Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Obliq

Stark wrote: »

Now you're making me feel guilty. Didn't consider that vile people have feelings too.

Eh?! I was just thinking that they clearly weren't getting ENOUGH upsetting messages.....;)

robindch

^^^ Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls:

While the Iona "Institute" might very well be nothing more than the tiniest of tiny handfuls of photogenic, media-savvy, ultra-conservative religionistas, let's do try to avoid descending to their level

Obliq

Fair enough boss.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Peregrinus wrote: »

The <...> choice.

Hats off to Peregrinus. If this was X -Factor I'd be saying something like "that was the post of thread, for me".

Morag

goodie2shoes wrote: »

This 'er "discussion" has become so cringe-worthy.
Thank Heaven we will not be subjected to an equally embarrassing referendum.

:o:o

I have spent the last 2 years saying we didn't need another referendum, that the government can legislate for X as there have already been two refernda on it.

But Legislating for X will not cover the risk to the health of the woman and it will not cover terminations for medical reasons or in cases of rape or incest,
and any legislation will be over arced by the 8th amendment and must not be in conflict with it.

So over the last two months I have changed my position we do need a referendum to Repeal the 8th Amendment, while it exists it puts women's lives and health at risk and women are not equal citizens.

Galvasean

Like Sharrow, I too didn't think a referendum was necessary until quite recently. Unfortunately, this current government keep chickening out when it comes to making a big decision. Previously, they sat on their hands, saying they would wait for the expert group's feedback before commiting (as if there was no prior information out there on the subject). Then when said expert group did make its recommendations they avoided legislating again. I now think a referendum is the only way to hammer home the point. That said, I would not be surprised if this government, upon getting a referendum result they didn't like, reworded it and tried again.

goodie2shoes

Galvasean wrote: »

Like Sharrow, I too didn't think a referendum was necessary until quite recently. Unfortunately, this current government keep chickening out when it comes to making a big decision. Previously, they sat on their hands, saying they would wait for the expert group's feedback before commiting (as if there was no prior information out there on the subject). Then when said expert group did make its recommendations they avoided legislating again. I now think a referendum is the only way to hammer home the point. That said, I would not be surprised if this government, upon getting a referendum result they didn't like, reworded it and tried again.

and i would not be surprised if the Govt. choose to completely ignore your wishes.

Ash.J.Williams

notes for the future:

If you are baptised yet do not practice religion, DO NOT mark down catholic on the national census.

if you are not religious then DO NOT vote for FF or FG.


Time to end religious influence on the running of the country.

swampgas

goodie2shoes wrote: »

Yes. i think she should be allowed to travel. If she wants to go to the moon and have an abortion i have no issue with that.

The issue here is that the current Irish constitution is far more restrictive than you are. The Irish constitution gives the fetus the same rights as the mother, so if the mother intends taking the fetus out of the country in order to destroy it, then as I understand it the legal position is that she should be prevented from leaving the country.

That's what happened in the X case, the girl was only given leave to travel by the supreme court because they judged that as she was suicidal there was sufficient risk to her life to permit it. In the hypothetical case I presented earlier, where a healthy woman who is not suicidal and is not a victim of rape or incest wants an abortion, I can't see how the Gardaí or the AG would be able to allow her to travel if they were made aware of her plans.

Imagine a young woman gets pregnant and decides she wants an abortion. She books a flight to England and arranges to stay with a friend in London, and makes an appointment with a clinic. Let's say that she tells a relative - her mother perhaps - who decides that this is so wrong that it must be prevented, and she phones the Gardaí with the young woman's name and address, the flight details, and the details of the appointment at the abortion clinic. Let's also assume that the young woman is not suicidal and will not pretend to be for the sake of leaving the country.

Right now (and I hope I'm wrong here) I believe the Gardaí would be forced to prevent the young woman travelling, and the Supreme Court would not be able to do anything about it.

Abortion as it stands is illegal here, so she cannot have it here.

Each jurisdiction must decide what it accepts or does not. some have very liberal regimes and good luck to them.

What about women who cannot travel, say for medical reasons? Why should they have less access to abortion than women who can travel? Is this not simple discrimination?

swampgas

Sharrow wrote: »

I have spent the last 2 years saying we didn't need another referendum, that the government can legislate for X as there have already been two refernda on it.

But Legislating for X will not cover the risk to the health of the woman and it will not cover terminations for medical reasons or in cases of rape or incest,
and any legislation will be over arced by the 8th amendment and must not be in conflict with it.

So over the last two months I have changed my position we do need a referendum to Repeal the 8th Amendment, while it exists it puts women's lives and health at risk and women are not equal citizens.

Absolutely. The more I look at it, the more I feel that the Eighth Amendment is completely unacceptable. Abortion should be managed by legislation, which can be changed as the will of the people changes. The Eighth Amendment was an attempt by anti-abortion pressure groups to prevent the Dáil ever having the opportunity at any time in the future to enact legislation that might permit abortion in any form whatsoever. It needs to go.

old hippy

goodie2shoes wrote: »

yes i personally have no problem with abortion in certain limited circumstances.
but the evidence emerging from both the England and America leads me to believe it will need to be very strictly controlled.
i mean we already got people on here equating terminations with cosmetic surgery!

i hate to use the term "slippery slope" or "thin end of the wedge" but there's no other honest way to put it.

Beer on tap?

mewe

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

notes for the future:

If you are baptised yet do not practice religion, DO NOT mark down catholic on the national census.

if you are not religious then DO NOT vote for FF or FG.


Time to end religious influence on the running of the country.

You don't have to be religious to be pro life or indeed religious to vote FF or FG.
I'm not a very religious person at all and i think the vast majority of this country's politicians are no help to us in any shape or form but i would be concerned for the life of the unborn child. I do think that when the mothers life is at risk there's a responsibility to save the mother but that doesn't mean we should just bring in abortion. I think there's a lot of bandwagon jumping going on with this debate and a lot of anti religious and anti government feeling is part of the reason for this. A lot of people keep going on about the rights of women but seem to totally disregard the life of the unborn child. This i find very sad as surely the unborn child should have rights too.
I think the way to go is to go with the supreme court recommendation that if the mothers life is at risk then an abortion may be carried out but only in these circumstances. Just simply legalising abortion is unfair to the rights of the unborn child. Thats my opinion on the matter anyways.

rainbow kirby

mewe wrote: »

You don't have to be religious to be pro life or indeed religious to vote FF or FG.

True, you just have to be a lover of the fine art of stroke politics or just completely deluded.

Galvasean

mewe wrote: »

You don't have to be religious to be pro life or indeed religious to vote FF or FG.
I'm not a very religious person at all and i think the vast majority of this country's politicians are no help to us in any shape or form but i would be concerned for the life of the unborn child. I do think that when the mothers life is at risk there's a responsibility to save the mother but that doesn't mean we should just bring in abortion. I think there's a lot of bandwagon jumping going on with this debate and a lot of anti religious and anti government feeling is part of the reason for this. A lot of people keep going on about the rights of women but seem to totally disregard the life of the unborn child. This i find very sad as surely the unborn child should have rights too.
I think the way to go is to go with the supreme court recommendation that if the mothers life is at risk then an abortion may be carried out but only in these circumstances. Just simply legalising abortion is unfair to the rights of the unborn child. Thats my opinion on the matter anyways.

Point of pedantry, but a fetus is not a child much in the same way that a child is not an adult. Constantly refering to a fetus as a child stikes me as trying to attach extra emotional value to the discussion at hand.

Zombrex

mewe wrote: »

This i find very sad as surely the unborn child should have rights too.

What rights do people want the unborn child to have? A non-descript "right to life" is largely useless unless you define what that actually means.

For example, does the child's "right to life" mean it has rights over the woman as to the woman's body in order to sustain its own life? If so why, and when does that right go away?

Peregrinus

swampgas wrote: »

The issue here is that the current Irish constitution is far more restrictive than you are. The Irish constitution gives the fetus the same rights as the mother, so if the mother intends taking the fetus out of the country in order to destroy it, then as I understand it the legal position is that she should be prevented from leaving the country . . . .

Imagine a young woman gets pregnant and decides she wants an abortion. She books a flight to England and arranges to stay with a friend in London, and makes an appointment with a clinic. Let's say that she tells a relative - her mother perhaps - who decides that this is so wrong that it must be prevented, and she phones the Gardaí with the young woman's name and address, the flight details, and the details of the appointment at the abortion clinic. Let's also assume that the young woman is not suicidal and will not pretend to be for the sake of leaving the country.

Right now (and I hope I'm wrong here) I believe the Gardaí would be forced to prevent the young woman travelling, and the Supreme Court would not be able to do anything about it.

You are wrong, fortunately. After the X case the Eighth amendment was itself amended by the thirteenth amendment, so as to provide that the constitutional recognition of the right to life of the unborn “shall not limit the freedom to travel between the State and another state”. The effect of this is that a pregnant woman cannot constitutionally be prevented from travelling to another state to obtain an abortion, even if it’s an abortion which would not be constitutionally permissible in Ireland.

(And the fourteenth amendment similarly protected the right to obtain or disseminate information about abortion services available in other states.)

The result is that the “right to travel” and the “right to access abortion information” are not in any way limited by any “real and substantial risk to life” test.

goodie2shoes

Galvasean wrote: »

Point of pedantry, but a fetus is not a child much in the same way that a child is not an adult. Constantly refering to a fetus as a child stikes me as trying to attach extra emotional value to the discussion at hand.

likewise an unborn baby should not be viewed simply as an object.
constantly referring to an unborn baby as a foetus strikes me as trying to detach emotional value from the discussion at hand.

doctoremma

goodie2shoes wrote: »

constantly referring to an unborn baby as a foetus strikes me as trying to detach emotional value from the discussion at hand.

Despite it being biologically accurate terminology?

UDP

goodie2shoes wrote: »

likewise an unborn baby should not be viewed simply as an object.
constantly referring to an unborn baby as a foetus strikes me as trying to detach emotional value from the discussion at hand.

A human is not a baby until it is born. While still in the womb it is a fetus.

old hippy

goodie2shoes wrote: »

likewise an unborn baby should not be viewed simply as an object.
constantly referring to an unborn baby as a foetus strikes me as trying to detach emotional value from the discussion at hand.

How can you be emotional about a clump of cells? A random collection of molecules belonging to someone you don't even know?

oldrnwisr

goodie2shoes wrote: »

likewise an unborn baby should not be viewed simply as an object.
constantly referring to an unborn baby as a foetus strikes me as trying to detach emotional value from the discussion at hand.

You seem to have entirely missed Galvasean's point.

The term foetus is the correct and appropriate one to use in this discussion. Among other things it is useful for delineating development, which is why we use the term foetus after the 9th week post-fertilisation and embryo up to that point.

The problem with using the term unborn child or unborn baby, other than the fact that it's just plain incorrect is that it is an attempt by the person using it to invoke the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion (specifically the appeal to fear). If you stick around here you'll find that logical fallacies don't go over big here and using them is a poor way to get your point across.

If you're against abortion fine. However if you're going to argue against abortion being legislated for to some degree in this country then you're going to need to provide well reasoned arguments grounded in logic and hard evidence. Anything else is probably going to fall on deaf ears.

old hippy

mewe wrote: »

I think there's a lot of bandwagon jumping going on with this debate and a lot of anti religious and anti government feeling is part of the reason for this. A lot of people keep going on about the rights of women but seem to totally disregard the life of the unborn child.

What bandwagon jumping? Who is bandwagon jumping? The life of the unborn what?

Ireland has a long history of treating women as second class citizens, it's time to address this and right some wrongs.

Zombrex

goodie2shoes wrote: »

likewise an unborn baby should not be viewed simply as an object.
constantly referring to an unborn baby as a foetus strikes me as trying to detach emotional value from the discussion at hand.

That works under the assumption that something termed a "foetus" is just an object, but if we call it a "baby" then it isn't. I would hope that most people are not so biologically illiterate. Though frankly if they were I wouldn't be surprised given the over lap between religiously devout and scientifically ignorant.

goodie2shoes

old hippy wrote: »

How can you be emotional about a clump of cells? A random collection of molecules belonging to someone you don't even know?

would you describe a baby as a random collection of molecules?

Bannasidhe

goodie2shoes wrote: »

would you describe a baby as a random collection of molecules?

Personally I would describe everything as a collection of molecules.

Sarky

Nope, not exactly random. An embryo or a foetus though, yeah, probably. Learn what the words mean if you're going to argue a corner.

Stark

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Personally I would describe everything as a collection of molecules.

Except for pure elements of course.

Sarky

They're just collections of sub-atomic particles. Which are collections of sub-sub-atomic particles. And from there it gets weird.

oldrnwisr

Stark wrote: »

Except for pure elements of course.

Even elements can be molecules. O2 for example. [/pedant]:)

old hippy

goodie2shoes wrote: »

would you describe a baby as a random collection of molecules?

What have babies got to do with the topic?