The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

nice_guy80

there'll be a more at a national league football game today

so, no, It wasn't a big march

Pherekydes

Bonniedog wrote: »

Merrion Square was full of people while there were still people leaving Parnell Square!

Is this a Poe?

gandalf

eviltwin wrote: »

I was in town yesterday. What stuck me was the age profile of those on the march, most I saw were over 65.
The age profile on the March for Choice was the opposite, mostly under 40.

I don't know how things will go in May but even if the referendum is defeated it's just a matter of time before we have abortion here. It's deluded to think otherwise.

The thing is we know that the older generation will get out and vote. What is imperative to repeal the 8th is to ensure that the younger voters get out in numbers to push this over the line. All we have to do is look at our neighbours and see what the older generation have done to the youth of their country, long after these regressives are in their graves those left behind will be paying the price for their empire folly.

I look forward to us pulling ourselves further away from our theocratic past and into a true pluralistic society. Let's ensure these minority of backward dinosaurs don't continue to dictate the direction of our society.

IsaacWunder

HandsomeBob wrote: »

If it's defeated how long do you think it will take for another vote to happen?

Depends how close it is and the reasons why.

HandsomeBob

IsaacWunder wrote: »

Depends how close it is and the reasons why.

My concern would be such factors wouldn't be considered.

Brexit is an absolutely huge decision for millions of people. The fact that the vote was so tight hasn't forced another vote.

Oldtree

On the 6 o'clock news on our national station, the same rhetoric was reiterated last night. Watch the clip in the below link, and you will notice the announcer starts off with "tens of thousands marched" and then cuts to an organiser stating before the march that "tens of thousands" are expected.

Ask yourself how this come about on the 6 o'clock news, when Rte had already downed the number of marchers to 15,000+ in their published article well before the news was broadcast! Hardly unbiased reporting on such an important issue facing our country.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0310/946411-save-eighth-march/

average_runner

For the repel to win, they need to change their message. They are alienating the men vote which is a silly thing to do.

Saw messages saying men shouldn't vote on it.

gandalf

HandsomeBob wrote: »

My concern would be such factors wouldn't be considered.

Brexit is an absolutely huge decision for millions of people. The fact that the vote was so tight hasn't forced another vote.

And the Anti-choice side is extremely well funded by overseas fundamentalists and are able to get media exposure well beyond their actual support in this country. It would be poison for any mainstream politician initially to try and get it out back on the agenda.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

gandalf

average_runner wrote: »

For the repel to win, they need to change their message. They are alienating the men vote which is a silly thing to do.

Saw messages saying men shouldn't vote on it.

I would say these messages are not coming from repeal but could part of the dirty tricks from the Opus Dei/Youth Defense extremist of the forced birth side.

Oldtree

average_runner wrote: »

For the repel to win, they need to change their message. They are alienating the men vote which is a silly thing to do.

Saw messages saying men shouldn't vote on it.

Havn't seen that can you link please.

average_runner

Oldtree wrote: »

Havn't seen that can you link please.

Go thru the thread yourself. Not doing your work.


Repel need to play it wisely, play on the sympathy side, your target could be the father's of young daughters.

Nettle Soup

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Just over 734,000 voted against marriage equality, they haven't gone away you know.

Yes but I imagine at least 50% of those are embarrassed they voted No. They did it because they believed idiotic spin and fear-mongering from religious organisations. The world kept turning after the vote. In fact it became a happier place.

.

nice_guy80

average_runner wrote: »

Go thru the thread yourself. Not doing your work.


Repel need to play it wisely, play on the sympathy side, your target could be the father's of young daughters.

how would that change their vote?

Hammer Archer

average_runner wrote: »

For the repel to win, they need to change their message. They are alienating the men vote which is a silly thing to do.

Saw messages saying men shouldn't vote on it.

And the other side who have employed convicted armed robber and gun runner to lie about being an abortion clinic worker, who have planted their own people in pro choice marches with the express aim to deliberately sabotage it using OTT placards and fascist signs, who have often tried to shame women for daring to have sex, even when contraception is used? Their tactics are fine and dandy?

January

average_runner wrote: »

For the repel to win, they need to change their message. They are alienating the men vote which is a silly thing to do.

Saw messages saying men shouldn't vote on it.

That's actually not the message that Coalition to Repeal the 8th Amendment, the Abortion Rights Campaign and many other large pro-choice organisations are spreading, in fact, it's the opposite.

