Referendum on the 8th amendment.

[osarusan]

Based on the recommendation of the Attorney General to the government, it seems now that the choices on the ballot will be either to:


a) leave the amendment as it is

or

b) repeal it and replace it with a provision explicitly giving the Oireachtas power to legislate on the issue.


The current train of thought seems to be that the legislation would permit abortion on request until 12 weeks.

The main sticking point seems to be the issue of abortion on request (unsurprisingly), with abortion for other reasons (fatal foetal abnormality, threat to the life or health of the woman, cases of rape or incest) not looking as contentious at all.

The campaigning is going to be brutally ugly I'd imagine, and I wonder how it will turn out. There seems to be a sense among some pro-choice campaigners that the result of the same sex marriage campaign is an indicator of this referendum too, but I'd be wary of relying on that.

[backstothewall]

I think it was always going to pass but the images of hope and happiness in the campaign for equal marriage helped them run up the score imho.

This is very different. No matter what the circumstances There is no confetti on the way out of an abortion clinic. Those happy images are not available in this campaign.

This will be ugly.

[dahamsta]

I haven't involved myself in politics in a long time, but I'll be out with the spray paint and scissors for this one. The anti-abortionists (I'm a pro-abortionist thanks, I'll pass on the namby-pamby pro-choice tag) are animals with their posters. I'll hack down everything I can reach, and I'll deface everything I can't.

[Real ale Madrid]

(I'm a pro-abortionist thanks, I'll pass on the namby-pamby pro-choice tag)

You can pro-choice without being pro-abortion.

[dahamsta]

I'm fighting for the woman's right to choose not to have an abortion. And I want you all to call me Loretta.

[bennocelt]

I am pro life, but with a lot of the political threads here I guess this will be another one sided echo chamber. This will be fun:)

[Gather round]

I am pro life, but with a lot of the political threads here I guess this will be another one sided echo chamber. This will be fun:)

There are one-sided politics threads on here?

So can anyone point me to latest polls on this issue? Ta

[OwlsFan]

I haven't involved myself in politics in a long time, but I'll be out with the spray paint and scissors for this one. The anti-abortionists (I'm a pro-abortionist thanks, I'll pass on the namby-pamby pro-choice tag) are animals with their posters. I'll hack down everything I can reach, and I'll deface everything I can't.

I haven't seen the posters. What's offensive about them ?

[DannyInvincible]

I am pro life

Do you oppose the permission of choice in all circumstances or would you provide for exceptions? And how would you prefer to see your position enforced?

[backstothewall]

I am pro life, but with a lot of the political threads here I guess this will be another one sided echo chamber. This will be fun:)

I'd be broadly pro-life as well

2647

[nigel-harps1954]

Is it something about Belfast Celtic that makes people backwards?

[backstothewall]

Is it something about Belfast Celtic that makes people backwards?

It's possibly a result of too many bank holiday weekends spent in Donegal.

[BonnieShels]

I think it was always going to pass but the images of hope and happiness in the campaign for equal marriage helped them run up the score imho.

This is very different. No matter what the circumstances There is no confetti on the way out of an abortion clinic. Those happy images are not available in this campaign.

This will be ugly.

There's no confetti on a Ryanair flight back from John Lennon Airport either.

Irish abortions happen, they just don'y happen in Ireland. For me it's a no-brainer. And that's long before I even get to the whole bodily autonomy thing.



Is it something about Belfast Celtic that makes people backwards?

For a long time after I joined Foot.ie I sometimes thought it was one guy replying to his own posts. In a mypost, space cadet kinda way.

[backstothewall]

There's no confetti on a Ryanair flight back from John Lennon Airport either.

Irish abortions happen, they just don'y happen in Ireland. For me it's a no-brainer. And that's long before I even get to the whole bodily autonomy thing.

No doubt. But neither is there any doubt that the only side of this debate who have access to anything approaching the images associated with the hopeful images of the equal marriage referendum are the anti-repeal side. That is, they can show us pictures of newborn babies. They can put happy smiley people with Down Syndrome on camera. They have an advantage in that regard.

