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

J C

MayoSalmon wrote: »

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

... or at 12 weeks, which is the proposed limit for killing her on demand ... or 23 weeks when it is proposed to kill her because she is affecting her mother's health (and she isn't viable, just yet).

FrancieBrady

J C wrote: »

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 consumed has no adverse effects.

Where is and has the campaign to prohibit the 'choosing' of tobacco been from those who think they can prevent choice for women?

It is hypocritical in the extreme, saying that we know tobacco kills.

J C

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where is and has the campaign to prohibit the 'choosing' of tobacco been from those who think they can prevent choice for women?

It is hypocritical in the extreme, saying that we know tobacco kills.

Tobacco kills ... and it is planned to eliminate the killing by 2025, in Ireland.

Abortion kills ... and the plan is to 'open the floodgates' for this form of killing, in Ireland this year.

The hypocrisy is very clear allright.

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

Tobacco kills ... and it is planned to eliminate the killing by 2025, in Ireland.

Abortion kills ... and the plan is to 'open the floodgates' for this form of killing, in Ireland this year.

The hypocrisy is very clear allright.

A girl of 14 who had been raped died giving birth recently. If she had lived in a country that allowed abortion before her life was at risk, she would still be alive.

Tobacco is never needed to save someone, unlike abortion. So are prolife calling for a 14 year prison sentence for anyone who sells tobacco?

Are they heck. Hypocrisy, you say? Yes indeed.

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

A girl of 14 who had been raped died giving birth recently. If she had lived in a country that allowed abortion before her life was at risk, she would still be alive.

Tobacco is never needed to save someone, unlike abortion. So are prolife calling for a 14 year prison sentence for anyone who sells tobacco?

Are they heck. Hypocrisy, you say? Yes indeed.

There is already abortion legislation for where a mother's life is at risk.

How did this girl die?

... and pro-life people want all killing to stop ... whatever the cause.

... and that includes needless deaths from tobacco, pregnancy and abortion.

However, death is an ever present reality ... people go into hospital all the time ... and don't come out alive ... for all kinds of reasons.

Killing thousands of perfectly healthy unborn children being carried by thousands of perfectly healthy women isn't a solution, to the tiny minority of maternal deaths that occur ... and the proof of this is that there are also maternal deaths in every country where abortion is freely available, that are the roughly the same as Ireland.

Quote (maternal deaths per 100,000 live births):-
153 UNITED KINGDOM 9 2015 EST.
154 SLOVENIA 9 2015 EST.
155 MALTA 9 2015 EST.
156 IRELAND 8 2015 EST.
157 MACEDONIA 8 2015 EST.
158 CROATIA 8 2015 EST.
159 FRANCE 8 2015 EST.
160 BELGIUM 7 2015 EST.

FrancieBrady

J C wrote: »

There is already abortion legislation for where a mother's life is at risk.

How did this girl die?

... and pro-life people want all killing to stop ... whatever the cause.

... and that includes needless deaths from tobacco, pregnancy and abortion.

And you were asked, based on the beliefs you have expressed - are the doctors carrying out that abortion committing murder by taking a 'Human Life'?

Or does that 'Human Life' status regress because the mother's life is at risk?

Kunkka

I will be voting to repeal but I am seriously concerned that it might not pass. There is militant opinions on both sides, there is no doubt about it, but I feel there is more ferocity on the appeal side, especially on social media. I have watched people give their reasons for not wanting to repeal online and they get completely annihilated from all angles with some serious abuse, it does happen on the other side but not to the same extent. I understand this is because this is a seriously polarizing issue, especially for women or their families who have gone through serious trauma due to the current constitution.

I think the opinion and values of people on both sides needs to be respected. People need the right to having an opinion, even if we are totally and fundamentally against it, we need to hold our tongue. For every person that is told how horrible they are for voting not to repeal and to change their values, you are completely losing their chance of voting to repeal and others watching on who are on the fence that don't like the militant nature of this approach. It has been proven with Trump, Brexit and other campaigns across the world over the last few years, people do not like being told what to do or what to believe in. Nothing good can come from forcing an opinion on someone, be constructive and articulate to try to get them to see things from another perspective if that's what you want to do, especially with this referendum as for some people this will require a total change of their values which requires a friendly approach. This is too important to care so much about being right.

nozzferrahhtoo

Kunkka wrote: »

People need the right to having an opinion, even if we are totally and fundamentally against it, we need to hold our tongue.

That seems somewhat contradictory to me. People should have a right to their opinion but some people with certain opinions need to keep it to themselves?

Either people have a right to express their opinion or they do not. Telling some people they can, while telling other people they need to keep quiet..... is something else entirely.

But I disagree with you that opinions need to be respected. They do not. Arguments, evidence, data and reasoning need to be respected and considered deeply. People who merely express opinions, not so much. And aside from shouting the word "Human" A lot, I am not seeing any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning supporting the notion that a 12 week old fetus should be worthy of rights, or moral and ethical concern.

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

There is already abortion legislation for where a mother's life is at risk.

Except when nobody notices except the dying woman herself, and who cares what she wants, right?

Ask an Indian lady living in Galway... oh no you can't, I forgot.

J C wrote: »

How did this girl die?

At a guess, because nobody noticed the point at which it was no longer "just" her health that was at risk?

And then it was too late.

Not like we havent been there ourselves is it?

As for all the rest, what matters more, that we have a meaningless feelgood ban on abortion (since thousands of Irish women have abortions every year) or that we take women's health seriously, and stop putting it second to some meaningless principle that not even its own supporters take seriously enough to really put into practice?

J C

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And you were asked, based on the beliefs you have expressed - are the doctors carrying out that abortion committing murder by taking a 'Human Life'?

Or does that 'Human Life' status regress because the mother's life is at risk?

Where only one human life can be saved it should be saved. The fact that the other human life is extinguished, doesn't 'regress' its humanity ... and it isn't murder to kill, in accordance with law.

FrancieBrady

J C wrote: »

Where only one human life can be saved it should be saved. The fact that the other human life is extinguished, doesn't 'regress' its humanity ... and it isn't murder to kill, in accordance with law.

Sorry, that is just self serving.

The doctor makes a decision to end a 'Human Life'. He chooses which one lives.

J C

Kunkka wrote: »

I will be voting to repeal but I am seriously concerned that it might not pass. There is militant opinions on both sides, there is no doubt about it, but I feel there is more ferocity on the appeal side, especially on social media. I have watched people give their reasons for not wanting to repeal online and they get completely annihilated from all angles with some serious abuse, it does happen on the other side but not to the same extent. I understand this is because this is a seriously polarizing issue, especially for women or their families who have gone through serious trauma due to the current constitution.

I think the opinion and values of people on both sides needs to be respected. People need the right to having an opinion, even if we are totally and fundamentally against it, we need to hold our tongue. For every person that is told how horrible they are for voting not to repeal and to change their values, you are completely losing their chance of voting to repeal and others watching on who are on the fence that don't like the militant nature of this approach. It has been proven with Trump, Brexit and other campaigns across the world over the last few years, people do not like being told what to do or what to believe in. Nothing good can come from forcing an opinion on someone, be constructive and articulate to try to get them to see things from another perspective if that's what you want to do, especially with this referendum as for some people this will require a total change of their values which requires a friendly approach. This is too important to care so much about being right.

You make a lot of sense. In fairness, the campaign has been pretty respectful (on both sides) up to now. That is the only way that freedom of speech can be upheld ... by speaking respectfully.
I even detect a 'holding back' by some on the repeal side ... for example, a very strident feminist, who historically was deeply caustic in her comments about the issue (and the pro-life position), was all 'sweetness and light' the other day.
I think that there is also a 'maturity' developing in the debate on the issue ... with each side realizing that its not all 'black and white' ... and that neither side has a monopoly of wisdom or right on the issue.
On one side, many pro-life people accept that you would need the wisdom of Solomon to morally and ethically negotiate (and do the right thing) with some hard cases.
... and on the pro-repeal side, many people recognize that we are dealing with Human life, at its most vulnerable ... and the attitude of 'Its my body and my right to do as I like with my unborn child' is not acceptable.

Kunkka wrote: »

This is too important to care so much about being right.

Quite true ... and I think both sides are starting to realize this ... for different reasons.

J C

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sorry, that is just self serving.

The doctor makes a decision to end a 'Human Life'. He chooses which one lives.

How is it self-serving?

