Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

volchitsa

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I did not comment on how common or uncommon late stage abortions are in Canada so not sure why you're highlighting their frequency. Merely pointed out that abortion there is legal up to birth and it is. Also never said anything about it being legal to take abortion pills up to birth in Canada either.

Perhaps you should just let the user I posed the question to answer it themselves.

If the only late abortions that happen in Canada are for very serious health issues where the mother's health or life would be permanently harmed, or where the baby could not possibly live any sort of comfortable life, why did you present Canadian law as being a bad thing?

Do you have any evidence that late abortions happen in Canada because they
woman is just fed up of being pregnant or something?

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It should always be the business of a civilized society when one human being decides to take the life of another.

Yes, and the first order of business should be to decide where, when and WHY doing so should be considered morally and ethically problematic, and when not.

No one, least of all your self, has yet come forward with any reasons as to why it should be morally or ethically problematic in a 12/16 week old fetus. Certainly your issue with the fetus having a tongue that moves around does not appear to be a useful grounds for it.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Only yesterday I heard a woman on the radio saying she believed we should have Canada's abortion laws here (a country where abortion is legal up to birth).

There are a minority of such voices sure. But so what? There are extreme voices in every debate. On this very area of the forum we have one user who jumped from one extreme of the abortion debate to the opposite extreme, almost over night around the time the referendum was announced. Going from Abortions up to birth for any reason to No abortions for anything but the most pressing of medical necessity.

Extremes define the debating space, not the debate.

Regardless of the opaque reasons for bringing Canada up at all however, the statistics from places like Canada show that very few terminations are performed at late stages, and very few of the ones that are are done with no good medical reason. And at later stages most medical professionals would seek to terminate the pregnancy, not the child.

But for example in 2015 of 23,561 terminations of a pregnancy carried out in hospitals, 587 of them were performed after 21 weeks of gestation. You are free to go and look at the reasons each individual termination was performed to see how many were not done for genuine reasons by people who would otherwise wished to have continued their pregnancy.

The fact something is legal "up to birth" does not mean it is simply accessible up to birth. There is a difference between theory and practice. Also Abortion clinics that are not affiliated with a hospital do not generally perform abortions past 20 weeks.

So even if the radio loudmouth got what she wanted, it seems that it would have very little actual effect in practice. Regardless of whether a country has no abortion, limited abortion, or limitless abortion we consistently see from country to country that by week 12 of gestation we are into the 90 percents area of the abortions that are performed. I think there should be limits myself of course, but even where there is not.... horror does not appear to ensue outside of the one or two extreme cases you trawl the media to cherry pick on occasion.

recedite

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No one, least of all your self, has yet come forward with any reasons as to why it should be morally or ethically problematic in a 12/16 week old fetus. Certainly your issue with the fetus having a tongue that moves around does not appear to be a useful grounds for it.

The foetal heart starts beating independently at 6-12 weeks. Choosing any one particular marker point is going to be somewhat arbitrary, but that one is gaining traction in the USA.

Certainly no less valid than your own one; No one, least of all yourself, has yet come forward with any reasons as to why taking the first breath of air post-birth turns a baby into a human being.

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

The foetal heart starts beating independently at 6-12 weeks. Choosing any one particular marker point is going to be somewhat arbitrary

I would be cautious about painting them all with that word and so building an artificial equivalence between then. Not all ideas on where and why a cut off should lie are equally arbitrary. Some, like the heart beat, seem to have been picked for no other reason than personal emotional appeal for example. While others, such as the faculty of consciousness and sentience, can be argued quite robustly from scientific and philosophical perspectives.

I personally see no reasons, other than emotional appeal, why the machinations of any particular randomly picked organ should be anyway relevant at all. The Human Body has numerous organs and numerous processes. Why that one?

recedite wrote: »

Certainly no less valid than your own one; No one, least of all yourself, has yet come forward with any reasons as to why taking the first breath of air post-birth turns a baby into a human being.

Are you mixing me up with someone else as that has NEVER even REMOTELY been my criteria for anything. I see the machinations of the lungs as being no more interesting or relevant than that of the heart.

So yes "least of all myself" is true as I do not tend to support positions I do not actually hold. YMMV.

However the faculty of sentience, which is the basis I do use, I have come out with quite a number of arguments in support of. None of which have yet been rebutted by.... well.... anyone. The closest anyone came to even trying in fact was to wholesale invent a "right to become sentient" but they ran away the moment they were asked to support that argument and basically contrived to ignore all my posts since.

recedite

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not all ideas on where and why a cut off should lie are equally arbitrary. Some, like the heart beat, seem to have been picked for no other reason than personal emotional appeal for example. While others, such as the faculty of consciousness and sentience, can be argued quite robustly from scientific and philosophical perspectives.

A personal heartbeat is one indicator of independent life. It is also measurable.
The onset of "the faculty of consciousness and sentience" is not measurable or identifiable, and anyway it is a very gradual process. There is no identifiable moment when all the brain neurons suddenly fire up and kick into life.
I know you like to hide behind this undefinable sentience argument, but it is nonsensical. Which do you think is more "sentient", an adult female whale nurturing her calf, or a new born human being? One demonstrably displays complex emotional behaviours and intelligent communication, the other does not.
The arguments for or against killing people are not based on the persons intellect or their current state of sentience. Human rights are based on humanity. They can only be taken away if the person is guilty of certain extreme criminal acts against other members of humanity.
Otherwise we would not bother to keep alive those who are mentally retarded or those in a temporary coma.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Are you mixing me up with someone else as that has NEVER even REMOTELY been my criteria for anything. I see the machinations of the lungs as being no more interesting or relevant than that of the heart.

And yet you support the removal of all constitutional protection for the unborn. The only "human right" they currently have is the right to life itself, and you want that removed.
The only real physiological difference between the foetus/baby before and after the moment of birth is that one derives its oxygen from its mothers bloodstream via the placenta, and the other gets it directly from the air.
Ergo....

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

A personal heartbeat is one indicator of independent life. It is also measurable.

Yes exactly. "ONE" indicator. So why bother picking it over all the others? It makes no sense to me. But I guess the heart has become the symbol for human emotion and so subjectively it is a more "go to" arbitrary choice than any other.

But I am always wary of arguments that are only selectively applied. Heart beats exist in many other life forms too, all of which we appear happy to kill or allow to be killed, without any concerns for their right to life. So it is not coherent that in one situation it should be the arbiter of such rights and in others not.

recedite wrote: »

The onset of "the faculty of consciousness and sentience" is not measurable or identifiable, and anyway it is a very gradual process. There is no identifiable moment when all the brain neurons suddenly fire up and kick into life.

Absolutely true, but thankfully this is not actually required. Like you I believe the coming online of that faculty is a gradual iterative process. But that does not mean we are unable to understand when it is NOT there. Not knowing exactly when it IS there does not preclude is from knowing what it is NOT. And the latter is all that is actually required to have a useful and meaningful conversation on the ethical and moral implications of abortion.

The faculty is not slightly but ENTIRELY absent in a 12/16 week old fetus.

recedite wrote: »

I know you like to hide behind this undefinable sentience argument, but it is nonsensical. Which do you think is more "sentient", an adult female whale nurturing her calf, or a new born human being? One demonstrably displays complex emotional behaviours and intelligent communication, the other does not.

No one is "hiding" at all over this side. Speak for yourself I guess. However once again I can repeat that my position on abortion is about the entire and complete LACK of sentience. So equivocating over levels of it between another species and our own is irrelevance that YOU are hiding behind. Not me.

The near totality of choice based abortion is performed in or before week 12, and certainly by week 16. At that stage we are not talking about a fetus that is "as sentient as an adult of this species over here, or less sentient than a child of this species of here" or any of that equivocation. We are talking about an entity that is no more (or less) sentient than a rock.

recedite wrote: »

The arguments for or against killing people are not based on the persons intellect or their current state of sentience. Human rights are based on humanity.

My point exactly. The "current state of sentience" has nothing at all to do with it, or any point or position I have ever held or espoused. Nor have coma patients or the mentally impaired. The "humanity" you speak of is better defined by the presence of that faculty AT ALL. An entity, such as a 16 week old fetus, lacks the "humanity" you speak of in pretty much every way other than biological taxonomy.

recedite wrote: »

And yet you support the removal of all constitutional protection for the unborn. The only "human right" they currently have is the right to life itself, and you want that removed. The only real physiological difference between the foetus/baby before and after the moment of birth is that one derives its oxygen from its mothers bloodstream via the placenta, and the other gets it directly from the air.
Ergo....

You really are trying to dig down on the breathing thing rather than simply acknowledge it is not an element in my position at all, and never has been. Nor is it likely ever to be. You appear to be talking to someone in your head who is pro-choice up to the moment of birth. Which is not me. I campaign generally for choice based abortion up to week 16, but would not lose any sleep if I woke up in a country with 12 or 20 weeks to be honest.

Whoever you are replying to or rebutting here therefore is not me. I have met very few people who think "birth" is the moment we should have moral and ethical concern for the rights of the child. And of the VERY few people who have held that position on this area of boards.ie one of them did a complete about turn around the time the referendum was announced to a position of basically no abortions for anyone except extreme necessity. Because apparently poor people will only seek to better themselves if they are forced to give birth or something.

So yes I do think there is a point after which we should enforce moral and ethical concern for the developing child. I do not see any benefit of having that in our constitution however.

recedite

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But I am always wary of arguments that are only selectively applied. Heart beats exist in many other life forms too, all of which we appear happy to kill or allow to be killed, without any concerns for their right to life. So it is not coherent that in one situation it should be the arbiter of such rights and in others not.

We apply human rights to humans. The clue is in the name. I'm not a vegetarian, but I'm in favour of animal welfare too. That's another topic though.

However once again I can repeat that my position on abortion is about the entire and complete LACK of sentience....We are talking about an entity that is no more (or less) sentient than a rock.

A rock with a beating human heart. Your premise that a 12 week foetus entirely lacks sentience is based on limited scientific data. Crude attempts to prod the foetus to see whether a pain response is elicited. Or attempts to measure brainwaves by people who will readily admit that they don't really understand the human brain and how it links to, or causes, human consciousness.

Whoever you are replying to or rebutting here therefore is not me. I have met very few people who think "birth" is the moment we should have moral and ethical concern for the rights of the child.

And yet that is exactly what the "Repeal the 8th" referendum would achieve, if successful.

So yes I do think there is a point after which we should enforce moral and ethical concern for the developing child. I do not see any benefit of having that in our constitution however.

The constitution is the place where broad human rights are laid out. It can only be changed by the people. What right is more fundamental than the right to life itself?

Legislation is where the exact offences and their punishments are described in detail. It can be changed by politicians, and often as a result of short-term political horsetrading between political parties.

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

We apply human rights to humans. The clue is in the name.

But that is as vague in it's content as it is snide in it's phrasing. It pretends the word "Human" is some catch all term that means the same thing in all contexts. And this is not so. The term in isolation is much to effete to capture the depth of the issue.

What we mean by "human" and "humanity" changes from context to context. And I do not think, for example, the biological taxonomy definition of "Human" is useful in the context of philosophical discourse on rights and ethics.

So to parse a sentence like "We apply human rights to humans." usefully we have to be very clear what we even mean by "human rights" and "humans". And recourse to mere taxonomy lacks and depth or nuance in that context.

Further it is not at all future proofed. If we were to discover a sentient alien species, create General Artificial Intelligence, or succeed in transferring human consciousness onto silicon or other non-meat based mediums there would be no nuance in our discourse on the concepts of rights, morality and ethics to account for this.

Rather what we should be doing when we wish to discuss who or what has rights, is to dig down to a less vague meta level of linguistics than a catch all term like "Human" and understand what it is we are actually valuing and why. But all too often the anti choice speaker wishes to stay at the vague meta level of linguistics because digging into it results in us finding that there nothing of any substance there in their anti choice position(s).

recedite wrote: »

A rock with a beating human heart.

Essentially yes. The fact that one is meat based and the other an inert solid does not make a blind bit of difference that at the level of sentience they are directly equivalent. In that both of them lack it. Entirely. This appeal to the "heart" is, as I said, arbitrary emotive nonsense. It is just an organ/process and the human biology has many others.

recedite wrote: »

Your premise that a 12 week foetus entirely lacks sentience is based on limited scientific data.

Hardly. We have not got a complete understanding of the human faculty of sentience and consciousness but we are far from wading around in the dark on it either. If there was SOME contention in the data set I might buy your point but there is not. We are at a stage that, while incomplete, our body of data on the faculty of sentience is such that 100% of it tells us there is no sentience in play in a 12 week old fetus and 0% of it suggests there might be.

Pretty much NOTHING in science is 100% to be honest. But we are not so often blessed with situations where 100% of what we do know on a given topic only points in one single direction.

recedite wrote: »

And yet that is exactly what the "Repeal the 8th" referendum would achieve, if successful.

Except that is simply not true at all. It is only true if you look solely and only at the constitution and not the legislation that A) currently exists and is proposed to be created. You are contriving to take a narrow view of one piece of text and ignore the rest in order to mislead.

recedite wrote: »

The constitution is the place where broad human rights are laid out. It can only be changed by the people. What right is more fundamental than the right to life itself?

Non-sequitur. What our most fundamental rights are, and whether they should be in the constitution, are two entirely different conversations. We can agree 100% on the fact that the right to life is the most fundamental right there is. I absolutely do not disagree with that statement AT ALL. But that does not mean either A) That the constitution is the right/only place to enshrine it for the context of pregnancy or that a fetus at 12/16 weeks has any attributes outside of mere taxonomy upon which to assign or mediate such a right.

How many constitutions do you know of in the world for all the different countries out of interest? And how many of them, to your knowledge, specifically enshrine the right to life of the fetus/unborn within them in relation to abortion?

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

A personal heartbeat is one indicator of independent life. It is also measurable.

You say it's an independent life, but at that time and for a long time afterwards it is not capable of living independently. So it is not an independent life.

recedite

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Further it is not at all future proofed. If we were to discover a sentient alien species, create General Artificial Intelligence, or succeed in transferring human consciousness onto silicon or other non-meat based mediums there would be no nuance in our discourse on the concepts of rights, morality and ethics to account for this.

When that happens, the term "human rights" may perhaps come to be seen as a racist term. But until then it remains valid.

Oddly enough, I saw Minister Harris this afternoon at a Wickla "country fair" event, looking slightly incongruous wandering around among the livestock and "Love Both" rear windscreen car stickers. Still, a politician must be seen to make an appearance wherever his constituents choose to gather.

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You say it's an independent life, but at that time and for a long time afterwards it is not capable of living independently. So it is not an independent life.

Perhaps not for another 21 years in some cases :pac:

Outlaw Pete

@Hotblack Desiato: Well, do you?

Or are just going let other users answer for you with their cut and paste replies they've posted all over Boards.

end of the road

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Which brings us back to NIMBYism. You are perfectly happy to control choice when it is on this Ireland, but just throw up your arms when the person leaves. If you found out that someone was travelling tomorrow abroad to kill their 2 year old toddler, would you just throw up your arms and say nothing can be done because you can't realistically control their choice?

going abroad to kill a todler is a criminal offence. traveling to procure an abortion isn't a criminal offence. so you aren't comparing like with like.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Why am I supposed to care about abortion rates?

I mean really, why? Why am I supposed to give a ****? It's none of my business. I maintain it's none of anyone else's business, either.

Every decision is an individual decision. If she aborts she has her reasons and frankly it's none of mine nor anyone else's damn business.

I accept the right of every pregnant person to choose to continue or abort a pregnancy under any circumstances without having to justify their decision to me or anyone else. The point of counting these individual decisions is... pretty meaningless as far as I can see.

i presume you share the same views if the child was born and the woman decided to end it's life? because for me that is where your argument falls and why it is invalid, because the only difference between the 2 is the stage of development, and it is very much society's business if someone takes the life of a human being regardless of stage of development or age, as determined by the laws of the land.

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Trusting women isn't the horror show the pro life side seem to believe.

most of the pro-life side don't believe trusting women is a horror show. a large number of them are women themselves. trusting women is irrelevant to this debate, as most people trust women, and those who don't have trust issues which repealing the 8th won't help solve.

