The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Mongfinder General

swampgas wrote: »

Women who want to be pregnant are not suddenly going to want abortions because they are legal, that's genuinely crazy - what would make you think they would change their mind like that?

It's women who genuinely want or need abortions who are currently being "encouraged" (coerced would be a better word) by the 8th to continue a pregnancy that they don't want, or which is damaging their health, or which is not viable. Changing that is a good thing.

But some women may not want to be pregnant but may not want to take what they consider to be a life. Easier access up to 12 weeks puts pressure on make a decision. And when you’re a single mother with no money that’s an invidious position to find one’s self in.

SusieBlue

Mongfinder General wrote: »

But some women may not want to be pregnant but may not want to take what they consider to be a life. Easier access up to 12 weeks puts pressure on make a decision. And when you’re a single mother with no money that’s an invidious position to find one’s self in.

I trust women to make informed decisions, they do not need to be saved from themselves. They are more than capable of deciding.
Continuing to restrict/ban abortion just because we feel a small minority of women will struggle to make a decision is absolutely ridiculous.

swampgas

Mongfinder General wrote: »

But some women may not want to be pregnant but may not want to take what they consider to be a life. Easier access up to 12 weeks puts pressure on make a decision. And when you’re a single mother with no money that’s an invidious position to find one’s self in.

And surely the right thing to do is to give those women the ability to choose for themselves? It might be a tough decision, but it should be theirs to make, and not ours to judge.

amdublin

Mongfinder General wrote: »

Is anybody else concerned that the legalization of abortion could be used to target women in poorer demographics? Many of these women may be seen as a burden to the state, unemployed, living in state housing, not contributing from financially to the state? Could there be an ulterior motive behind this referendum?

No not one bit. There is no indication from any circles anywhere that abortion will become mandatory or forced.

It's about choice. Giving the choice to each woman to decide what is best for her, the pregnancy, her life, her health.
Similar to what is in place now but a woman will not need to go out of the country an abortion or medical care.

Do you have a link to where this is being mooted or is it something you are just imagining?

Martina1991

Mongfinder General wrote:

But some women may not want to be pregnant but may not want to take what they consider to be a life. Easier access up to 12 weeks puts pressure on make a decision. And when you’re a single mother with no money that’s an invidious position to find one’s self in.

At the minute those women who do not want to be pregnant and can't afford to travel are FORCED to continue with the pregnancy.

Making the option available here isn't going to push them into a clinic. 12 weeks is, I think, a reasonable amount of time for a women to make an informed decision.

Mongfinder General

swampgas wrote: »

And surely the right thing to do is to give those women the ability to choose for themselves? It might be a tough decision, but it should be theirs to make, and not ours to judge.

I take your point about choice but it is a measure of last resort right now. What if there were more choices like more state support for new borns and toddlers? Would such drastic action be necessary?

Mr. CooL ICE

Mongfinder General wrote: »

I take your point about choice but it is a measure of last resort right now. What if there were more choices like more state support for new borns and toddlers? Would such drastic action be necessary?

Doesn't do anything for the woman that doesn't want to be pregnant

Ave Sodalis

Mongfinder General wrote: »

I take your point about choice but it is a measure of last resort right now. What if there were more choices like more state support for new borns and toddlers? Would such drastic action be necessary?

I think better state support, better help for the homeless etc would reduce the number of abortions (which is why I don't really understand why pro-life never campaign for that, and I don't fully respect a pro-life view unless they do) but it wouldn't eliminate them. The 8th causes far more problems than that. Have a look at the In Her Shoes page on FB to see the wide variety of issues the 8th has caused.

swampgas

Mongfinder General wrote: »

I take your point about choice but it is a measure of last resort right now. What if there were more choices like more state support for new borns and toddlers? Would such drastic action be necessary?

The 8th affects much more than those cases though. It affects abortion for FFA, it affects how miscarriages are handled. The 8th must be repealed before we can address those issues.

