The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Crea

RobertKK wrote: »

I have a sister who was told she had FFA and the baby would die soon after birth, a nurse in Dublin suggested about getting rid of the pregnancy...she had a good doctor who supported her, the child was born in Dublin, taken to Crumlin and is now living a normal life and plays sports.
The arguments used for FFA are as if a diagnosis is black and white, when it is grey.

What ffa was your sisters child diagnosed with?
In the cases of chromosomale anomalies there are no shades of grey,

RobertKK

Crea wrote: »

What ffa was your sisters child diagnosed with?
In the cases of chromosomale anomalies there are no shades of grey,

Basically the heart was so messed up, the baby when born wouldn't live. It has a name but I forget what it was called but it a very rare condition, there were at that time no other known cases in Ireland.

volchitsa

RobertKK wrote: »

I have a sister who was told she had FFA and the baby would die soon after birth, a nurse in Dublin suggested about getting rid of the pregnancy...she had a good doctor who supported her, the child was born in Dublin, taken to Crumlin and is now living a normal life and plays sports.
The arguments used for FFA are as if a diagnosis is black and white, when it is grey.

So was the diagnosis simply wrong and the child was fine, or does it have/did it have a diagnosed illness?

In any case, obviously that is wonderful for your sister, and is a good argument for women being allowed to make these decisions themselves, especially because doctors can get things wrong.

It's not an argument for forcing women to continue such a pregnancy, any more than someone whose baby died after birth would be an argument for enforced abortion in similar cases.

It's also a very strong argument for allowing women to decide in general when their state of health requires an abortion, rather than a doctor - because as you point out, doctors sometimes do get it wrong. As happened in Galway.

January

RobertKK wrote: »

Basically the heart was so messed up, the baby when born wouldn't live. It has a name but I forget what it was called but it a very rare condition, there were at that time no other known cases in Ireland.

Heart conditions are not FFA's. Still, it should be a women's right to choose whether she gives birth to a baby who could have severe health and medical problems.

volchitsa

RobertKK wrote: »

Basically the heart was so messed up, the baby when born wouldn't live. It has a name but I forget what it was called but it a very rare condition, there were at that time no other known cases in Ireland.

So what happened when the child was born? Someone had misinterpreted the scan? Or it just wasn't fatal after all?

It seems odd that a nurse talked to her about abortion - shouldn't that have been a doctor? Would a nurse have been able to make such a drastic diagnosis?

judeboy101

January wrote: »

Heart conditions are not FFA's. Still, it should be a women's right to choose whether she gives birth to a baby who could have severe health and medical problems.

CS is severe and life limiting

January

judeboy101 wrote: »

CS is severe and life limiting

Many conditions are severe and life-limiting but they're not FFA's. Parents should be able to make the decision for themselves whether they feel they can raise a child with a severe medical condition.

Crea

My sisters baby was diagnosed with Edwards Syndrome at 30 weeks. She was told her the Ionger she remained pregnant the more likely the baby would die in utero. She begged to be induced early but the doc said it could be construed as an abortion by law. She had to stay pregnant for another 8 weeks at which time she had a number of breakdowns and the baby died.
Nothing can be done in these cases until the 8th ammendment is removed.

January

Crea wrote: »

My sisters baby was diagnosed with Edwards Syndrome at 30 weeks. She was told her the Ionger she remained pregnant the more likely the baby would die in utero. She begged to be induced early but the doc said it could be construed as an abortion by law. She had to stay pregnant for another 8 weeks at which time she had a number of breakdowns and the baby died.
Nothing can be done in these cases until the 8th ammendment is removed.

Your poor sister

eviltwin

Crea wrote: »

My sisters baby was diagnosed with Edwards Syndrome at 30 weeks. She was told her the Ionger she remained pregnant the more likely the baby would die in utero. She begged to be induced early but the doc said it could be construed as an abortion by law. She had to stay pregnant for another 8 weeks at which time she had a number of breakdowns and the baby died.
Nothing can be done in these cases until the 8th ammendment is removed.

No one should be forced to endure that. Love them both indeed.

mahamageehad

Crea wrote: »

My sisters baby was diagnosed with Edwards Syndrome at 30 weeks. She was told her the Ionger she remained pregnant the more likely the baby would die in utero. She begged to be induced early but the doc said it could be construed as an abortion by law. She had to stay pregnant for another 8 weeks at which time she had a number of breakdowns and the baby died.
Nothing can be done in these cases until the 8th ammendment is removed.

