The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

markodaly

Maybe we can legalise it up to say 10 weeks but also commission ads that show the graphic and true nature of having an abortion, kinda like those drink driving ads and smoking ads.

splinter65

markodaly wrote: »

Maybe we can legalise it up to say 10 weeks but also commission ads that show the graphic and true nature of having an abortion, kinda like those drink driving ads and smoking ads.

You are joking.
Your talking about people who objected to a child living with Downs Syndrome being at the Citizens Assembly as it may have been hurtful for women who had aborted a DS baby.
Your talking about people who refer to an unborn baby of 24 weeks as a clump of cells.
And so on and so forth.
In order to be “pro choice” you have to convince yourself that an unborn baby is not the young of a human being.
These are not people who are about to face up to the mechanics of an abortion.

uptherebels

markodaly wrote: »

Maybe we can legalise it up to say 10 weeks but also commission ads that show the graphic and true nature of having an abortion, kinda like those drink driving ads and smoking ads.

how graphic is a first trimester abortion?

LirW

uptherebels wrote: »

how graphic is a first trimester abortion?

Pretty unspectacular, medical abortion is like a strong period and there's not much that you'd see from the outside of a mechanical one.

I was just thinking of this nonsense graphic that went around on Social media for a while where a late term abortion is shown where they rip the baby apart and first remove single legs and then hands and arms until the head only is left and then they pull it out. It's so stupid it makes me laugh. I think that's the morbid splatter fantasy that people like to use to scare others.
That's not how it works anyway.

Hoboo

uptherebels wrote: »

how graphic is a first trimester abortion?

Eh, very. Very very. Plenty of photos online.

uptherebels

Hoboo wrote: »

Eh, very. Very very. Plenty of photos online.

you realise that a first trimester abortion would be via pills or an aspiration abortion neither of which would be graphic ......right?

LirW

A lot of the "first trimester" abortion pictures are pictures of miscarriages, ectopic or fallopian pregnancies taken out of context. They'd usually be quite well documented because the embryos are kept for further research if there was something wrong with them because it could indicate that there's a genetic issue with the mother or father.

splinter65

LirW wrote: »

Pretty unspectacular, medical abortion is like a strong period and there's not much that you'd see from the outside of a mechanical one.

I was just thinking of this nonsense graphic that went around on Social media for a while where a late term abortion is shown where they rip the baby apart and first remove single legs and then hands and arms until the head only is left and then they pull it out. It's so stupid it makes me laugh. I think that's the morbid splatter fantasy that people like to use to scare others.
That's not how it works anyway.

What does a 3rd trimester abortion look like then?

Hoboo

uptherebels wrote: »

you realise that a first trimester abortion would be via pills or an aspiration abortion neither of which would be graphic ......right?

Aspiration, no, unless you show what has been aspirated, but will have been ripped apart anyhow. Pill/chemical abortion, yes, it can be graphic.

Taken from womenonweb.org.

'At nine weeks, you might be able to find a sac in the blood and it is possible that you might see the embryo. With a pregnancy of 8 or 9 weeks, the embryo is about 2,5 cm. This can be distressing.It is best to flush everything down the toilet or to wrap the sanitary pads in a plastic bag and throw them away'.

Or take a photo and put it on billboards, if its not that graphic as you say, you would surely not object?

LirW

I know how it's done where I come from: If you decide to terminate a pregnancy after 20 weeks because of a FFA for example, there will be an injection into the fetus abdominal area that lets the fetus die pretty much instantly. Once there's no heartbeat anymore, the woman gets medication that initiates labour and she gives birth to the dead fetus.

Hoboo

LirW wrote: »

A lot of the "first trimester" abortion pictures are pictures of miscarriages, ectopic or fallopian pregnancies taken out of context. They'd usually be quite well documented because the embryos are kept for further research if there was something wrong with them because it could indicate that there's a genetic issue with the mother or father.

Source.

splinter65

LirW wrote: »

I know how it's done where I come from: If you decide to terminate a pregnancy after 20 weeks because of a FFA for example, there will be an injection into the fetus abdominal area that lets the fetus die pretty much instantly. Once there's no heartbeat anymore, the woman gets medication that initiates labour and she gives birth to the dead fetus.

Pro choice is all about semantics .
“Lets the fetus die”
As opposed to “kills the baby”.
Careful use of words to conceal the reality.

uptherebels

Hoboo wrote: »

Aspiration, no, unless you show what has been aspirated, but will have been ripped apart anyhow. Pill/chemical abortion, yes, it can be graphic.

Taken from womenonweb.org.

'At nine weeks, you might be able to find a sac in the blood and it is possible that you might see the embryo. With a pregnancy of 8 or 9 weeks, the embryo is about 2,5 cm. This can be distressing.It is best to flush everything down the toilet or to wrap the sanitary pads in a plastic bag and throw them away'.

