The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Zubeneschamali

professore wrote: »

I'm not talking about these cases.

This will be handled in legislation after the 8th is repealed, not in the Constitution, 12 weeks unrestricted, and later for FFA or the health of the mother is at risk.

Edward M

volchitsa wrote: »

I notice you haven't tried to explain it though.

Because from where I'm standing, as a woman, hopefully with a brain, who's had an abortion, I don't think I needed a random man coming along and helping me to think these things through. I did that at the time, and I'm still certain it was the right decision.

And what's more, I think women who terminate pregnancies do think these things through, and that nobody thinks it's like killing a fly.

To be blunt about it, the mindset behind such a comment is the typical male "women are silly idiots who need to be told what and how to think" stuff.

It was in response to a question asked of me.
By wording it the way I did it seems to have caused upset.
What I felt when I was writing it was that I was conveying that women have a brain, (something I never doubted) and are well capable of making their own decision on the why's of it.
I have never told anybody what they should do nor would I.
The last sentence in that post states very clearly that what might be my necessity might not be yours, meaning that decisions made are valid for the person that makes them, whether agreed with by me or others or not.
I can't help it if what I say sounds typically male, I am a male after all, but the way you word that is a bit ironic I think, given that you are attacking me for seeming to have some bad opinion of women?

Edward M

....... wrote: »

Why should any womans decision making process be held up to your judgement about whats right for her?

What if she thinks its a necessity but you dont? Why should your opinion dictate her options for her own body?

Read the last two lines of the post again.

volchitsa

Edward M wrote: »

It was in response to a question asked of me.
By wording it the way I did it seems to have caused upset.
What I felt when I was writing it was that I was conveying that women have a brain, (something I never doubted) and are well capable of making their own decision on the why's of it.
I have never told anybody what they should do nor would I.
The last sentence in that post states very clearly that what might be my necessity might not be yours, meaning that decisions made are valid for the person that makes them, whether agreed with by me or others or not.
I can't help it if what I say sounds typically male, I am a male after all, but the way you word that is a bit ironic I think, given that you are attacking me for seeming to have some bad opinion of women?

How is it ironic to point out that you are assuming that women may not have brains, and may need third parties (you?) to ensure they don't do something stupid.

Nobody ever suggests that all men, in general, should not be allowed to do something because some men may not have the brains to think the consequences through. But you don't even see the problem with that being the default approach to something that concerns women.

Gosh those silly women, why did we ever give them the vote. We really need to go back to the good old days right?

pleas advice

I really think you got the wrong end of the stick there...

swampgas

professore wrote: »

I don't believe this is a topic that should be legislated on the whims of politicians, rather whatever is decided should be enshrined in the Constitution.

I find this genuinely hard to comprehend. You are assuming that democracy won't work properly for legislation regarding abortion. You are assuming that TDs are likely to go passing abortion legislation "on a whim". Everything I've seen from the Dáil in the last 40 years suggests the opposite - that the government tends to leglislate on controversial issues only when they absolutely have to, and when there is significant public pressure to do so, and when efforts to kick the can down the road have been exhausted.

professore

swampgas wrote: »

I find this genuinely hard to comprehend. You are assuming that democracy won't work properly for legislation regarding abortion. You are assuming that TDs are likely to go passing abortion legislation "on a whim". Everything I've seen from the Dáil in the last 40 years suggests the opposite - that the government tends to leglislate on controversial issues only when they absolutely have to, and when there is significant public pressure to do so, and when efforts to kick the can down the road have been exhausted.

You mean like the bank guarantee?

Edward M

pleas advice wrote: »

I really think you got the wrong end of the stick there...

Me too, I think a bit of misandry has shown itself. But of course I'm being misogynistic.

nozzferrahhtoo

professore wrote: »

I don't believe this is a topic that should be legislated on the whims of politicians, rather whatever is decided should be enshrined in the Constitution.

Not everything needs to be in the constitution. There are reasons, for example, why we do not have people generally in politics trying to reduce the sexual age of consent to 10 years of age. We do not need specific laws in the constitution to prevent them doing that. This is simply not what a constitution is for.

Also I am not sure what your concerns are with countries that do have no limits. Firstly of the most well known ones, only canada is meaningfully comparable to us as a country. I do not think we are all that much like North Korea really. And China is debatable.

Regardless of whether there are limits or not though, one thing we see consistently around the world is that the vast majority (usually a few digits past 90%) of abortion by choice happens in or before week 12. The near totality (numbers like 96 and 98) by week 16.

Those women who have abortions past this stage generally do it for genuine FFA and other medical concerns. They do it because they basically have to.

If you are fearing abortions at 8 months for example, which tend not to be abortions at all but terminations of the pregnancy resulting in a premature but entirely healthy child............ then ask yourself how often that ACTUALLY happens. How many women in this world CHOOSE for no medical reasons etc..... to have an abortion at 8 months.

For your concerns to be valid enough to justify voting no you would have to A) assume the government would ever legislate for something the electorate totally do not seem to want, which would be akin to reducing the sexual age of consent to 10 in terms of uproar and political suicide, assume they will go against the recommendations of the Citizens Assembly that they have said thus far they intend to stick with C) they would ignore all the good arguments AGAINST allowing such abortions and D) that we can not trust women at all and that they actually would go about doing any such thing.

Any one of those is pretty unlikely, but to expect all 4 of them at the same time..... sounds to me like someone who is choosing to vote "no" first and then reaching for reasons to actually do so second.