Heartbreaking. Similar to the Unreported Worlds piece where the couple knew the baby was going to die in utero and their option was England or wait. They talked about getting up every day and having to check if the baby had died. They didn't want to go to England because they wanted to be able to bury the kid here and sometimes that's difficult with the U.K. She talked about walking down the street and having people congratulate her and touch her tummy, all while she knew her (wanted) pregnancy wouldn't have a happy ending.

Sorry your sister had to go through that too. The 8th is a terrible shadow over pregnancies in Ireland.

volchitsa

Crea wrote: »

My sisters baby was diagnosed with Edwards Syndrome at 30 weeks. She was told her the Ionger she remained pregnant the more likely the baby would die in utero. She begged to be induced early but the doc said it could be construed as an abortion by law. She had to stay pregnant for another 8 weeks at which time she had a number of breakdowns and the baby died.
Nothing can be done in these cases until the 8th ammendment is removed.

I feel torn about giving this a sort of "like", as it's positively heart wrenching, but I did want to thank you for posting this.

kylith

Mod-You do not link to that forum ever under any circumstances

AnGaelach

B0jangles wrote: »

Are they zero?

Because that's the only level I'd feel safe at if I was in a situation where pregnancy means permanent disability or death to me, and I lived in a country which denies me the right to choose whether or not to take that risk.

You're not denied the right, because it isn't a right... Whereas the right to life is a right, and you seek to deny that to the unborn simply because you want the ability to deny it.

AnGaelach

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I would prefer if people wouldn't try to impose their beliefs on others

Kind of ironic that the "progressives" have chosen that tactic then isn't it? Not only can you not vote against abortion without being seen as some kind of monster, you also aren't even allowed to voice your own conscience without being hounded and attacked and forced to conform to their belief - Tim Farron being the most prime example. He didn't let his beliefs influence his political decisions, and yet he was run out of his job because his personally held beliefs conflicted with theirs.

Tigger

January wrote: »

Because circumstances can and do change. Just because you have an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy and abort it does not mean you don't get to choose to plan a pregnancy at a later date.

a couple that have a child and then abort a healthy baby and then have a child later is an example of abortion on demand as contraception which is a far cry from abortion for medical reasons for either the fetous or the mother

i suppose id be oknwith abortion on demand only at a early stage but ive realised that evn that concession seems to be a bridge to far for some of the repealers

B0jangles

AnGaelach wrote: »

You're not denied the right, because it isn't a right... Whereas the right to life is a right, and you seek to deny that to the unborn simply because you want the ability to deny it.

Do you hear what you are saying?

That a woman who 100% knows that she will either be left disabled or dead by another pregnancy should still not have the right to end that pregnancy because 'it isn't a right'.

How about we make it a right?

AnGaelach

B0jangles wrote: »

Do you hear what you are saying?

That a woman who 100% knows that she will either be left disabled or dead by another pregnancy should still not have the right to end that pregnancy because 'it isn't a right'.

That's fear-mongering nonsense. Abortions where the mother's life is at risk are legal. How you think she's going to know that not getting an abortion now will mean the next pregnancy will mean her death, is beyond me. Are women clairvoyant?

B0jangles wrote: »

How about we make it a right?

Nah, you're alright. I was on the moderate pro-life side of this debate, you can check my post history if you don't believe me. I would have voted to lessen the restrictions but after some of the stunts and the highly combative stance the pro-choice crowd has taken, I'm simply voting no to changing it.

B0jangles

AnGaelach wrote: »

That's fear-mongering nonsense. Abortions where the mother's life is at risk are legal. How you think she's going to know that not getting an abortion now will mean the next pregnancy will mean her death, is beyond me. Are women clairvoyant?



Nah, you're alright. I was on the moderate pro-life side of this debate, you can check my post history if you don't believe me. I would have voted to lessen the restrictions but after some of the stunts and the highly combative stance the pro-choice crowd has taken, I'm simply voting no to changing it.

It's not fearmongering, it's the medical advice my friend's wife was given after her second pregnancy almost killed her. She was told in no uncertain terms that a third would absolutely leave her unable to walk, with a strong possibility of leaving her dead.

According to the law here, she would have to be at risk of death to qualify for an abortion.

Permanent disability is not enough; according to the law as it stands, it is preferable for her to live out the rest of her days in a wheelchair rather than allow her the choice of whether or not she wants to take the risk.

This woman seems to have suffered from the same basic condition: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/feb/19/spd-pelvic-pain-wheelchair

edit: You'd actually vote to keep things as they are because you dislike "the stunts and the highly combative stance the pro-choice crowd has taken"

Are you for real?
After everything that has been said by (just for one example) parents who had to continue for months with pregnancies certain to end in tragedy because of fatal fetal abnormalities?

