Wallace Bill defeated 45-95 #Dáil
— Gavan Reilly (@gavreilly) July 7, 2016
Readers may recall how Independents 4 Change TD Clare Daly’s identical bill was voted down last year 20-104.
Previously: A Fine Republic
Table of who voted how via Gavan Reilly
UPDATE:
^ Here are the 17 abstentions on @wallacemick‘s FFA bill in the #Dáil pic.twitter.com/ydNvTQqJQK
— Gavan Reilly (@gavreilly) July 7, 2016
Sponsored Link
a lot more votes than last time, at least there’s that.
Why are Prolife campaign and Youth Defence so hell bent against a referendum on this?
I’m guessing they see it as a stepping stone to abortion on demand. That and that the entire concept doesn’t sit well with a lot of people, for whatever the reason.
They don’t like abortion in almost any circumstance.
On top of that though – does anyone believe that a referendum to remove the constitutional protection of the life of the unborn will lead to abortion being allowed in the case of FFA and FFA alone?
No. Why?
Even if you could convince prolife people on the exceptional case of abortion for FFA cases (which I doubt), they would rightly suspect that removing 40.3.3 will lead to widespread availability of abortion a la England and Wales.
You may welcome this. Prolife people wouldn’t (which is what the question was about).
The 38 weeks question that gets thrown into this debate is always a misdirection.
No doctor would abort a healthy foetus at 38 weeks. At that point, the child can survive outside of the womb.
Abortions in late term are for foetuses with fatal foetal abnormalities. It’s not like women decide to carry a child for close to nine weeks and then two weeks before the due date suddenly thing, you know what, I’d rather go to Marbella.
But I suspect the people who ask this question time and time again already know the answer to their question.
The question was asking why anti abortionists are against giving Irish citizens the right to vote on this. The goal of pro choicers is to make abortion available to anyone who feels they need it. That a vote might realise their aim is not an argument against having a vote. Anti abortionists can simply vote against it. Could their opposition to a vote indicate they know their opinion is a minority one?
Why do you say their view is a minority one when both these bills were defeated in the dail and the last referendum evidence we have shows that it’s not a minority?
The only evidence we have at the moment is polls, which as you say are useless.
Moyest – from a prolife, anti-abortion point of view, there is no upside in having a referendum. Any chance that 40.3.3 could be removed makes a liberal abortion regime more likely.
No upside? Do you not think that a defeat for the pro-choicers would affect the national conversation in your favour?
That would just be posturing. The downside of removing 40.3.3 is not worth it.
The referendum, when it does come may well be a close one because it will be designed to appeal to as many people as possible – it will seek to address very limited cases and give some remaining protection to the unborn. But in the end, a vote to remove 40.3.3 weakens the protection of the unborn.
Huh? I asked you whether the country voting against legalising abortion would be an upside for people against legalising abortion. Obviously the answer to that is yes. I’m still not seeing any legitimate reason for denying me the right to vote on this from you. Your line here is worryingly anti democratic.
Yeah. You’re not really reading what I write Moyest.
A prolife referendum win may well be good, but it’s not worth the implicit risk of removing 40.3.3.
I said when the referendum comes, not if. I believe there will be one. I’m explaining why it might be unwelcome……that it runs the risk of removing 40.3.3.
I don’t think not having a referendum would be undemocratic per se though. If the necessary Oireachtas support isn’t there for it then that’s just representative democracy in action.
“Yeah. You’re not really reading what I write Moyest.”
Funny. That’s exactly what i was thinking given how your answer had little, if anything, to do with my question. It also looked suspiciously like copy but that’s another conversation.
“that it runs the risk of removing 40.3.3.”
But that’s the whole point of removing the 8th amendment, hence why your answers here have been so confusing. The question was asking why anti abortionists are against letting Irish citizens vote on removing the 8th and your answer was ‘because it could result in the removal of the 8th’?!? Either you’re fundamentally misunderstanding something or that’s a professional level of obsfucation. Given how you referred to the 8th as ‘40.3.3’ as opposed to ‘the 8th amendment’, I suspect the latter.
Given how you refer to the 8th as 40.3.3 five times I meant.
Copy?
The 8th Amendment added 40.3.3, right?
How much simpler can I make it? People who don’t like abortion value 40.3.3. Therefore they’d prefer not to run the risk of loosing it.
“The 8th Amendment added 40.3.3, right?”
Yes, but everyone knows it as the 8th as opposed to 40.3.3. 5 times indicates a deliberate choice of language much like how you kept insisting i use the word ‘destroy’ as opposed to ‘abort’ or ‘end the life of’. That kind of deliberate choice of language suggests you are trying to spin or affect a narrative rather than have a conversation. It’s very “pr”.
“How much simpler can I make it?”
Pretty sure everyone gets it, fella. The confusion was about how you shaped your answer. ‘Why don’t anti abortionists want a vote on removing the 8th?’ ‘Because it “increases the chances” of removing the 8th’ Well no shi* it does. That’s the point. So what you meant is ‘we might lose.’
What kind of black magic do you think I’m trying to do by calling it 40.3.3 rather than the 8th Amendment? Are you a fan of numerology Moyest?
Of course “we” ( the prolife side) might lose. I explained how that was more likely as the referendum question would be framed to have wide appeal. That’s what the Citizens Convention is going to be doing……sorting out the right question to ask so that a referendum can be carried.
Its pretty standard for people, liberal or conservative, to not want a referendum if they think there is a chance of losing. There was a sizeable number of pro-gay-marriage people (the most high profile I saw being Panti) who said gay marriage should not be a referendum issue.
“What kind of black magic do you think I’m trying to do by calling it 40.3.3 rather than the 8th Amendment?”
I wrote “That kind of deliberate choice of language suggests you are trying to spin or affect a narrative rather than have a conversation. It’s very “pr”.”
Not really sure what’s unclear there.
“Of course “we” ( the prolife side) might lose.”
That would have been the simplest and honest answer. You originally wrote “they would rightly *suspect* that removing 40.3.3 will lead to widespread availability of abortion a la England and Wales.”
Suspect. It just smacks of obsfucation.
https://youtu.be/a-i3o4dzsO0
You dwell too much on some things Moyest.
What narrative am I trying to affect by calling it 40.3.3 rather than the 8th?
The abortion one? Everyone, *everyone* refers to it as the 8th amendment. The fact that you referred to it as 40.3.3 5 times in this mini thead shows an obvious conscious decision not to refer to it as the 8th amendment. Maybe you could explain why?
I don’t have a reason. I’m entirely happy calling it either 40.3.3 or the 8th of the 8th amendment. The onus is on you, the person who is making the claim, to tell the world what I’m trying to do. What dastardly thing am I trying to do? You must have some idea. You’ve obviously thought this through Moyest, haven’t you? You’re not just inventing half-formed plots in your head and throwing them out there?
“The onus is on you, the person who is making the claim”
I already did. I don’t know how I could make it any clearer. You obviously made a conscious decision to not to refer to it as the 8th. I said that suggests you trying to spin a narrative, much like how you kept insisting I use the word ‘destroy’ after I used the word ‘abort’ and term ‘end the life of.’ What your exact issue is, I don’t know and I never claimed to. Perhaps ‘The 8th’ is “marketably” catchy and you want to discourage use of it. You have some ulterior motive anyway. You always do.
So you don’t know for sure what I’m doing, or why I’m doing it, but I’m definitely up to something.
We’ll that doesn’t sound crazy at all Moyest.
You’ve been listening to Don too much. She believes I may be someone else and have multiple accounts on here.
All because40 you can’t3 fathom wh3y someone wold have an alternative view to the one you hold.
“So you don’t know for sure what I’m doing, or why I’m doing it, but I’m definitely up to something.”
You have a track record with dishonesty and deliberate choice of language to shape a narrative. In 5 posts on a mini thread, you referred to the 8th as 40.3.3 5 times. That’s very unusual and obviously conscious. If it looks like a duck and quaks like a duck….
“All because40 you can’t3 fathom wh3y someone wold have an alternative view to the one you hold.”
And there’s more of your dishonesty. You’re trying to paint yourself as a victim because someone had the cheek to question your motives. You really are quite manipulative.
“The fact that you referred to it as 40.3.3 5 times in this mini thead shows an obvious conscious decision not to refer to it as the 8th amendment. Maybe you could explain why?”
The 8th Amendment = 40.3.3
Why would I not use either phrase?
I’ve explained this several times to you but sure, what’s the harm in another 10?
Again; Everyone, *everyone* refers to it as the 8th, so referring to it as 40.3.3 five times in a row is a) quite unusual and b) a clearly conscious decision. Otherwise you’d have referred to it as the 8th at least once in that sequence. The question is why you obviously made a conscious decision to not refer to it as such. I’ve suspected for a while that you’re involved in some group that actively campaigns against it. Maybe it’s that or maybe you’re just trying to come across as smart to strangers on the internet by referring to exact paragraph and being ‘different’
But you don’t know why I might be doing it, no?
If you do come up with a theory, please let me know because clearly calling the 8th amendment 40.3.3 is really rattling your pro-choice sensibilities. If this is “a thing” I can report it to my handlers in the Vatican and they can share the Intel with the other sleeper cells in Ireland.
You have a habit of asking questions that were answered in the post you’re responding to. It’s almost like you don’t actually read them because you’re arguing with the straw man in your head. Here’s the last bit of that last post which answers your question.
“I’ve suspected for a while that you’re involved in some group that actively campaigns against it. Maybe it’s that or maybe you’re just trying to come across as smart to strangers on the internet by referring to exact paragraph and being ‘different’”
Bizarre you could miss that.
Do you think calling it 40.3.3 is making you more prolife? Is that what your worrying about?
Was there something unclear about my previous two posts?
Yes. But I expect you’re off your game. What with me calling the 8th 40.3.3. It’s enough to throw anyone.
What was unclear about my last 2 posts?
Hopefully not. Hopefully a new referendum will make women the arbiters of what is growing in their wombs.
Ok, you opened this up – any limits on when abortion can take place until? 38 weeks ok?
Yeah. In the fanciful scenario where a woman endures 37 weeks of pregnancy and then for some reason decides to have an abortion after that length of time, yes. Certainly in preference to not having abortions in deference to madey-up scenarios that people like to portray as the common event.
This scenario, of course, relies on the woman hating stereotype of women being flighty and whimsical and unable to understand what they’re doing and give it proper consideration.
Its not really a hypothetical situation. Its quite possible. Many, many, (many) people will take issue with the idea of abortions at 38 weeks (I’m pro choice but horrified at the idea), which you have said you would be willing to vote through. The “women should be the sole arbiter” line is one that will hurt perfectly reasonable arguments in favour of a relaxation of abortion restrictions.
No woman decides at 38 weeks that she’s just going to have an abortion. None. It’s a silly argument. Late term abortions are performed in the cases of fatal foetal abnormality. Not because some woman decided after carrying a child for close to 9 months that actually, I’ve changed my mind.
ok, 35? 33? 30? 28? When does it stop becoming “silly” to suggest a women may have an abortion, and that some sort of restriction should be in place? As i said, the whole notion that “women should be the sole arbiter of what is growing in their wombs” ignores the somewhat more complex reality of when we should consider human life to have some sort of “rights”. As i said, i’m overwhelmingly pro choice, but think basic restrictions also make sense. I asked the question to find out who didn’t think basic restrictions make sense.
It is really a hypothetical situation. At 38 weeks, you’d have a live birth. My own child was born at 38 weeks and didn’t need any assistance post birth. It’s like asking whether I’d vote for an abortion at 42 weeks. Sure, why not? Who’s going to go for that? It’s a stupid question the only purpose of which is to make the idea of limits based on whether the foetus could potentially survive the main issue in the whole discussion. It’s a rhetorical sleight of hand and one that I reject entirely.
Jane
here’s the deal. If the 8th is to be repealed, it has to go to a public referendum. In order for the public to be convinced to repeal it, they have to be happy with what replaces it. If you think “make women the sole arbiters and allow unrestricted abortions up to 42 weeks” is a winning argument, you are sadly mistaken. You’ll appeal to the already converted and put off those on the fence. I will not vote in favour of such a law, but i will vote for one with sensible restrictions. Your call as to whether you want to actually enact positive change or be a martyr to your cause with zero to actually show for it.
