Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Hotblack Desiato

I've limited patience for talking to a wall - at least a wall has substance though and is useful for some things

More of an amorphous fog that you can never grasp or pin down really

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Its not that I don't care about them, it's that I can't realistically control an individuals choice, nor should I.

That's exactly what you are doing by voting to keep the 8th amendment! Restricting womens choice to have abortions in Ireland, forcing them to travel and making it far more dangerous for them. You just don't care about the choice once you can't see it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Since abortion won't save babies but will increase the number of babies killed, a starting point is not to introduce abortion. What's not about saving babies in being against the introduction of abortion on demand?

My point from the beginning is that abortions happen regardless of the 8th, you aren't saving those babies and you don't even care to try. All you are doing is hurting women in the straightforward cases, the cases that are so hard for you that you still haven't address this problem. If you aren't saving babies then what is the point when all you are doing is hurting innocent women?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I pick England because I think (having lived in England and Holland as well as here) England is culturally similar to here.

Similar is not the same. We don't have the same views on the EU, royalty, class and religion amongst others. Maybe more relevantly, the Irish teen pregnancy rate is 7.8/1000, the UK rate is 22.9/1000.
Assuming our abortion rate would jump to the UKs (especially as our law will only allow abortion up to 12 weeks, not 24) is scaremongering, plain and simple.

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's one of my suspicions: that repeal and abortion on demand makes financial sense. It deals with the problem by way of amputation, not longer drawn out and expensive reconstructive surgery. It has the added bonus of us been seen by the rest of the world as catching up.

How does it make financial sense? At the moment, abortions are exported at the mothers expense. If we provide abortions here, assuming the same cost as in the UK (under €700), then that would be at the very most €3.5million (5000 abortions*€700). The HSE has an annual budget of €14.5 Billion this year. Do you think €3.5 million would make difference?

recedite

NuMarvel wrote: »

So what good reason exists for not qualifying the general right to life to allow for women's bodily integrity, or health or other fundamental rights as other countries have done? What is it about Ireland, Malta, and a handful of other countries that makes us right and the other countries wrong?

And what is with your obsession with Colm O'Gorman? He's married, so maybe get over it and move on.

I can't understand your question; rephrase it in plain English please.
Can you answer my simple question; How does removing somebody's right to life give them protection?

O'Gorman spearheads a particular agenda in Ireland. He is the "useful idiot"
of bigger international players such as George Soros who funds him. The Soros funding has been declared illegal by Ireland's SIPO, but O'Gorman cynically thumbs his nose, knowing that the court case won't be heard until after the referendum.
The agenda operates on many fronts, but its objective here in Ireland is to destroy the unique culture of this country, and to standardise the whole of Europe into a rootless, nationless, homogenous population that is compliant to the wishes of international corporations.

Cabaal

recedite wrote: »

If they go abroad, they can do whatever is legal in the country they go to, whether that is smoking cannabis or aborting a perfectly healthy unborn baby. That does not mean I should support legalising these things here.

How odd, so abortions are murder but you're OK with exporting murder. Well that's pretty messed up.

Do you get a headache when trying to justify being OK with murder?

Whats with pro lifer obsession with perfectly healthy?

What about cases of FFA? Still happy to force these women and couples to travel without care and support and incur costs of upto 11k?

Cabaal

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I've limited patience for talking to a wall - at least a wall has substance though and is useful for some things

More of an amorphous fog that you can never grasp or pin down really

Actually you know what, I'm done wasting my time to on the pointless fog.... Some of the user features are great on boards. Ie

Mark Hamill

recedite wrote: »

Currently an unborn child has only one right in Ireland; the right to his or her own life.

Really, at this stage it's ridiculous for anyone on the No side to keep parading around this so called "Right to Life" as being paramount when they are perfectly happy for it to be completely over-ruled once the mother can afford to do so (which can be as little as €75 for a pill ordered online).

recedite

NuMarvel wrote: »

It's explained earlier in my post. It's a right that's not being enforced, that no one actually wants to enforce, and some who support it want to diminish the effect of it (while also opposing the only means to do that, incidentally).

There is little point keeping a law that doesn't do it's job and nobody wants to do its job, especially when it's having a harmful effect on others.

So like I said, keeping the 8th helps no one, including the unborn. Removing it helps women.

That is simply a lie.
The 8th amendment does protect the unborn in Ireland. If it didn't, why would you bother calling for it to be repealed.

NuMarvel

Cabaal wrote: »

Actually you know what, I'm done wasting my time to on the pointless fog.... Some of the user features are great on boards. Ie

That adage about horse and water comes to mind

PhoenixParker

recedite wrote: »

That is simply a lie.
The 8th amendment does protect the unborn in Ireland. If it didn't, why would you bother calling for it to be repealed.

The harm to women and their healthcare is the reason it needs to be repealed.

NuMarvel

recedite wrote: »

That is simply a lie.
The 8th amendment does protect the unborn in Ireland. If it didn't, why would you bother calling for it to be repealed.

I've explained why it doesn't protect the unborn, but the best response you had was to ignore that. I expect you'll do the same again. And I call for it to be repealed because it has a completely disproportionate effect on women's rights, health, and sometimes life.

recedite

Cabaal wrote: »

How odd, so abortions are murder but you're OK with exporting murder. Well that's pretty messed up.

Do you get a headache when trying to justify being OK with murder?

Whats with pro lifer obsession with perfectly healthy?

What about cases of FFA? Still happy to force these women and couples to travel without care and support and incur costs of upto 11k?

The only fog is over your own eyes.
You ask lots of questions, but you don't see the answers you don't like.
At the same time, you ignore the questions I put to you.

Murder cannot be exported. If you think it can, that would only be a "thought crime" not a murder. It either happens or it does not. If it happens, it is dealt with in the jurisdiction it happens in.

I don't get headaches.

"Perfectly healthy" is only calling a spade a spade. We already have legalised abortion in this country for most problem pregnancies.

The vast majority of newly legalised abortions permitted if the 8th is appealed would be for perfectly healthy unborn babies. At least have the honesty to admit that.

Genuine FFA is very rare, and IMO abortion would be acceptable in those circumstances. Whether the 8th needs to be repealed to allow for that is debatable. The simplest solution there would be to amend the Constitution to clarify that terminating life in terminally ill scenario is legal. That would take care of the FFA situation, and also the assisted suicide situation for terminally ill adults.

recedite

NuMarvel wrote: »

I've explained why it doesn't protect the unborn, but the best response you had was to ignore that. I expect you'll do the same again...

No you haven't.
You just keep repeating the mantra that you have already explained it.
Our Constitution protects the unborn in Ireland. It can't apply to the rest of the world.

mickydcork

mickydcork wrote: »

I suppose it's not so much that we value human life differently, it's that we probably have a slightly different definition for what we consider 'human life'.

To me a 12 week old embryo is not a human life.

It has potential. All going well and accepting that the human being who is carrying the embryo wants to continue with carrying what is essentially a foreign body growing in their uterus. Then it could. Could! Become a human life.

For me, somewhere between 20 - 25 weeks the line between life/no life blurs.

Conservatively I would have unlimited abortion to 18 - 19 weeks.

After that I think you should need a medical consultation etc.

recedite wrote: »

To me it is. But everyone has their own perception.
I don't see much sign of intelligence in a new-born baby either. But I respect the fact that they are human nonetheless, and will one day develop their own personality.
That's why evolution has made them look cute in our eyes; a cute face gives them instant protection, despite all their little annoyances.

Suppose I grant your supposition that a 12 week old fetus is equivalent to a human life (sure make it life at conception).

What about the mother's right to bodily autonomy?

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

O'Gorman spearheads a particular agenda in Ireland. He is the "useful idiot" of bigger international players such as George Soros who funds him. The Soros funding has been declared illegal by Ireland's SIPO, but O'Gorman cynically thumbs his nose, knowing that the court case won't be heard until after the referendum.
The agenda operates on many fronts, but its objective here in Ireland is to destroy the unique culture of this country, and to standardise the whole of Europe into a rootless, nationless, homogenous population that is compliant to the wishes of international corporations.

Paranoid conspiracy theory nonsense.

As for this:

The Soros funding has been declared illegal by Ireland's SIPO, but O'Gorman cynically thumbs his nose, knowing that the court case won't be heard until after the referendum.

Amnesty have a right to due process under the law.
If they lose the case, they will have to refund the money, or redirect it to a different purpose. Which means either way their campaign on the 8th did not benefit from Soros' money.

