The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Trasna1

Wombatman wrote: »

Totally behind a yes vote but this is stretching things a little. Most people don't understand any type of sign language so it makes little difference. British sign language is also used here.

Indeed, and can't most deaf people write?
Communicate is more difficult sure, but not impossible.

January

Wombatman wrote: »

Totally behind a yes vote but this is stretching things a little. Most people don't understand any type of sign language so it makes little difference. British sign language is also used here.

It's not stretching it. If you access health care here you either have a family member interpret for you or you have access to someone who can interpret. If you know ISL and don't know BSL and have to travel for an abortion then you'll have trouble with interpretation. Its a minority for sure but it's definitely not stretching things.

baylah17

Trasna1 wrote: »

There will be no constitutional limitation on the grounds for abortion.

And rightly so!
The Constitution is not the place to put such limits, let the legislature legislate in accordance with the prevailing will of the people and the scientific evidence at any given time.

horseburger

baylah17 wrote: »

And rightly so!
The Constitution is not the place to put such limits, let the legislature legislate in accordance with the prevailing will of the people and the scientific evidence at any given time.

Would you place any limits as to when an abortion can be carried out?

Trasna1

baylah17 wrote: »

And rightly so!
The Constitution is not the place to put such limits, let the legislature legislate in accordance with the prevailing will of the people and the scientific evidence at any given time.

Agreed. But lets not kid ourselves, it need not be the prevailing will (unpopular measurers are forced through all the time), only the will of a party of government.

The constitutional amendment may not lead to disability as a grounds for abortion (that will be up to legislators) but it offers no protection against it being grounds.

I'm not saying it will happen but the proposal does not impede it from happening.

ELM327

horseburger wrote: »

Would you place any limits as to when an abortion can be carried out?

Not in the constitution.
Morality is a personal decision and should not be in the constitution.

NuMarvel

Trasna1 wrote: »

But as we discussed earlier, the proposed law is irrelevant. There will be no constitutional limitation on the grounds for abortion.
We are not voting on the legislation.

And as also been discussed, there is no need for a constitutional limit because Irish politicians as a whole aren't going to introduce radical changes to our abortion laws, either now or in the future. It took us 30 years just to legislate for abortion when a woman's life was at risk! Why should anyone believe they're secretly waiting for a Yes vote to completely strike down all our abortion laws?

And in addition to that, it has also been discussed that the constitution isn't the right place to deal with this issue in the first place. Most people want some kind of change to our abortion laws and a Yes vote is the only realistic way to make that happen.

The draft bill published allows people to make an informed decision as to what is proposed to happen if the referendum is carried. Any future changes to the final law, even minor ones, will receive significant media coverage and scrutiny, and ultimately won't pass if the public are against it. We've seen this in recent times with the likes of water charges, and ownership of the new maternity hospital and we will see it again if the public oppose any future change to the law.

So there is little point bring abortion on grounds of disability into the discussion when it's not going to be in the final legislation, and is unlikely to be a feature anytime soon. Should that ever change, the public will be well equipped to make their opinions known about it.

horseburger

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In a recent post, I showed that the UK figures applied here would actually mean the elimination of 66% of babies with Down Syndrome, not 90% as claimed.

But this is a really weird argument - if abortion is not OK, what has DS to do with it? If it is murder, a crime, a sin or whatever, I don't see how a DS diagnosis makes it better or worse.

And if abortion is OK without a DS diagnosis, how is it not OK with? It's completely illogical.

I think it is an effort to get people to somehow associate abortion with discrimination/prejudice against people with DS.

What do you reckon of abortion? Are you ok with it in general?

horseburger

ELM327 wrote: »

Not in the constitution.
Morality is a personal decision and should not be in the constitution.

I didn't ask about the constitution. I asked if the poster would place limits as to the stages the poster would be happy about abortion being carried out.

What do you reckon yourself?

baylah17

horseburger wrote: »

Would you place any limits as to when an abortion can be carried out?

Termination of pregnancy for medical reasons? No, though obviously there is a point in any pregnancy when the pregnancy can be terminated by c-section once the fetus has reached a point of viability outside the womb.

baylah17

horseburger wrote: »

What do you reckon of abortion? Are you ok with it in general?

In my case, yes.

horseburger

baylah17 wrote: »

Termination of pregnancy for medical reasons? No, though obviously there is a point in any pregnancy when the pregnancy can be terminated by c-section once the fetus has reached a point of viability outside the womb.

Would you put any limitations on the circumstances?

If the foetus is healthy, with no medical conditions, and will grow and develop healthily up to birth and beyond birth, would you allow for abortions in that case?

Timberrrrrrrr

horseburger wrote: »

I didn't ask about the constitution. I asked if the poster would place limits as to the stages the poster would be happy about abortion being carried out.

What do you reckon yourself?

