The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Trasna1 · 24-05-2018 04:20PM

gmisk wrote: »

Just a quick question do you think the people that voted no in SSM referendum felt totally alienated when the yes side won?
I understand this would be a much more divisive issue for man but just curious to see what you think.

To be honest, the big issue that would have been potentially around SSM was the issue of gay adoption and that was totally neutered by the adoption bill permitting gay adoption in advance of the referendum. By taking it that off the table it really reduced the greater social importance of the referendum to wider society. It was a clever move by the government.

Following the passing of SSM, no voters wouldn't have felt alienated but increased anxiety that the totem of their value system was next in the firing line. They would see the end of the 8th as being the final end of the value sister that they are familiar with. Many will feel that they won't know their country any more.

gmisk · 24-05-2018 04:21PM

....... wrote: »

It depends how close it is.

The closer it is the longer we will wait for an official result.

Thanks so much... Will be glued to phone I'm guessing no clue til sat pm

Shurimgreat · 24-05-2018 04:22PM

Penn wrote: »

What's your opinion on those who go to the UK for an abortion? Why is it okay for them to do that with all the potential risks to their health due to lack of proper aftercare, but to not have the same here?

You've said yourself, women travel to the UK each week for abortions. Clearly, abortions will not stop happening whether the 8th is repealed or retained. So what is it you think voting No will actually stop, other than proper medically-supervised medical aftercare and support in this country in our own hospitals by the women's own doctors?

Or course it isn't the perfect solution for them to go to the UK.

My fear however is if you bring in the 12 week proposal here, abortion becomes far more readily available here and when that happens, the potential barriers which restricted more abortion will be removed. Abortion will become far more common place. And I don't think anyone seriously disputes that.

....... · 24-05-2018 04:22PM

This post has been deleted.

Bunny Colvin · 24-05-2018 04:22PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Well for once give us facts and stats. How many aborted are healthy? How many are the result of rape? Or FFA?

Stats would help.

Removing the 8th will make abortion on demand here. It will make it as relatively easy as going to your GP.

Once that happens, where does it stop?

Where does what stop?

jigglypuffstuff · 24-05-2018 04:22PM

schmittel wrote: »

I think the government have made a balls of this and a referendum that ought to have carried fairly comfortably will turn out to be a nail biter.

My exact thought...I'm more inclined not to vote at all than to because of how poorly the government handled this

BarryD2 · 24-05-2018 04:23PM

schmittel wrote: »

What really made me question my vote was the Governments proposed legislation which clearly and unequivocally provides for totally unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks. I am absolutely fine with the rest of legislation, it is just Head 4 I have the problem with.

Well then you need to think a little bit harder and a little bit longer. But if it helps, other people have done this already for you - in the Citizens Assembly and the Dail committee.

And they have concluded that the 12 week limit is the ONLY reasonable condition given all the various complications and doubts surrounding early pregnancy.

If you fly in the face of that, you are sticking your head in the sand.

And if you vote No and this ref is lost, that will be on your conscience for your remaining days on this earth.

You've nothing to lose by voting Yes. Nobody will be asking you or yours to avail of such provisions. You can have a clear conscience.

hometruths · 24-05-2018 04:23PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

Are you implying that abortion will be easier to access and more freely available to everyone, than a condom is? WHAT?

If you wish to get a prescription for the contraceptive pill or a coil fitted, a doctor signs off on it on medical grounds - i.e if for any medical reason the doctor is unhappy with prescribing the treatment they can refuse.

Head 4 of the proposed legislation requires no such medical opinion. The doctor simply has to sign off on whether or not the pregnancy is under 12 weeks.

Essentially the doctor is required to apply a higher standard of care to the patient than seeking contraception than the patient seeking an abortion.

In my opinion, that is bananas.

....... · 24-05-2018 04:23PM

This post has been deleted.

BabysCoffee · 24-05-2018 04:23PM

schmittel wrote:

Just popping in to add my 2cents worth for whatever its worth. Male, early 40s, married, 2 daughters.

schmittel wrote:

After thinking about it long and hard, reading and listening to arguments on both sides, I have decided to vote NO tomorrow.

schmittel wrote:

When it was first clear we would have a referendum on the 8th I didn't give it a lot of though beyond assuming I would support it on the grounds that I strongly believe the law as it stands needs reform and I am a believer in individual choice and free will.

schmittel wrote:

When I saw the wording of the proposed amendment, it gave me pause for thought, as I thought it was pretty broad, a blank cheque to use the phrase bandied about.

schmittel wrote:

