Eighth Amendment poll

[magpie seanie]

If you are telling me that we cannot legislate for rape or incest victims, even under the welfare of the mother viewpoint, then yes I would have to say that I feel the numbers of people pregnant under those circumstances would not outweigh the number of healthy viable babies who would also be terminated under a blanket 12 week law. That's an horrific choice to make though, but if we cannot, as you say, legislate for the specific cases, then we should not legislate in such a way as to make it completely open.

As regards the X-RAY, are there not alternative diagnostics that would not harm a baby? What about MRIs or ultrasounds?

In your previous post you ask why the 8th Amendment cannot be reworded to say that the rights of the unborn cannot supercede the rights of the mother.

Firstly, the 8th Amendment already says that.

But in practice, it amounts to giving a 1 week old embryo greater rights than that of an actual born, adult woman. It effectvely strips the woman of her rights during the pregnancy and reduces her to little more than the status of a vessel.

I cannot agree that even if one dislikes the idea of abortion, the situations I mention should be tolerated in order to enforce a particular moral view on everybody else.

The real test of somebody that believes the acceptance of such situations is necessary in order to enforce a particular moral view is; if it was your wife or daughter or sister who had been raped, or had a pregnancy involving a fatal foetal abnormality, or a pregnancy in which there was a threat to her health, or found herself unexpectedly pregnant while undergoing cancer treatment and was denied further treatment as a result, and she wanted an abortion but could not get one, how would you react?

Would you tell her "I'm sorry, I can't support you - you should carry the pregnancy to term."

I would venture that in pretty much every situation, they would support their wife, daughter or sister, and that they would feel extremely angry that she had no rights in such a situation.

It's easy to hold a particular moral view if one has an idea that crisis pregnancies are something that can only happen to other people.

Not so easy when you imagine it happening to a loved one.

Well said.

[sid waddell]

Question for No voters.

The penalty for abortion in Ireland is 14 years imprisonment.

Do you think this penalty should be upheld if a woman is found to have had an abortion within the state?

Should the woman be imprisoned for 14 years?

No. I don't. But I think a doctor that performs an elective abortion should be disbarred. I'm not trying to trivialise what a woman must be going through to even think about an abortion. I am not one of those who say this will lead to a queue outside the clinics for abortions during lunch hour, or any of that sensationalist nonsense.

All I'm saying, is that as a citizen of this country, I do not want my country to legalise abortions where there is no risk to the mother, or fatal foetal abnormalities.

If a woman is found to have murdered her 12 week old baby, should that woman be sentenced to prison?

No, because I believe someone doing that has emotional extenuating circumstances. However, that does not mean I think we should just allow it as an elective procedure.

What about, say, this case?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/11/mother-jailed-life-murder-baby-daughter-lancashire-jennifer-crichton

If a man murders a baby, should he be sentenced to prison?

[The Iceman]

Disingenuous. As pointed out beforehand, the Government were asked to bring forth proposed legislation so that people would know what the consequences of voting YES would be. They've done so, I don't like it, and thus I'm voting NO.

I don't need to make excuses for that.

I'm not being disingenuous at all.

The question is on the 8th Amendment and nothing else.

It has been explained ad nauseum that there is no possibility, under the constitution, of legislating for abortion in cases such as rape, incest or fatal foetal abnormality.

There is no possibility under the constitution of a change to the situation where women are denied essential healthcare services such as cancer treatment if they are pregnant, or even basic healthcare such as X-rays (and they don't even have to be pregnant to be denied such - they can be denied it unless and until they prove in writing that they are not pregnant).

Under the present constitutional situation and even with the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, Savita Halappanavar would still have died. That's because doctors have to wait for a woman to start dying before they can perform an abortion.

All the above cases are proof of why the 8th Amendment has been so disastrous.

A No vote is a vote for all that to continue.

For it to change, there has be legislation to introduce safe, legal abortion.

It's not though Sid. We've been through this. Do you accept that if this referendum passes, it is almost certain that a law will be introduced to allow for elective abortions up to 12 weeks, along with other measures?

If you accept that, then surely you can see that this referendum is not simply about changing the wording of the constitution, as if it were some semantic exercise. Cause and effect is in play here.

The only realistic way I, as someone who does not agree with elective abortions, can have a voice to stop that happening is to vote NO. I'm aware people will say, well you could lobby politicians to change the law back afterwards, but in reality that is not going to happen.

I think this is a very fair and honest assessment of what's happening AZ.
The likes of Sid is trying to disguise what can really happen here. It's what happens all over the world. Elective abortion for whatever reason you want. And let's be brutally honest over 98% of abortions have nothing to do with rape or incest or fetal abnormalities (in countries were elective abortion is legal).
The information is freely available from the Guttmacher Institute which is the abortion industry's own research group!

[magpie seanie]

Disingenuous. As pointed out beforehand, the Government were asked to bring forth proposed legislation so that people would know what the consequences of voting YES would be. They've done so, I don't like it, and thus I'm voting NO.

I don't need to make excuses for that.

I'm not being disingenuous at all.

The question is on the 8th Amendment and nothing else.

It has been explained ad nauseum that there is no possibility, under the constitution, of legislating for abortion in cases such as rape, incest or fatal foetal abnormality.

There is no possibility under the constitution of a change to the situation where women are denied essential healthcare services such as cancer treatment if they are pregnant, or even basic healthcare such as X-rays (and they don't even have to be pregnant to be denied such - they can be denied it unless and until they prove in writing that they are not pregnant).

Under the present constitutional situation and even with the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, Savita Halappanavar would still have died. That's because doctors have to wait for a woman to start dying before they can perform an abortion.

All the above cases are proof of why the 8th Amendment has been so disastrous.

A No vote is a vote for all that to continue.

For it to change, there has be legislation to introduce safe, legal abortion.

It's not though Sid. We've been through this. Do you accept that if this referendum passes, it is almost certain that a law will be introduced to allow for elective abortions up to 12 weeks, along with other measures?

If you accept that, then surely you can see that this referendum is not simply about changing the wording of the constitution, as if it were some semantic exercise. Cause and effect is in play here.

The only realistic way I, as someone who does not agree with elective abortions, can have a voice to stop that happening is to vote NO. I'm aware people will say, well you could lobby politicians to change the law back afterwards, but in reality that is not going to happen.

I think this is a very fair and honest assessment of what's happening AZ.
The likes of Sid is trying to disguise what can really happen here. It's what happens all over the world. Elective abortion for whatever reason you want. And let's be brutally honest over 98% of abortions have nothing to do with rape or incest or fetal abnormalities (in countries were elective abortion is legal).
The information is freely available from the Guttmacher Institute which is the abortion industry's own research group!

No one is disguising anything. It couldn't be more obvious and out in the open. And it couldn't be more obvious and out in the open that there are two separate things happening here. The vote is about one of them. Other votes that have taken place (last general election/Seanad elections) will decide the other action (when incidentally I didn't hear much talk about this issue).

Another point - the elective abortions you speak of will not be impacted one iota by voting no. What will impact the numbers is supporting organisations like the one you mentioned (had never heard of them before but had a quick look) who want to reduce the numbers of unplanned pregnancies not labelling in derogatory terms such as the abortion industry's own research group .

[thebigfella]

Disingenuous. As pointed out beforehand, the Government were asked to bring forth proposed legislation so that people would know what the consequences of voting YES would be. They've done so, I don't like it, and thus I'm voting NO.

I don't need to make excuses for that.

I'm not being disingenuous at all.

The question is on the 8th Amendment and nothing else.

It has been explained ad nauseum that there is no possibility, under the constitution, of legislating for abortion in cases such as rape, incest or fatal foetal abnormality.

There is no possibility under the constitution of a change to the situation where women are denied essential healthcare services such as cancer treatment if they are pregnant, or even basic healthcare such as X-rays (and they don't even have to be pregnant to be denied such - they can be denied it unless and until they prove in writing that they are not pregnant).

Under the present constitutional situation and even with the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, Savita Halappanavar would still have died. That's because doctors have to wait for a woman to start dying before they can perform an abortion.

