Proposed abortion Referendum

Andarma said:
As it stands, the 8th amendment prevents treatment of a woman whose health is in danger.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

We have professionals that if the price is right, they are prepared to do anything. And the more they earn, the happier they become.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
No, the solution there was to give everyone involved a pay rise.
 
Purple said:
No, the solution there was to give everyone involved a pay rise.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register