8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1

Triceratops Ballet

Killester1 wrote:

If we get rid of the 8th, taking the unborn rights out of our constitution and replace it with an article that allows them, the politicians, to legislate further on this complex matter. Our we mad!!! Look at this week alone and the disgraceful crisis of the cervical check and now Tony is going on holidays. How can we trust any of the politicians. Repealing the 8th will allow any government, current and future, to amend 12 weeks unstructed abortion to 40 weeks. That is what we are voting on.

You know the unborn had no constitutional rights before 1983 right?
People weren't wantonly aborting pregnancies before then and they won't when the 8th is repealed.

Killester1 wrote:

VOTE NO and let the government make a better proposal to the people. Let them go back to the drawing board.

Vote yes and let women make decisions about their own healthcare, and lives. It's really nobody else's business

Triceratops Ballet

Killester1 wrote:

If we get rid of the 8th, taking the unborn rights out of our constitution and replace it with an article that allows them, the politicians, to legislate further on this complex matter. Our we mad!!! Look at this week alone and the disgraceful crisis of the cervical check and now Tony is going on holidays. How can we trust any of the politicians. Repealing the 8th will allow any government, current and future, to amend 12 weeks unstructed abortion to 40 weeks. That is what we are voting on.

You know the unborn had no constitutional rights before 1983 right?
People weren't wantonly aborting pregnancies before then and they won't when the 8th is repealed.

Killester1 wrote:

VOTE NO and let the government make a better proposal to the people. Let them go back to the drawing board.

Vote yes and let women make decisions about their own healthcare, and lives. It's really nobody else's business

Killester1

Killester1 wrote: »

If we get rid of the 8th, taking the unborn rights out of our constitution and replace it with an article that allows them, the politicians, to legislate further on this complex matter. Our we mad!!! Look at this week alone and the disgraceful crisis of the cervical check and now Tony is going on holidays. How can we trust any of the politicians. Repealing the 8th will allow any government, current and future, to amend 12 weeks unstructed abortion to 40 weeks. That is what we are voting on.

VOTE NO and let the government make a better proposal to the people. Let them go back to the drawing board.

VOTE NO

Its pretty much sums up sections of the retain side to try and profit from women who have and are dying from cancer to try and cast a shadow over the chance to repeal the 8th.

There is no comparison between a lab messing up test results and a trained doctor performing a termination or prescribing pills do so and providing any required follow on medical care.

pleas advice

Flying Fox wrote: »

There are two things that worry me in the lead up to polling day:

1. The No campaign have been spreading blatant lies on their posters and literature, and will repeat those lies to people on the doors. Those of us engaged with the issue can see through it, but they could sway a significant number of undecided voters. I can't understand how this is allowed given the potential consequences, but it seems there's nothing that can be done to stop the spread of misinformation.

just dismiss it as all lies so, there is no way the amount of abortions is that high, one for every four live births? they must be crazy to think we'd believe that!

theres no way 90 percent of diagnosed Down Syndrome pregnancies are aborted, that would be horrific! more lies so...

just tell people its lies and they'll believe you

Hannibal_Smith

threescompany wrote: »

I was talking about healthcare - not health condition.

But you said, those with an on going health condition require healthcare

Healthcare is care that is required when someone is ill, incapacitated, has an ongoing health condition etc. These are the people that require healthcare.

Ave Sodalis

Killester1 wrote:

A couple of weeks ago, Leo announced that he was giving the YES campaign 50,000e to 100,000e depending how their campaign was going......tax payers money. My taxes. How is that fair and democratic?

Link?

fritzelly

Flying Fox wrote: »

2. The amount of people who think foetus in early pregnancy = person deserving of rights. I think the way to counter this is to put forward the medical testimonies heard by the Citizen's Assembly and Oireachtas Committee, but this hasn't really been done. The argument is all about choice, but if someone genuinely thinks abortion is murder, they will see saving a life as more important than someone's choice. We need people to question their existing assumptions.

I'm not sure any kind of medical evidence would sway anyone. I am conflicted by the abortion of the fetus - is it human, is it not, along with the arguments for and against. Nothing will change my mind that I swing more to its a human life. Even still now I'm trying to justify in my own mind that it is of no consequence if it is aborted

Where I part companies from the pro-life side is it's not my decision to force a woman to carry to term a fetus if she doesn't want to for whatever the reason the decision is for. And I think that is what a lot of people will have to come to terms with in their own head about whatever decision they make on the day

amcalester

Killester1 wrote: »

A couple of weeks ago, Leo announced that he was giving the YES campaign 50,000e to 100,000e depending how their campaign was going......tax payers money. My taxes. How is that fair and democratic?

