Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back a page or two to re-sync the thread and this will then show latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Abortion Discussion, Part Trois
Comments
-
Or, you know, move on from this utterly pathetic tangent.
Folks - please be civil to each other.antiskeptic wrote: »Why? Because you're worth it?
Thanking youze.0 -
Outlaw Pete wrote: »@ Nozz see my previous replies to you in AH regarding sentience and red herrings. Cheers.
You mean all the discussions you ran away from and ceased discussing it? Yea, I dealt with all those replies and destroyed them, so your dodge here does not work. You merely calling things "red herrings" when you simply can not, or do not want to, engage with them or rebut them does not magically make them red herrings.
It is just an instance of your desperation to dodge discussion on topics you simply can not deal with.
It has been YOU throwing genuine red herrings into the conversation and failing to even explain their relevance. Such as your nonsense about late term abortions and of course throwing in studies about moving tongues in the fetus, and never explaining or discussing what relevance that has to the topic. You just throw it in, run away, and then get haughty when people examine the paper you link to.
Which, as I said, does not give you a pedestal to admonish others for not having replied to you.Outlaw Pete wrote: »@ 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 are distorting what people mean when they say it is not their business so you can write empty and disingenous lines like "Not that you're alone with making statements which contradict what your true beliefs are" when in fact no one is doing that here. They are making statements that contradict what you want to pretend their true beliefs are. Which is massively different. You do the same with the "Her Body her Choice" slogan for example which I have had to school you on before.
It is nothing to do with whether they support abortion at different stages. Rather, in places like Canada, they think it is the business of the women and their doctors. And those doctors should be held to high medical standards in their evaluation of each case.
So when people say it is not their business, they are not saying they support late term abortions for example. But rather they trust it to leave it in the hands of the women and doctors involved to evaluate each case on it's own merits and decide what is the right thing to do. And THAT process in each individual case is not our business if they come together, and under the purview of the medical standards we hold them to, decide a termination of the pregnancy OR a termination of the fetus is warranted.
The standards to which a doctor can be held to however are our business but not the personal application in any individual case of them. And in Canada, for example, they can be quite high. As Dr. Carolyn Bennett, MP for St. Paul’s, Toronto tells us:
"While in Canada we do not have a law, we do have very strict professional guidelines. No physician in Canada can terminate a pregnancy over 24 weeks without serious indications that the life of the mother is at risk or that the fetus has very serious malformations. I have sat with these women as they received the terrible news and sat with them throughout the terrible long, tear-drenched process. The assertion that late-term abortions can be performed “for any reason, or no reason at all” is just not true"Outlaw Pete wrote: »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.
That is massively disingenuous from you too and a distortion of the reality of what it means to have a choice. When you discover you are pregnant and live somewhere where you have no abortion choice at all, then you are indeed being forced to remain pregnant. If however you have the OPTION, even with a cut off point, to terminate that pregnancy.... then you are not being forced to be pregnant. If you decide not to terminate that pregnancy before that cut off then no one but yourself is telling you to remain pregnant.
And we do this all the time in law and contracts. For example I can not currently terminate my contract with Vodafone. I can however do it in August and September. If I do not do so I will be committed to that contract for another 2 years. I am not "being forced" to remain a Vodafone customer now, or in the future. I am being told what my options are to NOT be a customer, and if I do not avail of those options I am CHOOSING to remain a customer. To contrive to portray that as me being forced would be sheer ignorant comedy. Yet that is what you are doing here.
Not having the option to terminate a pregnancy, and being told "You have the option to terminate in this time window, after which you are committing to continue your pregnancy under law" are so massively different I am not even sure who (aside possibly from yourself) you think you are fooling.
