I will definitely be voting yes for a number of reasons and see it as another important milestone in the separation of church and state in our country.

Agreed, and this in particular is a very important point. The 8th amendment has cost women's lives.

@ringerbell, not sure why you couldn't vote in it, sorry about that!

I don't know about being a fan of abortion, the more people I meet the more I think it should be compulsory.

This is something I think people are commonly mistaken about. Being pro-choice does not necessarily make one 'pro-abortion', whatever that means.

I'm still hoping natural selection will come good eventually on a grand scale.

 

I can't vote on this but am 100% voting repeal the 8th.

I'll be voting Yes as I believe doctors/physicians should have the power to do what they think is right for any patient.

The issue with contentious referenda such as this in Ireland is that the more reasoned middle ground voters don't have their voices heard. extreme and polarising views are the ones that sell papers and attract viewers. Ultimately it will descend into a vicious and dirty name calling exercise. I am also not at all confident that the referendum will be passed.

i think silly comments like this is why many silent "no" voters wont engage in a debate...

 

 

I honestly cannot see how you could vote no and not be a 'wacko' of some sort. Can anybody explain to me how they could rationalise voting no?

They're entitled to take the 5th

do you really not understand why someone would choose not engage with this??? 

additionally, how could you debate this issue with someone who has f*** the pope in their signature.

 

 

My views on the Vatican PLC are clear and with very good reason. I think it is absolutely sickening that the leader of an organisation that caused so much pain and suffering in Ireland, a man who himself covered up sexual abuse, can be greeted by half a million people worshipping him

Dunno why but this comment prompted me to enjoy some more of this excellent movie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVHJrz6Sk7U&t=99s" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVHJrz6Sk7U&t=99s

 

Can you explain why you think my comment is silly?

 

 

In cases where the child or mother's lives are in danger, in cases of rape/incest etc it 100% gets my backing.

But I don't agree in abortions in cases where a woman / couple feel they just don't want to have a baby and have it aborted, if people are stupid enough to not practice safe sex then they shouldn't be allowed have an abortion in my opinion, I know a few people that have done this and think it's a disgrace.

I suppose the counter is that:

1. Those people travel to England anyway so you're just removing a journey

2. I imagine the abortion procedure is fairly nasty so it's not like people are going to use this as a contraceptive

3. Major generalization here, but I'd imagine some of the people who get pregnant young by accident and would now avail of abortion are probably from disadvantaged backgrounds, the types whose kids will end up "having a tough upbringing" and ending up in front of a judge at some point with 300+ convictions on their record. It might help with a bit of natural selection.

I'm sure there's a nicer way of saying that last point.

100% agree

 

Michael O'Leary will be voting No then.

 

 

because your targeting people who have voted no by immediately questioning their "bravery" - ffs  are you unable to see how can could be taken as antagonistic. 

People might vote in a way you don't like for a number of reasons.  Healthy debate is good. in fact it should be your ultimate aim if you want to change their opinion on the question. calling them wacko's doesn't encourage debate. this comment is not just about the abortion question. it's about all debate. I've probably been guilty of this myself. the brexit referendum was a classic example of this. If you voted leave you were a racist so many leave voters kept quiet, and still voted leave...

They might be afraid of giving a reason because before they have had a chance to do so, they are already being labelled as wackos - That's the point !

thank you.

It is catch 22 then! The reason they are being so labelled is for not giving a reason! They are essentially labelling themselves.

Not the case here - You labelled them as wackos and then asked for the reason. Not the other way around.

 

He said: “I’ve always felt people in Ireland are very good at supporting each other, looking out for the most vulnerable in society and nobody’s more vulnerable than the unborn. So I’m encouraging you to vote no to save the 8th amendment. The alternative kills babies and wounds the mother. You know what the right choice is.”

 

it's a highly emotive subject PM. people will quote no for reasons that is not just church led moral doctrine. 

for the record i cant vote as i have lived in the uk for most of my life. if i could vote i would find it hard to vote yes. incidentally i would have voted yes for introducing same sex marriage.

my "difficultly" in voting yes in the abortion question - if i could vote - is down to personal experience. having tried for years to have a baby and experiencing utter heartbreak of a m/c i find terminating a life difficult to stomach - to even think about. for me it's not about what the pope says. that's not to say i would 100% vote "no" - but it means that i find the debate difficult for different reasons. 

it's not a black and white question. 

i would argue welcoming debate is better than attacking people. 

 

I didn't call them wackos, I simply stated that people who are voting no aren't brave enough to validate their reasons as to why on here and it's pretty apparent why they won't because the no campaign is just full of untruths and shock, mostly fake, imagery, that's pretty much all they have, so they won't post on here why they're voting no.

 

I don't see how I'm antagonising anyone. If I was voting no I'd have the balls to be able to post up why I'm voting no at least.

Its the fact that both sides of the debate, out of the traps have made this about abortion, as opposed to what it should be debated as.

Fair play for giving your reasons but I believe personal choice should be kept out of it. I have no idea how I would feel if my partner was pregnant and didn't want to keep it, ideologically I feel it would be her decision more than mine, but that is irrelevant to this vote, which, as HF rightly said, is about amending the constitution correctly and hopefully, in my opinion, bringing it in line with international human rights recommendations.

 

This is just utter nonsense being peddled by the NO side. 