Or take a photo and put it on billboards, if its not that graphic as you say, you would surely not object?

no i wouldn't object. The bigger question is why you would find a picture of blood with a sac in it, or an embryo graphic. Also why do you think it would somehow impede women who have decided to have an abortion.

uptherebels

splinter65 wrote: »

Pro choice is all about semantics .
“Lets the fetus die”
As opposed to “kills the baby”.
Careful use of words to conceal the reality.

kinda like when they refer to a bunch of cells as a baby......oh wait:rolleyes:

LirW

I recently came across a few medical professionals online that post lots of medical stuff for educational reasons. Some of it are miscarriages. One of them if Mrs. Angemi, she has the ongoing problem that her content that involves pregnancies gone wrong are shut down from pro-life organisations or either are stolen.

I can't post you links to it right now because I'm on my pre-historic phone and it would take me ages. I'll do it tomorrow for you.

tigger123

Pretty amazing that both the Citizens Assembly and now the Oireachtas Committee having heard balanced, informed debate on the matter are opting to repeal the 8th.

The truth has a liberal bias.

splinter65

uptherebels wrote: »

kinda like when they refer to a bunch of cells as a baby......oh wait:rolleyes:

A 20+ weeks gestation unborn baby is not a baby?!? What is it then?

LirW

splinter65 wrote: »

Pro choice is all about semantics .
“Lets the fetus die”
As opposed to “kills the baby”.
Careful use of words to conceal the reality.

It kills the baby, yes. Then labour is induced. Outcome is the same, isn't it? No ripping apart in Sam Raimi splatter manner.
Maybe it's good to take into account that almost all of these abortions take place because the baby would be severely disabled and/or the chances are high that they wouldn't survive birth.
Not every woman has the strength to carry a pregnancy to term only to see the baby die during labour and I can't blame them a bit.

Hannibal_Smith

Hoboo wrote: »

Aspiration, no, unless you show what has been aspirated, but will have been ripped apart anyhow. Pill/chemical abortion, yes, it can be graphic.

Taken from womenonweb.org.

'At nine weeks, you might be able to find a sac in the blood and it is possible that you might see the embryo. With a pregnancy of 8 or 9 weeks, the embryo is about 2,5 cm. This can be distressing.It is best to flush everything down the toilet or to wrap the sanitary pads in a plastic bag and throw them away'.

Or take a photo and put it on billboards, if its not that graphic as you say, you would surely not object?

I had a miscarriage in the first trimester a number of years ago. I had to flush what came out of me down a toilet, much as it killed me.

It's not graphic. It is hard on the body having to expel it all. But i wouldn't describe it as graphic. A very heavy clotty period would be more like it. I was told it just died and it wouldnt have suffered, because it couldn't feel anything.

I didn't take pictures though. I didn't think it would be one for the family album

LirW

tigger123 wrote: »

Pretty amazing that both the Citizens Assembly and now the Oireachtas Committee having heard balanced, informed debate on the matter are opting to repeal the 8th.

The truth has a liberal bias.

Because the 8th is not only tied to the abortion issue but it heavily impacts the Irish maternity care. Early pregnancy care is pretty much non-existent in the public sector and there is a problem that women are not asked for consent for tests or procedures. They also often don't have a say during labour to what happens to them because a sentence many women hear is "it's dangerous for the baby".

Abortions in Ireland are happening, and they won't go away. They are around and there is a blackmarket for medication that you should take under medical supervision. It's about whether or not giving women a safe surrounding to have a termination or not, not only the women that have the money to travel to England.

splinter65

LirW wrote: »

It kills the baby, yes. Then labour is induced. Outcome is the same, isn't it? No ripping apart in Sam Raimi splatter manner.
Maybe it's good to take into account that almost all of these abortions take place because the baby would be severely disabled and/or the chances are high that they wouldn't survive birth.
Not every woman has the strength to carry a pregnancy to term only to see the baby die during labour and I can't blame them a bit.

Why did the poster not say “kills the baby”? If it’s the right thing to do then why shrink away from normal terminology? If you’ve made a considered desicion that the in utero killing of a disabled baby is justified and the desicion of the mother only, then why the need to use the word fetus?

Doctor Jimbob

splinter65 wrote: »

Why did the poster not say “kills the baby”? If it’s the right thing to do then why shrink away from normal terminology? If you’ve made a considered desicion that the in utero killing of a disabled baby is justified and the desicion of the mother only, then why the need to use the word fetus?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess they said that because it's a fetus.

The sheer hypocrisy of a pro-lifer giving out about manipulation of language is laughable, when it's you lot who insist on calling a lump of cells a baby.

splinter65

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess they said that because it's a fetus.

The sheer hypocrisy of a pro-lifer giving out about manipulation of language is laughable, when it's you lot who insist on calling a lump of cells a baby.