I've had many men over the past week or so tell me they feel they shouldn't vote because it has nothing to do with them. Which isn't true! They have an important role to play in the run up to the referendum and if they want their wife's, mother's, daughter's, cousins', aunts etc to have bodily autonomy then they will need to get out and vote on referendum day to make sure that happens.

gandalf

January wrote: »

That's actually not the message that Coalition to Repeal the 8th Amendment, the Abortion Rights Campaign and many other large pro-choice organisations are spreading, in fact, it's the opposite.

I've had many men over the past week or so tell me they feel they shouldn't vote because it has nothing to do with them. Which isn't true! They have an important role to play in the run up to the referendum and if they want their wife's, mother's, daughter's, cousins', aunts etc to have bodily autonomy then they will need to get out and vote on referendum day to make sure that happens.

My opinion is that as a man I shouldn't have a veto on whether a woman has full bodily autonomy but I can vote to ensure that veto is removed. That is why I am voting to repeal the eight.

Do I believe abortion is right, no I don't but I recognise that life is not black and white and individuals should have as much control over their destiny as possible. They should have a choice, they should have the headspace to discuss their options without being shamed or labelled as murderers.

Cally Caleigh

Are there any statistics available for some of the arguments being put forward such as,

1. What % of pregnancies in the Republic of Ireland result in a fatal fetal abnormality?
2. What % of pregnancies in the Republic of Ireland result in a serious threat to the mother's life? (e.g. where the mother will die if the pregnancy is not terminated).
3. What % of abortions in the UK (our closest neighbour where abortion is legal and Irish women travel to for abortion) are carried out to terminate a pregnancy with fatal fetal abnormality or where the mother's life is in danger?

Asking sincerely by the way, I do not know the answers to above questions but feel they are important personally in deciding which way to vote.

amdublin

Cally Caleigh wrote: »

Are there any statistics available for some of the arguments being put forward such as,

1. What % of pregnancies in the Republic of Ireland result in a fatal fetal abnormality?
2. What % of pregnancies in the Republic of Ireland result in a serious threat to the mother's life? (e.g. where the mother will die if the pregnancy is not terminated).
3. What % of abortions in the UK (our closest neighbour where abortion is legal and Irish women travel to for abortion) are carried out to terminate a pregnancy with fatal fetal abnormality or where the mother's life is in danger?

Asking sincerely by the way, I do not know the answers to above questions but feel they are important personally in deciding which way to vote.

Do they really matter? Is it really any business of yours why any woman chooses to have an abortion.

What are the factors that are important for you in deciding whether each woman has to make her own personal decision in whether she continues with a pregnancy or not? Why are they a factor? Like does it matter if for example 10% of Irish women abortions are due to failed contraception? What does it matter if 10% are from rape. Is there any difference between the two?

pitifulgod

Cally Caleigh wrote: »

Are there any statistics available for some of the arguments being put forward such as,

1. What % of pregnancies in the Republic of Ireland result in a fatal fetal abnormality?
2. What % of pregnancies in the Republic of Ireland result in a serious threat to the mother's life? (e.g. where the mother will die if the pregnancy is not terminated).
3. What % of abortions in the UK (our closest neighbour where abortion is legal and Irish women travel to for abortion) are carried out to terminate a pregnancy with fatal fetal abnormality or where the mother's life is in danger?

Asking sincerely by the way, I do not know the answers to above questions but feel they are important personally in deciding which way to vote.

Thing is, that's not we're voting. We're voting to allow the government to legislate. Rather than having to handle the most minute details in the constitution which has resulted in multiple references to date.

Edward M

amdublin wrote: »

Do they really matter? Is it really any business of yours why any woman chooses to have an abortion.

What are the factors that are important for you in deciding whether each woman has to make her own personal decision in whether she continues with a pregnancy or not? Why are they a factor? Like does it matter if for example 10% of Irish women abortions are due to failed contraception? What does it matter if 10% are from rape. Is there any difference between the two?

You don't see any difference between failed contraception and rape!?

Loafing Oaf

Cally Caleigh wrote: »

Are there any statistics available for some of the arguments being put forward such as,

1. What % of pregnancies in the Republic of Ireland result in a fatal fetal abnormality?
2. What % of pregnancies in the Republic of Ireland result in a serious threat to the mother's life? (e.g. where the mother will die if the pregnancy is not terminated).
3. What % of abortions in the UK (our closest neighbour where abortion is legal and Irish women travel to for abortion) are carried out to terminate a pregnancy with fatal fetal abnormality or where the mother's life is in danger?

Asking sincerely by the way, I do not know the answers to above questions but feel they are important personally in deciding which way to vote.

We're effectively voting yes or no to 'abortion on demand' up to 12 weeks, I don't see what bearing that data would have on your decision.

amdublin

Edward M wrote: »

You don't see any difference between failed contraception and rape!?

What is the difference in the context of us voting whether there should be abortion on request in Ireland or not?

Oh dear... Please let us not be heading towards something like the rape committee discussion again
"Yes I believe you were raped you can have an abortion in Ireland"
"Nope you had sex of your own accord, contraception failed boo hoo, No abortion for you girlio"

volchitsa

gandalf wrote: »

My opinion is that as a man I shouldn't have a veto on whether a woman has full bodily autonomy but I can vote to ensure that veto is removed. That is why I am voting to repeal the eight.

Do I believe abortion is right, no I don't but I recognise that life is not black and white and individuals should have as much control over their destiny as possible. They should have a choice, they should have the headspace to discuss their options without being shamed or labelled as murderers.

As a woman I don't think I should have a veto on whether another woman has full bodily autonomy either, but we are where we are because pro life put this in our constitution.

Everyone has a vote, so yes, voting to remove that right over other people and to give it back to pregnant women and their partners, is absolutely something we should all want to do. Male or female.

Bonniedog

pitifulgod wrote: »

Thing is, that's not we're voting. We're voting to allow the government to legislate. Rather than having to handle the most minute details in the constitution which has resulted in multiple references to date.

Majority in Leinster House has already voted for 12 weeks limit, so that will be bottom line in legislation.

You seem to forget that reason for repeal was to do with risk to mother's life, and in particular one case that the report into it showed that it had to do with hospital procedures, nothing whatsoever to do with "Catholic ethos" or refusing the poor woman any option.

Whole debate now is about up to what stage abortion on demand will be permitted. They could at least be honest about it. If that's what people vote for then fair enough.

January

Bonniedog wrote: »

Majority in Leinster House has already voted for 12 weeks limit, so that will be bottom line in legislation.

You seem to forget that reason for repeal was to do with risk to mother's life, and in particular one case that the report into it showed that it had to do with hospital procedures, nothing whatsoever to do with "Catholic ethos" or refusing the poor woman any option.

Whole debate now is about up to what stage abortion on demand will be permitted. They could at least be honest about it. If that's what people vote for then fair enough.

You're forgetting that a lot of the procedures that hospitals in Ireland have are due to the fact that they have a Catholic ethos still in place.

Bonniedog

January wrote: »

You're forgetting that a lot of the procedures that hospitals in Ireland have are due to the fact that they have a Catholic ethos still in place.

Well, not in that case. Lots of issues that need to be addressed regarding how hospitals treat patients, but the myth that it was doctors and nurses allowing that woman to die was due to their religion was shamelessly used for ulterior purposes. She is not even mentioned any more because it does not suit their position.

January

Which woman are you talking about?

Oldtree

average_runner wrote: »

Go thru the thread yourself. Not doing your work.

So no then you can't link.

volchitsa

Oldtree wrote: »

So no then you can't link.

Make an unevidenced claim and tell to hunt up the confirmation themselves.
Yup, we've seen that before.

_Dara_

Edward M wrote: »

You don't see any difference between failed contraception and rape!?

Well, presumably if it was allowed for rape, you'd have to prove you were raped. Which do you think would take longer: bringing a pregnancy to term or bringing a rape case to trial?

And for people who are okay with abortion in certain extreme circumstances: are those potential lives worth less to you? Are only some potential lives worth saving?

Ismisejack

gandalf wrote: »

The thing is we know that the older generation will get out and vote. What is imperative to repeal the 8th is to ensure that the younger voters get out in numbers to push this over the line. All we have to do is look at our neighbours and see what the older generation have done to the youth of their country, long after these regressives are in their graves those left behind will be paying the price for their empire folly.

I look forward to us pulling ourselves further away from our theocratic past and into a true pluralistic society. Let's ensure these minority of backward dinosaurs don't continue to dictate the direction of our society.

Wow never came across such a snob in my relatively short life, well I’m 22 so I’ll be able vote against repeal for a long time yet! How u like that?! There’s is nothing backwards about being anti abortion it’s indeed progressive as there is much more progressive ways of dealing with crisis pregnancies than child murdering. When referendum day comes and the eighth is retained I can’t wait to see the face on snobs like you

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

splinter65

January wrote: »

That's actually not the message that Coalition to Repeal the 8th Amendment, the Abortion Rights Campaign and many other large pro-choice organisations are spreading, in fact, it's the opposite.

I've had many men over the past week or so tell me they feel they shouldn't vote because it has nothing to do with them. Which isn't true! They have an important role to play in the run up to the referendum and if they want their wife's, mother's, daughter's, cousins', aunts etc to have bodily autonomy then they will need to get out and vote on referendum day to make sure that happens.

All over social media young women are demanding that if you have no uterus you can’t vote.
The save the 8th campaign will be very satisfied with this.
That and the general abusive tone (shut up, **** off, you’re an idiot etc) is very prominent.
It’s mostly very young women but of course they’re the demographic of the social media user.

Bonniedog

Ismisejack wrote: »

Wow never came across such a snob in my relatively short life, well I’m 22 so I’ll be able vote against repeal for a long time yet! How u like that?! There’s is nothing backwards about being anti abortion it’s indeed progressive as there is much more progressive ways of dealing with crisis pregnancies than child murdering. When referendum day comes and the eighth is retained I can’t wait to see the face on snobs like you

I wonder what Gandalf's view is on their theocratic buddy Dr. Selim proposing that Irish hospitals legally carry out the torture and mutilation of little girls?

Left was curiously silent on that.

splinter65

Fred Swanson wrote: »

What are the keep lot going to do when they lose?

Their faces should be a picture worthy of the Louvre.

This kind of cocky smugness is great news for the save the 8th campaign.
Keep it up Fred you’re playing a blinder!

Oldtree

Ismisejack wrote: »

Wow never came across such a snob in my relatively short life, well I’m 22 so I’ll be able vote against repeal for a long time yet! How u like that?! There’s is nothing backwards about being anti abortion it’s indeed progressive as there is much more progressive ways of dealing with crisis pregnancies than child murdering. When referendum day comes and the eighth is retained I can’t wait to see the face on snobs like you

You will only be able to vote against it once in your lifetime!

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Hammer Archer

splinter65 wrote: »

This kind of cocky smugness is great news for the save the 8th campaign.
Keep it up Fred you’re playing a blinder!

Hilarious. A pro lifer made the exact same comment in the previous post yet you focus on that one?

Damien360

Bonniedog wrote: »

pitifulgod wrote: »

Thing is, that's not we're voting. We're voting to allow the government to legislate. Rather than having to handle the most minute details in the constitution which has resulted in multiple references to date.

Majority in Leinster House has already voted for 12 weeks limit, so that will be bottom line in legislation.

You seem to forget that reason for repeal was to do with risk to mother's life, and in particular one case that the report into it showed that it had to do with hospital procedures, nothing whatsoever to do with "Catholic ethos" or refusing the poor woman any option.

Whole debate now is about up to what stage abortion on demand will be permitted. They could at least be honest about it. If that's what people vote for then fair enough.

12 week limit will not cater for those who find out at 20 weeks when a first scan is done, that their child is not viable. And therefore these women will still have to travel to UK. That's just wrong.

PopePalpatine

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Yes but I imagine at least 50% of those are embarrassed they voted No. They did it because they believed idiotic spin and fear-mongering from religious organisations. The world kept turning after the vote. In fact it became a happier place.

.

Assuming your imagination is right, you're still left with nearly 370,000 who aren't embarrassed about voting No or getting duped by fearmongering. Besides, now that marriage equality is here, why would someone announce that they voted against it?

January

Damien360 wrote: »

12 week limit will not cater for those who find out at 20 weeks when a first scan is done, that their child is not viable. And therefore these women will still have to travel to UK. That's just wrong.

That's not true. FFA will be covered after 12 weeks. It's non fatal abnormalities that will not be covered after the 12 week on request proposal.

Hammer Archer

Bonniedog wrote: »

I wonder what Gandalf's view is on their theocratic buddy Dr. Selim proposing that Irish hospitals legally carry out the torture and mutilation of little girls?

Left was curiously silent on that.

You must have had your fingers in your ears. He was widely castigated by all sides, including by other senior Muslims in Ireland. Not that it has anything whatsoever to do with the topic at hand.

January

Bonniedog wrote: »

I wonder what Gandalf's view is on their theocratic buddy Dr. Selim proposing that Irish hospitals legally carry out the torture and mutilation of little girls?

Left was curiously silent on that.

Got a link to that woman you were referencing in your last posts?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Oldtree

Damien360 wrote: »

12 week limit will not cater for those who find out at 20 weeks when a first scan is done, that their child is not viable. And therefore these women will still have to travel to UK. That's just wrong.

