Strike For Repeal?

kylith

stefanovich wrote: »

Killing a perfectly viable foetus in the 2nd or 3rd trimester is not a health care procedure. You are murdering a baby.

That would be <8% of abortions then. And those carried out those points are either incompatible with life (calling parents who make the decision to travel to terminate when they know the child they wanted will live for hours (if at all) and potentially in agony 'murderers': very classy). And other procedures early in the second trimester being women who could not access abortion services earlier - like Irish women who have to save up to travel rather than being able to get a medical abortion from their GP as soon as they find out they're pregnant.

jameorahiely wrote: »

I don't think that poster was on about rapists. But portraying women as victims who didn't have a choice in becoming pregnant in a consenual relationship.

75-85% of rape victims decide not to abort their babies in the study I'm looking at here. The pri repealers like to use them to push their agenda under the presumption that 100% will want to abort.

The anti-repealers want to use the 75% to push their agenda under the presumption that 100% won't want to abort.

If those women don't want to abort then that is their choice. What about the 15-25% who do want to terminate? They don't have a choice.

nozzferrahhtoo

farmerwifelet wrote: »

for me it breaks down like this - before it has a heart capable of beating its just potential. If it has a beating heart then leave it be.

What is so special about heart beats? Our entire meat industry kills things with heart beats every day. Clearly therefore there is something deeper than merely "heart beats" going on when discussing the ethics of abortion.

farmerwifelet wrote: »

There are many options out there. Seriously how hard is it to use a contraceptive?

Anyone with even 101 level education in sexual reproduction and contraception will inform you that they fail, often. And also not all pregnancies are from consensual sex either. So it really is a much more complex issue than the simplistic dismissal of it you wish to pedal.

Tigger wrote: »

Lots of words

That tends to happen on complex issues. A lot of people would LIKE an issue like this to be reducable to a sound bite. Alas there is just too much depth, nuance, execptions and information there to allow that to happen.

Tigger wrote: »

24 week old babies should only be aborted if they have fatal abnormal issues

IDEALLY yes. Which is one good reason to ensure that the options, information, and more available to women allows them to access the choices they want to make in a safe and timely manner. There are all kinds of reasons to want any abortions that are happening to happen earlier in the process. Not least because 12-13 weeks is around the window after which post-abortion complications start to rise both in quantity AND severity.

If abortions happen, then ideally they should be happening in or before week 12 and as early as possible. Which, thankfully, IS when over 90% of people choosing abortion actually have them. And according to statistics from people like Gutmacher.... the vast majority of the <10% who do go later........ report wishing they had accessed it sooner.

Tigger wrote: »

You think the weirdos that compare same sex realationships with incest etc compare to people that feel that late second trimester abortions ? Well f you very much! It's people like you that will push the middle into voting to keep the 8th because they'd rather see woman having to travel than viable babies being killed.

I genuinely can not parse this paragraph at all. Not to dismiss or ignore you or dodge any coherent reply. I simply genuinely do not know what your point actually is here. The most I can get from it is that you take some kind of emotive exception to a comparison you feel I have made. But which one, and why, I genuinely can not parse out of this.

If you would do me the courtesy of trying again, I would appreciate it.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I mean assuming you take the two main precautions, a condom and the pill, the chances of becoming pregnant are minute at best.

"minute" tells only half the story when working with large numbers however. Even if 0.1% of sexual intercourse with both contraceptive methods result in a pregnancy, you have to multiply that 0.1% by a large number of events. Even with a low probability you still get a large quantity of unplanned pregnancies from a large event pool.

That said though I think we over simplify things when we talk about people merely not bothering to use contraception at the time. Education fails sometimes. Peer pressure and other things happen. It is not mere laziness or incompetence that solely results in people not using contraception correctly, or at all. Ignorance, manipulation, error and more come into play quite often too.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I've already said I think rape, fatal fetal abnormalities and serious risk to the mother's life should be circumstances in which an exception is made.

I've already said that I do not think you could implement a workable exception for rape that either made abortion inaccessible at one extreme, or functionally identical to "abortion on demand" at the other. I share the IDEAL that such exceptions should be made, but I am merely pessimistic as to our ability to actually do so in an effective and useful manner.