Care to enlighten us on where the No side got all their cash? What about the online ads targeted at Ireland purchased from outside the jurisdiction? Or engaging a UK firm allied to Cambridge Analytica, knowing that any amount of payments can be made to it from third countries and that SIPO can do nothing?

I see an agenda at work here alright but not the one you think.

As for "Ireland's unique cultural values", do you by any chance mean the roman catholic values imposed on us, which grossly abused women and children in particular? Those values? You can keep them.

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

You'll have to explain that one.
Removing their right to life so that we can protect them?

I take it that BETWEEN the time the 8th is removed and the abortion legislation is argued through the houses, then enacted into law, there will still be no legal abortions allowed here [outside those under the existing POLDPA]. If that's true, then deleting the 8th in itself won't remove the imagined protection to their right to life as POLDPA abortions/terminations are ongoing despite the presence of the 8th in the constitution.

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Amnesty have a right to due process under the law.
If they lose the case, they will have to refund the money, or redirect it to a different purpose. Which means either way their campaign on the 8th did not benefit from Soros' money..

In the meantime O'Gorman is happily spending the money in his high profile media campaign.
I fail to see the logic in your argument that the campaign is not benefiting from having that spending power.

aloyisious wrote: »

I take it that before the time the 8th is removed and the abortion legislation is argued through the houses, then enacted into law, there will still be no legal abortions allowed here [outside those under the ezxisting POLDPA]. If that's true, then deleting the 8th in itself won't remove their protection to their right to life.

I don't understand what you are saying.
Anyway let NuMarvel explain it, as the person who made the claim originally.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

I fail to see the logic in your argument that the campaign is not benefiting from having that spending power.

They could easily afford to refund that money right now. They are choosing not to until a definitive legal position is reached, which is their right.

If I borrow €10 from you, spend it, then later give you €10 back, am I still benefiting from "your" money?

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

In the meantime O'Gorman is happily spending the money in his high profile media campaign.
I fail to see the logic in your argument that the campaign is not benefiting from having that spending power.


I don't understand what you are saying.
Anyway let NuMarvel explain it, as the person who made the claim originally.

Between the time the 8th amendment is deleted from the constitution [if it is] by the pleb vote and replacement legislation [as spoken of by Simon Harris] there will be NO legal abortions available here excepting that already allowed for under our POLDPA which recognized nature's ending of the unborn's life during a medical operation under POLDPA.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

He is the "useful idiot" of bigger international players such as George Soros who funds him.

As Hotblack points out, this is really paranoid conspiracy territory.

Popette (a major consumer of conspiracy theories covering virtually all areas of her life, and many of them either originating from Russia, or in line with Russia's passing needs) peppers most of her conversations these days with references to the immense perfidy of Soros and his despicable use of "useful idiots" - a phrase beloved of Lenin, we are enjoined to remember almost daily.

:rolleyes:

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That's exactly what you are doing by voting to keep the 8th amendment! Restricting womens choice to have abortions in Ireland, forcing them to travel and making it far more dangerous for them. You just don't care about the choice once you can't see it.

The household can't control the fact that members of the household will chose to step outside the values of the household and act contra those values.

That was the context.

My point from the beginning is that abortions happen regardless of the 8th, you aren't saving those babies and you don't even care to try. All you are doing is hurting women in the straightforward cases, the cases that are so hard for you that you still haven't address this problem. If you aren't saving babies then what is the point when all you are doing is hurting innocent women?

This is can't beat em join em territory.

Given abortion rates can only be expected to increase in the event of a yes, there are practical benefits to holding the line in a save the baby context.

As for try? The Yes side doesn't appear to have any interest in hopping on a plane to Holland and Germany and finding out how we can learn from them. I think it'd be a very good thing to do.

I am not anti abortion under any circumstance. But I am not for abortion on demand, I'm afraid.

Similar is not the same.

Indeed. We could do worse than the uk

We don't have the same views on the EU, royalty, class and religion amongst others. Maybe more relevantly, the Irish teen pregnancy rate is 7.8/1000, the UK rate is 22.9/1000.
Assuming our abortion rate would jump to the UKs (especially as our law will only allow abortion up to 12 weeks, not 24) is scaremongering, plain and simple.

Do you think teen pregnancy here is monitored as in the uk where everything is up from and legal? Or is it a case that Irish teen pregnancies form a portion of this 5000 irish abortions you speak of - an as such, might not enter the figures?

