Irish vote of gay marriage

[Derek Smith]

Counting starts in the referendum in Ireland today, the result expected around midday.

Even three years ago I would have bet heavily against a Yes vote. Now it would appear that the result is unpredictable, with Yes being a slight favourite. All the polls suggest a Yes, but we know about polls, don't we.

This is a remarkable change, even if the vote doesn't go through. The church ruled in the old days.

[Derek Smith]

Eric Mc said:

Ireland has changed dramatically over the past 30 years. The Celtic Tiger - for all its faults, gave the population a sense of confidence and self belief which removed the final remnants of oppressive legacy dating back to the formation of the state in 1921.

Has it removed them or merely pushed them back a bit? I'm told that there are vast areas where the church still rules as much as it always did.

That said, in towns and, more so, cities the mood has swung to more modern morals. The young, I'm told, are if anything less likely to be overtly religious than the rest of the UK. This from a friend who is a frequent visitor to Dublin.

[Derek Smith]

A good result, and one that, I hope, changes people's ingrained beliefs about Southern Ireland, at least most of it.

The travel adverts have a lot to answer for I think. They make the place seem like a theme park.

It is not a great leap forward in the scheme of great things, but it does promise a lot.

Well done the voters of Ireland.

[Derek Smith]

Kawasicki said:

FN2TypeR said:

Small babies didn't make the case for no, religious fundos and traditionalists did.

I‘m glad someone spoke for them.

They spoke for themselves, their own point of view.

Unborn children have rights in Great Britain. They have a number. However, they tend to start when the foetus is capable of being born alive, i.e. has some claim to being a 'person'.

I can see why abortion is distasteful to many, as indeed do I. I was brought up in a non-religious family but they were firm in their ideas of no abortions. However, times have moved on and I can appreciate that women's point of view might differ from that of men as they have a bigger investment.

There were a number of examples quoted in the build up. For instance the child with the unformed head that the woman had to carry to full term. Then there's the child that was conceived by way of rape. Should both these women be obliged to carry the foetus to full term? Despite having, in the main, the same moral beliefs of my family, I've no doubt that I would say that abortion in both the above circs are a woman's right.

If you disagree then I think I would find it hard to discuss with you. If you agree with me then the obvious question is what other cases would you feel would come within the scope of an allowable termination? 'Cause the line in such case must be drawn somewhere. Where would you draw yours?

A foetus is a potential person, but it is only potential.

[Derek Smith]

Kawasicki said:

Semantics.

So this whole debate comes down to whether you think what exists in the womb at some stage before birth has the right to life.

I think it does.

Is that so radical or regressive?

You use the word 'rights' as if it is some sort of magical get out of gaol free card. Rights are only what the law prescribes. I'm not sure what you mean by right to life. It is not clear from any of your posts.

In law a foetus has the 'right to life' when it is capable of being born alive, but even this is conditional. A line has to be drawn somewhere and in a democratic society this is indicated by laws.

Our system means that, brexit apart, MPs and judges decide what is the law regardless, in fact, of the majority view. For instance, it would appear that hanging has overwhelming support, but MPs refuse to enact the law.

You have, according to a previous post, drawn the line somewhere between conception, when it is OK to stop the foetus forming, and a time which you refuse to nominate. However, not to bother as the law has stipulated a time.

The vast majority of abortions are completed within 12 weeks of conception. The upper limit is twice this and there is an argument to make it lower.

So where would you draw your line? It's a simple enough question but one which you have failed to address.

I may or may not agree with the time limit of 24 weeks. There are persuasive arguments for both sides. Whatever the time limit should be must be arrived at taking all the relevant circumstances into account, including the views of women. I agree it is not a case of solely their say, but there is more than a tinge of sexism in that the laws on the matter were passed, in the main, by middle aged men.

You are fully entitled to your opinion. However, from your posts it would seem that you view a foetus as being people from the moment of conception. You are also happy to ignore these rights at an early stage. As I said, I'm not sure what your point of view is other than it is not nice to abort a foetus, something which a number of posters agree with. There's a lot in life which is not nice but is best to do.

So give up an upper limit. It does not have to be in weeks of course. Give it a go and your arguments will have some form of basis one can discuss.

[Derek Smith]

Kawasicki said:

12 weeks. A fertilized embryo is not a person, for some odd reason you seem to think I’m religious!

At 18 weeks babies can now survive. Aborting at 24 weeks is extremely disturbing.

Edited by Kawasicki on Monday 28th May 18:19

So you're one of use then. The only difference is a matter of dates.

There's a certain non-sequitur in 12 weeks and 18, but then there's no incontrovertible logic in any side's argument.

Edited by Derek Smith on Monday 28th May 20:21

[Derek Smith]

There's an incredible amount of information on the net regarding abortions. A significant about is one side or the other pushing an agenda with little or no comparison. I'm glad it's not me wondering. However, there are some basic stats on time limits.

Total terminations: 185,596

Terminations up to 12 weeks: 169,825 which is 91%

Terminations up to 18 weeks: 181,874 which is 98%

Terminations 19 weeks plus: 3722.

That's 2%

(All percentages rounded to nearest whole number and subject to official confirmation.)

The 2% figure is all abortions over 18 weeks, so includes those up to 28 weeks and over and would include where the baby is dead or the mother's life is threatened.

So practice seems to be keeping pace with reform. I don't know why. I've read that some pressure groups are pushing for 18 weeks and it would seem that generally, this is what is happening. They've already got it.

I'm oddly reassured although I'm not sure why.

[Derek Smith]

Halb said:

Looking at the stats, I think the UK has struck a good balance.

weeks	number
3-8	134,849
9-12	34,976
13-19	12,738
20-23	2,807
24 and over	226

91% under 12 weeks

You beat me to it. But given the amount of maths required by my ageing brain, I will not delete my post.

[Derek Smith]

Kawasicki said:

https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10....

That's a rather odd report, reading almost like a thesis. I'm not sure that its legal claims are correct.

The main reason for the abortions was Down's Syndrome. This is discovered fairly late on in the pregnancy, in theory as early as 13/4 weeks but in practice somewhat longer.

Whether it should be a reason for termination is, I think, down to personal views.

[Derek Smith]

Eric Mc said:

A really odd outcome. Of course, if the border becomes a hard border, they might have to put border guards on the border checking to see if women travelling North to South who were pregnant on the way down are still pregnant on the way back.

And don't laugh. In the 1960s, women were arrested travelling from NI to the Republic because they had bought condoms in Belfast.

I worked in a factory in the late 60s and a bloke on honeymoon had his condoms confiscated at the airport. It was a petty move. All they did was drive north, cross the border and drive back.

Left a nasty taste in the mouth evidently.