You'd condemn even more parents to that kind of unimaginable suffering because some people behaved in a way you found tiresome?

That is... To be honest, I can't even say what I think of that attitude.

January

Tigger wrote: »

a couple that have a child and then abort a healthy baby and then have a child later is an example of abortion on demand as contraception which is a far cry from abortion for medical reasons for either the fetous or the mother

i suppose id be oknwith abortion on demand only at a early stage but ive realised that evn that concession seems to be a bridge to far for some of the repealers

No it is not, it's about being able to decide when you're ready to parent, whether you have children already or not.

As early as possible, as late as necessary. Taking into account that 92% of abortions happen before 12 weeks of pregnancy and 0.2% happen after 20 weeks and only for reasons of FFA and/or threat to the mother's life.

Tigger

January wrote: »

No it is not, it's about being able to decide when you're ready to parent, whether you have children already or not.

As early as possible, as late as necessary. Taking into account that 92% of abortions happen before 12 weeks of pregnancy and 0.2% happen after 20 weeks and only for reasons of FFA and/or threat to the mother's life.

exactly

mahamageehad

If Twitter is anything to go by, both sides have some pretty disgusting and vicious individuals are the main speakers. I think the 8th should be repealed, and that access to abortion should be legislated like basically every other country, whatever that looks like, but I'd honestly be worried that the arguments are going to get so messy and divisive that many just won't bother voting.

PopePalpatine

B0jangles wrote: »

edit: You'd actually vote to keep things as they are because you dislike "the stunts and the highly combative stance the pro-choice crowd has taken"

Are you for real?
After everything that has been said by (just for one example) parents who had to continue for months with pregnancies certain to end in tragedy because of fatal fetal abnormalities?

You'd condemn even more parents to that kind of unimaginable suffering because some people behaved in a way you found tiresome?

That is... To be honest, I can't even say what I think of that attitude.

I wonder what the pro-lifers would have to do to reverse his decision? Team up with Da'esh or some basement-dwelling alt-righters? March around Dublin chanting "Catholic Sharia now"?

Hotblack Desiato

AnGaelach wrote: »

How you think she's going to know that not getting an abortion now will mean the next pregnancy will mean her death, is beyond me. Are women clairvoyant?

And anti-choicers wonder why people think they're misogynists?

Nah, you're alright. I was on the moderate pro-life side of this debate

That wouldn't be my opinion

I would have voted to lessen the restrictions but after some of the stunts and the highly combative stance the pro-choice crowd has taken, I'm simply voting no to changing it.

I don't believe that for a millisecond.

NuMarvel

Deleted User wrote: »

Sure they might as well have the referendum. Ireland won't vote to repeal the eighth. All these people shouting and screaming to repeal are the loud minority, Ireland will not (in my opinion) vote to repeal.

In my opinion abortion should be legal only in limited circumstances..... for medical reasons and other limited circumstances.

Opinion polls consistently show that support for the 8th is minimal, typically 15% or so. The public isn't in a place where they need to be convinced that we need repeal; they're already there. What the public is unsure of is what should follow.

posturingpat wrote: »

Do you seriously think no life has been saved because of it? Really :rolleyes:

According to the World Health Organisation abortions rates in countries that ban or restrict access to abortion are similar to rates in countries where access is allowed. Bans don't reduce the number of abortions, it just reduces the number of safe abortions.

That seems to correlate to what we can tell about the experiences of Irish women too. The only reliable figures we have for abortions are those provided by the UK for women who have abortions and give an Irish address. And the numbers for last year are very similar to the numbers for 1982, the year before the referendum on the 8th. In fact the numbers rose nearly every year for 20 years after the 8th, and only started significantly coming down in 2005. I think that we can be sure that the 8th wasn't the reason for those drops.

I can understand why people would be opposed to abortion. I really do. But I don't understand why they would support a measure that international research and our own experiences show doesn't prevent abortion. The 8th at best relocates it, and at worst makes it unsafe.

gctest50

AnGaelach wrote: »

You're not denied the right, because it isn't a right... Whereas the right to life is a right, and you seek to deny that to the unborn simply because you want the ability to deny it.

It seems a few seek to deny it to women just to have that hold over them - make them travel

Rights ? not so long ago this was the case :

"Under Irish law, a married woman had no right to a share in her family home, even if she was the breadwinner. Her husband could sell the home without her consent."

