The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

AtomicHorror · 24-05-2018 01:43PM

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.

What makes you think there will be a proper conversation after the referendum if there hasn't been one in 35 years?

The groups comprising the the two main No coalitions have not proposed alternative legislation or constitutional wording at any point, not even when this was running through the citizens assembly and the committee. In fact, many of those groups have been opposing any and all changes to abortion law since 1983.

You won't get your proper conversation if this referendum is defeated. Instead it will be a minimum of 10 years before any of this is brought back to national level discussion.

Shurimgreat · 24-05-2018 01:43PM

jimgoose wrote: »

If you take the view that they are not yet human and autonomous legal persons, all of them.

And yet you were once in that state. How would you feel if your rights were stripped away at that point and it then became a lottery whether you were allowed live or not?

Timberrrrrrrr · 24-05-2018 01:44PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

How does someone's choice to take drugs affect me or you?

How does someone's choice to shoot someone affect me?

Do you understand how the legal system works? The vast majority of cases in the courts will not affect me or you.

What have drugs and guns got to do with the question?

How does a 15 year old girl having an abortion directly impact your life?

Movementarian · 24-05-2018 01:44PM

Will be ducking out of the discussion as its all been heard and said at this point. Said this in another thread but wanted to leave it here too.

There are so many hypotheticals and what ifs in this situation. Very few things in life are black and white and this issue is all sorts of grey.

I have found myself wondering many times 'what if', example, what if my wife was pregnant and I developed a terminal illness? Would she want to carry the baby on her own? Would she have that option?

I would be quite open that in my ideal world there would be no abortions. But life is far from ideal. Myself and my wife are trying for a baby right now so abortion is the very last thing on our minds right now.

What swung this for me, was the thought that if anything went wrong if my wife was to get pregnant, if her life or health was at risk, if our life circumstances changed, if any of the multiple kicks to the balls that life can throw at you happened, would I want ALL options on the table, including abortion? Absolutely.

There is no easy choice here. Nobody makes this choice lightly either way. But when I look at my wife and try imagine life without her, I can't. I can't take the risk, no matter how small, that her life would be risked. I dont want her or any daughters we might have to have any risk. My earnest hope would be that abortion would be the last resort and option, and by giving open and legal access maybe we can help these women make these choices.

Thats the reason for my yes. I hope I am not alone in this. All the best.

spookwoman · 24-05-2018 01:44PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Another referendum with better proposals is the solution.

Stripping the right to life of EVERY unborn child in the state to deal with a tiny number of hard cases is not the answer but that's exactly what the referendum tomorrow will do.

Brick wall merry-go-round
We have already said this they have to remove the 8th to legislate!

Hotblack Desiato · 24-05-2018 01:45PM

Brego888 wrote: »

There are no winners here. Either a yes or no outcome results in people losing.

Should we do away with elections too?

jimgoose · 24-05-2018 01:45PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

And yet you were once in that state. How would you feel if your rights were stripped away at that point and it then became a lottery whether you were allowed live or not?

I wouldn't have felt anything. At all.

Shurimgreat · 24-05-2018 01:46PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

Which the No side have already confirmed they will campaign against.

They have said (multiple representatives on multiple platforms) that they would force a 12 year old child who became pregnant through rape to stay pregnant against her will.

They don't agree with abortion in any circumstances whatsoever. A future campaign would be even nastier if the current one is to go by. They have shown no sensitivity this time around, can you imagine what their posters against FFA and abortion would look like?????

Susie, there are extremists on both sides of the argument.
On the Yes side there are those who would love to see on demand Late Term abortions in this country, citing a woman's right to choose.
On the No side there are those who are against abortion for the rare hard cases.
And then there is the majority in the middle ground or who have yet to decide.
Political decisions should always be for the middle ground.

NuMarvel · 24-05-2018 01:46PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Another referendum with better proposals is the solution.

You and people who share your opinion have had ample opportunity to present these "better proposals", and you have nothing to show for it.

The 8th doesn't work, and we have an opportunity tomorrow to remedy that. I see no reason to keep it in the off chance that someone, someday, might, possibly, maybe, (but probably not) come up with something slightly better.

SusieBlue · 24-05-2018 01:47PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Susie, there are extremists on both sides of the argument.
On the Yes side there are those who would love to see on demand Late Term abortions in this country, citing a woman's right to choose.
On the No side there are those who are against abortion for the rare hard cases.
And then there is the majority in the middle ground or who have yet to decide.
Political decisions should always be for the middle ground.

Where? Who is campaigning for this? You need to back this claim up.
Proof, please.

NuMarvel · 24-05-2018 01:47PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Susie, there are extremists on both sides of the argument.
On the Yes side there are those who would love to see on demand Late Term abortions in this country, citing a woman's right to choose.
On the No side there are those who are against abortion for the rare hard cases.
And then there is the majority in the middle ground or who have yet to decide.
Political decisions should always be for the middle ground.

And this is the middle ground. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it "extreme".

Zubeneschamali · 24-05-2018 01:48PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Another referendum with better proposals is the solution.

"Vote No for Seanad Reform!"

storker · 24-05-2018 01:49PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

Oh dear. Ronaldo's mother still had a choice. And I don't think we can use the story of "your kid might grow up to be a famous soccer player" as in incentive to convince women not to seek terminations.
They aren't imbeciles.

Imagine if the following had been aborted...

Peter Sutcliffe, Harold Shipman, John Wayne Gacey, Andrei Chikatilo, Beverley Allett, Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Ted Bundy...

(I won't mention the even most obvious one, in case someone tries to invoke the idiotic Godwin's Law.)

kiers47 · 24-05-2018 01:49PM

G.Leech wrote: »

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.