 I know a few who don't fit that narrative and had an abortion in England 

Sorry to jump in on this. I agree that the "thin edge of the wedge" ought to be considered when discussing constitutional and legal matters. It is not tin foil hat territory, or should it be ignored as an inconvenient truth.

However, Ireland will undoubtedly act within the confines of general European practice, which will give rise to 12 weeks as the cut off point. I would also suspect this will be a tighter vote, which will be used, politically, as indicative of a willingness to liberalise and vest power of autonomy in medical professionals and their patients, but not to provide for an unusually liberalised system, and political will in a generally conservative country will act as a valve on future change, at least in the medium term.

I never claimed it would form part of the amendment. And it will be up to the Oireachtas as to how the actually system will be devised, and implemented. The thin edge issue for me has become more relevant given the flurry of constitutional activity that the previous government engaged in, which has long term negative potentials, which needed to be illustrated, and taken on board.

I think that was what was being proposed. But that would almost certainly be unconstitutional, as it would bind future governments.

a. Law to stay as it is

b. Law to change to something else (but we won't tell you yet what that is)

In one.

Agree. Indeed, the areas where "Save the 8th" campaign most heavily are those that are most disadvantaged. they have numerous ads in the north inner city but you dont see many in Ballsbridge. The women in these areas are precisely the ones who are more likely to get trapped by the amendment - those who do not have the means to travel. It is insidious campaigning. the 'pro-life' side are not bothering targeting those who live in areas that would imply a better standard of living conditions. they would rather target the more vulnerable with their fearmongering. 

Put it this way. With this debate at the forefront of society a number of pressure groups have sprung up to 'save the 8th' with the argument usually being some variant of the idea that "all life is precious". If we take them at face value and give them the benefit of the doubt that they are not being disingenuous here - why are these groups not staging marches pressuring the government to provide socioeconomic guarantees in the constitution; increased benefits for single mothers in poor areas, more children's hospitals and so on if they are so concerned about the preciousness of the life of the child? The reason for that is that it's not that these people are pro-life - that would suggest they give a f**k what happens to the child after it is born. They are pro-birth and nothing more. Religious dogma and a desire to retain the last bastion of theocratic control in Ireland drives these particular groups rather than the wellbeing of the child. 

Campaigns like this will always focus their attention on where they are likely to get most traction. The anti-EU crowd were highly focussed on that area too, with their "They Died for Your Freedom" style argument, which buys into the allegedly nationalistic and Republican tendencies in socio-economically deprived areas. The same applies to candidates who are further away from the centre left and right, who know full well there is little point focussing their attention on Dublin South, but looking for traction in places like South-Central, and South West.

I wonder if the church wasn't involved if there'd be much opposition to this.

There are agents of the Church, who are often more fire and brimstone than the church themselves, and often have the least compassion and concern. You could take the Church out of the debate, and there would still be a lay community well capable of taking up the torch. There would also be the conservative movement who would default oppose repeal on an ideological basis. I also think that there will be the silent no voter, whose only act in this whole saga will be to vote no. Politicians will also vote based on their constituency, and that has given rise to TDs voting against even holding a referendum, let alone actually voting to repeal the amendment.

That Ronan Mullen fella freaks me out. He's about as progressive as the more fundamentalist members of the Taliban. 

(Option not available in the Poll above).

That's what the Absolutists want you to think.

This will run close. 

 

I've read what Ooohah said a few times now and I'm not sure how you feel that's what he's saying? Maybe I'm missing something

well said. 

for me it's the question of is an unborn baby is a life - even before 12 weeks. in my view it absolutely is and by terminating it you are taking a life away that's basic instinct is to survive. For me this is why i would probably vote no - if i could vote. 

strongly agree that reform is needed.

 

"There should be a responsibility on both the man and woman for their actions and what they engage in."

 

This is where I got it from. I wasn't having a go just asking if that's what he felt as I'm sure a lot of people will feel the same way.

I probably wont spend the day arguing my viewpoint as I Know Ill steer off some points slightly and end up arguing on tangents from my original viewpoint.

Don't leg it from the thread OohAah. I personally don't agree with your viewpoint but I'm interested in hearing more from people like yourself who are putting forward your argument in a constructive manner. It's important to get both sides to air their views. 

I posted previously that these people would travel to the UK to get this done anyway, but thinking about it, people who want to do drugs travel to Amsterdam, doesn't mean we should bring it in here. 

Think the repealers need to come up with a better argument than "shure they can do it in England anyway". It should be the right thing to do on its own right.

 I wont be legging it, Ill lurk but I dont want to spend the day rewording my points and then going off on tangants and arguing the tangents. These things can end up in cul de sacs and are a waste of time.

Alright, new tactic then. Me and you have a square go outside Slatterys after the next Ireland match to establish whose viewpoint is correct 

 

What!?!?!?

I still haven't seen anything that suggests otherwise, it has largely been a misunderstanding of what the referendum is, unrelated stories of personal heartbreak.

er, no. that was just my example of one of the reasons i am undecided on the topic. Thanks all the same.

your view is clouded on your hatred for the church, when as pointed out by many, church guidance isn't what's driving their thinking on the matter. 

it is clearly a highly emotive and challenging question and one that should be debated, in a respectful manner. 

 

Thats a Glaswegian thing isnt it? Learnt it from a Glasvegas song

So yeh, No