The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

ProfessorPlum

italodisco wrote: »

I know I know...... I have a daughter and I would like her to have her own choice when she's grown up...

If I do use my vote it will be yes, I'm just not sure if I should vote or not.

I've never been one to have a conscience until now

Honestly, I think everyone should vote. It’s too important to leave the decision up to ‘others’.

And I honestly admire you for considering a yes vote when you have reservations about what in your opinion is too liberal a regime. That takes courage and logical objective thinking.

italodisco

robarmstrong wrote: »

Cop on.





Cop on.




Cop on.

I can do it too go me!

Good man yourself Rob

uptherebels

italodisco wrote: »

So why did the pro choice group call a hotel and make threats because the pro life group were having some praise jebus save the babies event? Would that not be considered trying to stop them have an opinion?

any evidence that pro choice groups made threats?
All the articles I have seen is the anti choice organisers saying it was because of threats without providing any evidence of such, just hearsay, with the articles saying there was no comment from said hotels?

I work in a hotel, any meeting that would likely cause protesters to be outside the hotel would be cancelled on the spot. regardless of what the meeting was about.

The couple of hundred euro from renting the meeting room isn't worth the effect it would have on your other guests/customers/reputation.

But hey if you want to believe it it must be true;)

italodisco

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Honestly, I think everyone should vote. It’s too important to leave the decision up to ‘others’.

And I honestly admire you for considering a yes vote when you have reservations about what in your opinion is too liberal a regime. That takes courage and logical objective thinking.

Well apart from what some posters here may think of me I have respect for the woman's right to make her own mind up.

I grew up in a house full of women and I'd feel wrong to block them from having rights to their own life.

italodisco

uptherebels wrote: »

any evidence that pro choice groups made threats?
All the articles I have seen is the anti choice organisers saying it was because of threats without providing any evidence of such, just hearsay, with the articles saying there was no comment from said hotels?

I work in a hotel, any meeting that would likely cause protesters to be outside the hotel would be cancelled on the spot. regardless of what the meeting was about.

The couple of hundred euro from renting the meeting room isn't worth the effect it would have on your other guests/customers/reputation.

But hey if you want to believe it it must be true;)

There's nothing to say it was a hoax either.

Regardless, both sides are clearly unable to have a debate without having a go at each other.

robarmstrong

italodisco wrote: »

There's nothing to say it was a hoax either.

Regardless, both sides are clearly unable to have a debate without having a go at each other.

One side is very able to have a debate, the other side seems content on throwing out madness such as "baby killers/murderers", "raped women should be forced to continue a pregnancy", and my personal favorite "abortion on demand!!!" - before darting out of this particular thread and coming back in to utter more offensive sh!te.

italodisco

Lol maybe I should have mentioned the fact that I was adopted myself, from someone who would have been in no fit state to have or raise a child so maybe that is subconsciously having an impact on my thoughts on the whole thing. I'd like to think it's not......

Ave Sodalis

italodisco wrote: »

Well apart from what some posters here may think of me I have respect for the woman's right to make her own mind up.

I grew up in a house full of women and I'd feel wrong to block them from having rights to their own life.

To be fair, given your opening post and the few after it, it wasn't too surprising you got the reaction you did.

Pedro K

I don't know if it's been posted here yet, but here it is. A vote to keep the 8th is a vote to continue to force teenage rape victims to carry their pregnancies to term, despite the fact that pregnancy itself has many physical health risks.

Paraguayan rape victim, 14, dies giving birth

Doctors attempted to deliver the baby vaginally until the young mother had a respiratory complication. They were attempting an emergency caesarean section when the girl suffered an embolism, three cardiac arrests and then died.

The young girl should never have been forced to that point.

italodisco

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

To be fair, given your opening post and the few after it, it wasn't too surprising you got the reaction you did.

Fair enough!

italodisco

italodisco wrote: »

I know 3 separate individuals (friends) who have had an abortion and 2 of them certainly did it simply because it would have impacted on what they saw as their own freedom to enjoy their life.

