The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

pleas advice

'Genetically seperate, human entity' though

KKkitty

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Yes it can. If a child stumbles on a cliff edge and is hanging over the edge, the state requires you to pull him up before he falls. You can't just sit back and continue eating your ice cream while he's screaming for your help.

They are called "Duty To Rescue" laws. You can't claim bodily autonomy and just do nothing.

A duty to rescue is a concept in tort law that arises in a number of cases, describing a circumstance in which a party can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party in peril.
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue )

Ok so by your analogy someone has to be born before they can be rescued? They have to be an actual human being outside of the womb before they can be saved? I'm going to stop you right there. As with many countries women's rights, health and general well-being have been disgraceful. We have to change this. We have to be better. Stop oppressing women and let them make the right decisions for them.

2wsxcde3

KKkitty wrote: »

Stop oppressing women and let them make the right decisions for them.

With all due respect, the pro-choice have been guilty of oppressing women:

Ivana Bacik insults 'C' Case woman who regrets abortion, claims she was "manipulated"
Ivana Bacik, the pro-choice/pro-abortion Labour Senator who has called for the abortion debate to be conducted "in a respectful and dignified fashion" has brought the level of debate to a new low by insulting the rape victim who was the subject of the C Case in 1997 and subsequently expressed regret at having an abortion.
(Source: http://www.politics.ie/forum/labour/...nipulated.html )

‘We are tired of being silenced’: Rape survivors push back against abortion activists
Rape survivors say that they will not be silenced by bullies and plan to hold a speaking event outside the Spencer Hotel on Thursday despite the hotel becoming the second venue to cancel within a week after threats from abortion campaigners.
(Source: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/we-are-tired-of-being-silenced-rape-survivors-push-back-against-abortion-ac )

Slogans like "we need to trust women" ring hollow when pro-choice activists set out to attack women who speak the truth about abortion.

Andrew Beef

But nobody is contending that an unborn child’s right to life is equal to that of an adult woman; the salient point is that the unborn child’s right to life trumps the adult woman’s right to kill it.

For those who were asking why my moral code should trump theirs, I’m not contending that it does; there is a concept of objective morality; some things are morally wrong irrespective of what you or I think.

erica74

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Why do you think yours should top theirs?

That poster doesn't actually think that their belief tops anyone else's, they believe that everyone should have a choice, therefore enabling us all to uphold our beliefs.

NuMarvel

Andrew Beef wrote: »

But nobody is contending that an unborn child’s right to life is equal to that of an adult woman...

That's exactly what the 8th says:

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right

If you're going to oppose repeal of the 8th, you should at least read it first.

swampgas

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Yes it can. If a child stumbles on a cliff edge and is hanging over the edge, the state requires you to pull him up before he falls. You can't just sit back and continue eating your ice cream while he's screaming for your help.

They are called "Duty To Rescue" laws. You can't claim bodily autonomy and just do nothing.

A duty to rescue is a concept in tort law that arises in a number of cases, describing a circumstance in which a party can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party in peril.
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue )

It feels like you're working through a list of "arguments to use when debating abortionists" but what the hell.

Here's an alternative (and IMO more accurate) hypothetical for you.

You see a child of about 14 years of age standing on a cliff edge, crying. You approach and ask what the problem is. She says she was raped by her father and is pregnant, and can't face being pregnant, so she's going to jump. You offer to help and explain all the reasons why she should go ahead with the pregnancy. None of your arguments make any sense to her. She asks if you would lend her the money to buy some abortion pills, as she is only 6 weeks pregnant. You refuse. She says never mind, she has just remembered someone she can ask for money instead. As she heads away you decide that you must act on behalf of the 6-week old life, so you abduct her and lock her in a bedroom in your home. She refuses to eat so you force feed her. She doesn't understand why you are treating her in such an awful way, but then she doesn't understand that LIFE must prevail, no matter the consequences. 6 weeks later she miscarries, as you knew she might. You now release her, she goes straight to the Gárdaí, and you are arrested. You protest your moral superiority.

Sound about right? Is this the moral framework you have signed up to?

This is the moral framework of the 8th amendment. It allows strangers to insist that a girl or woman be forced to continue a pregnancy no matter the circumstances. Own it.

Andrew Beef

NuMarvel wrote: »

Andrew Beef wrote: »

But nobody is contending that an unborn child’s right to life is equal to that of an adult woman...

That's exactly what the 8th says:

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right

If you're going to oppose repeal of the 8th, you should at least read it first.

I have read it. I have no issue with Stage 1 (repeal); my issue is with what replaces it (12 weeks etc).

pitifulgod

Andrew Beef wrote: »

I have read it. I have no issue with Stage 1 (repeal); my issue is with what replaces it (12 weeks etc).

You want to convict women for abortions, you would be considered to be on the extreme side of things...

Candamir

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Yes it can. If a child stumbles on a cliff edge and is hanging over the edge, the state requires you to pull him up before he falls. You can't just sit back and continue eating your ice cream while he's screaming for your help.

They are called "Duty To Rescue" laws. You can't claim bodily autonomy and just do nothing.

A duty to rescue is a concept in tort law that arises in a number of cases, describing a circumstance in which a party can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party in peril.
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue )

In countries with duty to rescue laws (and I believe Ireland is not one of them), the duty to rescue does not apply if it potentially puts the rescuer or others in danger. Given that carrying a pregnancy is more dangerous than terminating one, duty to rescue does not apply here. Even in your poor analogy.

circadian

So I got some Save the 8th literature in the door over the weekend.

There is a lot of misinformation and comparisons that don't really make sense.

Do they just expect people to not check the sources they use?

"In Denmark there is a goal to make it a Down Syndrome free country by 2030"

http://cphpost.dk/news/down-syndrome-heading-for-extinction-in-denmark.html

Nowhere in that article does it mention "a goal" to do this.

The leaflet was littered with things like this.

splinter65

circadian wrote: »

So I got some Save the 8th literature in the door over the weekend.

There is a lot of misinformation and comparisons that don't really make sense.

Do they just expect people to not check the sources they use?

"In Denmark there is a goal to make it a Down Syndrome free country by 2030"

http://cphpost.dk/news/down-syndrome-heading-for-extinction-in-denmark.html

Nowhere in that article does it mention "a goal" to do this.

The leaflet was littered with things like this.

Tell us some more misinformation and inaccurate comparisons that you read in the leaflet.
It’s Iceland as far as I can see that’s aiming for the “no imperfections please” scenario.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/iceland-downs-syndrome-no-children-born-first-country-world-screening-a7895996.html?amp

Zubeneschamali

Andrew Beef wrote: »

But nobody is contending that an unborn child’s right to life is equal to that of an adult woman;

Then you'd better repeal the 8th, because that's exactly what it contends.

Zubeneschamali

Andrew Beef wrote: »

I have read it. I have no issue with Stage 1 (repeal); my issue is with what replaces it

In that case, your comment would be better phrased as "I am not contending that an unborn child’s right to life is equal to that of an adult woman", because in case it is news to you, hundreds of thousands of people in Ireland ARE contending exactly that.

Annasopra

AnneFrank wrote: »

I think you're missing the point,

Its a clever tactic. Make out that people are being are being bullied and silenced. Its untrue though.

ohnonotgmail

circadian wrote: »

So I got some Save the 8th literature in the door over the weekend.

There is a lot of misinformation and comparisons that don't really make sense.

Do they just expect people to not check the sources they use?

"In Denmark there is a goal to make it a Down Syndrome free country by 2030"

http://cphpost.dk/news/down-syndrome-heading-for-extinction-in-denmark.html

Nowhere in that article does it mention "a goal" to do this.

The leaflet was littered with things like this.

They do. and unfortunately a lot of people won't.

NuMarvel

Andrew Beef wrote: »

I have read it. I have no issue with Stage 1 (repeal); my issue is with what replaces it (12 weeks etc).

What would you like to see happen after repeal?

Annasopra

pleas advice wrote: »

so, it is a distinct human entity. which should afford it some rights, or some consideration from society as a whole,

It foesnt exist as a human so how can it have human rights?

Annasopra

Andrew Beef wrote: »

nobody is contending that an unborn child’s right to life is equal to that of an adult woman;

You seem to be missing the entire point. The 8th amendment contends this.

January

splinter65 wrote: »

Tell us some more misinformation and inaccurate comparisons that you read in the leaflet.
It’s Iceland as far as I can see that’s aiming for the “no imperfections please” scenario.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/iceland-downs-syndrome-no-children-born-first-country-world-screening-a7895996.html%3famp

That's not true either.

https://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/news/2017/08/16/doctor_says_cbs_news_claims_on_iceland_downs_and_ab/

Wombatman

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Yes it can. If a child stumbles on a cliff edge and is hanging over the edge, the state requires you to pull him up before he falls. You can't just sit back and continue eating your ice cream while he's screaming for your help.

They are called "Duty To Rescue" laws. You can't claim bodily autonomy and just do nothing.

A duty to rescue is a concept in tort law that arises in a number of cases, describing a circumstance in which a party can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party in peril.
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue )

These laws apply to a real living child, a citizen of the county. Children can become wards of the state because the state can physically care for them.

There are practical reasons why these laws shouldn't apply to embryos. Embryos can't become wards of the state because they are wholly dependent on the woman carrying them. Therefore the dominion governing the health of the embryos is totally with the carrying woman. In very rare cases embryos have been born and survived without the birth mother after 21 week.

Can you sit back and think about this for a while rather than going through your arsenal of trite rebuttals for a counter post.

Considering my point above, would you be happy with abortion up to 12 weeks even though logically the state shouldn't have a say until around 21 weeks?

Captain Obvious

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It foesnt exist as a human

By what standard? Isn't this the fundamental point that's being disagreed on?

seamus

Captain Obvious wrote: »

By what standard? Isn't this the fundamental point that's being disagreed on?

It's the bit that's being debated by some, but by international standards the foetus is not human. There's not really any disagreement about it.

There is no legal basis, and not even any historical precedent for affording human rights (or part thereof) to a foetus, especially one before 12 weeks.

Captain Obvious

seamus wrote: »

It's the bit that's being debated by some, but by international standards the foetus is not human. There's not really any disagreement about it.

There is no legal basis, and not even any historical precedent for affording human rights (or part thereof) to a foetus, especially one before 12 weeks.

I presume you mean except for our constitution?

Charmeleon

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It foesnt exist as a human so how can it have human rights?

What is it then? Maybe the mother will give birth to a fish, or a tree, or an armchair?

Go into a lab with embryos from lots of different animals, are they all identical? There is no inherent difference between the embryo of a cow and a giraffe?

Charmeleon

seamus wrote: »

It's the bit that's being debated by some, but by international standards the foetus is not human. There's not really any disagreement about it.

There is no legal basis, and not even any historical precedent for affording human rights (or part thereof) to a foetus, especially one before 12 weeks.

Isn’t that only due to it benefiting from being inside a person who does have fundemental human rights? It only becomes an issue when that person wants to evict it, otherwise the rights of the mother affords protection to both.

seamus

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I presume you mean except for our constitution?

Our constitution doesn't even recognise the foetus as human. Just recognises a right to life.

The constitution is at odds with itself; a foetus miscarried before 24 weeks is medical waste, recorded in the mother's medical history, and is not given any kind of individual recognition that it ever existed.

Because it is not legally recognised as a human.

Charmeleon

seamus wrote: »

Our constitution doesn't even recognise the foetus as human. Just recognises a right to life.

The constitution is at odds with itself; a foetus miscarried before 24 weeks is medical waste, recorded in the mother's medical history, and is not given any kind of individual recognition that it ever existed.

Because it is not legally recognised as a human.

The same pretty much applied to unbaptised babies in a historical context. It doesn’t make any difference to how an objective evaluation should approach the problem.

Andrew Beef

NuMarvel wrote: »

Andrew Beef wrote: »

I have read it. I have no issue with Stage 1 (repeal); my issue is with what replaces it (12 weeks etc).

What would you like to see happen after repeal?

Abortion illegal except in medical cases, incest cases, and rape cases.

kylith

Andrew Beef wrote: »

Abortion illegal except in medical cases, incest cases, and rape cases.

Allowing it in rape cases raises difficulties. Do you wait for conviction? That can take years. Would it require just a Garda report? The rate of false reporting would skyrocket. Do you take the woman’s word that she was raped and allow it without formal reporting? What’s the difference between that and allowing it on request?

zedhead

Andrew Beef wrote: »

Abortion illegal except in medical cases, incest cases, and rape cases.

Is the foetus any less if it is the result of rape. Why is it ok to kill these if you truly believe that a foetus deserves these rights?

Bannasidhe

Charmeleon wrote: »

The same pretty much applied to unbaptised babies in a historical context. It doesn’t make any difference to how an objective evaluation should approach the problem.

You are conflating two very different things and frankly speaking utter nonsense.

Baptism has no legal standing nor does it confer 'personhood'. Not being baptised meant a child/adult could not be buried in ground that was deemed consecrated to a Christian faith not that a child/adult wasn't a human.
It just so happened that most of the cemeteries in Ireland were controlled by the Roman Catholic Church and with their usual empathy they refused to allow proper burial. As we have seen, some parts of that particular organisation preferred septic tanks - even when disposing of baptised children.
ALL children born in Ireland since the enactment of the Registration of Births Act 1863 are required by law to be registered - once this is done they are legally a person - baptism or no baptism.

For example the Goldberg family of Harcourt St in Dublin appear in the census of 1911 as they are recognised as living human beings - they were not, however, baptised. http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1911/Dublin/Fitzwilliam/Harcourt_Street/73041/

There were 3 Jewish cemeteries in Dublin alone, the oldest dating back to 1660. If unbaptised people - such as Jews - were not recognised as human why would they need cemeteries? According to your statement they would have been 'medical waste'.

You didn't really think that through did you?

Captain Obvious

Andrew Beef wrote: »

Abortion illegal except in medical cases, incest cases, and rape cases.

Why incest and rape cases?

Charmeleon

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You are conflating two very different things and frankly speaking utter nonsense.

Baptism has no legal standing nor does it confer 'personhood'. Not being baptised meant a child/adult could not be buried in ground that was deemed consecrated to a Christian faith not that a child/adult wasn't a human.
It just so happened that most of the cemeteries in Ireland were controlled by the Roman Catholic Church and with their usual empathy they refused to allow proper burial. As we have seen, some parts of that particular organisation preferred septic tanks - even when disposing of baptised children.
ALL children born in Ireland since the enactment of the Registration of Births Act 1863 are required by law to be registered - once this is done they are legally a person - baptism or no baptism.

For example the Goldberg family of Harcourt St in Dublin appear in the census of 1911 as they are recognised as living human beings - they were not, however, baptised. http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1911/Dublin/Fitzwilliam/Harcourt_Street/73041/

There were 3 Jewish cemeteries in Dublin alone, the oldest dating back to 1660. If unbaptised people - such as Jews - were not recognised as human why would they need cemeteries? According to your statement they would have been 'medical waste'.

You didn't really think that through did you?

The point you missed was how we define what constitutes a person of value or standing in the community varies by historical or cultural context. 'Fundamental human rights' by definition means you or I, the government or society have absolutely no business or input putting our own criteria or barriers in between a human and their fundamental rights. We can have additional rights but all human life has a basic right to life.

Martina1991

Andrew Beef wrote:

Abortion illegal except in medical cases, incest cases, and rape cases.

How can you say every foetus has a right to life except in those cases.

You're either for protecting every unborn child or you're not.

kylith

Charmeleon wrote: »

The point you missed was how we define what constitutes a person of value or standing in the community varies by historical or cultural context. 'Fundamental human rights' by definition means you or I, the government or society have absolutely no business or input putting our own criteria or barriers in between a human and their fundamental rights. We can have additional rights but all human life has a basic right to life.

Fundamental human rights are a human construct, guaranteed by the state. The universe, planet earth, or Nature does not give you a right to life. The universe doesn’t give a damn if you live or die.

JDD

I guess I must be an outlier a bit in my beliefs

I believe a foetus is human. I think these arguments are useless actually. I don't believe it has a soul as I'm not religious. I don't think any human has any automatic right to anything, except for the rules we as a society impose in order to ensure it doesn't all dissolve into anarchy.

Lets put the actual procreation aspect of it aside for moment. I think it would be completely immoral (not to say illegal) to create an embryo in a laboratory and then forceably implant it into someone and make them carry it to term. I don't think it makes a blind bit of difference that the embryo is a human. We accept all sorts of circumstances within our society where a human life is ended (self defence, war, the Pill, embryos in IVF clinics, etc). It's the equivalent of grevious bodily harm.

I still believe that a lot of motivation for holding a pro-life view is because of that bit at the start, the procreation bit. Because a woman engaged in the act of sex while knowing there's a small chance that their contraception could fail, that is excuse enough to say that the grevious bodily harm is warranted. And that stems from the archaic notion that the woman is responsible for upholding the moral stance that sex should not occur outside of solely wanted to procreate. A sort of "sure isn't it good enough for her, she shouldn't have been shagging around in the first place". Nowhere do you see this more than when people say they're in favour of repeal but only in cases of FFA (the foetus won't survive anyway) or rape (well sure she wasn't shagging around so she held up her moral side of the bargain, and god I'd look like an awful ****e if I made her stay pregnant after being raped).

Let me set out my stall here. I've had three kids, all C-sections. The three pregnancies and three surgical procedures have given me various health problems. My last pregnancy I had suspected placenta accretia, a very serious pregnancy complication. If I got pregnant again, I would have a 60-80% chance of actually having it. This may result in nothing more than a few blood transfusions at birth, or I may have permanent damage to my cervix, bladder, and surrounding organs, or (and it's difficult to find recent stats on this) there is a 7% maternal mortality rate.

I've got my tubes tied so I don't get pregnant again. But since my third pregnancy occurred even though I religiously (no pun intended) took the Pill, I can't be completely sure that I won't be one of the 0.1% who get pregnant after tubal ligation.

If I get pregnant again I'll be ordering the termination pill online before the 12 week mark. I can't take that sort of chance that my kids will be left without a mother. Nor do I want to take the chance that I'll be permanently incapacitated. It's not fair on me, and it's not fair on my children. I should be able to take this choice, for me and for my family, with the support of my GP. But I'm left trusting directions on a website and possibly having to turn up at St. Vincents A&E if something goes wrong. Under current legislation, I could be imprisoned. It's just a nonsensical situation.

So that's why I'm voting repeal. And I'll be trying to convince everyone I know to do the same.

Bannasidhe

Charmeleon wrote: »

The point you missed was how we define what constitutes a person of value or standing in the community varies by historical or cultural context. 'Fundamental human rights' by definition means you or I, the government or society have absolutely no business or input putting our own criteria or barriers in between a human and their fundamental rights. We can have additional rights but all human life has a basic right to life.

If that was your point it was badly made.
You made a statement of fact which simply isn't true.

At no point, historically or socially, has a fetus been considered to have fundamental human rights. Not even the 8th grants that as it does not recognise the unborn as a citizen just as 'alive'. Nor does the State recognise a fetus as a 'person' and as such does not extend the same rights as it does to a born child - hence no child benefit.

Charmeleon

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If that was your point it was badly made.
You made a statement of fact which simply isn't true.

At no point, historically or socially, has a fetus been considered to have fundamental human rights. Not even the 8th grants that as it does not recognise the unborn as a citizen just as 'alive'. Nor does the State recognise a fetus as a 'person' and as such does not extend the same rights as it does to a born child - hence no child benefit.

Because it is inside another person and can't benefit or vindicate its rights until after it is born.

Charmeleon

kylith wrote: »

Fundamental human rights are a human construct, guaranteed by the state. The universe, planet earth, or Nature does not give you a right to life. The universe doesn’t give a damn if you live or die.

Of course it's a construct, it's a barrier we put up between victims and people who would treat them like animals or objects. We call them fundemental because we understand there are no good arguments for allowing exceptions, only an opening for barbarity.

kylith

Charmeleon wrote: »

Because it is inside another person and can't benefit or vindicate its rights until after it is born.

So you agree that it can’t benefit from human rights until after it’s born

kylith

Charmeleon wrote: »

Of course it's a construct, it's a barrier we put up between victims and people who would treat them like animals or objects. We call them fundemental because we understand there are no good arguments for allowing exceptions, only an opening for barbarity.

But we, as a society, decide who they are extended to, an so far that is not foetuses

Charmeleon

kylith wrote: »

So you agree that it can’t benefit from human rights until after it’s born

Only in the same sense that an astronaut can’t vindicate their human rights while alone in a capsule in space. Just because you have no practical use for them under current conditions doesn’t disqualify you from bearing them.

Bannasidhe

Charmeleon wrote: »

Because it is inside another person and can't benefit or vindicate its rights until after it is born.

It is inside a person who has fundamental human rights and one of those rights should be to refuse to have their bodies used to host a fetus against their will!

And no, all those rights are not 'transferred' - if a pregnant woman is murdered it is not a double homicide. In Common Law jurisdictions there is a crime of 'Child Destruction' when the fetus would have been capable of living outside the womb - but these laws fall short of calling it homicide and were not enacted in the Irish Free State as they were first introduced to the UK and Northern Ireland in 1929.

Charmeleon

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It is inside a person who has fundamental human rights and one of those rights should be to refuse to have their bodies used to host a fetus against their will!

And no, all those rights are not 'transferred' - if a pregnant woman is murdered it is not a double homicide. In Common Law jurisdictions there is a crime of 'Child Destruction' when the fetus would have been capable of living outside the womb - but these laws fall short of calling it homicide and were not enacted in the Irish Free State as they were first introduced to the UK and Northern Ireland in 1929.

Should a conjoined twin be able to kill the other? Surely they have a right not to host the other if they have the vital organs?

ohnonotgmail

Charmeleon wrote: »

Should a conjoined twin be able to kill the other? Surely they have a right not to host the other if they have the vital organs?

Is that how you consider conjoined twins? as one hosting the other?

Bannasidhe

Charmeleon wrote: »

Should a conjoined twin be able to kill the other? Surely they have a right not to host the other if they have the vital organs?

There is a fundamental difference between 'sharing' and 'hosting' that seems to have escaped you.

Conjoined twins may, or may not, share some vital organs.

A fetus does not share any vital organs with the woman carrying it (although in the case of ectopic pregnancies it may be lodged in an organ where it cannot survive). A fetus, by means of a tube, siphons nutrients from the woman's body. It cannot survive without the woman. The woman can survive without it. They are not in any sense of the word conjoined.

