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

thattequilagirl

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I'm always curious how people like yourself can completely ignore the main reason people are against it i.e. the life of a child. Do you think dismissing that argument completely and pretending it's a sexism issue will change people minds about it?

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...

Spudman_20000

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I didn't say you did need to adopt to have an opinion on abortion. I just made the point that I find it strange that self proclaimed 'pro-lifers' seem to really only passionately care about 'unborn babies' and not so much about born children who need help.

It's strange and inconsistent morality.

By that logic, you should go and assist women with the abortion process, be there when the foetus is removed etc., if you are so pro-choice?

You might want to familiarise yourself with some of the processes beforehand though:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgw4X7Dw_3k

Such an ridiculous point you're making in fairness.

Charles Babbage

deseil wrote: »

Slavery, death penalty are state wise issues its not comparable.

Children are brought up by one or 2 people who are solely responsible in every way for the rearing of a child, if one does not feel ready to take on this responsibility it should be a personal decision not a state decision.

This is of course complete nonsense, as mechanisms such as adoption to transfer the responsibility have long existed. With a very long waiting list of suitable people wishing to adopt there is hardly a problem here.

Huntergonzo wrote:

I didn't say you did need to adopt to have an opinion on abortion. I just made the point that I find it strange that self proclaimed 'pro-lifers' seem to really only passionately care about 'unborn babies' and not so much about born children who need help.

This type of statement is often made, but usually without much substance, as such people generally are concerned for born children also. But even if they do not campaign to the same extent in relation to born children this does not invalidate their case in relation to abortion. Some may campaign about road safety, while not campaigning much about kitchen safety, but this doesn't in any way invalidate the need to campaign on road safety.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Arkady wrote: »

The problem of abortion has actually nothing to do with religion, or if you're an atheist or theist. The problem is there are actually two human lives involved not one, the mother and the child, and neither is guilty or deserves death either for the crime of another, or because someone forget to use contraception correctly.

Absolutely, that's why at pro-life rallies you never ever ever see rakes of religious placards, rosary beads, nuns, people literally praying to God to keep abortion out of Ireland...oh wait.

You don't HAVE to be religious to be pro-life, but cut the shít, it helps. The vast majority of the most motivated and vociferous pro-life activists in Ireland are now and always have been devoutly religious. It's a heap of lies to pretend there's absolutely no link between Ireland's abortion laws and religious history.

Charles Babbage

Elyse Quiet Canoe wrote: »

Absolutely, that's why at pro-life rallies you never ever ever see rakes of religious placards, rosary beads, nuns, people literally praying to God to keep abortion out of Ireland...oh wait.

You don't HAVE to be religious to be pro-life, but cut the shít, it helps. The vast majority of the most motivated and vociferous pro-life activists in Ireland are now and always have been devoutly religious. It's a heap of lies to pretend there's absolutely no link between Ireland's abortion laws and religious history.

Religions object to things such as theft and murder, but just because you object to religion should not necessarily make you in favour of these things.

For some people anything can be justified simply on the basis that someone else is in favour of it and they want to piss them off.

Academic

To get back to the original question (remember that?) of whether the referendum would or would not pass …

Those who have answered that the vote will depend on how the referendum is worded are of course correct. It can’t simply ask “Shall we eliminate this amendment?”; it will have to ask “Shall we eliminate the amendment and replace it with this?”.

Moreover, while I’m not a lawyer, I suspect that implementing any substantive change may be much more complicated than we think to implement. The amendment has been the law of the land for more than 30 years, during which time it’s surely possible that other legislation has been passed which assumes in one way or another that aspect of the constitution as a basis. I’d like to hear from someone with legal knowledge on whether there could be a knock-on effect requiring the re-writing of other laws currently on the books in the event the amendment is eliminated. Anyone?

Cheers,

Ac

Arkady

sunshine and showers wrote: »

"Didn't use contraception correctly" is such a bullshít argument, everyone knows (or should know) that contraception is not 100% effective even when used perfectly correctly. That's an over-simplification.

So are you trying to claim that abortion of a child is never the result of lack of contraception ?

Arkady

Elyse Quiet Canoe wrote: »

Absolutely, that's why at pro-life rallies you never ever ever see rakes of religious placards, rosary beads, nuns, people literally praying to God to keep abortion out of Ireland...oh wait.

