nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

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

freshpopcorn

During the lead up to the general election I heard some talk about the 8th amendment being repealed and it being an important election issue. Outside of a few candidates and people online. I didn't really find people gave much thought when they were voting. A good few pro life candidates who want to keep the 8th amendment were elected.
If we were to have a referendum on the issue I'm not sure it would be passed. It would depend on what we would be voting on. Would it only be for cases of rape/incest or would it be abortion on demand.
If it was for cases of rape/incest. Would this be hard to prove. So would we essential be voting for abortion on demand.
Going on the marriage referendum a good few constituencies were close enough on voting No. So I think these areas would probably vote No. I could also see another few areas voting No also. I think areas around Dublin would probably vote Yes but it wouldn't be around the 70%. So these areas might pull up the national average.
I know a good few people who'd happily voted Yes last May but they wouldn't support abortion. These would be young/old people and from different areas.
I also know people who'd support abortion
What's After Hours opinion?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

RDM_83 again

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Fewer than 1% of abortions are carried out in the third trimester and the vast majority of those cases are the termination of a desired pregnancy due to life limiting conditions and health concerns with respect to the mother.

This is actually a good example of how misinformation either deliberate or accidentally is used by BOTH sides in this debate to further their own stances.
How do you know the above, where are you referring to etc because the actual information shows that late term abortions are carried out for social reasons, going to recycle a recent post of mine on this

rainbow kirby wrote: »

The overwhelming majority of people who have abortions after 20 weeks in the UK are for medical reasons - severe, life-limiting and fatal abnormalities. It's incredibly rare that people make the decision to abort at that stage for other reasons.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

This gets trotted out a lot but its actually not true, I went back on my old posts to find the link but unfortunately its now completely broken.
The study was this one
https://www.bpas.org/js/filemanager/files/bpas_press_briefing_late_abortion.pdf

Which is now inaccessible, looking at the main BPAS page here
https://www.bpas.org/get-involved/advocacy/briefings/premature-babies/
and this paper here
http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/pdf/PCF_late_abortion08.pdf has a small reference to it.
The universities page has a press release about the study.
http://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2007/04/study-reveal-reasons-for-late-abortion.page

None of these imply that fetal health is the most common reason for very late term abortion (which as the first two links by very pro-choice institutions you would expect them to as it makes for a more palatable argument).

To hammer home the point that both sides tailor their arguments to make it more palatable, in this thread we still have the poster I corrected about the motivations for late term abortions in the UK then posts this

rainbow kirby wrote: »

I'm comfortable with the UK limit of 24 weeks tbh - the overwhelming majority of procedures (90+%) are in the first trimester anyway with a high proportion of those being before 10 weeks, and many conditions which often result in a TFMR are only diagnosed at 18-22 weeks at the anatomy scan and after some further testing following that.

Which implies that the British limits for on demand abortion are needed because of these medical conditions whereas the reality of UK law is that this is just not the case (in the case of fetal abnormality or substantial risk to mothers life there is no time limit under British law)
https://www.mariestopes.org.uk/women/abortion/abortion-facts/what-uk-law-abortion

Basically the problem with these threads is that there is a popular view that is acceptable to post e.g that the Pro-Choice side are rational caring well informed logical people that do not use misinformation to support their arguments, and those that are hesitant or Pro-life are religious woman hating idiots that only get their information from Youth Defence or the Bible.

For example everything I have posted is factually correct, I presume the poster I am quoting read my previous reply (it was a short thread) and since they have an interest in this topic and will be familiar with the very basics of British law on the subject.
Yet I am genuinely worried that as I am basically calling them a liar this post will either get carded for personal abuse or deleted and I will be viewed as a rabid misogynistic pro-lifer, where as in reality I would probably vote for a repeal of the 8th amendment and support the introduction of a system of abortion law similar to that exists in Germany.

TLDR: Both sides lie or use misinformation to support those arguments, calling out pro-choicers on this is not socially acceptable on this site though

Arkady

thattequilagirl wrote: »

If they are hooked up to a ventilator then no. If their survival depends on the sacrifice of another human being, that person gets to decide.

So parents can kill kids ?
We all have a choice if we want to take another human life or not.

thattequilagirl

Arkady wrote: »

So parents can kill kids ?
We all have a choice if we want to take another human life or not.

Whaaaaa?

Amirani

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

I am male too and I actually think only women should vote in an abortion referendum. Not going to happen but I think it would be correct.

