aloyisious wrote: » One of the arguments made by the Yes campaign through debate around Ireland in relation to the delete the 8th issue was that a lot of the people who voted in the 8th amendment in '82/83 actually hadn't a clue and didn't inform themselves on the outcome of putting the 8th into our constitution and may have decided it was time to make another change to it. This time the issue was strongly debated and argued on by both sides for months before a national decision was made by the voters on it whether to delete the 8th or let it stay. The fact that a large number of the Yes voters who decided delete the 8th issue were also involved in putting the 8th into the constitution showed [IMO] how the voters thought process had matured strongly when it came to the nitty-gritty of the referendum question and the future outcome of and vote, yea or nay. On the issue of what occurred across the water, that's like what happened to us in '82 and most probably why we've been getting our knickers in a twist here about the con-job pulled on the referendum voters there by their retired National and EU Parliamentarians, seeing as we learned a hard-won lesson from the '82 referendum.
end of the road wrote: » i would say more the potential issues rather then the outcome as a whole. i would think most people very much knew what the basic outcome would be and voted to put in the 8th accordingly. they did not want abortion for any reason being legal in their country,the problem for the 8th was that it didn't take into account genuine medical necessity. POLDPA sorted that out and is really what we should have continued with. certainly the 8th was of itself bad legislation, plenty of fellow pro-lifers seem to agree with that from what i can see.
Twelve years ago, Amy Dunne was devastated to learn that her unborn baby had a fatal foetal abnormality. As 'Miss D', her fight to travel for an abortion became front page news. In a heartbreaking interview, she tells Tanya Sweeney why the wounds won't heal
SusieBlue wrote: » That's a very bold, unfounded claim. Any evidence to back it up? I'm very interested to see your proof that the public "didn't want abortion to be legal in this country", seeing as that's exactly what the public voted overwhelmingly in favour of. I'm curious to see evidence of them actually NOT being in favour of this. I'll wait to see your data. PS. your opinion doesn't count as proof.
volchitsa wrote: » And yet Irish prolifers all fought POLDP tooth and nail. And defended the 8th ditto, right up until a few weeks before the referendum when presumably their own numbers must have told them they were losing. So it seems like you're rewriting history there.
lazygal wrote: » Every abortion in Ireland is for genuine medical necessity. Pregnancy is a serious medical undertaking. Abortion before 12 weeks is safer than staying pregnant. Certainly it is safer than the c sections I had. All the main prolife campaign groups, including Love Both, The Life Institute/Youth Defence and the Iona Institute opposed the POLDP Act and, by extension, the will of the Irish people as expressed in a referendum in 1992. They also all opposed any change to the eighth amendment, even if it was amended solely to deal with what they coldly call the 'hard cases'.
end of the road wrote: » . they were wrong to oppose POLDPA but i understand their reasons for doing so, as ultimately they were proven correct on their view that this was a pre-curser to unrestricted abortion.
Odhinn wrote: » On TG4 tonight, 2130 hrs, for those interestedhttps://www.independent.ie/life/health-wellbeing/i-didnt-even-know-what-an-abortion-was-but-i-was-all-over-the-paper-38599268.html
lazygal wrote: » Abortion is highly regulated in Ireland. One of the few medical procedures covered in the criminal code, in fact. No one would reasonably think there is unrestricted access to it. Especially given the fact that some counties have zero GPs providing the service and 11 out of 19 maternity units currently provide all necessary abortion services.
end of the road wrote: » unrestricted doesn't simply have to refer to accessability, it can also refer to little to no reason being required for procurement as is the case in ireland before 12 weeks.
SusieBlue wrote: » Her reasons are valid and more than adequate. She doesn’t have to prove her case to you or anyone else.
aloyisious wrote: » We'd be mostly rehashing what are now two dated arguments about what was and is needed by women here. Reference the fact that you acknowledge that the 8th was in itself bad legislation, reason for fighting against it's deletion and not making a case for having it removed and replaced by good legislation in a timely way is an extremely bad verdict to bring against the Pro-life campaign. To then claim the reason for the fight to keep the 8th was because the proposed legislation meant we could not vote on it at the time is arcane: "the 8th is poor legislation but the proposed legislation meant we could not remove it at THAT time". Who's the "WE"? What's the "at that time" mean, given we are talking about a time period of several decades between both referendums? What is the "proposed legislation" you mention as a given reason for keeping the 8th in place? Why did the "WE" not put their backs behind the Irish people and come up with a solution to what you admit was the 8th's poor legislation? You have written that "they were wrong to oppose POLDPA but i understand their reasons for doing so, as ultimately they were proven correct on their view that this was a pre-curser to unrestricted abortion". What does that mean? It seems to SUGGEST that you had a difference of opinion about POLDPA's merits with the Pro-life campaign as you wrote "I understand their reasons for doing so...….." as you seem to have approved of POLDPA as a legislative replacement for the protection of the rights of the unborn. Maybe I'm wrong in believing you are in favour of the POLDPA legislation but you in fact have been against it throughout. Your using the words "WE" and "THEY" in your above to describe your position is [IMO] arcane.
aloyisious wrote: » Heard her on RTE earlier telling how it was for her, the actual medical reasons behind her decision to opt for an abortion, the goings-on at the court case around it and the actual realities at the operation in England, that at the end it wasn't an abortion, rather an early induction.
Drumpot wrote: » The ramifications of a baby does effect others lives but the implication it does in a destructive manner is a disgusting comparison to make.
Drumpot wrote: » I really think a lot of people don’t understand or reflect on what you lose when you argue for something. The abolition of religion, abortions, these all affect our values and one value is replaced with another.
Drumpot wrote: » I’m not religious but see the benefits of it.
Drumpot wrote: » How is that relevant in a topic on abortion? Because there are better ways of bringing in abortion and free contraception that doesn’t involve breaking it down to financial criteria.
Drumpot wrote: » How does that change how we value life?
Drumpot wrote: » it’s boiling the issue down to finance which is in my view a capitalist mindset.
Drumpot wrote: » It’s the same here, people don’t want to take the responsibility to educate children or people, the simple solution is to abort or throw contraception at the problem.
Drumpot wrote: » There’s little discussion from “pro abortionists”
Drumpot wrote: » But make our society value pregnancy by giving options, not just one simple solution that a person will potentially pay physically/mentally for the rest of their lives.
Drumpot wrote: » This happens very often in these forums. Your post has absolutely no insight or hint that you have reflected on anything i said and yet people have thanked it simply because it brushes aside all my comments with a particularly unwitty response that’s not conductive for debate.
Drumpot wrote: » I’m admittedly unsure about abortion but more concerned of how it changes us mentally and how we can adapt it in an ethical and moral manner.
Drumpot wrote: » I’m going to answer your question with a question. You see no downsides to abortion?
Drumpot wrote: » My issue with all you people is you can’t discuss the values/morals/ethics because you haven’t considered it. You just thought “pro choice” and ran with whatever information backed up this option.
LorelaiG wrote: » As is the case with a lot of abortions after around 16 weeks. It's still a termination of pregnancy at the end of the day.
end of the road wrote: » isn't relevant to what i said susie. but seeing as you have made the point, i will remind us all that if the government should decide in the future that a woman must give a reason for procuring an abortion then that can happen, and perfectly legally given the government are allowed, via our constitution to legislate on the issue of abortion. the we are pro-life people who accepted the 8th was of itself bad legislation. at that time refers to the 2018 referendum, where we could not vote to remove the 8th because of the legislation the government had outlined to bring, and which they have brought in, which is the proposed legislation i refer to as the reason for keeping the 8th, as it was only proposed legislation at the time before the result was announced. we supported a POLDPA style law as the solution to repealing the 8th and i believe that was put forward at the time, all be it by who i am unable to remember. i disagreed with the opposition to POLDPA, but i understood the reason why such opposition existed, but i believed that said opposition was unnecessary as it was not legislation for abortion for any reason, and at the time of that legislation being installed, there was nothing to say that there would have been any proposal to install legislation to allow abortion for any reason.
Labour MP Stella Creasy has raised suspicions that the DUP are striking a Brexit bargain with the government that will include an attempt to stop expected abortion rights in Northern Ireland.
aloyisious wrote: » Mindful of the wording of the legislation brought in, are you satisfied with it now seeing as how a future Govt, or even the present one, could bring in more changes which could prevent a abortion from proceeding here if it did not meet with the terms within the changes?
aloyisious wrote: » Would you have had any conversations with other Pro-life who felt the right to life of the foetus was being lost prior to the legislation being brought in and if its now known wording giving the Govt, any Govt, the right to make decisions and law changes in a case by case manner caused them to reconsider their opposition to it or if they had told you they still prefer to have all the female citizens of our country tied down by the bad law article in our constitution?
end of the road wrote: » i'm not satisfied with it no . the government may be able to change it but really something more watertight that would only allow for abortion in certain circumstances only, which couldn't be changed by government, would be what i would support. something that upholds as much as is practical, the right to life of the unborn, with due consideration to the life of the mother. i have had such conversations and the concensus is that the 8th had to go but the current law is way to liberal, also the government being able to change it is far from ideal. but as bad as the 8th was, they could not vote to repeal due to said current law.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Ridiculous, utterly ridiculous that we are expected to buy that nonsense EOTR. All pro-life groups fought tooth and nail against change for 35 years. They opposed information, the Irish people voted for it as long ago as 1992. They opposed travel, wanting Ireland to be a womens' prison. The Irish people voted to affirm an explicit right to travel as long ago as 1992. They wanted suicide to be removed as a grounds for abortion, in 92 the Irish people refused to ratify that amendment. A second attempt in 2002 failed also. The POLDPA which only implemented the X case decision - 21 years after the supreme court ruling - was bitterly opposed by them. All sorts of threats and intimidation were employed against politicians to try to prevent it passing through the Oireachtas, it did. All of this despite the fact that POLDPA didn't widen the grounds on which an abortion could be obtained one bit. All it did was set out in law the effects of the court decision. Then they fight the most vicious, hateful, hardline campaign possible last year against repeal of the 8th amendment. Finally with a couple of days to go and their canvassing and polling telling them they will lose badly, John McGurk comes out with the line that if we don't repeal the 8th, then it can somehow be changed to allow for the "hard cases" that they've spent so many years opposing and denying. As if. As if he or any of the rest of them could be trusted after they'd spent over 35 years doing all they could to oppose women's rights in every way. And now you expect us to believe that there was a consensus in the pro-life movement to allow repeal of the 8th, if only the proposed legislation had been different!!!!!!!! I mean, REALLY?!?!?!?!?!? The world's biggest is needed here.
Screw Attack wrote: » Shoving unscientific religious nonsense down people's throats is not good.
Screw Attack wrote: » The right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is a right. Not that you would know.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Legislation which could be changed by the Oireachtas at any time. That does not have any credibility at all. They were never, ever going to willingly swap a constitutional guarantee for a piece of legislation no matter how strict.
end of the road wrote: » agreed, but that was only a very small part of the pro-life campaign and many of us ignored it ourselves. not vicious or hateful though. only in certain circumstances really. i would suggest that for others such as economic and social reasons, it's more a discretionary allowence/privilage.
end of the road wrote: » agreed, but that was only a very small part of the pro-life campaign and many of us ignored it ourselves. not vicious or hateful though.