Owen C there is NO SUCH THING as an ‘abortion’ at 38 weeks. (And every person who throws this disingenuous, utter canard into the debate knows it). Past the point of viability (c. 20 – 21 weeks’ gestation) it is a normal, medically-assisted delivery. It happens all the time for many reasons e.g. the foetus was not developing well or the mother’s health was in jeopardy. In my own case my pregnancy was ‘terminated’ (shock-horror) two days before term because my health was in danger. My healthy baby was delivered by caesarian section.
Well, that’s your view. I personally have respect for women, our bodily integrity, ability to make decisions and our rights. I will not change my views based on the prejudices of people who will not trust women to make appropriate decisions. My beliefs in this regard are not informed by what this misogynistic culture will accept.
NOC
at 20-21 weeks, is there a significant risk to the baby’s life from early delivery (vs remaining in the womb)?
Jane
so far you have referred to women hating, misogyny, lack of respect for women’s decisions/rights, prejudice etc. Can i ask that you refrain from taking part in any campaign to repeal the 8th, as you are likely to put off potential Repealers, and are likely to embolden Retainers. It’s actually as if no one has learnt from the whole Brexit and Trump debacles.
You can ask what you like, but I’ll continue to say what I think is right and I don’t need your permission.
Jane, where did i say that you need my permission? Jesus christ, grow up. People are going to challenge your views and they’re not necessarily guilty of “women hating”. Deal with it.
Owen C, yes, there is, but what has that got to do with my refutation of your lie that there are abortions carried out as late as 38 weeks?
My point is that deliveries of pregnancies are carried out all of the time after careful consideration of what is in the best interests of both parties. Even though there can be an increased risk to the health of a baby to have it delivered prematurely, sometimes this choice is made because forcing the woman to continue the pregnancy would be dangerous. So if we can expedite delivery in those circumstances, it seems particularly cruel, pointless, potentially dangerous to refuse to allow doctors to expedite the delivery of a foetus who has no chance of survival. A woman’s health, mental and physical, should not be endangered against her will for such a pointless ideological position (i.e. we must let the foetus/ baby die at 9 months rather than 6 months’ gestation). This ideology is not accepted as reasonable by the vast majority of humanity, as evidenced by more humane laws across the world.
Even our own laws contradict themselves. A foetus is not granted citizenship, yet it is protected by the Constitution. A miscarriage does not get a birth/ death certificate. The life-support of someone who has been declared braindead can be switched off yet a sentient, pregnant woman or girl must continue to risk her health and well-being, offering life-support to a foetus in an analagous condition. Miscarriages (thankfully) are not investigated as crimes, though the death of a baby would be investigated and charges of manslaughter or murder could be made. Parents or carers who neglect their children might also be investigated, though what of babies born with foetal alcohol syndrome or similar.
Now don’t get me wrong, the last two scenarios mentioned above would be truly horrifying were they to come to pass (and I am aware that there have been some notorious, disgraceful cases of similar situations in the US, El Salvador and so on). What I am pointing out is that, clearly, foetuses are NOT regarded as equivalent to born children even by Irish society. The anti-choice position is both immoral and irrational.
NOC
“forcing the woman to continue the pregnancy would be dangerous”
for clarity, i’m arguing against completely unrestricted abortion on demand. I am not arguing against early terminations required for medical reasons. I’m arguing against the concept of “the woman should be the sole arbiter” (as proposed by Jane). I’m arguing in favour of sensible restrictions.
” does anyone believe that a referendum to remove the constitutional protection of the life of the unborn will lead to abortion being allowed in the case of FFA and FFA alone?”
I would hope women get a choice in general.
I know that may not sit well with the type of people that think forcing 12 year old rape victims to carry a fetus is godly. But they’re ageing dying breed thankfully
DIdn’t you just mention YD above?
They’re not ageing
Dwindling, thank god.
They’re aging pretty badly, they might all look the same to someone who sees them a lot though.
Interesting you didn’t defend Pro Life campaign in your comment..
Cause they might lose (like the same sex marriage referendum)
Word is a lot of members of prolife groups where involved in the No side of that debate.
And Ireland’s prolife groups where noticeably less active for the duration of of the campaigns.
Because they are against abortion I assume.
They like the status quo. Thats not too dificult to understand.