That is of course the ideal. I grant that some minority of people will for other reasons miss that deadline. And that is unfortunate. But no law is perfect and someone somewhere is pretty much always disenfranchised by a law. But to conflate "no choice at all" with "you have that choice, up to a point" as if both are equally forcing women to remain pregnant is desperation even beyond your usual standards of desperation.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)
Very rich to be decrying emotional black mail on one side but not the other. WHAT emotional blackmail are you discussing exactly? The presentation of facts is not emotional black mail for example. However setting up posters of dead fetuses, especially dead fetuses developed FAR beyond the stages that are actually representative of the realities of abortion........ and doing so in front of schools and places where women suffer the loss of dead babies and miscarriages...... while other "no" campaigners go around websites posting pictures of miscarried babies claiming them to be the result of abortion when they were not........... and much much more shows just how emotional YOUR side of this debate has been making things. And just how much misinformation they are willing to perpetuate.
If you feel some misinformation is in play from the Yes side then do not be vague and cloak and dagger about it. Out with it, and we can discuss it. Or you can, as usual, simply run away.Outlaw Pete wrote: »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
And I for one am 100% fine with that. I would prefer to lose while doing the right thing than win for doing some half hearted attempt as an "easy sell". I believe it is 100% the right thing to do to stop assigning rights, and moral and ethical concern, to 12/16 week old fetuses. Given you and just about every other person I have discussed it with, have absolutely ZERO arguments to offer as to why we might. You, like them, just throw out nothing more than this "oooo looks at it's little wiggly toes and tongue" appeals to emotion that are devoid of even the smallest iota of arguments, evidence, data or reasoning at the intellectual level.
So if we lose, and I genuinely suspect a no vote myself even though you do not, I will be happy to lose in the knowledge I fought for what is right, and not what was easy. You suspect a yes and I suspect a no. I would genuinely celebrate the first example ever of you being right and me being wrong in a discussion between us however.Outlaw Pete wrote: »Not to worry, it's quite common for those with prochoice views to stick their fingers in their ears
Says you while dodging and ignoring points and posts.Outlaw Pete wrote: »Sorry, but I'll never understand that logic. What if we discover twenty years after the event that a woman (or man) killed their newborn and buried them without anyone noticing and they're now leading a great life all these years later. Should the jury feel it therefore justifiable given how good their life has turned out? Course not. So then why do we do it with regards to lives ended through abortion? Makes no sense.
Except it makes PERFECT sense. The only reason it does not make sense is you ignore, and scream "red herring" at the things that render it perfectly coherent and sensible. In other words, it only fails to make sense to you because you willfully contrive to parse it in ways that are intended to not make sense of it.
Our moral and ethical concern should be towards the rights, freedoms and well being of sentient creatures. The woman is one. The child you imagine murdering is one. The 16 week old fetus is NOT one, never has been one, and is a very distinct period of time away from ever being one.
And THAT makes sense of it, so THAT is what you scream at, run away from, and dodge. Every. Single. Time.0 -
end of the road wrote: »of course, but one also has to be practical about what and how much they can do. i'm not interested in controling anyone, just preventing them as much as is practical from harming others, including the unborn.
Why do keep assuming you can't do anything to stop exported abortions? Why aren't you campaigning for the removal of the 13th amendment, which specifically allows travelling for abortion? Why is your entire measure of what's practical seems to be what you can achieve by just going into a voting booth and putting an "x" beside the No box?end of the road wrote: »yes, ideally traveling abroad to procure an abortion would be illegal. it's not however, and it won't be unfortunately. so, i have to try and deal with the issue of abortion on demand here in my country.
Or you could deal with the issue of Irish abortions being exported. If we found out that people were travelling to some island, not owned by any country, to have their toddlers fight to the death, would you just say "we'll, it's not specifically illegal here and now, so I guess I can't ever do anything".
If the Yes side wins and abortion up to 12 weeks becomes legal in this country, what would you do? Hands in the air, "oh, it's legal now, nothing I can do"?end of the road wrote: »she shouldn't be forced to donate her organs no . however, she would not be allowed to simply kill off that child. the unborn has to fully rely on the mother until birth, but i believe she should not be able to kill off that unbornb human being either unless there is an extreme reason requiring it to happen.
And in my scenario, the child is entirely reliant on the mother donating their organ to survive, so functionally what difference is there? Either way a child, be they 5 weeks in the womb or 5 years out of it, fundamentally relies on their mother to survive and if the mother doesn't supply, they won't survive. Why would you force the mother in one situation but not the other? The first situation will have the mother effected for up to 8 months (remainder of the pregnancy), while the second the mother would be effected for only maybe up to 6 weeks (e.g. for a kidney transplant). Surely it's far less unreasonable to compel the mother in the second scenario?0 -
Outlaw Pete wrote: »Our abortion rate is at least 50% of what it would/will be if elective abortion was legal here
Source?Outlaw Pete wrote: »and even if it wasn't, I don't trust humans with the task of deciding which babies should live or die now after seeing the effect that tests such as NIPT have had.
Are you campaigning to make travelling for abortion illegal?0 -
Outlaw Pete wrote: »Sorry, but I'll never understand that logic. What if we discover twenty years after the event that a woman (or man) killed their newborn and buried them without anyone noticing and they're now leading a great life all these years later. Should the jury feel it therefore justifiable given how good their life has turned out? Course not. So then why do we do it with regards to lives ended through abortion? Makes no sense.
Why does the vast majority of the No side do it with respect to women who travel for abortion?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
What if we discover twenty years after the event that a woman (or man) killed their newborn and buried them without anyone noticing and they're now leading a great life all these years later. Should the jury feel it therefore justifiable given how good their life has turned out? Course not. So then why do we do it with regards to lives ended through abortion? Makes no sense.
One example is inside Ireland, one is not.Mark Hamill wrote: »Why does the vast majority of the No side do it with respect to women who travel for abortion?
Suppose I go down to the local Garda station to get my passport photos signed, and I say "I need this ASAP as I have booked a week in Amsterdam where I'll be spending my days smoking cannabis and my nights in a whorehouse. What is the Garda going to do? Sign it, stamp it, and probably say "enjoy your trip".0 -
One example is inside Ireland, one is not.
Suppose I go down to the local Garda station to get my passport photos signed, and I say "I need this ASAP as I have booked a week in Amsterdam where I'll be spending my days smoking cannabis and my nights in a whorehouse. What is the Garda going to do? Sign it, stamp it, and probably say "enjoy your trip".
What difference does it make where the examples are happening if they are happening to Irish babies?
What if you said you need your passport because you want to go to some unclaimed island to kill a 5 year old, what should happen then?0 -
Outlaw Pete wrote: »Not to worry, it's quite common for those with prochoice views to stick their fingers in their ears:
https://twitter.com/repeal_shield
Does that mean your a secret pro choicers then? Because you seem to have done nothing but that since the beginning of this.
Repeal shield does the same job as the mods here. Keeps the trolls at bay. Don't understand why you would have a problem with that......0 -
Can't be Irish if its not born. Maybe the pregnant woman would change her mind when she got to the other country, and the baby would be born there. Would that make it Irish or not?Mark Hamill wrote: »What difference does it make where the examples are happening if they are happening to Irish babies?
Is this 5 year old living on the hypothetical island, or an Irish child being taken there? If the latter, and this practice was becoming a thing in Ireland, then we could invent a new law which might be able to discourage travel, along the lines of the FGM law.Mark Hamill wrote: »What if you said you need your passport because you want to go to some unclaimed island to kill a 5 year old, what should happen then?
But even then, nobody can stop the parent from taking the child abroad before the FGM happens. The parent could only be prosecuted on their return.The Criminal Justice (Female Genital Mutilation) Act 2012 makes it a criminal offence to remove a girl from the state to mutilate her genitals.
Because at the end of the day, nobody can stop people leaving the country on the basis that they "might" do something while abroad.
So you can keep coming up with increasingly bizarre scenarios, but the 8th amendment to the Irish constitution only protects the life of the unborn in Ireland. It does not prevent them being removed from this jurisdiction.
Nor does it protect them from what may happen in another jurisdiction.0 -
Advertisement
-
That's incorrect, it's not how the law works. If they had sufficient information to prove that the person was in the process of leaving the state (i.e. at the boarding gate) with the intention of obtaining FGM, they can be arrested and detained.But even then, nobody can stop the parent from taking the child abroad before the FGM happens. The parent could only be prosecuted on their return.
Every law contains an implicit "attempted" component to it, you don't have to catch the person after the act has been committed.
I don't know why people keep claiming that the eighth didn't restrict freedom to travel. It did. Miss X was stopped and detained on the basis of it. The Supreme Court itself stated that the detention was lawful, but reversed the injunction on the basis that she was suicidal. The supreme court did not rule that she had a general right to travel, or even a specific right to travel for an "on demand" abortion.
To state otherwise is pure dishonesty. If the eighth didn't restrict freedom of travel, the 13th would have never been necessary.0 -
Is this 5 year old living on the hypothetical island, or an Irish child being taken there? If the latter, and this practice was becoming a thing in Ireland, then we could invent a new law which might be able to discourage travel, along the lines of the FGM law.But even then, nobody can stop the parent from taking the child abroad before the FGM happens. The parent could only be prosecuted on their return.
You should probably read the actual Act before commenting on it, specifically Section 3(1):A person is guilty of an offence if the person removes or attempts to remove a girl or woman from the State where one of the purposes for the removal is to have an act of female genital mutilation done to her.
So yes, it would be possible to not only stop someone before they left the State but charge and try them for attempting to do so.Because at the end of the day, nobody can stop people leaving the country on the basis that they "might" do something while abroad.
So you can keep coming up with increasingly bizarre scenarios, but the 8th amendment to the Irish constitution only protects the life of the unborn in Ireland. It does not prevent them being removed from this jurisdiction.
Nor does it protect them from what may happen in another jurisdiction.
I've explained this to you before, in detail. The Supreme Court found that the 8th could be used to stop people having abortions abroad. It was even tried once, and it was only overturned because that girls' life was at risk. NOT because it was found to have been beyond the purview of the 8th.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »Why do keep assuming you can't do anything to stop exported abortions? Why aren't you campaigning for the removal of the 13th amendment, which specifically allows travelling for abortion? Why is your entire measure of what's practical seems to be what you can achieve by just going into a voting booth and putting an "x" beside the No box?
because it would be a fruitless exercise. i would be campaigning for something that wouldn't happen. also, the reality is one has a right to travel. i also don't believe we are exporting abortions, rather women are choosing to go abroad to have an abortion rather then keeping and either raising the baby or putting it up for adoption.Mark Hamill wrote: »Or you could deal with the issue of Irish abortions being exported. If we found out that people were travelling to some island, not owned by any country, to have their toddlers fight to the death, would you just say "we'll, it's not specifically illegal here and now, so I guess I can't ever do anything".
i know the law will do something about it. so i don't need to.Mark Hamill wrote: »If the Yes side wins and abortion up to 12 weeks becomes legal in this country, what would you do? Hands in the air, "oh, it's legal now, nothing I can do"?
i will protest it. all though i'm hopeful that if repeal happens the tds who plan on voting no to the legislation will kick up enough to insure it doesn't pass.Mark Hamill wrote: »And in my scenario, the child is entirely reliant on the mother donating their organ to survive, so functionally what difference is there? Either way a child, be they 5 weeks in the womb or 5 years out of it, fundamentally relies on their mother to survive and if the mother doesn't supply, they won't survive. Why would you force the mother in one situation but not the other? The first situation will have the mother effected for up to 8 months (remainder of the pregnancy), while the second the mother would be effected for only maybe up to 6 weeks (e.g. for a kidney transplant). Surely it's far less unreasonable to compel the mother in the second scenario?
the unborn relying on the mother to survive for a time within the womb is a fact of nature. that's the difference. the unborn baby can't be removed from the womb before a certain time to survive. with organ donation, there are the possibilities of other donors.uptherebels wrote: »Does that mean your a secret pro choicers then? Because you seem to have done nothing but that since the beginning of this.
Repeal shield does the same job as the mods here. Keeps the trolls at bay. Don't understand why you would have a problem with that......
perhapse because a number who would be considered trolls are in fact, not. they just have a different opinion.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
And how are you going to prove that this FGM will take place in the future?That's incorrect, it's not how the law works. If they had sufficient information to prove that the person was in the process of leaving the state (i.e. at the boarding gate) with the intention of obtaining FGM, they can be arrested and detained.
Every law contains an implicit "attempted" component to it, you don't have to catch the person after the act has been committed.
I don't know why people keep claiming that the eighth didn't restrict freedom to travel. It did. Miss X was stopped and detained on the basis of it. The Supreme Court itself stated that the detention was lawful, but reversed the injunction on the basis that she was suicidal. The supreme court did not rule that she had a general right to travel, or even a specific right to travel for an "on demand" abortion.
To state otherwise is pure dishonesty. If the eighth didn't restrict freedom of travel, the 13th would have never been necessary.
I agree that "every law contains an implicit attempted component to it" but in practice that person cannot be stopped from travelling. The real purpose of a law like that is to stop a whole industry developing (travel agents, foreign FGM clinics advertising in Ireland etc.) Also to discourage people by the threat of arresting them when they come back. Despite all this, FGMs are still taking place all the time on Irish children, but it is kept quiet.
As I said, this is slightly different to the concept of smoking cannabis abroad, or procuring abortion abroad, because in those situations the person could not be arrested on their return.
On the 8th restricting freedom of travel... Yes, originally it could in theory have restricted travel, and it would have prevented abortion in Ireland in cases where the mother was suicidal. But that changed after the x case when it was re-interpreted, and the changes were subsequently vindicated when put to the people by referendum.
So when talking about the relevance of "the 8th" it should be assumed that we are talking about 2018, not 1983, unless otherwise specified.0 -
On the 8th restricting freedom of travel... Yes, originally it could in theory have restricted travel, and it would have prevented abortion in Ireland in cases where the mother was suicidal. But that changed after the x case when it was re-interpreted, and the changes were subsequently vindicated when put to the people by referendum.
Again, with the wilful misrepresentation of what the X Case.
The X Case held that the 8th could be used to prevent travel. That was not a re-interpretation. That remained the case until the people added the 13th Amendment. If the people voted no in that referendum, as pro life groups campaigned for, then it would be the case today that women could be prevented from having abortions abroad.
That you have to continually twist facts doesn't say much about the strength of your own arguments.0 -
That you continually engage in nitpicking, and in trying to confuse the issue by dragging up obsolete laws from the 1980's doesn't say much about your arguments.Again, with the wilful misrepresentation of what the X Case.
The X Case held that the 8th could be used to prevent travel. That was not a re-interpretation. That remained the case until the people added the 13th Amendment...
That you have to continually twist facts doesn't say much about the strength of your own arguments.
The x-case reinterpretation in 1991 related to suicide risk being a legitimate reason for a legal abortion. I agree that it did not change the travel aspect. But it stirred up a debate which culminated in several referendums (12,13 and 14) for and against these issues (suicide risk, travel, info and advertising), which resulted in the current constitutional position being established in 1992.
What is the point of your "what if" arguments? It looks like strawmanning to me.If the people voted no in that referendum, as pro life groups campaigned for, then it would be the case today that women could be prevented from having abortions abroad.0 -
end of the road wrote: »
perhapse because a number who would be considered trolls are in fact, not. they just have a different opinion.
Ah yes that old pro life persecution complex.
I've not seen anyone in these threads being stopped from having a different opinion. How they put that opinion across on the otherhand..0 -
-
I wouldn't mind mind if you were doing that, but you are not. You have a bad habit of making unfounded allegations against other posters here.As I said the last time you tried to rewrite something to suit yourself:"Didn't realise we'd redefined nitpicking to mean pointing out when someone is making stuff up to suit themselves"0 -
Can't be Irish if its not born. Maybe the pregnant woman would change her mind when she got to the other country, and the baby would be born there. Would that make it Irish or not?
If their parents are Irish then they are Irish regardless of where they are born.
Nice to see though that you don't actually care about killing babies if they aren't Irish and born in Ireland.Is this 5 year old living on the hypothetical island, or an Irish child being taken there? If the latter, and this practice was becoming a thing in Ireland, then we could invent a new law which might be able to discourage travel, along the lines of the FGM law.
But even then, nobody can stop the parent from taking the child abroad before the FGM happens. The parent could only be prosecuted on their return.
Because at the end of the day, nobody can stop people leaving the country on the basis that they "might" do something while abroad.
Other posters have responded to this point, so I'll leave it there.So you can keep coming up with increasingly bizarre scenarios, but the 8th amendment to the Irish constitution only protects the life of the unborn in Ireland. It does not prevent them being removed from this jurisdiction.
Nor does it protect them from what may happen in another jurisdiction.
And the point, obviously, is that if the no-side supposedly are all about stopping babies being murdered, then why aren't they campaigning for amending the 8th to make it so that babies can't be removed and murdered in other jurisdictions? As NuMarvel pointed out, the FGM law criminalises even the attempt to remove a child from this jurisdiction for FGM, so why aren't the No side campaigning for the same thing in relation to abortion?
It's because it's not about saving babies to them, or you, it's just NIMBYism.0 -
Advertisement
-
end of the road wrote: »because it would be a fruitless exercise. i would be campaigning for something that wouldn't happen. also, the reality is one has a right to travel. i also don't believe we are exporting abortions, rather women are choosing to go abroad to have an abortion rather then keeping and either raising the baby or putting it up for adoption.
So what if it ends up being fruitless, do you only campaign for initiatives that you are absolutely sure will be passed? Why would you even need to campaign at all if you are so sure you will win? Why aren't you trying to change the reality, seeing as it clearly goes against the ideals you claim to hold so dear? It wans't always the reality, it was made reality by campaigning, so why can't it change again through campaign?
How is that not exporting abortions?
Can you really feel good about yourself when your every answer is "well, it's just too hard to try to save those babies, I might fail", especially when failure won't in anyway hurt you and at least you will have tried?end of the road wrote: »i know the law will do something about it. so i don't need to.
So why not campaign for the law to do something about abortions happening abroad?end of the road wrote: »i will protest it. all though i'm hopeful that if repeal happens the tds who plan on voting no to the legislation will kick up enough to insure it doesn't pass.
So if you will protest that reality, if it comes to pass, then why aren't you protesting the current one of abortions being exported to the UK?end of the road wrote: »the unborn relying on the mother to survive for a time within the womb is a fact of nature. that's the difference. the unborn baby can't be removed from the womb before a certain time to survive. with organ donation, there are the possibilities of other donors.
In my scenario, there specifically isn't a possibility of other donors (maybe not enough time to find other donors, or a weird genetic quirk meaning only the mother is a match, doesn't matter which). So the fact of nature in both cases is that the child will die if the mother doesn't give them what they need. So, to repeat my question, why would you force the mother in one situation but not the other? Try and answer it without moving the goalpost this time.0 -
Mark, the ONLY reason they don't try to do these things is that they know they would lose and lose badly.
Heck, 26 years ago they lost, and that was less than ten years after they pushed the 8th through.
So - 1983 - Irish public say "No abortions ever!!!1!"
1992 - Irish public say "Abortion is fine in the UK and we'll give you a constitutional right to do it and to get information on it. We also won't overturn the constitutional right to have an abortion in Ireland if suicidal"
Quite the turnaround there in only nine years, but leaving the 8th in place while also saying we don't want to enforce it (as it was originally written and intended to be a TOTAL abortion ban) was complete hypocrisy.Scrap the cap!
0 -
And how are you going to prove that this FGM will take place in the future?
I agree that "every law contains an implicit attempted component to it" but in practice that person cannot be stopped from travelling. The real purpose of a law like that is to stop a whole industry developing (travel agents, foreign FGM clinics advertising in Ireland etc.) Also to discourage people by the threat of arresting them when they come back. Despite all this, FGMs are still taking place all the time on Irish children, but it is kept quiet.
And Irish abortions happen by the 1000s every year, just exported to the UK. If FGM law can at the very least make it illegal to attempt to bring someone abroad to perform it, why doesn't the no side campaign for the same with abortion?0 -
-
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »Mark, the ONLY reason they don't try to do these things is that they know they would lose and lose badly.
Heck, 26 years ago they lost, and that was less than ten years after they pushed the 8th through.
So - 1983 - Irish public say "No abortions ever!!!1!"
1992 - Irish public say "Abortion is fine in the UK and we'll give you a constitutional right to do it and to get information on it. We also won't overturn the constitutional right to have an abortion in Ireland if suicidal"
Quite the turnaround there in only nine years, but leaving the 8th in place while also saying we don't want to enforce it (as it was originally written and intended to be a TOTAL abortion ban) was complete hypocrisy.
Yep, nearly 67% voted against abortion in 83, but that dropped to less than 38% in the 92 referendum and that level of NIMBYism has only grown since then.0 -
I wouldn't mind mind if you were doing that, but you are not.
This makes no sense. You're the one making unfounded statements, I'm pointing out your mistakes.You have a bad habit of making unfounded allegations against other posters here.
Says the guy who is actually making an unfounded allegation about another poster :rolleyes:0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »So what if it ends up being fruitless, do you only campaign for initiatives that you are absolutely sure will be passed? Why would you even need to campaign at all if you are so sure you will win? Why aren't you trying to change the reality, seeing as it clearly goes against the ideals you claim to hold so dear? It wans't always the reality, it was made reality by campaigning, so why can't it change again through campaign?
How is that not exporting abortions?
Can you really feel good about yourself when your every answer is "well, it's just too hard to try to save those babies, I might fail", especially when failure won't in anyway hurt you and at least you will have tried?
So why not campaign for the law to do something about abortions happening abroad?
So if you will protest that reality, if it comes to pass, then why aren't you protesting the current one of abortions being exported to the UK?
because the one where women choose to travel to the uk of their own accord isn't likely to be overturned,. it's not about feeling good, it's about reality.Mark Hamill wrote: »In my scenario, there specifically isn't a possibility of other donors (maybe not enough time to find other donors, or a weird genetic quirk meaning only the mother is a match, doesn't matter which). So the fact of nature in both cases is that the child will die if the mother doesn't give them what they need. So, to repeat my question, why would you force the mother in one situation but not the other? Try and answer it without moving the goalpost this time.
because the unborn needing to be in the womb for a time is a fact of nature that cannot be changed.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
end of the road wrote: »because the one where women choose to travel to the uk of their own accord isn't likely to be overturned,. it's not about feeling good, it's about reality.
At one point the 8th amendment wasn't reality, if everyone had your attitude it never would have been.
You haven't answered a single question, just repeated your moot assertions.end of the road wrote: »because the unborn needing to be in the womb for a time is a fact of nature that cannot be changed.
Again, not answer my question, just ignoring the bits you don't like and repeating moot assertions.
Your arguments have zero sincerity and so you have zero credibility.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »At one point the 8th amendment wasn't reality, if everyone had your attitude it never would have been.
You haven't answered a single question, just repeated your moot assertions.
Again, not answer my question, just ignoring the bits you don't like and repeating moot assertions.
Your arguments have zero sincerity and so you have zero credibility.
You're talking to the wall. Save yourself the stress and stop replying. This is how this poster conducts himself to everyone, on every single abortion thread.
