Second coming of the Pope to coincide with General Election issue of 8th amendment?

Daith

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, I don't think it would be. But the contrast between the support for marriage equality and the (apparent) opposition to repeal of the eighth, both in Limerick, does point to the fact that they are distinct issues, and support for the former does not translate into support for the latter. And I think that's probably as true for the country as a whole as it is for Limerick.

This. Far different thing from asking the Irish people to allow two people to marry and asking them to repeal the 8th amendment.

Other than they're both "lefty liberal" views and at odds with the Catholic Church.

eviltwin

Shrap wrote: »

Hmm. May have been stupid in thinking this wouldn't turn into a rights/wrongs of abortion discussion.

I think it's nearly a given that Irish politicians in the main won't touch this issue unless they think there's a good chance of it passing (which it very well might do), but my original question (although a bit garbled) was do people think that the Pope making such an early threat or promise to come here is a nefarious move to help prevent a referendum being mooted by any party?

In other words, as the Pope is so "concerned" about Ireland and the way our society is progressing, does it strike anyone else here that an early announcement of a visit is actually in order to put "the fear of god" into our politics?

It's something I've wondered myself. Abortion aside I'm sure the passing of marriage equality was a shock. We were the first country ever to pass it by popular vote and that has to have been a surprise given our relationship with Catholicism here. Is it a coincidence an event on the family is happening here given the changes made in the past year? I don't think so.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, I agree. But we are where we are, and this might be one of those areas in life where the best is the enemy of the good.

Which is more desirable - a refernedum to remove the eighth and not replace it which fails, or a referendum to remove the eighth and replace it with some text giving a wider (but not unrestricted) right to abortion which succeeds?

Even if you refuse to contemplate the possibility that a remove-and-not-replace referendum would fail, you must accept the fact that that others do contemplate that possiblity. And that fact is the answer to Mark Hamill's question.

From the point of pragmatism in getting a referendum passed, this may make sense. However, I don't think martinjudge73 was aksing in terms of getting a referendum through, but rather in what effect any change in legislation will have on the mortality rate. If the current, limiting, legislation isn't saving any lives, then it is redundant and can be removed.

Hotblack Desiato

Why is anyone thinking that a council vote is somehow representative of public opinion?

Councillors have no powers in this area, do not include a position one way or the other in their manifestos, and the public do not vote accordingly so there is no reason to believe the make-up of the council will reflect the public view on any such issue.

Pointless votes on things which are not within the remit of councils are one of the most annoying things about local government in this country

It is well known that politicians in general in this country are way behind the public opinion in terms of social issues, the marriage equality referendum result was proof of this.

Hotblack Desiato

Shrap wrote: »

In other words, as the Pope is so "concerned" about Ireland and the way our society is progressing, does it strike anyone else here that an early announcement of a visit is actually in order to put "the fear of god" into our politics?

I don't see why that would follow, and the public would not thank any politician who appeared to be swayed by the actions of a foreign state even if it is the Vatican.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It is well known that politicians in general in this country are way behind the public opinion in terms of social issues, the marriage equality referendum result was proof of this.

I'd say they were fairly on the ball myself, which is exactly why they called for a referendum on marriage equality when they did, because they could sense there was a possibility that the referendum would pass. There isn't that same sense that a referendum on the 8th amendment would pass, so many politicians don't want to go anywhere near the issue. They know well it'd be the divorce referendum all over again, without the possibility that it would pass.

They're quite comfortable with the fact that the same political pressure that was there for marriage equality, just isn't there for abortion.

I don't think that the Pope's visit would influence political will one way or the other tbh, it'd be simply a case of business as usual once he'd gone.

eviltwin

You can't compare marriage equality to abortion. Marriage equality was a straight yes or no for most people. Abortion isn't. Some people are in favour of abortion in some circumstances but not others or up to a certain limit....if a referendum was called purely to allow abortion for fatal abnormalities I believe it would pass, add in rape or abortion on demand and support will start to drop. We also have the safety net.of the UK. I would like the 8th repealed if only to remove the penalties for women having abortions here but I don't see much appetite for it. Most people still see abortion as something that only affects other people.

martinjudge73

When you see headlines... Josie Cunningham ‘had an abortion so she could have a nose job’. ..... You can understan why the majority dont want that level of liberation abortion laws in ireland. It makes a mockary of a childs life.

Mind you the child was better off death than have a mother like her.... But that is just me being cynical. No child should be treated like garbage to be discarded.

pS.. I could not care 2 fcks what any church says. But abortion is wrong

PopePalpatine

martinjudge73 wrote: »

When you see headlines... Josie Cunningham ‘had an abortion so she could have a nose job’. ..... You can understan why the majority dont want that level of liberation abortion laws in ireland. It makes a mockary of a childs life.

Mind you the child was better off death than have a mother like her.... But that is just me being cynical. No child should be treated like garbage to be discarded.

pS.. I could not care 2 fcks what any church says. But abortion is wrong

I see your Josie Cunningham and raise you a Savita Halappanavar.

lazygal

Why are some people so obsessed with the reasons why a woman choses an abortion? Plenty of idiots stay pregnant and give birth to children they don't care about, we don't have all the hand wringing about their motivations. The goal really does seem to be gestation and birth at all costs, regardless of the girl or woman who has to do the gestating.

martinjudge73

lazygal wrote: »

Why are some people so obsessed with the reasons why a woman choses an abortion? Plenty of idiots stay pregnant and give birth to children they don't care about, we don't have all the hand wringing about their motivations. The goal really does seem to be gestation and birth at all costs, regardless of the girl or woman who has to do the gestating.

Whatever way you dress it up.. Its killing a child, nothing more or less.

Of course when a mothers life is a risk. That is another story. But most abortions are not the result of a treat to the mothers life.

I heard someone once comparing getting pregnant to an STD..

As i say to my girls, better to face the reality of your actions.

lazygal

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Whatever way you dress it up.. Its killing a child, nothing more or less.

Of course when a mothers life is a risk. That is another story. But most abortions are not the result of a treat to the mothers life.

I heard someone once comparing getting pregnant to an STD..

As i say to my girls, better to face the reality of your actions.

How is getting an abortion not facing the reality of your actions?

Why does a child's right to life go out the window because a woman's life is at risk?

Whatever way you dress it up, forced gestation for all pregnant women and girls is not a workable policy.

martinjudge73

lazygal wrote: »

How is getting an abortion not facing the reality of your actions?

Why does a child's right to life go out the window because a woman's life is at risk?

Whatever way you dress it up, forced gestation for all pregnant women and girls is not a workable policy.

I see "forced Gestation" used a lot. That term seems to have replaced the word "Baby"... Obviously if the pregnancy is going to kill the mother then you have to treat this. That is not a pro-choice matter.. its just facing the sad reality of the situation. I doubt Mother & Doctor deliberately set out to kill the child..

Just saw in DM.

Abortion clinic sent devastated woman ultrasound pictures of the baby she had terminated after she complained about her treatment

Ms Windsor, who has chosen not to disclose the reasons behind her abortion, says she has suffered from nightmares since receiving the card last Thursday.

Why do you think she is having nightmares???

PopePalpatine

I love how you're totally ignoring the risks pregnancy poses to the mother's long-term health, not to mention underage mothers and rape victims.

lazygal

martinjudge73 wrote: »

I see "forced Gestation" used a lot. That term seems to have replaced the word "Baby"... Obviously if the pregnancy is going to kill the mother then you have to treat this. That is not a pro-choice matter.. its just facing the sad reality of the situation. I doubt Mother & Doctor deliberately set out to kill the child..

Just saw in DM.

Abortion clinic sent devastated woman ultrasound pictures of the baby she had terminated after she complained about her treatment



Why do you think she is having nightmares???

Why would a baby's life be put at risk just because a woman's life is at risk? The Daily Mail, really? Are we back to anecdotes as data again?

How else would you categorise compelling women and children who don't want to remain pregnant to remain so, regardless of their wishes or health? Is that not forced gestation?

martinjudge73

lazygal wrote: »

Why would a baby's life be put at risk just because a woman's life is at risk? The Daily Mail, really? Are we back to anecdotes as data again?

How else would you categorise compelling women and children who don't want to remain pregnant to remain so, regardless of their wishes or health? Is that not forced gestation?

So you kill the child because you don't want it. Right?

lazygal

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I love how you're totally ignoring the risks pregnancy poses to the mother's long-term health, not to mention underage mothers and rape victims.

It is almost as though some people see pregnancy and birth as entirely separate from the child or woman who has to gestate the foetus. As though all of us females are entirely unaffected by pregnancy and birth, and it has no short, medium or long term effects on us whatsoever.

This view being challenged is usually followed up with some anecdote about a Very Brave Woman Who Stayed Pregnant Despite 'INSERT TERRIBLE BUT LEGIMATE REASON WHY SHE COULD HAVE HAD AN ABORTION' and Now It Is All Grand. So All Other Women Should Stay Pregnant Too.

lazygal

martinjudge73 wrote: »

So you kill the child because you don't want it. Right?

Which child? I have two children and I haven't a notion of killing them. Are you referring to a foetus? Is taking an abortion pill before 12 weeks exactly the same as me deciding I don't want my children any more so I'll kill them? Should the women who import and take those pills be charged with murder? What solution do you propose for the 4,000 girls and women who wish to have an abortion and travel to do so?

I also note you haven't provided any information on your claims on voting in a referendum or any answers to why a baby could be killed, to use your terms, because a woman's life is at risk.

martinjudge73

lazygal wrote: »

Which child? I have two children and I haven't a notion of killing them. Are you referring to a foetus? Is taking an abortion pill before 12 weeks exactly the same as me deciding I don't want my children any more so I'll kill them? Should the women who import and take those pills be charged with murder? What solution do you propose for the 4,000 girls and women who wish to have an abortion and travel to do so?

I also note you haven't provided any information on your claims on voting in a referendum or any answers to why a baby could be killed, to use your terms, because a woman's life is at risk.

Feotus.. Toddler... Baby. apply the label you want to a childs development. At any level killing it is wrong.

As for claims on the referendum. If the government thought it would pass they would have held it. What is holding them back. its not like Enda Kenny is the love child of the church.. Is he?

eviltwin

Once and for all an embryo or foetus is not a child. No person who is in favour of legalizing abortion would kill an actual child or condone the killing of one.

martinjudge73

eviltwin wrote: »

Once and for all an embryo or foetus is not a child. No person who is in favour of legalizing abortion would kill an actual child or condone the killing of one.

Thats what the tell us. Yet if you look across the pond to the US that is not what is actually happening. A child at 25 weeks .. is a child, and can survive outside the womb.. Yet they allow them to be aborted.

eviltwin

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Thats what the tell us. Yet if you look across the pond to the US that is not what is actually happening. A child at 25 weeks .. is a child, and can survive outside the womb.. Yet they allow them to be aborted.

How many women are waiting until the third trimester to have abortions, seriously now.

martinjudge73

eviltwin wrote: »

How many women are waiting until the third trimester to have abortions, seriously now.

1,100 babies in England and Wales are aborted every year because of Down's syndrome, an increase from 300 in 1989/90. Which you can't test in the first 3 months.

So seriously.. Either you give rights to the child or you don't. At the moment we have equal rights for the child and the mother to life. The Mother has the legal right to life and so does the child. No argument can make someone who sees the unborn child for what it is would allow it die.

lazygal

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Thats what the tell us. Yet if you look across the pond to the US that is not what is actually happening. A child at 25 weeks .. is a child, and can survive outside the womb.. Yet they allow them to be aborted.

Evidence? Why the obsession with later term abortions when the vast majority take place before 12 weeks. Maybe some late term abortions save women's lives.

lazygal

martinjudge73 wrote: »

1,100 babies in England and Wales are aborted every year because of Down's syndrome, an increase from 300 in 1989/90. Which you can't test in the first 3 months.

So seriously.. Either you give rights to the child or you don't. At the moment we have equal rights for the child and the mother to life. The Mother has the legal right to life and so does the child. No argument can make someone who sees the unborn child for what it is would allow it die.

Why does a woman's right to life take precedence over the foetus?

eviltwin

martinjudge73 wrote: »

1,100 babies in England and Wales are aborted every year because of Down's syndrome, an increase from 300 in 1989/90. Which you can't test in the first 3 months.

So seriously.. Either you give rights to the child or you don't. At the moment we have equal rights for the child and the mother to life. The Mother has the legal right to life and so does the child. No argument can make someone who sees the unborn child for what it is would allow it die.

That's a tiny percentage of the overall number of abortions. And those families aren't doing anything wrong. In fact I would say if you've planned to have a baby it must be fairly devastating to find out its got a serious disability and to then have to decide what to do.

martinjudge73

lazygal wrote: »

Why does a woman's right to life take precedence over the foetus?

It doesn't. But its wrong to kill Mother and Child when you could save the mother by ending the pregnancy. Its not a matter of choice.

lazygal

martinjudge73 wrote: »

It doesn't. But its wrong to kill Mother and Child when you could save the mother by ending the pregnancy. Its not a matter of choice.

Why is it the woman's life that takes precedence in a life or death situation?

martinjudge73

eviltwin wrote: »

That's a tiny percentage of the overall number of abortions. And those families aren't doing anything wrong. In fact I would say if you've planned to have a baby it must be fairly devastating to find out its got a serious disability and to then have to decide what to do.

So we should kill kids with disabilities? I will tell that to my sister. That argument galvanises me to be pro-life. While I have NO RELIGIOUS affiliation.. Sadly I get landed with the Rosary ladies.. But no matter what some guy in a dress says.. Killing children is wrong.

eviltwin

martinjudge73 wrote: »

So we should kill kids with disabilities? I will tell that to my sister. That argument galvanises me to be pro-life. While I have NO RELIGIOUS affiliation.. Sadly I get landed with the Rosary ladies.. But no matter what some guy in a dress says.. Killing children is wrong.

I didn't actually say that did I?

Pherekydes

martinjudge73 wrote: »

It doesn't. But its wrong to kill Mother and Child when you could save the mother by ending the pregnancy. Its not a matter of choice.

Of course it's a matter of choice. Why would you prioritise the life of a fully grown woman, possibly with a job and maybe other children, over the life of a blastocyst or embryo?

Aren't they in fact equal?

PopePalpatine

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Thats what the tell us. Yet if you look across the pond to the US that is not what is actually happening. A child at 25 weeks .. is a child, and can survive outside the womb.. Yet they allow them to be aborted.

None of the statistics provided here show any more than 2% for abortions after 20 weeks. Also, 42 US states have some restrictions on late-term abortions, four of which ban abortion in all cases except a threat to the mother's life and another four ban abortion in all cases except a threat to the mother's life or long-term health.

I see you're still ignoring the long-term health effects pregnancy can have on a mother, along with rape victims.

martinjudge73

PopePalpatine wrote: »

None of the statistics provided here show any more than 2% for abortions after 20 weeks. Also, 42 US states have on late-term abortions, four of which ban abortion in all cases except a threat to the mother's life and another four ban abortion in all cases except a threat to the mother's life or long-term health.

I see you're still ignoring the long-term health effects pregnancy can have on a mother, along with rape victims.

Had this discussion with my daughters.. can what people think or circumstances determine who should live and who should die?? Just today a friend of my daughter was telling her she was 8 weeks pregnant with photos of scans.

What makes us human is not what you think or anyone else. We started this road at conception and we should let nature take its course.

We remove the legal protection from our constitution and the unborn has no rights. It can be the most cherished child or medical waste. the nonsense its a foetus is stupid.. We were all once at that stage of development.

lazygal

Are you opposed to ivf and the morning after pill too?

martinjudge73

lazygal wrote: »

Are you opposed to ivf and the morning after pill too?

Isn't this thread on abortion?

lazygal

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Isn't this thread on abortion?

You said life begins at conception. Should the morning after pill be banned? What about ivf?

eviltwin

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Isn't this thread on abortion?

If your concern is for the unborn then surely you object to the embryos regularly destroyed as a result of ivf and the map aren't you? And that happens legally here.

martinjudge73

eviltwin wrote: »

If your concern is for the unborn then surely you object to the embryos regularly destroyed as a result of ivf and the map aren't you? And that happens legally here.

What is the legal status of the embryo in Ireland in relation to the 8th amendment?

eviltwin

martinjudge73 wrote: »

What is the legal status of the embryo in Ireland in relation to the 8th amendment?

It's not covered. I don't know the legality of it all but I'd imagine it's something to do with the point at which life begins being at implantation. But you said conception so that would cover ivf. Where is the outrage?

Shrap

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Isn't this thread on abortion?

Wasn't meant to be

Go figure.

Anyhow, as you were.........

martinjudge73

eviltwin wrote: »

It's not covered. I don't know the legality of it all but I'd imagine it's something to do with the point at which life begins being at implantation. But you said conception so that would cover ivf. Where is the outrage?

We are discussing the 8th Amendment. If it was put infront of me to change/remove. I would vote no. I am not going to start waging some moral catholic war on IVF/MAP... I'm talking about going to a doctor to end your childs life. Is that right, I say no.

I'm not going to fight some catholic argument. But I'm also not going to say that killing a child is right. Either we respect a human life or we don't.. And once we don't where does it stop? We should rally around and support each other.

lazygal

martinjudge73 wrote: »

We are discussing the 8th Amendment. If it was put infront of me to change/remove. I would vote no. I am not going to start waging some moral catholic war on IVF/MAP... I'm talking about going to a doctor to end your childs life. Is that right, I say no.

I'm not going to fight some catholic argument. But I'm also not going to say that killing a child is right. Either we respect a human life or we don't.. And once we don't where does it stop? We should rally around and support each other.

What about frozen embryos that are discarded, should that be allowed to happen? What about women go to a doctor or pharmacist and who use the morning after pill which works to prevent implantation? Is that killing a child?

PopePalpatine

I'm still seeing little support for women pregnant as a result of rape, women carrying foetuses that have no chance of survival for more than a couple of excruciatingly painful days or women who risk long-term health problems due to pregnancy.

lazygal

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'm still seeing little support for women pregnant as a result of rape, women carrying foetuses that have no chance of survival for more than a couple of excruciatingly painful days or women who risk long-term health problems due to pregnancy.

Well apparently if we all rally round and support each other all women and girls who are pregnant won't ever want or need abortion.

martinjudge73

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'm still seeing little support for women pregnant as a result of rape, women carrying foetuses that have no chance of survival for more than a couple of excruciatingly painful days or women who risk long-term health problems due to pregnancy.

On rape. I had a long discussion with my Daughters. Their honest opinion was they would take the morning after pill as they would not know for sure they were actually pregnant. But if they knew they were pregnant they would not kill the child.

their view was that lots of kids have bastard father.. No matter how bad your father is does not mean you are that person..

lazygal

martinjudge73 wrote: »

On rape. I had a long discussion with my Daughters. Their honest opinion was they would take the morning after pill as they would not know for sure they were actually pregnant. But if they knew they were pregnant they would not kill the child.

their view was that lots of kids have bastard father.. No matter how bad your father is does not mean you are that person..

You do know other women feel differently to your daughters. I'm surprised you've no problem with the morning after pill if you believe life begins at conception.

martinjudge73

lazygal wrote: »

You do know other women feel differently to your daughters. I'm surprised you've no problem with the morning after pill if you believe life begins at conception.

I'm not a women.. So why are you surprised?

yes other women feel differently. However if and when the ballot presented to me and my family to remove or change the 8th.. we will vote no.

lazygal

martinjudge73 wrote: »

I'm not a women.. So why are you surprised?

yes other women feel differently. However if and when the ballot presented to me and my family to remove or change the 8th.. we will vote no.

So how do you think rallying around and supporting each other will stop all pregnant women and girls wanting to access abortion? And why is the morning after pill ok?

martinjudge73

lazygal wrote: »

So how do you think rallying around and supporting each other will stop all pregnant women and girls wanting to access abortion? And why is the morning after pill ok?

I will be asked to vote. How can you ask me to vote for something that I don't agree with. Voting in favour or removing the right to life of the unborn would mean we would kill children on Irish soil.

as for the MAD.. My daughters view is that within 24 hrs she would not know for sure if or if not she was pregnant after a rape... so she would take it.

I'm not saying its ok or not. But we are not asked to vote on it, are we? its already legal.

Daith

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Voting in favour or removing the right to life of the unborn would mean we would kill children on Irish soil.

as for the MAD.. My daughters view is that within 24 hrs she would not know for sure if or if not she was pregnant after a rape... so she would take it.

So your daughter may be killing an unborn child with the morning after pill? So if it's okay to have an abortion after 1 day, why not 2 days, a week, eight weeks?