Eighth Amendment poll

[longballin]

Who's the we?? Won't have any difference on your life, unless 

Of course it makes difference to man's life too... could be your daughter is affected, partner etc. Not comparable to how it affects women but does have affect men too

[manfromdelmonte]

Yes from me

the 8th should never have been introduced in the first place by the religious conservatives who promoted it by scaremongering politicians and the public

amazing the No side were firstly on the Yes side back in 1983, but on the No side for probably every other referendum since - 12th, 13th amendments, divorce, same sex marriage

they might as well be unionists imho

[Eamonnca1]

Can't vote but would vote yes.

I'm queasy about abortion and it can't be a nice experience, but I'd hate to be a woman in that situation. At the early stages of pregnancy there's not yet a central nervous system and nothing approaching sentience, so there's no such thing as a "baby" to begin with. But this is all academic since the principle is bodily autonomy.  If someone's life depends on me donating a kidney or donating blood, no doctor has the right to cut me open, interfere with my body, and make me do something with it that I don't want, even if another life is at stake. Bodily autonomy. It's not negotiable and it should apply to everyone, including pregnant women.

[Milltown Row2]

Who's the we?? Won't have any difference on your life, unless 

Of course it makes difference to man's life too... could be your daughter is affected, partner etc. Not comparable to how it affects women but does have affect men too

You're missing the point, I'm unsure on Syferus's sex! He's either a woman, man, or part of the LGBT crowd!

[Owen Brannigan]

By voting Yes people need to know that they are not voting for abortion, that would have to be legislated for by the Dail. 

It is a vote to make any future legislation on abortion to be constitutional.  In other words, it is a vote to give the decision on abortion to be taken by elected representatives.

If the amendment is repealed it would be interesting to see if any legislation could be passed by the Dail with TDs looking over their shoulders at how the electorate would treat them in an imminent election.

[macdanger2]

Undecided.

Leaning towards yes but could be convinced to vote no.

The standard of debate in the media & online is generally pitiful, mainly the extreme opinions being voiced rather than discussing it properly and acknowledging that shades of grey do exist

[Rufus T Firefly]

I think no voters are the most likely to express their convictions.

I'd be curious Boycey as to what you mean by "express their convictions"? If you mean by that, going out and voting, I would tend to agree with you. However if you mean voicing those convictions in a public forum, my sense would be no. I think many that do call for a 'no' vote are likely to be subject to all sorts of vitriol and venom. Mickey Harte is a classic example of that. It takes courage to stand up and do what he has done, whether you agree with him or not.

With regard to the debate, again my sense would be that many viewpoints will be led by the view of the foetus in the womb - is it a life with potential, or is it a potential life? I would very much be of the former opinion - the foetus in the womb is a life and on that basis, if I had a vote, I'd be voting no. I look at  Baile an tuaigh's excellent post above and wonder how many more innocents like his son, never got the chance his son did.

[Syferus]

By voting Yes people need to know that they are not voting for abortion, that would have to be legislated for by the Dail. 

It is a vote to make any future legislation on abortion to be constitutional.  In other words, it is a vote to give the decision on abortion to be taken by elected representatives.

If the amendment is repealed it would be interesting to see if any legislation could be passed by the Dail with TDs looking over their shoulders at how the electorate would treat them in an imminent election.

This was already went over two months ago. The Government and the major parties support the recommendations; in the event of the referendum being passed the legislation that was proposed will pass with some sabre rattling by those who can't take losing like grow-ups but there is absolutely no way enough FG/FF/Lab/SF will disrespect the electorate's wishes and refuse to pass the legislation that was used as the basis for the solution in the event of a Yes vote. It would be quite literally electoral suicide for the parties involved.

You talk about pissing off their constituents - well many more will be much more seriously pissed off if the side the most votes don't get what the were told they were getting. At least the other side have no foot to stand on if the referendum is passed.

[trileacman]

Can't vote but would vote yes.