Depending in the circumstances I would be ok with abortion at any point

horseburger

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Depending in the circumstances I would be ok with abortion at any point

In what circumstances would you be ok with it at any point?

baylah17

horseburger wrote: »

Would you put any limitations on the circumstances?

If the foetus is healthy, with no medical conditions, and will grow and develop healthily up to birth and beyond birth, would you allow for abortions in that case?

Asked and answered already.
Once the point of viability outside the womb has been reached the pregnancy can be terminated by c-section or inducement.
You really don't like honest straight answers to your attempts to drag the thread off topic , do you?

Trasna1

NuMarvel wrote: »

And as also been discussed, there is no need for a constitutional limit because Irish politicians as a whole aren't going to introduce radical changes to our abortion laws, either now or in the future. It took us 30 years just to legislate for abortion when a woman's life was at risk! Why should anyone believe they're secretly waiting for a Yes vote to completely strike down all our abortion laws?

And in addition to that, it has also been discussed that the constitution isn't the right place to deal with this issue in the first place. Most people want some kind of change to our abortion laws and a Yes vote is the only realistic way to make that happen.

The draft bill published allows people to make an informed decision as to what is proposed to happen if the referendum is carried. Any future changes to the final law, even minor ones, will receive significant media coverage and scrutiny, and ultimately won't pass if the public are against it. We've seen this in recent times with the likes of water charges, and ownership of the new maternity hospital and we will see it again if the public oppose any future change to the law.

So there is little point bring abortion on grounds of disability into the discussion when it's not going to be in the final legislation, and is unlikely to be a feature anytime soon. Should that ever change, the public will be well equipped to make their opinions known about it.

I'm sorry, but unless you can see into the future, you do not know what the political climate will be like in a few years time. Although I agree it's unlikely, there is nothing in the proposal that stops major liberalisation beyond what is proposed. Indeed, the right to bodily integrity may infer a right to abortion up to the point of viability, well beyond 12weeks.

There may be a mood for change, but it is not true to say Yes on the 8th is the only option. Indeed repeal and replace was the preferred option into the CA suggested otherwise. This option does appear to political classes as it kills the issue either way, forever (passes) or a generation (fails).

ohnonotgmail

Trasna1 wrote: »

I'm sorry, but unless you can see into the future, you do not know what the political climate will be like in a few years time. Although I agree it's unlikely, there is nothing in the proposal that stops major liberalisation beyond what is proposed. Indeed, the right to bodily integrity may infer a right to abortion up to the point of viability, well beyond 12weeks.

There may be a mood for change, but it is not true to say Yes on the 8th is the only option. Indeed repeal and replace was the preferred option into the CA suggested otherwise. This option does appear to political classes as it kills the issue either way, forever (passes) or a generation (fails).

Of the two options available for us to vote on it is the only option. voting No leaves women in the current terrible situation for probably another 20 years. is that what you want?

Zubeneschamali

horseburger wrote: »

What do you reckon of abortion? Are you ok with it in general?

I think it should be a private matter between a woman and her doctors.

January

horseburger wrote: »

In what circumstances would you be ok with it at any point?

I believe it's a private matter between a woman and her doctor and if they are both in agreement that she needs an abortion at any point of the pregnancy I am comfortable with that.

SusieBlue

Trasna1 wrote: »

I'm sorry, but unless you can see into the future, you do not know what the political climate will be like in a few years time. Although I agree it's unlikely, there is nothing in the proposal that stops major liberalisation beyond what is proposed. Indeed, the right to bodily integrity may infer a right to abortion up to the point of viability, well beyond 12weeks.

There may be a mood for change, but it is not true to say Yes on the 8th is the only option. Indeed repeal and replace was the preferred option into the CA suggested otherwise. This option does appear to political classes as it kills the issue either way, forever (passes) or a generation (fails).

That is for a future society and government to decide, and it isn't for us to dictate at this moment in time.
Societies evolve constantly and not allowing abortion for fear of what a future government may allow is ridiculous - who are we to try to dictate the legislation of future generations?

For the moment we are looking at 12 weeks. This proposal is supported by pretty much all Yes voters. There is little appetite to increase this limit for on request abortion.
We aren't going to go from being one of the most conservative countries in the developed world to a free for all in a matter of years. To suggest so is plain and simple scare mongering.

Timberrrrrrrr

horseburger wrote: »

In what circumstances would you be ok with it at any point?

If the fetus had no chance of survival outside the womb and it's continued existence put the mothers life at risk.

Trasna1

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Of the two options available for us to vote on it is the only option. voting No leaves women in the current terrible situation for probably another 20 years. is that what you want?

What I want is not relevant.

I don't think the referendum will be defeated, I think it will pass by a relatively narrow margin. That said, if it is defeated, I think it is a massive stretch to believe that there won't be yet another referendum within 5-10 years (probably in the next government)with a watered down proposal. Do you really think repeal campaigners will just give up?!

