The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Well of course. That's why it's called pro-choice and not pro-abortion, despite how the other side would have it. In fact you're (unwittingly I assume) making the case that they should be called anti choice, since it's the "choice" bit that seems to puzzle you so.

Whereas in fact someone choosing not to terminate a pregnancy is as much of a right for pro choice as the right to terminate it.

I never used the term 'pro-abortion', because that's just silly. I also don't mind if anyone were to call it 'anti-choice', as I said earlier - if they must. No, WhiteRoses pronouncement that she was not in favour of abortion for herself kinda reminded me of Lena Dunhams recent 'foot in mouth' effort, no, not the one where she says all women must be believed, and then went on to accuse a woman of lying about her being sexually assaulted by Dunhams friend, I mean the one before that, at the women's march, where she said she wished she too had had an abortion. I'm guessing WhiteRoses isn't a complete nutjob though, so that's why I was wondering what all that was about :pac:

No, the kind of pro-choice position I'll never get my head around is the pro-choice (but on my terms) position. In that case, everyone is also pro-choice, it just depends where upon that spectrum people allow for others to make that choice for themselves. By that standard, David Quinn isn't anti-choice, he's pro-choice, until fertilisation :pac:


Ok, ever so slightly facetious, but hopefully you get the point - the labels (pro-choice/anti-choice/pro-life/anti-life, hell even the new pro-birth/anti-birth nonsense) really don't matter.

volchitsa

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It is though. That is the really crazy thing here. The 8th amendment isnt just about abortion at all. It has a number of negative impacts for maternity services and those who are pregnant.

It probably has more of an effect on pregnant women who don't want an abortion at all, like Savita of course, but also PP, the woman who was kept rotting on a life support machine despite being already dead, or the many women who are threatened with prosecution for refusing various medical procedures like ARM or c-sections, like the Ms B case which was discussed here a while back, or Ciara Hamilton, or Aja Teehan, and who knows how many others.

Women who want an abortion generally manage to get one, either by traveling or by ordering pills on the Internet. Women who are miscarrying or giving birth OTOH, or who need other pregnancy care, have very little choice.

Once again I'm disappointed but not all that surprised to see that a poster like One Eyed Jack, who spends a lot of time on these 8th amendment discussions, seems not to be aware of the full range of its effects. Selective vision I suspect.

Loafing Oaf

end of the road wrote: »

really is the only way the 8th has got a huge chance of being repealed. currently the chance is very very slim.

Well in that case I'd advise you to put your house on the 8th to be retained @ 3/1 with Paddy Power...

Annasopra

thee glitz wrote: »

But is abortion on demand the only solution?

Repealing the 8th is the only solution.

end of the road

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Repealing the 8th is the only solution.

not when it risks the removal of the rights and protections of the unborn.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Once again I'm disappointed but not all that surprised to see that a poster like One Eyed Jack, who spends a lot of time on these 8th amendment discussions, seems not to be aware of the full range of its effects. Selective vision I suspect.

I am fully aware of the full range of the effect of the 8th amendment. I guess the selective vision you speak of goes both ways. It's more likely though that it's just a difference of perspective.

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That statement carries as much meaning as me saying "abortion has no place in modern Ireland", because society has progressed a massive amount in the last 30 odd years!

You asked the question does EOTR trust women, and by that I assume you mean does the person you're asking trust women to make decisions for themselves when they have the full capacity and freedom and resources to make decisions for themselves. On that basis, yes, of course I trust women.

The people I don't trust is anyone who would exploit someone else's lack of decision making capacity to coerce anyone into making decisions they wouldn't normally make for themselves that aren't in their best interests, but which serve the interests of those people encouraging them towards an outcome which suits that persons best interests.

So, you 'trust' women, but think they lack a decision making capacity and are easily coerced into making decisions against their best interests? I hate to break it to you, but that's kind of the opposite of trusting women.

end of the road wrote: »

not when it risks the removal of the rights and protections of the unborn.

So because some women who don't want to be pregnant will use the repeal of the 8th to not be pregnant any more no pregnant woman should have control over what medical procedures are performed on her?

end of the road

kylith wrote: »

So because some women who don't want to be pregnant will use the repeal of the 8th to not be pregnant any more no pregnant woman should have control over what medical procedures are performed on her?

no, that's not what i'm saying at all. the ideal outcome would be that abortion on demand wouldn't be availible, but other then that issue the woman would have full control of procedures performed on her. the only thing that is being looked for here is for the protections for the unborn to remain unless it is a situation where it isn't viable for that to happen.

humpsterfire

If you half don't want to get pregnant/impregnate, expect choppy results.

Man wears a condom, use a separate spermicidal lubricant, woman wears female condom (whatever that's called), the pill. You want to be less sensible, only choose one. You want to be sensible, choose at least 3.

The problem isn't can or cant you have an abortion, the real problem is whether you 100% practice safe sex or not.

Another step down the ladder from personal responsibility for society as a whole.

Oldtree

end of the road wrote: »

no, that's not what i'm saying at all. the ideal outcome would be that abortion on demand wouldn't be availible, but other then that issue the woman would have full control of procedures performed on her. the only thing that is being looked for here is for the protections for the unborn to remain unless it is a situation where it isn't viable for that to happen.

So you would agree then that if a woman (having full control) decides it isn't a viable situation, it isn't a viable situation?

Oldtree

humpsterfire wrote: »

The problem isn't can or cant you have an abortion, the real problem is whether you 100% practice safe sex or not.

Even if you practice 100% safe sex, it is not a 100% guarantee that the woman will 100% not get pregnant.

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

So, you 'trust' women, but think they lack a decision making capacity and are easily coerced into making decisions against their best interests? I hate to break it to you, but that's kind of the opposite of trusting women.

No need for the inverted commas kylith, I also never said I thought they lack a decision making capacity or that they are easily coerced into making decisions against their best interests. You don't hate to break anything to me, in fact I suspect you quite revel in it given the way you've twisted what I said to try and make what I said sound like I don't trust women, but if I said that makes you untrustworthy, it still isn't saying I don't trust women, it's saying I don't trust you.

I trust you won't be addressing this question I originally asked of you either -

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.

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?

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.

I included the other posts for context. In your own time.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

not when it risks the removal of the rights and protections of the unborn.

Unborn babies will still be protected under the guidelines set out by the citizens assembly. Clump of developing cells isn't afforded those rights, because it isn't a baby.

end of the road

Oldtree wrote: »

So you would agree then that if a woman (having full control) decides it isn't a viable situation, it isn't a viable situation?

no . a couple of examples of non-viable situations would be. FFA, threat to the mother's life, threat of permanent disability to the mother.

Deleted User wrote: »

Unborn babies will still be protected under the guidelines set out by the citizens assembly. Clump of developing cells isn't afforded those rights, because it isn't a baby.

it will be a baby so has to have protection so that it can develop.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

it will be a baby so has to have protection so that it can develop.

You and I are going to have a respectful disagreement here. It is not a baby. It is a ball of cells. What it could become is irrelevant. I am all about protecting unborn babies; but only at the point that they become babies. Potentially becoming babies doesn't make a clump of cells sentient or valuable.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

Unborn babies will still be protected under the guidelines set out by the citizens assembly. Clump of developing cells isn't afforded those rights, because it isn't a baby.

Surely all babies are clumps of developing cells?

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

You and I are going to have a respectful disagreement here. It is not a baby. It is a ball of cells. What it could become is irrelevant. I am all about protecting unborn babies; but only at the point that they become babies. Potentially becoming babies doesn't make a clump of cells sentient or valuable.

what it will be is relevant though, that is the reality and we can't sweep it away.
the ball of cells will develop into a baby eventually, so only protecting it when it becomes a baby isn't enough ultimately. it has to be able to develop first, so has to be protected pre-baby.

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

You and I are going to have a respectful disagreement here. It is not a baby. It is a ball of cells. What it could become is irrelevant. I am all about protecting unborn babies; but only at the point that they become babies. Potentially becoming babies doesn't make a clump of cells sentient or valuable.

what it will be is relevant though, that is the reality and we can't sweep it away.
the ball of cells will develop into a baby eventually, so only protecting it when it becomes a baby isn't enough ultimately. it has to be able to develop first, so has to be protected pre-baby.

Sperm and eggs are also pre-babies. So they need protecting too?

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You and I are going to have a respectful disagreement here. It is not a baby.

What does or doesn't constitute a baby isn't defined by science, it's defined by social norms and cultural values.

It is a ball of cells. What it could become is irrelevant.

Have you ever thought to try that perspective on anyone who has lost a baby? I'm guessing telling them that they lose about 40 million skin cells a day isn't likely going to be of much comfort either. Don't be surprised if they ask you what's wrong with you. They're not being rude, they're genuinely curious.

I am all about protecting unborn babies; but only at the point that they become babies.

Painting yourself into a rather awkward corner there.

Potentially becoming babies doesn't make a clump of cells sentient or valuable.

If your only criteria is sentience, then it's understandable you would see no value in that which isn't sentient. However sentience isn't and has never been the determining criteria in determining to whom we assign human rights. Clue is in the 'human' bit, and it is that upon which value is predicated.

Sentient rights are an entirely different philosophical argument.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Sperm and eggs are also pre-babies. So they need protecting too?

I wouldn't use the term pre-babies myself, but neither sperm nor eggs in isolation have any potential of ever becoming a baby. Why would you even ask that question?

sondagefaux

end of the road wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

You and I are going to have a respectful disagreement here. It is not a baby. It is a ball of cells. What it could become is irrelevant. I am all about protecting unborn babies; but only at the point that they become babies. Potentially becoming babies doesn't make a clump of cells sentient or valuable.

what it will be is relevant though, that is the reality and we can't sweep it away.
the ball of cells will develop into a baby eventually, so only protecting it when it becomes a baby isn't enough ultimately. it has to be able to develop first, so has to be protected pre-baby.

It will develop or it might develop? It's not certain that every conception results in the live birth of a viable child. Far from it: between 10% and 20% of known pregnancies end in miscarriages, although the real figure is likely to be far higher as many miscarriages occur so early that women never knew they were pregnant.

Miscarriage is the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before the 20th week. About 10 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage. But the actual number is likely higher because many miscarriages occur so early in pregnancy that a woman doesn't realize she's pregnant.
...
Most miscarriages occur before the 12th week of pregnancy.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/pregnancy-loss-miscarriage/symptoms-causes/syc-20354298

Peregrinus

sondagefaux wrote: »

It will develop or it might develop? It's not certain that every conception results in the live birth of a viable child. Far from it: between 10% and 20% of known pregnancies end in miscarriages, although the real figure is likely to be far higher as many miscarriages occur so early that women never knew they were pregnant.

It has the potential to develop, in a way that neither the sperm nor the egg do. More, it's oriented towards development; development will happen unless Something Goes Wrong. Of its nature, it's constantly developing towards maturity, and the only way this will stop is if something happens to bring about its death.

So, yeah, it's fundamentally different from the sperm or the egg in that respect, neither of which will develop at all unless a particular contingency - fertilisation - occurs.

What the moral or ethical implications of this difference are is another matter, of course. But that the difference exists is not really open to question.

dr.fuzzenstein

ofll I consider the arguments on the pro life side progress.
Decades and centuries ago masturbation was considered a sin. Also frivolous sex and after that birth control became the next Great Evil and the argument was always the same.
Every Sperm is Sacred!
So now after decades of bitterly fighting tooth and nail for every fraction of an inch, anyone who still says masturbation, sex and birth control are a Sin Unto the Lord sounds like a complete nutter and the anti choice brigade is very carefully steering away from the Bible basher image.
After the above conceded retreats, the battle line has now moved into sperm and egg combining to form a zygote, or fully functioning and sentient human being as the anti side will have it.
Feel free to say "no it isn't" and discredit your entire argument.

I'm not a fan of abortion, but sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALAAAA!!!! I I CAN'T HEAR IT, IT DOESN'T EXIST!!!" is not the answer.
In the end it will be the majority that decides and you will have to concede this battle line as well.

_Kaiser_

So the IT reports this morning that the Government is pressing ahead with preparing legislation to allow for up to 12 weeks, despite concerns that the public won't support it.

It occurs to me, are FG just going through the motions here? They present a referendum which they are pretty sure will be rejected, but can then turn around and say "well we gave people their say" and consider the issue closed, thus not addressing it or having to face the potential fall out from their conservative base.

thee glitz

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Repealing the 8th is the only solution.

It's only part of a number of solutions. Getting people to vote for it relies on the the possible outcomes being known. Given the choice of retaining the 8th, or repealing allowing special circumstances only, I believe many pro-choicers would vote to retain! Until such time that these cases and abortion on demand becomes an all or nothing question. If abortion on demand is what people want, I'm sure we'll get it. If we do end up with, let's make sure that it's because it's wanted.

Peregrinus

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

So the IT reports this morning that the Government is pressing ahead with preparing legislation to allow for up to 12 weeks, despite concerns that the public won't support it.

It occurs to me, are FG just going through the motions here? They present a referendum which they are pretty sure will be rejected, but can then turn around and say "well we gave people their say" and consider the issue closed, thus not addressing it or having to face the potential fall out from their conservative base.

I doubt this. In general, to have promoted a referendum which doesn't pass is politically damaging. It makes a government look out of touch (you didn't realise it wouldn't pass)/lacking in leadership (you couldn't persuade people to vote for it).

To my mind there;s always been a fundamental weakness in the pro-choice position (and I say this as a pro-choice person myself); while there's a majority who dislike the Eighth Amendment, it's not clear there's a majority for any particular alternative. Pointing out the effects of the Eighth Amendment on women facing health issues, on women who have been raped, etc, is effective at building dissatisfaction with the Eighth, but what you're assembling is a coalition of people, many of whom don't believe in a woman's right to choose, and who won't vote for it.

So this choice was always going to have to be made - an amendment which will address "hard cases" of rape, incest, substantial medical issues but which won't confer a general right to choose a termination, which will will certainly pass but will not change the position of most women, or an amendment which opens up a genuine right to choose, which might not pass.

If all you favour is a right to abortion in the hard cases, then obviously this is a no-brainer; you go for the more limited amendment. But if you favour a general right to choose, it's not so easy; you have to think clearly about the the risk that amendment you prefer would, if put forward, be rejected, likely resulting in paralysis on this issue for another decade or so. This isn't due to Machiavellian scheming by pro-life groups and socially conservative forces.

My guess is that those who advocate risking all for the more pro-choice option do so because, while recognising the risk of losing, they think this is the only amendment worth having; a "hard cases only" amendment would have symbolic significance, but it would leave the position of the majority of Irish women unchanged.

nozzferrahhtoo

Da Boss wrote: »

They seem to consider abortion as some sort of “right” and are so blinded they see no wrong.

How can one be blind to something that is not even there? That is like calling someone a vegetarian because they happen not to be eating meat the moment you look at them. It makes no sense at all.

The problem is not that people like me are "blind" to the wrongs of abortion. It is that people like you, when asked directly (which I have) fail to show there is anything wrong with it.

You genuinely appear to think that screeching "wrong" at something often enough magically makes it so.

humpsterfire wrote: »

The problem isn't can or cant you have an abortion, the real problem is whether you 100% practice safe sex or not.
Another step down the ladder from personal responsibility for society as a whole.

The problem with your rhetoric here is that it ignores the scaling that occurs with large numbers. Even if 100% of society tomorrow suddenly started practicing 3 or 4 forms of safe sex (you listed some yourself) there will STILL be some statistical % of failures and STILL be unwanted pregnancies.

The sheer quantity of people having sex, multiplied by the sheer number of times they HAVE sex...... means that even a small % of failures results in a rather large number of unwanted pregnancies.

Unless you want to live in a fantasy world of abstinence approaches to contraception (and we have seen how well abstinence only practices have NOT gone in places like the US) then it quickly becomes apparent that high horse screeching of "responsibility" at people is not going to deal with the issues at all.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Surely all babies are clumps of developing cells?

Well to be pedantic few cells are "developing cells". Each cell is pretty much complete in it's own right. What the cells as a whole are doing is developing into a more complex over all life form. A cell in a 20 week old fetus for example is no more a "developing cell" than one at the end of your nose right now.

The more pertinent fact is that a fetus, yourself, myself, a tree, a cow are all just "a clump of cells". The question is what makes one clump of cells in this world more "important" or deserving of "rights" than any other clump of cells.

What I find in the topic of abortion is that when I identify the attributes that elevate one "clump of cells" over another...... they happen to always be attributes that the fetus in the 0-16 week window (when the near totality of choice based abortion occurs) lacks not just slightly but ENTIRELY.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, the kind of pro-choice position I'll never get my head around is the pro-choice (but on my terms) position.

Not much to get your head around, you are just imagining it is more complex than it is. Again the old adage of "My free right to swing my arms around ends at your face" comes into play.

That is to say people are "pro choice" when the exercise of that choice does not impact the rights of another. Your imaginary "pro choice but on my terms" does not actually exist in this. You are fabricating that out of nothing.

The position espoused by me and many others is that there is no reason a fetus at 0-16 weeks (when the near totality of choice based abortions occur) should be considered to have rights. There IS reason to consider it to have rights at later stages.

So what is so difficult to get your head around exactly? It is exceedingly simple to understand. When your choice does not impact the rights of another, your choice should be in no way curtailed. When it does, it should. What could be simpler? It is not even a point that is limited to abortion, it is a GENERAL point that could not be easier to understand. Hell even my three year old son understands it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ok, ever so slightly facetious, but hopefully you get the point - the labels (pro-choice/anti-choice/pro-life/anti-life, hell even the new pro-birth/anti-birth nonsense) really don't matter.

Actually some of them do. Abortion is a MASSIVELY divisive issue. In many issues, especially this one, it is paramount that we do not lose sight of the common ground that unites us. Otherwise we get partisan politics with a gulf between it few ever cross.

Labels like "pro life" "anti life" or "pro abortion" do exactly that. They ignore and even erode the common ground between the two "sides" of the abortion issue. The common ground being that pretty much ALL of us want less abortions to be happening.

"Pro choice" and "anti choice" in the context of abortion actually do paint an accurate picture in that context, do not ignore the common ground between the two sides, and accurately describe the division that exists.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Have you ever thought to try that perspective on anyone who has lost a baby?

Yes actually, many of us have. With very beneficial results. Of course coming right out with it in a single sentence is rarely beneficial. But actually working on the well being of women who have miscarried a pregnancy they were emotionally invested in CAN involve divesting that woman of the narrative upon which much of that pain originates.

So yes, we very often do take that perspective and help the woman reach a point where they realize the miscarriage they had was of a fetus not a "baby" and that much of the narratives and emotions we invest in the term "baby" are ones that are not warranted when discussing a "fetus".

This does not address 100% of the pain and emotional turmoil of miscarriage. But I assure you that as part of an overall approach to treatment it is a valid and useful and powerful tool.

I'm guessing telling them that they lose about 40 million skin cells a day isn't likely going to be of much comfort either. Don't be surprised if they ask you what's wrong with you. They're not being rude, they're genuinely curious.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

However sentience isn't and has never been the determining criteria in determining to whom we assign human rights. Clue is in the 'human' bit, and it is that upon which value is predicated. Sentient rights are an entirely different philosophical argument.

The clue really is not in the "human" bit really though. Rather the "human" bit shows the conclusions we reach when making the sentience argument. Quite a different narrative to your own really.

Even a simple test will show you that sentience very much is the mediation point the vast majority of people mediate moral and ethical concern, and rights, upon. Simple ask people or find people running from a burning building and give them the choice to save one of two creatures. Then ask them what their decision was based on later. Report back your results.

I think you will find if asked to save a spider or a cat, they will save the cat. If asked to save a cat or a monkey, they will save the monkey. If asked to save the cat or a box with 100,000 spiders, they generally still go for the cat. And you can combine species and numbers in this way over and over and you will invariably find that peoples decisions not only track with the species with higher levels of consciousness and sentience but, as with the 100,000 spiders, they tend to track with one SINGLE instance of such sentience being more important to them than many 1000s of instances of a lower one.

If assigning rights to an entity is not based on sentience than I am all ears to hear what is or, more importantly, what SHOULD be. Because sentience very much SHOULD be the criteria for it in the views I have argued in posts you have ended up simply ignoring. There simply is no other criteria on offer, least of all by you. But I am open to hearing some.

Hubris based approaches are just circular and beg the question entirely. We assign "Human rights" because "Human"? Come off it. That just reminds me of the humorous twitter post I saw on Monday that read "You seem to not know what a tautology is (which suggests you don't know what a tautology is)."

nozzferrahhtoo

Since you have once again decided to ignore my post(s) to you (since you appear to prefer replying to my posts to OTHERS more) I will move on to these points:

end of the road wrote: »

not when it risks the removal of the rights and protections of the unborn.

When it comes to a fetus at 16 weeks of before I struggle to see it in terms of "removing the rights of the unborn" so much as I notice no one, least of all yourself, has ever explained to me one single basis for why such a fetus should have rights in the first place.

Hard to see the "removal" of something I see no basis for being there in the first place. It just doesn't parse for me. Sure current law may have such protections, but I genuinely see no basis for that state of affairs.

end of the road wrote: »

the ball of cells will develop into a baby eventually

Firstly there is no "will" here. A rather significantly high proportion of pregnancies miscarry in this period. Your certainty about their fate is imagination based only.

Secondly when you are saying here is that it is NOT A BABY now. The moment you say "X becomes Y" you are saying "X is NOT Y". So thanks for making our point for us!

end of the road wrote: »

so only protecting it when it becomes a baby isn't enough ultimately.

Then lock all men up because they are all potential rapists. Prosecuting them when they BECOME rapists is clearly not enough. That is the kind of nonsense that comes from basing rights in the present on potentials from the future.

Someone or something either has rights, or it does not. Aside from asserting that we should do it, you have given no basis AT ALL at ANY TIME for why we should manifest rights in the present based on what something MIGHT be in the future.

Let alone why we should do so at the expense of the rights, well being, and free choices of someone (the pregnant woman) who actually is a sentient being with rights in the here and now. So double fail from you on that score.

end of the road wrote: »

it has to be able to develop first

Why? You assert this time and time again and every time you are asked to substantiate it you.... well... quite simply run away and ignore the post.

I repeat my thought experiment from before. Imagine I build a gAI that will not just be conscious and sentient when I turn it on, but will in fact be capable of levels of consciousness and sentience beyond anything you and I are capable of.

All that stops it reaching that potential is me flicking the on switch. Why is/should there be ANY moral onus on me to flick that switch rather than, say, dismantle the entire machine and build toasters and waffle makers out of it?

uptherebels

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

So the IT reports this morning that the Government is pressing ahead with preparing legislation to allow for up to 12 weeks, despite concerns that the public won't support it.

It occurs to me, are FG just going through the motions here? They present a referendum which they are pretty sure will be rejected, but can then turn around and say "well we gave people their say" and consider the issue closed, thus not addressing it or having to face the potential fall out from their conservative base.

despite concerns from some. there would be concerns regardless of the 12 weeks.

Peregrinus

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

. . . What I find in the topic of abortion is that when I identify the attributes that elevate one "clump of cells" over another...... they happen to always be attributes that the fetus in the 0-16 week window (when the near totality of choice based abortion occurs) lacks not just slightly but ENTIRELY.

Yes. But the attributes that you identify as elevating one clump over another may be different from the attributes that someone else identifies for this purpose. And I can't see any argument for saying that your identification of attributes has an objective validity that theirs lacks.

thee glitz

Peregrinus wrote: »

I doubt this. In general, to have promoted a referendum which doesn't pass is politically damaging. It makes a government look out of touch (you didn't realise it wouldn't pass)/lacking in leadership (you couldn't persuade people to vote for it).

To my mind there;s always been a fundamental weakness in the pro-choice position (and I say this as a pro-choice person myself); while there's a majority who dislike the Eighth Amendment, it's not clear there's a majority for any particular alternative. Pointing out the effects of the Eighth Amendment on women facing health issues, on women who have been raped, etc, is effective at building dissatisfaction with the Eighth, but what you're assembling is a coalition of people, many of whom don't believe in a woman's right to choose, and who won't vote for it.

So this choice was always going to have to be made - an amendment which will address "hard cases" of rape, incest, substantial medical issues but which won't confer a general right to choose a termination, which will will certainly pass but will not change the position of most women, or an amendment which opens up a genuine right to choose, which might not pass.

If all you favour is a right to abortion in the hard cases, then obviously this is a no-brainer; you go for the more limited amendment. But if you favour a general right to choose, it's not so easy; you have to think clearly about the the risk that amendment you prefer would, if put forward, be rejected, likely resulting in paralysis on this issue for another decade or so. This isn't due to Machiavellian scheming by pro-life groups and socially conservative forces.

My guess is that those who advocate risking all for the more pro-choice option do so because, while recognising the risk of losing, they think this is the only amendment worth having; a "hard cases only" amendment would have symbolic significance, but it would leave the position of the majority of Irish women unchanged

Great post. A 'hard cases only' amendment would allow for change for all women in those positions, be they many or few.

It's a tricky position to defend - promoting A+B based on the importance of A, but not liking A without B, even as a potential stepping stone.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. But the attributes that you identify as elevating one clump over another may be different from the attributes that someone else identifies for this purpose.

Sure, and that is what conversation is for. I am agog to hear someone not just assert, but substantiate their arguments for what those "other attributes" might be. But when it gets to that point, that tends to be exactly where any given interlocutor simply runs away.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And I can't see any argument for saying that your identification of attributes has an objective validity that theirs lacks.

Of course not, "they" haven't offered any yet that I am yet aware of. Perhaps they have to you in private? Otherwise how can you see what mine has, that theirs lacks, if they have not told us what theirs is/has yet???

But I have certainly, many times, at nauseating length for some, explained the arguments and basis for mine. Happy to do so again if and when asked. But if rights and moral/ethical concern is NOT mediated by, and targeted at, sentient agents then I am agog to hear what it is in the business of doing exactly.

NuMarvel

thee glitz wrote: »

It's a good place to generally prohibit it. The 8th is what we have now - can we do better?

...

Change it ye, but give the people something they can support in big numbers.

I think you've missed my point. The Constitution might be an appropriate place for an absolute ban on abortion, but it becomes a field of landmines when you start adding qualifications.

There is little point changing the constitution for purely popular purposes. Constitutional provisions must be effective and fit for purpose. Because of the relatively static nature of constitutions, they must be ones that will have relevance over the course of decades. None of these criteria could be applied to a provision about complex clinical and ethical matters.

No matter how popular it might be, changing the 8th to allow "some change" just means more court cases and more referendums. And I don't see that benefiting anyone in the long run.

EDIT Or as Zubeneschamali put it further on:

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It would also put us back in the position of putting badly understood language with unknown implications into the Constitution.

Loafing Oaf

Peregrinus wrote: »

My guess is that those who advocate risking all for the more pro-choice option do so because, while recognising the risk of losing, they think this is the only amendment worth having; a "hard cases only" amendment would have symbolic significance, but it would leave the position of the majority of Irish women unchanged.

Katherine Zappone said as much a couple of years ago:

...believes that only offering abortions in cases of incest, rape and fatal foetal abnormality would "do nothing at all for most women in Ireland".

Like you, I believe this is a widespread position in pro-choice circles, but as something of an 'outsider' who is AFAIK not officially involved with any abortion rights group, it's easier for her to call a spade a spade.

Zubeneschamali

end of the road wrote: »

no . a couple of examples of non-viable situations would be. FFA, threat to the mother's life, threat of permanent disability to the mother.

And for 2 of those 3, we must repeal the 8th.

Good to have you on board.

Zubeneschamali

thee glitz wrote: »

Great post. A 'hard cases only' amendment would allow for change for all women in those positions, be they many or few.

Any "hard cases only" amendment would exclude some women who regard their own case as hard (and that woman could be your wife or daughter someday).

It would also put us back in the position of putting badly understood language with unknown implications into the Constitution. Unless you can list, for example, every FFA condition and the diagnostic markers sufficient to qualify in legal terms? No? Neither can anyone else.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No need for the inverted commas kylith, I also never said I thought they lack a decision making capacity or that they are easily coerced into making decisions against their best interests. You don't hate to break anything to me, in fact I suspect you quite revel in it given the way you've twisted what I said to try and make what I said sound like I don't trust women, but if I said that makes you untrustworthy, it still isn't saying I don't trust women, it's saying I don't trust you.

But you said

The people I don't trust is anyone who would exploit someone else's lack of decision making capacity to coerce anyone into making decisions they wouldn't normally make for themselves that aren't in their best interests, but which serve the interests of those people encouraging them towards an outcome which suits that persons best interests.

So, what does that mean except that you think women will be coerced into doing something against their best interests because of a lack of decision making ability? It's all there in post #4108 Maybe you could clarify? Do you think that men will force women to have abortions they don't want? Is it men you don't trust? Because that's an viable reading of what you wrote: men will coerce women into having abortions they don't want because the women lack the decision making ability to refuse.

end of the road wrote: »

no, that's not what i'm saying at all. the ideal outcome would be that abortion on demand wouldn't be availible, but other then that issue the woman would have full control of procedures performed on her. the only thing that is being looked for here is for the protections for the unborn to remain unless it is a situation where it isn't viable for that to happen.

But in order for women to have a say over what procedures are performed on them , the 8th first has to be repealed.

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.

I appear to have missed this, sorry, but tbh, I have zero idea what you're trying to say here. 'A huge proportion of women wouldn't have abortions if they didn't feel they had to'. Excuse my bluntness here but Duh. But they do feel that they have to have them. What do you think would change a woman's mind from 'I need to have an abortion' to 'I don't need to have an abortion'? A raise in child allowance? That'll be more taxes and more cost, which you have previously said you're against. Perhaps a huge societal shift so that women aren't tacitly penalised in their careers for taking time off to have children? We'd all like to see that happen. Maybe women who know they never want to have children could actually be allowed to be sterilised instead of patronised and told that they'll change their minds. Perhaps we could actually get some decent sex ed in schools, not given by Catholic agencies. Maybe contraception could be made free so that the poor and teenaged can get it: that move decrerased the abortion rate in St. Louis, Missouri by 62%.

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

But you said

So, what does that mean except that you think women will be coerced into doing something against their best interests because of a lack of decision making ability? It's all there in post #4108 Maybe you could clarify?

You've read the original post, twisted it, then quoted it again, you're not dense so I know you're quite capable of reading it as it was intended.

Do you think that men will force women to have abortions they don't want? Is it men you don't trust? Because that's an viable reading of what you wrote: men will coerce women into having abortions they don't want because the women lack the decision making ability to refuse.

That's entirely one possibility, not the only one, which is why I didn't specify gender but rather referred to anyone who would exploit someone in that situation for their own benefit. I'm aware of it happening where young women experiencing crisis pregnancies have approached family planning clinics for advice regarding their pregnancy only to be advised that they might be better off having an abortion. That's not the kind of advice they had in mind.

But in order for women to have a say over what procedures are performed on them , the 8th first has to be repealed.

Not necessarily, the 8th only comes into play when there is a risk to the right to life of the unborn. In cases where a pregnant woman wants to continue her pregnancy and give birth and raise the child, the 8th isn't any obstruction to that.

I appear to have missed this, sorry, but tbh, I have zero idea what you're trying to say here. 'A huge proportion of women wouldn't have abortions if they didn't feel they had to'. Excuse my bluntness here but Duh. But they do feel that they have to have them.

I know, 'Duh', because the far more reasonable assumption is that pregnant women don't want to have abortions, and yet you assume that they are going to happen anyway, and the question I simply asked is why would you assume they would still want an abortion if they didn't feel they had to have to have one? I think we can take it from your response that they wouldn't.

What do you think would change a woman's mind from 'I need to have an abortion' to 'I don't need to have an abortion'? A raise in child allowance? That'll be more taxes and more cost, which you have previously said you're against.

The reason I'm against such a move is because you don't give people independence from the State and teach them to generate their own wealth by making them more dependent upon the State for their income.

Perhaps a huge societal shift so that women aren't tacitly penalised in their careers for taking time off to have children? We'd all like to see that happen.

Now you're talking, but that's not the monumental social and cultural shift you make it out to be, and there are a growing number of employers who recognise the value in recognising that their employees families are important, and have all sorts of initiatives in place to attract top talent with a focus on recognising the importance to them of their families. I'm very fortunate that my employer not only offers but actually actively encourages that sort of flexibility.

Maybe women who know they never want to have children could actually be allowed to be sterilised instead of patronised and told that they'll change their minds.

That's a social and cultural shift that would need to take place within not just in Ireland, but internationally, so to try and tie it in with the repeal of the 8th amendment is at best a stretch.

Perhaps we could actually get some decent sex ed in schools, not given by Catholic agencies.

You could have the most comprehensive sex ed you like in schools, and it won't make one iota of a difference outside of the school classroom. If the issue were truly influenced by what you consider a lack of adequate sex education, then we would expect the number of crisis pregnancies to be much higher than it actually is.

Consider for example a number of girls whom you would have went to school with, all received the same quality sex education (on the assumption that their parents agreed to allow their children to participate). Some of those girls will have experienced crisis pregnancies, and some of them won't, therefore it's reasonable to assume another external factor influences behaviour than just sex education or indeed lack thereof. Numerous studies have shown that the most influential factor as a predictor of attitudes to sex and sexuality and pregnancy and family and so on, is indeed the family, and not the school.

Maybe contraception could be made free so that the poor and teenaged can get it: that move decrerased the abortion rate in St. Louis, Missouri by 62%.

There are some forms of long-term contraception available on the medical card already, and there are numerous places where condoms at least are available free of charge. I can guarantee you the decrease in the abortion rate wasn't solely as a result of the increased availability of contraception, but more likely due to encouraging people to be responsible for their own sexual health.

Bannasidhe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's entirely one possibility, not the only one, which is why I didn't specify gender but rather referred to anyone who would exploit someone in that situation for their own benefit. I'm aware of it happening where young women experiencing crisis pregnancies have approached family planning clinics for advice regarding their pregnancy only to be advised that they might be better off having an abortion. That's not the kind of advice they had in mind.

You prefer the downright lies being told by anti-abortionists posing as family planning clinics?

consultation in a clinic in Dublin’s north inner city between a staff member and a woman seeking advice on a crisis pregnancy. The staff member advised the woman that abortion increases a woman’s risk of breast cancer, and told her that abortion can turn women into child abusers in later life.

The report found that the clinic’s website is one of the first addresses to be shown in a search for advice on how to access an abortion. The clinic claims that it offers impartial and objective advice on crisis pregnancies.

http://www.thejournal.ie/rogue-pregnancy-advice-agencies-2964770-Sep2016/

Seems to me 'might be better off having an abortion' pales in comparison to 'abortion can turn you into a child abuser'.

One eyed Jack

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You prefer the downright lies being told by anti-abortionists posing as family planning clinics?

http://www.thejournal.ie/rogue-pregnancy-advice-agencies-2964770-Sep2016/

Seems to me 'might be better off having an abortion' pales in comparison to 'abortion can turn you into a child abuser'.

What?

That even beats kylith's earlier attempt to interpret the intent of my posts in the most unkind and malicious way possible.

Whatever floats your boat I suppose, but don't expect I should have to dignify it by entertaining such a warped interpretation.

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You could have the most comprehensive sex ed you like in schools, and it won't make one iota of a difference outside of the school classroom.

That is false.

The data also shows that—contrary to some opinions—teaching comprehensive sex education does not increase the rate that teenagers engage in sexual activity. In fact, teaching comprehensive sex education may actually decrease it.

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/03/a-look-behind-the-declining-abortion-rate.html

A reduction of unwanted pregnancies has been accomplished through successful strategies for the prevention of teenage pregnancy (including sex education, open discussions on sexuality in mass media, educational campaigns and low barrier services)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7971545

Evaluations of comprehensive sex education programs show that these programs can help youth delay onset of sexual activity, reduce the frequency of sexual activity, reduce number of sexual partners, and increase condom and contraceptive use. Importantly, the evidence shows youth who receive comprehensive sex education are NOT more likely to become sexually active, increase sexual activity, or experience negative sexual health outcomes. Effective programs exist for youth from a variety of racial, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds.1,2,3,4,5

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/1487

Researchers studied the National Survey of Family Growth to determine the impact of sexuality education on youth sexual risk-taking for young people ages 15-19, and found that teens who received comprehensive sex education were 50 percent less likely to experience pregnancy than those who received abstinence-only education.6

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/1487

Guttmacher reported that, although definitive studies are not available, some studies have shown that comprehensive sex education classes work better than abstinence-only classes.

https://www.newsmax.com/fastfeatures/abortion-sex-education/2015/04/23/id/640405/

"The quality and quantity of evaluation research have improved dramatically over the last decade, and there is now clear evidence that comprehensive sex education programs can change the behaviors that put young people at risk of pregnancy,"

Gutmacher

After accounting for other factors, the national data show that the incidence of teenage pregnancies and births remain positively correlated with the degree of abstinence education across states: The more strongly abstinence is emphasized in state laws and policies, the higher the average teenage pregnancy and birth rate. States that taught comprehensive sex and/or HIV education and covered abstinence along with contraception and condom use (level 1 sex education; also referred to as “abstinence-plus” [26], tended to have the lowest teen pregnancy rates,

Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates: Why We Need Comprehensive Sex Education in the U.S
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0024658&utm_source=AOL&utm_medium=readMore&utm_campaign=partner

The resident population of the western portion of a South Carolina county has undergone a public health information and education intervention since October 1982. The purpose of the intervention has been to reduce the occurrence of unintended pregnancies among unmarried adolescents. Intervention messages are targeted at parents, teachers, ministers and representatives of churches, community leaders, and children enrolled in the public school system. The messages emphasize development of decision-making and communication skills, self-esteem enhancement, and understanding human reproductive anatomy, physiology, and contraception. The estimated rate of pregnancy ([live births plus fetal deaths plus induced abortions] per 1000 female population) for females aged 14 to 17 years in the county's western portion has declined remarkably since the intervention began, and the changes are statistically significant when compared with three sociodemographically similar counties and also with the eastern portion of the county.

Reducing Adolescent Pregnancy Through School and Community-Based Education
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/366769?redirect=true

This paper reviews 83 studies that measure the impact of curriculum-based sex and HIV education programs on sexual behavior and mediating factors among youth under 25 years anywhere in the world. Two thirds of the programs significantly improved one or more sexual behaviors. The evidence is strong that programs do not hasten or increase sexual behavior but, instead, some programs delay or decrease sexual behaviors or increase condom or contraceptive use.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1054139X0600601X

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If the issue were truly influenced by what you consider a lack of adequate sex education, then we would expect the number of crisis pregnancies to be much higher than it actually is.

Who is "we"? I do not know anyone who expects that. Nor have you offered here a single reason why we would or should expect that. You just asserted it and left it hanging there. Substantiate this expectation for me please.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Consider for example a number of girls whom you would have went to school with, all received the same quality sex education (on the assumption that their parents agreed to allow their children to participate). Some of those girls will have experienced crisis pregnancies, and some of them won't, therefore it's reasonable to assume another external factor influences behaviour than just sex education or indeed lack thereof.

What ARE you talking about here? You think that because ALL of them did not have crisis pregnancies that therefore the points people are making here about sexual education are somehow invalidated or even diluted? What nonsense is this from you? That is not how it works even remotely in the real world. The education effects the RATES of crisis pregnancies over a population. That individuals, having received such education, still experience crisis pregnancies (while others do not) does not invalidate that one bit.

Also no one is saying that any of this is "Just sex education". You just made that part up entirely. Just like you do later in this same post when saying "wasn't solely as a result of the increased availability of contraception".

There is of course a number of factors in play and interplay. Addressing one is NEVER going to solve the problem. We need a holistic (despite the bad press that word gets these days) approach to the issue.

But that sex education is a part of it, and has a massive effect in the world (rather than not an "iota" of "difference outside of the school classroom") seems clear in the world of people making studies and research rather than the world of individuals on forums making baseless assertions.

One eyed Jack

....... wrote: »

Whats warped?

The assertion that just because I made the point about one, must mean that I would actually prefer the complete opposite of that. That's warped, and it doesn't follow from what I said at all.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is false.

None of the links you posted actually contradict what I said which was in direct reply to kylith's assertion about better sex education in schools.

There is of course a number of factors in play and interplay. Addressing one is NEVER going to solve the problem. We need a holistic (despite the bad press that word gets these days) approach to the issue.

But that sex education is a part of it, and has a massive effect in the world (rather than not an "iota" of "difference outside of the school classroom") seems clear in the world of people making studies and research rather than the world of individuals on forums making baseless assertions.

That's pretty much what I said?