All the above cases are proof of why the 8th Amendment has been so disastrous.

A No vote is a vote for all that to continue.

For it to change, there has be legislation to introduce safe, legal abortion.

It's not though Sid. We've been through this. Do you accept that if this referendum passes, it is almost certain that a law will be introduced to allow for elective abortions up to 12 weeks, along with other measures?

If you accept that, then surely you can see that this referendum is not simply about changing the wording of the constitution, as if it were some semantic exercise. Cause and effect is in play here.

The only realistic way I, as someone who does not agree with elective abortions, can have a voice to stop that happening is to vote NO. I'm aware people will say, well you could lobby politicians to change the law back afterwards, but in reality that is not going to happen.

I think this is a very fair and honest assessment of what's happening AZ.
The likes of Sid is trying to disguise what can really happen here. It's what happens all over the world. Elective abortion for whatever reason you want. And let's be brutally honest over 98% of abortions have nothing to do with rape or incest or fetal abnormalities (in countries were elective abortion is legal).
The information is freely available from the Guttmacher Institute which is the abortion industry's own research group!

FFS 

[easytiger95]

Quick constitutional primer for all involved -

If the referendum is passed and the government moves legislation legalising abortion that you don't like...you can vote them out.

During any election, you can always vote for the party with the most draconian proposal for facilitating abortion, and if they don't implement it...you can vote them out.

If any of your local TDs take a liberal stance on abortion, you can not give them a preference, in the hope they will be...voted out.

And if you think TDs are too stupid/gullible/unprincipled (fill in your own adjective) to be trusted with such an issue...you can vote them out.

The reason why the Constitution is the wrong place for this, and the Oireachtas is the right place, is that the science involved is constantly evolving, as are social attitudes. It is up to people to be active in that political process to influence it to their own position. Saying that the current reps are not good enough is a cop out. Run for office if you feel the system is letting you down. But don't let the perceived incompetence of legislators be a reason for denying women healthcare and autonomy over their own bodies in terrible situations.

[omaghjoe]

We can all start the copy and paste nonsense sid. Except the child within a babies womb have no story to copy snd paste or ever will if it is taken away for no reason.

How can you have proper healthcare for all by taking away  the right to life of the unborn?

A healthy unborn child can have it's life ended with no legal consequences or justification. That is what the majority of abortions are and will be under the proposed legislation.

I'd thank you if you didn't flippantly dismiss the many real stories about the incredible harm the 8th Amendment causes as "nonsense", thanks.

You and every other No supporter has completely avoided dealing with them, because dealing with them would force you to confront the actual reality.

We're talking about real, actual human rights here - the right of women to not suffer grave health consequences because of conservative, patriarchal religious dogma, the right of a vulnerable woman not to have to carry a pregnancy to term against their wishes without risking a long jail sentence.

The nonsense I was taking about was your action of copy and pasting whole articles into this thread not that the actual stories

I have discussed them, multiple times and I have said a better solution needs to be found for many of cases

Yes I am talking about real human rights, the first most basic right is the right to life, all other rights are subsequent to that primary right

I have laid out

[omaghjoe]

Quick constitutional primer for all involved -

If the referendum is passed and the government moves legislation legalising abortion that you don't like...you can vote them out.

During any election, you can always vote for the party with the most draconian proposal for facilitating abortion, and if they don't implement it...you can vote them out.

If any of your local TDs take a liberal stance on abortion, you can not give them a preference, in the hope they will be...voted out.

And if you think TDs are too stupid/gullible/unprincipled (fill in your own adjective) to be trusted with such an issue...you can vote them out.

The reason why the Constitution is the wrong place for this, and the Oireachtas is the right place, is that the science involved is constantly evolving, as are social attitudes. It is up to people to be active in that political process to influence it to their own position. Saying that the current reps are not good enough is a cop out. Run for office if you feel the system is letting you down. But don't let the perceived incompetence of legislators be a reason for denying women healthcare and autonomy over their own bodies in terrible situations.

A parliamentary election is not a single issue plebiscite it involves multiple issues.

This however is a plebiscite on the 8th amendment and the consequences of it being removed of which the main one is the introduction of legislation for elective abortions for no medical reason at 12weeks.

To try and paint this referendum as anything else is either completely niave or just plain old dishonesty.

[easytiger95]

Quick constitutional primer for all involved -

If the referendum is passed and the government moves legislation legalising abortion that you don't like...you can vote them out.

During any election, you can always vote for the party with the most draconian proposal for facilitating abortion, and if they don't implement it...you can vote them out.

If any of your local TDs take a liberal stance on abortion, you can not give them a preference, in the hope they will be...voted out.

And if you think TDs are too stupid/gullible/unprincipled (fill in your own adjective) to be trusted with such an issue...you can vote them out.

The reason why the Constitution is the wrong place for this, and the Oireachtas is the right place, is that the science involved is constantly evolving, as are social attitudes. It is up to people to be active in that political process to influence it to their own position. Saying that the current reps are not good enough is a cop out. Run for office if you feel the system is letting you down. But don't let the perceived incompetence of legislators be a reason for denying women healthcare and autonomy over their own bodies in terrible situations.

A parliamentary election is not a single issue plebiscite it involves multiple issues.

This however is a plebiscite on the 8th amendment and the consequences of it being removed of which the main one is the introduction of legislation for elective abortions for no medical reason at 12weeks.

To try and paint this referendum as anything else is either completely niave or just plain old dishonesty.

Still the sharpest knife in the drawer I see Joe.

[omaghjoe]

Quick constitutional primer for all involved -

If the referendum is passed and the government moves legislation legalising abortion that you don't like...you can vote them out.

During any election, you can always vote for the party with the most draconian proposal for facilitating abortion, and if they don't implement it...you can vote them out.

If any of your local TDs take a liberal stance on abortion, you can not give them a preference, in the hope they will be...voted out.

And if you think TDs are too stupid/gullible/unprincipled (fill in your own adjective) to be trusted with such an issue...you can vote them out.

The reason why the Constitution is the wrong place for this, and the Oireachtas is the right place, is that the science involved is constantly evolving, as are social attitudes. It is up to people to be active in that political process to influence it to their own position. Saying that the current reps are not good enough is a cop out. Run for office if you feel the system is letting you down. But don't let the perceived incompetence of legislators be a reason for denying women healthcare and autonomy over their own bodies in terrible situations.

A parliamentary election is not a single issue plebiscite it involves multiple issues.

This however is a plebiscite on the 8th amendment and the consequences of it being removed of which the main one is the introduction of legislation for elective abortions for no medical reason at 12weeks.

To try and paint this referendum as anything else is either completely niave or just plain old dishonesty.

Still the sharpest knife in the drawer I see Joe.

That must leave you as the butter knife Tiger

[easytiger95]

Quick constitutional primer for all involved -

If the referendum is passed and the government moves legislation legalising abortion that you don't like...you can vote them out.

During any election, you can always vote for the party with the most draconian proposal for facilitating abortion, and if they don't implement it...you can vote them out.

If any of your local TDs take a liberal stance on abortion, you can not give them a preference, in the hope they will be...voted out.

And if you think TDs are too stupid/gullible/unprincipled (fill in your own adjective) to be trusted with such an issue...you can vote them out.

The reason why the Constitution is the wrong place for this, and the Oireachtas is the right place, is that the science involved is constantly evolving, as are social attitudes. It is up to people to be active in that political process to influence it to their own position. Saying that the current reps are not good enough is a cop out. Run for office if you feel the system is letting you down. But don't let the perceived incompetence of legislators be a reason for denying women healthcare and autonomy over their own bodies in terrible situations.

A parliamentary election is not a single issue plebiscite it involves multiple issues.

This however is a plebiscite on the 8th amendment and the consequences of it being removed of which the main one is the introduction of legislation for elective abortions for no medical reason at 12weeks.

To try and paint this referendum as anything else is either completely niave or just plain old dishonesty.

Still the sharpest knife in the drawer I see Joe.

