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

end of the road

david75 wrote: »

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

nope. i'm not okay with it.

david75 wrote: »

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

it's not nimbyism or hypocritical to recognise the reality that we cannot stop someone going abroad unless it's to commit a criminal act in a country where the act is also criminal, or they have commited a criminal act here in ireland.

david75

end of the road wrote: »

nope. i'm not okay with it.



it's not nimbyism or hypocritical to recognise the reality that we cannot stop someone going abroad unless it's to commit a criminal act in a country where the act is also criminal, or they have commited a criminal act here in ireland.

Then you should be campaigning against the 13th amendment not the 8th

But you’re not. Why is that?

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

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.

Wrong in two ways.

Firstly, the 8th amendment has an exemption from the various EU treaties, so freedom of movement wouldn't be a barrier to prosecuting someone having an abortion overseas if we wanted to.

Secondly, even if that wasn't the case, freedom of movement doesn't prevent us from criminalising acts that are legal elsewhere. For example, someone in Ireland who arranged the euthanasia or assisted suicide of another person abroad could still be tried under Irish laws. The same could be applied to abortion.

This is moot though, because the reason we don't prosecute people for having abortions abroad is simply because we don't want to, and that includes you.

end of the road

david75 wrote: »

Then you should be campaigning against the 13th amendment not the 8th

But you’re not. Why is that?

i already answered that question. it's in my previous post.

david75

end of the road wrote: »

i already answered that question. it's in my previous post.

You don’t seem to realise how hypocritical you are.

robarmstrong

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.

It's not a human being. It's a developing one.

I'll bite though.

My partner and I have suffered numerous mc's, one stillbirth, and we had to have one abortion. We had to abort due to her uterine wall not being stable (fully healed) enough to support that baby's growth and development. We had to travel to the UK to do that.

Do you think it is right that we had to travel to have this medical procedure performed? Do you think it's right that we were sent on our merry way with no aftercare or support back home? Voting no essentially keeps that out of our grasp along with many others in the same situation as us.

Do you believe my partner committed a crime (moral or otherwise) in seeking an abortion for a baby she physically could not support due to something completely out of her control?

If your answer is a yes to those questions, you need to take a long hard look at your mindset before voting.

Repealing the 8th a long time ago would have meant herself could have received the appropriate amount of after care and support (physically and mentally) required.

end of the road

robarmstrong wrote: »

It's not a human being. It's a developing one.

I'll bite though.

My partner and I have suffered numerous mc's, one stillbirth, and we had to have one abortion. We had to abort due to her uterine wall not being stable (fully healed) enough to support that baby's growth and development. We had to travel to the UK to do that.

Do you think it is right that we had to travel to have this medical procedure performed? Do you think it's right that we were sent on our merry way with no aftercare or support back home? Voting no essentially keeps that out of our grasp along with many others in the same situation as us.

Do you believe my partner committed a crime (moral or otherwise) in seeking an abortion for a baby she physically could not support due to something completely out of her control?

If your answer is a yes to those questions, you need to take a long hard look at your mindset before voting.

Repealing the 8th a long time ago would have meant herself could have received the appropriate amount of after care and support (physically and mentally) required.

it's a human being. right from the minute it begins developing. this cannot be disputed. the argument you are trying to have is about personhood.
your case is a medical case so should be facilitated in ireland. however, due to the proposals being put on the table by the government, to allow abortion on demand up to 12 weeks, there is no other option for me and many others but to vote no . a successful no vote if it happens, will ultimately prevent the proposal to allow abortion on demand up to 12 weeks from becoming a reality. for me and many others, abortion on demand is not an option, and we will not vote for anything that allows it, because the government had, and still have an opportunity to put forward proposals that we can vote on. the government have forced us to vote no
i don't need to take any look at my mindset. i'm happy with my view, i came to it via facts logic and general reality, from the pro-choice view i used to hold in my late teens early 20s. i realised that what i was defending, in supporting the availability to kill an unborn child for any reason, was wrong, and that the arguments i was defending just did not stack up when put to the test on various other issues. i realised they could be extended to issues i would disagree with. finding out the reality of what an abortion involves for the unborn was the final straw.
i'm ashamed that i supported the availability to kill the most innocent of society without any reason. i was wrong to do that. i am right however to support the availability of abortion in medically necessary circumstances, such as to save the mother's life, the threat of permanent injury or disability, FFA cases, among other medical reasons. these are necessary as while it will be aweful that the unborn will die, the reality is that if the mother sadly passes away, the unborn will pass away as well.
i'm very prowd and happy that i saw the reality. i'm not ashamed to be pro-life and never will be. i'm not ashamed that i value both mother and baby's lives. i made a mistake in believing what i believed. i was wrong.

Nettle Soup

end of the road wrote: »

it's not nimbyism or hypocritical to recognise the reality that we cannot stop someone going abroad unless it's to commit a criminal act in a country where the act is also criminal, or they have commited a criminal act here in ireland.

If you could, would you strengthen the 8th to make it a criminal offence to travel for an abortion?

robarmstrong

end of the road wrote: »

it's a human being. right from the minute it begins developing. this cannot be disputed. the argument you are trying to have is about personhood.
your case is a medical case so should be facilitated in ireland. however, due to the proposals being put on the table by the government, to allow abortion on demand up to 12 weeks, there is no other option for me and many others but to vote no . a successful no vote if it happens, will ultimately prevent the proposal to allow abortion on demand up to 12 weeks from becoming a reality. for me and many others, abortion on demand is not an option, and we will not vote for anything that allows it, because the government had, and still have an opportunity to put forward proposals that we can vote on. the government have forced us to vote no
i don't need to take any look at my mindset. i'm happy with my view, i came to it via facts logic and general reality, from the pro-choice view i used to hold in my late teens early 20s. i realised that what i was defending, in supporting the availability to kill an unborn child for any reason, was wrong, and that the arguments i was defending just did not stack up when put to the test on various other issues. i realised they could be extended to issues i would disagree with. finding out the reality of what an abortion involves for the unborn was the final straw.
i'm ashamed that i supported the availability to kill the most innocent of society without any reason. i was wrong to do that. i am right however to support the availability of abortion in medically necessary circumstances, such as to save the mother's life, the threat of permanent injury or disability, FFA cases, among other medical reasons. these are necessary as while it will be aweful that the unborn will die, the reality is that if the mother sadly passes away, the unborn will pass away as well.
i'm very prowd and happy that i saw the reality. i'm not ashamed to be pro-life and never will be. i'm not ashamed that i value both mother and baby's lives. i made a mistake in believing what i believed. i was wrong.

I'm fairly certain every poster on boards would dispute that.

Have you got any factual evidence of this abortion on demand phrase?

You were previously challenged on your view that abortion is a form of birth control. I've yet to see factual rebuttals from you regarding this.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control this will help you greatly in defining what is and what is not a form of birth control.

Also -

end of the road wrote: »

the government have forced us to vote no

Nope, you're doing that well of your own accord.

By the way up until 8 weeks it's considered an embryo. Do you want to give an embryo more rights than an actual person standing in front of you?

david75

The word you’re consistently spelling wrong is ‘Proud’. Prowd isn’t a word.

If you want anyone to bother reading your posts, You should also learn how to use paragraphs. Just push enter. It’s the one with the arrow on it.

Proud I could help you on this small irritating matter.

end of the road

robarmstrong wrote: »

Nope, you're doing that well of your own accord.

nope wrong, the government's proposals have forced me to vote no . i would vote yes if the proposals were exceptible. the government could have put forward exceptible proposals but chose not to, so forced my hand.

robarmstrong wrote: »

By the way up until 8 weeks it's considered an embryo. Do you want to give an embryo more rights than an actual person standing in front of you?

embryo is just the name for the stage of development the human being is at. it has equal rights "as much as is practical" to the mother. meaning that when it comes down to it, it doesn't quite have the same rights as a person standing in front of me, who would be saved, as their chances of survival are greater. this idea of giving more rights to the unborn then the mother is ultimately not true according to the constitution.

robarmstrong

end of the road wrote: »

nope wrong, the government's proposals have forced me to vote no . i would vote yes if the proposals were exceptible. the government could have put forward exceptible proposals but chose not to, so forced my hand.



embryo is just the name for the stage of development the human being is at. it has equal rights "as much as is practical" to the mother. meaning that when it comes down to it, it doesn't quite have the same rights as a person standing in front of me, who would be saved, as their chances of survival are greater. this idea of giving more rights to the unborn then the mother is ultimately not true according to the constitution.

Nope wrong, you've not been forced to vote no whatsoever, you are completely free to vote however you feel.

