The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

nozzferrahhtoo

Akrasia wrote: »

voting with your feet and shutting down bigotted businesses works when public attitudes to the discriminated group are positive, but in areas where the prevailing attitude is prejudice, then refusing to serve people for x personal reason could be seen as a positive reason by their customer base while a liberal inclusive business owner might suffer.

That is the other side of the coin indeed but I do not think we can usefully do anything about that, at least not in a way that over rides the concern that I think PERSONAL business owners should be allowed deal with who they like when they like.

The whole concept of free business for me is that I have stock or skills that belongs to me, and I should be able to keep my possession of it until a time of MY choosing. It is MINE. I do not like the moves we have made towards compelling people to sell when they do not want to sell.

I understand WHY we make those moves.... as a reflex action against bigotry and the mistreatment of minorities and so forth. And I can not fault the intention. Just the execution. I think we need to find a better way.

Akrasia wrote: »

I think any GP should be obliged to give their patient medical advice that suits their needs

That part I am less ready to disagree with for sure. I was more talking about a GP engaging in the ACT of supplying or prescribing such a pill. That a GP should conform to the standards of truth and reality is something else for me. The GP should absolutely be compelled to give the correct advice and information where possible. And IF That correct advice is "You need this pill" then I am happy for such a PRIVATE individual to say "You need this pill, you can not get it from me as I do not stock it or prescribe it, but here are your options as to where you can go..........."

And I would hope that all the Yelp or whatever other reviews the patient writes will inform women everywhere "This doctor does not offer the full range of services a woman may require, so go elsewhere if you can" and his business will fail justifiably as a result.

You would not go to an eye doctor and DEMAND he look at your lungs. Lungs are just not a service he provides. Similarly if a doctor wants to set up saying "This is not a service I provide, but I am compelled by medical proprietry to show you the best ways you CAN get that service" then I have moral sympathies towards that situation rather than compromise me ideal that someone setting up a private business should have to provide goods or services they do not want to.

I dunno, it just seems like me going into a cake shop that does not sell nut based products and demanding "It is a cake that I want, you are a cake shop, so provide!" and them saying "Sorry sir, nut based cakes are just not a service we provide". THEY setup THEIR business to provide a specific set of products and services..... why do I get to demand services outside their own remit?

There is also the work ability aspect of things. If a doctor DOES refuse to prescribe something how can we be sure what reasons he had for doing it? He could just declare that it was his medical opinion it was not the right move for some arbitrary reason or another? All he would have to show is that HE believed it was the right medical decision, or?

Loafing Oaf

ForestFire wrote: »

You do know every doctor takes an Oat?

Surprisingly, some aren't that big into healthy eating!:p

freshpopcorn

Water John wrote: »

See Simon Coveney supports Repeal, just doesn't agree with the 12 weeks. Same as Michael Creed and Heather Humphries.
http://www.thejournal.ie/simon-coveney-abortion-3827872-Feb2018/

So, does this mean that Simon will be voting Yes or No?

If it means he's voting No one of Cork's most liberal constituencies could have two TD's who'd be wanting to keep the eighth!

Zubeneschamali

freshpopcorn wrote: »

So, does this mean that Simon will be voting Yes or No?

He'll be voting Yes, and arguing against the 12 week legislation.

freshpopcorn

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

He'll be voting Yes, and arguing against the 12 week legislation.

Thanks, for clearing that up for me!

seamus

ForestFire wrote: »

You do know every doctor takes an Oat?

No, they don't.

The Hippocratic Oath is an historical relic that's not used any more.

Some doctors may take a modern form of the oath in a ceremonial context, but there is no obligation on them to do so, and any such oath has no legal power.

I see you've been drinking from the Iona soup, David Quinn loves to talk about the oath that nobody takes.

ForestFire

seamus wrote: »

No, they don't.

The Hippocratic Oath is an historical relic that's not used any more.

Some doctors may take a modern form of the oath in a ceremonial context, but there is no obligation on them to do so, and any such oath has no legal power.

I see you've been drinking from the Iona soup, David Quinn loves to talk about the oath that nobody takes.

Can you not just correct my point without resorting to insults please.

I don't know anything about Iona or the David person you speak of.