But by all means pull the stats on Canada, and work out A) How many abortions (not terminations) did happen from 8 months on and How many of them were purely based on choice and everyone involved was actually perfectly 100% healthy.

professore

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This will be handled in legislation after the 8th is repealed, not in the Constitution, 12 weeks unrestricted, and later for FFA or the health of the mother is at risk.

Lots of things have been "handled by legislation" badly. All we need is some liberal or conservative party to get into power and they can make whatever legislation they like. I think this is a fundamental human rights issue that should be in the constitution and not something that can be legislated as the goverrnment of the day decides.

It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that some far right conservatives get into power and ban all abortions you know. and before you say "It could never happen" that's what they said about Trump, Brexit and the property crash. So that's why it should be in the constitution.

Have legislation around bus timetables, speed limits on roads, age of drinking etc but what constitutes a human life or potential life and in what circumstances it should be permissible to terminate it should be in the constitution.

swampgas

professore wrote: »

You mean like the bank guarantee?

That's all you've got?

Look at issues like contraception and divorce instead. Marriage equality and the smoking ban were two areas where Ireland was ahead of many other countries but there was widespread support for those.

When the Dáil legislates for abortion, it will be for a position that has widespread support. If you don't like that then you don't like democracy.

tonymontanavu

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What happens post Brexit then?

Probably no change to the current set up in relation to movement but I don't get your point? I said the the only relevant country is England/UK.

volchitsa

Edward M wrote: »

Me too, I think a bit of misandry has shown itself. But of course I'm being misogynistic.

Well, of course you do. :rolleyes:

And way to go to immediately accuse me of misandry for pointing out how your post was based on traditional tropes of women as minors, unable to make sensible decisions for themselves without men, or the law, to stop them from making disastrous mistakes. "It's for their own good really".

Anyway, you are clearly unwilling, or unable, to take even the most minor niggle as other than a terrible personal slight, so, whatever. I've finished with this.

professore

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not everything needs to be in the constitution. There are reasons, for example, why we do not have people generally in politics trying to reduce the sexual age of consent to 10 years of age. We do not need specific laws in the constitution to prevent them doing that. This is simply not what a constitution is for.

Also I am not sure what your concerns are with countries that do have no limits. Firstly of the most well known ones, only canada is meaningfully comparable to us as a country. I do not think we are all that much like North Korea really. And China is debatable.

Regardless of whether there are limits or not though, one thing we see consistently around the world is that the vast majority (usually a few digits past 90%) of abortion by choice happens in or before week 12. The near totality (numbers like 96 and 98) by week 16.

Those women who have abortions past this stage generally do it for genuine FFA and other medical concerns. They do it because they basically have to.

If you are fearing abortions at 8 months for example, which tend not to be abortions at all but terminations of the pregnancy resulting in a premature but entirely healthy child............ then ask yourself how often that ACTUALLY happens. How many women in this world CHOOSE for no medical reasons etc..... to have an abortion at 8 months.

For your concerns to be valid enough to justify voting no you would have to A) assume the government would ever legislate for something the electorate totally do not seem to want, which would be akin to reducing the sexual age of consent to 10 in terms of uproar and political suicide, assume they will go against the recommendations of the Citizens Assembly that they have said thus far they intend to stick with C) they would ignore all the good arguments AGAINST allowing such abortions and D) that we can not trust women at all and that they actually would go about doing any such thing.

Any one of those is pretty unlikely, but to expect all 4 of them at the same time..... sounds to me like someone who is choosing to vote "no" first and then reaching for reasons to actually do so second.

But by all means pull the stats on Canada, and work out A) How many abortions (not terminations) did happen from 8 months on and How many of them were purely based on choice and everyone involved was actually perfectly 100% healthy.

You can pull any stats you like - they are irrelevant to this principle. I've set out my position and that's it. Even one termination like this that I helped bring about is too many for me.

The constitution IS for human rights issues. If this isn't a human rights issue, what is? Why are gay and transgender rights in the constitution?

professore

swampgas wrote: »

That's all you've got?

Look at issues like contraception and divorce instead. Marriage equality and the smoking ban were two areas where Ireland was ahead of many other countries but there was widespread support for those.

When the Dáil legislates for abortion, it will be for a position that has widespread support. If you don't like that then you don't like democracy.

I don't like democracy???? A constitutional democracy????
You just don't like my position and you don't care what my reasons are.
And I'm not sure there was "widespread support" for the smoking ban. A LOT of people were against that. Not me as I don't smoke. There was widespread support after the fact.

volchitsa

professore wrote: »

I've set out my position and that's it. Even one termination like this that I helped bring about is too many for me.

So you are too young to have voted in 1992, right? And in 2002?

Or did you vote to ban women from travelling?

tonymontanavu

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Actually as someone who has worked through miscarriage with women the exact opposite of what you suggest here is true. MUCH benefit can be attained from bringing a woman mourning such a loss to a point where she sees the fetus for what it is, rather than what she had invested in it.

Now of course this does not entail marching up to such a woman and declaring to her "Get over yourself, all you lost was a relatively complex but otherwise barely differentiated clump of cells". There is a process of care and empathy in divesting people of the narratives that are causing them to needlessly suffer.

But the overall goal, and benefits, are derived very much in such cases from essentially getting to them to the point you describe, even if we do not describe it to them as crassly as you do here.



The problem with your rhetoric here however is the assumption that such consideration has NOT been taken/given. It has. The reason you pretend it has not is that the RESULTS of that consideration by people like myself have not produced the result YOU want. So I guess it is easier to imagine no consideration was taken, than to accept the fact it WAS taken and it did not go where YOU want.

I have consider at length, we are talking a length of time measurable in decades here, the value and basis for value inherent in our moral and ethical systems. I have considered at length what it is we value, why, and on what basis. I have considered even what it means TO value anything in the first place. And of course, what such values are in the business of doing day to day. What their goal and agenda and purpose even is.

And the result of ALL of that leaves me in a place that when I turn to look at the subject and context of a fetus at 12 weeks (by which time the vast and overwhelming majority of abortions have already occurred) I see nothing there TO value all that much. Least of all do I see any basis to allocate rights, or moral and ethical concern, to such an entity.

Now you are welcome to engage me on such views (or, seemingly, not) as you like....... but no pretense shall be brooked that no consideration was even given.

Absolute nonsense here. I have been through miscarriages and know plenty of others. Devaluing may work as a coping mechanism but it is not healthy.
A fetus at any point is the beginning stages of a child and has more value than your dismissive attitude to many.

nozzferrahhtoo

professore wrote: »

You can pull any stats you like - they are irrelevant to this principle. I've set out my position and that's it.

Always terribly easy to just wave away ANY data that contradicts your position without presenting any that supports your assertion. However I think that move deserves about as much respect as the effort you put into doing it. None.

The data simply shows that around the world the horror you envision basically does not come to pass. Yet so convinced are you of that horror that you have to..... what..... assume that Ireland will be some pocket of reality that is the exception to it all? Hardly.

The real reason you are not pulling out the stats to support your position is that you know as well as I do that statistically speaking the ending of the life of 8 month old fetuses on a non-medical whim is simply not happening and you are bordering on scare mongering a fantasy rather than engaging with the actual issue.

professore wrote: »

Even one termination like this that I helped bring about is too many for me.

Thankfully those in power, and education, and science do not think like that or we would never get anything done ever.

Why?

Because ANY change that we bring out in this world disenfranchises someone, or hurts someone, or opens up loopholes that are abused by someone. I am not convinced there is many, if any, exceptions to this.

We do not live in a perfect world and our rules and laws and moves on the public stage will never have perfect results. But "one person somewhere might do something terrible" is simply not an excuse to not do the right thing. Especially if the right thing will benefit thousands or more people.

The question you should be working with is what is the RIGHT thing to do. Not "If I do the right thing, who could possibly abuse it?".

Quite simply the legislation we get is HIGHLY unlikely to allow what you fear, women in Ireland are HIGHLY unlikely to do it even if it was allowed, and even after that at 8 months it is REMARKABLY rare for abortion to actually happen. Rather the pregnancy is terminated which is a much different thing entirely.

professore wrote: »

The constitution IS for human rights issues. If this isn't a human rights issue, what is?

So is the sexual age of consent. But it is not in there either nor should it be. The constitution is NOT the place to have specific laws that relate to human rights. The constitution is the place to have the framework and the axioms AROUND which such laws can be built.

I am not a lawyer by any means, and I know my limits in that regard. But even I understand the difference between constitution and legislation enough to know this. But users on this thread better than I have written on this EXACT discussion you and I are having. If you wish I can dig out their posts on the matter?

professore

volchitsa wrote: »

So you are too young to have voted in 1992, right? And in 2002?

Or did you vote to ban women from travelling?

I voted in both. I voted at the time that the threat of suicide was not sufficient grounds to justify an abortion - and I still feel this way. People threaten suicide regularly for all sorts of reasons.

I didn't vote to ban women from travelling. I don't believe it's up to us to stop Irish citizens doing things which are legal in other countries. We make a statement with our countries' laws and norms. If someone wants to go abroad and do something else then we have done as much as we can.

I have relaxed my views over the years somewhat.

nozzferrahhtoo

tonymontanavu wrote: »

Absolute nonsense here. I have been through miscarriages and know plenty of others. Devaluing may work as a coping mechanism but it is not healthy. A fetus at any point is the beginning stages of a child and has more value than your dismissive attitude to many.

Nice of you to preface your post with a description of it's content. Would that more users would do that. But you are indeed right, your post is absolute nonsense.

The first reason it is nonsense is that "devaluing" is not really an accurate description of what I have described. If you have an object you think is worth 10,000 euro and I inform you it's actual worth is 10 euro.... I have not devalued it..... I have informed you what the value actually is, was, and always has been. The only person who would be devaluing it is those who tell you it is worth 5 euro.

Similarly when we gently tease out many of the narratives that bring unwarranted pain and suffering to people, such as those who have had a miscarriage, we are NOT devaluing the fetus so much as teasing out the over inflated value they had invested in it in the first place. And it is both helpful AND healthy to do so despite your assertions to the contrary.

Nor is there anything dismissive about my attitude, you really are on a roll of making things up. But at least you pre-labeled it as absolute nonsense. The exact opposite is true. If those who have worked through these things with women like I have HAD a dismissive attitude we would not care how we spoke to such women. We would happily tell them, as I said in the post you replied to, "Get over yourself, all you lost was a relatively complex but otherwise barely differentiated clump of cells".

But we do the opposite. We recognize EXACTLY what you yourself just wrote with the fact "it has more value to many.". It does. It really does. And not only do we NOT dismiss that, we work from that very foundation premise. And we realize that If a person holds narratives that are unwarranted AND those narratives are a source of some, most, or even all of their suffering..... then divesting them of those narratives is the right thing to do, the healthy thing to do, but it must be done with care, delicacy, empathy, wisdom and education. The exact OPPOSITE of merely being dismissive of their narratives.