Embryo is the scientific term for that particular clump of cells.

The embryo has a right to live, the mother does not have a right to a choice, so not equal rights.

Also if you wouldn't mind -

robarmstrong wrote: »

Have you got any factual evidence of this abortion on demand phrase?

You were previously challenged on your view that abortion is a form of birth control. I've yet to see factual rebuttals from you regarding this.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control this will help you greatly in defining what is and what is not a form of birth control.

david75

‘Exceptible’ Also isnt a word. You probably mean acceptable.

end of the road

Nettle Soup wrote: »

If you could, would you strengthen the 8th to make it a criminal offence to travel for an abortion?

no, there would be no point.

robarmstrong wrote: »

Nope wrong, you've not been forced to vote no whatsoever, you are completely free to vote however you feel.

Embryo is the scientific term for that particular clump of cells.

The embryo has a right to live, the mother does not have a right to a choice, so not equal rights.

Also if you wouldn't mind -

the government's proposals have forced me to vote no . the unborn has a right to life unless extreme circumstances mean that should not be the case, in which abortion should be performed. this is not a choice issue as none of us have the choice to kill others unless it is in absolutely extreme circumstances. i have already dealt with my opinion that i would consider non-medical abortion to be a form of birth control, because it's ultimately controling a birth for non-medical and non-life or health threatening reasons. i even provided a couple of articles a bit up.

robarmstrong

end of the road wrote: »

no, there would be no point.



the government's proposals have forced me to vote no . the unborn has a right to life unless extreme circumstances mean that should not be the case, in which abortion should be performed. this is not a choice issue as none of us have the choice to kill others unless it is in absolutely extreme circumstances. i have already dealt with my opinion that i would consider non-medical abortion to be a form of birth control, because it's ultimately controling a birth for non-medical and non-life or health threatening reasons. i even provided a couple of articles a bit up.

So it's your opinion, not fact that it's a form of birth control, no? Is there any factual evidence to support your opinion or would it just be your interpretation of what birth control is?

You posted absolute drivel articles by some of the worst newspapers known to man, doesn't support anything.

So you label it killing, so essentially murder, correct? As in an unlawful killing of another human being right? Do embryos and fetus fall under the remit of "human being" or "human being under development"?

EDIT: Have you got any statistical evidence to back up your claim of introducing "abortion on demand" or is that what you're interpreting unrestricted abortion as?

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

i would consider non-medical abortion to be a form of birth control, because it's ultimately controling a birth for non-medical and non-life or health threatening reasons. i even provided a couple of articles a bit up.

do you understand the definition of birth control?
do you understand that contraceptives are used before contraception?
there is no way abortion can be used as birth control.

end of the road

robarmstrong wrote: »

So you label it killing, so essentially murder, correct? As in an unlawful killing of another human being right? Do embryos and fetus fall under the remit of "human being" or "human being under development"?

killing doesn't have to be murder. an embryo and a fetus would be at different stages of development in terms of being a human being.

robarmstrong wrote: »

Have you got any statistical evidence to back up your claim of introducing "abortion on demand" or is that what you're interpreting unrestricted abortion as?

unrestricted abortion without reason would be a form of abortion on demand in my view. i have saw no argument that i should believe otherwise.

robarmstrong

end of the road wrote: »

killing doesn't have to be murder. an embryo and a fetus would be at different stages of development in terms of being a human being.




unrestricted abortion without reason would be a form of abortion on demand in my view. i have saw no argument that i should believe otherwise.

Have you got any facts to back up your statement that unrestricted abortion would be a form of abortion on demand or is it just your opinion?

Have you got any facts to back up your statement that abortion is a form of birth-control or is it just your opinion?

end of the road

robarmstrong wrote: »

Have you got any facts to back up your statement that unrestricted abortion would be a form of abortion on demand or is it just your opinion?

Have you got any facts to back up your statement that abortion is a form of birth-control or is it just your opinion?

i answered these questions already. look through my previous posts today.

robarmstrong

end of the road wrote: »

i answered these questions already. look through my previous posts today.

If I wanted to go sifting through sh!te I'd go stick my hands in a toilet.

Have you got any facts to back up your statement that unrestricted abortion would be a form of abortion on demand or is it just your opinion?

Have you got any facts to back up your statement that abortion is a form of birth-control or is it just your opinion?