Tipperary animal lover

Hi all, as a gay male I've got to say that I'll be voting to repeal, I stay out of the arguments at this stage it's getting crazy with what is been pulled out of the hats from both sides, I've faith in the women of this country to do the right thing as they see it, so I choose to give them my vote, we've come along way from the depressing sh*te hole this country was in back in the 80s, the very best to both sides with there campaign, just wish it was the middle of May now and get this vote over with(as it doesn't affect me either way). All the best.

freshpopcorn

Tipperary animal lover wrote: »

just wish it was the middle of May now and get this vote over with(as it doesn't affect me either way). All the best.

Your not the only one!

nozzferrahhtoo

Tipperary animal lover wrote: »

just wish it was the middle of May now and get this vote over with(as it doesn't affect me either way). All the best.

I loved a post earlier in the thread that said something like "I have been waiting for this election for decades and now it is finally here, I am sick of it already". Gave me a smile.

I suppose if we want to be pedantic though it DOES affect you. It is a change to your/our constitution. That therefore affects us all. A constitution is precious and it belongs to all of us, so changing it affects all of us.

In fairness though, the moderator team has been doing a good job of keeping abortion discussion to this single mega thread for the most part. Which is good, because anyone truly sick of it only has to ignore one thread whereas those interested in it do not have to go running all over the place. Good work those mods!

swampgas

seamus wrote: »

No, they don't.
... Iona soup, David Quinn loves to talk about the oath that nobody takes.

I haven't heard much from the Ionanists in the media lately - I wonder if they're pursuing a new strategy. I always got the impression during the marriage equality debate that they were using it as an exercise to prepare for the abortion campaign.

eviltwin

swampgas wrote: »

I haven't heard much from the Ionanists in the media lately - I wonder if they're pursuing a new strategy. I always got the impression during the marriage equality debate that they were using it as an exercise to prepare for the abortion campaign.

Yeah surprised by this too. DQ was everywhere during the SSM campaign. I have seen his Iona colleague Maria Stern speaking about this, probably they think having a woman argue against Repeal gives their argument more weight.

nozzferrahhtoo

Actually with the amount of lies coming from such sources during the SSM campaign I actually suspected they might come late on the scene for this one. Because they want less time for the lies and distortions to be rebutted and used against them to show how dishonest they are.

Like the angle of making the SSM campaign as being about the children. We had a LOT Of time to get into the media and other forums to explain why this was a distortion of what was actually being voted on.

So I had a kind of inward prediction that they would pedal their distortions later in the process this time, to erode the rebuttal time we would have and maximize the impact of their scare mongering. They realized they shot their load too soon last time, and will cut it down a bit this time.

All just my feeling I hasten to add. Nothing I can cite events or quotes for to substantiate. Just an impression I was left with.

freshpopcorn

swampgas wrote: »

I haven't heard much from the Ionanists in the media lately - I wonder if they're pursuing a new strategy. I always got the impression during the marriage equality debate that they were using it as an exercise to prepare for the abortion campaign.

Same thing here. I haven't seen/heard much about them since one of the was on the Brendan O'Connor show last year. They are actually gone scarily quiet!

seamus

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Same thing here. I haven't seen/heard much about them since one of the was on the Brendan O'Connor show last year. They are actually gone scarily quiet!

They're very conscious of not allowing people to become aware that the pro-life campaign is being run by religious interests. David Quinn and Iona are synonymous with religious conservatism.

Hence why all of the pro-life material is coming from various shell organisations. You can see on Twitter though that he'll pick a topic of the week (such as Down's Syndrome) that just incredibly coincides with the latest material that comes out.

Both Youth Defence and Iona have prepped their door-to-door campaigners to go heavy on the "poor babbies" narrative and avoid all talk of religion.

Loafing Oaf

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Same thing here. I haven't seen/heard much about them since one of the was on the Brendan O'Connor show last year. They are actually gone scarily quiet!

I suggested earlier that they might have been wrongfooted by the government's decision to propose 'abortion on demand' up front. Likely many of the counter-arguments they had stockpiled were along the lines of "We've seen in other countries how apparently limited abortion regimes turn into abortion on demand in the blink of an eye." But they should have had enough time to adjust their position at this stage...