How it changed

Under the Family Home Protection Act of 1976, neither spouse can sell the family home without the written consent of the other.

http://irishecho.com/2013/05/10-things-a-woman-could-not-do-in-ireland-in-1970/



Things change, things need to change

NuMarvel

NuMarvel wrote: »

Opinion polls consistently show that support for the 8th is minimal, typically 15% or so. The public isn't in a place where they need to be convinced that we need repeal; they're already there. What the public is unsure of is what should follow.



According to the World Health Organisation abortions rates in countries that ban or restrict access to abortion are similar to rates in countries where access is allowed. Bans don't reduce the number of abortions, it just reduces the number of safe abortions.

That seems to correlate to what we can tell about the experiences of Irish women too. The only reliable figures we have for abortions are those provided by the UK for women who have abortions and give an Irish address. And the numbers for last year are very similar to the numbers for 1982, the year before the referendum on the 8th. In fact the numbers rose nearly every year for 20 years after the 8th, and only started significantly coming down in 2005. I think that we can be sure that the 8th wasn't the reason for those drops.

I can understand why people would be opposed to abortion. I really do. But I don't understand why they would support a measure that international research and our own experiences show doesn't prevent abortion. The 8th at best relocates it, and at worst makes it unsafe.

As I said in my previous post, I am in favour of a referendum, let the people decide either which way. I am not an extremist in either way, I'll respect if the majority votes against my opinion (which is rare these days).

SafeSurfer

B0jangles wrote: »

RobertKK wrote: »

People who want a clear conscience use what their own conscience tells them, not what someone else tells them what they must support because that is what their conscience tells them.

It is not hypocrisy to vote for what one believes. It is internal hypocrisy to go against what one believes, because someone tells them they must do something against their own personal beliefs/opinions.
Only a weak person who is easily malleable would do as you say, because you want them to believe what you want them to believe.

My friend and his wife have two children. The first pregnancy caused her crippling pain in her pelvis - pain which left her unable to walk for the last couple of months of the pregnancy. The second caused agonizing pain and left her bedbound for most of the 9 months. She almost died during the birth.

She has been told that having another baby has a high chance of killing her and an almost certain result of leaving her permanently unable to walk.

According the the 8th, she can only have an abortion if she is about to die; the nigh-certainty of being left permanently disabled is not considered important enough.

Think about that; 'health' is not just talking about minor, passing discomfort, it's talking about basic bodily functions being seriously and permanently damaged.

Is keeping your conscience squeaky-clean so vitally important that you're happy accept the undeniable fact that there are people, real born people with lives and families, people who will be left permanently disabled by a pregnancy who are victims right now of the extreme restrictions on abortion access in this country?

That is an argument for sterilisation of both partners and 3 forms of contraception just in case. It's not an argument for abortion.
If getting pregnant may kill you maybe you should take measures to ensure you do not become pregnant.
If one has a nut allergy that could prove fatal one would tend to avoid nuts.

Hotblack Desiato

So... do all publicly funded hospitals permit elective sterilisations, or are there still issues about 'catholic ethos'?

Your lot really can't have it both ways. saying that women should use contraception and sterilisation when for years you've done all you can to block both of these. We even have anti-choice activists now saying the morning after pill is an alternative to abortion, when ten years ago they were saying the morning after pill was abortion.

Outlaw Pete

To all of you pro-choicers that have been speaking about ffa, rape, mother's health etc (for reasoning as to why we need to repeal the 8th) can I simply ask you: what if all that had all been allocated for in the 2013 Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act?Would you have been happy with that? Or would you, as I suspect, all still be campaigning for the 8th to be repealed nevertheless, using something else, like not enough fetal disorders meeting the ffa criteria or whatever.

Cause let's be honest here: as ever, ffa, pregnancy from rape, risk to women's health etc, are all just being sanctimoniously used as a battering ram to try and do was deemed necessary to bring down the floodgates which would lead to abortion being as available here as it is in the UK and Holland. That's the wish. That's the goal.

Why do I say this? Well it's simple really: I rarely if ever hear any of you talking about how you would be more than happy if these things (which you never stop bleating about) were one day allocated for. Not once. Not even a section of you. Even the '10 or 12 week limit' crowd (of which I could possibly be convinced to be part of) are rarely heard much from. Certainly never seen a poster or a placard declaring it a goal being strived for. Just the usual 'Her Body, Her Life' nonsense.