An unborn baby of 20+ weeks is a fetus if it’s being killed by injection before being delivered dead, and a baby if it’s delivered alive by a C Section to be treated in hospital?
How can you keep a lump of cells alive in an incubator to be discharged home eventually?

uptherebels

splinter65 wrote: »

A 20+ weeks gestation unborn baby is not a baby?!? What is it then?

where did i mention 20+ weeks gestation? In your eagerness to be offended you aren't reading peoples posts properly.

gctest50

splinter65 wrote: »

A 20+ weeks gestation unborn baby is not a baby?!?

A 20+ weeks gestation fetus is not a fetus?!?11!!!!???

Much easier - less words, leaves no-one ( including non- native English speakers ) in doubt what yer on about

LirW

splinter65 wrote: »

Why did the poster not say “kills the baby”? If it’s the right thing to do then why shrink away from normal terminology? If you’ve made a considered desicion that the in utero killing of a disabled baby is justified and the desicion of the mother only, then why the need to use the word fetus?

Because it's the medical term? I also don't refer to a vasectomy as willy snip.
Anyway, I'm not going to argue about something like this now because we all get the point and I'm not wasting my time for some artificial outrage that I used the word fetus instead of baby.

splinter65

uptherebels wrote: »

where did i mention 20+ weeks gestation? In your eagerness to be offended you aren't reading peoples posts properly.

LirW’s post I was replying to. 20+ gestation. An injection into the uterus wall then delivered dead. Your the one not reading the posts properly.

splinter65

LirW wrote: »

Because it's the medical term? I also don't refer to a vasectomy as willy snip.
Anyway, I'm not going to argue about something like this now because we all get the point and I'm not wasting my time for some artificial outrage that I used the word fetus instead of baby.

I’m not outraged I’m just fascinated.
If abortion is essential for the cause of women’s healthcare then why the need to use careful sensitive terminology about the whole thing.
It’s ridiculous . A baby is a baby at 20+ weeks . It doesn’t matter wether you’ve had a c section and are holding its hand through the window on the incubator or giving it an injection to kill it through the wall of the uterus ! Get some backbone and stand by your convictions!

uptherebels

splinter65 wrote: »

LirW’s post I was replying to. 20+ gestation. An injection into the uterus wall then delivered dead. Your the one not reading the posts properly.

but you quoted me?

splinter65

uptherebels wrote: »

but you quoted me?

Yes, but you quoted my response to LirW first, without reading LirW’s post.

LirW

Why would you take that I don't?
By the way, the earliest a baby can survive outside of the womb is 24 weeks and even then the chances it might not make it are quite high. There's a reason why 24 is a magic line for women, especially with troublesome pregnancies.
I do not think that I used sensitive terminology. I told about injections about the fetus' abdominal area, the fetus will die. Labour will be induced and the dead baby is born.

I had a look in my birth pass from my first that was issued back home, the baby is referred to as fetus right after birth. Medical term.

gctest50

splinter65 wrote: »

I’m not outraged I’m just fascinated.
If abortion is essential for the cause of women’s healthcare then why the need to use careful sensitive terminology about the whole thing.
It’s ridiculous . A baby is a baby at 20+ weeks .........

A fetus is a fetus at 20+ weeks

Definition of fetus

: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth — compare embryo 1b


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fetus

Thirdfox

LirW wrote: »

Sorry, had to shorten your post there because of wall of text reasons.

See I fully get where you're coming from.

I'm assuming that the 12 weeks time limit has to do with the proven medical facts. The first trimester of a pregnancy is the time where most things can go wrong. Up to 12 weeks almost half of all conceived pregnancies abort naturally, most of them so early that the woman never knows she was actually expecting.
While every embryo develops differently there are major milestones met around 13-14 weeks.
To put it in a stupid term, it's the most "humane" time to end a pregnancy.
Also taking into account that not every woman finds out in week 5 or 6 that she's pregnant but a good bit later.
It would be very unusual to not have found out by 12 weeks.

The reason why 24 weeks are in place for severe cases of FFA is that certain tests can only be carried out between 13 and 24 weeks. In week 13 is the best time to have a nuchal translucency and if that's abnormal you can go from there. The most accurate test can only be carried out at around 20 weeks which gives you a very good indication of what's most likely wrong with the baby. There are FFAs where the child wouldn't survive the birth or the first few hours after it, so this is the last time for parents to decide if they want to go ahead anyway or not. Again 24 weeks is the very earliest that a baby can be kept alive outside the womb. The chances that they'll make it are a lot lower than for example a preemie that's born at 30 weeks, in that case every day counts.
I believe that an ethical component is in fact the reason why these limits are set. They are not fully random but this is the best compromise from an ethical and medical point of view.