I'm not sure how i would vote if i had one. One one hand I am broadly pro-life as i said above, but on the other I don't think this issue has any business being addressed in the constitution of any country. It would probably depend on the question being asked on the ballot and the legislation being proposed.


For a long time after I joined Foot.ie I sometimes thought it was one guy replaying to his own posts. In a mypost, space cadet kinda way.

If the reaction to me changing my username is anything to go by, I'm not changing it.

[BonnieShels]

No doubt. But neither is there any doubt that the only side of this debate who have access to anything approaching the images associated with the hopeful images of the equal marriage referendum are the anti-repeal side. That is, they can show us pictures of newborn babies. They can put happy smiley people with Down Syndrome on camera. They have an advantage in that regard.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Those who are convinced by pictures of smiling babies are seeking an excuse to deny rights to women. The Repeal campaign can rely on informing people of what is actually at stake and not resorting to shouting down the crazies. Lessons were learned from the Marriage Equality campaign in that regard. And by crazies I mean those that use Christian dogma to make their decisions.




I'm not sure how i would vote if i had one. One one hand I am broadly pro-life as i said above, but on the other I don't think this issue has any business being addressed in the constitution of any country. It would probably depend on the question being asked on the ballot and the legislation being proposed.

I'm worried that repealing the Eighth will be tied to the state of the legislation that's proposed. I feel they need to be separated though that's not realistic.

The Constitution is absolutely not the place for this and on that basis alone it needs to go.

Personally, everytime I think of an aspect of this issue in the singular, it's a repeal for me. So when it's all brought together there's no doubt I'd vote to repeal.





If the reaction to me changing my username is anything to go by, I'm not changing it.

Listen Walsall... the people spoke!

Adam will no doubt gloss over your temerity and reinstate your REAL name as soon as you give the go ahead.

[nigel-harps1954]

They can put happy smiley people with Down Syndrome on camera. They have an advantage in that regard.


Except, they've been asked not to by Down Syndrome Ireland. There's no advantage to be had using images of people with Down Syndrome as a whipping tool, or images of any healthy baby in that regard. It's bullying tactics.

Many of those who have an abortion are not capable of keeping a baby to term, or are not able to give them any sort of life. To rub it in by shoving pictures of healthy babies in their faces does not serve any honourable purpose.

I made my mind up on this subject a long time ago. Five years ago, my partner, then heavily pregnant, organised a Donegal Pro Choice rally in response to a pro-life rally in Letterkenny. At the time, I wasn't too well versed on the whole thing, but I went along to support her. The utterly VILE abuse, bordering on physical abuse at times by all of those in attendance at the pro-life march as they walked past disgusted me to levels I had rarely been accustomed to in my life. People walking past calling a (very clearly) heavily pregnant woman a 'babykiller' struck me with a serious sense of irony, as they held up their pictures of aborted babies. Nuns walked past and threw holy water over her and said prayers to clear her of her wicked ways, others spat in her face, and one woman made shapes to push her into the hedge she stood in front of. There was no worry for the baby she was carrying from these people. It was totally disgusting treatment, and listening to their rally for about twenty minutes afterwards, it was led by two priests, a nun, and a doctor who said a prayer when he went onto the stage. It was all religiously motivated.

From that day on, if I hadn't much of an idea what it was all about, I certainly knew afterwards and have been strongly pro-choice since.

[backstothewall]

The pro-life extremists behave horribly. No doubt about that. Equally there are pro-choice extremists who behave horribly. I'm sorry your partner was treated in that way. How those idiots think that sort of behaviour advances their cause is beyond me.

Down Syndrome Ireland can say what they like. They don't speak for everybody. There will be pro-life parents of Down Syndrome children out there who will give their consent and as Down Syndrome Ireland have no right to dictate to any parent what campaigns parents should allow their children to be featured in they what can they say about it?

I think you are right to mention the crazies Bonnie. I suspect whichever side of this is most successful at reigning in their crazies will win.

[osarusan]

It would probably depend on the question being asked on the ballot and the legislation being proposed.