3500 Irish women traveled for an abortion last year we are told (or thereabouts) and of that numver how many of them did so because of the health, or lack thereof, of the fetus? Around 200 apparently (37 of which had the cheek to have Down Syndrome). So, we're talking about roughly 3000 human beings (at least) that had their lives ended merely because they were not wanted but yet all the discussion for repealing the 8th is focused on abortions which are sought for reasons which only make up a small percentage of the overall total. To say the conversation is disproportional would be an understatement.

As far as I am concerned it's a disgrace that a woman (or a man if the state legally recognizes him as such) would not be able to avail of an abortion here if and when they needed to. FFA, same story. Disgraceful. But I think certain people need to give it a rest using these situations to try and sway how people view the 8th amendment and whether it should be repealed or not, as I feel that not only is it dishonest (with regards to why you want the 8th repealed) it would be a grave error, because the people (those with prolife beliefs) will read that dishonesty a mile off and it's my guess that it could very well have voters saying 'No' when (had they been appealed to in a more honest fashion, particularly with regards to 'Where's this all going') you may very well have got a 'Yes'.

In fact it just happened on this thread and the user was sneered at. A taste of what's to come perhaps? I'd hope not but all the signs suggest it very much is.

SafeSurfer

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So... do all publicly funded hospitals permit elective sterilisations, or are there still issues about 'catholic ethos'?

Your lot really can't have it both ways. saying that women should use contraception and sterilisation when for years you've done all you can to block both of these. We even have anti-choice activists now saying the morning after pill is an alternative to abortion, when ten years ago they were saying the morning after pill was abortion.

I presume people from a pro life perspective would be in favour of a procedure that would save a life.
I am not aware of any moral arguments against sterilisation, vasectomy etc, as it is very much a case of my body, my choice. No other life is being extinguished as a result of the choice.

nozzferrahhtoo

SafeSurfer wrote: »

If getting pregnant may kill you maybe you should take measures to ensure you do not become pregnant.

People in sports wear protective gear. They still sometimes get injured. People on fishing boats often wear life jackets. Many of them still drown. Police wear stab jackets but sometimes still get injured in the line of duty.

The list goes on. It is possible to take many precautions and still end up in a situation where you need medical or other intervention or help. And at that point the help should be offered, rather than sanctimonious admonishments from an imaginary pedestal on how they got there in the first place.

How many people who died from their nut allergy, do you think, did so because they were not trying hard enough to avoid nuts? Or do you think, maybe just maybe, that some people despite all their efforts, manage to get exposed to nuts all the same? And would we stand over them with the epi-pen in hand and say "tut tut tut you clearly were not trying hard enough" or would we simply give them the procedure they need and leave the sanctimonious judgmental clap trap at home where it belongs?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

what if all that had all been allocated for

Not sure what the whatiffery achieves other than to allow you to make up a narrative on how you imagine they would behave had things been other than they are.

The fact is on the abortion issue many people have concerns about one, the other, or BOTH of the things you mention. That is they are concerned about allowing abortions in cases of medical or emotional need (FFA, Rape and so forth) and/OR they are concerned about allowing abortion entirely by choice for people who wish it, at stages when there is no reason to hold moral and ethical concern for the fetus.

Neither are mutually exclusive, and support of either does not mean you are actually cloak and dagger in support of the other and do not wish to admit it, or whatever your dark imaginary narrative is today.

It is perfectly possible, moral, and ok to argue for one in one context and the other in another. Not only can they, they SHOULD do so. It is the right thing to do. Much as you might wish to spin it to seem otherwise.

Annasopra

RobertKK wrote: »

If a woman is ill and needs medical help her life obviously has to come first

The 8th amendment means her life cannot be placed first. Its shocking to hear someone strongly defending the 8th amendment and yet completely misundersanding the negative affects on healthcare of pregnant people.

FutureGuy

RobertKK wrote: »

I have a sister who was told she had FFA and the baby would die soon after birth, a nurse in Dublin suggested about getting rid of the pregnancy...she had a good doctor who supported her, the child was born in Dublin, taken to Crumlin and is now living a normal life and plays sports.
The arguments used for FFA are as if a diagnosis is black and white, when it is grey.

Sorry but that is absolute bollocks from the nurse. No offense to you or your sister, but there is no way the child actually had a FFA and is normal now. The nurse would want to be ****ing shot if that's the case.

dudara

@Outlaw Pete - I have to agree with your post. I'm not a fan of using the FFA arguments etc to "soften" the cough on this argument. It's not a pleasant topic at all, and I believe that we need to face it head on in order to have any chance of a decent solution. Plus, previous legislation has clearly shown the issues that can arise when you attempt to legislate for exceptions or minority cases.