Regarding paternal rights, this is something where I wanna come back to another point you mentioned: Going ahead with a pregnancy that's unwanted.
See, a pregnancy takes a toll on every woman. Some are super happy and just seem to fly through it but others don't. It can have a horrible impact on your mental health even if your child is planned or not.
So if you're not in the perfect circumstances, the chances that this will take a toll is a lot higher.
While the infertility of one couple is incredibly tragic, it doesn't mean that another woman has to go ahead with a pregnancy that she doesn't want or maybe even resents. This can be incredibly distressing and traumatic up to a point where it can drive a woman suicidal.
So in order to protect the life of an unborn child we risk the mental and maybe physical health of an adult woman? This can be seen as punishment because in fact that means that the life of a bundle of cells has more value than the health and sanity of a living and breathing human-being that's a functioning part of society (ideally).

And this is where paternal rights come in and I agree that this is an extremely tricky one. De facto the father does not have a right or say what's going to happen. Now we need to take into account that the majority of men wouldn't want to raise a child on their own because the mother already decided she won't do it. But these men are there, I know a case of it personally. And these men depend on the grace of the woman. This is a very sh1tty scenario for all. The father will lose out on his own child. But again the toll the woman takes can be incredibly high.
No matter what, the woman would end up as some kind of baby machine against her will. And because she's the one that is pregnant and takes all the physical and mental side effects, that can vary widely, she's the one who has to decide what's going to happen. There is unfortunately no compromise on that one, as painful as it might be for a father that would be willing to raise a child on his own.
But there are no winners here because that's a sour scenario for everyone involved.

I personally still see it as wrong that a woman should be forced carrying a child against her will. I think the human rights agree with me on that point. This is why it is so difficult to imply the paternal rights for a child that is not born. The 8th at the moment overrules this by saying "Yeah well, your life as a grown woman is as important as the one of a cell blob and in in a scenario of doubt, we side with that cell blob, no matter what's up with you."

This enables so many problems. This also enables substandard pregnancy care and the overruling of consent during the pregnancy and birth. And no matter what, I think, in case of doubt, the adult woman or a living child or your auntie nell is more important than an embryo.

Apologies - I thought this post deserved an acknowledgment and response - it was lost in the legal sniping over definitions of injunctions and X case facts last night.

First - I thank you for taking the time to post out a very thoughtful response to my genuinely held concerns. I thought it best to do you the courtesy of the same. I do understand that many pregnancies suffer a miscarriage in the first trimester - in fact traditionally I heard that in my local culture a pregnancy isn't announced until the 2nd trimester for this very reason. But I would see a distinction between an unplanned miscarriage and an active decision to abort - one is a tragic natural occurrence that the parents may mourn (or like you say, sometimes not even be aware of) and the other is a very conscious decision to end the pregnancy (and state sanctioned).

And I'm sure you realise everyone's position is nuanced - I would find FFA cases to fall into the euthanasia category and actually something I would support - as the unfortunate bundle of cells have no hope of ever developing into a conscious human being. It may seem strange or bizarre to you, but I would value a rapist's foetus above a FFA foetus in terms of what/who can be aborted - for the reasons explained in my previous posts about looking at the effect an abortion would have on the unborn child and where the punishment of the crime lay (on the rapist of course). I am aware that across the wide spectrum of pro-choice/pro-life people different nuanced positions are taken - this is the one I find least hypocritical (to me personally).

And yes - of course the number of 12/24 isn't picked out of thin air - medical professionals must have had their professional input into the discussion and as you say, made the best possible compromise in their eyes. It was at the last discussion I had on the humanities forum that I discovered the interesting historical fact that Christian history (I come from a pretty atheist state) believed that the "soul" entered the baby at the "quickening" - first kick at around 24 weeks. But for me, and trying to make you see it how I see it - the closest comparative feeling it would be akin to the death penalty - while we can make compromises and get even 99.9% of cases right, the 0.1 or 0.0001% of cases where an innocent person dies because of a flaw in the system is reason enough to me to justify my absolute opposition to allowing the state to sanction murder against its own citizens (beside the whole non-deterrence value and other arguments against the death penalty). Miscarriage of justice happens and for life/death situations it goes beyond breathlyser tests, arbitrary drinking age limits etc. So hopefully you can see - though perhaps not agree with the lenses I view abortion through.

We have come a long way from State (Nicolaou) v. An Bord Uchtala (case from the 1966) where the judge openly stated "it is rare for a natural father to take any interest in his offspring" - have a read if you want to see the SC's mentality towards (unmarried) men back in the 60s - mother in mental institution wanted to put child up for adoption, unmarried father - who changed his religion for the child - wanted to raise child - but SC sides with mother and states unmarried fathers have no rights to their child...

