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

J C

JDD wrote: »

I asked her to put it in terms that a man could understand ... and she said that in the third trimester it felt something like a combination of a 'bad back' and a bloated stomach from over-indulgence in eating and drinking.


Okay - now I believe that you are either making up your wife, and I’d hate to think that, or for some reason she doesn’t want to tell you the truth, and I’d hate to think that too, or she is literally one of those extremely rare people who have symptomless pregnancies, y’know like the ones who don’t know they’re pregnant until they have contractions. If she was willing to post online I think I’d believe the latter. Otherwise....

She is sitting beside me and somewhat bemused by your belief that she doesn't exist ... or is some kind of rare 'unicorn'!!:)

JDD wrote: »

Also, you never answered, are you from the US?

I don't care where you come from ... and neither should you care where I come from.

JDD wrote: »

Having had three wanted pregnancies I can tell you that the positives are all connected to the excitement and anticipation of having baby at the end of the nine months. That excitement and anticipation can work wonders at lessening the impact of worst of the symptoms. Even then I’d still say pregnancy sucks, and I’ve never found anyone in my wide circle of Mum friends who would tell a different story, though it might take two glasses of wine for them to admit it.

... they probably also don't admit that the sex was great when they were pregnant either ... people can have very selective recall alright.;)

J C

bubblypop wrote: »

when did she turn into a hypothetical woman?
you said you asked her about her pregnancy, presumably you were talking about a real life woman.
I presumed your wife/ partner?

I was talking about women in general, like those on the bump website.

J C

J C wrote: »

She certainly didn't complain then ... but I'll ask her now ...
... and she tells me that in the first trimester she felt a bit sick ... in the second trimester she felt great and 'on top of the world' ... and in the third trimester she felt like she was slightly obese and 'bloated'.

I asked her to put it in terms that a man could understand ... and she said that in the third trimester it felt something like a combination of a 'bad back' and a bloated stomach from over-indulgence in eating and drinking.
... so it's certainly doesn't justify killing any human being to be rid of it.

Most people with chronic back pain or obesity issues would sing for joy if they could be re-assured it would be all over in 3 months . ... and with a few hours painful workout in a gym, at the end.

... or perhaps she is just your average woman, who finds herself pregnant and ethically sees her pregnancy through to term, on the basis that she cannot countenance killing her own child.

There is a natural instinct in men to be protective of women and to believe them ... but if feminism keep 'crying wolf' and exaggerating various issues ... them men (and other women) may very well ignore them or not believe them ... when they have a really serious problem.

this is your full post.
doesn't look like you were talking about an average woman on the 'bump' website.
sounds like you were talking about your partner.
so, i will ask again, did she want to be pregnant? did she want to have a child?

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

You protest too much!!

Nope im pointing out your blatant lies!

J C

bubblypop wrote: »

this is your full post.
doesn't look like you were talking about an average woman on the 'bump' website.
sounds like you were talking about your partner.
so, i will ask again, did she want to be pregnant? did she want to have a child?

Yes she wanted to be pregnant.

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Nope im pointing out your blatant lies!

You protest too much!!

You're long on accusation and short on proof.

J C

bubblypop wrote: »

you do know not every woman can take the MAP?
I cannot

Then you also cannot take the abortion pill ... that is supposed to be the reason for the 12 weeks abortion on demand proposal.

JDD

I wouldn’t normally care JC, your views are your views. Except this is a very widely read Irish based discussion forum. And the topic relates to an impending vote on the Irish constitution. And there has been accusations on both sides - though mostly against the pro-life side - of campaign funding being sourced in the the US. So in this particular instance I do believe your nationality is relevant to the debate.

Can I ask you some questions?

1. Do you believe the right to life starts at conception or implantation?
2. If implantation, why at that point and not before?
3. If conception are you against the Pill, the Morning After Pill, and IVF treatment?
4. If a woman voiced her intention to obtain an abortion in another jurisdiction, would you be in favor of withdrawing her passport to prevent her from doing so?

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

You protest too much!!

You're long on accusation and short on proof.

Here's your proof right here!

J C wrote: »

Rape is a separate issue ... and the risk of pregnancy after rape is addressed by the MAP.

Like I have said, the MAP prevents any pregnancy resulting form rape.

It has been pointed out to you several times they

A: not all women can take MAP

B: If someone is being repeatedly raped/abused over the years by a relative/family friend they cannot go and get the MAP everyt8me.

You choose to if it's these points because it blows your whole "take the MAP intake situations" out of the water so you continue to post these lies as highlighted above!