Link?

uptherebels

Killester1 wrote: »

A couple of weeks ago, Leo announced that he was giving the YES campaign 50,000e to 100,000e depending how their campaign was going......tax payers money. My taxes. How is that fair and democratic?

Elected politicians decide where all taxes are spent. Democratic is the elected part. Fair is subjective. But you know all this already

gmisk

Killester1 wrote: »

A couple of weeks ago, Leo announced that he was giving the YES campaign 50,000e to 100,000e depending how their campaign was going......tax payers money. My taxes. How is that fair and democratic?

Can I see link to this story? Thanks

Triceratops Ballet

brendanwalsh wrote:

Can they abort for rape or risk to life of the mother or fatal fetal anomaly?

No, yes, no.

Ave Sodalis

pleas advice wrote:

just dismiss it as all lies so, there is no way the amount of abortions is that high, one for every four live births? they must be crazy to think we'd believe that!

This has been discussed over and over. You have been in and out of this thread repeatedly so there is no way you missed to dozens of times this has cropped up.

pleas advice wrote:

theres no way 90 percent of diagnosed Down Syndrome pregnancies are aborted, that would be horrific! more lies so...

You cannot have a definite diagnosis of DS before 12 weeks.

Killester1

Overheal wrote: »

Ah, fearmongering never gets old. It doesn't stop them from making it 10 weeks either then. Or 6.

It doesn't change the fact that if the 8th is repealed, we are giving them the absolute power to make that decision. Surely that 50-100k would have been better spent on the homeless.

VOTE NO.

pleas advice

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

This has been discussed over and over. You have been in and out of this thread repeatedly so there is no way you missed to dozens of times this has cropped up.

is what i said wrong?

Killester1

Killester1 wrote: »

A couple of weeks ago, Leo announced that he was giving the YES campaign 50,000e to 100,000e depending how their campaign was going......tax payers money. My taxes. How is that fair and democratic?

Link to this announcement, as I genuinely can't find it at the moment.

fritzelly

Killester1 wrote: »

It doesn't change the fact that if the 8th is repealed, we are giving them the absolute power to make that decision. Surely that 50-100k would have been better spent on the homeless.

VOTE NO.

Ignoring all the requests for a link...
Would that not be illegal, even as a personal donation very dubious

amcalester

Killester1 wrote: »

It doesn't change the fact that if the 8th is repealed, we are giving them the absolute power to make that decision. Surely that 50-100k would have been better spent on the homeless.

VOTE NO.

Link to the money story?

Or else we’ll have to dismiss it as more lies from the No side.

Ave Sodalis

fritzelly wrote:

I'm not sure any kind of medical evidence would sway anyone. I am conflicted by the abortion of the fetus - is it human, is it not, along with the arguments for and against. Nothing will change my mind that I swing more to its a human life. Even still now I'm trying to justify in my own mind that it is of no consequence if it is aborted

I'm not sure anyone thinks it's of no consequence. I surely don't. I know there are many people who very much want children but due to various circumstances, needed an abortion. It is very rarely a lightly taken decision, and often it's one of the most difficult decisions a person can make. There's been a few stories on In Her Shoes where the woman was pro-life until she needed an abortion. However, in my mind, the breathing and feeling are the priority.

pleas advice

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

If we get rid of the 8th, taking the unborn rights out of our constitution and replace it with an article that allows them, the politicians, to legislate further on this complex matter...

You know the unborn had no constitutional rights before 1983 right?
People weren't wantonly aborting pregnancies before then and they won't when the 8th is repealed.

thats because abortion was unlawful under the 1861 legislation.
the proposed legislation of unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks is the difference

Ave Sodalis

pleas advice wrote:

is what i said wrong?

Do you mean if we took your sarcasm literally, or if we took the meaning behind the sarcasm? That's the thing about sarcasm, particularly if it's written. It doesn't matter what I answer, you could turn around and say that you said/meant that.

amcalester

pleas advice wrote: »

thats because abortion was unlawful under the 1867 legislation.
the proposed legislation of unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks is the difference

At which point a diagnosis of Downs Syndrome is not possible so why keep bringing it up?

Why is it mentioned on posters?

Fear-mongering, that’s why.

pleas advice

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Do you mean if we took your sarcasm literally, or if we took the meaning behind the sarcasm? That's the thing about sarcasm, particularly if it's written. It doesn't matter what I answer, you could turn around and say that you said/meant that.

"the amount of abortions is that high, one for every four live births"

is that wrong?

fritzelly

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

I'm not sure anyone thinks it's of no consequence. I surely don't. I know there are many people who very much want children but due to various circumstances, needed an abortion. It is very rarely a lightly taken decision, and often it's one of the most difficult decisions a person can make. There's been a few stories on In Her Shoes where the woman was pro-life until she needed an abortion. However, in my mind, the breathing and feeling are the priority.

Yeah, bad choice of words

Triceratops Ballet

Killester1 wrote:

It doesn't change the fact that if the 8th is repealed, we are giving them the absolute power to make that decision. Surely that 50-100k would have been better spent on the homeless.

The 8th amendment puts women's lives at risk. The 8th amendment compromises the care offered to all pregnant women in the country. The 8th amendment can be a barrier to efficient care for all women in the country regardless of if they are pregnant or not.
The 8th amendment denies women in Ireland the right to bodily autonomy.

The 8th amendment is dangerous and was placed in our constitution at the demand of religious zealots, it's unnecessary not fit for purpose, hypocritical and ineffective.

gmisk

Killester1 wrote: »

A couple of weeks ago, Leo announced that he was giving the YES campaign 50,000e to 100,000e depending how their campaign was going......tax payers money. My taxes. How is that fair and democratic?

So is there any proof at all or this?
Or is it a case of flinging lots of crap and just hoping something sticks ala John Mc guirk?

Triceratops Ballet

pleas advice wrote:

thats because abortion was unlawful under the 1861 legislation. the proposed legislation of unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks is the difference

If the legislation is the problem campaign against the legislation, don't deny women proper healthcare to make some sort of point about abortion

Ave Sodalis

pleas advice wrote:

is that wrong?

You haven't seen this be debunked and the list of things wrong with that "stat"? Despite it being gone over and over through out the thread? I'm really struggling to believe that considering you're dipping in and out continuously.

fritzelly wrote:

Yeah, bad choice of words

Fair enough!

Timberrrrrrrr

pleas advice wrote: »

just dismiss it as all lies so, there is no way the amount of abortions is that high, one for every four live births? they must be crazy to think we'd believe that!

theres no way 90 percent of diagnosed Down Syndrome pregnancies are aborted, that would be horrific! more lies so...

just tell people its lies and they'll believe you

Nice to see that you are finally coming to terms with the fact that these are lies.

Timberrrrrrrr

Killester1 wrote: »

It doesn't change the fact that if the 8th is repealed, }b]we are giving them the absolute power to make that decision.[/b] Surely that 50-100k would have been better spent on the homeless.

VOTE NO.

Governments make decisions on every aspect if your life from the day you are born until the day you die. Why are you only worried about this one aspect of it?

pleas advice

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Nice to see that you are finally coming to terms with the fact that these are lies.

https://www.facebook.com/pushpullcollective/videos/352383505283110/

just tell people its all lies, say 'i've no reason to believe those figures' without even mentioning the actual figures, without going into where the stats come from.
people will believe you

Ave Sodalis

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

You haven't seen this be debunked and the list of things wrong with that "stat"? Despite it being gone over and over through out the thread? I'm really struggling to believe that considering you're dipping in and out continuously.

Mental reservation on their behalf perhaps?

pleas advice

in Britain 1 in 6 known pregnancies end in miscarriage, 1 in the remaining five end in abortion. they're the stats

AllForIt

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Meh. We're really only talking a minority of extremists such as Paddy Manning and a few of his friends. Most lgbt people I know are yes voters. Particularly trans people who are also deeply affected by the issue.

Just out of curiosity, how are trans people deeply affected by this issue more than anyone else?

pleas advice

pleas advice wrote: »

in Britain 1 in 6 known pregnancies end in miscarriage, 1 in the remaining five end in abortion. they're the stats

Unproven as has been pointed out to you many times

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fact-check-does-one-in-every-five-pregnancies-in-england-end-in-abortion-1.3480584

http://www.thejournal.ie/save-the-8th-poster-statistic-abortion-3951738-Apr2018/

gctest50

pleas advice wrote: »

in Britain 1 in 6 known pregnancies end in miscarriage, 1 in the remaining five end in abortion. they're the stats

The rate fell in Switzerland when they passed 12weeks :

Swiss law changed in 2002 to allow abortion on request in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy


Since then, the abortion rate has gradually fallen and stabilised and Swiss abortion statistics are published every year with little fanfare.

pleas advice

correlation is not causation, thats more to do with education and availability of contraception

DubInMeath wrote: »

Unproven as has been pointed out to you many times

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fact-check-does-one-in-every-five-pregnancies-in-england-end-in-abortion-1.3480584

your first link pretty much backs up exactly what i was saying...

fritzelly

Why do the pro-lifers not use Spain as an example of the percentage of abortions - similar proposed laws?
Of course the UK is easy when it suits you (even politicians use it when it suits)

gctest50

pleas advice wrote: »

correlation is not causation,

ah - the mating call of the first year student

pleas advice wrote: »

thats more to do with education and availability of contraception

Any proof of this ?


You just need them all, without the fanfare

gctest50

gctest50 wrote: »

ah - the mating call of the first year student





Any proof of this ?


You just need them all, without the fanfare

Can only find this, but nothing to do with one specific country, it's a world wide study which finds developing countries having issues as described.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-36266873

fritzelly

DubInMeath wrote: »

Can only find this, but nothing to do with one specific country, it's a world wide study which finds developing countries having issues as described.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-36266873

And imagine if the catholic church had their way - 20 billion people on the planet, no food, people in abject poverty etc etc

pleas advice

DubInMeath wrote: »

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

read what i said again, then read your link again,
(or if you're not referring to me specifically, thats grand)

fritzelly

pleas advice wrote: »

read what i said again, then read your link again,
(or if you're not referring to me specifically, thats grand)

You say correlation does not imply causation but spout this nonsense that contraception is a cure all - do you know the meaning of the phrase?

pleas advice

fritzelly wrote: »

You say correlation does not imply causation but spout this nonsense that contraception is a cure all - do you know the meaning of the phrase?

where did i say it was a cure all?
it was implied that the loosening of restrictions on abortion led to a fall in abortion rates in Switzerland, I said it's not that simple...

also, I thought Dub was still talking about the abortion stats in Britain when he gave me that wiki link

fritzelly

fritzelly wrote: »

And imagine if the catholic church had their way - 20 billion people on the planet, no food, people in abject poverty etc etc

I don't think worldwide it's a Catholic thing. While its certainly 100% against it, other sections of other religions are also just as against it.

While in Ireland a lot of pro life people and I'm talking of those leading the groups would consider their religious beliefs to be a reasoning for their stance, which is something I find hilarious as some of their comments are anything but Christian.
Going outside of the leadership of course some people will vote no on religious grounds as the rosary march today shows.

Outside of religion some just have issues with women or anyone different from their norm, or what used to be the norm of society, which it could be argued was coloured by religious belief, but the norms of society change and will continue to do so, some people just can't accept that as was seen with contraception, divorce, SSM.

gctest50

pleas advice wrote: »

...,.....

it was implied that the loosening of restrictions on abortion led to a fall in abortion rates in Switzerland, I said it's not that simple...

You missed this part :

gctest50 wrote: »

You just need them all, without the fanfare

Abortion + education + contraception

PopePalpatine

fritzelly wrote: »

Why do the pro-lifers not use Spain as an example of the percentage of abortions - similar proposed laws?
Of course the UK is easy when it suits you (even politicians use it when it suits)

Spain has never been a bogeyman in Irish politics, that's why.

pleas advice

pleas advice wrote: »

in Britain 1 in 6 known pregnancies end in miscarriage, 1 in the remaining five end in abortion. they're the stats

From the IT link that you said backs up 1 in 5, how does this back you up?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fact-check-does-one-in-every-five-pregnancies-in-england-end-in-abortion-1.3480584


The figures above combined suggest there were 976,865 pregnancies in the United Kingdom. A total of 202,482 of those resulted in the termination of the pregnancy, which equates to 20.73 per cent, which is one in five.

However, this figure cannot be relied upon as it does not include the number of pregnancies that end in miscarriage. The Office of National Statistics says it does not collate such figures but the NHS says one in six pregnancies in Britain ends in miscarriage.

There is also the added complication that the number of terminations carried out in the UK in 2016 were in relation to women who had travelled there for an abortion, including 3,265 from Ireland.

Therefore it is unclear if one in five pregnancies in England (or Britain) results in abortion.

pleas advice

pleas advice wrote: »

read what i said again, then read your link again,
(or if you're not referring to me specifically, thats grand)

Wrong link posted earlier, answered above as meant to in my earlier post and have deleted the same as it did not make sense.

fritzelly

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Spain has never been a bogeyman in Irish politics, that's why.

Politics? Ermm what has politics got to do with it or rather it doesn't suit to quote other countries stats

Ozymandius2011

Another major problem with the 8th is that it makes no reference to the impact of the pregnancy on the mothers health unless it threatens her or her baby's life. So if a pregnancy threatens her health but not her life, she can't get an abortion, even if the pregnancy has a detrimental affect on her health.