Irish vote of gay marriage
Discussion
I don't understand the absolute fascination and ramming down the throats of the British public by the media this referendum has caused.
It's a vote in a foreign country who cares?
Yes report it but is there really need for breaking news tickers wall to wall coverage front page spreads the BBC news has half the page dedicated to it.
It's a vote in a foreign country who cares?
Yes report it but is there really need for breaking news tickers wall to wall coverage front page spreads the BBC news has half the page dedicated to it.
SmoothCriminal said:
I don't understand the absolute fascination and ramming down the throats of the British public by the media this referendum has caused.
It's a vote in a foreign country who cares?
Yes report it but is there really need for breaking news tickers wall to wall coverage front page spreads the BBC news has half the page dedicated to it.
Ireland is a bit more than a "foreign country" when it comes to UK affairs. A significant chunk of the island is still British as you may be aware and the implications for the British bit of this vote could be significant too.It's a vote in a foreign country who cares?
Yes report it but is there really need for breaking news tickers wall to wall coverage front page spreads the BBC news has half the page dedicated to it.
Another aspect you may not be aware of is, since the imposition of 8th Ammendment to the Irish Constitution in 1983, over 200,000 Irish women have had abortions, the vast majority of them in the UK. So, even from a selfish UK centric point of view, you should at least appreciate that this vote will provide signfiicant relief for the UK NHS and your wallet.
Or is this just another go at the BBC? I think most UK news outlets have had this as their lead story today.
What would have been your "headline of the day" been anyway?
k right off.AJL308 said:
Kawasicki said:
Robertj21a said:
Kawasicki said:
Sad day for the innocent unborn.
Very much a minority view it would seem.Kawasicki said:
AJL308 said:
Kawasicki said:
Robertj21a said:
Kawasicki said:
Sad day for the innocent unborn.
Very much a minority view it would seem.At the time of Savita Halappanavar's death (2012) the maximum sentence for having or assisting a termination was life imprisonment.
Their law really did need an overhaul.
Their law really did need an overhaul.
MC Bodge said:
Kawasicki said:
AJL308 said:
Kawasicki said:
Robertj21a said:
Kawasicki said:
Sad day for the innocent unborn.
Very much a minority view it would seem.My first thought to MC's point above was "So the best course of action available is TO KILL THEM?"
It's a complex issue, but the flippancy that surrounds it - that fundamentally it's a woman's right to choose - I am starting to feel nauseous about. No one seems happy with 30wk terminations. And we have examples of babies surviving <25ks, so really where in morality does it sit that at 12wks or wherever you pick, it's OK?
Note: I am of course speaking about "any reason" terminations that this vote was for. Severely disabled foetuses or pregnancies from rape I agree should probably have an 'out' option.
Socially I am left-leaning but this one I cannot abide.
GroundEffect said:
//
Note: I am of course speaking about "any reason" terminations that this vote was for. Severely disabled foetuses or pregnancies from rape I agree should probably have an 'out' option.
Not allowable under the previous law. Only if the mother's life was in danger. Possible life sentence for terminating a pregnancy that was the result of a rape - which is one reason why the vote was needed. Note: I am of course speaking about "any reason" terminations that this vote was for. Severely disabled foetuses or pregnancies from rape I agree should probably have an 'out' option.
Cold said:
At the time of Savita Halappanavar's death (2012) the maximum sentence for having or assisting a termination was life imprisonment.
Their law really did need an overhaul.
But the law as it was was specifically set up to protect her. She died because her doctors failed to recognise she had sepsis.Their law really did need an overhaul.
If a person in the UK is against abortion, their aim should be to get the laws changed in the UK - not get upset by a decision made by the people of "a foreign country" as one poster has already described Ireland.
We have had legal abortion in the UK since 1967. The Irish have had a mess of unworkable law since 1937, made worse by the 8th Amendment in 1983. Their refusal to do anything constructive about the issue passed the burden on to the UK.
That is now over, hopefully.
We have had legal abortion in the UK since 1967. The Irish have had a mess of unworkable law since 1937, made worse by the 8th Amendment in 1983. Their refusal to do anything constructive about the issue passed the burden on to the UK.
That is now over, hopefully.
Kawasicki said:
But the law as it was was specifically set up to protect her. She died because her doctors failed to recognise she had sepsis.
And therefore refused to sanction the abortion - which was the key reason she died. The law made life very, very difficult for the professionals.But that was not the only tragedy caused by these mad laws. Read through the various stories. Frankly, Irish women had enough.
Eric Mc said:
But that was not the only tragedy caused by these mad laws. Read through the various stories. Frankly, Irish women had enough.
And who can blame them? The Republic of Ireland has changed massively in recent decades. The RC church losing its influence massively being one of the reasons, which appears to be a good thing.
The new situation will eventually mean that UK citizen women in Northern Ireland will have less choice and say than those in the Republic (down to both RC and a religion of a slightly different flavour) I do wonder if/when this will change too.
GroundEffect said:
As I'm getting older (well, 30...) I'm finding myself less and less comfortable with abortion.
My first thought to MC's point above was "So the best course of action available is TO KILL THEM?"
It's a complex issue, but the flippancy that surrounds it - that fundamentally it's a woman's right to choose - I am starting to feel nauseous about. No one seems happy with 30wk terminations. And we have examples of babies surviving <25ks, so really where in morality does it sit that at 12wks or wherever you pick, it's OK?
Note: I am of course speaking about "any reason" terminations that this vote was for. Severely disabled foetuses or pregnancies from rape I agree should probably have an 'out' option.
Socially I am left-leaning but this one I cannot abide.
The media usually present those opposed as being religious conservatives only, but really you are balancing the rights of two people, the mother and the unborn child. My first thought to MC's point above was "So the best course of action available is TO KILL THEM?"
It's a complex issue, but the flippancy that surrounds it - that fundamentally it's a woman's right to choose - I am starting to feel nauseous about. No one seems happy with 30wk terminations. And we have examples of babies surviving <25ks, so really where in morality does it sit that at 12wks or wherever you pick, it's OK?
Note: I am of course speaking about "any reason" terminations that this vote was for. Severely disabled foetuses or pregnancies from rape I agree should probably have an 'out' option.
Socially I am left-leaning but this one I cannot abide.
MC Bodge said:
The new situation will eventually mean that UK citizen women in Northern Ireland will have less choice and say than those in the Republic (down to both RC and a religion of a slightly different flavour) I do wonder if/when this will change too.
A devolved matter according to the NI secretary so it is up to the people of NI.The media reporting today that some Tory women MPs want a vote in the HOC on the issue. They are either actively trying to bring down their own government or are clueless about the implications.
JagLover said:
MC Bodge said:
The new situation will eventually mean that UK citizen women in Northern Ireland will have less choice and say than those in the Republic (down to both RC and a religion of a slightly different flavour) I do wonder if/when this will change too.
A devolved matter according to the NI secretary so it is up to the people of NI.The media reporting today that some Tory women MPs want a vote in the HOC on the issue. They are either actively trying to bring down their own government or are clueless about the implications.
However, the referendum result in the Republic does make NI stand out now as the only remaining Western European state where women cannot exercise this right. Matters will change in NI too - eventually.
For historic and religious reasons, the whole island of Ireland has lagged behind the developed countries regarding personal freedoms. The Republic of Ireland has grasped these changes over the past twenty years or so. Northern Ireland has not - so far.
I'm pretty sure it will. It's just a matter of time.
JagLover said:
The media usually present those opposed as being religious conservatives only, but really you are balancing the rights of two people, the mother and the unborn child.
Religious beliefs tend to be the most major factor, certainly amongst people I know.It is really the removal of a "potential" life, rather than a life lived, similar to contraception. Which, again, is often a religious matter -sex being only for procreation and even classed as "sin" by some.
I'm not sure that other people should be entitled to tell a woman to have a child against her will or against her own health or interest (in the case of severe disability)
We do, of course, have laws about the stages of pregnancy at which termination can occur, so the decision cannot be deferred indefinitely.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff