Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Absolam

stinkle wrote: »

No one is using their wealth to evade the law, there's nothing to evade.

Well there is; it's against the law to have an abortion in Ireland. Doing something somewhere else for no reason other than it's illegal to do it where you are is evading the law.

stinkle wrote: »

They're taking advantage of the amendment to the constitution that was voted in by the people. No one is evading anything, nothing is stopping them except circumstances and that shouldn't be.

They are indeed; that doesn't mean it's not evading the law though.

stinkle wrote: »

It's just an inconvenient truth that there IS abortion in Ireland, lots of it according to the stats. It just doesn't actually take place on the island, except for those who ordered pills that got through customs. It;s not like anyone thinks "oh the 8th amendment exists, therefore I'd best sit tight and not have an abortion". It just exports the issue for those that have the luxury of time/money/personal support and that is shameful.

If it doesn't take place on the island, then it is literally not abortion in Ireland though, it's abortion elsewhere, which is rather more of an inconvenient truth for your argument....

ABC101

lazygal wrote: »

I'm open about how I feel about abortion.
Any comments on legitimate rape and pregnancy?
Do you think its only rape if it's a stranger in a dark alley and extraneous violence is involved?

In fairness to you Lazygal, you have been open about your experiences, and you deserve to be recognised for that. However TBH i am horrified at what you have admitted to in the past, that is nothing to be proud of.

I never gave a definition of rape, and I don't understand what you mean by 'legitimate rape', is that not a contradiction in terms?

While of course rape is wrong, murdering a baby human is a greater wrong in my perspective. Two wrongs don't make a right, do they?

stinkle

Irish people voted in referenda for the right to travel and the right to have information. Nothing illegal there. Nothing to evade. No one is stopping anyone at airports or ferryports on the way out or into the country, and interestingly there's no furore from anyone with respect to couriering of the ashes from the likes of Liverpool either. It's an Irish solution to an Irish problem.

There's plenty of abortion in the country, the fact that the procedure itself takes place elsewhere isn't relevant. Irish women get info here, make arrangements, travel, have abortions and return, usually soon after. often too soon. Get over it. There are groups in Ireland that provide financial assistance and emotional support pre and post, as well as the necessary medical support. It's all completely legal too, as voted by the electorate.

Cabaal

ABC101 wrote: »

While of course rape is wrong, murdering a baby human is a greater wrong in my perspective. Two wrongs don't make a right, do they?

Its not a baby human, its a fetus and even Catholic hospitals have argued that a fetus is not equal to a baby.

lazygal

ABC101 wrote: »

In fairness to you Lazygal, you have been open about your experiences, and you deserve to be recognised for that. However TBH i am horrified at what you have admitted to in the past, that is nothing to be proud of.

I never gave a definition of rape, and I don't understand what you mean by 'legitimate rape', is that not a contradiction in terms?

While of course rape is wrong, murdering a baby human is a greater wrong in my perspective. Two wrongs don't make a right, do they?

You said miss x wasn't raped and was in a consensual sexual relationship. Do you want to withdraw that comment?

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

I think if it were simply a referendum to flatly repeal the 8th, it would probably fail. If it were a referendum to retain but modify it, it might pass depending on what the modifications were. I suspect you're not just asking as a matter of interest though... is there a follow on question in the offing?

Even though opinion polls show that the majority of decided people are in favour of repealing the 8th?

robdonn

ABC101 wrote: »

While of course rape is wrong, murdering a baby human is a greater wrong in my perspective. Two wrongs don't make a right, do they?

I know people who believe that rape is a worse crime than murder as it creates life-long suffering, but that's just someone else's perspective.

What is not just a matter of perspective is that abortion is not murder. In Ireland murder is the intentional killing, or intentional attempt at killing, one person by another. While our constitution grants the right to life to the unborn, it does not grant them personhood.

Cabaal

robdonn wrote: »

Even though opinion polls show that the majority of decided people are in favour of repealing the 8th?

pfft, don't be pointing out silly stuff like that.
Polls mean nothing, sure nobody was in favor of marriage equality either :pac:

Absolam

stinkle wrote: »

Irish people voted in referenda for the right to travel and the right to have information. Nothing illegal there. Nothing to evade.

