Do you think a referendum on abortion would be passed?(not how you'd vote)

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

It will never change peoples minds, it's too emotive a topic.

I don't see it as a childs life - when the pregnancy is at an early stage, either way it's the womans choice.
Its always strange to me the way pro lifers are so protective of the life of the child - yet once it's born they don't really give a **** ..

I don't believe it's a "child's life", but even allowing for a second that the in-utero fetus is a baby.

The closest parallel I think of is an older adult, who needs an organ transplant. You are the only match in the entire world and without your organ this adult will die.

The constitution has determined that you will be compelled to go through with the organ donation otherwise you will be sentenced to jail. As the donor you will spend 9 months of your life preparing for the operation. For the first three months you will take medication that induces severe nausea and exhaustion. You cannot drink and you must modify your diet. If you suffer from any common medical conditions (e.g. migraines) it is likely that you will not be allowed to continue with your normal medication.

It gets a little easier after your body gets used to the medication but you can expect 20-30lbs of weight gain before you get to the operation. There are quite a few potential medical complications that may arise before the harvesting procedure but none of them are an excuse to back out, even if they're likely to leave you with life long debilitating conditions. Whatever happens, your work life will be disrupted by multiple medical appointments quite probably leading to problems with your future career prospects.

The operation itself is a bit of a nightmare. Anaesthesia isn't recommended because it might damage the organ being harvested, though it will be used in emergency situations. It will take weeks if not months to fully recover.

Is that gender neutral situation plausible?

Would a constitutional demand that people be compelled to save the life of another adult through such a long term and drastic medical procedure really hold up or would people rightfully be up in arms about their bodily autonomy and right to live a comfortable life?

Let's face it, the whole scenario is completely and absolutely ridiculous. It would quite simply never happen, yet when the life to be saved is that of not even a baby, but a potential baby society at large somehow or other feels it has the right to compel women to go through with it.

Little CuChulainn

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Although I accept that this foetus is human, and is a life, I don't accept that it is a child. And I certainly don't accept that it has the same right to life (which in many cases results in equal right to death) as a woman. That is what the 8th amendment says. That this tiny little cluster of cells is worth the same as your mother, sister, best friend...

You might not believe that but many do. And it's the core reason they are against abortion. Ignoring that and going with sexism as your argument will never get anywhere.

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

It will never change peoples minds, it's too emotive a topic.

I don't see it as a childs life - when the pregnancy is at an early stage, either way it's the womans choice.
Its always strange to me the way pro lifers are so protective of the life of the child - yet once it's born they don't really give a **** ..

In what way exactly do people not give a **** about children?

I disagree with you saying it won't change minds. If there was a proper discussion on the development of a foetus and the definition of a life instead of this pro murder anti choice/women bull**** then we would get a lot closer to putting this topic to bed.

beach_walker

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Its always strange to me the way pro lifers are so protective of the life of the child - yet once it's born they don't really give a **** ..

So not the first time this lazy statement has come up, what exactly do you mean? Can't say I've ever met a pro-life person who displays this attitude.

Tbh seems like an American import where it's levelled at Republicans.

Spudman_20000 wrote: »

Are you saying that we should hold off on a referendum on abortion until we have solved these issues?

Or are you saying that allowing abortion would solve these issues?

I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

No we shouldn't hold off on a referendum and abortion won't solve homeless or poverty. I don't know how you came to that conclusion from my post. The abortion referendum is about choice, but many will say, think of the children, like they did in the marriage referendum. If People are that concerned about the children, then stop worrying about a referendum and help those who are homeless or living in poverty.

beach_walker

murpho999 wrote: »

I think our constitution should be amended that the constitution can be amended by legislation and not referendums.

This is an interesting one. What do people think?

I'd be 100% against it tbh. I like that the public have the final say on the constitution. Honestly wouldn't trust politicans with it. Imagine what FF would have put in! :pac:

donkeykongwar

As was said most protesters at pro life rallies are women-normal women.

