The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Loafing Oaf

thee glitz wrote: »

Because a lot of people want just change, but not full liberalisation. Framing it in such terms puts the change most want at risk.

Recent opinion polls suggest a small majority in favour of 'abortion on demand' (within term limits). The 'risk' may not be as great as you suggest.

Consonata

end of the road wrote: »

wrong, not Sluts and whores. never

I pray that you aren't being sarcastic.


What lifestyle reasons then?

end of the road

Consonata wrote: »

I pray that you aren't being sarcastic.

i'm not being one bit sarcastic.
i have never and would never describe a woman as a slut or a whore and i have no time for anyone who would either.

tigger123

end of the road wrote: »

i'm not being one bit sarcastic.
i have never and would never describe a woman as a slut or a whore and i have no time for anyone who would either.

What are the "lifestyle reasons" you referred to in your post?

splinter65

Consonata wrote: »

I pray that you aren't being sarcastic.


What lifestyle reasons then?

Consonata wrote: »

I pray that you aren't being sarcastic.


What lifestyle reasons then?

When you turn up at Planned Parenthoid in US to arrange an abortion, you have the opportunity to tick a box as to why you want the abortion.
There’s a long list of options one of which includes amongst many others , (in Sth Dakota for example) ”doesn't want child” and one other which is much mentioned here “fatal Foetal abnormalities”
The FFA reasons accounts for less then 1% of abortions but the “doesn’t want child” accounts for over 68%.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
“Lifestyle reasons” and “doesn’t want the child”
Which is less acceptable?

end of the road

tigger123 wrote: »

What are the "lifestyle reasons" you referred to in your post?

an example would be that the child is inconvenient.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

splinter65

Fred Swanson wrote: »

That's called a choice.

Why do the Repeal supporters dwell so much on the FFA and the rape/incest reasons for abortions when it’s such a small percentage.
The FFA is less then 1%.
Rape less then 1%
Why don’t they just say, look loads of girls find themselves pregnant and they don’t want to have the baby so why don’t we let them have an abortion up to 24 weeks like they do everywhere else?

Consonata

splinter65 wrote:

Why do the Repeal supporters dwell so much on the FFA and the rape/incest reasons for abortions when it’s such a small percentage. The FFA is less then 1%. Rape less then 1% Why don’t they just say, look loads of girls find themselves pregnant and they don’t want to have the baby so why don’t we let them have an abortion up to 24 weeks like they do everywhere else?

Source on those figures. And even if that were to be the case, its due to baby steps when it comes to abortion. Not going for full limitless abortion with a week limit which may turn people off.

Crea

They don't have abortion on demand to 24 weeks every where else.
Most European countries have a 12 week limit unless there there's a specific reason. 90% of all abortions take place before 10 weeks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm

Crea

They don't have abortion on demand to 24 weeksevery where else.
Most European countries have a 12 week limit unless there there's a specific reason. 90% of all abortions take place before 10 weeks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm

splinter65

Consonata wrote: »

Source on those figures. And even if that were to be the case, its due to baby steps when it comes to abortion. Not going for full limitless abortion with a week limit which may turn people off.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
I posted the above source already but here it is again .
Baby steps.
So you mean take small steps first, introduce people to the idea that mothers will only be aborting babies of less then 12 weeks gestation that have resulted from rape/incest or babies that have FFA, and then the reasons can increase as can the gestation.

spookwoman

splinter65 wrote: »

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
I posted the above source already but here it is again .
Baby steps.
So you mean take small steps first, introduce people to the idea that mothers will only be aborting babies of less then 12 weeks gestation that have resulted from rape/incest or babies that have FFA, and then the reasons can increase as can the gestation.

Mothers? Not very women who gets pregnant is a mother just as surly as not every woman want to become a mother

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What other reason is there to post that video? The opinions of some randomer are irrelevant. But by linking them to a movement you can try to discredit that movement. This trick is as old as the hills. My side = cuddly Argentinian socialist (who happens to be the sole ruler of an authoritarian state, oops) vs. Their side = some wingnut.