It’s like the worst conspiracy theory in the world.
“Why might people who are opposed to abortion not want to see a referendum whose sole purpose is to make abortion more widely available?”
I think it’s worth exploring their motivation to maintain the current status quo in the face of disaster and dysfunction and tragedy, don’t you? What kind of values lead someone to think this is an ideal outcome? I definitely think that’s worth scrutinising.
Are rotide and newsjustin Youth Defence members?
I’m not.
And I doubt rotide, who welcomed the increase in the Yes vote for this bill in the first comment on this post, is.
“Are rotide and newsjustin Youth Defence members?”
I’m confident he’s in some poltical group anyway, whether that be Iona or Mattie McGrath’s constituency office, I’m fairly sure he’s in something.
Nope.
Just plain old newsjustin.
…..or am I….mmmmmwwwwahahahahaha
Sure you are love. You just happen to be ready to talk for days in the comments under every broadsheet article about abortion.
Anyone can check via google “site:broadsheet.ie newsjustin”
I know. And they’ll find the same handful of “usual suspects” there too.
Why do you think a private citizen wouldn’t be interested in abortion. It’s kind of an important topic.
Well: “I don’t agree with that persons opinion, they MUST be youth defense”
As I’ve said a lot here, I’m pro-choice, I favor a version of abortion much like what Owen C is talking about in this thread, i.e. with certain limits.
But since I have a functioning brain, I have no trouble in comprehending why people who are perfectly happy with the way things are, are in no rush to have a vote to change them.
No Rotide you are not prochoice, it’s quite clear you are a “Concern Troll”
you present yourself as being prochoice while continously defending prolife groups and views while tearing down any prochoice arguments.
Plenty of examples here from you.
https://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/05/24/making-a-choice/
It’s quite clear you and newsjustin function as a team.
He’s on to us rotide!
Ssssshhhhhhh. Say nothing.
To qoute you rotide on https://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/10/28/ugly-bus-of-death/
”
rotide
October 29, 2015 at 12:22 am
An abortion is the right decision whenever the pregnant woman wants one
That’s utter nonsense.
It’s that type of black and white rhetoric that gives the pro life zealots support”
You are not pro-choice.
Supertastic.
So who are we never giving any preference to again?
I’ll be voting for you next time around at this stage.
I’ll do my best to represent you.
and FF are gaining support in the Polls? What a load of rubbish …….
Polls mean fupp all. The Brits have proven that with the last 2 times they voted. Even without that, they’re highly flawed just in theory.
The only poll that matters is the one on election day, isn’t that right Moyest?
To be fair, Ireland has as many referendums during a single government than the UK has had in it’s history.
the government would prefer people to die, thanks. A little price to pay for keeping the staunch Catholic vote. Bewildering. absolutely bewildering.
Who is going to die because this bill was defeated?
Well, women. Again. But sure who cares about women?
Silly wagons.
Yet the Chief Medical Officer has said the bill wold have had exactly zero impact.
You realise women can die during childbirth, newsjustin, don’t you? Even if the foetus is healthy. Just because we’ve come far in medical terms, don’t forget just how many women used to die in childbirth, particularly from sepsis.
And for those who have to travel back from England on a Ryanair flight, there is a risk of haemorrhaging on the return flight, which can also be fatal.
So women. Those people (the living, breathing ones) you tend to forget about in these discussions.
I’m well aware that women can die in childbirth. But suggesting that this bill would do anything to prevent that is OTT.
If we didn’t have the 8th amendment we wouldn’t have to keep coming with elaborate bills to allow for exceptions.
The 8th has to go.
How? Some women with a foetus with a fatal fetal abnormality require immediate medical assistance when complications arise, up to and including medical abortion.
The longer you prolong treatment–say by forcing a woman to travel for care–the greater the medical risk becomes. Best practice is quick and early intervention when complications arise. It could feasibly take a life to wait for that treatment–much like in the case of Savita Halappanavar.
And actually, newsjustin, thinking about it some more, even if it’s not potentially fatal for the woman, it can have ramifications beyond immediate matters of life and death.
What do you think are the psychological and physical effects of having to carry a child with a fatal foetal abnormality to term against your wishes? They’re not small effects. They’re the kinds of situations that could adversely affect women’s physical and mental wellbeing in the long-term.
