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

J C · 29-03-2018 1:18am

emo72 wrote: »

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

An interesting use of words.
If Heaven has anything to do with it, it will certainly be lost.

... Human Beings will also vote against it.

J C · 29-03-2018 1:27am

emo72 wrote: »

i 100% agree with you. its nothing something any woman takes lightly. they probably carry it on their conscience for the rest of their lives. but yet it happens every day. its horrible but its a fact of life. it actually is happening right now and its a huge burden for any woman to carry. but carry it they will.

I agree with you on all of the above ... what a terrible, and needless tragedy ... killing unborn children ... and blighting women's lives.
... when the alternative of having the child ... and keeping it, fostering it or adopting it hurts nobody.

emo72 · 29-03-2018 1:34am

J C wrote: »

... Human Beings will also vote against it.

not having a go at you JC. at least you stand up for your beliefs. simon could take a leaf out of your book. im a human being and im voting to repeal. everyone i know is voting for repeal, and im not a zealot. best of luck to you, i wish you well. and simon coveney is really making himself look like a fool, think about it honestly, if he had the strength of your convictions he wouldnt be flip flopping all over the place. 75% and checking scan dates? seriously you know thats really stupid.

J C · 29-03-2018 1:43am

emo72 wrote: »

not having a go at you JC. at least you stand up for your beliefs. simon could take a leaf out of your book. im a human being and im voting to repeal. everyone i know is voting for repeal, and im not a zealot. best of luck to you, i wish you well. and simon coveney is really making himself look like a fool, think about it honestly, if he had the strength of your convictions he wouldnt be flip flopping all over the place. 75% and checking scan dates? seriously you know thats really stupid.

Thanks Emo ... no issues. Thanks for your good wishes ... and every good wish to you too.

One of things proposed is that abortions will not be carried out post-viability (which will presumably require scans to assess) ... and indeed complying with the 12 week on demand abortion limit, will also need scans to prove the fetal age.

... I don't know if scans can actually do this ... but if some convincing mechanism isn't discovered by Simon ... even these 'fig leaf' limits (of viability and the 12 week limit) will be lost ... and with them, probably the referendum.

I would also point out that no lives will be lost if the referendum is lost ... but many thousands of unborn lives will be lost (with many thousands of women's lives blighted by this) if it is passed.

FrancieBrady · 29-03-2018 6:45am

J C wrote: »

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

I don't think most people are informed by a conservative code anymore. Other refs tell us this. Most people mind their own business on moral issues.

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.

I didn't say people are callous.
What I am saying is a lot of people make difficult decisions in life and get on with it and do not do regret.
Somebody crying in later life and regretting something is emotive irrelevancy as just as many get on with it. Life is not simple or idyllic.

J C · 29-03-2018 8:41am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't think most people are informed by a conservative code anymore. Other refs tell us this. Most people mind their own business on moral issues.

I'd say we have far more laws preventing all kinds of things than we have ever had ... as well as 'soft' rules at work and at play that circumscribe our behavior very tightly indeed. Even the possibility of harm (via cigarette smoke or drink driving) is now policed to the nth degree ... so we are probably the most 'moralizing' society that ever existed, if you ask me ... and these legal/moral prohibitions are enforced with the full force of law.
This contrasts dramatically with the 1950's equivalent of a parish priest moralizing off a pulpit ... with many people quietly ignoring him, in full knowledge that all he could do is talk or shout about it ... and there was no law prohibiting what he was so exercised about. This is not the case today.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't say people are callous.
What I am saying is a lot of people make difficult decisions in life and get on with it and do not do regret.
Somebody crying in later life and regretting something is emotive irrelevancy as just as many get on with it. Life is not simple or idyllic.

It definitely isn't an irrelevancy if women are so hurt by abortion that they carry the trauma for the rest of their lives.
Post-traumatic stress disorder affects police and army personnel who kill other people in the course of their duties ... and women are bound to suffer a version of PTSD when they kill their unborn children ... even at an instinctual level, it is natural to defend and protect one's young.

FrancieBrady · 29-03-2018 11:51am

J C wrote: »

I'd say we have far more laws preventing all kinds of things than we have ever had ... as well as 'soft' rules at work and at play that circumscribe our behavior very tightly indeed. Even the possibility of harm (via cigarette smoke or drink driving) is now policed to the nth degree ... so we are probably the most 'moralizing' society that ever existed, if you ask me ... and these legal/moral prohibitions are enforced with the full force of law.
This contrasts dramatically with the 1950's equivalent of a parish priest moralizing off a pulpit ... with many people quietly ignoring him, in full knowledge that all he could do is talk or shout about it ... and there was no law prohibiting what he was so exercised about. This is not the case today.