The one and only reason I posted the video was simply because I figured nobody would have any idea who I was referring to otherwise. I was making the point that I'd sooner listen to what the Pope had to say about family values, than some wingnut telling me to know my place regarding the issue of abortion. You're making the association with the wider pro-choice movement, not me. I said already I was never either pro-life nor pro-choice and I maintain that stance, because where I'm coming from, I'm not looking at the issue in terms of sides, hence why you'll have noticed earlier I pointed out for example that Ben Carson's claim that the majority of abortion clinics in the US were built in black neighbourhoods, was false. It's quite a bit more nuanced than that.

Would you prefer to be subjected to some shouty wingnut, or someone who even though you disagree entirely with their politics (hence why I made the point that he was a left wing socialist), you're willing to give them a hearing because you know they're not going to behave like an arsehole? I know who I'd rather give an audience to, and that, was my point.

Great. Which makes your decision to post that particular clip even harder to justify, unless of course your motivation was to paint the pro-choice lobby in a bad light.

It doesn't make it harder to justify because I never made the association with the wider pro-choice movement in the first place. You did! I also wouldn't give David Quinn an audience, or anyone whom I considered a selfish, arrogant arsehole. Read the whole post, and then as difficult as it may be for you to do, try and imagine context given that I've always said the issue was never just black and white, that it is both a personal issue at an individual level, and a wider social issue, which brings me on to my next point.

You tell me. You were previously advocating a pro-choice position far in extreme of anyone else I've seen on boards. Could it simply have been an attempt to discredit pro-choice all along?

Conspiracy theory stuff there HD, but you're imputing illuminati style motives that simply aren't there. I'll try and make it as simple as I can for you, though something already tells me no explanation will be sufficient as your mind is made up. Consider this a courtesy as I normally would never explain myself to anyone, but seeing as I've never thought of you as an arsehole, I'm at least willing to forego that principle on this occasion.

I was previously advocating a position, not what I considered a pro-choice position, to be absolutely clear, it is a position that is and always was, and always will be, based upon affording standards of human dignity and decency to both the woman, and the unborn. I was looking at the issue from an individualistic perspective and imagining that such a goal could be achieved at a societal level. Because my thinking on it then, and still my thinking on it now, is that if a woman wants an abortion, she's going to have one, and there is absolutely nothing, short of literally chaining her to a bed and force feeding her, that anyone can do to stop her, not the law, not term limits, nothing. As an individual, I still believe that no woman should ever be forced to give birth if she does not want to, and we must acknowledge that that is reality, it's that simple.

Now, I then looked at the issue from a societal level, and did my research (you'll notice I didn't mention China, as what was done there with the "One child policy" was an extreme which has never been repeated in history, notwithstanding the fact that the wealthy could simply afford to pay a fine if they had another child, it was an incredibly corrupt regime). I've already posted in this thread an article which details how abortion was suggested by well-meaning but misguided eugenics enthusiasts on the principle of 'survival of the fittest', and even the founder of Planned Parenthood in the US has been credited with ulterior motives regarding her enthusiasm for eugenics, but I don't believe her intent was ever racist. It just so happened that black communities at the time were amongst the most socially deprived demographic in society, and so abortion or sterilisation seemed like the most obvious answer to the issue of eliminating something which they believed was holding society back from evolving - the poor, the sick and the needy. Rather than address the underlying social issue, the idea was to eliminate the symptoms rather than ever address the cause.

I see the same happening again when arguments are made that poor people cannot afford abortions, as though the assumption is that socioecnomically deprived demographic should actually want abortions. It's easy to exploit people who are less fortunate than ourselves, it's been done by movement after movement throughout human history, and yes, I'll freely admit that there are no better practitioners of it than organised religions, who have their own motivations to exploit people who really aren't in any position to say "no thank you", when offered what they see as the quickest way out of their circumstances, because they don't see how the consequences of their decisions affect wider society as a whole, hence why I included the thread about 'Should Irish drug addicts be offered money to have no more children?', because the woman in the video is a perfect example of someone who is exploiting people in bad situations and receiving private donations in the order of half a million dollars a year to do wealthier people's dirty work. If that doesn't sound familiar, remember your history, and how the religious organisations at the time in Ireland, the UK and the US were able to operate in society as they did. They were providing a quick fix solution for a society that at the time regarded the poor, the sick and the needy as undesirables. It just so happened that the vast majority of which made up that social demographic were unmarried young women and their children. Coincidence? I think not.