I am genuinely interested to hear ideas on how this could be, or in other places IS, implemented. Clearly waiting for a conviction is not useful, as they can take weeks or months to obtain. Operating off the application for a conviction could incentivize false rape accusations from people wanting abortions. While merely taking a woman's word for it she was raped would be functionally equivalent to abortion on demand anyway..... as people can happily lie.

stefanovich wrote: »

Age of consent is 17 here so in both cases you would be a sex criminal.

I certainly admire your pedantry Two minor points however. A) I am likely not in the same "here" as you are and The correction does not in even the smallest way modify my point anyway.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The unborn has that right on the basis of it being enshrined in the Irish Constitution. That's what this thread is about - whether or not to repeal the 8th amendment.

Amazing how often I end up having to explain this to you. I am not talking about the actual current legal reality of it. I am talking about the ideal situation we should be working towards WHILE changing any laws on the issue. And my point was to ask on what basis is it we are seeking to afford moral or ethical concern, or rights, to such a fetus.

So when someone says "Why are we doing X" and you reply with "Well in the current reality we are doing X"...... you are somewhat talking past the questioner and ignoring the question.

I see no way to discuss whether to change a law, without having a discussion on what our goals and ideals are while changing the law.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

At the risk of stating the obvious, but your idea of a just society is clearly not the same as other people's idea of a just society.

At the risk of stating the obvious, I did not suggest otherwise. I was espousing MY opinion of a just society and your ongoing need to post "That is just your opinion" style posts just to flesh out the length of your own is not really going to move any conversation forward.

Certainly however I invite discussion on the matter. If our ultimate goal is not to maximize the well being of sentient entities then I am open to discussion on what "just" "morality" "ethics" and all those things even mean.

I am all for maximizing the well being of sentient entities. Some people, it seems, are just for the goal of maximizing the quantity of sentient entities, regardless. I am open to hearing arguments to support such a goal, were any actually forthcoming however.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your moral compass is no reflection of Irish society.

I would not presume to think you a source of information on what is, or is not. That would be what this entire debate would be for, and any associated votes put to the electorate. Have you anything to add except, as I already said, merely saying "That is just your opinion" in as many different ways as you can phrase it?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I can't see anyone who just doesn't want to give birth or have a child waiting until so late into their pregnancy to get it done.

I agree. The VAST majority, like really over 90% vast, do not wait until later stages at all. And while I think we can validly argue for later term abortions than actually happen (good arguments, as I keep pointing out to Outlaw Pete, exist up to 24 week and sometimes even beyond) I think it entirely superfluous to requirements to do so. Even a 16, or even only week 12, limitation would fit requirements.

To partake of the devils avocado salad however....... and to answer your rhetorical question of "Why in God's name would somebody who wanted an abortion for a non-medical / unforeseen reason wait until six months into their pregnancy to get one?"....... I can only assume that their reasons are the same as those who seek one at 12 weeks.

In that we can not assume the reasons are in place at the "right" time. Any reasons a woman having an abortion by choice at 9 weeks could suddenly come into play at 22 weeks. Financial reasons are common....... they can come into play later in the pregnancy. Single parenthood? That too.

I think one would be hard pushed to list all the valid reasons women seek abortions at 9 weeks with....... and find things on that list that could not suddenly come into play later in the process even if they were not there at the start.

Facts, data and circumstances all change DURING pregnancies as well as before them. We can not assume they are all in place and fixed from day 1.

But I do not think this is enough, nor the quantities enough, to justify us actually seeking term limits that late on in the process. At least not unless we could implement some kind of "late term reviews" process that instead of saying Abortions < 16 weeks good, > 16 weeks bad....... could have a more nuanced < X weeks without further review > X weeks with review until > Y weeks simply not a service we offer.

farmerwifelet

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What is so special about heart beats? Our entire meat industry kills things with heart beats every day. Clearly therefore there is something deeper than merely "heart beats" going on when discussing the ethics of abortion.



Anyone with even 101 level education in sexual reproduction and contraception will inform you that they fail, often. And also not all pregnancies are from consensual sex either. So it really is a much more complex issue than the simplistic dismissal of it you wish to pedal.

Yes we eat meat. Tend not to eat babies not really into cannibalism. Too much risk of cjd. Most contraceptives have a very high success rate, percentages in the high 90's. Most times "failure" is actually human error. Not using barrier methods when oral contraceptives are impaired by antibiotic use, sickness etc. So i do still advocate taking a morning after pill if someone thinks it has failed. Maybe blaming the pill or the ripped condom is easier than taking personal responsibility. But if taking reasonable adult decisions and being responsible when it comes to reproduction and sex is beyond people maybe they need a better education? that level 101 stuff is letting them down.

Its not just "mere" heartbeats. You can argue about when life starts all day but a heartbeat is usually a requirement for living but maybe i missed that in 101? Pulse tends to be the first thing doctors look for and respiration. Lack of heartbeat in my rather simplistic view generally indicates lack of life. Maybe that isn't deep enough for you?

Oh and the first thing I said was in the case of rape, incest or fatal abnormalities abortion should be on the table. But let's not let that get in the way of a good ol rant. The only thing I pedal is a bicycle.

jameorahiely

farmerwifelet wrote: »

Yes we eat meat. Tend not to eat babies not really into cannibalism. Too much risk of cjd. Most contraceptives have a very high success rate, percentages in the high 90's. Most times "failure" is actually human error. Not using barrier methods when oral contraceptives are impaired by antibiotic use, sickness etc. So i do still advocate taking a morning after pill if someone thinks it has failed. Maybe blaming the pill or the ripped condom is easier than taking personal responsibility. But if taking reasonable adult decisions and being responsible when it comes to reproduction and sex is beyond people maybe they need a better education? that level 101 stuff is letting them down.

Its not just "mere" heartbeats. You can argue about when life starts all day but a heartbeat is usually a requirement for living but maybe i missed that in 101? Pulse tends to be the first thing doctors look for and respiration. Lack of heartbeat in my rather simplistic view generally indicates lack of life. Maybe that isn't deep enough for you?

Oh and the first thing I said was in the case of rape, incest or fatal abnormalities abortion should be on the table. But let's not let that get in the way of a good ol rant. The only thing I pedal is a bicycle.

Lol @ the 101

The pro repeal side are a parody of themselves at this stage. Talking about abortion proceedures, providers, consent and safeguarding is "being shrill" but a post about masturbation gets them all tripping over themselves to thank it.


101 indeed! :pac:

stefanovich

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And the morning after pill should be banned as well I presume? And condoms should require a prescription, while sex other than in the missionary position for the purposes of procreation should be regarded as unnatural? :rolleyes:

Not at all. Condoms and morning after pill. You are dealing with it in a timely manner that results in no suffering. Abortion equals mental and physical pain for both mother and baby.

__Alex__ wrote: »

Please think of the logistics of that. How many murders happen in Ireland every year versus women travelling for abortions? And then onto proving that the termination happened. Sounds like a sensible use of Garda time.

Yes, murder is a good use of their time alright.

kylith wrote: »

That would be <8% of abortions then. And those carried out those points are either incompatible with life (calling parents who make the decision to travel to terminate when they know the child they wanted will live for hours (if at all) and potentially in agony 'murderers': very classy). And other procedures early in the second trimester being women who could not access abortion services earlier - like Irish women who have to save up to travel rather than being able to get a medical abortion from their GP as soon as they find out they're pregnant.


The anti-repealers want to use the 75% to push their agenda under the presumption that 100% won't want to abort.

If those women don't want to abort then that is their choice. What about the 15-25% who do want to terminate? They don't have a choice.

Why didn't the 8% choose termination before the second trimester then? Remember, please, that I am talking about elective abortion of a viable healthy foetus.

nozzferrahhtoo

farmerwifelet wrote: »

Yes we eat meat. Tend not to eat babies not really into cannibalism.

That is a bit of a facetious and disingenuous non-reply to my point though. The point I am making is that when people point out "there is a heart beat there"....... the fact that we do not mediate morality on heart beats in other contexts suggests there is more at play here than mere heart beats.

I understand a lot of people want easy lines in the sand they can draw when it comes to abortion. Some arbitrary easily phrased, easy explained, easily detected line in the sand they can choose to go with. "Conception" "Heart beat" and so forth are examples of this.

But when we dig into it, the actual arguments for using those points..... other than merely for ease and convenience....... are far from robust, if they exist at all. And given the importance of this issue, I think we should resist mere ease and convenience when considering it.

farmerwifelet wrote: »

Most contraceptives have a very high success rate, percentages in the high 90's. Most times "failure" is actually human error.

Low failure rates however, as I explained to another user, only sound good on paper. But even a tiny failure rate is significant in a large event set. A failure rate of, say, 0.1% sounds tiny, but remains massively significant with a large multiplier. Tiny failure rates do not change the fact our society is full of a significant quantity of unwanted pregnancies.

farmerwifelet wrote: »

Maybe blaming the pill or the ripped condom is easier than taking personal responsibility. But if taking reasonable adult decisions and being responsible when it comes to reproduction and sex is beyond people maybe they need a better education? that level 101 stuff is letting them down.

And better education is one of the many things people like myself advocate for. We call often for better and MUCH earlier sex education in our schools for example quite often. Strangely, to me at least, the people most vocal about not wanting sex education early in schools are ALSO The people who seem to advocate against abortion being an option.

But what about "taking personal responsibility"? I see that as meaning a person who can sit down, consider the situation they are in, and consider and choose all the options open to them. NOT offering the choice of abortion is the opposite of them taking personal responsibility. It is US taking that responsibility for them and making, or precluding, choices on their behalf. If you are a fan of taking personal responsibility, that includes giving people the choices so that they can do so.

farmerwifelet wrote: »

Its not just "mere" heartbeats. You can argue about when life starts all day but a heartbeat is usually a requirement for living but maybe i missed that in 101?

It is one of MANY requirements for living, so choosing it and elevating it over all others is..... at best...... merely arbitrary. And as I said before, when you choose such a measurement but only apply it selectively...... then clearly something more is in play than what is being made explicit. When someone says heart beats are important, but they only appear to treat it as important in a SINGLE context......... then clearly something else is in play that is not being made explicit in the context. Rather, what is likely happening, is that they have made their choice for other reasons and then the heart beat was chosen retrospectively to rubber stamp it.

farmerwifelet wrote: »

Pulse tends to be the first thing doctors look for and respiration. Lack of heartbeat in my rather simplistic view generally indicates lack of life. Maybe that isn't deep enough for you?

Actually when calling death in a medical situation the heart beat is actually no longer used interestingly enough. It used to be, but it was changed. In fact I was only watching a video on another subject (organ donation) last month where this change was brought up and discussed. So not only is your selection of heart beat arbitrary.... it is also somewhat out of date too.

But remember also that the abortion debate is about morality, ethics and rights. And I think when you dig into those topics you find that we assign such things to more than mere "life" and heart beats. In those contexts we are talking about more than mere "life" as detectable by a pulse, but "human life" and "personhood" which are not measurable by a pulse, and are not in any way evidently present in a fetus.

farmerwifelet wrote: »

Oh and the first thing I said was in the case of rape, incest or fatal abnormalities abortion should be on the table. But let's not let that get in the way of a good ol rant. The only thing I pedal is a bicycle.

Perhaps you would be better throwing that level of snidery at people who are ranting then. But if you contrive to label any level of discourse as ranting, then you are going to look somewhat silly, as no one at my keyboard is ranting at all.

There are MANY issues with rape as an exception. Morally and functionally.

Morally you have the issue that IF the fetus has rights (thankfully in my view there is no reason to think it does, so it is not my problem) then one is on morally weak ground to say it should lose it's right to life because of a crime committed by not it, on a person who is not it. How many other contexts can you think of where X loses rights because Y committed a crime on Z?

Functionally you also have a problem as how is rape to be established for the exception to apply? A conviction? They can take weeks, months and sometimes longer to attain. The application for a conviction alone? Well that would incentivize false accusations just to satisfy procedure. What about just taking the woman's word for it by ticking a box on the application form? How would that be functionally different from abortion on demand given how easy it would be to lie?

I think "rape" is a convenient go to cop out for people against abortion who do not want to be seen as heartless or unreasonable. But both morally and functionally it does not appear adequate.

nozzferrahhtoo

stefanovich wrote: »

Not at all. Condoms and morning after pill. You are dealing with it in a timely manner that results in no suffering. Abortion equals mental and physical pain for both mother and baby.