It definitely isn't an irrelevancy if women are so hurt by abortion that they carry the trauma for the rest of their lives.
Post-traumatic stress disorder affects police and army personnel who kill other people in the course of their duties ... and women are bound to suffer a version of PTSD when they kill their unborn children ... even at an instinctual level, it is natural to defend and protect one's young.

Laws about cigarette smoke are about 'choice' as well. They protect people who choose to work indoors.
You can still smoke to your heart's content if you choose to.

People have regrets about many things. The choice NOT to have an abortion is NOT being removed.

....... · 29-03-2018 12:39pm

This post has been deleted.

seamus · 29-03-2018 12:46pm

J C wrote: »

It definitely isn't an irrelevancy if women are so hurt by abortion that they carry the trauma for the rest of their lives.
Post-traumatic stress disorder affects police and army personnel who kill other people in the course of their duties ... and women are bound to suffer a version of PTSD when they kill their unborn children ... even at an instinctual level, it is natural to defend and protect one's young.

Ignoring your nonsense about PTSD, we don't legislate to prevent people making choices they'll regret.

So whether women regret pregnancies or not, is irrelevant in terms of whether it should be legal.

People regret getting drunk. They regret taking a bad job. They regret buying a new car. They regret losing their phone.

People make choices they regret. We don't protect them from those choices.

So there's no reason why regret should suddenly be relevant for abortion.

SusieBlue · 29-03-2018 1:02pm

J C wrote: »

It definitely isn't an irrelevancy if women are so hurt by abortion that they carry the trauma for the rest of their lives.
Post-traumatic stress disorder affects police and army personnel who kill other people in the course of their duties ... and women are bound to suffer a version of PTSD when they kill their unborn children ... even at an instinctual level, it is natural to defend and protect one's young.

Completely incorrect with no factual basis.

A study focusing on statistics of Irish women who procured abortion pills online, published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in 2016, confirmed that 97% of women felt they had made the right decision and 98% of women would recommend it to other women in a similar situation.

The study reported the most commonly held feeling after the fact was "relieved" (70%).

Of these women, the vast majority (94%) expressed gratitude for having the opportunity to be able to access these pills online. 63% of these women already had children. (link to the article here)

So no, I wouldn't say most, or even a minority of women experience PTSD or lifelong trauma after taking care of their own medical needs.

Women are intelligent beings who do not need to be saved from themselves by you. They are more than capable of making their own choices without any interference. It is absurd to suggest we not allow women abortions just because a very, very, minute amount of them might regret it.
Ridiculous.

Nettle Soup · 29-03-2018 1:25pm

Coveney really does appear a complete fool in all of this. I always suspected he was weak but he really needs to pick a side and shut up.

oscarBravo · 29-03-2018 3:25pm

J C wrote: »

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.

So armed robbers, terrorists and the unborn can be killed if necessary. Interesting juxtaposition.

I'm not trying to be glib, here. If you believe that the unborn is a fully-fledged human being with the same right to life as an adult human, then it makes no sense to me to accept, however reluctantly, that it's OK to kill it. Once you accept that there are circumstances when it's necessary to terminate a pregnancy, you've admitted - to others, if not to yourself - that a fertilised egg and an adult human are not the same thing.

Look: I'm fine with someone's religious beliefs leading them to the view that it's not OK to terminate their own pregnancy. It's when they conclude that it's not OK for anyone else to terminate a pregnancy that I have a problem with it.

It's a bit like being a vegetarian: if you believe meat is murder, feel free not to eat meat - hell, feel free to try to persuade me not to - but don't try to make it illegal for me to do so.

robarmstrong · 29-03-2018 3:28pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

So armed robbers, terrorists and the unborn can be killed if necessary. Interesting juxtaposition.

I'm not trying to be glib, here. If you believe that the unborn is a fully-fledged human being with the same right to life as an adult human, then it makes no sense to me to accept, however reluctantly, that it's OK to kill it. Once you accept that there are circumstances when it's necessary to terminate a pregnancy, you've admitted - to others, if not to yourself - that a fertilised egg and an adult human are not the same thing.

Look: I'm fine with someone's religious beliefs leading them to the view that it's not OK to terminate their own pregnancy. It's when they conclude that it's not OK for anyone else to terminate a pregnancy that I have a problem with it.

It's a bit like being a vegetarian: if you believe meat is murder, feel free not to eat meat - hell, feel free to try to persuade me not to - but don't try to make it illegal for me to do so.

That's hands down probably the best analogy/metaphor I've ever come across in the argument from either side. Pretty much sums it up, fair play!

Anne1982h · 29-03-2018 3:38pm

Andyfitzer wrote: »

Looking back over my points, below, it's obvious I'm pro life, but I try to be open to other opinions due to the importance of the referendum. Please give me feedback if you so wish on the points I make. It's also my first post, so if I've made a rookie error like put it in the wrong section, I'd appreciate a prompt.

I have read his report and it has made me so angry.

There is absolutely no recognition of the human rights the unborn child has. None. Not even a recognition that they have any. They are in the current legislation, but will be entirely stripped away if this bill passes. The right to life being number one.

There is some emotive language used when addressing the woman - compassionate, devastating diagnosis, mental distress - thereby acknowledging her humanity. There is only cold medical language used to describe the human in the womb- termination of pregnancy. The only time they are talked about in any kind of human way is in listing the categories where it should be legal to take their lives, sorry -"terminate". They are called the unborn child then.

This report is as one sided as it is possible to be, persistently discussing the health care that the woman should be receiving, _totally_ ignoring the human they are carrying.

It is logically flawed. One of the main reasons given to allow abortion is the fact that women are going to England to have abortions and ordering online abortifacients. This means they are legalising something because women are doing it anyway. Are we going to have legal drugs and prostitution now, because people go to Holland anyway, or do it illegally here already? Legal fraud, because people do it already? That is ludicrous logic. I'm appalled that people in power cannot see that the law should be logical and moral, not "if you can't beat them, join 'em"!!!! If abortion is illegal, and they break the law, arrest them. Don't capitulate, enforce. If there are real reasons to legalise, fine, but for this?

Also, the main reason for allowing abortion on demand up to 12 weeks, is so that one of the smallest of "categories" by percentages - pregnancy from rape (don't get me wrong, an horrific thing all round) - don't have to report it. I have huge sympathy with women who have been raped, nevermind then finding they are pregnant. But to jump to abortion on demand for everyone from there is crazy.

The second biggest reason was that a lot of things, like diagnoses, were difficult (that word was used a lot). Shrug your shoulders and just kill all the unborn!!!!!!!!! Easy, hey!?

The committee has been accused of bias throughout this process. They started by voting to repeal before hearing any pro life contributors. That, I presume to be due to the UN ruling on FFA. No need to legislate for any other reason for abortion, so, but they recommended to anyway. Ms Noone's tweet to wrap up the process (Been an absolute privilege & honour to chair a committee of such hard working and committed politicians. My hope is for a mature & calm debate in which all views are heard & above all that we continue to look at the facts & daily reality of women's healthcare), only mentioned women - as does her report. Interestingly, the list of contributors in the index doesn't include why they were invited, just a note to look for the transcripts. Appears to be an attempt to hide the fact so few pro life contributors were invited.

This debate is naturally extremely biased, as it is. Those born humans can tweet, ring radio stations, harass politicians etc. Those unborn humans rely on others. We are motivated by good will, whereas "pro choice" (pro abortion) are personally motivated and will scream and shout, as are entitled. The committee and media don't need to increase that chasm.

I do welcome the inclusion at the end of recommendations for increased spending on, and the provision of, things like contraception, education and mental health counselling. The reality is that if the report is ratified by the public, the government will agree, but not bring them in because the budget has all gone on the referendum and the abortions. In a few years we will only have the abortions and some other political football will distract the politicians.

This report is _totally_ and _utterly_ skewed to the woman and pro choice. I am seething that we will have no recognition of the human rights of the unborn, and therefore thousands of lives taken just because we can - candy/life from a baby.

Where is the choice of the human in the womb? Where is the acknowledgement of the responsibilities of the man and woman - who exercised their right to consensual sex - toward the human they create? Where is the will to de-stigmatise reporting of rape? Where is the logic disappearing to? Where are the human rights of the unborn human? Will they only have the right to remain silent?

Please, put me straight if I'm not seeing this right. It's too important to be closed to argument. Hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake.

The report persistently considers the healthcare of that the woman should be receiving because their healthcare is the most important thing in this situation - more important than the unborn child. I’m sorry if that sounds harsh but i honestly believe my life has more value - and losing my life a bigger impact on my family, husband, friends and work colleagues than if I turned round to them and said ‘due to a bad set of circumstance I had to have an abortion’. If you have ever lost someone close to you think of the devastation you felt and compare it to how devestated you would be if alternatively you were told that person was alive but had an abortion.

My mother was staunchly pro life and very concerned about the baby until I put a very simple scenario to her - if I was diagnosed with cancer and became pregnant would she prefer I die or that I have an abortion, she loses that grandchild but I am treated and get better and myself and my husband can go on to have children together. She said straight away she would want me to have an abortion.

It is very easy for the pro life side to say ‘oh but the lovely baby’ And ignore the many many individual scenarios women end up in which means they need an abortion. We are not legislating for this because women ‘do it anyway’ we are legislating for it because it is a necessary medical treatment for women.

And before you say my example to my mother was far fetched it very nearly happened as I was sent to see if I had cervical cancer the same time I got married and was planning to start a family. I was luckily told before we had started trying to make sure I didn’t get pregnant so that I could be treated and cured if necessary. If I had had that smear a month or two later I could already have been pregnant and found myself in the unfortunate situation I outlined above. I am still being told to put off having children even though I want a baby so badly but I still understand there are situations where I may need an abortion and I want the right to access abortion in Ireland.

You need to consider your pro life position. You are essentially saying that although you don’t know me, love me or are involved in my life in any way you believe you know what is best for my health and in the scenario above it is to continue letting cancer advance so the unborn child is born. I find that stance abhorrent and I am sure my husband, parents and siblings would feel the same. You have no right to decide my healthcare without even knowing my personal situation but by voting to retain the 8th this is exactly what you will be doing.

As I said it’s very easy to say what about the lovely baby and ignore the complexity of why a woman may want an abortion.

Infini · 29-03-2018 3:57pm

emo72 wrote: »

im going to be honest with you. i don't think there's a chance in heaven this referendum will be lost.

I'll say its gonna be close though. Repeal isnt exactly a foregone conclusion at this point. That being said I do hope myself that this faulty amendment is removed myself. The constitution is and never was the correct forum for a medical issue and never should have been.

Truth is when it comes to abortion trying to hide from the issue isn't going to make it go away. Forcing it into another jurisdiction doesn't make it go away either.

As for the pro-life lobby I honestly don't believe they have a serious argument when it comes to maintaining it. Many have struck me as emotional and seriously lacking in analytical comprehension. Their arguments like a billboard with a fetus on it showing "one of us" (from the Iona Institute which I honestly think are toxic) is actually repelling to me because it feels like its trying to emotionally blackmail someone and I find that kind of carry-on annoying and shock posters etc only serve to disgust me and show how stupid and completely unable they are to have an honest discusssion.

Some might point out the repeal side being "nazi's" etc and there are some out there. But when it comes down to this the pro-life side strike me as the more vocal "shout down at people" types trying to ride the high horse.

I'll vote to repeal this amendment when the time comes simply because the way I see it, its not helping, its certainly not the place for such a divisive issue and saying politicians cant be trusted isnt an excuse. You hold them responsible for their actions not give them a copout on such a sensitive issue.

end of the road · 29-03-2018 4:52pm

Anne1982h wrote: »

The report persistently considers the healthcare of that the woman should be receiving because their healthcare is the most important thing in this situation - more important than the unborn child. I’m sorry if that sounds harsh but i honestly believe my life has more value - and losing my life a bigger impact on my family, husband, friends and work colleagues than if I turned round to them and said ‘due to a bad set of circumstance I had to have an abortion’. If you have ever lost someone close to you think of the devastation you felt and compare it to how devestated you would be if alternatively you were told that person was alive but had an abortion.

My mother was staunchly pro life and very concerned about the baby until I put a very simple scenario to her - if I was diagnosed with cancer and became pregnant would she prefer I die or that I have an abortion, she loses that grandchild but I am treated and get better and myself and my husband can go on to have children together. She said straight away she would want me to have an abortion.

It is very easy for the pro life side to say ‘oh but the lovely baby’ And ignore the many many individual scenarios women end up in which means they need an abortion. We are not legislating for this because women ‘do it anyway’ we are legislating for it because it is a necessary medical treatment for women.

And before you say my example to my mother was far fetched it very nearly happened as I was sent to see if I had cervical cancer the same time I got married and was planning to start a family. I was luckily told before we had started trying to make sure I didn’t get pregnant so that I could be treated and cured if necessary. If I had had that smear a month or two later I could already have been pregnant and found myself in the unfortunate situation I outlined above. I am still being told to put off having children even though I want a baby so badly but I still understand there are situations where I may need an abortion and I want the right to access abortion in Ireland.

You need to consider your pro life position. You are essentially saying that although you don’t know me, love me or are involved in my life in any way you believe you know what is best for my health and in the scenario above it is to continue letting cancer advance so the unborn child is born. I find that stance abhorrent and I am sure my husband, parents and siblings would feel the same. You have no right to decide my healthcare without even knowing my personal situation but by voting to retain the 8th this is exactly what you will be doing.

