The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

January

pilly wrote: »

Yeah, we get that. It's been stated over and over and over.

As a pro-choicer I'm even tired of it.

Me too, but it won't stop me debating it when it comes up over and over and over.

kylith

JDD wrote: »

Ah c'mon now. You could say you miscarried. You don't have to show any proof of that. I mean at the risk of being graphic, you could miscarry up to 12 weeks into the toilet. No state in reality would be asking you to bring home evidence of the blood or foetus. And taking this to the nth degree, if you did have to do so, that would be easily done at the termination clinic. You couldn't police it.

Doesn't stop them in El Salvador

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/z4j9m8/when-having-a-miscarriage-can-get-you-life-in-prison

Bannasidhe

pleas advice wrote: »

Well I mean, for me pro life means anti-(medically unnecessary) abortion.

I mean, it's the ending of a human life they have a problem with, I guess.
That shouldn't be anyone's decision *to* make

Really. You don't think to be truly pro-life you should be in favour of affordable childcare, a decent work life balance, a liveable minimum wage, proper healthcare available throughout the country, supports for the vulnerable from cradle to grave, proper respite care, stringent overseeing of homes for the elderly, education available locally for children with special needs, affordable accommodation, secure rental leases ... all those things that make life easier and worth living.

I would say many pro-'lifers' are really just pro-'existers' - they have zero interest in what happens to children once they are born.

pleas advice

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Really. You don't think to be truly pro-life you should be in favour of affordable childcare, a decent work life balance, a liveable minimum wage, proper healthcare available throughout the country, supports for the vulnerable from cradle to grave, proper respite care, stringent overseeing of homes for the elderly, education available locally for children with special needs, affordable accommodation, secure rental leases ... all those things that make life easier and worth living..

well yes, but thats all irrelevant to the topic of this thread, more red herrings

RobertKK

eviltwin wrote: »

It would be very hard to prosecute women who go abroad

But you can prosecute those who import pills so why are the antis not seeking justice for the "murder" of these "children"

Why aren't they up in arms about the loss of embryos in fertility clinics here?

Is it because they are just a bunch of complete wasters who couldn't care less about anything other than control?

Maybe they aren't vindictive.

NuMarvel

pleas advice wrote: »

well yes, but thats all irrelevant to the topic of this thread, more red herrings

You keep using those words. I don't think they mean what you think they mean.

pleas advice

Ahshuryaknowurself

Edward M

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Really. You don't think to be truly pro-life you should be in favour of affordable childcare, a decent work life balance, a liveable minimum wage, proper healthcare available throughout the country, supports for the vulnerable from cradle to grave, proper respite care, stringent overseeing of homes for the elderly, education available locally for children with special needs, affordable accommodation, secure rental leases ... all those things that make life easier and worth living.

I would say many pro-'lifers' are really just pro-'existers' - they have zero interest in what happens to children once they are born.

I'd have an interest in most youngsters I know.
I live rurally of course, maybe its different, I know virtually everyone and their kids in my locality.
GAA gets us all involved in the same club, I coach a bit at underage, I go to our parish school to coach regularly too.
But that's not saying I try to influence the way they live.
But anyway as please advise said, you're statement is in fact a red herring.
No one can know or care for all of anything, and usually act in accordance with their own beliefs based on how they themselves may feel about it.
Its fair to say I think that the vast majority of kids born are wanted, all delinquents are not missed abortions, most families in need of help aren't in their situation because they wanted to but didn't abort their children or even one of them.
Most people don't even contemplate it IMO.
None of the things you mention in your post will improve because we implement abortion here.
A red herring indeed.

Bannasidhe

pleas advice wrote: »

well yes, but thats all irrelevant to the topic of this thread, more red herrings

No. You want it to be irrelevant but it isn't.

Your dismissal of it as irrelevant simply proves you have no interest in the lives of children. Your interest ends at the moment they are born and actually have needs. When they are alive.

Pro- life me arse.

Bannasidhe

Edward M wrote: »

I'd have an interest in most youngsters I know.
I live rurally of course, maybe its different, I know virtually everyone and their kids in my locality.
GAA gets us all involved in the same club, I coach a bit at underage, I go to our parish school to coach regularly too.
But that's not saying I try to influence the way they live.
But anyway as please advise said, you're statement is in fact a red herring.
No one can know or care for all of anything, and usually act in accordance with their own beliefs based on how they themselves may feel about it.
Its fair to say I think that the vast majority of kids born are wanted, all delinquents are not missed abortions, most families in need of help aren't in their situation because they wanted to but didn't abort their children or even one of them.
Most people don't even contemplate it IMO.
None of the things you mention in your post will improve because we implement abortion here.
A red herring indeed.

It's far from being a red herring.
It's the reality for many people with children.
Do you think that doesn't impact on women's decision to not have children?
Do you think pregnant women exist in some vacuum unaware of the difficulty of getting childcare, juggling work hours, finding secure accommodation...?

Seriously?

I am also sick to the eye teeth of sanctimonious so called pro-lifers acting as if they hold the moral high ground when they do precisely nothing to help the living children who need it. I don't see any Iona billboards about homelessness or calling for supports for special needs. So much for #loveboth.

pleas advice

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No. You want it to be irrelevant but it isn't.

Your dismissal of it as irrelevant simply proves you have no interest in the lives of children. Your interest ends at the moment they are born and actually have needs. When they are alive.

Pro- life me arse.

life, in the sense of life or death, the state of being or the state of not, an actual living entity, and a dead bunch of cells...

Bannasidhe

pleas advice wrote: »

life, in the sense of life or death, the state of being or the state of not, an actual living entity, and a dead bunch of cells...

Life - as in the sense of being alive.
An actual living entity with real life needs. Not dead.

If you truly cared about life you would care about the lives children lead and advocate the State does everything in it's power to protect them.
But you think that is irrelevant.

I think that says it all about you.

pleas advice

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Life - as in the sense of being alive.
An actual living entity with real life needs. Not dead.

If you truly cared about life you would care about the lives children lead and advocate the State does everything in it's power to protect them.
But you think that is irrelevant.

I think that says it all about you.

i don't think its irrelevant, at all. It is irrelevant to this discussion we're having on this thread though.

I mean, I did vote yes in the Childrens Referendum a few years ago, so...

you would care about the lives children lead and advocate the State does everything in it's power to protect them.

but thats irrelevant, to this thread

Bannasidhe

pleas advice wrote: »

i don't think its irrelevant, at all. It is irrelevant to this discussion we're having on this thread though.

I mean, I did vote yes in the Childrens Referendum a few years ago, so...

you would care about the lives children lead and advocate the State does everything in it's power to protect them.

but thats irrelevant, to this thread

I repeat.

You want it to be irrelevant because it calls into question your actual concerns about children's lives and welfare.

It is relevant because all of the things I mentioned are among the reasons women have abortions : insecure housing - I can't afford to pay rent for a place with an extra bedroom; work concerns - will I lose my job/ I can't pay my rent/mortgage on maternity pay; who will mind the child- I don't earn enough to afford childcare/who will collect it from school; if the child has special needs - how will I cope without supports/ who will mind them when I'm gone/ will I be able to get them into a school/ Will I lose my job for taking time off to mind them.

All of these are just as relevant to this thread as 'I was raped and now I'm pregnant' or 'oh s*it the condom broke'. This are the everyday mundane 'I can't cope' reasons many women terminate pregnancies. Economics. Housing. Healthcare.

You want to have less abortions?
You want to save fetus' from being terminated?

Make it a damn sight easier for women to be able to care for their born children and still be able to have actual lives of their own. It's not rocket science.

pleas advice

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Make it a damn sight easier for women to be able to care for their born children and still be able to have actual lives of their own. It's not rocket science.

Ok, how do you propose I do that?

Bannasidhe

pleas advice wrote: »

Ok, how do you propose I do that?

Ask yourself 'How do I do that?
Think about what you can do. Put your passion and energy into that.

Voting to keep the 8th will not help one woman who cannot cope. She will still travel/buy pills on line. BUT - working to give her the support she needs will help her. And if she knows she has those supports then she won't feel so desperate and will be able to see how a future with a born child is actually manageable.

If the pro-life movement as a whole put their energy into ensuring that those women considering termination because they just can't see a way they would be able to raise a child for the reasons I mentioned than that would stop many women from feeling their pregnancy is a crises .

Zerbini Blewitt

pleas advice wrote: »

Why are pro life people pro life, in your view? Are they all women-hating slut-shamers, or... What?

At their core, they seem to have an inappropriately simplistic understanding of the complexities involved in crisis pregnancies.

The second most important quality of a pro-lifer is their ability to compartmentalise, thus:-

• Have no interest or concern with the problems of abortion bans (civilised countries brought in abortion 50+ years ago because women were sticking knitting needles into themselves {& worse since the dawn of time}). They have zero curiosity or engagement with this truth. It must be said though - it is easier not to engage with this reality.

• Are comfortable forcing women - especially those who disagree with their irrational views on abortion - to remain pregnant against their will (via the state)

• Avoid honestly engaging with responses that debunk the banal insanity of thinking an embryo let alone an ovum/zygote is a human being &/or has rights

Therefore in general, if one holds a wholly, or partially, irrational opinion - it helps to ignore all consequential problems with such a stance and this is a common feature in those who enthusiastically endorse forced-birthing on women against their will in Ireland.

nice_guy80

I'm Pro-Women

Pro for the women who feel they are capable of carrying their foetus and giving the child a decent life.

AND Pro for the mothers who feel they are not ready for this and deserve a choice to have an abortion as its the right decision for them in consultation with THEIR doctor, and not a clinic somewhere in the uk or europe.

so I'm pro choice AND pro life

pleas advice

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

At their core, they seem to have an inappropriately simplistic understanding of the complexities involved in crisis pregnancies.

The second most important quality of a pro-lifer is their ability to compartmentalise, thus:-

• Have no interest or concern with the problems of abortion bans (civilised countries brought in abortion 50+ years ago because women were sticking knitting needles into themselves {& worse since the dawn of time}). They have zero curiosity or engagement with this truth. It must be said though - it is easier not to engage with this reality.

• Are comfortable forcing women - especially those who disagree with their irrational views on abortion - to remain pregnant against their will (via the state)

• Avoid honestly engaging with responses that debunk the banal insanity of thinking an embryo let alone an ovum/zygote is a human being &/or has rights

Therefore in general, if one holds a wholly, or partially, irrational opinion - it helps to ignore all consequential problems with such a stance and this is a common feature in those who enthusiastically endorse forced-birthing on women against their will in Ireland.

that doesn't answer 'why' though...

Avoid honestly engaging with responses that debunk the banal insanity of thinking an embryo let alone an ovum/zygote is a human being &/or has rights

but that is the fundamental point, SIMPLY BY VIRTUE OF BEING TAXONOMICALLY HUMAN, these entities acquire some rights. And a lot of people seem unwilling on unable to accept that this is the view, of a large minority I would say, of the population.

you'd rather believe they're all women-hating, religious, control-freaks, or something...

pleas advice

nice_guy80 wrote: »

so I'm pro choice AND pro life

aren't we all, though? in our own way

Edward M

blanch152 wrote: »

To be honest, that is a matter between a woman and her doctor, as to whether she has any reason, good or bad, for an abortion. It is none of your business and none of mine.

Like any medical procedure, elective or not, or any medication, preventative or curative, there are risks and side-effects. A woman's GP is the best person to help her decide whether the abortion pill or an abortion are the best medical treatment for her, taking account of her wishes and her medical condition.

The only reason, the State (as in you and I) need to intervene is to regulate the provision of abortion. From a practical point of view, modern abortion pills are such that there is little point in prohibiting abortion for any reason up to 10-12 weeks. A GP prescription should be all that is needed for the pill.

A later abortion involves a medical procedure and an assessment by a specialist before any medical procedures is obviously appropriate hence the legislation should require this. Even a liposuction requires some level of expert medical approval.

Where we need to intervene and regulate is at the stage where the unborn is viable because the unborn do have rights too. We can play it safe and have no abortions after 18 weeks, or adopt a riskier position (for the unborn, but better for the mother's choice) and allow abortion up to 24 weeks. I am interested in hearing medical opinion on where this cut-off should be. After that, it is difficult to justify, other than in cases of FFA.

Now I know there are some who oppose any limit. To them, I would just say that every right is limited, every right tends to clash with another right, and while a woman's right to bodily integrity and right to choose are very important, hence we need to allow abortion, at some stage of the pregnancy the right to life of the unborn will trump the right to choose.

I fully accept everything you said there.
Its a very reasonable post.
The only problem with it is your first paragraph.
How to put this takes consideration, but here's how I see it.
There is a vote on repeal, now a lot of people have a problem with it because they see it as them being asked to vote for abortion.
If they think abortion is wrong, and there are a great many that do, unless in extreme circumstances, they are going to get it hard to vote for it as they think that's them endorsing it.
I'm voting repeal personally and hoping legislation that follows will be reasonable too.
A lot won't because they see it as a gateway to more radical abortion policies.
But while people are being asked to vote on something you can't say that is none of their business. They have a say in it.

Zerbini Blewitt

pleas advice wrote: »

that doesn't answer 'why' though...
.....
but that is the fundamental point, SIMPLY BY VIRTUE OF BEING TAXONOMICALLY HUMAN, these entities acquire some rights
.....
you'd rather believe they're all women-hating, religious, control-freaks, or something...

I couldn’t disagree more. A zygote has no rights.

As others have pointed out at length, stating it acquires rights by being taxonomically human is not an argument – it is a baseless assertion.

So pro-lifers who vote to force others (who think their views are absurd) to live by their baseless moralistic lunacy are

• Religious- yes, mostly here
• Women-hating, Control-freaks & cruel – yes but mostly indirectly – i.e. as a consequence of their views (which of course they compartmentalise away & deny responsibility for).

Pro-lifers who think like this but do not vote to enforce their baseless views on others are the sane & decent ones.

Zubeneschamali

pleas advice wrote: »

the fundamental point, SIMPLY BY VIRTUE OF BEING TAXONOMICALLY HUMAN, these entities acquire some rights.

Not in law, they don't. Look up the protections a fertilized egg has during IVF - it is as taxonomically human as you are, and it has no legal rights whatsoever before implantation.

.......

This post has been deleted.

JDD

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You all know, right, that the pill works in three ways.

1. It prevents the ovaries from issuing an egg;

2. If that doesn't work (and it sometimes doesn't), it thickens the walls at the entrance to the cervix to prevent sperm from entering;

3. If that doesn't work (and it sometimes doesn't), it smooths the walls of the cervix so that a fertilized egg can't get purchase to implant.

These three effects make the pill very effective. But I'm under no illusions that over 20 years of taking the pill, and with perhaps 320 cycles, I've probably aborted a zygote on a few occasions. The vast majority of pro-lifers don't seem to have an issue with that. Certainly, our law doesn't have an issue with it.

So, our law already allows for the termination of a zygote in certain circumstances, including as was mentioned above, in cases of IVF. So all were doing is extending that allowance to twelve weeks after fertilization, instead of only allowing it pre-implantation.

seamus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Not in law, they don't. Look up the protections a fertilized egg has during IVF - it is as taxonomically human as you are, and it has no legal rights whatsoever before implantation.

There's also no universal charters or declarations of rights either that assert a "taxonomically human" egg's right to anything.

He literally made it up.

Loafing Oaf

Edward M wrote: »

I'm voting repeal personally and hoping legislation that follows will be reasonable too.

We know with virtual certainty that the replacement legislation will permit abortion on demand/request up to 12 weeks. Up to you to decide whether that is 'reasonable'...

pleas advice

seamus wrote: »

There's also no universal charters or declarations of rights either that assert a "taxonomically human" egg's right to anything.

He literally made it up.

but that is the fundamental point, SIMPLY BY VIRTUE OF BEING TAXONOMICALLY HUMAN, these entities should acquire some rights (in the view of most 'pro-lifers')

better?

.....
you'd rather believe they're all women-hating, religious, control-freaks, or something...

There seems to be a lot of hatred there towards the other side, and it seems to be based on a misrepresentation of their views. Surely you cant believe that deep down they're all misogynists, and that that's the reason they hold their views?

.......

This post has been deleted.

kylith

pleas advice wrote: »

better?

There seems to be a lot of hatred there towards the other side, and it seems to be based on a misrepresentation of their views. Surely you cant believe that deep down they're all misogynists, and that that's the reason they hold their views?

What other word could you use for someone who thinks the rights of a grown woman come second to those of a 12 Week fetus?

blanch152

Edward M wrote: »

I fully accept everything you said there.
Its a very reasonable post.
The only problem with it is your first paragraph.
How to put this takes consideration, but here's how I see it.
There is a vote on repeal, now a lot of people have a problem with it because they see it as them being asked to vote for abortion.
If they think abortion is wrong, and there are a great many that do, unless in extreme circumstances, they are going to get it hard to vote for it as they think that's them endorsing it.
I'm voting repeal personally and hoping legislation that follows will be reasonable too.
A lot won't because they see it as a gateway to more radical abortion policies.
But while people are being asked to vote on something you can't say that is none of their business. They have a say in it.

People can have a say in the general rules around abortion, but once the rules and legislation are in place, the rest is a matter between a woman and her GP, just like any other medical treatment.

seamus

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's everywhere, and it's quite incredible. Even taking the fact that many platforms tend to be male-heavy anyway, I very rarely see any women holding a pro-life position and getting into heated debates about it.

Go onto twitter, and aside from the odd God-botherer putting in a throwaway comment, the ones engaging in huge pro-life threads are always men.

I'm not really willing to write it off as, "Ah, just a load of women-haters" myself. I'm genuinely curious to know what it's all about, and why women seem to be so massively underrepresented in pro-life circles.

Most of the people at the top level of the pro-choice campaigns, are women. Most of those at the top level of the pro-life campaign, are men.

Could it really be as simple as misogyny?

PhoenixParker

I am a human I have a right to life.
But if I need a kidney transplant I have no right to your kidney. If I need bone marrow I have no right to your bone marrow. If I need a simple blood donation, I have no right to your blood. My living breathing son has no right to my kidneys, bone marrow or blood either. I'd give them all to him in a heartbeat but the state wouldn't force me to.

A fetus though somehow has a right to take possession of a womans body and there's nothing she can do?

That's not an equal right to life, that's a "right" to life far far above and beyond that we give to living breathing humans of all ages.

pleas advice

kylith wrote: »

What other word could you use for someone who thinks the rights of a grown woman come second to those of a 12 Week fetus?

Not second, equal. (in regards a right to exist)

.......

This post has been deleted.

kylith

pleas advice wrote: »

Not second, equal. (in regards a right to exist)

When one organism co-opts another’s body they can’t both have equal rights. Giving the fetus an inviolable right to exist means that the living woman loses her rights to bodily autonomy.

Zubeneschamali

pleas advice wrote: »

better?

SIMPLY BY VIRTUE OF BEING TAXONOMICALLY HUMAN, these entities should acquire some rights (in the view of most 'pro-lifers')

So, what are you doing to ban IVF and repeal the 13th amendment?

Zubeneschamali

pleas advice wrote: »

Not second, equal. (in regards a right to exist)

This is exactly what killed Savita Hallapanavar.

Even though everyone knew the fetus could not survive, until either it was dead or her life was in danger, she was denied a termination (which she requested).

By the time the medical team decided her life was in danger, they were too late.

Yes, yes, we all know the team made mistakes, but without the 8th they would not have been in the position to make mistakes. The termination would have been routine, she'd be alive and maybe had another child by now (as it was a wanted pregnancy).

pilly

seamus wrote: »

It's everywhere, and it's quite incredible. Even taking the fact that many platforms tend to be male-heavy anyway, I very rarely see any women holding a pro-life position and getting into heated debates about it.

Go onto twitter, and aside from the odd God-botherer putting in a throwaway comment, the ones engaging in huge pro-life threads are always men.

I'm not really willing to write it off as, "Ah, just a load of women-haters" myself. I'm genuinely curious to know what it's all about, and why women seem to be so massively underrepresented in pro-life circles.

Most of the people at the top level of the pro-choice campaigns, are women. Most of those at the top level of the pro-life campaign, are men.

Could it really be as simple as misogyny?

I think it's a mixture of misogyny and pure ignorance.

A man can never know what it's like to be pregnant and not want to be, it's as simple as that. No matter how much they protest, they will never ever experience that.

Another male poster has actually said it's not that big a deal to carry a child to term and give birth to it and then you can do what you want. Pure ignorance.

It's also a control issue. Some men want control over women, always have done and always will do, nothing will change them. On the plus side more and more of those type of men are dying off.

What I find more difficult to understand are the young men with these same views. Where the hell are they getting it from? Do they not have mothers or sisters?

.......

This post has been deleted.

pleas advice

pilly wrote: »

What I find more difficult to understand are the young men with these same views. Where the hell are they getting it from? Do they not have mothers or sisters?

Well I mean, if you understood their actual views, and not just what you think their views are, maybe you'd see where they were coming from a little better?

pilly

pleas advice wrote: »

Well I mean, if you understood their actual views, and not just what you think their views are, maybe you'd see where they were coming from a little better?

Why don't you take your own advice and stop copy and pasting it to everyone else?

And how do you know any better what people's actual views are? You can only speak for yourself not a whole section of society.

I've named numerous reasons that I think men are anti-choice. Not just one so I'm not assuming anything.

Zubeneschamali

pleas advice wrote: »

Well I mean, if you understood their actual views, and not just what you think their views are, maybe you'd see where they were coming from a little better?

... and then what?

They voted in the 8th, caused all these problems, and have resisted fixing them for 30 years. What benefit is supposed to flow from seeing where they are coming from?

I say we just vote them into the stone age where they belong.

pleas advice

Im sensing a little hostility here?

Zubeneschamali

pleas advice wrote: »

Im sensing a little hostility here?

Yes, of course, with good reason.

B0jangles

pleas advice wrote: »

Im sensing a little hostility here?

I don't think you quite grasp that for Irish women this is not just an interesting ethical conundrum, it's quite literally a matter of life and death for some, of permanent disability or pain for others, and for the risk of those two for all Irish women.

It's easy to be calm and dispassionate about something when it poses no personal risk to you.

kylith

pleas advice wrote: »

Well I mean, if you understood their actual views, and not just what you think their views are, maybe you'd see where they were coming from a little better?

Well, what are their views then? Because ‘it’s alive! Abortion is murder’ is just an opinion and I have never been given any good reason why that opinion should be given any weight.

pleas advice

You ask what their views are, that's their views right there
'it's alive! Abortion is murder'

Its no more complicated than that

Zubeneschamali

pleas advice wrote: »

You ask what their views are, that's their views right there
'it's alive! Abortion is murder'

Its no more complicated than that

They are wrong as a simple matter of fact.

What was the point of trying to understand this again?

pleas advice

To see where they are coming from, that they're not all ignorant misogynist control freaks, out to destroy young girls and women's life's for ****s and giggles...