The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

kylith

end of the road wrote: »

i'm not in favour of abortion outside the extreme circumstances that i mentioned. however i do believe that the current situation does stop some abortions from happening which is a good thing for society.

More children born to unwilling parents who can't afford them is good for society?

end of the road

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

There is no trust. You simply do not trust women to make the right decisions for themselves.

there is full trust of women in my posts, i trust them to make their own decisians. they just cannot kill the unborn within the state unless there is an extreme situation that requires it.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Your idea that the welfare state provides sufficient protection to bring everyone completely out of poverty is simply laughable too.

i never made such a claim. however the wellfare state can be improved.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Frankly all of your posts on this are just complete nonsensical and full of contradictions.
You say you trust women but you have demonstrated you dont - you dont trust them to decide what is right for them.
You say that abortion shouldnt be available but you are perfectly fine with it being available for women who travel
You claim you dont support abortion abroad really but you are unwilling to really do anything about it. You refuse for example to campaign for reversing the 13th amendment.

my posts are factual and there are no contradictions. i trust women in my posts, i trust them to make their own decisians. they just cannot kill the unborn within the irish state and i believe that to be just. i cannot stop abortion from being availible in other countries or people traveling to them to procure one. there would be no point in campaigning to try and stop it as the burdin of proof to show that an abortion took place would be impossible to provide and it would be an unreasonable expectation to try and provide it.

kylith wrote: »

More children born to unwilling parents who can't afford them is good for society?

they will grow up and will contribute to society and will make this country better.

kylith

end of the road wrote: »

nope wrong. my posts are factual and there are no contradictions. i trust women in my posts, i trust them to make their own decisians.

Except about what's best for them, their lives, and their existing children.

end of the road wrote: »

they will grow up and will contribute to society and will make this country better.

Will they though? You know for a fact that every child that a woman would have terminated if she had the money to travel will grow up to be an upstanding citizen, productive and making the country better? What about the ones born to women who are career-dole-scroungers? The ones who never had any chances in life because their parents couldn't afford to give them a leg up? The ones raised by women that didn't want them and who do a sh!tty job of parenting?

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

there is full trust of women in my posts, i trust them to make their own decisians. they just cannot kill the unborn within the state unless there is an extreme situation that requires it.



i never made such a claim. however the wellfare state can be improved.



my posts are factual and there are no contradictions. i trust women in my posts, i trust them to make their own decisians. they just cannot kill the unborn within the irish state and i believe that to be just. i cannot stop abortion from being availible in other countries or people traveling to them to procure one. there would be no point in campaigning to try and stop it as the burdin of proof to show that an abortion took place would be impossible to provide and it would be an unreasonable expectation to try and provide it.



they will grow up and will contribute to society and will make this country better.

This sort of wistful thinking has no place in law making.

utyh2ikcq9z76b

kylith wrote: »

More children born to unwilling parents who can't afford them is good for society?

What about unwilling fathers who have no choice at all but could be left financially obligated. I would love to see the male abortion debated as well, where men can opt out up to a stage.

kylith

Rose Swift Marlin wrote: »

What about unwilling fathers who have no choice at all but could be left financially obligated. I would love to see the male abortion debated as well, where men can opt out up to a stage.

Men already can and do simply walk away, and there’s not much can be done about it. I know more than one family where ‘dad’ has simply vanished.

Of course, we could always turn a common trope in these threads on its head: if a man isn’t willing to pay for the child he helped to create he shouldn’t be having sex in the first place. He knows that contraception can fail and he shouldn’t have sex if he’s not willing to deal with the consequences.

If the woman can’t walk away, then the man shouldn’t be able to either.

pilly

Dre as in Dray wrote:

Yet pro abortion movement seems to think cancer, MRSA , child cancer, lack of hospital beds comes in a distant second when it comes to abortion.

What on earth has that got to do with anything.

I have already explained the mathematics to other people on here who can't add but here it goes again:

1 abortion costs less than 1 birth, fact. So how does it take any money away from anywhere?

pilly

end of the road wrote:

you are happy to explain to them that you killed it though.

