Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Does anyone feel insulted by the abortion proposals?

13567…47

Comments

  • #62
    username123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,484 ✭✭✭username123


    lazygal wrote: »
    ....of having a wider agenda by Ronan Mullen.

    Ugh, I wish we could ban the word agenda. Typical that it was being used in that manner.

    Can an individual not just feel strongly about something and have a personal opinion without having an agenda?


  • #63
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    username123 wrote: »
    Ugh, I wish we could ban the word agenda. Typical that it was being used in that manner.

    Can an individual not just feel strongly about something and have a personal opinion without having an agenda?

    I'm pretty sure Senator Mullen has his own agenda.


  • #64
    Ken.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,898 ✭✭✭✭Ken.


    I love the way in this country people not even elected by us get to decide what's good for us. Sooner the better the Seanad is done away with and these failed politicians are f*cked out on the street the better.


  • #65
    meganj
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 424 ✭✭meganj


    lazygal wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure Senator Mullen has his own agenda.

    Not sure if being an unempathetic idiot is an agenda... But if it was that'd be Senator Mullen's.


    Such a wanker.


  • #66
    Ilyana 2.0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,331 ✭✭✭Ilyana 2.0


    The way that women are treated in this country is despicable.

    The part that gets me is that the majority of legislators in the Oireachtas will never, ever have to deal with an unwanted or unviable pregnancy themselves.

    I really do feel like we have no voice.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    meeeeh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    Faith wrote: »
    I think the pro-life side feel that they are on the correct moral ground, and feel more comfortable being VERY vocal. Many, many people who are pro-choice keep quiefor fear of negative reactions.

    I think the explanation is a lot simpler. The pro life or pro choice groups don't really matter number wise in elections. The problem is the not overly fussed majority and among those older people are more likely to be against abortion and more likely to vote. Get younger people and those in urban areas to vote and parties will quickly change their abortion stance.


  • #68
    Ilyana 2.0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,331 ✭✭✭Ilyana 2.0


    meeeeh wrote: »
    I think the explanation is a lot simpler. The pro life or pro choice groups don't really matter number wise in elections. The problem is the not overly fussed majority and among those older people are more likely to be against abortion and more likely to vote. Get younger people and those in urban areas to vote and parties will quickly change their abortion stance.

    If a referendum to repeal the 8th amendment was ever held, you can guarantee that it would be held on a Thursday - preventing young people living away from their constituency from voting.


  • #69
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Ilyana 2.0 wrote: »
    If a referendum to repeal the 8th amendment was ever held, you can guarantee that it would be held on a Thursday - preventing young people living away from their constituency from voting.

    In fairness, young people need to get more proactive about reregistering their vote when moving from their home towns. Student unions could be doing a better job in this area, rather than complaining that people can't go 'home' to vote.


  • #70
    Ilyana 2.0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,331 ✭✭✭Ilyana 2.0


    lazygal wrote: »
    In fairness, young people need to get more proactive about reregistering their vote when moving from their home towns. Student unions could be doing a better job in this area, rather than complaining that people can't go 'home' to vote.

    That's true, although it's hard to know where you'll be living year on year too.

    But the fact is that most young people are registered in their home towns and I'm sure the government is aware of that. Yet this fact didn't stop it holding the 2011 referendum on a Thursday, iirc.


  • #71
    Treehousetim
    Closed Accounts Posts: 89 ✭✭Treehousetim


    A system making more money for elitist professionals is what they are trying to design, no doubt lots of legal fees would also be incurred. Same old same old.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    wolfpawnat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,124 ✭✭✭wolfpawnat


    Though I could come under fire for this, I side with the majority of psychiatrists and obstetricians on the Mental Health stance HOWEVER if it is to be covered by the legislation discussed, I think six is far too many, two fine, three at a stretch, but six! And who pays for this? Sounds like a bit of a money racket really.


  • #73
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    wolfpawnat wrote: »
    Though I could come under fire for this, I side with the majority of psychiatrists and obstetricians on the Mental Health stance HOWEVER if it is to be covered by the legislation discussed, I think six is far too many, two fine, three at a stretch, but six! And who pays for this? Sounds like a bit of a money racket really.
    What is their stance? I heard somewhere that the Irish association of psychiatrists had refused to participate in the proposed system of 6.

    If two is enough to get you locked away for life, two should be more than enough for this. Anything more is inhumane.

    I have to just say I'm completely disgusted by this debate and the Fine Gael backbenchers who are putting the brakes on this issue.


  • #74
    wolfpawnat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,124 ✭✭✭wolfpawnat


    Macha wrote: »
    What is their stance? I heard somewhere that the Irish association of psychiatrists had refused to participate in the proposed system of 6.

    If two is enough to get you locked away for life, two should be more than enough for this. Anything more is inhumane.

    I have to just say I'm completely disgusted by this debate and the Fine Gael backbenchers who are putting the brakes on this issue.

    Can't remember where I read it, but there was a statement that the last thing to worry about if you are suicidal is a pregnancy, but to focus on the depression as a whole.

    But as I said, six is insane! Two, grand, three at a stretch, a very bloody big one at that! There was a proposal apparently at one stage to go through a panel of up to 12! That is sick.


