Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Options
1…8182848687…325

Comments

  • Options
    #2492
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    volchitsa wrote: »
    No it's a medical procedure which may also require anaesthesia depending on the term of gestation. It also requires a scan and possibly other tests to ensure that the termination can be carried out safely.

    Just as an example, imagine a woman whose periods have stopped due to some other problem like a hormonal problem or just stress, or even very occasionally ovarian tumour or some other serious illness. They can't just take her word for it, if something went wrong. So checks are required before the procedure itself, which means a woman can't just rock up and get it done, especially not if coming from Ireland as her medical file won't be available in the UK.

    I don't necessarily disagree with the rest of your post by the way.

    I haven't had a period in two years if I were to get pregnant now there'd be definite uncertainty about my dates so would need further testing. I reckon if abortion were legal here and I went to a GP to request an abortion I'd have to have a whole host of tests before it was allowed.


  • Options
    #2493
    amdublin
    Registered Users Posts: 20,653 ✭✭✭✭amdublin


    Edward M wrote: »
    Experiences every day brings a different realisation as you go along while thinking on this issue.
    If we weren't coming to a referendum on the issue, a part of the current rape trial wouldn't click with me.
    I'm not commenting on that trial result here, just thinking on the events.
    Nights like that happen all the time I suppose innocently, one thing can lead to another and everyone can go home happily, girl gets up next day, maybe not having full memory of the incident, or even if she has, hungover, go to work or just spend time recovering.
    A few weeks later she discovers, Jesus, I'm pregnant, o fcuk, what can I do now?
    My sympathy lies with her, if she wants to terminate that pregnancy.
    Wouldn't i be a heartless bastard if I said no, you must have that baby, you slut, you had your fun, now suffer the consequences or fcuk off to england, let the blood be on their hands if you want to have an abortion, its grand if you do it there but not in my country.
    I've copped on a bit I think.

    This is a good example of one scenario that can happen in real life. Why would I or you want to force someone who didn't plan a pregnancy, who maybe can't afford a pregnancy and a baby/child for the next two decades. Both mum and baby might struggle through life. All because something happened one night.

    How as a caring compassionate human being could I think that is ok to insist that woman carried the baby and delivers it. And if she really doesn't want to have a baby "give it up for adoption" after carrying it for 9 months. Imagine all the questions from her friends and colleagues. "Where is your baby? And then imagine 20 years later the grown up child appears in her door step "why did you give me away mammy?

    Further re. Adoption
    Haven't we heard enough stories of anguish from women in the previous generations who gave up their babies and what they went though for the rest of their life.

    And why finally when all other avenues have been exhausted why does our country think it's ok to then finally say ok go have your abortion, but don't think you are doing it here girlio, oh no away with you to England.

    Am not saying abortion is the perfect answer or the right option for everyone. But it is there as a choice for women now (albeit in a different country). Let's be adult and have it as a choice for women in our own country.

    And let's support and trust women to make the decision for what is right for them.


  • Options
    #2494
    Neyite
    Administrators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,947 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Neyite


    grahambo wrote: »
    The question is, with the 72 hour waiting period, is it just easier to go to the UK?
    If you live in Dublin perhaps travelling to the UK is easier. From the west of Ireland though, bus services to an airport are poor, and while Knock and Shannon are nearer than Dublin, they've got limited flight options.

    Where I live, going on holiday last year ex Dublin required us to make our way to the airport hours and hours earlier. It's a three hour drive, plus you need your 2 hrs buffer at the airport for check-in and clearing security gate. Then the extra time it takes to get to park the car in the car parks.

    Or I could drive an hour to a nearby town and get a bus to the airport, which would then take 3 hrs.

    Then on the way back, that woman is in pain, bleeding, has to do the journey back. Travel from the hotel to the UK airport, check in, fly to Ireland, get to transport, and have hours of a car journey ahead of her when she shouldn't have to and when she should really be resting.


  • Options
    #2495
    pleas advice
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,492 ✭✭✭pleas advice


    grahambo wrote: »
    You should just be able to walk into a clinic up to 12 weeks and have one, and that's it.

    On demand, like?


  • Options
    #2496
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,686 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    pleas advice wrote: »
    On demand, like?

    As has been pointed out, that doesn't happen anywhere.

    Another reason to dump that stupid phrase.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2497
    Oldtree
    Registered Users Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    volchitsa wrote: »
    As has been pointed out, that doesn't happen anywhere.

    Another reason to dump that stupid phrase.

    They are always standing by, ready to insert the catchphrase quip, to try and put any sort of negative slant on any aspect.....


  • Options
    #2498
    pleas advice
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,492 ✭✭✭pleas advice


    Oldtree wrote: »
    They are always standing by, ready to insert the catchphrase quip, to try and put any sort of negative slant on any aspect.....
    Not always, haven't been near this thread in a few days. The only negative slant on that phrase is coming from the pro choice side.


  • Options
    #2499
    captbarnacles
    Registered Users Posts: 1,972 ✭✭✭captbarnacles


    pleas advice wrote: »
    Not always, haven't been near this thread in a few days. The only negative slant on that phrase is coming from the pro choice side.

    LOL!

    On a serious note I was less strongly pro-choice until my wife was pregnant with our first child. You cannot make someone endure that when they do not want to. No way.


  • Options
    #2500
    baylah17
    Closed Accounts Posts: 790 ✭✭✭baylah17


    pleas advice wrote: »
    Not always, haven't been near this thread in a few days. The only negative slant on that phrase is coming from the pro choice side.

    Eh..No.
    Since it is only the anti choice anti woman side who use that expression!


  • Options
    #2501
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    The issue I have with the 72 hour waiting period is twofold. Firstly, it can be a pain in the arse to get time off work for one doctor appointment. Secondly it removes some anonymity from it: ‘so Mary in accounts had a doctor’s appointment on Monday and now she has another one on Thursday, eh? I wonder what that’s for. Wink, wink’


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2502
    It wasnt me123
    Registered Users Posts: 1,741 ✭✭✭It wasnt me123


    kylith wrote: »
    The issue I have with the 72 hour waiting period is twofold. Firstly, it can be a pain in the arse to get time off work for one doctor appointment. Secondly it removes some anonymity from it: ‘so Mary in accounts had a doctor’s appointment on Monday and now she has another one on Thursday, eh? I wonder what that’s for. Wink, wink’

    No wink wink - there are loads of reasons why a woman could be visiting a doctor, even in the same week. And it doesn't have to be just 72 hours - they could go back the following week - you could say you had to go back for results of tests, bad periods, pulled a muscle, fell and need xray - I could come up with loads of quite easily explained reasons. Once a woman hits 21 plus, we are always at the doctor for "womens" problems. Company can't ask why you are going.

    I am most definitely pro choice, the barbaric antiquated carryon over reproduction in this country is sickening - but I'm in favour of 72 hour wait - in my head mostly for younger women who may not have the life skills to deal with an unexplained pregnancy and may benefit from a bit of space.

    Time off work is a different problem but, and I'm assuming a lot here, if you are a good employee, regular with your attendance, it would be a very poor employer which got annoyed over 2 medical appointments.

    Repeal all the way and put the control with the individual concerned (woman, girl) and not with everyone else.


  • Options
    #2503
    Berserker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,046 ✭✭✭Berserker


    kylith wrote: »
    The issue I have with the 72 hour waiting period is twofold. Firstly, it can be a pain in the arse to get time off work for one doctor appointment. Secondly it removes some anonymity from it: ‘so Mary in accounts had a doctor’s appointment on Monday and now she has another one on Thursday, eh? I wonder what that’s for. Wink, wink’

    Well, it could be any number of things from a medical perspective. It's far from uncommon to have to have to go back to a medical facility a few days or even a week after a procedure or visit. If you have a minor infection, an ear infection for example, the doctor will put you on a course of antibiotics, take a swab and you will have to return a week or so later for a review. Have the NAGP been consulted about these services yet? From talking to the GPs I know, they won't have the capacity to provide this service. Others will refuse to provide it.


  • Options
    #2504
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #2505
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    It wasnt me123 wrote: »
    No wink wink - there are loads of reasons why a woman could be visiting a doctor, even in the same week. And it doesn't have to be just 72 hours - they could go back the following week - you could say you had to go back for results of tests, bad periods, pulled a muscle, fell and need xray - I could come up with loads of quite easily explained reasons. Once a woman hits 21 plus, we are always at the doctor for "womens" problems. Company can't ask why you are going.

    I am most definitely pro choice, the barbaric antiquated carryon over reproduction in this country is sickening - but I'm in favour of 72 hour wait - in my head mostly for younger women who may not have the life skills to deal with an unexplained pregnancy and may benefit from a bit of space.

    Time off work is a different problem but, and I'm assuming a lot here, if you are a good employee, regular with your attendance, it would be a very poor employer which got annoyed over 2 medical appointments.

    Repeal all the way and put the control with the individual concerned (woman, girl) and not with everyone else.

    But whats to say she hasn't thought about it for a week or more before she visits the doctor then has to wait another 72 hours after that again? It also means that if a woman doesn't get to see a doctor (let's for example say it's not free and the woman has to pay for the doctor and the prescription but cannot afford it and has to save) until closer to 12 weeks. Then we have a 3 day waiting period and bang she's over 12 weeks and no abortion for her.

    Its a minefield.


  • Options
    #2506
    Berserker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,046 ✭✭✭Berserker


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Can you explain what you mean by this? Also, your 'time off work line' is a load of nonsense. I'm a manager in work. If an employee tells me they need time off for a medical reason, you are directed by any decent HR team to approve it without question.


  • Options
    #2507
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users Posts: 13,460 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    kylith wrote: »
    The issue I have with the 72 hour waiting period is twofold. Firstly, it can be a pain in the arse to get time off work for one doctor appointment. Secondly it removes some anonymity from it: ‘so Mary in accounts had a doctor’s appointment on Monday and now she has another one on Thursday, eh? I wonder what that’s for. Wink, wink’
    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    The 3 day thing is very useful during the referendum, as it's a handy rebuttal for the 'on-demand' claim.
    Can hopefully be modified over time.

    But important not to lose sight of the immediate goal here of getting the 8th repealed, don't get too caught up in the any bits of the proposed legislation that you don't agree with it.


  • Options
    #2508
    Berserker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,046 ✭✭✭Berserker


    ArmaniJeanss wrote: »
    The 3 day thing is very useful during the referendum, as it's a handy rebuttal for the 'on-demand' claim.
    Can hopefully be modified over time.

    So, the 'Yes' campaign here is essentially 'abortion on demand'?


  • Options
    #2509
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #2510
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    Berserker wrote: »
    So, the 'Yes' campaign here is essentially 'abortion on demand'?

    No. Again with the anti-choice terms. Abortion on demand does not happen. Nobody demands an abortion.


  • Options
    #2511
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users Posts: 13,460 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    Berserker wrote: »
    So, the 'Yes' campaign here is essentially 'abortion on demand'?

    Not at all, the Yes campaign is made up of people with many different ideas, some of which I am opposed to and some of which I'm onboard with.

    Which is why as I said the important thing short term is to focus on getting the 8th repealed and not get bogged down in sideshows.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2512
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #2513
    Berserker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,046 ✭✭✭Berserker


    ArmaniJeanss wrote: »
    Which is why as I said the important thing short term is to focus on getting the 8th repealed and not get bogged down in sideshows.

    I agree with you but the 'Yes' campaign has a problem with this. The more complexity you add to a referendum, the less likely it is to pass and people seem to be adding an awful lot of extras. Took a look at this thread. A 'Yes' vote could mean so many things. That's a problem, whether people want to admit that or not.


  • Options
    #2514
    It wasnt me123
    Registered Users Posts: 1,741 ✭✭✭It wasnt me123


    January wrote: »
    But whats to say she hasn't thought about it for a week or more before she visits the doctor then has to wait another 72 hours after that again? It also means that if a woman doesn't get to see a doctor (let's for example say it's not free and the woman has to pay for the doctor and the prescription but cannot afford it and has to save) until closer to 12 weeks. Then we have a 3 day waiting period and bang she's over 12 weeks and no abortion for her.

    Its a minefield.


    Absolutely true, the cost is going to be a huge issue for women, regardless of your circumstances, trying to come up with a minimum of €100 is not easy.

    And they may have been thinking about it for weeks, absolutely true. I suppose I'm thinking more of a younger woman/girl in turmoil (I have a teenage daughter) as opposed to an older, more life experienced woman, that is probably still in turmoil but possibly more able to deal with it.

    I agree with a ArmaniJeanss, we shouldn't get caught up in the minutiae - repeal is the goal but it is good to discuss all aspects of the proposed law.


  • Options
    #2515
    Nettle Soup
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Nettle Soup


    This campaign will get dirty and a bit stupid from now on. I think Repeal will win but it will be close. Otherwise we may need to wait another 10-15 years but it will happen. It makes sense but I am not sure the country has matured enough yet. Only Ryanair and Aer Lingus benefits from a No vote. The government are taking a gamble by outlining the legislation in addition to the referendum but it's probably the right thing to do.

    I was only 10 in 1983 but I distinctly remember people walking out of mass when the priest brought up the 8th referendum. I asked why and my parents explained that the Roman church were trying to influence a vote and some people felt they were wrong. They were very brave to do so in public during that era.
    .


  • Options
    #2516
    Berserker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,046 ✭✭✭Berserker


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    That sounds easy to me. You fill out a few forms and find a suitable time to visit the doctor. Where's the problem?


  • Options
    #2517
    amdublin
    Registered Users Posts: 20,653 ✭✭✭✭amdublin


    Nettle Soup wrote: »
    I was only 10 in 1983 but I distinctly remember people walking out of mass when the priest brought up the 8th referendum. I asked why and my parents explained that the Roman church were trying to influence a vote and some people felt they were wrong. They were very brave to do so in public during that era.
    .

    They really were...

    My mam and dad voted for it in 1983, they thought it was the right thing and they said it just seemed to be what you did then. Seeing it in action now they will be voting to Repeal in May.

    Can anyone remind me.what percentage was the result in 1983?


  • Options
    #2518
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,466 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    amdublin wrote: »
    They really were...

    My mam and dad voted for it in 1983, they thought it was the right thing and they said it just seemed to be what you did then. Seeing it in action now they will be voting to Repeal in May.

    Can anyone remind me.what percentage was the result in 1983?


    67/33


  • Options
    #2519
    Nettle Soup
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Nettle Soup


    1983 Turnout = 53.67%

    Yes =     66.90%
    No =     33.10%

    Valid Votes = 1,257,369

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland


  • Options
    #2520
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    I think the turnout will be higher.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2521
    Berserker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,046 ✭✭✭Berserker


    January wrote: »
    I think the turnout will be higher.

    I'd expect a similar turnout to the SSM referendum. That was 60%+.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement