The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

AtomicHorror

infogiver wrote: »

Just not Downs Syndrome

That's a fair point, the rates of DS are lower in countries with abortion.

I think that indicates a serious problem with how we perceive special needs, how we support parents and children after birth and throughout life. If society makes raising a DS child difficult, abortion rates for DS pregnancies will be high.

RayM

RobertKK wrote: »

Meltdown on twitter by Repealthe8th people.

I follow a lot of pro-repeal people on Twitter and I'm not seeing any meltdown.

Renua aren't happy:

BabyCheeses

RayM wrote: »

I follow a lot of pro-repeal people on Twitter and I'm not seeing any meltdown.

Renua aren't happy:

But it would mean when they are in control they can protect the little babies. Surely that's great for them? Assuming they still exist at that point.

AtomicHorror

judeboy101 wrote: »

north korea and sudan have abortion ( better abortion than our own regime) but dont do Special olympics So it cant be ALL countries, can it?

And is there a general correlation between abortion rates and level of participation or are these two pretty unusual countries that suited your position?

I withdraw the hyperbole then and correct: Plenty of countries with ready access to abortion participate fully in the Special Olympics.

RayM

BabyCheeses wrote: »

But it would mean when they are in control they can protect the little babies. Surely that's great for them? Assuming they still exist at that point.

I forgot they existed at all, tbh.

judeboy101

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That's a fair point, the rates of DS are lower in countries with abortion.

I think that indicates a serious problem with how we perceive special needs, how we support parents and children after birth and throughout life. If society makes raising a DS child difficult, abortion rates for DS pregnancies will be high.

Denmark and Iceland have made it public policy to be DS free by a particular date. the increasing popularity, accuracy and detail provided by early 1st trimester blood screening e.g harmony test can only lead us down a very scary road.

AtomicHorror

RayM wrote: »

I follow a lot of pro-repeal people on Twitter and I'm not seeing any meltdown. [/IMG]

There was some initial dismay at the vote on ballot 2, but ballot 3 basically revealed the true intention there- to give us repeal with bonus extras.

AtomicHorror

judeboy101 wrote: »

Denmark and Iceland have made it public policy to be DS free by a particular date. the increasing popularity, accuracy and detail provided by early 1st trimester blood screening e.g harmony test can only lead us down a very scary road.

That's no more the fault of abortion than heroin addiction is the fault of syringes. There's a bigger picture and a broader discussion to be had. The tool is not the cause.

judeboy101

AtomicHorror wrote: »

And is there a general correlation between abortion rates and level of participation or are these two pretty unusual countries that suited your position?

I withdraw the hyperbole then and correct: Plenty of countries with ready access to abortion participate fully in the Special Olympics.

there is a correlation between abortion rates and participints with particular syndromes that are identifiable in early pregnancy e.g DS

AtomicHorror

judeboy101 wrote: »

there is a correlation between abortion rates and participints with particular syndromes that are identifiable in early pregnancy e.g DS

I refer to my previous post. The tool is not the cause. It is our cultural attitudes towards disability that drives this.

eviltwin

I'm very happy with the result today and hope we will get to have our say in a referendum. I think the result today shows an evolving Ireland that maybe isn't quite as anti abortion as some like to think. I'd be very confident that abortion in cases of ffa and rape would pass easily in a referendum, not sure about on demand but it would be close. Pro life campaigners will lose public support if they go after parents affected by ffa and rape victims. Regardless of any outcome I just hope we finally get a chance for this generation to voice it's opinion.

AtomicHorror

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm very happy with the result today and hope we will get to have our say in a referendum. I think the result today shows an evolving Ireland that maybe isn't quite as anti abortion as some like to think. I'd be very confident that abortion in cases of ffa and rape would pass easily in a referendum, not sure about on demand but it would be close. Pro life campaigners will lose public support if they go after parents affected by ffa and rape victims. Regardless of any outcome I just hope we finally get a chance for this generation to voice it's opinion.

Well the people won't get to directly vote on rape/ffa- that'll presumably be in draft legislation at the time of the referendum. If they get their timing right.

It's a good day though

Akrasia

judeboy101 wrote: »

Denmark and Iceland have made it public policy to be DS free by a particular date. the increasing popularity, accuracy and detail provided by early 1st trimester blood screening e.g harmony test can only lead us down a very scary road.

A scary road where people don't have to live their lives with congenital birth defects?

