Another abortion referendum?

[Latrade]

I am absolutely crying here at my computer.

I know.

And it probably doesn't help that feeling any anger at that or any of the Choose Life statements, Youth Defence Statements, or any other pro-life forum means you are a "so-called" liberal trying to make capital out of Savita's death.

 

[Bronte]

You're so good Latrade thank you. All my life this battle. Why.

 

[truthseeker]

You're so good Latrade thank you. All my life this battle. Why.

Im going to try and make a difference right now today by emailing all the TDs for my constituency and telling them I want something done.

There is a form [broken link removed] that lets you email them all at once. Although I will be changing the content as I want a referendum not legislation on a 20 year old case.

 

[Latrade]

Now Marc Coleman is repeating the strawman of attacking the Catholic Church (and even linking it to inciting hatred). There are people out there who are making this about the CC, but they are loud-mouthed liberal equivallents of David Quinn who's opinions are worthless. Let's not let the fringe extremes dictate where this debate goes or to portray all those who are angry and/or protested the other day.

In my experience of protests, this was the most selfless and dignified protest I have ever witnessed. It wasn't about who was losing what benefit or subsidy, it wasn't taxi drivers angry that nasty "non-national" types can also get a licence and use satnavs. It was thousands of people who were angry with the government(s).

Yes that anger extends to the clear influence the CC has had in the policy on this area. But that isn't people saying that the CC has no right to air its views, but that:

a) the government has not had the guts to follw clear legal instruction on the clarity of abortion most likely due to this lobbying
b) the only attempts by the government since the X-Case as far as legislation is to try to make the abortion law more strict in order to "clarify". Both attempts failed, both times the people of Ireland spoke despite CC influence.

The state argued in the ECHR that the law is clear (despite the SC saying it wasn't). They said there was no breach of human rights because the constitution and its interpretation were absolutely clear to anyone. The ECHR said it wasn't. We now have a majority of Maternity Hopsitals confirming that the law and the guidelines are not clear too. Yet the state continues to say it is.

People can be angry that employer's or financial interest groups or employee interest groups have too big an impact on policy to the extent that this policy negatively effects a majority. That anger is at the government for not having the guts to govern in the best interests of the people. It is not a hatred or incitement to hatred against those groups or proposal that people's rights to engage in consultation with the government to represent a "group" view should be abolished. It is anger at weak government.

I can genuinely see the view of those of religion when it comes to abortion, I'm hardly easy with the morality or clear on the science arguments myself, but I believe in the tight of the individual to choose and see no reason why my (male, not medically qualified and never in a position to be pregnant) views should prevent a woman's right to determine what is best for her health and well-being.

Legislating the X-case isn't enough, you can pretty much see from the results of the last few refs that the majority of the people also feel this way. Yet the state still thinks it is in a better position to judge whether a woman has a right to decide if she lives or dies.

And as a complete aside(ish), I also see the hypocrasy of the main liberal commentators over the Saville case, especially as they defend the BBC and blame Murdoch for be behind an anti-BBC agenda. It seems likely that the BBC had knowledge of the allegations against Saville at the least and yet they continued to expose young children to him for decades. To me, those who rightly judged the CC wrong and immoral for its handling of child abuse should also judge the BBC to the same standards irrespective of if they like the progamming or not or know people who work there.

So I can see how one might conclude there is a deliberate anti-CC agenda, especially in how the media treats relatively comparable cases, but I don't think you can apply it in these circumstances and I certainly am angry that there is an attempt to portray every one who is angry as an abortion loving opportunist capitalising on a completely preventable death for their own agenda.

 

[Latrade]

Im going to try and make a difference right now today by emailing all the TDs for my constituency and telling them I want something done.

There is a form [broken link removed] that lets you email them all at once. Although I will be changing the content as I want a referendum not legislation on a 20 year old case.

I did that too days ago. I haven't had a single reply. I accept they may well have had a lot of emails, but I think the silence is sad.

 

[michaelm]

If I were pregnant and suffering a complication I would probably consider the drive to NI a safer option than going to the nearest Irish hospital.

IMHO that would be an irrational knee jerk reaction for anyone to make. Despite this tragedy, ROI is one of the safest places in the world for a expectant mother. Safer than the UK which has abortion on demand.

Spontaneous protests in Dublin, Cork and London.

I think time will tell that these spontaneous protests were organized prior to the story breaking in the media.

To AAM users: it's good this debate can be had on a reasonable level.

Perhaps because this thread has heretofore been dominated by a knot of pro-abortion posters agreeing with each other.

Glad that it's with long term posters as we can I think freely debate it and that it has not been hijacked by vested interests. Yet.

Indeed, but that will depend on what you perceive to be vested interests.

. . the only attempts by the government since the X-Case as far as legislation is to try to make the abortion law more strict in order to "clarify". Both attempts failed, both times the people of Ireland spoke despite CC influence.

The FF/PD government fecked up the 2002 abortion (Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy) referendum - which was meant to undo the flawed x-case judgement - by including protection for destructive embryonic stem-cell research. This compelled a sizeable cohort of pro-lifers to vote against, and it was narrowly defeated (<0.5%).

 

[truthseeker]

IMHO that would be an irrational knee jerk reaction for anyone to make. Despite this tragedy, ROI is one of the safest places in the world for a expectant mother.

Unless you are a woman of child bearing age you simply cannot comprehend how frightening it is to know that in this country, you could lose your life because the law ties the hands of doctors.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but unless you would ever face that situation, its pretty irrelevant IMHO.

 

[truthseeker]

The FF/PD government fecked up the 2002 abortion (Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy) referendum - which was meant to undo the flawed x-case judgement - by including protection for destructive embryonic stem-cell research. This compelled a sizeable cohort of pro-lifers to vote against, and it was narrowly defeated (<0.5%).

All 4 referendums about abortion in this country have been losses for the pro-lifers.

 

[truthseeker]

dominated by a knot of pro-abortion posters agreeing with each other.

And just to clarify, there is no stance known as pro-abortion which suggests that people wish for every pregnancy to be aborted leading to the end of humanity as we know it. I am not aware of any poster who advocates this view.

If you mean pro-choice - why not just say so? Because using a term like pro-abortion is intended to tug on the emotive heartstrings? Or simply ignorance of the correct term of reference?

 

[orka]

Despite this tragedy, ROI is one of the safest places in the world for a expectant mother. Safer than the UK which has abortion on demand.

Ireland is also less than safe than many countries with liberal abortions laws. There is no doubt in my mind that the mother in this case would still be alive if she had presented to a UK hospital instead of an Irish one.

Perhaps because this thread has heretofore been dominated by a knot of pro-abortion posters agreeing with each other.

The anti-abortion people only fell silent when the thread was re-opened after this case came to light. Before the thread was closed, more than half the contributions were from anti-abortion people (it was about 60/40 excluding the neutrals/moderates) – the discussion of this case has been about 80/20 to the pro-choice people. As I said in a previous post, this case is just so indefensible and inexcusable, it is hard for an anti-abortion poster to say anything other than falling back on ‘let’s wait and see what the reports say’.

I think we are seeing a big shift for a lot of people from an absolute ‘no abortion’ stance to a more moderate but still generally anti-abortion stance. Betsy Og for me summed up what I reckon is a good reflection of the middle ground view of this case – neither rabidly anti-abortion nor rabidly pro-choice.

While I'm generally pro-life (if that's the pc term), it seems to me that the rules change completely when the foetus will not survive, be that either full term within the womb or outside the womb immediately on birth.

If there's the slightest risk to the mother it seems imminently sensible to "call time" that bit quicker than nature would act. What's the point in risking a viable life for one that is about the end anyway.

 

[Ceist Beag]

Perhaps because this thread has heretofore been dominated by a knot of pro-abortion posters agreeing with each other.

Maybe you should read the post by oldnick (#125 in this thread) michaelm as that is a disgusting simplification of the views posted by many on this thread.

 

[Time]

I am of the opinion that any legislation enacted will be vigorously challenged in the courts by the pro life rabble.

The only viable solution would be to have a proper referendum asking a simple question of the people. Yes or no to abortion.

 

[truthseeker]

I am of the opinion that any legislation enacted will be vigorously challenged in the courts by the pro life rabble.

The only viable solution would be to have a proper referendum asking a simple question of the people. Yes or no to abortion.

+1

I totally agree Time. It doesnt really matter what my view on abortion is or what your view on abortion is, we need a referendum to find out what the majority view of the electorate is. Such a referendum would need to be carefully worded. A middle ground is likely to be the outcome of such a referendum.

Ireland has changed a lot culturally since 1983. The church does not have the hold it once did, many more people have had access to third level education, and society has changed with media international media influences.

Peoples attitudes and views have also changed with the times. An abortion referendum that simply asks yes or no is long overdue.

 

[Betsy Og]

The only viable solution would be to have a proper referendum asking a simple question of the people. Yes or no to abortion.

I suspect if you ask a Yes/No question you'd get a No answer (remember how tight the divorce referendum was - and I would have said that was a no-brainer, ok we've moved on etc etc but ....). If it was Yes/No I'd vote No, and that would mean no legislating for the Galway case, which would be a very bad thing.

Better to have a referendum to get agreement with the Supreme Ct ruling, or some version of it, possibly get a Yes (I'd vote Yes) and then legislate off the back of that.

 

[T McGibney]

And just to clarify, there is no stance known as pro-abortion which suggests that people wish for every pregnancy to be aborted leading to the end of humanity as we know it.

Sorry this is a risible notion.

There is a large and vocal lobby in the US that is supports the principle of judicial execution as a punishment for serious crimes. This lobby is generally, and accurately, described as being "pro-death
penalty".

However this description does not denote or imply that its supporters wish for every human being to be executed "leading to the end of humanity as we know it."

So, its quite reasonable to describe a position in favour of abortions as being "pro-abortion".

 

[truthseeker]

So, its quite reasonable to describe a position in favour of abortions as being "pro-abortion".

Pro-choice is not in favour of abortions, it is in favour of individual choice.

Abortion is a very sad, sometimes necessary procedure. I dont know of anyone who would be blanket 'pro-abortion' - do you?

Its also clear to me that the poster used the term deliberately to reflect their views and to depict a particular stance, known commonly as pro-choice, as a negative thing.

 

[T McGibney]

So people may be suspicious of why a man who often judges homosexuals, athiests, women who have or wish to have the choice of having an abortion at the drop of a hat and fills numerous columns with very thinly hidden bile,

I have never seen much evidence of 'bile' (thinly hidden or otherwise) in David Quinn's articles.

And I would be interested in seeing some examples of him "judging homosexuals, atheists or women" as I can't recall any.

 

[truthseeker]

I suspect if you ask a Yes/No question you'd get a No answer (remember how tight the divorce referendum was - and I would have said that was a no-brainer, ok we've moved on etc etc but ....). If it was Yes/No I'd vote No, and that would mean no legislating for the Galway case, which would be a very bad thing.

Better to have a referendum to get agreement with the Supreme Ct ruling, or some version of it, possibly get a Yes (I'd vote Yes) and then legislate off the back of that.

A properly worded referendum that offered a proper set of choices would be the best thing IMO.

Something like:

Are you in favour of:

• Abortion on Demand
• Abortion in the case of rape, maternal life, health, mental health, socioeconomic factors, and/or fetal defects
• Other choices with a subset of the above
• No abortion at all

 

[MrMan]

You would also have to factor in the right to a fathers say whether or not an abortion would take place.

 

[Teatime]

Its also clear to me that the poster used the term deliberately to reflect their views and to depict a particular stance, known commonly as pro-choice, as a negative thing.

I used the term pro-abortion (with terms and conditions of course) to describe my views. I was making a point that people were rushing to judgement without the medical side of this story but I was accused of being pro-life/anti-abortion and making excuses etc.

However I think I much prefer the terms "pro-abortion" or "anti-abortion" rather than the vague terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice".

I suspect but I might be wrong that there would be few 100% "anti-abortion" people in the strict sense and that its about agreeing the legal/medical scenarios of where abortion should be allowed.