Atheist voting No [See mod note in OP]

Appledreams15

Yes but if the mother decides that she is not able to have a child due to mental capabilities, resources or otherwise, I think she should have that choice.

Infini

Pro-lifers are now moaning that the referendum's being rigged because google and Facebook are blocking ads related to the referendum. I mean seriously there's reports that they're trying to use Trump tactics and foreign organizations including dodgy pro-life ones from the states and Canada. It's obvious to me that they lack a decent logical argument and the majority aren't buying into their ignorant BS so they're throwing their toys out of the pram and showing their real colours.

The sooner this referendum is over the better, it'd be a pity if the No side wins IMO but I've a good feeling the YES side are gonna come out the winner's with the better argument and most of the country isn't buying this pro-life BS.

Appledreams15

Jordan Rapid Scrabble wrote: »

The Specialist wrote: »

It's not a human life, it's a foetus. Typical emotionally maniplulative bull**** from the No side because you really don't have anything else to hang your arguements on.

Ok, it's not a human life...it's a foetus.
What type of foetus is it ?

So does sperm have life?
Isn't masturbation wasting the opportunity to create a life?

You have ejaculated all those unique sperm. The child that would have been created by that particular sperm will never exist, or have the chance to exist again.

Reputable Rog

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Paddy Power seem to have higher odds (at 10/3) of it passing.

Currently a no vote is sitting at 5/4 odds.

It's 3/10 for passing, effectively unbackable, therefore it has lower odds.

SusieBlue

Pete29 wrote: »

Only if you choose to walk by and let it happen.

Under what circumstances are you ok with abortion?

Infini

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Sigh, this referndum.

Me and 2 friends, have been friends since we were 12 years old.

2 of us pro choice
1 of us pro life.

The pro life one has said that she is ashamed she ever knew us and wants nothing to do with us ever again.

The main thing about this referendum is it should have been held earlier, instead of everyone waiting months and it driving everyone into a tizzy.

People are falling out over it.

To be honest she's not much of a "friend" if she's so narrow-minded and spiteful to fall out over a difference of opinions on a referendum. She's most likely of the same mindset as the rest of that pro-life lobby: Lack of logical thought, too emotionally sunk into the whole undeveloped fetus = baby when thats not the case and unwilling to accept any circumstance when there's a need for abortion in cases of health etc.

Fact is this amendment was political interference by Haughey's government of the day and it just need's to go. Medical issues need to be sorted in the medical field not the political one.

Appledreams15

Infini wrote: »

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Sigh, this referndum.

Me and 2 friends, have been friends since we were 12 years old.

2 of us pro choice
1 of us pro life.

The pro life one has said that she is ashamed she ever knew us and wants nothing to do with us ever again.

The main thing about this referendum is it should have been held earlier, instead of everyone waiting months and it driving everyone into a tizzy.

People are falling out over it.

To be honest she's not much of a "friend" if she's so narrow-minded and spiteful to fall out over a difference of opinions on a referendum. She's most likely of the same mindset as the rest of that pro-life lobby: Lack of logical thought, too emotionally sunk into the whole undeveloped fetus = baby when thats not the case and unwilling to accept any circumstance when there's a need for abortion in cases of health etc.

Fact is this amendment was political interference by Haughey's government of the day and it just need's to go. Medical issues need to be sorted in the medical field not the political one.

Yes, the pro choice side definitely seem to be more accepting of the pro life opinion.
The pro life side seem to not think past 'it is murder and anyone that does it is a murderer".
Such a sensitive topic, in Catholic Ireland...I cannot wait until it is over.

Pete29

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Yes, the pro choice side definitely seem to be more accepting of the pro life opinion.
The pro life side seem to not think past 'it is murder and anyone that does it is a murderer".
Such a sensitive topic, in Catholic Ireland...I cannot wait until it is over.

That's anecdotal. I've met plenty of decent and respectful people from both sides and crazies from both. I know pro-life people in Dublin who've had eggs thrown at them and been insulted by passers by.