What about women who are infertile? Or women that are too old to have kids? Or transgender women? I'm staunchly pro-choice, but very much disagree with the idea that constitutional plebiscites should be limited to groups that are affected by the outcome. It's a dangerous precedent and not in keeping with the ideals of a republic. For the pro-lifers anyway, they see this as much a vote on the rights of unborn as on the rights of women, so limiting the referendum to women would be framing everything in a biased point of view. Can you imagine a scenario where only religious people could vote on whether or not religious discrimination should be permitted in religious institutions because it affects only the rights of religious institutions?

Either way, polling has indicated fairly consistently that attitudes to abortion are broadly similar between men and women and that a "women-only" vote would achieve a similar result to a regular referendum.

January

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Whaaaaa?

Some people just like to be hysterical.

Dirty Dingus McGee

thattequilagirl wrote: »

I addressed this earlier. There is no equality in this matter. There cannot be. It's the woman's right to choose because she takes the health burden of pregnancy. If a baby is born however and assuming it's not adopted, the father is the father whether he likes it or not.

Grand.But if the woman is entitled to get rid of the child she doesn't want because of the burden it causes her then a father should be entitled to not want to have anything to do with a child he doesn't want and shouldn't have to pay for it.

thattequilagirl

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Grand.But if the woman is entitled to get rid of the child she doesn't want because of the burden it causes her then a father should be entitled to not want to have anything to do with a child he doesn't want and shouldn't have to pay for it.

Nope. Once a baby is born, it has two parents. Unless it is adopted, both parents are obligated to take care of it. Like I said, there is no equality in this scenario.

RDM_83 again

January wrote: »

Some people just like to be hysterical.

I have used this paper a few times (and other posters have too) but not matter which side of this debate its worth a read, its about the arguments for post-birth birth abortion written by ethicists and IMO its useful to read despite its controversial (well misunderstood) stand point as it helps highlight a number of dilemmas and logical fallacies

http://www.investigadoresyprofesionales.org/drupal/sites/default/files/J%20Med%20Ethics-2012-Giubilini-medethics-2011-100411.pdf

Amirani

eviltwin wrote: »

A question for those who are against the introduction of abortion.

If you see the act as the killing of a child/baby, do you think that it should be treated as the killing of any living child/baby and that the women should be imprisoned or face legal sanctions?

And if not, why not?

I ask because not even the most militant anti abortion campaigner I know would want to see women jailed so there is a disconnect there, already there is a distinction between born children vs unborn children. It doesn't make sense to me.

Yep, a very relevant point that many don't consider. Slightly crude, but:

Would any pro-lifers consider a pregnant woman throwing herself down a flight of stairs to cause miscarriage as equivalent to a mother throwing her 6 month old baby down a flight of stairs? Should both receive life sentences for murder?

I can't imagine we'd have many who view both in the same manner, and as you rightly point out creates a fairly obvious disconnect. You can't accept this disconnect and make the claim that an unborn fetus has the same rights as a child. Ergo, it's ridiculous to try claim equal rights between a fetus and the woman carrying it.

Dirty Dingus McGee

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Nope. Once a baby is born, it has two parents. Unless it is adopted, both parents are obligated to take care of it. Like I said, there is no equality in this scenario.

That's a massively hypocritical stance to take.

Why should a father have to pay for a child he doesn't want but the mother can decide to have it terminated to avoid the hassle of caring for it.

thattequilagirl

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

That's a massively hypocritical stance to take.

Why should a father have to pay for a child he doesn't want but the mother can decide to have it terminated to avoid the hassle of caring for it.

It's not hypocritical- I've said straight out its unequal. That's why this entire debate is framed as a woman's right to choose.

Genetically and legally the man has fathered a child. Do you really think he should be able to say "I'm not giving her a penny. I wanted her to have an abortion so it's not my problem."

Little CuChulainn

Amirani wrote: »

Yep, a very relevant point that many don't consider. Slightly crude, but:

Would any pro-lifers consider a pregnant woman throwing herself down a flight of stairs to cause miscarriage as equivalent to a mother throwing her 6 month old baby down a flight of stairs? Should both receive life sentences for murder?

I can't imagine we'd have many who view both in the same manner, and as you rightly point out creates a fairly obvious disconnect. You can't accept this disconnect and make the claim that an unborn fetus has the same rights as a child. Ergo, it's ridiculous to try claim equal rights between a fetus and the woman carrying it.

It's not a disconnect. There's a difference between the two. As has been mentioned numerous times, pregnancy changes the mothers body in a great many ways. The influx of hormones and the stress can make someone act outside of their normal. Aren't many cases of infanticide committed by mothers linked to postpartum depression? They aren't treated the same as simple killers. Why do you not think the same differentiation can be applied to pregnant women?

Dirty Dingus McGee

thattequilagirl wrote: »

It's not hypocritical- I've said straight out its unequal. That's why this entire debate is framed as a woman's right to choose.

Genetically and legally the man has fathered a child. Do you really think he should be able to say "I'm not giving her a penny. I wanted her to have an abortion so it's not my problem."

Yes.

If the woman has the right to do so the father should also have the right.

Why should a fathers life be disrupted by a child he doesn't want.

Arkady

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

It's not a disconnect. There's a difference between the two. As has been mentioned numerous times, pregnancy changes the mothers body in a great many ways. The influx of hormones and the stress can make someone act outside of their normal. Aren't many cases of infanticide committed by mothers linked to postpartum depression? They aren't treated the same as simple killers. Why do you not think the same differentiation can be applied to pregnant women?

Indeed, and diminished responsibility doesn't negate the fact that a human life has still been lost.

Amirani

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

It's not a disconnect. There's a difference between the two. As has been mentioned numerous times, pregnancy changes the mothers body in a great many ways. The influx of hormones and the stress can make someone act outside of their normal. Aren't many cases of infanticide committed by mothers linked to postpartum depression? They aren't treated the same as simple killers. Why do you not think the same differentiation can be applied to pregnant women?

Fair point.

I think it probably adds an extra layer. Of course the mitigants you suggest above would apply to pregnant women as they do to many cases of postnatal infanticide. I think a disconnect possibly exists between these also though - a self induced abortion would be viewed by many as different than infanticide, even if the infanticide is explained though postnatal mental conditions.

At a criminal level many may view them the same - with the woman not bearing criminal liability, but on a moral level they'd perhaps be viewed differently. I don't think I could equate them myself, even if there's a hypocrisy there when I accept the mitigating factors.

thattequilagirl

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Yes.

If the woman has the right to do so the father should also have the right.

Why should a fathers life be disrupted by a child he doesn't want.

Because once a child is born, both parents have legal and moral obligations to take care of it.

CaraMay

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

The law should be changed is what I'm saying just like people are arguing that the law around abortion should be changed.

I'm well aware the obligations a father has I'm simply saying if the abortion law changes so should this law.

I agree with that. If abortion on command comes in the the father should have the right to walk away totally from the child his the mother refuses to abort, however, he should also have the right yo block an abortion if he takes over sole custody of the child from birth

Dirty Dingus McGee

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Because once a child is born, both parents have legal and moral obligations to take care of it.

I'm dealing in a hypothetical scenario where the abortion law is changed and women can choose to have an abortion.

If women are allowed to have an abortion to avoid having to care for a child (and the father can have zero input into this and not stop it happening) then why should the mother have a right to force a father to pay for a child he doesn't want.

thattequilagirl

CaraMay wrote: »

I agree with that. If abortion on command comes in the the father should have the right to walk away totally from the child his the mother refuses to abort

So it's true what they say about pro-lifers only caring about the baby until birth.

gingergirl

As it looks like we will have a FF/FG conservative government for the next 5 years, I'd say any possibility of repeal of the 8th is off the agenda, as well taking the control of schools away from the church and the progressive drug policies that Aodan O'Riordan was trying to implement

Dirty Dingus McGee

thattequilagirl wrote: »

So it's true what they say about pro-lifers only caring about the baby until birth.

It's a hypothetical situation where the father is actually not a pro lifer and wants an abortion to happen.

thattequilagirl

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

I'm dealing in a hypothetical scenario where the abortion law is changed and women can choose to have an abortion.

If women are allowed to have an abortion to avoid having to care for a child (and the father can have zero input into this and not stop it happening) then why should the mother have a right to force a father to pay for a child he doesn't want.

I already answered your question. Because once a baby is born it legally and genetically has two parents, who are equally obliged to take care of it.

The reason the woman gets to choose when abortion is an option is because it is her health at stake. What you're saying would result in women being forced to have abortions because the father wants one and she can't afford it with zero support from him.

Are you in favour of a man being able to overrule a woman's decision on her health over nine months which can have dramatic side effects up to and including death? Because that's where your suggestion would end up.

CaraMay

thattequilagirl wrote: »

So it's true what they say about pro-lifers only caring about the baby until birth.

You say a woman shouldn't be forced to have a baby so why should a man? Double standards?

