Even though she might not share your morals.
How is that fair, and how is that in her best interests?

She always has a reason, and that reason is good enough for me.
All we are asking for is choice.
63k births versus 4k abortions shows once again that most women have their babies.
Those that can't should be supported and looked after by their own country and not exported to a foreign healthcare system.

Penn · 24-05-2018 01:29PM

Malaya Red Sandlot wrote: »

I'd rather a No vote and a proper conversation afterwards about how to deal with FFA, rape cases and also indeed about supporting mothers who do not want to keep their children through a huge review of our adoption and fostering services.

It'd be a short conversation after a No vote.

"Should we legislate for rape cases and FFAs?"
"Can't. 8th Amendment. Let's take an early lunch."

The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Comments