Regardless of the reasons why a woman would choose an abortion, and the level of support provided by the state might not be a factor at all, a woman will evaluate for herself the impact a pregnancy will have, and should be able to terminate if that's what she really wants. Otherwise we're back to "encouraging" women to continue a pregnancy because it's what we want, not because it's what she wants.

baylah17

Mongfinder General wrote: »

But some women may not want to be pregnant but may not want to take what they consider to be a life. Easier access up to 12 weeks puts pressure on make a decision. And when you’re a single mother with no money that’s an invidious position to find one’s self in.

Again more PL scaremongering, and anyway if they are that poor Im sure they will qualify for a Medical Card , so no issue there!

Madscientist30

Mongfinder General wrote: »

swampgas wrote: »

And surely the right thing to do is to give those women the ability to choose for themselves? It might be a tough decision, but it should be theirs to make, and not ours to judge.

I take your point about choice but it is a measure of last resort right now. What if there were more choices like more state support for new borns and toddlers? Would such drastic action be necessary?

If there was more state support then yes perhaps it would reduce abortions for women who are in very precarious circumstances financially. But the fact is if the state could be providing more support then they would already be doing so....Im sure politicians would love nothing more than to be announcing the doubling of child benefit, or free creche places etc. It is not the reality. But it should still be the choice of the individual woman. In some countries the state provides incentives to women to have more children, but it is still always down to the woman to make the choice given their circumstances.

Edward M

Mrs went to get her hair done this morning.
Hairdresser is pregnant with her third child, she already has two girls and just discovered the other day she is having another girl, she told my Mrs.
She and her hubbie are now considering an abortion as they want a boy and no more than 3 kids
Now says my Mrs, and you wanting me to vote for repeal.
I asked where is she having this abortion if it takes place, England was the answer, and how long is she pregnant I asked, 19 weeks was the answer.
Well she wouldn't be having it here anyway, even after repeal I said, she'd still have to go to England, I dont think sex can be determined at or before 12 weeks says I, well she says, its still terrible I think, its not helping me one bit to hear stuff like that.

captbarnacles

Edward M wrote: »

Well, its up and running, the save the eighth campaign is officially launched.
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/doctor-using-braindead-woman-as-incubator-was-noble-36758629.html

Noble? What's wrong with these people.

erica74

Mongfinder General wrote: »

Is anybody else concerned that the legalization of abortion could be used to target women in poorer demographics? Many of these women may be seen as a burden to the state, unemployed, living in state housing, not contributing from financially to the state? Could there be an ulterior motive behind this referendum?

Such as...?

applehunter

Betting Odds for Repeal

28 January 2018 1/6

30 March 2018 8/15

Nettle Soup

applehunter wrote: »

Betting Odds for Repeal

28 January 2018 1/6

30 March 2018 8/15

Wow that is telling.

It will be close. A no vote would be embarrassing.

TheValeyard

applehunter wrote: »

Betting Odds for Repeal

28 January 2018 1/6

30 March 2018 8/15

Can you simplify this for non betting vote

Nettle Soup

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Wow that is telling.

It will be close. A no vote would be embarrassing.

How would it be embarrassing?

volchitsa

Interesting to see someone who saw nothing wrong with the name 'Mongfinder general' posting prolife comments and suggesting that pro choice may have see the poor and, I assume, the disabled as burdens on society.

applehunter

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

Can you simplify this for non betting vote

1/6 would mean you would have to wager €6 to win €1.

The same €6 2 months later would yield €3.20

1/6 has a probability outcome of 86%
8/15 has a probability outcome of 65%

badtoro

I will vote, as far as I understand things at this moment, to remove this from the constitution and allow the Dail legislate on abortion.

SusieBlue

Mongfinder General wrote: »

I take your point about choice but it is a measure of last resort right now. What if there were more choices like more state support for new borns and toddlers? Would such drastic action be necessary?

They've had 35 years since the 8th was put in place to improve support and services. It hasn't happened. Because they aren't interested.
They are pro-birth, not pro-life. Insisting these women bear children they do not want and then watching them struggle and suffer trying to survive after without a care in the world.
The exact same people who bemoan social housing and complain about social welfare hand outs are the ones who are pro-life.

Pedro K

Edward M wrote: »

Well, its up and running, the save the eighth campaign is officially launched.
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/doctor-using-braindead-woman-as-incubator-was-noble-36758629.html

It would appear that Dr. Eimear Thornton of this campaign is not actually a medical doctor. I couldn't find her name on the medical register. A cursory Google search of her name seems to throw up that she's a biotechnology graduate, currently working as an administrator in NUIG. So she may have a PhD, but not a medical degree.

Nettle Soup

bubblypop wrote: »

How would it be embarrassing?

Because the 8th is obviously not workable and puts women at risk. The abortion issue is way to complex to be legislated within the constitution.
A No vote shows that we are still under the influence of the Roman Catholic church and their spin merchants.

nozzferrahhtoo

Mongfinder General wrote: »

Is anybody else concerned that the legalization of abortion could be used to target women in poorer demographics? Many of these women may be seen as a burden to the state, unemployed, living in state housing, not contributing from financially to the state? Could there be an ulterior motive behind this referendum?

Sounds like unsubstantiated conspiracy theory stuff to me. Giving people a choice is not "targeting" them. Enforcing that choice on them would be. Have you any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to offer to suggest THAT might happen?

But your "giving them an option puts pressure on them to use that option" is just scare mongering with no basis you have yet offered.

Further, offering the choice of abortion to women who really want or need it is the right thing to do. I have never believed in withholding the right thing to do because someone somewhere might abuse it. So even if your fantasy was true here, that the availability of abortion might pressure SOME women into taking that option who otherwise might not......... that unfortunate state of affairs would not be a relevant indictment of bring in the choice all the same.

The better option would be to bring it in, and do so in such a way as to best minimize such concerns.

Mongfinder General wrote: »

What if there were more choices like more state support for new borns and toddlers? Would such drastic action be necessary?

You will find many people supporting the choice of abortion also support such initiatives yes. They are not mutually exclusive initiatives in any way. Quite the opposite in fact. Each supports the other. For example women who really do want an abortion, and get one where previously they would have been denied one.... would free up resources for the women who do not really want one, and want to avail of the "support" you speak of here.

Sofiztikated

Pedro K wrote: »

It would appear that Dr. Eimear Thornton of this campaign is not actually a medical doctor. I couldn't find her name on the medical register. A cursory Google search of her name seems to throw up that she's a biotechnology graduate, currently working as an administrator in NUIG. So she may have a PhD, but not a medical degree.

Eimear Thornton wrote:

But the biggest applause came after the speech by Dr Eimear Thornton who said: "As a mother of four children, I have far more experience in pregnancy than Katherine Zappone or Leo Varadkar."

I've had more teeth out than her, but I'm still not a dentist.

I'm probably going to read this thread a bit less. The "I'm voting repeal, but here's every single argument, in order, from the hymnbook for PLC" has started, and I'm only going to wind meself up.

Fair play to all the posters here that can keep their cool, even after 35 years of the same nonsense.

Zubeneschamali

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Fair play to all the posters here that can keep their cool, even after 35 years of the same nonsense.

But they are so silly!

Surely they cannot imagine this childish playacting is convincing anyone, it can only be reflecting badly on their cause.

Pherekydes

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Wow that is telling.

Yes, but it's only telling about the state of the [betting] market. It doesn't indicate anything about the possible result.

Bannasidhe

SusieBlue wrote: »

The exact same people who bemoan social housing and complain about social welfare hand outs are the ones who are pro-life.

And if anyone doubts this just look at the number of pro-birth posters who have complained about pro-choice being 'leftist'...
The same 'leftists' who are calling for actually affordable housing/local authority housing, security of leases, properly subsidised childcare, after school care, living wage, end of zero hours contracts, properly paid parental leave... all those little things that would help when raising a child.

neonsofa

Mongfinder General wrote: »

I take your point about choice but it is a measure of last resort right now. What if there were more choices like more state support for new borns and toddlers? Would such drastic action be necessary?

Im not sure if I'm wasting my time here going by username but taking this comment at face value, what good does state support for newborns and toddlers do when a mother is struggling to raise the child between the ages of 3 to... god knows what age now when more and more adults are remaining in the family home unable to move out.. but for simplicity we'll say 18?