And that is why I don't believe abortion is a solution to any issue, because it isn't some benevolent 'this will fix all your problems' solution, and even now I see it being proposed as the way to rid society of people with downs syndrome, and people are desperate for it, because people with downs syndrome are a problem for society. Who do you think would be vastly over-represented in 20 years time, 50 years, even 100 years time as the demographic which has the highest rate of abortions?

To go back to a point inadvertently made by that wingnut in the video - "Savita was a rich woman" (you only have to look at the colour of Savita's skin to know she was not a lower caste Dalit in her own country, so that came as news to nobody), she was not an impoverished economic migrant, and yet the way her death is constantly used to promote the introduction of abortion in Ireland is at worst disingenuous, and at best - simply misguided, and putting emotions before facts.

For all the warbling about engaging in critical thinking that goes on around these parts, and finger pointing at 'sides' based upon ideologues various positions, there really isn't a whole lot of critical thinking or any objective evaluation goes on at all, and either stance whether one identifies themselves as either pro-choice or pro-life, their arguments are at their core either based upon emotional heart string tugging, appeals to conscience, or the most arrogant and nefarious of all - the base assumption of a universal moral standard in society. They know there is no such thing as a universal moral standard, and yet they persist in applying their moral standards externally, and assuming that everyone else should base their arguments on that standard.

It simply doesn't work, and it displays a gross ignorance of the concept of self-awareness, and human nature, which is all too often why we end up talking past each other.

Hotblack Desiato

RDM_83 again wrote: »

You clearly didn't follow either campaign if you think moments like "basket of deplorables" in the US or in the UK the looking down on the English working classes by the great and the good had.

As if the 'working classes' had a view as a bloc. Arguably it is the 'working classes' who will lose out the most from Trump and brexit, just as they've lost out from the last 40 years of Reaganite/Thatcherite/NuLabour governments.

You realize that the referendum is about repealing the 8th, if you make it about abortion on demand being a right it risks support.

It's a risk I'm prepared to take. I'll not support a half measure in the constitution. The logical position afaiac is to repeal and have the Oireachtas legislate. They probably won't go nearly as far as I'd like them to, but having to put up with the decisions of an elected government with which one disagrees is an inherent hazard of democracy. The problem is when party political stances or stances supported by only one specific church - i.e. the 8th Amendment which was supported by the RCC and opposed by the other christian churches in Ireland, even 34 years ago - get written into our constitutional law. The 8th amendment is sectarian law written into our constitution at the behest of a foreign government using American money. Even then it only won in Dublin by 51:49 of votes. I'm not sure how many of that 51 are still alive - yet 35 years on and given all the horrific scenarios the 8th has visited upon us, we are stll expected to believe that repeal is questionable.[/QUOTE]

masculinist

splinter65 wrote: »

Why do the Repeal supporters dwell so much on the FFA and the rape/incest reasons for abortions when it’s such a small percentage.
The FFA is less then 1%.
Rape less then 1%
Why don’t they just say, look loads of girls find themselves pregnant and they don’t want to have the baby so why don’t we let them have an abortion up to 24 weeks like they do everywhere else?

You just have to look at the stronghold of femin(az)ism , the USA where false rape accusations flow thickly about 30 years after the alleged events apparently only when the man has money and fame they can exploit. Feminists dont do term limits. Although I find the lack of children from such alleged rapes strange.

Hotblack Desiato

RDM_83 again wrote: »

connorhal and AnGaelach would appear to have views broadly in line with majority Irish opinion

[citation needed]

I would support a German system, I would not support a limit of 12 weeks

Oh bloody hell, at least educate yourself as to what other countries allow before you propose their legal position for this country. It's not hard. BTW Germany is a pretty socally conservative country.

Hotblack Desiato

splinter65 wrote: »

I thought the RCC was as good as dead in Ireland?

Tried to enrol a non-catholic child in a school lately - had a look at their admission policy?

Or, tried to get a job as a primary school teacher while not being a professed catholic prepared to satisfy the local bishop that you will teach the catholic faith as fact? Although supposedly you are a state employee?