So you know at least 2 women who were not ready to become mothers.
What do you think they should have done differently?

thee glitz

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

So far the patchwork Acts used to "fix" the problems with the 8th have failed fix many of the problems with the 8th. The 8th has had, and will continue to have many issues which have led to extremely painful deaths for women in this country. Sticking plasters over a limb that needs amputation is not fixing anything, neither is bringing in vague and potentially damning acts and bills (which are only taken in AFTER something horrific happens) to fix something that needs to be gotten rid off. The Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists are for repeal, doesn't that say enough about how much of a legal minefield the 8th causes?

I recognise problems with the 8th, which seemingly can't be overcome if the availability of required medical attention is to be guaranteed. On this basis, it needs to go. I expect that Institute to be for repeal, for giving members more legal protection. What I don't understand is why we can't vote for repealing the 8th without a full liberalisation.

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Wanting to prevent ‘abortion on demand’ by keeping an amendment in our constitution which endangers women’s and children’s lives is pretty disgusting and disengenuos.

It's not that I want to - it's that I'm being driven to by the expected consequences

Repeal the 8th and lobby for the law you want.

That would be voting to allow the government do as they please, and then saying no. It's closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. If you're interested in democracy and convinced by the power of lobbying, why not propose that restricted legislation be brought in if the 8th is repealed and go from there?

Edward M wrote: »

I understand what you mean, but it can't be fixed in any way shape or form until the eighth is repealed.
OK, I think you mean there should be another constitutional amendment to replace the eighth as part of the alternative, maybe not just the fact that legislation by the oireachtas, that could possibly change willy nilly after the eighth is repealed.

That would help many people.

I had that view myself for a long time, but that would be virtually impossible to word that it would not still entail some catch somewhere that would see some complication or another arise.

Let's try though - it can't be that hard to save lives.

I found it hard to accept that the 12 week limit was the only answer, but legally it is probably the fairest way to go.

It is quite hard to accept. Accepting 12 week limit legislation in order to accommodate medical necessity has nothing to do with fairness.

Anyway, apart from any other reason, if the eighth is gone, and no ties to the constitution, if other circumstances arise whereby abortion is necessary, then at least a simple parliamentary decision can change it, no need for all the fuss and hoo haa we are going through now every time it needs to be changed.

This is true, but would be wide open to abuse, particularly when it's government formation time.

Our citizens as it stands are aborting anyway, either by travelling or by imported pills.

That's no reason to condone it. We could even start using our laws and locking up pills suppliers.

the most sensible solution is probably what we are being asked to vote for.

It's not sensible at all - it's a trick and an affront to the will of the people.

uptherebels

italodisco wrote: »

There's nothing to say it was a hoax either.

That's not how making claims works.

italodisco

italodisco wrote: »

I know I know...... I have a daughter and I would like her to have her own choice when she's grown up...

If I do use my vote it will be yes, I'm just not sure if I should vote or not.

I've never been one to have a conscience until now

I guess one question is, if when your daughtersis grown up, would you like for her to receive whatever medical treatment she requires, even if she is 8 weeks pregnant? Because as the law stands, she cannot.
Who would you consider to be more important in that case? I would guess your living breathing daughter....

ohnonotgmail

thee glitz wrote: »

I recognise problems with the 8th, which seemingly can't be overcome if the availability of required medical attention is to be guaranteed. On this basis, it needs to go. I expect that Institute to be for repeal, for giving members more legal protection. What I don't understand is why we can't vote for repealing the 8th without a full liberalisation.

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Wanting to prevent ‘abortion on demand’ by keeping an amendment in our constitution which endangers women’s and children’s lives is pretty disgusting and disengenuos.

It's not that I want to - it's that I'm being driven to by the expected consequences



That would be voting to allow the government do as they please, and then saying no. It's closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. If you're interested in democracy and convinced by the power of lobbying, why not propose that restricted legislation be brought in if the 8th is repealed and go from there?



That would help many people.



Let's try though - it can't be that hard to save lives.



It is quite hard to accept. Accepting 12 week limit legislation in order to accommodate medical necessity has nothing to do with fairness.



This is true, but would be wide open to abuse, particularly when it's government formation time.



That's no reason to condone it. We could even start using our laws and locking up pills suppliers.




It's not sensible at all - it's a trick and an affront to the will of the people.

How is a democratic vote an affront to the will of the people?

thee glitz

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Wanting to prevent ‘abortion on demand’ by keeping an amendment in our constitution which endangers women’s and children’s lives is pretty disgusting and disengenuos.

