Abortion - Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution

end of the road

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That has not been "established" at all. You have asserted it on a number of occasions but simply run away from any conversation about backing up that assertion.

it has been established and i have given reasons across threads as to why. if you can't except them or don't like them i can't help you. i can only give the information.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So you keep saying but when asked what we DO base it on the best you have offered (when not simply running away from the question) is the circular argument of taxonomy. You have never once explained what we base rights on, but merely refer to the words we use to describe the things that do get those rights.

Which as I said before is about as meaningful as answering a question like "What exactly is ownership" by offering the dictionary definition of "borders".

It simply does not answer the question. A question I think you patently can not answer and will go to any lengths to convince yourself that people have not noticed you can not answer.

i did answer the question. taxonomy and humanity are more then enough to give the right to life except in extreme circumstances, which the reasons for having a non-medical/necessary abortion don't fit.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yet you have given no arguments, evidence, data OR reasoning to explain why a fetus should have ANY right to life, let alone an equal one. You just use words like "recognize" to attempt to imply using linguistics that this right is a given and a default, as if it objectively exists merely because you imagine it to be so.

This ultimately comes down to rights, what has rights, and why. And despite me asking time, and time, and time, and time again you have simply dodged the discussion on what rights are, what we assign them to, and on what basis. You merely screech the word "Human" at it every time, and then quite literally run away.

i have given you plenty of reasons why an unborn baby has a right to life and why it has (bar extreme circumstances) an equal right to life.

spacecoyote wrote: »

I have to admire the pro-lifers for the way they've management create this "abortion on demand" narrative.

They seem to be pushing this image that we'll suddenly see these queues of women down the street outside of a clinic on a Monday morning for their presto-chango fix.

It's completely ridiculous. People in countries that have legalised abortion do not use it as a method of contraception.

I know people that have made trips for abortions & it wasn't a fun jaunt for them, it was a serious decision & procedure & I fully support their rights to make that decision.

I don't like using such strong terms but i really do hate pro-lifers

says more about you that you hate others because they have a different view to you and in actual fact, give you the reality of what you are in favour of. truth hurts, i suppose. you need to get your priorities straight. and yes people likely do use abortion as contraception, and supporting the right to kill another for such reasons is not the behaviour of someone who truely believes in a humanitarian society in my view.

david75

end of the road wrote: »

it has been established and i have given reasons across threads as to why. if you can't except them or don't like them i can't help you. i can only give the information.



i did answer the question. taxonomy and humanity are more then enough to give the right to life except in extreme circumstances, which the reasons for having a non-medical/necessary abortion don't fit.



i have given you plenty of reasons why an unborn baby has a right to life and why it has (bar extreme circumstances) an equal right to life.



says more about you that you hate others because they have a different view to you and in actual fact, give you the reality of what you are in favour of. truth hurts, i suppose. you need to get your priorities straight. and yes people likely do use abortion as contraception, and supporting the right to kill another for such reasons is not the behaviour of someone who truely believes in a humanitarian society in my view.

You just said in another thread that the only consolation in an abortion is that the woman suffers.

It’s amazing people even bother responding to you. You’re at least consistent in turning people off votin no in their droves. Keep it up.

seamus

blanch152 wrote: »

"Gestational limits will not apply in cases of a foetal condition or on grounds of risk to health"

"No distinction will be made between physical and mental health"

Taken together, these mean that a pregnancy of 34 weeks can be terminated if there is a risk to mental health. I am not sure that the balance is correct in relation to this. I would like to see the clear medical guidelines on this issue.

Well yes. But remember that the pregnancy will be terminated, not the foetus.

At 34 weeks, labour will be induced and a child born alive and treated as necessary. The child will then be taken into state care assuming the mother doesn't want it.

At least one of these has already occurred under the POLDPA.

The wording is very clear that "pregnancies" can only be terminated. It will never be legal to kill any foetus born alive and doctors will be obliged to provide treatment where necessary for survival. The clinical guidelines tend to recommend no treatment for foetuses delivered before about 23 weeks (it's futile), though calls are made on a case-by-case basis.

end of the road

david75 wrote: »

You just said in another thread that the only consolation in an abortion is that the woman suffers.

It’s amazing people even bother responding to you. You’re at least consistent in turning people off votin no in their droves. Keep it up.

it's not amazing people debate with me. they may not like what i have to say but like me, they recognise that people are entitled to an opinion.
there is no evidence i am turning anyone to vote any way. nobody is going to vote on the basis of what someone says on a website. i'm afraid this is likely wishful thinking on your part.

david75

The endless wheel spinning non answers evading questions and complete avoidance of facts on your part as well as the constant lying and being caught lying by the PLC is doing exactly that.
Endless own goals. I hope you keep at it. I really do.

end of the road

david75 wrote: »

The endless wheel spinning non answers evading questions and complete avoidance of facts on your part as well as the constant lying and being caught lying by the PLC is doing exactly that.
Endless own goals. I hope you keep at it. I really do.

nope. more wishful thinking. nobody votes on the basis of a post on a website. so i have no effect on anyone's vote. both sides have been caught telling lies, as like any campaign there are a small minority who tell lies. i haven't told any lies however. i have given nothing but facts and have answered all questions put to me where relevant to the topic.

david75

end of the road wrote: »

nope. more wishful thinking. nobody votes on the basis of a post on a website. so i have no effect on anyone's vote. both sides have been caught telling lies, as like any campaign there are a small minority who tell lies. i haven't told any lies however. i have given nothing but facts and have answered all questions put to me where relevant to the topic.

I’ll bite. The repeal campaign hasn’t told a single lie.

The list of lies from you personally and the pro life campaign is ever growing.

Your facts are lies. You switch you position and to such a degree it’s laughable

end of the road

david75 wrote: »

I’ll bite. The repeal campaign hasn’t told a single lie.

The list of lies from you personally and the pro life campaign is ever growing.

Your facts are lies. You switch you position and to such a degree it’s laughable

nope. both campaigns will have a minority who may tell lies. it's par for the course rightly or wrongly, for better or worse. i have never told a lie on this site since i joined and my position is consistent on every topic unless a good argument is put my way to change my mind. try again dav.

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

nope. both campaigns will have a minority who may tell lies. it's par for the course rightly or wrongly, for better or worse. i have never told a lie on this site since i joined and my position is consistent on every topic unless a good argument is put my way to change my mind. try again dav.

While I agree that people on both sides will lie, unfortunately for the anti choices it seems to be those that are at the top of the campaign.

You have never lied on boards?:rolleyes:

So when you knowingly make false claims that you refuse to provide a shred of evidence to support, what do you consider those?
False truths?
Poetic licence?
Innacuracies?

end of the road

uptherebels wrote: »

While I agree that people on both sides will lie, unfortunately for the anti choices it seems to be those that are at the top of the campaign.

You have never lied on boards?

So when you knowingly make false claims that you refuse to provide a shred of evidence to support, what do you consider those?
False truths?
Poetic licence?
Innacuracies?

there is no such thing as an anti-choicer. everyone of us has the same choices in life. being prevented from killing the unborn is not being prevented from making a choice, it's part of the prevention from killing any other human being stance. it's also not a rights issue in the vast majority of cases.

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

there is no such thing as an anti-choicer. everyone of us has the same choices in life. being prevented from killing the unborn is not being prevented from making a choice, it's part of the prevention from killing any other human being stance. it's also not a rights issue in the vast majority of cases.

Except for the fact that the "unborn" are not the same as any other human being. Hence why they have no rights outside of the 8th.
No comment on the rest of my post you quoted, I wonder why;)

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

it has been established and i have given reasons across threads as to why.

end of the road wrote: »

i have given you plenty of reasons why an unborn baby has a right to life and why it has (bar extreme circumstances) an equal right to life.

But you have not given any such reasons and I have asked you over and over what reasons you think you gave. The only reply you EVER give, like here, is to pretend you gave them. So rather than say you have answered the question, when you simply have not done so, why not instead simply answer the question? Even if you believe you have done so before?

We both know you have NOT answered the question. Which is why literally all you have got to offer is the fallacious claim that you have. Every time you are asked a question by me that you have not and can not answer, you simply outright falsify history and pretend you already have. And I genuinely do not know, other than yourself, who you think you are fooling with this blatant canard anymore.

end of the road wrote: »

i did answer the question. taxonomy and humanity are more then enough to give the right to life

But that does not answer the question either. That IS the question. Your nonsense here is like answering the question "Why did you drop the ball" with the answer "I dropped the ball". I am asking you on what basis taxonomy and humanity are used to ground rights, and all you do in reply is assert that taxonomy and humanity ground rights.

What I said before, and you simply ran away each time, is that your nonsense is like answering the question "What is owndership" by saying "Borders exist". Borders do not define ownership, but measure what IS owned. So pointing at borders does not define what ownership actually is or means.

Similarly in this analogy the species divides of taxonomy are the borders. And I am asking you what rights are, and on what basis they can and should be assigned. And you are just pointing at the borders and wholly dodging and ducking the question.

So no, once again you claims to have answered the question are patently, transparently and demonstrably false. You simply have not and, I suspect, can not and will not.

end of the road wrote: »

and yes people likely do use abortion as contraception

Could you PLEASE purchase a dictionary? By definition abortion can not be a contraception. It simply is not what the words "abortion" and "contraception" mean. How do you expect to be taken seriously in the conversation if you refuse to learn the definitions of the most basic terminology within it, let alone the lack of actual engagement in good faith with peoples attempts to discuss it with you.

end of the road

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But you have not given any such reasons and I have asked you over and over what reasons you think you gave. The only reply you EVER give, like here, is to pretend you gave them. So rather than say you have answered the question, when you simply have not done so, why not instead simply answer the question? Even if you believe you have done so before?

We both know you have NOT answered the question. Which is why literally all you have got to offer is the fallacious claim that you have. Every time you are asked a question by me that you have not and can not answer, you simply outright falsify history and pretend you already have. And I genuinely do not know, other than yourself, who you think you are fooling with this blatant canard anymore.



But that does not answer the question either. That IS the question. Your nonsense here is like answering the question "Why did you drop the ball" with the answer "I dropped the ball". I am asking you on what basis taxonomy and humanity are used to ground rights, and all you do in reply is assert that taxonomy and humanity ground rights.

What I said before, and you simply ran away each time, is that your nonsense is like answering the question "What is owndership" by saying "Borders exist". Borders do not define ownership, but measure what IS owned. So pointing at borders does not define what ownership actually is or means.

Similarly in this analogy the species divides of taxonomy are the borders. And I am asking you what rights are, and on what basis they can and should be assigned. And you are just pointing at the borders and wholly dodging and ducking the question.

So no, once again you claims to have answered the question are patently, transparently and demonstrably false. You simply have not and, I suspect, can not and will not.



Could you PLEASE purchase a dictionary? By definition abortion can not be a contraception. It simply is not what the words "abortion" and "contraception" mean. How do you expect to be taken seriously in the conversation if you refuse to learn the definitions of the most basic terminology within it, let alone the lack of actual engagement in good faith with peoples attempts to discuss it with you.

i have answered your questions very early on in this whole discussion. it's you who is engaging in a circular argument of stating i haven't answered them. the unborn have a right to life via the fact they are human and they are going to develop unless an unforseen circumstance prevents it such as misscarrage. the 8th thankfully upholds that right as a modern progressive society values both the life of mother and baby, apart from where absolutely necessary, for which it is the mother who is saved.
abortion is highly likely being used as birth control, which it was never designed to be.

oscarBravo

end of the road wrote: »

the 8th thankfully upholds that right as a modern progressive society values both the life of mother and baby...

Can you give us a list of "modern progressive societies" as measured by this metric?

abortion is highly likely being used as birth control, which it was never designed to be.

You can't just state this as a fact without backing it up. Where's your evidence that abortion is being used as birth control?

ancapailldorcha

spacecoyote wrote: »

I have to admire the pro-lifers for the way they've management create this "abortion on demand" narrative.

I don't to be honest.

