woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

hotmail.com

P_1 wrote: »

Possibly. For example in my case I'd consider an abortion done after the foetus has developed sentience to be morally questionable but I wouldn't consider it my business to tell the mother what to do.

The majority of abortions happen within the first 10 weeks, basically as soon as the woman finds out she's pregnant.

It sounds like you're on the pro-choice side but would like to see a time limit on access to abortion.

Ralphdejones

hotmail.com wrote: »

It sounds like you're on the pro-choice side but would like to see a time limit on access to abortion.

Maybe there could be a self assessment quiz, "what type of abortionist are you"

P_1

hotmail.com wrote: »

The majority of abortions happen within the first 10 weeks, basically as soon as the woman finds out she's pregnant.

It sounds like you're on the pro-choice side but would like to see a time limit on access to abortion.

True, to be honest I'd imagine a fair few people would be of a similar enough view which is probably why a simple Tá/Níl referendum wouldn't work WRT the 8th Ammendment.

hotmail.com

P_1 wrote: »

True, to be honest I'd imagine a fair few people would be of a similar enough view which is probably why a simple Tá/Níl referendum wouldn't work WRT the 8th Ammendment.

That amendment can be deleted through a referendum and the laws regarding abortion can then be drafted and enacted in the Dail by our TDs.

takamichinoku

hotmail.com wrote: »

That amendment can be deleted through a referendum and the laws regarding abortion can then be drafted and enacted in the Dail by our TDs.

Do you really think the guidelines on when the cut-off point should be wouldn't demand a referendum? It'd have to, I'd say. No one would be remotely happy with whatever outcome is reached otherwise.

c_man

Clandestine wrote: »

EDIT: Found this (top of the page): https://www.facebook.com/events/335321293309252/?ref=4

Hmm, very counterproductive I must say. As a man joining these protests today, should I really be the subject of her outrage? I'm there as I as believe in a woman's right to choose, and deeply wish that my sister and female friends don't die needless deaths because the state views them as human gestation machines. Does my best friend who faced this horrible situation with his girlfriend not have any say on the matter? Should we keep our mouths shut and defer to the angry shouty types because of our gender?

If they'd had that kind of claptrap being applauded at the Galway protest I would have walked away, and kept away from any future protests. Is that what they want? Madness.

P_1

hotmail.com wrote: »

That amendment can be deleted through a referendum and the laws regarding abortion can then be drafted and enacted in the Dail by our TDs.

To be frank, I don't think that's workable at all particularly when you consider the whip system. Plus by not having it enshrined in the constitution you have no guarantee that subsequent Dáils might simply change the law back to a more restrictive form.

hotmail.com

takamichinoku wrote: »

Do you really think the guidelines on when the cut-off point should be wouldn't demand a referendum? It'd have to, I'd say. No one would be remotely happy with whatever outcome is reached otherwise.

Well, I personally see access to abortion as a human right so therefore I wouldn't see a need for a referendum on term limits. But then again, that is way ahead. I can't see anything changing for many years sadly and Irish women who want abortions will continue to go abroad.

eviltwin

c_man wrote: »

Hmm, very counterproductive I must say. As a man joining these protests today, should I really be the subject of her outrage? I'm there as I as believe in a woman's right to choose, and deeply wish that my sister and female friends don't die needless deaths because the state views them as human gestation machines. Does my best friend who faced this horrible situation with his girlfriend not have any say on the matter? Should we keep our mouths shut and defer to the angry shouty types because of our gender?

If they'd had that kind of claptrap being applauded at the Galway protest I would have walked away, and kept away from any future protests. Is that what they want? Madness.

just remember she is only one person, her views don't represent any mainstream pro-choice group I know.

jill_valentine

hotmail.com wrote: »

That would be pro-choice surely?

By jove, I think so.

I think we need a referendum with three separate questions asked:

1. Should the 8th amendment be removed from the constitution?
2. In the event of the removal of the 8th amendment, do you agree that abortion should be legally available in cases of rape, foetal fatal abnormalities and where the health of the woman is threatened?
3. In the event of the removal of the 8th amendment, do you agree that abortion should be legally available by request up to XX weeks?

If only the first question is asked, I would have concerns that the referendum wouldn't pass as there would be a barrage of scaremongering by the anti-choicers (floodgates floodgates!!).

