# Proposed abortion Referendum



## cremeegg

The number of Fine Gael TDs now publicly advocating a referendum to repeal the constitutional provisions on abortion is up to 2.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/poli...ague-s-call-for-abortion-referendum-1.1912286

I am sure that a lot of steam will be let off on the topic in the coming months. That is not my purpose here.

The issue of abortion in the case of rape has been mentioned by both Olivia Mitchell and Regina O Doherty.

If any provision is made regarding abortion in the case of rape how will rape be defined. Is it when a woman says she has been raped, then that is abortion on demand, at least for those who would be happy to claim rape.

If it is when rape has been proved in court (and after all rape is a serious criminal offence) then in effect that is no abortion in the case of rape.

And just to put my cards on the table, I believe no woman should have to carry any child against her will.

I also believe that to destroy an unborn child is horrendous.

If anyone can reconcile those two beliefs, I will have a coherent position on abortion.


----------



## Leper

cremeegg said:


> And just to put my cards on the table, I believe no woman should have to carry any child against her will.
> 
> I also believe that to destroy an unborn child is horrendous.
> 
> If anyone can reconcile those two beliefs, I will have a coherent position on abortion.



The first two sentences are irreconcilable.  Twenty years ago I would have argued that most abortions are murder.  I do not have that belief today.  I agree with the 2nd sentence in the quote.

There is going to be much emotive talk (probably from loudmouths who do not care anyway) over the next long term months.  This whole issue will be manna from heaven for our politicians who can use the issue to deflect from the real state of the country.

The Abortion Referendum must come.  But, every two-bit journalist, politician, activist, eejit will loudly have their say. The hypocrites will have a field-day.

The poor "abandoned" and in-fear girl who cannot afford to have her baby and is an emotional wreck will be cast aside as usual.

So, for once, can be have a referendum confined to people who care, are involved? It is about women,I do not jest, let females only vote.


----------



## Purple

cremeegg said:


> And just to put my cards on the table, I believe no woman should have to carry any child against her will.
> 
> I also believe that to destroy an unborn child is horrendous.
> 
> If anyone can reconcile those two beliefs, I will have a coherent position on abortion.


That sums up my views on this as well.


----------



## Purple

Leper said:


> So, for once, can be have a referendum confined to people who care, are involved? It is about women,I do not jest, let females only vote.


I completely disagree. There are 3 parties involved; the mother, the unborn child and the father.


----------



## jhegarty

Leper said:


> So, for once, can be have a referendum confined to people who care, are involved? It is about women,I do not jest, let females only vote.



That however is assumes an answer to the central question.

Is there 1 or 2 people involved ?

If there is only 1 then there is no problem with abortion on demand , if there is 2 people involved then it should be banned in all cases.


----------



## cremeegg

Purple said:


> I completely disagree. There are 3 parties involved; the mother, the unborn child and the father.



I notice that you don't mention society or the state as an involved party. 

In Ireland today, rightly or wrongly, the law seems to be very much involved.


----------



## Leper

OK, let's assume I'm female and with an unwanted pregnancy.  I want an abortion.  I do not inform anybody I'm pregnant.  So I arrange a "shopping trip" to London and have an abortion. An Irish solution . . . no need for a referendum . . .I think


----------



## cremeegg

Leper said:


> OK, let's assume I'm female and with an unwanted pregnancy.  I want an abortion.  I do not inform anybody I'm pregnant.  So I arrange a "shopping trip" to London and have an abortion. An Irish solution . . . no need for a referendum . . .I think



That is basically the way things are at present. There are at least two problems with that.

The first is that the cost involved is prohibitive for many.

More importantly to my mind is that this is a fundamentally dishonest position for Irish society to take. As we mature as a people we seem to feel the need to take these issues out from hiding and deal with them honestly.


----------



## Leper

cremeegg said:


> That is basically the way things are at present. There are at least two problems with that.
> 
> The first is that the cost involved is prohibitive for many.
> 
> More importantly to my mind is that this is a fundamentally dishonest position for Irish society to take. As we mature as a people we seem to feel the need to take these issues out from hiding and deal with them honestly.



The Cost Difference:- Nobody will convince me that the medical profession in Ireland will carry out abortions cheaper than what's available in the UK even with airfares included.

The Reality:- (a) Somebody seeking an abortion in the UK will not be claiming suicidal tendencies etc and will not have to prove anything there.
(b) Whether or Which the option is there and like always will be used and for many nobody will know other than the patient.

To believe anything else is futile.

And as for "when we mature as a people" words our political representatives cannot wait to use.  Please pass the bucket.


----------



## Purple

Forget for a moment the specifics of this issue and instead look at the premise of the argument; something is legal in a neighbouring country and our citizens can travel to that country freely so that something should be legal here. To me that is fundamentally flawed. 
Irish people go to countries where drugs are legal, where the age of consent is 12 etc. That doesn’t mean that those things should be legal here. 
If we as a people decide that the life of an unborn child cannot be ignored when a woman has an unwanted pregnancy then what’s legal or illegal in another jurisdiction is of no consequence. 
I hope we never get to a point of maturity as a people where we consider the termination of a viable unborn child as an acceptable form of contraception


----------



## cremeegg

Leper said:


> And as for "when we mature as a people" words our political representatives cannot wait to use.  Please pass the bucket.



Anyone who was an adult in Ireland in the 70s or 80s knows that Irish society has developed a more mature approach to many issues since then.

AT that point the law and and society's attitude on many issues reflected an unthinking acceptance of centuries old ideas.

Since then we have considered and decided new approaches to many issues.

We no longer allow teachers to beat children in schools.

We no longer criminalise homosexuals

We no longer force people to stay in marriages against their will

We no longer try to force unionists to join the 26 counties against their will.

Most of these changes occurred as a result of intense public debate and with widespread public support, and were mediated through the political process. The changes were both legal and in the mindset of the people.

So don't tell me we haven't matured as a society. And your cynicism about politicians is just sloganising.

The one issue that has not been resolved in this process is abortion. Not because we haven't discussed it but because the issue is intrinsically difficult.


----------



## Purple

Good post cremeegg, +1


----------



## michaelm

Purple said:


> If we as a people decide that the life of an unborn child cannot be ignored when a woman has an unwanted pregnancy then what’s legal or illegal in another jurisdiction is of no consequence.
> I hope we never get to a point of maturity as a people where we consider the termination of a viable unborn child as an acceptable form of contraception


I could not agree more with the above.


----------



## Purple

If we had abortion there's be a 9 month waiting list anyway. 
Now that's an Irish solution to the problem.


----------



## Leper

cremeegg said:


> Anyone who was an adult in Ireland in the 70s or 80s knows that Irish society has developed a more mature approach to many issues since then.
> 
> AT that point the law and and society's attitude on many issues reflected an unthinking acceptance of centuries old ideas.
> 
> Since then we have considered and decided new approaches to many issues.
> 
> We no longer allow teachers to beat children in schools.
> 
> We no longer criminalise homosexuals
> 
> We no longer force people to stay in marriages against their will
> 
> We no longer try to force unionists to join the 26 counties against their will.
> 
> Most of these changes occurred as a result of intense public debate and with widespread public support, and were mediated through the political process. The changes were both legal and in the mindset of the people.
> 
> So don't tell me we haven't matured as a society. And your cynicism about politicians is just sloganising.
> 
> The one issue that has not been resolved in this process is abortion. Not because we haven't discussed it but because the issue is intrinsically difficult.


Let's keep this issue with Abortion, not with teachers who beat children, nor with the homosexual issue, nor with divorce, nor with hunting unionists into with a united Ireland. We are talking about the right to abortion here.

Every issue that came to light in dear old Ireland had a truckload of bandwagon-jumpers come on board along the way.  

Whether we ever have legalised abortion in Ireland matters not a whit whether we are a "mature" nation or not.

Cora from Corofin who has an unwanted pregnancy at this moment has the option of boarding a flight from Shannon to London and will arrive there faster than it takes her to drive to the outskirts of Dublin. She can have her abortion and be back in Corofin almost without being missed.

We can argue 'til the cows come home about all issues on abortion, but Cora won't wait around while our politicians, clergy, medical experts etc talk their brains out.  Whether we like it or not abortion-on-demand is on our door-step.  

I still stand by my original post.


----------



## cremeegg

Purple said:


> Forget for a moment the specifics of this issue and instead look at the premise of the argument; something is legal in a neighbouring country and our citizens can travel to that country freely so that something should be legal here...



I don't think that this argument is being made, certainly not by me.

The fact that abortion is legal in the UK means that there is less political pressure in Ireland to allow abortion than there otherwise would be.

In the US a major argument in support of legalising abortion is that criminalising abortion leads to illegal and unsafe backstreet abortion. Bill Clinton said abortion should be "rare legal and *safe*"

Illegal and unsafe abortions are largely unheard of in Ireland because of the availability of abortion in the UK.

The point in relation to the UK, is that because they have abortion there we can ban it here without having to accept the full consequences of that ban. That is hardly a mature position for a society to take.


----------



## michaelm

cremeegg said:


> The point in relation to the UK, is that because they have abortion there we can ban it here without having to accept the full consequences of that ban. That is hardly a mature position for a society to take.


That point still doesn't represent a strong argument for the introduction of abortion here; the mantra that availability of abortion is the mark of a mature society is ill-conceived.


----------



## cremeegg

I must be particularly thick tonged (or penned) today.



michaelm said:


> That point still doesn't represent a strong argument for the introduction of abortion here; the mantra that availability of abortion is the mark of a mature society is ill-conceived.



I am not making any argument in favour of abortion. I am not saying that the availability of abortion is the mark of a mature society.

I am saying that several thousand Irish abortions in Britain each year indicates that we are turning a blind eye to the issue of abortion. I am not offering any solution, just saying that as part of our maturing as a society this is a matter left unresolved.

I don't know my own opinion on abortion, I started this thread to  address the idea which is gaining ground in Ireland at the moment that we should permit abortion in the case of rape.

My point on abortion in the case of rape is that in practice it would be a complete minefield. If abortion was legal in the case of rape. Who would say that  the pregnancy was a result of rape. The woman, the doctor, the courts. In each case it would be a complete nonsense.


----------



## michaelm

cremeegg said:


> I don't know my own opinion on abortion, I started this thread to  address the idea which is gaining ground in Ireland at the moment that we should permit abortion in the case of rape.


Is it gaining ground?  Despite elements of the media cheer-leading for such, I don't think so.  Unlike you I do know my own opinion and that is that any right to life should not be predicated on how conception transpired.


cremeegg said:


> My point on abortion in the case of rape is that in practice it would be a complete minefield.


Few would disagree with that.


----------



## cremeegg

Yes it is gaining ground. Here is James Reilly in today's paper. 

"Absolutely rape is a dreadful and heinous crime and that the consequences for women who become pregnant as a result of that is an extremely difficult situation."


----------



## cremeegg

Sorry the full quote is


"Absolutely rape is a dreadful and heinous crime and that the consequences for women who become pregnant as a result of that is an extremely difficult situation. The Government are reflecting on that at the moment and will continue to do so"


----------



## cremeegg

michaelm said:


> Unlike you I do know my own opinion and that is that any right to life should not be predicated on how conception transpired.
> Few would disagree with that.



I am sure no one would disagree with that.

However to my mind that creates a further difficulty. 

Do you think a woman should have to carry a child when she does not want to.

Do you think the law should force her to give birth against her will.

I absolutely agree with you when you say, "any right to life should not be predicated on how conception transpired" but for me that is not the whole story.


----------



## Bronte

I'm more totally pro choice than I ever was.  With time limits.

It doesn't matter if it's rape, fatel foetal abnormalities (FFA), incest, health of a women or choice.  

Most Irish people would now vote for it for rape and FFA.  They have a bigger issue with choice.  

This issue is not going away.  The Irish people are total and utter hypocritics on this when they voted in a referendum to allow women to travel for abortions.  

And I too think that an abortion is not an easy choice or something that shouldn't be carefully considered.


----------



## cremeegg

Bronte, you say you are pro-choice when it comes to fatal foetal abnormality. This is something that can be confirmed with at least reasonable certainty by a doctor.

However you also say you are pro-choice in cases of rape. In practice how would would it be confirmed that a pregnancy was the result of rape. Would you accept the claim of the pregnant woman? If so that would allow abortion on demand for people willing to lie about their situation.

That would not be an issue if you are pro-choice in all circumstances. However I think that the idea of allowing abortion in the case of rape is so surrounded with practical difficulties that it could never be made to work.


----------



## delgirl

Bronte said:


> I'm more totally pro choice than I ever was.  With time limits.
> 
> It doesn't matter if it's rape, fatel foetal abnormalities (FFA), incest, health of a women or choice.
> 
> Most Irish people would now vote for it for rape and FFA.  They have a bigger issue with choice.
> 
> This issue is not going away.  The Irish people are total and utter hypocritics on this when they voted in a referendum to allow women to travel for abortions.
> 
> And I too think that an abortion is not an easy choice or something that shouldn't be carefully considered.


+ 1

On last night's [broken link removed] programme with Ger Colleran, a woman gave a heart-rending account of how at her 12 week scan her foetus was diagnosed with anancephaly, a fatal abnormality (it starts at around 10.50 mins).  She had to go to a private clinic in Brimingham to have the termination as she couldn't have it here.

She felt she was treated like a criminal, but made the choice as she couldn't face carrying a foetus she knew had no chance of survival to full term.

She made the right choice for her circumstances, if someone else chooses to carry a foetus with fatal abnormalities to full term, then that's their decision and it should be respected.  

Kudos to Ruth Bowie for speaking out on what must have been a horrendous blow compounded by having to go abroad away from her family and support to seek help.


----------



## Bronte

cremeegg said:


> However you also say you are pro-choice in cases of rape. In practice how would would it be confirmed that a pregnancy was the result of rape. Would you accept the claim of the pregnant woman? If so that would allow abortion on demand for people willing to lie about their situation.
> 
> .


 
Very simple question and easily answered, for me. If she says she was raped, she was raped. Even you asking the question, you ought to think about that.  And I mean that not in a negative way about you, as I know you are genuine.  It's time to stop this attitute of all women are lying or will lie.  Just trust us to know what is best.  

I no longer feel the need to debate nonsenses on is she raped or not, is it incest or not, is it a hard case, does she deserve it, is she mentally ill, is she suicidal, or even worse, measuring how far along a woman may be on the battle of losing her life in percentage terms.

But as I said I'm so totally for choice in abortion, with term limits, except for FFA or risk to life *or* health. 

I have debated this issue on here many years ago. But for sure since Savita Halappanavaar, I have never been more convinced of a woman's right to choose. 

There is no argument that will ever now change my mind. It's been going on too long and I want the 8th to be repelled and it will happen, I believe in my lifetime. The young people today, they don't think like us dinasours. 

Women in conjunction with their doctors should be allowed to make their medical choices. And the constitution is no place to regulate women's bodies.


----------



## Bronte

delgirl said:


> She felt she was treated like a criminal, but made the choice as she couldn't face carrying a foetus she knew had no chance of survival to full term.
> 
> .


 
There are too many stories like this, I listed to the pod casts of Joe Duffy last year from women who felt like this, made to act like criminals sneaking off to England for abortions that they couldn't speak about to anyone.


----------



## Purple

Bronte said:


> And the constitution is no place to regulate women's bodies.



The constitution doesn’t regulate a woman’s body, it takes a position on the right to life of unborn children within a woman. We have laws to protect the weak from the strong. There is no situation where that gulf is greater. 
I am an atheist so this is not a religious issue for me. This is about the lesser of two evils. Which is worse; forcing a woman to carry a child inside her that she doesn’t want or killing that child before it’s born. It is a horrendous scenario in which there are no good outcomes. I have thought about it for many years and I’m no closer to a firm position now what I was a decade ago.


----------



## michaelm

Bronte said:


> Very simple question and easily answered, for me. If she says she was raped, she was raped.


Would a wife accusing her husband of rape make it less simple?





Bronte said:


> But for sure since Savita Halappanavaar, I have  never been more convinced of a woman's right to choose.


Would you not concede that that tragedy resulted from sepsis mismanagement rather than lack of access to abortion.


----------



## Bronte

Purple said:


> I am an atheist so this is not a religious issue for me.
> 
> I have thought about it for many years and I’m no closer to a firm position now what I was a decade ago.


 
Neither for me is it a religious issue.

Not being glib Purple, and you know I'm not, but it really doesn't matter for you if you have a position on it, because you'll never have to make that decision. And I'm in no way meaning to open a man versus women discussion. I fully support everybody voting however. I will now also probably never have to make a decision on an abortion.  But my children and grandchildren might. And if they do, I don't want them to be shuffled off to England like thieves in the night. 

I don't consider anything in the first trimester to be an issue whatsoever. And I do not agree with the UK time limits.


----------



## Bronte

michaelm said:


> Would a wife accusing her husband of rape make it less simple?Would you not concede that that tragedy resulted from sepsis mismanagement rather than lack of access to abortion.


 
As you would know, it's not so long since rape within marriage didn't exist. It makes no difference what the marital relationship. I guess what you're trying to say is does the husband have a choice. I would hope so, but if you face reality, hope is all a man has, as he has no right in this. I'm not saying that, it's a fact. No husband is able to prevent his wife from travelling to the UK, and do you really really want to get into that debate. We can go around in circles on the man's rights in this. I would hope that if a woman decides for her, she needs an abortion, that her partner would support her, in her choice. For myself, I would hope that I would discuss it with my husband and we would both come to a decision that was right for us. What I cannot do is speak for other women. And for myself, I can as I said hope that I would consider my husband's opinion. 

My own current abortion debate stance is this, I'm dealing with realities, not hypotheticals or hystronics. 

I am fully convinced in my mind that Astbury was more concerned with the foetus and her own skin than giving Savita the abortion she needed. I have read and analysed nearly as much as has been written, as much as I can. As it happens, I would know that hospital and have relations who have given birth there.

And Praveen Hallapanaver is one of the bravest men. He took on the whole health systema and the state and we were found very badly wanting in human empathy. And the racial overturns that were related to me were unedifying as were the constant references to money.

And I know from before Michaelm that you and I will never agree.  And that's fine with me.  But it's not fine with me that 150,000 Irish women have had abortions and that they have to hide it.


----------



## michaelm

Bronte said:


> I don't consider anything in the first trimester to be an issue whatsoever.


Despite the fact the the unborn child is fully formed by the end of the first trimester.





Bronte said:


> I'm dealing with realities, not hypotheticals or hystronics.


Except perhaps the reality that abortion takes the life of an unborn child.  Some 4000 unborn Irish children, 200,000 British and tens of millions worldwide meet this reality every year.





Bronte said:


> And Praveen Hallapanaver is one of the bravest men. He took on the whole health systema and the state and we were found very badly wanting in human empathy.


We can agree that the Hallapanaver family were badly let down by the Irish health system.


----------



## cremeegg

That (#26) is a very good post Bronte and I think your position is logical. 

It is likely that Lab and FG will go into the next election promising a referendum to permit abortion in the case of FFA or rape. 

Rape is a serious criminal offence. If a woman has an abortion, permitted because of rape, the Gardai will obviously have to bring charges of rape against the father. 

Your position Bronte resolves this issue by permitting abortion for choice, but that is unlikely to be proposed in a referendum


----------



## dereko1969

Purple said:


> The constitution doesn’t regulate a woman’s body, it takes a position on the right to life of unborn children *within a woman*. We have laws to protect the weak from the strong. There is no situation where that gulf is greater.
> I am an atheist so this is not a religious issue for me. This is about the lesser of two evils. Which is worse; forcing a woman to carry a child inside her that she doesn’t want or killing that child before it’s born. It is a horrendous scenario in which there are no good outcomes. I have thought about it for many years and I’m no closer to a firm position now what I was a decade ago.



Where else is the zygote/foetus going to be? That's just semantics.



cremeegg said:


> That (#26) is a very good post Bronte and I think your position is logical.
> 
> It is likely that Lab and FG will go into the next election promising a referendum to permit abortion in the case of FFA or rape.
> 
> Rape is a serious criminal offence. If a woman has an abortion, permitted because of rape, the Gardai will obviously have to bring charges of rape against *the father*.
> 
> Your position Bronte resolves this issue by permitting abortion for choice, but that is unlikely to be proposed in a referendum



Don't you mean rapist?

I would be in favour of repeal of the 8th and abortion on demand here until 20 weeks after conception.

I think we'll have another fudge, with the 8th being repealed but a similar flawed requirement for women to jump through myriad hoops to get the operation done within a reasonable time period.


----------



## Leper

. . . and while Ireland debates about a possible future debate . . .Cora from Corofin . . . does not have the time to wait . . .UK, Sweden or wherever beckons . . .


----------



## cremeegg

dereko1969 said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by cremeegg  View Post
> That (#26) is a very good post Bronte and I think your position is logical.
> 
> It is likely that Lab and FG will go into the next election promising a referendum to permit abortion in the case of FFA or rape.
> 
> Rape is a serious criminal offence. If a woman has an abortion, permitted because of rape, the Gardai will obviously have to bring charges of rape against *the father. *
> 
> Your position Bronte resolves this issue by permitting abortion for choice, but that is unlikely to be proposed in a referendum






dereko1969 said:


> Don't you mean rapist?



Not unless a court decides that it was rape. That is exactly the point!


----------



## S.L.F

Bronte said:


> If she says she was raped, she was raped. Even you asking the question, you ought to think about that.



She said she was raped....so was she raped?

She denied she was a rapist....did she lie???



Bronte said:


> And I mean that not in a negative way about you, as I know you are genuine.  It's time to stop this attitute of all women are lying or will lie.  Just trust us to know what is best.



Sorry but humans lie to get out of trouble and a false accusation of rape is a good way for a woman to preserve her reputation even six weeks after the event after she did something really stupid.....or just for a laugh.



Bronte said:


> I no longer feel the need to debate nonsenses on is she raped or not, is it incest or not, is it a hard case, does she deserve it, is she mentally ill, is she suicidal, or even worse, measuring how far along a woman may be on the battle of losing her life in percentage terms.



What are the signs of life? To me it is a heartbeat.

Does a human being with a heartbeat not get a voice?



Bronte said:


> But as I said I'm so totally for choice in abortion, with term limits, except for FFA or risk to life *or* health.
> 
> I have debated this issue on here many years ago. But for sure since Savita Halappanavaar, I have never been more convinced of a woman's right to choose.



We don't want another bad law here thanks due to one case.



Bronte said:


> There is no argument that will ever now change my mind. It's been going on too long and I want the 8th to be repelled and it will happen, I believe in my lifetime. The young people today, they don't think like us dinasours.



The voices of the young don't think much if they've been aborted.



Bronte said:


> Women in conjunction with their doctors should be allowed to make their medical choices. And the constitution is no place to regulate women's bodies.



Do you think a man should have a say in this?

According to Irish law men have a duty to provide maintenance for their children (married or not even if they don't even get access to the children), would you as someone who clearly believes in equality say that a father should have a say in this?

Or if she decides she wants to keep the child and he clearly doesn't he should have the right to walk away completely without any obligations at all?


----------



## Gerry Canning

Having lived through the previous venomous incarnations of Abortion Referenda, that have ended in a fudge of no mans land ,I am inclined to hold a view based on a couple of obvious facts..
1. We have abortion via Uk.
2. We have abortion via morning after XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

What we don,t seem to have is a kindness towards people, and fall into philosophical type discussions..

Reality tells me we have to give women an informed choice.
I would support any pregnant/raped woman who chooses to take pregnancy full term.
I would support her if she didn,t go full term.

I would understand any woman who knowing her child would die @birth, either continuing or not continuing with pregnancy. 


It is all ,so so difficult and I now am of the opinion that we get off the fence and amend things. 
When all is said it ends up as a womans choice , hopefully fully supported by us.
Surely that would be preferable to the present fudge ?


----------



## Purple

Gerry Canning said:


> When all is said it ends up as a womans choice , hopefully fully supported by us.


 I know it's a minor issue in the scheme of things and I know there are no good outcomes, just less bad ones, but if the father wants to keep the baby is it right that he has no voice? If he doesn't want to keep it is it right that he has no voice? Pregnancy lasts 9 months. Parenthood is for life. and yet he has no say in whether be becomes a parent of not. 
The guilt and mental health issues arising from all outcomes from an unwanted pregnancy can also last a lifetime.


----------



## thedaddyman

Purple said:


> I know it's a minor issue in the scheme of things and I know there are no good outcomes, just less bad ones, but if the father wants to keep the baby is it right that he has no voice? If he doesn't want to keep it is it right that he has no voice? Pregnancy lasts 9 months. Parenthood is for life. and yet he has no say in whether be becomes a parent of not.
> The guilt and mental health issues arising from all outcomes from an unwanted pregnancy can also last a lifetime.



There was an article in last weeks Irish Examiner about counseling and one of the things that was mentioned is that they are seeing a rise in men coming for counseling after an abortion. It's an issue that is often overlooked sad to say.


----------



## S.L.F

Purple said:


> I know it's a minor issue in the scheme of things and I know there are no good outcomes, just less bad ones, but if the father wants to keep the baby is it right that he has no voice? If he doesn't want to keep it is it right that he has no voice? Pregnancy lasts 9 months. Parenthood is for life. and yet he has no say in whether be becomes a parent of not.
> The guilt and mental health issues arising from all outcomes from an unwanted pregnancy can also last a lifetime.



Not to mention that even if he does want to see the child and doesn't get access he will still be obligated by Irish law to provide maintenance for all of his offspring.

He has all the responsibilities and none of the choices.

It makes no sense to me that he has all the responsibilities and none of the choices.

Why can't both parents of a baby get automatic custody?


----------



## Purple

Old thread but current topic.

I was surprised and pleased to see Michaél Martin speaking in the Dail debate yesterday.
I think it was brave and commendable for his to do so. It would be good to see Leo and other Party leaders follow suit.


----------



## michaelm

I was only half surprised.  He should join FG.


----------



## PMU

Purple said:


> I was surprised and pleased to see Michaél Martin speaking in the Dail debate yesterday.
> I think it was brave and commendable for his to do so.



Brave? Gimme a break. Yonks ago Conor Cruise O'Brien identified the FF response when confronted with moral issues. He said ”Fianna Fail knows a moral issue when it sees one, and it knows what you do about a thing like that. What you do is, you find out what is the electorally rewarding approach to the moral issue in question, and you adopt that approach forthwith.” Leopards never change their spots!


----------



## Purple

PMU said:


> Brave? Gimme a break. Yonks ago Conor Cruise O'Brien identified the FF response when confronted with moral issues. He said ”Fianna Fail knows a moral issue when it sees one, and it knows what you do about a thing like that. What you do is, you find out what is the electorally rewarding approach to the moral issue in question, and you adopt that approach forthwith.” Leopards never change their spots!


The opportunistic and politically advantageous thing to do is to say nothing.
I don't put much store in the opinions of the Cruzer; a man with an intellect which was always overshadowed by his towering ego.


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> I was only half surprised.  He should join FG.


Why?


----------



## michaelm

The idea that he was pro-life but changed his mind over Christmas having read the 'report' is a laughable.  He's simply backing a report his pro-choice proxies on the committee had a big hand in framing.  Previously he tried, and failed, to force his party to back the nonsense 'abortion as a treatment for suicidality' legislation.  He now has compassion for everyone but the unborn child.  He clearly believes that wind is blowing is another direction so he's gonna bend that way, while stealing a march on Varadkar.  I don't believe there are many conviction politicians.

FG are the party who legalised abortion in Ireland.  Martin was has been happy to prop up FG under Kenny and now under show pony Leo . . he should just join them.


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> The idea that he was pro-life but changed his mind over Christmas having read the 'report' is a laughable.  He's simply backing a report his pro-choice proxies on the committee had a big hand in framing.  Previously he tried, and failed, to force his party to back the nonsense 'abortion as a treatment for suicidality' legislation.  He now has compassion for everyone but the unborn child.  He clearly believes that wind is blowing is another direction so he's gonna bend that way, while stealing a march on Varadkar.  I don't believe there are many conviction politicians.
> 
> FG are the party who legalised abortion in Ireland.  Martin was has been happy to prop up FG under Kenny and now under show pony Leo . . he should just join them.


I'm not an FF supporter or voter but I doubt that Michaél Martin, who has experienced the death of his own little girl, is acting cynically here.


----------



## michaelm

I don't doubt it, so we'll have to differ on that count.


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> I don't doubt it, so we'll have to differ on that count.


So you are 100% sure of the motivations of Michaél Martin in this matter. You  must know him well at a personal level to hold such a view beyond any doubt. When did you first meet him?


----------



## michaelm

Indeed, I should know better .  I'll put a line through I don't doubt and go for in my view his seemingly Damascene conversion is a political calculation.  Will that do?


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> Indeed, I should know better .  I'll put a line through I don't doubt and go for in my view his seemingly Damascene conversion is a political calculation.  Will that do?


Yep


----------



## Sunny

This is just going to be one of those pointless threads and this and all other threads on this subject should be closed. The referendum is going to happen. It is going to divide people. People are not going to change their minds. This threads in the past have always become highly personal and heated. The subject is too important and personal for too many people for the 'Letting Off Steam' section of AskAboutMoney. Close it and ban the topic from this site I say.


----------



## michaelm

Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!  Yes, 'Letting Off Steam' should be all about group hugs and renamed to 'Safe Space' .  Alternatively, maybe don't read it.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

I am certainly not going to get involved in the central debate for the reasons _Sunny _has outlined.  But the question as to whether MM's surprise and possibly game changing announcement was motivated by political self interest or by personal conviction, knowing the political aspects were highly risky, is an interesting one. 

Certainly nobody gets to being a politician of MM's standing without having political nous and so I take it that MM has judged that politically this could bounce well for him. That is not to say that this radical change does not carry personal conviction. 

On balance, and having regard to his robust line against coalition with SF for example, I give him the benefit of the doubt. Two cheers Micheál


----------



## Sunny

michaelm said:


> Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!  Yes, 'Letting Off Steam' should be all about group hugs and renamed to 'Safe Space' .  Alternatively, maybe don't read it.



No it shouldn't be. It also shouldn't be a place where nameless people from both sides get to repeat the same views over and over again. Stand on a crate in the centre of your local town/city if you want to get your view on abortion out there. Do it on another website. This debate was had on this site before and it had to eventually ended. Neither you nor I have any idea about the personal circumstances about any of the people who use this site but this site is there to help people with financial advice. It's called Askaboutmoney, not askaboutwhatpeoplethinkaboutabortion. And maybe instead of advising people not to read something and make part of the website unwelcome for everyone that uses it, we can just agree not to discuss this topic on this forum. If you have views on multiple explanation marks, George Hook, coughing and sneezing by all means make them in LOS but this is not the forum for discussing abortion. Especially when the majority of contributors don't use their real names. It makes it less of a discussion and more of a free for all.


----------



## Delboy

Sunny said:


> This is just going to be one of those pointless threads and this and all other threads on this subject should be closed. The referendum is going to happen. It is going to divide people. *People are not going to change their minds.*


I don't know....a fair few politicians have been on a 'journey' in the past few months and are going to support repeal. No one has been on a journey in the opposite direction though!

As for the leader of FF....I'm surprised that some people are congratulating Martin's decision. It's FF ...why are you surprised?


----------



## michaelm

Sunny said:


> Do it on another website . . It's called Askaboutmoney, not askaboutwhatpeoplethinkaboutabortion.


Methinks you're getting a little precious about AAM.  It covers a multitude. I'm suggesting you don't read this thread, not avoid the forum.  BTW I didn't start this thread or revive it.  I don't think I've ever started an abortion thread but I make no apology for having a strong opinion on the subject.

LOS is just a PIAF (Pointless Internet Argument Forum rather than a deceased French worbbler).  It has survived many a robust argument on controversial issues.  But perhaps you're right, God forbid that a strong opinion or a glib comment should hurt anyone's sensibilities.  A white-list, perhaps?


----------



## Leo

Sunny said:


> It's called Askaboutmoney, not askaboutwhatpeoplethinkaboutabortion.



It is, but there is also a collection of 18 forums, of which LOS is one, called Don'tAskAboutMoney. These aren't the core business of AAM but were set up to facilitate demand from AAM members to discuss topics other than those dealt with in the core financial forums on this site. There are very few banned topics on AAM, this isn't one of them.



Sunny said:


> It also shouldn't be a place where nameless people from both sides get to repeat the same views over and over again.



Welcome to the internet. Nameless people get to repeat their views on any forum or thread on this site and many others. Those reading these views need to make their own minds up as to their own point of view and likely shouldn't rely solely on the likes of AAM in order to come to an informed opinion. 

Are we likely to have a well balanced debate on this topic with input from all spectrums of society? No, but such is the nature of the internet, an all encompassing balanced debate is nigh on impossible to achieve without massive moderation effort.


----------



## Sunny

Leo said:


> It is, but there is also a collection of 18 forums, of which LOS is one, called Don'tAskAboutMoney. These aren't the core business of AAM but were set up to facilitate demand from AAM members to discuss topics other than those dealt with in the core financial forums on this site. There are very few banned topics on AAM, this isn't one of them.
> 
> Welcome to the internet. Nameless people get to repeat their views on any forum or thread on this site and many others. Those reading these views need to make their own minds up as to their own point of view and likely shouldn't rely solely on the likes of AAM in order to come to an informed opinion.
> 
> Are we likely to have a well balanced debate on this topic with input from all spectrums of society? No, but such is the nature of the internet, an all encompassing balanced debate is nigh on impossible to achieve without massive moderation effort.



I am not talking about having a balanced debate on this subject on AAM. I am not talking about AAM informing peoples views on this subject. What on earth is to be gained by discussing it on this forum? The forum is called Letting off steam for God's sake. By it's very name, it is where people go to vent. And you think it is a good idea for people to 'vent' on something like abortion or peoples views on abortion?   

Fair enough, if people are really sad enough to want to discuss such a topic on a website called Askaboutmoney so they can once again spout their views one way or another (they are probably already doing so on 100 other websites) then fair enough. I am finished with it though so enjoy folks.


----------



## Leo

Sunny said:


> And you think it is a good idea for people to 'vent' on something like abortion or peoples views on abortion?



Allowing people to vent or otherwise is far preferable to locking down a topic for no good reason.



Sunny said:


> Fair enough, if people are really sad enough to want to discuss such a topic on a website called Askaboutmoney  so they can once again spout their views one way or another



Why single out this topic? Why is it less deserving of discussion that coughs & sneezes, marriage equality, TUSLA surveys or anything else in LOS or STB? The whole purpose of those forums is as a place to host the inevitable threads that don't quite fit elsewhere.


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> People are not going to change their minds.


I've moved from a conflicted position slightly more on one side than the other to an equally conflicted view slightly more on the other side to the one I started on. I think I'm in the majority in being conflicted on the issue. If I was a politician I would find it very hard to express a clear view or take a hard stance. That's why I admire what Michaél Martin did; he expressed a clear but moderate view on the subject. I don't understand how anyone can occupy the extremes on this issue as there are so many conflicting rights and so much human suffering, no matter what the outcome is.


----------



## michaelm

Ireland shouldn't sleepwalk into an abortion-on-demand regime.  When pro-repeal advocates call for a calm and respectable debate what they usually mean is let's not talk about the humanity of the unborn or the terrible fate that awaits those to be aborted.  I'm strongly in favour of retaining Ireland's two-patient approach.  I'm sorry (genuinely) if that upsets anyone.


----------



## Sunny

Leo said:


> Allowing people to vent or otherwise is far preferable to locking down a topic for no good reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Why single out this topic? Why is it less deserving of discussion that coughs & sneezes, marriage equality, TUSLA surveys or anything else in LOS or STB? The whole purpose of those forums is as a place to host the inevitable threads that don't quite fit elsewhere.



Abortions is not the same as discussing sneezes or coughs. People might not want to hurt people or be personal in what they write but that is what will happen on both sides. It happened the last time this was discussed on this site. There are plenty of other places where this can be discussed so why here? What will happen is that it will start off talking about the legislation. Someone will say abortion is evil and murder. Someone else will come and talk about deformed babies and children of rape/incest. Someone else will say they should allow it in some cases. Someone else will say it should never be allowed. And on and on and on it will go............If people want to campaign on one side of the other, join up. If people want to research the topic, there are loads of very informative places they can go. If people want to discuss it, there are hundreds of places to go. Search twitter and off you go. Maybe I am wrong but I don't think the contributors to LOS in Askaboutmoney including myself are going to bring any new great insights on the topic so it is just an excuse for people to rant and use phrases like 'abortion on demand' and 'right to choose' which will eventually happen. The Nazi's or Hitler will probably appear at around page 7...............Anyway as I say, I am probably in the minority so have fun folks.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Sunny said:


> The Nazi's or Hitler will probably appear at around page 7...............


Actually page 4


----------



## Sunny

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Actually page 4



Fair enough but Goodwins law only applies when comparisons to Hitler are made. Saying that Hitler will appear in page 7 of an internet debate is not Goodwins law. Simply pointing out that it will end up getting that ridiculous.


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> Maybe I am wrong but I don't think the contributors to LOS in Askaboutmoney including myself are going to bring any new great insights on the topic so it is just an excuse for people to rant and use phrases like 'abortion on demand' and 'right to choose' which will eventually happen.


So far so good; A reasoned and moderate post from someone who holds strong views on one side of the debate below.



michaelm said:


> Ireland shouldn't sleepwalk into an abortion-on-demand regime. When pro-repeal advocates call for a calm and respectable debate what they usually mean is let's not talk about the humanity of the unborn or the terrible fate that awaits those to be aborted. I'm strongly in favour of retaining Ireland's two-patient approach. I'm sorry (genuinely) if that upsets anyone.


----------



## Leo

Sunny said:


> Maybe I am wrong but I don't think the contributors to LOS in Askaboutmoney including myself are going to bring any new great insights on the topic so it is just an excuse for people to rant



And I suppose that is the core of my view. I certainly don't expect any discussion here to hold any grand merit or serve to educate or change people's minds on the topics, but that alone isn't a good enough reason to ban the topic. If we were to delete all such threads, LOS or STB simply wouldn't exist, and some other forums might be a lot quieter too.

So long as posters are mature and abide by the posting guidelines, they're free to rant as they see fit. If a post crosses the line, we'll remove it, if the thread becomes onerous to moderate, we'll remove it altogether.


----------



## odyssey06

Probably the thread will be of most interest in discussion of\reaction to the referendum campaign itself, rather than a straight debate between the opposing views in the campaigns e.g. what is the impact on the campaign and on FF of Michael Martin's decision, rather than Michael Martin's decision is wrong because of X or right because of Y.


----------



## cremeegg

Leo said:


> I certainly don't expect any discussion here to hold any grand merit or serve to educate or change people's minds on the topics,.



A little condescending there Leo.

I certainly would claim to have highlighted the difficulties around legislating for abortion in the case of rape on this thread some time ago.

I believe that the difficulties I outlined were substantially those that made the Oireachtas committee decide not to go down that route.

I do not believe these difficulties were understood by any prominent commentators in the media at the time.


----------



## Leo

cremeegg said:


> A little condescending there Leo.



Apologies, it wasn't intended as such. I didn't mean to assert that there wouldn't be insightful input, just that a thread here is likely to have little impact on the debate as a whole, or the referendum result.


----------



## cremeegg

The IT has had Fintan O Toole and Breda O Brien out on either side of the debate over the last few days.

There is a basic mismatch there in that FOT is one of the most subtle thinkers in the Irish media and both willing and able to approach any question from the ground up. 

Breda is a passionate school teacher whose ideas are just projections of values absorbed in childhood. That doesn't make her ideas wrong.

The issue of what repealing the 8th amendment says about our attitudes to disability will I think become central to the discussion.


----------



## Purple

cremeegg said:


> There is a basic mismatch there in that FOT is one of the most subtle thinkers in the Irish media and both willing and able to approach any question from the ground up.


I disagree. While he's certainly a very smart man he's very selective in his use of the facts and frequently misrepresents the truth in order to further a strongly liberal and left wing agenda. In other words he's very biased and plucks out facts which he used out of context in an attempt to disguise that bias.


----------



## michaelm

cremeegg said:


> There is a basic mismatch there in that FOT is one of the most subtle thinkers in the Irish media and both willing and able to approach any question from the ground up.


I didn't see that opinion piece.  Did FOT acknowledge the humanity of the unborn child and that abortion stops a beating heart?


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> I didn't see that opinion piece.  Did FOT acknowledge the humanity of the unborn child and that abortion stops a beating heart?


I didn't see it either but I'd put money on the answer to your question being "no".


----------



## cremeegg

Purple said:


> I disagree. While he's certainly a very smart man he's very selective in his use of the facts and frequently misrepresents the truth in order to further a strongly liberal and left wing agenda. In other words he's very biased and plucks out facts which he used out of context in an attempt to disguise that bias.



He is employed as a columnist so it is reasonable for him to select his facts and present them in the best light to forward his opinions. He is not a reporter, I think an accusation of bias misses the point. He accurately portrays his own views, that's what they pay him for.

My point is that he is a much better thinker than Breda O Brien, who is employed in the same capacity by the IT representing an opposing perspective.

Between them they have,  in my opinion, covered the background to the effect abortion availability has on the birth of children with Down Syndrome, very well.


----------



## cremeegg

michaelm said:


> I didn't see that opinion piece.  Did FOT acknowledge the humanity of the unborn child and that abortion stops a beating heart?



Why dont you decide for yourself, and let us know what you think.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/...l-be-face-of-anti-abortion-campaign-1.3364352


----------



## Purple

cremeegg said:


> Why dont you decide for yourself, and let us know what you think.
> 
> https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/...l-be-face-of-anti-abortion-campaign-1.3364352


It's behind a subscription wall. I don't give money to D4 Pinko's.


----------



## cremeegg

Purple said:


> It's behind a subscription wall. I don't give money to D4 Pinko's.



I think that you can see a number of free articles a month.


----------



## Purple

cremeegg said:


> I think that you can see a number of free articles a month.


Fintan is special; subscription only.


----------



## TheBigShort

A number of politicians have declared their position to repeal the 8th but are opposed to the right to an abortion up to 12 weeks in unlimited circumstances. 

I assume this is where the debate will be fought. I no


----------



## Purple

cremeegg said:


> He is employed as a columnist so it is reasonable for him to select his facts and present them in the best light to forward his opinions. He is not a reporter, I think an accusation of bias misses the point. He accurately portrays his own views, that's what they pay him for.


He presents arguments which he backs up with the selective use of facts which in effect misrepresent the truth.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> A number of politicians have declared their position to repeal the 8th but are opposed to the right to an abortion up to 12 weeks in unlimited circumstances.
> 
> I assume this is where the debate will be fought.


I agree


----------



## Firefly

Relevant judgement today on the rights of the unborn:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-ne...h-amendment-supreme-court-rules-36679324.html

From the article it appears to remove a potential stumbling block for the proposed referendum, but I am drawn to this line in particular:

_"The findings were appealed by the State, which argued *the only right the unborn has is the right to be born*. Other constitutional rights only kick in when a child is born, lawyers for the State argued."
_
Would this not mean that an unborn cannot be aborted as it has the right to be born???


----------



## Sunny

Firefly said:


> Relevant judgement today on the rights of the unborn:
> 
> https://www.independent.ie/irish-ne...h-amendment-supreme-court-rules-36679324.html
> 
> From the article it appears to remove a potential stumbling block for the proposed referendum, but I am drawn to this line in particular:
> 
> _"The findings were appealed by the State, which argued *the only right the unborn has is the right to be born*. Other constitutional rights only kick in when a child is born, lawyers for the State argued."
> _
> Would this not mean that an unborn cannot be aborted as it has the right to be born???



There is no change in law. That was always the case. Just don't forget it includes 'due regard to the equal right to life of the mother' so it's not as simple as saying an unborn can't be aborted.


----------



## dub_nerd

Firefly said:


> Would this not mean that an unborn cannot be aborted as it has the right to be born???


Yes, that is what it means. The upcoming referendum proposes to take away that right.


----------



## cremeegg

cremeegg said:


> I believe no woman should have to carry any child against her will.
> 
> I also believe that to destroy an unborn child is horrendous.
> 
> If anyone can reconcile those two beliefs, I will have a coherent position on abortion.



The time is approaching when I will have to decide, not what I think about abortion, but which box to tick in the referendum on repealing the 8th amendment to the constitution.

I came into the discussion realising the impossibility of legislating for abortion in the case of rape and incest only. Which seems to be a "journey" many politicians seem to have taken, most recently Simon Coveney. While i fully accept that, it does not address the horror of destroying an unborn child.

As for the debate so far, it has not been as aggressive as might have been expected.

The posters showing a foetus and the slogan "One of us" have been the stand out for me so far.

I am certainly still undecided.


----------



## dub_nerd

cremeegg said:


> I believe no woman should have to carry any child against her will.
> 
> I also believe that to destroy an unborn child is horrendous.
> 
> If anyone can reconcile those two beliefs, I will have a coherent position on abortion.



The two are irreconcilable. There are only two coherent positions on abortion, as you have identified already. Neither is on offer in the current referendum anyway, so you are faced with having to vote on the choices that are actually available. Although abortion is often discussed in terms of edge cases, the practice in the event of repeal is likely to be similar to our nearest neighbour, where over 98% of abortions are not connected to issues of maternal or fetal physical health. You will have to take a stance, one way or another.


----------



## Leper

In everything relating to the referendum:-
Who will gain the most? 
Who will lose the most?
Who is going to pay the most?

Just some questions.


----------



## dub_nerd

Leper said:


> Who will gain the most? - people looking for sex without consequences + private abortion providers
> Who will lose the most? - aborted babies
> Who is going to pay the most? - tax payers required to fund free abortions


----------



## Leper

Leper said:


> Who will gain the most?         Medical Profession?
> Who will lose the most?          The "Mothers"?
> Who is going to pay the most? Yep, the taxpayers.
> 
> .


----------



## johnwilliams

i have to go with lepers post at the start of this thread ,speaking as a male i believe that all males should remain neutral ,should not vote should not canvass  should not be involved in any way ,this is a female issue ,it is the female who will get pregnant and who will have to live for the rest of their lives with whatever decision they judge to be correct at that time ,
ladies do you want men to decide/dictate what you do with your body?
gentle men do not approach my door from either side on this issue you will not be entertained


----------



## odyssey06

johnwilliams said:


> i have to go with lepers post at the start of this thread ,speaking as a male i believe that all males should remain neutral ,should not vote should not canvass  should not be involved in any way ,this is a female issue ,it is the female who will get pregnant and who will have to live for the rest of their lives with whatever decision they judge to be correct at that time ,
> ladies do you want men to decide/dictate what you do with your body?
> gentle men do not approach my door from either side on this issue you will not be entertained



Are there no consequences for men in becoming... or not becoming fathers?
It is not just the responsibility of the mother to take care of the baby.
That attitude towards fatherhood is not a healthy one... seems to encourage the idea that men have no responsibilities towards children they father.

This is not a female issue. This is a human issue.
Even though slavery only applied to black people, pre civil war white americans became abolitionists because they could extend their sense of who is a human entitled to legal protection to encompass people of a different skin colour.
So it is entirely legitimate for males to take a position on this one.

Should we exclude women past child bearing age also from taking a position? Should men and such women even be allowed to vote by your logic?

And I dont think some women want anyone... of either gender, dictating to them!


----------



## Leper

I saw some posters on lamp-posts stating "Stop Policing My Body" - So men should not have a vote in this referendum. Women should have the major say is their own body.


----------



## odyssey06

Leper said:


> I saw some posters on lamp-posts stating "Stop Policing My Body" - So men should not have a vote in this referendum. Women should have the major say is their own body.



It's not an argument I find much merit in, it could just as easily be used to argue
Stop Policing My Body - "I should be able to take whatever drinks and drugs I want and drive."

This idea that only women should have a say in this matter is profoundly undemocratic, not to mention ludicrous... there are many women who cannot have children, for various biological reasons - perhaps the majority.
Do we subject all possible voters to a fertility and gender test?

There are many political issues and referendums where there is disparate impact on citizens based on the result.
Should we prevent over 80s from voting in referenda in general, because they may not have to live with the consequences for very long?


----------



## Leper

odyssey06 said:


> It's not an argument I find much merit in, it could just as easily be used to argue
> Stop Policing My Body - "I should be able to take whatever drinks and drugs I want and drive."
> 
> This idea that only women should have a say in this matter is profoundly undemocratic, not to mention ludicrous... there are many women who cannot have children, for various biological reasons - perhaps the majority.
> Do we subject all possible voters to a fertility and gender test?
> 
> There are many political issues and referendums where there is disparate impact on citizens based on the result.
> Should we prevent over 80s from voting in referenda in general, because they may not have to live with the consequences for very long?



1. Newflash! it's being used by supporters of the Yes campaign and has nothing to do with drinks and drugs when one drives.
2. Undemocratic, no, practical yes. No man ever became pregnant . No man ever had an abortion
3. The over 80's women while they deserve their say from what happened in dear ol' Ireland's past will never need to have an abortion.

Men participating the referendum are like men running in Women's Marathon's looking stupid in their grass skirts and pound shop wigs where women want their say on women's issues. For once, Let's trust our women to make the right decision for what affects them.


----------



## odyssey06

RTE news should just come out with an editorial in favour of voting Yes, if tonight's 9 o clock news is anything to go on.


----------



## Ceist Beag

I didn't really want to post on this thread as for me it's very much a private matter but Leper I don't think it is at all right to say that men should have no say in this referendum. Do you think the marriage referendum should have been restricted to allow only gay people vote? This is our constitution - all of ours. We all have a say in it.


----------



## Firefly

Leper said:


> I saw some posters on lamp-posts stating "Stop Policing My Body" - So men should not have a vote in this referendum. Women should have the major say is their own body.



I'm very much on the fence regarding the referendum. Historically, I would have been against abortion but over the past few weeks I can really see both sides. The fact that I have a daughter of my own probably weighs too. However, in relation to the "Stop Policing My Body" argument I cannot help think about the unborn baby's body and who really gets to decide it's ok to end this.


----------



## Purple

johnwilliams said:


> i have to go with lepers post at the start of this thread ,speaking as a male i believe that all males should remain neutral ,should not vote should not canvass  should not be involved in any way ,this is a female issue ,it is the female who will get pregnant and who will have to live for the rest of their lives with whatever decision they judge to be correct at that time ,
> ladies do you want men to decide/dictate what you do with your body?
> gentle men do not approach my door from either side on this issue you will not be entertained


I presume you want to restrict this to women who pass a fertility test as any women who can't get pregnant can't have an abortion and so should have no say, right?


johnwilliams said:


> this is a female issue ,it is the female who will get pregnant and who will have to live for the rest of their lives with whatever decision they judge to be correct at that time


 I take is then that you are in favour of an addendum to the referendum removing any and all responsibility of fathers to look after or provide for their children? I don't know if you are a parent but a woman choosing not to have an abortion has a pretty major impact on the father of that child. Ask any father who has lost a child; you may be surprised to find that can also have a major impact on them. 

I'll probably be voting yes but this is about ending the life of a child in the womb. 
It is not a feminist issue. 
It is not a religious issue.
 It is not a progressive v regressive issue. 
It is legislating for something which is weighty and tragic and traumatic and will have a major impact on every women making that decision and many of the men who are the fathers of those unborn children. 

A abortion is a horrible thing but sometimes is it the least worst option. Presenting it as merely a medical procedure is wrong and suggesting that any women's life is being put as risk because of what's currently in place is also wrong. Denying the reality that Irish women have abortions at the moment, often without support and always in a different country, is also wrong.


----------



## michaelm

Purple said:


> I'll probably be voting yes but this is about ending the life of a child in the womb.
> It is not a feminist issue.
> It is not a religious issue.
> It is not a progressive v regressive issue.
> It is legislating for something which is weighty and tragic and traumatic and will have a major impact on every women making that decision and many of the men who are the fathers of those unborn children.


The above is succinct and honest.  I agree with the points however I will be voting no because this is about ending the life of a child in the womb.


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> The above is succinct and honest.  I agree with the points however I will be voting no because this is about ending the life of a child in the womb.


And I could easily find myself doing the same thing. There's no good option here.


----------



## cremeegg

Purple said:


> It is legislating for something which is weighty and tragic and traumatic and will have a major impact on every women making that decision and many of the men who are the fathers of those unborn children.
> 
> A abortion is a horrible thing but sometimes is it the least worst option.
> 
> Presenting it as merely a medical procedure is wrong and suggesting that any women's life is being put as risk because of what's currently in place is also wrong.
> 
> Denying the reality that Irish women have abortions at the moment, often without support and always in a different country, is also wrong.



Excellent post Purple.

The IT has had a number of pieces written by men recently. A Chris Fitzpatrick who, it seemed to me, made the argument to vote NO, recognising that abortion was an end to a potential life, but said he was voting yes. Then FOT who recounted his role in an abortion many years ago, he was anxious to reassure us that he did not consider himself a murderer. Well it would not occur to me that he was based on the story.

Yet I am left with the feeling that if the amendment is repealed, abortion will become normalised, a default option for too many. There is nothing normal about abortion.


----------



## Leper

Some hard hitting posters getting their points across here and that's the way it should be. Purple initially bent on voting Yes, but could change to No. Somebody else trying to reconcile Women owning their own bodies with the right to abortion and others arguing re termination of the life of an unborn child. Some emotional arguments in full bloom. Losers, winners, non performers. Thoughts come to mind - abortion widely available to anybody jumping on a plane to the UK for a mid week shopping trip. Just few rely on the church for guidance these days.  Confusion reigns. Nobody seems to know who to believe. Lots of lies being bandied about. And Cremeegg states "Yet I am left with the feeling that if the amendment is repealed, abortion will become normalised, a default option for too many. There is nothing normal about abortion." Quote of the month in my opinion.


----------



## odyssey06

Some further thoughts...
There will still be women going to the UK for abortions, if Ireland goes with a 12 week limit as the UK limit is 24.
Given what we know of the HSE, it is only a matter of time before a woman dies having an abortion performed by them - this is an indication of some of the challenges the NHS faces in this regard:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ghts-service-crisis-nhs-no-specialist-doctors

It is reasonable to make the argument that it is better for women to be treated in Ireland, but let us not pretend this will the end of trips to the UK, or medical scandals.


----------



## zxcvbnm

johnwilliams said:


> i have to go with lepers post at the start of this thread ,speaking as a male i believe that all males should remain neutral ,should not vote should not canvass  should not be involved in any way ,this is a female issue ,it is the female who will get pregnant and who will have to live for the rest of their lives with whatever decision they judge to be correct at that time ,
> ladies do you want men to decide/dictate what you do with your body?
> gentle men do not approach my door from either side on this issue you will not be entertained



I have to say that does not make much sense to me.

You are missing the point if you think this is just a womans health issue. It is also about the rights of the unborn. And seeing as they do not have a voice, it is up to others to speak on their behalf. Your gender should not dictate whether you can  speak on their behalf or not.


----------



## zxcvbnm

Can someone please answer me why the government didn't propose a draft legislation whereby abortion is facilitated for the so-called difficult cases only? Why have gone for abortion on demand instead?

I have read it is because you cant prove you've been raped in quick enough time. But surely all they have to do is insist a rape victim makes a complaint to police. Once the victim does that first step then they should then be allowed access to an abortion.
(No one in their right mind is going to make up a false rape claim just to get an abortion in Ireland when they can just go to the uk instead)

Can someone constructively criticize my suggestion please?

The only downside I see is that people who are genuine rape victims and made pregnant but for whatever reason do not want to make a complaint to police will be forced to travel to the uk instead. But id have to assume we are talking in single-digits for any given year for such a scenario.
So while my solution is not perfect for the above reason, the question to be answered is is it better than abortion on demand?  Surely yes it is way better is it not?


----------



## Andarma

Victims of rape shouldn't be forced to do anything, be it give a statement to get an abortion here or to travel for an abortion if they wish. You seem to think that there are 'good' and 'bad' reasons for abortion.  If you are anti-abortion, then surely you are anti-abortion for all reasons? 

