The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

pilly

Why are you referring to "they"? You can not speak for a whole section of society. Speak for yourself and lay off the sound bites.

You're ask people to listen to views when your views are summarised in one sentence. People don't agree. What's to understand?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Night Falls

pilly wrote: »

Why are you referring to "they"? You can not speak for a whole section of society. Speak for yourself and lay off the sound bites.

You're ask people to listen to views when your views are summarised in one sentence. People don't agree. What's to understand?

The hilarious thing is that someone is surprised that people might get angry at being labelled as murderers.

.......

This post has been deleted.

kylith

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

Why should that view top my view that it’s not alive, abortion isn’t murder, and I should get ultimate day about what’s allowed in my body?

seamus

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

So what you're saying is that they're simpletons?

If it's "no more complicated than that" in their heads, then clearly they haven't, or refuse to, give it much thought.

Because the issue itself is far more complicated than that, which can't be disregarded with, "Well, I believe it's murder and that's that".

Bannasidhe

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

To paraphrase Panti

"It turns out that women are not the victims of misogyny: misogynists are the victims of misogyny."

Bannasidhe

pleas advice wrote: »

they're not all ignorant misogynist control freaks, out to destroy young girls and women's life's for ****s and giggles...

But that has been the consequence.

ToddyDoody

They call it the ate ammendment in Carlow.

B0jangles

Bannasidhe wrote: »

To paraphrase Panti

"It turns out that women are not the victims of misogyny: misogynists are the victims of misogyny."

You come across this a lot alright - people who think of themselves as good, kind, loving, moral men and women but who will happily vote for things which hurt other people.

Like people who voted against marriage equality - if you pointed out to them that their actions actually hurt the lives of innocent people, they got all huffy and offended that anyone would dare to say they were selfish or unkind. 'I'm entitled to my opinion!' they shouted, enraged at any and all criticism.

PopePalpatine

pleas advice wrote: »

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...

#NotAllProLifers

SusieBlue

I was discussing the referendum recently with a pro life relative.

They didn’t have much to offer beyond the usual ‘its wrong, it’s murder etc’ speech.

When he realized he had pretty much no argument he said ‘I’m entitled to have my opinion and have my say on the matter!!’.

The irony of the fact that he was aggressively defending his right to choose to vote on the matter was lost on him, particularly when I pointed out that his choice in the referendum determines whether I will be allowed to have a choice over my own body.
He just didn’t get it.
Some people can’t see the wood from the trees.

pitifulgod

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

You don't see how that's loaded language? Should women be convicted for murder because of their abortions?

pleas advice

I just used that posters words, call it what you like it's the intentional ending of a genetically separate, human, life.

Call it whatever you like, that's what it is.

Bannasidhe

pleas advice wrote: »

I just used that posters words, call it what you like it's the intentional ending of a genetically separate, human, life.

Call it whatever you like, that's what it is.

So is refusing vital health care treatment but a vote to keep the 8th allows exactly that to happen.

pleas advice

PopePalpatine wrote: »

#NotAllProLifers

What's this nonsense? Do you seriously believe that there are people out there who see a fetus as nothing more than a bunch of cells, a parasite, but are 'pro life' just to 'keep women in their place'?

pitifulgod

pleas advice wrote: »

I just used that posters words, call it what you like it's the intentional ending of a genetically separate, human, life.

Call it whatever you like, that's what it is.

Do you think women should be convicted for abortions obtained here?

pilly

pleas advice wrote: »

What's this nonsense? Do you seriously believe that there are people out there who see a fetus as nothing more than a bunch of cells, a parasite, but are 'pro life' just to 'keep women in their place'?

Methinks the poster doth protest too much. :rolleyes:

January

pleas advice wrote: »

What's this nonsense? Do you seriously believe that there are people out there who see a fetus as nothing more than a bunch of cells, a parasite, but are 'pro life' just to 'keep women in their place'?

Bingo. Yes there are people exactly like that out there.

pleas advice

pitifulgod wrote: »

Do you think women should be convicted for abortions obtained here?

Me, personally. No. Nor for importing abortion pills, or taking them.

kylith

pleas advice wrote: »

I just used that posters words, call it what you like it's the intentional ending of a genetically separate, human, life.

Call it whatever you like, that's what it is.

But why should that view trump my view that it's not alive, abortion isn't murder, and I should have 100% control about what happens my body?

pleas advice

January wrote: »

Bingo. Yes there are people exactly like that out there.

And do you think they are a sizeable proportion, or ...?

pilly

pleas advice wrote: »

Me, personally. No. Nor for importing abortion pills, or taking them.