Akrasia

It's the same reason the Socialist Workers Party has a new brand for every campaign they get involved in. They know that nobody likes the SWP, so they call themselves 'People before profit' or the 'anti austerity alliance' or the 'Irish anti war movement' but they are all fronts for the same group of activists.

The 'anti repeal' side will be a 'coalition' that will include some contrarians from various social sectors but fundamentally, it will be directed by religious conservatives running astroturf campaigns to spread their message at arms length

And just to confuse everyone even more, they'll go on and on about 'foreign' money from amnesty international or 'George Soros' or Chuck Feeney interfering in Irish politics.

B0jangles

Akrasia wrote: »

And just to confuse everyone even more, they'll go on and on about 'foreign' money from amnesty international or 'George Soros' or Chuck Feeney interfering in Irish politics.

On this last part; as I'm sure you know, this is an old political tactic - accuse your opponent of something you are actively doing yourself; if your opponent points out that you the one who is actually doing it, they usually end up looking either defensive or childish.

applehunter

George Soros is indirectly trying to change our constitution. Media seem to be ok with this.

At least Chuck Feeney is actually of Irish heritage.

bennyl10

applehunter wrote: »

George Soros is indirectly trying to change our constitution. Media seem to be ok with this.

At least Chuck Feeney is actually of Irish heritage.

Yes., the campaign to repeal us all Soros...
Remove the tin foil hat

pitifulgod

applehunter wrote: »

George Soros is indirectly trying to change our constitution. Media seem to be ok with this.

At least Chuck Feeney is actually of Irish heritage.

Yawn, George Soros obsession of some is hilarious. Plenty of Irish men and women are happily trying to change the constitution as it's currently unfit for purpose when it comes to women's rights.

brendanwalsh

I personally think abortion is disgusting. The description of surgical abortion really makes me feel uncomfortable and the pictures I have seen online of litttle babies chopped into pieces is disturbing. I would have no qualms for a person to get abortion if they were raped or the child had a disease incompatible with life. But abortion on demand is something I will have to vote against.

swampgas

brendanwalsh wrote: »

I personally think abortion is disgusting. The description of surgical abortion really makes me feel uncomfortable and the pictures I have seen online of litttle babies chopped into pieces is disturbing. I would have no qualms for a person to get abortion if they were raped or the child had a disease incompatible with life. But abortion on demand is something I will have to vote against.

Eye surgery is pretty "disgusting" too - but that doesn't mean it isn't valuable when needed. Remember though that if you want to allow abortion for rape or FFA (as you have indicated) then you should support repeal of the 8th, you can then lobby your TD about the legislation that is introduced for the cases where you feel abortion should be allowed. But the 8th has to go before any of this mess can be fixed.

applehunter

bennyl10 wrote: »

Yes., the campaign to repeal us all Soros...
Remove the tin foil hat

pitifulgod wrote: »

Yawn, George Soros obsession of some is hilarious.

You should be outraged If you are an Irish citizen. Why is this man trying to change our constitution?

Most people don't even know about him thanks to his allies in the media.

SusieBlue

brendanwalsh wrote: »

I personally think abortion is disgusting. The description of surgical abortion really makes me feel uncomfortable and the pictures I have seen online of litttle babies chopped into pieces is disturbing. I would have no qualms for a person to get abortion if they were raped or the child had a disease incompatible with life. But abortion on demand is something I will have to vote against.

I’m seeing lots here about the baby, what about the living woman carrying the baby? Do we have any compassion for her? What about her feelings?

Timberrrrrrrr

applehunter wrote: »

You should be outraged If you are an Irish citizen. Why is this man trying to change our constitution?

Most people don't even know about him thanks to his allies in the media.

Are you just as outraged by the outside influence (mostly American) that is also trying to interfere in this referendum or is it just George Soros you have taken umbrage to?

glic71rods46t0

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I’m seeing lots here about the baby, what about the living woman carrying the baby? Do we have any compassion for her? What about her feelings?

He supports abortion in cases of rape and FFA - compassion for what now?

RobertKK

In the UK they are suffering from a shortage of doctors when it comes to performing abortions.

I think a lot of doctors in Ireland will not want to facilitate abortions. It will be most likely the big business abortion providers who will move in fill the void if the 8th amendment is replaced.