J C

JDD wrote: »

I wouldn’t normally care JC, your views are your views. Except this is a very widely read Irish based discussion forum. And the topic relates to an impending vote on the Irish constitution. And there has been accusations on both sides - though mostly against the pro-life side - of campaign funding being sourced in the the US. So in this particular instance I do believe your nationality is relevant to the debate.

Can I ask you some questions?

1. Do you believe the right to life starts at conception or implantation?
Human life starts at fertilisation.
2. If implantation, why at that point and not before?
N/A
3. If conception are you against the Pill, the Morning After Pill, and IVF treatment?
I accept that they are legally on the boundary between contraception and abortion - and therefore are legal under the 8th.
4. If a woman voiced her intention to obtain an abortion in another jurisdiction, would you be in favor of withdrawing her passport to prevent her from doing so?
No ... just like I wouldn't advocate the withdrawal of a passport from somebody declaring that they were travelling to Spain to attend a bull fight ... or somebody declaring that they were going to Holland to be euthanized. I accept that people can legally travel to other jurisdictions and avail of lawful products and services, when they are there.

Answers in red above.

oscarBravo

You're being inconsistent, J C. You say that life begins at fertilisation, but advocate the use of the morning-after pill.

Why is it OK to kill the unborn before implantation but not after? I'm not asking about what's legal; I'm asking about morality.

JDD

May I make the following points

1. The pill and the MAP work in the same way, just the MAP is a higher dose. A. They prevent ovulation B. They thicken the entrance to the cervix to block sperm entry and C. In the small amount of cases where these steps fail, they prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.

2. They are legal because the right to life, in Ireland, only vests in an implanted foetus, something I’ve always found odd. Why is it that taking a pill to prevent implantation is acceptable, yet a pill taken a day after implantation is not?

3. Embryos are routinely discarded during ivf treatment. How is this on the borderline of abortion if the right to life is invested from conception?

4. I’m glad you think a termination is the moral equivalent of attending a bullfight or exercising your right to die. That doesn’t appear to be the view of most pro-lifers. And given the repercussions on the healthcare of pregnant women I would sincerely hope the 8th is not being imposed because of a vaguely held belief that terminations are morally questionable.

If I was to tell my doctor I was bringing my daughter to Nigeria for an FGM procedure I would be prevented from traveling (and rightly so). Why would, if you believed a termination was the equivalent of killing a born person, saying that you were traveling for an abortion be any different?

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Here's your proof right here!

It has been pointed out to you several times they

A: not all women can take MAP

... and they cannot have an abortion pill abortion either ... which the 12 week abortion on demand proposal is supposedly designed to facilitate.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

B: If someone is being repeatedly raped/abused over the years by a relative/family friend they cannot go and get the MAP everyt8me.

... and your point is?

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You choose to if it's these points because it blows your whole "take the MAP intake situations" out of the water so you continue to post these lies as highlighted above!

A difference of opinion isn't a lie.
Please stop being so personally nasty with me.

J C

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're being inconsistent, J C. You say that life begins at fertilisation, but advocate the use of the morning-after pill.

Why is it OK to kill the unborn before implantation but not after? I'm not asking about what's legal; I'm asking about morality.

I don't advocate the MAP ... but I morally tolerate it as the lesser of two evils.

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

I don't advocate the MAP ... but I morally tolerate it as the lesser of two evils.

That's not an answer. If you were consistent in your positions, you'd be as vehemently opposed to the MAP as you are to abortion. But you're not. Why?

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

I don't advocate the MAP ... but I morally tolerate it as the lesser of two evils.

I thought the whole point of keeping the 8th was tnat the ban on abortion actually stopped thousands of women having abortions? Now you're saying it's the MAP that does it?

And surely if fertilization is the start of life, it makes no difference, morally speaking, how developed the embryo is?

J C

J C wrote: »

Yes she wanted to be pregnant.

so, she wasnt ethetically having a baby because she found herself pregnant.
she was actually having a wanted child.
big difference.

J C

J C wrote: »

Then you also cannot take the abortion pill ... that is supposed to be the reason for the 12 weeks abortion on demand proposal.

and yet I believe that other women should be allowed to take it....

J C

JDD wrote: »

May I make the following points

1. The pill and the MAP work in the same way, just the MAP is a higher dose. A. They prevent ovulation B. They thicken the entrance to the cervix to block sperm entry and C. In the small amount of cases where these steps fail, they prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.

2. They are legal because the right to life, in Ireland, only vests in an implanted foetus, something I’ve always found odd. Why is it that taking a pill to prevent implantation is acceptable, yet a pill taken a day after implantation is not?

