8th Amendment

It is only for (some) religious reasons that a three week old conceptus is regarded as anything special. The number of early conceptuses that disappear naturally is considerable, outnumbering those actually born.
The abortion amendments were specifically designed to prevent discussion and conclusions on this aspect of when a conceptus becomes something worthy of protecting by the rigors of the law.

S.O

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I agree but I'm having trouble understanding your opposition to what you call 'abortion on demand'.

Presumably the reason you're opposed to liberal abortion is because you see the foetus as a human being, right?

Well, is the foetus that was conceived through rape any less human than the foetus conceived through consensual sex? Aren't you talking about killing a 'human' for an act that human could not control?

I'm not attacking the sincerity of your opposition to abortion, which I don't doubt. I just wonder how tenable it is.

When I say abortion on request, Im opposed to abortion being granted no questions asked, if someone wants to use abortion as form of contraception Im opposed or if someone wants to abortion on grounds of disability I would be opposed.

When I argue for the rape exception for abortion to be granted I do so on a conscience basis, I look at it from a viewpoint how can I as a male insist to a woman who has being raped and is pregnant afterwards that she has to go full term with the pregnancy ? as someone of the opposite sex I could not even begin to understand what level of trauma/hurt and pain a woman who is pregnant resulting from a rape is going through, therefore from a conscience standpoint I couldn't tell her what to do- if she wants to choose to go through with the pregnancy or not should be her own choice in this instance.

Lets look back at a gang rape in Limerick from years ago.

A MAN who participated in a savage gang rape of a woman in a wood last year
has been jailed for 20 years. The man, along with four teenagers, locked the
woman's male companion in the boot of a car, before taking it in turns to rape
the woman in a 45-minute ordeal.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/man-25-is-jailed-for-20-years-over-role-in-savage-gang-rape-25982498.html

Lets say if she had of being pregnant afterwards following the 45 minute ordeal and didn't want to through with the pregnancy I couldn't argue not to give her a choice in the matter.

I turn peoples attention to a current case in Paraguay .

Paraguay "failed to protect" a pregnant
10-year-old rape victim who has been denied an abortion, a group of UN human rights experts has said.The girl allegedly became pregnant after being raped by her stepfather.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-32698371

Now lets imagine a similar case takes place in Ireland a 10 year old girl is raped and pregnant afterwards, imagine if that girl was your own daughter or your own niece, hands up who would or who could honestly say your own daughter or your own niece should go through with a pregnancy at 10 years of age after being raped ?

S.O

volchitsa wrote: »

What proof of rape would it be reasonable to expect, in your view?
Also, do you agree that the view that the fetus' right to life is contingent on the manner of its conception is as much about being entitled to punish women who are felt to have acted wrongly as about any right to life for the fetus?

It would be up to the medical professionals + the phycologists at a rape crisis centre to determine what level of proof is not me.

S.O

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

To be clear, I don't think we agree. I was questioning SO's stance, I personally favour a woman's right to abortion. I see the limitation of abortion to cases of rape as being inconsistent with the 'human life' claims. Logically, one should take an all-or-nothing position on abortion.

Either a woman has charge of her own body or she does not.
Either the foetus has human life, or it has not.

I find the all or nothing = either 100% anti abortion or 100% for access to abortion both too extreme.

To be 100% pro choice can give a couple the right of choice to abort a pregnancy based on gender if they wanted a boy but it happens to be a girl and an abortion occurs afterwards as happens in some countries over in the far east.

To be 100% pro life adheres to a view that life of the unborn must come first at the expense of the mothers life, I refer back to one case in Brazil a few years ago.

Declaring that "life must always be protected", a senior Vatican cleric has
defended the Catholic Church's decision to excommunicate the mother and doctors of a nine-year-old rape victim who had a life-saving abortion in Brazil.


The doctors did what had to be done: save the life of a girl of nine years
old. In this case, the medical profession was more right than the Church."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/brazil-rocked-by-abortion-for-9yearold-rape-victim-1640165.html

I would find the view of the church to be way too extreme in this instance to argue against an abortion to save the life of a 9 year old girl child, another point I will factor in on the 100% pro life side, there are some not all but some on the pro life side who are so pro life to the point that they are against contraception, I find this to be a extreme view to hold- as people on the pro life side are against abortion for unwanted/unplanned pregnancies following consential sex , but to be also against contraception to prevent unplanned pregnancies in the first place is way too extreme.

I recall listening to the Niall Boylan radio show a few weeks ago where the topic of discussion was the current case of a 10 year old girl raped and pregnant in Paraguay, one guy phoned into the show making pro life arguments, he was asked by one person if he was against rape victims taking the morning after pill to prevent pregnancy from occurring, he went so far to even argue that he was against the morning after pill being used , as I said and I stand by it way too extreme point of view to hold.

Zubeneschamali

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The Irish Newspapers Archive say otherwise. It made headlines in all of the national papers.

That's why I take the lead from people who are better educated on this topic than me, such as Dr Conor O'Mahony (link provided earlier) and Dr Ivana Bacik and her co-authors (also referenced earlier), whose claims you were previously "quite confident" did not exist.

I am still quite confident that the Constitution does not protect the "unborn" without the 8th.

The bits you have quoted so far do not show that it does, only that one judge said it did in comments made in a case the courts declined to hear, and hence are not law.

Your link to the constitution project below is broken, but googling it up, it's pretty thin stuff. Clearly the 13th and 14th would go with the 8th, O'Mahony's first question. O'Mahony then imagines that the Court, without guidance, might rule that the unborn have the same right to life the same as now - but explicitly removing that right by referendum is an extremely clear bit of guidance from the people which no court could ignore, so he's simply wrong there.

And other opinions he cites would make contraception illegal - ridiculous today.

Now, he does have one sensible point, the Courts, here or anywhere, will not rule that a baby a day before birth is nothing. I do not think the courts would think massacring babies wholesale a day before birth was cool, but no-one wants to do that. There is nothing in the constitution that would rule out a sensible abortion law once we get rid of the 8th.

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

There is nothing in the constitution that would rule out a sensible abortion law once we get rid of the 8th.

Very true. And the issue of what is 'sensible' is not a suitable one for constitutional law.

conorh91

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I am still quite confident that the Constitution does not protect the "unborn" without the 8th.

The bits you have quoted so far do not show that it does, only that one judge said it did in comments made in a case the courts declined to hear, and hence are not law.

That's just wrong. There is a substantial corpus of case law establishing the right to life of the unborn in Bunreacht prior to, and in addition to, the 8th amendment, beginning with the Supreme Court case of McGee v Attorney General [1974] I.R. 284 where the Supreme Court left nobody in any doubt as to the constitutional rights of the unborn, saying that although a couple were entitled to limit the number of children they conceived together, destroying human was an offence offence against the guaranteed personal rights of the human life in question.

This re-emerged in the case law in G v. An Bórd Uchtála [1980] I.R. 32 where the Supreme Court, in an exceedingly humane judgment reaffirmed the equality between 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate' children, and held that the right to life applied before birth and after birth; and that the right to life "necessitates" the right to be born [ibid at 68]. It was three years later when the 8th amendment was put before the people, and the courts accepted in Finn, the case that has been cited by another poster, that the right to life of the unborn was already protected.

The case law doesn't end there. There is post-amendment case law from both superior courts which clearly establishes the right to life of the unborn existed prior to the 1983 amendment: Attorney General (Society for the Protection of Unborn Children Ireland Limited) v Open Door Counselling Limited [1988] and, of course, in the 1992 X case, where the above case-law was cited with approval in the Supreme Court.

Any kind of abortion-on-demand was undoubtedly repugnant to the constitution prior to 1983 in view of the constitutional guarantee of the right to life, and there is no reason to suspect this has changed.

Repeal the 8th is nothing more than a vacuous hashtag. If the 8th amendment were repealed, any law which attempted to liberalize abortion to any extent would immediately come before the courts in a constitutional challenge from one of the many, well-funded pro-life groups, or indeed on foot of an Article 26 reference to the Supreme Court by any responsible and non-partisan President of ireland, acting in good faith.

It is possible that counsel would successfully argue that the People, in choosing to extirpate Article 40.3.3. had further altered the meaning of the constitutional guarantee of the right to life, even if only implicitly. There is some merit in that argument, but there is no authority for this sort of argument in the case law, and the current Supreme Court is far too conservative to countenance it.

If we are to have a referendum permitting abortion, the removal of the 1983 amendment is insufficient. To simply repeal the 8th would be reckless and would only add to the confusion surrounding abortion rights.

I think its telling that back in the 1980s we were told that a constitutional amendment was absolutely necessary to protect the lives of the 'unborn' (just as weird a concept as the 'undead'), but now that there seems to be support for the removal of the amendments, we find that they weren't needed at all.......

C14N

We probably will have one at some point in the next 10 years and unlike the marriage one, I'm really not looking forward to it. I hate being on the same side as the Iona institute on anything but unfortunately for me, we do align on this.

Black Menorca

C14N wrote: »

We probably will have one at some point in the next 10 years and unlike the marriage one, I'm really not looking forward to it. I hate being on the same side as the Iona institute on anything but unfortunately for me, we do align on this.

I think there will be many who voted for Gay Marriage yet will vote to keep the 8th intact.

C14N

Black Menorca wrote: »

I think there will be many who voted for Gay Marriage yet will vote to keep the 8th intact.

As someone who would be doing just that, I honestly really doubt it. I find very few people who are staunchly pro-life without also being just generally very socially conservative. Maybe legislation wouldn't pass with the flying colours that the marriage one did but I would definitely find that among my own peers that being against abortion is roughly as taboo as being against gay marriage.

Black Menorca

C14N wrote: »

As someone who would be doing just that, I honestly really doubt it. I find very few people who are staunchly pro-life without also being just generally very socially conservative. Maybe legislation wouldn't pass with the flying colours that the marriage one did but I would definitely find that among my own peers that being against abortion is roughly as taboo as being against gay marriage.

I disagree.

There will be little or no imposed taboo in my view.

C14N

Black Menorca wrote: »

I disagree.

There will be little or no imposed taboo in my view.

Just look at this thread right here. Based on comments made and thanks given, there are dozens of people who would vote yes against the handful who would vote no. It's at least as one-sided as the marriage threads were two weeks ago. To me, that reflects the general attitude of the under-50 voters. I personally tend to completely shy away from talking about this when it comes up because I know I'm in such a minority when it comes to twenty-something year old people.

volchitsa

C14N wrote: »

Just look at this thread right here. Based on comments made and thanks given, there are dozens of people who would vote yes against the handful who would vote no. It's at least as one-sided as the marriage threads were two weeks ago. To me, that reflects the general attitude of the under-50 voters. I personally tend to completely shy away from talking about this when it comes up because I know I'm in such a minority when it comes to twenty-something year old people.

I'm interested in what your own reasons are then, given that you're clearly not particularly socially conservative (as it has also been my experience that strong pro-life views and anti-SSM views tend to go together in a strongly conservative mindset, which seems not to be your case.)

Black Menorca

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm interested in what your own reasons are then, given that you're clearly not particularly socially conservative (as it has also been my experience that strong pro-life views and anti-SSM views tend to go together in a strongly conservative mindset, which seems not to be your case.)

Here cometh the inquisition.

S.O

C14N wrote: »

We probably will have one at some point in the next 10 years and unlike the marriage one, I'm really not looking forward to it. I hate being on the same side as the Iona institute on anything but unfortunately for me, we do align on this.

Ionas position is one of the two extreme position on abortion, by that I mean to be against abortion no matter what even in cases of rape, one thing that undermines groups like Iona + others putting forward arguments about the rights of child etc, is how much or how often do they argue for the rights of the child after its born, for example can anyone link me an opinion article written by David Quinn condemning cuts to child benefit or cuts to single parents allowance ? + to factor in also is anyone aware of David Quinn coming out to express opposition to current plans to cut allowance of single parents by €86 ? what about the rights of the child when child payments get cut ?

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/politics/scandal-plans-cut-lone-parents-5186140

Regarding a referendum on the 8th amendment its something I have given careful thought to- it all depends what options are presented to me to vote on- if its ( Option A ) to repeal the 8th amendment to bring in laws as liberal as the UK on abortion I will vote no, if its ( Option B ) a straight repeal the 8th amendment yes or no I will abstain from voting- I will only vote yes on the condition- that there is an option to vote to replace the 8th amendement with a new constitutional amendment to ensure that the right to have an abortion doesn't go no further then the grey areas such as pregnancy as a result of rape.

On the grey area of abortion and rape.

I only read a while ago about young girls who had being kidnapped and captured by Isis militants who then took turns to rape them with the intent of impregnating the young girl's; some of the girl's managed to escape their Isis captors and had abortions to terminate their pregnancies: I'm against abortion on demand which exists in the uk-- but regarding the girl's who escaped from Isis terminated their unwanted pregnancy by their rapists ; who am I to judge them ? I'm not female I can't even imagine what trauma they were put through being repeatedly raped by different men; so therefore I'm in no position to judge them in any way, in cases such as these I don't see abortion as a black and white issue but as a grey area.

Doctors in Kurdistan are breaking the law by performing abortions on young
Yazidi girls who have been released after being held as sex slaves by ISIS
fighters.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3056111/Traumatised-Yazidi-girls-young-8-having-abortions-finally-return-communities-months-used-sex-slaves-Isis-fighters.html#ixzz3blb6y7mi

I would also point out that some on the American right such as Mitt Romney + Ann coulter have argued for the rape exception regarding abortion.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/romney-my-views-on-abortion-rights-are-clear/

S.O

Anti abortion protest march In Poland this recent weekend calling for the morning after pill to be banned.

Now this what I find to be a huge hole in the hardline 100% pro life/anti abortion argument, if you really want to stop women from seeking abortions, your position should be to argue two consenting adults to use protection take measures/take precautions to prevent unwanted/unplanned pregnancies from happening in the first place- not argue to ban and stop consenting adults doing what they can to avoid unwanted pregnancies from taking place such as these protesters in Poland, the other hole in the ban contraception argument I don't think they really think about or realize is if contraception were to be banned, all it would actually do is increase the numbers of women travelling to other countries seeking an abortion not decrease it.

Loafing Oaf

S.O wrote: »

Ionas position is one of the two extreme position on abortion, by that I mean to be against abortion no matter what even in cases of rape,

IMO it's the only coherent, defensible 'pro-life' position. Once you start allowing for exceptions for rape etc. you're completely undercutting your own argument...

C14N

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm interested in what your own reasons are then, given that you're clearly not particularly socially conservative (as it has also been my experience that strong pro-life views and anti-SSM views tend to go together in a strongly conservative mindset, which seems not to be your case.)

It's simply down to the question of where life begins and I can't see that as any point besides conception. I'm not pretending to be a biologist but I pretty much formed this opinion myself when we learned about reproduction in JC science class. It's the only point at which there is a clear change from one state to the next. Some people say the definition should be based on viability outside the womb but I don't think morality should be beholden to the best available medical technology on the day. Some lifers also like to try and drum up sympathy by showing pictures of fetuses that look just like born babies and I don't like that either because it taps into the notion that something has to look like a person to be a person.

It's also been my own experience that people who are very pro-life are very anti-SSM which puts me off publicly identifying as pro-life. To me, that's just bizarre. Gay people don't have abortions, if anything they create demand for adoption which is an alternative to it. That's not the only thing either. People who are still backward enough to oppose contraception are just shooting themselves in the foot if they want to reduce abortion rates. Not to mention the American conservatives who try to balance being against abortion with with low taxes so that struggling mothers and young children have a harder time getting support from the government which creates a greater demand for abortions again.

Unfortunately for me, those kinds of hypocrites make up a large portion of the anti-abortion movement and they tend to appeal to people's shame rather than their compassion. There's a page on Facebook I follow called "Secular Pro-Life" and I like them a lot more, but it's only got about 7000 people on it which isn't much compared to the millions you see on some of the radical Christian pro-life pages.

I see why people want them. I've put myself in the position where I wondered "what if that condom wasn't effective?" and I can see how something like that can be devastating to somebody's life and how getting an abortion can look like such a simple solution to the problem. I'm not going to pretend like it isn't very hard on people who have unwanted pregnancies because it is, and it's a struggle I'll never know, but I really don't believe that it justifies what you have to do to get out of that situation.

For the record as well, I am in favour of legislating for the X case and allowing women to get one to save their own lives. Again, it's not to be taken lightly and there's no easy way out, but if somebody ever has to choose between their own life and the life of another person, I don't think it should be illegal to prioritise saving themselves. I'm sure this could get murky with grey hypotheticals in between but that's still broadly what I believe.

traprunner

C14N wrote: »

It's simply down to the question of where life begins and I can't see that as any point besides conception.

So sperm and eggs are not alive?

volchitsa

C14N wrote: »

It's simply down to the question of where life begins and I can't see that as any point besides conception. I'm not pretending to be a biologist but I pretty much formed this opinion myself when we learned about reproduction in JC science class. It's the only point at which there is a clear change from one state to the next. Some people say the definition should be based on viability outside the womb but I don't think morality should be beholden to the best available medical technology on the day. Some lifers also like to try and drum up sympathy by showing pictures of fetuses that look just like born babies and I don't like that either because it taps into the notion that something has to look like a person to be a person.

It's also been my own experience that people who are very pro-life are very anti-SSM which puts me off publicly identifying as pro-life. To me, that's just bizarre. Gay people don't have abortions, if anything they create demand for adoption which is an alternative to it. That's not the only thing either. People who are still backward enough to oppose contraception are just shooting themselves in the foot if they want to reduce abortion rates. Not to mention the American conservatives who try to balance being against abortion with with low taxes so that struggling mothers and young children have a harder time getting support from the government which creates a greater demand for abortions again.

Unfortunately for me, those kinds of hypocrites make up a large portion of the anti-abortion movement and they tend to appeal to people's shame rather than their compassion. There's a page on Facebook I follow called "Secular Pro-Life" and I like them a lot more, but it's only got about 7000 people on it which isn't much compared to the millions you see on some of the radical Christian pro-life pages.

I see why people want them. I've put myself in the position where I wondered "what if that condom wasn't effective?" and I can see how something like that can be devastating to somebody's life and how getting an abortion can look like such a simple solution to the problem. I'm not going to pretend like it isn't very hard on people who have unwanted pregnancies because it is, and it's a struggle I'll never know, but I really don't believe that it justifies what you have to do to get out of that situation.

For the record as well, I am in favour of legislating for the X case and allowing women to get one to save their own lives. Again, it's not to be taken lightly and there's no easy way out, but if somebody ever has to choose between their own life and the life of another person, I don't think it should be illegal to prioritise saving themselves. I'm sure this could get murky with grey hypotheticals in between but that's still broadly what I believe.

Thanks for going to the trouble of setting that out in detail. I'll have a look at that secular pro-life page, I'm very interested in hearing (genuinely) non religious objections to pro-choice legislation but haven't come across anything very convincing as yet, except on the very mild "pro-life" end of the scale, which in Ireland would in fact be classed as pro-choice, ie severely limited abortion except in cases of rape, threats to health and (often) FFA. In the U.S. for example such a view is generally considered pro-life.

On your basic grounds of when life begins, does that mean you are also against IVF, which leads to far more wholescale destruction of living embryos per cycle of IVF than any abortion possibly could?

johnnyskeleton

MOD: Okay, this is a sensitive issue for all concerned, but the last dozen or so posts between Black Menorca and traprunner have been unproductive, to say the least.

I think the question as to when life beings is apposite for a debate on abortion but only insofar as policy makers should set the law. Black Menorca, if you don't want to answer that question then don't answer it. It wasn't even directed at you. But don't criticise the question as a way of taking the thread off topic

johnnyskeleton

traprunner wrote: »

So sperm and eggs are not alive?

From the point of view of what the law is and what, in my view, it ought to be, they are living cells but they are not a constitutionally protected unborn life.

Contraception which prevents conception and interference post conception are completely different things. While there may be some debate as to when the protection of the unborn arises from conception to birth, I don't think it could be seriously suggested that the legal right to life pre-exists conception. Biologically possibly, spiritually or philosophically, why not, but not as a matter of law. If it were then there would be an argument that a man is entitled to impregnate a woman due to his sperm's right to life and down that road madness lies.

traprunner

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

From the point of view of what the law is and what, in my view, it ought to be, they are living cells but they are not a constitutionally protected unborn life.

Contraception which prevents conception and interference post conception are completely different things. While there may be some debate as to when the protection of the unborn arises from conception to birth, I don't think it could be seriously suggested that the legal right to life pre-exists conception. Biologically possibly, spiritually or philosophically, why not, but not as a matter of law. If it were then there would be an argument that a man is entitled to impregnate a woman due to his sperm's right to life and down that road madness lies.

Unfortunately the road to madness is there regardless of how the law defines start of life. It can't exist without both male and female living cells. So it's a valid argument that wasting (for want of a better word) sperm or an egg is death of a potential human. to legally specify that sperm or egg separate is life would be crazy because we would all be guilty of killing it. I suppose why I asked the question is to get into the heads of people against abortion. How is a zygote, blastocyst, foetus etc any different when they can't survive outside of the womb?

Black Menorca

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

MOD: Okay, this is a sensitive issue for all concerned, but the last dozen or so posts between Black Menorca and traprunner have been unproductive, to say the least.

I think the question as to when life beings is apposite for a debate on abortion but only insofar as policy makers should set the law. Black Menorca, if you don't want to answer that question then don't answer it. It wasn't even directed at you. But don't criticise the question as a way of taking the thread off topic

Gotcha.

I really should know better.

S.O

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

IMO it's the only coherent, defensible 'pro-life' position. Once you start allowing for exceptions for rape etc. you're completely undercutting your own argument...

A few days ago I referred peoples attention to a current case in Paraguay and then asked the question if people were in the same set of circumstances what would they do themselves, so far no one felt comfortable to answer, I will try again.

Paraguay "failed to protect" a pregnant 10-year-old rape victim who has been denied an abortion, a group of UN human rights experts has said.The girl allegedly became pregnant after being raped by her stepfather.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-32698371

Now lets imagine a similar case takes place in Ireland a 10 year old girl is raped and pregnant afterwards, imagine if that girl was your own daughter or your own niece, hands up who would or who could honestly say your own daughter or your own niece should go through with a pregnancy at 10 years of age after being raped ?

Think carefully before you may answer because if you argue no she shouldn't have to go through with a pregnancy at such a young age against her will, you agree that the exceptions should apply in cases involving pregnancy after rape.

If you argue she shouldn't have a choice in the matter, you are arguing to disagree that there should never be a rape exception.

My own position is very clear exceptions must apply for the option to decide for women themselves in cases of rape.

The current issue in Paruguay was discussed on the Niall Boylan radio show a few weeks ago, it was only middle aged men who were willing to argue that no exceptions should ever apply in cases of rape.

http://classichits.ie/podcasts/05-05-2015-pregnant-ten-year-old/

Black Menorca

In my view there is no justification for the intention taking of unborn life. Thankfully the X Case legislation agrees with me.

Loafing Oaf

S.O wrote: »

A few days ago I referred peoples attention to a current case in Paraguay and then asked the question if people were in the same set of circumstances what would they do themselves, so far no one felt comfortable to answer, I will try again.





http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-32698371

Now lets imagine a similar case takes place in Ireland a 10 year old girl is raped and pregnant afterwards, imagine if that girl was your own daughter or your own niece, hands up who would or who could honestly say your own daughter or your own niece should go through with a pregnancy at 10 years of age after being raped ?

Think carefully before you may answer because if you argue no she shouldn't have to go through with a pregnancy at such a young age against her will, you agree that the exceptions should apply in cases involving pregnancy after rape.

If you argue she shouldn't have a choice in the matter, you are arguing to disagree that there should never be a rape exception.

My own position is very clear exceptions must apply for the option to decide for women themselves in cases of rape.

The current issue in Paruguay was discussed on the Niall Boylan radio show a few weeks ago, it was only middle aged men who were willing to argue that no exceptions should ever apply in cases of rape.

http://classichits.ie/podcasts/05-05-2015-pregnant-ten-year-old/

I wasn't stating my own views on the issue, which I would prefer to keep to myself, I was just pointing out that if you sincerely believe in the right to life of the unborn/foetus/embryo/whatever you want to call it, then you can't in all conscience allow for an exception in the case of rape/incest: do these 'children' not have the same right to life as any other?

The other problem with the rape exception from the pro-life POV is the practicality of it, how do you legislate for abortion in such cases without a broader liberalisation of the law?

S.O

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I wasn't stating my own views on the issue, which I would prefer to keep to myself, I was just pointing out that if you sincerely believe in the right to life of the unborn/foetus/embryo/whatever you want to call it, then you can't in all conscience allow for an exception in the case of rape/incest: do these 'children' not have the same right to life as any other?

The other problem with the rape exception from the pro-life POV is the practicality of it, how do you legislate for abortion in such cases without a broader liberalisation of the law?

How to legislate for cases of pregnancy involving rape without it going any further then that, my own personal view is that any referendum that future government to put to the people to vote on is to include an option to vote to replace the 8th amendement with a new constitutional amendment to ensure that the right to have an abortion doesn't go no further then the grey areas such as pregnancy as a result of rape.

As much as I disagree with abortion, once there is a pregnancy resulting from rape its a completely different set of circumstances vs pregnancy resulting from consenting sex between two people.

When I argue for the rape exception for abortion to be granted I do so on a conscience basis, I look at it from a viewpoint how can I as a male insist to a woman who has being raped and is pregnant afterwards that she has to go full term with the pregnancy ? as someone of the opposite sex I could not even begin to understand what level of trauma/hurt and pain a woman who is pregnant resulting from a rape is going through, for example when a woman who is pregnant following rape when she gets morning sickness what way will she feel ? will she always feel it as a constant reminder of what happened to her ? if she is forced to give birth after 9 months what way will she feel giving birth would she feel it as another reminder of what happened to her ? As I am not a female these are questions I cannot answer - only someone who has been in the very situation of being pregnant from rape can answer- as I am a male and will never be in that kinda situation therefore from a conscience standpoint I couldn't tell her what to do- if she wants to choose to go through with the pregnancy or not should be her own choice in this instance.

Lets look back at a gang rape in Limerick from years ago.

A MAN who participated in a savage gang rape of a woman in a wood last year
has been jailed for 20 years. The man, along with four teenagers, locked
the woman's male companion in the boot of a car, before taking it in turns
to rape the woman in a 45-minute ordeal.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/man-25-is-jailed-for-20-years-over-role-in-savage-gang-rape-25982498.html

Lets say if she had of being pregnant afterwards following the 45 minute ordeal and didn't want to through with the pregnancy I couldn't argue not to give her a choice in the matter regarding if wants to through the pregnancy or not.

Zubeneschamali

Black Menorca wrote: »

In my view there is no justification for the intention taking of unborn life. Thankfully the X Case legislation agrees with me.

It does not protect life from fertilization, only from implantation.

S.O

For those who would argue abortion is wrong no matter what the set of circumstances are, I refer back to a case in Brazil a few years ago.

Declaring that "life must always be protected", a senior Vatican cleric has
defended the Catholic Church's decision to excommunicate the mother and doctors of a nine-year-old rape victim who had a life-saving abortion in Brazil.

Police believe the girl was sexually assaulted for years by her stepfather,
possibly since she was six. That she was four months pregnant with twins emerged only after she was taken to hospital complaining of severe stomach pains.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/brazil-rocked-by-abortion-for-9yearold-rape-victim-1640165.html

Doctors in Recife performed an abortion on a nine-year-old girl on 4 March. They judged her life to be at risk because of her age and because she was pregnant with twins and weighed 80 pounds. According to Fatima Maia, the director of the hospital CISAM, if the pregnancy continued, the child could suffer a ruptured uterus and hemorrhage, and she also ran the risk of diabetes, hypertension, eclampsia and lifelong sterility. [5] She had allegedly been raped by her stepfather.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Brazilian_girl_abortion_case

I read about this particular case a few times, it was the doctors view that a 9 year old couldn't give birth not at least once but twice, as she would die trying to give childbirth at such at young age, now if you take the position that abortion is wrong no matter what set of circumstances is involved, I would ask you- what should the doctors of done in this very case should of they of said to themselves abortion is always 100% wrong no matter what we will try to force her into giving childbirth at such a young age ? or would you agree it was a necessarily evil for the doctors to medically intervene to save the life of the young 9 year old girl ?

Also if there is any youth defence supporters or followers on this thread, I refer back to the YD billboard that there is always a better answer, in cases such as what happened in Brazil can you please tell me what the better answer should & ought to be ?

Black Menorca

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It does not protect life from fertilization, only from implantation.

200,000 babiesintentionally killed in the womb in the UK per years compared to how many in Ireland?

oscarBravo

S.O wrote: »

When I argue for the rape exception for abortion to be granted I do so on a conscience basis, I look at it from a viewpoint how can I as a male insist to a woman who has being raped and is pregnant afterwards that she has to go full term with the pregnancy ?

I take that argument to its logical conclusion: how can I as a male insist to a woman that she has to go full term with a pregnancy? In fact, even if I wasn't male, what right would I have to insist that?

Black Menorca

oscarBravo wrote: »

I take that argument to its logical conclusion: how can I as a male insist to a woman that she has to go full term with a pregnancy? In fact, even if I wasn't male, what right would I have to insist that?

To save your baby's life? Call me radical.

S.O

In relation to the current pregnancy from rape case in Paraguay, a senior hospital official publicly stated the pregnancy of a 10 year old girl is a risk.

If in the event that the young girl might die trying to give child birth at such a young age or if both the girl and the foetus happen to die, I would ask the hardline 100% anti abortion posters if they would think denying her the right to have an abortion was really worth it if the young girl should die ?

volchitsa

S.O wrote: »

In relation to the current pregnancy from rape case in Paraguay, a senior hospital official publicly stated the pregnancy of a 10 year old girl is a risk.

If in the event that the young girl might die trying to give child birth at such a young age or if both the girl and the foetus happen to die, I would ask the hardline 100% anti abortion posters if they would think denying her the right to have an abortion was really worth it if the young girl should die ?

Of course it's a risk, how could it not be?

But personally I would set the requirement a lot lower than a risk that she might die : even if she doesn't die, at that age, it's almost impossible that her body won't be seriously damaged by a full term pregnancy and birth.

It's probable that even in the best case scenario, she will likely be left infertile (hysterectomy). (In continence, amd possibly double incontinence, is also very likely but again, let's assume that de won't happen - the point is that "merely being left infertile is actually one of the better outcomes for the child.)

So is it reasonable to destroy her chances of ever having children in a normal adult relationship because she was a rape victim at such a young age?

S.O

volchitsa wrote: »

So is it reasonable to destroy her chances of ever having children in a normal adult relationship because she was a rape victim at such a young age?

In cases such as this it should be up to the girl + her family to weigh up the situation following doctors advice about the risks involved with going ahead with the pregnancy then trying to give birth at a young age, or doctors advice regarding having an abortion if it would damage her chances at having children at adult age or not, leave them have the choice to think about the situation very carefully to decide what they think is the right or wrong thing for them to do.

volchitsa

S.O wrote: »

In cases such as this it should be up to the girl + her family to weigh up the situation following doctors advice about the risks involved with going ahead with the pregnancy then trying to give birth at a young age, or doctors advice regarding having an abortion if it would damage her chances at having children at adult age or not, leave them have the choice to think about the situation very carefully to decide what they think is the right or wrong thing for them to do.

I think it would be as wrong to force the child to have an abortion against her will as to block her from having one. But as you say, it would be important to have a neutral person there to explain to her the possible consequences of both options, and as far as possible to let her make the final decision. Not her mother, the child herself.

Zubeneschamali

Black Menorca wrote: »

200,000 babiesintentionally killed in the womb in the UK per years compared to how many in Ireland?

Our abortion rate is about a quarter the UK rate, so about 4000.

IVF would be on the same scale, thousands of cycles of IVF per year, and thousands of frozen "babies" left over.

S.O

A few weeks ago on the Niall Boylan radio show, callers discussed the current pregnancy from rape case involving a young 10 year old in Paraguay, one hardline pro life campaigner was asked by one caller if he would oppose the young taking the morning after pill or some form of contraception to prevent her becoming pregnant in the first place, he went so far to say that he wouldn't even agree with a young child victim of rape taking some form of contraception to try and stop becoming pregnant, the hardline pro life campaigners such as people like this you just can,t reason with them as they go so far to even oppose victims of rape taking measures to prevent pregnancy in the aftermath of rape.

oscarBravo

Black Menorca wrote: »

To save your baby's life? Call me radical.

Interesting choice of word. It suggests that contributing sperm (wanted or otherwise) to a zygote gives you the right to decide whether or not a woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her will.

Actually, scratch that: you've made it clear that you believe a woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her will, no matter what the circumstances of the pregnancy.

Sorry, but I see women as more than incubators. Maybe I'm the radical one.

S.O

One woman,s story ( Lorraine ) of being pregnant from rape and having an abortion afterwards is told by an actor presenting what happened and how she felt, she described the feeling of being raped as actually worse then her husbands death, that's how her own feelings are actually described , as I said in my earlier posts it would be Impossible for men to know what way a woman would feel if she became pregnant following a rape, Im against abortion on demands as exists over in the UK, in cases of rape from a conscience standpoint I feel a distinction has to be made, I feel it would be morally wrong to force any woman or young girl to fully carry to term then give birth to baby from a rapist.

Zubeneschamali

S.O wrote: »

Im against abortion on demands as exists over in the UK, in cases of rape from a conscience standpoint I feel a distinction has to be made, I feel it would be morally wrong to force any woman or young girl to fully carry to term then give birth to baby from a rapist[

Don't forget that we do not prevent UK style abortion on demand with our current laws, and rape victims and young teens are, in general, free to get an abortion. All they need is the fare to England and maybe a sane parent.

Our laws only deny abortions to women who are too poor to travel, or in the care of the State somehow like in a prison or hospitalized, or women whose immigration status won't allow them to travel.

What heroes we are, defending the unborn of the poor, the institutionalized, refugees and asylum seekers, whether raped, underage or mentally incapable, while our ordinary citizens who vote for this regime are free to hop a Ryanair flight to the UK.

volchitsa

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Don't forget that we do not prevent UK style abortion on demand with our current laws, and rape victims and young teens are, in general, free to get an abortion. All they need is the fare to England and maybe a sane parent.

Our laws only deny abortions to women who are too poor to travel, or in the care of the State somehow like in a prison or hospitalized, or women whose immigration status won't allow them to travel.

What heroes we are, defending the unborn of the poor, the institutionalized, refugees and asylum seekers, whether raped, underage or mentally incapable, while our ordinary citizens who vote for this regime are free to hop a Ryanair flight to the UK.

Not only that, but on the rare occasions when the most militant "pro-life" advocates find themselves unable to avoid answering the question of what they would do if it were their own daughter (am123456 on here, or Peter Mathews, on VB when he left FG over the POLDP Act) they either don't realize the glaring hypocrisy, or maybe just don't care, when they say they would allow their own child to choose what to do.

So they're happy enough to have the likes of Miss Y potentially tied down and force fed (that was actually suggested, remember?, and there were people in the media who approved of it!) but their own children would of course have a completely different course of action open to them if they so wished.

I can't get my head around that degree of double think.

S.O

Regarding any referendum on the 8th amendment I think it will be all down to what way the referendum is presented; if it's presented as a straight up repeal I don't think it would pass; if its presented with an option to replace it with a new amendment be 50/50 I think; two thing's I would factor in relating to a referendum; there many people in the 40s/ 30s + 20s demographics that never got to vote on the 8th amendment back in 1983- if it's one thing the recent high yes vote in the SSM ref showed is the influence the catholic church once had is no longer there ; people don't attend mass on Sunday in such number's anymore or listen to the church as they would of year's ago on political issue's.

oscarBravo

A straight repeal is unlikely, which means when the time comes we'll be faced with some fudgy language - in other words, we'll be legislating in the constitution again, resulting in the same bolloxology we have with divorce.

If and when that happens, I'll be seriously torn as to how to vote. I'm in favour of liberalising abortion, but I'm seriously opposed to writing legislation into the constitution.

traprunner

oscarBravo wrote: »

A straight repeal is unlikely, which means when the time comes we'll be faced with some fudgy language - in other words, we'll be legislating in the constitution again, resulting in the same bolloxology we have with divorce.

If and when that happens, I'll be seriously torn as to how to vote. I'm in favour of liberalising abortion, but I'm seriously opposed to writing legislation into the constitution.

If the government of the time go for a straight repeal then I suspect they would have all necessary legislation ready to go and in the public arena. It would make a repeal much simpler.

Zubeneschamali

S.O wrote: »

if its presented with an option to replace it with a new amendment be 50/50 I think

And then we end up with more unchangeable nonsense in the constitution, like the mandatory 5 year separation before a divorce, which makes no sense and was only put in there to try and get it passed by the 1996 electorate.

Loafing Oaf

oscarBravo wrote: »

A straight repeal is unlikely, which means when the time comes we'll be faced with some fudgy language - in other words, we'll be legislating in the constitution again,

Why do you say that? Who exactly is proposing the kind of constitutional tweaking you fear? All of the TDs quoted in this article seem to be talking about straight repeal:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/repeal-of-the-eighth-amendment-is-very-do-able-1.2225166

volchitsa

traprunner wrote: »

If the government of the time go for a straight repeal then I suspect they would have all necessary legislation ready to go and in the public arena. It would make a repeal much simpler.

Outside of this debate, I think this habit we've developed of legislating via the constitution needs to be broken. It leads to bad (and expensive) law. It seems to me the constitution should be a framework within which laws must be written, and not a list of all the laws in the country. It shouldn't have to be voted on every generation, either, for the same reason: it should be as broad a framework as possible.