You don't HAVE to be religious to be pro-life, but cut the shít, it helps. The vast majority of the most motivated and vociferous pro-life activists in Ireland are now and always have been devoutly religious. It's a heap of lies to pretend there's absolutely no link between Ireland's abortion laws and religious history.

The rights and wrongs of abortion have nothing to do with religion. Religion is not required for the moral respect of human life.

sheep?

Itzy wrote: »

That brings me back a few years. A cousin of a friend gave birth to a child one passed within hours of birth. She knew due to a heart defect, the child would not make it. She had to watch her child die in her arms. If she or any woman had the option of an abortion, would they want to watch their new born die in their arms or know that the pregnancy would result in a still birth. Imagine the grief a woman or family would endure knowing someone is carrying a deceased child. I'd feel rotten putting someone through that.

Disclaimer: If the vote was tomorrow, I'd vote to repeal the 8th, definitely. It's a monstrous mess that covers an extremely contentious issue, one that needs legislation, not constitutional enshrinement.

On your story, I completely empathise. It's an horrific thing to have happen to a mother.

My own mother gave birth to my eldest sister in the early 80s. Mam was told that her daughter wouldn't survive outside the womb, and so had to take her to term, then have her child die in her arms.

Thankfully, she subsequently gave birth to 3 healthy children (myself included! ). However, her fifth child suffered from the same condition that killed my sister. So, once again, my mother took a child to term that she knew was going to die.

Here's the crux of my point: I recently asked my Mam, knowing what she knows now, if she had the option to abort either child, would she have go down that route? Immediately, she answered "Absolutely not. I wanted to hold my children at least once, and I'm happy that I did."

Emotive? Maybe, but I'm definitely happy I got to hold my younger brother before he died. Unfortunately, my older brother was very upset on the day and refused to hold the new born. He regrets it very much.

So in answer to your question:

If she or any woman had the option of an abortion, would they want to watch their new born die in their arms

No, not all women would chose abortion in this case.

And I know you realise this, I'm not attacking your point at all, just in case it sounds like I am. Just pointing out the necessity for choice, and also how difficult this debate will be.

RadiationKing

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.

They're saying the concern for children rings hollow when actual, real children are living in poverty right now but the usual sorts banging on about abortion couldn't possibly care less about them.

As always, it's not about children, it's about controlling women. If they really wanted to help children then there's plenty they could be doing. Goodness knows they've enough money that could be put into charitable causes.

kjl

I am morally against abortion but I would tell anybody what to do. They are more the welcome to kill their babies.

thattequilagirl

Spudman_20000 wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I could never agree with that. It puts such a base value on life that it makes me ill. Is that really a society we want to live in? To make a choice like that, as if we were choosing the colour of a car we were buying?

I'm coming at the issue on the basis that life should be valued and looked after. That's based of my own feelings on the issue and life experiences I have had.

The unborn don't have a voice, they aren't able to create posters, stickers, badges or Facebook pages or Twitter accounts or participate in debates.

I think life should be given a chance in all circumstances. Our lives and circumstances can be cruel and extremely unfair at times, but I think at the end of it all we should try and deal with what life throws at us and I don't think ending a life at any stage should be the option.

Assuming the abortion is going to happen either way, and hundreds of thousands of Irish women have had them, do you not think it makes more sense to have a safe procedure in Ireland rather than risking the complications of travel?

I'm not arguing about the rights or wrongs here, I'm just asking about the reality. Irish women have abortions. Every day.

Spudman_20000

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Assuming the abortion is going to happen either way, and hundreds of thousands of Irish women have had them, do you not think it makes more sense to have a safe procedure in Ireland rather than risking the complications of travel?

I'm not arguing about the rights or wrongs here, I'm just asking about the reality. Irish women have abortions. Every day.

It is a big assumption that it would happen either way. During a debate on the issue, I'm sure we would hear from lots of women who thought about travelling for an abortion but didn't go through with it, and are now very glad they didn't.

In that case, they may have been fortunate that the option wasn't on their doorstep.