It is the legal line drawn in Ireland. It is a practical limit ... and not a moral one. Almost every country has some limits on abortion ... Ireland happens to be at the conservative end of the spectrum.

JDD wrote: »

3. Embryos are routinely discarded during ivf treatment. How is this on the borderline of abortion if the right to life is invested from conception?

The artificial production of human embryos and their subsequent treatment is something that needs to be regulated.

JDD wrote: »

4. I’m glad you think a termination is the moral equivalent of attending a bullfight or exercising your right to die. That doesn’t appear to be the view of most pro-lifers. And given the repercussions on the healthcare of pregnant women I would sincerely hope the 8th is not being imposed because of a vaguely held belief that terminations are morally questionable.

I didn't say they are morally equivalent ... just examples of travelling to avail of services legally available in other European countries, but not in Ireland.

JDD wrote: »

If I was to tell my doctor I was bringing my daughter to Nigeria for an FGM procedure I would be prevented from traveling (and rightly so). Why would, if you believed a termination was the equivalent of killing a born person, saying that you were traveling for an abortion be any different?

... it all comes down to the legal principle that people can travel within Europe from one jurisdiction to another to avail of legally available services in the other jurisdiction.

J C

bubblypop wrote: »

and yet I believe that other women should be allowed to take it....

... even though they could have prevented the pregnancy by using protection and/or the pill / MAP?

J C

J C wrote: »

... even though they could have prevented the pregnancy by using protection and/or the pill / MAP?

do you not understand that contraception is not 100%
seriously?

Wildlife Actor

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It is not "confirmation" of anything.

The 8th absolutely did prevent freedom to travel - we know that because of the judgement in the X case. The right to travel was added to change the 8th so that it did not prevent travel. it is a narrow exception to the text of the 8th, not a general right to travel.

Here, read it yourself:

3° The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state.

You're saying the same as me. The right to travel was a pre existing right, prior to 1983. The X case raised a question as to the interaction of that right with the right to life of the unborn. The 1992 referendum "confirmed" that the right to travel trumped. It did not create a new right to travel.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

... and they cannot have an abortion pill abortion either ... which the 12 week abortion on demand proposal is supposedly designed to facilitate.

Pills are not the only form of abortion.

... and your point is?

My point is that your "MAP will prevent pregnancy from rape" is yet another lie as it's obvious that someone being continually raped would not have access to the MAP

A difference of opinion isn't a lie.
Please stop being so personally nasty with me.

I'm not being nasty JC, But I won't hesitate to point it out when you tell blatant lies to further your agenda on these threads!

J C

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's not an answer. If you were consistent in your positions, you'd be as vehemently opposed to the MAP as you are to abortion. But you're not. Why?

... because its the lesser of two evils.

... anybody faced with a choice between the MAP ... and killing an unborn child and extracting her from the womb ... would choose the former.

That is the stark choice we are being faced with in the referendum.

J C

bubblypop wrote: »

do you not understand that contraception is not 100%
seriously?

... and as I have already said, that is something that needs to be factored in when somebody decides to have sex.

It is totally unacceptable to use abortion as a means of contraception.

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

... anybody faced with a choice between the MAP ... and killing an unborn child...

No, J C. You're waffling. If life begins at conception, then taking the MAP is killing an unborn child.

Why is it OK to kill an unborn child before implantation and not after?

volchitsa

Love nor Money wrote: »

You're saying the same as me. The right to travel was a pre existing right, prior to 1983. The X case raised a question as to the interaction of that right with the right to life of the unborn. The 1992 referendum "confirmed" that the right to travel trumped. It did not create a new right to travel.

Gail O'Rorke had no right to travel to Switzerland to accompany her dying friend for a legal assisted suicide. So the theory that it is a right to travel for anything legal doesn't really hold up.

It's a right to travel for abortion.

J C

J C wrote: »

... and as I have already said, that is something that needs to be factored in when somebody decides to have sex.

It is totally unacceptable to use abortion as a means of contraception.

I don't want children, I don't want to be pregnant.
I take all the precautions i can.
Are you suggesting that me & my partner should not have sex?

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Pills are not the only form of abortion.

You're correct ... and the 12 week limit abortion on demand will therefore not just be confined to abortion pills ... but will also encompass full surgical abortions that kills the unborn child and extracts them.

J C

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, J C. You're waffling. If life begins at conception, then taking the MAP is killing an unborn child.

Why is it OK to kill an unborn child before implantation and not after?