WinnyThePoo

applehunter wrote: »

George Soros is indirectly trying to change our constitution. Media seem to be ok with this.

At least Chuck Feeney is actually of Irish heritage.

If in doubt blame george soros.

Spanish Eyes

brendanwalsh wrote: »

I personally think abortion is disgusting. The description of surgical abortion really makes me feel uncomfortable and the pictures I have seen online of litttle babies chopped into pieces is disturbing. I would have no qualms for a person to get abortion if they were raped or the child had a disease incompatible with life. But abortion on demand is something I will have to vote against.

Well if you are male you won't have to worry about it affecting your body personally will you?

Anyway sub twelve week terminations are already happening here with metothrexate and other drugs like Mifepriston that invoke a miscarriage. Happening every day here.

That is why the twelve week window is being mooted. It is already happening.

Surgical abortions will, imv only happen with FFA or threat to life of the woman.

It is not a pleasant subject for sure, but it is a reality now. Either abort in your bedroom or bathroom or export yourself to Britain or elsewhere. The blinkered view of what is happening daily is a bit ridiculous.

glic71rods46t0

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Well if you are male you won't have to worry about it affecting your body personally will you?

emmm - men not entitled to have an opinion???

Spanish Eyes

q9214n5louyt3p wrote: »

emmm - men not entitled to have an opinion???

That is not what I said, thanks.

glic71rods46t0

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

That is not what I said, thanks.

It was a question - that you didn't answer, thanks.

Ave Sodalis

q9214n5louyt3p wrote: »

He supports abortion in cases of rape and FFA - compassion for what now?

As has been said over and over in this thread, legislating for abortion in the case of rape is not practical. FFA is often not diagnosed to long after the 12 week mark being proposed. In this case, surgical abortion is necessary.

You can't really be against surgical abortion but for abortion in the case of rape or FFA. Pill abortions are already happening, there just isn't the support systems around it for women in Ireland.

q9214n5louyt3p wrote: »

emmm - men not entitled to have an opinion???

Ah come off it, that's not what the poster said.

Spanish Eyes

q9214n5louyt3p wrote: »

It was a question - that you didn't answer, thanks.

Ah here. Shoo.

applehunter

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Are you just as outraged by the outside influence (mostly American) that is also trying to interfere in this referendum or is it just George Soros you have taken umbrage to?

Something about this guy Soros that doesn't seem right. I mean his own people aren't too fond of him either.

Here we have a media that has been hammering 8th Amendment for the last 5 years non stop.

Then if comes to light that multi-billionaire George Soros is funding one the main repeal groups. But, not only that, in doing so he is breaking irish law. Sounds like a juicy story to me. Media blackout for 4 days.

The complicit media is where my outrage comes from.

It feels like I am screaming in the wind.

Already it is a referendum that has brought up huge debate and argument in my own home. But the same debate is not happening in the media.

Spanish Eyes

I doubt that anyone wants to abort. But sometimes they have to for many reasons.

Compassion for the circumstances of women you will never know or care for post termination would be a start.

But it seems to me that women are, as usual the vilified ones, when it always takes two to tango.

As you were, and back to the debate.

Zubeneschamali

RobertKK wrote: »

It will be most likely the big business abortion providers who will move in fill the void if the 8th amendment is replaced.

Who, Sainsburys?

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

In the UK they are suffering from a shortage of doctors when it comes to performing abortions.

More accurately, in the UK they are suffering from a shortage of doctors, full stop.

https://www.ft.com/content/a3a52be8-8e3a-11e7-a352-e46f43c5825d
In the next three years Britain’s cash-strapped National Health Service will be spending £100m in an effort to find 5,000 new doctors. In other words, each doctor needed to plug growing staffing shortages will cost £20,000 in fees to recruitment agencies.

Even then, there will be shortfalls. Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, indicated earlier this year that the UK needed more like 11,500 doctors by 2020 to meet the demands of a seven-days-a-week NHS — one in which staff are as available at weekends as they are on weekdays. That the current supply-demand gap is of this magnitude speaks volumes about the gulf between government ambitions and reality.

SusieBlue

q9214n5louyt3p wrote: »

He supports abortion in cases of rape and FFA - compassion for what now?

I don’t think there’s much compassion in forcing someone who doesn’t want to be pregnant into motherhood, regardless of circumstances.

I trust other women to know their own limits and what they can and can’t cope with, and am in full support of her terminating for any reason she deems necessary enough to do so.

Limiting it to FFA and rape isn’t good enough.

Sofiztikated

applehunter wrote: »

Something about this guy Soros that doesn't seem right. I mean his own people aren't too fond of him either.

Here we have a media that has been hammering 8th Amendment for the last 5 years non stop.

Then if comes to light that multi-billionaire George Soros is funding one the main repeal groups. But, not only that, in doing so he is breaking irish law. Sounds like a juicy story to me. Media blackout for 4 days.

The complicit media is where my outrage comes from.

It feels like I am screaming in the wind.

Already it is a referendum that has brought up huge debate and argument in my own home. But the same debate is not happening in the media.

Maybe because you keep bringing up George Soros, and your family are sick of listening to you bleat on, while grown ups try to have a conversation?

Podge_irl

applehunter wrote: »

Then if comes to light that multi-billionaire George Soros is funding one the main repeal groups. But, not only that, in doing so he is breaking irish law. Sounds like a juicy story to me. Media blackout for 4 days.

How?

Annasopra

ForestFire wrote: »

I don't even know the background to this, But are people not allowed to progress their views, add to their views as new information is presented.

If you asking everyone to stick to what they thought or said 2 weeks ago, that just seems like trying to stop the discussion.

I am just highlighting the person says he supports repeal but on the other hand keeps finding fault with lots of aspects of repeal. It doesnt add up.

Doctor Jimbob

Annasopra

ForestFire wrote: »

Sorry but this is asking people to stop discussing, trying to shut down debate.

If something new is raised , then counter it, but don't try to stop new arguments/info.

I am not shutting down any debate whatsoever.

glic71rods46t0

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I don’t think there’s much compassion in forcing someone who doesn’t want to be pregnant into motherhood, regardless of circumstances.

I trust other women to know their own limits and what they can and can’t cope with, and am in full support of her terminating for any reason she deems necessary enough to do so.

Limiting it to FFA and rape isn’t good enough.

That is your opinion. There are other opinions on the matter though. Some might not share your trust of other women using abortion in lieu of contraception.

Nettle Soup

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I don’t think there’s much compassion in forcing someone who doesn’t want to be pregnant into motherhood, regardless of circumstances.

I trust other women to know their own limits and what they can and can’t cope with, and am in full support of her terminating for any reason she deems necessary enough to do so.

Limiting it to FFA and rape isn’t good enough.

In many ways I wish the referendum was configured so that votes from women were weighted higher.
It impacts them a lot more.

applehunter

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Maybe because you keep bringing up George Soros, and your family are sick of listening to you bleat on, while grown ups try to have a conversation?

Soros has never come up in these arguments tbh. These arguments are more fundamental than that.

The media have a duty to report on it and be robust in their job. People in their day to day lives do not have the time to investigate this stuff. That is why we are supposed to have a fourth estate.

Spanish Eyes

q9214n5louyt3p wrote: »

That is your opinion. There are other opinions on the matter though. Some might not share your trust of other women using abortion in lieu of contraception.

Men are absolved from all responsibility once more I see. It is a female issue and they will be the fallen woman.

Get a life or get the snip yourself.

SusieBlue

q9214n5louyt3p wrote: »

That is your opinion. There are other opinions on the matter though. Some might not share your trust of other women using abortion in lieu of contraception.

No sane person uses abortion as a means of contraception.

Anyone who suggests so clearly has no knowledge of what the procedure involves, because if they did they would know no woman would go through with it unless they had no other option - let alone multiple times as a means of contraception.

The fact that you don’t trust women is pretty disgusting and speaks for itself but hey ho, it is your CHOICE to feel that way and who am I to deprive you of that?

You are right about it being my opinion but the good thing about being pro choice is that I’m actually not forcing my opinion on anyone, or on society as a whole.
Have an abortion, don’t have an abortion. Everyone has their own choice and opinion and is free to live their lives and make their own decisions as they see fit.
It’s to pro-life side that are forcing their opinions and beliefs on everyone.

I’m not arrogant enough to believe that my opinion speaks for society as a whole.
I trust other women.
Maybe you should do that too.