Eighth Amendment poll

Started by Farrandeelin, May 01, 2018, 03:36:55 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Are you in favour of repealing the 8th amendment?

Yes
47 (21.8%)
Yes but have no vote
73 (33.8%)
No
40 (18.5%)
No but have no vote
36 (16.7%)
Undecided
20 (9.3%)

Total Members Voted: 216

Voting closed: May 24, 2018, 03:36:55 PM

gallsman

The No side caught out trying to bully RTE tonight.

Syferus

It's amazing to think how far as a country we've come in 15 years from barely rejecting tightening abortion laws to hopefully finally legalising an absolutely basic and vital medical procedure. The new Ireland is a much better place than the one of ten or twenty years ago.

Itchy

Quote from: Syferus on May 22, 2018, 09:41:22 PM
It's amazing to think how far as a country we've come in 15 years from barely rejecting tightening abortion laws to hopefully finally legalising an absolutely basic and vital medical procedure. The new Ireland is a much better place than the one of ten or twenty years ago.

Some counties have come on further than others of course.

gallsman


sid waddell

Quote from: gallsman on May 22, 2018, 10:57:56 PM
Katie Ascough. Lol.
She's vile. No wonder she was impeached by UCD. The wonder is how the fook she ever got elected in the first place. A total lightweight too who has nothing more than pre-prepared robo-conservative lines borrowed from evangelical nut jobs in the US. Pat Kenny threw a couple of pretty easy questions at her last month and she tied herself in knots.

Itchy

Quote from: sid waddell on May 22, 2018, 11:28:48 PM
Quote from: gallsman on May 22, 2018, 10:57:56 PM
Katie Ascough. Lol.
She's vile. No wonder she was impeached by UCD. The wonder is how the fook she ever got elected in the first place. A total lightweight too who has nothing more than pre-prepared robo-conservative lines borrowed from evangelical nut jobs in the US. Pat Kenny threw a couple of pretty easy questions at her last month and she tied herself in knots.

I think she is lovely

macdanger2

Quote from: gallsman on May 22, 2018, 09:31:37 PM
The No side caught out trying to bully RTE tonight.

What happened?

gallsman

Quote from: macdanger2 on May 22, 2018, 11:37:30 PM
Quote from: gallsman on May 22, 2018, 09:31:37 PM
The No side caught out trying to bully RTE tonight.

What happened?

Cora Sherlock, having repeatedly challenged Harris to a debate, which was due to be tonight. A few hours before going on air, they tried to strong arm RTE. She was suddenly unavailable and the No campaign said it was Maria Steen or nobody, so RTE called their bluff.

sid waddell

Quote from: gallsman on May 22, 2018, 11:48:25 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 22, 2018, 11:37:30 PM
Quote from: gallsman on May 22, 2018, 09:31:37 PM
The No side caught out trying to bully RTE tonight.

What happened?

Cora Sherlock, having repeatedly challenged Harris to a debate, which was due to be tonight. A few hours before going on air, they tried to strong arm RTE. She was suddenly unavailable and the No campaign said it was Maria Steen or nobody, so RTE called their bluff.
And the funniest thing of all is that Steen has now pulled out of tomorrow's TV3 Pat Kenny debate.

The No campaign have humiliated themselves this evening and it's hilarious.

RTE should have had Mary Higgins debate as scheduled and placed a tub of lard in the spot where Sherlock was due to stand, like Have I Got News For You once did.

The No campaign tried to pull a Ger Loughnane-esque dummy team stunt and instead of pulling the fast one they thought they would, it completely backfired on them.

The disregard for serious public debate they have is frightening.


RadioGAAGAA

Quote from: Syferus on May 22, 2018, 09:41:22 PM
It's amazing to think how far as a country we've come in 15 years from barely rejecting tightening abortion laws to hopefully finally legalising an absolutely basic and vital medical procedure. The new Ireland is a much better place than the one of ten or twenty years ago.

WhoooppeeeDooo. Lets celebrate killing children. Aren't we great?



As far as I understand it, legislation as it sits allows for intervention in the case of significant and imminent danger to the mother. The recent fatality was a result of undue delay in taking action. I don't see the need to throw the baby out with the bathwater to rectify this, a clarification from the courts would be sufficient.


I have grave concerns this is a slippery slope to abortion on demand - which I think is a horrible, horrible side-effect of liberalisation (which has in general done untold good) - folks being too quick to put their own rights on a pedestal and damn anyone else it affects.

If (and unfortunately IMO, likely when) the 8th is repealed, who actually thinks the 12 week limit will stay as such for long?
i usse an speelchekor

omaghjoe

Firstly TBH I think its wrong that a woman in Savita's position are not given an abortion, the sac had burst, there was no possibility that the baby could survive that early.

I'm no legal expert (que the ad hominen) but its a bizarre interpretation of the amendment to say that in her case she should not have been able to terminate the pregnancy.

In fact I would be suspicious that the absolutist interpretation of the amendment was a cynical way to ensure that these cases arise and in do doing so turn a critical mass of public opinion to begrudgingly accepting legislation for unrestricted abortion as the only way to avoid these cases.