As I said it’s very easy to say what about the lovely baby and ignore the complexity of why a woman may want an abortion.

going on what you have written you would be a medical case. most would agree that you would likely need an abortion in your situation. however, not putting forward a proposal that would only legislate for abortions in situations like yours and other medical issues, is the mistake i and many others believe the government have made, and hence many of us have no option but to vote no to repeal, because the proposals go to far. by voting no to repeal, we are not responsible for anything more then trying to prevent proposals we see as being wrong from being brought in . had the government gone for proposals that would have legislated for your situation and other medical issues only, many of us voting no would vote yes instead.

Anne1982h · 29-03-2018 5:00pm

end of the road wrote: »

going on what you have written you would be a medical case. most would agree that you would likely need an abortion in your situation. however, not putting forward a proposal that would only legislate for abortions in situations like yours and other medical issues, is the mistake i and many others believe the government have made, and hence many of us have no option but to vote no to repeal, because the proposals go to far. by voting no to repeal, we are not responsible for anything more then trying to prevent proposals we see as being wrong from being brought in . had the government gone for proposals that would have legislated for your situation and other medical issues only, many of us voting no would vote yes instead.

So because the proposals are not to your liking you would prefer that someone in my position would die as access to abortion would not be possible unless I have the means to pay for it abroad. I hope you can live with how you will to be fully responsible for the deaths of women in these situations as the responsibility lies directly at the doors of those who vote to restrict access to abortion in this country.

FreudianSlippers · 29-03-2018 5:15pm

recedite wrote: »

Your perception of human biology seems to be somewhat unusual

Can you explain why this is a biologically incorrect statement?

end of the road · 29-03-2018 5:43pm

Anne1982h wrote: »

So because the proposals are not to your liking you would prefer that someone in my position would die as access to abortion would not be possible unless I have the means to pay for it abroad. I hope you can live with how you will to be fully responsible for the deaths of women in these situations as the responsibility lies directly at the doors of those who vote to restrict access to abortion in this country.

what i would prefer, and i suspect many others voting no would prefer, is for medical cases to have access to abortion, with no abortion on demand as a consiquence, and for protections to remain for the unborn outside those reasons. ideally those protections would be in the constitution but if not, some kind of mechanism that abortion law couldn't be changed on the whim of the politicians. on the back of that, to be able to vote yes to repealing the 8th.
i disagree that those of us voting no to repeal are responsible for anyone's deaths. we are only responsible for ourselves and our vote. we cannot and will not be held responsible for issues which could have been rectified by putting forward proposals that would have had brauder support. only the government can be held responsible, in my view.

J C · 29-03-2018 9:02pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

So armed robbers, terrorists and the unborn can be killed if necessary. Interesting juxtaposition.

... only if they represent an imminent threat to the life of somebody else (in the case of unborn children, their mother).

Of the three categories you refer to, unborn children are the only totally innocent parties ... with the threat to life being indirect ... and that makes their deaths all the more tragic ... and something to be avoided, if at all possible.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not trying to be glib, here. If you believe that the unborn is a fully-fledged human being with the same right to life as an adult human, then it makes no sense to me to accept, however reluctantly, that it's OK to kill it. Once you accept that there are circumstances when it's necessary to terminate a pregnancy, you've admitted - to others, if not to yourself - that a fertilised egg and an adult human are not the same thing.

A fertilized egg and an adult Human are both Human Beings ... the reason it is ethically acceptable to kill an unborn child that is creating an imminent threat to the life of the mother ... is because it will die also, if the mother is allowed to die ... and therefore two lives will be lost. Being pro-life is being both pro the life and welfare of the mother as well as pro the life and welfare of the child.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Look: I'm fine with someone's religious beliefs leading them to the view that it's not OK to terminate their own pregnancy. It's when they conclude that it's not OK for anyone else to terminate a pregnancy that I have a problem with it.

Abortion is the killing of vulnerable unborn Human Beings ... so whether one is religious or not death is the result.

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's a bit like being a vegetarian: if you believe meat is murder, feel free not to eat meat - hell, feel free to try to persuade me not to - but don't try to make it illegal for me to do so.

Vegetarians object to killing and eating animals ... whereas abortion is all about killing Human Beings, before they are born.
I sincerely hope that people, draw a distinction between killing animals and killing Human Beings.

FrancieBrady · 29-03-2018 9:10pm

J C wrote: »

A fertilized egg and an adult Human are both Human Beings ... the reason it is ethically acceptable to kill an unborn child that is creating an imminent threat to the life of the mother ... is because it will die also, if the mother is allowed to die ... and therefore two lives will be lost. Being pro-life is being both pro the life and welfare of the mother as well as pro the life and welfare of the child.

You need to accept that some people don't believe that. And they have a right not to believe that, just as you have a right to believe it.

oscarBravo · 29-03-2018 9:20pm

J C wrote: »

Abortion is the killing of vulnerable unborn Human Beings ...

Let's dissect that theory.

If it's true, then every medical professional who has ever carried out an abortion is a murderer.

If it's true, any country that allows the termination of pregnancy has legally sanctioned murder.

If it's true, every pregnant woman who has procured an abortion is guilty of murdering her own child.

If it's true, every doctor who has provided follow-up care after a termination is an accessory after the fact.

I don't doubt that there are people who are so wedded to their ideology that they can dismiss well-meaning medical professionals and desperate women as murderers, but that subjective belief is not objective fact.

J C · 29-03-2018 9:23pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Laws about cigarette smoke are about 'choice' as well. They protect people who choose to work indoors.
You can still smoke to your heart's content if you choose to.

Anti-smoking laws remove the choice to 'smoke if I want to' ... to prevent deaths and injury to Human Beings from inhaling other people's smoke.
Similarly, anti-abortion laws remove the choice to 'abort if I want to' ... to prevent the deaths of unborn Human Beings

FrancieBrady wrote: »

People have regrets about many things. The choice NOT to have an abortion is NOT being removed.

... so should we repeal anti-drink driving laws, on the basis that the choice 'to not drink and drive is not being removed'?

J C · 29-03-2018 9:32pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You need to accept that some people don't believe that. And they have a right not to believe that, just as you have a right to believe it.

Fair point ... people have the right to believe whatever they want ... but laws are required to ensure that Human lives are protected.

end of the road · 29-03-2018 9:33pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You need to accept that some people don't believe that. And they have a right not to believe that, just as you have a right to believe it.

anyone has the right to believe whatever they like. however, when they act on those beliefs,, that is when problems may be caused, and that is why sometimes people are prohibited by laws from acting on their beliefs.

J C · 29-03-2018 9:44pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Let's dissect that theory.

If it's true, then every medical professional who has ever carried out an abortion is a murderer.

They aren't a murderer, because the law doesn't define abortion as murder.

oscarBravo wrote: »

If it's true, any country that allows the termination of pregnancy has legally sanctioned murder.

No, they have legally sanctioned the killing of unborn Human Beings.

oscarBravo wrote: »

If it's true, every pregnant woman who has procured an abortion is guilty of murdering her own child.

No, she has objectively aborted or killed her unborn child.

oscarBravo wrote: »

If it's true, every doctor who has provided follow-up care after a termination is an accessory after the fact.

No, they are rendering necessary medical care.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't doubt that there are people who are so wedded to their ideology that they can dismiss well-meaning medical professionals and desperate women as murderers, but that subjective belief is not objective fact.

Neither are murderers, like I have pointed out above.
Women hurt by abortion have my absolute sympathy.

Doctors who act in the best interests of the mother (and the unborn child as far as practicable) have my admiration ... even if this results in the death of the unborn child.

FrancieBrady · 29-03-2018 9:46pm

J C wrote: »

Anti-smoking laws remove the choice to 'smoke if I want to' ... to prevent deaths and injury to Human Beings from inhaling other people's smoke.
Similarly, anti-abortion laws remove the choice to 'abort if I want to' ... to prevent the deaths of unborn Human Beings

They are not anti smoking laws, they are laws to protect people who choose to work in certain environments.
And they are not in the constitution.

... so should we repeal anti-drink driving laws, on the basis that the choice 'to not drink and drive is not being removed'?

Nobody will be forced to have an abortion, you will have your choice NOT to have one.

FrancieBrady · 29-03-2018 9:48pm

J C wrote: »

Fair point ... people have the right to believe whatever they want ... but laws are required to ensure that Human lives are protected.

So your definition or science defines what code everyone else has to live by.

The referendum in a nutshell.

FrancieBrady · 29-03-2018 9:50pm

end of the road wrote: »

anyone has the right to believe whatever they like. however, when they act on those beliefs,, that is when problems may be caused, and that is why sometimes people are prohibited by laws from acting on their beliefs.

Exactly. Women are being criminalised because others have different morals and scientific beliefs.

J C · 29-03-2018 9:56pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They are not anti smoking laws, they are laws to protect people who choose to work in certain environments.
And they are not in the constitution.

