The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

emo72

end of the road wrote: »

boards isn't going to be a pro-abortion echo chamber.

EOTR is Pro life. I didn't see that coming. This conversation is all pointless anyway. The old guard is fading. The sooner this referendum is done the better. Abortion will be available then.

EOTR are you going to reply with your classic "you're wrong"?

end of the road

emo72 wrote: »

EOTR is Pro life. I didn't see that coming. This conversation is all pointless anyway. The old guard is fading. The sooner this referendum is done the better. Abortion will be available then.

EOTR are you going to reply with your classic "you're wrong"?

no as none of us know how the referendum will ultimately go. it is unlikely to be a repeat of the ssm referendum however.
there is a lot more people against abortion on demand, or abortion full stop, in this country then some would think and it's nothing to do with religion or conservatism in a large amount of cases.

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

no as none of us know how the referendum will ultimately go. it is unlikely to be a repeat of the ssm referendum however.
there is a lot more people against abortion on demand, or abortion full stop, in this country then some would think and it's nothing to do with religion or conservatism in a large amount of cases.

any sources for any of that?

emo72

end of the road wrote: »

no as none of us know how the referendum will ultimately go. it is unlikely to be a repeat of the ssm referendum however.
there is a lot more people against abortion on demand, or abortion full stop, in this country then some would think and it's nothing to do with religion or conservatism in a large amount of cases.

Well if you're so sure then you won't mind the referendum?

I actually do think it's going to be a repeat of the SSM referendum. Looking back we'll wonder what we were even thinking trying to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies and their health. Roll on the referendum.

end of the road

emo72 wrote: »

Looking back we'll wonder what we were even thinking trying to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies and their health.

if it was simply about that then the vote for repeal would be a resounding yes. however, unfortunately it's not just about that, but about abortion on demand. preventing abortion on demand within the state isn't telling someone what they can do with their body, it's telling them that they cannot cary out an action that brings death upon another human being. that is where the difference exists.
so that is why the referendum may not be a repeat of the ssm referendum, because there is a large number of people who disagree with abortion on demand.

eviltwin

end of the road wrote: »

if it was simply about that then the vote for repeal would be a resounding yes. however, unfortunately it's not just about that, but about abortion on demand. preventing abortion on demand within the state isn't telling someone what they can do with their body, it's telling them that they cannot cary out an action that brings death upon another human being. that is where the difference exists.
so that is why the referendum may not be a repeat of the ssm referendum, because there is a large number of people who disagree with abortion on demand.

Don't talk rubbish. No one knows what we are going to vote on, the wording has yet to be discussed let alone confirmed.

I imagine we will just be asked to repeal or retain. If we repeal it will then fall to government to legislate. I won't try and second guess the government but at the very least I can see legal abortion in cases of FFA and rape and incest.

Doctor Jimbob

end of the road wrote: »

if it was simply about that then the vote for repeal would be a resounding yes. however, unfortunately it's not just about that, but about abortion on demand. preventing abortion on demand within the state isn't telling someone what they can do with their body, it's telling them that they cannot cary out an action that brings death upon another human being. that is where the difference exists.
so that is why the referendum may not be a repeat of the ssm referendum, because there is a large number of people who disagree with abortion on demand.

It is. Our constitution currently dictates what a woman can and can't do with her body. That's completely unacceptable.

.......

This post has been deleted.

end of the road

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

untrue. baseless allegations. all you are doing by throwing personal attacks is insuring those in the pro-life movement who are quite extreme stick more to their views.
it's water off a duck's back to me as i'm perfectly content with my view and how i'm going to vote in the referendum.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i will never support abortion on demand on the island of ireland. the only time i am willing to accept abortion is in the case where there is a threat to life or where the baby cannot be caried to term.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It is. Our constitution currently dictates what a woman can and can't do with her body. That's completely unacceptable.

to an extent it does and i have said i disagree with that, and if repealing the 8th was just about that then i would vote yes to repeal. however it's not about that, but more about allowing abortion on demand, so i cannot support that.
prohibiting abortion on demand isn't dictating what a woman can and can't do with her body. it's dictating that she cannot take the life of the unborn as the irish state recognises the right to life of the unborn bar extreme circumstances. it can't practically stop someone from procuring an abortion on demand abroad but it can refuse to provide it within the state as the state has no duty to provide it as it's not a right.

mrkiscool2

end of the road wrote: »

untrue. baseless allegations. all you are doing by throwing personal attacks is insuring those in the pro-life movement who are quite extreme stick more to their views.
it's water off a duck's back to me as i'm perfectly content with my view and how i'm going to vote in the referendum.



i will never support abortion on demand on the island of ireland. the only time i am willing to accept abortion is in the case where there is a threat to life or where the baby cannot be caried to term.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha this is amazing. You do realise you contradicted yourself in the same post, right? You say that the poster describing you as a "Not in my back yard" kind of guy is untrue and baseless, then you proceed to say you don't want abortion on demand in Ireland. You do realise that is completely hypocritical, right?