What really made me question my vote was the Governments proposed legislation which clearly and unequivocally provides for totally unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks. I am absolutely fine with the rest of legislation, it is just Head 4 I have the problem with.

schmittel wrote:

I think the government have made a balls of this and a referendum that ought to have carried fairly comfortably will turn out to be a nail biter.

schmittel wrote:

No matter how much I think we need to be able to deal with the hard cases, I am not prepared to support a proposal that essentially allows greater access to abortion than some forms of contraception.

schmittel wrote:

What really made me question my vote was the Governments proposed legislation which clearly and unequivocally provides for totally unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks. I am absolutely fine with the rest of legislation, it is just Head 4 I have the problem with.

schmittel wrote:

Just popping in to add my 2cents worth for whatever its worth. Male, early 40s, married, 2 daughters.

schmittel wrote:

After thinking about it long and hard, reading and listening to arguments on both sides, I have decided to vote NO tomorrow.

schmittel wrote:

When it was first clear we would have a referendum on the 8th I didn't give it a lot of though beyond assuming I would support it on the grounds that I strongly believe the law as it stands needs reform and I am a believer in individual choice and free will.

schmittel wrote:

When I saw the wording of the proposed amendment, it gave me pause for thought, as I thought it was pretty broad, a blank cheque to use the phrase bandied about.

schmittel wrote:

What really made me question my vote was the Governments proposed legislation which clearly and unequivocally provides for totally unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks. I am absolutely fine with the rest of legislation, it is just Head 4 I have the problem with.

schmittel wrote:

No matter how much I think we need to be able to deal with the hard cases, I am not prepared to support a proposal that essentially allows greater access to abortion than some forms of contraception.

schmittel wrote:

I think the government have made a balls of this and a referendum that ought to have carried fairly comfortably will turn out to be a nail biter.

Or you could just trust women, like your daughters and give them the freedom to choose. Women will make the right decision for themselves.

Cupcake_Crisis · 24-05-2018 04:23PM

schmittel wrote: »

Just popping in to add my 2cents worth for whatever its worth. Male, early 40s, married, 2 daughters.

After thinking about it long and hard, reading and listening to arguments on both sides, I have decided to vote NO tomorrow.

When it was first clear we would have a referendum on the 8th I didn't give it a lot of though beyond assuming I would support it on the grounds that I strongly believe the law as it stands needs reform and I am a believer in individual choice and free will.

When I saw the wording of the proposed amendment, it gave me pause for thought, as I thought it was pretty broad, a blank cheque to use the phrase bandied about.

What really made me question my vote was the Governments proposed legislation which clearly and unequivocally provides for totally unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks. I am absolutely fine with the rest of legislation, it is just Head 4 I have the problem with.

No matter how much I think we need to be able to deal with the hard cases, I am not prepared to support a proposal that essentially allows greater access to abortion than some forms of contraception.

I think the government have made a balls of this and a referendum that ought to have carried fairly comfortably will turn out to be a nail biter.

With all due respect, that’s not what you’re voting no to tomorrow. When you vote no you’ll be saying that you want absolutely no debate on the proposed legislation and to leave the 8th untouched. Meaning that those cases you say are acceptable will stay in the exact same situation they are currently in. There will be no scope for change if it’s a no vote tomorrow.

gmisk · 24-05-2018 04:24PM

Trasna1 wrote: »

To be honest, the big issue that would have been potentially around SSM was the issue of gay adoption and that was totally neutered by the adoption bill permitting gay adoption in advance of the referendum.

Its interesting you said that.
Because my memory of it was the big arguments and the majority posters from the No side were around a child needing a mum and dad, gay adoption etc. So you essentially saying that was all a non event?

....... · 24-05-2018 04:24PM

This post has been deleted.

Penn · 24-05-2018 04:25PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Or course it isn't the perfect solution for them to go to the UK.

My fear however is if you bring in the 12 week proposal here, abortion becomes far more readily available here and when that happens, the potential barriers which restricted more abortion will be removed. Abortion will become far more common place. And I don't think anyone seriously disputes that.

Abortion won't become more commonplace because only women who don't want the child will have an abortion, whether it's available here or in the UK. Abortion being available doesn't make women want to have an abortion. It's not done for convenience.

fergus1001 · 24-05-2018 04:25PM

just put my money where my mouth is I have put up a big post on Facebook appealing for a yes vote and have it as a sponsored so it reaches as many people as possible

like and share the page "things kildare people don't say" if you can please

hometruths · 24-05-2018 04:25PM

BarryD2 wrote: »

Well then you need to think a little bit harder and a little bit longer. But if it helps, other people have done this already for you - in the Citizens Assembly and the Dail committee.

I am not inclined to let other people do my thinking for me. Remember this vote is about individual choice.

B0jangles · 24-05-2018 04:27PM

schmittel wrote: »

I am not inclined to let other people do my thinking for me. Remember this vote is about individual choice.

My irony meter is going wild right now.

SusieBlue · 24-05-2018 04:27PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Well for once give us facts and stats. How many aborted are healthy? How many are the result of rape? Or FFA?

Stats would help.

Removing the 8th will make abortion on demand here. It will make it as relatively easy as going to your GP.

Once that happens, where does it stop?

63k births in 2016, 4k abortions.
Even when unplanned, most women keep their babies. They only seek abortions when there is no other choice.
The stats speak for themselves. Give women the freedom to make their own choice. You don't need to be their judge and jury as to whether their reason is good enough.

BabysCoffee · 24-05-2018 04:27PM

What time does the count start at?

deejer · 24-05-2018 04:27PM

Penn wrote: »

The issue, and it's more complex than simply saying the unborn has a right to life, is when that right infringes on the rights of the mother. A woman who under whatever circumstances is now pregnant with a baby she does not want, and does not want to carry to term.

A person's rights can only ever extend so far, whether they're born or unborn. A non-sentient, undeveloped baby's right to life should not be able to infringe on the rights of the woman who is already their own individual, and that right should include the right to not have to fulfill a baby's right to life if they don't want to.

I value the right to life. But I value it less for a still-gestating foetus than I value the right of the woman to choose whether or not she wishes to continue with the pregnancy.

It certainly is a complex issue. And I understand the point that you are making. I am just saying that I value the life of that foetus equally. Not more not less.

SusieBlue · 24-05-2018 04:28PM

schmittel wrote: »

I am not inclined to let other people do my thinking for me. Remember this vote is about individual choice.

What a pity you won't afford women who you will never meet and whose circumstances you will never know the same freedom and opportunity.

pitifulgod · 24-05-2018 04:28PM

schmittel wrote: »

I am not inclined to let other people do my thinking for me. Remember this vote is about individual choice.

As a guy from work said to me earlier. The 8th should never have gone into the constitution. Those who said it shouldn't have been in it, have been validated in the past 35 years. That's why it needs to go.

ohnonotgmail · 24-05-2018 04:28PM

schmittel wrote: »

If you wish to get a prescription for the contraceptive pill or a coil fitted, a doctor signs off on it on medical grounds - i.e if for any medical reason the doctor is unhappy with prescribing the treatment they can refuse.

Head 4 of the proposed legislation requires no such medical opinion. The doctor simply has to sign off on whether or not the pregnancy is under 12 weeks.

Essentially the doctor is required to apply a higher standard of care to the patient than seeking contraception than the patient seeking an abortion.

In my opinion, that is bananas.

The doctor is under no obligation to provide the prescription. The same as with any other medical treatment.

BabysCoffee · 24-05-2018 04:28PM

schmittel wrote:

I am not inclined to let other people do my thinking for me. Remember this vote is about individual choice.

So you like to do your own thinking but you are voting no which stops women having choice.

Hmmmm......

BarryD2 · 24-05-2018 04:30PM

schmittel wrote: »

I am not inclined to let other people do my thinking for me. Remember this vote is about individual choice.

Ah, well then go sit down and think a bit harder

gmisk · 24-05-2018 04:31PM

BabysCoffee wrote: »

What time does the count start at?

I see together for yes have posted a thing to say count will be broadcast from 2pm at liberty Hall so might be some things happening around then I'd guess.

retro:electro · 24-05-2018 04:32PM

schmittel wrote: »

I am not inclined to let other people do my thinking for me. Remember this vote is about individual choice.

Now if only you practiced what you preach.

BabysCoffee · 24-05-2018 04:32PM

gmisk wrote:

I see together for yes have posted a thing to say count will be broadcast from 2pm at liberty Hall so might be some things happening around then I'd guess.

Good stuff

BalcombeSt4 · 24-05-2018 04:33PM

I think it's interesting that Stalin outlawed abortion in the Soviet Union. Who knew that Stalin was so pro-life.
Maybe all these NO campaigners are closet Stalinists who are agitating to create a Stalin Revolution in Ireland.
The NO slogan could be...
"Stalin loves both woman & child & he loves you very much: and he sees all" -
I think it's catchy.

hometruths · 24-05-2018 04:35PM

BarryD2 wrote: »

Ah, well then go sit down and think a bit harder

That's better advice

The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Comments