It really is a sh!tty situation where the mother and father disagree on whether a child is wanted or not - I know some people suggest going the other way - allowing "legal abortions" for fathers who don't want to have anything to do with their unwanted child once born but I wouldn't be in favour of such given my stance on abortion in the first place. Again, while realising that yes - pregnancy isn't a piece of cake and women will certainly be potentially under an inordinate amount of stress it is for me, another balance of rights issue - the balance between up to 24 weeks of potentially serious stress vs the life of the child. That's also why I made reference to medical advances - I would imagine that as further advances in the medical field come along that 24 viability week figure should come down accordingly - until one day perhaps when having a child is almost something that is stork-like and the abortion discussion is moot - no child will be unwanted and all children are genetically designed to be perfect from start to finish etc.

So again, I can understand your concern that women will be merely relegated to "baby brood mares" or something like that, I would ask, is there any duration you would accept or take? What if a foetus can be extracted at 12 weeks and be viable? Would you accept asking women to tolerate 12 weeks of pregnancy, 8 weeks, 2 weeks? I'm cognisant that some may view this as airy-fairy what-ifs - but the purpose is to see if people on the pro-choice side do have an idea of how much inconvenience/stresses a woman could be asked to endure for a pregnancy that is unwanted by her but wanted by the natural father. It is of course open to people to say that "well it's 24 weeks right now and I don't agree with 24, if it comes down in the future I'll cross that bridge when I get there". If the answer is - no I won't tolerate asking the woman to keep an unwanted foetus for any weeks of pregnancy then I'm afraid we will probably have an unbridgeable divide in outlook.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I love that you included this and I wish many more people would. Many people not only miss that common ground, but some even actively ignore it and hide it. Usually behind trolling emotive terms like "pro murder" and "pro abortion" and similar rhetoric.

Abortion is a divisive topic already, we do not need to make it more so by missing the fact that there is a massive lump of common ground between most people on most sides. Pretty much all of us would ideally like to live in a society where no abortion happens. We just differ on our paths towards that ideal.

Yes - and I would hope that the pro-choice side equally realise while some on the pro-life side are rooted in dogmatic religious grounds for opposing abortion, many others have thought long and hard on their stance and aren't merely taking a position out of spite for women or with malicious intent. You see it in some of the posts here, this being AH it is to be expected, where people are wondering out loud why do these Church educated morons want to exercise control over a women's body etc.?

I recall reading a bumper sticker in the US - "Let's keep abortion safe, available and minimised" - if it does come in of course that's how I would want it - though I'll continue to champion for paternal rights (married or unmarried) with regards to the decision to abort.

uptherebels

splinter65 wrote: »

Yes, but you quoted my response to LirW first, without reading LirW’s post.

I did read the post.
I quoted your post to point out the hilarity of an anti choicer complaining about the use of semantics. I think that may have been lost on you.
Generally when you quote someone and ask a question it is usually at the poster. I think that might have been lost on you as well.

uptherebels

Thirdfox wrote: »

Apologies - I thought this post deserved an acknowledgment and response - it was lost in the legal sniping over definitions of injunctions and X case facts last night.

First - I thank you for taking the time to post out a very thoughtful response to my genuinely held concerns. I thought it best to do you the courtesy of the same. I do understand that many pregnancies suffer a miscarriage in the first trimester - in fact traditionally I heard that in my local culture a pregnancy isn't announced until the 2nd trimester for this very reason. But I would see a distinction between an unplanned miscarriage and an active decision to abort - one is a tragic natural occurrence that the parents may mourn (or like you say, sometimes not even be aware of) and the other is a very conscious decision to end the pregnancy (and state sanctioned).

And I'm sure you realise everyone's position is nuanced - I would find FFA cases to fall into the euthanasia category and actually something I would support - as the unfortunate bundle of cells have no hope of ever developing into a conscious human being. It may seem strange or bizarre to you, but I would value a rapist's foetus above a FFA foetus in terms of what/who can be aborted - for the reasons explained in my previous posts about looking at the effect an abortion would have on the unborn child and where the punishment of the crime lay (on the rapist of course). I am aware that across the wide spectrum of pro-choice/pro-life people different nuanced positions are taken - this is the one I find least hypocritical (to me personally).

And yes - of course the number of 12/24 isn't picked out of thin air - medical professionals must have had their professional input into the discussion and as you say, made the best possible compromise in their eyes. It was at the last discussion I had on the humanities forum that I discovered the interesting historical fact that Christian history (I come from a pretty atheist state) believed that the "soul" entered the baby at the "quickening" - first kick at around 24 weeks. But for me, and trying to make you see it how I see it - the closest comparative feeling it would be akin to the death penalty - while we can make compromises and get even 99.9% of cases right, the 0.1 or 0.0001% of cases where an innocent person dies because of a flaw in the system is reason enough to me to justify my absolute opposition to allowing the state to sanction murder against its own citizens (beside the whole non-deterrence value and other arguments against the death penalty). Miscarriage of justice happens and for life/death situations it goes beyond breathlyser tests, arbitrary drinking age limits etc. So hopefully you can see - though perhaps not agree with the lenses I view abortion through.

