The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

thee glitz

thee glitz wrote: »

Fair enough. In this case, those who are against the proposed legislation can / must display this by voting No.

Not true.
If they were in fact interested in womens health & well-being, they would vote to repeal. They can then lobby, protest, involve themselves in the choices on legislation.
Repealing the 8th doesn't mean a thousand abortions the following day.
If pro life really cared about life, they would Care about women. Legislation for abortion is a different thing.

thee glitz

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

"A lot" of people should just keep out of other peoples lives when it wont affect them in the slightest.

Who's to say it hasn't affected me already, or lots of people? Should we tell elderly environmentalists to stop caring about things that wont affect them?

Trust other people to be able to make the best decisions for themselves.

I absolutely do - that's why I lock my front door.

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Must they?

Well they should - can't have any complaints about it if given a vote and not using it.

gctest50

thee glitz wrote: »

Who's to say it hasn't affected me already,.........

How could it ? unless you've developed a uterus ?

Ave Sodalis

thee glitz wrote:

Well they should - can't have any complaints about it if given a vote and not using it.

I would agree if that's what we are voting on, but it's not. We are voting the repeal the 8th, nothing more. Upon repeal, abortion will still be illegal. The 12 weeks will not be going into the constitution therefore we are not voting on that.

thee glitz

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

I would agree if that's what we are voting on, but it's not. We are voting the repeal the 8th, nothing more. Upon repeal, abortion will still be illegal. The 12 weeks will not be going into the constitution therefore we are not voting on that.

The government have indicated that legislation will be enacted if the amendment is repealed. If not, obviously it won't be. The legislation yes/no outcome can reasonably be expected to match the referendum yes/no.

Water John

There is only one question, with a yes/no answer in the Referendum. Yes, means you ask your elected representatives to deal with the issue, in law. Voting no, means the status quo prevails.
The double think being engaged in by some, is for nought and I don't comprehend the purpose. That may be the purpose, to create doubt and then follow with the line, 'if in doubt, vote no'.
It's a form of negative messaging. Its got an American whiff, off it.

Guy:Incognito

thee glitz wrote: »

Who's to say it hasn't affected me already, or lots of people? Should we tell elderly environmentalists to stop caring about things that wont affect them?

.

Someone you don't know and will never meet having an abortion won't affect you in the slightest. You wouldn't even know they had it.

This isn't people working to make the world a nicer place to be, this is people forcing their opinions on people against their will and negatively affecting them for the rest of their lives for no reason other than they can.

thee glitz

DubInMeath wrote: »

It may not happen to you and hope it doesn't, but it has happened to others and it will continue to happen.

Thanks, am guessing it won't. Have you any numbers on that, genuinely interested? I know there was the Fritzl case in Austria... Glad to have answered the question anyway.

So it doesn't fall into emotional blackmail or bullsh1t, it's a genuine question where you have to put yourself into the situation, even just in your imagination.

It's a (very) hypothetical special circumstance situation put to me. Am I supposed to have more sympathy for this girl over any woman who wants an abortion for any / no (good) reason? Should I vote Yes, implicitly advocating abortion on demand, so that this poor hypothetical girl could legally have an abortion here which she may not even want? How is that not emotional blackmail?

By voting to retain the 8th the prolife side have already said that these women must be forced to carry to term.
Such an attitude shows little compassion for the woman and the child itself

Are ye fcukin jokin me like..? Ever met someone who was conceived through rape - did you ask them why they haven't killed themselves yet?

and more of one that would lay the blame at the woman for being abused and the child for even being conceived.

That's an outrageous claim you've made - how did you come to that conclusion?

It's easy to have ideals and morals until your presented with the reality of a situation, that's what the prolife side ignore among a great other things.

It's easy to pretend to show concern for rape victims and/or FFA cases etc until they're distinguished from other, trivial, cases. The pretence of care for same can be verified by an inappetite to legislate for stricter laws than proposed.

Edward M

thee glitz wrote: »

Thanks, am guessing it won't. Have you any numbers on that, genuinely interested? I know there was the Fritzl case in Austria... Glad to have answered the question anyway.



It's a (very) hypothetical special circumstance situation put to me. Am I supposed to have more sympathy for this girl over any woman who wants an abortion for any / no (good) reason? Should I vote Yes, implicitly advocating abortion on demand, so that this poor hypothetical girl could legally have an abortion here which she may not even want? How is that not emotional blackmail?