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Tried to enrol a non-catholic child in a school lately - had a look at their admission policy?

Not to stray too much off the point of the thread, but there are plenty of non-Catholic children in Catholic schools!

It goes back to demonstrating the short-sightedness of proposing abortion as a solution to a social issue because some... I'm afraid I can't think of an appropriate word to describe someone who would suggest something so stupid as a remedy for the issue, but no doubt someone exists who would suggest that non-Catholics shouldn't have children then if they can't enrol them in Catholic schools. You can already see the problem with that suggestion, I would hope anyway! So why would you suggest abortion as a solution for other people in unfortunate socioeconomic circumstances? You'd attempt at least, I would hope, to address the underlying cause, as opposed to the symptoms.

Or, tried to get a job as a primary school teacher while not being a professed catholic prepared to satisfy the local bishop that you will teach the catholic faith as fact? Although supposedly you are a state employee?

The same criteria apply to any career choice surely? Have you ever tried to get a job you weren't qualified for and been surprised when you were rejected because you didn't meet the criteria? That's notwithstanding the fact that according to the last census, the profession with the highest number of enrolments undertaken for study at third level were... go on, I'll give you one guess? Teachers! In spite of the fact that for years in Ireland, already qualified teachers are struggling to get places in schools, never mind newly qualified teachers, and most of those studying to be teachers are women, and most of those people working in the profession already, are women.

Also, teachers are not employed by the State, they are employed by the Board of Management of the school, they are definitely not State employees.

I suspect you already knew all of the above, but it doesn't square too well with your biases.


EDIT: Your post reminded me of something I had posted previously relating to the above -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The above sort of tokenism reminds me of a conference I was at last year regarding the future of education in Ireland, and one of the speakers was from the UK, and she was giving it welly about the lack of women and BME at third level, which was definitely more relevant in a UK context. It's as though she hadn't even thought of her audience and tailored her presentation accordingly, when the room was filled with Casper white Irish women and only a handful of men.

Now granted it was a teacher training college so I didn't expect much variance in the audience, but that didn't stop this woman going on to talk about how there weren't enough women in STEM, and how it was mostly socially awkward men (I'd lost the will to listen at this stage), before she moved on to the topic of 'unconscious bias', without so much as stopping for a breather to spot the irony.

It appears as though the irony is also lost on you that one of the reasons why there are so many women in the teaching profession already, and so many women who are studying to become teachers, is because it allows for more generous maternity benefits and conditions of employment than any other profession you'd care to mention. As a career choice, any career which is centred around childcare and education of children is inherently geared towards a work/life balance for women with children.

splinter65

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Tried to enrol a non-catholic child in a school lately - had a look at their admission policy?

Or, tried to get a job as a primary school teacher while not being a professed catholic prepared to satisfy the local bishop that you will teach the catholic faith as fact? Although supposedly you are a state employee?

At least 1/4of the children in our local primary schools are non Christian. I’ve no idea where you are but that’s the reality here. I’m in a medium sized town in a rural county.

drkpower

Has anyone got any insight as to why the majority of the articulate pro-life side are staying remarkably quiet at the moment. The likes of maria steen, david quinn, william binchy, the one from spirit radio, even cora sherlock etc. Have barely heard a word for them while the referendum and the surrounding talking points are being framed.

My instinct is/was that they are holding fire until the Gov confirms that it will be a straight repeal accompanied temporally with a bill allowing for unrestricted access to 12 weeks, at which point they will come out all guns blazing. But by staying relatively silent for now, they are in danger of allowing a narrative to develop amongst the middle ground that unrestricted aceess up to 12 weeks is a form of 'nothing to see here'. If that gains a foothold, it may be very difficult to reverse.

NuMarvel

Da Boss wrote: »

The government are introducing stricter drink driving laws- to saw lifes! They are taking measures to tackle climate change- which will save life’s. They are (talking of a t least) tackling homelessness- to help save life’s. They are however planning to remove a piece of legislation-the 8th amendment, which has saved more lives that anything else ever did . Without the 8th how many of us Irish would have been denied our lives we currently enjoy,all thanks to the 8th

The 8th doesn't stop abortions. It relocates them at best or makes them unsafe at worst.

If you want to stop or reduce abortions, you might be better off promoting things like proper sex education and better access to contraceptives.

One eyed Jack

NuMarvel wrote: »

The 8th doesn't stop abortions. It relocates them at best or makes them unsafe at worst.

The 8th was never intended to stop abortion, it was always intended to vindicate and protect the right to life of the unborn. Individual women who choose to avail of abortion abroad or attempt to procure an abortion are responsible for their own actions, the State is neither responsible nor can it be held accountable for the choices women make as individuals. That would be the definition of a term I rarely ever use but in this case it's entirely appropriate - 'Nanny Stateism', and given the State operates pretty much on a 'quid pro quo' basis, it's the reason why I would always discourage anyone from ever putting themselves in a position where they are ever at the mercy of the State in the first place.

NuMarvel wrote: »

If you want to stop or reduce abortions, you might be better off promoting things like proper sex education and better access to contraceptives.

Unfortunately, that's an all too often trotted out misconception. We live in a society where rates of teen pregnancy at least are at their lowest ever, and yet women are still experiencing crisis pregnancies, not as a result of a lack of sex education or lack of access to contraceptives. That myth has been debunked a long time ago, and when it was investigated by an American think-tank who if they were leaning any more to the liberal left they'd fall over, they were surprised at their findings (nobody else was!) -

Sex, contraception, or abortion? Explaining class gaps in unintended childbearing


That's a paper I linked to earlier in the thread, but maybe you might be interested in reading this article, from the same Institute -

Three Simple Rules Poor Teens Should Follow to Join the Middle Class

Policy aimed at promoting economic opportunity for poor children must be framed within three stark realities. First, many poor children come from families that do not give them the kind of support that middle-class children get from their families. Second, as a result, these children enter kindergarten far behind their more advantaged peers and, on average, never catch up and even fall further behind. Third, in addition to the education deficit, poor children are more likely to make bad decisions that lead them to drop out of school, become teen parents, join gangs and break the law.

In addition to the thousands of local and national programs that aim to help young people avoid these life-altering problems, we should figure out more ways to convince young people that their decisions will greatly influence whether they avoid poverty and enter the middle class. Let politicians, schoolteachers and administrators, community leaders, ministers and parents drill into children the message that in a free society, they enter adulthood with three major responsibilities: at least finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children.

Our research shows that of American adults who followed these three simple rules, only about 2 percent are in poverty and nearly 75 percent have joined the middle class (defined as earning around $55,000 or more per year). There are surely influences other than these principles at play, but following them guides a young adult away from poverty and toward the middle class.

Consider an example. Today, more than 40 percent of American children, including more than 70 percent of black children and 50 percent of Hispanic children, are born outside marriage. This unprecedented rate of nonmarital births, combined with the nation’s high divorce rate, means that around half of children will spend part of their childhood—and for a considerable number of these all of their childhood — in a single-parent family. As hard as single parents try to give their children a healthy home environment, children in female-headed families are four or more times as likely as children from married-couple families to live in poverty. In turn, poverty is associated with a wide range of negative outcomes in children, including school dropout and out-of-wedlock births.

NuMarvel

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The 8th was never intended to stop abortion, it was always intended to vindicate and protect the right to life of the unborn.

In other words, you agree that the 8th doesn't stop abortions. Maybe take it up with the poster I was replying to, because he's operating under the belief that the 8th has somehow prevented abortions from happening.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Unfortunately, that's an all too often trotted out misconception. We live in a society where rates of teen pregnancy at least are at their lowest ever, and yet women are still experiencing crisis pregnancies, not as a result of a lack of sex education or lack of access to contraceptives. That myth has been debunked a long time ago, and when it was investigated by an American think-tank who if they were leaning any more to the liberal left they'd fall over, they were surprised at their findings (nobody else was!) -

Sex, contraception, or abortion? Explaining class gaps in unintended childbearing


That's a paper I linked to earlier in the thread, but maybe you might be interested in reading this article, from the same Institute -

Three Simple Rules Poor Teens Should Follow to Join the Middle Class

[snip]

If this is your long winded way of saying that tackling socioeconomic reasons would reduce the incidence of abortions, I'm all for that. However you might share this with self-proclaimed pro-lifers, because it's not a measure I've ever heard them propose or support (in Ireland anyway). Instead, they want to maintain a measure that we both agree doesn't stop abortions.

volchitsa

NuMarvel wrote: »

In other words, you agree that the 8th doesn't stop abortions. Maybe take it up with the poster I was replying to, because he's operating under the belief that the 8th has somehow prevented abortions from happening.