Abortion is being pushed by powerful men who will profit from it. But not only them they have a focal group of 'women' who lets admit aren't really women. They are in the closet. But because the west focusses solely on males coming out these women glide through life having absolutely no problem obtaining one night stands boyfriends or even families. There's ur reality laid bare. Ask urself why western women are better looking than any other women.

Huntergonzo

RobertKK wrote: »

Fatal fetal abnormality is not black and white as made out in the media. It is always portrayed as being the unborn will not live when born and it is a black and white situation.
I know from a family member who was told her pregnancy would end with her unborn being born and dying in less than 40 hours. She was told by a nurse in Dublin she could go to England, as in get an abortion. That just added stress, but her own doctor supported her and her unborn, and the baby was born in Dublin, rushed to Crumlin and is now a healthy 8 year old thanks to the good people at Crumlin.
It is wrong how these cases where parents are told their unborn won't live are portrayed as black and white cases, with parents who had an abortion brought out to speak about their abortion due to FFA. My sister could have taken aboard that her unborn would not live and have gone to England then be out talking about how her unborn was not going to live as if it was black and white.
The public are being greatly misinformed, it is easy to say your unborn would not have lived after the unborn had been aborted after being told he/she would not live, but have never been given a chance to live, so it is being said without knowing what the future would have presented if a different option to an abortion had been pursued.

You made this same point last week on a different thread and it is lucky that your sister didn't have an abortion, thankfully things worked out for yous.

But to bring a bit of balance I responded with the story of my sister (which you never really acknowledged). So just to refresh your memory, she was CORRECTLY told by the doctors that the fetus wouldn't survive but of course thanks to the state caring more about the unborn than pregnant women she didn't have the option of aborting the unviable fetus. She was forced by the state to continue a pregnancy that harboured no hope for life and inevitably of course the fetus didn't survive, just as the doctors had said.

Now while stories like that of your sister's are great to read, they don't represent all cases of FFA obviously and shouldn't be used as an argument aginst women having the choice to abort a fetus that definitely isn't going to make it, that is the extreme 'Lucinda Creighton' end of the debate.

[Deleted User]

Itzy wrote: »

If People are that concerned about the children, then stop worrying about a referendum and help those who are homeless or living in poverty.

How many more times are we going to have to read this totally irrelevant comment being made in this thread.

beach_walker wrote: »

This is an interesting one. What do people think?

I'd be 100% against it tbh. I like that the public have the final say on the constitution. Honestly wouldn't trust politicans with it. Imagine what FF would have put in! :pac:

Totally and utterly against it, each and evey change to the constitution should be decided by the people.

Itzy wrote: »

No we shouldn't hold off on a referendum and abortion won't solve homeless or poverty. I don't know how you came to that conclusion from my post. The abortion referendum is about choice, but many will say, think of the children, like they did in the marriage referendum. If People are that concerned about the children, then stop worrying about a referendum and help those who are homeless or living in poverty.

Ah, Ok, so its the same ridiculous argument and logic that has been spouted and answered on here already. No wonder I couldn't make any sense of your previous post.

The abortion referendum is not about choice. Where is the "choice" for the unborn? There are laws in place to stop, or at least dissuade, people from making poor, damaging or ill informed choices for example. That's how society works.

The mark of a modern society is not to allow people to do whatever the hell they want.

Spudman_20000 wrote: »

The abortion referendum is not about choice. Where is the "choice" for the unborn? There are laws in place to stop, or at least dissuade, people from making poor, damaging or ill informed choices for example. That's how society works.

Why would the unborn get a choice?

I may need your kidney to survive, but I don't get to choose that you give it to me. You get to choose, no society has it any other way. Even if you were dead I wouldn't get to choose without the authorisation of you or your immediate family.

When it's my womb instead of your kidney, suddenly the fetus gets to choose?

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Why would the unborn get a choice?