If all three questions are asked I think that the first two would pass. I'm not sure about the third.

hotmail.com

P_1 wrote: »

To be frank, I don't think that's workable at all particularly when you consider the whip system. Plus by not having it enshrined in the constitution you have no guarantee that subsequent Dáils might simply change the law back to a more restrictive form.

Of course it's workable with a bit of will. Once abortion is then introduced, opposition to it will diminish.

P_1

hotmail.com wrote: »

Of course it's workable with a bit of will. Once abortion is then introduced, opposition to it will diminish.

Sorry but I think that's quite naive

Ralphdejones

eviltwin wrote: »

just remember she is only one person, her views don't represent any mainstream pro-choice group I know.

Did you check that with your new spokeswoman yet ?

takamichinoku

P_1 wrote: »

To be frank, I don't think that's workable at all particularly when you consider the whip system. Plus by not having it enshrined in the constitution you have no guarantee that subsequent Dáils might simply change the law back to a more restrictive form.

Yep, I really wouldn't want to see what the government's attempt to try and please everyone would look like...

marienbad

Ralphdejones wrote: »

You can be her mangina

Anonymity really brings out worst doesn't it.

takamichinoku

eviltwin wrote: »

just remember she is only one person, her views don't represent any mainstream pro-choice group I know.

It definitely highlights some of the challenges there are though. Like, with all kinds of political/social things, you're gonna have these angry types on all sides and you can dismiss them most the time, even though they're the kinds who are most drawn to microphone usually too. With women's rights issues though, they're far more capable of running people off than most other things.


The response to her in that video seemed pretty good though, some polite applause but not much response overall. Was that how it was in person?

Godge

Flying Fox wrote: »

I think we need a referendum with three separate questions asked:

1. Should the 8th amendment be removed from the constitution?
2. In the event of the removal of the 8th amendment, do you agree that abortion should be legally available in cases of rape, foetal fatal abnormalities and where the health of the woman is threatened?
3. In the event of the removal of the 8th amendment, do you agree that abortion should be legally available by request up to XX weeks?

If only the first question is asked, I would have concerns that the referendum wouldn't pass as there would be a barrage of scaremongering by the anti-choicers (floodgates floodgates!!).

If all three questions are asked I think that the first two would pass. I'm not sure about the third.

There could be more questions than those, in particular, number 2 might need to be split in 3.

The best way to do this would be for a constitutional referendum to delete the amendment to the Constitution and a vote/plebescite/referendum (i.e. not a constitutional referendum) at the same time to ask people their views with a broad acceptance from the main parties to legislate on the basis of the views of the outcome. It could even be a preferendum.

Godge

marienbad wrote: »

Anonymity really brings out worst doesn't it.

It is very easy for people to make glib responses and avoid answering hard questions.

marienbad

Godge wrote: »

It is very easy for people to make glib responses and avoid answering hard questions.

Mostly seem to be on the one side though and so spiteful , I suppose that is what happens when you slowly, inexorably, irretrievably watch 'your Ireland'
drift into the past .

I have been watching and participating since the 50's and it has been some journey.

Kiwi in IE

hotmail.com wrote: »

Of course it's workable with a bit of will. Once abortion is then introduced, opposition to it will diminish.

P_1 wrote: »

Sorry but I think that's quite naive

I don't know here. I think hotmail.com might be right. It sounds like there was a lot of screaming, wailing, hysterics and predictions of the worlds end when other similar issues were finally dealt with and legislated for (divorce, contraception, married women working outside the home).

I think once this cohort finally realised that the state was not coming to their door, taking their spouse away and serving them with with divorce papers or incarcerating them and forcibly injecting them with contraceptives, they were able to accept that the new legislation really didn't affect their lives in the slightest. The same will definately happen with equal marriage. And I think abortion also.

I am certain that more liberal countries are not devoid of these types of people (although luckily for them in smaller numbers), so how do they manage with their countries apocalyptically liberal laws? They just get on with it I imagine. Never really remember hearing much from them at all in NZ. Maybe the majority and media simply ignore them because they are not considered to be that interesting or logical.

ProfessorPlum

Re referenda to the constitution - Our first mistake was mentioning abortion at all in the constitution - look at the mess that's left us in. The constitution is an aspirational document, it was never meant to lay down what we can and can't do as such - that's the job of legislation. IMO the only constitutional referendum we should be contemplating here is for the removal of the 8th. Then, the idea is that our elected politicians will legislate according to the will of the people.

Godge wrote: »

There could be more questions than those, in particular, number 2 might need to be split in 3.

The best way to do this would be for a constitutional referendum to delete the amendment to the Constitution and a vote/plebescite/referendum (i.e. not a constitutional referendum) at the same time to ask people their views with a broad acceptance from the main parties to legislate on the basis of the views of the outcome. It could even be a preferendum.

That could work.

Ralphdejones

marienbad wrote: »

Mostly seem to be on the one side though and so spiteful , I suppose that is what happens when you slowly, inexorably, irretrievably watch 'your Ireland'
drift into the past .

I have been watching and participating since the 50's and it has been some journey.

I'm not the slightest bit religious and never have been, nor do you have to be to realise abortion is wrong, so you'll have to try another slur.

marienbad

Ralphdejones wrote: »

I'm not the slightest bit religious and never have been, nor do you have to be to realise abortion is wrong, so you'll have to try another slur.

Where did I mention religion ?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Ralphdejones wrote: »

I'm not the slightest bit religious and never have been, nor do you have to be to realise abortion is wrong, so you'll have to try another slur.

She didn't mention religion?

Godge

Ralphdejones wrote: »

I'm not the slightest bit religious and never have been, nor do you have to be to realise abortion is wrong, so you'll have to try another slur.

I don't think anyone is slurring you.

Your views come across as lacking empathy, misogynist, woman-hating, lacking rationality and objectivity. As well as this, you tend to avoid the difficult questions that point out the huge holes in your logic. But that is your views as they come out on an internet board, you may actually not be like that.

Enough said, back to debating the way to ensure that no woman is made to suffer like this poor woman did ever again.

Ralphdejones

Godge wrote: »

I don't think anyone is slurring you.

Your views come across as lacking empathy, misogynist, woman-hating, lacking rationality and objectivity. As well as this, you tend to avoid the difficult questions that point out the huge holes in your logic. But that is your views as they come out on an internet board, you may actually not be like that.

Did you run that past your new spokeswoman ?

All through the thread I've been supporting the woman involved and her fight to get medical attention. I didn't see you talk much about the welfare of the child.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Did you run that past your new spokeswoman ?

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Did you check that with your new spokeswoman yet ?

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Take it to your leader, but remember you'll have to 'know your place' lol

Oooh boy, oh boy. I mean the first time you made that joke it was really clever and funny, but I never imagined anybody'd have the wit to repeat it THREE TIMES. Now we all enjoy that incredible joke three times as much!

Ralphdejones

Gustavo CoolS Quote wrote: »

Oooh boy, oh boy. I mean the first time you made that joke it was really clever and funny, but I never imagined anybody'd have the wit to repeat it THREE TIMES. Now we all enjoy that incredible joke three times as much!

Sure, I should " Know my place " lol

Imagine someone had stood at that microphone today and said " I see black people have come out to support us today, but black people . .know your place, don't ever tell a white person anything "

Mountainsandh

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I don't know here. I think hotmail.com might be right. It sounds like there was a lot of screaming, wailing, hysterics and predictions of the worlds end when other similar issues were finally dealt with and legislated for (divorce, contraception, married women working outside the home).

I think once this cohort finally realised that the state was not coming to their door, taking their spouse away and serving them with with divorce papers or incarcerating them and forcibly injecting them with contraceptives, they were able to accept that the new legislation really didn't affect their lives in the slightest. The same will definately happen with equal marriage. And I think abortion also.

I am certain that more liberal countries are not devoid of these types of people (although luckily for them in smaller numbers), so how do they manage with their countries apocalyptically liberal laws? They just get on with it I imagine. Never really heard from them at all in NZ. Maybe the majority and media simply ignore them because they are not that interesting or logical.

I think things would calm down pretty quick too.
In France I never heard of any anti abortion protests or anything, I guess there must be some at times but I just never heard of them growing up, so it mustn't be very frequent or serious.
But we did hear about anti abortion protests going on in America while I was growing up, some pro-life groups attacking/breaking into abortion clinics and the like.

Just today I was watching this about equal marriage, good little snippet, gets the message across gently and with a touch of humour imo. http://youtu.be/Ervtik_7jYQ