So yes, absolute nonsense indeed but solely and entirely from your side, not mine.

professore

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Always terribly easy to just wave away ANY data that contradicts your position without presenting any that supports your assertion. However I think that move deserves about as much respect as the effort you put into doing it. None.

The data simply shows that around the world the horror you envision basically does not come to pass. Yet so convinced are you of that horror that you have to..... what..... assume that Ireland will be some pocket of reality that is the exception to it all? Hardly.

The real reason you are not pulling out the stats to support your position is that you know as well as I do that statistically speaking the ending of the life of 8 month old fetuses on a non-medical whim is simply not happening and you are bordering on scare mongering a fantasy rather than engaging with the actual issue.



Thankfully those in power, and education, and science do not think like that or we would never get anything done ever.

Why?

Because ANY change that we bring out in this world disenfranchises someone, or hurts someone, or opens up loopholes that are abused by someone. I am not convinced there is many, if any, exceptions to this.

We do not live in a perfect world and our rules and laws and moves on the public stage will never have perfect results. But "one person somewhere might do something terrible" is simply not an excuse to not do the right thing. Especially if the right thing will benefit thousands or more people.

The question you should be working with is what is the RIGHT thing to do. Not "If I do the right thing, who could possibly abuse it?".

Quite simply the legislation we get is HIGHLY unlikely to allow what you fear, women in Ireland are HIGHLY unlikely to do it even if it was allowed, and even after that at 8 months it is REMARKABLY rare for abortion to actually happen. Rather the pregnancy is terminated which is a much different thing entirely.



So is the sexual age of consent. But it is not in there either nor should it be. The constitution is NOT the place to have specific laws that relate to human rights. The constitution is the place to have the framework and the axioms AROUND which such laws can be built.

I am not a lawyer by any means, and I know my limits in that regard. But even I understand the difference between constitution and legislation enough to know this. But users on this thread better than I have written on this EXACT discussion you and I are having. If you wish I can dig out their posts on the matter?

You seem have a fixed view of me in your head. It might surprise you to know I agree with a lot of what you are saying.

The constitution is the place to have the framework and the axioms AROUND which such laws can be built.

Surely at what point a fetus becomes human is a basic axiom that should be clearly defined? How can you accord ANY rights to ANYONE if you don't have this basic statement?

nozzferrahhtoo

professore wrote: »

You seem have a fixed view of me in your head. It might surprise you to know I agree with a lot of what you are saying.

Not at all, I replied solely to the content of your post. In fact often I try to reply to peoples posts BEFORE I see which user name I am replying to.

And to be honest I do not recall having read or replied to any of your posts before (forgive me if I am wrong). I can not at all put my finger on who you even are despite your relatively high post count.

So no, anything in my post above is a direct reply to the content of your post. Nothing to do with you at all.

professore wrote: »

Surely at what point a fetus becomes human is a basic axiom that should be clearly defined? How can you accord ANY rights to ANYONE if you don't have this basic statement?

Like you said above, I think we agree on more than either of us realize. I would indeed like to see something of that sort in the framework of which I speak. Something acknowledging what it is human rights are, and on what basis we presume to assign them.

But to be clear I was not commenting on THAT. I was commenting on your fear that in the absence of that we are likely to A) legislate in an awful way and citizens are likely to use that legislation in that way.

I am struggling to even take credible, let alone expect, the notion that we would suddenly start legislating for the killing of 8 month old fetuses (rather than mere termination of late term pregnancies) and that our citizens would start doing that on a mere whim.

I think it is statistically (rather than literally as "there is always one" as the saying goes) safe to say that no one at all is carrying a child inside themselves for 8 months and then on a whim saying "Nah, I am done with this, off with it's head".

And to put my tongue only partially.... mostly.... in my cheek, any child about to be born to a mother that WOULD do such a thing if only the law would allow her to.......... is in some ways probably better off dead anyway.

But I just do not see it happening. And if you pull the data from countries like Canada I do not think you will really see it happening there either. You will find that statistically any women who have ended their pregnancy at 8 months there have done it for reasons you will find well warranted.

Zubeneschamali

professore wrote: »

Lots of things have been "handled by legislation" badly.

This part is not a debate - we are not putting another botched-up anti-abortion clause in the Constitution, this year or ever again.

We will keep the 8th or remove it and have legislation.

volchitsa

professore wrote: »

I voted in both. I voted at the time that the threat of suicide was not sufficient grounds to justify an abortion - and I still feel this way. People threaten suicide regularly for all sorts of reasons.

I didn't vote to ban women from travelling. I don't believe it's up to us to stop Irish citizens doing things which are legal in other countries. We make a statement with our countries' laws and norms. If someone wants to go abroad and do something else then we have done as much as we can.

I have relaxed my views over the years somewhat.

Thank you for that reply.

Whatever your reasons for voting as you did, you are as responsible for the tens of thousands of abortions that Irish women have had abroad as you feel you would be if they had happened in Ireland.

Personally, I dont see any real difference, either a baby was murdered or it wasnt. If it was, then where that took place makes no difference to the act. I don't feel I would be responsible for them in either case, but, as with your own point about responsibility earlier, that is just my opinion.

professore

volchitsa wrote: »

Thank you for that reply.

Whatever your reasons for voting as you did, you are as responsible for the tens of thousands of abortions that Irish women have had abroad as you feel you would be if they had happened in Ireland.

Personally, I dont see any real difference, either a baby was murdered or it wasnt. If it was, then where that took place makes no difference to the act. I don't feel I would be responsible for them in either case, but, as with your own point about responsibility earlier, that is just my opinion.