You really need to start researching your statements before you make them.

amdublin

JDD wrote: »

I guess I must be an outlier a bit in my beliefs

I believe a foetus is human. I think these arguments are useless actually. I don't believe it has a soul as I'm not religious. I don't think any human has any automatic right to anything, except for the rules we as a society impose in order to ensure it doesn't all dissolve into anarchy.

Lets put the actual procreation aspect of it aside for moment. I think it would be completely immoral (not to say illegal) to create an embryo in a laboratory and then forceably implant it into someone and make them carry it to term. I don't think it makes a blind bit of difference that the embryo is a human. We accept all sorts of circumstances within our society where a human life is ended (self defence, war, the Pill, embryos in IVF clinics, etc). It's the equivalent of grevious bodily harm.

I still believe that a lot of motivation for holding a pro-life view is because of that bit at the start, the procreation bit. Because a woman engaged in the act of sex while knowing there's a small chance that their contraception could fail, that is excuse enough to say that the grevious bodily harm is warranted. And that stems from the archaic notion that the woman is responsible for upholding the moral stance that sex should not occur outside of solely wanted to procreate. A sort of "sure isn't it good enough for her, she shouldn't have been shagging around in the first place". Nowhere do you see this more than when people say they're in favour of repeal but only in cases of FFA (the foetus won't survive anyway) or rape (well sure she wasn't shagging around so she held up her moral side of the bargain, and god I'd look like an awful ****e if I made her stay pregnant after being raped).

Let me set out my stall here. I've had three kids, all C-sections. The three pregnancies and three surgical procedures have given me various health problems. My last pregnancy I had suspected placenta accretia, a very serious pregnancy complication. If I got pregnant again, I would have a 60-80% chance of actually having it. This may result in nothing more than a few blood transfusions at birth, or I may have permanent damage to my cervix, bladder, and surrounding organs, or (and it's difficult to find recent stats on this) there is a 7% maternal mortality rate.

I've got my tubes tied so I don't get pregnant again. But since my third pregnancy occurred even though I religiously (no pun intended) took the Pill, I can't be completely sure that I won't be one of the 0.1% who get pregnant after tubal ligation.

If I get pregnant again I'll be ordering the termination pill online before the 12 week mark. I can't take that sort of chance that my kids will be left without a mother. Nor do I want to take the chance that I'll be permanently incapacitated. It's not fair on me, and it's not fair on my children. I should be able to take this choice, for me and for my family, with the support of my GP. But I'm left trusting directions on a website and possibly having to turn up at St. Vincents A&E if something goes wrong. Under current legislation, I could be imprisoned. It's just a nonsensical situation.

So that's why I'm voting repeal. And I'll be trying to convince everyone I know to do the same.

A serious considered decision from a mother. And a Real picture of life/maternity care - and maternity risks under the 8th amendment

I guess from my perspective, nobody wants to have to think about the what ifs/nobody wants to have to take pills and have an abortion but sometimes it's the best, if not the only, option.

uptherebels

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Yes it can. If a child stumbles on a cliff edge and is hanging over the edge, the state requires you to pull him up before he falls. You can't just sit back and continue eating your ice cream while he's screaming for your help.

They are called "Duty To Rescue" laws. You can't claim bodily autonomy and just do nothing.

A duty to rescue is a concept in tort law that arises in a number of cases, describing a circumstance in which a party can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party in peril.
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue )

Now I'm open to correction but I believe Ireland doesn't have a duty to rescue law

Zubeneschamali

Andrew Beef wrote: »

Abortion illegal except in medical cases, incest cases, and rape cases.

Have you read the reports of the Citizen's Assembly and the Oireachteas Committee? Because they concluded that the only way to have abortion for rape and incest cases is to have unrestricted abortion.

If you can imagine some method for ensuring that only genuine rape cases get access, I'm sure everyone would be interested to hear it.

And of course, technically abortion is illegal in England except for "medical cases", and we all know how that worked out.