... and the doctor doesn't choose which one lives.

The doctor makes a judgement on whether the mothers life is at risk ... if it is at risk, from a pregnancy, that hasn't reached viability ... then there is only one logical decision ... because the choice is for both to die or the unborn child to die.

Nitrogan

As a male I would not accept being told what to do with my body and I don't know any who would for the sake of someone else's moral principles.

It's ridiculous in the modern age to enforce misogynistic religious dogma on people who don't believe in them.

FrancieBrady

J C wrote: »

How is it self-serving?

... and the doctor doesn't choose which one lives.

The doctor makes a judgement on whether the mothers life is at risk ... if it is at risk, from a pregnancy, that hasn't reached viability ... then there is only one logical decision ... because the choice is for both to die or the unborn child to die.

So why have you a problem with a doctor or a woman making the same decision/choice in other circumstances?

morphman

I have to say that maybe i had my head buried in the sand with regards to the 8th . I had thought that the right of any person to a choice in relation to themselves or their bodies was fundamental to their being. I came across a protest in support of the 7th today and I really felt like shouting at them. Big signs... talking about right of the unborn....followed closely by a decade of the rosary FFS. If god or any higher power wants to punish someone for making a choice let them but people can **** right off.

J C

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That seems somewhat contradictory to me. People should have a right to their opinion but some people with certain opinions need to keep it to themselves?

Either people have a right to express their opinion or they do not. Telling some people they can, while telling other people they need to keep quiet..... is something else entirely.

I don't think that Kunkka is saying that ... s/he is saying that people should express their views ... but in a respectful manner.
To effectively communicate and persuade requires our target audience to listen to us and evaluate what we are saying ... and our audience will not do this, if we personally insult them. Indeed common human decency requires everyone to treat everyone else as they would like to be treated themselves.

We can have a debate ... even a robust one ... once we leave the personal out of it and concentrate on the issues ... as has been happening, in general, on this thread. We can also learn from each other (and give each other the space to possibly change our minds) when we do this.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But I disagree with you that opinions need to be respected. They do not. Arguments, evidence, data and reasoning need to be respected and considered deeply. People who merely express opinions, not so much. And aside from shouting the word "Human" A lot,

Part of according respect to other people is respecting their opinions. This doesn't prevent us disagreeing with their opinions or pointing out any deficiencies in the opinions ... or respectfully offering an alternative way of looking at the issue.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not seeing any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning supporting the notion that a 12 week old fetus should be worthy of rights, or moral and ethical concern.

I think that arguments have been presented ... you may not accept the arguments but they have been made.
In any event, the proponents of abortion on demand up to 12 weeks need to present evidence supporting the notion that a 12 week old fetus should not be worthy of rights, or moral and ethical concern ... if they wish to convince the middle-ground that this is a good idea.

J C

Nitrogan wrote: »

As a male I would not accept being told what to do with my body and I don't know any who would for the sake of someone else's moral principles.

... so do you do whatever you want ... whenever you want to ... irrespective of the effect that what you do with your body has on other people?

I'll bet that you don't do this ... but instead are very conscious of not engaging in behavior that would damage others.

nozzferrahhtoo

I think I will let the user speak for themselves thanks. But the sentence "we need to hold our tongue" is simply one I do not agree with. We need do no such thing. Nor am I about to. Despite your pretence, there is a world of difference between respecting people, and respecting opinions. I do the former, not the latter. And you conflating the two does not mean I have to pretend to.

However if you think "arguments have been presented" then by all means show me which ones. But claiming they were, does not make it so. Shifting the onus of proof will not get you there either. However I have multiple times done this on this very thread, so perhaps read the thread before you pretend otherwise. I have been VERY clear why I do not think such an entity should be afford rights.

J C

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So why have you a problem with a doctor or a woman making the same decision/choice in other circumstances?

For the same reason that I don't have a problem with law enforcement using lethal force if there is no practical alternative to save somebody whose life is being threatened by somebody else ... yet I would have serious issues with a policeperson who ran amok and started killing people for no reason other than they wanted to.

FrancieBrady

J C wrote: »

For the same reason that I don't have a problem with law enforcement using lethal force if there is no practical alternative to save somebody whose life is being threatened by somebody else ... yet I would have serious issues with a policeperson who ran amok and started killing people for no reason other than they wanted to.

