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

Metroboulot

Shrap wrote: »

FYP

4000 that we know of!
I suspect that figure is highly conservative.

Many people give false information in England (could be a friend or relatives address) and how many people may be going elsewhere ? Ireland has a very high % of people who are born in other EU countries and many Irish people may be married to, going out with or otherwise connected to other EU nationals who might just automatically look towards Poland, Netherlands, Spain, France etc?

As far as I'm aware that stat for the UK is for people giving Irish addresses. Irish citizens have absolutely no obligation whatsoever to register to live in Britian nor do UK citizens here (other than for tax / social welfare). We're seen as "non aliens" in each other's countries. The NHS doesn't ask for welfare / national insurance details as its open access - the EU's only contrary that doesn't require EHIC cards for example. You're treated because you showed up and are in need of treatment.

Oddly, despite Thatcher, it's survived like that.

Cabaal

martinjudge73 wrote: »

To be honest I am not interested in the image of a live child instead of a dead one.

You mean a fetus surely?
You consider this a child (4 weeks)? -

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/~/media/RWSCIM/WhoAmI/FindOutMore/A/Afourweekoldhumanembryo1-2-3-1-5-0-0-0-0-0-0.jpg

Pretty sure no properly educated medical Dr will agree with you, its a fetus. Not a child.

Metroboulot

I wonder in a referendum here though how many of the online people will be largely having the US debate.

I got the impression some of the No posters on here during the same sex marriage debate were perhaps engaged in the US media / online debates and didn't understand the modern Irish electorate's attitudes are probably way out of step with that.

It will be interesting to see what happens when a referendum on this is ultimately called.

lazygal

The phrases used by those who opposed marriage equality were exactly what I expected, using the US playbook. I see the same with the stock phrases of prominent prolifers. It's like playing bingo seeing them all use and repeas the same terms.

Cabaal

Metroboulot wrote: »

It will be interesting to see what happens when a referendum on this is ultimately called.

Agreed,
Bottom line is we put the issue to a vote so the people of Ireland can decide this matter.

Thats a reasonable request,

volchitsa

lazygal wrote: »

The phrases used by those who opposed marriage equality were exactly what I expected, using the US playbook. I see the same with the stock phrases of prominent prolifers. It's like playing bingo seeing them all use and repeas the same terms.

True. One of the things I notice is the regular use of "mom", which makes me think many of the online posters may actually be in the US. And so will not be voting here.

lazygal

volchitsa wrote: »

True. One of the things I notice is the regular use of "mom", which makes me think many of the online posters may actually be in the US. And so will not be voting here.

One person from Iona uses 'daycare' all the time, when most people here would call it childcare. Tells me exactly where he's getting most of his information and speaking notes.

Cabaal

lazygal wrote: »

One person from Iona uses 'daycare' all the time, when most people here would call it childcare. Tells me exactly where he's getting most of his information and speaking notes.

I know numerous people that work in creches and I've never once, not ever heard them say daycare. (not to mention any sisters etc that have kids in creches that never use the term daycare)
Its def not a common term in Ireland by any stretch,

Metroboulot

volchitsa wrote: »

True. One of the things I notice is the regular use of "mom", which makes me think many of the online posters may actually be in the US. And so will not be voting here.

Or people who just watch too much telly and think they're in the OC.

lazygal

Cabaal wrote: »

I know numerous people that work in creches and I've never once, not ever heard them say daycare. (not to mention any sisters etc that have kids in creches that never use the term daycare)
Its def not a common term in Ireland by any stretch,

I have two children in 'daycare'. I have never heard any of my friends use the term for their childcare arrangements, ever.

Metroboulot

lazygal wrote: »

I have two children in 'daycare'. I have never heard any of my friends use the term for their childcare arrangements, ever.

Nor have I. It stands out like "oh darn I've just dropped my cellphone in my soda!"

lazygal

Metroboulot wrote: »

Nor have I. It stands out like "oh darn I've just dropped my cellphone in my soda!"

Boy howdy you sound like a goofball. Lemme see if I have a wetwipe in my fannypack.

frostyjacks

Cabaal wrote: »

Just on yesterdays question...has a pregnancy happened out of rape.

Yes, on the Island of Ireland just recently,

http://www.thejournal.ie/arrest-12-year-old-pregnant-west-belfast-2372731-Oct2015/



Still think abortion in cases of rape is wrong?

Yes, I do. We're talking about a life here, a living thing that has rights, irrespective of how it was conceived. Who gave you the right to say who should live or die?

PopePalpatine

The girl is also a living thing, but you seem to care little about her. Then again, I'm not surprised.

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

Yes, I do. We're talking about a life here, a living thing that has rights, irrespective of how it was conceived. Who gave you the right to say who should live or die?

Oh you're back. Any information on forced abortions? Do born women and children have any rights to their health not being affected by forced gestation?

volchitsa

frostyjacks wrote: »

Yes, I do. We're talking about a life here, a living thing that has rights, irrespective of how it was conceived. Who gave you the right to say who should live or die?

Normal English grammar requires that we use the relative pronoun "what" about a "thing", with "who" being reserved for people.

It's indicative of your schizophrenic approach to the issue that you can't even be consistent within a single sentence. :rolleyes:

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

Yes, I do. We're talking about a life here, a living thing that has rights, irrespective of how it was conceived. Who gave you the right to say who should live or die?

You've decided to give it alot less rights at 24hrs old then it does at 1 week old, who made you executioner? Hell, you've given more rights to a 4 week old bunch of cells then to the health and mental well being of any women.

In my book, a living, breathing child or women who is pregnant takes priority over a 4 week old fetus every single time. No question about it.

If they want an abortion I'll support them in anyway I can,

frostyjacks

I guess it's about equality. We made the front pages around the world in the summer when we added equality into the constitution. Now the same cheerleaders are looking to remove rights from the constitution because it doesn't fit in with their agenda.

Shrap

frostyjacks wrote: »

I guess it's about equality. We made the front pages around the world in the summer when we added equality into the constitution. Now the same cheerleaders are looking to remove rights from the constitution because it doesn't fit in with their agenda.

So according to our resident proponents of the status quo, so far today the reasons we want to change the constitution are a) so the likes of some numbskull can get a nose job and b) so that we can even up putting something IN the constitution by taking something else OUT.

It seems to have genuinely escaped both of you that this standard of thinking is very much indicative of how you reach the conclusion that an adult women is on a par with a (say, 4 - 9 week old) human embryo, which has more in common with a dog/cow/chicken embryo than it does with a newborn baby.

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

I guess it's about equality. We made the front pages around the world in the summer when we added equality into the constitution. Now the same cheerleaders are looking to remove rights from the constitution because it doesn't fit in with their agenda.

This is the latest guff from people like Cora Sherlock, that the eighth amendment is the original equality amendment. How is compulsory gestation for all pregnant women and children equality of any kind?

frostyjacks

lazygal wrote: »

This is the latest guff from people like Cora Sherlock, that the eighth amendment is the original equality amendment. How is compulsory gestation for all pregnant women and children equality of any kind?

An equal right to life. Why is that such a difficult concept for some to grasp?

Shrap

frostyjacks wrote: »

An equal right to life. Why is that such a difficult concept for some to grasp?

Jesus H.

Because it's this life:

an adult woman

And this life:

a (say, 4 - 9 week old) human embryo, which has more in common with a dog/cow/chicken embryo than it does with a newborn baby

that you're trying to equate.




Like I said, you're deliberately missing something there in your thinking.

Pherekydes

frostyjacks wrote: »

An equal right to life. Why is that such a difficult concept for some to grasp?

Why would blastocysts and embryos have an equal right to life with a fully grown adult man?

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

An equal right to life. Why is that such a difficult concept for some to grasp?

But there is no equal right to life. If a woman's life is at risk her life is the priority. And the unborn can be taken elsewhere to be killed. Should the rights to travel and information be repealed?

Shrap

Pherekydes wrote: »

Why would blastocysts and embryos have an equal right to life with a fully grown adult man?

Ah sure, that's an easy one from his position I'd imagine. Of course!! (although as it will never be put to the test....it's an easy thing to say)

martinjudge73

lazygal wrote: »

I know lots of expats and non natives who don't want to relocate here because of the health and education systems, both of which are far too influenced by policies and laws of a bygone age. I am seriously doubtful about having another child in Ireland if, even when I'm dead, the state has more say over my uterus than I do.

I work for a multinational. There have been dozens of expats here. they have nothing but praise for Ireland. 67,462 babies born here last year.

We have nine maternal deaths per 100,000 live births.

So despite what pro-choice amnesty int media briefings say.. we have not way near the bottom of the league or anywhere near it.

Its safer to have a child in Ireland than the USA, and no worse that the UK.

We are not letting women die in Ireland.

Infact I happen to work with many americans who come here for assignments and they always comment of the pro-family environment. They liked the primary schools, while their kids were not Catholic, the school got a protestant pastor to give religion class.