Firstly, I strongly believe the 8th needs to be repealed. It is blocking the proper medical care of pregnant women and denying them a voice in their own healthcare.

Secondly, I believe that our government needs to legislate for abortion, in my opinion along the lines of the sensible recommendations of the Citizen's Assembly. This will give pregnant women a choice.

I am not pro-abortion, not in the slightest. I see it very much as a point of last resort. But as a woman, I would want to have all choices available to me. And I do not want to be responsible for denying anyone a choice.

January

Personally, no I wouldn't be happy with just FFA, rape/incest and threat to mothers life because I don't believe in forcing a woman to give birth because she can't afford to travel. It's as simple as that.

Women are having abortions every day in Ireland, women travel every day to England to have abortions. Why should we be forced to continue to travel. Abortion is happening already, whether any of you like it or not. Why shouldn't it become legal here?

NuMarvel

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

To all of you pro-choicers that have been speaking about ffa, rape, mother's health etc (for reasoning as to why we need to repeal the 8th) can I simply ask you: what if all that had all been allocated for in the 2013 Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act?Would you have been happy with that? Or would you, as I suspect, all still be campaigning for the 8th to be repealed nevertheless, using something else, like not enough fetal disorders meeting the ffa criteria or whatever.

That's a moot question, because the only way those scenarios could have been included in the PLDP Act would have been if the 8th was repealed first, or at least very significantly altered.

The wording of the 8th is very clear; the right to life of the unborn trumps all other considerations with the singular exception of the woman's right to life. Legislation that included other aspects, such as rape, health, etc would be unconstitutional and wouldn't survive a court challenge.

But to get to the nub of your question; I'd personally be happy with the Citizen's Assembly recommendations, and most, if not all, pro-choice groups would be as well. And most pro-choice groups are also pretty clear that they're not looking for just exception-based legislation. They want legislation that will benefit the majority of women and not subject them to jumping hurdles to gain access.

blanch152

SafeSurfer wrote: »

That is an argument for sterilisation of both partners and 3 forms of contraception just in case. It's not an argument for abortion.
If getting pregnant may kill you maybe you should take measures to ensure you do not become pregnant.
If one has a nut allergy that could prove fatal one would tend to avoid nuts.

Unfortunately, as this article makes clear, the Church does not approve of sterilisation and other such procedures.

http://irishcatholic.ie/article/sisters-and-state-scandalous-alliance

seamus

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

To all of you pro-choicers that have been speaking about ffa, rape, mother's health etc (for reasoning as to why we need to repeal the 8th) can I simply ask you: what if all that had all been allocated for in the 2013 Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act?Would you have been happy with that? Or would you, as I suspect, all still be campaigning for the 8th to be repealed nevertheless, using something else, like not enough fetal disorders meeting the ffa criteria or whatever.

This again.

The POLDPA only exists because of the 8th amendment. If the 8th amendment didn't exist, neither would the POLDPA.

We wouldn't even be having this discussion, it would be another discussion altogether.

This is nothing but whatiffery and a lame "slippery slope" argument. Your intention is to claim that the Repeal campaign is something altogether more sinister by fabricating imaginary scenarios that could never have existed and then presupposing the Repeal campaign's response to those fabricated scenarios.

"Let's not discuss the facts here, let's invent a whole new set of circumstances which are coincidentally skewed in favour of my argument, and then discuss that!"

January

NuMarvel wrote: »

That's a moot question, because the only way those scenarios could have been included in the PLDP Act would have been if the 8th was repealed first, or at least very significantly altered.

The wording of the 8th is very clear; the right to life of the unborn trumps all other considerations with the singular exception of the woman's right to life. Legislation that included other aspects, such as rape, health, etc would be unconstitutional and wouldn't survive a court challenge.

But to get to the nub of your question; I'd personally be happy with the Citizen's Assembly recommendations, and most, if not all, pro-choice groups would be as well. And most pro-choice groups are also pretty clear that they're not looking for just exception-based legislation. They want legislation that will benefit the majority of women and not subject them to jumping hurdles to gain access.

Personally, the citizen's assembly recommendations would be acceptable. I know a lot of the people I know from the repeal campaign would be happy with them too.

GritBiscuit

The eighth has to be repealed/significantly altered to allow for better, workable situation.

When prosecutions around abortion can potentially draw a higher sentence than that for the rape that necessitated it, you have to put your hands up and admit the law - that derives from the constitution - is not working.

If it is common place to ignore specific legislation and the legal ramifications in order that justice and the common good be seen to be served, you have to put your hands up and admit that the current system does not work.

No-one can look at the current situation, legally or constitutionally; with all the blind eye turning, the pre and post abortion state involvement and ECHR declarations and still claim the current state of affairs is working...

Akrasia

There was a priest on a radio show recently talking about why he believes abortion is wrong

He basically said that Life begins at conception and that only god has the right to choose who lives and who dies.

This got me thinking about the free will debate and the problem of evil.

Whenever a christian talks about why god allows people to do evil, they always say it's because god wants people to have free will. If people were prevented by god from making immoral choices, they would not be able to freely choose to be good. They extend this argument to the murder of innocents. God chooses to not protect innocent people from murderers because to do so, would restrict the freedom of choice of the murderer (yes i know it's a stupid argument)

So the next time a christian tells you that abortion should be illegal, ask them about god's position on free will.

If god exists and an embryo is a fully actualised person, aborting that pregnancy is the best thing that could possibly happen to that 'person'. It is a guaranteed one way ticket to paradise (unless you believe in limbo in which case god is a monster) So the 'baby' is not harmed, and the person who had the abortion was exercising her free will as god itself intended her to do.

SafeSurfer

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

People in sports wear protective gear. They still sometimes get injured. People on fishing boats often wear life jackets. Many of them still drown. Police wear stab jackets but sometimes still get injured in the line of duty.

The list goes on. It is possible to take many precautions and still end up in a situation where you need medical or other intervention or help. And at that point the help should be offered, rather than sanctimonious admonishments from an imaginary pedestal on how they got there in the first place.

How many people who died from their nut allergy, do you think, did so because they were not trying hard enough to avoid nuts? Or do you think, maybe just maybe, that some people despite all their efforts, manage to get exposed to nuts all the same? And would we stand over them with the epi-pen in hand and say "tut tut tut you clearly were not trying hard enough" or would we simply give them the procedure they need and leave the sanctimonious judgmental clap trap at home where it belongs?



Not sure what the whatiffery achieves other than to allow you to make up a narrative on how you imagine they would behave had things been other than they are.

The fact is on the abortion issue many people have concerns about one, the other, or BOTH of the things you mention. That is they are concerned about allowing abortions in cases of medical or emotional need (FFA, Rape and so forth) and/OR they are concerned about allowing abortion entirely by choice for people who wish it, at stages when there is no reason to hold moral and ethical concern for the fetus.

Neither are mutually exclusive, and support of either does not mean you are actually cloak and dagger in support of the other and do not wish to admit it, or whatever your dark imaginary narrative is today.

It is perfectly possible, moral, and ok to argue for one in one context and the other in another. Not only can they, they SHOULD do so. It is the right thing to do. Much as you might wish to spin it to seem otherwise.

There are ways to avoid getting pregnant if it may kill you. There is personal choice and personal responsibility, especially if it is a matter of life or death. The examples you give about fishermen wearing life jackets etc are not relevant to the example of someone who will die if she becomes pregnant. There are completely foolproof ways to avoid becoming pregnant.

nozzferrahhtoo

January wrote: »

Women are having abortions every day in Ireland, women travel every day to England to have abortions. Why should we be forced to continue to travel. Abortion is happening already, whether any of you like it or not. Why shouldn't it become legal here?

While I am pro choice and while I understand the sentiment of your post, I could probably serve up some of the Devils Avocado on it too.

Lets use a slightly ridiculous but illuminating analogy. I will copy and paste your paragraph and change a few words:

Children are sexually abused every day in Ireland, people travel every day to poor countries to have access to children. Why should they be forced to continue to travel. This rape is happening already, whether any of you like it or not. Why shouldn't it become legal here?

The point of the analogy being that we should probably mediate what is legal in our own country based on the arguments for or against it in our own country. It has never seemed like a pro choice argument I would want to use to suggest that because someone can travel to get X, we might as well just automatically allow X here.

I think there are enough really good arguments for allowing choice based abortion in Ireland. And no arguments AGAINST it appear to be forthcoming except misuses of emotive terms like "murder" and "baby".

So what people can get access to by going elsewhere should not be relevant.

Also if we were too allow for abortion by choice up to 16 weeks, for example, which many people seem comfortable with....... would an argument against that not be "ah but anyone who wants it at 26 weeks is now forced to travel to canada, so why not just allow that here too?"

So not only do I fear the "What you can travel for" argument is not a useful one, it could also be used AGAINST many of the pro choice positions we have people arguing for.