Regarding the case of Savita itself... since the sepsis was the likely cause of the miscarriage and was a result of failure of the medical team to identify the cause which was sepsis, it therefore went untreated. The reason it seems is that most of the medical guidelines for miscarriages are piggy backed from other countries that just abort and ask no questions. Ireland needs additional guidelines which have been rectified.

The sepsis was not being treated and this coupled with the continuation of the pregnancy while a fetal heartbeat remained accelerated the condition to the point where it turned it into a fatal condition.

I am open to correction on the case BTW but as far as I can make out these are the events which lead to her death. After this it is all if, buts & maybes


Would Savitta survived if the sepsis had been treated initially with no termination....most likely

Would Savitta have survived if the pregnancy if it had been terminated when the sac ruptured...most likely as it would have allowed the condition to develop more slowly and thereby allow it to be diagnosed before it reached an advanced stage.

I read a bit here and there about her case before now but I must admit the portrayal by the media was somewhat different. Thing is she did die from sepsis, she could and should have been saved if it had been identified when her waters broke and treated at that point... even if she did not have an abortion. An abortion in time could also have saved her (which incidentally I also think she should have got as there was no prospect of the baby surviving).

The medical guidelines have been updated to ensure it never happens again so if a mirror of this case arose the condition would be identified, treatment begun and the pregnancy would be terminated and the mother would have a much higher chance of survival.

Now the way this case has been spun to support the pro choice campaign is completely wrong IMO. To say that removal of the 8th is the only way to save mothers like Savitta is completely incorrect as those changes to the guidelines are already in place.
Going from inadequate medical care and lack of pregnancy guidelines which (is what the report found) caused the death of this woman.....
....to.....
............any woman should have the right to end a pregnancy for any or no reason at a quantum leap jump in logic.

omaghjoe

Quote from: sid waddell on May 22, 2018, 11:56:21 PM
Quote from: gallsman on May 22, 2018, 11:48:25 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 22, 2018, 11:37:30 PM
Quote from: gallsman on May 22, 2018, 09:31:37 PM
The No side caught out trying to bully RTE tonight.

What happened?

Cora Sherlock, having repeatedly challenged Harris to a debate, which was due to be tonight. A few hours before going on air, they tried to strong arm RTE. She was suddenly unavailable and the No campaign said it was Maria Steen or nobody, so RTE called their bluff.
And the funniest thing of all is that Steen has now pulled out of tomorrow's TV3 Pat Kenny debate.

The No campaign have humiliated themselves this evening and it's hilarious.

RTE should have had Mary Higgins debate as scheduled and placed a tub of lard in the spot where Sherlock was due to stand, like Have I Got News For You once did.

The No campaign tried to pull a Ger Loughnane-esque dummy team stunt and instead of pulling the fast one they thought they would, it completely backfired on them.

The disregard for serious public debate they have is frightening.

Do you mean RTE?

I have literally no idea who any of these people are

Who cares who is on a debate, the public have the right to be informed by the best arguments on both sides, does it matter who it is delivered by? The best most informed debaters should be put forward by the respective campaigns and RTE should let them at it

Do RTE care more about getting ratings with a shouting match than actually informing the public? Probably

omaghjoe

Quote from: Syferus on May 22, 2018, 09:41:22 PM
It's amazing to think how far as a country we've come in 15 years from barely rejecting tightening abortion laws to hopefully finally legalising an absolutely basic and vital medical procedure. The new Ireland is a much better place than the one of ten or twenty years ago.

When did extinguishing the life of a unique individual for any or no reason whatsoever become a basic and vital medical procedure?

manfromdelmonte

Quote from: omaghjoe on May 23, 2018, 06:22:14 AM
Quote from: Syferus on May 22, 2018, 09:41:22 PM
It's amazing to think how far as a country we've come in 15 years from barely rejecting tightening abortion laws to hopefully finally legalising an absolutely basic and vital medical procedure. The new Ireland is a much better place than the one of ten or twenty years ago.

When did extinguishing the life of a unique individual for any or no reason whatsoever become a basic and vital medical procedure?
It's a right for mothers to choose in most democratic countries

easytiger95

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/miriam-lord-stony-faced-silence-from-anti-abortion-absolutists-1.3504884

Because everyone was so busy being respectful, it seemed inappropriate to start up a chant in the chamber when the awkward silence descended.

But, as the ditty goes, they were all very quiet over there.

The truth hurts.

After years and years of pouring cold words from closed hearts, the absolutists had nothing to say when called out on their fake concern for the hard cases.

When Leo Varadkar and Mary Lou McDonald nailed their rank hypocrisy, they kept schtum.

For over 30 years they, or those like them, had plenty to say about those hard cases when fighting with every fibre of their being to have them cast out of their own country, along with their less deserving, casually exiled sisters.

Then five years ago, they deliberately turned their backs to the hard cases when vehemently opposing every syllable in the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act (PLDPA). Despite their unstinting efforts inside and outside Leinster House – the histrionics, the filibustering, the pressurising of colleagues, the unfounded scaremongering – that legislation passed into law.

Just one tiny concession and they railed against it, vowing to overturn it if ever there came a chance. That Bill recognised just one hard case, the hardest case of all: women who will most definitely die unless their pregnancy is ended.

But even the PLDPA was a step too far for the politicians who voted against it and were proud of the fact.

A death's door directive for a gravely ill woman.

And they voted against it.

And they have remained implacable in their refusal to give any comfort to women who have been raped or women carrying a baby which won't live outside the womb and who want to end their pregnancies.

Gullible doctors

Because you can't trust women, who will be lining up to pretend they're dying in order to procure abortions. And if they aren't acting out death scenes in surgeries the length and breadth of Ireland, they'll be pulling the wool over gullible doctors' eyes by being suicidal all of a sudden.

As late as last weekend, Senator Rónán Mullen was sounding troubled about what exactly constitutes mental health, particularly where it pertains to a woman who may be experiencing a crisis pregnancy.

There is "a lack of evidence that mental health is health" was his astonishing remark while he ruminated on "the suicide thing" and other aspects of the PLDPA during an appearance on RTÉ's The Week in Politics. It so angered his fellow Senator Grace O'Sullivan that she called for him to come into the Upper House "to explain to us why he said that he does not believe that mental health is health".

The Green Party politician told the Seanad on Tuesday, "I don't know what utopia he lives in but I live in a world where mental health is a real health issue to which we in this country . . . are not giving enough time."

Meanwhile, back in the Dáil, the Sinn Féin leader was determined that people should not forget the doom-laden words and actions of politicians and anti-abortion campaigners who stood in total opposition to the PLDPA before it was enacted.

These same people are now trying to say that they supported it and that it gives more than adequate protection to women, but sure if it doesn't, it mightn't be a bad idea to take another look at the hard cases again.
Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald: the people now suddenly aware of the hard cases are the "very same people" who "themselves campaigned against the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill". Photograph: Gareth Chaney Collins Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald: the people now suddenly aware of the hard cases are the "very same people" who "themselves campaigned against the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill". Photograph: Gareth Chaney Collins   
And grant them their fervent wish that the Eighth Amendment remains in place.

"In the course of this debate, it is important that we deal in fact," she told the Taoiseach during Leaders' Questions. "I have heard assertions from the No campaign and its spokespersons that what they call hard cases, pregnancies as a result of rape, for example, or a pregnancy with a diagnosis of fatal foetal anomaly, that these cases can be dealt with under the current constitutional framework, and that is patently untrue."

Mary Lou McDonald is right.

The Taoiseach absolutely agreed with her.

'Hard law'

"I would contend that it is actually our hard laws that create those hard cases," replied Varadkar. "And the Eighth Amendment is too hard and forces a very hard law on Irish people and Irish women."

He reminded the Dáil of the amendment's "eloquent" wording.

"It says that the right to life of the unborn is equal to that of the mother, so the right to life of a foetus of only a few days' gestation is equal to the right to life of your mother, your sister or your female friends and co-workers."

Mary Lou didn't want anyone to forget that the people now suddenly aware of the hard cases are the "very same people" who "themselves campaigned against the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill".

Remember, she said, that they talked about "the floodgates" opening and abortion become widely available as a result.

"They were wrong on this matter just as they are wrong now not to acknowledge that the Eighth Amendment blocks any action to legislate for what they call the hard cases. And how do we know this? We know this because we have tried."

To suggest there is another solution is "entirely disingenuous".

Leo Varadkar was alive to the pivoting of the previously unshakeable anti-abortion politicians and activists.

"What I see now, in the dying days, in the final days of this campaign is a tactic, a tactic by the No campaign to try and make out that there is some sort of alternative amendment that we could put into our Constitution," he began, looking across the floor to the Fianna Fáil benches, where a majority of TDs voted against holding a referendum and even more are against repeal.

He had a question for them and the anti-abortion absolutists who now say repeal is not the answer.

'Alternative amendment'

"I would ask those people, 30 years after that amendment was put into our Constitution, why in those 30 years has nobody put forward an alternative amendment that would deal with all of these hard cases? Why, only three days from the vote, are people suddenly raising that as a realistic argument and alternative?"

There was silence in the chamber. The Fianna Fáil TDs who are not backing their leader Micheál Martin's position sat stony-faced. Not a peep out of one of them.

Which is when we contemplated our little chant about them all being very quiet over there.

But the Taoiseach filled the gap, answering for them.

Because what they are scrambling to propose "is not a realistic alternative; it is just a tactic", declared Leo.

"And I believe the Irish people will see through that."

Once again, not a sound from the people who turned a blind eye to the hard cases when they could have acted with reason and compassion. Because they knew in their hearts that the Taoiseach was speaking the truth.

They had 35 years to act on their concerns for women and their babies. Thirty-five years to do something about supporting the hard cases. Thirty-five years to show they care about more than just the fate of the foetus.

But they did nothing.

Now their bluff has been called and compassion is suddenly conjured up for the hard cases, along with more baseless predictions about floodgates opening and the whole country going to hell in a handcart.

They have cried wolf once too often.

Do they seriously expect anyone to believe anything they say anymore?


Well said Miriam Lord.