PopePalpatine

uptherebels wrote: »

any sources for any of that?

Probably somewhere he wipes with toilet paper.

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

untrue. baseless allegations. all you are doing by throwing personal attacks is insuring those in the pro-life movement who are quite extreme stick more to their views.
it's water off a duck's back to me as i'm perfectly content with my view and how i'm going to vote in the referendum.



i will never support abortion on demand on the island of ireland. the only time i am willing to accept abortion is in the case where there is a threat to life or where the baby cannot be caried to term.



to an extent it does and i have said i disagree with that, and if repealing the 8th was just about that then i would vote yes to repeal. however it's not about that, but more about allowing abortion on demand, so i cannot support that.
prohibiting abortion on demand isn't dictating what a woman can and can't do with her body. it's dictating that she cannot take the life of the unborn as the irish state recognises the right to life of the unborn bar extreme circumstances. it can't practically stop someone from procuring an abortion on demand abroad but it can refuse to provide it within the state as the state has no duty to provide it as it's not a right.

Debating means being open to having your mind changed. So you say your here to debate but not to actually changing your mind. Kinda contradictory... but you haven't contradicted yourself in all your years on boards.:rolleyes:
Baseless allegations? your posting history is blenty to base those opinions on.

Loafing Oaf

end of the road wrote: »

so that is why the referendum may not be a repeat of the ssm referendum, because there is a large number of people who disagree with abortion on demand.

No-one's disputing that. However, if the government embraces the committee's recommendations, Yes campaigners will be hoping that a large proportion of those who up till now only agreed with abortion in 'exceptional circumstances' will buy into the position adopted by the majority of the committee that legislation for abortion specific to those circumstances, especially for rape/incest, is unworkable, and that if you want women to have access to abortion in such cases, you'll have to vote for abortion on demand (within term limits).

end of the road

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

No-one's disputing that. However, if the government embraces the committee's recommendations, Yes campaigners will be hoping that a large proportion of those who up till now only agreed with abortion in 'exceptional circumstances' will buy into the position adopted by the majority of the committee that legislation for abortion specific to those circumstances, especially for rape/incest, is unworkable, and that if you want women to have access to abortion in such cases, you'll have to vote for abortion on demand (within term limits).

of course. which is why it is important that those who are against abortion on demand yet who would agree with it in extreme cases don't fall into the trap. because legislation to allow abortion in extreme circumstances but not on demand is workible and would be best for the country as it would allow for necessary abortion but would not allow unnecessary abortion.
i do think most people who would be against abortion on demand won't fall into the trap that the yes campaigners want.

Hotblack Desiato

splinter65 wrote: »

No. The maker of , the distributor of, the sender of, the abortion pills.

But these pills have uses which are currently legal in Ireland.

Edward M wrote: »

A life has been formed though, a human life at that.
I think that is a person, that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

What about all those frozen embryos though? Are they persons? Do they have a right to be born and how would you bring that about?

The Supreme Court has ruled (even with the 8th in place) that they are not and have no right to be born.

Loafing Oaf

end of the road wrote: »

of course. which is why it is important that those who are against abortion on demand yet who would agree with it in extreme cases don't fall into the trap. because legislation to allow abortion in extreme circumstances but not on demand is workible and would be best for the country as it would allow for necessary abortion but would not allow unnecessary abortion.
i do think most people who would be against abortion on demand won't fall into the trap that the yes campaigners want.

If the referendum is voted down, do you believe the government will come back in a year or two offering one on 'limited liberalisation' of abortion? Is it not much more likely that the whole issue will be put into cold storage for at least ten years. Do you believe the majority of those who favour abortion in exceptional circumstances but not on demand would choose that option over full liberalisation next year?

up for anything

end of the road wrote: »

i will never support abortion on demand on the island of ireland. the only time i am willing to accept abortion is in the case where there is a threat to life or where the baby cannot be caried to term.

Grand job. Let us have your address and we'll send you all the unwanted babies to raise or perhaps you know of a bit of space in a sewage tank some place.

end of the road

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

If the referendum is voted down, do you believe the government will come back in a year or two offering one on 'limited liberalisation' of abortion? Is it not much more likely that the whole issue will be put into cold storage for at least ten years.

yes i would agree that if there is a no vote it likely will be left for a number of years.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Do you believe the majority of those who favour abortion in exceptional circumstances but not on demand would choose that option over full liberalisation next year?

i'm unsure if a majority would or not, i don't know, but i would reccan quite a number may choose that option over full liberalisation. i would never vote for full liberalisation of abortion myself under any circumstances as i just cannot agree that abortion on demand should be allowed. i would really like for the government to guarantee that only abortion in extreme circumstances would be legislated for so that i could vote yes to repeal.

frag420

EOTR, while you are available can I ask you again for the third time....

If there was a number you could call where you could grass up women( your sister, mother, cousin, aunt. colleague, neighbour etc) who you knew or suspected were going abroad to have a termination or you knew or suspected they were procuring abortion pills online to bring about a termination...

Would you use it to grass up these women to save the potential babies? Also please note that when you do call you will have to give your name and PPS number so you will be identifiable but hey, that should not matter if you’re saving potential life eh!?

So what say you?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Loafing Oaf

end of the road wrote: »

i would really like for the government to guarantee that only abortion in extreme circumstances would be legislated for so that i could vote yes to repeal.

To focus on the most intractable issue, do you have any ideas on how legislation for abortion specific to cases of rape and incest might be drawn up in practice. Are you aware of any jurisdiction where this has even been attempted. AFAIK, no witnesses to the committee made even a back-of-the-envelope suggestion as to how this might be done. The overwhelming consensus was that if you want to provide abortion access for rape victims, you have to legalise 'without restriction' (ip to whatever term limit).

end of the road

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

To focus on the most intractable issue, do you have any ideas on how legislation for abortion specific to cases of rape and incest might be drawn up in practice. Are you aware of any jurisdiction where this has even been attempted.

sadly no to both questions. i actually am a bit uncomfortable in supporting abortion in those cases as it's not the fault of the baby who their father is .

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

AFAIK, no witnesses to the committee made even a back-of-the-envelope suggestion as to how this might be done. The overwhelming consensus was that if you want to provide abortion access for rape victims, you have to legalise 'without restriction' (ip to whatever term limit).

if that is the case then that is very unfortunate. sadly i would have to vote no in those circumstances.

ToddyDoody

Anyone else feel this issue is really none of their business.

end of the road

ToddyDoody wrote: »

Anyone else feel this issue is really none of their business.

if it's none of our business then there is no need for a referendum. those who want the referendum have made it everyone's business whether they like it or not.

captbarnacles

end of the road wrote: »

sadly no to both questions. i actually am a bit uncomfortable in supporting abortion in those cases as it's not the fault of the baby who their father is .



if that is the case then that is very unfortunate. sadly i would have to vote no in those circumstances.

You know who is really uncomfortable in those cases? The pregnant woman. Your petty foibles are meaningless in comparison.

end of the road

captbarnacles wrote: »

You know who is really uncomfortable in those cases? The pregnant woman. Your petty foibles are meaningless in comparison.

the baby doesn't deserve to be killed because of what happened. it's not it's fault or the mother's fault.

eviltwin

end of the road wrote: »

the baby doesn't deserve to be killed because of what happened. it's not it's fault or the mother's fault.

I think a woman who has been through the trauma of a rape deserves every bit of compassion and support she can get. I see no point in further traumatizing her by forcing her to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want. In fact I'd say anyone prepared to take control from someone who has already had someone force their will on them is cruel and lacking empathy and should put their morals aside. Rape is awful enough.

end of the road

eviltwin wrote: »

I think a woman who has been through the trauma of a rape deserves every bit of compassion and support she can get. I see no point in further traumatizing her by forcing her to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want. In fact I'd say anyone prepared to take control from someone who has already had someone force their will on them is cruel and lacking empathy and should put their morals aside. Rape is awful enough.

we can have compassion for both mother and baby.
not allowing someone to abort isn't taking control from someone in my view. we do sometimes have to stop things from happening when they are going to negatively effect others.
there is no question that rape is beyond aweful but the baby does not deserve to be killed. it's not it's fault what it's father is . the baby has a right to life and to live.

eviltwin

end of the road wrote: »

we can have compassion for both mother and baby.
not allowing someone to abort isn't taking control from someone in my view. we do sometimes have to stop things from happening when they are going to negatively effect others.
there is no question that rape is beyond aweful but the baby does not deserve to be killed. it's not it's fault what it's father is . the baby has a right to life and to live.

There you go again telling a woman what she can and can't do, that is the very essence of control. The physical and mental health of a woman who has been violated should be at the forefront of treatment. If she wants an abortion she should get one. To deny that is a further violation and anyone who could stand in front of a rape victim and deny her wishes because it makes them feel uncomfortable is no better than the person who raped her imo.

Buford T. Justice XIX

up for anything wrote: »

Grand job. Let us have your address and we'll send you all the unwanted babies to raise or perhaps you know of a bit of space in a Mod note: Cut that out. Debate the point without the theatrics, please.

Buford T. Justice

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

i didn't put words in your mouth. i understand this is an imotive topic, but you need to give up the personal attacks and lies about people. none of us on the pro-life side have done it to you and we expect the same treatment back.

Hang on, you actually must be having a laugh. You said this:

end of the road wrote: »

because you cannot argue against what has been said. you know abortion on demand is wrong. i know it is wrong. everyone knows it is wrong. refusing to debate me won't change that fact.

And I said not to put words in my mouth. And now your saying you didn't put words in my mouth and are calling me a liar?????????!

you won't engage because you know deep down that what i have said is right and the truth. that is why people engage in personal attacks toards those of us on the pro-life side, because deep down we all know that killing the unborn is wrong.