Free choice is often bandied about as if people always make the right decision. All you have to do is watch an episode of Tattoo Fixers to see that's not always the case, and that's a very basic example.

emzippy

Judging by the results of the recent election I think sadly it wouldn't pass yet - for any reason.

As an aside, I really dislike the term "abortion on demand." It's not like clicking the red button on your sky remote ffs. I'm pro-choice but to me it's too simplistic and makes it sound like something that's easy to do.

thattequilagirl

Spudman_20000 wrote: »

It is a big assumption that it would happen either way..

No, it's not. There is significant evidence that proves that Irish women have abortions, every day. The difference is that having them here they could have appropriate follow-up medical care.

Here's the situation in Ireland at the moment. You could get as little as five years in jail for raping a woman. If that woman gets pregnant as a result of the rape and chooses to abort, she faces a prison sentence of 14 years.

Fu*ked up.

thattequilagirl

emzippy wrote: »

Judging by the results of the recent election I think sadly it wouldn't pass yet - for any reason.

As an aside, I really dislike the term "abortion on demand." It's not like clicking the red button on your sky remote ffs. I'm pro-choice but to me it's too simplistic and makes it sound like something that's easy to do.

It's a pro-life term. Abortion on request is the term I'd use.

Spudman_20000

thattequilagirl wrote: »

No, it's not. There is significant evidence that proves that Irish women have abortions, every day. The difference is that having them here they could have appropriate follow-up medical care.

Here's the situation in Ireland at the moment. You could get as little as five years in jail for raping a woman. If that woman gets pregnant as a result of the rape and chooses to abort, she faces a prison sentence of 14 years.

Fu*ked up.

It is a big assumption. Are you saying that women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy, and are considering an abortion, all go through with it? We know anecdotally that isn't the case.

And please, lets leave the imprisonment argument to the likes of Graham Linehan. Has any woman, especially recently, been jailed for having an abortion?

PopePalpatine

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Surely cheaper than paying for primary, secondary and probably tertiary education, no?

Pro-lifers following social democratic/progressive economics? That's a good joke there! :pac:

murpho999

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

The abortion issue would easily be passed by Dail and Senate and we voted them in to govern so leave them to it.

A referendum on abortion will be clouded by emotive issues, religion, and nutters and it will not pass.

Huntergonzo

Spudman_20000 wrote: »

By that logic, you should go and assist women with the abortion process, be there when the foetus is removed etc., if you are so pro-choice?

You might want to familiarise yourself with some of the processes beforehand though:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgw4X7Dw_3k

Such an ridiculous point you're making in fairness.

You are aware that the 8th ammendment put a ban on abortion and assisting women to carry out abortions could land me a life sentence?

Now while you're flippantly trying to encourage illegal behaviour that I'm in no way qualified to even attempt, I'm suggesting to you that if you're so 'pro-life' why don't you endeavour to help and or adopt as many born children in need as you can, neither of which is illegal as far I know.

beach_walker

RadiationKing wrote: »

They're saying the concern for children rings hollow when actual, real children are living in poverty right now but the usual sorts banging on about abortion couldn't possibly care less about them.

Well if you say so...

Howard the Duck

As people have already said it already exists for those that can afford it. Those that can't are forced to have a child which they probably can't afford either, so you have children growing up in poverty.
And of course you have the women ordering abortion pills off the internet which is very unsafe.
So basically as it is it's optional abortions for the well off and babies for the poor whether they like it or not.

Spudman_20000

Huntergonzo wrote: »

You are aware that the 8th ammendment put a ban on abortion and assisting women to carry out abortions could land me a life sentence?

Now while you're flippantly trying to encourage illegal behaviour that I'm in no way qualified to even attempt, I'm suggesting to you that if you're so 'pro-life' why don't you endeavour to help and or adopt as many born children in need as you can, neither of which is illegal as far I know.

You do know I was just pointing out how ridiculous the logic of your argument was, right?

But of course, you can ignore that. I hope that the question you asked umpteen times in this thread has now been answered though.

RobertKK

Being against abortion is not anti-woman.

If a person believes that there are two lives, then the choice is do you believe it is right to take the life of the unborn, genetically it is a unique human life.
Genetically it is no different than the baby who is born, or who we are now.

The thing is if a person believes in two lives being present when a woman is pregnant, it is not about being anti or pro, it is about what ones believes. Some people don't see two lives and see the unborn as a life form that can be killed, others see a two lives that need to be protected.
If a person sees two lives, wanting the two lives to live is not anti-woman as it is not about being anti-woman, but about supporting life.

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.


Abortion is an argument about life, and how different people view human life. I don't believe people should be beat over the head for their beliefs on life whether for or against abortion.
Everyone has different morals and ethics.

Abortion like what is available in England would not pass here in my opinion.

Huntergonzo

Spudman_20000 wrote: »

You do know I was just pointing out how ridiculous the logic of your argument was, right?

But of course, you can ignore that. I hope that the question you asked umpteen times in this thread has now been answered though.

It's "ridiculous" in your opinion and you still haven't given a logical answer why.

Except of course for the very poorly thought out suggestion that if pro-life people should help children in need (which is legal) then pro-choice people should carry out complicated, dangerous and highly illegal medical procedures called abortions.

Now that is ridiculous!

murpho999

RobertKK wrote: »

Being against abortion is not anti-woman.

If a person believes that there are two lives, then the choice is do you believe it is right to take the life of the unborn, genetically it is a unique human life.
Genetically it is no different than the baby who is born, or who we are now.

The thing is if a person believes in two lives being present when a woman is pregnant, it is not about being anti or pro, it is about what ones believes. Some people don't see two lives and see the unborn as a life form that can be killed, others see a two lives that need to be protected.
If a person sees two lives, wanting the two lives to live is not anti-woman as it is not about being anti-woman, but about supporting life.

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.


Abortion is an argument about life, and how different people view human life. I don't believe people should be beat over the head for their beliefs on life whether for or against abortion.
Everyone has different morals and ethics.

Abortion like what is available in England would not pass here in my opinion.

..and the rest of Western modern democracies.

We are way behind on this issue.

Huntergonzo

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Except of course for the very poorly thought out suggestion that if pro-life people should help children in need

The debate is about abortion, talking about children in need is irrelevant to the discussion.

RadiationKing wrote: »

As always, it's not about children, it's about controlling women.

Here we go again with this total and utter nonsense.

murpho999 wrote: »

..and the rest of Western modern democracies.

We are way behind on this issue.

And we should stand strong and keep Ireland an abortion free country. Maybe our example might influence other countries in future and abortion laws could start being tightened again when enough people realise the terrible act that it is.

Spudman_20000

Huntergonzo wrote: »

It's "ridiculous" in your opinion and you still haven't given a logical answer why.

Except of course for the very poorly thought out suggestion that if pro-life people should help children in need (which is legal) then pro-choice people should carry out complicated, dangerous and highly illegal medical procedures called abortions.

Now that is ridiculous!

Your logic is the same as saying to people that people who are unhappy with a government should run for political office themselves.

It is such a tired and lazy argument, and your flawed logic has already been answered by a number of other posters on here. But please do continue to whip the dead horse.

cowboyBuilder

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I'm always curious how people like yourself can completely ignore the main reason people are against it i.e. the life of a child. Do you think dismissing that argument completely and pretending it's a sexism issue will change people minds about it?

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 **** ..

Huntergonzo

Spudman_20000 wrote: »

Your logic is the same as saying to people that people who are unhappy with a government should run for political office themselves.

It is such a tired and lazy argument, and your flawed logic has already been answered by a number of other posters on here. But please do continue to whip the dead horse.

Ok ok, pipe down

rainbow kirby

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

keep Ireland an abortion free country.

Total fallacy. Irish abortion already exists - it's just in the form of pills imported from abroad, in the form of the rare cases allowed under the current legislation and mostly exported.

Little CuChulainn

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

Let me guess....

Devout Catholic. Male. Over 50.

lazygal wrote: »

Never going to be pregnant.
Probably not too concerned about the born.

Such pathetic arguments.

PhoenixParker

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.

L.Jenkins

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.

Itzy

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.

Spudman_20000

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.

PhoenixParker

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?

Spudman_20000

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.

I would like abortions on demand

PhoenixParker

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.

Spudman_20000

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.

PhoenixParker

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.

L.Jenkins

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.

L.Jenkins

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.

Spudman_20000

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.