  • #75
    pwurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,160 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    This whole mess is caused by those ridiculous referendums (referenda?).

    Abortion should be either allowed up to certain gestation, or not at all. Trying to limit it based on the woman's motivation , is an impossible task, for any legislators.

    What on earth people were thinking with their voting, or why those questions were even posed is still beyond me.


  • #76
    Lyaiera
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭Lyaiera


    pwurple wrote: »
    This whole mess is caused by those ridiculous referendums (referenda?).

    Abortion should be either allowed up to certain gestation, or not at all. Trying to limit it based on the woman's motivation , is an impossible task, for any legislators.

    What on earth people were thinking with their voting, or why those questions were even posed is still beyond me.

    Those questions were posed because the drafting of the constitution created the unforeseen problem. No one had considered what it would mean for abortions when it was written. When there were the referenda only the bare minimum was asked: whether to allow the small, strict availability of abortion or to rewrite the constitution. Not enough people would have voted for a rewriting of the constitution to ban abortion, not enough people who have voted for proper access to abortion, so the middle ground was the path of least resistance.


  • #77
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Lyaiera wrote: »
    Those questions were posed because the drafting of the constitution created the unforeseen problem. No one had considered what it would mean for abortions when it was written. When there were the referenda only the bare minimum was asked: whether to allow the small, strict availability of abortion or to rewrite the constitution. Not enough people would have voted for a rewriting of the constitution to ban abortion, not enough people who have voted for proper access to abortion, so the middle ground was the path of least resistance.
    There's no mention of abortion in the original constitution. Amendment eight is the problem, created by anti abortion hysteria in the 1980s, fuelled by more liberal contraception attitudes and conservative Catholic nutjobs. We created a problem where none existed, if the amendment hadn't been passed the 1861 act could have been repealed or updated by new,primary legislation.


  • #78
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    wolfpawnat wrote: »
    Can't remember where I read it, but there was a statement that the last thing to worry about if you are suicidal is a pregnancy, but to focus on the depression as a whole.

    But as I said, six is insane! Two, grand, three at a stretch, a very bloody big one at that! There was a proposal apparently at one stage to go through a panel of up to 12! That is sick.
    Actually what I said was true: they've refused to be involved in these abortion panels, saying they will not be the country's "social police". And they've called the proposed system "abusive":

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0424/385417-psychiatrists-will-not-take-part-in-abortion-panel/

    I think you might be confusing the views of one vocal psychiatrist, Patricia Casey, with the views of the majority.
    Lyaiera wrote: »
    Those questions were posed because the drafting of the constitution created the unforeseen problem. No one had considered what it would mean for abortions when it was written. When there were the referenda only the bare minimum was asked: whether to allow the small, strict availability of abortion or to rewrite the constitution. Not enough people would have voted for a rewriting of the constitution to ban abortion, not enough people who have voted for proper access to abortion, so the middle ground was the path of least resistance.

    I don't think we can say that the problem was entirely unforeseen. This predicament was predicted by a number of individuals, including Pat Rabbitte if I'm not mistaken. Perhaps more clearly, it was also identified by Mary Robinson. You can see her interview about it at this link:

    http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/04/04/and-so-it-came-to-pass/


  • #79
    pwurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,160 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    Lyaiera wrote: »
    Those questions were posed because the drafting of the constitution created the unforeseen problem. No one had considered what it would mean for abortions when it was written. When there were the referenda only the bare minimum was asked: whether to allow the small, strict availability of abortion or to rewrite the constitution. Not enough people would have voted for a rewriting of the constitution to ban abortion, not enough people who have voted for proper access to abortion, so the middle ground was the path of least resistance.

    It was only the 1980's when that ammendment about right to life of unborn went in, and it was specifically to ban abortions, wasn't it?

    The three since that one were the right to travel, and freedom of speech. The suicide one was defeated.

    What those did, was crystallise and personalise abortion in peoples minds... They started thinking, well, I would do it in this circumstance, but not this circumstance, and maybe this circumstance. And that thought process continues today all over the airwaves. Incompatible with life - sure, downs syndrome - maybe, suicidal - are they faking it. It's all a giant waste of cognitive effort.

    None of that is ever ever going to be feasible to legislate for. The publics mood changes with the breeze, and it is far too subjective.

    Plus realistically, probing into each pregnant womans affairs to query why she wants this done... Who on this green earth is ever going to be qualified to do that job? And how long would it take to evaluate per case? We have all been on the crappy end of the HSE's waiting list system. What are we talking here.... 9 months maybe?


  • #80
    wolfpawnat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,124 ✭✭✭wolfpawnat


    I think it needs to be put to referendum, and the decision left to the people of Ireland, and if it stays pro-life or goes pro-choice, the other side just accept the outcome and leave it at that. This is all going mad!


  • #81
    wolfpawnat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,124 ✭✭✭wolfpawnat


    Macha wrote: »
    Actually what I said was true: they've refused to be involved in these abortion panels, saying they will not be the country's "social police". And they've called the proposed system "abusive":

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0424/385417-psychiatrists-will-not-take-part-in-abortion-panel/

    I think you might be confusing the views of one vocal psychiatrist, Patricia Casey, with the views of the majority.