You just put words in my mouth, AGAIN, in the same post, how can you not see you are full of contradictions?
What you have said is NOT right and NOT the truth and I would appreciate it if you would stop forcing your opinion on me and telling me what I think. I've already told you what I think and I don't think it's wrong at all.
I won't engage with you anymore simply you are an absolute head melter. You are impossible to debate with. I'm not going to change my position on this and clearly neither are you, so we have nothing to say to each other without detailing the thread.

eviltwin

Congratulations EOTR, the Abortion Support Network have just received a donation in your name. Happy Christmas.

end of the road

eviltwin wrote: »

There you go again telling a woman what she can and can't do, that is the very essence of control.

telling someone they cannot kill someone else is not control. it's insuring the someone else's right to life is upheld.

eviltwin wrote: »

The physical and mental health of a woman who has been violated should be at the forefront of treatment. If she wants an abortion she should get one. To deny that is a further violation and anyone who could stand in front of a rape victim and deny her wishes because it makes them feel uncomfortable is no better than the person who raped her imo.

you are wrong. someone who disagrees with abortion on demand is nothing like a rapist, the fact a rape victim may be prevented from having an abortion in the state doesn't change that either. your opinion is more of the extremist narrative that has no place in this debate.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Hang on, you actually must be having a laugh. You said this:



And I said not to put words in my mouth. And now your saying you didn't put words in my mouth and are calling me a liar?????????!



You just put words in my mouth, AGAIN, in the same post, how can you not see you are full of contradictions?
What you have said is NOT right and NOT the truth and I would appreciate it if you would stop forcing your opinion on me and telling me what I think. I've already told you what I think and I don't think it's wrong at all.
I won't engage with you anymore simply you are an absolute head melter. You are impossible to debate with. I'm not going to change my position on this and clearly neither are you, so we have nothing to say to each other without detailing the thread.

again these are more lies which have no basis in reality. i agree we may as well leave it there. because you can't debate on this issue without resorting to getting personal with me.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

telling someone they cannot kill someone else is not control. it's insuring the someone else's right to life is upheld.



you are wrong. someone who disagrees with abortion on demand is nothing like a rapist, the fact a rape victim may be prevented from having an abortion in the state doesn't change that either. your opinion is more of the extremist narrative that has no place in this debate.



again these are more lies which have no basis in reality. i agree we may as well leave it there. because you can't debate on this issue without resorting to getting personal with me.

EOTR, you've said twice now that I must secretly think abortion is wrong and deep down that I agree that it should be illegal.
Twice I've corrected you and said that isn't the case. And twice you've called me a liar accusing me of getting personal. When all I've done is pointed out that you are making incorrect statements about me.
You're the one who keeps telling me what I think. Me correcting you on that is not telling lies or getting personal.

captbarnacles

Originally Posted by end of the road View Post
because you cannot argue against what has been said. you know abortion on demand is wrong. i know it is wrong. everyone knows it is wrong. refusing to debate me won't change that fact.

That sentence is hilariously contradictory.

He wants a 'debate' where his answer to everything is "you know it is wrong".

It should really end there. There is no debate to be had.

STB.

end of the road wrote: »

we can have compassion for both mother and baby.
not allowing someone to abort isn't taking control from someone in my view. we do sometimes have to stop things from happening when they are going to negatively effect others.
there is no question that rape is beyond aweful but the baby does not deserve to be killed. it's not it's fault what it's father is . the baby has a right to life and to live.

Who the fuck is we.

You have no say in peoples personal troubles or choices.

Its your judgemental, self righteous type attitude that will make people sitting on the fence go the other way, by the way.

Finally any chance you can stop jumping all over peoples posts whilst disregarding valid questions and points that have been raised. Its as grating as your holier than thou, think of the children mantra, accusing anyone who disagrees with you as being a murderer.

This thread is a car crash.

end of the road

STB. wrote: »

You have no say in peoples personal troubles or choices.

i'm afraid i do have a say when it comes to removing the protections over one's right to life, and where someone's choices will effect the right to life of others. this is especially the case when i'm asked to vote on it. if i'm to have no say, then there should be no referendum to repeal the 8th. things should be left. or we can debate and people can vote.

STB. wrote: »

Its your judgemental, self righteous type attitude that will make people sitting on the fence go the other way, by the way.

i'm not judgemental or self righteous. if people change their view, it won't be because of me or others who simply give their opinion and disagree with a different viewpoint. if anything it's possibly an element of the pro-choice who believe in extremist opinions and who engage in attacks on people who may cause a shift in voting due to their behaviour.

STB. wrote: »

Finally any chance you can stop jumping all over peoples posts whilst disregarding valid questions and points that have been raised. Its as grating as your holier than thou, think of the children mantra, accusing anyone who disagrees with you as being a murderer.

i have never engaged in any of this.

Tigger

im pro the proposal at 12 weeks
im an athiest and have been since i refused to be confirmed 30 years ago
think that the repeal people need to understand that its not as clear as they think and small gains are gains

STB.

end of the road wrote: »

correct i don't. i have never stated otherwise. however i do have a say when it comes to removing the protections over one's right to life, and where someone's choices will effect the right to life of others. this is especially the case when i'm asked to vote on it. if i'm to have no say, then there should be no referendum to repeal the 8th. things should be left. or we can debate and people can vote.

First off dont start that "correct" stuff with me.

Do you not understand that OTHER peoples choices are just that. Not your choice. See I said it again. Choice.

By the way. You should know that you are very much in the minority in your views. Your attitudes towards women and their choices and the circumstances that are forced upon them that they must leave the state to carry out what must be very difficult decisions etc belong in the dark ages.

I can see the rights of the unborn child is very close to your heart. How fucking noble. That does not give you the right to judge other people or ignore circumstances that would place people in unforseen or unfortunate circumstances in which they must make difficult personal choices.

end of the road wrote: »

i'm not judgemental or self righteous. if people change their view, it won't be because of me or others who simply give their opinion and disagree with a different viewpoint. if anything it's possibly an element of the pro-choice who believe in extremist opinions and who engage in attacks on people who may cause a shift in voting due to their behaviour.

I have a big shock for you so. You are.

end of the road wrote: »

i have never engaged in any of this.

By God do not have me quote them back to you.

Some of your posts here are disgraceful. The other ones are just plain disrespect.

Any chance you can let some other posters have a say. All your inane, off the wall ramblings have succeeded in doing is winding up people.

Theres only a certain amount of times you can tell people how you will vote.

Calling people murderers, liars and acting out like posters here are persecuting you when the opposite is true is quite evident to me

Please change the record.

end of the road

STB. wrote: »

Do you not understand that OTHER peoples choices are just that. Not your choice. See I said it again. Choice.

By the way. You should know that you are very much in the minority in your views. Your attitudes towards women and their choices and the circumstances that are forced upon them that they must leave the state to carry out what must be very difficult decisions etc belong in the dark ages.

I can see the rights of the unborn child is very close to your heart. How ****ing noble. That does not give you the right to judge other people or ignore circumstances that would place people in unforseen or unfortunate circumstances in which they must make difficult personal choices.

when i am being asked to vote on something that allows for something which will effect the rights of someone else's right to life, then i'm afraid it goes beyond someone's personal choice. if you don't want me to comment on your "personal choice" then lets not have a referendum. it's as simple as that.

STB. wrote: »

I have a big shock for you so. You are.
By God do not have me quote them back to you.

Some of your posts here are disgraceful. The other ones are just plain disrespect.

again all this is inaccurate. i have been nothing but respectful and understanding, including to go as far as ignoring all the attacks thrown at me, understanding that the topic is very immotive and tensions would run high, and that there would be mud slinging especially toards pro-life posters. i believe that given the nature of the topic, that is just and fair, understanding that pro-life views are not what some people want to hear.

STB. wrote: »

All your inane, off the wall ramblings have succeeded in doing is winding up people.

my posts aren't any of that. as i said i do understand this is an immotive topic and tensions will run high on the pro-choice side, who will feel that the pro-life posters are out to wind them up. the pro-life posters and a number of the pro-choice posters on this site are not out to wind anyone up, after all, we all have to get along after this debate is over, and it would be in nobody's interests for bad relations to become part of the site.

jimmycrackcorm

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I always find this argument as an introduction to make silly comparisons.

E.g.
We have most cars capable of driving well in excess of the speed limits.
A cursory glance at the number of penalty points issued annually suggests a good indication that practically nobody sticks to the limits.
Modern cars are very safe to allow someone to maximize their speed on an empty M1.

So why not just repeal the speed limits? After all, people have to travel far (to Germany's autobahns), to drive the fastest.

Of course the comparison isn't truly equal, even if you can make cursory comparisons. A car, after all evolve into a human being.

mrkiscool2

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I always find this argument as an introduction to make silly comparisons.

E.g.
We have most cars capable of driving well in excess of the speed limits.
A cursory glance at the number of penalty points issued annually suggests a good indication that practically nobody sticks to the limits.
Modern cars are very safe to allow someone to maximize their speed on an empty M1.

So why not just repeal the speed limits? After all, people have to travel far (to Germany's autobahns), to drive the fastest.

Of course the comparison isn't truly equal, even if you can make cursory comparisons. A car, after all evolve into a human being.

How are they in anyway comparable? One is an economic issue that force poor couples to become further indebted by having a child. The other is something to do with people having poor self control in cars.

Like, if people can't see that abortion, as it stands in Ireland, is a class issue and one of the reasons the gap between poor and rich has not being closed for decades, I don't know what their knowledge of social economics is.

pilly

Edward M wrote:

A life has been formed though, a human life at that. I think that is a person, that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

At least you have the decency to say that's what you think.

Too many people stating stuff on here as if it's fact on both sides of the argument.

This is a matter of personal opinion in my view and that's why I believe women should have a choice.

We're all entitled to our views but not entitled to force them on a whole nation.

One eyed Jack

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Like, if people can't see that abortion, as it stands in Ireland, is a class issue and one of the reasons the gap between poor and rich has not being closed for decades, I don't know what their knowledge of social economics is.

Encouraging women living in poverty to have abortions instead of bringing more 'undesirables' into society to be a 'burden' on the State, is about as piss poor an argument for abortion as it gets really, and demonstrates a very poor understanding on your part of socioeconomics.

Addressing the underlying causes which force women to live in poverty would be a far more realistic endeavour than your let them eat cake" nonsense, as though women in those circumstances would want to avail of abortion in the first place, and second of all you're right when you suggest that it is a class issue - it's much more convenient to encourage people who feel they don't have any choice to have an abortion so you don't have to be dealing with the underclass :rolleyes:

The more I hear from some people in the repeal camp, the more I'm convinced they're oblivious to reality.

mrkiscool2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Encouraging women living in poverty to have abortions instead of bringing more 'undesirables' into society to be a 'burden' on the State, is about as piss poor an argument for abortion as it gets really, and demonstrates a very poor understanding on your part of socioeconomics.

Addressing the underlying causes which force women to live in poverty would be a far more realistic endeavour than your let them eat cake" nonsense, as though women in those circumstances would want to avail of abortion in the first place, and second of all you're right when you suggest that it is a class issue - it's much more convenient to encourage people who feel they don't have any choice to have an abortion so you don't have to be dealing with the underclass :rolleyes:

The more I hear from some people in the repeal camp, the more I'm convinced they're oblivious to reality.

Ok, point out to me EXACTLY where I stated that I want poor couples to have abortions? Like, seriously, tell me? If a poor couple want to have a baby, there is absolutely nothing I can do to stop them. Nor would I want to stop them from doing so. If they think they can cope with it, more power to them.

But, and there is a HUGE but, when they know they are not financially capable of raising a child (due to in poorer sexual education and the fact contraception costs a sh1t ton, both male and female), they cannot get an abortion due to the cost of it. If they want an abortion, under current laws, they cannot access one in the country and cannot afford the cost of getting one in the UK. That's what leads to class divide and an ongoing cycle of poverty.

Also, you clearly have absolutely no clue about socioeconomics if you believe that "undesirables" have a "burden" on the State. What absolutely vile language to use. Shows the level of contempt you have for women in poorer backgrounds who want abortions.

captbarnacles

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Encouraging women living in poverty to have abortions instead of bringing more 'undesirables' into society to be a 'burden' on the State, is about as piss poor an argument for abortion as it gets really, and demonstrates a very poor understanding on your part of socioeconomics.

Addressing the underlying causes which force women to live in poverty would be a far more realistic endeavour than your let them eat cake" nonsense, as though women in those circumstances would want to avail of abortion in the first place, and second of all you're right when you suggest that it is a class issue - it's much more convenient to encourage people who feel they don't have any choice to have an abortion so you don't have to be dealing with the underclass :rolleyes:

The more I hear from some people in the repeal camp, the more I'm convinced they're oblivious to reality.

Seriously? the save the 8th crowd utterly refuse to acknowledge that the reality of the situation is that all our laws do is discriminate against women who cannot afford to travel to England for an abortion.

MrPudding

splinter65 wrote: »

So your only in favor of abortion in the cases of rape and incest?
Or are you just throwing it in there for the purposes of silly appeal to emotion, knowing that rape and incest is a reason given for abortion in such a minuscule tiny almost nonexistent percentage of abortions?
Interesting that you would by a stack of abortion pills from Costco for your child (? are we in the States or Ireland), in preference over reliable safe contraception coupled with safe sex practices.
I suppose there’s no point in campaigning for and fighting for the equipment if your not going to use it when it gets here.

Nope. Read my post, I even said "I can do appeals to emotion too."

I am pro choice, but I am not pro abortion. I don't particularly like abortions, but I understand they are sometimes necessary, and when they are necessary they should be easily available and safe. My personal view would be abortions for any reason up to 12 or 14 weeks, for limited reasons up to about 22 weeks, and only for health or FFA reasons beyond that. I am quite happy to accept that the foetus is a human, or a human life, or a little baby, whatever you want to call it, but to be perfectly frank, I don't actually care. For me it is a conflict of rights, and the rights of the woman, for me, should take precedence.

I believe the most effective way to reduce abortions is by providing effective sex education to children and making contraceptives freely available. Unfortunately, the people that typically oppose abortion are also, typically, the people that oppose effective sex education and contraception.

MrP

One eyed Jack

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Ok, point out to me EXACTLY where I stated that I want poor couples to have abortions? Like, seriously, tell me? If a poor couple want to have a baby, there is absolutely nothing I can do to stop them. Nor would I want to stop them from doing so. If they think they can cope with it, more power to them.

You made the point that one of the reasons for the class divide in Ireland is because of abortion. How else was anyone supposed to interpret that as anything other than encouraging poor women to have abortions so they wouldn't be having children you determine for them that they can't afford?

But, and there is a HUGE but, when they know they are not financially capable of raising a child (due to in poorer sexual education and the fact contraception costs a sh1t ton, both male and female), they cannot get an abortion due to the cost of it. If they want an abortion, under current laws, they cannot access one in the country and cannot afford the cost of getting one in the UK. That's what leads to class divide and an ongoing cycle of poverty.

Your argument still rests on the assumption that they don't want to have a child, and would choose to have an abortion instead, when the reality is that one of the reasons abortion hasn't had much support in this country is because 1. There's simply no appetite for it, and 2. We have numerous support structures in this country which provide people with the means to provide for their children.

Legislating for abortion will have zero effect on women and children living in poverty, in just the same way as it has had zero effect on the class divide where abortion is legislated for in the countries where women travel to avail of it there, countries which have even poorer support systems than Ireland!

Also, you clearly have absolutely no clue about socioeconomics if you believe that "undesirables" have a "burden" on the State. What absolutely vile language to use. Shows the level of contempt you have for women in poorer backgrounds who want abortions.

That's exactly the language that was used in determining what should be done about the issue of unmarried pregnant women when the idea of institionalising them and their unwanted children was floated, and you're right, it is a terrible attitude, and Irish society hasn't moved on all that much as there still exists a stigma against unmarried mothers in this country, exacerbated by the class divide where poorer unmarried mothers are subjected to harsher judgement and criticism than more affluent unmarried mothers.

You want to talk about a class divide, well there it is, and it doesn't say anything about my attitude towards any woman who would want an abortion, regardless of her circumstances, because I'm not the one who made the assumption that poor women would want abortions in the first place.

mrkiscool2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You made the point that one of the reasons for the class divide in Ireland is because of abortion. How else was anyone supposed to interpret that as anything other than encouraging poor women to have abortions so they wouldn't be having children you determine for them that they can't afford?

I'd read that paragraph you quoted again there bud. Also, your logic is horrible. "Hmm, this poster is saying that it is a class issue for poor couples to not be able to travel for abortions, therefore he wants all poor women to get abortions! How dastardly!" That's not how logic works. You can extrapolate 3 things from it. Either a. what you jumped to b. that I don't care either way or c. that everyone should have the option and not just the middle/upper classes. In previous posts I have talked about how it is c, but logically, there are 3 equally valid options. So of course you jump to the one that makes your side look best, figures. :rolleyes:

Your argument still rests on the assumption that they don't want to have a child, and would choose to have an abortion instead, when the reality is that one of the reasons abortion hasn't had much support in this country is because 1. There's simply no appetite for it, and 2. We have numerous support structures in this country which provide people with the means to provide for their children.

Legislating for abortion will have zero effect on women and children living in poverty, in just the same way as it has had zero effect on the class divide where abortion is legislated for in the countries where women travel to avail of it there, countries which have even poorer support systems than Ireland!

Well, empirical and anecdotal evidence both points to the fact that yes, yes there are poor couples who would like to have an abortion but due to our laws they can't. Some women are so desperate they take out fcuking loans, putting themselves in debt so they don't have to have a child they don't want and can't afford/want to look after! But, that messes with your narrative, so let's not acknowledge it, right?

There is clearly an appetite to repeal the 8th, in some form. Almost around 80% of people are in favour of repealing it. It's just about where that line should be drawn. So there clearly IS an appetite for it. But, as always, ignore the facts in front of your face, put your hands over you ears and pretend it isn't happening.

Finally, empirical evidence from America and the UK actually does suggest that having abortions available does help close poverty gaps. The more liberal a society or population is when abortion is available, the more the rich/poor divide closes (or, at least, doesn't open as fast). So, yeah, there is evidence. Not that you will listen, of course.

That's exactly the language that was used in determining what should be done about the issue of unmarried pregnant women when the idea of institionalising them and their unwanted children was floated, and you're right, it is a terrible attitude, and Irish society hasn't moved on all that much as there still exists a stigma against unmarried mothers in this country, exacerbated by the class divide where poorer unmarried mothers are subjected to harsher judgement and criticism than more affluent unmarried mothers.

You want to talk about a class divide, well there it is, and it doesn't say anything about my attitude towards any woman who would want an abortion, regardless of her circumstances, because I'm not the one who made the assumption that poor women would want abortions in the first place.

What are you even babbling on about? We all know that poorer people generally get harsher sentences than richer ones. That's common fact, and due to the level of attorney you can afford to hire. And again, I have not assumed that ALL poor women will want to have abortions, or that the State thinks all poor women should have abortions. Again, you jumped to that conclusion.

But, the class issue here is that middle/upper class women can afford to travel for abortions while lower class women can not (or put themselves into debt to do so). When one group can access a service another can't, particularly a health care one, that is unequal treatment and is a class divide, therefore is a class divide issue.