Why do you keep reducing the debate to 'people killing people for no other reason than they wanted to'?

A bit of respect for people who find themselves in life changing positions wouldn't go amiss.

No woman would make the decision to have an abortion lightly.

J C

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I think I will let the user speak for themselves thanks. But the sentence "we need to hold our tongue" is simply one I do not agree with. We need do no such thing. Nor am I about to. Despite your pretence, there is a world of difference between respecting people, and respecting opinions. I do the former, not the latter. And you conflating the two does not mean I have to pretend to.

I think that doing as you suggest is one of the reasons why 'social media' often descends into a 'bear pit' with plenty of heat and little light resulting from it.
Think about it ... does a salesperson that wants you to buy their products, start by gratuitously disrespecting your opinions?
... and if they did, what would you think the result would be?

BTW we are all 'salespersons' for our ideas ... assuming we want to convince others to adopt them.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

However if you think "arguments have been presented" then by all means show me which ones. But claiming they were, does not make it so. Shifting the onus of proof will not get you there either. However I have multiple times done this on this very thread, so perhaps read the thread before you pretend otherwise. I have been VERY clear why I do not think such an entity should be afford rights.

I'm new to the thread ... so I have missed that ... do you have a link please ?

nozzferrahhtoo

No, expressing opinions without backup, and demanding opinions be respected for no reason other than they are there, is what ruins social media. People who sit down and exchange arguments, evidence, data and reasoning much less so. I repeat, I have no respect for opinions, I have respect for arguments, evidence, data and reasoning.

If you do not want to read the thread you post on that is your concern. But I have MULTIPLE times discussed the basis of rights, and why I do not think a fetus should have any on this thread. You can read my posts on this thread if you like. Dodge them if you like. But you do not need a link, you know where the thread is.

J C

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why do you keep reducing the debate to 'people killing people for no other reason than they wanted to'?

A bit of respect for people who find themselves in life changing positions wouldn't go amiss.

No woman would make the decision to have an abortion lightly.

That would be at the extreme end of the spectrum, alright.

However, undoubtedly, some abortions on demand will be simply because the mother wants to.

... and saying that 'no woman would make the decision to have an abortion lightly' has the same validity as saying that 'no woman would make the decision to drink and drive lightly'. Quite obviously some people might make the decision to abort or drink and drive, lightly ... especially, if there was little or no legal or social constraints on doing so.

... and even if everyone didn't take the decision to abort or drink and drive, lightly ... this would have no effect on the injury or death caused to third parties, as a result of their decision.

FrancieBrady

J C wrote: »

That would be at the extreme end of the spectrum, alright.

However, undoubtedly, some abortions on demand will be simply because the mother wants to.


... and saying that 'no woman would make the decision to have an abortion lightly' has the same validity as saying that 'no woman would make the decision to drink and drive lightly'. Quite obviously some people might make the decision to abort or drink and drive, lightly ... especially, if there was little or no legal or social constraints on doing so.

... and even if everyone didn't take the decision to abort or drink and drive, lightly ... this would have no effect on the injury or death caused to third parties, as a result of their decision.

That is happening already, but apparently it is ok because it happens abroad or from the internet. Hypocrisy most high.

J C

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No, expressing opinions without backup, and demanding opinions be respected for no reason other than they are there, is what ruins social media. People who sit down and exchange arguments, evidence, data and reasoning much less so. I repeat, I have no respect for opinions, I have respect for arguments, evidence, data and reasoning.

Getting personal with posters in relation to themselves or their opinions is a good shortcut to a row in which, whatever points are being made are lost in the resulting heat.
It is the main reason IMO why some 'social media' could be more accurately described as 'anti-social' media.:)

I was at a conference once where the speaker described people's opinions as being regarded by them in a similar way to their children ... and if their ideas are disrespected ... it will result in the manifestation of the same emotions and behaviors that disrespecting their children would cause,

... I think that we all need to take the advice of Ali-G ... respect!!!
First and last.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If you do not want to read the thread you post on that is your concern. But I have MULTIPLE times discussed the basis of rights, and why I do not think a fetus should have any on this thread. You can read my posts on this thread if you like. Dodge them if you like. But you do not need a link, you know where the thread is.

I had hoped you might have helped me by providing a link ... oh well ... I'll just have to wait unless and until the topic arises again.

nozzferrahhtoo

You keep bringing up "personal insults" and "Getting personal". Not sure why as that is NOT what I am referring to at all. All I said was that I do not respect mere opinion. I respect and consider (if any) the arguments, evidence, data and reasoning offered with them. If you see someone being insulting, by all means take it up with them! It has nothing to do with me.

I did provide a link so lets keep the distortions of reality to a minimum. You have not returned the favour. You have just claimed reasons have been given but not shown me where. Name a thread and a user and I will look into it happily. I have named you a thread (this one) and a user (me) but seemingly you can not be bothered to follow up on it in kind.

J C

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You keep bringing up "personal insults" and "Getting personal". Not sure why as that is NOT what I am referring to at all. All I said was that I do not respect mere opinion. I respect and consider (if any) the arguments, evidence, data and reasoning offered with them. If you see someone being insulting, by all means take it up with them! It has nothing to do with me.

This thread is proceeding with little or no personal insults, since I joined it, at any rate ... and has been a nice experience to post in, as a result.
It also has produced thoughtful opinions from both sides, as well as giving people the space to consider them.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I did provide a link so lets keep the distortions of reality to a minimum. You have not returned the favour. You have just claimed reasons have been given but not shown me where. Name a thread and a user and I will look into it happily. I have named you a thread (this one) and a user (me) but seemingly you can not be bothered to follow up on it in kind.

My apologies, I was thinking about another 'abortion' thread on a different forum.

Like, I have said, I'm new to this thread ... so I don't know much of what has been discussed on it, before I joined the thread.

nozzferrahhtoo

You really have gone off on your own tangent with insults. I repeat, all I said was that I do not respect opinions. I respect the substantiation behind them. You seem to be replying to someone or something in your own head, not me.

Yeah I have a personal rule to only reply to threads if I have read every post on them. But roll back a bit. You claimed "arguments have been presented". So I am asking you for nothing more than a thread, and a user, so I can check for myself. Which I would. You then also claimed my side need to back stuff up so I named a thread and a user for you to check for yourself. Seemingly you will not.

Two differences between us there worth noting I feel.

Nettle Soup

J C wrote: »

This thread is proceeding with little or no personal insults, since I joined it, at any rate ... and has been a nice experience to post in, as a result.
It also has produced thoughtful opinions from both sides, as well as giving people the space to consider them.

My apologies, I was thinking about another 'abortion' thread on a different forum.

Like, I have said, I'm new to this thread ... so I don't know much of what has been discussed on it, before I joined the thread.

I think you've met your match now J C

J C

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You really have gone off on your own tangent with insults. I repeat, all I said was that I do not respect opinions. I respect the substantiation behind them. You seem to be replying to someone or something in your own head, not me.

Yeah I have a personal rule to only reply to threads if I have read every post on them. But roll back a bit. You claimed "arguments have been presented". So I am asking you for nothing more than a thread, and a user, so I can check for myself. Which I would. You then also claimed my side need to back stuff up so I named a thread and a user for you to check for yourself. Seemingly you will not.

Two differences between us there worth noting I feel.

Could I suggest that you respect all opinions ... but question the substance behind them.

I have found that I learn the most from this approach myself ... and it also works wonders at retaining friends and influencing opponents.

Most people love to answer questions about their opinions ... because by asking questions, you are respecting them and their opinions.

... and it is a learning experience for everyone involved.

Please share in the love ... and the respect.:)

nozzferrahhtoo

You could suggest it but I do not really see the purpose of suggesting something about me different to what I have already explained about me. I know me, you do not.

But that said you are not a million miles off saying the same thing as me, just with different words. When I say I do not respect opinions, but the arguments, evidence, data or reasoning behind them.... that is pretty similar to what you are suggesting above. The user I was originally replying to seemed to be suggesting that "respect" for opinions means I should somehow keep quiet. Not happening.

The problem here with the fetus at 12 weeks is I do not GET the answers when I ask for them. Which you have demonstrated pretty well yourself. You said "arguments have been presented" and I asked you by who and in what thread. No answer.

J C

Nettle Soup wrote: »

I think you've met your match now J C

I always assume that I have met my match when I meet everyone.