Your talking very small numbers of teen pregnancies compared to the amount of abortions here.

Isnt it the case that the uk abortions occur sub 12 weeks. To the tune of a percentage in the 90's pr summit? I don't see impact of 12+ weeks on things.



One thing is certain: remove obstacles to consumption of something desirable and consumption will increase. Societal stigma, safety, price, certainty, ease of availibility

How does it make financial sense? At the moment, abortions are exported at the mothers expense.

If we provide abortions here, assuming the same cost as in the UK (under €700), then that would be at the very most €3.5million (5000 abortions*€700). The HSE has an annual budget of €14.5 Billion this year. Do you think €3.5 million would make difference?

Financial sense versus alternative ways of reducing crisis pregnancies that end up on abortion, I meant.

Thats expensive.

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

They could easily afford to refund that money right now. They are choosing not to until a definitive legal position is reached, which is their right.

If I borrow €10 from you, spend it, then later give you €10 back, am I still benefiting from "your" money?

Firstly, SIPO are authorised to give the definitive position, which they did. Secondly, when O'Gorman loses the case he is likely to say the money can't be returned because its all gone. He'll say he can't pay a fine or pay the costs because that would require taking money from other "charity" works.

If I don't pay a parking ticket, and instead claim I'm waiting "until a definitive legal position is reached", how is that going to work out for me?

recedite

robindch wrote: »

As Hotblack points out, this is really paranoid conspiracy territory.

Popette (a major consumer of conspiracy theories covering virtually all areas of her life, and many of them either originating from Russia, or in line with Russia's passing needs) peppers most of her conversations these days with references to the immense perfidy of Soros and his despicable use of "useful idiots" - a phrase beloved of Lenin, we are enjoined to remember almost daily.

:rolleyes:

I am liking Popette more and more every day.
Its just a pity we could never agree on religion, or I'd take her off your hands and adopt her :pac:

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

That is simply a lie.
The 8th amendment does protect the unborn in Ireland. If it didn't, why would you bother calling for it to be repealed.

True enough, in as far as it is useful to the unborn physically present in Ireland. The other side of the coin is that it simply mean's ireland's women have to seek the medical attention and services they need abroad. The 8th fails those women and the unborn there.

Calling for the 8th's repeal is simply seeking to deal HONESTLY with Irish womens health matters at home and NOT playing the cute hoor card of pretending that aspect of womens health doesn't exist in Ireland [nothing to see here, move along]. It's asking the adults here to be adult and recognize as a fact that Irish womens health issues should be taken care of here and not sent away abroad so as to avoid upsetting people's sensibilities.

antiskeptic

mickydcork wrote: »

Suppose I grant your supposition that a 12 week old fetus is equivalent to a human life (sure make it life at conception).

What about the mother's right to bodily autonomy?

Target shooting with a handgun involves two components: a recreational, fun element. And engaging in a potential life/death activity.

Given you're dealing with the latter, although seeking the former, due care need to be taken. You ought never to forget that non-recreational consequences attach to the activity.

50% of abortions in the UK arise out of a "failure of contraception". That is a misnomer. The failure occurs due to incorrect/insufficient use of contraceptives: if they are used properly and responsibly they are far more protective than the failure rates would indicate. Indeed, if you were to combine contraceptive methods, the chances of anyone falling pregnant are vanishingly remote.

Yet 100,000 abortions are laid at this doorstep per year.


This indicates that people don't consider sex from a recreation/creation perspective. If they did, they would take the measures appropriate to a life and death situation (where death is the potential death of their plans, dreams, financial freedom, or whatever). Just like people who engage in target practice. with a handgun.

If people were blowing their heads off target practicing with a handgun then we would suppose them irresponsible idiots. But when it comes to folk playing with life and death in the sack?



The mother forgoes her bodily autonomy because she and/or her partner f**ed around with a handgun and blew her head off. I say "her" because she, unfortunately, is the one frequently left holding the baby. Equally unfortunately, YES have excluded talking about the male interest in this conversation.

Now, that doesn't mean society ought not to care - afterall, we pick up people all the time who get themselves into trouble. But it doesn't mean either, that we ought bend over backwards and consider them utter innocents either.


This only works if you consider the life in the womb as having equal value. Because YES doesn't want to hear about own responsibility, because YES wants recreation without the creation, YES has to eradicate the value of the life in the womb.