Abortion should never be mandatory, and if denmark ever starts telling women that they have to abort their pregnancy or else face some kind of sanction, then this will be a bridge too far, but equally it is wrong to force a family to carry a foetus to term knowing that that the baby will have a life long incurable disease that may result in them requiring full time residential care for most of their lives.

judeboy101

Akrasia wrote: »

A scary road where people don't have to live their lives with congenital birth defects?

Abortion should never be mandatory, and if denmark ever starts telling women that they have to abort their pregnancy or else face some kind of sanction, then this will be a bridge too far, but equally it is wrong to force a family to carry a foetus to term knowing that that the baby will have a life long incurable disease that may result in them requiring full time residential care for most of their lives.

CF, Parkinsons, dementia, cancer (brac gene)....... incurable, but id rather have Michael J fox and Mohammed Ali, than not

judeboy101

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I refer to my previous post. The tool is not the cause. It is our cultural attitudes towards disability that drives this.

are you danish?, Denmark has a public policy to become DS free, and they have some of the best social and health care for special needs anywhere.

AtomicHorror

judeboy101 wrote: »

are you danish?, Denmark has a public policy to become DS free, and they have some of the best social and health care for special needs anywhere.

Heh, actually I am part Danish. But that's genetics, not culture.

Again, my point stands. The policy, the culture, these are not caused by the availability of abortion.

judeboy101 wrote: »

CF, Parkinsons, dementia, cancer (brac gene)....... incurable, but id rather have Michael J fox and Mohammed Ali, than not

Those diseases are all quite different to living with DS.

CF is treatable, though it shortens life. Parkinson's is not diagnosable via genetics alone- you can know there's a risk, but that's about it. Same with dementia and BRAC.

Anyway, seems like your argument is a potentiality kinda thing. As has been neatly summed elsewhere, plucking a seed from the ground is not cutting down a tree. Those people became who they are/were by living, they were not them in the womb. If they never were, we would know no better.

As well to wonder how many Michael J Foxes or Mohammed Alis were eliminated by the pill or caught in condoms or in that nasty sock you keep around. All "potential people". What of it?

AtomicHorror

64% support from the CA for abortion on demand. Surely, this could not possibly have gone better for the Repeal camp?

retro:electro

Have to laugh at the hypocrisy of the feminazi's on Twitter who yesterday lambasted the very idea of a Citizens Assembly, like omg the fact that they even matter is disgusting, how dare you have a say over what I do with my body bla. Now today omg thank god for the citizens assembly today is a good day woo girl power.

January

anna080 wrote: »

Have to laugh at the hypocrisy of the feminazi's on Twitter who yesterday lambasted the very idea of a Citizens Assembly, like omg the fact that they even matter is disgusting, how dare you have a say over what I do with my body bla. Now today omg thank god for the citizens assembly today is a good day woo girl power.

And the hypocrisy of the anti-choice side too. Yesterday it was all about 'wohoo the repeal side lost hahaha' now they've changed their tune.

Academic

Well, this seems pretty definitive:

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/citizens-assembly-calls-for-ireland-to-legalise-abortion-without-restriction-35646531.html

So what happens next? (I'm not asking what people would like to happen next, a question on which we already know there are deep differences so there's to need to re-hash that. I'm asking what people think will happen next.)

January

Academic wrote: »

Well, this seems pretty definitive:

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/citizens-assembly-calls-for-ireland-to-legalise-abortion-without-restriction-35646531.html

So what happens next? (I'm not asking what people would like to happen next, a question on which we already know there are deep differences so there's to need to re-hash that. I'm asking what people think will happen next.)

Report by the chairperson of the CA to be delivered to the Oireachtas committee by June. Oireachtas committee will the examine its findings and make a decision on a referendum.

Academic

January wrote: »

Report by the chairperson of the CA to be delivered to the Oireachtas committee by June. Oireachtas committee will the examine its findings and make a decision on a referendum.

Any guess regarding what their decision will be?

pjohnson

judeboy101 wrote: »

are you danish?, Denmark has a public policy to become DS free, and they have some of the best social and health care for special needs anywhere.

So is abortion mandatory?

Ken.

Academic wrote: »

Well, this seems pretty definitive:

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/citizens-assembly-calls-for-ireland-to-legalise-abortion-without-restriction-35646531.html

So what happens next? (I'm not asking what people would like to happen next, a question on which we already know there are deep differences so there's to need to re-hash that. I'm asking what people think will happen next.)