Nothing illegal is entirely different from nothing to evade.

stinkle wrote: »

No one is stopping anyone at airports or ferryports on the way out or into the country, and interestingly there's no furore from anyone with respect to couriering of the ashes from the likes of Liverpool either. It's an Irish solution to an Irish problem.

Wouldn't that be because it's not illegal?

stinkle wrote: »

There's plenty of abortion in the country, the fact that the procedure itself takes place elsewhere isn't relevant.

On the contrary, where something takes place is entirely relevant to an assertion it's taking place somewhere. If it's taking place somewhere else, it's not taking place in the country. Because it's somewhere else.

stinkle wrote: »

Irish women get info here, make arrangements, travel, have abortions and return, usually soon after. often too soon. Get over it. There are groups in Ireland that provide financial assistance and emotional support pre and post, as well as the necessary medical support. It's all completely legal too, as voted by the electorate.

Get over what? No one has said people don't obtain information here, or make arrangements here, or ever return here from the places where they have abortions, and receive support when they do. Only that when they have abortions elsewhere, it is elsewhere. And that by doing so, they evade breaking the law in Ireland.

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

In Ireland murder is the intentional killing, or intentional attempt at killing, one person by another. While our constitution grants the right to life to the unborn, it does not grant them personhood.

I'd say different; the right to life is enumerated as a personal right, and the Supreme Court has referred to the unborn as a person on more than one occasion. It has been well covered on the thread before though, so it might help to review the points if you feel it's worth debating.

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

Even though opinion polls show that the majority of decided people are in favour of repealing the 8th?

Even so; I've offered my opinion of the polls you've put forward before, but in short I think straight repeal would fail because there is not majority support for abortion on demand, and that is how repeal would be presented in the debate.

JPNelsforearm

Absolam wrote: »

Even so; I've offered my opinion of the polls you've put forward before, but in short I think straight repeal would fail because there is not majority support for abortion on demand, and that is how repeal would be presented in the debate.

Do you agree that people should be given the option? What does either side have to lose, especially if you are confident in a result. It would put the issue to bed for at least another two/three terms of government.

eviltwin

Absolam wrote: »

I'd say different; the right to life is enumerated as a personal right, and the Supreme Court has referred to the unborn as a person on more than one occasion. It has been well covered on the thread before though, so it might help to review the points if you feel it's worth debating.

His point still stands though....abortion is not murder. We've already seen women prosecuted for having abortions here, they were not charged with murder. Morally, ethically most people don't see it as such. If I kill someone in a foreign land people will be upset by that as much as if I killed someone here. Having an abortion however...I find most people are quite meh about it, they don't see it as a big deal and barely care.

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

Even so; I've offered my opinion of the polls you've put forward before, but in short I think straight repeal would fail because there is not majority support for abortion on demand, and that is how repeal would be presented in the debate.

But straight repeal wouldn't legalise abortion on demand, would it? I thought that if the 8th was repealed then POLDP would still apply, restricting abortions to the situations it defines? I could be wrong but I think I remember you making that argument before.

Absolam

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Do you agree that people should be given the option? What does either side have to lose, especially if you are confident in a result. It would put the issue to bed for at least another two/three terms of government.

Well, the pro life side has the 8th Amendment to lose; the pro choice side has noting to lose. So, regardless of confidence, only one side seems to have something to gain, so why would the other side favour a referendum? Sure it would put the issue to bed for as long as it took to work up the appetite for another referendum; we're 33 years and counting now, so who would want to wait another 33 years to have abortion law changed again? Especially when we could keep it as it is for another 33 years...

So no, I think the only people who agree people should be given the option are those who stand a chance of gaining what they want from the result.

Absolam

eviltwin wrote: »

His point still stands though....abortion is not murder. We've already seen women prosecuted for having abortions here, they were not charged with murder. Morally, ethically most people don't see it as such. If I kill someone in a foreign land people will be upset by that as much as if I killed someone here. Having an abortion however...I find most people are quite meh about it, they don't see it as a big deal and barely care.

The point I answered was:

robdonn wrote: »

While our constitution grants the right to life to the unborn, it does not grant them personhood.

Sure, morally and ethically some people see abortion as murder... just as some are quite meh about it, they don't see it as a big deal and barely care. I don't think many of us are unaware of how the law sees it though?

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

But straight repeal wouldn't legalise abortion on demand, would it? I thought that if the 8th was repealed then POLDP would still apply, restricting abortions to the situations it defines? I could be wrong but I think I remember you making that argument before.

No, it wouldn't (though it would make it possible to do so) but if there were a campaign for straight repeal, the obvious answering campaign would be that it will lead to abortion on demand; without Constitutional protection laws can be changed at the whim of politicians, precedents and rights can be established or eroded by Courts, and there is no guarantee that we wouldn't have abortion on demand in months, in fact with our effective tax haven status we could become the abortion tourist destination of Europe within a year, Ireland would be awash with Turkish junkies and German prostitutes availing of our generous healthcare system, dogs would run away with spoons etc etc and all your pensions would be gone*. Far more imaginative people than me would be paid handsomely to construct far better and scary arguments if it came to it. Arguments that, I think, would be likely to sway the vote; people won't vote for uncertainty.

*For the benefit of lazier, or more volatile, thinkers amongst us... this is not an argument I'm putting forward. I'm saying all manner of dooms will be put forward as reasons to vote no, on the basis that if even one strikes a chord with voters, it will be worth it.

Kiwi in IE

Absolam wrote: »

Well, the pro life side has the 8th Amendment to lose; the pro choice side has noting to lose. So, regardless of confidence, only one side seems to have something to gain, so why would the other side favour a referendum? Sure it would put the issue to bed for as long as it took to work up the appetite for another referendum; we're 33 years and counting now, so who would want to wait another 33 years to have abortion law changed again? Especially when we could keep it as it is for another 33 years...

So no, I think the only people who agree people should be given the option are those who stand a chance of gaining what they want from the result.

The 'pro life' side have nothing to loose either! The way some people go on you would think that the repeal of the 8th will lead to a legal obligation to have abortions. Those who are 'pro life' will maintain their right to continue with pregnancies that are unwanted/doomed/the result of sexual assault, it's just that the rest of us will have the choice not to. What exactly will they be 'loosing'? Foetuses belonging to other people?

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

No, it wouldn't (though it would make it possible to do so) but if there were a campaign for straight repeal, the obvious answering campaign would be that it will lead to abortion on demand; without Constitutional protection laws can be changed at the whim of politicians, precedents and rights can be established or eroded by Courts, and there is no guarantee that we wouldn't have abortion on demand in months, in fact with our effective tax haven status we could become the abortion tourist destination of Europe within a year, Ireland would be awash with Turkish junkies and German prostitutes availing of our generous healthcare system, dogs would run away with spoons etc etc and all your pensions would be gone*. Far more imaginative people than me would be paid handsomely to construct far better and scary arguments if it came to it. Arguments that, I think, would be likely to sway the vote; people won't vote for uncertainty.

*For the benefit of lazier, or more volatile, thinkers amongst us... this is not an argument I'm putting forward. I'm saying all manner of dooms will be put forward as reasons to vote no, on the basis that if even one strikes a chord with voters, it will be worth it.

OK, now you're just being ridiculous! Dogs have absolutely no interest in ... oh wait, is this going to be the campaign image for the Pro-Life side?

aloyisious

@Absolom: ta for the info on Excommunication latae sententiae on the other thread and it's automatic self-imposition by virtue of deed done, differing from the imposition of excommunication after a formal hearing on an accusation or admittance of an offence against canon law.

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

The 'pro life' side have nothing to loose either! The way some people go on you would think that the repeal of the 8th will lead to a legal obligation to have abortions. Those who are 'pro life' will maintain their right to continue with pregnancies that are unwanted/doomed/the result of sexual assault, it's just that the rest of us will have the choice not to. What exactly will they be 'loosing'? Foetuses belonging to other people?

Well, I think most pro life advocates aren't looking to not have abortions (they can do that, as you say, simply by choosing not to); they're looking to protect the right to life of the unborn. Would that right to life of the unborn not be lost if the 8th were repealed? That is what is contained in the 8th, after all.

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

OK, now you're just being ridiculous! Dogs have absolutely no interest in ... oh wait, is this going to be the campaign image for the Pro-Life side?

It's definitely one to tug on the heart strings right enough... let's keep it as a maybe for now

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

@Absolom: ta for the info on Excommunication latae sententiae on the other thread and it's automatic self-imposition by virtue of deed done, differing from the imposition of excommunication after a formal hearing on an accusation or admittance of an offence against canon law.

That's more than a tad different to what I said about excommunication latae sententiae to Freshpopcorn and Cabaal on that thread... but surely your post would be more relevant on the thread you're referring to?

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

That's more than a tad different to what I said about excommunication latae sententiae to Freshpopcorn and Cabaal on that thread... but surely your post would be more relevant on the thread you're referring to?

I googled the term - excommunication latae sententiae - and two separate items referring to excommunication popped up. That's why I wrote mentioning both the automatic excommunication due to offence and the more formal hearing. As for getting involved and writing in another thread, I decided not to bother when I was merely thanking you for a good titbit. TTFN.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

I googled the term - excommunication latae sententiae - and two separate items referring to excommunication popped up. That's why I wrote mentioning both the automatic excommunication due to offence and the more formal hearing. As for getting involved and writing in another thread, I decided not to bother when I was merely thanking you for a good titbit. TTFN.

It is a bit of a non sequitur here all the same....

aloyisious wrote: »

I can see it now, a dog is for life.......

But a spoon is for dessert, not the eh, well... going there would just be bad taste.
We may need Saatchi & Saatchi to do a bit of work on the slogan.

oscarBravo

ABC101 wrote: »

In fairness to you Lazygal, you have been open about your experiences, and you deserve to be recognised for that. However TBH i am horrified at what you have admitted to in the past, that is nothing to be proud of.

It's a medical procedure. It's neither something to be proud of, nor something to be ashamed of. I had a trabeculectomy a few years ago. I can't say it ever crossed my mind to be proud of it.

Absolam

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's a medical procedure. It's neither something to be proud of, nor something to be ashamed of. I had a trabeculectomy a few years ago. I can't say it ever crossed my mind to be proud of it.

FGM is a medical procedure too, but I'm not sure everyone would agree it's neither something to be proud of, nor something to be ashamed of. Heck, the same could be said of breast augmentation, or sterilisation, or circumcision, or rhinoplasty. Perhaps it depends on the purpose of the medical procedure, rather then the fact that it's a medical procedure?

MrPudding

Absolam wrote: »

FGM is a medical procedure too, but I'm not sure everyone would agree it's neither something to be proud of, nor something to be ashamed of. Heck, the same could be said of breast augmentation, or sterilisation, or circumcision, or rhinoplasty. Perhaps it depends on the purpose of the medical procedure, rather then the fact that it's a medical procedure?

Hmmm, perhaps I am odd, but holding down a small girl and either cutting off her cliitoris or sewing up her vagina is not something I would consider to be a medical procedure. A medical procedure is, I believe, something carried out for the health of the person it is carried out on.

MrP

robdonn

MrPudding wrote: »

Hmmm, perhaps I am odd, but holding down a small girl and either cutting off her cliitoris or sewing up her vagina is not something I would consider to be a medical procedure. A medical procedure is, I believe, something carried out for the health of the person it is carried out on.

MrP

Although whether it is considered a medical procedure or not, while the person who performs the act should definitely be ashamed of themselves, the little girl should feel neither proud or ashamed for what was done to her.

Absolam

MrPudding wrote: »

Hmmm, perhaps I am odd, but holding down a small girl and either cutting off her cliitoris or sewing up her vagina is not something I would consider to be a medical procedure. A medical procedure is, I believe, something carried out for the health of the person it is carried out on.

Odd indeed... Since breast augmentations, rhinoplasty, circumcisions, these are all medical procedures, and yet a very small proportion of them are carried out for the health of the person they are carried out on. In fact, I'd venture to say that not a great proportion of abortions are actually carried out for the health of either of the people they're performed on either. Do you think? Maybe you should expand the scope of your definition.