At the moment, the options on the ballot appear to be:


a) leave the amendment as it is

or

b) repeal it and replace it with a provision explicitly giving the Oireachtas power to legislate on the issue.

and, if the recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly are implemented the accompanying legislation will have the following limits:


a 12-week limit for abortion on request

a 22-week limit for abortion for a foetal abnormality that is not likely to result in death before or soon after birth.

no limit for abortion for a foetal abnormality that is likely to result in death before or soon after birth.

[backstothewall]

I don't like it being in the constitution. I don't like having the 8th. I don't like the idea of replacing the 8th with another 8th which hands the issue to the Dail. It's the wrong place for this issue.

Despite being broadly pro-life I would recognise something has to be put in place for parents with certain foetal abnormalities. The details of what should be allowed and what should not are so far removed from my expertise that I don't feel qualified to comment on what they should be. My worry is that over time this sort of provision would be used as the thin end of the wedge for late abortions in the way the 67 Act was used in GB.

Something also needs to be put in place for rape victims. I don't like the idea of a rape clause because it inevitability means asking women to prove they have been raped. Therefore I can't avoid coming to the conclusion that some early abortion ought to be allowed. But where should the line be?

I'm an athiest. I'm not part of the every sperm is sacred brigade. I'm not obsessed with the moment of conception. My partner and I have used the morning after pill. But it being legal to abort a healthy baby at 24 weeks, as it is in GB, is nothing short of barbaric imho. Therefore it's a debate about shades of grey.

I used to think of the establishment of a heartbeat as a milestone I couldn't go past. I've moved that forward as when I thought about it a heartbeat isn't what makes us human. It's nothing more than a pump.

At 10 weeks though the head has formed as something recognisably human. A little misshapen but to me there is something that looks very human about it. So that's a line I would have difficulty in going past. It's only 2 weeks but for me it makes a big difference.

[dahamsta]

I'm putting my mod hat on here for a moment. Aside from mentions - documented mentions - of what others are saying about Downs, I don't want to see it mentioned here again. I certainly don't want to see it "debated", because it is scientifically irrelevant in this case. There will be no warnings about this, just suspensions and bans. It's a vile argument and I won't see it propagated here.

(This is a pre-emptive warning, I realise and am pleased that no-one has gone down this route yet to any great degree.)

[DannyInvincible]

Some "pro-life" advocates argue that legal restriction on women's bodily and reproductive autonomy is justified as they regard a foetus as a life with human rights. However, some of these "pro-life" advocates also say they would permit exceptions and allow abortive treatment in the cases of rape or fatal foetal abnormality, but how do they square this with their simultaneous insistence that the foetus is a life with human rights? Why would the fact that a foetus might have potentially-fatal abnormalities or the fact that it might have been conceived through rape mean that the otherwise asserted human rights all of a sudden evaporate into thin air? By their logic, isn't the foetus in those circumstances still a human with the right to life?

"Pro-life" advocates also tend to avoid answering just how far they would go to enforce their ban on abortion. Do they support the law merely acting as a means of practically-unenforceable "moral" guidance, would they advocate the idea of fining "guilty" women or would they go as far as threatening women who might wish to procure an abortion with potential criminalisation in order to legally force them to endure and deliver a pregnancy against their wishes? I have yet to see a "pro-life" advocate adequately deal with this question.

[backstothewall]

Some "pro-life" advocates argue that legal restriction on women's bodily and reproductive autonomy is justified as they regard a foetus as a life with human rights. However, some of these "pro-life" advocates also say they would permit exceptions and allow abortive treatment in the cases of rape or fatal foetal abnormality, but how do they square this with their simultaneous insistence that the foetus is a life with human rights? Why would the fact that a foetus might have potentially-fatal abnormalities or the fact that it might have been conceived through rape mean that the otherwise asserted human rights all of a sudden evaporate into thin air? By their logic, isn't the foetus in those circumstances still a human with the right to life?

"Pro-life" advocates also tend to avoid answering just how far they would go to enforce their ban on abortion. Do they support the law merely acting as a means of practically-unenforceable "moral" guidance, would they advocate the idea of fining "guilty" women or would they go as far as threatening women who might wish to procure an abortion with potential criminalisation in order to legally force them to endure and deliver a pregnancy against their wishes? I have yet to see a "pro-life" advocate adequately deal with this question.