I treat them and their opinions as at the same level as myself and my own ... that is what respect is ... looking people in the eye and listening respectfully to what they have to say ... before responding respectfully to them.

I always learn something ... often many things, from the people I engage with.

... anyway, enough about establishing good personal relations ... lets get back to abortion.

J C

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But that said you are not a million miles off saying the same thing as me, just with different words. When I say I do not respect opinions, but the arguments, evidence, data or reasoning behind them.... that is pretty similar to what you are suggesting above. The user I was originally replying to seemed to be suggesting that "respect" for opinions means I should somehow keep quiet. Not happening.

Fair enough. We may be at cross purposes on this.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The problem here with the fetus at 12 weeks is I do not GET the answers when I ask for them. Which you have demonstrated pretty well yourself. You said "arguments have been presented" and I asked you by who and in what thread. No answer.

There is a thread over on the Christianity Forum, where the humanity of a 12 week old unborn child has been intensively discussed ... but I don't think that the boards rules would allow a link ... I'm open to guidance on this from the mods.

... alternatively if you have a post on this thread addressing the issue, I'd be happy to respond.

nozzferrahhtoo

As I said, you need only read my posts from this thread and you will get an overall picture of my position on it. There is no one post to link to, my thinking is outlined over many. But by all means respond.

I have given you a thread AND a user. Now can you mention a user on the thread you have and I will consider all his/her posts on the matter and write a response here to the general ideas in it.

I am not asking you for any more than I have offered myself. But I am not accepting less.

Kunkka

J C wrote: »

I don't think that Kunkka is saying that ... s/he is saying that people should express their views ... but in a respectful manner.
To effectively communicate and persuade requires our target audience to listen to us and evaluate what we are saying ... and our audience will not do this, if we personally insult them. Indeed common human decency requires everyone to treat everyone else as they would like to be treated themselves.

Yes, this is exactly what I was saying. I just don’t want to see any abuse on other side. I am able to hold a conversation with someone on this topic and have a completely different opinion, but I can respect their viewpoint. People on both sides should put their cases forward in a respectful way, getting emotive about anything normally leads to a dysfunctional debate and we can’t have that with an issue as important as this.

J C

Kunkka wrote: »

Yes, this is exactly what I was saying. I just don’t want to see any abuse on other side. I am able to hold a conversation with someone on this topic and have a completely different opinion, but I can respect their viewpoint. People on both sides should put their cases forward in a respectful way, getting emotive about anything normally leads to a dysfunctional debate and we can’t have that with an issue as important as this.

Agree 100% ... that its entirely possible to disagree totally with another viewpoint ... but to respect the person and the viewpoint.
Indeed that is how debate on any thread/topic should be conducted ... but unfortunately this often isn't the case.

J C

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is happening already, but apparently it is ok because it happens abroad or from the internet. Hypocrisy most high.

Yes, we know that Irish women are having abortions in Britain ... and this is something that also needs to be addressed ... for the welfare of both the women and the unborn children involved.
As a society and irrespective of the referendum result, we need to continue to reduce unplanned/unwanted pregnancies ... as well as convincing women in this situation, to not go ahead with abortion by providing full support for them.

FrancieBrady

J C wrote: »

Yes, we know that Irish women are having abortions in Britain ... and this is something that also needs to be addressed ... for the welfare of both the women and the unborn children involved.
As a society and irrespective of the referendum result, we need to continue to reduce unplanned/unwanted pregnancies ... as well as convincing women in this situation, to not go ahead with abortion by providing full support for them.

By first prohibiting their choice? Good luck with that. As usual it is shutting the stable door too late.

SusieBlue

J C wrote: »

Yes, we know that Irish women are having abortions in Britain ... and this is something that also needs to be addressed ... for the welfare of both the women and the unborn children involved.
As a society and irrespective of the referendum result, we need to continue to reduce unplanned/unwanted pregnancies ... as well as convincing women in this situation, to not go ahead with abortion by providing full support for them.