Its his style of posting, and despite it being very frustrating, and impossible to debate with, it doesn't change.
Its exhausting.0 -
Advertisement
-
Well that's not actually the case. They may or may not be able to apply for Irish citizenship, depending on various factors.Mark Hamill wrote: »If their parents are Irish then they are Irish regardless of where they are born.
Nice to see though that you don't actually care about killing babies if they aren't Irish and born in Ireland.
And the reverse is also true; if somebody arrives into Ireland just to have a baby, that baby does not get Irish citizenship (unless it subsequently stays here and grows up here)[/QUOTE]
As I pointed out, the FGM law is a deterrent, because it makes the parent liable on their return. The intention to remove a child for FGM is provable in hindsight, when the parent returns with mutilated child. This is a nuance which goes over NuMarvel's head.Mark Hamill wrote: »And the point, obviously, is that if the no-side supposedly are all about stopping babies being murdered, then why aren't they campaigning for amending the 8th to make it so that babies can't be removed and murdered in other jurisdictions? As NuMarvel pointed out, the FGM law criminalises even the attempt to remove a child from this jurisdiction for FGM, so why aren't the No side campaigning for the same thing in relation to abortion?
It's because it's not about saving babies to them, or you, it's just NIMBYism.
But here's the reason why "removal from the state for the purposes of FGM" is an offence; if it was not framed like that, it would be a defence to say "I took my child to Nigeria to visit my parents. When I left, FGM was not on my mind at all. While I was there, the child's grandparents arranged it without my explicit agreement. The operation is entirely legal there, so no laws were broken either in Ireland or in Nigeria"
Also it prevents people setting up FGM travel agencies in Ireland. Now here's the relevant text..(3) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1), it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown, that one of the purposes for the removal from the State by the accused person of the girl or woman concerned was to have an act of female genital mutilation done to her if—
(a) the accused person removed the girl or woman from the State in circumstances giving rise to the reasonable inference that one of the purposes for such removal was to have an act of female genital mutilation done to her, and
(b) an act of female genital mutilation was done to her after she was removed from the State and, where she subsequently returned to the State, before that return.
(5) For the purposes of this section, to “remove a girl or woman from the State” includes—
(a) arranging any part of her travel out of the State,
(b) accompanying her for any portion of that travel,
(c) arranging that she be met when her travel out of the State has terminated, or
(d) doing any other act that could facilitate her travel out of the State.
I could equally ask, why doesn't the Yes side campaign for abortion on demand right up till birth?Mark Hamill wrote: »why doesn't the no side campaign for the same with abortion?
Its partly because extreme positions are not winnable, and partly because everyone has their own opinion. Moving towards the extreme position, more and more support falls away.
But to answer your question, here's a few differences between travel for FGM and abortion, off the top of my head.
Both abortion and FGM if carried out abroad legally, cannot be illegal under Irish law. But regarding the right to travel, the practicalities are different. It is feasible for a mother to travel abroad without her daughter, but it is not feasible for a pregnant woman to travel without her unborn child.
If the pregnant woman returned without a child, that is not evidence of abortion. If the FGM accompanying adult returned with a mutilated child, that is evidence of FGM. All that remains then, is to show that the adult intended to procure FGM before the pair left. That could be difficult, except that the law quoted above sets a very low bar for that by saying (if FGM has happened) "it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown" that the adult was complicit.
Travel for abortion is specifically allowed by a 1992 constitutional amendment. Travel for FGM is not mentioned.
The born child has additional human rights which the unborn child does not.
There is little public appetite to prosecute women who have illegal abortions, even when there is a public willingness to prevent them. The same is not true for FGM.
So even if it was feasible to make foreign abortions illegal, there would be no appetite to punish the women involved. Pro-life campaign is more about prevention and providing alternatives, not providing punishments.
So now a question for you, if the life of an unborn is worthless, why not campaign for late term abortions on demand?0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement