Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

One eyed Jack

Delirium wrote: »

Somehow disingenious considering you don't support the choice of a woman who has been raped to have an abortion.

I fail to see how removing the option of consent regarding the pregnancy is anything but a bad thing. That's not to say all women who have been raped must have abortions, but at the very least get them to consent to continuing with the pregnancy.

Perhaps a misunderstood representation of my position. I don't support repealing the 8th amendment. I've never suggested that a woman shouldn't have a right to terminate her pregnancy in the manner in which she chooses, and she shouldn't IMO be forced to give birth if she doesn't want to. I don't think the law actually makes any difference to women who choose to have abortions. It certainly hasn't before, as is evidenced by the numbers of women travelling abroad to avail of services provided in jurisdictions outside Ireland where the neighbours won't know.

One eyed Jack

Delirium wrote: »

No, you're right AFAIK, he hasn't changed his position. I was merely addressing the response to the posts regarding the 'Loving the Bad Man' movie

I've changed my position regarding repealing the 8th amendment, I haven't changed my position regarding abortion.

Delirium

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Perhaps a misunderstood representation of my position. I don't support repealing the 8th amendment. I've never suggested that a woman shouldn't have a right to terminate her pregnancy in the manner in which she chooses, and she shouldn't IMO be forced to give birth if she doesn't want to. I don't think the law actually makes any difference to women who choose to have abortions. It certainly hasn't before, as is evidenced by the numbers of women travelling abroad to avail of services provided in jurisdictions outside Ireland where the neighbours won't know.

These are contradictory positions. Could you elaborate on this, i.e. how can a woman have a choice if the 8th is in place?

One eyed Jack

Delirium wrote: »

These are contradictory positions. Could you elaborate on this, i.e. how can a woman have a choice if the 8th is in place?

She has the choice to travel abroad to avail of an abortion in another jurisdiction.

Delirium

One eyed Jack wrote: »

She has the choice to travel abroad to avail of an abortion in another jurisdiction.

What about those that can't afford travel, minors or women in direct provision (or for other reasons)?

That statement also contradicts what you previously posted:

I don't support repealing the 8th amendment. I've never suggested that a woman shouldn't have a right to terminate her pregnancy in the manner in which she chooses, and she shouldn't IMO be forced to give birth if she doesn't want to.

One eyed Jack

Delirium wrote: »

What about those that can't afford travel, minors or women in direct provision (or for other reasons)?

What about them?

That statement also contradicts what you previously posted:

I'm not going to stop someone having an abortion if that's what she chooses to do. I would support her in any way I could. That still doesn't mean I have to support repealing the 8th amendment in the Irish Constitution. The issue of abortion, and legislation regarding abortion in this country, is greater than simply a woman's perceived right to avail of an abortion in this country.

Delirium

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What about them?


I'm not going to stop someone having an abortion if that's what she chooses to do. I would support her in any way I could. That still doesn't mean I have to support repealing the 8th amendment in the Irish Constitution. The issue of abortion, and legislation regarding abortion in this country, is greater than simply a woman's perceived right to avail of an abortion in this country.

you said:

I don't support repealing the 8th amendment. I've never suggested that a woman shouldn't have a right to terminate her pregnancy in the manner in which she chooses, and she shouldn't IMO be forced to give birth if she doesn't want to.

Women that can't afford travel, minors or women in direct provision can't travel to another country for an abortion easily/ or at all.

The resultant effect is that they are forced to carry the pregnancy to term. A situation you don't support but you don't support repealing the 8th which would allow this situation to addressed via modified abortion legislation.

frostyjacks

aloyisious wrote: »

On the basis of right V wrong, do you think that one tenet of this rather strange film, a testing by god, is realistic or think it is wrong of the film-makers to put forward the notion that god would act in such a way toward one of his disciples?

I take it you believe the family (and child resulting from the film's crime) of the woman should be forgiving towards the god-sent character-testing rapist of the film as well?

If the attacker seeks forgiveness and the family wish to move on, then where's the issue? Hate the sin, love the sinner.

One eyed Jack

Delirium wrote: »

you said:


Women that can't afford travel, minors or women in direct provision can't travel to another country for an abortion easily/ or at all.

The resultant effect is that they are forced to carry the pregnancy to term. A situation you don't support but you don't support repealing the 8th which would allow this situation to addressed via modified abortion legislation.

Accomodations in legislation can be made for people to travel to other jurisdictions, as they have done already for years. I initially supported repealing the 8th amendment on the basis that abortion should be safe as possible and carried out with dignity and respect for all human life, including that of the unborn.

The latest round of "it's only a bunch of cells" type stuff is a far cry from the "but this, but that, but the other" scenarios you present above, and I understand appeals to emotion, I also understand logic and rational argument, but what I don't understand is why you think I should vote to repeal the 8th amendment given that it appears to be merely politically motivated in my view, rather than any genuine concern for people's welfare, particularly the groups you mention above in your post.

Delirium

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Accomodations in legislation can be made for people to travel to other jurisdictions, as they have done already for years. I initially supported repealing the 8th amendment on the basis that abortion should be safe as possible and carried out with dignity and respect for all human life, including that of the unborn.

The latest round of "it's only a bunch of cells" type stuff is a far cry from the "but this, but that, but the other" scenarios you present above, and I understand appeals to emotion, I also understand logic and rational argument, but what I don't understand is why you think I should vote to repeal the 8th amendment given that it appears to be merely politically motivated in my view, rather than any genuine concern for people's welfare, particularly the groups you mention above in your post.

You don't understand why I think you should vote to repeal the 8th considering you said the following:

I've never suggested that a woman shouldn't have a right to terminate her pregnancy in the manner in which she chooses, and she shouldn't IMO be forced to give birth if she doesn't want to.

I've listed a couple of groups that are forced to continue with a pregnancy due to the 8th if they become pregnant due to rape. Being unwilling to repeal the 8th means that you are acting in a manner that is direct contradiction to your statement regarding not forcing women to give birth against their will.

We've now established that you give more importance on how some of the repeal people express themselves over the principle of women consenting to carry a pregnancy to term, i.e having an option to abort.

One eyed Jack

Delirium wrote: »

You don't understand why I think you should vote to repeal the 8th considering you said the following:

I've listed a couple of groups that are forced to continue with a pregnancy due to the 8th if they become pregnant due to rape. Being unwilling to repeal the 8th means that you are acting in a manner that is direct contradiction to your statement regarding not forcing women to give birth against their will.

I've already stated that accomodations could be made for those groups, by the same method you're suggesting - modifying existing legislation, and that could be done without repealing the 8th amendment.

We've now established that you give more importance on how some of the repeal people express themselves over the principle of women consenting to carry a pregnancy to term, i.e having an option to abort.

Ehh, no. That's not what we established at all. It's quite clear that I have no objection to abortion at an individual level. However, I'm not in favour of supporting the repeal of a constitutional amendment which is more in line with my principles, than immature political posturing and trendy bandwagoning which appears to be only the thin end of the "sticking it to the man" wedge. Their efforts give a wider indication of the direction in which they want to drive Irish society, and I can't get on board with that.

lazygal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Their efforts give a wider indication of the direction in which they want to drive Irish society, and I can't get on board with that.

What direction? Why do you support abortion once you can afford it and access but not if you can't?

Do you also oppose IVF?

Delirium

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I've already stated that accomodations could be made for those groups, by the same method you're suggesting - modifying existing legislation, and that could be done without repealing the 8th amendment.

How can you amend the legislation when the constitution will prohibit it? It can easily be argued that allowing for abortion in cases of rape goes against the 8th amendment, i.e fails to vindicate the rights of the unborn.

Ehh, no. That's not what we established at all. It's quite clear that I have no objection to abortion at an individual level. However, I'm not in favour of supporting the repeal of a constitutional amendment which is more in line with my principles, than immature political posturing and trendy bandwagoning which appears to be only the thin end of the "sticking it to the man" wedge. Their efforts give a wider indication of the direction in which they want to drive Irish society, and I can't get on board with that.

and I said:

We've now established that you give more importance on how some of the repeal people express themselves over the principle of women consenting to carry a pregnancy to term, i.e having an option to abort.

I don't see the difference tbh. You're against the repeal 8th campaign due to how some repeal campaigners behave/ your perception of their motivations.

aloyisious

One eyed Jack wrote: »

A Christian being Christian?

You're right Cabaal, that's all sorts of fcuked up...

Whatever happened to the idea of a woman's right to make decisions for herself, among all the ever so enlightened, empathetic non-religious folks?

Or is it just a matter of pro-choice as long as other people make choices they agree with?

What's messed up Cabaal is the automatic assumption that a woman would want to have an abortion if she became pregnant as a result of rape. There are many, many women that don't fit that particular narrative, but because they don't choose to have an abortion, their mental health is often questioned, instead of attempting to understand their decision.

Being Pro-choice is just that; leaving the decision with the pregnant woman, and not the alternative of the anti-abortion side of the argument, that no woman has a right to choose unless it fits the anti-abortion sides bill.

If you don't agree with that Pro-choice POV, then you have made a personal choice to dictate to the woman on what she can do, and making decisions for her without her permission.

One eyed Jack

lazygal wrote: »

What direction? Why do you support abortion once you can afford it and access but not if you can't?

An ultra-liberal society which appears to place their own individual wants over that which would affect all people in Irish society. It's not even a question of affordability, I wouldn't have any issue personally, with personally financing someone who wanted to avail of an abortion in another jurisdiction, but that's quite different from legislation which would govern all of a society.

Do you also oppose IVF?

Not particularly. I wouldn't support the idea that it should be open to 66 year old women for instance. ART are another minefield for another thread entirely IMO.

aloyisious

Before I answer one question put to me above, has anyone seen this strange film? If so, does the offender in it seek forgiveness for his "sin" from the woman he raped?

Delirium

One eyed Jack wrote: »

An ultra-liberal society which appears to place their own individual wants over that which would affect all people in Irish society. It's not even a question of affordability, I wouldn't have any issue personally, with personally financing someone who wanted to avail of an abortion in another jurisdiction, but that's quite different from legislation which would govern all of a society.

But does that not also apply to current situation, i.e people oppossed their individual wants over that of pregnant women who want to have an abortion?

One eyed Jack

Delirium wrote: »

How can you amend the legislation when the constitution will prohibit it? It can easily be argued that allowing for abortion in cases of rape goes against the 8th amendment, i.e fails to vindicate the rights of the unborn.

Does the constitution prohibit the right to travel?

I don't see the difference tbh. You're against the repeal 8th campaign due to how some repeal campaigners behave/ your perception of their motivations.

I'm against repealing the 8th amendment due to my perception of their motivations, not because I have any issue with a woman choosing to have an abortion. The 8th amendment doesn't prohibit a woman from availing of abortion in another jurisdiction, but it does protect the equal right to life of the unborn.

One eyed Jack

Delirium wrote: »

But does that not also apply to current situation, i.e people oppossed their individual wants over that of pregnant women who want to have an abortion?

You must surely be able to understand that legislating to broaden our abortion laws in this country wouldn't just affect pregnant women who want to have an abortion?

aloyisious

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I've changed my position regarding repealing the 8th amendment, I haven't changed my position regarding abortion.

Edited to delete my first question, having just seen your last on repealing the 8th now.

Does it mean that at some time in the past you did approve of repealing the 8th?

I see you make a difference between a woman's CHOICE to go abroad for an abortion and her RIGHT to travel abroad. That reads like you recognize the present situation pertaining to pregnant women here re choice on abortion, whether or no you like it.

Delirium

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Does the constitution prohibit the right to travel?

We're talking about those that can't travel.

I'm against repealing the 8th amendment due to my perception of their motivations, not because I have any issue with a woman choosing to have an abortion. The 8th amendment doesn't prohibit a woman from availing of abortion in another jurisdiction, but it does protect the equal right to life of the unborn.

You're not answering the question asked, how do you resolve your claim to oppose forcing women to have a child when they don't consent with not supporting the repeal of the 8th which currently stops them having an abortion here?

Delirium

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You must surely be able to understand that legislating to broaden our abortion laws in this country wouldn't just affect pregnant women who want to have an abortion?

