The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

freshpopcorn

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

People forget that the 8th was only passed by a margin of 2 to 1 even though this was 1983, when the catholic church's influence was still at its height and only 4 years after the mass hysteria of the pope's visit.

At that time, the only experience most people had of abortion was their local priest telling them how evil it was.

In Dublin it was only passed by the narrowest of margins, 51% to 49%.

What would have me concerned would be the result of the marriage referendum and it passing by just over 12%. If it passed by 20% or so I'd say it pass no problem but I can see lots of rural constituencies going No and it will take the cities/commuter counties to pass it.
Unless the keep campaign runs a terrible campaign, I wouldn't be counting on it passing just yet.

posturingpat

Any word if/when the referendum goes ahead? Going to have to buy myself a holy bible.

BabyCheeses

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

It seems you and your ilk have learned to sum of sweet **** all from both Trump winning the Presidency and the Brexit vote.

If you, and the Pro-Choice crowd, continue insulting those who disagree with you, and more importantly those on the fence, you are cast iron-guaranteeing to lose any referendum on this topic.

Remember folks, don't call someone a gombeen or your a terrible person who will cause a vote to be lost but saying that maybe someone should have been aborted is fine.

eviltwin

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

It seems you and your ilk have learned to sum of sweet **** all from both Trump winning the Presidency and the Brexit vote.

If you, and the Pro-Choice crowd, continue insulting those who disagree with you, and more importantly those on the fence, you are cast iron-guaranteeing to lose any referendum on this topic.

Someone so immature who will choose how to vote on the basis of who hurts their feelings the most doesn't deserve a vote.

Simi

freshpopcorn wrote: »

What would have me concerned would be the result of the marriage referendum and it passing by just over 12%. If it passed by 20% or so I'd say it pass no problem but I can see lots of rural constituencies going No and it will take the cities/commuter counties to pass it.
Unless the keep campaign runs a terrible campaign, I wouldn't be counting on it passing just yet.

The margin was 24.14% not 12%. I would expect a repeal vote to carry in Dublin and the commuter belt, but I'd expect a no in most other counties tbh.

I'd still expect it to still be a yes overall, but by a slimmer margin than the marriage equality referendum.

posturingpat

So which is yes and which is no?
Yes Baby Killers
No Bible bashers

Is that correct?

freshpopcorn

Simi wrote: »

The margin was 24.14% not 12%. I would expect a repeal vote to carry in Dublin and the commuter belt, but I'd expect a no in most other counties tbh.

I'd still expect it to still be a yes overall, but by a slimmer margin than the marriage equality referendum.

Can I just ask how did you calculate that?
Yes was 62% and No was 38%!
Sorry about my error!

backspin.

Repeal the 8th types seem to be the same people who spout nonsense about the 'patriarchy', 'white privilege' etc. Its hard to support those people.

Martina1991

backspin. wrote:

Repeal the 8th types seem to be the same people who spout nonsense about the 'patriarchy', 'white privilege' etc. Its hard to support those people.

It's not about supporting "Those people ". It's about giving women the right to choose what happens to their bodies.

uptherebels

backspin. wrote: »

Repeal the 8th types seem to be the same people who spout nonsense about the 'patriarchy', 'white privilege' etc. Its hard to support those people.

typical ill informed vitriol from the anti choicers, hard to support such people:rolleyes:

kylith

backspin. wrote: »

Repeal the 8th types seem to be the same people who spout nonsense about the 'patriarchy', 'white privilege' etc. Its hard to support those people.

How about just supporting women's rights instead?

eviltwin

backspin. wrote: »

Repeal the 8th types seem to be the same people who spout nonsense about the 'patriarchy', 'white privilege' etc. Its hard to support those people.

It's not the fcukin X Factor, it's not about which side impresses you the most. It's about whether you agree with the wording of the proposed amendment. Read it, decide and vote accordingly.

Tigger

January wrote: »

Contraception is not 100% effective.

People who are married cannot give their offspring up for adoption unless they declare themselves unfit to parent, this can affect offspring already being raised or future offspring.

if people who are married with kids are going to have abortions because they cant give away tgeir babies they shouldnt have futire offspring

Geuze

Martina1991 wrote: »

It's about giving women the right to choose what happens to their bodies.

Do we all have the right to do what we like with our bodies?

Should we?