Hence: fetus (when you don't want it, baby when you do) / cells / sentient / 12 weeks.

That's the direction of travel: unwillingness to face up to consequences of own actions > devalue the fetus > problem solved.

frag420

recedite wrote: »

Currently an unborn child has only one right in Ireland; the right to his or her own life.
People like Colm O'Gorman want to take that human right away from them. In a nutshell, that is all this referendum is about. Remove the 8th, and you remove that human right.

I can fully appreciate that many of you are fine with that. After all we can (and do) value human life differently according to the circumstances. If a 90 year old man down the road dies, you are not going to be as upset as if you would if your 10 year old daughter or niece died.

How many died in the last car bomb in Kabul? was it 1, 10 or 100? Do you even care?
We are pre-programmed to care more about the faces we see regularly, not so much about the people we have never met.

Why make the 90yr old a stranger and the two kids family members eh? What if the 90yr old was the well loved and caring grandfather of your niece or daughter?Do you thin he should be mourned less if he died?


And if we are pre-programmed to care more about the faces we see regularly, not so much about the people we have never met then please tell me why you go to so much effort to pretend to care about the thousands of women across Ireland that you have never see nor ever will who may or may not need access to an abortion, how does any of that affect you?

You do realise that maintaining the 8th wont stop abortions. The very next day after the referendum 12 women/girls are taking a journey to the UK. The following day the exact same and so on and so forth....

I have a question, how far would you go to stop a woman procuring an abortion in Ireland. Say you found out your sisters friend had ordered abortion pills following a one night stand. What would you do in this instance?

antiskeptic

frag420 wrote: »

You do realise that maintaining the 8th wont stop abortions.

You do realise that repealing the 8th will increase abortion. Ease of access, safety, cost of access, society imprimateur for having an abortion. Remove the barriers to consumption of something desired and consumption will increase.

You realise too that we aren't at the races when it comes to preventing crisis pregancies.

Abortion is the lazy option for Ireland. I am inclined to suspect that it's a financially attractive one for government - given the costs of prevention through education / tackling binge culture and the like would be profound.

PhoenixParker

antiskeptic wrote: »

You do realise that repealing the 8th will increase abortion. Ease of access, safety, cost of access, society imprimateur for having an abortion. Remove the barriers to consumption of something desired and consumption will increase.

The evidence and studies carried out on the legalisation of abortion do not suggest that effect.

Legalizing abortion has little impact on abortion rates. When a woman feels she needs an abortion she will go to great lengths to obtain one, legal or otherwise.

What reduces abortion rates is contraception.

aloyisious

antiskeptic wrote: »

You do realise that repealing the 8th will increase abortion. Ease of access, safety, cost of access, society imprimateur for having an abortion. Remove the barriers to consumption of something desired and consumption will increase.

So you reckon that more women here, beyond those who are travelling abroad for abortions at the moment, will opt for abortion here if the 8th is removed? Does that mean you think x amount of the women here who, at the moment, opt to go full term with the pregnancy, will change their minds and opt for abortion instead?

Taking into consideration that any women who can't afford the cost of going abroad for an abortion operation can take the imported pill or try the POLDPA route to end their pregnancies, not withstanding your reference to consumerism, I'm wondering where else you get your increased figures from?

antiskeptic

PhoenixParker wrote: »

The evidence and studies carried out on the legalisation of abortion do not suggest that effect.

Legalizing abortion has little impact on abortion rates. When a woman feels she needs an abortion she will go to great lengths to obtain one, legal or otherwise.

That supposes a digital situation: want/don't want. In practice, people will have a range of responses from absolutely no way to borderline. Improve the access, not least societal acceptance and they must increase.

What reduces abortion rates is contraception.[/QUOTE]

and education, and a sense of responsibility of what you are engaging in when you have sex and support for people who have crisis pregnancies and tackling our binge culture and, and, and.

We don't have that here. We will have abortion as a first resort.

mickydcork

antiskeptic wrote: »

The mother forgoes her bodily autonomy

The mother forgoes her bodily autonomy

Got it. There's no need to bring in stupid handgun analogies.

So women lose their bodily autonomy if they engage in sex acts.

Can't agree with you there.

What about rape victims?

Everyone has the right to bodily autonomy regardless of whether they engage in unprotected sex acts or not.

Also contraception is not 100%, no matter how much you wish it to be for your argument to work.