Your right to an Abortion

K-9

Sharrow wrote: »

No the last one was in 2002 and the one before that was in 1992.
So I think that means we are due one next year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

Yes, but they were more clarifications, not what I'd call substantive issues like the degree and term allowed. The main legislation is from 1983.

EGAR

No, I got a good few PMs and they were all positive. However, I got two emails via my website which is in my profile with religious spoutings of how I am going to burn in hell. I am absolutely unimpressed :cool:.

K-9

Stheno wrote: »

I'd not consider either the x case (which brought about the right to travel, and availability of information) or the 2002 referendum (which sought to limit the availability of abortion to women who were suicidal) to be minor referenda?

Given that no action has been taken to legislate for either it's possibly a moot point.

Think it was more clarifying the existing legislation from 1983, minor as in the sense that it wasn't a big change in the abortion criteria, more clarifying the right to information and travel.

Stheno

K-9 wrote: »

Yes, but they were more clarifications, not what I'd call substantive issues like the degree and term allowed. The main legislation is from 1983.

I'd very strongly disagree with you there, the right to information and travel was a key change in Ireland imo. As other posters have mentioned, prior to that you couldn't even get a phone number for advice if you wanted information.

I was in an SU around that time, and it was literally a case of "if you knew someone who knew someone who" then you could get the information. After the x case all of the pro choice agencies were free to give it out and assist people, the IFPA iirc put a scheme in place then to provide financial assistance to women who needed it.

I was 19 when the x case went to referendum, newly able to vote, and made sure I went home from college to do so.

For me the x case referendum was a sea change.

gingerhousewife

I think I can empathise and understand the viewpoint of both sides of the debate. It would seem to hinge on whether or not one believe's that abortion is the killing of a human being, or from what stage it is such. I believe it is, though I wouldn't care to attempt to draw a line in the sand as to from what point, it is too difficult. If pushed, I would probably say around when the heart starts beating, but I'm not firm on that.

However, I can also understand the pro-choice point of view, and how some don't see it as the killing of a human being, but of a woman choosing not to continue with a pregnancy, and who see the fetus as an extension of that woman's body. And I can totally understand women, who hold that view, making such a choice.

I would never judge somebody who has had an abortion.

But I wish that people who are pro-choice could try and understand from my point of view, why I don't want abortion legalised (but if it is voted in, and I suspect it will be in the next 10 years, then majority rules).

It is not as simple as if I don't agree with it, I shouldn't have one. As I believe it is killing a human being, I don't believe it should be legalised, no more than other things which I think hurt others should be legalised (I will not name specific offences as examples, as I don't wish to be accused of using emotive language). If I didn't believe that, then I would have no problem with it.

I am not religious at all, and have very little (if any) time for the Catholic Church.

To reiterate, I can see both sides of the argument, but cannot change how I feel/what I believe. And as such it is irritating to see comments along the lines of "if you don't want one don't have one". Just try to imagine that you believed what I believe, even though you may think I'm wrong, and you may be able to understand.

Hope this helps

Morag

EGAR wrote: »

No, I got a good few PMs and they were all positive. However, I got two emails via my website which is in my profile with religious spoutings of how I am going to burn in hell. I am absolutely unimpressed :cool:.

Report them to the email service provider as they will breach the Terms & Conditions or using them and can lead to the accounts being closed.

Stheno

EGAR wrote: »

No, I got a good few PMs and they were all positive. However, I got two emails via my website which is in my profile with religious spoutings of how I am going to burn in hell. I am absolutely unimpressed :cool:.

Forward them to hello@boards.ie and they may be investigated, hard to link emails with the thread tbf.

Sorry you had to get those.

EGAR

I am not bothered, obviously they have been sent by someone with a mental problem. I stand by what I posted. I am not the one with a problem.

mystique150

EGAR wrote: »

No, I got a good few PMs and they were all positive. However, I got two emails via my website which is in my profile with religious spoutings of how I am going to burn in hell. I am absolutely unimpressed :cool:.

Rise about it and thanks for sharing your experience! If they were as religious as they think they are, they should know that God loves everyone

K-9

Stheno wrote: »

I'd very strongly disagree with you there, the right to information and travel was a key change in Ireland imo. As other posters have mentioned, prior to that you couldn't even get a phone number for advice if you wanted information.

I was in an SU around that time, and it was literally a case of "if you knew someone who knew someone who" then you could get the information. After the x case all of the pro choice agencies were free to give it out and assist people, the IFPA iirc put a scheme in place then to provide financial assistance to women who needed it.

I was 19 when the x case went to referendum, newly able to vote, and made sure I went home from college to do so.

For me the x case referendum was a sea change.

Yes, but the X case was just clarifying the 1983 legislation.

It still was important as laying down a line, as your example shows. Imagine that referendum now with the internet and boards!

When you think we are still being taken to task over actually implementing current quite old legislation, the point is moot indeed. We can't even legislate for our current laws never mind planning one!

Suaimhneach

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwy6MYqMUHs

Youth defence are having a "Roadshow" this July, to propagate their misinformation.

Interestingly, nothing here in Dublin. Since Saturday I've been in touch with some organisations and I've reached out to encourage peaceful counter demonstrations.

Am I mad to be trying to get involved and apparently thinking other people would want to too, when you see the likes of the above? Doesnt anyone else feel outraged?

Stheno

gingerhousewife wrote: »

I think I can empathise and understand the viewpoint of both sides of the debate. It would seem to hinge on whether or not one believe's that abortion is the killing of a human being, or from what stage it is such. I believe it is, though I wouldn't care to attempt to draw a line in the sand as to from what point, it is too difficult. If pushed, I would probably say around when the heart starts beating, but I'm not firm on that.

However, I can also understand the pro-choice point of view, and how some don't see it as the killing of a human being, but of a woman choosing not to continue with a pregnancy, and who see the fetus as an extension of that woman's body. And I can totally understand women, who hold that view, making such a choice.

I would never judge somebody who has had an abortion.

But I wish that people who are pro-choice could try and understand from my point of view, why I don't want abortion legalised (but if it is voted in, and I suspect it will be in the next 10 years, then majority rules).

It is not as simple as if I don't agree with it, I shouldn't have one. As I believe it is killing a human being, I don't believe it should be legalised, no more than other things which I think hurt others should be legalised (I will not name specific offences as examples, as I don't wish to be accused of using emotive language). If I didn't believe that, then I would have no problem with it.

I am not religious at all, and have very little (if any) time for the Catholic Church.

To reiterate, I can see both sides of the argument, but cannot change how I feel/what I believe. And as such it is irritating to see comments along the lines of "if you don't want one don't have one". Just try to imagine that you believed what I believe, even though you may think I'm wrong, and you may be able to understand.

Hope this helps

I'm pro choice, but have limits for me personally. I'd never want to have to consider an abortion after 12-14 weeks, nor would I want to consider that I'd have a late term abortion due to e.g. club foot (the daily mail today published an article on information gained by a pro life org. in the UK on abortions for medical reasons, not a great source I know. However it made for some saddening (imo) reading)

However I fully accept that I can never know the circumstances other women find themselves in and so I choose to be pro choice so that should situations arise where abortion is their chosen path, then it is available to them.

For me personally any abortion performed after a foetus is viable (24 weeks in the UK) is difficult to come to terms with. But I am sure circumstances arise where women feel them necessary, and it must be far more difficult (again just imo) for a woman to be close to six months pregnant and undergo such a procedure for whatever reason.

It is not imo, my place to refuse her that choice.

Stheno

K-9 wrote: »

Yes, but the X case was just clarifying the 1983 legislation.

It still was important as laying down a line, as your example shows. Imagine that referendum now with the internet and boards!

When you think we are still being taken to task over actually implementing current quite old legislation, the point is moot indeed. We can't even legislate for our current laws never mind planning one!

Ah for me it was a big deal being in the SU in college and because it gave real rights for the first time imo. It was also the first time I voted, and my first exposure to it, and realising that I had the ability to influence a decision has stayed with me since, the result was incredibly close.

But yeah imagine it now with the internet! Hard to believe the difference in twenty years

Suaimhneach wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwy6MYqMUHs

Youth defence are having a "Roadshow" this July, to propagate their misinformation.

Interestingly, nothing here in Dublin. Since Saturday I've been in touch with some organisations and I've reached out to encourage peaceful counter demonstrations.

Am I mad to be trying to get involved and apparently thinking other people would want to too, when you see the likes of the above? Doesnt anyone else feel outraged?

I don't feel outraged, but I despise the means of distributing disturbing photos etc to influence people, I don't see why you shouldn't get involved if you feel strongly at all. When I walk past the lady on O'Connell St with her posters I feel outraged by that and want to stop it, so I can see where you are coming from.

YD are incredily good at their marketing as this video imo shows.

WesternNight

Suaimhneach wrote: »

Am I mad to be trying to get involved and apparently thinking other people would want to too, when you see the likes of the above? Doesnt anyone else feel outraged?

Not mad, no, although it would guarantee a lot of abuse and accusations being thrust your way!

The thing about those demonstrations is that you have people walking past, hearing only snippets and sound-bytes. Abortion isn't a pleasant topic, it's not a happy subject to discuss, it's not something people can get a proper grasp of in the few seconds it takes to walk by an information stand or a protest. "Save babies!" will probably sound better and be more persuasive than "It's my body!" or any medical or biological facts in that time. Even though there's much more to it, even though the likes of Youth Defense have some of their facts wrong and completely ignore the implications of their arguments, they have the upper hand when it comes to persuading the undecided who happen to stroll past.


And can I just make a small point - a heartbeat is often thought of as the sign of life...and people think that when the heart stops people die, and that's the case...but only because the heart is pumping blood to the brain. The brain dies and the person dies. If the brain isn't developed then there's no person, heartbeat or no heartbeat.

K-9

Stheno wrote: »

Ah for me it was a big deal being in the SU in college and because it gave real rights for the first time imo. It was also the first time I voted, and my first exposure to it, and realising that I had the ability to influence a decision has stayed with me since, the result was incredibly close.

But yeah imagine it now with the internet! Hard to believe the difference in twenty years

First referendum I voted in too and Donegal was the only county to vote No, no, no!

I don't feel outraged, but I despise the means of distributing disturbing photos etc to influence people, I don't see why you shouldn't get involved if you feel strongly at all. When I walk past the lady on O'Connell St with her posters I feel outraged by that and want to stop it, so I can see where you are coming from.

YD are incredily good at their marketing as this video imo shows.

Very heavily linked with Coir in the Lisbon debates. As much as I don't like them, dismiss them at your peril if it comes to a referendum.

gingerhousewife

WesternNight wrote: »

And can I just make a small point - a heartbeat is often thought of as the sign of life...and people think that when the heart stops people die, and that's the case...but only because the heart is pumping blood to the brain. The brain dies and the person dies. If the brain isn't developed then there's no person, heartbeat or no heartbeat.

That's a good point, and although I disagree, I can see where you're coming from.

Monty Burnz

Suaimhneach wrote: »

Doesnt anyone else feel outraged?

Yeah, the YD are a disgrace and always have been, in my opinion. Zealots.

Stheno

K-9 wrote: »

First referendum I voted in too and Donegal was the only county to vote No, no, no!


Very heavily linked with Coir in the Lisbon debates. As much as I don't like them, dismiss them at your peril if it comes to a referendum.

They have an incredible ability on a limitedish budget to hit a wide audience.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Yeah, the YD are a disgrace and always have been, in my opinion. Zealots.

I'd see them more as people who are commited to their ideal, and have found a way to pursue it. Not to mention clever marketing, good use of volunteers etc.

Monty Burnz

Stheno wrote: »

I'd see them more as people who are commited to their ideal, and have found a way to pursue it. Not to mention clever marketing, good use of volunteers etc.

Yes, but there are tactics that are acceptable in spreading your message and tactics that are not. YD don't seem to have any qualms at all on that score.

If plastering public places with ugly pictures is the best case you can make (a real appeal to emotion) then you probably need to rethink your position. Any surgical procedure looks pretty horrific outside an operating theatre. Plonking pictures of aborted foetuses on the main streets of Irish towns must be very distressing for people who have had abortions and/or have suffered miscarriages.

Ellis Dee

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Surely countries that have introduced legislation in relation to abortion have had exactly the same conversations, debates, polls, calls for changes in legislation, etc, etc. They just happened 20+ years ago.

You may be right, but I was spending a lot of time outside Ireland some 20 years before the seemingly interminable debate began in Ireland and remember nothing of that kind in the countries I was moving around in. It seems to me that the transition to the kind of liberal abortion policies that we see in countries like Germany, the Netherlands, the Nordic countries and even Belgium took place with a lot less tumult than we saw in Ireland. I've asked a few people in Sweden what happened there and they tell me the present policies just gradually came into being and there was never a major debate involving wide circles of society beyond the usual narrow circles of dogmatic religious groups. Maybe the Nordics have other priorities, such as a health system that we in Ireland can only dream of, excellent and completely free education (including school meals and textbooks, no uniforms), outstanding children's day care that enables women to play a full role in society - including politics - and things like that. I sort of feel Ireland has devoted far too much time, effort and energy to the abortion question and neglected to deal with other things that affect people's quality of life.

Even Spain sorted out the situation rather calmly after Franco departed the scene.

I suppose there would have been much more pressure for real change in Ireland with modernisation, secularisation, the revelations about the RCC and child sexual abuse, etc. and increasing prosperity from the 1990s onwards had it not been for the proximity of Britain. Even if the pro-lifers there managed to push through the repressive legislation that their counterparts did here (and I'd say the chances of that are very remote), we are still within fairly easy reach of numerous other countries that respect a woman's right to choose. Which means the debate will probably still be going on long after many of us are gone.:)

Ickle Magoo

Well, I imagine that most legislation of this nature comes to pass because there is a popular drive for it to do so & it is lobbied - and public opinion often sways whether legislative changes will pass, even in countries that don't require constitutional referenda.

As to proximity to Britain, I think that's probably the crux of the matter; other countries don't have a convenient neighbour they have "special relations" with that they would be able to so comfortably export the issue to in the numbers they do - certainly not without much greater political pressures both at home and from the country in question, to deal with the inevitability of abortion procurement internally.

Morag

Newstalk has a good talking history pod cast. Two of them which talk about what was going on in Ireland at the time are one about the contraceptive train and the other is about
Abortion and how from the start it was the Prolifers who started the ball rolling.

That after contraception was made legal in 1984 they panicked and demanded changes to the constitution to protect the unborn, so that we would have a judge hand down a judgement like Roe V wade and have abortion be made legal that way.

Which is hugely ironic cos that is what has happened with the X case and the D case.

Well worth listening to.

http://www.newstalk.ie/2010/programmes/all-programmes/talking-history/sunday-18th-april-abortion-referendum/

http://www.newstalk.ie/2010/programmes/all-programmes/talking-history/sunday-18th-april-abortion-referendum/

http://itunes.apple.com/ie/podcast/highlights-from-talking-history/id251191592

drkpower

Sharrow wrote: »

Which is hugely ironic cos that is what has happened with the X case and the D case.

+1

It is funny if it wasnt such a serious topic. The pro-lifers got spooked when the Supreme Court in Ireland recognised the constitutional right to (marital) privacy. As that was one of the grounds for Roe v Wade, they shat themselves, and insisted that a snappy one-liner be inserted in the constitution despite warnings that it was dangerously open to interpretation.

If abortion is ever legislated for on the basis of 'X', the pro-lifers from '83 can pat themselves on the back for being the ones who introduced it:D.

KnifeWRENCH

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Yeah, the YD are a disgrace and always have been, in my opinion. Zealots.

Hear hear.

I am very pro-choice so obviously I have disagreements with the pro-life movement anyway. But I can at least respect, and agree to disagree with, those who put forward a rational case and don't resort to cheap scare tactics.

YD represent everything that's wrong with the pro-life movemnet. And not only that, but they are homophobic bigots who blatantly mislead the public on issues such as stem cell research. They're also against assisted dying, which I find reprehensible. (I can understand the arguments against abortion, even though I may not agree with them. But I will never understand those who oppose euthanasia. But that's another argument....)

On another note, the video in the original post has been removed by the user. Coincidentally, just after I left a comment on it lambasting Youth Defence. (And mocking their inability to tell the difference between a zebra and a giraffe! :pac:)

teaandtoast

Am I the only prolife person here? Who esle here is prolife?

If so having this debate is not fair. Pro choice includes the abortion option so it's also pro abortion. Its all or nothing

philologos

Sharrow: The Pro Life Amendment was made in 1983 and it was with the blessing of the majority of the Irish population at that time.

Malari

teaandtoast wrote: »

Am I the only prolife person here? Who esle here is prolife?

If so having this debate is not fair. Pro choice includes the abortion option so it's also pro abortion. Its all or nothing

Are you reading the same thread we are? Because I haven't been posting an awful lot on this thread and I've already disagreed with 2 pro-life posters who weren't you. It's not unfair if you feel you are in the minority, it just reflects the opinions of the posters. Also everyone who would not describe themselves as pro-life are not necessarily pro-choice. I think many people are uncertain of their stance.

By the way, use of inflammatory language has got some of your pro-life co-posters banned, so perhaps that's another reason you feel like you are a lone voice.

Ickle Magoo

philologos wrote: »

Sharrow: The Pro Life Amendment was made in 1983 and it was with the blessing of the majority of the Irish population at that time.

If you take into consideration that contraception was not fully legalised until the 80's - I think it's safe to say that 30 years ago was an awfully long time ago and attitudes and beliefs have changed markedly in the interim...

WesternNight

teaandtoast wrote: »

Am I the only prolife person here? Who esle here is prolife?

If so having this debate is not fair. Pro choice includes the abortion option so it's also pro abortion. Its all or nothing

You've asked that question more than once, and you've gotten an answer more than one: No, you're not the only one.

Also, as has been said before, this thread wasn't started for the purposes of a debate, and even if it was, just because more people posting express pro-choice sentiments than pro-life doesn't make the premise of the thread unfair in any way.

Pro-choice absolutely involves the abortion option. It also involves other, non-abortion options. Hence the word choice.

Morag

philologos wrote: »

The Pro Life Amendment was made in 1983 and it was with the blessing of the majority of the Irish population at that time.

And it was done a year before contraception was made legally available.
They were pretty much in a panic as they knew that things were changing.
Ireland never had the 'free love' of the 60/70 that other countries have.
I really do think if it wasn't for the HIV/AIDS then condoms would never have been made availible esp in vending machines.