Both sides have bad eggs.

Pete29

Infini wrote: »

Pro-lifers are now moaning that the referendum's being rigged because google and Facebook are blocking ads related to the referendum. I mean seriously there's reports that they're trying to use Trump tactics and foreign organizations including dodgy pro-life ones from the states and Canada. It's obvious to me that they lack a decent logical argument and the majority aren't buying into their ignorant BS so they're throwing their toys out of the pram and showing their real colours.

The sooner this referendum is over the better, it'd be a pity if the No side wins IMO but I've a good feeling the YES side are gonna come out the winner's with the better argument and most of the country isn't buying this pro-life BS.

I'll happily have a conversation with you and show you why we should vote no if you want.

Pete29

Pete29 wrote: »

I'll happily have a conversation with you and show you why we should vote no if you want.

how about you put here your reasonable reasons for voting no?
whether someone is pro life or pro choice, I havent yet seen one good reason for keeping the 8th amendment.

ligerdub

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

What if the wallet was poisoning you but you weren't by law allowed to throw it away?

My point wasn't about legalising theft, it was more a simple example where something where we as a collective set boundaries over what is right and wrong yet where there would be individuals where they'd rather such rules didn't exist. In simple terms, we are constantly making decisions on morality which impose on others, it's just that in almost all cases there is a very clear consensus. In the case of abortion rights there's very much a grey area, but we must accept it as a moral conundrum (both sides). Involving yourself in the moralities where you're not involved is what makes a society, better that than just I'm Alright-Jack tactics . Let's not forget that it's not that it doesn't affect you, but that it could affect you, and at one point many years ago could have really affected you.

I'd much rather this issue was debated where

1. The pro-choice side
- accept that there is a life that ends.
- accept that not everybody that is pro-life is so because they are religious
- accept that men have a say in this issue
- stop pretending that the rape/incest/worst-case scenario examples are
somehow acceptable to broadly rationalise the much broader and general
theme
- accept that part of the reasoning for introducing abortion rights is purely
to get rid of a baby they don't want to give birth to/have.
- That because another jurisdiction does something doesn't automatically
mean that we should too.

and

2. The pro-life side

- accept that people are free to decide on their own values rather than sheep
following the rules of a religion (where solely based on religious reasons)
- accept that not everyone who is pro-choice is a rabid abortion loving
feminist
- accept that very few abortions are decided on without a lot of soul-
searching and made easily.

I've probably left a lot out on both sides there.

I'd also like to see the end of the data mining where we see the breakdown of voting patterns on age, gender, income bracket, ethnicity, religion, education level. We'll then get finger pointing and the "blame game" from both sides. It's largely toxic.

uck51js9zml2yt

Appledreams15 wrote: »

So does sperm have life?
Isn't masturbation wasting the opportunity to create a life?

You have ejaculated all those unique sperm. The child that would have been created by that particular sperm will never exist, or have the chance to exist again.

Why won't you answer the question?

SusieBlue

Abortions have been happening since the dawn of time. So long as women are conceiving, there will be women seeking to terminate.
The question is whether we want to continue allowing it be unrestricted, or whether we want to regulate and supervise it to ensure that if it must be done, it’s done as early as humanly possible.

Voting No will not stop abortions. It will just continue to export the problem.

ligerdub

ligerdub wrote: »

My point wasn't about legalising theft, it was more a simple example where something where we as a collective set boundaries over what is right and wrong yet where there would be individuals where they'd rather such rules didn't exist. In simple terms, we are constantly making decisions on morality which impose on others, it's just that in almost all cases there is a very clear consensus. In the case of abortion rights there's very much a grey area, but we must accept it as a moral conundrum (both sides). Involving yourself in the moralities where you're not involved is what makes a society, better that than just I'm Alright-Jack tactics . Let's not forget that it's not that it doesn't affect you, but that it could affect you, and at one point many years ago could have really affected you.