Yeah I know, you are right of course. It's a difficult one, and I struggle with it. I just couldn't bring myself to vote for something that would involve young girls and women being interrogated at border control about being pregnant and their sex lives.

So much of this is a grey area and very difficult

professore

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not at all, I replied solely to the content of your post. In fact often I try to reply to peoples posts BEFORE I see which user name I am replying to.

And to be honest I do not recall having read or replied to any of your posts before (forgive me if I am wrong). I can not at all put my finger on who you even are despite your relatively high post count.

So no, anything in my post above is a direct reply to the content of your post. Nothing to do with you at all.



Like you said above, I think we agree on more than either of us realize. I would indeed like to see something of that sort in the framework of which I speak. Something acknowledging what it is human rights are, and on what basis we presume to assign them.

But to be clear I was not commenting on THAT. I was commenting on your fear that in the absence of that we are likely to A) legislate in an awful way and citizens are likely to use that legislation in that way.

I am struggling to even take credible, let alone expect, the notion that we would suddenly start legislating for the killing of 8 month old fetuses (rather than mere termination of late term pregnancies) and that our citizens would start doing that on a mere whim.

I think it is statistically (rather than literally as "there is always one" as the saying goes) safe to say that no one at all is carrying a child inside themselves for 8 months and then on a whim saying "Nah, I am done with this, off with it's head".

And to put my tongue only partially.... mostly.... in my cheek, any child about to be born to a mother that WOULD do such a thing if only the law would allow her to.......... is in some ways probably better off dead anyway.

But I just do not see it happening. And if you pull the data from countries like Canada I do not think you will really see it happening there either. You will find that statistically any women who have ended their pregnancy at 8 months there have done it for reasons you will find well warranted.

I tend to avoid posting on certain issues.

I used 8 month old fetuses as an extreme example. I'd be against going beyond 12 weeks, and going to 12 weeks is only agreeable to me because it gives the woman ample time to make a decision. I've looked at the development of the fetus in the womb in order to come to this decision.

professore

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This part is not a debate - we are not putting another botched-up anti-abortion clause in the Constitution, this year or ever again.

We will keep the 8th or remove it and have legislation.

Both bad options in my book.

professore

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not at all, I replied solely to the content of your post. In fact often I try to reply to peoples posts BEFORE I see which user name I am replying to.

And to be honest I do not recall having read or replied to any of your posts before (forgive me if I am wrong). I can not at all put my finger on who you even are despite your relatively high post count.

So no, anything in my post above is a direct reply to the content of your post. Nothing to do with you at all.



Like you said above, I think we agree on more than either of us realize. I would indeed like to see something of that sort in the framework of which I speak. Something acknowledging what it is human rights are, and on what basis we presume to assign them.

But to be clear I was not commenting on THAT. I was commenting on your fear that in the absence of that we are likely to A) legislate in an awful way and citizens are likely to use that legislation in that way.

I am struggling to even take credible, let alone expect, the notion that we would suddenly start legislating for the killing of 8 month old fetuses (rather than mere termination of late term pregnancies) and that our citizens would start doing that on a mere whim.

I think it is statistically (rather than literally as "there is always one" as the saying goes) safe to say that no one at all is carrying a child inside themselves for 8 months and then on a whim saying "Nah, I am done with this, off with it's head".

And to put my tongue only partially.... mostly.... in my cheek, any child about to be born to a mother that WOULD do such a thing if only the law would allow her to.......... is in some ways probably better off dead anyway.

But I just do not see it happening. And if you pull the data from countries like Canada I do not think you will really see it happening there either. You will find that statistically any women who have ended their pregnancy at 8 months there have done it for reasons you will find well warranted.

We really have no idea what the future holds in terms of governments. We might think we do, but we really don't. The Ireland of the generation that grew up in the 40s and 50s are in large part horrified at what modern Ireland has become and would never have seen it coming.

The country that elected Hitler was one of the most sophisticated liberal democracies of the time. I don't see it happening either in the short term but there is certainly a backlash building against liberalism internationally at the moment - as both sides are becoming increasingly intolerant and hardline in their stances.

So we should have fundamental rights in the constitution. Here is a statement now in the constitution:

Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.

if it read instead "Marriage shall be defined in accordance with what the legislature of the day decides" would that be acceptable to gay marriage supporters - or anyone else for that matter?

We could have a similar statement around when life begins, say "as a healthy viable fetus at 12 weeks" has the same rights as any other human.

If we say that you have to be born to have the same rights as any other human, then this opens all sorts of doors.

This could form the legal framework for abortion.

tonymontanavu

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nice of you to preface your post with a description of it's content. Would that more users would do that. But you are indeed right, your post is absolute nonsense.

The first reason it is nonsense is that "devaluing" is not really an accurate description of what I have described. If you have an object you think is worth 10,000 euro and I inform you it's actual worth is 10 euro.... I have not devalued it..... I have informed you what the value actually is, was, and always has been. The only person who would be devaluing it is those who tell you it is worth 5 euro.

Similarly when we gently tease out many of the narratives that bring unwarranted pain and suffering to people, such as those who have had a miscarriage, we are NOT devaluing the fetus so much as teasing out the over inflated value they had invested in it in the first place. And it is both helpful AND healthy to do so despite your assertions to the contrary.

Nor is there anything dismissive about my attitude, you really are on a roll of making things up. But at least you pre-labeled it as absolute nonsense. The exact opposite is true. If those who have worked through these things with women like I have HAD a dismissive attitude we would not care how we spoke to such women. We would happily tell them, as I said in the post you replied to, "Get over yourself, all you lost was a relatively complex but otherwise barely differentiated clump of cells".

But we do the opposite. We recognize EXACTLY what you yourself just wrote with the fact "it has more value to many.". It does. It really does. And not only do we NOT dismiss that, we work from that very foundation premise. And we realize that If a person holds narratives that are unwarranted AND those narratives are a source of some, most, or even all of their suffering..... then divesting them of those narratives is the right thing to do, the healthy thing to do, but it must be done with care, delicacy, empathy, wisdom and education. The exact OPPOSITE of merely being dismissive of their narratives.

So yes, absolute nonsense indeed but solely and entirely from your side, not mine.

Your condescending pushing of opinion, shaped as fact, is frustrating.
Your analogy of material value is pointless and I don't know who the we you refer to are.
I am not going to engage with you as I believe you have constructed an argument to suit your position but I am sure you will impress lots of people with your pseudointellectual condescending retort.

sondagefaux

professore wrote: »

Just listening to Niall Boylan on 4FM on the topic of intolerance of both sides. Very interesting.

Also is it the case that it will be a straight vote to repeal?  In that case I will have to vote no, even though I would be in favour of abortion in certain circumstances - for example 12 weeks for any reason I would vote yes - I would struggle with it but it would be a yes.  Fatal fetal abnormalities would have no issue either.

I don't believe this is a topic that should be legislated on the whims of politicians, rather whatever is decided should be enshrined in the Constitution.

For an extreme example if the 8th is repealed, abortion of otherwise healthy 8 month old fetuses becomes a possibility.  I can't have that on my conscience.  I'm not religious in the least by the way.  My wife and daughter both think like this too - and I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinions - we certainly wouldn't fall out over it, as we strongly disagree on other topics - we have had no heated debates about this just rational discussions.

Some other guy seems to think that anyone who voted Yes in the gay marriage referendum will also vote to repeal. Completely different things I'm afraid. I voted Yes for gay marriage.

The wording is likely to include a reference to abortion being permitted in almost any circumstance up to 12 weeks, with provisions for the Oireachtas to legislate for restrictions after 12 weeks. It's also likely to include a provision which prevents the Oireachtas from legislating to outlaw abortion in all circumstances, or to restrict its availability only in situations in which it's now available.

sondagefaux

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

realitykeeper wrote: »

The "new morality" you seem to favour is an epiphany of hell. The tough love of yesteryear was the right way. Abandoning the old morals will have devastating repercussions.

Ladies and gentlemen: please welcome the Save the 8th Campaign!

I suspect that poster was trolling, but hopefully not. If that's the kind of rhetoric the anti-choice campaign uses, it will lose badly.

volchitsa

professore wrote: »

Yeah I know, you are right of course. It's a difficult one, and I struggle with it. I just couldn't bring myself to vote for something that would involve young girls and women being interrogated at border control about being pregnant and their sex lives.

So much of this is a grey area and very difficult

Yeah, and I get that. I just think a lot of what people actually struggle with is the dislike of the idea, but that cold hard reality requires that abortion be available, because without it women will be harmed.

I think we have had a fullscale test of the whole concept of a ban on abortion here for decades now, and seen that it simply doesn't work, and it's time now to accept that, as with divorce, these things happen because people ar not perfect and never will be, and pretending that Ireland is different is botn delusional and dangerous.

professore

sondagefaux wrote: »

The wording is likely to include a reference to abortion being permitted in almost any circumstance up to 12 weeks, with provisions for the Oireachtas to legislate for restrictions after 12 weeks. It's also likely to include a provision which prevents the Oireachtas from legislating to outlaw abortion in all circumstances, or to restrict its availability only in situations in which it's now available.

If that will go into the constitution, or otherwise can be legally enforced without some future nutcase being able to change it, without a further referendum, then I have no issue.

Zerbini Blewitt

professore wrote: »

...So much of this is a grey area and very difficult ....

Yes, it does seem to be a struggle for some people because interfering (via state employees & procedures) into other people’s private lives where such unjustified meddling never belonged & never will belong can be seen at a minimum as “a grey area and very difficult”.

It is awkward to do this without such an individual exposing themselves to others (or to themselves) as a simpleminded, dark age’s authoritarian.

Many do expose themselves eventually as just that.

professore wrote: »

...I voted at the time that the threat of suicide was not sufficient grounds to justify an abortion - and I still feel this way. People threaten suicide regularly for all sorts of reasons...

You support abortion for any reason upto 12 weeks but you’ll vote no (i.e. to keep this depraved 8th horror show on the road) unless the change is put in the constitution and you voted against the suicide grounds in the 2002 referendum.

Ha ha ha! More pretending to be pro-choice and scaremongering non-argument, again! What a surprise.

Next

swampgas

professore wrote: »

Yeah I know, you are right of course. It's a difficult one, and I struggle with it. I just couldn't bring myself to vote for something that would involve young girls and women being interrogated at border control about being pregnant and their sex lives.

So much of this is a grey area and very difficult

I agree, but a lot of the proposed solutions put forward by people uncomfortable with legalising abortion seem to boil down to a similar sort of interrogation. From the crazy extremes of "rape courts" to assess whether a woman was truly raped or not, to very tight time limits. IMO, it boils down to the same thing - a fear that other people will do "immoral" things and have "unethical" abortions, and a desire to try to stop them.

If you are wary of interrogating women and girls at border control, perhaps consider that putting legal hurdles in front of women requesting abortions in Ireland is coming from a similar place? And has a similar effect on the woman or girl in question?

volchitsa

swampgas wrote: »

I agree, but a lot of the proposed solutions put forward by people uncomfortable with legalising abortion seem to boil down to a similar sorts of interrogation. From the crazy extremes of "rape courts" to assess whether a woman was truly raped or not, to very tight time limits. IMO, it boils down to the same thing - a fear that other people will do "immoral" things and have "unethical" abortions, and a desire to try to stop them.

If you are wary of interrogating women and girls at border control, perhaps consider that putting legal hurdles in front of women requesting abortions in Ireland is coming from a similar place? And has a similar effect on the woman or girl in question?

On this point actually, if the idea of interrogating women at borders is unpleasant, how much more is the idea of forcefeeding an 18 year old rape victim? And subjecting her to surgical mutilation on very dodgy "consent" obtained using the threat of being sectioned in a mental hospital?
Or putting a (different) child in a mental hospital as a "solution" to her having asked for an abortion on grounds of suicide ideation?

You'd think anyone who had the empathy to refuse to vote to have women interrogated at borders would vote against these massive abuses without hesitation. but it seems not.

nozzferrahhtoo

Not sure why you replied to my entire post twice But I hope you do not mind me amalgamating both into a single reply.

professore wrote: »

I've looked at the development of the fetus in the womb in order to come to this decision.

I would be curious what you found in that development that brought you cause for concern though.

I know the entire development process of the human fetus quite intimately at this point, having studied it at no small length and I genuinely can not think of anything in a 12 or 16 week fetus that should be raising your concerns.

professore wrote: »

We really have no idea what the future holds in terms of governments.

I do not think that is fair. We have many ideas, all of them based in rational appraisals of what has gone before, what the electorate generally want, and eternal truths like politicians generally looking after their own skin.

So I think we can make highly educated guesses. Sometimes on what a government will do and sometimes on what they will not.

But I have to say the same thing I already said to you. The kind of thinking you are putting on this thread today is the kind of thing that would cripple ANY action on ANY issue. Because there is barely an issue of any import that is not open to some POTENTIAL for government abuse.

So from your pessimism over potential actions of a government, to your pessimism over "Even one baby is too much", you are peddling a crippling narrative of inaction basically that, as I said, really does come across like someone who made the decision first and is inventing narratives to justify it second.

But all that said, comparisons to things like Hitler are not helpful. We are not making decisions in isolation here. And in both countries WITH term limits and WITHOUT term limits on abortion we simply do not see the horrors you envision coming to pass. Whether it be in the UK with their limts, the US with they variable to no limits, or canada with none. It simply is not happening.

So why you think Ireland is going to suddenly be a pocket of depravity and horror in this way is not clear to me and, I suspect if you were honest with yourself, to you either.

But as I said I would not be opposed to having a constitution that recognizes when and why a human being attains rights. But I just do not think it is part of THIS debate on THIS referendum because that simply is not what is being proposed here.

nozzferrahhtoo

tonymontanavu wrote: »

Your condescending pushing of opinion, shaped as fact, is frustrating.

I can not help you with that even if that WAS what I was doing, which it is not. Your inventing of tone and putting it into my post is something only you can deal with.

But to be honest I do not think someone opening a post with "Absolute nonsense" and then calling my position "dismissive" when it is anything but........ has any pedestal from which to be accusing others of A) Condescension or Pushing opinions as facts. Because it seems to me you were the only one doing either.

tonymontanavu wrote: »

Your analogy of material value is pointless and I don't know who the we you refer to are.

The only we I intended to refer to is the "we" who are people who have sat down and worked with women through the scenarios we have been discussing, or have training in areas of mental health care and psychology relevant to the subject.

Suffice it to say however.... you not understanding an analogy does not make it pointless. The purpose of the analogy very much had a point, and it was simply to point out the VAST difference between A) Devaluing something and Clarifying that it never had the value you thought it had in the first place.

These two things are very different things indeed, and portraying me doing B as if I was doing A shows you are EITHER misunderstanding me entirely or wilfully misrepresenting me. I do hope it is the former, as that can be corrected through open and honest discourse. The latter not so much.

tonymontanavu wrote: »

I am not going to engage with you as I believe you have constructed an argument to suit your position but I am sure you will impress lots of people with your pseudointellectual condescending retort.

Again after a closing comment like that I think you once again make it clear which one of us is actually being condescending and dismissive and pushing opinions as facts. Whether one is an intellectual or not has nothing to do with it, so I think we can pocket the ad hominem. What I am saying is either true and can not be rebutted, or it is false and can be. The fact you are not doing so suggests which it is.

Nor am I saying what I am saying from merely "intellect". I am saying it also from both training and experience. I know all about the treatment of this kind of grief and loss. I know about couple focused interventions, "Swanson's Caring Theory" and "Meaning of Miscarriage Model", and the many randomised control studies evaluating the differences between people who evaluate the miscarriage as "losing a baby" and those that evaluate it is "losing a pregnancy".

There is nothing "pseudo-intellectual" about this, and ad hominem attacks on me personally will not make the wealth of resources, training and studies on this subject go away. IT is all there, entirely independent of me.

Plus, you could merely take a step away from abortion for a minute and consider the logic of what I am talking about in isolation. We are a species driven by narratives and stories that we tell ourselves. Many of ours narratives do not track with reality, but mostly that is ok. No harm in that. But when a story we are telling ourselves becomes the source or some, most or even ALL of our pain in a given context...... and the story is itself a falsehood..... then what is so mystical in the suggestion that divesting oneself of that narrative can and does have beneficial effects??

It is very easy to shout words like "pesudo-intellectual" at things we disagree with. But there is a lot of material there and shouting at it rebuts none of it I am afraid.

Belfast

The abortion law in Germany

interesting to see how other countries handle abortion law. other counties laws are in link below

Germany

Under the German Penal Code, termination of pregnancy (Schwangerschaftsabbruch) or abortion (Abtreibung) is unlawful but permitted on demand under certain conditions and also on medical and criminal grounds when requested by the pregnant woman.

An abortion may be performed by a physician at the request of a pregnant woman if she presents to the physician a certificate indicating that she obtained counseling at least three days before the operation and not more than twelve weeks have elapsed since conception.[66] However, the Code also provides for an upper limit of twenty-two weeks for an abortion when the pregnant woman has had counseling and a court order discharges the person who terminates the pregnancy because the woman was “in exceptional distress at the time of the operation.”[67]

An abortion may be performed by a physician with the consent of the pregnant woman if it is medically necessary to prevent danger to her life or grave injury to her physical or mental health “and if the danger cannot reasonably be averted in another way from her point of view,” taking into consideration the woman’s present and future living conditions.[68] In such instances, there is a gestational limit of not more that twenty-two weeks of pregnancy.[69]

An abortion may be performed on criminal grounds with the pregnant woman’s consent, within twelve weeks following conception, where, based on medical opinion, “there is strong reason to support the assumption that the pregnancy was caused by [a criminal] act” (e.g., child abuse, sexual assault, rape).[70]

In the case of medical or criminal grounds for an abortion, an independent doctor must verify that such grounds exist and provide a medical certificate to that effect, and the certifying doctor may not perform the operation.[71]

Prepared by Wendy Zeldin
Senior Legal Research Analyst
January 2015 "


https://www.loc.gov/law/help/abortion-legislation/europe.php#germany

.......

This post has been deleted.

January

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Usually by the first day of the last period unless there are huge discrepancies (or you didn't know when your last period was), then they go by the earliest scan date size to calculate the size of the fetus against how big they should be at certain weeks. (In things like IVF etc it's calculated by date of implantation).

Annasopra

sondagefaux wrote: »

The wording is likely to include a reference to abortion being permitted in almost any circumstance up to 12 weeks, with provisions for the Oireachtas to legislate for restrictions after 12 weeks. It's also likely to include a provision which prevents the Oireachtas from legislating to outlaw abortion in all circumstances, or to restrict its availability only in situations in which it's now available.

No. None of that is likely. You appear to be misinformed.


The likely wording is something more like

Do you approve of Article 40.3.3 being removed

3° 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. this subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the state and another state. this subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the state, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.

AND REPLACED WITH

“Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancies”

astrofool

professore wrote: »

I used 8 month old fetuses as an extreme example. I'd be against going beyond 12 weeks, and going to 12 weeks is only agreeable to me because it gives the woman ample time to make a decision. I've looked at the development of the fetus in the womb in order to come to this decision.

Have you ever had kids, and do you understand how "12 weeks" get calculated, because, if you do, then everything your saying makes no sense at all. I can elaborate, but it would be good to know what base level of knowledge you're starting with.

amdublin

Can you imagine if you were supposed to be travelling yesterday/today/this weekend.

The amount of reorganisation and stress.

Ireland can be cruel sometimes

Zubeneschamali

professore wrote: »

If that will go into the constitution, or otherwise can be legally enforced without some future nutcase being able to change it, without a further referendum, then I have no issue.

Lone nutcases cannot pass mad legislation in Ireland.

Charmeleon

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So basically what you are doing is dodging engaging with me about my positions, and instead contriving to build situations where you can take pot shots at them in conversation with others?

If my positions were so "bad" you could rebut them, rather than shady underhand tactics of taking digs like this.

For. Shame.

Secondly as another user pointed out the text from me you have quoted does NOT fit your previous description of "the unborn are not worthy of any consideration or protection at all."

Third, the text from me you quoted is not EVEN a pro-choice argument. If you go back and actually read the context is was an argument against an unsubstantiated assertion that the arguments being discussed on here are throwing concern for humanity our of the discussion. And I was pointing out that this is not only false, but is actually the exact opposite of what is happening.

So not only are you taking cowardly third person pot shots at me, you are strawmanning my position to do so.

For. Absolute. Shame. Some decorum please.

Just catching up to lol at this post. I can actually feel the fundamentalism.

Edward M

amdublin wrote: »

Can you imagine if you were supposed to be travelling yesterday/today/this weekend.

The amount of reorganisation and stress.

Ireland can be cruel sometimes

Tbf, it would probably have been cancelled if it were here too given the weather situation.
But I take your point.

January

Edward M wrote: »

Tbf, it would probably have been cancelled if it were here too given the weather situation.
But I take your point.

Yeah but at least here it is easily rearranged without having to rebook flights and hotels.

For anyone this is affecting please contact the abortion support network they are helping to rearrange flights and accommodation.

sondagefaux

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No. None of that is likely. You appear to be misinformed.


The likely wording is something more like

Do you approve of Article 40.3.3 being removed



AND REPLACED WITH

Given that the wording hasn't been decided yet, and given that handing carte blanche to the Oireachtas to legislate as it sees fit could result in the Oireachtas banning abortion in all circumstances, I'd suggest that you might be misinformed.

.......

This post has been deleted.