I can only speak for myself but I don't see the existence of life as being something that gets turned on at the moment of conception like one might turn on a light. I see it as being rather more complicated than that. It is not a binary state as different things develop at different times. I won't be posting diagrams of foetal development for obvious reasons but you can find them yourself if you are interested in understanding my thinking. What is clearly no more than a ball of cells at 4 weeks is (in my opinion) identifiable as human by 10 weeks.

Virtually nobody believes in completely unrestricted abortion up to 40 weeks. Therefore almost everybody is granting the foetus rights once a pregnancy reaches a certain defined point. That has to be a arbitrary line in the sand, and unfortunately it can never be a perfect system, but it's the best we have. If this was simple it wouldn't arise such passions on all sides.

[DannyInvincible]

I can only speak for myself but I don't see the existence of life as being something that gets turned on at the moment of conception like one might turn on a light. I see it as being rather more complicated than that. It is not a binary state as different things develop at different times. I won't be posting diagrams of foetal development for obvious reasons but you can find them yourself if you are interested in understanding my thinking. What is clearly no more than a ball of cells at 4 weeks is (in my opinion) identifiable as human by 10 weeks.

Virtually nobody believes in completely unrestricted abortion up to 40 weeks. Therefore almost everybody is granting the foetus rights once a pregnancy reaches a certain defined point. That has to be a arbitrary line in the sand, and unfortunately it can never be a perfect system, but it's the best we have. If this was simple it wouldn't arise such passions on all sides.

Is it primarily a visual thing for you then, so, the more human the foetus might look, the harder you would feel it would be to justify permitting an abortion? Or would you consider other factors too in determining your preferred limit?

Personally, I would have difficulty with using the law to force a woman to proceed with a pregnancy that she didn't want, but if a legal restriction has to be imposed upon "on demand" abortions, I feel that around the point at which a foetus might develop the capability to perceive pain would be a reasonable cut-off point after which an abortion "on demand" would be prohibited. Of course, that point won't be the same for every foetus and, as you say, it is arbitrary, but that's where I would put a legal limit if I had to. I believe that point would be around 20-24 weeks for an "average" foetus. This also happens to be the point after which the "average" foetus would begin to become viable.

One would hope that that length of time would provide enough time for a woman who might contemplate having an abortion (for any reason) to have made a decision.

Where there might be a likely-fatal foetal abnormality or a palpable or serious risk to the health (physical or mental) or life of a pregnant woman, I would expect no time limit. Obviously, determinations in these circumstances would involve consultation with and approval by medical practitioners and/or psychiatrists, if necessary.

For what it's worth, there are a few countries where there is no time limit stipulated in law; they are Canada, China, Vietnam and North Korea, as far as I know. In Canada, it seems the matter is "regulated" by professional medical guidelines rather than the law. I'd need to study more how the system works there, but I do like that idea as I find the notion of criminalising women who might have abortions distinctly unappealing.

[backstothewall]

Is it primarily a visual thing for you then, so, the more human the foetus might look, the harder you would feel it would be to justify permitting an abortion? Or would you consider other factors too in determining your preferred limit?

Personally, I would have difficulty with using the law to force a woman to proceed with a pregnancy that she didn't want, but if a legal restriction has to be imposed upon "on demand" abortions, I feel that around the point at which a foetus might develop the capability to perceive pain would be a reasonable cut-off point after which an abortion "on demand" would be prohibited. Of course, that point won't be the same for every foetus and, as you say, it is arbitrary, but that's where I would put a legal limit if I had to. I believe that point would be around 20-24 weeks for an "average" foetus. This also happens to be the point after which the "average" foetus would begin to become viable.

One would hope that that length of time would provide enough time for a woman who might contemplate having an abortion (for any reason) to have made a decision.

Where there might be a likely-fatal foetal abnormality or a palpable or serious risk to the health (physical or mental) or life of a pregnant woman, I would expect no time limit. Obviously, determinations in these circumstances would involve consultation with and approval by medical practitioners and/or psychiatrists, if necessary.

For what it's worth, there are a few countries where there is no time limit stipulated in law; they are Canada, China, Vietnam and North Korea, as far as I know. In Canada, it seems the matter is "regulated" by professional medical guidelines rather than the law. I'd need to study more how the system works there, but I do like that idea as I find the notion of criminalising women who might have abortions distinctly unappealing.

I wouldn't say it is a visual thing. It's about the development the the point at which the foetus has become identifiable as human. There will obviously be a visual element to that. For example one of the things that makes a foetus at an earlier stage of development not meet that standard imho is the presence of a tail (the foetal tail is an evolutionary throwback to our ancestor species of primate). That is obviously something that is visible, but it is not that visibility that makes a difference for me. It is not that I can't see a tail anymore that is important to me, it is that there is no tail.

At 10 weeks the human form is pretty much there. All the parts are more or less formed, and are more or less in the right places.

Where the health of the mother is in danger I'd certainly be prepared to do something later in a pregnancy. Whilst i consider there to be a human life in the womb, the mother also has a human life that must come first. I said above that I think aborting a health pregnancy at 24 weeks is barbaric. Allowing a woman to die because of absolute restrictions on abortion was at least as barbaric. What happened in Galway should never have happened in a civilised country and must be allowed to happen again.

[osarusan]

If the argument against abortion involves invoking the innocence of the foetus, human rights of the foetus, its status as (or potential to become) a human being, then the exception made in the case of rape always strikes me as inconsistent. It is no less innocent, human, or possessing of fewer rights, because of the circumstances of its conception?

I can understand the argument behind the exception on a deeper level, as certainly, there is a huge difference between consensual sex and rape, but in terms of the foetus and its possession of the above attributes, I am not sure that it can consistently extend that far.

[harry crumb]

The lack of coherence on the repeal side will see it defeated.

3 months is a hard sell.

[DannyInvincible]

Polls consistently show that a majority of voters (usually around 60 per cent) are in favour of repealing. It's those who wish to retain the eighth amendment who have ground to make up surely. Polls show that less than a third of people wish to retain the amendment.

[osarusan]

The Irish supreme court has overruled a high court decision, and found that the unborn has no constitutional rights outside those in the 8th amendment, which seems to have been the only hurdle that would have prevented the referendum taking place.


The Supreme Court has ruled that the unborn has no rights under the Constitution other than the right to life in the Eighth Amendment, in a landmark case about the extent of the rights of the unborn.

The State had appealed a High Court finding that the unborn has constitutional rights beyond the right to life.

[...]

The High Court found his unborn child had rights under the Constitution beyond the right to life.

The State appealed the finding.

It argued the only right the unborn has is the right to be born and all other constitutional rights, including the right to the care and company of a parent, take effect at birth.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0307/945560-supreme-court-rights-of-unborn/

[backstothewall]

Date set for May 25th.

The tone of the debate has started low and is going downhill fast.

[backstothewall]

How do people feel this is going? It's a week out and I get the feeling all the noise is coming from the 2 extremes and the media. The middle ground seem to have totally disengaged.

Low turnout likely as a result?

[osarusan]

It hasn't intruded in my life much at all - apart from a couple of doorstep campaigners and the posters everywhere.

Poll this morning in the Examiner reporting Repeal voters as 44%, Retain voters at 32%, with 17% undecided, and 5% not planning to vote.

That is actually a bigger gap than I'd have expected with just a week to go, although we know his misleading polls can end up being.

[NeverFeltBetter]

I'm good friends with a lot of "Yes" campaigners so have a been a bit more exposed to the campaign than others I suppose. Up to the last few days there was a definite hint of pessimism, but the mood changed a bit after the Google decision, and the Claire Byrne cluster**** had the effect of a rallying cry of sorts.

Today's poll is very positive reading, as I was fully expecting the Yes lead to be slashed significantly, in line with the reduction in previous polls. If No can't get the Dublin Yes below 60% they're chances of winning drastically go down, and it's 68% according to the poll today. Connacht and Donegal aren't going to save the 8th. But I can't help but feel concerned.

I think turnout will be high enough, maybe not quite hitting SSM levels. It strikes me as an important enough issue for both sides to overcome any apathy from the campaign. A low turnout might actually be bad for "No" since most polls list the "undecided" brackets as leaning their way, and they may be the most likely to not vote in the end.