Except no it does not. The VAST majority of abortions...... consistently over 90% to our east and to our west........... occur in or before week 12 of fetal development. There is literally no reason I am aware of at those stages to think the fetus experiences, or is in any way aware of, any level of pain at all. There is simply no one at home.

stefanovich wrote: »

Yes, murder is a good use of their time alright.

Anything to offer other than hyperbole and spin and propaganda driven misuse of language?

stefanovich wrote: »

Why didn't the 8% choose termination before the second trimester then?

Perhaps because it is only in a fantasy land that the reasons and motivations to seek abortion are in place on the day that a woman finds out she is pregnant?

There are MANY reasons women give for seeking abortions. And those reasons are not always in play the day she finds out she is pregnant. Many people chose abortion because they are not in a social, economic, or relationship status that is conducive to having and rearing a child.

However many people ARE in such a situation when they find they are pregnant but then that situation changes. They lose their income. Their partner leaves. Or any other number of circumstances change.

So the reason why people might choose an abortion later in the process are numerous, but often are the same reasons as those who do it earlier....... but those reasons came into play later.

rainbow kirby

stefanovich wrote: »

Why didn't the 8% choose termination before the second trimester then? Remember, please, that I am talking about elective abortion of a viable healthy foetus.

Finding out late (irregular cycle can make your dates be all over the place etc - because of my own irregular cycle I was already seven and a half weeks along when I found out I was expecting my son), having to save money for a procedure/travel/accomodation (which is still a factor even in the UK, someone in NI, the Shetlands, Isle of Man etc is not exactly going to have a clinic on their doorstep), mental health issues, escaping an abusive situation... there are many reasons.

__Alex__

stefanovich wrote: »

Yes, murder is a good use of their time alright.

Oh, I was just getting started. If abortion became illegal worldwide, the numbers of abortion would drop but would still be in the thousands in Ireland. Women always did abort and always will. I'd imagine abortion pills would move to the fore.

So let's think about this for a second. A woman is known to be pregnant. It is known she has procured illegal abortion pills. It is known that she is now no longer pregnant. Slam dunk? Well, no. Even with the procurement of abortion pills, the pregnancy might still have ended naturally. So one would need to investigate further to ascertain that the pills ended the pregnancy. I don't know if this is even possible. So she could be sanctioned for procuring the pills but I would imagine proving that they ended the pregnancy might be a lot harder.

Now, multiply that above scenario by a thousand. Does this seem workable to you and a good use of Garda time?

crystal hedgehog

So you think one's worth is determined by how old you are rather than being intrinsic because of one's humanity? That's what the Nazis thought as well!It is a eugencist mindset that human worth has to be earned. It does not. Every human is intricsically worthy and valuable from conception to natural death, we do not have to earn our worth.Some people do forfeit it by harming and killing others, such as school shooters in America and terrorists whilst they are in the process of committing their crimes. We do not even execute convicted murderers here so you are also saying a murderer is more valuable that a very tiny human being who is innocent. What a sick and disgusting philosophy, Dr.Menegle would love it!

nozzferrahhtoo

crystal hedgehog wrote: »

So you think one's worth is determined by how old you are rather than being intrinsic because of one's humanity?

Not clear who you are responding to here?

crystal hedgehog wrote: »

Every human is intricsically worthy and valuable from conception to natural death

To you. However you are not offering any basis here for that assertion so I am not seeing why that should be the value judgement of anyone else. I think it is something else that has intrinsic worth, that happens to be in play in humans but could be found or created elsewhere in our universe too. The human hardware it happens to be running on is irrelevant.

Hande hoche!

Nazi Germany was more liberal on abortion than its Weimar counterpart. You learn something new every day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Germany

Pherekydes

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Nazi Germany was more liberal on abortion than its Weimar counterpart. You learn something new every day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Germany

The Nazis were opposed to aborting healthy Aryan foetuses.

RobertKK

26/06/1935 - Compulsory abortions for 'hereditarily ill' women

Amendment to the Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Progeny enables compulsory abortions to be carried out on 'hereditarily ill women or women who become pregnant by a hereditarily ill partner' up to 6 months into their pregnancy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/genocide/nazi_genocide_timeline_noflash.shtml

I can imagine with DNA testing now, that the number of people not allowed to breed would be far higher.