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

When that happens, the term "human rights" may perhaps come to be seen as a racist term. But until then it remains valid.

Except the validity of the term is not my concern. The content of it is. Due to the vagueness of word "human" and it's different meanings in different contexts.

I would happily use the term "Human rights" about an alien species or an AI. Because I know what the term means and that it has little to do with taxonomy and what it DOES have to do with is perfectly linguistically and philosophically applicable to any other sentience that would be comparable to our own.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Or are just going let other users answer for you with their cut and paste replies they've posted all over Boards.

That's rich. When you go around ignoring replies and dodging posts I am not convinced you have a pedestal from which to admonish others about it.

That said however I see people here answering for THEMSELVES, not others as you here simply pretend.

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

going abroad to kill a todler is a criminal offence. traveling to procure an abortion isn't a criminal offence. so you aren't comparing like with like.

So if the law changed and killing toddlers became legal you'd think it was no longer a problem?

Sure you would.

The reason the law distinguishes between the two is because having an abortion isn't really felt by most people to be anything like killing a child.

Allowing women to travel for abortion was the closest that people were able to get at the time to removing the 8th amendment. Seeing as they weren't asked if they wanted it removed.

end of the road wrote: »

i presume you share the same views if the child was born and the woman decided to end it's life? because for me that is where your argument falls and why it is invalid, because the only difference between the 2 is the stage of development, and it is very much society's business if someone takes the life of a human being regardless of stage of development or age, as determined by the laws of the land.

That's where the point about being allowed to take the child out of the country to end its life, or rather not being allowed to, shows that there is more than just the difference between a 1 year old and a two year old. And the difference is that the fetus is inside the woman and entirely dependent on her back day for its continued survival, so that her human rights are in question too.

end of the road wrote: »

most of the pro-life side don't believe trusting women is a horror show. a large number of them are women themselves. trusting women is irrelevant to this debate, as most people trust women, and those who don't have trust issues which repealing the 8th won't help solve.

This "trust women" slogan is being misrepresented by anti repeal.

It's about trusting women to make the decisions they need to over their own lives, same as couples no longer need other people's permission to use contraception or even to get pregnant.

aloyisious

Statistically speaking, as per data printed by The Journal and MSN, it seem's there have been lowering numbers of irish Women and Girls going to the UK, year by year, for abortions. Irish amount to 67.9 percent of non-resident abortions in the UK - 3,265 women/girls in 2016. Separately 724 women & girls from N/I tarvelled to the UK [mainland] for abortions in 2016. The data also lists, county by county, the numbers of women & girls from each, by virtue of the irish addresses given [apparently] in the UK.

According to the data, Irish women & girls, year on year, also travel to the Netherlands for abortions, though a lesser percentage than to the UK.

If, however, one accepts that there is a natural growth in the number of Irish Women and girls, then there may be a natural increase, pro rata, in that of abortions so there may/must be an explanation as to how these abortions are being facilitated and it may either be the importation of pills, or the Netherlands, seeing as it was mentioned earlier in posts here in respect of it's abortion laws, along with a probable similar increase in terminations.

The data includes a statement from the HSE about an increased number of irish women using imported pills for abortions here, part of which follow's:... Commenting on figures when they were released last year, Helen Deely, head of the HSE Sexual Health and Crisis Pregnancy Programme, said: “It appears that the rate of women travelling abroad for an abortion declined relatively rapidly between 2001 and 2007 and in recent years the decline has been more gradual.” She said recent research shows that “increasing numbers of women from the island of Ireland are making contact with online abortion pill providers”. "Figures published by one provider would suggest a 62% increase in the number of women from Ireland contacting that online service over a five-year period, from 548 in 2010 to 1438 in 2015."

The data is published online on MSN. I can't copy & paste a link to the actual article and won't copy/paste it's contents as it's huge, printing space-wise.

Edit: the last part of the MSN/the journal article, whatever about the main part of it, will probably be repudiated by the Anti-abortion side of the debate as it is recounting the evidence given to the Oireachtas committee hearings on abortion by Dr Patricia Lohr of the BPAS.

Delirium

end of the road wrote: »

going abroad to kill a todler is a criminal offence. traveling to procure an abortion isn't a criminal offence. so you aren't comparing like with like.

Indeed, we've it in the constitution to guarantee the right to travel with regard to abortion.

So you're right, we're not comparing like with like when people compare killing a toddler and having an abortion.

smacl

aloyisious wrote: »

Statistically speaking, as per data printed by The Journal and MSN, it seem's there have been lowering numbers of irish Women and Girls going to the UK, year by year, for abortions.

I'd guess that increased use of contraception is a contributing factor as teenage pregnancies are down while STIs are on the increase in the same group. That and buying abortifacient pills on line, which IMHO is a really scary in terms of lack of medical supervision.

end of the road

volchitsa wrote: »

So if the law changed and killing toddlers became legal you'd think it was no longer a problem?

Sure you would.

of course i would still think it a problem. i also think being allowed to travel abroad to kill the unborn is a problem and it should be stopped. but if there isn't much support for doing that and there isn't a practical way to simply stop those procuring abortion from traveling, then there is very little i as an individual can do about it.

volchitsa wrote: »

The reason the law distinguishes between the two is because having an abortion isn't really felt by most people to be anything like killing a child.

in certain cases yes, because of the various circumstances involved. however, certainly abortion on demand is looked upon by many to be just as bad.

volchitsa wrote: »

Allowing women to travel for abortion was the closest that people were able to get at the time to removing the 8th amendment. Seeing as they weren't asked if they wanted it removed.

they had not long voted for it, so i presume the government felt that there was no point in asking them at the time to remove it. also, from what i understand of the 13th, it is not an amendment to allow women to travel for abortion specifically, rather it simply states the 8th will not interfere in the right of a pregnant woman to travel. it wasn't introduced to allow women to travel for abortions, but to insure any pregnant woman can't be prohibited from traveling at all.

volchitsa wrote: »

That's where the point about being allowed to take the child out of the country to end its life, or rather not being allowed to, shows that there is more than just the difference between a 1 year old and a two year old. And the difference is that the fetus is inside the woman and entirely dependent on her back day for its continued survival, so that her human rights are in question too.

again, the case that it is dependant on her in the womb is why abortions in certain cases are excepted by the vast vast majority of people. because in some cases upholding the unborn's right to life could mean the mother's life being lost. however, in relation to abortion on demand, i believe not facilitating or providing it does not go against anyone's human rights.

volchitsa wrote: »

This "trust women" slogan is being misrepresented by anti repeal.

It's about trusting women to make the decisions they need to over their own lives, same as couples no longer need other people's permission to use contraception or even to get pregnant.

it's certainly not being misrepresented from what i can see. the vast vast majority of people trust women to make the decisians they need to make over their lives, if they don't then as i said earlier they have trust issues and repealing the 8th and introducing abortion on demand up to 12 weeks won't make those people's issues go away.
i don't believe however that it's about trusting women to make the decisians they need to make over their own lives, rather it's about women being able to make the decisian to take the life of the unborn, therefore it's not my job to simply trust women, i want them prevented from killing their unborn by law except in certain circumstances.
if it was simply about women being unable to make decisians over their lives, and we were asked to allow them to do that, and there was no plan to introduce abortion on demand, then there wouldn't be a debate and i believe repeal would receive in the 70 to 80 or more % range.

end of the road

Delirium wrote: »

Indeed, we've it in the constitution to guarantee the right to travel with regard to abortion.

So you're right, we're not comparing like with like when people compare killing a toddler and having an abortion.

from what i understand the constitutional amendment simply states the 8th cannot interfere and will not interfere with a pregnant woman's right to travel. so it's not a guaranteed right to travel for abortion specifically, just that the 8th cannot interfere with the right to travel.

Mark Hamill

end of the road wrote: »

of course i would still think it a problem. i also think being allowed to travel abroad to kill the unborn is a problem and it should be stopped. but if there isn't much support for doing that and there isn't a practical way to simply stop those procuring abortion from traveling, then there is very little i as an individual can do about it.

So when an initiative lacks the support of those around you and looks like it would be hard to follow through, you are happy to abort your own support for it? :P

Seriously though, who cares if it's hard to actually stop? We could still make it illegal just to send a message to society (abortion pills are illegal despite them being easily ordered online daily).
Either you just like dominating women's lives and controlling their choices, or you really want to save babies. Either way, don't you think that you should do more than the absolute bare minimum to achieve your goals?

end of the road wrote: »

therefore it's not my job to simply trust women, i want them prevented from killing their unborn by law except in certain circumstances.

Circumstances including being able to afford a trip to the UK?

end of the road wrote: »

if it was simply about women being unable to make decisians over their lives, and we were asked to allow them to do that, and there was no plan to introduce abortion on demand, then there wouldn't be a debate and i believe repeal would receive in the 70 to 80 or more % range.

Lets say a child, 4 or 5, gets injured and needs some organ transplant to survive. Lets say, their mother happens to be a match. Should their mother be forced to donate, or can they have that choice?

Mark Hamill

end of the road wrote: »

from what i understand the constitutional amendment simply states the 8th cannot interfere and will not interfere with a pregnant woman's right to travel. so it's not a guaranteed right to travel for abortion specifically, just that the 8th cannot interfere with the right to travel.

Can you suggest how that does not amount to a guaranteed right to travel for abortion?

seamus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Can you suggest how that does not amount to a guaranteed right to travel for abortion?

Even more, it is only a right to travel for abortion.

"This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state."

This. Subsection.

Another subsection may limit the freedom to travel without contradicting this one.

It is an explicit right to travel if, and only if, there's a conflict between the unborn right to life and the mother's right to travel.

If there's a conflict between some other right, and the person's desire to travel, the state is permitted to stop them.

EOTR's statement is not even a matter of interpretation, or a pedantic viewpoint. It's just completely wrong.

Outlaw Pete

@ Nozz see my previous replies to you in AH regarding sentience and red herrings. Cheers.

@ Hotblack Desiato, I'm just going to have to take it that you refusing to answer my question is in fact a conceding of the point my question was attempting to make and that is of course that everyone has a point at which they would not agree with a woman having an abortion at and so when you say......

I mean really, why? Why am I supposed to give a ****? It's none of my business.

I maintain it's none of anyone else's business, either.

....you can't honestly believe it, as otherwise you would support all abortions, at all stages and for any reason.

You see, once a person supports society having abortion laws which make late stage abortion illegal (and it appears you do) they are thereby saying that they concede that sometimes it very much is other people's business when a woman has an abortion.

Not that you're alone with making statements which contradict what your true beliefs are, all week I've been hearing people complaining that 'No' voters want to force women to remain pregnant, but this is similarly hypocritical as again, everybody has a cut off point at which they feel elective abortion should be illegal at and so they themselves believe in "forcing" women to remain pregnant, just that the point of gestation is different.

For clarity: I would have voted to repeal if 12 weeks on demand wasn't also on the table (and worse possibly). All we have heard of for years now is how women who have been impregnated as a result of rape, and who have health concerns and/ or a dealing with FFAs (which total about 2.7% of the reasons behind why an abortion is sought elsewhere) need the 8th repealed asap, but yet then when given the opportunity to go to the public and have them grant their wishes for these women........ they risk losing the referendum by throwing in their plans to have abortion on demand here up to 12 weeks also.

Now, I'm not saying the Yes vote won't win, I actually think it will (the emotional blackmail and misinformation from Together4Yes has been quite effective I feel) but my point is that attaching on the '12 weeks, for any reason' aspect in all of this, they have made this a harder sell than it would have been had they just campaigned to make abortion legal for the 2.7% that they always suggested they were primarily concerned about. So what they have in effect done is gamble using the hard cases as stake.

As Maya Angelou so beautifully said:

“When someone shows you who they are believe them; the first time.”

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-tapes-sting-labour-duo-reveal-plan-to-liberalise-law-bit-by-bit-29226554.html

optogirl

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

@ Nozz see my previous replies to you in AH regarding sentience and red herrings. Cheers.

@ Hotblack Desiato, I'm just going to have to take it that you refusing to answer my question is in fact a conceding of the point my question was attempting to make and that is of course that everyone has a point at which they would not agree with a woman having an abortion at and so when you say......



....you can't honestly believe it, as otherwise you would support all abortions, at all stages and for any reason.

You see, once a person supports society having abortion laws which make late stage abortion illegal (and it appears you do) they are thereby saying that they concede that sometimes it very much is other people's business when a woman has an abortion.

Not that you're alone with making statements which contradict what your true beliefs are, all week I've been hearing people complaining that 'No' voters want to force women to remain pregnant, but this is similarly hypocritical as again, everybody has a cut off point at which they feel elective abortion should be illegal at and so they themselves believe in "forcing" women to remain pregnant, just that the point of gestation is different.

For clarity: I would have voted to repeal if 12 weeks on demand wasn't also on the table (and worse possibly). All we have heard of for years now is how women who have been impregnated as a result of rape, and who have health concerns and/ or a dealing with FFAs (which total about 2.7% of the reasons behind why an abortion is sought elsewhere) need the 8th repealed asap, but yet then when given the opportunity to go to the public and have them grant their wishes for these women........ they risk losing the referendum by throwing in their plans to have abortion on demand here up to 12 weeks also.

Now, I'm not saying the Yes vote won't win, I actually think it will (the emotional blackmail and misinformation from Together4Yes has been quite effective I feel) but my point is that attaching on the '12 weeks, for any reason' aspect in all of this, they have made this a harder sell than it would have been had they just campaigned to make abortion legal for the 2.7% that they always suggested they were primarily concerned about. So what they have in effect done is gamble using the hard cases as stake.

As Maya Angelou so beautifully said:



https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-tapes-sting-labour-duo-reveal-plan-to-liberalise-law-bit-by-bit-29226554.html

By emotional blackmail do you mean real stories of how the 8th has harmed people?

Outlaw Pete

Well, I mean emotionally blackmailing the public by suggesting women have died because of the 8th when they haven't and suggesting that the lives of women that need urgent medical treatment won't get it etc.

Our health system serves women well, evidenced by how high we rate globally in that regard. Not suggesting there aren't some areas that need attention, there are, but we don't need abortion on demand to address them.

SusieBlue

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well, I mean emotionally blackmailing the public by suggesting women have died because of the 8th when they haven't and suggesting that the lives of women that need urgent medical treatment won't get it etc.

Our health system serves women well, evidenced by how high we rate globally in that regard. Not suggesting there aren't some areas that need attention, there are, but we don't need abortion on demand to address them.

Yes they have, have a bit of respect and cop on.

uptherebels

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Now, I'm not saying the Yes vote won't win, I actually think it will (the emotional blackmail and misinformation from Together4Yes has been quite effective I feel) ]

Ain't any point in coming in here ranting about contradictions and Hipocrisy and then firing out that nugget of wisdom.
Your tunnel vision on this issue isnt surprising.

Outlaw Pete

SusieBlue wrote: »

Yes they have, have a bit of respect and cop on.

I am not the one being disrespectful.

What's disrespectful is suggesting that a woman died because of the 8th when in actual fact she died from medical mismanagement. Her doctor stated that had she known about Savita’s blood results on Monday or the Tuesday (taken on the Sunday) she would have had no issue terminating Savita’s pregnancy and the 8th would in no way have prevented her from doing so. In fact she did order one as soon as it became clear to her that Savita was very ill and that's why Savita was in the operating theater when she miscarried (mere hours after it was made clear to her how serious Savita's condition was).

Many women have treatment for sepsis when pregnant in Ireland. Sam Coulter Smith, master of the Rotunda for years, said that he has personally terminated many women's pregnancies that had been diagnosed with sepsis and never felt the 8th was restricting him in treating those women.

Loafing Oaf

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

my point is that attaching on the '12 weeks, for any reason' aspect in all of this, they have made this a harder sell than it would have been had they just campaigned to make abortion legal for the 2.7%

The overwhelming conclusion of the committee was that it would be effectively impossible to legislate for abortion in cases of rape/incest without broad liberalisation of the law.