The campaign's been frustrating, but we always knew it was going to be: the No side, with seemingly enormous cashflow, is bombarding everywhere they can with message, and lots of online ads where they can (nearly always my female friends reporting that, with my GF, a staunch "Yes" mystified as to why the algorithm keeps targeting her). They're going to plaster the country in the last few days. "Yes", outside of parts of Dublin City, are very restricted in response.

The political parties have disengaged hugely from what I can see, with FG officially rowing behind Together For Yes (nowhere near the well-run entity that the SSM campaign was) but really doing nothing, FF the same (albeit their "No" guys seem as likely to not get too involved either) and a brief spurt of posters and campaigning from Labour, Sinn Finn, the hard-left and the Social Democrats tailing off in the last ten days.

I guess we'll see. I'll be quite annoyed if it's a "No" as, leaving aside the expected misinformation and scare-mongering from that side, "Yes" simply hasn't conducted the campaign as well as it could have been conducted.

[OwlsFan]

As it looks at the moment, 40% of the people will vote NO and yet as far as I am aware no major political party has advocated a no vote. Thus the parties are alienating/annoying/letting down a sizable proportion of their vote and hence the reason neither of FG or FF is spending a lot of visible time or resources promoting the YES vote.

Personally, I will vote NO because we all know it's 12 weeks now, 16 weeks later and eventually pretty much eventually abortion on demand. I cannot vote for something that ends a human life. The unseen holocaust.

As for rape babies, it is not their fault that their father his a rapist. I actually know someone who was conceived as a result of a rape. She had 3 children herself and 15 grandchildren.

It's available in the UK isn't an argument. Mercy killings are available in Switzerland. Should we have that here as well.

Don't police women's bodies. That's what the posters say. So a woman can kill her (and the father's) child any time up to giving birth if that is followed through to its logical conclusion.

I was watching a series called NEW INNOCENT on TV3. One of the women's husbands was cheating and she (the wife) tells her friend about that and that she is pregnant to which her friend says "Get rid". Such is the value of that baby's life. Get rid.

[sbgawa]

Slam dunk yes result.
gap is to wide and the media/government/opposition consensus to all encompassing

[NeverFeltBetter]

While not a lot of people are aware, the only political party of any notable stature unequivocally campaigning for "No" is what's left of Renua, and I only realised that when I passed through Cllr John Leahy's territory, their current leader, in the arse-end of the Galway/Offaly border area on the way to a funeral. Suffice to say they don't have much of a profile anymore, and rightly so.

[osarusan]

Mercy killings are available in Switzerland. Should we have that here as well.


It's off-topic, but I would absolutely support the introduction of assisted suicide (what they have in Switzerland) in Ireland.

[NeverFeltBetter]

A discussion for a different thread, but I would say there's a bit of crossover in the two issues, regards FFA or the case of "P.P v HSE"

[backstothewall]

It's off-topic, but I would absolutely support the introduction of assisted suicide (what they have in Switzerland) in Ireland.

So would I. But I'm a soft no in this referendum. Or rather I would be if I wasn't disenfranchised.

The detail on the Irish Times poll says roughly a 3rd of people who indicated they would vote yes are voting that way in spite of being unhappy with the 12 week proposal.

If that legislation wasn't in the background I'd be a firm yes. The 8th has no business being in the constitution but a yes will be seen by some as being a mandate for that legislation.

No legislation should have been proposed this side of a referendum.

[NeverFeltBetter]

I think they had to give an outline of what the governments plan would be, otherwise the No argument would make even greater hay out of "We don't know what they're going to do!". That, and they needed to get some of the FG and FF deputies onside by making it clear they weren't proposing abortion "on demand" past three months.

I also think, in the event of a Yes, they'll be a general election before any abortion legislation is debated in the Dail, so that whole issue will be well hashed out.

[Real ale Madrid]

Personally, I will vote NO because we all know it's 12 weeks now, 16 weeks later and eventually pretty much eventually abortion on demand.

Pure speculation based on nothing.



The unseen holocaust.


Vile.



