Labours next push: Abortion

eviltwin

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

And if I don't consider Black people or homosexuals as real people, can I decide to eliminate them?

You can but that's murder and you'll go to prison. Not quite the same thing

am946745

lazygal wrote: »

Outside the uterus I guess. I don't have the right to use anyone's body to sustain my life, why does a woman have to sustain a foetus against her wishes?

Well every single human people came from a womb. Didn't we have the right to life? Why should anyone have a right to kill another person no matter who they are, disabled, ables, male, female.. What if there was a test tomorrow to find the sexuality if a child and the mother decided to have an abortion because she didn't want a gay child? or a Daughter?

We all started life at conception. its a medical fact.

lazygal

am946745 wrote: »

Well every single human people came from a womb. Didn't we have the right to life? Why should anyone have a right to kill another person no matter who they are, disabled, ables, male, female.. What if there was a test tomorrow to find the sexuality if a child and the mother decided to have an abortion because she didn't want a gay child? or a Daughter?

We all started life at conception. its a medical fact.

Why is it ok to kill the unborn when a woman's life is at risk? Why is it ok to.bring the unborn to.other countries to ki them?

am946745

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

And if I don't consider Black people or homosexuals as real people, can I decide to eliminate them?

Someone already tried that. I seem to remember he was elected by popular vote. So are the people always right?

eviltwin

am946745 wrote: »

Well every single human people came from a womb. Didn't we have the right to life? Why should anyone have a right to kill another person no matter who they are, disabled, ables, male, female.. What if there was a test tomorrow to find the sexuality if a child and the mother decided to have an abortion because she didn't want a gay child? or a Daughter?

We all started life at conception. its a medical fact.

Let's put it to the people. You've consistently failed to answer why you're so against a referendum. Why is that?

am946745

lazygal wrote: »

Why is it ok to kill the unborn when a woman's life is at risk? Why is it ok to.bring the unborn to.other countries to ki them?

Its not killing the unborn, its delivering the baby. Morally you can't let a pregnant woman die.

Women to travel to the UK are not at risk of dying.

lazygal

am946745 wrote: »

Someone already tried that. I seem to remember he was elected by popular vote. So are the people always right?

Are you saying you don't want to let people decide on repealing the eighth amendment because you think they'll decide killing the unborn is ok?

am946745

eviltwin wrote: »

Let's put it to the people. You've consistently failed to answer why you're so against a referendum. Why is that?

Because I don't believe a Childs life should depend on anyone.

lazygal

am946745 wrote: »

Its not killing the unborn, its delivering the baby. Morally you can't let a pregnant woman die.

Women to travel to the UK are not at risk of dying.

Why can you let a baby which is unborn die.but not the woman? Should the right to travel to kill the unborn be repealed, would you support a referendum on that?

eviltwin

am946745 wrote: »

Because I don't believe a Childs life should depend on anyone.

In other words you are worried people might favour a change in the law

lazygal

am946745 wrote: »

Because I don't believe a Childs life should depend on anyone.

But it does. I could have chosen to bring my unborn children elsewhere to kill them. I chose to remain pregnant and deliver them.

marienbad

A referendum is inevitable , maybe not in the next term but definitely in the one after .

And if it is phrased as cleverly and concisely as this one it will carry easily enough.

Fleawuss

Roman Catholics can't have abortions anyway. It's a "mortal sin". I think it's also "excommunication" but that mightn't be the case. I don't get why they want to have the civil law to enforce their beliefs on their flock or even on unbelievers.
All that said, abortion "on demand" will never be acceptable here imho. The same decency that rejected the intolerance and inequality of the No side will look at a child's life to be protected once it's viable. Viability advances with medicine. I suppose giving doctors the freedom to treat mothers is what I'd support and in the hard cases making the call to save a mother's life before an unborn child's. That's just the way life is sometimes. I don't think it's possible to find a magic "form of words" to replace the eighth. There will only be more misery if we try. It should go and we should trust our legislators to make AOD illegal but give doctors the freedom to save lives.

paulheu

Sorry, but abortion and same sex couples to have the same rights, choices and protection under the law are in no way comparable.

That said, abortion should not be illegal. It should also not be taken lightly or be accessible easily. There are situations where I believe abortion would be justifiable and permissible. We'll probably see (and already are seeing) the 'They are killing babies' hysteria which is utter and complete nonsense. not until 9-10 weeks into pregnancy do we even speak of a fetus.

Imagine the scenario;
Your child is raped and is pregnant. She is ashamed and fearful and does not come forward until she is in her second trimester. Are we going to force here to carry the child to term, birth it and provide for it. Are we willing to let her undergo the stress and pain of having to give birth to a child whose father raped her and put here in this position? What happens if she becomes suicidal and kills herself and/or the baby.

Or are we willing to create an environment where she is cared for, looked after and knows she is not to blame or guilty for any of this and also will legally be able to terminate the result of a cruel and horrific experience before it is even in a state of development that we would even consider it to be a human being capable of sustaining itself, even with the aid of technology.

A woman should have the right and choice to terminate a pregnancy if the right conditions are met. What those conditions are we can and should discuss, but IMO not the option.

am946745

lazygal wrote: »

Why can you let a baby which is unborn die.but not the woman? Should the right to travel to kill the unborn be repealed, would you support a referendum on that?

for example a women has an ectopic pregnancy. Doctor says if she does not deliver the foetus she will die. There is nothing morally wrong for the doctor to remove the child to save the mother. Some my say this is an abortion, but the mothers intention and doctors intention was to try and save both. Sometimes you can't. These procedures are already done in Ireland. Doctors don't sit around letting pregnant women die. We don't need on demand abortion to save a mother.

lazygal

There should be no legislation on abortion. It should be a purely medical matter between a woman and her doctor and no one else.

am946745

lazygal wrote: »

There should be no legislation on abortion. It should be a purely medical matter between a woman and her doctor and no one else.

What medical matter?

lazygal

am946745 wrote: »

for example a women has an ectopic pregnancy. Doctor says if she does not deliver the foetus she will die. There is nothing morally wrong for the doctor to remove the child to save the mother. Some my say this is an abortion, but the mothers intention and doctors intention was to try and save both. Sometimes you can't. These procedures are already done in Ireland. Doctors don't sit around letting pregnant women die. We don't need on demand abortion to save a mother.

Still don't understand why one person's life is put at risk and or ended.because of a woman's life being at risk. Why can I travel to kill the unborn, are you ok with me.being allowed to do so.

paulheu

lazygal wrote: »

There should be no legislation on abortion. It should be a purely medical matter between a woman and her doctor and no one else.

There should be a legal framework which sets conditions for sure. If not for any other reason but that doctors need to have this backup in the process of supporting and guiding the woman as well as the execution of an abortion.

PopePalpatine

am946745 wrote: »

What medical matter?

The threat to the mother's mental and/or physical well-being.

lazygal

am946745 wrote: »

What medical matter?

You don't think pregnancy is a medical matter?

Mr. teddywinkles

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Well it would undoubtedly answer this one.

Vote either way theres always doubt and lots of

zl1whqvjs75cdy

I would be very surprised if abortion was legalised here. Depends on the specific criteria I suppose but I am in no way Catholic and abortion makes me feel very uneasy. Don't know how I'd vote in such a referendum.

Not a NSA agent

No political party should have religious ties.

In terms of the 40% wanting representation you should have voted in someone like the catholic democrats. If they weren't popular enough to get in then its your problem, move to somewhere like Saudi Arabia where they let religion rule.

For the eighth amendment, something has to be changed, we were in a situation where a women who's body was rotting away couldnt have the machines turned off without courts getting involved. It went too far protecting the unborn to reducing the rights of women.

volchitsa

am946745 wrote: »

for example a women has an ectopic pregnancy. Doctor says if she does not deliver the foetus she will die. There is nothing morally wrong for the doctor to remove the child to save the mother. Some my say this is an abortion, but the mothers intention and doctors intention was to try and save both. Sometimes you can't. These procedures are already done in Ireland. Doctors don't sit around letting pregnant women die. We don't need on demand abortion to save a mother.

She'd almost certainly die long before it got to the stage of being a fetus, an ectopic pregnancy has to be removed while stil in the embryonic stage.

However there are several ways pf removing the fetus: one, which is banned by the Catholic Church, is a non mutilating, non invasive chemical treatment which specifically targets the embryo,more serving the woman's Fallopian tube and thus her chances of getting pregnant later. Do you think that this method which sets out to kill the ectopic embryo in order to protect the woman's future fertility is acceptable or not?

In other words, which do you think more important, following the catholic church's pretence of non intention, or performing the best medicine possible to save the woman's life with as little damage to her as possible?

Juza1973

Well with marriage referendum you could play the "nobody gets hurt anyway" card. With abortion it is completely another matter as there is somebody who gets hurt, in the most irreversible way. And don't think for a moment that you can look good and humane while doing propaganda for the death of innocents.

Mr. teddywinkles

marienbad wrote: »

A referendum is inevitable , maybe not in the next term but definitely in the one after .

And if it is phrased as cleverly and concisely as this one it will carry easily enough.

How the hell was this referendum phrased cleverly. Yes concisely to rush through. Vote yes for gay marriage. Ok but what about procreation and all that for these couples. Just vote yes for gay marriage. Wtf. No plans in place whatsoever.

marienbad

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

How the hell was this referendum phrased cleverly. Yes concisely to rush through. Vote yes for gay marriage. Ok but what about procreation and all that for these couples. Just vote yes for gay marriage. Wtf. No plans in place whatsoever.

What planning do you think was required ?

traprunner

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

How the hell was this referendum phrased cleverly. Yes concisely to rush through. Vote yes for gay marriage. Ok but what about procreation and all that for these couples. Just vote yes for gay marriage. Wtf. No plans in place whatsoever.

The text and meaning of what will now be inserted into the constitution was clear and concise. It meant nothing more and nothing less than what was stated. The children and family relationship act closed off any potential problems beforehand. Every single argument against put forward was dismantled as a red herring.

Mr. teddywinkles

traprunner wrote: »

The text and meaning of what will now be inserted into the constitution was clear and concise. It meant nothing more and nothing less than what was stated. The children and family relationship act closed off any potential problems beforehand. Every single argument against put forward was dismantled as a red herring.

So when 10000 gay couples decide they want kids in future?

traprunner

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

So when 10000 gay couples decide they want kids in future?

What about the 10000 straight couples that want kids right now but can't? What's the difference? Do babies magically appear?

Neither had to do with the referendum.

P_1

I presume those disagreeing with abortion before 16 weeks would also disagree with condoms and the pill. That's what a fetus is at that stage, a bunch of cells, no more, no less.

marienbad

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

So when 10000 gay couples decide they want kids in future?

How is that any different than 10 k gay couples requiring kids under Civil Partnership ?

traprunner

marienbad wrote: »

How is that any different than 10 k gay couples requiring kids under Civil Partnership ?

We need to remember that whenever a gay couple wants a child now all they have to do is notify the HSE and the HSE will oblige by taking a baby at random from the delivery rooms of hospitals.

marienbad

traprunner wrote: »

We need to remember that whenever a gay couple wants a child now all they have to do is notify the HSE and the HSE will oblige by taking a baby at random from the delivery rooms of hospitals.

But only if they are blond haired and blue eyed .

AulBiddy

As a young woman living in Ireland it terrifies me that a religion of which I want nothing to do with could dictate whether I live or not or if I am raped that I cannot have an abortion. Catholicism should have absolutely no say in moral decisions (considering they have been the centre of some of the most heinous immoral acts conducted in Ireland). It should be brought in under strict guidelines however such as abortion being unavailable after maybe 12 to 15 weeks unless woman's life is in danger.
Many argue that "well the child cannot help if it is conceived out of rape!" Of course the child is innocent, but some mothers cannot love someone whose genetic make up is half of their attacker - and I am someone of the belief that all children need to be brought up in a loving environment and not one of resentment, whether this loving environment is a mother and father, single mother or father, two mothers or two fathers.

frostyjacks

I can understand the wave of public support for same sex marriage on the basis of equality and love. But abortion is a different kettle of fish altogether, I can't see the same sort of feel-good buzz generated from that as was the case last week.

super_furry

The country is changing apace. No longer will the people accept a religion that they feel less and less connection with, dictate their lives. Women in particular, who still aren't equal in the eyes of the church, are less and less likely to stand for priests telling them what they can do with their bodies.