    Sorry, you may be right there. I have read and listened to so much on this subject and Savita recently, it all can merge into one jumble in my head!


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    rainbow kirby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,928 ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    pwurple wrote: »
    It was only the 1980's when that ammendment about right to life of unborn went in, and it was specifically to ban abortions, wasn't it?

    1983, and that amendment only passed by a relatively small margin then. Irish society has changed massively since then, the youngest people who would have voted then are in their late forties now, there are a hell of a lot of people who have never got to have their say on the issue.


  • #83
    Lyaiera
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭Lyaiera


    pwurple wrote: »
    It was only the 1980's when that ammendment about right to life of unborn went in, and it was specifically to ban abortions, wasn't it?

    The three since that one were the right to travel, and freedom of speech. The suicide one was defeated.

    What those did, was crystallise and personalise abortion in peoples minds... They started thinking, well, I would do it in this circumstance, but not this circumstance, and maybe this circumstance. And that thought process continues today all over the airwaves. Incompatible with life - sure, downs syndrome - maybe, suicidal - are they faking it. It's all a giant waste of cognitive effort.

    None of that is ever ever going to be feasible to legislate for. The publics mood changes with the breeze, and it is far too subjective.

    Plus realistically, probing into each pregnant womans affairs to query why she wants this done... Who on this green earth is ever going to be qualified to do that job? And how long would it take to evaluate per case? We have all been on the crappy end of the HSE's waiting list system. What are we talking here.... 9 months maybe?

    You're right. I was getting mixed up on things.

    Edit: I was thinking of the role of the mother in the home part of the constitution.


  • #84
    The Niece
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 102 ✭✭The Niece


    I'm glad this thread is here....I read an article on rte this morning and turned unbelievably angry that something like this will be seriously considered without any suggested consideration to the woman, the country is turning into a nanny state by thinking that people are not capable of making their own decisions and are not addressing the issue from where this new debate came from...it's like bush going after saddam when bin Ladan attacked the country

    :o apologies for the general tone but I'm still annoyed after reading these proposals and in no fit state to comment on everyone's posts


  • #85
    Sulla Felix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Sulla Felix


    First, I'm an advocate of pretty a pretty liberal abortion regime. Set a guideline date (end of second trimester give or take I feel) and anyone should be able to walk into a clinic and have an abortion. No more questioning than you'd get if you went in for any other minor surgery.

    But, just to add a little balance, I do understand why some of the anti-abortion crowd are so vehement. I don't agree with the perspective, but theirs is that the fetus is actually a baby. So it's no wonder they get upset. It's an emotive subject but I try to keep that in mind when talking to those people.


  • #86
    sam34
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,073 ✭✭✭sam34


    Macha wrote: »
    What is their stance? I heard somewhere that the Irish association of psychiatrists had refused to participate in the proposed system of 6.

    If two is enough to get you locked away for life, two should be more than enough for this. Anything more is inhumane.

    I have to just say I'm completely disgusted by this debate and the Fine Gael backbenchers who are putting the brakes on this issue.

    Off topic but I have to correct this. Two psychiatrists cannot "get you locked away for life". It is not possible legally for two psychiatrists, or indeed any number of psychiatrists, to lock someone up for life.

    Sorry for going offtopic but I hate this kind of misinformation being spread about psychiatry, as I think it deters people from seeking help.


  • #87
    confusticated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,682 ✭✭✭confusticated


    rainbow kirby wrote: »
    1983, and that amendment only passed by a relatively small margin then. Irish society has changed massively since then, the youngest people who would have voted then are in their late forties now, there are a hell of a lot of people who have never got to have their say on the issue.

    And those people are the ones most likely to be affected by this.


  • #88
    meeeeh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    Sulla Felix wrote: »
    First, I'm an advocate of pretty a pretty liberal abortion regime. Set a guideline date (end of second trimester give or take I feel) and anyone should be able to walk into a clinic and have an abortion. No more questioning than you'd get if you went in for any other minor surgery.
    .
    At six months abortion is not a minor procedure. I'm pro choice but allowing abortions when the fetus could be viable without proper consultation or limitations is crazy.


  • #89
    rainbow kirby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,928 ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    meeeeh wrote: »
    At six months abortion is not a minor procedure. I'm pro choice but allowing abortions when the fetus could be viable without proper consultation or limitations is crazy.

    24 weeks is the limit in the UK, and abortions at that stage are extremely rare and generally performed in the case of severe/fatal foetal abnormalities.


  • #90
    meeeeh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    rainbow kirby wrote: »
    24 weeks is the limit in the UK, and abortions at that stage are extremely rare and generally performed in the case of severe/fatal foetal abnormalities.

    And I agree with that.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Frito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 769 ✭✭✭Frito


    I wonder if the 'panel of medics' condition re suicidality is a way for FG to legislate for abortion whilst maintaining the status quo of women travelling abroad for the procedure. A bit like certain US states (Kansas?) where restriction after restriction is placed to make abortion inaccessible.


Advertisement