What would you like the next referendum to legalise abortion or euthanasia?

AngryHippie

I'm definitely pro-choice, but that said, I think more suffering is caused by the lack of euthanasia legislation at present.

Many people don't have much first-hand experience of watching a loved one spend the end of their lives fighting a battle they will never win(certain Cancers), or slowly lose track of who everybody is, where they are and what they are doing (Dementia/Alzheimers) or have to live inside a failing body waiting for the inevitable(MND/Parkinsons etc.)

Having seen family members go through this, I firmly believe that people should be permitted to decide for themselves when enough is enough, and meet their maker on their own terms.

Aside from the grief and anguish this would save the individuals themselves, it would also save their family members months of hardship and suffering watching a loved one fall apart, unable to help.

Then there is the massive resource drain that long term patient care presents on our struggling health care system.

There are many parallels to the legal narcotics argument, and the abortion argument, in that a new approach to any or all of the three will result in huge benefits to society, greater personal freedoms and a more tolerant understanding society. I'm realistic about where society is at, and I don't think Ireland is ready for the pro-choice decision, considering how heated the debate for SSM got over a total no-brainer. Neither do I think Ireland is ready for the narcotics debate, as there are too many people that get galvanized by personal experiences (or the lack of them) As such, I think that the euthanasia discussion should be started as soon as possible, especially considering the rate of suicide in Ireland, and the lack of clear information surrounding the root causes, and the high levels of long-term patients.

PressRun

I think both should be legalized, but abortion is a far more urgent issue right now. All this talk of equality coming out of Ireland over the last while is totally undermined by the fact that Irish women have their right to their bodily autonomy curtailed as soon as they become pregnant. The 8th amendment is utterly backward and barbaric from a supposedly civilized country existing in the 21st century, and the problems that have arisen from it could be seen a mile off when it was first introduced. The whole thing is a horrorshow and a disgrace.

Bowlardo

I think euthanasia is inevitable somewhere down the tracks. People are living longer and the longer you live it is pretty inevitable that your not going to pick something up that one your going to be n pain or be an absolute drain on your family and society. I know I could have phrased that better but me personally and older people that have mentions would like to go with dignity while there's still a little bit of enjoyment left in their life

The Golden Miller

PressRun wrote: »

I think both should be legalized, but abortion is a far more urgent issue right now. All this talk of equality coming out of Ireland over the last while is totally undermined by the fact that Irish women have their right to their bodily autonomy curtailed as soon as they become pregnant. The 8th amendment is utterly backward and barbaric from a supposedly civilized country existing in the 21st century, and the problems that have arisen from it could be seen a mile off when it was first introduced. The whole thing is a horrorshow and a disgrace.

Well how do they have full body autonomy, if something else exists in there?

Bowlardo

Abortion is grey area. I would vote yes. I'm a man and I think it's wrong that men still dictate what a women does with her body.
I know it takes two tango but ultimately. It is the woman left to do everything.
will it be abused and overused by certain women. Of course it will but its the vast majority of other women that want to through with it that we should be protecting. As an Irish person I'm ashamed of the journey thousand of Irish women have to make every year to the uk. In saying that I don't think there is a hope of a yes vote on abortion for at least 5 years.

AngryHippie

thee glitz wrote: »

I take it you me decriminalise. There's should be debate on that.

I see the junkies hanging round outside the clinics, on the boardwalk.
Methadone clinics should be taken out of the city centre. We should be
careful not to allow moral hazard to arise too.

Nice one. You could probably dehumanize them a bit further if you refer to them as dirty or thieving too. This is a massive part of the problem with that debate. People have been conditioned to look down on addicts as being sub-human and as human failures. It will take a massive attitude shift for people to check that and consider them as emotive sentient humans again, with potential and hope in life. We have spent far too long taking that away and applying dickensian social justice to a modern and fixable problem.

DareGod

smash wrote: »

I'd say so. I know more people who've had abortions than people who've committed suicide or even attempted it because of 'chronic unimaginable suffering' as you put it.

Hang on. The amount of people who've had abortions is entirely irrelevant. My point was that the chronic pain that people are going through is far more important than is the topic of people getting pregnant and not wanting to keep the baby. I would rather that a hundred people have babies that they would rather not have than one person spending the rest of their life in chronic pain. So, you're basing your comment on quantity, when quantity is entirely irrelevant.