We have come a long way from State (Nicolaou) v. An Bord Uchtala (case from the 1966) where the judge openly stated "it is rare for a natural father to take any interest in his offspring" - have a read if you want to see the SC's mentality towards (unmarried) men back in the 60s - mother in mental institution wanted to put child up for adoption, unmarried father - who changed his religion for the child - wanted to raise child - but SC sides with mother and states unmarried fathers have no rights to their child...

It really is a sh!tty situation where the mother and father disagree on whether a child is wanted or not - I know some people suggest going the other way - allowing "legal abortions" for fathers who don't want to have anything to do with their unwanted child once born but I wouldn't be in favour of such given my stance on abortion in the first place. Again, while realising that yes - pregnancy isn't a piece of cake and women will certainly be potentially under an inordinate amount of stress it is for me, another balance of rights issue - the balance between up to 24 weeks of potentially serious stress vs the life of the child. That's also why I made reference to medical advances - I would imagine that as further advances in the medical field come along that 24 viability week figure should come down accordingly - until one day perhaps when having a child is almost something that is stork-like and the abortion discussion is moot - no child will be unwanted and all children are genetically designed to be perfect from start to finish etc.

So again, I can understand your concern that women will be merely relegated to "baby brood mares" or something like that, I would ask, is there any duration you would accept or take? What if a foetus can be extracted at 12 weeks and be viable? Would you accept asking women to tolerate 12 weeks of pregnancy, 8 weeks, 2 weeks? I'm cognisant that some may view this as airy-fairy what-ifs - but the purpose is to see if people on the pro-choice side do have an idea of how much inconvenience/stresses a woman could be asked to endure for a pregnancy that is unwanted by her but wanted by the natural father. It is of course open to people to say that "well it's 24 weeks right now and I don't agree with 24, if it comes down in the future I'll cross that bridge when I get there". If the answer is - no I won't tolerate asking the woman to keep an unwanted foetus for any weeks of pregnancy then I'm afraid we will probably have an unbridgeable divide in outlook.



Yes - and I would hope that the pro-choice side equally realise while some on the pro-life side are rooted in dogmatic religious grounds for opposing abortion, many others have thought long and hard on their stance and aren't merely taking a position out of spite for women or with malicious intent. You see it in some of the posts here, this being AH it is to be expected, where people are wondering out loud why do these Church educated morons want to exercise control over a women's body etc.?

I recall reading a bumper sticker in the US - "Let's keep abortion safe, available and minimised" - if it does come in of course that's how I would want it - though I'll continue to champion for paternal rights (married or unmarried) with regards to the decision to abort.

Just out of interest what rights are you looking for regarding fathers and abortion? and how do you think they would be enforceable?

Itssoeasy

I've watched some of the committee live and went back and watched more of it. The issue being discussed is a very emotive issue , and that goes without saying but I disliked the way senator Ronan Mullen and Mattie McGrath acted. I respect their views but the way Ronan Mullen spoke to some of the experts and how both he and Mattie McGrath spoke to the chairperson. Also why are the experts sitting right next to any of the Committee members ?

I don't think when the referendum does come about that the debate will be in any way civil.

Kiwi in IE

splinter65 wrote: »

LirW’s post I was replying to. 20+ gestation. An injection into the uterus wall then delivered dead. Your the one not reading the posts properly.

I will admit I have an issue with lethal abortion once the point of viability is reached, I still fully defend the woman's right to choose not to be pregnant, but once a foetus is viable, then I do think it has a right to life. Not when it has no chance of survival after birth due to a fatal abnormality though.

Once it can survive outside the woman's body, then for me the game changes. Until then, no rights what so ever, other than what she chooses to afford it. Until it can live outside of her body, it is up to her what becomes of it. And on saying that, women should have the right to choose to discontinue the pregnancy at any stage up to full term.

end of the road

LirW wrote: »

Because the 8th is not only tied to the abortion issue but it heavily impacts the Irish maternity care. Early pregnancy care is pretty much non-existent in the public sector and there is a problem that women are not asked for consent for tests or procedures. They also often don't have a say during labour to what happens to them because a sentence many women hear is "it's dangerous for the baby".

and many of us would be happy to vote for that to change only for the abortion on demand legalisation. if there was a guarantee that abortion on demand wouldn't be legislated for there are a number of us who would be willing to vote yes to repeal to sort the other issues.

LirW wrote: »

Abortions in Ireland are happening, and they won't go away. They are around and there is a blackmarket for medication that you should take under medical supervision. It's about whether or not giving women a safe surrounding to have a termination or not, not only the women that have the money to travel to England.

abortions do happen, however the current status gives some sort of legal protection to, and rights for, the life of the unborn and many of us wish for that to remain to be the case, as we believe the unborn are entitled to rights.

MayoSalmon

uptherebels wrote:

Just out of interest what rights are you looking for regarding fathers and abortion? and how do you think they would be enforceable?

The right for a father not to have to maintain the child if he is in favour of abortion and woman decides to keep it.

He has no rights to stop the abortion in the event that it is repealed therefore the father should have rights to refrain from his current legal obligation to provide for the child.

splinter65

LirW wrote: »

Why would you take that I don't?
By the way, the earliest a baby can survive outside of the womb is 24 weeks and even then the chances it might not make it are quite high. There's a reason why 24 is a magic line for women, especially with troublesome pregnancies.
I do not think that I used sensitive terminology. I told about injections about the fetus' abdominal area, the fetus will die. Labour will be induced and the dead baby is born.

I had a look in my birth pass from my first that was issued back home, the baby is referred to as fetus right after birth. Medical term.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/11/08/health/premature-baby-21-weeks-survivor-profile/index.html

This is just one of many articles. I can post more if you like.
I don’t know where or when you had your baby but when I had mine I was asked at every ante natal visit if I felt baby move, how much movement etc
At every scan I was told baby was developing normally
At Lamaze classes the midwife talked about delivering baby, position of baby etc
Never heard the expression fetus.

JenovaProject

MayoSalmon wrote: »

The right for a father not to have to maintain the child if he is in favour of abortion and woman decides to keep it.

He has no rights to stop the abortion in the event that it is repealed therefore the father should have rights to refrain from his current legal obligation to provide for the child.

That doesnt sound right at all.

Its a sticky situation.Bit of a cop out for lazy would be fathers but also hardship for unexpected dads who had a child they would cherish taken away from them with no say whatsoever.
Fathers rights are a joke,but at the end of the day the child is inside the womans body.
Either way this falls,there would be situations that arise that Id be uncomfortable with.

Zubeneschamali

AnGaelach wrote: »

It does not really matter who supported it or opposed it, the point of contention was that only religious "mentally impaired slaves" are pro-life, which is an utterly preposterous position to hold.

The fact that every Christian church in Ireland opposed the 8th in 1983 except one tells us that it is not some broadly supported religious or moral principle, it is a narrow sectarian dogma. Tayschren was making the point (rudely, but the Catholic church has earned a lot of that) that many people here have turned away from the Church since the 80s, and their word is no longer law.

The idea that there is some big group of non-religious people who support the 8th is ridiculous. At most, there is a set of ex-Catholics who no longer call themselves religious but have not shaken off that dogma.

And from your reaction, I gather you are one of them.

nice_guy80

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/pro-life-tds-quit-eighth-amendment-committee-in-protest-464494.html

throwing the toys out of the pram

nozzferrahhtoo

Hoboo wrote: »

Life is a series of actions which run a risk of the well being of me and others, sure, but I don't drive a car safe in the knowledge that if it all goes tits up, it won't be me that gets killed, it will definitely be someone else. IF abortion was not an option, but Euthanasia was, would you choose Euthanasia as an option to avoid an unwanted pregnancy? I very much doubt it.

Well when driving a car it could by you killed, someone else, or both. But the point is that we take risks in pretty much everything we do every day. Eating could choke you, falling down stairs could kill or maim or cripple you, socializing could infect you. And on and on and on.

Sex is only one of the many things that could have negative consequences. And life is about balancing desire with risk, and making informed decisions. And when it goes wrong, it is about mediating between options on how to move forward. And abortion is, and should be, and option given it is a choice made BY a sentient agent to increase their well being, and it is a choice made ABOUT a non-sentient entity that no one on this thread has argued coherently for giving rights to.

tigger123

nice_guy80 wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/pro-life-tds-quit-eighth-amendment-committee-in-protest-464494.html

throwing the toys out of the pram

I love the way they voted and the quit the committee. Surely if they perceive the committee to be biased, they would have quit a long time ago.

But nope; vote, lose, then throw a tantrum.

animaal

I'm undecided on how I'll vote in any upcoming referendum. It's a case of picking the "least worst" option. Whatever the result, I'll be a little sad.

Having said that, I commend the Oireachtas committee. They rightly point out that within the 12-week period, it's going to be impossible to allow abortion in limited circumstances. Any loosening of the law will lead to effective abortion on demand.

Beforehand, I had assumed the recommendation would be for very limited abortion regime, but with the unspoken knowledge that abortion on demand would result.

If all parties to the issue are this up-front, it will add validity to whatever result arises from a referendum.

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

it's not comparable. the 12 week unborn will become sentient if not aborted. a rock or a table will not become sentient ever. it does if the 3 things are not comparable. which the 3 different things you mention aren't, as 1 can become sentient and the others cannot ever.

That does not mean they are not comparable however. I am confused at this point as to whether you know what the word comparable even means. You seem to think it means "the same in every way". It does not. The simple fact is they are not sentient NOW and that makes a point of comparison.