If the answer to both of these is that you don't have facts, rather just your opinion, your opinion is not factful.

end of the road

robarmstrong wrote: »

If I wanted to go sifting through sh!te I'd go stick my hands in a toilet.

Have you got any facts to back up your statement that unrestricted abortion would be a form of abortion on demand or is it just your opinion?

Have you got any facts to back up your statement that abortion is a form of birth-control or is it just your opinion?

If the answer to both of these is that you don't have facts, rather just your opinion, your opinion is not factful.

as i said, i already answered these questions in previous posts. post 770 for the first and post 818 for the second.

robarmstrong

end of the road wrote: »

as i said, i already answered these questions in previous posts. if you do not wish to read the thread that is your issue but the answers were provided.

So I'll take it they're your opinions, rather than fact.

Funny thing opinions, they can be so very, very wrong whereas facts can't.

david75

end of the road wrote: »

i answered these questions already. look through my previous posts today.

Answer them Again. You like copy and paste. Shouldn’t be hard for you.

robarmstrong

You didn't answer them at all in those posts.

I asked you for statistical evidence or factual statements consisting of proven facts (records) of your claims. You have been asked several times for facts to back up your statement and you provided newspaper articles by two of the worst papers known to mankind.

Have you, or have you not got any evidence to back up your claims? Have you got copies of research indicating that abortion is a form of birth control?
Have you got copies of factual scientific research linking "abortion on demand" as a byproduct of unrestricted abortion?

ancapailldorcha

end of the road wrote: »

as i said, i already answered these questions in previous posts. post 770 for the first and post 818 for the second.

Mod: I have looked at these posts and have found little more than soapboxing. Repeating the same opinion over and over again isn't good debate so please try and post more constructively.

oscarBravo

end of the road wrote: »

i'm happy with my view, i came to it via facts logic and general reality...

You expressed the belief that Ireland is the most modern, progressive country in the world, based solely on the fact that we deny women control over their reproductive health.

I'm afraid you don't get to claim that facts, logic or reality have anything whatsoever to do with your view.



Yes, I'm aware that you don't believe that we're denying women control over their reproductive health, but that's because you've conveniently decided what the term means. When you have to hand-craft your own definitions for language in order not to hopelessly lose an argument, you've already hopelessly lost it.

Edward M

I see a breakdown of the votes in the dail yesterday in the papers.
Over half of FF TDs voted against the bill for the referendum, a few others scattered around too.
Essentially a vote against even allowing the democratic process to take place at all.
If repeal passes though, with SF not yet declared as to how they stand on the 12 week limit, its hard to know for certain exactly what the legislation will be that follows.
That may put some voters off repeal, perhaps the dail should have passed some sort of agreement, even if not exact, but as a general guideline perhaps of what would follow.
With SF having to have a special add fheis after the vote and FF showing that there is no hunger for change in general within the party, there is still a great deal of uncertainty involved.
I think perhaps voters need clarity sometimes before committing to something, apart from repeal there isn't much clarity of how things will go afterwards.
FG it seems are the only party showing a bit of leadership here, as a whole.

Jolly Red Giant

Psychologists4Choice
‏ @Psychs4Choice

Important thread: we’ve had to take a step back and breath before writing this. @MaryLouMcDonald and @sinnfeinireland, you’re going to want to read this.
3:18 PM - 21 Mar 2018

It’s been brought to our attention that during her Dail speech @carolno98273399 referred to “the latest research from the British Journal of Psychiatry” which she claimed demonstrated that “abortion increased the risk of mental health problems for women by 81%”.
1 reply 13 retweets 28 likes
Psychologists4Choice
‏ @Psychs4Choice
11h11 hours ago

Now, we’re pretty up to date with the literature. Naturally, we thought we’d missed something new, and panicked. So over we went to the @TheBJPsych website and looked. And looked. And looked. And we couldn’t find anything.
1 reply 6 retweets 29 likes
Psychologists4Choice
‏ @Psychs4Choice
11h11 hours ago

And then we realised which “latest” paper she was talking about. It’s far from the latest, it was actually published in 2011.
1 reply 9 retweets 26 likes
Psychologists4Choice
‏ @Psychs4Choice
11h11 hours ago

Now, there are two problems with this. First, Ms Nolan has deliberately misled people by referring to this paper as the latest research. Since the paper Ms Nolan refers to was published, 81 papers have been published in the peer reviewed literature on abortion and mental health.
1 reply 13 retweets 47 likes
Psychologists4Choice
‏ @Psychs4Choice
11h11 hours ago

But more importantly, the paper she refers to was published by Priscilla Coleman, a psychologist who has been censured multiple times for manufacturing and misrepresenting research findings to match her pro life views. Her research findings have never, ever been replicated.
1 reply 20 retweets 62 likes
Psychologists4Choice
‏ @Psychs4Choice
11h11 hours ago

The soecific paper Ms Nolan refers to was criticised heavily by the @TheBJPsych. Our friends in the @Guttmacher have a WHOLE web page dedicate to Priscilla, which you can find here: https://www.guttmacher.org/news-rele...mes-decisively …

We’ve included this screen shot for your entertainment:
1 reply 12 retweets 44 likes
Psychologists4Choice
‏ @Psychs4Choice
11h11 hours ago

To conclude, Ms Nolan’s speech included deliberately misleading information about a study that isn’t just out of date, but that ended being completely invalidated and exposed as fraudulant by every other research study both before and after it.
2 replies 23 retweets 77 likes
Psychologists4Choice
‏ @Psychs4Choice
11h11 hours ago

https://twitter.com/Psychs4Choice/status/976583961483841536

david75

Pro-life bots and trolls are gearing up to sway Ireland's abortion vote


As Ireland's abortion referendum approaches, the fake news battle is raging online

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/ireland-abortion-referendum-repeal-the-8th-fake-news

FreudianSlippers

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.

No. Simply put... suggesting that abortion would be, could be or is used as a form of "birth control" shows a complete ignorance of the procedure and the mentality of a woman that obtains an abortion.

James Brown

On that point, does postpartum depression and anxiety mean women shouldn't be having children at all? After all it's 100% more likely to occur in women who have given birth...

Telling a human being they can't make their own decisions about their own body is whats denigrating.

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

On that point, does postpartum depression and anxiety mean women shouldn't be having children at all? After all it's 100% more likely to occur in women who have given birth...

Telling a human being they can't make their own decisions about their own body is whats denigrating.

I totally agree with you, but it's slightly beside the point.

Let's focus on what an abortion does both physically and mentally to a woman and THEN let's be the one who talks about it being used as "birth control"; until then, I will humour other arguments... but the "it being used as a form of birth control" argument is absolutely disgusting and disrespectful.

Abortion is a safe and healthy way to avoid foetal impregnation (pre 12 gestational weeks) but it has severe negative impact on the woman. To argue that women would be using it as a form of birth control shows a massive lack of abortion as a process and, frankly sex and women...

Full disclosure: I'm a man that has been there for a woman that has had an abortion. I was THERE. I was there after... I was there for the physical discomfort of the procedure. So, no... if you have one you're not using it like the same way as condoms! That's ****ing stupid.

{Edit: sorry, because I quoted you to agree with what you said seems like I'm arguing with you but I'm compounding on what you said!}

recedite

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Abortion is a safe and healthy way to avoid foetal impregnation

Your perception of human biology seems to be somewhat unusual

Red_Wake

FrancieBrady wrote: »

J C wrote: »

What about activists who are conflicted by their conscience on the issue?
Will they turn out to promote something they fundamentally disagree with?

The referendum should not be about abortion which happens and will continue to happen in this country.

The referendum is about choice. On that there should be no conflict in a modern democracy.

The choice to have......

FrancieBrady

J C wrote: »

The referendum is about removing the only protection in the constitution for the lives of unborn children in our country.

We do live in a country without legal abortion ...

Exactly. Abortion happens anyway and choice is removed, legally.

Repeal will allow women to choose (Which they are doing already) legally.

It is about 'choice' therefore

J C

Red_Wake wrote: »

The choice to have......

The 'choice' they are talking about is the 'choice' to kill unborn children in abortion.

The use of the word 'choice' in relation to abortion is distinctly inappropriate ... and has its roots in the consumerist ideology of consumer 'choice' always being good.

It relies on the presumption that if having a 'choice' of phone provider is good, then all 'choice' must be good ... even when the 'choice' is the killing of unborn children.
This consumerist attitude, to everything, including abortion ... is consumerism gone 'over the top'.

It is one of the reasons why people, in the mainstream, like Simon Coveney, are worried about how far things will go, if the 8th is removed ... and why they are searching for mechanisms to prevent legal excesses with abortion into the future - like his 'two thirds majority' idea.