How would you like to spend the rest of your life in unbearable pain?

It's clear and evident that this is a topic that needs to be discussed now at length on a national level. To reiterate, it is a barbaric situation. Beyond barbaric. Stop trivialising it.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

DareGod wrote: »

Hang on. The amount of people who've had abortions is entirely irrelevant. My point was that the chronic pain that people are going through is far more important than is the topic of people getting pregnant and not wanting to keep the baby. I would rather that a hundred people have babies that they would rather not have than one person spending the rest of their life in chronic pain. So, you're basing your comment on quantity, when quantity is entirely irrelevant.

How would you like to spend the rest of your life in unbearable pain?

It's clear and evident that this is a topic that needs to be discussed now at length on a national level. To reiterate, it is a barbaric situation. Beyond barbaric. Stop trivialising it.

I'm really not trivialising the babarism of forcing people with terminal illnesses to serve their sentences, as it were, and I'd personally like to see both go to the polls on the same day (if a referendum on euthanasia is even needed).

But just from a legal perspective, I think doctors seem to have a lot more leeway at end of life than at the beginning. Look at the most recent court case here, and anecdotally what happens in hospices and hospitals, it seems to be a lot more of a medical and moral judgement call.

There's also the issue that suicide is not illegal, assisted suicide is. Abortion, assisted or otherwise, is illegal, and obviously due to the nature of the situations, the aftermath for the person is an issue for abortion and not for suicide in the case of terminal illness.

They're both wrong, and both should be changed, but gun to my head I'd rather see the eighth repealed if it had to be one or the other

thee glitz

AngryHippie wrote: »

Nice one. You could probably dehumanize them a bit further if you refer to them as dirty or thieving too. This is a massive part of the problem with that debate. People have been conditioned to look down on addicts as being sub-human and as human failures. It will take a massive attitude shift for people to check that and consider them as emotive sentient humans again, with potential and hope in life. We have spent far too long taking that away and applying dickensian social justice to a modern and fixable problem.

What's the solution? A good start would be to have addicts visit schools to educate teens on the risks of developing a habit. Are addicts to be held up on a pedestal, as sources of inspiration to the young people of ireland? I'm sure they couldnt care less what i think once i give them their 2 euro outside busaras for a taxi to hospital for their pregnant gf. I'm not saying all addicts are dirty, thieving junkies.

Lol at abortioinists on the fence over euthanasia.

AngryHippie

thee glitz wrote: »

What's the solution? A good start would be to have addicts visit schools to educate teens on the risks of developing a habit. Are addicts to be held up on a pedestal, as sources of inspiration to the young people of ireland? I'm sure they couldnt care less what i think once i give them their 2 euro outside busaras for a taxi to hospital for their pregnant gf. I'm not saying all addicts are dirty, thieving junkies.

Lol at abortioinists on the fence over euthanasia.

I would say the other way around, have school kids (TY or thereabouts age) visit needle exchanges and day centers. I did it when I was in TY back in the 90's I spent a day in Merchants Quay and it shocked the hell out of me for a number of years.
I agree that society can't tolerate the violence, theft, health and mental health issues that go with drug addiction, but the reality is that the current system does nothing more productive than applying first aid to the problem. Treating symptoms is a waste of resources when it is well documented and understood what the root causes of addiction are. Prohibition and demonizing have failed. The time has come for a new approach. The same can be said of the other two referendum topics proposed here. Our attitudes need to evolve for a sustainable future.

thee glitz

That's another way to do it. Addicts visiting a school would be a more efficient way but maybe not as effective.
I dare not suggest that they might not show up! On topic, I don't think we need a referendum on euthanasia
but if it would be required, it will be the next one.

inocybe

there should have been an option to vote for both. Why does every change have to take 10,000 years to achieve?

thee glitz

Because the Constitution defines the principles upon which the state is based, the procedure in which laws
are made and by whom. It establishes lines which a state's rulers cannot cross, such as fundamental rights.
Any amendments change what a country stands for and can only be reversed via another referendum.
There aren't many provisions which a large proportion of the population want to change and the
consequences of doing so should be discovered and debated in order to allow for informed decisions.