The 8th amendment puts the right to life of the unborn first and  foremost, with a woman's right secondary (note that I say 'woman' here - the 8th says 'mother' but not all pregnant women are already mothers. I did not consider myself to be  a mother until my baby was born and I've never come across anyone who did). Is a woman's life equal to that of an unborn foetus? Absolutely not. Yet women have been denied medical treatment, been allowed to develop sepsis and die, have been allowed to become dangerously ill during  miscarriage,  and have been kept artificially 'alive' after brain death, against the wishes of next-of-kin, all because of the 8th. Can you justify any of those scenarios? None were the victims of rape as far as I know.


----------



## Ceist Beag

Look many many people in the Citizens Assembly sat for many many hours debating this before coming to an agreement that on demand access up to 12 weeks was the best proposal here so I very much doubt that anyone on an internet forum can type up a reply to summarise all of the points made both in favour and against. But in answer to the question of why the government went with this, I think it's fair to say they studied and deliberated on the findings from the Citizens Assembly and made the decision based on that.


----------



## zxcvbnm

Andarma said:


> The 8th amendment puts the right to life of the unborn first and  foremost, with a woman's right secondary (note that I say 'woman' here - the 8th says 'mother' but not all pregnant women are already mothers. I did not consider myself to be  a mother until my baby was born and I've never come across anyone who did). Is a woman's life equal to that of an unborn foetus? Absolutely not. Yet women have been denied medical treatment, been allowed to develop sepsis and die, have been allowed to become dangerously ill during  miscarriage,  and have been kept artificially 'alive' after brain death, against the wishes of next-of-kin, all because of the 8th. Can you justify any of those scenarios? None were the victims of rape as far as I know.



Well this is it. You could put all the scenarios you mentioned above in the 'difficult cases' scenario. My question is why wasn't legislation put forward to cater for those cases separately?
It seems as a solution to those scenarios they want to grant abortion on demand. Surely they should have legislated separately for these scenarios.

And yes  - you are right that victims of rape shouldn't have to do anything. But there is no perfect solution here. No matter what is proposed will have downsides. The question is what solution has the least downsides. One could also argue there shouldn't be abortion on demand to solve relatively speaking very few edge-case scenarios.


----------



## zxcvbnm

Ceist Beag said:


> Look many many people in the Citizens Assembly sat for many many hours debating this before coming to an agreement that on demand access up to 12 weeks was the best proposal here so I very much doubt that anyone on an internet forum can type up a reply to summarise all of the points made both in favour and against. But in answer to the question of why the government went with this, I think it's fair to say they studied and deliberated on the findings from the Citizens Assembly and made the decision based on that.



I think its not a good idea to simply not question it. I do agree that normally when there is a thorough investigation that normally there is probably a good reason for a conclusion. However - I don't think it should be blindly accepted without discussion either.  Particularly not for this issue.

Obviously its all irrelevant anyway - its not for changing now. But I am curious as to why this was deemed the only solution.


----------



## Andarma

I doubt  any formulation of legislation could ever deal satisfactorily with the many different 'difficult' scenarios that we know about and which might occur in the future. Legislation should be general enough to deal with them all. The 8th allowed the scenarios I outlined to occur. It does not prevent  people from having abortions and has added to the misery and trauma of many. I get that this isn't easy; I've come  along way in my own thinking, mainly due to life experience.

I haven't heard much from the anti-abortion side about contraception and  education for young people especially boys (all those girls don't get pregnant on their own you know, yet they're frequently painted as sex-mad with no regard for the consequences. Eh, what about the boys?). Maybe that's where they should concentrate their efforts?


----------



## michaelm

Andarma said:


> The 8th allowed the scenarios I outlined to occur.


You seem to be rehashing and misrepresenting some high-profile cases perhaps hoping to bolster support for repeal, which is now waning as the prospect of unrestricted abortion looms large.

Decrying the Eighth Amendment for restricting doctors is disingenuous.  Section 48 (page 35) of the Medical Council Guidelines makes it clear that doctors can and should provide all necessary medical treatment to expectant women, the Eighth Amendment being no impediment in this regard.

The proposed liberal abortion-on-demand regime goes far beyond edge cases.  If the Eighth Amendment is repealed then every year thousands more voiceless, unborn girls and boys will have their beating hearts stopped on the strength of falsehoods and in the name of Choice.


----------



## odyssey06

Andarma said:


> I haven't heard much from the anti-abortion side about contraception and  education for young people especially boys (all those girls don't get pregnant on their own you know, yet they're frequently painted as sex-mad with no regard for the consequences. Eh, what about the boys?). Maybe that's where they should concentrate their efforts?



Some people see abortion on-demand as a form of contraception though...


----------



## Andarma

michaelm said:


> You seem to be rehashing and misrepresenting some high-profile cases perhaps hoping to bolster support for repeal, which is now waning as the prospect of unrestricted abortion looms large.
> 
> Decrying the Eighth Amendment for restricting doctors is disingenuous.  Section 48 (page 35) of the Medical Council Guidelines makes it clear that doctors can and should provide all necessary medical treatment to expectant women, the Eighth Amendment being no impediment in this regard.
> 
> The proposed liberal abortion-on-demand regime goes far beyond edge cases.  If the Eighth Amendment is repealed then every year thousands more voiceless, unborn girls and boys will have their beating hearts stopped on the strength of falsehoods and in the name of Choice.



Please explain how I am misrepresenting  them? They have all occurred. I personally know of someone who was miscarrying and did not receive medical intervention until her life was deemed to be at risk. You won't read about her in the papers but it happened, for no reason other than the 8th amendment.

Anyway, I believe that safe abortion should be available to all who require it.


----------



## zxcvbnm

Andarma said:


> I doubt  any formulation of legislation could ever deal satisfactorily with the many different 'difficult' scenarios that we know about and which might occur in the future. Legislation should be general enough to deal with them all.



I really cannot see why some legislation could be drafted. It cant be that difficult.
Obviously you cannot outline all the  specific scenarios in advance. But I simply cannot believe that some broad effort could be proposed rather than allowing abortion on demand for anyone.  Again - it doesn't have to be perfect or without flaws - but can it be better than abortion on demand?

No wonder people have accused the citizens assembly of being biased.

If the No vote wins, then people will justifiably point the finger at the government saying they should not have proposed such a liberal draft legislation.


----------



## Andarma

odyssey06 said:


> Some people see abortion on-demand as a form of contraception though...



I doubt any anti-abortionist views abortion as a form of contraception. So, who are these people? I'd love to see some research on this.


----------



## odyssey06

Andarma said:


> I doubt any anti-abortionist views abortion as a form of contraception. So, who are these people? I'd love to see some research on this.



By introducing abortion on demand up to 12 weeks, which likely will be free to people on medical cards, and maybe covered by health insurance plans, you are removing one incentive to use other means. What's the big deal about taking a pill every day to prevent the event, if you can just take a different pill after the event should pregnancy occur?


----------



## Purple

Andarma said:


> If you are anti-abortion, then surely you are anti-abortion for all reasons?


 Some people support the death penalty for some crimes but not for others. Some people support abortion up to 12 weeks, some to 24 weeks, some longer. It's not a black and white issue. 



Andarma said:


> The 8th amendment puts the right to life of the unborn first and foremost, with a woman's right secondary (note that I say 'woman' here - the 8th says 'mother' but not all pregnant women are already mothers. I did not consider myself to be a mother until my baby was born and I've never come across anyone who did). Is a woman's life equal to that of an unborn foetus? Absolutely not. Yet women have been denied medical treatment, been allowed to develop sepsis and die, have been allowed to become dangerously ill during miscarriage, and have been kept artificially 'alive' after brain death, against the wishes of next-of-kin, all because of the 8th. Can you justify any of those scenarios? None were the victims of rape as far as I know.


 The 8th amendment does not put the right to life of the unborn first and foremost, with a woman's right secondary. That is incorrect. 
I also thing we should be careful not to conflate medical negligence with our current laws on abortion. There is no scenario in which the 8th amendment requires that a woman should be allowed to develop sepsis. I think that is is despicable that the death of a woman due to medical incompetence was and is represented by some as a reason to change the current law on abortion.

Nobody says "I'm expecting a foetus" so it is reasonable to call is an unborn child or baby. The word foetus describes the stage after the embryonic stage so usually after 9 weeks. If an abortion is carried out before 9 weeks it removed the embryo, after 9 weeks it removed the foetus. Before 24-26 weeks there is limited Thalamic brain connection, after that there is so there at that stage there is sensory inputs. I presume that's the argument for the 24 week cut-off in the UK and elsewhere.
It is important that we do not ignore or gloss over the reality of abortion.  

I say this as someone who will vote yes to remove the 8th amendment. 



michaelm said:


> Decrying the Eighth Amendment for restricting doctors is disingenuous. Section 48 (page 35) of the Medical Council Guidelines makes it clear that doctors can and should provide all necessary medical treatment to expectant women, the Eighth Amendment being no impediment in this regard.


Correct.


----------



## Andarma

odyssey06 said:


> By introducing abortion on demand up to 12 weeks, which likely will be free to people on medical cards, and maybe covered by health insurance plans, you are removing one incentive to use other means. What's the big deal about taking a pill every day to prevent the event, if you can just take a different pill after the event should pregnancy occur?



I'd love to know if people really think that way - where's the research?

Once again, all the responsibility is being put on the women. Men should take more responsibility for _their_ actions, after all it takes 2 to tango.


----------



## Purple

Andarma said:


> I'd love to know if people really think that way - where's the research?
> 
> Once again, all the responsibility is being put on the women. Men should take more responsibility for _their_ actions, after all it takes 2 to tango.


Absolutely, I agree 100%. 
What's your opinion on the rights of the potential father of the unborn child/thing in the woman?
If the woman chooses to have an abortion he doesn't get to be a father. He has no say in the matter.
If the woman chooses not to have an abortion then he becomes a father, with all the associated responsibilities for the rest of his life, whether he likes it or not. 

Do you think that's right?


----------



## odyssey06

Andarma said:


> I'd love to know if people really think that way - where's the research?
> Once again, all the responsibility is being put on the women. Men should take more responsibility for _their_ actions, after all it takes 2 to tango.



Why do you need research, just ask yourself, in a world where there was no abortion whatsoever, would people have more or less incentive to use condoms and the pill?

I'm at a loss as to how you read into that specific comment or my earlier ones on this thread that all the responsibility should be put on to women.


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> in a world where there was no abortion whatsoever, would people have more or less incentive to use condoms and the pill?


Probably not; it is human nature not to expect the worst.


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> Probably not; it is human nature not to expect the worst.



That might be true for some but not all or we wouldn't have a million people here with private health insurance as the 'worst' doesn't come much worse than the HSE


----------



## Andarma

odyssey06 said:


> I'm at a loss as to how you read into that specific comment or my earlier ones on this thread that all the responsibility should be put on to women.



My comment was in response to yours about taking a pill every day. You never mentioned condoms or any other form of contraception.


----------



## Andarma

Purple said:


> Absolutely, I agree 100%.
> What's your opinion on the rights of the potential father of the unborn child/thing in the woman?
> If the woman chooses to have an abortion he doesn't get to be a father. He has no say in the matter.
> If the woman chooses not to have an abortion then he becomes a father, with all the associated responsibilities for the rest of his life, whether he likes it or not.
> 
> Do you think that's right?



It's complicated and not black and white. Again, there are potentially many different scenarios at play. Ultimately though, it is  the woman who has to endure pregnancy and childbirth.


----------



## odyssey06

Andarma said:


> My comment was in response to yours about taking a pill every day. You never mentioned condoms or any other form of contraception.



Nothing in my post indicates that other forms of contraception were excluded, it was clearly not written as an exhaustive list of the forms available, but I was drawing an explicit comparison between the delivery mechanism of one form of contraception and one form of abortion.


----------



## Purple

Andarma said:


> Ultimately though, it is  the woman who has to endure pregnancy and childbirth.


It is indeed, and that is a major factor for the second and third trimester but both parties will then be parents for the rest of their lives. Parenthood has a much bigger impact on your life than pregnancy.


----------



## Andarma

Purple said:


> It is indeed, and that is a major factor for the second and third trimester but both parties will then be parents for the rest of their lives. Parenthood has a much bigger impact on your life than pregnancy.



True, but imagine being pregnant against your will?


----------



## Firefly

Andarma said:


> Ultimately though, it is  the woman who has to endure pregnancy and childbirth.



That's true. But with so many couples desperate to adopt, it could be argued that the 9 months of pregnancy and childbirth would be more favourable than the taking of a life.
As noted, I am on the fence on the issue myself, but if I'm honest the "my body, my choice" argument always seemed a little selfish to me and I notice how this argument is not used as much by those for abortion as it used to be...


----------



## Purple

Andarma said:


> True, but imagine being pregnant against your will?


Yes, it's horrendous. There's no "good" outcome in that scenario.


----------



## Sunny

odyssey06 said:


> Some people see abortion on-demand as a form of contraception though...



Sigh. Who does? Show me the numbers of people having repeat abortions? Show me the number of people who order abortion XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX repeatedly? Show me any evidence that any sort of significant number of women with half a brain consider abortion as a form of contraception. Even the term 'abortion on demand' sounds like a term created by men (one myself).


----------



## odyssey06

Sunny said:


> Sigh. Who does? Show me the numbers of people having repeat abortions? Show me the number of people who order abortion XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX repeatedly? Show me any evidence that any sort of significant number of women with half a brain consider abortion as a form of contraception. Even the term 'abortion on demand' sounds like a term created by men (one myself).



http://www.bbc.com/news/health-18249026

[broken link removed] show 34% of women having an abortion last year had had one before. It continues an increasing trend of 31% in 2001, 32% in 2005 and 34% in 2010.


----------



## cremeegg

Sunny said:


> Show me the numbers of people having repeat abortions? .



38% of abortions in England and Wales in 2016 were to women who had had one or more previous abortions.

https://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/abortion-stats-2016-commentary-with-tables.pdf

This is an increase from 2011 when the figure was 34%

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-18249026

the number of annual abortions is 1.2 million per year in the United States.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that more than 44 percent of these were repeat abortions, and 1 in 5 represent a third or even higher order abortion.

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordeba...would-reveal-the-shocking-number-of-abortions


----------



## Purple

Andarma said:


> It's complicated and not black and white. Again, there are potentially many different scenarios at play. Ultimately though, it is  the woman who has to endure pregnancy and childbirth.


I'm not asking you to suggest a solution or offer a fix. I'm just asking you if you think it's right that the father has no rights. 
My view is that it isn't but any potential solution would mean a far greater, and totally unacceptable, curtailment of the rights of the mother.


----------



## Andarma

Purple said:


> I'm not asking you to suggest a solution or offer a fix. I'm just asking you if you think it's right that the father has no rights.
> My view is that it isn't but any potential solution would mean a far greater, and totally unacceptable, curtailment of the rights of the mother.



I can’t say whether they should or not. Would a feckless guy who runs away at the mention of the word ‘pregnancy’ have the same rights as a husband and father to other children in a marriage? I don’t think so.  The fact remains though that it’s the woman who has to go through pregnancy and birth.


----------



## Purple

Andarma said:


> Would a feckless guy who runs away at the mention of the word ‘pregnancy’ have the same rights as a husband and father to other children in a marriage? I don’t think so.


Why is a guy feckless if he doesn't want to be a parent when a woman who doesn't want to be one (and, unlike the man, gets to make that decision) is just exercising her rights?
Should we describe a woman who doesn't want to be a mother fecklessly running away to an abortion clinic to kill her child? Maybe we should avoid emotive and offensive stereotypes.

There is no way that a man can exercise any rights he may have as a father in this scenario but it's just another example of how morally and ethically complex this issue is.


----------



## zxcvbnm

So here's an article as to why Ryan Tubridys ex Aoibheann O'Shuiileabhain wrote for the sunday indo as to why she is voting yes.

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/...men-deserve-care-and-compassion-36855046.html

She wrote an excellent piece in fairness to her and articulated her points very well - with one exception !

She states "...but research shows that rates of abortion occur far less in countries where it is legal, than in countries where it is illegal." This is part of he reasoning for voting yes.
This is vey frustrating to read.

It is entirely incorrect - and it is completely the crux of the issue as to why many/most are against abortion. There is no way that the rate of abortion in England is "far less" than that of Ireland. And England is the closest point of reference we have in terns of culture etc.

For such an important vote I find it infuriating that people just get the most important - yet basic - facts incorrect. And get nothing but plaudits on twitter.

Needless to say her article went down fantastically well in twitterland from all the repealers.

If you're going to vote yes then fine...its your right. But please don't give out nonsense like that in an article when explaining yourself.


----------



## Andarma

michaelm said:


> You seem to be rehashing and misrepresenting some high-profile cases perhaps hoping to bolster support for repeal, which is now waning as the prospect of unrestricted abortion looms large.
> 
> Decrying the Eighth Amendment for restricting doctors is disingenuous.  Section 48 (page 35) of the Medical Council Guidelines makes it clear that doctors can and should provide all necessary medical treatment to expectant women, the Eighth Amendment being no impediment in this regard.
> 
> The proposed liberal abortion-on-demand regime goes far beyond edge cases.  If the Eighth Amendment is repealed then every year thousands more voiceless, unborn girls and boys will have their beating hearts stopped on the strength of falsehoods and in the name of Choice.




I find it impossible to reconcile those guidelines, particularly section 46 on end of life care, with the case of PP v HSE https://www.independent.ie/irish-ne...-clinically-dead-pregnant-woman-30863340.html


----------



## Purple

zxcvbnm said:


> She wrote an excellent piece in fairness to her and articulated her points very well - with one exception !


There's a second error; she says that _"In 2012, Savita Halappanavar died as a result of being denied an abortion while suffering a septic miscarriage." _She died due to serious mistakes by medical staff. The Coroner's Inquest which was held found that she died of medical misadventure.

There are sound reasons for introducing abortion on demand (as opposed to abortion for medical reasons). The Yes side should stop telling emotive lies to support their case but rather stick to the facts.


----------



## Delboy

zxcvbnm said:


> She states "...but research shows that rates of abortion occur far less in countries where it is legal, than in countries where it is illegal." This is part of he reasoning for voting yes.
> This is vey frustrating to read.
> 
> It is entirely incorrect - and it is completely the crux of the issue as to why many/most are against abortion. There is no way that the rate of abortion in England is "far less" than that of Ireland. And England is the closest point of reference we have in terns of culture etc.
> 
> For such an important vote I find it infuriating that people just get the most important - yet basic - facts incorrect. And get nothing but plaudits on twitter.
> 
> Needless to say her article went down fantastically well in twitterland from all the repealers.
> 
> If you're going to vote yes then fine...its your right. But please don't give out nonsense like that in an article when explaining yourself.


This is the crux for me. It seems to be an undeniable fact (despite the Irish Times 'fact check' giving a laughable unclear result to this point 2 days ago) that countries where abortion is legal, the rates are much higher.

There was a debate between the Yes and No side on RTE radio1 a week ago. Caroline Simons made the points that:
1. 21% of all pregnancies in England/Wales end in abortion
2. of that figure, only 3% relate to fatal fetal abnormalities

The representative from the No side did not dispute those facts and tried to move the debate on.

Until someone can show me those facts are grossly incorrect, then I'm on the No side


----------



## Purple

RTE's coverage, particularly online, is totally one sided on the repeal side. 
They should be honest enough to state their editorial position.


----------



## zxcvbnm

Delboy said:


> This is the crux for me. It seems to be an undeniable fact (despite the Irish Times 'fact check' giving a laughable unclear result to this point 2 days ago) that countries where abortion is legal, the rates are much higher.
> 
> There was a debate between the Yes and No side on RTE radio1 a week ago. Caroline Simons made the points that:
> 1. 21% of all pregnancies in England/Wales end in abortion
> 2. of that figure, only 3% relate to fatal fetal abnormalities
> 
> The representative from the No side did not dispute those facts and tried to move the debate on.
> 
> Until someone can show me those facts are grossly incorrect, then I'm on the No side



Well that's it. It's also a fact (I've googled the govt webpage) that 97% of abortions in the UK are for the reason of mental health. i.e. 20% of all pregnancies have to be aborted for mental health reasons.

You really have to ask yourself when faced with those stats whether there a culture of a wink and a nod in the UK when referencing mental health. In my view there most certainly is.
And also in my view, given time, we will follow in their footsteps.

I'm really not comfortable with that culture.


----------



## TheBigShort

zxcvbnm said:


> You really have to ask yourself when faced with those stats whether there a culture of a wink and a nod in the UK when referencing mental health. In my view there most certainly is.



I don’t think that is fair to be honest. An unintended pregnancy can impose a lot of mental stress on a prospective mother. Its not that long ago in history that pregnant women outside of wedlock were shunned away from society. Even today there is still a stigma attached if a single women, left looking after a child, is reliant on social welfare and social housing.

Our society is engineered to think career, property, family – in that order. If family arrives before career and property subsequently postponing the career and property indefinitely, and as a consequence a reliance on welfare, some prospective mothers may not want to deal with the stigmatization that is associated with that. Thus, bearing a mental stress (shame, guilt, being shunned and or discriminated against) that no woman deserves to endure merely as a consequence of a biological occurrence in her body resulting from a normal human condition and desire to engage in sexual activity.


----------



## zxcvbnm

TheBigShort said:


> I don’t think that is fair to be honest. An unintended pregnancy can impose a lot of mental stress on a prospective mother.
> .



Well....I don't disagree with that point.

HOWEVER - you have to think that when basically nearly every single person getting an abortion is citing mental stress to the point they feel the pregnancy is no longer viable, then is this excuse being largely  abused?
When pretty much all of them cite that reason (while keeping in mind that a whopping 20% end in abortions) - then you really have to sit back and question the legitimacy of it.

There's definitely an argument to be had that it is a wink and a nod culture there.


----------



## Purple

zxcvbnm said:


> Well....I don't disagree with that point.
> 
> HOWEVER - you have to think that when basically nearly every single person getting an abortion is citing mental stress to the point they feel the pregnancy is no longer viable, then is this excuse being largely  abused?
> When pretty much all of them cite that reason (while keeping in mind that a whopping 20% end in abortions) - then you really have to sit back and question the legitimacy of it.
> 
> There's definitely an argument to be had that it is a wink and a nod culture there.


Under existing legislation in the UK there is no abortion on demand; there must be a medical reason for it. That's why mental health is cited 97% of cases.


----------



## TheBigShort

zxcvbnm said:


> HOWEVER - you have to think that when basically nearly every single person getting an abortion is citing mental stress to the point they feel the pregnancy is no longer viable, then is this excuse being largely abused?



I would say that an unintended pregnancy can and does give rise to thoughts about career prospects and social standing (as in, will I be reliant on State assistance to house me, feed us, or will I be able to progress my career ambitions and support myself and child?).
I would say its impossible to say to what extent those, and other thoughts, impinge on the mental well-being of each pregnant woman, if at all.
As such, to me, it really boils down to the individual to determine for themselves what their options are.
Im of the view that women do not engage in sexual intercourse that may lead to an unintended pregnancy on the basis that they are aware that – nudge-nudge, wink-wink, they can always cry mental health and get an abortion.



zxcvbnm said:


> When pretty much all of them cite that reason (while keeping in mind that a whopping 20% end in abortions) - then you really have to sit back and question the legitimacy of it.
> 
> There's definitely an argument to be had that it is a wink and a nod culture there.



That would imply that there are women that are not enduring pressures on their mental well-being as a result of an unintended pregnancy but are still availing of abortions? That doesn’t make sense to me. If a woman has no issue with being unintentionally pregnant, why abort it?
I do think societal factors in how we have, and continue to treat women, who become pregnant unintentionally is a major consideration for a woman to seek out an abortion.


----------



## odyssey06

TheBigShort said:


> That would imply that there are women that are not enduring pressures on their mental well-being as a result of an unintended pregnancy but are still availing of abortions? That doesn’t make sense to me. If a woman has no issue with being unintentionally pregnant, why abort it?
> I do think societal factors in how we have, and continue to treat women, who become pregnant unintentionally is a major consideration for a woman to seek out an abortion.



You seem to be assuming there are only two possible responses, "no issue", or "pressure to mental well-being". Is it not possible for someone to not want a baby, without the thought of having the baby making them mentally ill?

The "mental health" bar seems to be set so low it is nonsensical... changing jobs is pressure to mental well-being, so is being made redundant; changing a house is stressful, whether being done voluntarily or involuntarily.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Im of the view that women do not engage in sexual intercourse that may lead to an unintended pregnancy on the basis that they are aware that – nudge-nudge, wink-wink, they can always cry mental health and get an abortion.


 I'm not sure that a general impact on "mental well-being" is the same as a medical threat to mental health. In that context I think the proposed legislation here is more honest than the existing UK legislation. 



TheBigShort said:


> That would imply that there are women that are not enduring pressures on their mental well-being as a result of an unintended pregnancy but are still availing of abortions? That doesn’t make sense to me. If a woman has no issue with being unintentionally pregnant, why abort it?


 If a woman wants an abortion then she will present in any way she needs to in order to get one. That's perfectly understandable. 



TheBigShort said:


> I do think societal factors in how we have, and continue to treat women, who become pregnant unintentionally is a major consideration for a woman to seek out an abortion.


 Is it desirable that such circumstances should be perfectly acceptable? I have an issue with the fact that women get the negative reaction whereas the man involved gets far less, if any at all. 
If two people have sex and the woman gets pregnant then both of them are equally responsible and yet the woman is usually "blamed".


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> Y changing jobs is pressure to mental well-being, so is being made redundant; changing a house is stressful, whether being done voluntarily or involuntarily.


So can getting the bus.


----------



## michaelm

Purple said:


> RTE's coverage, particularly online, is totally one sided on the repeal side. They should be honest enough to state their editorial position.


The mainstream media has for years been conditioning the political and public middle ground to embrace abortion.

I am greatly saddened by abortion, view it as the worst of all choices, and wish that as a society we could properly resource and promote better options such as adoption (in the case of unwanted pregnancy) & palliative care (in the case of unborn children life-limiting conditions).  If doctors need clarification/education that the 8th is no impediment to treating expectant women then that should be provided too.

I find some of the pseudo-live statistics on the worldometers website interesting however the abortion figures under the "HEALTH" section are grim.


----------



## Delboy

Purple said:


> RTE's coverage, particularly online, is totally one sided on the repeal side.
> They should be honest enough to state their editorial position.


True. The Irish Times is unashamedly on the repeal side and I'd expect an Editorial in the days before with that argument.
Matt Cooper on Today FM tries to pass himself off as neutral and impartial but is clearly pro-repeal. He should just come clean.
The Journal is staffed by Millenials so wouldn't expect anything other than a pro-repeal slant.
Who knows what the Indo thinks these days!


----------



## Firefly

Andarma said:


> True, but imagine being pregnant against your will?



I think it's fair to say that this is a very legitimate question that is being asked by those who are pro repealing the 8th.

Conversely, a fundamental question for me is, when does life begin? An abortion after this date means taking a life, regardless of the circumstances. The unborn has no say in the matter yet has the most to lose.

Lots of people differ on this question, from conception (a bit early in my opinion) right up to 6 months (a bit late in my opinion). For me, and I've thought about it, it is actually quite early...when the heart starts to beat. This is before 12 weeks and therefore, in my opinion, the current proposal would legalise the taking of a life which I could not agree to.

I would however be in favour of an amendment to the consitition whereby fatal foetal abnormalities are accounted for

There are no doubt horrendous instances, for example, your girls getting raped and finding themselves pregnant. It must be truly awful. However, I think the State could do a lot more in terms of helping girls/women in this situation. There is also a high demand for adoptions by couples not fortunate enough to conceive themselves and I think a lot more could be done here also.


----------



## Andarma

The answer to that fundamental question is one which will probably never be agreed upon by everyone. Take conception - it occurs in the Fallopian tube, but a pregnancy only becomes viable when implantation in the uterus occurs. So can conception really be considered the start of life? We have the morning after pill which prevents implantation, so is implantation the start? In my mind, the start of life is when there is a reasonable chance of survival outside the uterus, so that’s at about 24 weeks or so. I wouldn’t support unrestricted abortion up to 24 weeks though. The 12 week limit strikes the right balance IMO.


----------



## Purple

At 20-24 weeks the brain stem develops and neural activity, as we know it, starts. That to me is when life starts and the baby gains the same rights as a born person. That said if the medical choice is between the mother and the baby the mothers life should always take precedence.


----------



## TheBigShort

odyssey06 said:


> You seem to be assuming there are only two possible responses, "no issue", or "pressure to mental well-being". Is it not possible for someone to not want a baby, without the thought of having the baby making them mentally ill?



Not at all, possible responses are wide-ranging and varied.



odyssey06 said:


> The "mental health" bar seems to be set so low it is nonsensical... changing jobs is pressure to mental well-being, so is being made redundant; changing a house is stressful, whether being done voluntarily or involuntarily.




Of course. But then you have to consider what are the factors that drives someone have an abortion in the first place. I think its reasonable to assume that if a woman doesn’t want to abort a pregnancy, then they are not going to even consider doing so. They are not part of this dilemma.

So we are only talking about those women, for whatever reason – mental health, negative career prospects (perceived or real), social stigmatization (perceived or real), the task of parental responsibilities, future welfare of the child, etc…etc….

So what has got us to the point that some women, who become pregnant, are of the mindset that they feel they should, or must, have the pregnancy aborted? What are the factors on their minds that drive them to abort, that outweigh the factors on their minds to keep the baby?

Perhaps, when we can deal sufficiently with them, then we can arrive at a time and place where abortion is legal, but that no woman feels compelled to avail of it?


----------



## michaelm

TheBigShort said:


> What are the factors on their minds that drive them to abort, that outweigh the factors on their minds to keep the baby?


Partly it's that the child in the womb has been dehumanised over time, it's a zygote, an embryo, a foetus . . anything but a unique developing human child.   Abortion has been to a large degree sanitised . . it's just a procedure, it's medicine, it's a choice . . anything but a death sentence.  The mainstream media is largely responsible in softening peoples attitude to abortion.  It's a less weighty decision today that it ever was . . abortion has been normalised.  Euthanasia and assisted suicide won't be as long coming.


----------



## cremeegg

Firefly said:


> Conversely, a fundamental question for me is, when does life begin?



I have come to the conclusion that this is not a fundamental question.

From the moment of conception, there is a human life. An embryo is not a person, yet it has the potential to be one. As the pregnancy develops that potential gradually becomes reality. There are stages, heart beat, brain development, viability, birth, weaning, etc. None are clear demarcation lines, just stages on the road from embryo to person.

It would be nice to be able to say that up to this point, there is not life after this point there is. Unfortunately wishing things were simple does not make them simple.


----------



## TheBigShort

michaelm said:


> Partly it's that the child in the womb has been dehumanised over time, it's a zygote, an embryo, a foetus . . anything but a unique developing child.   Abortion has been to a large degree sanitised . . it's just a procedure, it's medicine, it's a choice . . anything but a death sentence.  The mainstream media is largely responsible in softening peoples attitude to abortion.  It's a less weighty decision today that it ever was . . abortion has been normalised.  Euthanasia and assisted suicide won't be as long coming.



Perhaps, but I dont think I could agree. 
The alternative to abortion was to shun single mothers out of mainstream society. Those days are over but still the prospect of a teenage daughter or young single woman becoming pregnant is still a great source of shame for many parents and families. 
If its not shame, then its social detatchment - 'she is only a child herself', 'her life is ruined now', 'what was she thinking?', 'napppies and bottles instead of discos and nights out', 'she is tied down now','on welfare now, a burden to the State' - what is a single teenage girl or young woman to think? 
Where is the sense of joy and life enrichment that bringing a new life into the world is suppposed to bring? 
Nobody (that I know of) jumps with joy if a 18yr old single girl gets pregnant. 
Perhaps attitudes like this are factors in deciding to travel to UK?


----------



## zxcvbnm

Did anyone see that FF TD on Primetime tonight arguing against the government minister. The FF D was on the No side.

Invariably she got asked about victim of rape impregnated arriving at her clinic. She got completely flustered and made a complete pigs ear of what she wanted to say.

I am aware its a tough one to talk about - but surely at this stage they must know this is the first question to be asked. Why cant they have a prepared answer ready and rehearsed and just deliver their response.


----------



## cremeegg

TheBigShort said:


> 'she is only a child herself',
> 
> 'her life is ruined now',
> 
> 'what was she thinking?',
> 
> 'napppies and bottles instead of discos and nights out',
> 
> 'she is tied down now',
> 
> 'on welfare now, a burden to the State'



I am not sure these old harpies still exist, but if they do nobody except yourself pays any attention to them. Its not the 1980s anymore.


----------



## TheBigShort

cremeegg said:


> I am not sure these old harpies still exist, but if they do nobody except yourself pays any attention to them. Its not the 1980s anymore.



I beg to differ. We are a long way from mum & dad erupting in joyous approval on hearing the news that their teenage daughter is pregnant.
Whether I, or you, pay attention to such attitudes is nearly irrelevant. Its what young women who are pregnant think that matters. And I would consider that teenage pregnancy, or the prospect of being a single mother before having a chance to develop a career is still very much dissuaded by society. 
These are factors in persuading women to travel to have an abortion.
It seems all unborn life is cherished by some. But once born, you live off the unintended consequences of the choices you made.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I beg to differ. We are a long way from mum & dad erupting in joyous approval on hearing the news that their teenage daughter is pregnant.
> Whether I, or you, pay attention to such attitudes is nearly irrelevant. Its what young women who are pregnant think that matters. And I would consider that teenage pregnancy, or the prospect of being a single mother before having a chance to develop a career is still very much dissuaded by society.
> These are factors in persuading women to travel to have an abortion.
> It seems all unborn life is cherished by some. But once born, you live off the unintended consequences of the choices you made.


I don't think many people will disagree with the general gist of that. The question for the pro-lifers is does what you have outlined justify the taking of a human life.

All the social arguments in the world can be made but the bottom line is whether the baby/fetus/etc inside a pregnant woman is a person and if so does it have the right to life.

Most people accept that at some stage before birth is it, otherwise why not make it legal to kill a child after it is born if you decide you don't want it, so the question is when does it become wrong to terminate/kill/abort it.


----------



## Andarma

Thankfully, our teen pregnancy rate has decreased dramatically and continues to drop [broken link removed]

I have no doubt though that the sort of attitudes towards teenage mothers referred to above still exist.

On the issue of euthanasia and assisted suicide being next on the agenda, I see that as scare-mongering. There has not been any widespread call for their introduction, even following the very tragic case of Marie Fleming. The UK, a country which has been referred to many times on this thread in respect of its supposedly high rates of abortion, has not introduced euthanasia or assisted suicide. Only 3 EU member states have (Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg as  far as I know).


----------



## odyssey06

Andarma said:


> On the issue of euthanasia and assisted suicide being next on the agenda, I see that as scare-mongering. There has not been any widespread call for their introduction, even following the very tragic case of Marie Fleming. The UK, a country which has been referred to many times on this thread in respect of its supposedly high rates of abortion, has not introduced euthanasia or assisted suicide. Only 3 EU member states have (Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg as  far as I know).



To me it seems like a red herring also. I am anti-abortion but I am not "pro-life" in that I have no moral objection to the death penalty or euthanasia. I do have 'process' concerns on those issues e.g. miscarriages of justice, and how to ensure euthanasia is 100% voluntary.


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> I don't think many people will disagree with the general gist of that. The question for the pro-lifers is does what you have outlined justify the taking of a human life. All the social arguments in the world can be made but the bottom line is whether the baby/fetus/etc inside a pregnant woman is a person and if so does it have the right to life. Most people accept that at some stage before birth is it, otherwise why not make it legal to kill a child after it is born if you decide you don't want it, so the question is when does it become wrong to terminate/kill/abort it.



I think it has a right to life and it has rights. For practical reasons, I think we must assign more weight to the rights of the mother where abortion is a medical necessity. Abortion on demand up to 12 weeks seems to assign zero rights to the unborn and I disagree with that.


----------



## zxcvbnm

No one can tell the future, but my own view is that if abortion is introduced, it will increase the number of abortions on Irish women by around 10,000 per year. ** Calculation below

Ultimately people have to weigh up what value they put on an unborn baby. Then what value on an extra 10,000 unborn babies in any single year. That’s a question someone can only answer for themselves.
Then weigh that up versus the negative impact of the 8th – of which there are many.

Ultimately it’s how people weigh those against each other is how people will / should vote. (Although I do feel some people wrongly mainly focus on the downside of the 8th as there is a human aspect to it whereby humans are telling their story. Its not as easy to emotionally relate to an unborn baby)


** It’s not unreasonable to assume we will follow in the footsteps of the UK where it is 1 in 5. (Its actually 1 in 4 globally – but the uk are nearest to us for comparison purposes in terms of culture, economy etc.)
I’m not saying it will happen overnight – or within a couple of years. But give it 10,15,20 years. Eventually we will get there. At least that’s the most likely outcome in my view.


Currently over 70,000 pregnancies a year in Ireland.
20% abortion rate means nearly 15,000.
Currently 5,000 occur for Irish women.
That’s an extra 10,000.


----------



## michaelm

odyssey06 said:


> To me it seems like a red herring also.


Granted it is an aside but part of a creeping culture of death. 

Anyone would have sympathy for those in difficult circumstances and the various edge cases but, in this regard, repeal is overkill as the proposal is to legalise wholesale abortion.


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> Granted it is an aside but part of a creeping culture of death.


I'm a supported of assisted suicide. 
I don't see the link between that and abortion.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> I'm a supported of assisted suicide.
> I don't see the link between that and abortion.



Exactly. Those wishing to end their life early have a say but those whose life is being ended early do not.


----------



## Vanilla

I will vote yes to repeal.


----------



## cremeegg

Vanilla said:


> I will vote yes to repeal.


Thank you for sharing that with us. Would you like to tell us what aspect of the matter is important for you.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> All the social arguments in the world can be made but the bottom line is whether the baby/fetus/etc inside a pregnant woman is a person and if so does it have the right to life.
> 
> Most people accept that at some stage before birth is it, otherwise why not make it legal to kill a child after it is born if you decide you don't want it, so the question is when does it become wrong to terminate/kill/abort it.



Im not disagreeing with that, merely pointing out that the societal attitude to teenage pregnancy, or being a single mother is of disuasion at best, as the following comment attests to;



Andarma said:


> Thankfully, our teen pregnancy rate has decreased dramatically and continues to drop



Clearly teenage pregnancy is unwanted. But on the other hand to be cherished? 
So a teenager, or young woman who becomes pregnant - who may not be in a stable settled relationship, who may not have finished her education or developed her career, what are they to think? 
Are they to think that society at large does not want her pregnancy? That societal attitudes are to label her pregnancy as a 'crisis pregnancy'?


----------



## Firefly

An excellent read here:

http://www.2think.org/carl_sagan_abortion.shtml


----------



## michaelm

We have all been through the same developmental stages as outlined by Sagan.  He suggests - offers for consideration - that the criterion for the cut-off for access to abortion should be the earliest onset of human thinking; he puts this at the 30th week (well into the 7th month).  One hopes Carl appreciated that he got to marvel at the universe because his mother didn't choose to snuff out his existence before he exhibited large-scale linking up of neurons.


----------



## odyssey06

Simon Harris is some precious snowflake isn't he... he hasn't even got the nerve to face up to what he is proposing.
http://www.thejournal.ie/bray-abortion-photo-3999405-May2018/

Your performance as Minister for Health is upsetting and distressing too you know.


----------



## Andarma

I totally agree with Simon Harris on those posters. They are unnecessary and upsetting for anyone who sees them.


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> Simon Harris is some precious snowflake isn't he... he hasn't even got the nerve to face up to what he is proposing.
> http://www.thejournal.ie/bray-abortion-photo-3999405-May2018/
> 
> Your performance as Minister for Health is upsetting and distressing too you know.


The posters are illegal. That's the main issue here.

I agree with him that _"They really are horrific images to put on posters. Really unethical, its wrong and illegal, as these should never have been erected.”
_
His right-on narrative that this is a black and white issue does bug me though.


----------



## cremeegg

Abortion is horrific, a lot of people who are moved by sympathy for women in difficult situations, or who just don't believe any woman should have to have a child if she does not want to, ignore this simple fact.


----------



## Purple

cremeegg said:


> Abortion is horrific, a lot of people who are moved by sympathy for women in difficult situations, or who just don't believe any woman should have to have a child if she does not want to, ignore this simple fact.


Most people realise that abortion is horrific but, having weighed that against the needs and wants of the pregnant woman, still come down on the repeal side.


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> Most people realise that abortion is horrific but, having weighed that against the needs and wants of the pregnant woman, still come down on the repeal side.



That's a legitimate position. But acting all horrified and offended because someone shows you that reality is pretty pathetic really.

The posters were put up illegally, they must come down but the more I see of Harris in action, I mean I don't just disagree with him, I can disagree with some people and still respect him. I don't believe him, trust him or respect him. It's a pretty damning indictment of our political system that a non entity like this is a cabinet minister at such a young age.


----------



## Purple

I don't particularly like him but I think he's better than many of the Health Ministers we've had. I just wish they'd call it as it is and admit that they don't really have the power to fix things even if they knew what should be fixed.


----------



## cremeegg

Purple said:


> Most people realise that abortion is horrific but, having weighed that against the needs and wants of the pregnant woman, still come down on the repeal side.



I am not sure that people do realise the horror of abortion. They do not realise because they have never thought through what an abortion actually involves, or they just wall up the knowledge in their minds and ignore that. That is why there has been such an objection to the posters. 

People accept the need for a change, and accept the idea of abortion, under some or all circumstances, but then shut themselves off from the reality.

Its not easy and some people are looking for a free pass, abortion should be available to women who need or want it, but I should not be reminded of the reality of what abortion involves.


----------



## michaelm

Most people don't want to know of the realities of abortion.  And most people lean towards compromise positions in general.  If the bookies are right, and they usually are, then repeal is a dead cert.  If so it will have been carried to a large degree based on self-delusion (such as abortion is health care/medicine) and on misrepresentations/lies.

Harris, while never recognising the humanity or the plight of the unborn child, spews alphabet soup - “We remember you, Savita. We remember Miss X. We remember A, B, C and D. We remember Miss Y. We remember Miss P.’’.  This is disingenuous but most people will swallow it.

Multiple enquiries to the Savita case pointed to clinical mismanagement of sepsis.  The Miss X case was addresses by the Abortion Bill in 2013.  A & B lost their cases in the ECHR.  In the C case the ECHR ruled that more clarity was needed in what was lawful surrounding abortion in Ireland but stated there was no human right to abortion.  Miss D is a sad case of a young girl in state care pregnant with a child with anencephaly.  Miss Y wanted an abortion under the 2013 but was deemed to not be suicidal.  In the P case a 15 week pregnant woman had sadly died from brain trauma . . doctors then intervened to sustain the pregnancy while trying to determined whether the unborn child had any prospects.  The child had no prospect of survival but the medics were painfully slow to come to that determination and this proved stressful to her family.

The totality of these cases does not warrant the introduction of an uber liberal abortion regime.  But most people won't be familiar with the details, they'll just have to trust politicians.


----------



## dereko1969

The lies are coming from the anti-choice anti-repeal side. 6 months is being bandied about on posters all over the place, including upsetting posters being deliberately placed outside maternity hospitals and schools. 12 weeks does not equal 6 months, fact.
Your "sustaining" the pregnancy meant that a woman was treated like a piece of meat/incubator for months to try to ensure a foetus *might* end up living, while her family grieved and had to fight for her life to be ended with dignity.


----------



## Firefly

Firefly said:


> Conversely, a fundamental question for me is, when does life begin?



Having researched this more I am now recognising a difference between "life" and "human life".

I think life begins at conception until life becomes a human life, so abortion or the morning after pill are both in of the same thing, the taking a life and preventing a possible human life but not taking a human life.

So, when does a life become a human life? I had thought it was when the heart started to beat, but this is really just another organ being pieced together and sustained by the host(mother). It reminds me of a jig-saw. You start to put together pieces that fit (around the edges) and go from there. If you were to scrap the jig-saw at this stage you're not really killing the puzzle. However, at some point, the puzzle takes shape and resembles the picture on the box, the "aha" moment. Scrapping the jig-saw at this stage is killing the puzzle. Regarding the transformation of a life to a human life, this occurs, I think, when the unborn can think. Until then it is a life form for sure, but not human life. It has been a difficult process for me to come round to this way of thinking and I have not been swayed by the whole "my body, my choice" argument at all. It's now a tentative YES for me...it's just so difficult.


----------



## michaelm

dereko1969 said:


> 12 weeks does not equal 6 months, fact.


We can agree on that at least.

I suppose that the 6 months claim is based on the proposed legislation which will allow abortion to 24 weeks on vague medical grounds, like in the UK.  The P case was poorly handled and the family treated insensitively.  I think you'll find that the woman had died already and that the time frame was weeks rather than months, but should have been days, if not hours.


----------



## michaelm

Firefly said:


> Regarding the transformation of a life to a human life, this occurs, I think, when the unborn can think. Until then it is a life form for sure, but not human life.


It's unique human life from conception.  While various arguments could be made for ending that life, methinks 'it's not human life' is a bit of a stretch.


----------



## odyssey06

dereko1969 said:


> The lies are coming from the anti-choice anti-repeal side. 6 months is being bandied about on posters all over the place, including upsetting posters being deliberately placed outside maternity hospitals and schools. 12 weeks does not equal 6 months, fact.
> Your "sustaining" the pregnancy meant that a woman was treated like a piece of meat/incubator for months to try to ensure a foetus *might* end up living, while her family grieved and had to fight for her life to be ended with dignity.



Why are the posters upsetting? 

If the referendum is passed, it is entirely possible for abortion in Ireland to be legalised up to 6 months by a future Dail, so 6 months is entirely relevant to the constitutional question. Where is the lie?


----------



## Firefly

michaelm said:


> It's unique human life from conception.



How do you feel about the morning after pill then?


----------



## michaelm

It's irrelevant how I feel about emergency contraception, however, my understanding is that such is licensed for use in Ireland on the basis that it can act to prevent conception, rather than as an abortifacient.  I believe that, primarily, it delays ovulation.

It's irrelevant because we are not being asked about the morning after pill (which is over the counter), or necessary medical intervention (which is an ethical and legal imperative), or edge cases.  We are being asked to remove rights from our constitution with a view to abandoning our two-patient model by legalising wholesale abortion.  The Hobson's choice of Repeal is overkill.


----------



## orka

odyssey06 said:


> Why are the posters upsetting?


I think the main objection is that the posters are in places where young children may seem them and they are unsuitable viewing for them.  We protect children from unsuitable films so why should they be exposed to images of late-term foetuses?


----------



## michaelm

I see you've judicially edited your initial post.  What's wrong with an ultrasound/image of a zygote/embryo/foetus/unborn child?


----------



## odyssey06

orka said:


> I think the main objection is that the posters are in places where young children may seem them and they are unsuitable viewing for them.  We protect children from unsuitable films so why should they be exposed to images of late-term foetuses?



So you have no objection to the posters if they were in locations not associated with children?
They could only be considered as deliberately intended to upset children? Because the original reference (not yours) suggested they were upsetting to adults too.


----------



## orka

michaelm said:


> I see you've judicially edited your initial post.


I edited (not particularly judicially IMO) to stick to the question of why the images are upsetting rather than introduce a new element to the discussion - otherwise a replier might be tempted to ignore one piece and just reply to the other piece.  Happy to discuss provenance elsewhere if you like.


michaelm said:


> What's wrong with an ultrasound/image of a zygote/embryo/foetus/unborn child?


Nothing if that's all it is.  It's the bloody/broken zygote/embryo/foetus/unborn child that might be upsetting for children to see.


----------



## orka

odyssey06 said:


> So you have no objection to the posters if they were in locations not associated with children?
> They could only be considered as deliberately intended to upset children? Because the original reference (not yours) suggested they were upsetting to adults too.


Personally, I don't find the images upsetting - I just don't particularly want to look at them any more than I might like to watch a vasectomy or eye surgery.

There are lots of things in the world that people don't particularly want to see.  I'm a meat eater but I don't particularly want to see what goes on inside an abattoir.


----------



## michaelm

orka said:


> It's the bloody/broken zygote/embryo/foetus/unborn child that might be upsetting for children to see.


Of course.  I don't believe such posters should be used.  I haven't seen any, are they being widely used, if at all?


----------



## orka

michaelm said:


> Of course.  I don't believe such posters should be used.  I haven't seen any, are they being widely used, if at all?


The Simon Harris one discussed above is an example.  You can find it online if you haven't seen it in your area.


----------



## odyssey06

orka said:


> Personally, I don't find the images upsetting - I just don't particularly want to look at them any more than I might like to watch a vasectomy or eye surgery. There are lots of things in the world that people don't particularly want to see.  I'm a meat eater but I don't particularly want to see what goes on inside an abattoir.



True, and in the normal course of events such scenes should not be shown - but in some future vegan inspired referendum to ban the eating of meat, I could have no personal grounds for objection if such scenes were shown on posters. And I say that as a carnivore...


----------



## orka

odyssey06 said:


> True, and in the normal course of events such scenes should not be shown - but in some future vegan inspired referendum to ban the eating of meat, I could have no personal grounds for objection if such scenes were shown on posters. And I say that as a carnivore...


But again, not really the sort of thing that children should be exposed to.


----------



## Delboy

dereko1969 said:


> The lies are coming from the anti-choice anti-repeal side. 6 months is being bandied about on posters all over the place, including upsetting posters being deliberately placed outside maternity hospitals and schools. 12 weeks does not equal 6 months, fact.
> Your "sustaining" the pregnancy meant that a woman was treated like a piece of meat/incubator for months to try to ensure a foetus *might* end up living, while her family grieved and had to fight for her life to be ended with dignity.


As said above, not sure where the lies are there. Late abortions in the UK where the Mother's mental health is the deciding factor make up the vast majority of such abortions as I understand it. It seems to have become the default reason over there. Can't see why it wouldn't be the same here seeing as that option is to be written into the proposed legislation


----------



## Andarma

michaelm said:


> In the P case a 15 week pregnant woman had sadly died from brain trauma . . doctors then intervened to sustain the pregnancy while trying to determined whether the unborn child had any prospects.  The child had no prospect of survival but the medics were painfully slow to come to that determination and this proved stressful to her family.
> 
> .



The medics were not ‘painfully slow to come to that determination’. They were ordered by the High Court to withdraw life support and allow NP to die with dignity, over 3 weeks after she had actually died. NP’s father was forced to take this action. Grotesque doesn’t even begin to describe it, and unfortunately it could happen again  if the 8th isn’t repealed. http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/...fb8a5c76857e08ce80257dcb003fd4e6?OpenDocument


----------



## Leper

cremeegg said:


> . . . And just to put my cards on the table, I believe no woman should have to carry any child against her will.
> 
> I also believe that to destroy an unborn child is horrendous.
> 
> If anyone can reconcile those two beliefs, I will have a coherent position on abortion.



Cremeegg summarized the core issues quoted above. What the posters on lamposts say, what politicians think, What whatever organisations say, what the church says, what people think, the core issues are kill the unborn child or don't kill the unborn child. Everything else is just a side-show, important side-shows but side-shows nonetheless. I wonder why I think that side-shows will upstage the main show?


----------



## Andarma

The core issue is whether the ‘unborn’ has a right to life and whether that right to life is equal to that of the pregnant woman (unborn what by the way? Embryo? Foetus? Baby? Child? I strongly suspect that the drafters of the 8th couldn’t decide upon the terminology and so fudged it by using the term ‘unborn’. Yet another flaw). I  for one do not believe that the right to life of a woman and the ‘unborn’ are equal. Human rights are not all equal and the right to life of a woman is greater than the right to life of the ‘unborn’. I also believe that a woman’s right to health and bodily integrity are greater.


----------



## odyssey06

Andarma said:


> The core issue is whether the ‘unborn’ has a right to life and whether that right to life is equal to that of the pregnant woman (unborn what by the way? Embryo? Foetus? Baby? Child? I strongly suspect that the drafters of the 8th couldn’t decide upon the terminology and so fudged it by using the term ‘unborn’. Yet another flaw). I  for one do not believe that the right to life of a woman and the ‘unborn’ are equal. Human rights are not all equal and the right to life of a woman is greater than the right to life of the ‘unborn’. I also believe that a woman’s right to health and bodily integrity are greater.



The 8th is flawed, it should not have given equal priority to both. But it is right that some priority should be given to the 'unborn'. The removal of the 8th leaves the 'unborn' with no rights, and that is not a position I am comfortable with.


----------



## michaelm

orka said:


> The Simon Harris one discussed above is an example.


Were many of those illegal posters put up?  Any other examples?


----------



## Firefly

Andarma said:


> I  for one do not believe that the right to life of a woman and the ‘unborn’ are equal. Human rights are not all equal and the right to life of a woman is greater than the right to life of the ‘unborn’. I also believe that a woman’s right to health and bodily integrity are greater.



I am conflicted by this bit to be honest. Where the genuine safety for the woman is at stake, such as genuine risk of suicide, I would definitely agree with you. But it's impractical to legislate for this I would imagine. At the lower end couldn't a woman could just get an abortion if it made her look fat, after all isn't that bodily integrity? In such a scenario I think the right to life of the unborn would take priority.


----------



## dereko1969

odyssey06 said:


> Why are the posters upsetting?
> 
> If the referendum is passed, it is entirely possible for abortion in Ireland to be legalised up to 6 months by a future Dail, so 6 months is entirely relevant to the constitutional question. Where is the lie?


They were using graphic imagery outside the rotunda and the coombe where women who might be worried about miscarriage or FFA or actually going through it were walking in and out. I think I would find that upsetting if I were in that position, but I have empathy which seems to be in short supply on the no side.
The legislation could also be amended to 8 weeks or 4 weeks, the Dáil will decide as is only proper, the constitution is not the place for this.


----------



## dereko1969

Firefly said:


> I am conflicted by this bit to be honest. Where the genuine safety for the woman is at stake, such as genuine risk of suicide, I would definitely agree with you. But it's impractical to legislate for this I would imagine. At the lower end couldn't a woman could just get an abortion if it made her look fat, after all isn't that bodily integrity? In such a scenario I think the right to life of the unborn would take priority.


How long would you be prepared to make the woman jump through hoops to *prove* suicidal ideation? This is all part of the control of women's bodies that the NO side are positing. And suggesting women have abortions as a slimming regime is just disgusting.
Women aren't popping abortion XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX without medical assistance like smarties which some seem to be suggesting, each decision is deeply personal and should be left to the women involved.


----------



## michaelm

dereko1969 said:


> They were using graphic imagery outside the rotunda and the coombe


I guess you are referring to the activities of ICBR who seem to be very much a fringe group who are not really helping the No cause.  While I think they should refrain, and I'm open to correction, it seems to me that the 'graphic' imagery referred to is just an unborn child, not some abortion imagery.


----------



## michaelm

Suicidal ideation is a non-issue.  Abortion is such cases is already on the statute book.  This is somewhat ironic as psychiatrists don't believe that abortion is a treatment for suicidal ideation; indeed it is more likely a compounding factor in such.


----------



## orka

michaelm said:


> I'm open to correction, it seems to me that the 'graphic' imagery referred to is just an unborn child, not some abortion imagery.


No, it's abortion imagery alright.  The ICBR believes the public has a right to see what an aborted foetus looks like.  There are graphic posters (huge ones) used outside the dail too.


----------



## michaelm

Well I don't think they should use such posters.  Abortion is ugly.  In any event, it seems repeal campaigners are protecting public sensibilities by blocking these posters.


----------



## Firefly

dereko1969 said:


> How long would you be prepared to make the woman jump through hoops to *prove* suicidal ideation?


I don't want women to jump through any hoops. I think if a woman is suicidal then of course her health is at risk and I would think that her safety would take precedence over the unborn. 



dereko1969 said:


> And suggesting women have abortions as a slimming regime is just disgusting.


I'm not saying that any woman would! This would be an extreme case, just like the risk of suicide would be at the other end.


----------



## dereko1969

michaelm said:


> Well I don't think they should use such posters.  Abortion is ugly.  In any event, it seems repeal campaigners are protecting public sensibilities by blocking these posters.


Well a LoveBoats campaigner who canvassed me didn't see the problem, they haven't been rejected by the official LoveBoth campaign either from what I've seen.
I specifically mentioned suicidal ideation as Firefly had mentioned it. Some No voters have stated that they're in favour of repeal for Rape or FFA but that then, in the former, forces the woman to have to justify her decision to have a termination which ties in with all the guilt and shaming that the No side are pushing.
Many on the No side also are opposed to HPV which is just another control mechanism.


----------



## Andarma

Firefly said:


> I am conflicted by this bit to be honest. Where the genuine safety for the woman is at stake, such as genuine risk of suicide, I would definitely agree with you. But it's impractical to legislate for this I would imagine. At the lower end couldn't a woman could just get an abortion if it made her look fat, after all isn't that bodily integrity? In such a scenario I think the right to life of the unborn would take priority.



Bodily integrity is the right to autonomy and self determination regarding your body. It was first recognised as a right in the 60s arising from the Ryan v AG case, to do with flouridation of the public water supply.  It is nothing to do with bodily image. 

You only raise suicide as a risk. What about serious  life-threatening illnesses such as cancer?


----------



## Firefly

Andarma said:


> Bodily integrity is the right to autonomy and self determination regarding your body.


I'm not for a second saying any woman would get an abortion due to being perceived as fat. It was a bad example, but the point I am making is that bodily control "could" apply to this case. In my opinion, in such a case, the life of the unborn would be more important. That's why I don't like the "my body, my choice" argument. I would prefer if the argument and reason supporting abortion was on scientific grounds, ie the point that a life becomes a human life.



Andarma said:


> You only raise suicide as a risk. What about serious  life-threatening illnesses such as cancer?


In those cases I think the life of the woman is paramount and the woman's life should come first. However, it would be impossible to define a list of risks and illnesses that would be covered. Also, sometimes the diagnosis can be subjective so would we need a team invloved for every case? Much too difficult and time consuming.


----------



## Andarma

Firefly said:


> I'm not for a second saying any woman would get an abortion due to being perceived as fat. It was a bad example, but the point I am making is that bodily control "could" apply to this case. In my opinion, in such a case, the life of the unborn would be more important. That's why I don't like the "my body, my choice" argument. I would prefer if the argument and reason supporting abortion was on scientific grounds, ie the point that a life becomes a human life.
> 
> 
> In those cases I think the life of the woman is paramount and the woman's life should come first. However, it would be impossible to define a list of risks and illnesses that would be covered. Also, sometimes the diagnosis can be subjective so would we need a team invloved for every case? Much too difficult and time consuming.



As it stands, the 8th amendment prevents treatment of a woman whose health is in danger. Her life has to be in danger (no doubt someone will come along to say that I’m wrong about that, but I’m not). You are right, you cannot define every scenario. Therefore, repeal and introducing legislation outlining time limits whereby you can ask for an abortion  for any reason up to 12 weeks and then there are limited circumstances thereafter up to 24 weeks make the most sense. The health and welfare of the woman has to be the most important thing.


----------



## Andarma

Here’s a link to the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013. Note the 3 main sections entitled Risk of  loss of life from physical illness, risk of loss of life from physical illness in emergency, and risk of loss of life  from suicide. There is no section dealing with risk of serious injury to health from physical illness or emergency. 

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2013/act/35/enacted/en/pdf


----------



## Firefly

Andarma said:


> As it stands, the 8th amendment prevents treatment of a woman whose health is in danger. Her life has to be in danger (no doubt someone will come along to say that I’m wrong about that, but I’m not). You are right, you cannot define every scenario. Therefore, repeal and introducing legislation outlining time limits whereby you can ask for an abortion  for any reason up to 12 weeks and then there are limited circumstances thereafter up to 24 weeks make the most sense. The health and welfare of the woman has to be the most important thing.


I agree with all of that, but allowing abortion for any reason up to 12 weeks can result in abortions where the health and welfare of the woman is not an issue...it could just chosen for any reason


----------



## michaelm

Andarma said:


> As it stands, the 8th amendment prevents treatment of a woman whose health is in danger.


Please.  The 8th doesn't prevent treatment, it simply ensures that a two-patient approach is taken.  Also, abortion is permissible where there is a substantial risk, which need not be immediate or inevitable, to the womans life.


----------



## Andarma

michaelm said:


> Please.  The 8th doesn't prevent treatment, it simply ensures that a two-patient approach is taken.  Also, abortion is permissible where there is a substantial risk, which need not be immediate or inevitable, to the womans life.



I absolutely disagree with you and I know people who have been directly affected by this. The 8th prevents treatment until the woman’s life is deemed to be at risk.


----------



## Andarma

Firefly said:


> I agree with all of that, but allowing abortion for any reason up to 12 weeks can result in abortions where the health and welfare of the woman is not an issue...it could just chosen for any reason



Correct, no reason needs to be given. I agree with this approach.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> I agree with all of that, but allowing abortion for any reason up to 12 weeks can result in abortions where the health and welfare of the woman is not an issue...it could just chosen for any reason



Perhaps, but reasonably speaking, abortion is rarely an easy choice. People who travel abroad, im guessing, are motivated by more significant factors such as societal attitudes to teenage (or young single woman) pregnancy - the HSE labels such pregnancies as 'crisis' pregnancy. 
Educational, career and unintended prospects of welfare dependency (and the stigmatization that accompanies that) of being a single mother are major factors to opt to travel for abortion. 
The challenge is as I see it is, if abortion is legalised, to elimanate the causes that motivate women to abort and/or provide the supports they need to go full-term.


----------



## cremeegg

TheBigShort said:


> People who travel abroad, im guessing, are motivated by more significant factors such as societal attitudes to teenage (or young single woman) pregnancy - the HSE labels such pregnancies as 'crisis' pregnancy.



You made a similar point previously, and I suggested that such attitudes no longer exist and if they do no one listens to them.

Of course you are right, there are still attitudes toward pregnancy which can result in a pregnancy being viewed or actually being a "crisis". Though these are hugely less than in the not so recent past, and hugely less powerful.

So how should we react to these attitudes, accept them? say yes it shameful to be pregnant in such a case, go have an abortion. I don't think so.


----------



## TheBigShort

cremeegg said:


> So how should we react to these attitudes, accept them? say yes it shameful to be pregnant in such a case, go have an abortion. I don't think so.



Of course not. My point is if attitudes change to such pregnancies, starting with state institutions, then perhaps it could reduce the motivating factors for women to seek out an abortion in the first place?
No more labelling pregnancy as a 'crisis' might be a help?


----------



## TheBigShort

Duplicate


----------



## Logo

We have exported this problem for far too long rather than dealing with it. I'm totally on the repeal side. However it looks like the only two options are (1) to continue to ignore the issue or (2) to vote yes which will mean a 72 hour decision period before abortion within three months into pregnancy, and up to six months depending on the case. Because of this I have no option but to vote no given the limited options.


----------



## Black Sheep

I just wonder do we have the doctors who will carry out abortions if the legislation is passed. Doctors duties are to save lives. I suspect they would not be happy to carry many abortions for reasons other than health.


----------



## Leper

Black Sheep said:


> I just wonder do we have the doctors who will carry out abortions if the legislation is passed. Doctors duties are to save lives. I suspect they would not be happy to carry many abortions for reasons other than health.



We have professionals that if the price is right, they are prepared to do anything. And the more they earn, the happier they become.


----------



## Purple

Black Sheep said:


> I just wonder do we have the doctors who will carry out abortions if the legislation is passed. Doctors duties are to save lives. I suspect they would not be happy to carry many abortions for reasons other than health.


Doctors are no different to anyone else, no better or worse, no more or less ethical.
Leper sums it up very well;


Leper said:


> We have professionals that if the price is right, they are prepared to do anything. And the more they earn, the happier they become.


----------



## dereko1969

Black Sheep said:


> I just wonder do we have the doctors who will carry out abortions if the legislation is passed. Doctors duties are to save lives. I suspect they would not be happy to carry many abortions for reasons other than health.


I think the thousand active Doctors that showed up on a Saturday morning from around the country shows that there are many many doctors who want to treat their patients with compassion in their time of need, to put it down to money grabbing is just another low point in this campaign.


----------



## odyssey06

dereko1969 said:


> I think the thousand active Doctors that showed up on a Saturday morning from around the country shows that there are many many doctors who want to treat their patients with compassion in their time of need, to put it down to money grabbing is just another low point in this campaign.



So is prejudicially determining that only people who want to repeal the 8th want people to be treated with compassion.


----------



## Purple

dereko1969 said:


> I think the thousand active Doctors that showed up on a Saturday morning from around the country shows that there are many many doctors who want to treat their patients with compassion in their time of need


I think that a doctor who wants to treat their patient with compassion in their time of need can be pro-choice or pro-life. There is no monopoly on morality on either side of this issue. For most people it is a case of coming down on one side or the other of conflicting rights. That's what makes it so difficult. I have no respect for the people on both sides who don't see that.


----------



## Ceist Beag

After much deliberation I'm leaning towards a No vote. My reasoning for this is that I'm not happy to allow abortions on demand.
I fully appreciate what repealing the 8th would achieve for the situations regularly discussed (rape or where the foetus cannot survive) and I can and do empathise with these women. I would prefer if there was a way in which we could allow abortions in these situations without allowing it on demand for any situation. But this is not what is being put to us. Therefore I cannot vote for the minority of cases without considering what this would mean for the majority of cases. I'm disappointed the question being put to us is not more in line with some other countries (I think Cyprus and Poland only allow abortions for these situations but not on demand, according to https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/abortion-referendum/abortion-facts). 
Obviously a No vote means I'm accepting the current situation which is something which I've struggled with. I'm not happy with the status quo but I have a bigger difficulty in voting for something which would allow abortions unrestricted for the first 12 weeks and also voting for something that could change again in the future without any referendum.
I also think it is quite concerning when you read over the recommendations that came out from the Citizens Assembly. They proposed abortion could be provided when a foetal abnormality is identified, or on socio-economic grounds. I know this is not being proposed by the Oireachtas but it tells me 2 things;
1. If we repeal and let the politicians vote on what is and is and is not allowed, in the future at some point it is possible (and I would argue likely) that this will be changed to further extend the law to allow abortions beyond 12 weeks when a foetal abnormality is identified, or on socio-economic grounds. 
2. This referendum is very likely to pass as it suggests that very many people (clearly the majority from the Citizens Assembly) are already normalising the idea of abortion if they think it can be justified on any socio-economic grounds or on the basis of any foetal abnormality.


----------



## michaelm

Ceist Beag said:


> I'm not happy with the status quo but I have a bigger difficulty in voting for something which would allow abortions unrestricted for the first 12 weeks and also voting for something that could change again in the future without any referendum.


Over 175 legal people have issued a [broken link removed] saying "It is clear that what is being proposed is not simply abortion in exceptional cases but a wide-ranging right to abortion.".

Amongst others, Iarfhlaith O’Neill (Former High Court Judge and Chairman of the Referendum Commission) and Aindrias Ó Caoimh (Former High Court Judge and Judge of the European Court of Justice) went on to [broken link removed] . . "A ‘Yes’ vote in the coming referendum would remove all constitutional rights from the unborn child up to birth, and in their place, would give the Oireachtas an unlimited power to legislate for abortion . . the Government proposals provide for abortion for any reason up until 12 weeks and for abortion up until viability (that is, where a mother has carried her child for up to 6 months) for reasons so similar to the legislation in Great Britain that there is no rational basis for thinking that they would operate differently". 

I have seen little coverage of this.

While the mainstream print and broadcast media are largely on-board for a yes, they do a disservice to the public by continually focusing on edge cases and not highlighting that this is about a liberal abortion regime.  The Google decision indicates that the powers that be have pulled out all the stops to get this over the line.


----------



## Firefly

dereko1969 said:


> I think the thousand active Doctors that showed up on a Saturday morning from around the country shows that there are many many doctors who want to treat their patients with compassion in their time of need



Would those patients be the women or the unborn?


----------



## odyssey06

For Simon Harris, the compassionate thing to do was to abort the baby that Savita was carrying, rather than provide her with competent medical care...

Let's have competent medical professionals, not compassionate ones.


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> For Simon Harris, the compassionate thing to do was to abort the baby that Savita was carrying, rather than provide her with competent medical care...
> 
> Let's have competent medical professionals, not compassionate ones.


No, the solution there was to give everyone involved a pay rise.


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> No, the solution there was to give everyone involved a pay rise.



I can imagine medical staff related unions are lining that up as a strategy to justify pay rises to deal with the increased stress of having to deal with these situations.


----------



## Firefly

I think a lot of people have issues with the "no questions asked" abortions upto 12 weeks and even from 12-24 weeks abortion is allowed if the health of a woman is at risk, including mental health. I am not saying there are circumstances where a woman can suffer from serious health issues, but it could also facilitate an abortion as I cannot see health care professionals argue with a woman in this case.

So I was watching Claire Byrne Live last night and a thought occurred to me....what would happen if the NO vote won? Given our penchant for getting referenda "wrong", would we not get to vote again but on a more conservative option?


----------



## Delboy

If the No side win, things will go quiet for 2 or 3 years before the Yes side would start again but I couldn't see a referendum being held in 5 to 7 years at the earliest. But there would definitely be another one


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

When I see a poster with a pill suggesting you can get 14 years for partaking thereof, I say "that's it, I'm voting *No*, I mean has anybody ever even been questioned by police for so doing?".

When I see a poster of a 9 week old foetus talking about yawning and kicking, I say "that's it, I'm voting *Yes*,  there is no way that foetus has rights equal to a 9 week old baby"


----------



## michaelm

Duke of Marmalade said:


> When I see a poster with a pill suggesting you can get 14 years for partaking thereof, I say "that's it, I'm voting *No*, I mean has anybody ever even been questioned by police for so doing?".


The transformation of Amnesty Ireland from human rights champion to abortion crusader - gamekeeper turned poacher - will cause them irreparable damage.  Their poster proclaims that an abortion pill carries a 14 year sentence.  This swerves the reality that, while no one has every been jailed for abortion, an abortion pill carries a certain death sentence for the unborn child.


----------



## dereko1969

Where did I state that there was no compassion on the No side


michaelm said:


> Over 175 legal people have issued a [broken link removed] saying "It is clear that what is being proposed is not simply abortion in exceptional cases but a wide-ranging right to abortion.".
> 
> Amongst others, Iarfhlaith O’Neill (Former High Court Judge and Chairman of the Referendum Commission) and Aindrias Ó Caoimh (Former High Court Judge and Judge of the European Court of Justice) went on to [broken link removed] . . "A ‘Yes’ vote in the coming referendum would remove all constitutional rights from the unborn child up to birth, and in their place, would give the Oireachtas an unlimited power to legislate for abortion . . the Government proposals provide for abortion for any reason up until 12 weeks and for abortion up until viability (that is, where a mother has carried her child for up to 6 months) for reasons so similar to the legislation in Great Britain that there is no rational basis for thinking that they would operate differently".
> 
> I have seen little coverage of this.
> 
> While the mainstream print and broadcast media are largely on-board for a yes, they do a disservice to the public by continually focusing on edge cases and not highlighting that this is about a liberal abortion regime.  The Google decision indicates that the powers that be have pulled out all the stops to get this over the line.


It did get coverage, what wasn't pointed out in a lot of the articles was that Iarfhlaith O'Neill worked with the Pro-Life campaign in 1983 so not exactly without history in this regard.
The attacks on MSM is straight out of the Trump/Putin/Brexit book and fails to recognise all the money being spent from outside the State on Google/YouTube/Facebook ads that the No campaign were planning on. If you're against the Google decision it means you're happy with our democracy being undermined. And yes I was against Amnesty using money from outside the State to campaign *for* a referendum, but that wasn't campaigning *in* a referendum, there is a difference.


----------



## Sunny

Delboy said:


> If the No side win, things will go quiet for 2 or 3 years before the Yes side would start again but I couldn't see a referendum being held in 5 to 7 years at the earliest. But there would definitely be another one



There won't be another referendum for a lot longer than that....There is no political capital in this subject. Whatever you might think about politicians and their views, it does take political bravery to bring this to the Country and publically express views on this subject from either side. No matter what they say, they will offend half the Country and voters. Notice the number of politicians saying nothing on the subject one way or another.......


----------



## michaelm

Like it or not he mainstream media are largely on the yes side.  Facebook banned ads from outside and Google could have done the same.  Social media was more of a level playing field, that has now changed.  That the yes side has welcomed the Google decision says it all.  It has interfered with the referendum and to suggest that an objection to corporate censorship in the midst of the campaign equates to being "happy with our democracy being undermined" is silly.


----------



## Leo

michaelm said:


> Social media was more of a level playing field, that has now changed.



Much of the social media spending was coming from outside the state from vested interests with no connection to Ireland or in order to bypass our legislation on such advertising. The spending patterns prior to the ban were far from level, with 63% in favour of a no vote. 

One of the real dangers of reliance on social media and news scraping apps for the purposes of education on such matters is a complete lack of balance. The algorithms involved record your history, know what articles you're read, how long you've spent reading them, any that you've reacted to or shared. They tune your individual feed to those preferences. So if you start off veering one direction or the other on issues such as this, such social media feeds will only serve to reinforce your existing views, after all, the providers sole aim in producing these feeds is to get you clicking into articles so that they earn commission from the advertising contained within. 

We've seen how outside influences have manipulated other elections, I see nothing wrong with restricting the influence of vested interests from outside the state regardless of their stance.


----------



## michaelm

Leo said:


> I see nothing wrong with restricting the influence of vested interests from outside the state regardless of their stance.


Me neither.  We should restrict such.  Google should have just banned ads from outside, like Facebook did.  There is little balance in the traditional media, who have been conditioning the public for years to embrace abortion.  This is why the no side have had to focus on social media.


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> There is little balance in the traditional media, who have been conditioning the public for years to embrace abortion.


 I agree with that.



michaelm said:


> This is why the no side have had to focus on social media.


 I think that the Christian Right in the USA are prime drivers in this area so I agree with adverts from outside Ireland being banned.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Purple said:


> I think that the Christian Right in the USA are prime drivers in this area so I agree with adverts from outside Ireland being banned.


That's not like you _Purple_.  Where is that different from the Chinese banning television performances from outside the state where they don't like the social message?


----------



## Sunny

Duke of Marmalade said:


> That's not like you _Purple_.  Where is that different from the Chinese banning television performances from outside the state where they don't like the social message?



Well I doubt China would be in the middle of a referendum for a start...Or at least a referendum where the result is still to be decided...


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Sunny said:


> Well I doubt China would be in the middle of a referendum for a start...Or at least a referendum where the result is still to be decided...


True, true, but _Purple's _objection did not seem to be against outside influence _per se_ but just against it coming from the Christian Right.


----------



## Sunny

Duke of Marmalade said:


> True, true, but _Purple's _objection did not seem to be against outside influence _per se_ but just against it coming from the Christian Right.



Well I suppose we could balance the ad's from the Christian Right with ad's from the.....What is the opposite of the Christian Right movement???


----------



## Purple

Duke of Marmalade said:


> True, true, but _Purple's _objection did not seem to be against outside influence _per se_ but just against it coming from the Christian Right.


I was just highlighting that the adverts were coning from powerful outside groups with a particular agenda. 
I have as much (or more) of a problem with most of the adverts from the Yes side. 
The fact that the Irish media is overwhelmingly in favour of repealing the 8th is a problem in that there is no attempt at balanced reporting from our National Broadcaster or the IT.


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> What is the opposite of the Christian Right movement???


The liberal establishment in places like Ireland who look for the head of anyone who dares to hold contrary views.


----------



## zxcvbnm

dereko1969 said:


> And yes I was against Amnesty using money from outside the State to campaign *for* a referendum, but that wasn't campaigning *in* a referendum, there is a difference.



Is there a difference though? Presumably had they not received the money to lobby for a referendum, they would instead have had to use their own funds to do so. Instead those own funds can be used directly in the referendum itself. Is it not the same net effect?


----------



## Delboy

Leo said:


> We've seen how outside influences have manipulated other elections, I see nothing wrong with restricting the influence of vested interests from outside the state regardless of their stance.


The vast majority of the MSM here is on the yes side and not even attempting to hide it. I can see why one side were very upset at the Google ban and the other much less so.
Ads from 3rd parties outside the state should have been banned but Google went further- their stats must be showing the NO side getting some traction. 
Google have deliberately interfered in this referendum and no amount of press releases from them stating the opposite can hide that.


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> The transformation of Amnesty Ireland from human rights champion to abortion crusader - gamekeeper turned poacher - will cause them irreparable damage.


Agreed. I used to be a member but I'd never support them now due to their simplistic misrepresentation of the facts.


----------



## Purple

dereko1969 said:


> And yes I was against Amnesty using money from outside the State to campaign *for* a referendum, but that wasn't campaigning *in* a referendum, there is a difference.


What's the difference?
They had two heaps of money. One was spent on campaigning for a referendum, the other in a referendum. The piles of money are interchangeable.


----------



## TheBigShort

I think banning ads is futile in the age of the internet and social media, also a retrograde step more suited to Catholic Ireland in the 1950’s or North Korea today.

We have always had outside interference in our political affairs even before the internet. Newspapers, typically owned and run by foreign corporations, have been on sale here for decades and have never been shy in pushing their own political agendas in their publications.

It may be more useful to require carriers of advertising to publish the source of the advertisements. It might have saved the US a lot of bother pointing the finger at Russia for interference in the Presidential campaign when all along it was a British company.


----------



## cremeegg

Duke of Marmalade said:


> When I see a poster of a 9 week old foetus talking about yawning and kicking, I say "that's it, I'm voting *Yes*,  there is no way that foetus has rights equal to a 9 week old baby"



I agree with you that a 9 week old foetus should not have the same rights as an adult woman or a 9 week old baby. That is why I think some change to the present constitutional arrangement is required.

However I do not think that a foetus should have no rights, which it seems would be the outcome if the referendum is passed. That is why I expect that I will vote against this current proposal.


----------



## Ceist Beag

cremeegg said:


> However I do not think that a foetus should have no rights, which it seems would be the outcome if the referendum is passed. That is why I expect that I will vote against this current proposal.


It was all too familiar watching Claire Byrne last night where almost all of those on the Yes side dodged this point or point blank refused to accept it. Only Aodhan O'Riordan seemed to accept it. By all means argue for Repealing the 8th based on the many reasons raised, but please don't try and make it seem as if, up to 12 weeks at least, a Yes vote will not mean the unborn has no rights. Mary Lou in particular continued to dodge this point last night and whilst I don't doubt the sincerity and strength of her convictions in why she is voting Yes, it was disingenuous of her not to admit that this was true and to state that she was prepared to accept this as part of repealing the 8th (I heartily agreed with her on her clapometer comment, Claire Byrne really should moderate the crowd better than she does imho).


----------



## Purple

Ceist Beag said:


> Mary Lou in particular continued to dodge this point last night and whilst I don't doubt the sincerity and strength of her convictions


I doubt her sincerity every time she opens her mouth.


----------



## michaelm

Black Sheep said:


> I just wonder do we have the doctors who will carry out abortions if the legislation is passed. Doctors duties are to save lives.


I wouldn't he hugely surprised if some prominent consultants open an abortion clinic in double-quick time.  It could prove more lucrative than hospital parking.


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> I wouldn't he hugely surprised if some prominent consultants open an abortion clinic in double-quick time.  It could prove more lucrative than hospital parking.


They'll probably wait for the State to build one for them and then run their private business out of it.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Purple said:


> I doubt her sincerity every time she opens her mouth.


I watched the RTE Player.  MLMcD came across really well.  This worries me.  Sinn Fein/IRA look like serious government partners. Come back Gerry, all is forgiven.


----------



## TheBigShort

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I watched the RTE Player.  MLMcD came across really well.  This worries me.  Sinn Fein/IRA look like serious government partners. Come back Gerry, all is forgiven.



Funny that, I was thinking much the same thing. I think an election is coming sooner rather than later. It is looking increasingly poor on FF to be at once in a confidence/supply agreement and supposedly the leading opposition party. I thought it was going to happen late last year but I was wrong on that, but I understand the clock is ticking on M Martins leadership - he has one last chance to be back in power, time is against him.
If an election returns seats in accordance with recent polls than a coalition between FF/FG, FG/SF or SF/FF looks on the cards. My money is on FG/SF, which notably has moved in recent months from 25/1 to 10/1.


----------



## TheBigShort

_Apologies for veering off topic!_


----------



## michaelm

TheBigShort said:


> My money is on FG/SF, which notably has moved in recent months from 25/1 to 10/1.


It's a fair bet.  FG has been commandeered by show-ponies and upstarts who don't really stand for anything but election.  They'd dance with the devil to stay in power.  SF has been doing contortions to be ready for government by moving Gerry off stage and by scrapping their 'must be biggest party in coalition' rule.  FG/SF is still a tempting 20/1 with [broken link removed].


----------



## Purple

SF are now just FF circa 1975.


----------



## michaelm

Purple said:


> SF are now just FF circa 1975.


Except, to get back on topic, very much pro-abortion.


----------



## odyssey06

michaelm said:


> Except, to get back on topic, very much pro-abortion.



Not so much pro-abortion, as (pro-death) or rather anti-life.


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> Except, to get back on topic, very much pro-abortion.


Sure they'd no problem with their masters murdering children so why would they have a problem with abortion now?


----------



## Betsy Og

Been avoiding contributing to the debate as nothing I find more depressing. After weighing it all up though over the last few months I've decided to vote Yes. Basically on the basis that alleviating the hard cases (fatal foetal, rape etc) trumps any wish to keep Irish abortions out of Ireland. The lives hanging in the balance are not so much those of the unborn (the mother is going to determine that one way or the other regardless), but the risks of abortion XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, and delayed medical care (I'm not comfortable that the Savita amendment is sufficient or the way to go).

For those who "dont trust the government" - if your fears are borne out then form the No Abortion party, get into the Dail, repeal the legislation, run another referendum if you want - I think it's a total cop out argument. I respect the No's, I can see why "doing God's work" means they feel carte blanche to say and do whatever they want - but the reality of the sit-ye-ation, the borrow from another political arena, means I can't row in behind a No much as I'd prefer if no healthy woman ever aborted a healthy foetus/baby.


----------



## Purple

Betsy Og said:


> I respect the No's, I can see why "doing God's work" means they feel carte blanche to say and do whatever they want


I don't see a link between opposing abortion and religion.
It is a moral issue and morality was around before religion. 
That said I'm in general agreement with your reasons for voting yes.


----------



## Betsy Og

That's fair enough, I'm totally on the morality is not the possession of religion point, but I'm guessing there's a distinct religious flavour to most of the No campaign....maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Purple said:


> It is a moral issue and morality was around before religion.


The State should have no role whatsoever in imposing moral values.  It's only legitimate role is to protect citizens from each other.  No smoking in public places, no drunk and disorderly, no recreational drugs, no indecent exposure, no prostitution etc. may seem to have a tinge of morality attaching to them but they can only be justified as protecting citizens from each other.

Unfortunately our Catholic DNA still makes us think that the State should act as moral custodians, it's just that our moral values have changed.

So when is the unborn a "citizen" deserving the protection from other citizens in particular its mother? To be pro Yes does not mean you support the morality of abortion just that you don't think it is any of the State's business.


----------



## Delboy

Betsy Og said:


> . After weighing it all up though over the last few months I've decided to vote Yes. Basically on the basis that alleviating the hard cases (fatal foetal, rape etc) trumps any wish to keep Irish abortions out of Ireland.


A sledgehammer to crack a nut...hard cases are as it says, hard cases. They probably make up less than 10% of total pregnancies.

As per the stat put out by the No side, based on info from the NHS, 97% of abortions are on healthy, normal babies.


----------



## Purple

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The State should have no role whatsoever in imposing moral values. It's only legitimate role is to protect citizens from each other. No smoking in public places, no drunk and disorderly, no recreational drugs, no indecent exposure, no prostitution etc. may seem to have a tinge of morality attaching to them but they can only be justified as protecting citizens from each other.


 Where do moral values stop and protecting citizens from each other start? 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Unfortunately our Catholic DNA still makes us think that the State should act as moral custodians, it's just that our moral values have changed.


 Maybe but speaking for myself religion has nothing to do with it.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> So when is the unborn a "citizen" deserving the protection from other citizens in particular its mother? To be pro Yes does not mean you support the morality of abortion just that you don't think it is any of the State's business.


 That's a reasonable position to take but I also think that legislating to protect the unborn is a reasonable position to make.


----------



## Betsy Og

Delboy said:


> A sledgehammer to crack a nut...hard cases are as it says, hard cases. They probably make up less than 10% of total pregnancies.
> 
> As per the stat put out by the No side, based on info from the NHS, 97% of abortions are on healthy, normal babies.



But by voting No do you genuinely think you're saving the 90% or the 97% - if I thought I was I'd probably vote No, but voting No is just stimulating the market for airline and ferry traffic. So for the sake of the 10% I'm willing to save costs & hassle for the 90% I don't agree with. Keeping holy Catholic Ireland "abortion free" (which is the net practical effect of the status quo) is national delusion, I don't see the value is maintaining that pretence.


----------



## blueband

Betsy Og said:


> But by voting No do you genuinely think you're saving the 90% or the 97% - if I thought I was I'd probably vote No, but voting No is just stimulating the market for airline and ferry traffic. So for the sake of the 10% I'm willing to save costs & hassle for the 90% I don't agree with. Keeping holy Catholic Ireland "abortion free" (which is the net practical effect of the status quo) is national delusion, I don't see the value is maintaining that pretence.


but it has noting to do with holy catholic Ireland anymore, at least not for the vast majority of people..


----------



## michaelm

If the proposal was to change the constitution to allow for edge cases this would have passed with ease.  Any No campaign would have got little traction and the issue may have largely gone away.  This nuclear option seriously risks being rejected and ensures that whether it a yes or no the issue will not go away.

While I'm almost resigned to it to being a yes, the fact that it's not simple repeal gives me some solace.  In a simple repeal situation a government could agree something in Europe - abortion is a service or a human right, or whatever - that a future government couldn't undo.  I don't think that can happen if the Constitution says "Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy."


----------



## Delboy

From what I've seen and read so far on this debate (some Posters here and Kathy Sheridan for instance in yesterday's IT), the Yes seem seem to have a bigger thing for God/Catholic Church than the No side!


----------



## Delboy

Betsy Og said:


> But by voting No do you genuinely think you're saving the 90% or the 97% - if I thought I was I'd probably vote No, but voting No is just stimulating the market for airline and ferry traffic.


And when we have abortion here (for it will eventually come in), how many more abortions will there be v's the 3,250 currently recorded int he UK as being by Irish women last year? 10,000 is the figure I've seen bandied about which is what would put us on a par with the stats in England/Wales.

So for the sake of the 6,750 babies in the mix there (every year), I'll be voting No


----------



## michaelm

Betsy Og said:


> But by voting No do you genuinely think you're saving the 90% or the 97% - if I thought I was I'd probably vote No


A No will save the lives of 1000's of unborn children every year.  Irish abortion rates are somewhere between 1/3 and 1/4 that of Great Britain.  It would be self-delusional to think that, on the introduction of a liberal abortion regime, our figures won't climb towards parity with Great Britain.  Abortion on demand will lead to more demand for abortion.  I hope that the middle ground will reject this proposal as too extreme.


----------



## Sunny

Really??? I heard the same thing after the divorce referendum and how we will all be getting divorced. Never happened. Heard the same about same sex marriage and how all these gay people would be rushing out to get kids and family values would be destroyed. Hasn't happened. Now we are to believe that thousands of women will suddenly decide to have an abortion because they don't have to hop on a cheap Ryanair flight to the UK. Are we honestly saying that the only reason there aren't thousands more abortions every year is that women have to travel to London? Maybe it's simply because there isn't a demand for thousands more abortions and there still won't be that demand after this referendum....


----------



## Ceist Beag

Delboy said:


> A sledgehammer to crack a nut...hard cases are as it says, hard cases. They probably make up less than 10% of total pregnancies.
> 
> As per the stat put out by the No side, based on info from the NHS, 97% of abortions are on healthy, normal babies.


That 97% includes many hard cases (for example rape cases, incest, etc.) so as with a lot of this campaign it is a number intended to shock people.


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> I heard the same thing after the divorce referendum and how we will all be getting divorced. Never happened. Heard the same about same sex marriage and how all these gay people would be rushing out to get kids and family values would be destroyed. Hasn't happened.


I agree but I don't understand why people are comparing abortion to allowing adults to marry and divorce.


----------



## Sunny

Purple said:


> I agree but I don't understand why people are comparing abortion to allowing adults to marry and divorce.



I'm not...Point is that campaigns like this are always run with one side predicting some sort of breakdown of normal society if there is a change. Had it with divorce. Had it with same sex marriage. Had it with Lisbon treaty etc etc etc........


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> I'm not...Point is that campaigns like this are always run with one side predicting some sort of breakdown of normal society if there is a change. Had it with divorce. Had it with same sex marriage. Had it with Lisbon treaty etc etc etc........


True


----------



## Andarma

Purple said:


> I agree but I don't understand why people are comparing abortion to allowing adults to marry and divorce.


A better analogy would be the criticism of the Protection of Life During Pregancy Act, where it was said that we'd have loads of women pretending  to be suicidal in order to obtain an abortion. It never materialised. Of the 25 cases under the Act in 2016, one was due to risk of suicide: https://health.gov.ie/blog/press-re...013-laid-before-the-houses-of-the-oireachtas/ . I for one  am glad that the 24 other women in 2016 received the necessary treatment here in Ireland,  and I want all those who require it, for whatever reason, also to receive treatment in Ireland.


----------



## Delboy

Ceist Beag said:


> That 97% includes many hard cases (for example rape cases, incest, etc.) so as with a lot of this campaign it is a number intended to shock people.


Indeed but what % of that 97% are those hard cases?  5% or so max, couldn't be much more than that? 
So again, a sledgehammer to crack a nut no matter what angle you look at it from.


----------



## michaelm

Sunny said:


> Are we honestly saying that the only reason there aren't thousands more abortions every year is that women have to travel to London? Maybe it's simply because there isn't a demand for thousands more abortions and there still won't be that demand after this referendum....


Yes.  Free and easy access to abortion will lead, over time, to the closing of the gap between the Irish rate and the British rate.  "Are you going to keep it?" will be a common question.   Abortion will become a normal option which will become easier to ratioanlise.  I guess time will tell, but I hope you're right and I'm wrong.


----------



## Betsy Og

Any result predictions? I wouldn't be at all confident of a Yes, I'm thinking 52/48 and could go either way.


----------



## TheBigShort

Delboy said:


> Indeed but what % of that 97% are those hard cases?  5% or so max, couldn't be much more than that?
> So again, a sledgehammer to crack a nut no matter what angle you look at it from.




I would disagree, it would say it is closer to 99.99% are hard cases. I don’t think very many women take the decision lightly. Instead a combination of concerns ranging from prospective life-changing career and educational opportunities, shame (perceived concern or real concern) of being a single mother, dependency on welfare, stigmitisation - _“A crisis pregnancy is defined as ‘a pregnancy which is neither planned nor desired by the woman concerned, and which represents a personal crisis for her.’ This includes women for whom a planned or desired pregnancy develops into a crisis over time due to a change in circumstances.”

http://www.positiveoptions.ie/unplanned-pregnancy/what-is-a-crisis-pregnancy/_

So an undesired or unplanned pregnancy is commonly labelled as a ‘crisis’, why?

The word crisis is defined as ‘a time of intense difficulty or danger’.

If a person finds themselves in a crisis, in any crisis, it is quite understandable to me that they will take whatever action they think is necessary to end the crisis.

In the case of homosexuals, for many in the past it was living a life of denial and enduring the stress and hardship that came with that, – fear of being outed, labelled as a sinner, criminalised by the State etc, or worse, committing suicide.

Those fears and anxieties have diminished greatly today.

In the case of women enduring a ‘crisis’ pregnancy, therefore, abortion is obvious option.

So perhaps, if we move to a point where we remove the notion of an unplanned pregnancy being a ‘crisis’, and instead move to a more tolerant, supporting society for pregnant women, regardless of their circumstances, then the motive to abort will reduce, perhaps even to the point of there being no demand for abortion?

The choice to decide what action to take should be in their hands.



Delboy said:


> A sledgehammer to crack a nut...hard cases are as it says, hard cases. They probably make up less than 10% of total pregnancies.
> 
> As per the stat put out by the No side, based on info from the NHS, 97% of abortions are on healthy, normal babies.



Btw - 'hard case' babies from rape and incest are normal babies too.


----------



## TheBigShort

Betsy Og said:


> Any result predictions? I wouldn't be at all confident of a Yes, I'm thinking 52/48 and could go either way.



I'm voting 'Yes' to repeal but my gut says it will be 'No'


----------



## michaelm

Betsy Og said:


> I'm thinking 52/48 and could go either way.


That chimes with what I think.  I guess it may come down to turnout.  The same sex marriage referendum was a much easier sell than this and that was 62/38 on a 60% turnout.  The poll today said 44% yes, 32% no, 17% don't no, 7% won't vote . . I'd be surprised if the turnout was more then 60% and I suspect that a higher percentage of the nos than the yeses will vote, so it should be very close.  It's not something I'd bet on but the value is perhaps No @ 5/2.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> The choice to decide what action to take should be in their hands.



Do you regard the baby as having any rights?

fatherhood at a young ago or just if it is unplanned is also a life changing event and a similar stigmatisation can occur (sometimes it's worse because of the societal assumption that he's a dead-beat dad). There are major financial implications and if he's an engaged father then there can be a massive impact on his educational and career prospects. Do you think he should be able to have his child aborted? 

People oppose abortion for all sorts of reasons. For many it has nothing to do with religion and nothing to do with wanting to oppress women; they simply think that it is wrong to vindicate one persons rights by removing the rights of another and the right to life is as fundamental as it gets.

The questions is at what stage an unborn child acquires the right to life. Leave the religion and social engineering, the bible belting and right-on liberalism out of it. This isn't just about a woman's body or else the feminist lobby would be proposing abortion right up to birth. The fact that they are not is a tacit acceptance that at some stage that unborn child acquired the right to life. The only real question here is when that happens.  

I say that as a Yes voter.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Do you regard the baby as having any rights?



Of course I do.



Purple said:


> fatherhood at a young ago or just if it is unplanned is also a life changing event and a similar stigmatisation can occur (sometimes it's worse because of the societal assumption that he's a dead-beat dad). There are major financial implications and if he's an engaged father then there can be a massive impact on his educational and career prospects. Do you think he should be able to have his child aborted?



My point is not whether he should or should not be able, my point is what are the underlying reasons for anyone wanting an abortion in the first place? If even one of those reasons are societal attitudes of 'dead-beat dad', then like homophobia, racism, perhaps we should make efforts to eradicate or diminish the socio-economic prejudices that prevail in society that _may _lead to someone thinking they would not be a good father, or mother, or that their life is ruined. 
I'm thinking a good place to start would be to stop labelling unplanned pregnancies as a 'crisis' pregnancy.


----------



## michaelm

The problem with the State encouraging positive options by providing better supports for the disadvantaged parent(s), disabled or terminally ill children is the ongoing costs.  Providing free and easy access to abortion will save the State money.  Over time they will be able to wind down certain supports as demand diminishes.


----------



## dereko1969

To those who say they'd be in favour of a "hard cases" law - how can that be achieved through the constitution? I haven't heard any proposed wording for same that would work in conjunction with 40.3.3. So then they should be in favour of repeal and then lobby for the proposed legislation to be changed back as soon as possible to solely allow for terminations for the hard cases, this is feasible only following repeal.
Those in favour of a hard cases law are then permitting termination of pregnancy on grounds that they feel are acceptable - most talk about FFA, rape and incest, how are they to be "proven" within an appropriate timeframe? Or does that mean they are favouring late term terminations?
I think having to prove a "good" reason for a termination is unfair, we have abortion in this country already we just export the procedure to another jurisdiction or where it takes place here is done without medical supervision which puts women's lives at risk.


----------



## michaelm

Some jurisdictions allow abortion once a rape complaint has been made to the police.  Some allow birth to be induced on compassionate grounds where there is little prospect of survival for the unborn.  An amendment could have been fashioned to allow for such but this was never seriously considered.  Instead we have a nuclear option.  Harris risks being hoist on his own petard.


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> An amendment could have been fashioned to allow for such but this was never seriously considered.


So could legislation.
The constitution is no place for this law.


----------



## michaelm

Having a right written into the Constitution guarantees that a government cannot dilute or remove such at will.  If one believes that the unborn should have no constitutional protection at all then no hang-wringing is required before voting yes.


----------



## dereko1969

Any chance of a wording there Michael?


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> Having a right written into the Constitution guarantees that a government cannot dilute or remove such at will.  If one believes that the unborn should have no constitutional protection at all then no hang-wringing is required before voting yes.


I agree.
I am a fan of representative democracy and think the will of the people should be expressed through their parliament. That's where I think specifics should be legislated for. The Constitution is a guiding document which should inform legislation but not be so specific as to effectively frame it.


----------



## Sunny

I love all this talk about constitutional rights. What are they? As a country we have had decades of children being systematically raped and abused and neglected by the State and Church. Today, we have children going hungry in school. We have children living in hotel bedrooms. Children living in asylum centres not fit for human life. We have children on long waiting lists for medical attention. We have children with special needs having to fight for resources. We get up in arms about 'constitutional rights' for the unborn child when we have done a rubbish job protecting the rights of our existing ones. Look at the how many people moaned and challenged the 31st amendment referendum around children's rights. Same people are now going on about constitutional rights of the unborn...It's sanctimonious claptrap. Pro abortion and anti abortion has nothing to do with constitutional rights....Abortion has happened despite the constitution. Abortion is happening now despite the constitution. Abortion will happen in the future despite the constitution. So forget about the constitution.


----------



## michaelm

Sunny said:


> Today, we have children going hungry in school. We have children living in hotel bedrooms. Children living in asylum centres not fit for human life. We have children on long waiting lists for medical attention. We have children with special needs having to fight for resources.


More abortion won't solve any of that . . but may put a dent in it.


----------



## Sunny

michaelm said:


> More abortion won't solve any of that . . but may put a dent in it.



I never said abortion will solve it or was even an attempt to solve it. I would never be that flippant about the subject. I am saying why aren't people shouting about children's constitutional rights to a breakfast before school? To a safe place to sleep? To medical attention? I hear a lot about the rights of the unborn but I don't hear a lot from the same people talking about the rights of the ones already born.

Constitutional argument is just a red herring


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> I never said abortion will solve it or was even an attempt to solve it. I would never be that flippant about the subject. I am saying why aren't people shouting about children's constitutional rights to a breakfast before school? To a safe place to sleep? To medical attention? I hear a lot about the rights of the unborn but I don't hear a lot from the same people talking about the rights of the ones already born.


It's hard to legislate against bad parenting and that's the major cause of children not having a safe place to sleep and the sole cause of children not getting breakfast before school. That said I struggle to get my daughter up in time to have breakfast before we leave in the morning so maybe at 14 she has to take some of the blame...


----------



## Ceist Beag

Some of the campaigning, especially on the No side, is getting out of hand. This morning there were loads of small white crosses along the road to Letterkenny (source http://www.highlandradio.com/2018/0...e-of-white-crosses-on-letterkenny-derry-road/). Next Friday can't come quick enough at this rate.


----------



## michaelm

dereko1969 said:


> Any chance of a wording there Michael?


 Argo.





Sunny said:


> Constitutional argument is just a red herring


 You know there's a referendum next week, right?  To decide whether or not to expunge all constitutional rights of the unborn, on the promise of a liberal abortion regime if we do.


----------



## Sunny

michaelm said:


> Argo. You know there's a referendum next week, right?  To decide whether or not to expunge all constitutional rights of the unborn, on the promise of a liberal abortion regime if we do.



Really? So you are telling me that would jail every single woman currently going to the UK to get an abortion as they are breaking their unborn childs constitutional rights??? Because unless you are willing to jail them or ban them from travelling, then your precious constitutional rights that you are so up in arms about are not worth the paper they are written on. So we can vote no and you can go to bed at night sleeping well and yet there will still be abortion.....

Lets keep burying our heads in the sand then telling ourselves how great we are for protecting children. Why not be grown up about it, find ways to reduce the need or want for any woman to feel like they have to or want to go for a termination and support those women who do decide to go down that path instead of demonising them.


----------



## michaelm

Keep your hair on.  Your strawman not withstanding, abortion is lose/lose . . those procuring abortions have to live with that decision for the rest of their lives and the unborn have their lives abruptly ended.  We should of course, as you say, "find ways to reduce the need or want for any woman to feel like they have to or want to go for a termination", but legalising abortion is not the way.


----------



## Sunny

michaelm said:


> Keep your hair on.  Your strawman not withstanding, abortion is lose/lose . . those procuring abortions have to live with that decision for the rest of their lives and the unborn have their lives abruptly ended.  We should of course, as you say, "find ways to reduce the need or want for any woman to feel like they have to or want to go for a termination", but legalising abortion is not the way.



It's not a strawman argument. Even if every case of abortion was lose-lose (and I am not saying it is because again it is over simplification), the reality is that termination can often be the best of bad options. Doesn't make the parents bad. And it certainly doesn't mean they should be told that they are breaking the law because their unborn child has some sort of conceptual constitutional right to life unless the mother travels outside the country. Then we just ignore the unborn childs constitutional rights because we can't face the fact that these women should be prosecuted so we ignore the issue....Irish solution to an Irish problem........ 

Again, it comes down to this. Childrens referendum was supposed to lead to the State taking a load of children into care and taking over parents roles. Same sex marriage was supposed to lead to all these gay people looking to adopt and foster kids...Divorce was supposed to lead the end of families...Lisbon treaty was supposed to lead to an invasion of immigrants....And now voting yes in this referendum is supposed to lead to a sudden surge in abortion numbers because apparently Irish women can't be trusted to keep doing what they are currently doing when they have 'abortion on demand'.....

You are either pro-choice or pro-life. There is nothing wrong with either and both sides have very valid and justified views but there is so much noise in this debate around stuff that is completely irrelevant to the vote. People talking about surges in abortion is as unfounded as Leo's statement today saying it was only a matter of time before a woman died or was prosecuted. Stop with the ridiculous fear campaigns on both sides....


----------



## dereko1969

michaelm said:


> Keep your hair on.  Your strawman not withstanding, abortion is lose/lose . .* those procuring abortions have to live with that decision for the rest of their lives* and the unborn have their lives abruptly ended.  We should of course, as you say, "find ways to reduce the need or want for any woman to feel like they have to or want to go for a termination", but legalising abortion is not the way.


All studies with any scientific backing to them indicate that for the vast majority of women who have had terminations are happy with their decision, despite the best efforts of anti-choice people into trying to shame them and make them feel guilty.


----------



## Sunny

michaelm said:


> You seem to be getting a tad het up again on this thread.  If you want to avoid arguments for and against the proposal and any fleshing out of what it might mean then you should head over to the Referendum Commission website [broken link removed]



I am not getting worked up over anything. Just tired of reading the same stuff. Reckon if I read back on gay marriage threads and children referendum thread, I would find similar comments from you. Bet you voted no to both. That’s fine but stop hiding behind constitutional rights. Just say you are against it because of your beliefs just like nearly everyone else voting either yes or no.

And you are spouting the usual rubbish about constitutional rights and abortion on demand. What constitutional rights are you fighting to protect? Are they protected at the moment? Do we jail women who travel for abortion? How are we protecting them now? So why go on about how children are currently protected by these so called constitutional rights. They are not. They are complicating an already complicated situation. You still haven’t answered that question. What are you voting to protect?

Also What evidence do you have about abortion on demand? Do you really think women who currently don’t travel for abortions are suddenly going to flood gp offices looking for one??? Do you not think it is better that women currently taking abortion XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX off the internet can access safe treatment. That’s not abortion on demand. That’s just bringing what is happening at the moment into the open.


----------



## michaelm

Sunny said:


> What evidence do you have about abortion on demand?


While it seems unlikely that we will agree on much, see if you think there is any merit in this reasoning . .

On paper Britain has a restrictive abortion regime but in practice they have a liberal regime deployed on an industrial scale.  On paper Ireland's proposed law is less restrictive than that of Britain and there is no reason to expect that our law won't operate in the same box-ticking abortion-on-demand basis. 

If that happens we will have free and easy access to abortion and numbers will rise.  I don't believe that we are a special case, the fundamentals are not different in Ireland.

If on the other hand our law does prove to be restrictive beyond 12 week we will still see many who miss the 12 week cut-off travel to England.  Additionally, Rhona Mahony has said that half of those who receive a Down's Syndrome diagnosis procure an abortion and the Taoiseach told Sean O'Rourke yesterday that there is no provision for abortion on disability grounds and that those people will have to travel to England.


----------



## TheBigShort

michaelm said:


> Some jurisdictions allow abortion once a rape complaint has been made to the police.



Is this satisfactory to you?



michaelm said:


> Additionally, Rhona Mahony has said that half of those who receive a Down's Syndrome diagnosis procure an abortion and the Taoiseach told Sean O'Rourke yesterday that there is no provision for abortion on disability grounds and that those people will have to travel to England.



Regardless of whether the Taoiseach says one thing or another thing, regardless of what is actually written in the constitution now, or after referendum, the issue I think you need to deal with is - why do half of those who receive a downs syndrome diagnosis opt for an abortion in the first place?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> the issue I think you need to deal with is - why do half of those who receive a downs syndrome diagnosis opt for an abortion in the first place?


Because they don't want a Downs Syndrome child. They think that the child will be a burden, will take away time from other children and, most of all, because that is not the child they imagined having. Of course they are right about all those things but they forget that those things are also true for every child and that they will love their Downs Syndrome child just as much as any other child. Eventually they will come to realise that they don't have a Downs Syndrome child; they actually have a child who happens to have Downs Syndrome.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> They think that the child will be a burden, will take away time from other children and, most of all, because that is not the child they imagined having. Of course they are right about all those things but they forget that those things are also true for every child and that they will love their Downs Syndrome child just as much as any other child. Eventually they will come to realise that they don't have a Downs Syndrome child; they actually have a child who happens to have Downs Syndrome.




Yes, so greater efforts and supports, primarily through social inclusion, need to be made to reduce the numbers wanting an abortion because of Downs Syndrome.

For instance, when I was a child, Downs Syndrome children were sent to a separate institution with other disabled children. Nowadays, downs syndrome kids are taught in mainstream schools – at least for the early part of their education. This may go some way to instill better understanding and more empathy about Downs Syndrome (and other disabilities) in my childs generation, that should they face that dilemma of having a child diagnosed with DS that they would feel less inclined to abort that otherwise would have been the case.

Other socially inclusive activities from big picture events like the Special Olympics to more local supports such as employment opportunities, sporting and cultural opportunities etc, all go toward ending the perception that a DS child will be any more a greater burden that a child without DS.

Reducing, or eliminating altogether, the concerns that prospective parents have about DS will go a long way to reducing the numbers of abortions sought on foot of a DS diagnosis.

Banning abortion does not resolve the issue of so many abortions sought on foot a DS diagnosis.


----------



## Sunny

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, so greater efforts and supports, primarily through social inclusion, need to be made to reduce the numbers wanting an abortion because of Downs Syndrome.
> 
> For instance, when I was a child, Downs Syndrome children were sent to a separate institution with other disabled children. Nowadays, downs syndrome kids are taught in mainstream schools – at least for the early part of their education. This may go some way to instill better understanding and more empathy about Downs Syndrome (and other disabilities) in my childs generation, that should they face that dilemma of having a child diagnosed with DS that they would feel less inclined to abort that otherwise would have been the case.
> 
> Other socially inclusive activities from big picture events like the Special Olympics to more local supports such as employment opportunities, sporting and cultural opportunities etc, all go toward ending the perception that a DS child will be any more a greater burden that a child without DS.
> 
> Reducing, or eliminating altogether, the concerns that prospective parents have about DS will go a long way to reducing the numbers of abortions sought on foot of a DS diagnosis.
> 
> Banning abortion does not resolve the issue of so many abortions sought on foot a DS diagnosis.



I agree with you that a big reason behind it being social attitudes to disability rather than parents simply don't want a child with DS. People are afraid and concerned for many reasons and there aren't exactly support services in place to help them overcome this fear. At least if the law is changed, they are forced to go to a GP and discuss it if they want to access terminations here. The GP can put them in touch with the correct people that might lead to a different outcome. At the moment, people are simply going over the UK and getting a termination without talking to anyone out of fear...


----------



## michaelm

TheBigShort said:


> Is this satisfactory to you?


Not relevant.  The point is that they could have opted for a regime to deal with the hard cases.  They made no attempt to do so and instead are pushing what is effectively an on-demand regime.  This is not about hard cases but rather a Hobson's Choice of liberal abortion or the status quo.  

In order to ensure the middle ground vote yes they are focusing exclusively on said hard cases while threatening/pretending that this is a "once in a generation opportunity" and sowing fears of would-be mothers dying otherwise; the mainstream print and broadcast media are largely on board with this disingenuous strategy.

But hey, liberal abortion was brought into the US on a lie and to the UK with the veneer of restriction, why not here.


----------



## michaelm

TheBigShort said:


> Reducing, or eliminating altogether, the concerns that prospective parents have about DS will go a long way to reducing the numbers of abortions sought on foot of a DS diagnosis.


Sounds great.  Or maybe the State will wind down DS services and numbers born with DS will fall off dramatically in a vicious circle until we hit UK and Scandinavian levels.





Sunny said:


> At least if the law is changed, they are forced to go to a GP and discuss it if they want to access terminations here.


Or not.  If the Taoiseach and the pro-repeal medics are to be believed then it won't be possible to get a definitive DS diagnosis before 12 weeks and as disability won't, apparently, be grounds for abortion those inclined to abort will have to, as the Taoiseach said, travel to England.


----------



## Sunny

michaelm said:


> Not relevant.  The point is that they could have opted for a regime to deal with the hard cases.  They made no attempt to do so and instead are pushing what is effectively an on-demand regime.  This is not about hard cases but rather a Hobson's Choice of liberal abortion or the status quo.
> 
> In order to ensure the middle ground vote yes they are focusing exclusively on said hard cases while threatening/pretending that this is a "once in a generation opportunity" and sowing fears of would-be mothers dying otherwise; the mainstream print and broadcast media are largely on board with this disingenuous strategy.
> 
> But hey, liberal abortion was brought into the US on a lie and to the UK with the veneer of restriction, why not here.



Every attempt to deal with the hard cases as you put has been met with uproar and anger from both sides of the debate. A woman dies and it turns into a debate on abortion. A child is raped and ends up pregnant and it ends up in a debate on abortion. A baby is to be born with severe foetal abnormalities with limited life timespan and it ends up with a debate on abortion. A 14 year old ends up pregnant and it ends up in a debate about abortion. Every single time. We are running out of letters in the alphabet to deal with the cases in courts. All we ever do is push the can down the road until the next hard case....


----------



## Sunny

michaelm said:


> Sounds great.  Or maybe the State will wind down DS services and numbers born with DS will fall off dramatically in a vicious circle until we hit UK and Scandinavian levels.Or not.  If the Taoiseach and the pro-repeal medics are to be believed then it won't be possible to get a definitive DS diagnosis before 12 weeks and as disability won't, apparently, be grounds for abortion those inclined to abort will have to, as the Taoiseach said, travel to England.



As you say, people are already travelling to England so again it comes down to if you believe women should be jailed or banned from travelling?? Otherwise I have no idea how you are protecting unborn children as it currently stands.

If you want to prevent people from terminating DS babies, then ban the pre-natal checks if you want so the vast majority of people will never know until they are born. Again, it is like saying all the gay people will want to adopt babies if they were allowed marry. Now it's all the DS babies will be terminated. Because again, we can't trust Irish women to continue doing exactly what they are doing at the moment.


----------



## TheBigShort

michaelm said:


> Or maybe the State will wind down DS services and numbers born with DS will fall off dramatically in a vicious circle until we hit UK and Scandinavian levels.



The State can do this with or without the Constitution.

It only goes to emphasis how far we have to go to provide the adequate and necessary supports to diminish greatly, if not eliminate altogether, the concerns (perceived and real) that prospective parents have with regard to the diagnosis of DS during a pregnancy.

The reduction of aborting DS diagnosed pregnancies will not come about via a ban on abortion, it will come about through education and real and viable supports, including social inclusivity, for DS children regardless if the option to abort is available in this country or not.


----------



## Sophrosyne

I have listened to the various debates and read through these threads and so help me I cannot make up my mind.

I have two difficulties:

On the one hand, abortion means taking the potential life of an innocent child.
I think part of my problem is that I would consider the killing of a _living _child to be particularly heinous and abhorrent, irrespective of that child's physical or mental condition or burden on its family and it is difficult not to connect that to an unborn child.

On the other hand, I could not condone putting a woman, girl or child through a pregnancy that she could not physically or mentally endure, irrespective of what "supports" might be available.

I just cannot get beyond this circular thinking.

What I do think is that I should not have to vote on this issue one way or the other as it should never have been inserted into the constitution.


----------



## michaelm

Sunny said:


> Every attempt to deal with the hard cases as you put has been met with uproar and anger from both sides of the debate. A woman dies and it turns into a debate on abortion. A child is raped and ends up pregnant and it ends up in a debate on abortion. A baby is to be born with severe foetal abnormalities with limited life timespan and it ends up with a debate on abortion. A 14 year old ends up pregnant and it ends up in a debate about abortion. Every single time. We are running out of letters in the alphabet to deal with the cases in courts. All we ever do is push the can down the road until the next hard case....


I agree with you on all of that.  Just not on how it should be addressed.





TheBigShort said:


> The reduction of aborting DS diagnosed pregnancies will not come about via a ban on abortion, it will come about through education and real and viable supports, including social inclusivity, for DS children regardless if the option to abort is available in this country or not.


Ideally.  But realistically the likelihood of increased numbers, both healthy and disabled, far outweighs the chances of a reduction.


----------



## odyssey06

Sunny said:


> As you say, people are already travelling to England so again it comes down to if you believe women should be jailed or banned from travelling?? Otherwise I have no idea how you are protecting unborn children as it currently stands.



Ireland has different legislation governing euthanasia, and access to drugs (e.g. marijuana) than other jurisdictions where such activity is legalised.
An Irish citizen may travel to these jurisdictions to engage in behaviour that is illegal in this one.
Is the legal availability of this in another jurisdiction necessarily sufficient to mean we should legalise here?
I would say no.


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> Is the legal availability of this in another jurisdiction necessarily sufficient to mean we should legalise here?
> I would say no.


In general I agree (people go to Southeast Asia to "legally" have sex with what in this country are children, that doesn't mean it should be legal here) but this is different.


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> In general I agree (people go to Southeast Asia to "legally" have sex with what in this country are children, that doesn't mean it should be legal here) but this is different.



Ireland is proposing 12 week limit, UK limit is longer, people will still be travelling to UK one way or another so how does the government propose to justify the different limits?


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> Ireland is proposing 12 week limit, UK limit is longer, people will still be travelling to UK one way or another so how does the government propose to justify the different limits?


Ireland are proposing a 24 week limit with the first 12 weeks not requiring a medical reason. In practice there will be unrestricted abortion up to 24 weeks.


----------



## TheBigShort

michaelm said:


> I agree with you on all of that.  Just not on how it should be addressed.Ideally.  But realistically the likelihood of increased numbers, both healthy and disabled, far outweighs the chances of a reduction.




Its only 'realistically' because as a society we are not willing or prepared, or have failed to provide the necessary sufficient supports and infrastructure - educational, financial, medical, psychological, etc… in place in order to address the real and or perceived concerns for those seeking to abort their pregnancies in the first place.


Regardless if that is a pregnancy that is diagnosed with a disability or not. If we want to eliminate abortion, banning it here and threatening to imprison women has failed – that much is clear. I have made one tiny suggestion that unplanned pregnancies stop being labelled as a ‘crisis’ for a start.

Another one, larger idea, is education – society at large needs to recognise that unplanned pregnancies are not problem pregnancies, and prospective parents need to be assured that a minimum standard of living, access to educational and employment opportunities will not be adversely impacted.


It’s a tall order, no doubt, and in many respects the State does provide some supports. But it would appear, those supports are inefficient.

The idealism of “cherishing all of the children equally” needs practical and realistic measures, the absence of which creates a demand for abortion in the first place.

I also consider banning something we don’t like the lazy way of trying to resolve the issues we face. In the absence of practical and realistic measures to deal with issues surrounding the demand for abortion in the first instance, then the State should not impose one option over another on any citizen.


----------



## Andarma

Purple said:


> Ireland are proposing a 24 week limit with the first 12 weeks not requiring a medical reason. *In practice there will be unrestricted abortion up to 24 weeks*.



How have you come to that conclusion? The heads of the Bill do not provide for unrestricted abortion beyond 12 weeks: https://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/General-Scheme-for-Publication.pdf   Heads 4 and 7 are of particular relevance. What is provided for after 12 weeks is similar to the provisions of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, which has certainly not led to unrestricted abortion up to 24 weeks.


----------



## Purple

Andarma said:


> How have you come to that conclusion? The heads of the Bill do not provide for unrestricted abortion beyond 12 weeks: https://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/General-Scheme-for-Publication.pdf   Heads 4 and 7 are of particular relevance. What is provided for after 12 weeks is similar to the provisions of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, which has certainly not led to unrestricted abortion up to 24 weeks.


I am looking at how similar this is to the legislation in England and Wales and assuming we'll end up in the same place.

I think what is being proposed is far from ideal but it is better than what we have now.


----------



## Andarma

Can you post a link to the legislation in England and Wales?


----------



## Purple

Andarma said:


> Can you post a link to the legislation in England and Wales?


This gives a good overview


----------



## Purple

On a side note I find it ironic that a major chain of abortion clinics in the UK are named after Marie Stopes, a woman who supported Eugenics but opposed abortion.


----------



## orka

Purple said:


> I am looking at how similar this is to the legislation in England and Wales and assuming we'll end up in the same place.
> 
> I think what is being proposed is far from ideal but it is better than what we have now.


I think a big difference vs the UK is that the proposed wording (Head 4) is that the risk must be one of serious harm to the health of the pregnant woman - whereas the UK just has 'risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman'.  Risk of serious harm is a much greater hurdle than 'more risk than if the pregnancy were terminated'.

Another reason we can be expected to end up with lower abortion rates than the UK is attitudes generally to abortion.  Ireland IS different.  The 30/35/40% no-vote demographic will never consider abortion.  The 'totally against abortion in all circumstances' percentage in the UK seems to be sub-10%.  So just as a starting point, our rates should always be at least a third lower. 
Stricter legislation (above) and further differences in attitudes to abortion (the yes voters who wouldn't have abortions themselves but don't feel they should impose their views on others in difficult circumstances) will make these rates lower again.  Probably all the way down to where they are today (possibly lower) - but with Irish women cared for in Ireland rather than exported as a problem.


----------



## Purple

orka said:


> Risk of serious harm


"Risk of serious harm"... unless that's defined in law it is totally up to the interpretation of the doctor(s) involved and it therefore subjective.
I've has a seriously ingrown toenail before...


----------



## Purple

orka said:


> Another reason we can be expected to end up with lower abortion rates than the UK is attitudes generally to abortion. Ireland IS different. The 30/35/40% no-vote demographic will never consider abortion. The 'totally against abortion in all circumstances' percentage in the UK seems to be sub-10%. So just as a starting point, our rates should always be at least a third lower.
> Stricter legislation (above) and further differences in attitudes to abortion (the yes voters who wouldn't have abortions themselves but don't feel they should impose their views on others in difficult circumstances) will make these rates lower again. Probably all the way down to where they are today (possibly lower) - but with Irish women cared for in Ireland rather than exported as a problem.


I think that's very unlikely but that's not the point of the referendum. 

For me the issues are;
Should we have this in our constitution? (For me that's a no)
Should we ignore it as we do now?(That's a no for me as well)
Should we legislate for abortion? (Yes, I think we should)

The rest comes after that; 
What should that legislation look like? (I'd like to see it available up to 12 weeks with proper restrictions beyond that)
Is this just about a woman's bodily autonomy? (I don't think so as there are two bodies involved)


----------



## dereko1969

Sophrosyne said:


> I have listened to the various debates and read through these threads and so help me I cannot make up my mind.
> 
> I have two difficulties:
> 
> On the one hand, abortion means taking the potential life of an innocent child.
> I think part of my problem is that I would consider the killing of a _living _child to be particularly heinous and abhorrent, irrespective of that child's physical or mental condition or burden on its family and it is difficult not to connect that to an unborn child.
> 
> On the other hand, I could not condone putting a woman, girl or child through a pregnancy that she could not physically or mentally endure, irrespective of what "supports" might be available.
> 
> I just cannot get beyond this circular thinking.
> 
> What I do think is that I should not have to vote on this issue one way or the other as it should never have been inserted into the constitution.



I think the way to view it is that the abortion is likely to take place anyway, just not in this country or not safely in this country (via XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ordered online and taken without medical supervision), so would you rather export the abortion or have it take place safely in this country with family and medical support available?


----------



## dereko1969

Purple said:


> I think that's very unlikely but that's not the point of the referendum.
> 
> For me the issues are;
> Should we have this in our constitution? (For me that's a no)
> Should we ignore it as we do now?(That's a no for me as well)
> Should we legislate for abortion? (Yes, I think we should)
> 
> The rest comes after that;
> What should that legislation look like? (I'd like to see it available up to 12 weeks with *proper restrictions beyond that*)
> Is this just about a woman's bodily autonomy? (I don't think so as there are two bodies involved)



What proper restrictions apart from the ones listed earlier that are included in the Heads of the bill would you like to see?


----------



## Andarma

orka said:


> I think a big difference vs the UK is that the proposed wording (Head 4) is that the risk must be one of serious harm to the health of the pregnant woman - whereas the UK just has 'risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman'.  Risk of serious harm is a much greater hurdle than 'more risk than if the pregnancy were terminated'.
> 
> Another reason we can be expected to end up with lower abortion rates than the UK is attitudes generally to abortion.  Ireland IS different.  The 30/35/40% no-vote demographic will never consider abortion.  The 'totally against abortion in all circumstances' percentage in the UK seems to be sub-10%.  So just as a starting point, our rates should always be at least a third lower.
> Stricter legislation (above) and further differences in attitudes to abortion (the yes voters who wouldn't have abortions themselves but don't feel they should impose their views on others in difficult circumstances) will make these rates lower again.  Probably all the way down to where they are today (possibly lower) - but with Irish women cared for in Ireland rather than exported as a problem.



Another difference is that the risk of injury to physical or mental health in the UK legislation extends to 'any existing children of her family'.



Purple said:


> I think that's very unlikely but that's not the point of the referendum.
> 
> For me the issues are;
> Should we have this in our constitution? (For me that's a no)
> Should we ignore it as we do now?(That's a no for me as well)
> Should we legislate for abortion? (Yes, I think we should)
> 
> The rest comes after that;
> What should that legislation look like? (I'd like to see it available up to 12 weeks with proper restrictions beyond that)
> *Is this just about a woman's bodily autonomy? (I don't think so as there are two bodies involved*)



The 8th amendment puts those two bodies on an equal footing, which is completely wrong IMO.


----------



## Purple

dereko1969 said:


> What proper restrictions apart from the ones listed earlier that are included in the Heads of the bill would you like to see?


I'm not a lawyer so I can't give you wording but it look to be totally subjective at the moment. Some clearer definitions and/or descriptions would be good.


----------



## dereko1969

michaelm said:


> Not relevant.  The point is that they could have opted for a regime to deal with the hard cases.  They made no attempt to do so and instead are pushing what is effectively an on-demand regime.  This is not about hard cases but rather a Hobson's Choice of liberal abortion or the status quo.
> 
> In order to ensure the middle ground vote yes they are focusing exclusively on said hard cases while threatening/pretending that this is a "once in a generation opportunity" and sowing fears of would-be mothers dying otherwise; the mainstream print and broadcast media are largely on board with this disingenuous strategy.
> 
> But hey, liberal abortion was brought into the US on a lie and to the UK with the veneer of restriction, why not here.



You, and your friends in the No campaign, have singularly failed to ever provide an example of how the Hard cases can be addressed without repealing the 8th. You're using this as a wedge issue when the No campaign (and I presume you) opposed the PLAC Act which addressed the judgement in the X case, why was that opposed and now it's suddenly something to be looked at in the fullness of time when the PLAC Act took decades to be brought in?


----------



## orka

Purple said:


> "Risk of serious harm"... unless that's defined in law it is totally up to the interpretation of the doctor(s) involved and it therefore subjective.
> I've has a seriously ingrown toenail before...


And that was a serious issue for your toe I'm sure but I doubt it was a serious risk to your health...


Purple said:


> For me the issues are;
> Should we have this in our constitution? (For me that's a no)
> Should we ignore it as we do now?(That's a no for me as well)
> Should we legislate for abortion? (Yes, I think we should)
> 
> The rest comes after that;
> What should that legislation look like? (I'd like to see it available up to 12 weeks with proper restrictions beyond that)
> Is this just about a woman's bodily autonomy? (I don't think so as there are two bodies involved)


I generally agree with what you've said here (not sure on the bodily autonomy).  I would be okay with availability to about 14 weeks but very strict conditions after that.  If the pregnancy is not too advanced (less than 10 weeks maybe), I would also like the waiting period increased from 3 days to maybe 5 days or a week.  I think time, talking and some perspective once initial panic has passed might mean different decisions are taken.  Sitting alone in a panic waiting for the abortion XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX to arrive in the post doesn't encourage rational thinking.


----------



## dereko1969

Purple said:


> I'm not a lawyer so I can't give you wording but it look to be totally subjective at the moment. Some clearer definitions and/or descriptions would be good.


How can it be objective though? It's going to rely on the opinion of Doctors.


----------



## Purple

orka said:


> And that was a serious issue for your toe I'm sure but I doubt it was a serious risk to your health...


 Of course it was; if I have an ingrown toenail I am not healthy. 



dereko1969 said:


> How can it be objective though? It's going to rely on the opinion of Doctors.


 That opinion should be formed against specific criteria. At the moment it will be formed based on criteria frames in terms of vague non-medical language.


----------



## orka

Purple said:


> That opinion should be formed against specific criteria. At the moment it will be formed based on criteria frames in terms of vague non-medical language.


But it will always be the subjective opinion of doctors.  Objectivity can only measure what HAS happened (e.g. has lung function deteriorated below xyz level) but in these situations, the doctors are trying to prevent bad things happening to the woman's health - and that will always be 'in my opinion, this is likely to happen if this pregnancy continues'.  Do you want doctors to be forced to wait until actual objectively-measured harm has occurred?

Not matter what specific criteria you try to legislate for, there will always be exceptions.  I think getting two doctors including one obstetrician to agree that there is risk of serious harm to the health is sufficient.  Not 'serious risk of harm to health' but 'risk of serious harm to health'.  They will have to document what this serious harm is and why they think it may occur if the pregnancy continues.  That's quite a hurdle - significantly higher than the UK's requirements.


----------



## cremeegg

Sophrosyne said:


> I have listened to the various debates and read through these threads and so help me I cannot make up my mind.
> 
> I have two difficulties:
> 
> On the one hand, abortion means taking the potential life of an innocent child.
> I think part of my problem is that I would consider the killing of a _living _child to be particularly heinous and abhorrent, irrespective of that child's physical or mental condition or burden on its family and it is difficult not to connect that to an unborn child.
> 
> On the other hand, I could not condone putting a woman, girl or child through a pregnancy that she could not physically or mentally endure, irrespective of what "supports" might be available.
> 
> I just cannot get beyond this circular thinking.
> 
> What I do think is that I should not have to vote on this issue one way or the other as it should never have been inserted into the constitution.



I was very much agreeing with this post until the last sentence. I certainly think that as a society we should have our best effort to resolve the two difficulties you mention in writing to frame legislation.

The task in front of us on Friday is to support or oppose the changing of the constitution to allow the Oireachtas complete freedom to legislate for abortion, without reference to the people. With an indication from the Government how they propose to legislate.

Credit to the political class they have put this issue before the people, and fostered a deep debate throughout Irish society. Now we must vote, no matter how much we would like to avoid the whole thing or how difficult we think it is to decide.


----------



## Purple

cremeegg said:


> The task in front of us on Friday is to support or oppose the changing of the constitution to allow the Oireachtas complete freedom to legislate for abortion, without reference to the people.


But they are the people; this is a representative democracy. That's the whole point of having a representative Parliament!


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, so greater efforts and supports, primarily through social inclusion, need to be made to reduce the numbers wanting an abortion because of Downs Syndrome.
> 
> For instance, when I was a child, Downs Syndrome children were sent to a separate institution with other disabled children. Nowadays, downs syndrome kids are taught in mainstream schools – at least for the early part of their education. This may go some way to instill better understanding and more empathy about Downs Syndrome (and other disabilities) in my childs generation, that should they face that dilemma of having a child diagnosed with DS that they would feel less inclined to abort that otherwise would have been the case.
> 
> Other socially inclusive activities from big picture events like the Special Olympics to more local supports such as employment opportunities, sporting and cultural opportunities etc, all go toward ending the perception that a DS child will be any more a greater burden that a child without DS.
> 
> Reducing, or eliminating altogether, the concerns that prospective parents have about DS will go a long way to reducing the numbers of abortions sought on foot of a DS diagnosis.
> 
> Banning abortion does not resolve the issue of so many abortions sought on foot a DS diagnosis.


While I agree with the sentiment I'm not a fan of "big" government; there's only so much the State can do to socially engineer society before hitting serious diminishing marginal returns.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> While I agree with the sentiment I'm not a fan of "big" government; there's only so much the State can do to socially engineer society before hitting serious diminishing marginal returns.



I agree, the State cannot provide for every situation and emotion in this instance. But it can provide the platform(s) for identifying the issues that are at the heart of the demand for abortion and tackling those issues through increased awareness, funding, education, medical supports and overall societal attitudes to unplanned pregnancy and/or pregnancies diagnosed with disability.


----------



## cremeegg

Purple said:


> But they are the people; this is a representative democracy. That's the whole point of having a representative Parliament!



Ireland has a hybrid system. A representative element through the Oireachtas, and a direct element through the requirement for a referendum to amend the constitution. You may think that some other system would serve us better, but that is the system which we have at present, and which has given us this referendum.

Personally I think the hybrid we have suits us very well. We have over the years, discussed and voted on, among other things the position of the catholic church, divorce, our position in Europe, gay marriage, and now (again) abortion, in our society in a way that few other countries manage.


----------



## michaelm

dereko1969 said:


> You, and your friends in the No campaign, have singularly failed to ever provide an example of how the Hard cases can be addressed without repealing the 8th.


Yeah, me and my anti-repeal anti-choice friends in LoveBoats .

Gay Mitchell's article in yesterday's Indo had a tilt at it . .

"If the proposed constitutional amendment on abortion was something like _'in exceptional circumstances, and by proportionate means as provided by law, provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancies'_, the stated objective of the Taoiseach to have limited abortion available could be achieved, and the middle-ground would likely find this a better option.  It seems highly improbable that a law governing the valid health needs of the mother, or one dealing with rape, or pregnancies where the overwhelming medical evidence is that a baby will not survive outside the womb, would be struck down by the courts, should "exceptional and proportionate" be the measure.

I was campaign manager for five EU referendums. Two of these were lost and were put to the people a second time and carried, when the real concerns of people were addressed. Current proposals should be rejected. If they are, more balanced proposals will, in time, emerge. The wording set out above could provide that balance."


----------



## Sunny

michaelm said:


> "If the proposed constitutional amendment on abortion was something like _'in exceptional circumstances, and by proportionate means as provided by law, provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancies'_, the stated objective of the Taoiseach to have limited abortion available could be achieved, and the middle-ground would likely find this a better option.  It seems highly improbable that a law governing the valid health needs of the mother, or one dealing with rape, or pregnancies where the overwhelming medical evidence is that a baby will not survive outside the womb, *would be struck down by the courts*, should "exceptional and proportionate" be the measure.



Yes because asking a woman just being told that their child will not survive outside the womb or will be have severe abnormalities that leave no chance of survival that they will have to go in front of a judge and explain why they don't want to carry on the pregnancy and ask for permission to terminate is not cruel at all. Just so they and numerous legal professionals can argue what _'in exceptional circumstances, and by proportionate means as provided by law, provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancies' _actually means. In the meantime, pro-life campaigners will be outside the court with their banners. Right to choose people will be shouting their two pence worth. In the meantime, a family just being told the worst news imaginable are caught up in other peoples agenda. Thanks but I will just hop on the plane to England. Oh wait, that's what some people want....

And yes, I know this is a 'Hard Case' and does not reflect the majority. However I know two families who faced that situation. One family went to the UK and the other didn't. Neither were right. Neither were wrong. Both have regrets what they did. Both don't regret what they did. It's not black. It's not white. It's not even grey. All I know the constitution wording at the moment achieves nothing. It doesn't save babies. It doesn't help women. It doesn't help anyone. This whole debate can start again when legislation is published if this referendum is passed and the lobby groups can put pressure on TD's and the whole thing will start again


----------



## cremeegg

Sunny said:


> This whole debate can start again when legislation is published if this referendum is passed and the lobby groups can put pressure on TD's and the whole thing will start again



In my opinion if the referendum is passed, legislation will be introduced and the whole issued will largely disappear from the public agenda. Those who will remain opposed to abortion will not be able to overcome the general feeling that the issue has been resolved.

If the referendum is not passed, the issue will remain on the public agenda, we can expect to see a rerun in some form or other within a few years.


----------



## Sunny

cremeegg said:


> In my opinion if the referendum is passed, legislation will be introduced and the whole issued will largely disappear from the public agenda. Those who will remain opposed to abortion will not be able to overcome the general feeling that the issue has been resolved.
> 
> If the referendum is not passed, the issue will remain on the public agenda, we can expect to see a rerun in some form or other within a few years.



It won't. The legislation still has to pass even if the referendum passes. Every TD in the country will come under local pressure. The party whips will be out but there will be political casualties. I can guarantee that the published legislation will not be the final legislation. If the referendum fails to carry, there will not be another referendum for very long time. There is no political gain in revisiting it.


----------



## michaelm

Sunny said:


> Yes because asking a woman just being told that their child will not survive outside the womb or will be have severe abnormalities that leave no chance of survival that they will have to go in front of a judge and explain why they don't want to carry on the pregnancy and ask for permission to terminate is not cruel at all.


Assuming you don't understand the point rather than it doesn't suit your argument . . a constitutional amendment such as the one suggested by Mitchell would easily pass and would enable the Oireachtas to legislate for termination is hard cases.  No need for anyone to be in front of a judge.  Indeed, such a law could be made impervious to challenge were the Council of State to rubber-stamp it.


----------



## Leo

michaelm said:


> a constitutional amendment such as the one suggested by Mitchell would easily pass



I wouldn't see that as easy. I'd imagine a lot of Yes supporters would vote that down as unacceptable, and even some No voters would object.


----------



## michaelm

Maybe you're right Leo.  I suppose the 2002 referendum was rejected as both pro-life and pro-choice voted it down.  Still I think the majority of people are in the middle rather than hard yes or hard no, and I think this middle would happily carry a pragmatic compromise where hard cases could be addressed without introducing a liberal regime.


----------



## orka

michaelm said:


> Gay Mitchell's article in yesterday's Indo had a tilt at it . .
> 
> "If the proposed constitutional amendment on abortion was something like _'in exceptional circumstances, and by proportionate means as provided by law, provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancies'_, the stated objective of the Taoiseach to have limited abortion available could be achieved, and the middle-ground would likely find this a better option.  It seems highly improbable that a law governing the valid health needs of the mother, or one dealing with rape, or pregnancies where the overwhelming medical evidence is that a baby will not survive outside the womb, would be struck down by the courts, should "exceptional and proportionate" be the measure.


I don't see how 'exceptional and proportionate' could be applied to rape/incest in a way that would be acceptable to both 'sides'.  Abortions are best done as early as possible so time will be critical.  Would all self-declared rapes be exceptional circumstances? 

And if the courts are to be avoided, there will need to be clear guidelines on exceptional circumstances - if the current no camp doesn't think doctors can be trusted with signing off on 'serious harm', can they be trusted with 'exceptional'?  I just don't see it as any more or less workable than the current proposal.  It still comes down to trusting potentially flawed/vested-interest 'people' - and I don't see the no camp ever going along with that. 

This comes down to trust.  And I trust that under the current proposals, when it says serious harm, the two doctors will only sign off on what would be generally agreed by a reasonable independent person as truly serious harm and not nudge-nudge, wink-wink serious harm.


----------



## Sunny

michaelm said:


> Assuming you don't understand the point rather than it doesn't suit your argument . . a constitutional amendment such as the one suggested by Mitchell would easily pass and would enable the Oireachtas to legislate for termination is hard cases.  No need for anyone to be in front of a judge.  Indeed, such a law could be made impervious to challenge were the Council of State to rubber-stamp it.



Really?? So the Oireacthas has to legislate for EVERY single example of ‘hard cases’. Define your legal definition of ‘hard case’ for me? Define what exactly is legally meant by ‘exceptional circumstances’. Give me your legal definition of what proportionate means are? Legally define what exactly that amendment means in reality and I will vote no if you can show it removes uncertainty and helps all parties involved. Now’s your chance to a make a 1 vote difference in this referendum.


----------



## Sunny

michaelm said:


> Maybe you're right Leo.  I suppose the 2002 referendum was rejected as both pro-life and pro-choice voted it down.  Still I think the majority of people are in the middle rather than hard yes or hard no, and I think this middle would happily carry a pragmatic compromise where hard cases could be addressed without introducing a liberal regime.



And by the way, you stated you were campaign manager on 5 EU referendums. If you professionally employed on either side of this referendum, you should declare it because you are not just expressing views.


----------



## odyssey06

Sunny said:


> And by the way, you stated you were campaign manager on 5 EU referendums. If you professionally employed on either side of this referendum, you should declare it because you are not just expressing views.



At first I thought that but I think that was actually an excerpt from an article by Gay Mitchell...


----------



## joe sod

Why do we in ireland have so many referendums on social issues and spend so much time ruminating over them. I mean I switch on the Joe duffy show and every day for weeks the whole show has been taken up with this referendum, its just too much. I know abortion is an important issue but really we spend way too much time on this stuff. The biggest thing to happen ireland in the last 40 years was the financial collapse  nearly a decade ago, yet there was virtually no discussion about what was happening in the media in the years before hand, there were many warning signs by many people . I doubt other countries would spend so much time on these issues to the detriment of other important issues that also need attention


----------



## Leper

Well Joe Sod, Ireland is a democracy. The people decide on important issues. We elect politicians to run the country. And every politician worth his salt will inform you that the electorate is fickle and any elected representative can lose his/her job quite easily. Certainly, I don't want to dictate as to whom should or who should not have  abortion available. Hence we have referenda. The people will decide. The alternatives to Democracy are unthinkable, even for us in Ireland.


----------



## odyssey06

joe sod said:


> Why do we in ireland have so many referendums on social issues and spend so much time ruminating over them. I mean I switch on the Joe duffy show and every day for weeks the whole show has been taken up with this referendum, its just too much. I know abortion is an important issue but really we spend way too much time on this stuff. The biggest thing to happen ireland in the last 40 years was the financial collapse  nearly a decade ago, yet there was virtually no discussion about what was happening in the media in the years before hand, there were many warning signs by many people . I doubt other countries would spend so much time on these issues to the detriment of other important issues that also need attention



Obviously this is being put to the vote because of the constitutional aspect. I would assume that politicians would prefer not to consult the hoi polloi.
The cynic in me would also be of the opinion that even without these constitutional questions, the politicians, regulators and media would have had their heads in the sands (golf course bunkers) in the run up to the financial collapse.


----------



## michaelm

Sunny said:


> And by the way, you stated you were campaign manager on 5 EU referendums. If you professionally employed on either side of this referendum, you should declare it because you are not just expressing views.





odyssey06 said:


> At first I thought that but I think that was actually an excerpt from an article by Gay Mitchell...


Sorry, I thought that was clearer.  An excerpt from Gay Mitchell's Indo article.  He argues that a different amendment could have been fashioned - and he gives an example - to allow the Oireachtas to legislate for hard cases.  He suggests that the people reject this extreme proposal and that a more balanced proposal can be put in the future, as has happened before.  For clarity, I'm not part or any campaign or political grouping.  I'm not interested in your vote Sunny; I imagine you'll vote with your conscience, as will I.


----------



## Sunny

odyssey06 said:


> At first I thought that but I think that was actually an excerpt from an article by Gay Mitchell...



Ooops. So it is. That's what I get for not reading correctly. Apologies @michaelm


----------



## Sunny

michaelm said:


> Sorry, I thought that was clearer.  An excerpt from Gay Mitchell's Indo article.  He argues that a different amendment could have been fashioned - and he gives an example - to allow the Oireachtas to legislate for hard cases.  He suggests that the people reject this extreme proposal and that a more balanced proposal can be put in the future, as has happened before.  For clarity, I'm not part or any campaign or political grouping.  I'm not interested in your vote Sunny; I imagine you'll vote with your conscience, as will I.



Exactly. It is a vote with your conscience. So it has nothing to do with constitutional rights. It has nothing to do with hard cases. It has nothing to do with legislation. It has nothing to do with anything but how you feel about abortion. That's fine. Perfectly valid and understandable. But stop making arguments that a different wording to the amendment would mean you might vote otherwise. You wouldn't. You would still vote no just like you were probably against the protection of life in pregnancy bill. Suddenly now though, you are all for amendments proposed by Gay Mitchell.

As for not being interested in my vote, how can someone so passionate about the rights of the unborn not be interested in a potential vote. I will vote yes but if you could give me legal clarity about what you propose, then I would consider it. I know you won't believe that but it's true. I have reservations about abortion as well.

As an aside, got off the train this morning at Connolly station to be met by people handing out leaflets from both sides. The guy from the No side was a young guy saying 'vote no to stop the slaughter of innocent babies' to everyone walking by including people with children. The people from the yes side right beside them were saying absolutely nothing. I think even if I was inclined to vote No, I would have switched just because of that one person.......


----------



## odyssey06

Sunny said:


> The people from the yes side right beside them were saying absolutely nothing. I think even if I was inclined to vote No, I would have switched just because of that one person.......



The Show Compassion Vote Yes slogans have the same effect on me... I have very little respect for people who polarise a debate by pitching it as virtue only possible on one side.


----------



## Sunny

odyssey06 said:


> The Show Compassion Vote Yes slogans have the same effect on me... I have very little respect for people who polarise a debate by pitching it as virtue only possible on one side.



I agree there are problems on both sides. Amnesty were caught lying when campaigning for a yes. Was just talking about this morning. There was no need for him to be saying anything. The yes side were silent. He could have just handed out leaflets. Using emotive language like slaughtering innocent babies annoys me as well...Just makes a mockery of the whole discussion that has actually being more much civilised than I thought it would be.


----------



## michaelm

Sunny said:


> But stop making arguments that a different wording to the amendment would mean you might vote otherwise. You wouldn't. You would still vote no just like you were probably against the protection of life in pregnancy bill.


You don't know me.  While I'm vehemently pro-life I'm also a pragmatist and a realist.  I would vote for abortion in hard cases over a liberal abortion regime as fewer unborn children would be aborted.  I would find that conscionable.  But I would then argue that the abortion option was a poor one and that better options should be supported and promoted.  The problem with Protection of Life in Pregnancy act is that it provides for abortion on suicidal ideation when abortion is not appropriate for such.





> Suddenly now though, you are all for amendments proposed by Gay Mitchell.


It looks like Yes is easily over the line.  It seems the middle-ground - who will decide this - have been persuaded that this is really just about hard cases and is otherwise restrictive.  The last hope for the No side is to appeal to the middle-ground that this is actually extreme and a step to far, that politicians can do better and that women and unborn children deserve better.  I think that's a reasonable argument.


----------



## michaelm

Sunny said:


> I agree there are problems on both sides.


Surely that is to be expected, particularly in a referendum as momentous as this.  There will be people on both sides whose enthusiasm will get the better of them.  That a brash comment might prompt you to reverse your vote seems a tad fickle.  Surely people need to filter the noise, distill what is actually being proposed, and vote according to what they think is right.


----------



## Ceist Beag

michaelm said:


> It looks like Yes is easily over the line. It seems the middle-ground - who will decide this - have been persuaded that this is really just about hard cases and is otherwise restrictive. The last hope for the No side is to appeal to the middle-ground that this is actually extreme and a step to far, that politicians can do better and that women and unborn children deserve better. I think that's a reasonable argument.


I think it is a reasonable argument also Michael but having heard all the arguments in the past week I have come down on the side that it would be better to vote Yes. I don't agree that those in the middle have been persuaded that this is really just about hard cases and is otherwise restrictive. I am well aware that a Yes vote will mean the introduction of a situation very comparable with most other European countries - for me it has never been just about hard cases and as I stated before on this thread I would be against abortion in principle. However I have been persuaded in that regard by the arguments that a) abortion is already here and for various reasons would be better suited if handled by the medical profession in this country and b) there is no hard evidence that legalising abortion in a country leads to more abortions in that country (in fact the evidence in Portugal seems to suggest the opposite due to more effort being made on preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place).
I would like to compliment the posters on this thread for what, in the main, has been a very respectful and mature debate on the subject. It has helped me come to my decision more than many of the debates on tv if I'm honest.


----------



## Purple

I was just thinking that religion and diatribe have been absent from this thread and that has made it far more informative than most of the debates on TV and radio. RTE in particular have been very weak in veiling their strong pro-repeal stance and it has turned me off watching and listening to their coverage.


----------



## cremeegg

michaelm said:


> this is actually extreme and a step too far, politicians can do better and that women and unborn children deserve better.  I think that's a reasonable argument.



+1


----------



## cremeegg

Ceist Beag said:


> there is no hard evidence that legalising abortion in a country leads to more abortions in that country (in fact the evidence in Portugal seems to suggest the opposite due to more effort being made on preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place).



This is an interesting point. I am concerned that abortion will become normalised if the amendment passes, and while I see the need for abortion in certain cases, I would hate to see it becoming just a normal choice. With the number of abortions in the UK being approx 25% the number of live births, and something similar in France, it seems to me that abortion has been normalised in those countries.

Have you more info on the Portuguese  experience.


----------



## Sunny

michaelm said:


> It seems the middle-ground - who will decide this - have been persuaded that this is really just about hard cases and is otherwise restrictive.  The last hope for the No side is to appeal to the middle-ground that this is actually extreme and a step to far, that politicians can do better and that women and unborn children deserve better.  I think that's a reasonable argument.



It's perfectly reasonable expect we had over 30 years to come up with something more reasonable. Every time something was suggested it was met with a huge campaign against with fear arguments about the flood gates opening. Right to travel would open the floodgates. Didn't happen. Right to information would lead to abortion information booths and advertising all over the place. Didn't happen. I remember the protection of life during pregnancy bill and the argument being made that women all over the country would be running to the doctor claiming they were suicidal so they could have an abortion. That also didn't happen.


----------



## michaelm

cremeegg said:


> Have you more info on the Portuguese experience.


No doubt others will have more detailed information but from what I can gather Portugal legalised abortion in 2007, and after an initial spike in the numbers aborted (which coincided with the economic crash) the figure has dropped back . . they have 1 abortion for around every 5 live births.





Sunny said:


> Every time something was suggested it was met with a huge campaign against with fear arguments about the flood gates opening . . Didn't happen.


The 8th is the floodgate.  It has been under sustained pressure for many years.  With a Yes it is swept away.  Hopefully our self-proclaimed pro-life friends Harris and Varadkar will be held to all their assurances that this will be a restrictive regime not at all like the UK experience.  Abortion has been legal in England for over 50 years, it takes time for it to be normalised and an excepted part of the culture.  We won't get to UK rates overnight.


----------



## odyssey06

http://www.thejournal.ie/leo-varadkar-employers-vote-4030144-May2018/

"Has urged employers to be flexible with their staff on Friday in order to allow people to get home to vote."

Why didn't you hold the vote on a Saturday??? Instead he acts as if he had nothingto do with it and outsources the solution to a problem he could have fixed to somebody else!


----------



## Sunny

odyssey06 said:


> http://www.thejournal.ie/leo-varadkar-employers-vote-4030144-May2018/
> 
> "Has urged employers to be flexible with their staff on Friday in order to allow people to get home to vote."
> 
> Why didn't you hold the vote on a Saturday??? Instead he acts as if he had nothingto do with it and outsources the solution to a problem he could have fixed to somebody else!



Because the teachers wouldn't get a day off?? Stand by for off topic discussion about public sector pay and conditions.....


----------



## Ceist Beag

cremeegg said:


> This is an interesting point. I am concerned that abortion will become normalised if the amendment passes, and while I see the need for abortion in certain cases, I would hate to see it becoming just a normal choice. With the number of abortions in the UK being approx 25% the number of live births, and something similar in France, it seems to me that abortion has been normalised in those countries.
> 
> Have you more info on the Portuguese  experience.


I based my comment on the piece from Katie Hannon on Prime Time last week - see https://www.rte.ie/news/video/2018/0518/964306-abortion-legislation/. The rates since it was legalised is available at http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-portugal.html. 
The figure mentioned prior to legalisation is approximately 20,000 per year so if true, would mean a reduction in rates since it was legalised.


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> Because the teachers wouldn't get a day off?? Stand by for off topic discussion about public sector pay and conditions.....


Poling Stations are open 7am to 10pm. There's no reason why people can't get to one if they want and no reason why anyone would need time off work.


----------



## michaelm

Ceist Beag said:


> The figure mentioned prior to legalisation is approximately 20,000 per year so if true, would mean a reduction in rates since it was legalised.


Portugal legalised hard case abortion in the 80s.  Numbers were low.  Others traveled to Spain for abortion or had illegal abortion in Portugal.  Katie prefaces the 20k figure by saying "it's impossible to verity but studies suggest . ."   I'm not sure how heavily that can be leaned on but it suits RTE's narrative. In 2007 they brought in a 10/12 week, wait 3 days, plus various grounds to 24 weeks regime . . similar to what we propose.  Numbers climbed to over 20,000 during the economic crash and have fallen back to 16,000 in recent years.  Methinks it would be a stretch to think that legalising abortion leads to fewer abortions.


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> Methinks it would be a stretch to think that legalising abortion leads to fewer abortions.


Yes, it's nonsense to suggest it.


----------



## cremeegg

michaelm said:


> Methinks it would be a stretch to think that legalising abortion leads to fewer abortions.



That is not the aspect of the Portuguese experience that I was curious about. 

My concern is that if the referendum is passed abortion will be normalised. The UK and French statistics seem to show that the number of abortions is about 25% the number of births. I wondered if the figure in Portugal show a different story.


----------



## cremeegg

Ceist Beag said:


> The rates since it was legalised is available at http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-portugal.html.



This gives the number of abortions in Portugal in 2015 as 18.5% the number of live births (20% in 2011), less than the UK or France, but still not exactly rare.

It seems to me that if the referendum is passed the number of abortions in Ireland is unlikely to be significantly less than this 18% to 25% region.

in 2015 there were 65,536 live births in Ireland and 3,751 abortions in the UK and the Netherlands carried out on women giving Irish addresses. That is 5.7%

While one can get too caught up in numbers it seems to me reasonable to suggest that the number of abortions performed on Irish women will increase threefold if the referendum is carried.


----------



## orka

You would need to add abortion-pill abortions to get the true current rate in Ireland.  Plus some more for those not giving Irish addresses for fear of disclosure.

I do think there are differences between Ireland and other countries.  The current 30/35/40% no-vote demographic will never consider abortion. The 'totally against abortion in all circumstances' percentage in the UK seems to be sub-10%. So just as a starting point, our rates should always be at least a third lower.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

cremeegg said:


> in 2015 there were 65,536 live births in Ireland and 3,751 abortions in the UK and the Netherlands carried out on women giving Irish addresses. That is 5.7%
> 
> While one can get too caught up in numbers it seems to me reasonable to suggest that the number of abortions performed on Irish women will increase threefold if the referendum is carried.


It’s sobering to think that c. 10,000 births p.a. in Ireland are of unwanted children.  Such misery for child and parents alike.


----------



## cremeegg

Duke of Marmalade said:


> It’s sobering to think that c. 10,000 births p.a. in Ireland are of unwanted children.  Such misery for child and parents alike.



Sobering indeed. Its Tuam babies, magdalen laundries, etc. for modern times.


----------



## Purple

Duke of Marmalade said:


> It’s sobering to think that c. 10,000 births p.a. in Ireland are of unwanted children. Such misery for child and parents alike.





cremeegg said:


> Sobering indeed. Its Tuam babies, magdalen laundries, etc. for modern times.


Yes, much better to kill them than put them up for adoption because, like, nothing has changes in this country in the last 50 years.


----------



## Ceist Beag

cremeegg said:


> in 2015 there were 65,536 live births in Ireland and 3,751 abortions in the UK and the Netherlands carried out on women giving Irish addresses. That is 5.7%


As orka said, this figure of 3,751 is not a true figure. There will be many others who did not give an Irish address and also those who used abortion XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (which is conservatively put at 1,000 per year but may well be higher than this). So the real number is probably closer to 10%. Therefore I would suggest that it unreasonable to suggest that the number of abortions would increase threefold. I would concede that it does seem reasonable that it will increase, certainly in the immediate years, but it's very hard to know what it will be in say 10 years time, which is where the Portugese experience is of some relevance.


----------



## Purple

I friend who is voting no asked how many of the people voting yes would not be alive to vote if others had voted yes in a similar 30 years ago.


----------



## Sunny

Purple said:


> I friend who is voting no asked how many of the people voting yes would not be alive to vote if others had voted yes in a similar 30 years ago.



That's no different to saying how many would be alive if we had aborted half the dictators in the world i.e. pointless. Or what if that guy who killed the poor girl at the weekend was one of those unwanted children but the parents had to have him...Now an innocent young girl is dead because of the 8th Amendment.... Hardly a reason to vote Yes or No.


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> That's no different to saying how many would be alive if we had aborted half the dictators in the world i.e. pointless. Or what if that guy who killed the poor girl at the weekend was one of those unwanted children but the parents had to have him...Now an innocent young girl is dead because of the 8th Amendment.... Hardly a reason to vote Yes or No.


Ah no, it is different. It's still not a reason to vote Yes or No but it does show the real seriousness of the vote we are casting.


----------



## zxcvbnm

In my view in practice there will be abortion on demand up to 24 weeks. The only question is will it be abused or not.

For example - someone can go into a doctor after,say, 20 weeks and say their mental and physical health is fine today - but they believe that upon the birth of their child their mental health will suffer to the point it can be deemed 'serious'.

There is no way a doctor can turnaround and say that wont be the case.  They have no option but to accept this version of events. (and rightly so may I add)
i.e. in practice a doctor cannot stop someone being granted an abortion on mental health grounds.
That's not to say this wouldn't be a genuine reason....but is open to abuse. Which is what happened in the UK.

This is how someone can get an abortion in the event of getting a diagnosis of DS after the 12 week period for example.
i.e. technically you will not be getting an abortion because the baby has DS - but instead on the impact on mental health due to the DS diagnosis.

So when the government say they have legislated whereby some cannot request an abortion due to DS this is disingenuous as in practice its unstoppable.

As I say - I'm not trying to suggest there will be everyone any anyone doing this....but in practice there is abortion on demand up to 24 weeks including for DS.


----------



## zxcvbnm

I guess stats are open to interpretaytion - but going by that link on Portugal that someone posted earlier

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-portugal.html

What are your interpretations of it? Abortion was legalized in April 2007 - so 2008 was the first full year that abortion was available and it had a rate of c. 15% - and its remained in or around that rate since.
I'm assuming any stats prior to that were under a very strict legalized abortion regime which is why its  a lot fewer at c. 1%.
(2007 seems a random one at 6% but i'm assuming that is because for part of the year it was legal and the other part it was not)


I suppose the question that needs answering is what were the number going to Spain prior to 2008? Had they been done in Portugal would it also have been at the 15% rate? OPr would it have been far fewer.
i.e. did the legalization of it make it more popular generally.

Does anyone know what the numbers were going to spain prior to 2007? That's the key really in determining whether the legalization of it increased its uptake.


----------



## Ceist Beag

zxcvbnm said:


> Does anyone know what the numbers were going to spain prior to 2007? That's the key really in determining whether the legalization of it increased its uptake.


If you listen to the piece by Katie Hannon on it she mentions the figure of 20K per year. However as MichaelM pointed out, Katie prefaces the 20k figure by saying "it's impossible to verify but studies suggest . .". I don't know if there are any figures available to back up that number or to undermine it and she didn't mention where she got it from (i.e. which studies suggested it).


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Watched the Prime Time debate.  I’m getting seriously worried that SF/IRA are fast gaining respectability.  Toibin sounded really credible when he said he didn’t think any human being should be allowed to take the life of another. Imagine if Grisly had said that, the audience (both sides) would have burst out laughing.


----------



## dereko1969

zxcvbnm said:


> In my view in practice there will be abortion on demand up to 24 weeks. The only question is will it be abused or not.
> 
> For example - someone can go into a doctor after,say, 20 weeks and say their mental and physical health is fine today - but they believe that upon the birth of their child their mental health will suffer to the point it can be deemed 'serious'.
> 
> There is no way a doctor can turnaround and say that wont be the case.  They have no option but to accept this version of events. (and rightly so may I add)
> i.e. in practice a doctor cannot stop someone being granted an abortion on mental health grounds.
> That's not to say this wouldn't be a genuine reason....but is open to abuse. Which is what happened in the UK.
> 
> This is how someone can get an abortion in the event of getting a diagnosis of DS after the 12 week period for example.
> i.e. technically you will not be getting an abortion because the baby has DS - but instead on the impact on mental health due to the DS diagnosis.
> 
> So when the government say they have legislated whereby some cannot request an abortion due to DS this is disingenuous as in practice its unstoppable.
> 
> As I say - I'm not trying to suggest there will be everyone any anyone doing this....but in practice there is abortion on demand up to 24 weeks including for DS.



The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act which is essentially copied in the Heads of the Bill for Abortion has been in place for 4 years, there have been very very few abortions carried out on mental health grounds. So why do you think it will change now, you're entitled to your views but not your facts.


----------



## zxcvbnm

dereko1969 said:


> The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act which is essentially copied in the Heads of the Bill for Abortion has been in place for 4 years, there have been very very few abortions carried out on mental health grounds. So why do you think it will change now, you're entitled to your views but not your facts.



My Facts? I am certainly not giving out 'alternative' facts as you suggest.

The point of my post is that it is there on demand up to 24 weeks in practice for the reason I outlined above.

The reason why the uptake for mental health reasons  MAY change in future is I believe Irish people generally had a view of not even considering Ireland as a place for abortion, regardless of what was in the PLDP. As a default people would automatically look to the UK when electing abortion.
However - that mentality will no longer be the case and people will automatically consider Ireland as the default. And therefore an uptake in any trimester is inevitable to be fair. The only question is as to by how much.

For example - something like over 50% of identified cases due to DS occur whereby they go to the UK. Will they continue go to the UK or avail of it in ireland? You'd have to think Ireland.



That said - undoubtedly most occur in the first 12 weeks anyway (I believe 92% in the uk)


----------



## cremeegg

Purple said:


> Yes, much better to kill them than put them up for adoption because, like, nothing has changes in this country in the last 50 years.



Sorry, I do not understand your point here.

Unwanted children in the past ended up in places like the Tuam home, today they are more likely to be aborted.


----------



## Purple

cremeegg said:


> Sorry, I do not understand your point here.
> 
> Unwanted children in the past ended up in places like the Tuam home, today they are more likely to be aborted.


Yes, but unwanted children nowadays are not sent to places like the Tuam home, they are fostered and adopted into loving and supportive homes.


----------



## cremeegg

Ceist Beag said:


> As orka said, this figure of 3,751 is not a true figure. There will be many others who did not give an Irish address and also those who used abortion XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (which is conservatively put at 1,000 per year but may well be higher than this). So the real number is probably closer to 10%.
> 
> Therefore I would suggest that it unreasonable to suggest that the number of abortions would increase threefold.
> 
> I would concede that it does seem reasonable that it will increase, certainly in the immediate years, but it's very hard to know what it will be in say 10 years time, which is where the Portugese experience is of some relevance.



I take the point that the true number of abortions at present is higher than the statistics show, so that if Irish rates increase closer to the UK/Portuguese rate that will not represent a three fold increase. 

It will still be a substantial increase.


----------



## michaelm

dereko1969 said:


> So why do you think it will change now, you're entitled to your views but not your facts.


A bit loose with the facts there yourself?

The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act does not allow for abortions on vague mental heath grounds but rather where there is a *real and substantial risk* of loss of the woman’s life by way *of suicide*.  Two psychiatrists and an obstetrician must agree that that risk can only be averted by carrying out an abortion.

The new metric is that an abortion can be had up to 6 months where an obstetrician and an appropriate medical practitioner (a GP perhaps?) certify that there is a  risk (real and substantial deleted) of serious harm (whatever that means) to a woman's mental health.

Even if you're partisan you might concede that the bar will be substantially lowered.


----------



## cremeegg

Purple said:


> Yes, but unwanted children nowadays are not sent to places like the Tuam home, they are fostered and adopted into loving and supportive homes.



Not if they are aborted before birth.

As to unwanted pregnancies which end in live births, of unwanted children.  I hope you are right. Here is an article I was reading during the week.

https://www.google.com/url?q=https:...:m2ealvuxh1i&usg=AOvVaw36wXcDREE-bTwUSVtd86rn


----------



## michaelm

Duke of Marmalade said:


> It’s sobering to think that c. 10,000 births p.a. in Ireland are of unwanted children. Such misery for child and parents alike.


I expect that in the vast majority of the cases of unwanted/unplanned crisis pregnancies the child that is ultimately born to the world is loved and cherished.  It's quite pessimistic to view it as the beginning of a life of misery for parent(s) and child.  I suspect that there are very few people who regret not having an abortion.


----------



## michaelm

Instead of bolstering supports for motherhood and promoting and properly funding alternatives to abortion we're heading down the road of State funded abortion for those who are pregnant but wish they weren't (and ironically State funded fertility treatment for those who wish to be pregnant but have difficulties).

I guess the financial costs involved are more easily delineated, the social costs less so.


----------



## orka

michaelm said:


> I suspect that there are very few people who regret not having an abortion.


They may not regret – but they don’t ‘not regret’ either.  I doubt many mothers even think about whether they have regret or not – thinking about it would mean considering what life would have been like without the now much-loved child.  That doesn’t mean that an alternate life having had an abortion wouldn’t have been happier and more fulfilling – probably with different much-loved children born in better circumstances.


----------



## zxcvbnm

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the undecideds remained that way and didn't vote at all. IF you haven't made your mind up at this stage its probably because you're genuinely conflicted.
I was a solid NO man - but i'm getting closer to undecided. I definitely wont vote Yes - but I may not vote at all due to becoming more and more conflicted.


----------



## Sunny

zxcvbnm said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the undecideds remained that way and didn't vote at all. IF you haven't made your mind up at this stage its probably because you're genuinely conflicted.
> I was a solid NO man - but i'm getting closer to undecided. I definitely wont vote Yes - but I may not vote at all due to becoming more and more conflicted.



You definitely won't vote 'Yes' but you are undecided??? So you vote 'No' then to keep the status quo....... Not voting is a complete waste


----------



## michaelm

I'm a solid No (surprise ) and it is easy for me to vote against this broad stroke proposal . . I would be conflicted if this was solely focused on hard cases.  I would rather spoil my vote than not vote.  I think a third 'None of the Above' box on the ballot would win a plurality if not a majority of votes in this referendum.


----------



## orka

Sunny said:


> So you vote 'No' then to keep the status quo.......


Or vote yes to keep the de facto status quo but moved back within our own borders to enable better medical treatment of women...


----------



## Purple

orka said:


> Or vote yes to keep the de facto status quo but moved back within our own borders to enable better medical treatment of women...


In the vast majority of cases an abortion is not really a medical procedure in the context of "better medical treatment of women".
I'll be voting Yes but I won't sugar-coat what abortion is and pretend it is not, at best, a least worst solution to a terrible situation.


----------



## orka

Purple said:


> In the vast majority of cases an abortion is not really a medical procedure in the context of "better medical treatment of women".


Regardless of whether you consider abortion a medical treatment or not, once a woman has decided on and is receiving an abortion, she is in 'medical treatment' and should receive the best care available.  i.e. better to get abortion XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX under medical supervision than being alone at home taking who-knows-what tablets bought online and being worried that if something goes wrong you can't go to the doctor because you've done something illegal; better to have a surgical abortion close to home and friends/family/support than have to travel home alone on a germy plane with an open cervix, etc.


----------



## dereko1969

michaelm said:


> I'm a solid No (surprise ) and it is easy for me to vote against this broad stroke proposal . . I would be conflicted if this was solely focused on hard cases.  I would rather spoil my vote than not vote.  I think a third 'None of the Above' box on the ballot would win a plurality if not a majority of votes in this referendum.


Fidelma Healy-Eames couldn't bring herself to lie on TV the other night and whilst looking for a "hard cases" solution wouldn't commit to voting for it. It's just a tactic to confuse the electorate, she and you wouldn't vote for it and that's why you're saying you'd be "conflicted".
The same people suggesting a preference for a hard cases referendum were against the right to travel (12/13th amendments) and information amendments. How people who were against the protection of life during pregnancy act can now turn around and say they'd consider a hard cases referendum instead are just bluffing.


----------



## michaelm

While I don't believe that any right to life should be predicated on how one was conceived, and nor do I believe that euthanasia/abortion is the solution for children with life limiting conditions, I do have sympathy for hard cases and I would not vote against a regime to provide for such.  But I'm not sure I could vote for it.  So I guess you're probably right when you say "you wouldn't vote for it and that's why you're saying you'd be conflicted".  Well done; although, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.


----------



## zxcvbnm

dereko1969 said:


> Fidelma Healy-Eames couldn't bring herself to lie on TV the other night and whilst looking for a "hard cases" solution wouldn't commit to voting for it. It's just a tactic to confuse the electorate, she and you wouldn't vote for it and that's why you're saying you'd be "conflicted".
> The same people suggesting a preference for a hard cases referendum were against the right to travel (12/13th amendments) and information amendments. How people who were against the protection of life during pregnancy act can now turn around and say they'd consider a hard cases referendum instead are just bluffing.



I think you're being a bit unfair there. You are quite right that a lot of the people at the forefront of the campaign would also not vote for it if it were just the hardcases. However - that does not represent the No vote generally.
As to how a handful of those would or would not vote in a hypothetical is neither here not there really. The issue is bigger than just those handfiul of individuals.


----------



## Purple

Well it's all over. I'm glad it was emphatic one way or the other.

I'm certainly not her biggest fan but I was impressed and touched by Clare Daly's speech in the Dail.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

I find myself bemused at the euphoria surrounding this result.  I agree with Yes on the basis that what women do in early pregnancy is none of my business.  But let us not lose our moral compass here.  In advance of this liberalisation of our laws let's hear some concerted denunciation of couples who will chose abortion simply because it interferes with their selfish lifestyle plans.  It does happen you know.


----------



## Betsy Og

Denunciation is sooo last century. 

The celebrations I take it are re the liberation of women - I'm not trying to sound crass - but I think that's the general sense people are going with (it's not that anyone is happy as such that abortions are happening). 

Anyway, I guess you can denounce away, but sure what good will it do.


----------