Local elections are due in the next few weeks. I wonder will they lump in a referendum with that vote or maybe it would be too soon. Either way I see a referendum being called because I believe it would be political suicide for any party to try legislate without going to the people.

As I said in my first post yesterday, I think any vote to bring in abortion will be defeat cause their is a far large silent majority than people think.


Edit to add I just seen January's post so running a referendum with the local elections is probably out of the question.

SEPT 23 1989

Legalise abortion without restriction?

Put that to the people and see how it gets on

B_Wayne

Can OP update title to "The 8th amendment might be repealed"...

pjohnson

B_Wayne wrote: »

Can OP update title to "The 8th amendment might be repealed"...

Yes hahah

Parchment

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Legalise abortion without restriction?

Put that to the people and see how it gets on

It gets on fine in most first world countries. Ireland is a bit lacking in that common sense department unfortunately.

January

These are the results from the vote today -

1. No restriction for real and substantial physical risk to life of woman.
2. No restriction for real and substantial risk of suicide.
3. No restriction for serious risk to physical health of woman.
4. No restriction for serious risk to mental health of woman.
5. No restriction for serious risk to health of woman.
6. No restriction for risk to physical health of woman.
7. Up to 22 weeks for risk to mental health of woman.
8. Up to 22 weeks for risk to health of woman.
9. Up to 22 weeks in cases of rape (tied vote with deciding vote cast by Judge Laffoy).
10. No restrictions in cases of FFA.
11. Up to 22 weeks in cases of non-fatal foetal abnormality.
12. Up to 22 weeks for socio-economic reasons.
13. No restrictions of any kind - up to 12 weeks.
14. No distinction between physical and mental health.

AtomicHorror

judeboy101 wrote: »

Life long was the point, CF is life long and incurable and testable genetically so you are in favour of terminating all CF embryos?

Why all? If the mother understands the consequences and makes that decision, yes. Would I? I don't know. Would have to weigh it up at the time.

judeboy101 wrote: »

what about blue eyes or red hair?

I wouldn't do so myself, but yes, if they want to.

judeboy101 wrote: »

its not about potential its about knowledge. if you take the pill or **** in a sock you have no knowledge of what you are destroying, thats why, for example we have the option of manslaughter instead of murder.

The difference between manslaughter and murder is intent, not some additional knowledge about the victim.

judeboy101 wrote: »

if you begin to allow people to choose what type of child they have you eliminate the very thing that makes us a sucessful species, variation.

You can't eliminate variation- at least not with modern genetic testing. Too many variables, too many unpredictable interactions. You could, at best, eliminate some very very simple genetic problems.

The gamut of human genetic variation is so vast, we have no hope of curtailing it through abortion.

Genetic modification is another story, but it's pretty off topic.

judeboy101 wrote: »

For every billion CF genes, you'll get one mutation that might, just might enhance our respiratory defences. abortion goes against the very idea of natural selection.

Well no, because the CFTR gene is the CFTR gene. We know what it is and what it does and it's not going to confer some innate advantage without changing in such a way that it won't be the CFTR gene anymore (and therefore no longer be screened out).

It could occur that some environmental context will make CFTR an advantage (and I guess such a context must exist for the allele to have persisted this long), but what are the odds of that exact scenario becoming significant?

thee glitz

AtomicHorror wrote: »

64% support from the CA for abortion on demand. Surely, this could not possibly have gone better for the Repeal camp?

I did 20 seconds research and calculate it as 59.8%.

AtomicHorror

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Legalise abortion without restriction?

Put that to the people and see how it gets on

Again, the opposition not understanding what's happening.

This won't be put to the people. The referendum will be whether to amend 40.3.3 to allow the Oireachtas to legislate.

Then the Oireachtas will legislate for abortion without restriction! Haha, yeah right. No, they're spineless and they'll take a much safer path, at least to begin with.

eviltwin

anna080 wrote: »

Have to laugh at the hypocrisy of the feminazi's on Twitter who yesterday lambasted the very idea of a Citizens Assembly, like omg the fact that they even matter is disgusting, how dare you have a say over what I do with my body bla. Now today omg thank god for the citizens assembly today is a good day woo girl power.

And today the anti choice groups are saying the CA was rigged.

I understand people being upset or angry at the result but to spout blatant rubbish like that is just sour grapes.