However, the only certain legal limit on abortion, is a constitutional one ... and the 8th is the current limit.
If we are to repeal the 8th, then some other principle should replace/amend it ... and simply 'opening the legal floodgates' by just repealing it, is a 'bridge too far' for many people.

FrancieBrady

J C wrote: »

The 'choice' they are talking about is the 'choice' to kill unborn children in abortion.

The use of the word 'choice' in relation to abortion is distinctly inappropriate ... and has its roots in the consumerist ideology of consumer 'choice' always being good.

It relies on the presumption that if having a 'choice' of phone provider is good, then all 'choice' must be good ... even when the 'choice' is the killing of unborn children.
This consumerist attitude, to everything, including abortion ... is consumerism gone 'over the top'.

It is one of the reasons why people, in the mainstream, like Simon Coveney, are worried about how far things will go, if the 8th is removed ... and why they are searching for mechanisms to prevent legal excesses with abortion into the future - like his 'two thirds majority' idea.

However, the only certain legal limit on abortion, is a constitutional one ... and the 8th is the current limit.
If we are to repeal the 8th, then some other principle should replace/amend it ... and simply 'opening the legal floodgates' by just repealing it, is a 'bridge too far' for many people.

Don't base your campaign on trying to infer that anyone, enjoys or would willingly choose to have an abortion or thinks it is a 'good' choice.

J C

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Don't base your campaign on trying to infer that anyone, enjoys or would willingly choose to have an abortion or thinks it is a 'good' choice.

I am not running any campaign ... just giving my views.

Of course, I agree with you that abortion is never a 'good' thing ... it always results in the death of an unborn Human Being ... so it is something that should be very rarely done ... and then only in situations of extremis, when there is no practical alternative.

This precludes abortion on demand, irrespective of the gestational age of unborn child ... as well as many of the abortions sanctioned for reasons of the mother's health ... which has been used in other countries to facilitate abortions effectively on demand - because practically all pregnant women can be determined to have 'health issues' because of the physicality and physiology of pregnancy.

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

Of course, I agree with you that abortion is never a 'good' thing ... it always results in the death of an unborn Human Being ... so it is something that should be very rarely done ... and then only in situations of extremis, when there is no practical alternative.

Are there any other classes of human being that should only be killed rarely, when there is no practical alternative?

J C

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are there any other classes of human being that should only be killed rarely, when there is no practical alternative?

There are ... for example, people directly threatening the lives of other people ... whom law enforcement cannot neutralize by any other practical means, without killing them.

FrancieBrady

J C wrote: »

I am not running any campaign ... just giving my views.

Of course, I agree with you that abortion is never a 'good' thing ... it always results in the death of an unborn Human Being ... so it is something that should be very rarely done ... and then only in situations of extremis, when there is no practical alternative.

This precludes abortion on demand, irrespective of the gestational age of unborn child ... as well as many of the abortions sanctioned for reasons of the mother's health ... which has been used in other countries to facilitate abortions effectively on demand - because practically all pregnant women can be determined to have 'health issues' because of the physicality and physiology of pregnancy.

That is what the referendum is for you.

For me it is quite simple, do I trust women to make a choice, a very difficult choice.

I do. And I will vote for removing the 8th, safe in the knowledge that while abortion will not end, that those forced to make the choice will be able to do it as dignified, medically secure human beings.

J C

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is what the referendum is for you.

For me it is quite simple, do I trust women to make a choice, a very difficult choice.

I trust women to the same extent that I trust men to do the right thing, about anything ... some will ... and some won't.
It is obvious from existing abortion statistics in countries where abortion is freely available that most women go through with their pregnancies ... but among the 190,000 thousand abortions done in England every year there are certainly many thousands of abortions that are totally unnecessary.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I do. And I will vote for removing the 8th, safe in the knowledge that while abortion will not end, that those forced to make the choice will be able to do it as dignified, medically secure human beings.

'forced to make a choice' ... doesn't sound like much of a choice to me.
You have touched on another aspect of abortion ... which is that many women are forced to undergo abortion by subtle and not so subtle 'pressure' from medics, friends, family and lovers in countries where the 'culture of death' has taken hold.
I remember seeing a particular film actress, who was an old lady at the time, being interviewed and she broke down crying as she recalled an abortion she was forced to undergo because her pregnancy didn't fit in with the filming schedule.