I'm queasy about abortion and it can't be a nice experience, but I'd hate to be a woman in that situation. At the early stages of pregnancy there's not yet a central nervous system and nothing approaching sentience, so there's no such thing as a "baby" to begin with. But this is all academic since the principle is bodily autonomy.  If someone's life depends on me donating a kidney or donating blood, no doctor has the right to cut me open, interfere with my body, and make me do something with it that I don't want, even if another life is at stake. Bodily autonomy. It's not negotiable and it should apply to everyone, including pregnant women.

What you describe there, "body autonomy", is tantamount to unlimited abortion with no restrictions as to the stage of pregnancy. If the primary reason you believe in voting yes is because no one can force you to support a life inside you because it is your body and hence your choice then you can have no rebuttal for a woman who chooses to abort her baby a day before delivery or even an hour before delivery. As you say it was her body and her choice, if a woman chooses at 8 months gestation to abort her baby then how, as a supporter of "bodily auntonomy", could you oppose her?


That's not something I could fathom but that's just my opinion.

[Eamonnca1]

Can't vote but would vote yes.

I'm queasy about abortion and it can't be a nice experience, but I'd hate to be a woman in that situation. At the early stages of pregnancy there's not yet a central nervous system and nothing approaching sentience, so there's no such thing as a "baby" to begin with. But this is all academic since the principle is bodily autonomy.  If someone's life depends on me donating a kidney or donating blood, no doctor has the right to cut me open, interfere with my body, and make me do something with it that I don't want, even if another life is at stake. Bodily autonomy. It's not negotiable and it should apply to everyone, including pregnant women.

What you describe there, "body autonomy", is tantamount to unlimited abortion with no restrictions as to age. If the primary reason you believe in voting yes is because no one can force you to support a life inside you because it is your body and hence your choice then you can have no rebuttal for a woman who chooses to abort her baby a day before delivery or even an hour before delivery, because as you say it was her body and her choice.

That's not something I could fathom but that's just my opinion.

I agree, it's a very difficult topic and there's no easy answers. I'd just like abortion to be safe, legal and rare. The Dutch (who seem to get so much right) seem to have figured out how to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, and they didn't do it by listening to religious instruction.

[The Boy Wonder]

Rufus got it right in his post above – a NO voter expressing their opinions risks being met with vitriol and venom (as evidenced by some resident ignoramuses on this forum's LLS thread).

For the record I intend to vote No which will be cancelled by the Yes vote of the Missus. I can agree to an extent with the reasons she is voting Yes and in turn her Yes vote does not mean she is in favour of abortion on demand – my reason for voting No.  I am a conscientious objector to abortion as a choice where there are NO valid reasons for medical intervention to end a pregnancy. There are of course exceptional situations such as rape and fatal foetal abnormalities – I don't have the wisdom to offer an opinion here.

Abortion on demand is widely available across Europe. Because we have a prohibition on abortion in our constitution we have a far lower rate of abortion than other European countries – this is a positive result in my opinion.

I don't agree that abortion should be legalised just because it is possible to purchase abortion pills online. I'm not squeamish but today's 6-One News had a feature on abortion pills which I found disturbing to watch – just seeing the images of abortion pills on screen and thinking of the ease in which embryonic human life can be snuffed out.

Unfortunately some people confuse abortion with necessary medical intervention – at present, with the Eight Amendment in place, an expectant mother cannot legally be denied life-saving treatment.

All voters need to be fully informed on what they will be voting on - https://refcom2018.refcom.ie/ provides an independent guide https://refcom2018.refcom.ie/refcom-guide-2018-english.pdf

Draft Legislation (if 8th Amendment is repealed )
http://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/General-Scheme-for-Publication.pdf

For anyone interested in a Christian perspective on this debate I quote from the COI Archbishop of Armagh's statement of 28th March – this stance would be endorsed by a wide spectrum of the electorate :