So I can tell you 100% the abortion is not a hinderance for investment into Ireland at all. Its TAX , nothing more or less.

Shrap

martinjudge73 wrote: »

So I can tell you 100% the abortion is not a hinderance for investment into Ireland at all. Its TAX , nothing more or less.

Your thinking is skewed in one direction only. Your's. In my experience (like others on this thread) people I know have stated to me that they wouldn't be inclined to move here, despite the gorgeous country and people. The reason? Women's choice restrictions. I realise that my thinking is also skewed towards choice and people I meet are generally of a mind with me. Like the people you meet are of a mind with you. However, in the broader world, Ireland is absolutely seen as a restrictive culture for a woman of reproductive age to live, and that has nothing to do with who you or I are meeting and everything to do with choice.

I note that you're not actually addressing my comment about you trivialising women's reasons for abortion and the lack of respect you've shown towards them?

martinjudge73

Shrap wrote: »

Your thinking is skewed in one direction only. Your's. In my experience (like others on this thread) people I know have stated to me that they wouldn't be inclined to move here, despite the gorgeous country and people. The reason? Women's choice restrictions. I realise that my thinking is also skewed towards choice and people I meet are generally of a mind with me. Like the people you meet are of a mind with you. However, in the broader world, Ireland is absolutely seen as a restrictive culture for a woman of reproductive age to live, and that has nothing to do with who you or I are meeting and everything to do with choice.

I note that you're not actually addressing my comment about you trivialising women's reasons for abortion and the lack of respect you've shown towards them?

My thinking is based on the facts. To say that companies can't get people to come to Ireland because we don't have abortion because it would put women at risk is a lie, and the facts don't back this up. Our constitution and laws don't put womens life at risk. Just because women like josie cunningham can't have an abortion on demand so they can have a nose job, does not mean that women are at risk in Ireland because we give the child and mother the right to life.

PopePalpatine

On the flip side to Josie Cunningham, you have Savita Halappanavar, along with thousands of women who've either been raped, are at the serious risk of damage to their mental/physical health or have had their foetus diagnosed with a fatal/severely life-limiting abnormality.

martinjudge73

frostyjacks wrote: »

I guess it's about equality. We made the front pages around the world in the summer when we added equality into the constitution. Now the same cheerleaders are looking to remove rights from the constitution because it doesn't fit in with their agenda.

Exactly.. We are unique. We are the ONLY country that gave our spectacular gay people the right to marry. (Very proud day for Ireland... ) that does not have on demand abortion. We value human life in all is shapes and forms.. big and small.
Labour is running away with itself.. Which I support GM.. I would never support abortion on demand.

PopePalpatine

I honestly feel sorry for your daughters if they feel like they can't continue with a pregnancy, knowing that Daddy will disown them.

lazygal

martinjudge73 wrote: »

My thinking is based on the facts. To say that companies can't get people to come to Ireland because we don't have abortion because it would put women at risk is a lie, and the facts don't back this up. Our constitution and laws don't put womens life at risk. Just because women like josie cunningham can't have an abortion on demand so they can have a nose job, does not mean that women are at risk in Ireland because we give the child and mother the right to life.

What about the risks to health of pregnancy and birth? You don't care about what they are I suppose. Or the unborn brought elsewhere to be killed.

martinjudge73

lazygal wrote: »

What about the risks to health of pregnancy and birth? You don't care about what they are I suppose. Or the unborn brought elsewhere to be killed.

Doctors are trained to manage risk. If there is a threat to the mothers life they will terminate the pregnancy. Its already happening. We already have these procedures that are classed as an abortion. The main distinction is that nobody set out to harm the child, its still respected. However the mothers life has an equal right.

Women are not dying in ireland because we dont have on demand abortion.

lazygal

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Doctors are trained to manage risk. If there is a threat to the mothers life they will terminate the pregnancy. Its already happening. We already have these procedures that are classed as an abortion. The main distinction is that nobody set out to harm the child, its still respected. However the mothers life has an equal right.

Women are not dying in ireland because we dont have on demand abortion.

Women are travelling for abortion in cases of a risk to their health. Is that acceptable to.you?

martinjudge73

lazygal wrote: »

Women are travelling for abortion in cases of a risk to their health. Is that acceptable to.you?

People travel all the time... Our laws are for our land. We can stand for all human rights in ireland, born, unborn, gay, straight, black, white.. We can be the most inclusive society. We have one of the only constitutions what protects all human rights.

volchitsa

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Doctors are trained to manage risk. If there is a threat to the mothers life they will terminate the pregnancy. Its already happening. We already have these procedures that are classed as an abortion. The main distinction is that nobody set out to harm the child, its still respected. However the mothers life has an equal right.

Women are not dying in ireland because we dont have on demand abortion.

The law specifically doesn't allow termination, even when there is no hope of a living baby, and even when the woman is likely to end up injured by continuing the pregnancy. Only when the risk is to their life, but not to their health, can doctors legally terminate.

So is it acceptable to you for women to be left alive but permanently damaged because of a doomed pregnancy, when her health could be saved by an earlier termination?

lazygal

martinjudge73 wrote: »

People travel all the time... Our laws are for our land. We can stand for all human rights in ireland, born, unborn, gay, straight, black, white.. We can be the most inclusive society. We have one of the only constitutions what protects all human rights.

We prevent people travelling to abuse born children, yet have constitutionally protected the right of women to travel to kill the unborn, which are supposed to be protected under our constitution. Do you see any contradiction in that?

martinjudge73

volchitsa wrote: »

The law specifically doesn't allow termination, even when there is no hope of a living baby, and even when the woman is likely to end up injured by continuing the pregnancy. Only when the risk is to their life, but not to their health, can doctors legally terminate.

So is it acceptable to you for women to be left alive but permanently damaged because of a doomed pregnancy, when her health could be saved by an earlier termination?

So you want to use that argument to the likes of Josie cunningham can have an abortion so she can get a nose job?

My father destroyed my life.. I have the scars, would it justify me killing him?

lazygal

martinjudge73 wrote: »

So you want to use that argument to the likes of Josie cunningham can have an abortion so she can get a nose job?

My father destroyed my life.. I have the scars, would it justify me killing him?

Why are you so concerned about the reasons for abortion? If a woman wants an abortion she can have one if she can travel. All you're doing is making a necessary medical procedure more difficult and expensive. You're not helping the unborn in the slightest by your intransigence on the eighth amendment.

martinjudge73

lazygal wrote: »

Why are you so concerned about the reasons for abortion? If a woman wants an abortion she can have one if she can travel. All you're doing is making a necessary medical procedure more difficult and expensive. You're not helping the unborn in the slightest by your intransigence on the eighth amendment.

Call it what you like, but and unborn child is still a child.

I am concerned about the laws of our land. That we dont de-humanise our children into possible medical waste on irish soil.

lazygal

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Call it what you like, but and unborn child is still a child.

I am concerned about the laws of our land. That we dont de-humanise our children into possible medical waste on irish soil.

So the main thing isn't stopping women and children having abortions, it's about not having them able to have them in Ireland. I thought as much.

frostyjacks

We can only control our own laws. If women want to travel to foreign countries to kill their children, that's on them. Doesn't mean we should change our laws to suit them.

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

We can only control our own laws. If women want to travel to foreign countries to kill their children, that's on them. Doesn't mean we should change our laws to suit them.

Should we prosecute them on return after they've killed the unborn? Or prevent them from leaving to kill their unborn in the first place?

PopePalpatine

frostyjacks wrote: »

We can only control our own laws. If women want to travel to foreign countries to kill their children, that's on them. Doesn't mean we should change our laws to suit them.

If that's the case, why couldn't Bernadette Fleming travel to Dignitas?

volchitsa

martinjudge73 wrote: »

So you want to use that argument to the likes of Josie cunningham can have an abortion so she can get a nose job?

My father destroyed my life.. I have the scars, would it justify me killing him?

But the likes of Josie Cunningham can have an abortion already, by going to the UK, and her right to do so is protected by the constitution. So that's a completely irrelevant objection. My point is about women with genuine health issues, not about women who want nose jobs.

Is it acceptable to you that our laws specify that a woman should have to lose her health even when the baby can't be saved, yet the Josie Cunninghams of Ireland are legally entitled to abortions if they want them?

martinjudge73

volchitsa wrote: »

But the likes of Josie Cunningham can have an abortion already, by going to the UK, and her right to do so is protected by the constitution. So that's a completely irrelevant objection. My point is about women with genuine health issues, not about women who want nose jobs.

Is it acceptable to you that our laws specify that a woman should have to lose her health even when the baby can't be saved, yet the Josie Cunninghams of Ireland are legally entitled to abortions if they want them?

This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state.
This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.

Women travel.. The laws of our land are for our land.

Doctors are not sitting around while a pregnant womens life is deteriorating. they manage these risks in Ireland all the time. Your argument is a wedge that comes up again and again to bring in abortion on demand.

A 2004 study by the Guttmacher Institute indicates that only 4% of women who had an abortion cited concern for their own health as the primary reason for seeking an abortion. Maternal health concerns covered a broad range of “conditions,” including gestational diabetes and morning sickness, both of which are naturally occurring physiological reactions to pregnancy. Most commonly, women cited “feeling too ill during the pregnancy to work or take care of children” as their primary health concern.

lazygal

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Women travel.. The laws of our land are for our land.

Doctors are not sitting around while a pregnant womens life is deteriorating. they manage these risks in Ireland all the time. Your argument is a wedge that comes up again and again to bring in abortion on demand.

So once again, you're not the slightest bit concerned about the women and children travelling to kill the unborn or the health risks faced faced by those who can't travel. Once I don't die while pregnant, the other risks don't matter.
It's also pathetic that you cite a section of a report that suggests women are lazy and feckless when they choose abortion. Having never been pregnant you'll have no idea of how debilitating it can be. I'm sure you'll now trot out stories of all the women you know who had no issues at all or powered through astonishing adversity while pregnant as some sort of reasoning for keeping women second class citizens when pregnant.

martinjudge73

lazygal wrote: »

So once again, you're not the slightest bit concerned about the women and children travelling to kill the unborn or the health risks faced faced by those who can't travel. Once I don't die while pregnant, the other risks don't matter.

We all know that the argument for abortion is not about health risks.. So lets be honest. 95%+ of abortions in the Uk are only elective. The child has downs syndrome or another genetic defect (Zero risk to the mother) Or its the wrong gender.

• Having a baby would dramatically change my life Would interfere with education
• Would interfere with job/employment/career Have other children or dependents
• Can’t afford a baby now
• Unmarried
• Student or planning to study Can’t afford a baby and child care Can’t afford the basic needs of life Unemployed
• Can’t leave job to take care of a baby
• Would have to find a new place to live
• Not enough support from husband or partner Husband or partner is unemployed
• Currently or temporarily on welfare or public assistance
• Don’t want to be a single mother or having relationship problems Not sure about relationship
• Partner and I can’t or don’t want to get married
• Not in a relationship right now
• Relationship or marriage may break up soon
• Husband or partner is abusive to me or my children Have completed my childbearing
• Not ready for a(nother) child†
• Don’t want people to know I had sex or got pregnant Don’t feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus Physical problem with my health
• Parents want me to have an abortion Was a victim of rape
• Became pregnant as a result of incest

So lets get real about your arguments which are the extreme end of the wedge. Where does health risks feature in the list?


We already have abortion in Ireland when there is a threat to a mothers life.

lazygal

martinjudge73 wrote: »

We all know that the argument for abortion is not about health risks.. So lets be honest. 95%+ of abortions in the Uk are only elective. The child has downs syndrome or another genetic defect (Zero risk to the mother) Or its the wrong gender.

• Having a baby would dramatically change my life Would interfere with education
• Would interfere with job/employment/career Have other children or dependents
• Can’t afford a baby now
• Unmarried
• Student or planning to study Can’t afford a baby and child care Can’t afford the basic needs of life Unemployed
• Can’t leave job to take care of a baby
• Would have to find a new place to live
• Not enough support from husband or partner Husband or partner is unemployed
• Currently or temporarily on welfare or public assistance
• Don’t want to be a single mother or having relationship problems Not sure about relationship
• Partner and I can’t or don’t want to get married
• Not in a relationship right now
• Relationship or marriage may break up soon
• Husband or partner is abusive to me or my children Have completed my childbearing
• Not ready for a(nother) child†
• Don’t want people to know I had sex or got pregnant Don’t feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus Physical problem with my health
• Parents want me to have an abortion Was a victim of rape
• Became pregnant as a result of incest

So lets get real about your arguments which are the extreme end of the wedge. Where does health risks feature in the list?

Why is one reason for an abortion more valid than another? If a woman doesn't want to remain pregnant, I don't care how trivial some might think her reasons are. She should be able to access it as easily and early as possible in a safe manner. Why would I care about someone else's reproductive choices?
Let's get real. You don't care about the unborn, just about making sure abortion doesn't happen in Ireland.

martinjudge73

lazygal wrote: »

Why is one reason for an abortion more valid than another? If a woman doesn't want to remain pregnant, I don't care how trivial some might think her reasons are. She should be able to access it as easily and early as possible in a safe manner. Why would I care about someone else's reproductive choices?

Why should one unborn life have value and another not? Why should we take a step backwards and remove a human right in our constitution. A right that protected us as Irish citizens.