As for rape babies, it is not their fault that their father his a rapist. I actually know someone who was conceived as a result of a rape. She had 3 children herself and 15 grandchildren.


ah the classic 'I know someone" argument - Lets Force all women to carry babies cos I knew someone who was grand like.



It's available in the UK isn't an argument. Mercy killings are available in Switzerland. Should we have that here as well.


It's available in most of the civilized world - not just England/Scotland/Wales - I agree we should make up our own mind. Euthanasia can be more humane in some circumstances. Separate issue.





Don't police women's bodies. That's what the posters say. So a woman can kill her (and the father's) child any time up to giving birth if that is followed through to its logical conclusion.


Have you read the proposed legislation? A women can kill a child up to birth? No.



I was watching a series called NEW INNOCENT on TV3. One of the women's husbands was cheating and she (the wife) tells her friend about that and that she is pregnant to which her friend says "Get rid". Such is the value of that baby's life. Get rid.

Do you make all your judgments in life based on TV3 docs? What are you saying exactly - If you vote YES - are you no better than yer wan on the New Innocent. - Is the issue in any way nuanced at all?

Edit - sorry the programme you are referring is actually a drama series - so its not even real life. Clearly you are on a wind up.

[Mr A]

Voting No doesn't prevent abortion, it just exports it. I have a relation who had to go to England for basic healthcare when a much wanted pregnancy turned out to have a fatal foetal abnormality. That is unacceptable, outrageous and disgusting. It must end.

[jbyrne]

Voting No doesn't prevent abortion, it just exports it. I have a relation who had to go to England for basic healthcare when a much wanted pregnancy turned out to have a fatal foetal abnormality. That is unacceptable, outrageous and disgusting. It must end.

I 100% agree with this but is it not a valid argument that the current post-referendum legislation plans (eg. unrestricted up to 12 weeks) not go too far?
The danger is (although it looks less likely than it did before) is that situations like the one you mention above will not be properly dealt with as even though some, like myself, accept that things need to change but don't agree that things should change as much as is being planned, assuming the referendum passes.

[Mr A]

The referendum is on repealing the 8th. While the 8th remains we continue exporting our problems and treating women like dirt. As for the planned legislation afterward, it probably doesn't go far enough. The citizen's assembly sat through a mass of testimony and evidence and went further, we should have stuck with that. Terminations do not happen lightly.

[backstothewall]

Voting No doesn't prevent abortion, it just exports it. I have a relation who had to go to England for basic healthcare when a much wanted pregnancy turned out to have a fatal foetal abnormality. That is unacceptable, outrageous and disgusting. It must end.

First of all what happened with your relative was horribly wrong. I'm pulling a figure out of my ass here but if this was a referendum on allowing terminations in cases of fatal foetal abnormality I'd expect it to pass with 80%+ of the vote. You are right. It is unacceptable, outrageous and disgusting, and it must end.

I'm therefore not referring to your example when i say this. I feel that the world healthcare doesn't even come close to covering the sheer tragedy of that situation. But if there is one phrase which i feel is holding back the Yes campaign it is "denying women access to healthcare" to refer to on-demand abortion. As someone in the middle it grates on me.

The constitution is obviously wrong. The unborn child and the mother should not enjoy an equal right to life. When my children were born I knew that there was the potential for things to go wrong. If that had come to pass and I was asked to make a decision there is no way in hell the life of my unborn children had equal value to the life of my wife.

But that is not to say that the unborn child should have no rights at all. This referendum is about redefining the balance between those competing but obviously unequal rights, and people are struggling to decide what is right. To me the "denying women healthcare" line makes it sound (correctly or incorrectly) like those saying it regard abortion as akin to having a mole removed or something. If the Yes campaign want a victory they should stop saying that. It is not helping their cause.

[Fizzer]

Backstothewall I know that you’re a decent guy and a conscientious poster and I would say this to a friend or relative,so don’t take this the wrong way but your position is extraordinarily arrogant.You are not in the middle in any way shape or form.This issue requires nothing of you other than to support the rights of the women around you.You will never get pregnant,nor carry a child through gestation nor go though labour, you stood in a delivery suite like the rest of us,useless as all f**k.Well done!That experience should have shown you how little your involvement in this process is.How about this...shut up about your involvement in women’s right to autonomy over their own bodies,get behind the women in your life,trust and support them,back them to take wise and considered decisions....as you would expect them to trust and support you.Our country is evolving into an enlightened,compassionate place,unrecognizable from the one I grew up in.These women need healthcare provided in their own country,you don’t like it being called ‘healthcare’ well tough,you’re not a women in a crisis situation who needs help from her medical advisors,get over yourself.