It isn't OK ... but it is the lesser of two evils.

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

It isn't OK ... but it is the lesser of two evils.

Why? Is an unborn child a lesser human being before implantation? Why is it more evil to kill an unborn child after implantation than before?

J C

bubblypop wrote: »

I don't want children, I don't want to be pregnant.
I take all the precautions i can.
Are you suggesting that me & my partner should not have sex?

I'm suggesting that if you have sex ... and in the very unlikely event you conceive a child ... you should be prepared to see the pregnancy through to term.

Your child needs you and only you up to delivery ... any other equally generous person can then parent your child, if you cannot do so, yourself, for whatever reason.

J C

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why? Is an unborn child a lesser human being before implantation? Why is it more evil to kill an unborn child after implantation than before?

It's the lesser of two legal evils.
Morally speaking, you are correct, an unborn child is a human being at all stages from fertilization to adulthood.

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

It's the lesser of two legal evils.

You really are incapable of articulating a coherent philosophy here, aren't you?

Here's a thought: if you can't articulate a coherent philosophy, maybe you don't have a right to have your incoherent philosophy dictate the limits of a woman's bodily integrity and reproductive healthcare.

Morally speaking, you are correct, an unborn child is a human being at all stages from fertilization to adulthood.

So, morally speaking, you are exactly as opposed to the MAP as you are to abortion? There is no moral difference between the two? And, morally speaking, any form of assisted reproduction that involves the destruction of embryos is exactly as wrong as abortion?

robarmstrong

J C wrote: »

I'm suggesting that if you have sex ... and in the very unlikely event you conceive a child ... you should be prepared to see the pregnancy through to term.

Your child needs you and only you up to delivery ... any other equally generous person can then parent your child, if you cannot do so, yourself, for whatever reason.

Are you going to personally volunteer to look after the baby you've forced someone against their wishes to have?

Wildlife Actor

volchitsa wrote: »

Gail O'Rorke had no right to travel to Switzerland to accompany her dying friend for a legal assisted suicide. So the theory that it is a right to travel for anything legal doesn't really hold up.

It's a right to travel for abortion.

Wrong again. She had the right to travel wherever she wanted. None of the charges against her were for travelling anywhere. She was acquitted of course but I understand that's not the point.

Wildlife Actor

robarmstrong wrote: »

Are you going to personally volunteer to look after the baby you've forced someone against their wishes to have?

Not a great point that, because it applies equally in a case where a parent decides they don't want their born child anymore. In both cases there is an answer (not a pretty one but an answer nonetheless) being state care.

robarmstrong

Love nor Money wrote: »

Not a great point that, because it applies equally in a case where a parent decides they don't want their born child anymore. In both cases there is an answer (not a pretty one but an answer nonetheless) being state care.

Doesn't really apply as the mother has already gone through a pregnancy and has every right to choose to put her child up for adoption, just like she should have every right to choose the course of her pregnancy.

J C

J C wrote: »

I'm suggesting that if you have sex ... and in the very unlikely event you conceive a child ... you should be prepared to see the pregnancy through to term.

Your child needs you and only you up to delivery ... any other equally generous person can then parent your child, if you cannot do so, yourself, for whatever reason.

You missed the part where I said I don't want to be pregnant.
You are suggesting that should be forced to carry a child I do not want, in order to give it away.
I am not a human incubator.

Zubeneschamali

J C wrote: »

It's the lesser of two legal evils.
Morally speaking, you are correct, an unborn child is a human being at all stages from fertilization to adulthood.

After we change the Constitution, abortion will be legal too, just like MAP and IVF.

You are free to continue to regard them all as evil.

JDD

JC what you’re saying is an embryo does not have a right to life before implantation. If you believed it had a right to life from conception it follows that you must be in favor of banning any medication that prevents implantation of fertilized eggs.

You also said that IVF needs to be regulated. What do you mean by that? Do you mean that all fertilized eggs should be implanted? Because that would effectively put an end to IVF treatment - the success of which depends on the selection of the most viable embryos. Is that your view?

volchitsa

Love nor Money wrote: »

Wrong again. She had the right to travel wherever she wanted. None of the charges against her were for travelling anywhere. She was acquitted of course but I understand that's not the point.

Are you saying that she was allowed to travel to Switzerland?

Because you are wrong, she wasn't. The travel agent reported her to AGS and she was prevented from travelling.

She couldnt be tried for it because it didn't happen, and because attempting to travel is not against the law.

But if she had gone she would have been. Unlike women travelling for abortion who are not only allowed to leave the country quite openly, unlike Gail O'Rorke, but who know they will not be prosecuted on their return.

J C

Love nor Money wrote: »

Not a great point that, because it applies equally in a case where a parent decides they don't want their born child anymore. In both cases there is an answer (not a pretty one but an answer nonetheless) being state care.

True ... but there is also the option of adoption. I have reared my own family, at this stage, so I wouldn't personally adopt ... but there are many couples out there who would be very glad to do so.

Triceratops Ballet

J C wrote:

True ... but there is also the option of adoption. I have reared my own family, at this stage, so I wouldn't personally adopt ... but there are many couples out there who would be very glad to do so.

Correct me if I'm wrong but married couples in Ireland can not have their children adopted, so what in that case?
Women of child bearing age in Ireland also find it very difficult to find a doctor to perform sterilisation in the event that they don't ever want to have children, or don't want to have any more, so is your solution for them celibacy?

J C

oscarBravo wrote: »

You really are incapable of articulating a coherent philosophy here, aren't you?

My philosophy is coherent, that all human lives should be treated with equal respect.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Here's a thought: if you can't articulate a coherent philosophy, maybe you don't have a right to have your incoherent philosophy dictate the limits of a woman's bodily integrity and reproductive healthcare.

I have every right to articulate my philosophy ... and you have every right to reject it.

oscarBravo wrote: »

So, morally speaking, you are exactly as opposed to the MAP as you are to abortion? There is no moral difference between the two? And, morally speaking, any form of assisted reproduction that involves the destruction of embryos is exactly as wrong as abortion?

Morally speaking you are correct ... how can it logically be any other way?

Trying to draw artificial lines of 'this far and no further' will probably ultimately fail ... as the inexorable movement in all countries, towards abortion on demand at all stages before birth and euthanasia at all ages after birth is proving.
Canada has abortion on demand without gestational limit ... and Belgium has euthanasia at all ages from birth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada

http://diversityhealthcare.imedpub.com/children-and-euthanasia-belgiums-controversial-new-law.php?aid=3729

Triceratops Ballet

You fall down on that basic point though, what is respectful about insisting a woman who does not wish to give birth to a child, remain pregnant against her wishes to satisfy your moral standpoint

That is not respectful of her wishes, or value as a person beyond her ability to gestate a pregnancy

Wildlife Actor

volchitsa wrote: »

Are you saying that she was allowed to travel to Switzerland?

Because you are wrong, she wasn't. The travel agent reported her to AGS and she was prevented from travelling.

She couldnt be tried for it because it didn't happen, and because attempting to travel is not against the law.

But if she had gone she would have been. Unlike women travelling for abortion who are not only allowed to leave the country quite openly, unlike Gail O'Rorke, but who know they will not be prosecuted on their return.

The charges were for assisting a suicide, not travel. The only aspect of the travel component that became relevant to the charges was booking the sick friend's flight, not her own.

Wildlife Actor

robarmstrong wrote: »

Doesn't really apply as the mother has already gone through a pregnancy and has every right to choose to put her child up for adoption, just like she should have every right to choose the course of her pregnancy.

You're equating the choice to give up a child to state care or adoption with abortion. While there might be some equivalence from the mother's point of view, there's a radical difference from the child's.

And yes I said "child" in both cases. For clarity I regard it as a child from 10 weeks* so I'm not talking about zygotes or balls of cells

*(12 weeks is better than nothing: if only it was enshrined in the constitution with defined exceptions for ffa and serious health of mother I'd happily replace 8th amendment)

volchitsa

Love nor Money wrote: »

The charges were for assisting a suicide, not travel. The only aspect of the travel component that became relevant to the charges was booking the sick friend's flight, not her own.

How could she be charged with travelling when the travel agent refused to sell her the ticket and instead reported her to the guards? She didn't travel because she was prevented from doing so.

Something which he could not have done if her stated reason had been that she intended to have an abortion.

IOW the right is indeed to travel for an abortion, not for anything provided it is legal in the country of destination.

volchitsa

Love nor Money wrote: »

You're equating the choice to give up a child to state care or adoption with abortion. While there might be some equivalence from the mother's point of view, there's a radical difference from the child's.

And yes I said "child" in both cases. For clarity I regard it as a child from 10 weeks* so I'm not talking about zygotes or balls of cells

*(12 weeks is better than nothing: if only it was enshrined in the constitution with defined exceptions for ffa and serious health of mother I'd happily replace 8th amendment)

What happens at 10 weeks, or are you just expecting everyone else to accept your personal opinion as legal basis for law?