Parchment

eviltwin wrote: »

And today the anti choice groups are saying the CA was rigged.

I understand people being upset or angry at the result but to spout blatant rubbish like that is just sour grapes.

If they got their way they would say the CA was watertight.

AtomicHorror

thee glitz wrote: »

I did 20 seconds research and calculate it as 59.8%.

That's still a majority, but anyway my figure comes from reason 13- abortion to be allowed with no restriction as to reason.

No: 29

Yes, up to 12 weeks: 25
Yes, up to 22 weeks: 23
Yes, with no restriction on time: 4

No opinion given: 6

The CA counts based on those who express an opinion, and the sum of the yes votes is 52 out of a total of 81, which is 64%.

retro:electro

eviltwin wrote: »

And today the anti choice groups are saying the CA was rigged.

I understand people being upset or angry at the result but to spout blatant rubbish like that is just sour grapes.

Ya I agree. There is hypocrisy on both sides to be fair.

masculinist

somefeen wrote: »

...can you tolerate them from men? Because I can guarantee that reading the above increased the testosterone levels in my blood by a significant level.
If this is the way you speak then its fairly obvious that any argument you have for/against abortion or a father's choice to take or not take responsibility is based purely on your own sexism.

Your white knighting is very sexist and infantilizes the person I was trying to have a rational discussion with . To answer your question , I don't tolerate idiots unless they are well meaning idiots. I'm discussing the rights of an unborn baby not to be murdered under the law and all you care about is attacking me personally which doesn't make you well meaning and certainly makes you look like a person who is not serious or credible.

Outlaw Pete

notjustsweet wrote: »

I think the person who is currently alive and can walk and talk and has feelings should be our priority.

They already are a priority when it comes to risk of life, including suicide:

Risk of loss of life from physical illness
Two physicians, one an obstetrician and the other a specialist in the field of the relevant condition, must concur. For example, if the woman has cancer, the two physicians would be an obstetrician and an oncologist. Where relevant, the specialists must also consult the woman's general practitioner (GP). The termination would be an elective procedure performed at an appropriate institution.

Risk of loss of life from physical illness in emergency
In a medical emergency, a single physician must both provide the diagnosis and perform the termination.

Risk of loss of life from suicide
Three physicians must concur; an obstetrician, a psychiatrist with experience treating women during or after pregnancy, and another psychiatrist. At least one of them should consult the woman's GP with her consent. The termination would be an elective procedure performed at an appropriate institution.

I genuinely can't understand how anyone can call themselves pro life but not care about the lives of women who have suffered a life altering attack, but care more about a bundle of cells.

The 'bundle of cells' argument is, and has always been, absurd, do we always have to have it on these threads? Technically we all just a bundle of cells. A fetus has a heartbeat and brain waves. To describe them as just a bundle of cells just shows a desire to dehumanize fetuses so as to diminish the act of abortion.

circadian wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me how some people are obsessed with what others do with their bodies.

A fetus is not a part of a woman's body, they are human beings with their own bodies and nobody should be able to chose to pull the limbs off their bodies, still their heartbeat and brainwaves just because their life is inconvenient to them. The one person a developing human being should be able to count on to protect them is their "mother".

On one thread I find myself arguing that a man was harshly treated by receiving six years in prison for kissing and intimately touching a 15-year-old girl and yet here some of those same people, who found my opinion on the other thread so shocking, seemingly have no problem with a defenseless baby in the womb having it's body pulled apart and it's bloody remains binned. What a fcuking world.





The above is a fetus at 24 weeks (legal to murder them at this stage in the UK) and it'll be said that well the majority of abortions happen long before that, as if that somehow makes the others okay. It doesn't. Sentience, viability, ability to feel pain etc etc... are all red herrings. A fetus is a human being. They are alive. We declare death on the absence of a heartbeat and therefore we should accept that the presence of one means a life has begun.

osarusan

January wrote: »

These are the results from the vote today -

1. No restriction for real and substantial physical risk to life of woman.
2. No restriction for real and substantial risk of suicide.
3. No restriction for serious risk to physical health of woman.
4. No restriction for serious risk to mental health of woman.
5. No restriction for serious risk to health of woman.
6. No restriction for risk to physical health of woman.
7. Up to 22 weeks for risk to mental health of woman.
8. Up to 22 weeks for risk to health of woman.
9. Up to 22 weeks in cases of rape (tied vote with deciding vote cast by Judge Laffoy).
10. No restrictions in cases of FFA.
11. Up to 22 weeks in cases of non-fatal foetal abnormality.
12. Up to 22 weeks for socio-economic reasons.
13. No restrictions of any kind - up to 12 weeks.
14. No distinction between physical and mental health.

