Proposed abortion Referendum

As said above, not sure where the lies are there. Late abortions in the UK where the Mother's mental health is the deciding factor make up the vast majority of such abortions as I understand it. It seems to have become the default reason over there. Can't see why it wouldn't be the same here seeing as that option is to be written into the proposed legislation
 

The medics were not ‘painfully slow to come to that determination’. They were ordered by the High Court to withdraw life support and allow NP to die with dignity, over 3 weeks after she had actually died. NP’s father was forced to take this action. Grotesque doesn’t even begin to describe it, and unfortunately it could happen again if the 8th isn’t repealed. http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/...fb8a5c76857e08ce80257dcb003fd4e6?OpenDocument
 

Cremeegg summarized the core issues quoted above. What the posters on lamposts say, what politicians think, What whatever organisations say, what the church says, what people think, the core issues are kill the unborn child or don't kill the unborn child. Everything else is just a side-show, important side-shows but side-shows nonetheless. I wonder why I think that side-shows will upstage the main show?
 
The core issue is whether the ‘unborn’ has a right to life and whether that right to life is equal to that of the pregnant woman (unborn what by the way? Embryo? Foetus? Baby? Child? I strongly suspect that the drafters of the 8th couldn’t decide upon the terminology and so fudged it by using the term ‘unborn’. Yet another flaw). I for one do not believe that the right to life of a woman and the ‘unborn’ are equal. Human rights are not all equal and the right to life of a woman is greater than the right to life of the ‘unborn’. I also believe that a woman’s right to health and bodily integrity are greater.
 

The 8th is flawed, it should not have given equal priority to both. But it is right that some priority should be given to the 'unborn'. The removal of the 8th leaves the 'unborn' with no rights, and that is not a position I am comfortable with.
 

I am conflicted by this bit to be honest. Where the genuine safety for the woman is at stake, such as genuine risk of suicide, I would definitely agree with you. But it's impractical to legislate for this I would imagine. At the lower end couldn't a woman could just get an abortion if it made her look fat, after all isn't that bodily integrity? In such a scenario I think the right to life of the unborn would take priority.
 
Why are the posters upsetting?

If the referendum is passed, it is entirely possible for abortion in Ireland to be legalised up to 6 months by a future Dail, so 6 months is entirely relevant to the constitutional question. Where is the lie?
They were using graphic imagery outside the rotunda and the coombe where women who might be worried about miscarriage or FFA or actually going through it were walking in and out. I think I would find that upsetting if I were in that position, but I have empathy which seems to be in short supply on the no side.
The legislation could also be amended to 8 weeks or 4 weeks, the Dáil will decide as is only proper, the constitution is not the place for this.
 
How long would you be prepared to make the woman jump through hoops to prove suicidal ideation? This is all part of the control of women's bodies that the NO side are positing. And suggesting women have abortions as a slimming regime is just disgusting.
Women aren't popping abortion XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX without medical assistance like smarties which some seem to be suggesting, each decision is deeply personal and should be left to the women involved.
 
They were using graphic imagery outside the rotunda and the coombe
I guess you are referring to the activities of ICBR who seem to be very much a fringe group who are not really helping the No cause. While I think they should refrain, and I'm open to correction, it seems to me that the 'graphic' imagery referred to is just an unborn child, not some abortion imagery.
 
Suicidal ideation is a non-issue. Abortion is such cases is already on the statute book. This is somewhat ironic as psychiatrists don't believe that abortion is a treatment for suicidal ideation; indeed it is more likely a compounding factor in such.
 
I'm open to correction, it seems to me that the 'graphic' imagery referred to is just an unborn child, not some abortion imagery.
No, it's abortion imagery alright. The ICBR believes the public has a right to see what an aborted foetus looks like. There are graphic posters (huge ones) used outside the dail too.
 
Well I don't think they should use such posters. Abortion is ugly. In any event, it seems repeal campaigners are protecting public sensibilities by blocking these posters.
 
How long would you be prepared to make the woman jump through hoops to prove suicidal ideation?
I don't want women to jump through any hoops. I think if a woman is suicidal then of course her health is at risk and I would think that her safety would take precedence over the unborn.

And suggesting women have abortions as a slimming regime is just disgusting.
I'm not saying that any woman would! This would be an extreme case, just like the risk of suicide would be at the other end.
 
Well I don't think they should use such posters. Abortion is ugly. In any event, it seems repeal campaigners are protecting public sensibilities by blocking these posters.
Well a LoveBoats campaigner who canvassed me didn't see the problem, they haven't been rejected by the official LoveBoth campaign either from what I've seen.
I specifically mentioned suicidal ideation as Firefly had mentioned it. Some No voters have stated that they're in favour of repeal for Rape or FFA but that then, in the former, forces the woman to have to justify her decision to have a termination which ties in with all the guilt and shaming that the No side are pushing.
Many on the No side also are opposed to HPV which is just another control mechanism.
 

Bodily integrity is the right to autonomy and self determination regarding your body. It was first recognised as a right in the 60s arising from the Ryan v AG case, to do with flouridation of the public water supply. It is nothing to do with bodily image.

You only raise suicide as a risk. What about serious life-threatening illnesses such as cancer?
 
Bodily integrity is the right to autonomy and self determination regarding your body.
I'm not for a second saying any woman would get an abortion due to being perceived as fat. It was a bad example, but the point I am making is that bodily control "could" apply to this case. In my opinion, in such a case, the life of the unborn would be more important. That's why I don't like the "my body, my choice" argument. I would prefer if the argument and reason supporting abortion was on scientific grounds, ie the point that a life becomes a human life.

You only raise suicide as a risk. What about serious life-threatening illnesses such as cancer?
In those cases I think the life of the woman is paramount and the woman's life should come first. However, it would be impossible to define a list of risks and illnesses that would be covered. Also, sometimes the diagnosis can be subjective so would we need a team invloved for every case? Much too difficult and time consuming.
 

As it stands, the 8th amendment prevents treatment of a woman whose health is in danger. Her life has to be in danger (no doubt someone will come along to say that I’m wrong about that, but I’m not). You are right, you cannot define every scenario. Therefore, repeal and introducing legislation outlining time limits whereby you can ask for an abortion for any reason up to 12 weeks and then there are limited circumstances thereafter up to 24 weeks make the most sense. The health and welfare of the woman has to be the most important thing.
 
Here’s a link to the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013. Note the 3 main sections entitled Risk of loss of life from physical illness, risk of loss of life from physical illness in emergency, and risk of loss of life from suicide. There is no section dealing with risk of serious injury to health from physical illness or emergency.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2013/act/35/enacted/en/pdf
 
I agree with all of that, but allowing abortion for any reason up to 12 weeks can result in abortions where the health and welfare of the woman is not an issue...it could just chosen for any reason