Are ye fcukin jokin me like..? Ever met someone who was conceived through rape - did you ask them why they haven't killed themselves yet?



That's an outrageous claim you've made - how did you come to that conclusion?



It's easy to pretend to show concern for rape victims and/or FFA cases etc until they're distinguished from other, trivial, cases. The pretence of care for same can be verified by an inappetite to legislate for stricter laws than proposed.

You hit the nail on the head, the big word, legislate.
You can't legislate for anything that's covered in the constitution, you have to have a referendum to change it every time you want change.
Stricter laws than are proposed can be legislated for once the eighth is repealed.
Quite frankly I wouldn't be surprised if the proposed 12 week limit failed to be passed after repeal.

thee glitz

thee glitz wrote: »

Are ye fcukin jokin me like..? Ever met someone who was conceived through rape - did you ask them why they haven't killed themselves

This one bit, actually your whole post shows the lack of compassion you have for people. If I did meet someone in this situation and became friends I'd be more inclined to check they were ok and offer support if needed.

As for your other questions just read the prolife script.

PhoenixParker

thee glitz wrote: »

It's easy to pretend to show concern for rape victims and/or FFA cases etc until they're distinguished from other, trivial, cases. The pretence of care for same can be verified by an inappetite to legislate for stricter laws than proposed.

Trivial cases?
What exactly do you think of As a trivial case?

thee glitz

thee glitz wrote: »

It's easy to pretend to show concern for rape victims and/or FFA cases etc until they're distinguished from other, trivial, cases. The pretence of care for same can be verified by an inappetite to legislate for stricter laws than proposed.

A loved one of mine was raped, but thankfully did not become pregnant. I've been there for them when ever they have needed me, not because I'm a saint or anything even fecking close to one, but simply because they are important to me and I love them. From my experience such a thing is a dark and terrible thing to have to come to terms with, and I'm the lucky one as it wasn't me that it happened to, being a man it's less likely to happen, but to be forced to carry the child of your rapist in such as case if you don't want to would just add to the pain.

I don't know if any of the pro choice side are pretending to be concerned about rape victims, FFA etc as you claim. I seriously doubt that they are pretending, especially not those posting on here. but I certainly am not pretending I am concerned for them and what they have to go through, not to mention getting basic health care denied because a person is pregnant. Nothing is trivial when faced with such a situation.

drillyeye

I have a simple question, but an important one to me. Maybe someone can answer here.

If the amendment is repealed, it is essentially taken out of the constitution? (I think that's correct)

But if it was taken out, that means its never going back into the constitution? (I think that's correct)

If so, does that mean, in a worst case scenario, that the amendment will be up for debate anytime? Like if a government decides to hold another referendum, or just change it itself? Or that opposition could simply hold an opposing view to a sitting government to gain political traction ad infinitum?

Maybe a simpler way to ask; once its out, will it ever be put back in?

applehunter

Senator Catherine Noone has once again shown up the Oireachtas Committee on the 8th Amendment for the farce that it was.

Kurtosis

applehunter wrote: »

Senator Catherine Noone has once again shown up the Oireachtas Committee on the 8th Amendment for the farce that it was.

Any context to this comment?

amdublin

applehunter wrote: »

Senator Catherine Noone has once again shown up the Oireachtas Committee on the 8th Amendment for the farce that it was.

Can you explain this more? I've no clue what you mean by this

amdublin

thee glitz wrote: »

Are ye fcukin jokin me like..? Ever met someone who was conceived through rape - did you ask them why they haven't killed themselves yet?

Ouch

Like a lot of things that some posters on the pro life side (I.e. keep repeal) say I don't agree with to the point of being aghast.

A couple of days ago one of their doctor spokespeople (PhD, not medical dr) said it was "noble" to keep a woman deceased and decomposing on life support so as not to endanger the baby she was carrying - against her poor grieving families wishes.

Ave Sodalis

thee glitz wrote: »

The government have indicated that legislation will be enacted if the amendment is repealed. If not, obviously it won't be. The legislation yes/no outcome can reasonably be expected to match the referendum yes/no.

That's not reasonable if you consider that, with enough lobbying, anything after the referendum is still up for debate regardless of the referendum outcome.

thee glitz wrote: »

Are ye fcukin jokin me like..? Ever met someone who was conceived through rape - did you ask them why they haven't killed themselves yet?

That isn't what the poster is saying at all. Through keeping the 8th, too many women have suffered and even died. FFA manage to get to birth suffer horribly before dying. People who have been raped and fall pregnant are more likely to suffer from antenatal depression, which in turn has been shown to have an effect on the child's mental health. Absolutely nobody has told a person who was conceived through rape to kill themselves, what a horrible thing to imply just to get a dig in.

drillyeye wrote: »

I have a simple question, but an important one to me. Maybe someone can answer here.

If the amendment is repealed, it is essentially taken out of the constitution? (I think that's correct)

But if it was taken out, that means its never going back into the constitution? (I think that's correct)

If so, does that mean, in a worst case scenario, that the amendment will be up for debate anytime? Like if a government decides to hold another referendum, or just change it itself? Or that opposition could simply hold an opposing view to a sitting government to gain political traction ad infinitum?

Maybe a simpler way to ask; once its out, will it ever be put back in?

It's taken out and replaced.

It's never going back in unless there's a referendum held in future. Any part of the constitution, or its amendments can be changed through referendum. The government cannot change the constitution itself. Maybe it won't be put back in, maybe it will. However, referendums are expensive and time consuming, so it will only be touched again with enough public interest.

Annasopra

drillyeye wrote: »

I have a simple question, but an important one to me. Maybe someone can answer here.

If the amendment is repealed, it is essentially taken out of the constitution? (I think that's correct)

But if it was taken out, that means its never going back into the constitution? (I think that's correct)

If so, does that mean, in a worst case scenario, that the amendment will be up for debate anytime? Like if a government decides to hold another referendum, or just change it itself? Or that opposition could simply hold an opposing view to a sitting government to gain political traction ad infinitum?

Maybe a simpler way to ask; once its out, will it ever be put back in?

Once it is out. It is very very very unlikely to be put back in. But who knows if the world takes a far right turn it is possible.

Think about it like this though. Nobody is seriously calling to ban divorce and marriage equality and to rerun those referenda.

Water John

The Referendum says it will put in the words, indicating that the Oireactais shall legislate, on the issue.

PopePalpatine

Kurtosis wrote: »

Any context to this comment?

Why add context when you can "triggurr de libs"?

January

The 'In Her Shoes' FB page has been targetted by 'pro-life' people, giving 1-star copy and paste reviews of the page. Imagine targetting women who are telling their stories from their point of view of their experience with the 8th amendment.

I'm not surprised with their tactics at all. It's shameful.

January

January wrote: »

The 'In Her Shoes' FB page has been targetted by 'pro-life' people, giving 1-star copy and paste reviews of the page. Imagine targetting women who are telling their stories from their point of view of their experience with the 8th amendment.

I'm not surprised with their tactics at all. It's shameful.

Shame isn't in their vocabulary when trying to discredit information that goes against their agenda, unless it's directed at people who have had a termination. I'd expect things to get worse as we get closer to the date.

PhoenixParker

January wrote: »

The 'In Her Shoes' FB page has been targetted by 'pro-life' people, giving 1-star copy and paste reviews of the page. Imagine targetting women who are telling their stories from their point of view of their experience with the 8th amendment.

I'm not surprised with their tactics at all. It's shameful.

That's disgusting.
The stories there are heart breaking and a significant number have nothing to do with abortion they simply describe the direct negative impact of the 8th on women's healthcare.

bertieinexile

Looking back over the posts from the last few days I think there's one that stands out. It's by TerryDublin who may not think it but I'd say is the most important poster I've seen on the site. It's quoted below.
To my mind TerryDublin represents where most of the country is at.
He is inclined to feel abortion should be an option for women in some extreme cases but he believes abortion is wrong in every other case.
Given the response he got I doubt he's still around, but there are many more people who are casual viewers of this thread who are in the same position as TerryDublin. Like I say it's a really important point of view.

TerryDublin wrote: »

I feel the Government have not fully represented my view. I always planned to vote for repeal as I don't want any woman who needs an abortion unable to have one. But I am against abortion otherwise so what do I vote.

My sons fiance is pregnant and we all watched her first scan on DVD. So excited all of us. How could I vote for laws that would mean she could end their babys life. My grandchilds life. I know its so young so small but its still living you know. If she would want to do such a thing I would want her helped with why she would want to do this. If it was finance or fear of not coping. Help with these.

All around me my friends work people seem to be caught up in this but only from the view of the woman and her rights reproductive. The baby seems to be lost in all of this. Forgotten. Women have so much help with difficulties they face and I am happy for this but why is stopping the baby to live further seen so insignificant. I hope I am wrong and I can vote for repeal but not abortion as birth control only abnormalities rape etc.

My answer to you, for what it's worth, is trust your gut. Listen to the debate, you're not obliged to listen to everyone. Seek out the voices that sound most like yourself and see if they've anything to say.
But what matters is how you feel about it and the only expert on that is you.
When you finally go in to vote that is the only expert opinion you need to be bothered about.
Good luck, it's not easy.

RobertKK

applehunter wrote: »

Senator Catherine Noone has once again shown up the Oireachtas Committee on the 8th Amendment for the farce that it was.

Kurtosis wrote: »

Any context to this comment?

She said on twitter before deleting:
Sen Catherine Noone:
Easter mass in Knock Basilica this afternoon with my parents - an octogenarian priest took at least 3 opportunities to preach to us about abortion - it's no wonder people feel disillusioned with the church. #HappyEasterSunday #TogetherForYes #8thRef

---

As I said she deleted it as it was ageist and people found it strange that Ms Noone seemed surprised the church is against abortion.

January

That doesn't make the Oireachtas Committee a farce though?

bertieinexile

amdublin
I am seeing a lot of save the 8th posters gone up around Dublin city.
Specifically with the 1 in 5 pregnancies end in abortion in England, don't let this happen here. Am I right in thinking that this is Not factually correct. Because this stat includes miscarriages that end in abortion.

edwardM
It doesent include miscarriages, that was posted earlier.
One in Five pregnancies excluding miscarriages end in abortion in England and Wales, less in Scotland.

PhoenixParker
One question I had after that discussion was whether miscarriage treatment is included in abortion stats in the U.K.
Not every miscarriage requires treatment but for the significant portion that do, the treatment is the same as an abortion.
I can't find a definitive answer but if it is the case, it would massively increase the apparent abortion rate in the UK.

Neyite
The treatment is the same. Once you begin to miscarry and depending on the gestation week, it's possible you'd be offered medication to speed up the process of expelling the products of conception. That medication is the same as the ones offered in the case of abortion.
You would be offered the same abortificant medication and procedures here in Ireland provided they have established there is no heart beat, and you haven't began to miscarry two weeks after that scan.
I can't imagine whoever compiled the statistics quoted trawled through each medical record to establish whether there was a heartbeat at the time the medication or procedure began. If they did, I'm sure that the stats would be drastically different.
1 in 4 pregnancies end in a natural miscarriage. Once a miscarriage begins, losing the pregnancy is inevitable. Other jurisdictions help a woman manage that process safely to avoid sepsis or infection. That's not abortion.
But as usual, the PLC are happy to misrepresent actual facts in order to scaremonger.

The statement 1 in 5 pregnancies end in abortion in England is correct and has nothing to do with miscarriages.

You are asking whether the numbers being quoted for english abortions includes induced miscarriages because you want to then argue that the number of elective abortions was less than 1 in 5.

But we don't just have the UK statistics on the number of abortions, (177,350 in 2016) number of live births (663,157 ) and therefore the percentage (21% )
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/uk/ab-ukengland.html
We also know the number of those abortions that were carried out on mental health grounds, and that's about 97% of them.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/679028/Abortions_stats_England_Wales_2016.pdf (page 15)
Nearly all abortions in england are of the type where it is claimed there was a threat to the womans mental health. Nothing to do with inducing miscarriages.

To make it clear that we are not dealing with miscarriages you could say that
"In one in five pregnancies in england where a woman has a choice in the outcome, the child dies."
To me that sounds a lot worse than the slogan on the poster.

Water John

Bertie, any polls taken, up to now, shows the country is in a different place than you.
If you wish to allow abortions in some, but only extreme situations, you should vote for Repeal and then canvass the politicians for the type of laws, that reflect your outlook.

BTW, as we know from divorce laws etc, Ireland is quite different culturally from England. Thus Statistics that apply there are not very relevant to Ireland.

RobertKK

January wrote: »

That doesn't make the Oireachtas Committee a farce though?

She was hardly an impartial chairperson though?