FrancieBrady

J C wrote: »

I trust women to the same extent that I trust men to do the right thing, about anything ... some will ... and some won't.
It is obvious from existing abortion statistics in countries where abortion is freely available that most women go through with their pregnancies ... but among the 190,000 thousand abortions done in England every year there are certainly many thousands of abortions that are totally unnecessary.

'forced to make a choice' ... doesn't sound like much of a choice to me.
You have touched on another aspect of abortion ... which is that many women are forced to undergo abortion by subtle and not so subtle 'pressure' from medics, friends, family and lovers in countries where the 'culture of death' has taken hold.
I remember seeing a particular film actress, who was an old lady at the time, being interviewed and she broke down crying as she recalled an abortion she was forced to undergo because her pregnancy didn't fit in with the filming schedule.

And you want to force them to make choices they don't want to make.
I have seen women crying about many many things that happened to them. That is irrelevant frankly.

J C

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And you want to force them to make choices they don't want to make.

If they (and their partners) want to needlessly kill their unborn children ... or engage in any other activity that will result in death or injury ... yes, I believe they should be 'forced' to not do so.
... just like everybody else is 'forced' by law and society to not kill or injure others.

Most people won't kill or injure with or without a law in place ... but for those who will be tempted to kill or injure ... law needs to be there as a deterrent.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have seen women crying about many many things that happened to them. That is irrelevant frankly.

It isn't irrelevant to the topic of abortion, when the woman was still deeply regretting an abortion forced on her by her employer over fifty years earlier.

FrancieBrady

emo72 wrote: »

clucking bell, whats he saying now about scans? its on the front page of the times. hes really making himself look like a clown now. pick a side mate. and we will respect your convictions. but this? "im against it ****, but maybe if we can bring in these mad rules that would be grand". NO ITS BULLCRAP! pick a side dude.

Playing both sides and afraid to legislate.

FrancieBrady

J C wrote: »

If they (and their partners) want to needlessly kill their unborn children ... or engage in any other activity that will result in death or injury ... yes, I believe they should be 'forced' to not do so.
... just like everybody else is 'forced' by law and society to not kill or injure others.

You will just have to accept that some people do not see it as an unborn child. (And this isn't the thread to get into the science of that)
Your code is not everyone's code.

It isn't irrelevant to the topic of abortion, when the woman was still deeply regretting an abortion forced on her by her employer over fifty years earlier.

And just as many women don't regret it. It's relevant only to those who have regrets.

emo72

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Playing both sides and afraid to legislate.

yeah an absolute coward. like if he is dead set against abortion, say it. i wont agree with it, but i accept his honesty. but this ****e hes coming out with.

is political gymnastics a saying? because coveney is hopping and bouncing all over the shop.

J C

emo72 wrote: »

clucking bell, whats he saying now about scans? its on the front page of the times. hes really making himself look like a clown now. pick a side mate. and we will respect your convictions. but this? "im against it ****, but maybe if we can bring in these mad rules that would be grand". NO ITS BULLCRAP! pick a side dude.

The man is clearly wrestling with his conscience ... and I applaud him for doing so.
This issue is a matter of life and death ... and it doesn't come any more serious than that.

If the 8th is removed, however, it will be nigh impossible to limit where it all ends.
Full marks to Simon for trying ... but I think he may be on a hiding to nothing on this one.

Indeed, if Simon doesn't succeed in putting some effective limits in place ... the referendum will likely be lost IMO.
Many people want abortion for 'hard cases' ... but they don't want the 'floodgates to be opened' ... which will happen, if Simon doesn't succeed in putting workable 'backstops' in place.

J C

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You will just have to accept that some people do not see it as an unborn child. (And this isn't the thread to get into the science of that)
Your code is not everyone's code.

It's most people's code ... to do unto others as you would have done unto you.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And just as many women don't regret it. It's relevant only to those who have regrets.

Humans have a conscience ... and it has a habit of 'pricking' people, often at the most inconvenient of times.
I simply don't accept that any woman would be so callous as to not be affected by aborting her unborn child. Sometimes abortion is necessary to save a mothers life ... and I think that even when this is the case, it will still take its emotional toll on the mother involved.
Like you have said earlier, abortion is not something which is done lightly, (I hope) by anybody.

emo72

[QUOTE=J C;106570088 the referendum will likely be lost IMO.
[/QUOTE]

im going to be honest with you. i dont think theres a chance in heaven this referendum will be lost.