Penny Tration

CaraMay wrote: »

You say a woman shouldn't be forced to have a baby so why should a man? Double standards?

A man will never be forced to have a baby - biology!

All they can force a man to do is pay for the upkeep of said said child. Nothing more.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Penny Tration wrote: »

A man will never be forced to have a baby - biology!

All they can force a man to do is pay for the upkeep of said said child. Nothing more.

Which is hypocritical if a woman can take an option to not have to care for a child it doesn't want but a man doesn't have a similar option available to him.

Penny Tration

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Which is hypocritical if a woman can take an option to not have to care for a child it doesn't want but a man doesn't have a similar option available to him.

If abortion were legal, I'd agree with you. I'm just pointing out that the man doesn't have to be a father, just an ATM.

If abortion were legal and a man can prove he offered to support a woman through one, pay half the costs, etc, then yep, he should be allowed walk away if she chooses to keep it, IMO

RDM_83 again

thattequilagirl wrote: »

So it's true what they say about pro-lifers only caring about the baby until birth.

thattequilagirl wrote: »

I already answered your question. Because once a baby is born it legally and genetically has two parents, who are equally obliged to take care of it.

The reason the woman gets to choose when abortion is an option is because it is her health at stake. What you're saying would result in women being forced to have abortions because the father wants one and she can't afford it with zero support from him.

Are you in favour of a man being able to overrule a woman's decision on her health over nine months which can have dramatic side effects up to and including death? Because that's where your suggestion would end up.

In a situation where abortion on demand occurs and is justified by future impacts of quality of life of the mother (rather than the immediate concerns of the impact of pregnancy), as is the case with the current law in Britain

Medical termination of pregnancy.

(1)Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith—

[F1(a)that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or

(b)that the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or

(c)that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or

(d)that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.]

(2)In determining whether the continuance of a pregnancy would involve such risk of injury to health as is mentioned in paragraph (a) [F2or (b)] of subsection (1) of this section, account may be taken of the pregnant woman’s actual or reasonably foreseeable environment.

We see that abortion is justified not simply on immediate health risks, instead it can be justified as it may have a negative impact on a reasonably foreseeable future.

As an example why shouldn't a man who already has two children he supports be able to demand a "paper" abortion paying associated child support for this child would have a negative impact on his existing children and likely his current health (a drop in income correlates with a decrease in health and life expectancy)

The granting of t this right to only the female parent under these conditions (abortion for the other reasons mentioned in the act is a different matter) is in IMO a rather clear example of how some pro-lifers aren't interested in granting increased control of ones lives to both sexes but are instead interested in promoting only the rights of woman in a hypocritical manner, to use hyperbole its not a feminist stance its a fem-supramacist stance
(A more blatent example of this that is occasionally seen is men being told if they don't want kids to use protection but when discussing abortion bringing up the failure rates of contraceptive measures)

In terms of the state it may be hypocritical but government always acts to try keep minimize the balance sheet

IrishTrajan

Is it a blanket legalisation of abortion? I couldn't see it passing if so. Rape, incest, or abnormalities, it quite possibly could.
If it is legalised, is the cost of it going to be socialised and the taxpayer having to foot the bill? If it is, does that not somewhat invalidate the "it's my body, you don't get to tell me what to do with it" argument? - Does it not become people's business what you do when you're using their money to pay for it?
Is it going to have a detrimental effect on our demographics?
Will it create jobs in the private or public sector?
Is it going to be a political tool to batter "Vote No" campaigners? Is the campaign going to be filled with vitriolic nonsense like the SSM campaign was? (Both the Yes and No campaigns on that were doing stupid shít, like calling gays pedophiles or ripping down election posters of those you don't agree with).
Is it going to increase strain on the HSE/Govt. budgets?

I'm probably going to abstain from voting on this issue - it just doesn't seem like it's going to be a thought out campaign and will just be a spur of the moment "my feelings" argument on both sides.

B0jangles

The "legal abortion" described is not analogous to abortion, it is codified child abandonment.

If the carrier of the pregnancy has an abortion, there is no baby to be supported by either parent - no ongoing responsibility to provide care or money for either parent.
If the non-carrier of the pregnancy has a "legal abortion", then there is still a baby to be supported - responsibility for providing 100% of care and financial support carried by one parent.

The two scenarios are not remotely comparable.

osarusan

Penny Tration wrote: »

I'm just pointing out that the man doesn't have to be a father, just an ATM.

And if he didn't want to be an ATM well then he should have kept his legs sh...no, wait....his...hmmmm.....