Can expand on this as I don't follow to what you're alluding to?

pilly

One eyed Jack wrote:

I'm against repealing the 8th amendment due to my perception of their motivations, not because I have any issue with a woman choosing to have an abortion. The 8th amendment doesn't prohibit a woman from availing of abortion in another jurisdiction, but it does protect the equal right to life of the unborn.

So what is your perception of "their" motivations? Whoever "their" is?

looksee

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Does the constitution prohibit the right to travel?

The extraordinary solution of allowing women to travel for an abortion but not allowing it in the state begins to sound very much like the 'out of sight, out of mind' solution to single pregnant women in Ireland up to the 70's.

One eyed Jack

aloyisious wrote: »

Being Pro-choice is just that; leaving the decision with the pregnant woman, and not the alternative of the anti-abortion side of the argument, that no woman has a right to choose unless it fits the anti-abortion sides bill.

So what label do you apply then to people who would leave the decision up to the woman for the first 12 weeks of what is normally 39-41 weeks gestation? "Anti-choice after 12 weeks"? Bit of a mouthful...

If you don't agree with that Pro-choice POV, then you have made a personal choice to dictate to the woman on what she can do, and making decisions for her without her permission.

And I'm sure you understand the difference between wanting to control a person at an individual level, and engaging with the democratic process which applies to all citizens of a society, even the unborn?

lazygal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Not particularly. I wouldn't support the idea that it should be open to 66 year old women for instance. ART are another minefield for another thread entirely IMO.

All matters relating to reproduction and the health of girls and women are related to the eighth amendment. It affects consent during maternity care, for example. One of the reasons I am not sure about having more pregnancies in Ireland is because of how the eighth will impact on me during pregnancy and birth. Women are threatened with the eighth and forced to undergo procedures against their wishes every day. Of course if you, like your wife, can't empathise with someone unless you've been through the exact situation anyone brings up, I think we're better off expending our time elsewhere.

aloyisious

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So what label do you apply then to people who would leave the decision up to the woman for the first 12 weeks of what is normally 39-41 weeks gestation? "Anti-choice after 12 weeks"? Bit of a mouthful...





And I'm sure you understand the difference between wanting to control a person at an individual level, and engaging with the democratic process which applies to all citizens of a society, even the unborn?

Q1. People with opinions still prepared to allow the women make the decision.

In Q2, by democratic process, do you mean the democratic choice which was used to bring in the 8th, which is now being used by people who have no involvement with pregnant woman desiring to have abortions to decide the women's futures without any choice being left to the women? Rather something now seen as an over-riding of personal choice installed in the constitution beyond the scope of legal argument in a court here.

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

The extraordinary solution of allowing women to travel for an abortion but not allowing it in the state begins to sound very much like the 'out of sight, out of mind' solution to single pregnant women in Ireland up to the 70's.

Hardly comparable, given that those women actually gave birth and both they and their children were considered undesirable by Irish social standards at the time. We still have plenty of people in Irish society who would prefer that those they consider society's "undesirables", were out of sight, only to be spoken of when their circumstances could be used in an argument to bolster that person's political ideology.

One eyed Jack

lazygal wrote: »

Of course if you, like your wife, can't empathise with someone unless you've been through the exact situation anyone brings up, I think we're better off expending our time elsewhere.

lazygal it was me who suggested that I found it difficult to believe a person who suggests they could empathise with someone never having experienced what that person experienced. This was in relation to a pregnant 10 year old girl living in Brazil. I think the same now as I did then - some people here overestimate the value and credulity of their empathy with others. It's called virtue signalling.

About the only thing we probably will agree on however is that for both of us our time is probably wasted going back and forth on this one.

looksee

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Hardly comparable, given that those women actually gave birth and both they and their children were considered undesirable by Irish social standards at the time. We still have plenty of people in Irish society who would prefer that those they consider society's "undesirables", were out of sight, only to be spoken of when their circumstances could be used in an argument to bolster that person's political ideology.

I am not clear what point you are making here? Are you saying it was ok for the babies to die once they had been born - and not at the hands of their mothers, but at the hands of the very people who shout loudest about the sin of abortion?