I've largely stayed out of this debate as I live in the UK and therefore will not be voting but I think that the "abortion on demand" narrative is deeply misogynistic as it portrays abortion as something women will undertake as casually as meeting friends. I've seen posts alluding to the girls going to one for the craic. It's frankly disgusting.

If people believe that the eight is morally and ethically justified then I wish that they would just come out and say it instead of resorting to soundbytes like "abortion on demand".

end of the road

oscarBravo wrote: »

Can you give us a list of "modern progressive societies" as measured by this metric? You can't just state this as a fact without backing it up. Where's your evidence that abortion is being used as birth control?

ireland seems to be the only country that i can find that upholds to this measurement. other countries have banns on abortion but aren't democratic or progressive. but we are democratic and progressive and for now at least, we value life to the near ultimate. we can do better but we are almost there IMO. hopefully in may this will be proved via a no vote.

oscarBravo

end of the road wrote: »

ireland seems to be the only country that i can find that upholds to this measurement.

Doesn't that give you pause?

You've basically made an argument that Ireland is the only modern progressive society in the world. That's self-evidently nonsense, which means that your argument is, quite simply, wrong.

This is the point at which someone capable of introspection would ask themselves whether it's possible that something they firmly believe could conceivably be untrue.

Are you capable of such introspection? Are you capable of admitting that Ireland is not the only modern, progressive society in the world? Are you, as a consequence, capable of admitting that denying women access to reproductive healthcare isn't in fact a useful metric of modernity and progressiveness?

Also, you avoided the question about abortion as birth control.

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

i have answered your questions very early on in this whole discussion.

Link please? This circle where we go around and around where I keep asking you the question, and you keep claiming to have answered it can easily be broken in one of two simple ways. You can choose which one:

1) Link to where you answered it before.
2) simply deign to answer it again.

end of the road wrote: »

the unborn have a right to life via the fact they are human

That is mere assertion. One you repeat often. But you are still not answering the question. Because I am asking you ABOUT that assertion. So simply repeating the assertion does not answer what is being, and has been, asked.

So I will ask it again. WHY is taxonomy, and merely being classed "human" by virtue of DNA a methodology in science or philosophy to your mind to ascribe rights.

end of the road

oscarBravo wrote: »

Doesn't that give you pause?

You've basically made an argument that Ireland is the only modern progressive society in the world. That's self-evidently nonsense, which means that your argument is, quite simply, wrong.

This is the point at which someone capable of introspection would ask themselves whether it's possible that something they firmly believe could conceivably be untrue.

Are you capable of such introspection? Are you capable of admitting that Ireland is not the only modern, progressive society in the world? Are you, as a consequence, capable of admitting that denying women access to reproductive healthcare isn't in fact a useful metric of modernity and progressiveness?

Also, you avoided the question about abortion as birth control.

in my view ireland is more modern and progressive then countries that allow non-medical abortion. i don't believe women are being denied access to reproductive health care, as i don't see non-medical abortion as health care. the only concern i have is in relation to some medical abortions not being able to be performed, but i have to prioritise stopping abortion on demand via my vote in may. the government's proposals put me in this position.
i wasn't avoiding your second question but i had to go and do something else for a bit.

i found.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1238612/Girls-using-abortion-birth-control.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/women-having-abortions-contraception-doesnt-work/

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Link please? This circle where we go around and around where I keep asking you the question, and you keep claiming to have answered it can easily be broken in one of two simple ways. You can choose which one:

1) Link to where you answered it before.
2) simply deign to answer it again.



That is mere assertion. One you repeat often. But you are still not answering the question. Because I am asking you ABOUT that assertion. So simply repeating the assertion does not answer what is being, and has been, asked.

So I will ask it again. WHY is taxonomy, and merely being classed "human" by virtue of DNA a methodology in science or philosophy to your mind to ascribe rights.

because it's human, and it will develop into a person, and therefore it's right to life has to be protected.

ancapailldorcha

end of the road wrote: »

in my view ireland is more modern and progressive then countries that allow non-medical abortion. i don't believe women are being denied access to reproductive health care, as i don't see non-medical abortion as health care. the only concern i have is in relation to some medical abortions not being able to be performed, but i have to prioritise stopping abortion on demand via my vote in may. the government's proposals put me in this position.

Your reasoning is absurd to be honest. How many modern, progressive countries have amended their constitution to deny women rights over their own bodies while leaving the article that affords special status to the Catholic Church unaltered. This claim is nonsense, as is the abortion on demand trope.

end of the road

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Your reasoning is absurd to be honest. How many modern, progressive countries have amended their constitution to deny women rights over their own bodies while leaving the article that affords special status to the Catholic Church unaltered. This claim is nonsense, as is the abortion on demand trope.

i would happily vote to remove the article that gives special status to the catholic church in a heart beat. such a referendum isn't being proposed to my knowledge though. on topic, i'm not happy with the proposals being put forward by the government as i believe they go to far and i haven't an option but to vote no . i am simply not in a position to see things as you do.

ancapailldorcha

end of the road wrote: »

i would happily vote to remove the article that gives special status to the catholic church in a heart beat. such a referendum isn't being proposed to my knowledge though. on topic, i'm not happy with the proposals being put forward by the government as i believe they go to far and i haven't an option but to vote no . i am simply not in a position to see things as you do.

But it's been there for over 70 years. That contradicts your claim in my opinion that Ireland is some sort of shining beacon of progressiveness.

As I said before, I don't buy the abortion on demand trope. It's nonsense and I think you know that as well. You might as well claim that a VAT increase on alcohol is going to eradicate all pubs and alcoholic beverages.

blanch152

seamus wrote: »

Well yes. But remember that the pregnancy will be terminated, not the foetus.

At 34 weeks, labour will be induced and a child born alive and treated as necessary. The child will then be taken into state care assuming the mother doesn't want it.

At least one of these has already occurred under the POLDPA.

The wording is very clear that "pregnancies" can only be terminated. It will never be legal to kill any foetus born alive and doctors will be obliged to provide treatment where necessary for survival. The clinical guidelines tend to recommend no treatment for foetuses delivered before about 23 weeks (it's futile), though calls are made on a case-by-case basis.

This still gives me pause in respect of later-term abortions.

A prematurely born foetus is likely to have significant health issues all through their life. How do you balance that against a possibly temporary danger to a woman's health?

P.S. Remember I favour abortion on demand up to 16/18 weeks.

david75

Mod: Don't quote other forums. Please read the Politics charter before posting again.

oscarBravo

end of the road wrote: »

in my view ireland is more modern and progressive then countries that allow non-medical abortion.

That means that you're defining "modern and progressive" as "forces women to be pregnant against their will". That makes exactly as much sense as defining "modern and progressive" as "publicly flogs gays".

If that's your definition of "modern and progressive", then - with all due respect - your definition of pretty much anything can be safely ignored.

i don't believe women are being denied access to reproductive health care, as i don't see non-medical abortion as health care.

See above. Your beliefs are not grounded in any objective rational analysis.

I suspect it's also fair to say that you're neither a woman nor a medical professional, so your beliefs as to whether women are being denied healthcare are, to put it kindly, ignorant.

the only concern i have is in relation to some medical abortions not being able to be performed, but i have to prioritise stopping abortion on demand via my vote in may. the government's proposals put me in this position.

In other words, more Savitas is a price you're prepared to pay in order to force women to be pregnant.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1238612/Girls-using-abortion-birth-control.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/women-having-abortions-contraception-doesnt-work/

I never click on Daily Mail or Telegraph links on principle. If your evidence is that the most hysterical right-wing British rags agree with you, I'll let that speak for itself.

ancapailldorcha

oscarBravo wrote: »

I never click on Daily Mail or Telegraph links on principle. If your evidence is that the most hysterical right-wing British rags agree with you, I'll let that speak for itself.

The Daily Mail link is just sensationalist nonsense. I got as far as the title.

The Telegraph article is less sensationalist but there is the usual pompous, moralizing tone to endure so buyer beware. The article talks about research but the links are to other Telegraph articles so that's a big no-no for me.

How many people use contraception and have no issues at all? Failure rates for contraceptives are based on the amount of couples per annum who experience a pregnancy, not the number of instances of sexual intercourse which result in pregnancy. A success rate of 97% for condoms (as an example) means that 3 couples in 100 will have a pregnancy within the first year of using them:

Failure rates are typically calculated for each birth control method based on the number of pregnancies that are avoided by using that contraceptive, or the difference between the number of pregnancies expected to occur if no method is used and the number expected to take place with that method. The proper way to interpret birth control effectiveness/failure rates is as follows:
Using condoms as an example –- Condoms are 85-98% effective (meaning they have a failure rate of 2-15%).

This means that: of every 100 women whose partners use condoms, 2 to 15 will become pregnant within the first year of use. So basically, the failure rate does not refer to how many times you have sex, it correlates the number of people (100) who use that method over the course of one year.

Ultimately, this is just drivel from a right-wing newspaper which is attempting to trivialise abortion so that anyone voting to retain the eighth can do so in the knowledge that it's an inconsequential choice anyway.

recedite

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Could you PLEASE purchase a dictionary? By definition abortion can not be a contraception. It simply is not what the words "abortion" and "contraception" mean. How do you expect to be taken seriously in the conversation if you refuse to learn the definitions of the most basic terminology within it, let alone the lack of actual engagement in good faith with peoples attempts to discuss it with you.

Instead of taking that condescending tone, you need to recognise that there are some very blurred boundaries. Starting with contraceptive pills that also prevent implantation of a fertilised egg, then moving on to the morning after pill, then moving on to what is proposed now; the "no questions asked" abortions up to 12 weeks, most of which would also be effected via a pill.

Annasopra

So anyone following international news will have noticed that we are now finding out that a US firm Cambridge Analytica basically was able to hack 50 million facebook users data in order to sway the Trump election

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-facebook-influence-us-election

And they had influence on Brexit too

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-brexit-robbery-hijacked-democracy

It is worth noting also that Cambridge Analytica has ties to Kanto which was hired by Pro Life campaigners here

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/anti-abortion-group-hires-kanto-agency-that-pushed-brexit-hfnklf3kk

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/whether-its-brexit-or-the-repeal-campaign-we-must-resist-the-urge-to-join-the-culture-wars

david75

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

So anyone following international news will have noticed that we are now finding out that a US firm Cambridge Analytica basically was able to hack 50 million facebook users data in order to sway the Trump election

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-facebook-influence-us-election

And they had influence on Brexit too

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-brexit-robbery-hijacked-democracy

It is worth noting also that Cambridge Analytica has ties to Kanto which was hired by Pro Life campaigners here

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/anti-abortion-group-hires-kanto-agency-that-pushed-brexit-hfnklf3kk

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/whether-its-brexit-or-the-repeal-campaign-we-must-resist-the-urge-to-join-the-culture-wars

It’s abundantly clear they’re already at work here with the same MO.
Just look at the never ending amounts of brand new boards accounts daily and they only seem to post in abortion discussion threads.

demfad

One of the pro-life campaign hired a RW company called Pinto headed by a guy called Borthwich. He is formerly of Cambridge Analytica who are in the news today. If Pinto use CAs Facebook user profiles then that particular campaign just lost their comms company (see Cambridge Analytica)

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

because it's human, and it will develop into a person, and therefore it's right to life has to be protected.

So as predicted you did not answer the question but simply, once again, restated the thing I am questioning. No surprise there.

However what you DO say here is what I also say. That it is NOT a person. The question / evidence / challenge to you therefore is to offer the arguments you have been dodging so far that links rights and concerns to biological humanity rather than person hood. You are simply happy to beg the question.

This you have not done and, I suspect, can not do. It would require more knowledge of science and philosophy than you have displayed, and more willingness to engage in good faith with the conversation than you have demonstrated.

Chris_Heilong

The moment cells divide it is life, you can argue when it should be considered human life or not but do accept that when you decide to have an abortion it is extinguishing life. I know how I will be voting and I am not even religious.

david75

Cancer cells also split and divide and multiply growing inside a host.

Are you against cancer treatment?

end of the road

david75 wrote: »

Cancer cells also split and divide and multiply growing inside a host.

Are you against cancer treatment?

not a relevant comparison dav.
cancer treatment attempts to, and is often successful in saving lives. abortion on the other hand takes lives. cancer treatment is always necessary when performed, abortion is only necessary in a small amount of cases.

david75

end of the road wrote: »

not a relevant comparison dav.
cancer treatment attempts to, and is often successful in saving lives. abortion on the other hand takes lives. cancer treatment is always necessary when performed, abortion is only necessary in a small amount of cases.

As always EOTR you miss the point being made in such a spectacular fashion it’s rather amusing.
Ps
Stop calling me dav. I appreciate you have a limited ability to read full sentences and absorb facts but my name is not dav you are not familiar with me at all so I’ll thank you to stop that.

Also there’s a post three above yours still waiting on a reply from you. One you no doubt will ignore.

end of the road

david75 wrote: »

As always EOTR you miss the point being made in such a spectacular fashion it’s rather amusing.

nope, i have got the point, there is no comparison between the 2. you will have to try again.

david75 wrote: »

Ps
Stop calling me dav. I appreciate you have a limited ability to read full sentences and absorb facts but my name is not dav you are not familiar with me at all so I’ll thank you to stop that.

Also there’s a post three above yours still waiting on a reply from you. One you no doubt will ignore.

none of this is relevant to the topic of abortion.

Zubeneschamali

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

The moment cells divide it is life, you can argue when it should be considered human life or not but do accept that when you decide to have an abortion it is extinguishing life. I know how I will be voting and I am not even religious.

Voting to ban IVF, the Morning After pill, and travel to England?

seamus

blanch152 wrote: »

This still gives me pause in respect of later-term abortions.

A prematurely born foetus is likely to have significant health issues all through their life. How do you balance that against a possibly temporary danger to a woman's health?

Sure, but what "possible temporary danger" would bring a woman to request a termination at such a late term? You cite, "risk to her mental health", but can you give an example of such a risk that would only appear at 34 weeks but not 3 months earlier?

In any case, after 32/33 weeks the long-term prognosis for any premature birth is very close to a full term birth.

Remember that you're not just balancing the implications of a birth/pregnancy on the foetus and the mother, but the long-term implications for both. If a woman has had a mental "episode" at 34 weeks where suddenly a termination is necessary, it's unlikely that she will ever be in a place where she can care for that child independently.

So what's to be gained by forcing her to tough out the next six weeks?

FreudianSlippers

end of the road wrote: »

abortion is highly likely being used as birth control

You're either a man who has no experience with abortion or a woman who has never had or known anyone who has had an abortion.

This is a ridiculous, disgusting and disrespectful statement to anyone who has even second-hand experience of abortion.

Maxpfizer

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You're either a man who has no experience with abortion or a woman who has never had or known anyone who has had an abortion.

This is a ridiculous, disgusting and disrespectful statement to anyone who has even second-hand experience of abortion.

I would suggest a different approach here.

I don't think it's necessarily disgusting or disrespectful to suggest that people would end up using abortion as birth control. People can be weird and unpredictable and I don't think we can say either way.

Fortunately, it doesn't really matter as people abusing the procedure does not mean the the procedure should be banned outright. It just means that we should legislate for people who might end up abusing the system.

The reaction that it's a ridiculous, disgusting or disrespectful statement just feels like a copy of the kind of emotive language that the anti-abortion side are using.

Maxpfizer

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

The moment cells divide it is life, you can argue when it should be considered human life or not but do accept that when you decide to have an abortion it is extinguishing life. I know how I will be voting and I am not even religious.

Are you a vegetarian?

You could argue that the moment the cells divide it is life but you can't argue that it's somehow inhumane or immoral to extinguish life at that point.

If there is only a collection of cells and no brain activity at the time of the abortion then what is the harm?

I don't understand why as a community or a culture or whatever we are saying to women "the cells have divided now so that's you stuck incubating a baby for the next 9 months".

Why is the woman obligated to keep that collection of cells alive? Why can't she ask for it to be removed from her body and if it cannot survive without her then too bad?

I am not seeing a good argument for how the right to life for a collection of non-sentient matter (up to 12 weeks, right?) trumps a woman's right to bodily autonomy?

end of the road

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Voting to ban IVF, the Morning After pill, and travel to England?

given there isn't going to be a vote on those i'd suggest they are irrelevant. the first 2 are nothing to do with abortion. and the third would effect those not procuring abortion if it was implamented.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You're either a man who has no experience with abortion or a woman who has never had or known anyone who has had an abortion.

none of this is relevant. it means nothing.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This is a ridiculous, disgusting and disrespectful statement to anyone who has even second-hand experience of abortion.

nope i don't agree. tell me what is ridiculous, disgusting and disrespectful about my opinion?

Zubeneschamali

end of the road wrote: »

given there isn't going to be a vote on those i'd suggest they are irrelevant. the first 2 are nothing to do with abortion. and the third would effect those not procuring abortion if it was implemented.

If you read the post I was responding to, that poster believes life begins at conception. IVF, MAP and travel to England end life after conception in exactly the same way as termination up to 12 weeks as proposed here.

So to be consistent, the poster should be against those.

Clearly supporters of the 8th don't really believe life begins at conception or they would care about those cases. But if they don't believe that, then the 8th is stupid and should be repealed, so they have to pretend to believe that, and then change the subject. Or, as you just did, announce that this is all somehow "irrelevant".

FreudianSlippers

end of the road wrote: »

none of this is relevant. it means nothing.

It is manifestly relevant to your statement.

nope i don't agree. tell me what is ridiculous, disgusting and disrespectful about my opinion?

The statement that abortion would be (or is) used as birth control shows a massive lack of understanding of the abortion procedure, the physical and mental impact. It also denigrates women who obtain abortions and shows little to no respect to women in general.

end of the road

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It is manifestly relevant to your statement.



The statement that abortion would be (or is) used as birth control shows a massive lack of understanding of the abortion procedure, the physical and mental impact. It also denigrates women who obtain abortions and shows little to no respect to women in general.

i would have to disagree with both statements given that abortion involves the killing of a human being.
my opinion no more denigrates women who have abortions then my opinion on a woman who would kill a newborn denigrates women who do it. it's the act that is the problem.

swampgas

end of the road wrote: »

i would have to disagree with both statements given that abortion involves the killing of a human being.
my opinion no more denigrates women who have abortions then my opinion on a woman who would kill a newborn denigrates women who do it. it's the act that is the problem.

Except when the Irish woman hops on a plane, then you don't mind at all.

You don't really do consistency, do you?

end of the road

swampgas wrote: »

Except when the Irish woman hops on a plane, then you don't mind at all.

You don't really do consistency, do you?

i do very much mind but she is legally allowed to do it given it's legal in britain and we cannot stop freedom of movement unless someone is a criminal.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

i do very much mind but she is legally allowed to do it given it's legal in britain and we cannot stop movement of freedom unless someone is a criminal.

But if she’s traveling to callously murder a defenseless irish citizen surely she is a criminal? And we’d be stopping her from going at all costs and unconveniences?

end of the road

SusieBlue wrote: »

But if she’s traveling to callously murder a defenseless irish citizen surely she is a criminal? And we’d be stopping her from going at all costs and unconveniences?

morally she has commited a murder yes . she has killed the most defenseless, the unborn. however, we have freedom of movement, and that means people will be going to other countries to commit acts that are legal there. we can't prosecute people who commit legal acts in other countries.
we can however, vote to prevent the killing of the unborn here in ireland, which is what i, and many others will be trying to do come referendum day via our no vote.

david75

end of the road wrote: »

morally she has commited a murder yes . she has killed the most defenseless, the unborn. however, we have freedom of movement, and that means people will be going to other countries to commit acts that are legal there. we can't prosecute people who commit legal acts in other countries.
we can however, vote to prevent the killing of the unborn here in ireland, which is what i, and many others will be trying to do come referendum day via our no vote.

So you’re ok with abortion. Just not in Ireland.

But that’s not nimbyism? It’s hypocritical that much is certain.