Grand, so you've no problem with abortion. Go away and stop annoying everyone with your constant questions.

frag420

***Dear Pro Lifers, before you ask what mother would refuse to help their child, that is not the point of the question below! ***

So from reading this thread and others as well as talking to a lot of pro life people both online and in real life one thing that is always put forward as a justification for keeping the 8th is that a fetus inside a woman cannot survive on its own and thus deserves the right to life via the woman's body as it depends on the body of the woman to develop.

Now the pro life side equate a fetus to a child, to a teenager, to an adult etc etc etc...they are all life and are all equal, that much they ave made very clear!

So say a child is born, it is outside the womb, its is a breathing living human. After a month that child develops a fatal condition that requires blood or marrow or an organ(i know they would be too big for a new born but work with me here).

Now much like the fetus inside the womb the child requires the nourishment and care of the mother to live and develop outside the womb as inside the womb.

Are you in agreement that the mother should be forced to provide marrow or blood or an organ to keep that child alive same as you expect a pregnant woman to provide for the unborn?

PhoenixParker

frag420 wrote: »

***Dear Pro Lifers, before you ask what mother would refuse to help their child, that is not the point of the question below! ***

So from reading this thread and others as well as talking to a lot of pro life people both online and in real life one thing that is always put forward as a justification for keeping the 8th is that a fetus inside a woman cannot survive on its own and thus deserves the right to life via the woman's body as it depends on the body of the woman to develop.

Now the pro life side equate a fetus to a child, to a teenager, to an adult etc etc etc...they are all life and are all equal, that much they ave made very clear!

So say a child is born, it is outside the womb, its is a breathing living human. After a month that child develops a fatal condition that requires blood or marrow or an organ(i know they would be too big for a new born but work with me here).

Now much like the fetus inside the womb the child requires the nourishment and care of the mother to live and develop outside the womb as inside the womb.

Are you in agreement that the father who didnt want the baby in the first place should be forced to provide marrow or blood or an organ to keep that child alive same as you expect a pregnant woman to provide for the unborn?

Ftfy

RobertKK

kylith wrote: »

Why should that view top my view that it’s not alive, abortion isn’t murder, and I should get ultimate day about what’s allowed in my body?

If it is not alive, then why does the life in the womb have to be terminated?

kylith

RobertKK wrote: »

If it is not alive, then why does the life in the womb have to be terminated?

The pregnancy is terminated.

PopePalpatine

pleas advice wrote: »

What's this nonsense? Do you seriously believe that there are people out there who see a fetus as nothing more than a bunch of cells, a parasite, but are 'pro life' just to 'keep women in their place'?

Yes, I think that in a country of 4.6 million there are some people in Ireland who are pro-life not because of their religious beliefs, but out of batshit-crazy sexism, sometimes the kind that gives rise to conspiracy theories about soy products.

Captain Obvious

frag420 wrote: »

***Dear Pro Lifers, before you ask what mother would refuse to help their child, that is not the point of the question below! ***

So from reading this thread and others as well as talking to a lot of pro life people both online and in real life one thing that is always put forward as a justification for keeping the 8th is that a fetus inside a woman cannot survive on its own and thus deserves the right to life via the woman's body as it depends on the body of the woman to develop.

Now the pro life side equate a fetus to a child, to a teenager, to an adult etc etc etc...they are all life and are all equal, that much they ave made very clear!

So say a child is born, it is outside the womb, its is a breathing living human. After a month that child develops a fatal condition that requires blood or marrow or an organ(i know they would be too big for a new born but work with me here).

Now much like the fetus inside the womb the child requires the nourishment and care of the mother to live and develop outside the womb as inside the womb.

Are you in agreement that the mother should be forced to provide marrow or blood or an organ to keep that child alive same as you expect a pregnant woman to provide for the unborn?

The problem with your example is that nobody has said the relationship between the mother and baby does not change. I doubt you'll find many who say that the relationship between mother and child should be the same as the relationship between mother and fetus in the same way you won't find many who think the relationship between mother and infant are the same as the relationship between mother and teenager.

eviltwin

pleas advice wrote: »

What's this nonsense? Do you seriously believe that there are people out there who see a fetus as nothing more than a bunch of cells, a parasite, but are 'pro life' just to 'keep women in their place'?

I would encourage you to look at some of the comments on the pro life pages and you will find there are people who are exactly like that. I've been told on one of those pages that I'm a slut, I should be sterilised, be jailed, that I'm a terrible mother, that I'm trying to encourage women to lose the run of themselves, I've seen others called similar things or worse. Just for supporting repeal. It's all about control, about shaming normal sexual behaviour and trying to make women feel bad for wanting choice.

Sonics2k

The back and forth here is so pointless.

It's very simple. If you don't want or support abortion, do not get one. But just because you personally dislike it, does not mean that you should prevent others from being able to do so if that is what's right for them.

Quite frankly an awful lot of women I've spoken to about this have said they'd never have an abortion, but know they should have the right to do so.

Buford T. Justice XIX

pilly wrote: »

Grand, so you've no problem with abortion. Go away and stop annoying everyone with your constant questions.

Mod note: pilly, please take a 24 hour break from posting on this thread, please.

Buford T. Justice

Captain Obvious

Sonics2k wrote: »

The back and forth here is so pointless.

It's very simple. If you don't want or support abortion, do not get one. But just because you personally dislike it, does not mean that you should prevent others from being able to do so if that is what's right for them.

Quite frankly an awful lot of women I've spoken to about this have said they'd never have an abortion, but know they should have the right to do so.

The back and forth is only pointless because people like yourself refuse to look at the issue from the the point of view of the other side. Pro life people believe a life is being destroyed. Saying "If you don't want or support abortion, do not get one" to someone who believes this is no different then saying "If you don't support child abuse then don't touch children. No need to prevent others from doing it."

RobertKK

kylith wrote: »

The pregnancy is terminated.

So when your mother was pregnant with you, you were not alive in her womb?

From Oxford dictionary:
pregnant
ADJECTIVE

1(of a woman or female animal) having a child or young developing in the uterus.
‘she was heavily pregnant with her second child’
‘she was six months pregnant’

I just think your statement of the unborn not being alive in the womb is complete anti-science.

blanch152

Captain Obvious wrote: »

The back and forth is only pointless because people like yourself refuse to look at the issue from the the point of view of the other side. Pro life people believe a life is being destroyed. Saying "If you don't want or support abortion, do not get one" to someone who believes this is no different then saying "If you don't support child abuse then don't touch children. No need to prevent others from doing it."

Exactly.

The pro-life extremists ignore the right to choose and the right to bodily integrity of a woman.
The pro-choice extremists ignore the right to life of the unborn.

It is only when you consider the balance of these rights, together with the practical realities of the UK next door and the ability to order pills over the internet as well as a more sympathetic attitude to women than prevailed in 1983, that you can then reach a conclusion about the issue.

Annasopra

kylith wrote: »

She can be pressured, yes, but if she says to the doctor ‘I don’t want to do this’ they won’t perform the procedure, the same as any other elective procedure.

It may be the case that she is threatened by family or partner, but the final yes or no is hers. And in this day and age developed countries have enough social supports that withdrawal of family support isn’t a ticket to a workhouse any more.

Can you imagine the uproar if it was ever discovered that a doctor performed an abortion on a woman who had told him that she didn’t want it?

I heard if a dreadful situation. A woman decided to have an abortion, scraped all the money together, went to the UK. Got to the clinic. Changed her mind. Decided she didnt want the abortion. Then felt pressured to have it because if she changed her mind again the cost would be unaffordable. Ironically the 8th pressured this woman to have an abortion.

Annasopra

pleas advice wrote: »

Is there a need for that? Really?

Yes. The language is jugemental.

Annasopra

pleas advice wrote: »

Do you actually really think that?

I do. Some so called pro lifers are definitely mysoginists.

Captain Obvious

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I heard if a dreadful situation. A woman decided to have an abortion, scraped all the money together, went to the UK. Got to the clinic. Changed her mind. Decided she didnt want the abortion. Then felt pressured to have it because if she changed her mind again the cost would be unaffordable. Ironically the 8th pressured this woman to have an abortion.

No it didn't. That's not even logical.

January

Captain Obvious wrote: »

No it didn't. That's not even logical.

Its very logical. If she had been able to access abortion here in her home country then she would have had time to think and decide what she actually wanted. Instead she was forced into spending money on flights and accommodation and then when she got there and didn't want the abortion she felt pressured into having it because if she went back to Ireland and said oh wait I do want the abortion she wouldn't have been able to afford another flight back.

gallifreya

Absolutely agree. Different scenario without the critical time limits but my husband at 29 had 3 children (2 due to total contraceptive failure) and decided that the snip was the best solution. He ran into brick walls trying to get a vasectomy here (due to his age) so we had to go to the UK. No pressure from me at all however, he got an attack of cold feet in the clinic. He could have used a bit more time to consider it but because it wasn't just a case of possibly rescheduling an appointment, he felt he had to go ahead then and there because of the effort involved getting to that point. The travel and logistics aspect along with the expense involved set it in stone for him. I can easily see how a woman seeking an abortion from Ireland under time constraints would feel even worse pressure.

Captain Obvious

January wrote: »

Its very logical. If she had been able to access abortion here in her home country then she would have had time to think and decide what she actually wanted. Instead she was forced into spending money on flights and accommodation and then when she got there and didn't want the abortion she felt pressured into having it because if she went back to Ireland and said oh wait I do want the abortion she wouldn't have been able to afford another flight back.

Are you just assuming abortions will be free or cheap in Ireland if the 8th were not in place? Has that been stated somewhere?

Ave Sodalis

eviltwin wrote: »

I should be sterilised

The best of it is, if you want to be sterilised, you can't unless you have a multiple children and near menopause... even then it can be a struggle to find a doctor who'd agree. If someone told me I should be sterilised for supporting pro-choice, I'd reply with "I agree! Find me a doctor who'll do it and it shall be done".

January

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Are you just assuming abortions will be free or cheap in Ireland if the 8th were not in place? Has that been stated somewhere?

Did I mention the cost of the abortion? I mentioned the cost of flights and accommodation which are extra to the cost of the abortion and have to be paid up front and cannot be refunded.

But yes I am assuming abortion will be free or very cheap when it becomes available here. Maternity care is free for all pregnant people in this country. Abortion falls under maternity care. I envision that the pill will be covered under the GMS and DPS schemes and that surgical abortions will be covered under public care as a day procedure which even if its not free under maternity care will only cost 80 euro bed charge.

RDM_83 again

January wrote: »

Its very logical. If she had been able to access abortion here in her home country then she would have had time to think and decide what she actually wanted. Instead she was forced into spending money on flights and accommodation and then when she got there and didn't want the abortion she felt pressured into having it because if she went back to Ireland and said oh wait I do want the abortion she wouldn't have been able to afford another flight back.

Wouldn't this be a perfect example of why a pre-procedure councilling session followed by a few days reflective period should be legislated for.

Would you oppose such legislation? If so why?

Like it seems like a reasonable compromise

blanch152

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Wouldn't this be a perfect example of why a pre-procedure councilling session followed by a few days reflective period should be legislated for.

Would you oppose such legislation? If so why?

The woman in that situation didn't even have the counselling and support of her GP. That may be all that is needed.

eviltwin

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Wouldn't this be a perfect example of why a pre-procedure councilling session followed by a few days reflective period should be legislated for.

Would you oppose such legislation? If so why?

Like it seems like a reasonable compromise

Why? Are you saying women are idiots who rush into a decision the minute they pee on the stick? Do you not think we are capable of deciding for ourselves what we need without having to be treated like dopes? Are we going to offer counselling to every pregnant woman who decides to go ahead with the pregnancy or is it just the ones who want abortion who are incapable of making a decision?

Counselling already exists for crisis pregnancies. It's a good idea to expand it nationwide but make it compulsory?

I'm all for talking to women privately to make sure they aren't being coerced but making every woman wait is just unnecessary. You can be sure if she's choosing abortion it's because she wants an abortion.

RDM_83 again

eviltwin wrote: »

I would encourage you to look at some of the comments on the pro life pages and you will find there are people who are exactly like that. I've been told one of those pages that I'm a slut, I should be sterilised, be jailed, that I'm a terrible mother, that I'm trying to encourage women to lose the run of themselves, I've seen others called similar things or worse. Just for supporting repeal. It's all about control, about shaming normal sexual behaviour and trying to make women feel bad for wanting choice.

Is it though? Like repeal simply means repeal of the 8th, for example some islamic countries which have genuine day to day restrictions enforced restrictions on women's lives but still have slightly more liberal law in relation to abortion than Ireland as they consider the soul to only become present after a certain stage of fetal development.

blanch152

eviltwin wrote: »

Why? Are you saying women are idiots who rush into a decision the minute they pee on the stick? Do you not think we are capable of deciding for ourselves what we need without having to be treated like dopes? Are we going to offer counselling to every pregnant woman who decides to go ahead with the pregnancy or is it just the ones who want abortion who are incapable of making a decision?

Counselling already exists for crisis pregnancies. It's a good idea to expand it nationwide but make it compulsory?

I'm all for talking to women privately to make sure they aren't being coerced but making every woman wait is just unnecessary. You can be sure if she's choosing abortion it's because she wants an abortion.

A woman does need to consult her GP. An abortion is a medical procedure and the safety or otherwise of an abortion depends on her individual medical circumstances.

eviltwin

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Is it though? Like repeal simply means repeal of the 8th, for example some islamic countries which have genuine day to day restrictions enforced restrictions on women's lives but still have slightly more liberal law in relation to abortion than Ireland as they consider the soul to only become present after a certain stage of fetal development.

In my experience it is. Granted those pages tend to attract a certain mindset and I wouldn't say all those in favour of the 8th share those views but these are the groups setting the tone of the Save campaign. There is an overwhelming sense that it's a certain type of woman who looks for an abortion and that if they have access to abortion they will be shagging away and it's that freedom they seem to resent, not the loss of what they consider a life.