The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

The Legend Of Kira

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

What exactly is horrible about the billboards & what if any type of pro life billboards would you find acceptable ? when they used some graphic posters in the past people say its " horrible " & when they use non graphic images some people still take offence, for example this is a new billboard van being driven around town at the moment & some people are still taking offence over it even though there is no graphic images on display .

It's offensively inaccurate for one thing.

I'd imagine it's also potentially deeply distressing for people with Down Syndrome and their families.

And seeing as what's being proposed is abortion available up to a point in pregnancy where Down syndrome can't be screened for, it's got nothing to do with the matter at hand, and is a blatantly cynical, manipulative move.

The pro-choice campaign seems to be sticking to the high road and using text, graphics etc in their campaign.

The new billboard van driving around town states 

" In Britain 90% of babies with down syndrome are aborted " 

How accurate is this claim ? well according to the factcheck by the journal.ie after a tv debate on this issue, they found the claim to be accurate .

[font=Georgia, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]" Claim 1:[/font][font=Georgia, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif] 90% of Down Syndrome diagnoses in England end in termination – Cora Sherlock[/font]
[font=Georgia, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]Verdict:[/font][font=Georgia, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif] Mostly TRUE "[/font]

http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-down-syndrome-fatal-foetal-abnormality-cora-sherlock-ruth-coppinger-eighth-amendment-vincent-browne-2842048-Jun2016/

S. Goodspeed

Is it clear what will happen (or what is proposed to happen post a yes vote) in the case of fatal foetal abnormalities detected after the 12 week period? Can these be medically addressed at any point during the term or will the 12 week limit apply?

Full disclosure I am leaning to the 'no' side at the moment, I am not conservative or religious or sexist but struggle with the idea of a cut off for when a foetus becomes an individual deserving of certain rights and protection. I currently believe that right should apply from point of conception given the lack of any sound alternatives - the 12 week seems pretty arbitrary.

In the case of FFA though i (like 90% + of Irish people) am firmly in favour of allowing doctors to abort / extract as required. I dont think this should even come under the "pro choice" banner as there is not really a choice to be made in reality (although if the mother for some reason wants to continue carrying and it does not risk her life then that should be her right).

SusieBlue

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

The new billboard van driving around town states " In Britain 90% of babies with down syndrome are aborted " how accurate is this claim ? well according to the factcheck by the journal.ie after a tv debate on this issue, they found the claim to be accurate .
[font=Georgia, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]" Claim 1:[/font][font=Georgia, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif] 90% of Down Syndrome diagnoses in England end in termination – Cora Sherlock[/font]
[font=Georgia, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]Verdict:[/font][font=Georgia, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif] Mostly TRUE "[/font]

http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-down-syndrome-fatal-foetal-abnormality-cora-sherlock-ruth-coppinger-eighth-amendment-vincent-browne-2842048-Jun2016/

Its not relevant because Downs Syndrome can neither be detected nor test for at 12 weeks. So its a moot point.

pitifulgod

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

In reply to pitigulgod & Kylith, this week a young man who is a member of Down syndrome Ireland expressed a different point of view.

"" [font=Georgia, serif]A young man with Down syndrome has lent his voice to the Save the Eighth campaign.[/font]
[font=Georgia, serif]Conor O'Dowd, from Drogheda, Co Louth, and his father Michael yesterday appealed to voters not to repeal the Eighth Amendment.[/font]
[font=Georgia, serif]
"I took today off college to be here. This is a very important day. I am against abortion," Conor told a press conference in Dublin yesterday. Michael took issue with a statement released by Down Syndrome Ireland last week saying the use of the image of a girl with Down syndrome on pro-life campaign pamphlets was "disrespectful to both children and adults with Down syndrome ". The group said people with Down syndrome "should not be used as an argument for either side of this debate".[/font]
[font=Georgia, serif]"I'm a member of Down Syndrome Ireland. I've sat on the board in the past. There are very different views in Down Syndrome Ireland ... but I won't be silenced," said Michael.
He said the organisation's CEO, Gary Owens, was "relatively new" and was doing a "good job", but added, "I think he's made a mistake".[/font]

[font=Georgia, serif]"We would not have felt obliged to speak out were it not for the relentless campaign from some quarters telling us to remain silent. This past week, it has felt like our existence is inconvenient for some supporters of the abortion referendum, and that they would rather we went away and were quiet.[/font]
[font=Georgia, serif]
"We will not. It is a cold, hard, undeniable fact that when abortion is introduced, a disproportionate impact is suffered by those children diagnosed with some form of disability."

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/we-wont-be-silenced-on-the-eighth-insists-student-with-down-syndrome-36549791.html[/font]

Considerable distress will be caused to many including those who have or are affected by down syndrome. That is what Down Syndrome Ireland considers to be the issue. You pretended as if the outrage is over nothing, there's a genuine reason for concern. You'll also find there are people with down syndrome or families with members who have down syndrome that are pro choice. Plenty of people oppose being forced into unwanted pregnancies.

January

FFA's will have no term limit under the current proposal.

ohnonotgmail

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

The new billboard van driving around town states

" In Britain 90% of babies with down syndrome are aborted "

How accurate is this claim ? well according to the factcheck by the journal.ie after a tv debate on this issue, they found the claim to be accurate .

[font=Georgia, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]" Claim 1:[/font][font=Georgia, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif] 90% of Down Syndrome diagnoses in England end in termination – Cora Sherlock[/font]
[font=Georgia, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]Verdict:[/font][font=Georgia, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif] Mostly TRUE "[/font]

http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-down-syndrome-fatal-foetal-abnormality-cora-sherlock-ruth-coppinger-eighth-amendment-vincent-browne-2842048-Jun2016/

It still has absolutely nothing to do with what is being voted on.

zedhead

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

The new billboard van driving around town states 

" In Britain 90% of babies with down syndrome are aborted " 

How accurate is this claim ? well according to the factcheck by the journal.ie after a tv debate on this issue, they found the claim to be accurate .

[font=Georgia, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]" Claim 1:[/font][font=Georgia, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif] 90% of Down Syndrome diagnoses in England end in termination – Cora Sherlock[/font]
[font=Georgia, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]Verdict:[/font][font=Georgia, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif] Mostly TRUE "[/font]

http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-down-syndrome-fatal-foetal-abnormality-cora-sherlock-ruth-coppinger-eighth-amendment-vincent-browne-2842048-Jun2016/

90% of DS diagnoses and 90% of babies with DS are 2 wildly different statistics. There is a cohort of people who will not test before birth and so 0% of these are aborted due to the diagnosis. You could argue that those who are choosing to have the test have already considered abortion if it came back postive and that is why they are being tested and so the figures are skewed.

Also as mentioned DS cannot be detected before 12 weeks so it does not apply here.

freshpopcorn

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Scaremongering over something the government may or may not do in the future is ridiculous.

We need to vote on the wording we have in front of us. The current recommendation is 12 weeks. Downs cannot be detected at that gestation. Voting "no" to repeal in fear of a future government increasing the limit is a cop out.

If you aren't ok with abortion, then just admit it. Its dishonest to make excuses.

It reminds me of the marriage referendum, actually.

"I have no problem with gay marriage and would vote yes, but what's to stop a future government legalising marriage to dogs/trees/the sofa? Can't take the risk".......... Its just a cop out.

This is just my opinion but the marriage referendum was more clear cut. It basically asked would you allow marriage regardless of gender people knew exactly what they were voting on. If the No side tried to use the line could future governments allow people marry trees/etc well to the best of my knowledge they couldn't without bringing it people in a referendum.
This time around the No side will point out that future governments can extend the twelve week limit without consulting the people and they'd point out we could easily end up like the UK. They'll make it sound very easy and create doubt.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

The new billboard van driving around town states 

" In Britain 90% of babies with down syndrome are aborted " 

How accurate is this claim ? well according to the factcheck by the journal.ie after a tv debate on this issue, they found the claim to be accurate .

90% of diagnoses and 90% of pregnancies/babies are two different things.

They could have a more accurate poster saying that roughly 50% of pregnancies/babies with Down Syndrome are aborted but the actual truth doesn't pack the same punch, and this is a group and campaign that HAS TO lie and mislead because it's their only chance of getting what they want.

SusieBlue

S. Goodspeed wrote: »

Is it clear what will happen (or what is proposed to happen post a yes vote) in the case of fatal foetal abnormalities detected after the 12 week period? Can these be medically addressed at any point during the term or will the 12 week limit apply?

Full disclosure I am leaning to the 'no' side at the moment, I am not conservative or religious or sexist but struggle with the idea of a cut off for when a foetus becomes an individual deserving of certain rights and protection. I currently believe that right should apply from point of conception given the lack of any sound alternatives - the 12 week seems pretty arbitrary.

In the case of FFA though i (like 90% + of Irish people) am firmly in favour of allowing doctors to abort / extract as required. I dont think this should even come under the "pro choice" banner as there is not really a choice to be made in reality (although if the mother for some reason wants to continue carrying and it does not risk her life then that should be her right).

Genuine question and I'm not disputing your belief, but are you happy for the life of the foetus to have equal rights to the mother, at the expense of that woman's bodily autonomy? Therefore taking priority over the woman's needs and wants?

Because this is the bit I struggle with.
The woman is living and breathing and I'm just not comfortable with this living woman suffering or losing her rights at the expense of a fetus that cannot even grow into a baby without her.
It just doesn't sit right with me that the contents of her womb is prioritised over what the living woman wants.
Now, when the baby can survive independently - that's a different ball game. But a mere weeks old pregnancy, causing huge distress, suffering and anguish to the living, breathing woman?
I can't help myself. I'm on the womans side and I'm happy to trust her to do what she feels is necessary, whatever that may be.

The Legend Of Kira

pitifulgod wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

In reply to pitigulgod & Kylith, this week a young man who is a member of Down syndrome Ireland expressed a different point of view.

"" [font=Georgia, serif]A young man with Down syndrome has lent his voice to the Save the Eighth campaign.[/font]
[font=Georgia, serif]Conor O'Dowd, from Drogheda, Co Louth, and his father Michael yesterday appealed to voters not to repeal the Eighth Amendment.[/font]
[font=Georgia, serif]
"I took today off college to be here. This is a very important day. I am against abortion," Conor told a press conference in Dublin yesterday. Michael took issue with a statement released by Down Syndrome Ireland last week saying the use of the image of a girl with Down syndrome on pro-life campaign pamphlets was "disrespectful to both children and adults with Down syndrome ". The group said people with Down syndrome "should not be used as an argument for either side of this debate".[/font]
[font=Georgia, serif]"I'm a member of Down Syndrome Ireland. I've sat on the board in the past. There are very different views in Down Syndrome Ireland ... but I won't be silenced," said Michael.
He said the organisation's CEO, Gary Owens, was "relatively new" and was doing a "good job", but added, "I think he's made a mistake".[/font]

[font=Georgia, serif]"We would not have felt obliged to speak out were it not for the relentless campaign from some quarters telling us to remain silent. This past week, it has felt like our existence is inconvenient for some supporters of the abortion referendum, and that they would rather we went away and were quiet.[/font]
[font=Georgia, serif]
"We will not. It is a cold, hard, undeniable fact that when abortion is introduced, a disproportionate impact is suffered by those children diagnosed with some form of disability."

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/we-wont-be-silenced-on-the-eighth-insists-student-with-down-syndrome-36549791.html[/font]

Considerable distress will be caused to many including those who have or are affected by down syndrome. That is what Down Syndrome Ireland considers to be the issue. You pretended as if the outrage is over nothing, there's a genuine reason for concern. You'll also find there are people with down syndrome or families with members who have down syndrome that are pro choice. Plenty of people oppose being forced into unwanted pregnancies.

As Michael was quoted in the article 

"" There are very different views in Down Syndrome Ireland ""

[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The new posters on the billboard van driving around, they would of getting permission from the young boys parents/guardians to use his image on their billboard, given that they would of given such permission to use his image chances are his parents/guardians take the pro life position, if some parents/guardians of a son or daughter who has down syndrome take the repeal the 8th position that,s their business & are entitled to their opinion, but other parents/guardians might take a different position & lend their support to the pro life side in their own way such as allowing their sons image to be used in new billboards .[/font]

ohnonotgmail

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

As Michael was quoted in the article

"" There are very different views in Down Syndrome Ireland ""

[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The new posters on the billboard van driving around, they would of getting permission from the young boys parents/guardians to use his image on their billboard, given that they would of given such permission to use his image chances are his parents/guardians take the pro life position, if some parents/guardians of a son or daughter who has down syndrome take the repeal the 8th position that,s their business & are entitled to their opinion, but other parents/guardians might take a different position & lend their support to the pro life side in their own way such as allowing their sons image to be used in new billboards .[/font]

and still completely irrelevant

zedhead

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

As Michael was quoted in the article 

"" There are very different views in Down Syndrome Ireland ""

[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The new posters on the billboard van driving around, they would of getting permission from the young boys parents/guardians to use his image on their billboard, given that they would of given such permission to use his image chances are his parents/guardians take the pro life position, if some parents/guardians of a son or daughter who has down syndrome take the repeal the 8th position that,s their business & are entitled to their opinion, but other parents/guardians might take a different position & lend their support to the pro life side in their own way such as allowing their sons image to be used in new billboards .[/font]

How do you know they would have gotten permission and not just used a stock photo? Isn't that what they did in the marriage equality referendum - use a stock photo of 'parents & a baby' to demonstrate their point and the models came out to say they did not agree.

Water John

I think people know, at this point, that the anti repeal side will use whatever tactics they think will see their side prevail. Basically the end, will justify the means. The SSM and even divorce were simply, symptoms of the, slippery slope. For them, this is the war.

S. Goodspeed

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Genuine question and I'm not disputing your belief, but are you happy for the life of the foetus to have equal rights to the mother, at the expense of that woman's bodily autonomy? Therefore taking priority over the woman's needs and wants?

Because this is the bit I struggle with.
The woman is living and breathing and I'm just not comfortable with this living woman suffering or losing her rights at the expense of a fetus that cannot even grow into a baby without her.
It just doesn't sit right with me that the contents of her womb is prioritised over what the living woman wants.
Now, when the baby can survive independently - that's a different ball game. But a mere weeks old pregnancy, causing huge distress, suffering and anguish to the living, breathing woman?
I can't help myself. I'm on the womans side and I'm happy to trust her to do what she feels is necessary, whatever that may be.

Thanks for the measured response and question WhiteRoses.

If the pregnancy in any way physically endangers the life of the woman or would likely cause material, permanent damage (very hard to define and legislate for this I know) then am absolutely in favour of abortion.

I currently struggle though to place more value on the woman's mental distress, life disruption, 'temporary' pain / suffering above the actual life of a fetus / baby. I appreciate that this is definitely where being a man does not help me empathise with the woman (though many better men than I obviously can).

swampgas

People who want to terminate will still travel if repeal doesn't occur, or even if repeal does occur but the legislation is too restrictive. This is their right, as guaranteed by the constitution.

Why aren't the anti-repeal people also campaigning for the removal of the right to travel for those choosing to terminate because of DS? Does their concern for DS babies vanish at the border?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

As Michael was quoted in the article 

"" There are very different views in Down Syndrome Ireland ""

[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The new posters on the billboard van driving around, they would of getting permission from the young boys parents/guardians to use his image on their billboard, given that they would of given such permission to use his image chances are his parents/guardians take the pro life position, if some parents/guardians of a son or daughter who has down syndrome take the repeal the 8th position that,s their business & are entitled to their opinion, but other parents/guardians might take a different position & lend their support to the pro life side in their own way such as allowing their sons image to be used in new billboards .[/font]

Not necessarily. Took me ten seconds to find the little girl from a previous campaign of the same organisation on shutterstock.



Presumably after what happened in the SSM referendum they've stopped using stock photos, but I actually can't find an image of the poster (rather than a photo of it with a crowd in front) on their FB or anywhere to do a reverse image search, which is making me slightly suspicious tbh.

Cabaal

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

What exactly is horrible about the billboards & what if any type of pro life billboards would you find acceptable ? when they used some graphic posters in the past....

In the past?
They are still using them at every opportunity

This recent display for example

whatdoicare

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

Not necessarily. Took me ten seconds to find the little girl from a previous campaign of the same organisation on shutterstock.



Presumably after what happened in the SSM referendum they've stopped using stock photos, but I actually can't find an image of the poster (rather than a photo of it with a crowd in front) on their FB or anywhere to do a reverse image search, which is making me slightly suspicious tbh.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/child-with-down-syndrome-to-feature-in-anti-abortion-billboard-campaign-1.3372867

The Irish Times claims he is Joseph Cronin and his mam Catriona gave full permission to use his image. They're all part of Renua and all that crowd.

Bannasidhe

Cabaal wrote: »

In the past?
They are still using them at every opportunity

This recent display for example

Éire??

Who the actual uck calls it Éire?

Cabaal

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Éire??

Who the actual uck calls it Éire?

The American who made the photo no doubt?

January

S. Goodspeed wrote: »

Thanks for the measured response and question WhiteRoses.

If the pregnancy in any way physically endangers the life of the woman or would likely cause material, permanent damage (very hard to define and legislate for this I know) then am absolutely in favour of abortion.

I currently struggle though to place more value on the woman's mental distress, life disruption, 'temporary' pain / suffering above the actual life of a fetus / baby. I appreciate that this is definitely where being a man does not help me empathise with the woman (though many better men than I obviously can).

'temporary' pain/suffering. You are aware pregnancy does not only cause temporary pain/suffering? People have been left incontinent from tearing during childbirth and much worse.

The Legend Of Kira

zedhead wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

As Michael was quoted in the article 

"" There are very different views in Down Syndrome Ireland ""

[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The new posters on the billboard van driving around, they would of getting permission from the young boys parents/guardians to use his image on their billboard, given that they would of given such permission to use his image chances are his parents/guardians take the pro life position, if some parents/guardians of a son or daughter who has down syndrome take the repeal the 8th position that,s their business & are entitled to their opinion, but other parents/guardians might take a different position & lend their support to the pro life side in their own way such as allowing their sons image to be used in new billboards .[/font]

How do you know they would have gotten permission and not just used a stock photo? Isn't that what they did in the marriage equality referendum - use a stock photo of 'parents & a baby' to demonstrate their point and the models came out to say they did not agree.

If they didn,t get permission, Im guessing chances are they d be leaving themselves open to be sued- which I doubt they would be foolish like that; so chances are they get permission to use other people,s images in their billboards .

The Legend Of Kira

Cabaal wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

What exactly is horrible about the billboards & what if any type of pro life billboards would you find acceptable ? when they used some graphic posters in the past....

In the past?
They are still using them at every opportunity

This recent display for example

And even when they don,t use images like in the above picture, some people still take offence over other non graphic images; so what images should the no side use in their campaigning ?

January

It's not the images, it's the outrageous claims they're making that's the problem.

david75

It’s geeat to see people sharing their stories particularly about parents and family. It’s these conversations happening that will bring people around. It’s heslthy to least go talk about it openly.
The shock tactics being used already by the plc are going to stick with older people particularly unless we keep having these conversations.

I think the vast majority of people of any age group can see the current ad campaign is misleading at best nd appalling at worst. Weaponising a section of society that has firmly asked not to be used as a pawn especially in such a misleading manner, and they did it anyways.
That will backfire. It already has.

RobertKK

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

What is proposed is abortion up to 12 weeks. you cannot test for downs before 12 weeks. Its a complete red herring from the No side.

It is not when the law can be changed any time in the Dail.

pitifulgod

RobertKK wrote: »

It is not when the law can be changed any time in the Dail.

That's how laws work, they shouldn't rely on the constitution for every detail. That's the currently warped situation that we're in.

Water John

Cora Sherlock was just on Drivetime RTE 1 and she set out her stall. Worth listening to.
I think she claimed the prohibition on abortion had save 5,000 lives each year.
They are also targetting the lacuna between a Repeal vote, being successful, and any subsequent legislation. That this gap would allow a free for all. Also, strong attack focussed on Minister Harris. His Dail speech being, mean spirited.
Mary Wilson cut her, at that point. Obviously a lot of clock watching in RTE on this.
Certainly, not attacking politicians directly but that, we shouldn't hand this issue, to them.

freshpopcorn

RobertKK wrote: »

It is not when the law can be changed any time in the Dail.

I am really getting the head bit of me for saying this and keep on being told I'm scaremongering but the pro-life campaign will really use this in my opinion and it may harm the repeal campaign.

January

Water John wrote: »

Cora Sherlock was just on Drivetime RTE 1 and she set out her stall. Worth listening to.
I think she claimed the prohibition on abortion had save 5,000 lives each year.
They are also targetting the lacuna between a Repeal vote, being successful, and any subsequent legislation. That this gap would allow a free for all. Also, strong attack focussed on Minister Harris. His Dail speech being, mean spirited.
Mary Wilson cut her, at that point. Obviously a lot of clock watching in RTE on this.
Certainly, not attacking politicians directly but that, we shouldn't hand this issue, to them.

How many lives has it ruined though?

If we can't leave it in the hands of this countries leaders then who can we leave it in the hands of?

jaja321

RobertKK wrote: »

It is not when the law can be changed any time in the Dail.

It took how many years to get to this point?. In fairness, were not known for very radical governments or doing anything at a rapid pace. The middle ground is essentially where Irish voters are most comfortable. Sure there's hardly a hairs difference between the two major parties on any issue. Anyway..governments are elected by the people..so presumably government positions and legislative changes would reflect the views of the people of the time.

Water John

What must really spook the anti repealers is, that its 3 Fianna Failers, incl Billy Kelleher, that proposed the 12 weeks.

Bannasidhe

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I am really getting the head bit of me for saying this and keep on being told I'm scaremongering but the pro-life campaign will really use this in my opinion and it may harm the repeal campaign.

Because realistically getting 'extreme' legislation through the Dáil would be so difficult even Simon Coveney would admit it's pretty darn close to impossible.


It's not like any thing at all can get through. It's quite a complicated process.

A Bill may be commenced in either the Dáil or the Seanad but it must be passed by both Houses to become law. Usually, Bills are commenced in Dáil Eireann.

Before it is introduced to the Dáil, the contents of the Bill are approved by the Government. Usually there will be a process of consultation with government departments and groups likely to be affected by the Bill. (Examples of these groups are voluntary organisations, lobby groups or members of the public.)

Sometimes, the Government will publish a Green Paper. A Green Paper is a discussion document setting out ideas and inviting comment and views from individuals and relevant organisations.

The Bill is then put before the Dáil for a general debate on the principles of the Bill. Members of the Dáil may make suggestions for amendments and additions to the Bill.

The Bill is then sent to committees to be examined section by section. After the committee stage, more amendments may be made to the Bill. This is known as the report stage.

The final stage in the process is a debate in the Dáil, confined to the contents of the Bill. The members of the Dáil will then vote on whether to pass the Bill.

The Bill will then be sent down to the Seanad to go through the entire process of debate and committee examination again. The Seanad has 90 days (or any longer period agreed by both Houses) to consider the Bill and do one of the following:

Pass the Bill without any amendment or
Reject the Bill completely or
Return the Bill to the Dáil with amendments

If the Seanad rejects the Bill or returns it to the Dáil with amendments that the Dáil does not accept, the Bill will lapse after 180 days. The Dáil may, within those 180 days, pass a resolution declaring that the Bill is deemed to have been passed by both Houses. This provision means that the Seanad cannot generally stop the Dáil from introducing legislation – it can only cause delays.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/national_government/houses_of_the_oireachtas/legislation.html

We can't get animal welfare legislation through but you think we could get no-limits abortion legislation through??? It would need a government with a clear majority to impose the whip and even then do you think that there wouldn't be those who would cross the floor?

I do note that William Binchy is claiming this is what will happen if people vote Repeal. This is obviously the latest tactic from Pro-Lifers - the latest in their 'floodgates' type drama llama attempts to muddy the waters.

It's scaremongering.

There is as much chance of a Nationalist Socialist style coup happening.

NuMarvel

Water John wrote: »

I think people know, at this point, that the anti repeal side will use whatever tactics they think will see their side prevail. Basically the end, will justify the means. The SSM and even divorce were simply, symptoms of the, slippery slope. For them, this is the war.

This is their final war. There isn't another major social issue that we have to have a referendum on, so this is last chance saloon for them.

They will do absolutely anything and everything to stop this being passed.

Water John wrote: »

Cora Sherlock was just on Drivetime RTE 1 and she set out her stall. Worth listening to.
I think she claimed the prohibition on abortion had save 5,000 lives each year.
They are also targetting the lacuna between a Repeal vote, being successful, and any subsequent legislation. That this gap would allow a free for all. Also, strong attack focussed on Minister Harris. His Dail speech being, mean spirited.
Mary Wilson cut her, at that point. Obviously a lot of clock watching in RTE on this.
Certainly, not attacking politicians directly but that, we shouldn't hand this issue, to them.

There won't be a lacuna or a free for all. If the referendum is passed, the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act remains the law of the land until such time as either the Oireachtas or the courts determine otherwise. And I can't see the courts wanting to get involved anytime soon after the referendum unless there's an urgent case in front of them.

freshpopcorn

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Because realistically getting 'extreme' legislation through the Dáil would be so difficult even Simon Coveney would admit it's pretty darn close to impossible.


It's not like any thing at all can get through. It's quite a complicated process.

Yes I understand this but not everybody does. It will be used against the repeal campaign in my opinion.
They'll say in a debate can you grantee that in the future that our abortion laws won't be liberalised even further in years to come and the person has to reply yes in my opinion.
In the marriage referendum there was loads of talk about people marrying trees and toasters and multiple wives but the marriage referendum was clear cut people were voting on people marrying regardless of gender.
This view isn't accepted here and I am waiting for people to give out to me about it but I just see it as an issue that might arise.

pitifulgod

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Yes I understand this but not everybody does. It will be used against the repeal campaign in my opinion.
They'll say in a debate can you grantee that in the future that our abortion laws won't be liberalised even further in years to come and the person has to reply yes in my opinion.
In the marriage referendum there was loads of talk about people marrying trees and toasters and multiple wives but the marriage referendum was clear cut people were voting on people marrying regardless of gender.
This view isn't accepted here and I am waiting for people to give out to me about it but I just see it as an issue that might arise.

They can point out that the government will have to face reelection so will be subject to public opinion on legislation. Politicians aren't in a bubble where there's no consequences to decisions.

freshpopcorn

pitifulgod wrote: »

They can point out that the government will have to face reelection so will be subject to public opinion on legislation. Politicians aren't in a bubble where there's no consequences to decisions.

Yes, I get this but it's just an issue I feel the campaign might face. Sorry I can't help it.

Bannasidhe

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Yes I understand this but not everybody does. It will be used against the repeal campaign in my opinion.
They'll say in a debate can you grantee that in the future that our abortion laws won't be liberalised even further in years to come and the person has to reply yes in my opinion.
In the marriage referendum there was loads of talk about people marrying trees and toasters and multiple wives but the marriage referendum was clear cut people were voting on people marrying regardless of gender.
This view isn't accepted here and I am waiting for people to give out to me about it but I just see it as an issue that might arise.

I must say you have a very different recollection of the Mar Eq Ref than I do. I remember having to spend a ridiculous amount of time countering the BS that it was about children -including the insinuation that if the gays were allowed to adopt they would abuse the children. Indeed I recognise a few posters here who made that insinuation. It was far from clear and this was a deliberate tactic. They were aiming at the 'I don't mind the gays getting married but they shouldn't be allowed to adopt children because... well... because...' closet homophobes.

The proposed Referendum question is clear - repeal the 8th or not.
After that point - if it passes - the legislative battle will begin.

Stop giving oxygen to the scaremongering.

david75

NuMarvel wrote: »

This is their final war. There isn't another major social issue that we have to have a referendum on, so this is last chance saloon for them.

They will do absolutely anything and everything to stop this being passed.



There won't be a lacuna or a free for all. If the referendum is passed, the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act remains the law of the land until such time as either the Oireachtas or the courts determine otherwise. And I can't see the courts wanting to get involved anytime soon after the referendum unless there's an urgent case in front of them.

Wouldn’t be so sure. The moron Bishop has already mentioned this passing will lead to enforced euthanasia for old people. Scaremongering. The right to die issue is going to come up sooner than later and they’ll fight that too with the same rigor (mortis)

NuMarvel

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Yes I understand this but not everybody does. It will be used against the repeal campaign in my opinion.
They'll say in a debate can you grantee that in the future that our abortion laws won't be liberalised even further in years to come and the person has to reply yes in my opinion.
In the marriage referendum there was loads of talk about people marrying trees and toasters and multiple wives but the marriage referendum was clear cut people were voting on people marrying regardless of gender.
This view isn't accepted here and I am waiting for people to give out to me about it but I just see it as an issue that might arise.

I don't think anyone's arguing that it won't be used. Many of us have first hand experience of the tactics people like these use to stop referendums being passed.

But the relevant point is that it has no basis. And, to switch into campaign mode for a moment, anyone who's worried that it will convince people to vote no should be talking to their friends and family to tell them it has no basis.

Loafing Oaf

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The proposed Referendum question is clear - repeal the 8th or not.
After that point - if it passes - the legislative battle will begin.

I don't believe there will be much of a battle. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of FG will row in behind the proposed legislation, just like they did with POLDPA.

NuMarvel

david75 wrote: »

Wouldn’t be so sure. The moron Bishop has already mentioned this passing will lead to enforced euthanasia for old people. Scaremongering. The right to die issue is going to come up sooner than later and they’ll fight that too with the same rigor (mortis)

We don't have to have a referendum on that though. The court ruled in the Marie Fleming case a few years back that it's within the Oireachtas' power to legislate for this if they wish.

freshpopcorn

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I must say you have a very different recollection of the Mar Eq Ref than I do. I remember having to spend a ridiculous amount of time countering the BS that it was about children -including the insinuation that if the gays were allowed to adopt they would abuse the children. Indeed I recognise a few posters here who made that insinuation. It was far from clear and this was a deliberate tactic. They were aiming at the 'I don't mind the gays getting married but they shouldn't be allowed to adopt children because... well... because...' closet homophobes.

The proposed Referendum question is clear - repeal the 8th or not.
After that point - if it passes - the legislative battle will begin.

Stop giving oxygen to the scaremongering.