That must leave you as the butter knife Tiger

I am talking about the fact that if this referendum is passed, the legislation that will follow can be changed, by the wishes of the electorate by....you guessed it, voting out those who passed the legislation and voting in those with new, more draconian policies. So I wasn't actually talking about the process of the referendum, as I qualified at the start. I was talking about the subsequent democratic process.

You can apologise for your naivety or dishonesty at your leisure.

I wouldn't be walking around with sharp scissors if I were you.

[omaghjoe]

Quick constitutional primer for all involved -

If the referendum is passed and the government moves legislation legalising abortion that you don't like...you can vote them out.

During any election, you can always vote for the party with the most draconian proposal for facilitating abortion, and if they don't implement it...you can vote them out.

If any of your local TDs take a liberal stance on abortion, you can not give them a preference, in the hope they will be...voted out.

And if you think TDs are too stupid/gullible/unprincipled (fill in your own adjective) to be trusted with such an issue...you can vote them out.

The reason why the Constitution is the wrong place for this, and the Oireachtas is the right place, is that the science involved is constantly evolving, as are social attitudes. It is up to people to be active in that political process to influence it to their own position. Saying that the current reps are not good enough is a cop out. Run for office if you feel the system is letting you down. But don't let the perceived incompetence of legislators be a reason for denying women healthcare and autonomy over their own bodies in terrible situations.

A parliamentary election is not a single issue plebiscite it involves multiple issues.

This however is a plebiscite on the 8th amendment and the consequences of it being removed of which the main one is the introduction of legislation for elective abortions for no medical reason at 12weeks.

To try and paint this referendum as anything else is either completely niave or just plain old dishonesty.

Still the sharpest knife in the drawer I see Joe.

That must leave you as the butter knife Tiger

I am talking about the fact that if this referendum is passed, the legislation that will follow can be changed, by the wishes of the electorate by....you guessed it, voting out those who passed the legislation and voting in those with new, more draconian policies. So I wasn't actually talking about the process of the referendum, as I qualified at the start. I was talking about the subsequent democratic process.

You can apologise for your naivety or dishonesty at your leisure.

I wouldn't be walking around with sharp scissors if I were you.

Yes... and I was telling you that a parliamentary election is not a single issue plebiscite. People will vote on how a range of issues, for example in West Tyrone if the Shinners somehow managed (they wont) to get the A5 built, sorted out Brexit, and got Stormont going again I MIGHT consider voting for them...(if I had a vote) in spite of their position on this issue!

Not to mention that the current government in the Dail got 25% of the popular vote... not exactly democratic, throw in party whips and proportional representation and single issues soon get mired.

In Indyref many Scots did not vote yes because the case of independence hadn't laid out the economic plan of independence. You cant make a decision if you don't know what the consequences will be.
And the consequences of voting Yes on the 8th have been made clear by the incumbent government and that is that healthy humans will have their lives legally ended without ever having a chance or choice.

Besides I dunno why your trying to reduce this to purely about the question asked, you've expressed support for those consequences havent you? So give your rationale for that instead of trying to narrow the remit on what people should be voting on in this referendum.

[magpie seanie]

Quick constitutional primer for all involved -

If the referendum is passed and the government moves legislation legalising abortion that you don't like...you can vote them out.

During any election, you can always vote for the party with the most draconian proposal for facilitating abortion, and if they don't implement it...you can vote them out.

If any of your local TDs take a liberal stance on abortion, you can not give them a preference, in the hope they will be...voted out.

And if you think TDs are too stupid/gullible/unprincipled (fill in your own adjective) to be trusted with such an issue...you can vote them out.

The reason why the Constitution is the wrong place for this, and the Oireachtas is the right place, is that the science involved is constantly evolving, as are social attitudes. It is up to people to be active in that political process to influence it to their own position. Saying that the current reps are not good enough is a cop out. Run for office if you feel the system is letting you down. But don't let the perceived incompetence of legislators be a reason for denying women healthcare and autonomy over their own bodies in terrible situations.

A parliamentary election is not a single issue plebiscite it involves multiple issues.

This however is a plebiscite on the 8th amendment and the consequences of it being removed of which the main one is the introduction of legislation for elective abortions for no medical reason at 12weeks.