Just going from memory, but a 12-week limit would probably be in line with most of the posters on here who were tentatively accepting of abortion on demand as long as the limit was early. I think 14 weeks was a commonly mentioned limit.

AtomicHorror

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The above is a fetus at 24 weeks (legal to murder them at this stage in the UK) and it'll be said that well the majority of abortions happen long before that, as if that somehow makes the others okay.

In what scenarios will a 24 week fetus be aborted?

I can tell you one- denial of access to early term abortions, as happens in Ireland. Aside from that, by 24 weeks you're only looking at termination of wanted pregnancies, which will be for some pretty catastrophic circumstances.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It doesn't. Sentience, viability, ability to feel pain etc etc... are all red herrings. A fetus is a human being. They are alive. We declare death on the absence of a heartbeat and therefore we should accept that the presence of one means a life has begun.

By this definition, brain-dead patients on respirators also have an equal right to life. "We" (who, are we exactly? not doctors I suspect) do not have that simplistic views of life and death.

Those "red herrings" are scientifically measured, real and relevant facts.

January

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

They
The above is a fetus at 24 weeks (legal to murder them at this stage in the UK) and it'll be said that well the majority of abortions happen long before that, as if that somehow makes the others okay. It doesn't. Sentience, viability, ability to feel pain etc etc... are all red herrings. A fetus is a human being. They are alive. We declare death on the absence of a heartbeat and therefore we should accept that the presence of one means a life has begun.

2% of abortions happened after 20 weeks in Australia in 2015, 53 of those 2% (of which the total number was 96) were for probable or actual fetal abnormality.

0.01% of abortions in England and Wales happened after 20 weeks, again 2015.

Those are the latest statistics available. Late term abortions either happen because of threat to the mothers health or for FFA.

January

Oh and again, it doesn't state of the ones that were not for FFA if it was termination of pregnancy, which could have lead to a live birth or if it was termination of fetus.

AtomicHorror

RTE with a measured coverage featuring stock photo of a faceless and heavily pregnant woman who wouldn't be permitted an abortion under any scenario recommended by the CA.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2017/0423/869681-citizens-assembly-reaction/

pjohnson

January wrote: »

2% of abortions happened after 20 weeks in Australia in 2015, 53 of those 2% (of which the total number was 96) were for probable or actual fetal abnormality.

0.01% of abortions in England and Wales happened after 20 weeks, again 2015.

Those are the latest statistics available. Late term abortions either happen because of threat to the mothers health or for FFA.

You cant just use facts on those who view women as incubators.

January

Cora Sherlock is on something... 'the first thing the new Oireachtas Committee charged with looking at the issue must do is examine how the Citizens' Assembly was allowed to operate in such a one-sided and chaotic way'

HA.

thee glitz

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The CA counts based on those who express an opinion, and the sum of the yes votes is 52 out of a total of 81, which is 64%.

I agree - it's still a majority. That's not what you said originally - beware statistcs from disreputable sources, esp the Indo.

pjohnson

AtomicHorror wrote: »

RTE with a measured coverage featuring stock photo of a faceless and heavily pregnant woman who wouldn't be permitted an abortion under any scenario recommended by the CA.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2017/0423/869681-citizens-assembly-reaction/

I remember Cora Sherlock was on Matt Cooper on TodayFM claiming the CA was rigged from the very start because it allowed "abortionists" the same time to talk as their own ilk. As can be seen in this thread they can dish out all the "think of the babies" talk but when any opposition or facts come into it they loose their minds.

AtomicHorror

thee glitz wrote: »

I agree - it's still a majority. That's not what you said originally - beware statistcs from disreputable sources, esp the Indo.

My stat was from the CA itself. Of course abstainers are not counted. Please stop patronising me.

PopePalpatine

January wrote: »

Cora Sherlock is on something... 'the first thing the new Oireachtas Committee charged with looking at the issue must do is examine how the Citizens' Assembly was allowed to operate in such a one-sided and chaotic way'

HA.

Salty communion wine? :pac:

January

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Salty communion wine? :pac:

:pac::pac: