Proposed abortion Referendum

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

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Yet I am left with the feeling that if the amendment is repealed, abortion will become normalised, a default option for too many.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.
 
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 And Cremeegg states "Yet I am left with the feeling that if the amendment is repealed, abortion will become normalised, a default option for too many.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.
 
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.
 

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 

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.
 

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.
 
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?
 
Andarma said:
The 8th allowed the scenarios I outlined to occur.
Click to expand...
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.
 

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

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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 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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Andarma said:
If you are anti-abortion, then surely you are anti-abortion for all reasons?
Click to expand...
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.

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.

Correct.
 

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