'We have previously expressed our concern that the forthcoming Constitutional referendum is being understood as something akin to an opinion poll on the complex issue of abortion. However, now that the Government has made known the general scheme of a Bill which it would introduce should the referendum on the repeal of Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution of Ireland be passed, voters face a stark decision.
'Although it is true that the present provision under the Constitution has proved less than satisfactory in some respects, and we suggested the possibility of a modification to the present Constitutional position, what is now being proposed by the Government – if the Article is repealed – is unrestricted access to abortion up to twelve weeks of pregnancy.
'As we have said before (in our statement of 5th February – and we also refer to the wider comments made in that statement about the need for pastoral care for women, their partners and their families, and for improved support services and greater investment in medical and mental health services), unrestricted access to abortion in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy, or indeed at any stage, is not an ethical position we can accept. There is, for Christians, a very clear witness in the Scriptures that all human life, including before physical birth, has a sacred dignity in the eyes of God.
'We therefore ask Church members to think through the issues involved carefully and with prayer over these coming weeks.'

[Syferus]

It's so very easy for men in this thread to sit back and moralise to women saying they should take an unwanted pregnancy to term as if it's something that is easy or should be done lightly.

Like with most womens' issues this forum is at odds with the majority opinion and stuck with opinions that might have cut mustard a few decades ago when we knew a lot less about the world we live in.

[trileacman]

Can't vote but would vote yes.

I'm queasy about abortion and it can't be a nice experience, but I'd hate to be a woman in that situation. At the early stages of pregnancy there's not yet a central nervous system and nothing approaching sentience, so there's no such thing as a "baby" to begin with. But this is all academic since the principle is bodily autonomy.  If someone's life depends on me donating a kidney or donating blood, no doctor has the right to cut me open, interfere with my body, and make me do something with it that I don't want, even if another life is at stake. Bodily autonomy. It's not negotiable and it should apply to everyone, including pregnant women.

What you describe there, "body autonomy", is tantamount to unlimited abortion with no restrictions as to age. If the primary reason you believe in voting yes is because no one can force you to support a life inside you because it is your body and hence your choice then you can have no rebuttal for a woman who chooses to abort her baby a day before delivery or even an hour before delivery, because as you say it was her body and her choice.

That's not something I could fathom but that's just my opinion.

I agree, it's a very difficult topic and there's no easy answers. I'd just like abortion to be safe, legal and rare. The Dutch (who seem to get so much right) seem to have figured out how to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, and they didn't do it by listening to religious instruction.

Sorry is that an "I agree that women should have the right to abortions up to the day of delivery?" I'm not being insincere I'm just curious as to how you square the idea of "bodily autonomy" with what I presume is the desire not to see babies aborted at near full term.

[BennyCake]

The most precious possession you have in this world is your own people. If given the option I would most definitely vote no. My wife and I were unable to have children so we adopted. One of our youngsters birth mom was raped. We now have one of our greatest gifts. Loves to play hurling, sing, play soccer, Irish dance play guitar you name it he's trying his hand at it. This little man is so handsome and kind he makes life worth living. We couldn't imagine life without our wee ones.

Brilliant post. Vote No.

+1

[sid waddell]

Both sides are spreading bvllshit, but the No side seem to have an huge edge in that regard

The  "In Her Shoes" page had a whopper just this past week where a featured posters story completely contradicted what she had posted on social media when she was pregnant

You can provide a link to this of course?

Because you wouldn't want to have a reputation for just spouting nonsense - not that I'm saying you have, not at all... 

Haha.....not at all

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/heart-patient-unable-to-get-abortion-as-life-not-at-immediate-risk-1.3475728


This article was shared on the "in her shoes" facebook page (which I follow)

The rebuttal was posted by Gerald Allen on the "repeal vrs save the 8th debate" facebook page (which I also follow) on April 27th.

(The "debate" page is no such thing.....its firmly NO page. I had originally liked it thinking I was going to hear 2 reasonable sides to the argument)

Interesting that you have't posted the contents of this "rebuttal".

Having read over the relevant articles and Claire Malone's blog, the No campaign haven't a leg to stand on, as Claire Malone's story holds up just fine.

But what a typical intervention from John McGuirk - claiming he's not accusing somebody of lying while doing exactly that. A real charmer, that fella.

And in the process, adding to the already mountainous pile of mendacious propaganda and fake news coming from the No side.