The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

mohawk

kylith wrote: »

It’s their way of ignoring the many people who have medical reasons for needing termination. They want the make the public forget about them so they can pretend it’s all about irresponsible women.

Agreed it is very misleading. Firstly majority of abortions happen before week 10. Until pregnancy hits week 12 then the miscarriage rate is 25%. Therefore it is not unreasonable to assert that some of those abortions would of ended in miscarriage had no abortion taken place.

Regarding women's health I don't quite believe that either. Many of us know women who look perfectly healthy but are have very serious illnesses. Is survival of the pregnancy really how we want to measure success?

I can see why some refer to pro-life side as pro-birth. The health and welfare of the mother and newborn don't seem to matter.

ancapailldorcha

I've largely but not entirely avoided this topic partly because I'm not following it terribly closely because I live in the UK and partly because of the sheer amount of poison that it seems to stir up which seems to be almost entirely from the "No" side.

I completely understand that some people perceive abortion as the killing of a child. I used to be one of these people myself. I think I might still be. I don't like the idea of abortion at all. However, the eighth amendment seems to be causing more harm than good. Women shouldn't be prohibited from having abortions simply because I don't feel that it's right. And then there are cases of medical complications, rape, etc. Cases that no state can legislate for preemptively so doctors will find their hands tied unnecessarily leading to all kinds of suffering for the women involved. The 12-week limit seems strict to me when compared to other countries but it's better than nothing.

And then there is the other half of the "No" brigade. The people who spew hate and bile at everyone else. The sheer amount of misogyny this has stirred up is appalling but not surprising given some of the homophobic vitriol I saw in the leadup SSM referendum. They seem to be motivated entirely by the hatred they hold for everyone who is different from them in any way. They're not driven by concern for children or women. If a woman is forced to have the child and she can't provide for it, they simply resort to the usual lines of scroungers needing to make better life choices. Ditto if she wants help from the state for anything at all. She should be able to pay for everything her child needs herself without handouts. Then there are the caricatures of the girls having an abortion so they can look better for their beach holidays, to drop a size, to avoid the consequences of their life choices as if the procedure is over in an instant with no trauma whatsoever. They're psychotic as they don't care for their children since they can just be rid of them so easily. When they're done with this, they'll find the next demographic that dares try to achieve equality or parity in human rights and they'll be spewing poison around all over again.

Ultimately, I research my vote before I cast it. However, a useful tool I've found is to simply find the poison, hatred and prejudice and vote against that and in this case it's definitely in the "No" side. I won't be voting as I am an expat but I dearly hope that the eighth is repealed so that Irish women can enjoy at least some of the rights of bodily autonomy of women in other countries.

Achasanai

amdublin wrote: »

Fyi I was canvassing in the ranelagh/Rathmines area yesterday.

80/20% say Yes to repeal.


Edit. I'd even go as far as saying 90/10

How do we think it will go over all though? Should we be getting worried about the polls or is this normal for this period of a campaign?

taserfrank

Looking at the Sunday Business Post/Red C poll today, the support for yes has dropped again while the no side remains unchanged, and the number of undecideds has increased. I think if this keeps up, the no side will hopefully have it, as people come to realize that abortion on demand is not desirable.

ELM327

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've largely but not entirely avoided this topic partly because I'm not following it terribly closely because I live in the UK and partly because of the sheer amount of poison that it seems to stir up which seems to be almost entirely from the "No" side.

I completely understand that some people perceive abortion as the killing of a child. I used to be one of these people myself. I think I might still be. I don't like the idea of abortion at all. However, the eighth amendment seems to be causing more harm than good. Women shouldn't be prohibited from having abortions simply because I don't feel that it's right. And then there are cases of medical complications, rape, etc. Cases that no state can legislate for preemptively so doctors will find their hands tied unnecessarily leading to all kinds of suffering for the women involved. The 12-week limit seems strict to me when compared to other countries but it's better than nothing.

And then there is the other half of the "No" brigade. The people who spew hate and bile at everyone else. The sheer amount of misogyny this has stirred up is appalling but not surprising given some of the homophobic vitriol I saw in the leadup SSM referendum. They seem to be motivated entirely by the hatred they hold for everyone who is different from them in any way. They're not driven by concern for children or women. If a woman is forced to have the child and she can't provide for it, they simply resort to the usual lines of scroungers needing to make better life choices. Ditto if she wants help from the state for anything at all. She should be able to pay for everything her child needs herself without handouts. Then there are the caricatures of the girls having an abortion so they can look better for their beach holidays, to drop a size, to avoid the consequences of their life choices as if the procedure is over in an instant with no trauma whatsoever. They're psychotic as they don't care for their children since they can just be rid of them so easily. When they're done with this, they'll find the next demographic that dares try to achieve equality or parity in human rights and they'll be spewing poison around all over again.