If a rock is grey and a car is grey they are comparable. I can say "They are both things that are grey". The fact that one has many attributes different to the other does not mean they are not comparable.

The pregnant women however is sentient now, and I see no reason to curtail her choices or her well being in favor of a not just slightly but COMPLETELY non-sentient entity.

end of the road wrote: »

a 12 week unborn will be sentient.

Might, not will. You can not see the future. But either way the word WILL implies it is not NOW sentient. So I see no basis for affording it rights, or moral and ethical concern. Nor are you offering one other than declaring "must" a lot. You are appealing to potentials to declare acuals. And not just in general, but specifically in a case that curtails the rights, choices, and well being of an ACTUAL sentient agent. The pregnant woman.

Nothing has the "right to be sentient". You just invented that out of nowhere. If I build a full general Artificial Intelligence tomorrow and it would be sentient when turned on.... and the only thing remaining to attain the state of sentience is for me to flick a switch.... there would be no moral obligation on me to flick it. I could take the whole system apart and scrap it. There is nothing about sentience that gives any potential agent the right to be sentient before it actually is.

Your assertion implies that I would be morally obliged to flick that switch and that pulling the machine apart again and scrapping the whole project would be a moral wrong. This is your nonsense.

HAVING flicked the switch however and brought that sentient machine online, I do believe I would then have moral and ethical obligations towards it's well being.

end of the road wrote: »

we are told what we must do on a daily basis, where our choices have the potential to effect others badly.

When you are aborting a fetus however there is no "other" to affect. It is a non-sentient construct of biological matter with no rights and source of moral obligation.

nozzferrahhtoo

AnGaelach wrote: »

The "moral and ethical arguments" aren't the same for you, because you view the life of the foetus and the life of a person to be distinct from one another, whereas for us the lives are held equal to one another.

Clearly "life" is not held equal to people in general no. The fact our meat industry ends "life" on a daily basis, as does our farming, paper, medical and other industries..... it is pretty damn clear that people do not hold "life" and "person hood" in equal regard.

Clearly there is some attribute about particular kinds of life that makes that life worthy of moral and ethical concern, that people are witholding from other life. And I argue that the ONLY thing on the table as a candidate for what that attribute is.... is the faculty of consciousness and sentience.

If you think there is another candidate for why we value some life over others, both in and out of our own species, then by all means table it for consideration. But until you do your claim we hold them all equally is pretty empty.

nozzferrahhtoo

splinter65 wrote: »

In order to be “pro choice” you have to convince yourself that an unborn baby is not the young of a human being.

Nope, that is not at all what I find myself required to do to be, and explain my position as, pro-choice. Perhaps a better approach therefore would be to allow us to tell you what we believe..... rather than you presuming to inform us what our own beliefs are?

splinter65 wrote: »

These are not people who are about to face up to the mechanics of an abortion.

What aspect of abortion would you personally consider me not aware of, knowledgeable about, and accepting of? I think you will find me pretty deeply informed about the entire reproductive process and every stage of the mechanics along it's duration.

splinter65 wrote: »

Pro choice is all about semantics .
“Lets the fetus die” As opposed to “kills the baby”. Careful use of words to conceal the reality.

Quite the opposite. The anti-choice narrative involves a careful MISuse of words in order to imply things about reality that are not actually true. For example the use of words like "baby" and "murder" are carefully used to imply a sentience and personhood that is not just slightly, but ENTIRELY, missing from the fetus in question.

Not allowing you to misuse terms to distort reality, is not the same as a concealment of reality. We conceal nothing, we just do not let you add your spin to it.

splinter65 wrote: »

A 20+ weeks gestation unborn baby is not a baby?!? What is it then?

When people have abortions by choice, as opposed to medical necessity, they tend almost across the boards (into the 90% range) to do so in or before week 12. By week 16 we are in the 98% range.

So how much relevance exactly, and why, do you think abortions at 20 weeks have really?

splinter65 wrote: »

If abortion is essential for the cause of women’s healthcare then why the need to use careful sensitive terminology about the whole thing.

Because some terms come loaded with implications and emotions that do not reflect the reality of the situation. When we abort a fetus at 12 - 16 weeks there is nothing there at any level that would imply personhood in a way that words like "Murder" and "baby" do.

This is not just true of abortion but also of miscarriage. When a woman miscarries in the 12-16 weeks area her pain at the event can be exacerbated by narratives that simply do not track with the reality. And quite a lot of benefit can be attained by a careful and gentle separation of those narratives from the reality.

Zubeneschamali

AnGaelach wrote: »

The "moral and ethical arguments" aren't the same for you, because you view the life of the foetus and the life of a person to be distinct from one another, whereas for us the lives are held equal to one another.

It must be very uncomfortable to think the lives are equal and live in a society that allows abortion on demand for the price of a Ryanair ticket. To think that many of the women you know are murderers and their families are complicit.

But only a very small minority think that way, and they won't save the 8th.