One eyed Jack

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

I'd read that paragraph you quoted again there bud. Also, your logic is horrible. "Hmm, this poster is saying that it is a class issue for poor couples to not be able to travel for abortions, therefore he wants all poor women to get abortions! How dastardly!" That's not how logic works. You can extrapolate 3 things from it. Either a. what you jumped to b. that I don't care either way or c. that everyone should have the option and not just the middle/upper classes. In previous posts I have talked about how it is c, but logically, there are 3 equally valid options. So of course you jump to the one that makes your side look best, figures. :rolleyes:

I didn't jump to any conclusion which "makes my side look best" as you put it, as I pointed out to another poster way, way back in this thread - I have no interest in... taking sides. Jesus it's even horrible to type that out because, well for me personally I feel it simply diminishes the gravity of what we're talking about here which is peoples lives, and that's why I bailed out of this thread earlier when it was clear that ideology was going to trump reality.

I'll clear up my interpretation of what you suggested then, because I try to engage in good faith and no, I don't think you personally were suggesting that we should encourage poor women to have abortions, but that would be the effect of your suggestion - that rather than support women so they wouldn't feel they had no choice but to have an abortion, they choose abortion because they lack support, and that's what I meant when I said that it would be better to address the underlying issues which cause women to find themselves in those circumstances. One thing I can tell you is that it's not because contraception isn't affordable. More often it's simply because contraception isn't used, or isn't used properly.

Well, empirical and anecdotal evidence both points to the fact that yes, yes there are poor couples who would like to have an abortion but due to our laws they can't. Some women are so desperate they take out fcuking loans, putting themselves in debt so they don't have to have a child they don't want and can't afford/want to look after! But, that messes with your narrative, so let's not acknowledge it, right?

Of course there are women who due to their socioeconomic circumstances feel that it would be better for them to have an abortion, I'm just not going to assume that they would want one if they were able to afford not to have one. That's why for many women abortion simply isn't as easy a choice as has been made out in this thread. To acknowledge that of course wouldn't suit the prevailing narrative in this thread, as that would mean having to acknowledge that simply legislating for abortion isn't going to allieviate poverty in Irish society.

The assertion is often made that pro-life people don't care about a child once they're born, and I'd love to know where that comes from, because the evidence appears to suggest otherwise given that one of the largest pro-life organisations in this country is also the largest provider of education to children! I guess that doesn't suit the narrative either.

There is clearly an appetite to repeal the 8th, in some form. Almost around 80% of people are in favour of repealing it. It's just about where that line should be drawn. So there clearly IS an appetite for it. But, as always, ignore the facts in front of your face, put your hands over you ears and pretend it isn't happening.

I'm not talking about an appetite to repeal the 8th, I'm talking about abortion, and there really is no appetite for it in any society really, and that's why the stigma against abortion exists, in pretty much every society you'd care to mention. People don't generally just see abortion as being the equivalent of a benign medical procedure as is being made out in this thread. I know well it happens, but that doesn't mean people actually want to acknowledge that it happens, and that's why even if the 8th amendment were to be repealed, how many people do you think would even want an abortion clinic in their neighbourhood? I certainly wouldn't tbh.

Finally, empirical evidence from America and the UK actually does suggest that having abortions available does help close poverty gaps. The more liberal a society or population is when abortion is available, the more the rich/poor divide closes (or, at least, doesn't open as fast). So, yeah, there is evidence. Not that you will listen, of course.

I'm always prepared to listen, and I'm actually eager to listen if you actually have evidence to back up such an extraordinary claim! I also wouldn't suggest Irish society is as liberal as you're given to assuming, but I'd love to see your evidence for your claims pertaining to the US and the UK at least.

What are you even babbling on about? We all know that poorer people generally get harsher sentences than richer ones. That's common fact, and due to the level of attorney you can afford to hire. And again, I have not assumed that ALL poor women will want to have abortions, or that the State thinks all poor women should have abortions. Again, you jumped to that conclusion.

When I used the word 'judgement' there, I didn't mean in the judicial sense, I meant in the sense that people have more of a tendency to pass judgement on unmarried mothers in socioeconomically deprived circumstances. I didn't jump to the conclusion that you personally think all poor women would have abortions at all.

My point, and my only point, is that using poor women's circumstances to make your argument for abortion is a terrible argument, because it can be easily pointed out that abortion won't do anything for them, and that's even if they wanted an abortion in the first place if they had a REAL choice in whether or not to have one. That's why I made the point that unmarried women in more affluent circumstances have more choices than women in poorer circumstances - it's not because they are able to afford to travel for an abortion, it's because they are generally better off all-round in terms of education, social support and social status!

But, the class issue here is that middle/upper class women can afford to travel for abortions while lower class women can not (or put themselves into debt to do so). When one group can access a service another can't, particularly a health care one, that is unequal treatment and is a class divide, therefore is a class divide issue.

No, that's not unequal treatment, it's exactly the same treatment that is provided by a service provider, to those who can afford it. That would still be an issue regardless of whether or not the 8th amendment is repealed - more affluent people will always have access to better healthcare than people who are poorer, and legislating for abortion won't change that fact.