If this is your long winded way of saying that tackling socioeconomic reasons would reduce the incidence of abortions, I'm all for that. However you might share this with self-proclaimed pro-lifers, because it's not a measure I've ever heard them propose or support (in Ireland anyway). Instead, they want to maintain a measure that we both agree doesn't stop abortions.

Yes indeed, and not just in Ireland : the crossover between pro-life activism and various "doubts" about contraception, such as the chastity for teens groups in the US is massive.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

but no doubt someone exists who would suggest that non-Catholics shouldn't have children then if they can't enrol them in Catholic schools.

Oh, I've been told that, I've also been told I should get out of my own country because I am not bringing my children up as catholics.

So why would you suggest abortion as a solution for other people in unfortunate socioeconomic circumstances? You'd attempt at least, I would hope, to address the underlying cause, as opposed to the symptoms.

This is a strawman, not least because it's not an either-or choice between the two options.
A woman's choices should not be constrained by economic circumstances, whether that's not being able to choose an abortion due to cost, or whether it's choosing to abort a pregnancy that she otherwise would not due to the cost of child rearing.

Have you ever tried to get a job you weren't qualified for and been surprised when you were rejected because you didn't meet the criteria?

How arrogant. That a specific church seems to think it can decide who is qualified to teach in the schools we all pay for.

Also, teachers are not employed by the State, they are employed by the Board of Management of the school, they are definitely not State employees.

However the state pays their wages. Teachers do not go to boards of management looking for a pay rise, they go to the minister for education. The whole setup is a legal fiction which gives the state responsibility (especially financially) but gives the RCC power and control over schools which it does not fund.

splinter65 wrote: »

At least 1/4of the children in our local primary schools are non Christian. I’ve no idea where you are but that’s the reality here. I’m in a medium sized town in a rural county.

But chances are the admission policy puts them at the end of the list, that's religious discrimination, even if there isn't enough pressure on places in that school to squeeze them out. 90% of primary schools are run by the catholic church and teach catholic dogma as fact during the school day.

And someone said the RCC is all but dead in this country?

One eyed Jack

NuMarvel wrote: »

In other words, you agree that the 8th doesn't stop abortions. Maybe take it up with the poster I was replying to, because he's operating under the belief that the 8th has somehow prevented abortions from happening.

I'll keep this brief and clear as possible then to reduce the chances of you misinterpreting what I'm saying. There are no "in other words" necessary, I was explicit in what I said, I have no issue with what the other poster said because they are correct, whereas on this occasion at least, you're not even wrong.

If this is your long winded way of saying that tackling socioeconomic reasons would reduce the incidence of abortions, I'm all for that. However you might share this with self-proclaimed pro-lifers, because it's not a measure I've ever heard them propose or support (in Ireland anyway). Instead, they want to maintain a measure that we both agree doesn't stop abortions.

I'm sharing it with you solely because you made the claim on this occasion, and again you were just wrong. Rather than attempt to do a "look over there, they're wrong too", I couldn't care less whatever 'side' a person does or doesn't identify with, if they make the same claim you did, I can only correct them then, not before, and certainly not when they've never made the claim you did.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'll keep this brief and clear as possible then to reduce the chances of you misinterpreting what I'm saying. There are no "in other words" necessary, I was explicit in what I said, I have no issue with what the other poster said because they are correct, whereas on this occasion at least, you're not even wrong.

I'm sharing it with you solely because you made the claim on this occasion, and again you were just wrong. Rather than attempt to do a "look over there, they're wrong too", I couldn't care less whatever 'side' a person does or doesn't identify with, if they make the same claim you did, I can only correct them then, not before, and certainly not when they've never made the claim you did.

It's quite amusing to see you complaining about other posters allegedly misrepresenting something based on your own entirely disingenuous, not to say untrue, version of the 8th amendment.