If I walk into the hospital and ask for my leg to be cut off, should that be done?

eviltwin

Geuze wrote: »

Do we all have the right to do what we like with our bodies?

Should we?

If I walk into the hospital and ask for my leg to be cut off, should that be done?

Does most of the developed world and organisations like Amnesty and the WHO advocate for people who want their limbs removed?

If you decide to cut your own leg off are you facing a criminal conviction and a potential 14 yr prison sentence?

eviltwin

backspin. wrote: »

I haven't looked into it and don't know which way i'll vote or if i'll vote at all. But if i see some blue haired harridan in the run up to the vote gassing about the patriarchy it could influence my decision. That's all i'm saying.

Why? All that stuff is just a distraction, it shouldn't make a difference what any interest says or thinks, just make up your own mind

Martina1991

Geuze wrote:

Do we all have the right to do what we like with our bodies?

Geuze wrote:

If I walk into the hospital and ask for my leg to be cut off, should that be done?

Yes we do.
Ridiculous analogy. But I'm sure if you wanted to cut off your leg you would find a way to do it.

If a girl / women truly wants/needs to go ahead with an abortion she WILL go abroad and have one.

backspin.

I agree with euthanasia and the death penalty. Abortion is a tricky one but on balance i would favour the right to choose.

SafeSurfer

eviltwin wrote: »

Geuze wrote: »

Do we all have the right to do what we like with our bodies?

Should we?

If I walk into the hospital and ask for my leg to be cut off, should that be done?

Does most of the developed world and organisations like Amnesty and the WHO advocate for people who want their limbs removed?

If you decide to cut your own leg off are you facing a criminal conviction and a potential 14 yr prison sentence?

Can you provide an example of anyone imprisoned in the Republic of Ireland for procuring an abortion this millennium
If the pro choice side want the pro life side to stop mentioning full term abortions because "they just don't happen", the pro choice side should stop arguing the 14 years imprisonment argument because similarly it just doesn't happen.

eviltwin

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Can you provide an example of anyone imprisoned in the Republic of Ireland for procuring an abortion this millennium
If the pro choice side want the pro life side to stop mentioning full term abortions because "they just don't happen", the pro choice side should stop arguing the 14 years imprisonment argument because similarly it just doesn't happen.

The 14 yrs is on the statute books since POLPA. Just because it hasn't been enforced doesn't mean it won't scare some vulnerable woman who has no means to travel.

Crea

eviltwin wrote: »

The 14 yrs is on the statute books since POLPA. Just because it hasn't been enforced doesn't mean it won't scare some vulnerable woman who has no means to travel.

With the increased use of the abortion pill it would definitely deter women from seeking medical advice in case of complications. It certainly would deter me.

Crea

Tigger wrote: »

if people who are married with kids are going to have abortions because they cant give away tgeir babies they shouldnt have futire offspring

If only there was no such thing as an unplanned pregnancy. If only contraception didn't fail. If only women didn't become super fertile coming up to the menopause.
Next your going to say married people shouldn't have sex which is my 13 year olds recommendation for unplanned pregnancy.

SafeSurfer

eviltwin wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Can you provide an example of anyone imprisoned in the Republic of Ireland for procuring an abortion this millennium
If the pro choice side want the pro life side to stop mentioning full term abortions because "they just don't happen", the pro choice side should stop arguing the 14 years imprisonment argument because similarly it just doesn't happen.

The 14 yrs is on the statute books since POLPA. Just because it hasn't been enforced doesn't mean it won't scare some vulnerable woman who has no means to travel.

Scaremongering, insulting the intelligence of women, these red herrings just serve to undermine your argument. The fact is more women have been jailed in England for abortion offences than in Ireland, despite the 8th amendment.

SafeSurfer

Crea wrote: »

Tigger wrote: »

if people who are married with kids are going to have abortions because they cant give away tgeir babies they shouldnt have futire offspring

If only there was no such thing as an unplanned pregnancy. If only contraception didn't fail. If only women didn't become super fertile coming up to the menopause.
Next your going to say married people shouldn't have sex which is my 13 year olds recommendation for unplanned pregnancy.

Lots of unplanned pregnancies result in a new loved, valued human being.
Unplanned does not equal unwanted. We should not seek to consign human life to the level of the disposable society. Billions of humans have been unplanned but were born, been loved and loved others. If every unplanned baby was killed we would live in a pretty empty, predictable, sanitised world.

Crea

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Lots of unplanned pregnancies result in a new loved, valued human being.
Unplanned does not equal unwanted. We should not seek to consign human life to the level of the disposable society. Billions of humans have been unplanned but were born, been loved and loved others. If every unplanned baby was killed we would live in a pretty empty, predictable, sanitised world.

True but not all babies are wanted or not all pregnancies are happy for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it's a genuine crisis for the pregnant woman. It's not up to me to judge why that is.

RayM

I wonder how people who favour the retention of the 8th Amendment would react if a close family member desperately wanted to have an abortion, and needed their help with the expense and practicalities of travelling (even something simple, like a lift to the airport). I mean, if their mind is absolutely 100% made up and no attempts at persuasion will change it (if anything, it's causing them more distress). Would you tell them that you're morally opposed to what they're doing and therefore cannot in any way facilitate their abortion? Or would you reluctantly accept that it's not about you and give them whatever help they've asked for? Your (honest) answer to this question should dictate how you vote.

RobertKK

RayM wrote: »

I wonder how people who favour the retention of the 8th Amendment would react if a close family member desperately wanted to have an abortion, and needed their help with the expense and practicalities of travelling (even something simple, like a lift to the airport). I mean, if their mind is absolutely 100% made up and no attempts at persuasion will change it (if anything, it's causing them more distress). Would you tell them that you're morally opposed to what they're doing and therefore cannot in any way facilitate their abortion? Or would you reluctantly accept that it's not about you and give them whatever help they've asked for? Your (honest) answer to this question should dictate how you vote.

I wouldn't use MY money to finance something I disagree with. That I have my own conscience to live with, and it is not all about their need, but my needs too.

frag420

RobertKK wrote: »

and it is not all about their need, but my needs too.

Awesome so we are getting somewhere, you realise that your needs are more important than the other persons and you are making a choice based on what's best for you!

Now surely you should afford this right to women too no!?

January

Tigger wrote: »

if people who are married with kids are going to have abortions because they cant give away tgeir babies they shouldnt have futire offspring

No they're having abortions because they can't afford to raise another child or because another pregnancy is too dangerous to go ahead with or because they have a child with complex special needs already and feel that bringing another child into the world at this time isn't the right thing to do.

Maybe their finances change, maybe their circumstances change. They shouldn't be denied the right to have another child in the future just because they had an abortion at a time that they felt they needed to.

It's not about wanting to give babies away it's that the anti choice crowd say 'what about adoption' but adoption is not always a solution.

RobertKK

frag420 wrote: »

Awesome so we are getting somewhere, you realise that your needs are more important than the other persons and you are making a choice based on what's best for you!

Now surely you should afford this right to women too no!?

You are asking someone to go against their own conscience, to support something that is not seen as a choice, to view what someone views as a wrong to be viewed as a right.

January

What about in cases of ffa or threat to mothers life?

frag420

RobertKK wrote: »

You are asking someone to go against their own conscience, to support something that is not seen as a choice, to view what someone views as a wrong to be viewed as a right.

And you are demanding that a woman go against her own will, to maintain a pregnancy that they do not want. You want to support something that takes away their choice and because you perceive it to be righteous then they should have no say in the matter!?

Can you see the hypocrisy are mouthing?

dudara

RobertKK wrote: »

You are asking someone to go against their own conscience, to support something that is not seen as a choice, to view what someone views as a wrong to be viewed as a right.

You don't have to support it, but I do feel that the right to choice needs to be supported.

This is a really hard topic and I really do respect those who believe it's a sin and that it's wrong. That's a belief based on faith and I'm not going to knock it. There are others who find the topic unpleasant but don't believe it's necessarily wrong. I think the vast majority of people fall into one of these two camps.

For me, choice needs to exist. People's faith and beliefs, their situation will guide them.

Martina1991

frag420 wrote: »

And you are demanding that a woman go against her own will, to maintain a pregnancy that they do not want. You want to support something that takes away their choice and because you perceive it to be righteous then they should have no say in the matter!?

Can you see the hypocrisy are mouthing?

If men could get pregnant abortions would be available like the flu jab.

RobertKK

frag420 wrote: »

And you are demanding that a woman go against her own will, to maintain a pregnancy that they do not want. You want to support something that takes away their choice and because you perceive it to be righteous then they should have no say in the matter!?

Can you see the hypocrisy are mouthing?

People who want a clear conscience use what their own conscience tells them, not what someone else tells them what they must support because that is what their conscience tells them.

It is not hypocrisy to vote for what one believes. It is internal hypocrisy to go against what one believes, because someone tells them they must do something against their own personal beliefs/opinions.
Only a weak person who is easily malleable would do as you say, because you want them to believe what you want them to believe.

RobertKK

Martina1991 wrote: »

If men could get pregnant abortions would be available like the flu jab.

That is a joke, right?

If anything polls show more men support abortion than women.

Out of the 55% who agree that expanding access to abortion should be one of the priorities for the next government, the region who polled highest was Dublin at 61% and at 56%, men are 1% more supportive than women. The age group 55-64 is the most supportive at 64%.

http://www.newstalk.com/Half-of-Irish-people-agree-that-expanding-access-to-abortion-should-be-priority-for-next-government

nice_guy80

I would prefer if people wouldn't try to impose their beliefs on others

its like indoctrination

people (women and their partner) should be free to make up their own minds and CHOOSE what is best for them in their own situation.

B0jangles

RobertKK wrote: »

People who want a clear conscience use what their own conscience tells them, not what someone else tells them what they must support because that is what their conscience tells them.

It is not hypocrisy to vote for what one believes. It is internal hypocrisy to go against what one believes, because someone tells them they must do something against their own personal beliefs/opinions.
Only a weak person who is easily malleable would do as you say, because you want them to believe what you want them to believe.

My friend and his wife have two children. The first pregnancy caused her crippling pain in her pelvis - pain which left her unable to walk for the last couple of months of the pregnancy. The second caused agonizing pain and left her bedbound for most of the 9 months. She almost died during the birth.

She has been told that having another baby has a high chance of killing her and an almost certain result of leaving her permanently unable to walk.

According the the 8th, she can only have an abortion if she is about to die; the nigh-certainty of being left permanently disabled is not considered important enough.

Think about that; 'health' is not just talking about minor, passing discomfort, it's talking about basic bodily functions being seriously and permanently damaged.

Is keeping your conscience squeaky-clean so vitally important that you're happy accept the undeniable fact that there are people, real born people with lives and families, people who will be left permanently disabled by a pregnancy who are victims right now of the extreme restrictions on abortion access in this country?

RobertKK

dudara wrote: »

You don't have to support it, but I do feel that the right to choice needs to be supported.

This is a really hard topic and I really do respect those who believe it's a sin and that it's wrong. That's a belief based on faith and I'm not going to knock it. There are others who find the topic unpleasant but don't believe it's necessarily wrong. I think the vast majority of people fall into one of these two camps.

For me, choice needs to exist. People's faith and beliefs, their situation will guide them.

It is not about it being a sin or not. There are atheists who are against abortion. Abortion for many is not a progressive thing. If a woman is ill and needs medical help her life obviously has to come first, most people except that.
The problem is the people who argue abortion is a choice, go from limited abortion to open ended reasons for abortion, I think the problem for the repeal side is they have people who have some people with extreme views on what limits should be for abortion if the 8th amendment is to be removed or replaced, some want no limits on reason or time length.
It is these extreme views that worry people, I think a lot would rather retain what we have than go into the unknown, given the repeal people argue that nothing should replace it. It would leave it open ended to where abortion laws could go.

newdriverlad

B0jangles wrote: »

My friend and his wife have two children. The first pregnancy caused her crippling pain in her pelvis - pain which left her unable to walk for the last couple of months of the pregnancy. The second caused agonizing pain and left her bedbound for most of the 9 months. She almost died during the birth.

She has been told that having another baby has a high chance of killing her and an almost certain result of leaving her permanently unable to walk.

According the the 8th, she can only have an abortion if she is about to die; the nigh-certainty of being left permanently disabled is not considered important enough.

Think about that; 'health' is not just talking about minor, passing discomfort, it's talking about basic bodily functions being seriously and permanently damaged.

Is keeping your conscience squeaky-clean so vitally important that you're happy accept the undeniable fact that there are people, real born people with lives and families, people who will be left permanently disabled by a pregnancy who are victims right now of the extreme restrictions on abortion access in this country?

I have known couples in similar situations and generally the guy had a vasectomy!

B0jangles

newdriverlad wrote: »

I have known couples in similar situations and generally the guy had a vasectomy!

Pregnancy after vasectomy is rare but it absolutely does happen

https://www.babycenter.com/400_realistic-possibility-of-pregnancy-after-vasectomy_6646461_877.bc
https://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/news/20040505/vasectomies-pregnancy-prevention

RobertKK

B0jangles wrote: »

My friend and his wife have two children. The first pregnancy caused her crippling pain in her pelvis - pain which left her unable to walk for the last couple of months of the pregnancy. The second caused agonizing pain and left her bedbound for most of the 9 months. She almost died during the birth.

She has been told that having another baby has a high chance of killing her and an almost certain result of leaving her permanently unable to walk.

According the the 8th, she can only have an abortion if she is about to die; the nigh-certainty of being left permanently disabled is not considered important enough.

Think about that; 'health' is not just talking about minor, passing discomfort, it's talking about basic bodily functions being seriously and permanently damaged.

Is keeping your conscience squeaky-clean so vitally important that you're happy accept the undeniable fact that there are people, real born people with lives and families, people who will be left permanently disabled by a pregnancy who are victims right now of the extreme restrictions on abortion access in this country?

Out of interest what actions have they taken to avoid pregnancy in the future? It does appear they saw the risk being worth it for the 2nd pregnancy.

Tigger

Crea wrote: »

If only there was no such thing as an unplanned pregnancy. If only contraception didn't fail. If only women didn't become super fertile coming up to the menopause.
Next your going to say married people shouldn't have sex which is my 13 year olds recommendation for unplanned pregnancy.

why would you abort an unplanned baby and the wantvto have a baby after
or did you not read what i said ?

B0jangles

RobertKK wrote: »

Out of interest what actions have they taken to avoid pregnancy in the future? It does appear they saw the risk being worth it for the 2nd pregnancy.

I don't know, that's a very personal question that would not be comfortable asking. I do know that there are no 100% certain way to avoid pregnancy except total celibacy.

The risk of permanent disability/death was raised only during the second pregnancy. I know that she was willing to suffer agony for several months to have their second child, I'm fairly sure that she's not willing to risk either life in a wheelchair or death for a third.

RobertKK

January wrote: »

What about in cases of ffa or threat to mothers life?

I have a sister who was told she had FFA and the baby would die soon after birth, a nurse in Dublin suggested about getting rid of the pregnancy...she had a good doctor who supported her, the child was born in Dublin, taken to Crumlin and is now living a normal life and plays sports.
The arguments used for FFA are as if a diagnosis is black and white, when it is grey.

newdriverlad

B0jangles wrote: »

Pregnancy after vasectomy is rare but it absolutely does happen

https://www.babycenter.com/400_realistic-possibility-of-pregnancy-after-vasectomy_6646461_877.bc
https://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/news/20040505/vasectomies-pregnancy-prevention

They can also use other forms of contraception!
They chances of them getting pregnant are very very slim.

B0jangles

newdriverlad wrote: »

They can also use other forms of contraception!
They chances of them getting pregnant are very very slim.

Are they zero?

Because that's the only level I'd feel safe at if I was in a situation where pregnancy means permanent disability or death to me, and I lived in a country which denies me the right to choose whether or not to take that risk.

newdriverlad

B0jangles wrote: »

Are they zero?

Because that's the only level I'd feel safe at if I was in a situation where pregnancy means permanent disability or death to me, and I lived in a country which denies me the right to choose whether or not to take that risk.

An abortion could also fail!

January

RobertKK wrote: »

I have a sister who was told she had FFA and the baby would die soon after birth, a nurse in Dublin suggested about getting rid of the pregnancy...she had a good doctor who supported her, the child was born in Dublin, taken to Crumlin and is now living a normal life and plays sports.
The arguments used for FFA are as if a diagnosis is black and white, when it is grey.

Some are grey areas some like ancephaly are definitely black and white though or Edwards syndrome or many other syndromes.

January

Tigger wrote: »

why would you abort an unplanned baby and the wantvto have a baby after
or did you not read what i said ?

Because circumstances can and do change. Just because you have an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy and abort it does not mean you don't get to choose to plan a pregnancy at a later date.