[The Fly]

Backstothewall I know that you’re a decent guy and a conscientious poster and I would say this to a friend or relative,so don’t take this the wrong way but your position is extraordinarily arrogant.You are not in the middle in any way shape or form.This issue requires nothing of you other than to support the rights of the women around you.You will never get pregnant,nor carry a child through gestation nor go though labour, you stood in a delivery suite like the rest of us,useless as all f**k.Well done!That experience should have shown you how little your involvement in this process is.How about this...shut up about your involvement in women’s right to autonomy over their own bodies,get behind the women in your life,trust and support them,back them to take wise and considered decisions....as you would expect them to trust and support you.Our country is evolving into an enlightened,compassionate place,unrecognizable from the one I grew up in.These women need healthcare provided in their own country,you don’t like it being called ‘healthcare’ well tough,you’re not a women in a crisis situation who needs help from her medical advisors,get over yourself.

backstothewall's identity has nothing to do with what is right and wrong. If morality is to be centred around identity then morality doesn't exist at all. Anyone who surrenders to such a notion is an idiot, and anyone who believes that someone should give up the right to take a moral stance on issues that are of concern to society simply because of the nature of his/her genitalia is sexist...because of his/her skin colour is racist...and so on.

[NeverFeltBetter]

The political parties have disengaged hugely from what I can see, with FG officially rowing behind Together For Yes (nowhere near the well-run entity that the SSM campaign was) but really doing nothing, FF the same (albeit their "No" guys seem as likely to not get too involved either) and a brief spurt of posters and campaigning from Labour, Sinn Finn, the hard-left and the Social Democrats tailing off in the last ten days.


Coincidentally enough, Together For Yes, Sinn Fein and also ROSA all have new posters up overnight in my area.

[backstothewall]

I'm not taking anything the wrong way but moving on from here I don't see what is to be gained by referring to each others thoughts on this using words like arrogant or stupid.

It's an emotive issue for everybody and Adam was understandably nervous about this thread but we've managed to get to page 3 of a thoughtful debate without him having to bring the mod hammer out. Why don't we all get back to playing the ball rather than the man.

[osarusan]

To me the "denying women healthcare" line makes it sound (correctly or incorrectly) like those saying it regard abortion as akin to having a mole removed or something. If the Yes campaign want a victory they should stop saying that. It is not helping their cause.
I understand why the term grates on you, but I'd say it is actually helping their cause.

Framing the referendum as a question of denying women healthcare is pretty shrewd (not necessarily true all the time, but when has that ever mattered in a referendum?), because instinctively, nobody wants to deny women healthcare. "Autonomy over their own bodies" is another example of that too - who would vote against that? So they want to frame the issue in that way.

Both sides will use the most effective terms they can to get votes. That means effective in terms of emotional impact as much as anything else, and neither side will be that concerned about whether their language or claims stand up to scrutiny all that much.

[Fizzer]

Yeah Fly, moral stances can be taken by anyone about any perceived moral issue,but that stance can be called ludicrous if necessary, based on that persons identity.Pregnancy is a woman’s issue exclusively,with obvious exceptions like male medical experts etc.Joe soap going around wringing his hands and gnashing his teeth about his ‘moral dilemma’ is ridiculous because he considers this ‘dilemma’ from the lofty and luxurious position of knowing he’ll never be in the actual situation.He’s proposing to cast judgement on something he can’t possibly understand.Thats where the arrogance lies (and apologies here backtowalsall I may have been a little heavy-handed above).The arrogance is actually accidental,what’s required is for men to realize the disadvantage they are at in this debate and to be self aware enough to be guided by the women’s voices around them.I’m sure that women would take that approach if involved in a male-only issue that would affect the lives of their fellow male citizens for generations.