The policy paper published by the government on 8th March says different

Policy 9: That termination of pregnancy for a fetal condition likely to lead to death before or shortly after birth or for maternal health should not have a gestational limit in the General Scheme.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=445276&stc=1&d=1520779204

pitifulgod

Bonniedog wrote: »

Majority in Leinster House has already voted for 12 weeks limit, so that will be bottom line in legislation.

You seem to forget that reason for repeal was to do with risk to mother's life, and in particular one case that the report into it showed that it had to do with hospital procedures, nothing whatsoever to do with "Catholic ethos" or refusing the poor woman any option.

Whole debate now is about up to what stage abortion on demand will be permitted. They could at least be honest about it. If that's what people vote for then fair enough.

The reason for repeal is that the state is currently forcing thousands of women abroad for medical procedures. They happen regardless. Literally all the party leaders have said this... So you appear to be pretty poor at following it so far...

Abortions will be allowed to occur at later stages if danger to woman's life or ffa.

Damien360

Oldtree wrote: »

Damien360 wrote: »

12 week limit will not cater for those who find out at 20 weeks when a first scan is done, that their child is not viable. And therefore these women will still have to travel to UK. That's just wrong.

The policy paper published by the government on 8th March says different

Policy 9: That termination of pregnancy for a fetal condition likely to lead to death before or shortly after birth or for maternal health should not have a gestational limit in the General Scheme.

http://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Policy-paper-approved-by-Goverment-8-March-2018.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjeu6eDvOTZAhVBB8AKHSJvAoAQFjAAegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw1gOSv1xXvn_MuqY1WHQlJz

I stand corrected. Delighted. Will that go to the wording in referendum ?

January

Damien360 wrote: »

I stand corrected. Delighted. Will that go to the wording in referendum ?

This is the proposed wording and a rough proposal of the legislation to come after.

The wording

Taking TDs through the bill, he said it included two sections and a schedule. The wording of the proposed constitutional amendment is as follows:

Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy

The short policy paper, which the minister published today affirms the following:

That termination of pregnancy on the grounds of a risk to the health (which would include risk to the life) of a pregnant woman would be provided for in the General Scheme.

That there will be distinction between a risk to the physical or mental health of a woman.

That two medical practitioners will be required to assess access to termination of pregnancy on the grounds of a risk to the health of a pregnant woman.

One medical practitioner can permit to terminate a pregnancy where an emergency risk to health arises.

That termination of pregnancy on the grounds of a fetal condition which is likely to lead to death before or shortly after birth would be provided for

That two medical practitioners would be required to enable access to termination of pregnancy on the grounds of a fetal condition which is likely to lead to death before or shortly after birth.

That termination of pregnancy up to 12 weeks of pregnancy without specific indication will be permitted

That a time period would be required to elapse between the initial assessment by a medical practitioner and the a termination of pregnancy being carried out.

That termination of pregnancy for a fetal condition likely to lead to death before or shortly after birth or for maternal health should not have a gestational limit in the General Scheme.

That the definition of appropriate medical practitioners in the legislation would include all registered medical practitioners on the Medical Council register.

The legislation will require that a termination of pregnancy should be certified by the appropriate medical practitioner(s) in all cases.

The General Scheme will require that the termination of pregnancy be notified to the Minister for Health by the appropriate medical practitioner.

The law will include provision for a formal review process for a woman in certain defined circumstances. It is noted that Section 10 of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, 2013 established a formal mechanism whereby a woman can seek a review of the clinical assessment made by the original treating medical practitioner or team where their assessment is that the woman does not require a termination, or when the woman has been unable to obtain an opinion in this regard.

Conscientious objection in line with that provided for in the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, 2013 will be allowed so as to provide a right to conscientious objection for medical and nursing personnel.

A clause confirming that nothing in the legislation would limit or interfere with the right to travel or to information will be included.

That termination of pregnancy would be lawful in the circumstances set out in the grounds provided for in the new legislation, but it will retain the offence of intentional destruction of the unborn in defined circumstances.

A woman who procures or seeks to procure a termination of pregnancy for herself would not be guilty of an offence.

That the Minister for Health will publish an annual report of terminations of pregnancy in the preceding year

The HSE must also be prepared to report each year of reviews undertaken in the preceding year in defined circumstances, and will include the number of reviews carried out and the outcomes of the reviews. These reports will be submitted to the Minister for Health for publication.

That provision for consent similar to that contained in the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, 2013 would be provided in the new legislation.

That the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, 2013 would be repealed in full.