Ultimately, I research my vote before I cast it. However, a useful tool I've found is to simply find the poison, hatred and prejudice and vote against that and in this case it's definitely in the "No" side. I won't be voting as I am an expat but I dearly hope that the eighth is repealed so that Irish women can enjoy at least some of the rights of bodily autonomy of women in other countries.

Finally, a logical post written by someone anti-abortion but yet leaning towards repeal. A well written post and explanation of reasoning behind it.
It's a pity you don't have a vote though.

Achasanai wrote: »

How do we think it will go over all though? Should we be getting worried about the polls or is this normal for this period of a campaign?

I can see a close run result, perhaps not quite as close as the divorce referendum but with approx 5% spread at most. There's going to be a lot of silent no votes from old dears on deaths door, from the brainwashed, the simple, and the occasional well meaning rational post from someone misinformed.

I am happy to see the extremes of the no side, from the out and out lies on billboards, to incendiary debate avoidance and pulling down of posters, as it confirms what I already thought, they don't believe they will win a straight fight.

Sofiztikated

mohawk wrote: »

Agreed it is very misleading. Firstly majority of abortions happen before week 10. Until pregnancy hits week 12 then the miscarriage rate is 25%. Therefore it is not unreasonable to assert that some of those abortions would of ended in miscarriage had no abortion taken place.

Regarding women's health I don't quite believe that either. Many of us know women who look perfectly healthy but are have very serious illnesses. Is survival of the pregnancy really how we want to measure success?

I can see why some refer to pro-life side as pro-birth. The health and welfare of the mother and newborn don't seem to matter.

My sister in law is pregnant again, this will be her third.

She's had 2 major knee surgeries recently, and has lost weight to take some stress of her joints. It's possible that this pregnancy could leave her needing crutches.

Now, even it abortion was available, I doubt she'd have one, but that's her choice. If she didn't want to continue with it, **** me, how could you blame her?

ancapailldorcha

ELM327 wrote: »

Finally, a logical post written by someone anti-abortion but yet leaning towards repeal. A well written post and explanation of reasoning behind it.
It's a pity you don't have a vote though.

I could grab a flight home but I'd be breaking the law. I'd likely start up a war with my family as well.

ELM327

taserfrank wrote: »

Looking at the Sunday Business Post/Red C poll today, the support for yes has dropped again while the no side remains unchanged, and the number of undecideds has increased. I think if this keeps up, the no side will hopefully have it, as people come to realize that abortion on demand is not desirable.

First line of the article

[quote= https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/abortion-poll-shows-yes-side-hold-considerable-lead-despite-slight-fall-in-support-839879.html] The latest opinion poll out today shows a considerable lead for the 'Yes' campaign.[/quote]

53% YES 26% NO 19% Undecided
I'm happy with that.

pitifulgod

taserfrank wrote: »

Looking at the Sunday Business Post/Red C poll today, the support for yes has dropped again while the no side remains unchanged, and the number of undecideds has increased. I think if this keeps up, the no side will hopefully have it, as people come to realize that abortion on demand is not desirable.

The fact that the no side aren't having any gains is a pretty terrible indication for them. All their posters and outrageous tactics are having zero influence. Yes side in all referendums tend to drop before it. I'm feeling pretty hopeful about repeal.

NuMarvel

taserfrank wrote: »

Looking at the Sunday Business Post/Red C poll today, the support for yes has dropped again while the no side remains unchanged, and the number of undecideds has increased. I think if this keeps up, the no side will hopefully have it, as people come to realize that abortion on demand is not desirable.

The drop in support for Yes and the increase in undecideds are both relatively small at 3%. Overall, this poll is similar to the last one, and a drop in Yes support isn't unexpected as we get closer to referendum day. The same happened in the marriage equality referendum polls too.

But the No support being stuck at 26% doesn't bode well for their campaign strategy. As has been said before, they're appealing to their core base, and no further. While the normal wisdom is that don't knows will vote No, this referendum is different because the No groups have a massive image problem. Their tone clearly isn't winning anyone over, and it's not going to get better when they're repeating the same messages during TV debates.

That's not to say that Yes has it in the bag; far from it. But unless the No have a major and swift change in messaging, how people will vote will be based on how they react to Yes groups, not the No ones.

Zubeneschamali

taserfrank wrote: »

Looking at the Sunday Business Post/Red C poll today, the support for yes has dropped again while the no side remains unchanged, and the number of undecideds has increased. I think if this keeps up, the no side will hopefully have it, as people come to realize that abortion on demand is not desirable.

Eh, the no side is unchanged. As long as that continues, they cannot win:

amdublin

It will impact my emotional well-being if repeal doesn't pass. Like I will be devastated on the day. There will be tears.

And it will take me some while to get over it.

If No wins at last they are kind of prepared for that. It will be a massive shock for us Yes side.

But I am out canvassing every week. I am hearing resounding Yes on the doorsteps.

Every yes counts on the day. Please tell your family and friends how important it is for you that they get out on the day and vote for you.

iguana

Just on the embryo as a child comparison. If I found out this morning that I was pregnant I'd be beyond over joyed. I'd probably already have lists of names, I'd have mentally rearranged my house, probably spend hours working out the costings of an extension. I'd probably have started knitting or crocheting baby cardigans. I'd be so happy.

But then say tonight my house went on fire and I could get out immediately ensuring absolutely no risk to my pregnancy. Or I could take the time to get to my sleeping 5 year old and save him but doing so would cause stress and smoke inhalation and guarantee a miscarriage. It's not exactly Sophie's Choice is it. It's not any sort of choice. I wouldn't hesitate for one instant to save my actual, living, breathing, incontrovertibly sentient child. And I very much doubt that one single person on this thread would act any differently. No matter what they say, nobody could consider an embryo conceived 2 weeks ago as even remotely comparable or equal to a kid who dreams of being a palaeontologist (as long as I go run his museum for him so he can always come home to me each night), is desperate to save Amur Leopards from extinction and has spent the last 2 years counting down to his seventh birthday when he'll finally be old enough to play Lego Dimensions. Because they just aren't the same.

When it comes down to it, I don't think that anyone really, really believes that an embryo and a child are equal. I don't think anyone of sound state of mind would save a dish of 100 embryos from a fire if there was one terrified child screaming for help in the next room. When we think of embryos as babies we are projecting our own wishes and imagination onto a being with the potential to be a child. And I think we all understand that on a base level.

Zubeneschamali

I haven't seen the further questions in this one, but upwards of 80% in an earlier one said there was no chance they would change their mind. Abortion is not a new issue, absolutely no new information has come out during the campaign so far, I see no reason why the numbers would move much between now and polling day.

55-45 on the day.

gandalf

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Eh, the no side is unchanged. As long as that continues, they cannot win:

I'd expect the absolute lies, deception and incitement of fear to massively escalate from the forced birth brigade based on those figures.

Zubeneschamali

gandalf wrote: »

I'd expect the absolute lies, deception and incitement of fear to massively escalate from the forced birth brigade based on those figures.

Well, yes, but I expect it to have very little effect. Look at the chart on the right: outright opposition to the 12 weeks unrestricted regime has gone down. The No message is not working.

swampgas

gandalf wrote: »

I'd expect the absolute lies, deception and incitement of fear to massively escalate from the forced birth brigade based on those figures.

I'm expecting the next few weeks to get very nasty indeed.

I can only hope that the lower into the gutter the No campaign sinks, the more people will be revolted by it rather than swayed by it.

conorhal

frag420 wrote: »

If you’re going to assume someone is a retard or not smart it’s probaly best to check your spelling/grammar correct!

You know sometimes it’s best to keep your mouth shut and let the pro choice side think you're a fool than to open it and remove all doubt for us!

Youaewr splling sucks SHUT UP!!!!

Also, it's spealled 'probably'.
So guess you should take your own advise and 'probabl'y shut up to avoid chimping out and typing nonsense.

BabysCoffee

swampgas wrote: »

I'm expecting the next few weeks to get very nasty indeed.

I can only hope that the lower into the gutter the No campaign sinks, the more people will be revolted by it rather than swayed by it.

When No goes low, Yes goes high.

conorhal

ELM327 wrote: »

I think anyone using the word "retard" in 2018, it speaks volumes about the user of the word more than anything.

Even talking to a retard?

Let Owen Benjamin explain the word to you.

conorhal

PhoenixParker wrote: »

My point is that in general we allow people to decide what level of inconvenience they’re willing to undergo to save someone’s life, only in the case of pregnancy do we make an exception.

Your hatred shines through.
Dismissing pregnancy as a minor inconvenience, and those wishing to have a choice about their bodies as narcissistic and whiny teenagers.

The reality is different, hopes, dreams, health struggles, lifetime commitments, existing children needing care . . . Real women, real lives. You have to dismiss them and belittle them to convince yourself they don’t matter.

Pregnancy is not a slight inconvenience, nor is childbirth or raising a child.
It’s months of exhaustion and sickness, pain, years of sleepless nights and a lifelong commitment to another human being. When it’s wanted and wished for it’s the most fantastic thing, when it’s not it’s a life sentence of misery for both

You’re staring so hard at the belly you can’t see the woman.

Being killed is pretty inconvenient too.

You're staring so hard at the word choice you can't see the baby.

iguana

conorhal wrote: »

You're staring so hard at the word choice you can't see the baby.

Well obviously seeing as how there is no baby. There is an embryo that's anything from a big as a kumquat to as small as a poppy seed and it's buried deep inside a human woman. It's not actually visible and not actually a baby so it would be super, super weird if any of us could see one.

SusieBlue

conorhal wrote: »

Being killed is pretty inconvenient too.

You're staring so hard at the word choice you can't see the baby.

Living women are more important and valuable than >12 week old fetuses. It shouldn’t even be up for discussion.

If you are willing to sacrifice the health, happiness and wellbeing of your partner because you hold the >12 week old fetus in her uterus to be more valuable than her, that’s your own business.

I shouldn’t have my maternity care compromised because of how you feel about it. How you feel about it has nothing to do with the contents of my womb. You shouldn’t get to have an opinion on it.

Zerbini Blewitt

conorhal wrote: »

Being killed is pretty inconvenient too.

You're staring so hard at the word choice you can't see the baby.

I was responding to something you edited out above: along the lines of-
"for the pro-choice side this is all about convenience".

It’s fairly clear that most retain the 8th types who have posted in any of the last 200 abortion threads on boards have a dependable inability to take on board or remember any information, reasoning or facts posted that go against their forced-birthing of strangers obsession.

Remarkable stuff!

Martina1991

amdublin wrote:

It will impact my emotional well-being if repeal doesn't pass. Like I will be devastated on the day. There will be tears.

I would be devastated as well.
Because if the 8th remains it can effect any pregnancy I may have.

The anti choice people here (mostly men it seems) will never have their lives put in danger because of it. For many anti choice people a yes vote won't impact their lives at all.

Yet they want to take our rights away from us and say tough luck. You can't have adequate medical care because there's sluts out there who deserve to become mothers.

I haven't read the vast majority of this thread - nor do I intend to, since I've probably read the same thing in the 1st thread.

I'm interested in how people feel about allowing the Government to have full control over future legislation in the event of the 8th amendment being repealed?

For me, that is the ultimate question that will sway those who are undecided. It is a level of decision making that I am unwilling to give this, or any future Government, just as I was unwilling to allow that level of power in the Seanad referendum, despite being gravely unhappy at how that particular organisation is run.

mohawk

If I found out tomorrow that I was pregnant I would consider abortion. I already have a child and I cannot afford another. I would like to one day own a home, help him through college (if that is what he wants) it seems like an impossible dream. So if tomorrow I found out I was pregnant I would have to consider the implication for my child. The little human I have been watching grow for 8 years would come first. I actually would like another child but it would be selfish of me as then I would be bringing them up in poverty.

ArmaniJeanss

Deleted User wrote: »

I haven't read the vast majority of this thread - nor do I intend to, since I've probably read the same thing in the 1st thread.

I'm interested in how people feel about allowing the Government to have full control over future legislation in the event of the 8th amendment being repealed?

For me, that is the ultimate question that will sway those who are undecided. It is a level of decision making that I am unwilling to give this, or any future Government.

Governments have power to legislate over so many aspects of your life that it seems strange to me that you'd have a problem with this one specific area. We give the government the power to increase income tax to 98%, reduce the age of consent to 8 or to declare war on our neighbouring countries. Yet life continues happily and peacefully despite these powers the government has.

Ultimately if any government brings in social legislation that the people absolutely abhor then it will be repealed by the subsequent government who will be elected in a landslide.

Nettle Soup

BabysCoffee wrote: »

swampgas wrote: »

I'm expecting the next few weeks to get very nasty indeed.

I can only hope that the lower into the gutter the No campaign sinks, the more people will be revolted by it rather than swayed by it.

When No goes low, Yes goes high.

I don't think anyone undecided could read the informed posts on here and vote No.

NuMarvel

Deleted User wrote: »

I haven't read the vast majority of this thread - nor do I intend to, since I've probably read the same thing in the 1st thread.

I'm interested in how people feel about allowing the Government to have full control over future legislation in the event of the 8th amendment being repealed?

For me, that is the ultimate question that will sway those who are undecided. It is a level of decision making that I am unwilling to give this, or any future Government, just as I was unwilling to allow that level of power in the Seanad referendum, despite being gravely unhappy at how that particular organisation is run.

They won't have full control. That power remains with the people, as it does with all matters or legislation and Government policy. We've seen that in the recent past, with u-turns on water charges, and ownership of the new maternity hospital. Referendums aren't the only way the people can make their views were; in fact, if you're of the view that politicians can't be trusted, then referendums are an awful way to control them, because referendums can only be called by politicians in the first place.

And unlike the Seanad referendum, the legislative power isn't something that will bring any kind of advantage to whoever is in government at the time. It won't make it easier for them to pass legislation, and it won't give them any kind of electoral advantage.

We elect politicians to legislate; that's their job. If you don't trust politicians do to that job properly, then the answer is elect better politicians. Because the last 35 years have shown us that putting complex issues into the constitution doesn't work.