Peregrinus

Irish voters are fairly sophisticated. They can accept one constitutional amendment proposed by a government while simultaneously rejecting another (as we have just seen). They can re-elect a government while simultaneously rejecting an amendment it is proposing. They are used to a voting system which normally requires not just a simple yes/no, but a quite sophisticated ordering of preferences.

The fact that the more "liberal" position on same-sex marriage carried the day this weekend does not mean that the more "liberal" position on any other question will also win. Abortion raises lots of issues that same-sex marriage does not. Using people's votes on same-sex marriage in an attempt to predict their votes on abortion is not, I suggest, a terribly reliable way to go about things.

paulheu

P_1 wrote: »

I presume those disagreeing with abortion before 16 weeks would also disagree with condoms and the pill. That's what a fetus is at that stage, a bunch of cells, no more, no less.

Actually, I'd say that would be up to 8-9 weeks when we're still speaking of an embryo. At 16 weeks we're certainly speaking of a human being although it will not be able to survive outside the womb.

Benny_Cake

Peregrinus wrote: »

The fact that the more "liberal" position on same-sex marriage carried the day this weekend does not mean that the more "liberal" position on any other question will also win. Abortion raises lots of issues that same-sex marriage does not. Using people's votes on same-sex marriage in an attempt to predict their votes on abortion is not, I suggest, a terribly reliable way to go about things.

This. It's entirely possible to support same-sex marriage but to hold a position on abortion that many would consider conservative. I manage to do so myself although I think trying to lock abortion into the constitution was a bad idea which has backfired in many ways.

Regardless, the idea that this government will have a crack at an abortion referendum in the months leading up to a general election is laughable. It simply isn't going to happen.

traprunner

So why should people (usually strangers) lay claim over a woman's body?

Hannibal Smith

am946745 wrote: »

If they had clarified surrogacy and adoption there would not have been such a divide. If the vote was just about gay couples it would have passed with a higher majority.

How much clarity did you need? The yes campaign explained again and again that children had nothing to do with the referendum.

I think its very unfair to 'blame' SSM on the possibility of an abortion referendum. The yes vote was a positive thing for this country and trying to tarnish it sounds like bitter grapes.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

Irish voters are fairly sophisticated. They can accept one constitutional amendment proposed by a government while simultaneously rejecting another (as we have just seen). They can re-elect a government while simultaneously rejecting an amendment it is proposing. They are used to a voting system which normally requires not just a simple yes/no, but a quite sophisticated ordering of preferences.

The fact that the more "liberal" position on same-sex marriage carried the day this weekend does not mean that the more "liberal" position on any other question will also win. Abortion raises lots of issues that same-sex marriage does not. Using people's votes on same-sex marriage in an attempt to predict their votes on abortion is not, I suggest, a terribly reliable way to go about things.

I'd say its certain the a non religious group of people in the more advanced parts of the world will vote in favour of abortion over a total or near total ban. Without religion it mainly becomes a privacy issue of the woman. If you look at more general forums like Journal.ie the South American child rape case would get you a 90/10 in favour of the girl's rights, my guess is that the Journal appeals to 20 to 45 age group. The Irish situation will come down to demographics. The majority of (pulls number form the air) over 60's may be against abortion the majority under will be for liberal amendments.

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

I'd say its certain the a non religious group of people in the more advanced parts of the world will vote in favour of abortion over a total or near total ban. Without religion it mainly becomes a privacy issue of the woman.

I think you’re making two mistakes here. First, the fact that we have just passed the equal marriage referendum doesn’t mean that we are “a non religious group of people”. Ireland is less religious than it used to be, but both in identification and in practice is it still a signficantly religious country. If you want to know where people stand on religion, don’t ask them about equal marriage. Ask them about religion.

Secondly, you say that “without religion it mainly becomes a privacy issue of the woman”. No, it doesn’t. You don’t have to be religious to think that humanity has an ethical value, and there is no law of state or nature which says that, if you don’t believe in God, you absolutely may not attribute ethical value to unborn human life. It’s entirely possible to be not terribly religious, and still see moral or ethical problems in any area of human activity. The notion that atheists have no morals is a baseless slur, remember? The fact that somebody doesn’t believe in God tells you nothing about what they do believe; if you want to know that, you have to ask them.

silverharp wrote: »

If you look at more general forums like Journal.ie the South American child rape case would get you a 90/10 in favour of the girl's rights, my guess is that the Journal appeals to 20 to 45 age group. The Irish situation will come down to demographics. The majority of (pulls number form the air) over 60's may be against abortion the majority under will be for liberal amendments.

But if you look at opinion polls about a child rape case, you can't assume that you would have got the same answer if the poll had asked about a woman's-right-to-choose abortion-on-demand regime. "I favour a law allowing children pregnant as the result of rape to have terminations" =/= "I believe in a woman's right to choose". Not even close. The assumption that one position leads inexorably to the other is just wishful thinking. And I think the opinion polls show a majority in favour of a “hard cases” abortion regime, but not in favour of an “abortion on demand/right to choose” regime.

In the referendum just completed, the "No" campaign tried very hard to run slippery slope" arguments about children's rights, artificial conception, etc. The attempt failed, of course. But if you brought forward a referendum to remove Constitutional references to abortion entirely, opponents wouldn't have to run a "slippery slope" argument; they could point out - truthfully - that this opened the door to extremely liberal abortion legislation. And then it would be the people citing raped pregnant children would be accused - rightly - of attempting to obfuscate the issue. The marriage equality referendum wasn't about children, and that one wouldn't be either.

The only way around this problem would be to propose an amendment to "tweak" the current prohibition - to put in carve-outs for cases of rape and incest, say, and maybe non-survivable foetal abnormality. (You could obviously tinker with exactly what you would put on that list.) Once you could get over the fact that everybody is heartily sick of abortion referendums - this would be the fourth, I think - that might get passed, based on what the opinion polls say. But of course it's not what "liberals" want; far from recognising a woman's right to choose it would restate the constitutional denial of such a right.

So, basically, the opinion polls are saying that the people would approve wording on abortion that liberals would not like to see put into the Constitution. It's not a great starting point.

the_monkey

am946745 wrote: »

I was struck last night that Sky news mentioned twice the possibility that Ireland might have a referendum on abortion. Sad they linked gay marriage with abortion, but such is life.

I know many Catholics who while had some unease voting for gay marriage, they wanted their gay friends and family to feel included. so they voted in favour of the civil inclusion.

Now if there had been a referendum on abortion, that would have been a whole other issue. Voting to allow doctors kill children in Irish hospitals would be simply unpalatable for many.

The problem is all the political parties seem to be in bed together, we need a Christian democratic party to stand up for us.

Absolute twaddle ...

desertcircus

am946745 wrote: »

Well every single human people came from a womb. Didn't we have the right to life? Why should anyone have a right to kill another person no matter who they are, disabled, ables, male, female.. What if there was a test tomorrow to find the sexuality if a child and the mother decided to have an abortion because she didn't want a gay child? or a Daughter?

We all started life at conception. its a medical fact.

So does that mean that identical twins are half a person each?

traprunner

am946745 wrote: »

Well every single human people came from a womb. Didn't we have the right to life? Why should anyone have a right to kill another person no matter who they are, disabled, ables, male, female.. What if there was a test tomorrow to find the sexuality if a child and the mother decided to have an abortion because she didn't want a gay child? or a Daughter?

We all started life at conception. its a medical fact.

Eh going by your definition of 'life' the sperm and egg were alive too so we all would have started life before you state is a fact.

fits

Peregrinus wrote: »

I .

The only way around this problem would be to propose an amendment to "tweak" the current prohibition - to put in carve-outs for cases of rape and incest, say, and maybe non-survivable foetal abnormality. (You could obviously tinker with exactly what you would put on that list.) Once you could get over the fact that everybody is heartily sick of abortion referendums - this would be the fourth, I think - that might get passed, based on what the opinion polls say. But of course it's not what "liberals" want; far from recognising a woman's right to choose it would restate the constitutional denial of such a right.

So, .

No more <snip> tweaking. It has to go that eighth amendment. It should NEVER have been put in there in the first place and was barely passed in 1983. Abortion laws should be passed by legislators.
Just think of savita and that poor woman on life support at christmas. Situations that never should have arisen.

fits

frostyjacks wrote: »

I can understand the wave of public support for same sex marriage on the basis of equality and love. But abortion is a different kettle of fish altogether, I can't see the same sort of feel-good buzz generated from that as was the case last week.

You dont hold recerendums to feel good. They are held to make necessary changes to constitution. This one is long overdue