They prevent smokers exercising their 'choice' to smoke whenever they like ... to prevent injury and death to people from exercising their 'choice' to smoke.
Anti-abortion laws similarly prevent mothers exercising their 'choice' to abort whenever they like ... to prevent injury and death to their unborn child from exercising their 'choice' to abort.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody will be forced to have an abortion, you will have your choice NOT to have one.

... so should we repeal the anti-drink driving laws because everybody will still have their choice to NOT drink and drive?

J C · 29-03-2018 9:59pm

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Fair point ... people have the right to believe whatever they want ... but laws are required to ensure that Human lives are protected.

FrancieBrady
So your definition or science defines what code everyone else has to live by.

The referendum in a nutshell.

I said that, whatever one's personal beliefs, laws are required to ensure that Human lives are protected.
Do you disagree with that?

FrancieBrady · 29-03-2018 10:07pm

J C wrote: »

I said that, whatever one's personal beliefs, laws are required to ensure that Human lives are protected.
Do you disagree with that?

No I don't.

I disagree and many others do too what a 'human being' is though. And there is the rub.

*why do you capitalise human? It doesn't become more emotive just because you capitalise it.

oscarBravo · 29-03-2018 10:16pm

J C wrote: »

They aren't a murderer, because the law doesn't define abortion as murder.

That, frankly, is a weaselly argument. You're talking about people who, by the definitions you're putting forward, are wilfully killing human beings. So, no: the law doesn't define them as murderers, but - if you're being consistent - you should.

So, get off the fence: is it your belief that a doctor who carries out an abortion is a murderer?

FrancieBrady · 29-03-2018 10:16pm

J C wrote: »

They prevent smokers exercising their 'choice' to smoke whenever they like ... to prevent injury and death to people from exercising their 'choice' to smoke.
Anti-abortion laws similarly prevent mothers exercising their 'choice' to abort whenever they like ... to prevent injury and death to their unborn child from exercising their 'choice' to abort.

... so should we repeal the anti-drink driving laws because everybody will still have their choice to NOT drink and drive?

They are not 'anti' laws.
You can still drink and you can still smoke legally.

Smoking kills human beings as does drink. The logic of your argument is that they should be completely prohibited.
But people are allowed to choose to smoke and choose to drink.

end of the road · 29-03-2018 10:33pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody will be forced to have an abortion, you will have your choice NOT to have one.

nobody would be forced to commit any act if we removed the laws that prohibit such an act from being caried out within the state. however, we won't be going around removing all laws because laws exist to prevent people from carying out acts which would go against the smooth functioning of society. this is why your statement doesn't work in my view.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Exactly. Women are being criminalised because others have different morals and scientific beliefs.

i would suggest that any law that is implemented in the aim to try and prevent people carying out acts that would bring harm upon others would have been implemented based to an extent or in full on a moral belief.

FrancieBrady · 29-03-2018 10:36pm

end of the road wrote: »

nobody would be forced to commit any act if we removed the laws that prohibit such an act from being caried out within the state. however, we won't be going around removing all laws because laws exist to prevent people from carying out acts which would go against the smooth functioning of society. this is why your statement doesn't work in my view.

i would suggest that any law that is implemented in the aim to try and prevent people carying out acts that would bring harm upon others would have been implemented based to an extent or in full on a moral belief.

And it is time to change that 'moral' belief. Like we changed it on divorce and SSM.

J C · 29-03-2018 11:36pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And it is time to change that 'moral' belief. Like we changed it on divorce and SSM.

... there is no comparison with SSM ... which was an equality affirming amendment ... while the repeal of the 8th is an equality destroying proposition.

... I'm very happy with the 'moral' belief that we shouldn't kill other Human Beings.

oscarBravo · 29-03-2018 11:41pm

J C wrote: »

... I'm very happy with the 'moral' belief that we shouldn't kill other Human Beings.

Me too. But a blastocyst isn't a human being.

FrancieBrady · 29-03-2018 11:42pm

J C wrote: »

... there is no comparison with SSM ... which was an equality affirming amendment ... while the repeal of the 8th is an equality destroying proposition.

... I'm very happy with the 'moral' belief that we shouldn't kill other Human Beings.

And repealing the 8th will in no way hinder you in not killing other and human beings.

* you never explained why you capitalise human beings?

J C · 29-03-2018 11:47pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No I don't.

I disagree and many others do too what a 'human being' is though. And there is the rub.

... what is a human being, in your opinion ?

J C · 29-03-2018 11:53pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And repealing the 8th will in no way hinder you in not killing other and human beings.

Equally, repealing the drink driving laws won't hinder anybody in not drinking and driving ... but it would increase the death rates on our roads, by legally approving drink driving.

Similarly, repealing the 8th, would increase the death rate among unborn children, by legally approving their killing.

FrancieBrady · 29-03-2018 11:55pm

J C wrote: »

... what is a human being, in your opinion ?

We are not talking about 'my' opinion. Personally, I see no situation where I would advise or favour abortion.

I am telling you that there are numerous people living, working and contributing to this country who do not believe the same things you do or that I do.
It is called 'modern society'.

You wish to have your definition/code imposed on them. That is untenable and needs to be repealed.

J C · 29-03-2018 11:56pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Me too. But a blastocyst isn't a human being.

If its a human blastocyst ... it's a human being i.e. an individual of the species Homo sapiens.

MayoSalmon · 29-03-2018 11:58pm

oscarBravo wrote:

Me too. But a blastocyst isn't a human being.

Certainly isn't a blastocyst at 10 weeks though is it?!

FrancieBrady · 29-03-2018 11:59pm

J C wrote: »

Equally, repealing the drink driving laws wont hinder anybody in not drinking and driving ... but it would increase the death rates on our roads.

Similarly, repealing the 8th, would increase the death rate among unborn children.

Your bringing up legislation to do with smoking in the workplace and drink driving highlights a certain hypocrisy.

Smoking and drinking kills and has killed thousands of people or as you cal them 'Human Beings'.

Where is the church/pro life people on this issue? Ban smoking and ban drinking.

MayoSalmon · 30-03-2018 12:05am

FrancieBrady wrote:

Where is the church/pro life people on this issue? Ban smoking and ban drinking.

Smoking will be banned in the next 50 years it's already banned in some countries.

Drink well I'll give that another 200 years..

J C · 30-03-2018 12:05am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We are not talking about 'my' opinion. Personally, I see no situation where I would advise or favour abortion.

... Is there any other category of killing of human beings that you personally wouldn't advise or favour ... but you would allow other people to engage in?
... and if not, why not?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am telling you that there are numerous people living, working and contributing to this country who do not believe the same things you do or that I do.
It is called 'modern society'.

You wish to have your definition/code imposed on them. That is untenable and needs to be repealed.

There are many hard-working people who like to have a few pints and drive home afterwards ... do you think they should be allowed exercise their preferences on this?
If not, why not?

end of the road · 30-03-2018 12:06am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We are not talking about 'my' opinion. Personally, I see no situation where I would advise or favour abortion.

I am telling you that there are numerous people living, working and contributing to this country who do not believe the same things you do or that I do.
It is called 'modern society'.

You wish to have your definition/code imposed on them. That is untenable and needs to be repealed.

by that metric, we would need to repeal all of the laws, given that they are imposing someone's moral definition/code upon someone else, who may not agree with that moral definition/code. to me, and i'd suspect many others, that wouldn't be viable or the right thing to do.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Your bringing up legislation to do with smoking in the workplace and drink driving highlights a certain hypocrisy.

Smoking and drinking kills and has killed thousands of people or as you cal them 'Human Beings'.

Where is the church/pro life people on this issue? Ban smoking and ban drinking.

members of the church, pro-life and pro-choice will be involved in many different and varied issues, while many others have not and will not be involved in anything once this campaign is over. so i think it's unfair to specifically single out pro-life and the church in relation to their involvement or lack of in relation to other issues.

FrancieBrady · 30-03-2018 12:14am

end of the road wrote: »

by that metric, we would need to repeal all of the laws, given that they are imposing someone's moral definition/code upon someone else, who may not agree with that moral definition/code. to me, and i'd suspect many others, that wouldn't be viable or the right thing to do.

members of the church, pro-life and pro-choice will be involved in many different and varied issues, while many others have not and will not be involved in anything once this campaign is over. so i think it's unfair to specifically single out pro-life and the church in relation to their involvement or lack of in relation to other issues.

If 'Human Beings' are so sacrosanct where are the campaigns to ban smoking and drinking?

Because the state says 'Human Beings' and ordinary humans beings are free to indulge in these things that kill thousands every year. Not to mention inhibit 'Human Beings' in the womb.

J C · 30-03-2018 12:24am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If 'Human Beings' are so sacrosanct where are the campaigns to ban smoking and drinking?

Because the state says 'Human Beings' and ordinary humans beings are free to indulge in these things that kill thousands every year. Not to mention inhibit 'Human Beings' in the womb.

There is a government policy to have a tobacco free Ireland by 2025.
http://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/TobaccoFreeIreland.pdf

There are also policies for greater control and a reduction in alcohol consumption ... which strikes the right balance IMO ... because responsible alcohol consumption has no adverse effects.

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

Comments