+1 Ricky Rocardo. It’s mental torture pure and simple. The UN was absolutely right.
Apologies for typo Ricky Ricardo
@newsjustin .. abnormalities with the child can lead to the mother dying if the baby isn’t aborted. . . eg. Savita Halappanavar
People are going to die because bills like this aren’t possible, and people are working hard to keep it that way
You should be more than bewildered. You should contemplating violently overthrowing the scum running the country for its own benefit.
@Ricky. The issue in that case was medical negligence .No heads rolled, but hospitals in the wake of that tragic case have introduced certain mandatory checks and procedures ( checks which are carried out in every UK hospital but were NOT carried out in Irish hospitals) . The issue of abortion should not have served to detract from the gross negligence of the medical staff in that particular case. And yes I am pro-choice.
Not entirely negligence. It’s easy to paint it as such and to find a scapegoat for the failings of the legislative system to deal with these matters. Yes, I agree there was negligence but the situation didn’t happen in a vacuum. There was a political and legal quagmire at play that took what should have been a no-brainer medical decision and made it a complex issue where medical staff could have no confidence that the necessary treatment fell within the boundaries of the law.
Yes, there are new protocols on the back of this case but that doesn’t change the fact that there should be no room for legal uncertainties when it comes to necessary, lifesaving care. A medical protocol does not supercede legal obligations and many doctors have highlighted that issue since this case in 2012.
Unlike Owen C, I am not even going to bother to clarify my point as it is pretty succinct. *sighs*
Well, that’s your prerogative but it does nothing to engage with my point. I’m not sure why you felt the need for a sarcastic “sigh”. I was discussing the point you made. Succinct as it may have been, there are other factors to consider in that case outside of negligence. Not sure why that elicits a derisive response but okay.
It was unconstitutional grandstanding.
The 8th needs to go. Enda’s constitutional review mechanism is a way for middle ireland to have a grown up conversatoin about it. I don’t like the Dáil being outsourced like that but if it works to take the polarisation out, fine.
But it must remove the 8th and not replace it with anything else. Its a medical issue and an a question of women’s autonomy.
*Enda’s constitutional review mechanism is a way for middle ireland to have a grown up conversatoin about it.*
Yeah, who do you reckon is going to be on that for the next seventeen million years of tedious minute about the exact moment a woman goes from being an independent human to an incubator for mother Ireland?
Cora Sherlock, Ronan Mullen, John Waters and a priest?
Did I win?
Also, that Dr Berry woman and a mild pro choicer who’s not really decided but is there to provide some timid appearance of balance.
There’ll also be a “gay man” for liberal balance
Haha on both accounts :)
I parked this comment on a thread yesterday about Richard Bruton’s RTE radio interview but I’ll just add to the compendium here where it might be better suited, after reading all the way down and being impressed reading many of the contributions…
I’ve read the jousting of sides over this for about 5 years on Broadsheet, with the to-and-fro of some insightful, wonderfully informative and empowering comments, against the plain obsequious spleen-venting fear of those who oppose. I commend Broadsheet for always returning to the sore spots of Irish life. I talked with friends who did the ferry alone or in twos and came back to the full horrid cliché of family ostracism and its long tail of anguish. I reside in a country that has full termination rights. ‘On-demand’ is quite the phrase (hit the remote, your innards evaporating before a box set), but whatever it be termed, it’s a decent humane right apportioned to an individual to exercise with recourse to professional care at any stage. Is this equitable? I think so. Is it a panacea? Maybe not but it carries no political incendiary, no protests and no hatred. It’s the private matter of loved ones. And it gets on the best it can with the many churches and state abiding by civic covenant. The unavoidable vista in Ireland to my eyes, in seeing the way the issue is portrayed among those in Ireland voted to represent or those paid to regurgitate their obfuscation to the wider media, is that they are reprehensible ineffectual legislators with no desire to serve the public good. They just don’t seem very bright or courageous or honest to use the tools of democracy to strengthen it. I hope social enlightenment comes to this area someday so that it’s forgotten as a topic of division and simply cedes to be endured in full legal and social power only by those directly affected by it.