The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Kurtosis

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I strongly suspect most medical practitioners treating pregnant women in Ireland basically ignore the 8th amendment and follow international best practice regarding the condition concerned.

Another issue in the Irish Times article is that to avail of many new cancer treatments, one has to take part in a clinical trial. Pregnancy is generally an exclusion criteria for enrolling in such trials.

Nettle Soup

applehunter wrote: »

Immediacy.

I am campaigning to retain the 8th Amendment.

If you could, would you repeal the 13th amendment?

amdublin

Plenty of coverage on Facebook and Instagram. Together for Yes posters going up in Dublin.

Hopefully that means same for rest of other counties too soon.

I guess the pro repeal side just don't have as much funds available as the pro life side - for posters.
What we do have is people power, let's hope we win it on the doorsteps and conversations with friends and family.

swampgas

applehunter wrote: »

Prosecute abortionists not the mothers.

Do you think "abortionists" sneak into people's houses in the dead of night and perform unwanted abortions? Women have abortions because they don't want to be pregnant, or because the pregnancy has gone wrong. Why wouldn't you prosecute a woman who sought an abortion? Considering that you assert that:

Abortion is wrong. It is the killing of an innocent life.

Serious question: why shouldn't women who have abortions not be prosecuted? What's your reservation?

In Ireland we recognise this and have given constitutional protection to our unborn while also recognising the rights of the mother.

And in the same constitution we protect the right to travel for an abortion. So our recognition of the unborn is not quite what you are suggesting.

Also, you say we protect the life of the unborn while recognising the rights of the mother. However a pregnant woman loses a whole bunch of rights until a doctor makes an assessment that she is quite likely to die unless an abortion is provided. So the rights we are "recognising" for a pregnant women are a very small subset of the rights she should have.

I am not campaigning to repeal the 13th amendment.

It's the very same "unborn life" that you say you want to protect that is being taken out of the country to be aborted. Your lack of interest in the issue doesn't make sense.

_Dara_

JupiterKid wrote: »

I’m increasingly convinced the 8th will indeed be overturned. I’d wager there will be a push to get younger voters registered and like the 2015 SSM referendum people will come back home from abroad to vote.

Things are much quieter for Repeal. The referendum is only six weeks away.

Trasna1

JupiterKid wrote: »

I’m increasingly convinced the 8th will indeed be overturned. I’d wager there will be a push to get younger voters registered and like the 2015 SSM referendum people will come back home from abroad to vote.

If the vote is as tight as divorce and they're is a visible "home to vote" campaign, I would expect many legal challenges to the outcome with a real risk of it being a success. I know of people that came back for SSM that were not eligible, people who emigrated several years before the vote and who have not returned.

Irish citizens should not return to vote, the vast majority of citizens abroad are not eligible and furthermore the issue doesn't concern them. They should campaign for or against abortion in the countries they are resident in.

Money from overseas should not be allowed to be used in the campaigns either. Foreign meddling damages democracy.

Postering has been sporadic, I would have expected every pole to be covered already? Or are campaigns not meant to poster until one month out?

JDD

_Dara_ wrote: »

Things are much quieter for Repeal. The referendum is only six weeks away.

I agree. I think there's a few reasons for that. The SSM campaign was led by a very distinct subset of the population that had, through necessity, become used to becoming vocal about campaigning for their rights.

Together for Yes is a little more nebulous. Obviously the issue of abortion more directly affects women, and the campaign to repeal is being - more or less - led by women. But we are a much more diverse group, a good chunk of whom would be pro-life. It's more difficult to co-ordinate a campaign like this one.

There's a lot of undecided voters in this campaign, many of whom are undecided because they don't think the vote directly affects them. There are two accepted schools of thought when it comes to voting. Firstly, people tend to vote for the status quo if they are unsure about the implications of voting for change. And, people tend to vote for whichever side they think will win, as everyone wants to be on the winning side. In order to counteract the affect of the former, we need to increase the impression of the latter.