JC, 35 years have passed since the 8th was put in place.
The support still isn’t there. Ample time has been allowed for an improvement in services.
It hasn’t happened.
Women are just left to make the best of it, aka struggle and suffer through life.
So really this just proves the point that those who vote No are pro birth and not pro life.
Because time and time again, you prove that you don’t give a monkeys about what happens these children and their mothers when they’re born, you only care about making the woman follow through with the pregnancy against her wishes.
It’s blatantly obviously for all to see and it’s disgusting.

end of the road

SusieBlue wrote: »

JC, 35 years have passed since the 8th was put in place.
The support still isn’t there. Ample time has been allowed for an improvement in services.
It hasn’t happened.
Women are just left to make the best of it, aka struggle and suffer through life.
So really this just proves the point that those who vote No are pro birth and not pro life.
Because time and time again, you prove that you don’t give a monkeys about what happens these children and their mothers when they’re born, you only care about making the woman follow through with the pregnancy against her wishes.
It’s blatantly obviously for all to see and it’s disgusting.

the lack of supports does not prove that those who vote no are pro-birth rather then pro-life, or any of the other claims you make, given many will be against those supports not being up to scratch, and given those who vote for the main 2 political parties who have governed this republic since it's foundation are across both groups. there are a number of pro-life people who are involved in many different campaigns and issues alongside a number who would be on the pro-choice side, just like there will be individuals on both sides who are involved in nothing before, and will be involved in nothing after this campaign is over. the same in terms of voting, some of us on the pro-life side would not vote for the main 2 parties as they do not insure all supports are up to scratch, where as some on the pro-choice side will vote for them, as is their democratic right.

J C

SusieBlue wrote: »

JC, 35 years have passed since the 8th was put in place.
The support still isn’t there. Ample time has been allowed for an improvement in services.
It hasn’t happened.

... but most women and their partners go through with their pregnancies and rear their children successfully.
More can always be done ... and should be done. The biggest reason for abortion is because the pregnancy is unwanted. Modern contraception should help with this ... and I do think that more options around adoption and fosterage would also help.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Women are just left to make the best of it, aka struggle and suffer through life.

Not true ... more can be done alright ... but many women who abort aren't alone or abandoned ... they are married or with a partner.

SusieBlue wrote: »

So really this just proves the point that those who vote No are pro birth and not pro life.

I'm not pro-birth, because there are enough people in the World already ... and I have no issue, for example, where somebody decides to never have children ... but I am pro-life in that once a Human Being is conceived it shouldn't be killed IMO, except for very serious reasons. We shouldn't solve over-population by killing Human Beings.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Because time and time again, you prove that you don’t give a monkeys about what happens these children and their mothers when they’re born, you only care about making the woman follow through with the pregnancy against her wishes.

I am concerned equally about the mother and her child ... but, like everyone else, I don't have endless resources of time or money to spend on other people ... who are just as capable as me of looking after themselves anyway, in most cases. Charity begins at home ... and I've looked after my own family ... and my wife and my children have wanted for nothing.
If every father did this ... there would be a lot less misery ... and abortion in the World.

SusieBlue wrote: »

It’s blatantly obviously for all to see and it’s disgusting.

It's none of these things ... and I would ask you to please stop making unfounded personal remarks ... that add nothing to the debate ... and are particularly inflammatory, given the sensitive subject under discussion.

J C

FrancieBrady wrote: »

By first prohibiting their choice? Good luck with that. As usual it is shutting the stable door too late.

Laws always prohibit and /or limit our choices ... to do things that are wrong.

... and it is patently wrong to kill Human Beings who are peacefully living and threatening nobody ... whether in utero or outside.

Moonmumbler

J C wrote: »

Laws always prohibit and /or limit our choices ... to do things that are wrong.

... and it is patently wrong to kill Human Beings who are peacefully living and threatening nobody ... whether in utero or outside.

Unfortunately none of what you say makes any difference. Women will always have crisis pregnancies and it all boils down to whether you think it's right to inhibit her choice over her own body or not by keeping the status quo here.

Ultimately, regardless of your theoretical sensibilities about the unborn, it doesn't affect you at all and I can't believe you are shedding many tears about the abortions that occur across the globe any more than you are crying about children starving to death in Yemen currently, for example.

J C

Moonmumbler wrote: »

Unfortunately none of what you say makes any difference. Women will always have crisis pregnancies and it all boils down to whether you think it's right to inhibit her choice over her own body or not by keeping the status quo here.

It boils down to whether you think that killing an unborn child is the right answer for an unwanted pregnancy. The overwhelming majority of abortions are carried out because of an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy where both the mother and her child are perfectly healthy.
I can see why an unwanted pregnancy could be a major crisis for a woman and her partner ... the most significant issue being the parenting of a child for up to 25 years after the birth. I think that adoption and fosterage are very viable options ... and certainly a more ethical alternative to abortion. More needs to be done to promote these options. The reverse has been the case, over the past twenty years, with the continuous publicity around the Magdalene laundries and other such homes ... which quite obviously weren't the way to manage adoption. This has given adoption, in particular, an undeserved bad name - and its time to re-focus on adoption as part of the solution to unwanted pregnancies.

Moonmumbler wrote: »

Ultimately, regardless of your theoretical sensibilities about the unborn, it doesn't affect you at all and I can't believe you are shedding many tears about the abortions that occur across the globe any more than you are crying about children starving to death in Yemen currently, for example.

... I am not directly impacted by many wrongs being done elsewhere ... but this doesn't make the wrongs right ... and it certainly doesn't mean that we should change the laws and incentives helping to prevent the wrongs.

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

It boils down to whether you think that killing the unborn child is the right answer for an unwanted pregnancy. I can see why an unwanted pregnancy could be a major crisis for a woman and her partner ... the most significant issue being the parenting of a child for up to 25 years. I think that adoption and fosterage are very viable options ... and certainly a more ethical alternative to abortion.

... I am not directly impacted by many wrongs being done everywhere ... but this doesn't make the wrongs right ... and it certainly doesn't mean that we should change the laws preventing the wrongs.

But our law doesnt prevent those wrongs, or not abortion anyway, seeing as we voted to put a clause into the constitution to allow just about every adult woman legally present in the country to have an abortion up to 24 weeks for any reason she finds convincing.

I'm not sure how a law that only targets the most vulnerable like underage children or asylum seekers can be seen as a good thing.

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

But our law doesnt prevent those wrongs, or not abortion anyway, seeing as we voted to put a clause into the constitution to allow just about every adult woman legally present in the country to have an abortion up to 24 weeks for any reason she finds convincing.

Our laws clearly prevent abortion ... otherwise, why do the pro-abortion lobby want the 8th repealed?
As for freedom to travel for pregnant women, this is a basic human right that every pregnant woman should enjoy ... just like everyone else. If somebody chooses to use their freedom of travel to go and get an abortion (or any other service that is illegal in Ireland and legal elsewhere in Europe) ... then so be it ... that's how the European Common Market works.

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm not sure how a law that only targets the most vulnerable like underage children or asylum seekers can be seen as a good thing.

It depends on what it is targeting them for.
If it's something negative, it doesn't sound like a good thing to me either.

FutureGuy

J C wrote: »

Our laws clearly prevent abortion ... otherwise, why do the pro-abortion lobby want the 8th repealed?
As for freedom to travel for pregnant women, this is a basic human right that every pregnant woman should enjoy ... just like everyone else. If somebody chooses to use their freedom of travel to go and get an abortion (or any other service that is illegal in Ireland and legal elsewhere in Europe) ... then so be it ... that's how the European Common Market works.


It depends on what it is targeting them for.
If it's something negative, it doesn't sound like a good thing to me either.

You'd swear that it was some sort of holiday they were taking.

VonZan

J C wrote: »

Yes, we know that Irish women are having abortions in Britain ... and this is something that also needs to be addressed ... for the welfare of both the women and the unborn children involved.
As a society and irrespective of the referendum result, we need to continue to reduce unplanned/unwanted pregnancies ... as well as convincing women in this situation, to not go ahead with abortion by providing full support for them.

What gives you the moral authority to make decisions for others? Whatever your personal beliefs it takes a real sense of entitlement to think you can remove the choice from other people.

What difference to you does it make if someone goes to Liverpool or Dublin for an abortion? Absolutely none. Why try and create real barriers for people for some artificial moral entitlement for everyone to abide by your beliefs despite the fact that it has no impact on you.

J C

FutureGuy wrote: »

You'd swear that it was some sort of holiday they were taking.

Who said anything about a holiday?
Nobody is saying that its not a serious issue for the women involved (and their partners/family) ... but it is none the less deadly for the unborn child, when they are aborted.