ELM327

horseburger wrote: »

I didn't ask about the constitution. I asked if the poster would place limits as to the stages the poster would be happy about abortion being carried out.

What do you reckon yourself?

If a woman wants an abortion and her GP agrees that's good enough for me.
Not that it's any of my business of course, as it's a matter for that woman (and her partner if applicable) and the GP.

horseburger

baylah17 wrote: »

Asked and answered already.
Once the point of viability outside the womb has been reached the pregnancy can be terminated by c-section or inducement.
You really don't like honest straight answers to your attempts to drag the thread off topic , do you?

How soon before the natural course of birth, are you ok with abortion occurring?

Would you put a limit that abortions can't be carried out after a particular stage of pregnancy?

Here is a BBC news item where a woman was jailed after having a full term abortion.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-19621675

It states that "A woman who aborted her own baby in the final phase of her pregnancy has been jailed for eight years".

"Sarah Louise Catt, 35, of Sherburn-in-Elmet, North Yorkshire, took a drug when she was full term, 39 weeks pregnant, to cause an early delivery".

Would you put any limitations on the circumstances, and the stage of pregnancy?

If the foetus is healthy, with no medical conditions, and will grow and develop healthily up to birth and beyond birth, would you be ok with abortions in that case?

ohnonotgmail

Trasna1 wrote: »

What I want is not relevant.

why is your opinion not relevant? would you be happy for the country to keep the 8th as it is?

Trasna1 wrote: »

I don't think the referendum will be defeated, I think it will pass by a relatively narrow margin. That said, if it is defeated, I think it is a massive stretch to believe that there won't be yet another referendum within 5-10 years (probably in the next government)with a watered down proposal. Do you really think repeal campaigners will just give up?!

I know they wont give up. your 5-10 years timeline is just fantasy.

horseburger

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think it should be a private matter between a woman and her doctors.

Would you put any limits on abortion if you were the doctor?

Would you say that it shouldn't be available after a particular stage of pregnancy?

Zubeneschamali

Trasna1 wrote: »

I'm sorry, but unless you can see into the future, you do not know what the political climate will be like in a few years time.

If the political climate is in favour of more liberal abortion law, it will be because voters are more favourable to more liberal abortion law. These theoretical voters can simply change the 8th to whatever they want at that future time, it doesn't tie their hands in any way.

The only thing the No campaign seem to be trying to guard against is a future government with no mandate who change the law in defiance of public opinion. That certainly doesn't sound like any Irish politician I ever heard of, and our remedy would be the same in this case as in any other - to vote them out and put the law back the way we want it.

baylah17

horseburger wrote: »

How soon before the natural course of birth, are you ok with abortion occurring?

Would you put a limit that abortions can't be carried out after a particular stage of pregnancy?

Here is a BBC news item where a woman was jailed after having a full term abortion.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-19621675

It states that "A woman who aborted her own baby in the final phase of her pregnancy has been jailed for eight years".

"Sarah Louise Catt, 35, of Sherburn-in-Elmet, North Yorkshire, took a drug when she was full term, 39 weeks pregnant, to cause an early delivery".

Would you put any limitations on the circumstances, and the stage of pregnancy?

If the foetus is healthy, with no medical conditions, and will grow and develop healthily up to birth and beyond birth, would you be ok with abortions in that case?

You asked your question , it was answered and then you post this garbage with a further interrogation.
i have answered all I answering from you, in my personal opinion you are trolling and flaming this thread in order to derail it or have it closed down, that just my opinion, but I will put you om ignore from here on in and advise others to do similarly.

SusieBlue

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If the political climate is in favour of more liberal abortion law, it will be because voters are more favourable to more liberal abortion law. These theoretical voters can simply change the 8th to whatever they want at that future time, it doesn't tie their hands in any way.

The only thing the No campaign seem to be trying to guard against is a future government with no mandate who change the law in defiance of public opinion. That certainly doesn't sound like any Irish politician I ever heard of, and our remedy would be the same in this case as in any other - to vote them out and put the law back the way we want it.

You summed up the point I was trying to make so much more eloquently.

horseburger

horseburger wrote: »

How soon before the natural course of birth, are you ok with abortion occurring?

Would you put a limit that abortions can't be carried out after a particular stage of pregnancy?

Here is a BBC news item where a woman was jailed after having a full term abortion.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-19621675

It states that "A woman who aborted her own baby in the final phase of her pregnancy has been jailed for eight years".

"Sarah Louise Catt, 35, of Sherburn-in-Elmet, North Yorkshire, took a drug when she was full term, 39 weeks pregnant, to cause an early delivery".

Would you put any limitations on the circumstances, and the stage of pregnancy?

If the foetus is healthy, with no medical conditions, and will grow and develop healthily up to birth and beyond birth, would you be ok with abortions in that case?

thats gas, you actually asked the same question when the poster had answered. In fact you quoted their answer in your post!!

and what does that story have to do with this thread?