The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

agreed. however this isn't what is happening here. what is happening here is the state is insuring that bar extreme circumstances, the unborn cannot be killed within it.

You are being deliberately obtuse. By not having abortion in Ireland, the state are forcing women who want to procure one to travel to avail of the medical procedure they feel they need. That is exactly what is happening.

January

thee glitz wrote: »

He's hardly encouraging anyone to do so, let alone forcing them.



This is somewhere between euphemism and deception - quite the specious argument. The 'medical procedure' ie being torn apart is actually for the baby.

A fetus is not torn apart during an abortion.

thee glitz

January wrote: »

A fetus is not torn apart during an abortion.

Does it always come out in one go so? It's not a trip to the fun centre, and my point still stands.

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You are being deliberately obtuse. By not having abortion in Ireland, the state are forcing women who want to procure one to travel to avail of the medical procedure they feel they need. That is exactly what is happening.

i disagree. the state are not forcing women to do anything. the women are choosing to have the abortion and are therefore choosing to travel to avail of it, because it's provision bar extreme circumstances is deemed unnecessary within the state.
there are lots of medical procedures which are not availible within the state for which people have to travel for. some of them would actually deserve to be availible within ireland rather then abortion on demand.

January wrote: »

A fetus is not torn apart during an abortion.

it often is during a sergical abortion.

Da Boss

I really hope that the pro life group are successful and the upcoming referendum fails . It would be a victory for humanity, a good news story in this world of bad news. Ireland will hopefully vote correctly and as a result thousands of lives would be saved. I really really sincerely hope my fellow Irishmen and Irishwoman see sense and vote to save life. If that was to be the case I would be a proud man, and such an occasion would restore my confidence in humanity! I’ll live in hope, this is one to win

Martina1991

Da Boss wrote:

Ireland will hopefully vote correctly and as a result thousands of lives would be saved.

If a women in Ireland today chooses to have an abortion she WILL have one. Whether it be pills bought online, going abroad or seeking cheaper dangerous alternatives.

It is the womans choice and you can't stop that from happening. You aren't "saving" those babies.

Making it legal in Ireland will ensure those women don't have to go abroad and can have the procedure safely.

Doctor Jimbob

Da Boss wrote: »

I really hope that the pro life group are successful and the upcoming referendum fails . It would be a victory for humanity, a good news story in this world of bad news. Ireland will hopefully vote correctly and as a result thousands of lives would be saved. I really really sincerely hope my fellow Irishmen and Irishwoman see sense and vote to save life. If that was to be the case I would be a proud man, and such an occasion would restore my confidence in humanity! I’ll live in hope, this is one to win

A better way to reduce the amount of abortions happening would be to have better sexual education, better access to methods preventing conception in people who don't want kids (i.e. no guilting people out of sterilisation procedures), and better support for struggling parents. But of course most of that would involve having mature conversations about dirty, immoral, sex. The horror.

All defeating this referendum would do is sweep the issue under the rug, and let the pro life crowd have a big round of backslapping over all the lives they've saved, logic and actual definitions of life be damned. No one wants more abortions. People are just aware that they're going to happen anyway. If we can't have them here, people will go abroad. If that's banned as well, people will revert to ordering drugs online.

Martina1991

Doctor Jimbob wrote:

A better way to reduce the amount of abortions happening would be to have better sexual education, better access to methods preventing conception in people who don't want kids (i.e. no guilting people out of sterilisation procedures), and better support for struggling parents. But of course most of that would involve having mature conversations about dirty, immoral, sex. The horror.

Agreed. I never had any formal sex education.

I figured it out for myself/ used Google.
There are many forms of contraception for women but can be expensive or ineffective for many people.

So many of us rely on condoms. I think they should be freely available from STI clinics.

Is the reason for poor sex education a result of the Catholic run schools?

Doctor Jimbob

Martina1991 wrote: »

Agreed. I never had any formal sex education.

I figured it out for myself/ used Google.
There are many forms of contraception for women but can be expensive or ineffective for many people.

So many of us rely on condoms. I think they should be freely available from STI clinics.

Is the reason for poor sex education a result of the Catholic run schools?

I vaugely remember having people come in and talk to us about sexual health and contraceptives, but it was a one day thing. Considering it's such a huge part of a young adult's life, there should really be more of a focus on it. Could have improved since though, that was over ten years ago now.

I don't think it's fair to blame it entirely on schools being Catholic run, although I'd say it plays a part. I also remember being shown an incredibly inaccurate and graphic pro life propaganda video as part of religion class though. That one I'm quite happy to blame fully on the Catholic influence.

thee glitz

Da Boss wrote: »

I really hope that the pro life group are successful and the upcoming referendum fails . It would be a victory for humanity, a good news story in this world of bad news. Ireland will hopefully vote correctly and as a result thousands of lives would be saved. I really really sincerely hope my fellow Irishmen and Irishwoman see sense and vote to save life. If that was to be the case I would be a proud man, and such an occasion would restore my confidence in humanity! I’ll live in hope, this is one to win

While I largely agree with your sentiment, I'm not completely opposed to repealing the amendment - that it doesn't allow for abortion in the case of FFA is problematic, if not surprising, given what it's supposed to be.
Overall, constitutional protection against free for all abortions is paramount for me.

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

it often is during a sergical abortion.

Where abortion is accessible in one's own country, it's more often a medical abortion. 62% of all abortions in Britain in 2016 were medical abortions and 71% of those were in the first 9 weeks.

However, you have stumbled onto another interesting outcome of the ban on abortion; it makes surgical abortions more likely for those who travel. While 38% of English and Welsh women had a surgical abortion, 78% of Irish women and 76% of Northern Irish women had one.

Digging into the British statistics brings up more interesting information. For example, a ban makes later term abortions more likely. For English and Welsh women:
-81% of abortions were carried out in the first 9 weeks
-11% were between 10 to 12 weeks,
- 7% were in weeks 13 to 19, and
- 2% were week 20 or later.

For non-residents, it's a different story:
-67% of all abortions were carried out in the first 9 weeks
-15% were between 10 to 12 weeks,
-12% were in weeks 13 to 19, and
- 7% were week 20 or later.

The ban makes it twice as likely that a woman will have an abortion at week 13 or later. It makes it 3.5 times more likely she'll have one after week 20.

So to recap; the ban doesn't stop abortions at all, just relocates them or makes them unsafe. From the statistics available, the ban means an Irish woman is twice as likely to have a surgical abortion, and more than 3 times more likely to have an abortion after the half way point of the pregnancy.

Hotblack Desiato

Da Boss wrote: »

It would be a victory for humanity

Would that balance out marriage equality, which some high up bod in the Vatican called "a defeat for humanity"?

Does it go to extra time and penalties?

"a victory for humanity" if it wasn't obvious you're taking the p**s before, it surely is now.

Edward M

NuMarvel wrote: »

Where abortion is accessible in one's own country, it's more often a medical abortion. 62% of all abortions in Britain in 2016 were medical abortions and 71% of those were in the first 9 weeks.

However, you have stumbled onto another interesting outcome of the ban on abortion; it makes surgical abortions more likely for those who travel. While 38% of English and Welsh women had a surgical abortion, 78% of Irish women and 76% of Northern Irish women had one.

Digging into the British statistics brings up more interesting information. For example, a ban makes later term abortions more likely. For English and Welsh women:
-81% of abortions were carried out in the first 9 weeks
-11% were between 10 to 12 weeks,
- 7% were in weeks 13 to 19, and
- 2% were week 20 or later.

For non-residents, it's a different story:
-67% of all abortions were carried out in the first 9 weeks
-15% were between 10 to 12 weeks,
-12% were in weeks 13 to 19, and
- 7% were week 20 or later.

The ban makes it twice as likely that a woman will have an abortion at week 13 or later. It makes it 3.5 times more likely she'll have one after week 20.

So to recap; the ban doesn't stop abortions at all, just relocates them or makes them unsafe. From the statistics available, the ban means an Irish woman is twice as likely to have a surgical abortion, and more than 3 times more likely to have an abortion after the half way point of the pregnancy.

That's a skewed figure re non residents.
It says non residents, not specifically Irish.
Abortion in England or UK if you prefer, is allowed up to a much later date than a lot of countries. For instance in France its 12 weeks, so the higher percentage is not only due to Irish people I feel.
Its grand throwing out figures, but relative to the Irish situation these figures are not accurate.

Doctor Jimbob

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Would that balance out marriage equality, which some high up bod in the Vatican called "a defeat for humanity"?

Does it go to extra time and penalties?

"a victory for humanity" if it wasn't obvious you're taking the p**s before, it surely is now.

That wouldn't bode well for the Vatican, the Italians aren't great at penalties.

thee glitz

NuMarvel wrote: »

So to recap; the ban doesn't stop abortions at all

Where did you get that from?

From the statistics available, the ban means an Irish woman is twice as likely to have a surgical abortion, and more than 3 times more likely to have an abortion after the half way point of the pregnancy.

Assuming non-resident = Irish... It's not really something to be proud of anyway.

NuMarvel

Edward M wrote: »

That's a skewed figure re non residents.
It says non residents, not specifically Irish.
Abortion in England or UK if you prefer, is allowed up to a much later date than a lot of countries. For instance in France its 12 weeks, so the higher percentage is not only due to Irish people I feel.
Its grand throwing out figures, but relative to the Irish situation these figures are not accurate.

They're the figures I found in the report, but you're welcome to look for the Irish ones if you wish. However, Irish residents made up 68% of all non-resident abortions in Britain (not the UK because Northern Ireland has similar laws to ours), so if just one country makes up more than two thirds of the numbers, then chances are there isn't likely to be much variance in the statistics.

NuMarvel

thee glitz wrote: »

Where did you get that from?

From the 30 plus years of British abortions statistics. From the evidence of the importation and use of abortion pills heard at the Citizens Assembly and the Committee on the 8th. From the personal testimonies of Irish women who have had abortions. From research of the World Health Organisation that says restricting access to abortions doesn't reduce the number of abortions, it just makes them unsafe.

On the other hand, the people who say the ban works haven't been able to provide a sliver of evidence to back that up.

So if Irish women are having abortions, even though Ireland has a ban on abortion, and research says that bans on abortion don't reduce the numbers of abortions, and the people who support the ban can't prove that it works, I think it's fair to say that the ban doesn't stop abortions.

thee glitz wrote: »

Assuming non-resident = Irish... It's not really something to be proud of anyway.

There is nothing about the 8th to be proud of, so at least we agree on something.

One eyed Jack

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I vaugely remember having people come in and talk to us about sexual health and contraceptives, but it was a one day thing. Considering it's such a huge part of a young adult's life, there should really be more of a focus on it. Could have improved since though, that was over ten years ago now.

Is it though? I don't think anyone can make generalisations like that to be fair. In my experience, young people are more concerned about their exam grades than sex and sexuality. Of course your mileage may differ, but that's my point. Young people are exposed to plenty of sex and sexuality education outside the school, and I've always believed relationships and sex educational is the parents responsibility rather than the poor effort that's put into it in the class environment (although in saying that, my own son's teacher was young and very open to discussion and yes, they covered abortion in a Catholic school, in an objective manner at least).

I can't say nationally whether it has or hasn't improved, but my point is that relationships and sex education is and should be, primarily the responsibility of the parents, and children are exposed to relationships and sexuality outside of the school. This idea that whatever they learn in school is all they'll ever know, ignores realities like I walked into the living room the other night and the young lad was watching 50 shades on TV. I straight up told him turn off that shìte. It wasn't because I'm a conservative Catholic prude that has any hang-ups at all about sex; it was simply because I would never want him to develop the idea that he should avoid sex by virtue of having been given the impression that it could ever possibly be so incredibly mundane and boring :pac:

I don't think it's fair to blame it entirely on schools being Catholic run, although I'd say it plays a part. I also remember being shown an incredibly inaccurate and graphic pro life propaganda video as part of religion class though. That one I'm quite happy to blame fully on the Catholic influence.

I fully agree with you that the Catholic Church does and has played it's part in influencing how we think about sex and sexuality in this country (hell in many countries! :pac:), but of course at an individual level you're going to view that as either a negative or a positive. I've always thought of it as a positive overall, but of course I'm not naive enough to ignore the fact that other people definitely do not share my perspective.

In relation to education at least, I can say that EOTR is on the same page with many people here when it comes to the influence of the RCC in their own schools, and indeed the State providing for of education, I know because we've previously had that discussion on other threads, so to see all sorts of accusations being levelled at them on the assumption that they are in league with the Catholic Church, or to suggest that their ideas are solely influenced by the Catholic Church, is just mistaken and actually more divisive than helpful.

In relation to healthcare in Ireland in general, well, again overall it's actually good IMO, but there are of course elements of it at an individual level that could sorely do with being shaken up. For example the assumption that because I refused a blood transfusion I must be a Jehovah Witness :pac: In saying that though, even though I disagreed with my consultant, he was able to maintain professional standards and didn't mock or dismiss my concerns, and the outcome of the procedure I had done today (total hip replacement) has been positive overall. What I'm driving at is that just because someone disagrees with you or you disagree with them, it doesn't give anyone the right to treat anyone like dirt, and then out of the other side of their mouths complain that their perceived human rights are being violated. It's an inherently selfish and self-centred attitude, and they really shouldn't be surprised when they claim that Irish society at least is rife with racism, sexism, and that we live in a "rape culture". Most people simply can't relate to that sort of extreme view because it is no reflection of anything they experience in their daily lives.

The above is also one of the reasons I detest the influence of the media in this discussion because they fuel the polarisation of different viewpoints. It's called propaganda, and I have no doubt that if the 8th is repealed, on it's anniversary a year later we will see headlines like "Rates of abortion have increased 300%", which sounds shocking, until we actually consider that that's exactly what one would expect, given that I think (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm going off memory), that the official numbers now are only in the order of 25 or less than that every year. Naturally that rate should increase, but I also have a feeling that like our suicide statistics, the figure given will be there or thereabouts every year. I don't expect any "floodgates" to open, and I think the media has a responsibility to, well, actually be responsible in how they report on individual cases. I don't expect them to, I expect the usual clickbaity headlines, but it would actually be nice if they did. I expect the media to continue to polarise the discussion and wind people up, because that's actually what sells papers, or encourages people to pay to access content behind a paywall. Personally, I wouldn't give the Irish Times a cent, same as I've never given the Church a cent in mass every Sunday. I actually agree with the point of view that says if parents want to educate their children, they should have to fund it themselves, as I don't believe it should be the States responsibility to provide for anyone's education. That would be a violation of a child's right to education though, so I don't foresee that at least ever happening in this country, which IMO is wrong but just because I don't agree with something doesn't mean that I should be exempt from paying taxes so the State can afford to fund public services for everyone in Irish society, regardless of whether or not we disagree as individuals on an individual level on the kind of society we would wish to live in, or shape that society for future generations to come.

sondagefaux

agreed. however this isn't what is happening here. what is happening here is the state is insuring that bar extreme circumstances, the unborn cannot be killed within it.

The Irish Constitution explicitly gives a right to travel abroad to kill the unborn (or get abortions as I would say).

Are you going to campaign to remove that right from the Constitution?

Or don't you care that the unborn are killed as long as it doesn't happen in Ireland?

sondagefaux

Da Boss wrote: »

I really hope that the pro life group are successful and the upcoming referendum fails . It would be a victory for humanity, a good news story in this world of bad news. Ireland will hopefully vote correctly and as a result thousands of lives would be saved. I really really sincerely hope my fellow Irishmen and Irishwoman see sense and vote to save life. If that was to be the case I would be a proud man, and such an occasion would restore my confidence in humanity! I’ll live in hope, this is one to win

Almost no women in Ireland will be prevented from having abortions if these provisions are not repealed.

However, many women will have their health and lives put at greater risk simply so that anti-abortion extremists can smugly claim that Ireland is 'pro life'.

sondagefaux

end of the road wrote: »

eviltwin wrote: »

Well I'm confused. You've been arguing that abortion is the killing of a baby, that the unborn should be treated as individuals, that they deserve the same legal protection as the living....

Why then do you not support legal sanctions for abortions here?

I'm genuinely confused by this. If you believe an unborn baby is as equal to a living baby then why wouldn't you want it's death, or murder if you are it that way, to be investigated and punished accordingly?

because it's not going to happen. so i would be campaigning for something that won't happen. however campaigning for the status quo where abortion on demand isn't availible in ireland and those who want it can go to england is actually doable.

This is the so called 'pro life' position? Weirdos doesn't even begin to cover it.

thee glitz

NuMarvel wrote: »

From the 30 plus years of British abortions statistics.

Which statistics (genuinely interested)?

From the evidence of the importation and use of abortion pills heard at the Citizens Assembly and the Committee on the 8th.

Any stats?

From the personal testimonies of Irish women who have had abortions.

Stats?

From research of the World Health Organisation that says restricting access to abortions doesn't reduce the number of abortions, it just makes them unsafe.

Any?

On the other hand, the people who say the ban works haven't been able to provide a sliver of evidence to back that up.

The other hand?

So if Irish women are having abortions, even though Ireland has a ban on abortion, and research says that bans on abortion don't reduce the numbers of abortions

Research, with statistics?

and the people who support the ban can't prove that it works, I think it's fair to say that the ban doesn't stop abortions.

Well if anything... On what basis? I was previously lead to believe that some/many women in Ireland couldn't get abortions due to the cost of travelling abroad, the time required to do so and/or their refugee status.

There is nothing about the 8th to be proud of, so at least we agree on something.

The 8th is still going strong, doing fine work - you must be confused.

SusieBlue

thee glitz wrote: »

Which statistics (genuinely interested)?



Any stats?



Stats?



Any?



The other hand?



Research, with statistics?



Well if anything... On what basis? I was previously lead to believe that some/many women in Ireland couldn't get abortions due to the cost of travelling abroad, the time required to do so and/or their refugee status.



The 8th is still going strong, doing fine work - you must be confused.

What are your opinions on how the 8th currently affects maternity care and the concept of consent, in Ireland?

sondagefaux

Da Boss wrote: »

eviltwin wrote: »

What kind of punishment would you suggest then? Life in prison? Maybe less for those who have regret, more for those who aren't ashamed.

I had an abortion too, I can think of at least twenty other Irish women who admit to having abortions. Are you going to lock us all up? And what about the partners, husbands, friends etc who came with us or minded kids for us or gave us the money....they were all aware, do they go to prison too?

You can shout as much as you like that abortion is murder, that we are 'baby' killers. You won't shame me though

I think that says all I need to know about you and your conscience (or lack of more like) . You have blood on your hands, you ended the life of another and you don’t seem to think of it twice, to me that’s scary, you show any compassion, or are you as it appears?- stone hearted

I hope you're not effectively colluding in this mass blood letting by refusing to campaign for a constitutional amendment to prohibit pregnant women from travelling abroad to get abortions.

AllForIt

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Is it though? I don't think anyone can make generalisations like that to be fair. In my experience, young people are more concerned about their exam grades than sex and sexuality. Of course your mileage may differ, but that's my point. Young people are exposed to plenty of sex and sexuality education outside the school, and I've always believed relationships and sex educational is the parents responsibility rather than the poor effort that's put into it in the class environment (although in saying that, my own son's teacher was young and very open to discussion and yes, they covered abortion in a Catholic school, in an objective manner at least).

I can't say nationally whether it has or hasn't improved, but my point is that relationships and sex education is and should be, primarily the responsibility of the parents, and children are exposed to relationships and sexuality outside of the school. This idea that whatever they learn in school is all they'll ever know, ignores realities like I walked into the living room the other night and the young lad was watching 50 shades on TV. I straight up told him turn off that shìte. It wasn't because I'm a conservative Catholic prude that has any hang-ups at all about sex; it was simply because I would never want him to develop the idea that he should avoid sex by virtue of having been given the impression that it could ever possibly be so incredibly mundane and boring :pac:





I fully agree with you that the Catholic Church does and has played it's part in influencing how we think about sex and sexuality in this country (hell in many countries! :pac:), but of course at an individual level you're going to view that as either a negative or a positive. I've always thought of it as a positive overall, but of course I'm not naive enough to ignore the fact that other people definitely do not share my perspective.

In relation to education at least, I can say that EOTR is on the same page with many people here when it comes to the influence of the RCC in their own schools, and indeed the State providing for of education, I know because we've previously had that discussion on other threads, so to see all sorts of accusations being levelled at them on the assumption that they are in league with the Catholic Church, or to suggest that their ideas are solely influenced by the Catholic Church, is just mistaken and actually more divisive than helpful.

In relation to healthcare in Ireland in general, well, again overall it's actually good IMO, but there are of course elements of it at an individual level that could sorely do with being shaken up. For example the assumption that because I refused a blood transfusion I must be a Jehovah Witness :pac: In saying that though, even though I disagreed with my consultant, he was able to maintain professional standards and didn't mock or dismiss my concerns, and the outcome of the procedure I had done today (total hip replacement) has been positive overall. What I'm driving at is that just because someone disagrees with you or you disagree with them, it doesn't give anyone the right to treat anyone like dirt, and then out of the other side of their mouths complain that their perceived human rights are being violated. It's an inherently selfish and self-centred attitude, and they really shouldn't be surprised when they claim that Irish society at least is rife with racism, sexism, and that we live in a "rape culture". Most people simply can't relate to that sort of extreme view because it is no reflection of anything they experience in their daily lives.

The above is also one of the reasons I detest the influence of the media in this discussion because they fuel the polarisation of different viewpoints. It's called propaganda, and I have no doubt that if the 8th is repealed, on it's anniversary a year later we will see headlines like "Rates of abortion have increased 300%", which sounds shocking, until we actually consider that that's exactly what one would expect, given that I think (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm going off memory), that the official numbers now are only in the order of 25 or less than that every year. Naturally that rate should increase, but I also have a feeling that like our suicide statistics, the figure given will be there or thereabouts every year. I don't expect any "floodgates" to open, and I think the media has a responsibility to, well, actually be responsible in how they report on individual cases. I don't expect them to, I expect the usual clickbaity headlines, but it would actually be nice if they did. I expect the media to continue to polarise the discussion and wind people up, because that's actually what sells papers, or encourages people to pay to access content behind a paywall. Personally, I wouldn't give the Irish Times a cent, same as I've never given the Church a cent in mass every Sunday. I actually agree with the point of view that says if parents want to educate their children, they should have to fund it themselves, as I don't believe it should be the States responsibility to provide for anyone's education. That would be a violation of a child's right to education though, so I don't foresee that at least ever happening in this country, which IMO is wrong but just because I don't agree with something doesn't mean that I should be exempt from paying taxes so the State can afford to fund public services for everyone in Irish society, regardless of whether or not we disagree as individuals on an individual level on the kind of society we would wish to live in, or shape that society for future generations to come.

I was listening to a very interesting disscussion on LBC last week, the presenter was a GP. The topic of discussion was whether or not sex education should exist at all in schools.

The presenter said that in her vast experience that the reason in her estimation that there are so many problems in the area of sex and sexuality with unwanted pregnancies, diseases and and indeed sexual abuse is exacerbated precisely because of lack of education. In the area of sexual abuse she said that the victims were unable to recognize that something was just plain wrong.

Do you as a parent talk to you children about sexually transmitted diseases, signs of inappropriate sexual contact, contraception, sexual orientation confusion and so forth? If you do then I think your pretty unique. Sex education is a little bit more than talking about the birds and the bees.

sondagefaux

grahambo wrote: »

sondagefaux wrote: »

It's somewhere in between? In other words, you think it's a grey area as to whether or not a foetus is a child. So why do you want a black and white solution? A law which permits abortions in some circumstances but prohibits abortions in others is probably the best way to deal with things if you really believe that.

I don't like the term Grey if I'm honest.
When someone says grey to me that they refuse to accept there is a 3rd (or greater) position.
Child is born and is alive
Child is not alive
Child is at fetal stage X. where X can be and number between 0 and 42 Weeks.

sondagefaux wrote: »

As for the rest, it's not impossible to figure out if a woman who wants to travel abroad is pregnant. It's relatively easy in fact.

How would you know if a woman who was pregnant wanted to get an abortion? Check her phone, laptop etc. Check her luggage for any appointment letters etc. Again not that difficult to do.

A pregnant woman who is travelling abroad but there is no evidence she wants to get an abortion. She is no longer pregnant (this can be checked) on her return to Ireland. Did she have a miscarriage, an abortion or give birth? These can be checked.

Jesus......
Perhaps we should stone them when they come back? You may as well, you've taken away most of their civil rights there anyway.

sondagefaux wrote: »

As regards child rape, there have been several prosecutions in Ireland of Irish citizens who have travelled abroad and raped children.

Just because a crime is difficult to deal with doesn't mean it should be ignored. You say you don't think abortion is killing babies, although you also say you don't think it isn't either.

Any figures to back this up?

sondagefaux wrote: »

For those who see it as killing babies, I'm still struggling to see why they don't seem to mind if Irish women get abortions abroad.

If they're not actually that bothered, why would they care if a woman gets an abortion in Ireland or elsewhere?

I don't see it as killing babies.

sondagefaux wrote: »

PS: French woman who went to the UK, got an abortion, then came to Ireland - can't be prosecuted in Ireland, Irish courts would have no jurisdiction.

So if I woman has an Irish passport she is liable?

What's with 'Stone them' remark? Do you honestly think that I think that women should be prevented from leaving the state or prosecuted on their return? Obviously I don't but that should be the logical position of those who claim to believe that abortion is killing babies.

Martina1991

One eyed Jack wrote:

In my experience, young people are more concerned about their exam grades than sex and sexuality. Of course your mileage may differ, but that's my point. Young people are exposed to plenty of sex and sexuality education outside the school, and I've always believed relationships and sex educational is the parents responsibility rather than the poor effort that's put into it in the class environment.

Some students care about exams. Most if not all young people think about sex, a lot.

Standardised sex education would be much more effective and informative than leaving it to parents. At least then everyone would have the same correct information.

Not all parents talk to their kids about sex because they never had the talk with their own parents. It's embarrassing talking about sex with your parents.

thee glitz

WhiteRoses wrote: »

What are your opinions on how the 8th currently affects maternity care

The 8th protects the right to life of the unborn but still allows for abortions to be carried out where necessary, as evidenced by the fact that they occur.

and the concept of consent, in Ireland?

For a fella to legally ride a girl, he must have her advance sober written permission to do so, similar immediately prior to doing so (particularly if she's under any influence), and each instance witnessed by at least 1 parent, a district court judge and a Hillary supporter. I wouldn't have it in the constitution though.

end of the road

Martina1991 wrote: »

If a women in Ireland today chooses to have an abortion she WILL have one. Whether it be pills bought online, going abroad or seeking cheaper dangerous alternatives.

It is the womans choice and you can't stop that from happening. You aren't "saving" those babies.

Making it legal in Ireland will ensure those women don't have to go abroad and can have the procedure safely.

yes it would, however it's not a necessary procedure and has no need to be availible in ireland. only treatments which are necessary which aren't availible in ireland currently, should be made availible. abortion on demand doesn't fit that, so if one really wants it, go abroad. provide the care in ireland for those stupid enough to take dodgy pills they brought online or any issue which has arrose from having an abortion but abortion on demand itself shouldn't be availible.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

A better way to reduce the amount of abortions happening would be to have better sexual education, better access to methods preventing conception in people who don't want kids (i.e. no guilting people out of sterilisation procedures), and better support for struggling parents.

agreed. that is what we need, not abortion on demand. abortion on demand if legislated for would be the default suggestion and the state could get away with letting the system fail instead of improving it.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

But of course most of that would involve having mature conversations about dirty, immoral, sex. The horror.

what is dirty and immoral about sex? if that is the way you see a natural act then i suggest you should talk to someone as that isn't normal to feel that way tbh.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

What are your opinions on how the 8th currently affects maternity care and the concept of consent, in Ireland?

i believe it to be wrong. which is why i find it regretible that i won't be in a position to vote repeal due to the likely hood of abortion on demand. if that threat wasn't there i'd vote repeal in a heart beat. i'm not alone in that view either.

Hotblack Desiato

thee glitz wrote: »

The 8th protects the right to life of the unborn

Nope because by law it doesn't prevent travel, and in fact it doesn't prevent abortion pills. FAIL

but still allows for abortions to be carried out where necessary, as evidenced by the fact that they occur.

For that tiny subset of necessary where "necessary" = "on the point of maternal death".

For a fella to legally ride a girl, he must have her advance sober written permission to do so, similar immediately prior to doing so (particularly if she's under any influence), and each instance witnessed by at least 1 parent, a district court judge and a Hillary supporter. I wouldn't have it in the constitution though.

Says it all really doesn't it.

kylith

thee glitz wrote: »

The 8th protects the right to life of the unborn but still allows for abortions to be carried out where necessary, as evidenced by the fact that they occur.

As Hotblack says these abortions are carried out when there is a real and substantial risk to maternal life, not health. That means that women who are diagnosed with cancer can be denied treatment until the cancer is terminal as it would harm the fetus. Women on medication that could harm a fetus can be denied it, even if they need the medication to stay healthy. If a pregnancy will leave you crippled, tough; that's your health, not your life so you have to either make peace with the fact that you're going to spend your life in a wheelchair or go to the UK.

thee glitz wrote: »

For a fella to legally ride a girl, he must have her advance sober written permission to do so, similar immediately prior to doing so (particularly if she's under any influence), and each instance witnessed by at least 1 parent, a district court judge and a Hillary supporter. I wouldn't have it in the constitution though.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Says it all really doesn't it.

Now, now, Hotblack, all it says is that some people are wilfully ignorant of what they are arguing against.

Thee Glitz: the 'consent' referred to is the consent for medical procedures to be performed, and her right to be informed about those procedures. If the medical team decides that procedure X is best for the fetus then the woman that procedure is being carried out on doesn't even need to be told what they're doing, nor can she withdraw consent for it to be done.

For example; a 2014 AIMS Ireland survey of 2,836 women found that less than half of all respondents said they were given the opportunity to refuse consent to tests, procedures and treatments.

'That doesn't sound that bad', you're probably thinking, 'medical teams doing what's best for baby'. However this leads to things like waters being broken artificially to speed up labour and free up the bed for the next patient. This is against medical best practice. The case of Hamilton vs HSE, concerned an action for negligence by a woman who was subjected to an artificial rupture of membranes (ARM), an intervention which is not best practice according to the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. She claimed that she did not consent to this procedure. The ARM led to a cord prolapse (a severe obstetric emergency) leading to a C-section having to be performed and serious damage to her baby.

NuMarvel

sondagefaux wrote: »

Are you going to campaign to remove that right from the Constitution?

He's already said he wouldn't vote yes in a referendum to remove that freedom, so he definitely wouldn't campaign for it.

sondagefaux wrote: »

Or don't you care that the unborn are killed as long as it doesn't happen in Ireland?

That is the default anti-repeal position (I wouldn't go so far as to say "pro life" position). Anti-repealers have said and argued more against legislating for the X Case (which results in about 2 abortions a month) than against the freedom to travel (which results in at least 272 abortions a month).

January

thee glitz wrote: »

For a fella to legally ride a girl, he must have her advance sober written permission to do so, similar immediately prior to doing so (particularly if she's under any influence), and each instance witnessed by at least 1 parent, a district court judge and a Hillary supporter. I wouldn't have it in the constitution though.

Bingo.

We're not just talking about consent to sex here. We're talking about consent to procedures during pregnancy and birth. Women have absolutely zero say in what way they give birth because of the 8th amendment. The 8th allows doctors to threaten women with bringing them to court if they don't consent to what the doctors are telling them to do.

Its all disguised as being what's best for the baby but the mother isn't taken into consideration in these decisions.

NuMarvel

thee glitz wrote: »

Which statistics (genuinely interested)?

I cited the source only a few posts before yours.

thee glitz wrote: »

Any stats?

Sources cited in the post you're quoting.

thee glitz wrote: »

Stats?

Personal testimonies don't lend themselves to stats. But if you're looking for examples, just read the thread, because a number of posters have talked about their abortions. Plus, there's the likes of Tara Flynn, Roisin Ingle, Kitty Holland, etc.

thee glitz wrote: »

Any?

Any what? I've already cited the source, so I'd hope that's not what you're looking for.

thee glitz wrote: »

The other hand?

Don't know what's confusing about that.

thee glitz wrote: »

Research, with statistics?

Sources cited.

thee glitz wrote: »

Well if anything... On what basis? I was previously lead to believe that some/many women in Ireland couldn't get abortions due to the cost of travelling abroad, the time required to do so and/or their refugee status.

You're right that many people can't travel. But it doesn't follow that they can't access abortion. That's probably why the number of abortion pills being ordered online is increasing and who's to say what other more drastic measures someone might take.

thee glitz wrote: »

The 8th is still going strong, doing fine work - you must be confused.

I'll add you to the list of people who say the ban works and haven't been able to provide a sliver of evidence to back that up.

Loafing Oaf

NuMarvel wrote: »

Anti-repealers have said and argued more against legislating for the X Case (which results in about 2 abortions a month) than against the freedom to travel (which results in at least 272 abortions a month).

My understanding is that the situation is extreme than that: the bulk of those 2 abortions a month would have been happening anyway (with the pro-lifers pretending they're not abortions). The only 'new' abortions taking place since the passage of POLDPA are ones on grounds of suicidality, and AFAIK there are only two or three of those a year...

SusieBlue

thee glitz wrote: »

The 8th protects the right to life of the unborn but still allows for abortions to be carried out where necessary, as evidenced by the fact that they occur.


For a fella to legally ride a girl, he must have her advance sober written permission to do so, similar immediately prior to doing so (particularly if she's under any influence), and each instance witnessed by at least 1 parent, a district court judge and a Hillary supporter. I wouldn't have it in the constitution though.

Just as I suspected, you literally don’t have a clue. You are in favour of a movement you don’t even know all the details of, or fully understand.

Please read some of the intelligent replies on this thread about how the 8th effects maternity care and consent (to medical procedures, not sex). Willful ignorance is one thing, but if you aren’t even interested in educating yourself on the full implications of the 8th for women then you need you ask yourself why you’re arguing so passionately for a law you don’t even understand.

There was a case here about 20 years ago where a newly wed woman in her 20’s was diagnosed with terminal cancer. She was denied any form of treatment for fear it would harm the baby. Herself and her husband begged and pleaded and were refused.
She ended up dying a slow, painful death. Her baby ended up also dying. Her husband ended up a widower in his 20’s . But yes, let’s keep the 8th, it clearly works and has women’s best interests at heart?????

Sin City

We can debtae ethics and morality all day long

The issue here is abortions are gonna happen no matter what the law states
Women will continue to get on a plane and get it done

Why have them go through this ?
It should be allowed
Now in what circumstances wil be decided by the government and the medical council

We can never allow another Savita Halappanavar tragedy again

nice_guy80

Martina1991 wrote: »

Some students care about exams. Most if not all young people think about sex, a lot.

Standardised sex education would be much more effective and informative than leaving it to parents. At least then everyone would have the same correct information.

Not all parents talk to their kids about sex because they never had the talk with their own parents. It's embarrassing talking about sex with your parents.

sex education is standardised at primary school level.
teachers are obliged to cover it as part of the SPHE, Stay Safe and RSE programmes

the problem is that at secondary level teachers are dealing with teenagers and might not want to teach it.
also, the patronage of the school can interfere in the delivery of this information (seriously). (why should a religious body have this influence, I don't know)
I do agree that it would be better if it was an outside service delivering the same message in every school in the country.

thee glitz

NuMarvel wrote: »

I cited the source only a few posts before yours.

You mentioned "British statistics" - don't worry I found them easily enough.

Personal testimonies don't lend themselves to stats.

Agreed.

But if you're looking for examples, just read the thread, because a number of posters have talked about their abortions. Plus, there's the likes of Tara Flynn, Roisin Ingle, Kitty Holland, etc.

As you've said, personal testimonies don't lend themselves to stats, and they don't sound like a fun bunch.

Any what? I've already cited the source, so I'd hope that's not what
you're looking for.

Not any more, I went and found it myself as I couldn't see it quoted.

Don't know what's confusing about that.

You're right that many people can't travel.

Thanks - the same set of stats suggest this, or it doesn't happen for some other reason. Only 1.72% of 2016 UK abortions were performed on (babies of) women from this country.

But it doesn't follow that they can't access abortion. That's probably why the number of abortion pills being ordered online is increasing

There must be loads of these pills being acquired if the shortfall in UK abortions on Irish babies is to be explained by them. Maybe there are... maybe Irish women are just better than their counterparts and don't consider abortions in the same numbers to begin with. So again, maybe, the UK numbers back up my claim about the 8th doing good work (if imperfect), hard to be certain though.

and who's to say what other more drastic measures someone might take.

The WHO - unsafe abortions in Ireland don't occur, or only in a negligible number of cases.

I'll add you to the list of people who say the ban works and haven't been able to provide a sliver of evidence to back that up.

As above, the British statistics back this up, but illegal abortion pills obviously aren't considered.

Odhinn

end of the road wrote: »

agreed. however this isn't what is happening here. what is happening here is the state is insuring that bar extreme circumstances, the unborn cannot be killed within it.

But it most certainly is.

NuMarvel

thee glitz wrote: »

The WHO - unsafe abortions in Ireland don't occur, or only in a negligible number of cases.

The WHO says bans on abortions increases the number of unsafe abortions. If you have research or statistics that say otherwise, feel free to share.

thee glitz wrote: »

As above, the British statistics back this up, but illegal abortion pills obviously aren't considered.

So the British statistics prove that Ireland's abortion ban works. Riiiiight....... :rolleyes:

One eyed Jack

nice_guy80 wrote: »

sex education is standardised at primary school level.
teachers are obliged to cover it as part of the SPHE, Stay Safe and RSE programmes

the problem is that at secondary level teachers are dealing with teenagers and might not want to teach it.
also, the patronage of the school can interfere in the delivery of this information (seriously). (why should a religious body have this influence, I don't know)

Why should a religious body have any influence in the relationships and sex education curriculum in the schools they are the Trustees of? I'd have thought the answer was obvious.

It's actually fraught with difficulty at all levels though where the RSE policy is also influenced by, and in consultation the members of the Board of Management, teachers and parents. Parents too also have the opportunity to opt their children out of any programme.

I do agree that it would be better if it was an outside service delivering the same message in every school in the country.

There are loads of competing lobby groups want access to schools to teach their own particular perspective on sex and sexuality, to the point where there really isn't a set standard. The children's parents themselves are in the best position to know their children best as opposed to one teacher trying to accommodate and tailor their lessons for the individual preferences of 20 odd students. The fact that some parents don't take their responsibility seriously should never mean that they should be able to hold the school responsible for their children's inadequate sex education.

thee glitz

end of the road wrote: »

i believe it to be wrong. which is why i find it regretible that i won't be in a position to vote repeal due to the likely hood of abortion on demand. if that threat wasn't there i'd vote repeal in a heart beat. i'm not alone in that view either.

You certainly aren't. Many have and will point out problems with the 8th amendment, and I'm glad they do so. What's lacking are proposals on how to square the circle of preventing lifestyle choice abortions, but allowing treatments be made available where 'reasonably' necessary.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Nope because by law it doesn't prevent travel, and in fact it doesn't prevent abortion pills. FAIL

It doesn't prevent travel but, for whatever reasons, Ireland babies only account for less than 1.72% of abortions in the UK. It does prevent abortion pills being legalised. Laws don't actually prevent crime, just (hopefully) deter it.

For that tiny subset of necessary where "necessary" = "on the point of maternal death".

What are we to do about that - legalise abortion for just because reasons?

Says it all really doesn't it.

I don't actually believe that (though many may). Asked a question on the concept of consent, I gave an answer. The concept is generally afforded to mean consenting to sex, the same way pro-choice (ridiculously) usually means pro-abortion rights.

kylith wrote: »

As Hotblack says these abortions are carried out when there is a real and substantial risk to maternal life, not health. That means that women who are diagnosed with cancer can be denied treatment until the cancer is terminal as it would harm the fetus. Women on medication that could harm a fetus can be denied it, even if they need the medication to stay healthy. If a pregnancy will leave you crippled, tough; that's your health, not your life so you have to either make peace with the fact that you're going to spend your life in a wheelchair or go to the UK.

Where the line is to be drawn, what's reasonable, is a good question that should be addressed.

January wrote: »

Bingo.

We're not just talking about consent to sex here. We're talking about consent to procedures during pregnancy and birth. Women have absolutely zero say in what way they give birth because of the 8th amendment. The 8th allows doctors to threaten women with bringing them to court if they don't consent to what the doctors are telling them to do.

Its all disguised as being what's best for the baby but the mother isn't taken into consideration in these decisions.

I don't think we were talking about consent to procedures during pregnancy and birth, certainly I wasn't, but I'll have another look. What seems to being disguised is a hard-on for the legalisation of any reason abortion in the name of general healthcare. Afford reasonable protection to babies from their mothers and people would vote to replace the 8th.

Sin City wrote: »

The issue here is abortions are gonna happen no matter what the law states
Women will continue to get on a plane and get it done

Why have them go through this ?

Are they though - what if the UK, a democracy, adopts legislation like already in place in NI... There's no reason why we should we be legislating based on other jurisdictions. Travelling to the UK for an abortion is a loophole, not policy.

end of the road

Sin City wrote: »

We can debtae ethics and morality all day long

The issue here is abortions are gonna happen no matter what the law states
Women will continue to get on a plane and get it done

Why have them go through this ?

because they want an abortion, and it's not necessary for the state to cary it out in most cases. where it is, then it's mostly legislated for, and there may be some room to extend it to include other circumstances that currently aren't included, which would fit necessary abortion.

Sin City wrote: »

It should be allowed
Now in what circumstances wil be decided by the government and the medical council

it is allowed. in extreme circumstances. there may be room to extend those a bit, but that is all that is necessary.

Sin City wrote: »

We can never allow another Savita Halappanavar tragedy again

repealing the 8th and abortion on demand are no guarantees against such a case, so using it is an invalid argument.

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why should a religious body have any influence in the relationships and sex education curriculum in the schools they are the Trustees of? I'd have thought the answer was obvious.

Because religious sex education is rubbish. The emphasis is on abstinence only, which leads to higher numbers of teen pregnancy. They also teach that homosexuality is deviant, leading to homosexual teenagers having a negative image of themselves, and higher levels of being bullied.

thee glitz wrote: »

Where the line is to be drawn, what's reasonable, is a good question that should be addressed.

And which can't be addressed while the 8th amendment is in place. If the foetus' right to life is as important as the mother's, as it is now, then the law cannot allow women treatments which could harm or kill it. Therefore the only way to treat these women involves repealing the 8th.

NuMarvel

thee glitz wrote: »

Are they though - what if the UK, a democracy, adopts legislation like already in place in NI... There's no reason why we should we be legislating based on other jurisdictions. Travelling to the UK for an abortion is a loophole, not policy.

Being able to travel for an abortion is very much state policy. We voted to constitutionally protect that freedom from the reach of the 8th.

But even if it was a loophole, it's one that no one on the pro life side wants to see closed. Do you?

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

it is allowed. in extreme circumstances. there may be room to extend those a bit, but that is all that is necessary.

There's no room in the 8th to extend beyond those extreme circumstances. The terms of the 8th are explicit in that the only consideration when it comes to the woman is her right to life and the unborn's right to life trumps everything else. Anything else will require repeal or significant amendment. And good luck to the person that thinks they can amend the 8th to include things like rape or FFA without creating more of a mess.

volchitsa

That's part of the problem though. Traveling for abortion has actually been made official policy. The HSE takes pregnant minors abroad for abortion for instance.

It's time for Ireland to stop using other countries to avoid dealing with our hang ups.

volchitsa

That's part of the problem though. Traveling for abortion has actually been made official policy. The HSE takes pregnant minors abroad for abortion for instance.

It's time for Ireland to stop using other countries to avoid dealing with our hang ups.

volchitsa

That's part of the problem though. Traveling for abortion has actually been made official policy. The HSE takes pregnant minors abroad for abortion for instance.

It's time for Ireland to stop using other countries to avoid dealing with our hang ups.