I'd much rather this issue was debated where

1. The pro-choice side
- accept that there is a life that ends.
- accept that not everybody that is pro-life is so because they are religious
- accept that men have a say in this issue
- stop pretending that the rape/incest/worst-case scenario examples are
somehow acceptable to broadly rationalise the much broader and general
theme
- accept that part of the reasoning for introducing abortion rights is purely
to get rid of a baby they don't want to give birth to/have.
- That because another jurisdiction does something doesn't automatically
mean that we should too.

and

2. The pro-life side

- accept that people are free to decide on their own values rather than sheep
following the rules of a religion (where solely based on religious reasons)
- accept that not everyone who is pro-choice is a rabid abortion loving
feminist
- accept that very few abortions are decided on without a lot of soul-
searching and made easily.

I've probably left a lot out on both sides there.

I'd also like to see the end of the data mining where we see the breakdown of voting patterns on age, gender, income bracket, ethnicity, religion, education level. We'll then get finger pointing and the "blame game" from both sides. It's largely toxic.

I agree that we have laws regarding what we accept as right or wrong.
These laws are enacted and legislated for by the government, by the will of the population.
we don't however, have every single law in the constitution.
There are laws in place to cover the life of the unborn. We don't need the unborn to be protected in our constitution, particularly as the same article gives a constitutional protection for women to travel to have abortions & the right to information about abortions.
It's hypocritical, and makes no sense to me at all.
its one article basically basically contradicting itself.

the place for law is in the statute books, not the constitution.

wexie

Pete29 wrote: »

I'll happily have a conversation with you and show you why we should vote no if you want.

You mean why you feel we should vote no

SuperRabbit

A 45 year old mother of 4 and her husband are already struggling to make ends meet and put food on the table. They didn't plan to have another kid but now she is pregnant and they are sitting in the living room, the kid's are asleep upstairs. He's holding her hand and she's crying. They don't know what to do, but they are going to talk it out and decide what to do together.

There's a knock on the door.
It's you.
"Hello there, I'm some randomer" you say, "I heard you were talking about pregnancy and I knew you'd need my input."


If you think this is any of your business... I really don't know what to say to you. If only you spent as much time worrying about all the starving kids in the world as you do about other people's business, or the kids growing up with no education instead of an embryo or foetus, I think the world would be a much better place.

maccored

Pete29 wrote: »

Would it be ok to kill a baby 10 minutes before it's born then?

theres been no cases of a 12 week old foetus being delivered and ending up being a breathing, healthy child. Its just impossible. Its a long way between there and '10 minutes'

Viewpoint2

Look I will be voting No. As a former president once said he noted that most of the people who are pro abortion have already been born! How true and its fact. Anyway look not saying abortion debate is not important but with what the HSE had done to dying women in the smear test saga and babies who died at births in maternity hospitals does one want t join the hse making more life redundant!

Viewpoint2

Viewpoint2 wrote: »

Look I will be voting No. As a former president once said he noted that most of the people who are pro abortion have already been born! How true and its fact. Anyway look not saying abortion debate is not important but with what the HSE had done to dying women in the smear test saga and babies who died at births in maternity hospitals does one want t join the hse making more life redundant!

so your answer to faults you see with the HSE is to give them less chance to treat women?

Danny Donut

I'm never likely to need one, but I can empathise with the horror of a young woman being forced to continue a pregnancy that she didn't desire, want or can cope with.

I'll be voting yes, but part of me wonders whether men should be able to vote on this at all.

Hitman3000

Viewpoint2 wrote:

Look I will be voting No. As a former president once said he noted that most of the people who are pro abortion have already been born! How true and its fact. Anyway look not saying abortion debate is not important but with what the HSE had done to dying women in the smear test saga and babies who died at births in maternity hospitals does one want t join the hse making more life redundant!

Conflating the smear test scandal with the abortion referendum is a new low even for the NO campaign.

oscarBravo

SusieBlue wrote: »

Pete29 wrote: »

Only if you choose to walk by and let it happen.

Under what circumstances are you ok with abortion?

I'd like an answer to this question also.

Infini

Danny Donut wrote: »

I'm never likely to need one, but I can empathise with the horror of a young woman being forced to continue a pregnancy that she didn't desire, want or can cope with.

I'll be voting yes, but part of me wonders whether men should be able to vote on this at all.

In fairness while men dont carry the baby they do have sister's, mother's and wive's who do and will be affected by pregnancy's that can go south due to various circumstances and don't want to see them suffer either. Collateral damage effect.

Infini

Pete29 wrote: »

I'll happily have a conversation with you and show you why we should vote no if you want.

In all honesty we would probably end up going nowhere. I look at the issue and decided the issue very quickly looking at the information that the amendment is the wrong way of dealing with the issue. I've looked at the whole issue and as far as I'm concerned the whole thing isn't even about abortion but from where I stand it's about it being in the wrong forum being the constitution instead of being dealt with by the Dail and in the medical field because it's a medical issue.

The fact is when it comes to the whole area of pregnancy the whole issue needs to be left to those affected. Time and again we've seen those who pushed to deny people the choice to decide their own lives in other areas in this country go down the drain and manifest in ugly and disgusting ways (Mother and Baby Homes, Madgeline Laundries etc.) The No campaign tries to play the both lives angle and base it on feelings or trying to shock people with disgusting images like that stupid carryon outside the maternity hospital. There's too many variable's and too many complications that can happen and as I said the medical field is the best place to sort this not the constitution.

Trying to block the issue here doesn't work. Exporting the issue isnt any better and neither is trying to deny it doesn't exist.

SusieBlue

Infini wrote: »

In fairness while men dont carry the baby they do have sister's, mother's and wive's who do and will be affected by pregnancy's that can go south due to various circumstances and don't want to see them suffer either. Collateral damage effect.

I agree with this. Men absolutely should have a say. The 8th affects all women, women who could be their wives or daughters or sisters.

Wopp

Viewpoint2 wrote: »

Look I will be voting No. As a former president once said he noted that most of the people who are pro abortion have already been born! How true and its fact. Anyway look not saying abortion debate is not important but with what the HSE had done to dying women in the smear test saga and babies who died at births in maternity hospitals does one want t join the hse making more life redundant!

The 8th amendment isnt good enough or flexible enough to deal with this very complex issue. We need something clear that the medical community can easy work with and that supports the people directly affected by it.

Therefore, vote yes and lets put together a better set of guidelines.

LirW

Pete29 wrote: »

Would you rather not exist and have been killed than lived in a poor environment?

Sometimes yes, it was pretty horrible. If I'd not have been born in the first place, so be it, then I wouldn't be there. The world can do very well without me. Now that I'm here and are in a good place I enjoy it. But I can't miss something I never experienced in the first place I guess.

BarryD2

Pete29 wrote: »

Many people seem to think the pro-lifers are only the rabidly religious who want force their religion upon others.

No, clearly there are many who want to force their moral view of the world unto others - religious and non religious.

Why not vote to let each decide according to their own moral conscience? Why do you want to decide for others, that is the question you should face.

dr.fuzzenstein

Pete29 wrote: »

It's contains a human genome and it's life. Ergo, it's Human Life.

Same goes for my dandruff.

blanch152

I am voting YES.

The 8th Amendment is a legal abomination. No matter your view on abortion, it should be taken out of the Constitution so that matters relating to abortion and the regulation of it should be dealt with by the legislature and not the courts. All of those families who have been put through lengthy court cases by the 8th have my sympathies.

As for what happens next, read the Referendum Commission leaflet. It is clear - nothing happens until the law is changed. The Government are in a minority, there could be an election, no change is guaranteed.

Finally, the audience tonight on the Claire Byrne show absolutely disgusted me. Both sides of the audience were clapping and cheering their respective spokespeople with the pro-lifers particularly bad with their whooping and hollering, making themselves sound like backwood hicks (even though I know they aren't). The rudeness of the pro-life spokespeople constantly interrupting and shouting didn't add anything. Anyone who takes this issue seriously couldn't take them seriously tonight.