I did a little campaigning for the marriage referendum the two biggest issues I heard were.
Will the priest have to marry the couples if they had to and the answer is No. I encountered people who weren't even aware of civil marriage.
If you read the previous posts myself and another few posters had a chat about our parents view on this compared to marriage referendum. Both posters said there parent's would vote no. An I said my mother would vote no and my father would be a little more liberal on the issue. He might come around to the twelve week rule but anything else not a hope or even talk of it.
I simply don't like how people are comparing this to the marriage referendum because it's not as clear cut. It's just my opinion that lots of the scaremongering tactics in the marriage referendum were easy to defeat but this one will be a lot more tricky.

david75

NuMarvel wrote: »

We don't have to have a referendum on that though. The court ruled in the Marie Fleming case a few years back that it's within the Oireachtas' power to legislate for this if they wish.

And we know the chances of that happening are slim to none unless activists and groups start calling for it. And then watch groups from the religious right rise to oppose it. Made up of the same people and self appointed mouth pieces we’re seeing here in this campaign.

Annasopra

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

What exactly is horrible about the billboards & what if any type of pro life billboards would you find acceptable ? when they used some graphic posters in the past some people say its " horrible " & when they use non graphic images some people still take offence, for example this is a new billboard van being driven around town at the moment & some people are still taking offence over it even though there is no graphic images on display .

It is downright nasty. If the 12 week legislation comes in it is effectively lying. It is exploiting the child. Down Syndrome Ireland have said it is disredpectful to people with down syndrome and their families and these images are causing a huge amount of unnecessary stress.

Bannasidhe

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I did a little campaigning for the marriage referendum the two biggest issues I heard were.
Will the priest have to marry the couples if they had to and the answer is No. I encountered people who weren't even aware of civil marriage.
If you read the previous posts myself and another few posters had a chat about our parents view on this compared to marriage referendum. Both posters said there parent's would vote no. An I said my mother would vote no and my father would be a little more liberal on the issue. He might come around to the twelve week rule but anything else not a hope or even talk of it.
I simply don't like how people are comparing this to the marriage referendum because it's not as clear cut. It's just my opinion that lots of the scaremongering tactics in the marriage referendum were easy to defeat but this one will be a lot more tricky.

Ah now - you are the one who keeps making comparisons to Mar Eq and you are giving the impression that really, it was all very clear cut and in the bag by January. You may have done a little campaigning but I did a hell of a lot and it wasn't clear cut due to Ionaist's usual tactics and it only seems like it was in the bag in January in hindsight. At the time it felt far from it and we were fending off 'won't somebody think of the children' on air (my own son was on Sean O'Rourke on this very topic), in print, and from bloody lampposts across the country.

TBH, the person I see on here who is primarily sowing the seeds of doubt about future legislation is you.

With allies like you....

pilly

Deleted User wrote:

Sex is not a right for either partner, it is not a chore, it is not a requirement of a relationship.

Deleted User wrote:

The act of Penatrive sex can result in a pregnancy, the only 100% foolproof way to avoid this is to avoid having sex. If you do have sex then there should be a level of responsibility and that includes raising a child.

You're not getting any are you? Bless.

Bannasidhe

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It is downright nasty. If the 12 week legislation comes in it is effectively lying. It is exploiting the child. Down Syndrome Ireland have said it is disredpectful to people with down syndrome and their families and these images are causing a huge amount of unnecessary stress.

But to be fair the backers of campaigns like this aren't exactly known for their respect for actual living children. They just like to use them in poster campaigns against divorce, Marriage equality etc... never against homelessness, lack of disability supports, lack of health care provision for seriously ill children etc etc.

freshpopcorn

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ah now - you are the one who keeps making comparisons to Mar Eq and you are giving the impression that really, it was all very clear cut and in the bag by January. You may have done a little campaigning but I did a hell of a lot and it wasn't clear cut due to Ionaist's usual tactics and it only seems like it was in the bag in January in hindsight. At the time it felt far from it and we were fending off 'won't somebody think of the children' on air (my own son was on Sean O'Rourke on this very topic), in print, and from bloody lampposts across the country.

TBH, the person I see on here who is primarily sowing the seeds of doubt about future legislation is you.

With allies like you....

Yes and the things I've mentioned will be a major stubling block in my opinion and it will cause a lot of hassle. I just feel some posters here are very niave about it.
I did a good bit of campaigning for the marriage one/talked to people about and got a different vibe.
People who are big into this also had the same issues with their parents.
We are never going to agree on this.