I've ordered some badges from the TFY website. I think the only way is for all of us that are in favour of appeal to wear something that indicates our preference. The more people see actual people wearing badges (as opposed to posters, which I think most people are immune to), the more the impression will be given that TFY is the winning side.

Obviously, still have the conversations with your family, and your friends, and online. But wear the badges/t-shirts too.

Zubeneschamali

Trasna1 wrote: »

I know of people that came back for SSM that were not eligible, people who emigrated several years before the vote and who have not returned.

They don't have to return. They just have to be planning to return within 18 months. Plans change.

January

Trasna1 wrote: »

If the vote is as tight as divorce and they're is a visible "home to vote" campaign, I would expect many legal challenges to the outcome with a real risk of it being a success. I know of people that came back for SSM that were not eligible, people who emigrated several years before the vote and who have not returned.

Irish citizens should not return to vote, the vast majority of citizens abroad are not eligible and furthermore the issue doesn't concern them. They should campaign for or against abortion in the countries they are resident in.

Money from overseas should not be allowed to be used in the campaigns either. Foreign meddling damages democracy.

Postering has been sporadic, I would have expected every pole to be covered already? Or are campaigns not meant to poster until one month out?

No, once the referendum date is set posters can go up, for elections it's 30 days. The problem is funding. We've had a few posters up but not near as much as the no side.

_Dara_

JDD wrote: »

I agree. I think there's a few reasons for that. The SSM campaign was led by a very distinct subset of the population that had, through necessity, become used to becoming vocal about campaigning for their rights.

Together for Yes is a little more nebulous. Obviously the issue of abortion more directly affects women, and the campaign to repeal is being - more or less - led by women. But we are a much more diverse group, a good chunk of whom would be pro-life. It's more difficult to co-ordinate a campaign like this one.

There's a lot of undecided voters in this campaign, many of whom are undecided because they don't think the vote directly affects them. There are two accepted schools of thought when it comes to voting. Firstly, people tend to vote for the status quo if they are unsure about the implications of voting for change. And, people tend to vote for whichever side they think will win, as everyone wants to be on the winning side. In order to counteract the affect of the former, we need to increase the impression of the latter.

I've ordered some badges from the TFY website. I think the only way is for all of us that are in favour of appeal to wear something that indicates our preference. The more people see actual people wearing badges (as opposed to posters, which I think most people are immune to), the more the impression will be given that TFY is the winning side.

Obviously, still have the conversations with your family, and your friends, and online. But wear the badges/t-shirts too.

Actually, that was an issue in the SSM referendum too. I even heard people at the time complaining that it wasn’t an important issue simply because it didn’t directly affect them. So I don’t think that’s the reason for this being a quieter campaign. Actually, I think this issue affects a lot more people.

Annasopra

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I strongly suspect most medical practitioners treating pregnant women in Ireland basically ignore the 8th amendment and follow international best practice regarding the condition concerned.

Absolutely ridiculously stupid post

They cant ignore the 8th amendment ffs. They would be struck off from being medical practioners for ignoring the law.

If they ignore the 8th, they wont be indemnified by insurers and PLC, Iona, Love Both, SPUC etc could basically sue them personally.

Triceratops Ballet

_Dara_ wrote: »

Actually, that was an issue in the SSM referendum too. I even heard people at the time complaining that it wasn’t an important issue simply because it didn’t directly affect them. So I don’t think that’s the reason for this being a quieter campaign. Actually, I think this issue affects a lot more people.

I think the issue affects a lot more people, but I think there is still a good amount of people who think it doesn't or won't affect them and I think part of the reason is that people don't really talk openly about it.
There's a fair chunk of men out there who think it doesn't affect them, or they've no right to an opinion because it's a "womens issue" it's not though, it's a societal issue on how we value the rights of pregnant women, and it's important that these people know that their opinion on it and their vote is important.

ohnonotgmail

Trasna1 wrote: »

If the vote is as tight as divorce and they're is a visible "home to vote" campaign, I would expect many legal challenges to the outcome with a real risk of it being a success. I know of people that came back for SSM that were not eligible, people who emigrated several years before the vote and who have not returned.

Irish citizens should not return to vote, the vast majority of citizens abroad are not eligible and furthermore the issue doesn't concern them. They should campaign for or against abortion in the countries they are resident in.

Money from overseas should not be allowed to be used in the campaigns either. Foreign meddling damages democracy.

Postering has been sporadic, I would have expected every pole to be covered already? Or are campaigns not meant to poster until one month out?

that would rule out most of the money for the No campaign.

shivermetimber

Little off topic but would anyone know why myself and partner would not be on the register for this? We haven't moved and were on for the ssm referendum and last election?

JDD

_Dara_ wrote: »

Actually, that was an issue in the SSM referendum too. I even heard people at the time complaining that it wasn’t an important issue simply because it didn’t directly affect them. So I don’t think that’s the reason for this being a quieter campaign. Actually, I think this issue affects a lot more people.

To be honest, if the vote was held today, I'd be happy enough if the undecideds didn't vote. People who are unengaged with the issue tend to vote for the status quo.

However, I know that isn't going to happen. A good chunk of the undecideds are the pro-life "shy" vote, and the remainder probably won't make their decision until they get to the polling booth. Hence the urging to make the Repeal voters more visible.

Annasopra

shivermetimber wrote: »

Little off topic but would anyone know why myself and partner would not be on the register for this? We haven't moved and were on for the ssm referendum and last election?

Hard to say. The checktheregister site may be glitchy and not showing your name even though you are registered, You may not have been in when the county council employees called around, you may have ignored notes from the county council OR (I emphasise this is an unsubstantiated rumour) someone may have rung up to ask county council to remove your name because they know you might vote a certain way. (There are unsubstantiated rumours that pro life campaign are ringing county councils to remove known pro choice voters).

Before you fill in any forms either ring the County Council to check or Check the physical copy in the Library or Garda Station.

shivermetimber

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Hard to say. The checktheregister site may be glitchy and not showing your name even though you are registered, You may not have been in when the county council employees called around, you may have ignored notes from the county council OR (I emphasise this is an unsubstantiated rumour) someone may have rung up to ask county council to remove your name because they know you might vote a certain way. (There are unsubstantiated rumours that pro life campaign are ringing county councils to remove known pro choice voters).

Before you fill in any forms either ring the County Council to check or Check the physical copy in the Library or Garda Station.

I did think of a glitchy site first of all but both myself and partner are missing from it whereas a former housemate is still on it when I check which I thought was strange. Didn't ignore any notes and no mention of anyone calling around area. Didn't realise you can check a physical record but may try ring cc first.

Annasopra

shivermetimber wrote: »

I did think of a glitchy site first of all but both myself and partner are missing from it whereas a former housemate is still on it when I check which I thought was strange. Didn't ignore any notes and no mention of anyone calling around area. Didn't realise you can check a physical record but may try ring cc first.

Yes ring them.

January

Ring or email they're pretty quick to get back to you

Sofiztikated

January wrote: »

No, once the referendum date is set posters can go up, for elections it's 30 days. The problem is funding. We've had a few posters up but not near as much as the no side.

The second raft of No posters are up here, with something about yawning at 8 (or 9) weeks, and don't repeal me.

_Dara_

Edward M wrote: »

This is a sad story!
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/eighth-amendment-casts-shadow-over-care-for-pregnant-women-1.3454604

Ugh, that is sad and depressing.

On receiving a terminal cancer diagnosis, your mind is already scrambled and the thought of having to think about making travel arrangements and go through the termination procedure on top of that, I can’t even imagine that.

And I know some might think “If she was terminal could she not bring the pregnancy to term?” but it’s complicated physically, even if she had wanted to. One of the common places for melanoma to spread to is the bones, weakening them. Pathological fractures are common. You can break a bone by just sneezing. I have secondary cancer in my bones and broke one of my ribs. I don’t even know how. I never fell. It was likely just caused by a sneeze or cough. So imagine putting a body weakened in such a way through a pregnancy? Pregnancy is hard enough on women who are in full health.

And her cancer was terminal but many melanoma patients get a long stay of execution because of life-prolonging treatments. I guess she took that option. She should never have had to leave the comfort of her familiar surroundings. In the first days after my diagnosis, I was in the horrors but my home gave me comfort, it was my haven. The one familiar thing in a very scary new world.

chalkitdown1

Hector Savage wrote: »

Normally I don't have much time for John Oliver but this is spot on ...

These pro-life groups are fúcking disgusting human beings. That was infuriating to watch. The worst part of these groups is that are not pro-life at all, they're pro carry to term, because once the baby is born they couldn't give less of a shít about the mother or child.

reubenreuben

For the record, only irish citizens can vote on this referendum. If you are only a resident yet have been living here for many many years you cannot partake in this referendum.

In April 2016, there were 535,475 non-Irish nationals living in Ireland.
Either way, these people will not be able to vote.

So any of these people cannot have a say in how they wish to be treated if they want an abortion or not.

Unfair

JDD

reubenreuben wrote: »

For the record, only irish citizens can vote on this referendum. If you are only a resident yet have been living here for many many years you cannot partake in this referendum.

I am sure there is at least 10% of the population that are non citizens.
Either way, these people will not be able to vote.

To be fair, that's only right. If you're not willing to become a citizen of the country, despite being eligible, you shouldn't have a say on amending the constitution.

I also agree that people outside of the country for more than two years shouldn't be eligible to vote - which is in fact the current legal position. I take the argument that in a close election such as this might be, the contingent of "home to voters" might hold quite a powerful card. However, I'm not sure that people who are outside of the country for more than two years and come home to vote are such a large contingent that they'd have sway over the final vote.

reubenreuben

JDD wrote: »

To be fair, that's only right. If you're not willing to become a citizen of the country, despite being eligible, you shouldn't have a say on amending the constitution.

I also agree that people outside of the country for more than two years shouldn't be eligible to vote - which is in fact the current legal position. I take the argument that in a close election such as this might be, the contingent of "home to voters" might hold quite a powerful card. However, I'm not sure that people who are outside of the country for more than two years and come home to vote are such a large contingent that they'd have sway over the final vote.

Its a lot of people though, 535,475 non-Irish nationals living in Ireland who cant vote

JDD

reubenreuben wrote: »

Its a lot of people though, 535,475 non-Irish nationals living in Ireland who cant vote

How many of those are here for more than five years though? And if they're here for less, are they just here for a couple of years to make some money and move back home? And if they're here for more than five years, why aren't they looking to get an irish passport?

reubenreuben

JDD wrote: »

How many of those are here for more than five years though? And if they're here for less, are they just here for a couple of years to make some money and move back home? And if they're here for more than five years, why aren't they looking to get an irish passport?

1100 euros for a passport will maybe answer your question

Annasopra

reubenreuben wrote: »

For the record, only irish citizens can vote on this referendum. If you are only a resident yet have been living here for many many years you cannot partake in this referendum.

In April 2016, there were 535,475 non-Irish nationals living in Ireland.
Either way, these people will not be able to vote.

So any of these people cannot have a say in how they wish to be treated if they want an abortion or not.

Unfair

Plus it can impact on a lot of them in quite a harsh way - many of them because of their migration status may not be able to travel

Trasna1

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

They don't have to return. They just have to be planning to return within 18 months. Plans change.

Those that I know that voted were gone longer than 18 months and had no intention of returning.

Fraud was encouraged because those traveling were likely to vote the "right" way. The way such willful undermining of the electoral process was celebrated in the media was truly awful.

Trasna1

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that would rule out most of the money for the No campaign.

I've no problem with that. Irish campaigners using Irish funds should contest Irish elections and referendums.

It's no one else's business.