It was piloted by PLAC and was explicitly about preventing any chance of abortion being legalized via a ruling similar to the Roe vs Wade one in the US.

It most definitely was about ensuring that the existing ban on abortion be copper fastened.
In fact many pro-lifers objected that the woolly "vindicating unborn rights"-type wording finally chosen was too ambiguous about what they actually wanted it to do, namely ban abortion. Some like William Binchy predicted that its ambiguity would inevitably bring legal abortion into the country. That was seen as a bad thing by the way. And indeed it did.

I don't know if you are too young to remember all this or are just being dishonest.

.......

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

It's quite amusing to see you complaining about other posters allegedly misrepresenting something based on your own entirely disingenuous, not to say untrue, version of the 8th amendment..

So, abortion was already illegal, and the 8th amendment was introduced to copper fasten the right to life of the unborn, and in that respect it's entirely correct then to state that it has saved lives.

There's nothing disingenuous or dishonest about saying that, and yes, I'm old enough to remember, and I'm also quite capable of doing unbiased research.

NuMarvel

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So, abortion was already illegal, and the 8th amendment was introduced to copper fasten the right to life of the unborn, and in that respect it's entirely correct then to state that it has saved lives.

There's nothing disingenuous or dishonest about saying that, and yes, I'm old enough to remember, and I'm also quite capable of doing unbiased research.

Then where's the unbiased research that backs up your claim that the 8th has saved lives?

One eyed Jack

NuMarvel wrote: »

Then where's the unbiased research that backs up your claim that the 8th has saved lives?

Will you give over with the weasel wording. I don't believe for a minute you don't know that I was referring to the fact that I carried out my research without bias. The fact that the 8th amendment has saved lives is self-evident in that it places an obligation on the State to protect as far as is practicable the equal right to life of the unborn. Without the obligation placed on the State by the 8th amendment, well, the State simply doesn't have that obligation!

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

but sure it is their own fault for getting pregnant and being poor in the first place. Or so the thinking seems to be.

kylith

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Or to put themselves into debt travelling to the UK.

Ash.J.Williams

I'd have to agree you can't just say the 8th was great because it saved babies lives as there are 100's of knock on affects and 1000's of lives lost through this. Let's get real once the 8th has "saved" a baby the baby is then on it's own.
I'm only 41 and I remember the crap loan parents had to put up with if they became pregnant.

spookwoman

kylith wrote: »

Or to put themselves into debt travelling to the UK.

Also you hear about the horror stories of children in the irish care system. I wonder how many would be there if women could have had easy access to abortions.

.......

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack

spookwoman wrote: »

Also you hear about the horror stories of children in the irish care system. I wonder how many would be there if women could have had easy access to abortions.

Realistically speaking based upon evidence from countries where abortion is widely available, it's quite likely it would make no difference to the numbers of children in the Irish care system. It hasn't done in any other country.

I'm not going to suggest there would be any less when the fact of the matter is that there's simply no evidence to suggest the number of children who exist and have been placed in the Irish care system, suddenly wouldn't exist.

spookwoman

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I'd have to agree you can't just say the 8th was great because it saved babies lives as there are 100's of knock on affects and 1000's of lives lost through this. Let's get real once the 8th has "saved" a baby the baby is then on it's own.
I'm only 41 and I remember the crap loan parents had to put up with if they became pregnant.

Unfortunately I also remember young women deliberately getting pregnant so they could get a house. There will always be a few and maybe it's time Ireland now brings in a system where the father/s have to pay maintenance. Responsibility has to be taken by both especially if the woman decides to go ahead with the pregnancy.

mrkiscool2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Realistically speaking based upon evidence from countries where abortion is widely available, it's quite likely it would make no difference to the numbers of children in the Irish care system. It hasn't done in any other country.

I'm not going to suggest there would be any less when the fact of the matter is that there's simply no evidence to suggest the number of children who exist and have been placed in the Irish care system, suddenly wouldn't exist.

Wow, now you are just spouting utter lies. A study 10 years ago found that there is between a 34-37% drop in the amount of children up for adoption.

If you are going to make a claim, don't make it one that literally 10 seconds of google can find you out with.

.......

This post has been deleted.

eviltwin

....... wrote: »

I know people who were shunned by the local community for being single parents and who still say today that they would have had an abortion if the choice was available because they were never able to regain the lost career and are in much poorer circumstances as a result.

This "saving lives at all cost" is a nonsense, the entire picture is that life at any cost is not actually a favourable outcome at all.

My unplanned pregnancy at 19 didn't ruin my life but it's fair to say financially we never recovered. We were never able to reach our full career potential. That's why I think choice is so important.

One eyed Jack

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Wow, now you are just spouting utter lies. A study 10 years ago found that there is between a 34-37% drop in the amount of children up for adoption.

If you are going to make a claim, don't make it one that literally 10 seconds of google can find you out with.

That's children up for adoption, we were talking about children in care, and particularly in Ireland there are no children up for adoption because most adoptions are done inter-family, and that still has nothing to do with the numbers of children in care.

I'm not interested in reading an out-of-date 10 year old study btw that you literally spent 10 seconds on Google searching for something to confirm your bias so you could attempt to call me a liar over something I wasn't even referring to in the first place.

mrkiscool2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's children up for adoption, we were talking about children in care, and particularly in Ireland there are no children up for adoption because most adoptions are done inter-family, and that still has nothing to do with the numbers of children in care.

I'm not interested in reading an out-of-date 10 year old study btw that you literally spent 10 seconds on Google searching for something to confirm your bias so you could attempt to call me a liar over something I wasn't even referring to in the first place.

Oh my glob, it absolutely does! If there are less children up for adoption, it makes sense that there would be less children in care! If your bias can't make you see that simple logic, then there is absolutely no hope for you.

You've been proven wrong, GTF over it.

By the way, I searched "Does abortion affect the number of children in foster care?" and that was the first non-ad result to come up. So get out of here trying to say I am not doing due diligence. Such intellectual dishonesty and poisoning the well, typical of anti-choicers.

One eyed Jack

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Oh my glob, it absolutely does! If there are less children up for adoption, it makes sense that there would be less children in care! If your bias can't make you see that simple logic, then there is absolutely no hope for you.

You've been proven wrong, GTF over it.

By the way, I searched "Does abortion affect the number of children in foster care?" and that was the first non-ad result to come up. So get out of here trying to say I am not doing due diligence. Such intellectual dishonesty and poisoning the well, typical of anti-choicers.

That wasn't the original claim at all though. The original claim had nothing to do with adoption, it related to the numbers of children in care if we had or hadn't abortion in Ireland, and I said there was simply no way of knowing whether it would make any difference, but the evidence from other countries suggests that it doesn't.

As for the rest of your post I think you really need to sit down or something. You've already called me a liar and you're still suggesting I'm an "anti-choicer" in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

Sure this thread is going nowhere at this stage, I should have known better than to have bothered getting involved again. I'll leave yiz to it.

Da Boss

A lot of people here seem to be of the opinion that abortion is a “right”. It’s not! Nobody has the right to end the life of another

Martina1991

Da Boss wrote:

A lot of people here seem to be of the opinion that abortion is a “rightâ€. It’s not! Nobody has the right to end the life of another

Are you of the opinion that the state should tell a women what to do with her body.

Nobody has the right to tell someone else what to do in their life.

NuMarvel

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Will you give over with the weasel wording. I don't believe for a minute you don't know that I was referring to the fact that I carried out my research without bias.

I never said otherwise. I just asked for the unbiased research that supported your claims. It seems by your next statement you've done no research, so that's one way to ensure it's unbiased.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The fact that the 8th amendment has saved lives is self-evident in that it places an obligation on the State to protect as far as is practicable the equal right to life of the unborn. Without the obligation placed on the State by the 8th amendment, well, the State simply doesn't have that obligation!

So the only thing you can provide to back up your assertion about the 8th, is to say that's what it's supposed to do even though you said earlier the 8th wasn't supposed to stop abortions. This is circular and contradictory nonsense.

The claim that the 8th stops abortions/save lives is counterfactual and can't be proven (hence the difficulty that you and EOTR have in providing anything to back it up). Anyone who says such claims are correct is allowing bias to influence their thinking because there is no way a rational and cogent analysis would come to that conclusion.