And there you show your true colours.

nozzferrahhtoo

Da Boss wrote: »

I just hold the belief that nobody has the right to end the life of another

You might want to enter into discussion with our meat industry then, as it does it daily. You might also want to take issue with the farming industry who do it also every day through the use of pesticides and insecticides.

When you are done there, you might go to the paper industry, who are killing trees every day. After that the medical industry who use anti-biotics to end the lives of millions of bacteria in a holocaust of numbers beyond your imagination.

Or instead you could get over the notion that "ending a life of another" is as bad as you think, and that the thing that makes "ending a life" bad in this world happens to be a thing the fetus being terminated lacks not just slightly, but ENTIRELY.

eviltwin

end of the road wrote: »

you are happy to explain to them that you killed it though.

That is an absolutely disgusting comment. You show your true colours with a remark like that.

utyh2ikcq9z76b

kylith wrote: »

Men already can and do simply walk away, and there’s not much can be done about it. I know more than one family where ‘dad’ has simply vanished.

Of course, we could always turn a common trope in these threads on its head: if a man isn’t willing to pay for the child he helped to create he shouldn’t be having sex in the first place. He knows that contraception can fail and he shouldn’t have sex if he’s not willing to deal with the consequences.

If the woman can’t walk away, then the man shouldn’t be able to either.

Well you could use the same argument for women:(your logic) if she isnt willing to raise a child she helped to create, then she shouldnt be having sex in the first place. She knows that contraception can fail and she shouldnt have sex if shes not willing to deal with the consequences.. Or should only men be held responsible for there actions in your world?

And women will be able to walk away with abortion without any input from the man, so we have a sitiuation where she gets to decide the mans life for upto 23 years, if men had the male abortion we could opt out.

nozzferrahhtoo

Rose Swift Marlin wrote: »

Well you could use the same argument for women:(your logic) if she isnt willing to raise a child she helped to create, then she shouldnt be having sex in the first place. She knows that contraception can fail and she shouldnt have sex if shes not willing to deal with the consequences.. Or should only men be held responsible for there actions in your world?

I think the problem with the "deal with the consequences" narrative is that "dealing with the consequences" to such people means "deal with them the way I want you to deal with them". Or generally in this context it means "deal with having the baby and just get on with it".

"Dealing with the consequences" for me however means sitting down in after an unwanted occurrence in life, consider all your options openly and intelligently, and make the decision that is the right one for you. And if that is abortion, then so be it.

What does not help is lording consequences over people from some imaginary high horse. "Oh you know sex can get you pregnant, so it is all your own fault" helps no one in this world. We do not send doctors out onto the football pitch to stand over the injured player screaming "You knew when you decided to play sport you could get hurt! Now deal with it!"

Dealing with consequences means informing yourself of all your decisions, and doing your best to make the correct one for yourself. It does not mean, and should never mean, doing what other people WANT you to do in a moment of crisis.

I notice the anti-repealers had nothing to say about the fact that women, like me, have to undergo unnecessary operations because of the 8th amendment.
That really shows their lack of empathy for 'life'

Oldtree

bubblypop wrote: »

I notice the anti-repealers had nothing to say about the fact that women, like me, have to undergo unnecessary operations because of the 8th amendment.
That really shows their lack of empathy for 'life'

No empathy whatsoever either for the thousands of Irish women that undergo the gruelling journey to the UK and are medical and mentally unsupported upon their return every year.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Edward M

bubblypop wrote: »

I notice the anti-repealers had nothing to say about the fact that women, like me, have to undergo unnecessary operations because of the 8th amendment.
That really shows their lack of empathy for 'life'

That's a bit unfair to most.
I read your condition and that's crazy for sure and most would recognise the stupidity of what you went through.
The eighth needs to go no doubt on that and a clear circumstance with the health and wellbeing of the mother being put foremost in any pregnancy. But most anti abortion on demand supporters would be trying to protect against unnecessary abortions really.
The argument can be made that the unborn should have rights so long as the health and wellbeing of the mother aren't compromised.
I wouldn't be for abortion on demand in all circumstances, but weighing it up if the only way to ensure the mother has her rights too I may have to vote for it, though that's going to condemn at least some perfectly healthy and normal foetus to the bin.
Its a cynical exercise either way I feel.

Mr. CooL ICE

end of the road wrote: »

they will grow up and will contribute to society and will make this country better.

MrPudding

volchitsa wrote: »

In fact the forced use of someone's organs while they are still alive is a well known analogy for pregnancy (the "famous violinist" thought experiment), one which I've not seen convincingly debunked.

I have posted this thought experiment, or something very close to it several times over a number of threads. I have never seen an anti-choicer even attempt to answer it, let alone debunk it.

end of the road wrote: »

it's still their organs. theft is theft. they didn't give permission to take, therefore theft has taken place.

By not opting out they have given permission. Implied permission is still permission.

Deleted User wrote: »

If I have kidney failure and you are a match, can you be forced to donate a kidney to save my life? It won't kill you, just put your body under a bit of strain. But you have the right to refuse, and ultimately let me die. But what about my right to life?

It is immoral to suggest that a woman has no right to refuse use of her organs, then.

You don't even need to go as extreme as donating a kidney. You can't even be force to donate a pint of blood, even if someone's life depended on it.

MrP

MrPudding

Da Boss wrote: »

Well I’ll tell you my side of the story. As you know everyone only has one life on this earth therefore life is sacred. An abortion ends a life and the one chance that baby had of a life is gone. That baby will never have a life, this as a result of an abortion (which I personally consider a selfish oact). This is all personal to me as I was informed I would have me aborted should the law have allowed. Therefore the eight amendment saved my life, the life I currently enjoy that only for the eighth I wouldn’t never have seen. Surely you see where I’m coming from and why the eighth is so important to me

Meh. Had you been aborted you wouldn't know. My mother was offered pills to make me go away when she was pregnant. Obviously she did not take them, but as I said in a previous post, it would have been better for her if she had taken them. Having me meant she ruined her life.

Of course she loves me, and I love being alive, and she would never say she regrets having me, but her life would have been so different, and so much better had she taken the pills.

And if she had, so what? I would not know. I would not be aware of a chance or a life missed. I am sure it must be awful to be told you would have been aborted were it not for the fact it was a little bit difficult and your mother did not have enough money to travel, but count yourself lucky. One of the other anti-choice posters was apparently going to get aborted until his father offered his mother a shopping trip...

MrP

kylith

Edward M wrote: »

The eighth needs to go no doubt on that and a clear circumstance with the health and wellbeing of the mother being put foremost in any pregnancy. But most anti abortion on demand supporters would be trying to protect against unnecessary abortions really.

But a huge proportion of those abortions are going to happen anyway, whether the woman goes to the UK, or buys pills online, or has some other remedy. Isn't it better that they happen sooner, where she can have proper medical help if something goes wrong?

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

But a huge proportion of those abortions are going to happen anyway, whether the woman goes to the UK, or buys pills online, or has some other remedy. Isn't it better that they happen sooner, where she can have proper medical help if something goes wrong?

Genuine question kylith but why do you think they're going to happen anyway? From my experience, a huge proportion of them wouldn't happen if women didn't feel they had to have them.

One eyed Jack

bubblypop wrote: »

I notice the anti-repealers had nothing to say about the fact that women, like me, have to undergo unnecessary operations because of the 8th amendment.
That really shows their lack of empathy for 'life'

It doesn't show any lack of empathy for life bubblypop. I just don't do insincerity very well is all. That's the one and only reason I didn't make any comment on your circumstances.

Zubeneschamali

kylith wrote: »

If the woman can’t walk away, then the man shouldn’t be able to either.

Gloria Steinem:

"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

.......

This post has been deleted.

MrPudding

Deleted User wrote: »

Yet pro abortion movement seems to think cancer, MRSA , child cancer, lack of hospital beds comes in a distant second when it comes to abortion.

Yes you can get a 2 hour boat to liverpool to get an abortion yet you cant get a hospital bed for a Brain Tumor in Ireland. Children having to travel to the US for cancer treatment as we dont have it here. Who is marching for them.

How about we put abortion on the back burner for a few years and lets get the more important things sorted first.

Really? Pro-abortion? I suppose you would call me pro-abortion. I have 4 kids and no abortions. What kind of sh1t pro-aborionist does that make me?

MrP

NuMarvel

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Genuine question kylith but why do you think they're going to happen anyway? From my experience, a huge proportion of them wouldn't happen if women didn't feel they had to have them.

What experience is this? What has led you to believe a "huge proportion" of women who have abortions feel like they have to have them?

keano_afc

January wrote: »

At the time that wasn't an option for me either because I'm married. Now it wouldn't even be an option, telling 4 children that mammy is having a baby but someone else will take it away when it's born because we can't afford it, not an option for me.

What would you do with your 4 children if you fell on hard times now and couldnt afford all 4?

nozzferrahhtoo

keano_afc wrote: »

What would you do with your 4 children if you fell on hard times now and couldnt afford all 4?

The same thing people with an unwanted pregnancy should do? Which is consider all the available and ethical options, and choose the one that fits best in their current context, and maximizes the well being of all SENTIENT beings involved as best as possible.

Why, what would you expect they would do?

One eyed Jack

....... wrote: »

Eh, well of course abortions wouldnt happen where women didnt feel they have to have one but isnt that stating the obvious?

Yes, it is a bit, which is why I asked kylith why she thinks those abortions that happened would have happened anyway?

We are talking about abortions that women have sought out because they DO feel they have to have them. They will happen regardless of an abortion ban.

As has been repeatedly mentioned on this thread, abortion bans dont reduce the number of abortions, they just make them unsafe.

No, the only thing that makes abortions unsafe is when women choose to have unsafe abortions. But again, that's stating the obvious.

pilly

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, it is a bit, which is why I asked kylith why she thinks those abortions that happened would have happened anyway?





No, the only thing that makes abortions unsafe is when women choose to have unsafe abortions. But again, that's stating the obvious.

You're not making sense here Jack.

If a woman has decided she wants an abortion what makes you think that will change with the Repeal the Eighth?

nozzferrahhtoo

Not sure what the distinction in practice is between a "safe" abortion and an "unsafe" one but like any medical procedure there is always risks of complication and damage. I would not call any medical procedure "safe", nor would I suggest that the "only thing" that makes such a procedure unsafe is choosing an "unsafe" version of it. Hell we can not even remove ingrowing toenails without at least one teenager losing an entire leg because of it. Medical procedures are not "safe". They just vary in their placement on the continuum of risk.

But clearly what is being discussed here is not what is being pretended...... that women who only have abortions because they feel they have to........ but that women who feel they have to are not likely to be stopped by us not offering one here legally in Ireland. And how far down that continuum of risk they are prepared to go in order to obtain one is certainly a point of concern.

keano_afc

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The same thing people with an unwanted pregnancy should do? Which is consider all the available and ethical options, and choose the one that fits best in their current context, and maximizes the well being of all SENTIENT beings involved as best as possible.

Why, what would you expect they would do?

So you think the choice to end the life of the unaffordable child should be there after birth too?

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

keano_afc

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So sentient children are more affordable than those in the womb. Cool.

baylah17

keano_afc wrote: »

So you think the choice to end the life of the unaffordable child should be there after birth too?

Apples and oranges and you know it.
The decision to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester is not comparable to killing a child or indeed an adult .

NuMarvel

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, the only thing that makes abortions unsafe is when women choose to have unsafe abortions. But again, that's stating the obvious.

If a woman is having an abortion, she doesn't choose to have an unsafe one. The ban means that's the only type of abortion available to them. THAT'S stating the obvious.

dr.fuzzenstein

Da Boss wrote: »

Well I’ll tell you my side of the story.
As you know everyone only has one life on this earth therefore life is sacred. An abortion ends a life and the one chance that baby had of a life is gone. That baby will never have a life, this as a result of an abortion (which I personally consider a selfish oact).
This is all personal to me as I was informed I would have me aborted should the law have allowed. Therefore the eight amendment saved my life, the life I currently enjoy that only for the eighth I wouldn’t never have seen. Surely you see where I’m coming from and why the eighth is so important to me

Argument: Every life is sacred.
My reply: Sure, especially the billions who have died through poverty, hunger, war, violence, carelessness, indifference and greed in the 20th century alone.
The billions that get to live in misery, hunger, war and poverty.
The billions of children that never happened because egg and sperm didnt't combine. Or weren't viable. Or aborted spontaniously at a later stage.
The trillions of egg and sperm that never had a chance to combine.
Of course it's personal to you.
Myself I believe I am alive because of a several trillion to one chance.
And you know what? It doesn't make me one tiny bit special. I am not alive because I am entitled to it by some higher authority or power.
I may have a right to life enshrined in law, but in the end that means exactly SFA in the grand scheme of things and had I never been born it would not have made a difference to me or anyone else.
Life is far from sacred, it's the cheapest, most abundent, abused and pissed upon commodity on what we call God's green Earth.
It's ugly, but that's the truth.

keano_afc

baylah17 wrote: »

Apples and oranges and you know it.
The decision to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester is not comparable to killing a child or indeed an adult .

The poster said they had an abortion because they couldnt afford another child.

2 posters have said that if circumstances existed after birth where one couldnt afford to keep X amount of children, in that case "the solution would maximise the well being of all the sentient beings". Would that solution not come into play once the unaffordable child is born?

SusieBlue

keano_afc wrote: »

So sentient children are more affordable than those in the womb. Cool.

You are being deliberately ignorant now. What do you propose, we set up euthanasia stations to dispose of grown, sentient children we no longer want?

A bunch of cells, mere weeks old, in the womb are not comparable to developed, grown, sentient human being.

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

keano_afc wrote: »

So you think the choice to end the life of the unaffordable child should be there after birth too?

You will struggle to quote me saying any such thing anywhere on any forum ever. You wholesale made that up on your own.

What I DID say was that in BOTH scenarios the person should consider all the ETHICAL options open to them, and choose the one that bets fits their context.

I have had my words spun into dishonest versions of themselves many many times on this forum, but you have certainly exceeded all previous attempts at it here.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It doesn't show any lack of empathy for life bubblypop. I just don't do insincerity very well is all. That's the one and only reason I didn't make any comment on your circumstances.

Not quite sure what you mean by this, do you mean that you don't care that women have to go through unnecessary operations because of the 8th?

keano_afc

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You are being deliberately ignorant now. What do you propose, we set up euthanasia stations to dispose of grown, sentient children we no longer want?

A bunch of cells, mere weeks old, in the womb are not comparable to developed, grown, sentient human being.

Yes, in the same way a newborn seconds after birth is in no way comparable to a fully grown adult. We are all bunches of cells, some more advanced than others. That argument really doesnt hold water.

I'm not being ignorant, I'm simply trying to understand how financial difficulties can be a valid reason for ending a human life, and at what point those difficulties are no longer admissible.

keano_afc

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

As I've already said, what happens when you already have a child you cant afford? What happens if your financial circumstances change at 26/28/30 weeks gestation?

One eyed Jack

pilly wrote: »

You're not making sense here Jack.

If a woman has decided she wants an abortion what makes you think that will change with the Repeal the Eighth?

....... wrote: »

But that is simply because they have no other choice in Ireland Jack - it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

It's not being disingenuous at all, it goes right back to what I've been suggesting and what has been suggested by people regardless of whether they are pro-choice or pro-life (anti-choice then, if you must) all along and what has been suggested by the evidence we have available to us -


1. The vast majority of women who choose to have an abortion do so for socioeconomic reasons
2. The vast majority of women who have abortions do not want to have abortions
3. Both people who are pro-choice and people who are anti-choice want to reduce the numbers of women who feel they have to have abortions
4. I think we can all agree that we wish the 8th weren't either necessary or that it had never been written into the Constitution in the first place
5. I think we can all agree that women opting for unsafe abortions is something none of us want

So, with all that said, it would appear to me at least that one of the ways to resolve this issue is to give women the support and resources they need so that they never have to feel like they aren't in a position where they are forced to make the decision to have an abortion due to a lack of resources and support.

Of course, I'm not naive enough to think that such a policy would or could ever account for the individual wishes of every single woman, but it would apply for vast majority of women, which I think would be a far better way to tackle the underlying cause as opposed to just using abortion as a means to avoid tackling the underlying cause and allowing it to continue.

SusieBlue

keano_afc wrote: »

Yes, in the same way a newborn seconds after birth is in no way comparable to a fully grown adult. We are all bunches of cells, some more advanced than others. That argument really doesnt hold water.

I'm not being ignorant, I'm simply trying to understand how financial difficulties can be a valid reason for ending a human life, and at what point those difficulties are no longer admissible.

Have you ever tried to live off thin air? Its quite difficult. We need money for shelter and clothing and food and healthcare and education and to a lesser extent, transport.
Those, at a minimum, are needed to live a comfortable life.
If you aren't financially stable enough to provide those things for yourself AND for another little person (never mind children you may already have), living a comfortable life would be very difficult and stressful.
Rather than impose a life of poverty on a child, some choose abortion.

I vaguely see the point you are making about living children. But there is no such thing as abortion for children who are already born. In any country. Anywhere in the world. So its irrelevant. We are discussing aborting weeks-old pregnancies, not grown children. There is a massive difference.

One eyed Jack

bubblypop wrote: »

Not quite sure what you mean by this, do you mean that you don't care that women have to go through unnecessary operations because of the 8th?

No, of course I don't. I simply meant that I don't do insincerity very well - I can't pretend to feel something I don't, which is why I said nothing, rather than express sentiments I don't genuinely feel, because I see that as being disrespectful. That's all.

NuMarvel

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So, with all that said, it would appear to me at least that one of the ways to resolve this issue is to give women the support and resources they need so that they never have to feel like they aren't in a position where they are forced to make the decision to have an abortion due to a lack of resources and support.

Of course, I'm not naive enough to think that such a policy would or could ever account for the individual wishes of every single woman, but it would apply for vast majority of women, which I think would be a far better way to tackle the underlying cause as opposed to just using abortion as a means to avoid tackling the underlying cause and allowing it to continue.

And this can be done while also repealing the Eighth and legislating for increased access to abortion. In the same way, more can be done to improve sex education and access to contraception while also repealing the Eighth and legislating for increased access to abortion.

These aren't either/or situations, both can be done simultaneously, and no one has even hinted that socio-economic issues shouldn’t be addressed. Indeed, you’ll find that pro-choice groups like the NCWI and Amnesty have a history of campaigning on socio-economic issues, whereas anti-repeal groups like Iona don’t.

keano_afc

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Have you ever tried to live off thin air? Its quite difficult. We need money for shelter and clothing and food and healthcare and education and to a lesser extent, transport.
Those, at a minimum, are needed to live a comfortable life.
If you aren't financially stable enough to provide those things for yourself AND for another little person (never mind children you may already have), living a comfortable life would be very difficult and stressful.
Rather than impose a life of poverty on a child, some choose abortion.

I vaguely see the point you are making about living children. But there is no such thing as abortion for children who are already born. In any country. Anywhere in the world. So its irrelevant. We are discussing aborting weeks-old pregnancies. There is a massive difference.

Myself and my wife have 2 kids, and a third on the way. We are barely surviving financially and if I'm honest, I'm struggling to see how we can afford another. And yet, the thought of ending that life is abhorrent to me.


I'm not seeing how options that are there for families that suddenly find themselves in poverty are not also available if a child is taken to term. If a family with 3 kids suddenly find themselves only able to afford 2 (although I'm not entirely sure how that would work), the options available to them are no different to a couple with 2 kids who get pregnant and cant afford a third.