Repeal the 8th and lobby for the law you want.
 

Sorry Ave Sodalis and ProfessorPlum, the above (above) should have been attributed to the latter, but it's impossible for me to edit.

italodisco

bubblypop wrote: »

So you know at least 2 women who were not ready to become mothers.
What do you think they should have done differently?

Hard to say considering we all have different views and opinions.

Based on one of the girls reasoning I think she should have looked a bit further into the future ie not look at it as something that would get in the way of a years working holiday around the world (which was the main reason).

I didn't give my view on it to her at the time and never would. But that would have been my opinion.

italodisco

bubblypop wrote: »

I guess one question is, if when your daughtersis grown up, would you like for her to receive whatever medical treatment she requires, even if she is 8 weeks pregnant? Because as the law stands, she cannot.
Who would you consider to be more important in that case? I would guess your living breathing daughter....

Of course. I have no issue with it regarding medical at all. I actually gave my reasoning early on in my postings.

italodisco

italodisco wrote: »

Hard to say considering we all have different views and opinions.

Based on one of the girls reasoning I think she should have looked a bit further into the future ie not look at it as something that would get in the way of a years working holiday around the world (which was the main reason).

I didn't give my view on it to her at the time and never would. But that would have been my opinion.

But if she didn't feel ready, and didn't want to be pregnant for whatever reasons, then why do you think she should have kept the pregnancy?
Genuine question

baylah17

Like most sensible mature people I am disinterested as to why any woman would choose to terminate her pregnancy
My only I retest is this she has the choice to do so without being required by strangers to justify her decision.
Repeal the 8th , Respect a woman's right to choose

uptherebels

thee glitz wrote: »

It's not sensible at all - it's a trick and an affront to the will of the people.

when we are being told what we are voting for and will have the wording of the new legislation before voting, how in anyway is it an affront to the will of the people?

italodisco

bubblypop wrote: »

But if she didn't feel ready, and didn't want to be pregnant for whatever reasons, then why do you think she should have kept the pregnancy?
Genuine question

Personally I think she should have, we would have all helped her along the way.

But ultimately it was her decision and I respect it even if I personally think it wasn't the best one.

kylith

italodisco wrote: »

Hard to say considering we all have different views and opinions.

Based on one of the girls reasoning I think she should have looked a bit further into the future ie not look at it as something that would get in the way of a years working holiday around the world (which was the main reason).

I didn't give my view on it to her at the time and never would. But that would have been my opinion.

So you think she should have turned down a chance to further her career?

italodisco

kylith wrote: »

So you think she should have turned down a chance to further her career?

It wasn't a career building trip, it was a travel the world and work on farms / in bars etc to fund the journey.

ohnonotgmail

italodisco wrote: »

Personally I think she should have, we would have all helped her along the way.

But ultimately it was her decision and I respect it even if I personally think it wasn't the best one.

surely she is in a better position to decide what is the best decision?

kylith

italodisco wrote: »

Personally I think she should have, we would have all helped her along the way.

But ultimately it was her decision and I respect it even if I personally think it wasn't the best one.

Helped her how? Taken her haemorrhoids? Gone through labour for her? Provided free childcare so she could continue to work? Done night feeds so she could get enough sleep?

kylith

italodisco wrote: »

It wasn't a career building trip, it was a travel the world and work on farms / in bars etc to fund the journey.

So she should have maybe given up her one chance to see the world because _you_ thought she should have a baby.

Nettle Soup

baylah17 wrote: »

Like most sensible mature people I am disinterested as to why any woman would choose to terminate her pregnancy
My only interest is this she has the choice to do so without being required by strangers to justify her decision.
Repeal the 8th , Respect a woman's right to choose

Strangers or arrogant busy bodies?

SusieBlue

I genuinely start twitching whenever someone offers adoption as a solution.
Can we please get it added to the OP that it has been done to death about 50 times already. Its so annoying to see it suggested over and over and over again.

Zubeneschamali

italodisco wrote: »

I didn't give my opinion as it wasn't my choice or business to do so but I personally found it quite harsh.

So, let's make it illegal with a 14 year jail sentence, just because you personally, while agreeing it is not your business, think it is harsh?

Nope.