I may need your kidney to survive, but I don't get to choose that you give it to me. You get to choose, no society has it any other way. Even if you were dead I wouldn't get to choose without the authorisation of you or your immediate family.

When it's my womb instead of your kidney, suddenly the fetus gets to choose?

I have the ability to say "no, your not getting my kidney".

The unborn has no voice at all, and is therefore the most vulnerable, and I think it should be protected by those who do have a voice.

[Deleted User]

I would like abortions on demand

Spudman_20000 wrote: »

I have the ability to say "no, your not getting my kidney".

The unborn has no voice at all, and is therefore the most vulnerable, and I think it should be protected by those who do have a voice.

And I should have the ability to say "no you're not getting my womb".

Except the 8th amendment doesn't give me that option.

Going back to the scenario where I'm the individual in need of a donated kidney. How am I not like the fetus and immensely vulnerable? I'm going to DIE unless you give me this kidney. I'm probably sick, constantly in hospital, on gradually failing dialysis, poverty stricken due to my inability to work from my illness. I am an immensely vulnerable human being but it is unconsciousable that the government would force you to donate your kidney to me, a procedure that is far less traumatic then pregnancy. Even if you were dead, and had no possible use for the kidney you wouldn't be forced to do it.

PhoenixParker wrote: »

And I should have the ability to say "no you're not getting my womb".

Except the 8th amendment doesn't give me that option.

Going back to the scenario where I'm the individual in need of a donated kidney. How am I not like the fetus and immensely vulnerable? I'm going to DIE unless you give me this kidney. I'm probably sick, constantly in hospital, on gradually failing dialysis, poverty stricken due to my inability to work from my illness. I am an immensely vulnerable human being but it is unconsciousable that the government would force you to donate your kidney to me, a procedure that is far less traumatic then pregnancy. Even if you were dead, and had no possible use for the kidney you wouldn't be forced to do it.

Both you and I know these are not really comparable situations, so forgive me if I don't proceed down the rabbit hole on this one.

Spudman_20000 wrote: »

Both you and I know these are not really comparable situations, so forgive me if I don't proceed down the rabbit hole on this one.

They're completely comparable and I'd urge you to really think it over from a fresh perspective, one that could apply to you.

Pregnancy is tough, physically and mentally even when you really want the baby. No one should have to go through it unless they really want to. We don't force people to undergo medical procedures on another's behalf in any other situation and we shouldn't in this one.

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

How many more times are we going to have to read this totally irrelevant comment being made in this thread.

Spudman_20000 wrote: »

Ah, Ok, so its the same ridiculous argument and logic that has been spouted and answered on here already. No wonder I couldn't make any sense of your previous post.

I don't see how it's irrelevant. People seem to concern themselves with womens bodies and abortion way too much. You all say you want to give a voice to those who have none as long as that person is a fetus. What if the woman is dying or the fetus if it is not viable? Do you not know that a woman can go on creating life! You literally want to give preference to an unborn child, even if it is at the cost to the mother.

As I said before, I see a lot of People hopping around in argument against abortion, but if you're alive and living in poverty, well to hell with you.

PhoenixParker wrote: »

They're completely comparable and I'd urge you to really think it over from a fresh perspective, one that could apply to you.

Pregnancy is tough, physically and mentally even when you really want the baby. No one should have to go through it unless they really want to. We don't force people to undergo medical procedures on another's behalf in any other situation and we shouldn't in this one.

I've just been mulling this over. Imagine if it were legislated for in the morning that men at the age of 21 and older were to be subjected to circumcision without anesthetic? There'd be all war and they'd literally burn the Dail to the ground in protest.

PhoenixParker wrote: »

They're completely comparable and I'd urge you to really think it over from a fresh perspective, one that could apply to you.

Pregnancy is tough, physically and mentally even when you really want the baby. No one should have to go through it unless they really want to. We don't force people to undergo medical procedures on another's behalf in any other situation and we shouldn't in this one.

Pregnancy is not a medical condition though, and nor should it be ever classified as one. That's where your comparison falls down.

RobertKK

Huntergonzo wrote: »

RobertKK wrote: »

Fatal fetal abnormality is not black and white as made out in the media. It is always portrayed as being the unborn will not live when born and it is a black and white situation.
I know from a family member who was told her pregnancy would end with her unborn being born and dying in less than 40 hours. She was told by a nurse in Dublin she could go to England, as in get an abortion. That just added stress, but her own doctor supported her and her unborn, and the baby was born in Dublin, rushed to Crumlin and is now a healthy 8 year old thanks to the good people at Crumlin.
It is wrong how these cases where parents are told their unborn won't live are portrayed as black and white cases, with parents who had an abortion brought out to speak about their abortion due to FFA. My sister could have taken aboard that her unborn would not live and have gone to England then be out talking about how her unborn was not going to live as if it was black and white.
The public are being greatly misinformed, it is easy to say your unborn would not have lived after the unborn had been aborted after being told he/she would not live, but have never been given a chance to live, so it is being said without knowing what the future would have presented if a different option to an abortion had been pursued./quote]

You made this same point last week on a different thread and it is lucky that your sister didn't have an abortion, thankfully things worked out for yous.

But to bring a bit of balance I responded with the story of my sister (which you never really acknowledged). So just to refresh your memory, she was CORRECTLY told by the doctors that the fetus wouldn't survive but of course thanks to the state caring more about the unborn than pregnant women she didn't have the option of aborting the unviable fetus. She was forced by the state to continue a pregnancy that harboured no hope for life and inevitably of course the fetus didn't survive, just as the doctors had said.

Now while stories like that of your sister's are great to read, they don't represent all cases of FFA obviously and shouldn't be used as an argument aginst women having the choice to abort a fetus that definitely isn't going to make it, that is the extreme 'Lucinda Creighton' end of the debate.

The point being is it is not black and white which if one combined your sister's experience (which was awful news) and my own sister, it shows it is not simply straightforward as made out in the media most of the time.

Spudman_20000 wrote: »

Pregnancy is not a medical condition though, and nor should it be ever classified as one. That's where your comparison falls down.

Just out of curiosity, has there ever been a time where you've considered abortion as an option, be it for medical reasons or otherwise?

Spudman_20000 wrote: »

Pregnancy is not a medical condition though, and nor should it be ever classified as one. That's where your comparison falls down.

Have you ever been pregnant? How is it not a medical condition? Why did I deliver my babies with the assistance of doctors and nurses in a hospital if it isn't a medical condition?

My cousin was told her child would be severely handicapped if born and the option of a termination was mentioned. The child is now 3 and perfectly healthy.

lazygal wrote: »

Have you ever been pregnant? How is it not a medical condition? Why did I deliver my babies with the assistance of doctors and nurses in a hospital if it isn't a medical condition?

People can have kids without doctors around and did have for thousands of years but you can't have a heart transplant without one. Pregnant is a medical condition by choice not necessity

CaraMay wrote: »

My cousin was told her child would be severely handicapped if born and the option of a termination was mentioned. The child is now 3 and perfectly healthy.

So she exercised her choice to remain pregnant. How is that relevant to women who don't wish to remain pregnant?

CaraMay wrote: »

People can have kids without doctors around and did have for thousands of years but you can't have a heart transplant without one. Pregnant is a medical condition by choice not necessity

Right. So it was my choice to require c sections to deliver my children. Not necessity. What was the rate of death of pregnant women before medical improvements? Next you'll be telling me Big Pharma is out to get us with vaccines.

lazygal wrote: »

So she exercised her choice to remain pregnant. How is that relevant to women who don't wish to remain pregnant?

Because the fetal abnormality line isn't always right

CaraMay wrote: »

Because the fetal abnormality line isn't always right

What's your point? That you've an anecdote that somehow suggests other women should stay pregnant regardless of their wishes?