Yeah Iād agree with that, as I said I think all were surprised it worked as itās meant to do - a rare occurrence!
I think a little of that has continued into the campaign. Watching Mary Lou and Micheal last night co-operating or SF lads on twitter commending Harris. Genuine cross party effort.
The lisbon treaty was a cross party effort!
Yeah - thatās what was surprising that they didnāt take the politically prudent course of action.
Ok - but a surprise on something as divisive as this.
Inform yourself as much as you can if you intend to vote. Make your own mind up then.
Its a disgrace that the people tasked with proposing legislation that would have provided a safe environment for your friend neglected to do so.
A Red C poll from 12 months ago revealed almost 70% support for abortion on medical grounds and less than 20% support for abortion as a lifestyle choice.
They ignored this poll and now your friend is crudely lumped in with the lifestyle abortionists.
Its wrong. These people have made a huge mistake.
True but then allowing tds free campaigning made it safe enough
Just hope that no woman on your life, daughter, wife, cousin etc is ever in the position Savita was.
The 8th is a clear threat to womenās health and has to go.
In less crude terms I agree with this
The real battle will be fought in the Dailā¦ Have we numbers of for and against?
The thought occurred seeing all the videos of #hometovote etc that the last two referendums have engaged young voters in a way that general politics just doesnāt. If any political party/movement could harness that energy and enthusiasm theyād have some base
The 8th has to go to enable all of that. Youāve been told this umpteen times but you still continuously parrot this nonsense.
To try and answer your question substantively thereās actually a definition of āserious harmā in a very different piece of legislation, the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997, wherein āserious harmā is defined as
āinjury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious disfigurement or substantial loss or impairment of the mobility of the body as a whole or of the function of any particular bodily member or organā.
So obviously thatās a different piece of legislation but serious harm is a phrase that the Courts are already used to dealing with and interpreting. Thereās no real scope for subjectivity in the definition of serious harm that the courts are used to dealing with. Iād expect the definition in the context of terminations will end up being the same. I agree that an exact definition should be given but youāre looking at proposed legislation only that hasnāt even been put to the Dail yet, I expect it will be sorted out.
No. The 8th if repealed will be replaced with abortion for everyone and anyone up to 12 weeks and abortion after 12 weeks if you say you are suicidal.
I think the proper answer to why not just target the hard cases is because
Thereās already abortion after 12 weeks if you say youāre suicidal.
To accommodate any of what he said the 8th amendment has to be removed.
On top of that, the committee that made the recommendations looked at the practicality of legislating for every scenario.
Take rape. Difficult to prove at all. Impossible to prove within a short number of months. Take health in the example of the girl I gave above, should someone like her, who knows the effect a pregnancy would have have to go to say two consultants to agree on the threat to her health, would you get two appointments in less than 12 weeks? There is simply no way to limit it to the hard cases with rigorous tests.
So the answer is unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks. Itās what most European countries have.
For the record I would be against allowing abortion up to the date allowed in the UK.
A referendum is a simple yes or no . It is divisive and polemic and will appeal to young . Day to day politics are complex , involve huge compromise with avowed policies and will ultimately disappoint .
Youāre correct.
I have to say though, I find the hometovote thing hugely impressive. Yes, thereās some virtue-signalling in it but it shows some level of commitment to drive change in Ireland.
Again it is virtue signaling but it has largely been relatively small numbers on fait accomplis . The real issues affecting the vast majority of citizens now are housing , waiting lists , Cost of living , wages , Police scandals , crime , etc . āHome to voteā might have a job here but letās see .