TLDR it should not be about whether we are forcing people to travel. It should be about what product or service we as a society/country feel ethically and morally comfortable with offering HERE.

nozzferrahhtoo

SafeSurfer wrote: »

There are ways to avoid getting pregnant if it may kill you.

Not really short of sterilisations or complete chastity. And even the latter does not work when you are raped. Otherwise all you have are ways to modify the probabilities of getting pregnant. Even people using MULTIPLE contraceptive methodologies still get pregnant sometimes. If everyone in the world tomorrow started combining condoms, the pill, and the withdrawl method..... you will still get SOME statistical quantity of people getting pregnant.

So lording their choices and responsibilities over them is just judgemental nonsense from an imaginary pedastal. People get pregnant despite doing many things to avoid it.

But aside from chastity and sterilisation by all means list the "completely foolproof ways to avoid becoming pregnant." and maybe also cite the statistics you have access to on the efficacy of each methodology. I suspect you will not find many that are 100%, but by all means list them if you do.

dudara

SafeSurfer wrote: »

There are completely foolproof ways to avoid becoming pregnant.

As far as I'm aware the only "completely foolproof" ways would be total abstinence from sexual activities or a hysterectomy. Neither are very desirable. Are there other options available?

Women get pregnant even despite their best efforts. Even tubal ligation is not 100% effective. I don't like the arguments that effectively say "it's your fault for getting pregnant"

SafeSurfer

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not really short of sterilisations or complete chastity. And even the latter does not work when you are raped. Otherwise all you have are ways to modify the probabilities of getting pregnant. Even people using MULTIPLE contraceptive methodologies still get pregnant sometimes. If everyone in the world tomorrow started combining condoms, the pill, and the withdrawl method..... you will still get SOME statistical quantity of people getting pregnant.

So lording their choices and responsibilities over them is just judgemental nonsense from an imaginary pedastal. People get pregnant despite doing many things to avoid it.

But aside from chastity and sterilisation by all means list the "completely foolproof ways to avoid becoming pregnant." and maybe also cite the statistics you have access to on the efficacy of each methodology. I suspect you will not find many that are 100%, but by all means list them if you do.

So basically you want me to list a third method of avoiding pregnancy if it could kill you?

nozzferrahhtoo

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So basically you want me to list a third method of avoiding pregnancy if it could kill you?

I basically want you to list the things YOU just said exist. Because aside from calling them "foolproof" you are entirely unclear on what you are talking about at all.

Akrasia

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not really short of sterilisations or complete chastity. And even the latter does not work when you are raped. Otherwise all you have are ways to modify the probabilities of getting pregnant. Even people using MULTIPLE contraceptive methodologies still get pregnant sometimes. If everyone in the world tomorrow started combining condoms, the pill, and the withdrawl method..... you will still get SOME statistical quantity of people getting pregnant.

So lording their choices and responsibilities over them is just judgemental nonsense from an imaginary pedastal. People get pregnant despite doing many things to avoid it.

But aside from chastity and sterilisation by all means list the "completely foolproof ways to avoid becoming pregnant." and maybe also cite the statistics you have access to on the efficacy of each methodology. I suspect you will not find many that are 100%, but by all means list them if you do.

Not even vasectomies are are 100% reliable. Sometimes they can spontaneously reverse

SafeSurfer

Akrasia wrote: »

There was a priest on a radio show recently talking about why he believes abortion is wrong

He basically said that Life begins at conception and that only god has the right to choose who lives and who dies.

This got me thinking about the free will debate and the problem of evil.

Whenever a christian talks about why god allows people to do evil, they always say it's because god wants people to have free will. If people were prevented by god from making immoral choices, they would not be able to freely choose to be good. They extend this argument to the murder of innocents. God chooses to not protect innocent people from murderers because to do so, would restrict the freedom of choice of the murderer (yes i know it's a stupid argument)

So the next time a christian tells you that abortion should be illegal, ask them about god's position on free will.

If god exists and an embryo is a fully actualised person, aborting that pregnancy is the best thing that could possibly happen to that 'person'. It is a guaranteed one way ticket to paradise (unless you believe in limbo in which case god is a monster) So the 'baby' is not harmed, and the person who had the abortion was exercising her free will as god itself intended her to do.

Your arguments are so persuasive. You are surely winning over voters to the pro choosing abortion position.

Can I use the same argument the next time a christian tells me that murder should be illegal?

You say the "baby" is not harmed. Having your brains sucked out with a vacuum could be considered "harmed". But by all means defend your position by any means necessary. I am sure there are some straws that have yet to be grasped.