To try and paint this referendum as anything else is either completely niave or just plain old dishonesty.

Still the sharpest knife in the drawer I see Joe.

That must leave you as the butter knife Tiger

I am talking about the fact that if this referendum is passed, the legislation that will follow can be changed, by the wishes of the electorate by....you guessed it, voting out those who passed the legislation and voting in those with new, more draconian policies. So I wasn't actually talking about the process of the referendum, as I qualified at the start. I was talking about the subsequent democratic process.

You can apologise for your naivety or dishonesty at your leisure.

I wouldn't be walking around with sharp scissors if I were you.

Yes... and I was telling you that a parliamentary election is not a single issue plebiscite. People will vote on how a range of issues, for example in West Tyrone if the Shinners somehow managed (they wont) to get the A5 built, sorted out Brexit, and got Stormont going again I MIGHT consider voting for them...(if I had a vote) in spite of their position on this issue!

Not to mention that the current government in the Dail got 25% of the popular vote... not exactly democratic, throw in party whips and proportional representation and single issues soon get mired.

In Indyref many Scots did not vote yes because the case of independence hadn't laid out the economic plan of independence. You cant make a decision if you don't know what the consequences will be.
And the consequences of voting Yes on the 8th have been made clear by the incumbent government and that is that healthy humans will have their lives legally ended without ever having a chance or choice.

Besides I dunno why your trying to reduce this to purely about the question asked, you've expressed support for those consequences havent you? So give your rationale for that instead of trying to narrow the remit on what people should be voting on in this referendum.

Correct so you vote for the best collection of your wants/beliefs that are presented.

It's a compromise.

Like this issue.

To pretend it's a black and white issue and adopting and absolutist position is to me the most disingenuous position of all.

[The Boy Wonder]

Bunreacht na hÉireann recognises the fundamental personal rights of citizens and there is no right more fundamental than the right to life. The purpose of the eight amendment to the constitution is to protect and vindicate the right to life of the unborn. The right to life is not just another civil right – because it will be matter of life or death for perfectly healthy human embryos there is every justification for this right to be built into our constitution.

Re. the argument that women should have autonomy over their own bodies and therefore have the right to choose abortion – where one stands on this depends on each person's beliefs and value system. Personally it goes against my beliefs but I am not moralising to others – I'm just trying to explain the "No" side of the argument. I accept that a sizeable proportion of the electorate (of every religious denomination and none) with vote Yes in good conscience. However I would worry that a sizeable number of voters might cast their vote without proper consideration of the consequences of a successful vote for repeal.

From Two Lives, One Love :
Where a seriously ill pregnant woman needs medical treatment which may, as a secondary effect, put the life of her baby at risk, such treatments are always ethically permissible provided every effort has been made to save the life of both the mother and her baby.

It is offensive and wrong for the Yes side to suggest that No voters are / will be denying women healthcare.

[Mayo4Sam]

I am torn on what way to vote on this.

On the one side I think there is a way that we could legislate for the rape cases and the fatal foetal abnormalities etc and still not bring in abortion on tap. It annoys me to see this being used as an argument. Very few people are against abortion in those cases but they will account for less than 1% of abortions so it seems outrageous to legislate for the whole based on those cases.

On the other hand I could easily have been caught out as a young buck in college or after getting a girl in trouble as they say. And if it happened to me (once we'd agreed) i'd have been on the boat over myself, so I'm not against it.

I do believe different people believe life starts at different points in time, a family member recently had a miscarriage and as her dad said "well that baby was alive to us" but looking at it from outside its loss isn't felt as much as if it had been born and died.

I can't ever remember an issue where I dislike both sides as much as I do this issue, both sides are so blinkered and dismissive of the other.

I'm currently leaning towards No, mainly because I wouldn't like abortion to be the contraception of choice, I would like people to take more responsibility and I have no issue with exporting our problem to Britain. But if I did decide to vote Yes it would be because I think people have their own values and beliefs on when life begins.

I wish they had given the option to legislate for the rare cases but still not have abortion