Hang on a second. I call bullsh*t.

Ronaldo isnt even the greatest footballer of the current time. Never mind of all time.:pac:

Shurimgreat · 24-05-2018 01:49PM

spookwoman wrote: »

Brick wall merry-go-round
We have already said this they have to remove the 8th to legislate!

Once you remove the 8th its essentially open season on the unborn.

The proposals on what replaces it from Yes side have not been good to say the least. Introducing abortion on demand as a solution to rare hard cases is not the answer.

Brick wall merry go round equally applies to the Yes side.

optogirl · 24-05-2018 01:49PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Susie, there are extremists on both sides of the argument.
On the Yes side there are those who would love to see on demand Late Term abortions in this country, citing a woman's right to choose.
On the No side there are those who are against abortion for the rare hard cases.
And then there is the majority in the middle ground or who have yet to decide.
Political decisions should always be for the middle ground.

No there aren't. There are people who understand that there is often a need for late term abortions. Nobody loves it.

Grayditch · 24-05-2018 01:50PM

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?

That's the irony you took from that picture?!

optogirl · 24-05-2018 01:51PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Once you remove the 8th its essentially open season on the unborn.

The proposals on what replaces it from Yes side have not been good to say the least. Introducing abortion on demand as a solution to rare hard cases is not the answer.

Brick wall merry go round equally applies to the Yes side.

For who? Who are these people who love abortions and are chomping at the bit to have one?

Shurimgreat · 24-05-2018 01:51PM

storker wrote: »

Imagine if the following had been aborted...

Peter Sutcliffe, Harold Shipman, John Wayne Gacey, Andrei Chikatilo, Beverley Allett, Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Ted Bundy...

(I won't mention the even most obvious one, in case someone tries to invoke the idiotic Godwin's Law.)

Or equally Winston Churchill, Michael Collins, Mother Theresa, Gandhi, Mandela, etc etc.

spookwoman · 24-05-2018 01:52PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Once you remove the 8th its essentially open season on the unborn.

The proposals on what replaces it from Yes side have not been good to say the least. Introducing abortion on demand as a solution to rare hard cases is not the answer.

Brick wall merry go round equally applies to the Yes side.

Bull and you know it. There is not going to have "open season" on the unborn. You make it sound like some turkey shoot

Shurimgreat · 24-05-2018 01:53PM

optogirl wrote: »

For who? Who are these people who love abortions and are chomping at the bit to have one?

Tell you what, if this is removed lets all come back in 10 years and see how the rate of abortions is going. In all likelihood, the rate will have risen.

storker · 24-05-2018 01:53PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Or equally Winston Churchill, Michael Collins, Mother Theresa, Gandhi, Mandela, etc etc.

Exactly...it's not a compelling argument either way, because if we were short some good people as a result, we'd certainly be short a few nightmare people too, so as an argument for OR against abortion, it cancels itself out.

_

optogirl · 24-05-2018 01:54PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Or equally Winston Churchill, Michael Collins, Mother Theresa, Gandhi, Mandela, etc etc.

What is this line of reasoning? Are the above mentioned more entitled to be born than others? How does 'Your baby might be the next Mandela' change a situation for someobdy in crisis? (and the world could do without more Mother Theresas and Winston Churchills)

AtomicHorror · 24-05-2018 01:54PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Or equally Winston Churchill, Michael Collins, Mother Theresa, Gandhi, Mandela, etc etc.

That doesn't help your case- the point you're willfully missing is that you can't miss what never was and talking about potential lost good while ignoring potential lost evil is the most asinine version of that dumb argument.

captbarnacles · 24-05-2018 01:54PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Or equally Winston Churchill, Michael Collins, Mother Theresa, Gandhi, Mandela, etc etc.

I and my 2 younger siblings would definitely not be here if contraception was available....sooo ban contraception

Shurimgreat · 24-05-2018 01:54PM

spookwoman wrote: »

Bull and you know it. There is not going to have "open season" on the unborn. You make it sound like some turkey shoot

So constitutional right to life for the unborn is not removed for every single foetus with this referendum? Simple answer will do.

jimgoose · 24-05-2018 01:54PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Tell you what, if this is removed lets all come back in 10 years and see how the rate of abortions is going. In all likelihood, the rate will have risen.

I should hope so. The ladies who currently have to travel to England to have them despite difficult circumstances, ill-health etc. will be able to have them here, at home. That's the whole idea.

SusieBlue · 24-05-2018 01:54PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Once you remove the 8th its essentially open season on the unborn.

The proposals on what replaces it from Yes side have not been good to say the least. Introducing abortion on demand as a solution to rare hard cases is not the answer.

Brick wall merry go round equally applies to the Yes side.

They aren't rare cases. 2 women a week travel to the UK to induce an FFA pregnancy.
There is even a ward at Liverpool Maternity Hospital called The Shamrock Suite in their honor, for goodness sake!

You are being so insulting. Open season on the unborn???

"What will we do this weekend girls? Brunch, maybe a spa day?"
"Hey, why don't we all go for an abortion? They're in season and all the rage, I've been dying to try one!"
.....Spare me.

AtomicHorror · 24-05-2018 01:55PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Tell you what, if this is removed lets all come back in 10 years and see how the rate of abortions is going. In all likelihood, the rate will have risen.

Well of course it will. They're banned here right now.

Jesus this is painful.

NuMarvel · 24-05-2018 01:55PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Or equally Winston Churchill, Michael Collins, Mother Theresa, Gandhi, Mandela, etc etc.

And how precisely did the 8th save all these people who were born before the 8th was voted in, and in most cases not born in Ireland at all?

The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Comments