The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

volchitsa

King of Kings wrote: »

I'm pro life and I voted for that referendum.
I can't control what others do abroad much as I mighnt like it.

So you would be against a law that punished people for taking their daughters back to their home country to undergo FGM?

Or taking Irish children to Asia to abuse them?

Really?

King of Kings wrote: »

Ronan Mullen is a really smart guy with a good command of language but wasted on the shote Iona come out with sadly , of which he is a disciple.

So when Ronan Mullen said that the parents in TFMR have no right to grieve for their children, or implies that Savita Halappanavar may have tried to abort her baby, that's someone who is smart and with a good command of language?

Seems to me like an utter gobsh1te who is not even bright enough to realize how hateful he makes the prolife viewpoint seem.

King of Kings wrote: »

I think also the media is quite biased in a liberal way and certainly pro-choice, so they love going to Iona for comment cos it alienates people from Iona and my association the pro life view. Iona are too thick to notice this and can't pass a microphone.
.

You need to make up your mind about what you want. If they didn't ask Iona, and Mullen for that matter, for their opinions you'd probably be screaming that they were being silenced.

Instead you're complaining that their own words make them look bad, and blaming the media for letting us hear them.

At what point do you start wondering whether it's what they've got to say that's the problem?

Yer Da sells Avon

King of Kings wrote: »

I think also the media is quite biased in a liberal way and certainly pro-choice, so they love going to Iona for comment cos it alienates people from Iona and my association the pro life view. Iona are too thick to notice this and can't pass a microphone.

If I was a supporter of forcing women to either remain pregnant against their will or go abroad, I'd be thankful that the media go to Iona, who at least have the benefit of appearing fairly mainstream, and not some of the other organisations, like Youth Defence.

It's difficult to come across positively when you spend your whole time dictating other people's lives according to your own moral likes and dislikes (whether that's marriage equality, divorce or abortion), but Iona do it a whole lot more professionally than any other group.

King of Kings

King of Kings wrote: »

I'm pro life and I voted for that referendum.
I can't control what others do abroad much as I mighnt like it.
.

But, if you had voted against it, then you absolutely could control what others do abroad.
Just more hypocrisy & nimbyism

King of Kings

volchitsa wrote: »

So you would be against a law that punished people for taking their daughters back to their home country to undergo FGM?

Or taking Irish children to Asia to abuse them?

Really?

wtf have those issues got to do with the debate on the 8th. I believe in the right to travel and I believe the local laws are the laws to be adhered to - since you asked.
Otherwise nothing is really workable...

hence I can somewhat legally smoke weed in holland and not be arrested in ireland for it.

volchitsa wrote: »

So when Ronan Mullen said that the parents in TFMR have no right to grieve for their children, or implies that Savita Halappanavar may have tried to abort her baby, that's someone who is smart and with a good command of language?

Seems to me like an utter gobsh1te who is not even bright enough to realize how hateful he makes the prolife viewpoint seem.

how does he being "hateful" as you say (your words) diminish his command of the language and his intellect..you are talking about different things.
Your point makes no sense....

volchitsa wrote: »

You need to make up your mind about what you want. If they didn't ask Iona, and Mullen for that matter, for their opinions you'd probably be screaming that they were being silenced.

Instead you're complaining that their own words make them look bad, and blaming the media for letting us hear them.

At what point do you start wondering whether it's what they've got to say that's the problem?

I'll say it simpler for you...Iona don't represent pro-life people only a minority - the media act as if they do and everybody in any way pro-life gets lumped with them.
I'm not religious so wtf have I in common with Iona bar this single issue.

Your point is a bizarre take on what I wrote.

bubblypop wrote: »

But, if you had voted against it, then you absolutely could control what others do abroad.
Just more hypocrisy & nimbyism

weird point tbh...I believe people should travel if they want...

Whats wrong with not dictating what happens in other countries? esp since I don't live there. I am Irish and vote in Ireland only - that's where I have influence

I think abortion is morally wrong - but I'm going over to other countries to lecture them on it. It's not my home.

I'm not some Zappone character dropped in to lecture the natives.

By that logic we should legalise drugs in ireland - btw I'd be in favour of that - solely because irish people got aboard to get wasted where drugs are decriminalised or legal.
Just cos somebody else does it , does mean it's right here.
It's too simple a point.

volchitsa

King of Kings wrote: »

wtf have those issues got to do with the debate on the 8th. I believe in the right to travel and I believe the local laws are the laws to be adhered to - since you asked.
Otherwise nothing is really workable...

hence I can somewhat legally smoke weed in holland and not be arrested in ireland for it.

So it's fair enough to compare travelling for an abortion to travelling to smoke weed but you can't see my point about travelling to abort a pregnancy vs travelling to abuse children?

I find that hard to credit.

King of Kings wrote: »

how does he being "hateful" as you say (your words) diminish his command of the language and his intellect..you are talking about different things.
Your point makes no sense....

Makes sense if you think it is counterproductive to make that sort of comments.
But maybe you see nothing repulsive about them.

Im puzzled why you think Iona are counterproductive then. What do they say that people might react badly to, that Mullen doesn't?

King of Kings wrote: »

weird point tbh...I believe people should travel if they want...

Including to abuse their or other people's children? Really?

King of Kings wrote: »

Whats wrong with not dictating what happens in other countries? esp since I don't live there. I am Irish and vote in Ireland only - that's where I have influence

I think abortion is morally wrong - but I'm going over to other countries to lecture them on it. It's not my home.

We voted to allow Irish people to do the same thing though, and we could have stopped them if we hadnt voted in the 13th. We dont allow people to travel to Switzerland to assist their friends to commit suicide legally - as Gail O'Rorke found out.

King of Kings wrote: »

I'm not some Zappone character dropped in to lecture the natives.

By that logic we should legalise drugs in ireland - btw I'd be in favour of that - solely because irish people got aboard to get wasted where drugs are decriminalised or legal.
Just cos somebody else does it , does mean it's right here.
It's too simple a point.

Not the problem though. As Ive said above.

Yer Da sells Avon

King of Kings wrote: »

I think abortion is morally wrong - but I'm going over to other countries to lecture them on it. It's not my home.

I think abortion is morally wrong too - but I don't think it should be illegal. It's not my body. It's not about me. If I voted against repealing the 8th Amendment, I would be making it about me.

Also, it's happening anyway, whether I like it or not, so it makes sense to me that it should be free, safe, legal and accessible. I think the referendum will pass with a healthy majority because most people, whether they agree or disagree with abortion itself, are pragmatic. I think that's why it's impossible to find many non-religious people willing to speak out against a woman's right to choose - it's not a black & white issue.

King of Kings wrote:

I'm not some Zappone character dropped in to lecture the natives.

Nor is Katherine Zappone. She has been an Irish citizen for twenty-three years.

pitifulgod

King of Kings wrote: »

how does he being "hateful" as you say (your words) diminish his command of the language and his intellect..you are talking about different things.
Your point makes no sense....

He alienates the public because of what he says. Concluding that Savita would have aborted child regardless of septicemia shows that he's uninformed or incapable of arguing points to the point where he just makes stuff up. He doesn't actually argue the points, he gets emotive and manipulative but doesn't tend to have corroborative evidence for points. These illustrate both a lack of intellect and language.

Loafing Oaf

_Dara_ wrote: »

This is true. I’m wary of declarations about the strength of one’s own position, no matter the side. The polls will decide. Do your campaigning, try to convince people but don’t be cocky about the outcome because you don’t know what it will be.

There's a case for geeing up the troops, sounding bullish in the public arena. The problem is when you start believing your own publicity and basing your strategy on delusions. I remember Marc Coleman had a pro-life guy on his radio show in the run-up to POLDPA, and the guy seemed to be confident that the bill would be defeated in the Dail. Coleman was telling him this was crazy, that he needed to accept this battle was lost and move on to the next one.

nice_guy80

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/analysis/medics-diverse-opinions-on-abortion-must-be-heard-827729.html

cannot believe that a doctor could hold such an uneducated narrow view on treatment for their patients

Mr. CooL ICE

nice_guy80 wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/analysis/medics-diverse-opinions-on-abortion-must-be-heard-827729.html

cannot believe that a doctor could hold such an uneducated narrow view on treatment for their patients

Dr Máire Neasta Nic Gearailt is a GP and was nominated by Save the 8th to write this article.

That explains it anyway

Loafing Oaf

nice_guy80 wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/analysis/medics-diverse-opinions-on-abortion-must-be-heard-827729.html

cannot believe that a doctor could hold such an uneducated narrow view on treatment for their patients

GPS won’t be expected to conduct ultrasounds will they?

seamus

nice_guy80 wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/analysis/medics-diverse-opinions-on-abortion-must-be-heard-827729.html

cannot believe that a doctor could hold such an uneducated narrow view on treatment for their patients

So many fallacies in one column. I wonder if she even still practices.

She's whinging that GPs haven't been consulted on legislation that hasn't been written yet.

Implying that GPs will be "required" to offer abortion services (they won't).

Claiming that there are open questions about how the abortion pills are to be prescribed and managed - questions that have been answered and procedures that have been in practice for decades in other countries.

And of course, finishing off with the lie that the committee on the eighth was limited to pro-choice speakers.

I sincerely hope this woman doesn't practice any more. She's incredibly dishonest and manipulative.

rainbow kirby

She appears to be affiliated with Every Life Counts and Youth Defence are linking items by her. Enough said.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Edward M

....... wrote: »

Not only dishonest and uninformed but sadly incapable of crunching the most basic numbers.

Over 2000 GPs in Ireland, approx 4000 abortions sought annually. 1-2 abortions sought per GP per year.

Even if only 100 GPs agreed to handle abortion services, its less than 1 abortion per week handled per GP.

She raises some valid questions though, especially the one re the affirming that the fetus is no more than 12 weeks.
I can see GPs referring a lot of cases on to gynecology to deal with the issue if its passed.
Perhaps that would be best all round as she pointed out that a GP surgery is an unsafe place for emergency treatment if necessary.
I think the implementation of an abortion policy has to be done right, the basic premise of how it will be handled has to be included in any pre vote material on the issue.
Some, and maybe even a large percentage of GPs don't want to take the responsibility of the repercussions of bad side affects possible from an abortion?
There is a difference in being in favour of abortion and having to administer it!

Hooks Golf Handicap

Why is everyone missing the point:

If we have repeal then 5,000 Irish Women will have abortions next year.
If repeal is rejected then 5,000 Irish Women will have abortions next year.

True question is whether we want Irish women to suffer the hardship of travel during this sensitive time.

ohnonotgmail

Edward M wrote: »

She raises some valid questions though, especially the one re the affirming that the fetus is no more than 12 weeks.
I can see GPs referring a lot of cases on to gynecology to deal with the issue if its passed.
Perhaps that would be best all round as she pointed out that a GP surgery is an unsafe place for emergency treatment if necessary.
I think the implementation of an abortion policy has to be done right, the basic premise of how it will be handled has to be included in any pre vote material on the issue.
Some, and maybe even a large percentage of GPs don't want to take the responsibility of the repercussions of bad side affects possible from an abortion?
There is a difference in being in favour of abortion and having to administer it!

This is not a new situation. all of these issues have been solved in other countries.

Edward M

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

This is not a new situation. all of these issues have been solved in other countries.

Ah, I know that, but this a voting issue here.
The best way to convince people who might not vote in favour of repeal is to convince them that its not just a matter of going in to the doc and picking up a pill and of you go, abort.
Based on the article linked it is as important to pick the issues out of it that are valid and address them, criticising the good doctor because of her stance alone is not the best option.
Clear up the fears she raises perhaps is the best thing.

.......

This post has been deleted.

seamus

Edward M wrote: »

Clear up the fears she raises perhaps is the best thing.

She doesn't raise any fears though. If there is a shortage of available GPs, then the gaps will be filled by specialist services.

There is nothing substantial in her article that requires addressing. GPs will not be required to offer the services if they don't want to.

The services will follow the same procedures they use in every other developed country in the world. Emergency services are provided by hospitals.

Problem solved.

.......

This post has been deleted.

pleas advice

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

If we have repeal then 5,000 Irish Women will have abortions next year.
If repeal is rejected then 5,000 Irish Women will have abortions next year.

if its available here, i'd say there will be an increase in numbers.

Hooks Golf Handicap

pleas advice wrote: »

if its available here, i'd say there will be an increase in numbers.

Or a decrease in those buying online & self administering.
Actually knowing Ireland the GP's will probably charge €60 for the consult €200 for the pills so people will still go online.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

pleas advice wrote: »

if its available here, i'd say there will be an increase in numbers.

And you have every right to say it, but saying it does not make it true of course. The question is whether there is any actual arguments, evidence, data or reasoning you can offer to suggest any credibility in the claim.

In fact I have seen evidence to the contrary. "US abortion rate is lowest since Roe v Wade" is a recent headline for example. While a study published in Lancent concluded "Making abortion illegal does not reduce the number of terminations women have"

Back in 2007 meanwhile a New York Times article reported that "A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not"

There are of course many reasons for this. But one good one is that the people who failed to keep abortion illegal in those places still wanted to prevent abortions. So they tend to turn their eye towards initiatives and changes in a society that would reduce the number of abortions happening.

I have been a member of several groups trying for many years to improve sexual education in our schools for example. To make it not just MUCH more comprehensive and modern, but also MUCH earlier in the curriculum.

Resistance to such ideas tended paradoxically so far to come from (like the church) people also against abortion. They have some nonsense crass idea that sexual education that is comprehensive and EARLY in education is somehow an infringement on the maintenance of childhood innocent. A nonsense that they never care to unpack or discuss.

But if abortion becomes legal then such people tend to become more pliable and amenable, in my experience at least, to discussion about such initiatives that they were so far again. Because for all they seem to hate the idea of education, they hate the idea of abortion more. So they are more inclined to give lee way on one hate to account for the other.

Hooks Golf Handicap

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No DPP is going to make a martyr of anyone in this situation, it's exactly what the repeal side want, someone to hang their hat on.
These cases get lost down the back of radiator.

Maybe I'm making this up but wasn't their someone who documented themselves procuring & taking the tablets on Twitter or FB.
Authorities just ignored it.

.......

This post has been deleted.

pleas advice

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And you have every right to say it, but saying it does not make it true of course..

that was basically the point i was making to the other poster

Loafing Oaf

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oh right I didn't know that. Was pretty sure they wouldn't have to be installing ultrasound machines in GP surgeries though...

Zubeneschamali

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

No DPP is going to make a martyr of anyone in this situation

So we have a clause in the Constitution which requires we have a law, we enact the law (PLDPA), and then... we just drop it down behind a radiator? No enforcement? Nod and a wink?

What's the point in keeping the 8th then?

AnneFrank

it's a no for me anyway after alot of soul searching

eviltwin

AnneFrank wrote: »

it's a no for me anyway after alot of soul searching

Maybe wait until you know what you are actually being asked to vote on.

nozzferrahhtoo

pleas advice wrote: »

that was basically the point i was making to the other poster

No idea what you mean here. The point of you saying that the numbers would go up, was that the numbers probably won't go up?

Well..... ok..... but the rest of my post still stands in terms of the fact that there seems to be no evidence the numbers will go up and plenty of evidence and reasoning as to why the opposite often happens.

pilly

Coming from a very strong pro-choice view even I would have to agree that abortion figures probably will go up. It's not logical to me to presume otherwise.

pleas advice

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No idea what you mean here. .

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

If we have repeal then 5,000 Irish Women will have abortions next year.
If repeal is rejected then 5,000 Irish Women will have abortions next year.

this was said, with nothing to back it up.

it has been (somewhat) backed up now. but, are there any studies on the immediate (short to medium term) effects on abortion rates from legalising abortion in a country?

Hooks Golf Handicap

AnneFrank wrote: »

it's a no for me anyway after alot of soul searching

Whilst I disagree with you voting no I appreciate you've posed yourself the question.
Whatever your reasons I respect them & even though we'll cancel each other out come voting day I'm delighted you're part of the debate.

.......

This post has been deleted.

seamus

pilly wrote: »

Coming from a very strong pro-choice view even I would have to agree that abortion figures probably will go up. It's not logical to me to presume otherwise.

Indeed, but not the casual, "Oh I think I'll go get an abortion before my manicure" way that the pro-life campaign want to portray.

Rather all of those women who cannot travel for an abortion due to age, ill-health, disability or lack of money will be able to safely and legally access it.

Realistically the "official" figures will increase, but it will be next to impossible to say whether there's any actual increase, since we have no idea how many unaccounted-for abortions currently take place.

pilly

seamus wrote: »

Indeed, but not the casual, "Oh I think I'll go get an abortion before my manicure" way that the pro-life campaign want to portray.

Rather all of those women who cannot travel for an abortion due to age, ill-health, disability or lack of money will be able to safely and legally access it.

Realistically the "official" figures will increase, but it will be next to impossible to say whether there's any actual increase, since we have no idea how many unaccounted-for abortions currently take place.

I agree. Someone else said in another thread that women will be having abortions JUST BECAUSE. Like that makes an ounce of logical sense. As if women are going to rush to get pregnant so they can have an abortion because it's the latest thing. :rolleyes:

Hooks Golf Handicap

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So we have a clause in the Constitution which requires we have a law, we enact the law (PLDPA), and then... we just drop it down behind a radiator? No enforcement? Nod and a wink?

What's the point in keeping the 8th then?

Jaysus, the outcry was bad enough when Deirdre Barlow was behind bars & she was a fictional character.

Were a woman convicted of procuring an illegal abortion in this state:
(1) The world's media would be encamped laughing at the little religious state which tries to pretend it's progressive. We'd become a laughing stock & be compared to Iran.
(2) We would have created a martyr instantly & handed victory to the repeal side.
(3) Tourism & our attractiveness for FDI would take a major whack.
(4) World leaders would actively question our attitude to women's human rights.
(5) The reputation damage would take decades to recover from.

The DPP is in a difficult spot, if they bring a case forward they know the likelihood of prosecution, there is no political will for the backlash.

Back of the radiator, the Irish solution to the Irish problem.

Zubeneschamali

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

Back of the radiator, the Irish solution to the Irish problem.

I don't disagree about the DPP, but the real solution is obviously to repeal the 8th and the PLDPA properly.

.......

This post has been deleted.

eviltwin

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

Jaysus, the outcry was bad enough when Deirdre Barlow was behind bars & she was a fictional character.

Were a woman convicted of procuring an illegal abortion in this state:
(1) The world's media would be encamped laughing at the little religious state which tries to pretend it's progressive. We'd become a laughing stock & be compared to Iran.
(2) We would have created a martyr instantly & handed victory to the repeal side.
(3) Tourism & our attractiveness for FDI would take a major whack.
(4) World leaders would actively question our attitude to women's human rights.
(5) The reputation damage would take decades to recover from.

The DPP is in a difficult spot, if they bring a case forward they know the likelihood of prosecution, there is no political will for the backlash.

Back of the radiator, the Irish solution to the Irish problem.

Well it's happened twice in northern Ireland

One woman had an abortion herself, the other ordered pills for her daughter.

Although they didn't go to prison there was a conviction which they will have on their records.

Wombatman

pilly wrote: »

Coming from a very strong pro-choice view even I would have to agree that abortion figures probably will go up. It's not logical to me to presume otherwise.

Given the very restrictive conditions the exist at present I think that is a safe assumption. A total of 25 legally-permitted abortions were carried out in Ireland in 2016. Of that total number, the procedures were carried out for a range of reasons:
- 8 procedures were due to a risk of physical illness
- 1 was due to a risk from suicide
- 16 were carried out because of emergencies arising from physical illnesses.

If the recommendations of the Citizen’s Assembly are adopted you could expect 10-20 abortions per 1,000 women between ages of 15-44 per annum. Obviously this will represent a big increase.

The rate of unwanted pregnancies however will probably will remain about the same. If it is repealed, the choices available to these women, will increase.

Hooks Golf Handicap

eviltwin wrote: »

Well it's happened twice in northern Ireland

One woman had an abortion herself, the other ordered pills for her daughter.

Although they didn't go to prison there was a conviction which they will have on their records.

Bit of detail here:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/state-s-women-face-jail-for-taking-abortion-pill-1.2598217

The woman at the centre of the Belfast case was 19 when she decided to purchase the abortion pills over the internet.
She could not afford to travel to England, Scotland or Wales for an abortion, which she would have been legally entitled to there, and indeed would have been entitled to for free on the NHS if she had been a resident of the UK “mainland”.
Her actions were uncovered when her flat mates found the bloodstained materials she had likely used to clean herself while she miscarried alone, and a 10-12- week-old foetus, in the bin. They reported their discovery to the police.

Now she wasn't Mr. Wolf in the clean up department.
Plus her housemates were a gang of squealers.

The number of seizures of abortion pills arriving into this State in the post by the Health Regulatory Authority, working with customs officials, indicates that increasing numbers of women and girls are turning to the internet when facing a crisis pregnancy.
While 635 tablets, in 28 packages, were seized in 2011, the numbers had almost doubled, to 1,017 tablets, in 60 importations, in 2014.
The majority are coming through Netherlands-based sites and cost about €90. This compares with a cost of €600-€1,000 for an abortion, not including travel and accommodation costs.
Should a concerned citizen in this State know of a woman or girl inducing her own abortion, they too might report her to An Garda Síochána, though how gardaí would respond to a woman in this situation remains to be seen.

I know they reckon they catch about 10% of drugs coming in through the post although how they arrive at that figure I'm not sure.
People are obviously buying in quantity based on the above figures.
I wonder if they are making a few quid on the black market.
If the figures doubled between 2011 & 2014 it would be difficult to guess where we stand now.
I'd say more people are aware of this route nowadays.

January

Women buy in pills to keep them safe if they or a family member/friend needs to use them. Up to 5 women per day are now using abortion pills at home, according to Dr. Abigail Aikens who spoke to the JOC about the use of the pills.

nozzferrahhtoo

pilly wrote: »

Coming from a very strong pro-choice view even I would have to agree that abortion figures probably will go up. It's not logical to me to presume otherwise.

You might want to go re-read this post here then, as it might explain some of the logic involved.

pleas advice wrote: »

this was said, with nothing to back it up.

Except it is backed up. The poster is just pointing out something that I cited sources for in this post here. Which is that making abortion illegal has little to no effect on the number of abortions happening.

So his assertion is substantiated. Your counter assertion is not. And I do not think I have to insult your intelligence, or mine, by explaining the qualitative difference between a substantiated assertion, and an unsubstantiated one, do I?

pilly

nozzferrahhtoo wrote:

then, as it might explain some of the logic involved.

Yeah I'll read it in a couple of years when we have actual figures. I'll be glad to point out to you then how wrong you were.

Don't bother with another essay in reply. Not even pro-choice are interested in your patronising tone any longer.

pjohnson

Sooner its gone the better. The situation as it is is moronic. Women aren't just incubators. Its their body.