The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

RobertKK

RobertKK wrote: »

But where is the humanity, where is the wish for bodily autonomy for both of the lives involved? The unborn life doesn't want to die, but it has his or her bodily autonomy decided for them as one chooses to view their life as a choice.

Where is the humanity in forcing a rape victim to carry to term, or person who will die from carrying to term?

Ken.

Mod-Graces7 do not post in this thread again. Reason-trolling and refusing to engage.

RobertKK

RobertKK wrote: »

But where is the humanity, where is the wish for bodily autonomy for both of the lives involved? The unborn life doesn't want to die, but it has his or her bodily autonomy decided for them as one chooses to view their life as a choice.

It cannot want or feel anything, it doesn't have the capability. That is purely an emotive argument which does not stand up to any scrutiny.

None of us had the ability to choose to be born, we are simply the result of chance and circumstance.

Simi

RobertKK wrote: »

But where is the humanity, where is the wish for bodily autonomy for both of the lives involved? The unborn life doesn't want to die, but it has his or her bodily autonomy decided for them as one chooses to view their life as a choice.

Where is the humanity in forcing a rape victim to continue their pregnancy against their will, regardless of the consequences to her mental or physical health?

A <12 week old foetus doesn't want anything, it can't want anything! It lacks the capacity to do so.

Annasopra

RobertKK wrote: »

There is the other side too...

https://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/health/ccase-mum-i-grieve-for-my-lost-baby-every-day-29241584.html

Indeed there is.

But really many statistics regarding abortion regret show that most women do not regret their abortions.

erica74

I have decided to add a few posters to my ignore list as they very clearly have no interest in an actual discussion.

https://www.abortionrightscampaign.ie/2016/08/07/8-myths/
Have a read of this, it may help dispel some of the myths being thrown about in this thread.

Every woman in Ireland deserves the right to choose how to proceed with her pregnancy.

Outlaw Pete

amdublin wrote: »

**NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT KILLING BABIES AT WEEK OF DELIVERY**

If a woman does not want to be pregnant at eg. 36 weeks or 37 weeks then labour is induced and delivery happens.
For example in the case of FFA

Someone more expert than me might please come along and inform does this happen foe example in the UK currently?

I repeat though. No one is killing babies at 38 weeks
The abortion is a termination of the pregnancy not termination of the baby.
Sweet jesus.

You're missing the point by a country mile. As it always is when it comes to this point might I add (and I feel is deliberately so most of the time but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt). Okay, here's two recent comments:

DubInMeath wrote: »

....the pro life side don't think that forcing women to carry to term isn't an issue.

erica74 wrote: »

EVERY woman deserves the CHOICE to do WHATEVER she wants with her pregnancy. NOBODY ELSE should have the right to stick their noses into any woman's pregnancy.

Now as you can see both sides are against a woman being "forced" to carry a baby full term if they don't want to....... BUT would they support a woman ending her pregnancy / procuring an illegal abortion at ANY stage of their pregnancy?? No, they would not, therefore even THEY think abortion should be illegal also, just at a different stage than I do, and others do.

So let's say that they don't think it should be legal for a woman to be able to legally take abortion pills at nine months (for example) then how is that not them "sticking their nose into women's pregnancies". Quite clearly, it is. So these people do not believe what they are saying as they themselves don't think all pregnant women should be able to do what they like with their pregnancies.

So there is another reason why they think it should be legal that has nothing to do with body autonomy....... and that is........... fetal development. THAT is the REAL reason behind everyone's views on abortion, whether they admit to it or not. Everything else is just hollow right-on mantras that need caveats about viability in order to justify. So why not stick to what's really the issue here and that is (aside from reasons which medical / theruputic abortions are justifiable):

At what stage do we feel it should be okay to still the heartbeat of a baby developing in the womb?

erica74

RobertKK wrote: »

There is the other side too...

https://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/health/ccase-mum-i-grieve-for-my-lost-baby-every-day-29241584.html

One woman regrets her abortion and that is an awful thing she went through and still goes through all these years later. However, she is one woman. One woman's regret shouldn't mean other women suffer.

erica74

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You're missing the point by a country mile. As it always is when it comes to this point might I add (and I feel is deliberately so most of the time but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt). Okay, here's two recent comments:





Now as you can see both sides are against a woman being "forced" to carry a baby full term if they don't want to....... BUT would they support a woman ending her pregnancy / procuring an illegal abortion at ANY stage of their pregnancy?? No, they would not, therefore even THEY think abortion should be illegal also, just at a different stage than I do, and others do.

So let's say that they don't think it should be legal for a woman to be able to legally take abortion pills at nine months (for example) then how is that not them "sticking their nose into women's pregnancies". Quite clearly, it is. So these people do not believe what they are saying as they themselves don't think all pregnant women should be able to do what they like with their pregnancies.

So there is another reason why they think it should be legal that has nothing to do with body autonomy....... and that is........... fetal development. THAT is the REAL reason behind everyone's views on abortion, whether they admit to it or not. Everything else is just hollow right-on mantras that need caveats about viability in order to justify. So why not stick to what's really the issue here and that is (aside from reasons which medical / theruputic abortions are justifiable):

At what stage do we feel it should be okay to still the heartbeat of a baby developing in the womb?

I have REPEATEDLY said a woman should be able to have an abortion at any stage of her pregnancy. I'm not sure how I can be clearer about that.

RobertKK

DubInMeath wrote: »

Where is the humanity in forcing a rape victim to carry to term, or person who will die from carrying to term?

Can you post how many pregnancies happened in Ireland because of rape in recent years?
Women and girls who have been raped can and should seek immediate medical treatment. I don't see what is gained by waiting and then saying you need an abortion, also by waiting and it would be unintentionally helping the rapist as evidence would be lost - if a pregnancy didn't happen. We see the Gardai are seeking an aborted foetus for evidence in regards to a 12 year old so they can convict the father for unlawful sex.
I think more should be done to encourage people who have been raped/sexually assaulted to not waste time and to come forward and how that makes it easier to stop the abuse, given most abuse is done by people known to the victim of the sexual assault.

sdanseo

I will be voting yes, on the balance that is the lesser of two evils.

The simple repeal option is flawed. It allows members of the Oireachtas to vote with their conscience which may not reflect the conscience of the majority of the population. We could easily see them pass a 12 week law, followed after a change of government by a change in the law banning abortion outright again. This could potentially to and fro with every government for a decade or two and ultimately another referendum will probably required at that point.

Personally I don't support abortion on demand, I think there has to be some extenuating circumstance, because otherwise the state is essentially advocating irresponsible sexual behaviour, saying it's OK you can change your mind afterwards. The problem with such a restriction is that it's virtually unenforceable without interrogating someone who is already in a fragile state which is in and of itself unfair.

Really we needed better leadership and a better amendment, perhaps text along the lines of "the life of the unborn should be protected in so far as is practicable, in a manner to be determined by law, with an equal regard to the right to and quality of life of the mother". - which essentially is a catch all saying if you **** up and want to change your mind, and have the capacity to raise a child, then no abortion on demand, but if you have a demonstrable reason that bearing the child was cause a reduction in quality of life then it might be available up to the 12-week mark.

RobertKK

erica74 wrote: »

One woman regrets her abortion and that is an awful thing she went through and still goes through all these years later. However, she is one woman. One woman's regret shouldn't mean other women suffer.

That is like her views on life don't matter. One could make an educated guess she will vote to retain the 8th.

Outlaw Pete

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You're missing the point by a country mile. As it always is when it comes to this point might I add (and I feel is deliberately so most of the time but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt). Okay, here's two recent comments:





Now as you can see both sides are against a woman being "forced" to carry a baby full term if they don't want to....... BUT would they support a woman ending her pregnancy / procuring an illegal abortion at ANY stage of their pregnancy?? No, they would not, therefore even THEY think abortion should be illegal also, just at a different stage than I do, and others do.

So let's say that they don't think it should be legal for a woman to be able to legally take abortion pills at nine months (for example) then how is that not them "sticking their nose into women's pregnancies". Quite clearly, it is. So these people do not believe what they are saying as they themselves don't think all pregnant women should be able to do what they like with their pregnancies.

So there is another reason why they think it should be legal that has nothing to do with body autonomy....... and that is........... fetal development. THAT is the REAL reason behind everyone's views on abortion, whether they admit to it or not. Everything else is just hollow right-on mantras that need caveats about viability in order to justify. So why not stick to what's really the issue here and that is (aside from reasons which medical / theruputic abortions are justifiable):

At what stage do we feel it should be okay to still the heartbeat of a baby developing in the womb?

Your quoting me and saying that you know that I wouldn't support a woman having an illegal abortion. When have you gained the ability to read minds, especially mine?

captbarnacles

erica74 wrote: »

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You're missing the point by a country mile. As it always is when it comes to this point might I add (and I feel is deliberately so most of the time but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt). Okay, here's two recent comments:





Now as you can see both sides are against a woman being "forced" to carry a baby full term if they don't want to....... BUT would they support a woman ending her pregnancy / procuring an illegal abortion at ANY stage of their pregnancy?? No, they would not, therefore even THEY think abortion should be illegal also, just at a different stage than I do, and others do.

So let's say that they don't think it should be legal for a woman to be able to legally take abortion pills at nine months (for example) then how is that not them "sticking their nose into women's pregnancies". Quite clearly, it is. So these people do not believe what they are saying as they themselves don't think all pregnant women should be able to do what they like with their pregnancies.

So there is another reason why they think it should be legal that has nothing to do with body autonomy....... and that is........... fetal development. THAT is the REAL reason behind everyone's views on abortion, whether they admit to it or not. Everything else is just hollow right-on mantras that need caveats about viability in order to justify. So why not stick to what's really the issue here and that is (aside from reasons which medical / theruputic abortions are justifiable):

At what stage do we feel it should be okay to still the heartbeat of a baby developing in the womb?

I have REPEATEDLY said a woman should be able to have an abortion at any stage of her pregnancy. I'm not sure how I can be clearer about that.

As I did on the last thread. He refuses to accept that.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

sdanseo wrote: »

I will be voting yes, on the balance that is the lesser of two evils.

The simple repeal option is flawed. It allows members of the Oireachtas to vote with their conscience which may not reflect the conscience of the majority of the population. We could easily see them pass a 12 week law, followed after a change of government by a change in the law banning abortion outright again.

Personally I don't support abortion on demand, I think there has to be some extenuating circumstance, because otherwise the state is essentially advocating irresponsible sexual behaviour, saying it's OK you can change your mind afterwards. The problem with such a restriction is that it's virtually unenforceable without interrogating someone who is already in a fragile state which is in and of itself unfair.

Really we needed better leadership and a better amendment, perhaps text along the lines of "the life of the unborn should be protected in so far as is practicable, in a manner to be determined by law, with an equal regard to the right to and quality of life of the mother". - which essentially is a catch all saying if you **** up and want to change your mind, and have the capacity to raise a child, then no abortion on demand, but if you have a demonstrable reason that bearing the child was cause a reduction in quality of life then it might be available up to the 12-week mark.

I too face the dilemma that I want the 8th Amended rather than repealed but on balance will probably be forced to vote Yes as the better of two options.

erica74

RobertKK wrote: »

That is like her views on life don't matter. One could make an educated guess she will vote to retain the 8th.

Who said that?

Her view on her life and her abortion and her experience is valid and you are the one trying to invalidate it, not me.

RobertKK

erica74 wrote: »

Who said that?

The 'However' implies that.

eviltwin

RobertKK wrote: »

There is the other side too...

https://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/health/ccase-mum-i-grieve-for-my-lost-baby-every-day-29241584.html

With respect Robert, that is such a cluster fcuk of a case so I'm not sure it's the best example. Reading everything she went through before and after no wonder she has had issues.

January

captbarnacles wrote: »

As I did on the last thread. He refuses to accept that.

No, he believes that if we don't support women being able to kill babies up to and including the day before birth then we're not fully pro-choice.

He's just trying to make one of us hysterical so we can be banned from the thread.

neonsofa

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Indeed there is.

But really many statistics regarding abortion regret show that most women do not regret their abortions.

Also, the woman who terminates can't speak of the regrets she may have had if she had chosen to continue with the pregnancy. And vice versa. There is obviously an element of what if for some people when it comes to terminations,because of the very nature of them- if you didn't terminate it would result in a baby.

But there is no way of knowing whether continuing with the pregnancy would have been the better option either. Adoption may also lead to what ifs- and in that case there is another human to consider,another life of what ifs. And the parent would still be wondering every day about the child. If they chose to parent the child then perhaps they would be filled with regret about becoming a parent when they weren't ready.

Unfortunately sometimes there is regret, but that doesn't mean there definitely wouldn't be regret if they had made a different decision. And the thing is,it will always only be what ifs,there is no way to know how things would have panned out if another decision was made, but I think that's why it's so important that women have the freedom to decide what they believe is right for them.

dudara

sdanseo wrote: »

Really we needed better leadership and a better amendment, perhaps text along the lines of "the life of the unborn should be protected in so far as is practicable, in a manner to be determined by law, with an equal regard to the right to and quality of life of the mother". - which essentially is a catch all saying if you **** up and want to change your mind, and have the capacity to raise a child, then no abortion on demand, but if you have a demonstrable reason that bearing the child was cause a reduction in quality of life then it might be available up to the 12-week mark.

I fundamentally disagree. Adding more wooly text to the constitution will lead to even more debate and even more f*uck ups when it comes to the medical care of pregnant women. The constitution should be clear, not wooly.

First step is to repeal. Abortion will still be illegal, but at least restrictions on the medical care of pregnant women will be removed.

If our parliamentarians decide, we can legislate then. Politicians are crowd pleasers by their very nature. I expect that whatever is proposed will fit the desire of the country. But, until that happens , abortion will remain illegal in this country.

sdanseo

sdanseo wrote: »

Personally I don't support abortion on demand, I think there has to be some extenuating circumstance, because otherwise the state is essentially advocating irresponsible sexual behaviour, saying it's OK you can change your mind afterwards.

This is a really unfair assumption. It's an argument that gets rolled out time and time again with absolutely zero evidence to back it up. What person in their right mind would think "don't have a condom? It's grand, I'll just have an abortion". Sometimes contraception fails. Also, if someone was irresponsible enough to think like that, do you really think that irresponsible person will make a good parent?

RobertKK

eviltwin wrote: »

With respect Robert, that is such a cluster fcuk of a case so I'm not sure it's the best example. Reading everything she went through before and after no wonder she has had issues.

It was the state who decided she wanted an abortion when she didn't, it was the state who decided her parents were wrong when they said she didn't want an abortion. It was the state who left her more damaged than the rape, going by her words.
Then we are being asked to remove the 8th amendment from the constitution and trust politicians where one - Minister Regina Doherty implies people like the now woman at the centre of this case is ignorant when it comes to abortion despite her having had an abortion.

sdanseo

Nasir Fancy Slipknot wrote: »

I too face the dilemma that I want the 8th Amended rather than repealed but on balance will probably be forced to vote Yes as the better of two options.

The way I see it is, the existing amendment is far too restrictive in cases where a termination is reasonably warranted.

The proposed amendment liberalises it too much.

Giving a woman a choice over her own body makes the argument very simple and my own opinion is that this term should be categorised as disinformation. When you're carrying a child, it's not just your own body, it's that of the child's too. Not all that different to carrying a newborn in a back-carrier. The reason you are carrying a child is because you caused it to happen by having sex (unless of course, in a case of rape which I've excluded below). If you want a choice, behave responsibly in the first place.

You need a licence to have a dog or a television. It shouldn't be too much to ask that we put in place some checks and balances to ensure lives (and they are lives, let's not pretend they aren't) aren't needlessly terminated because someone coudln't be bothered to use contraception or behave responsibly.

At the same time, let's make sure that where there is a reason - an abnormaility that would reduce quality of life of the parent or child (and this would include a significant disability) or cases of rape, or even where reasonable attempts at contraception have failed (i.e having a prescription for the pill but getting pregnant anyway) - that termination IS allowed, with a relatively low burden of proof to avoid unduly causing distress.

I think that would be the best compromise here and if I'm deluded in that assumption then so be it.

pitifulgod

RobertKK wrote: »

Can you post how many pregnancies happened in Ireland because of rape in recent years?
Women and girls who have been raped can and should seek immediate medical treatment. I don't see what is gained by waiting and then saying you need an abortion, also by waiting and it would be unintentionally helping the rapist as evidence would be lost - if a pregnancy didn't happen. We see the Gardai are seeking an aborted foetus for evidence in regards to a 12 year old so they can convict the father for unlawful sex.
I think more should be done to encourage people who have been raped/sexually assaulted to not waste time and to come forward and how that makes it easier to stop the abuse, given most abuse is done by people known to the victim of the sexual assault.

Can you stop treating children as potential evidence? It's offensive to both survivors of rape and those conceived as a result of it. Everyone here thinks a woman should have a choice in that scenario.

In relation to why women don't report, all you have to do is look how women are treated in rape trials. They're treated as criminals effectively and conviction rates are notoriously low. So attributing blame to a woman not coming forward, that's because of the system.

It's an immense trauma and you're simplifying it. Also giving not an iota of consideration for their mental health in the process. It has been explained to you but you're ignoring it.

Madscientist30

sean635 wrote: »

Flying Fox wrote: »

It's not a baby though, it has potential to develop into a baby if the pregnancy continues. That is medical fact.

Whether we defined it as a baby or not is a matter of semantics, although I firmly believe it is. What is incontrovertible is that it is a human life and should not have it’s human rights stripped away on account of it’s lack of sentience or number of cells or any other arbitrary requirement

So suffering doesnt matter to you, just life is the important thing? If you dont mind me asking, where does this belief stem from for you? That any life is more important than the suffering of women? Do you have a wife or daughters?

Martina1991

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

BUT would they support a woman ending her pregnancy / procuring an illegal abortion at ANY stage of their pregnancy?? No, they would not, therefore even THEY think abortion should be illegal also, just at a different stage than I do, and others do.

So let's say that they don't think it should be legal for a woman to be able to legally take abortion pills at nine months (for example) then how is that not them "sticking their nose into women's pregnancies". Quite clearly, it is. So these people do not believe what they are saying as they themselves don't think all pregnant women should be able to do what they like with their pregnancies.

So there is another reason why they think it should be legal that has nothing to do with body autonomy....... and that is........... fetal development. THAT is the REAL reason behind everyone's views on abortion, whether they admit to it or not. Everything else is just hollow right-on mantras that need caveats about viability in order to justify. So why not stick to what's really the issue here and that is (aside from reasons which medical / theruputic abortions are justifiable):

Who are THEY? These fictitious people you are claiming you know the views of.

Abortion pills at 9 months? What are you on about. You're clutching at straws.

captbarnacles

January wrote: »

No, he believes that if we don't support women being able to kill babies up to and including the day before birth then we're not fully pro-choice.

He's just trying to make one of us hysterical so we can be banned from the thread.

That's part of it. He also wants to scream BABYKILLERS KILLING BABIES as 'fetus killing' doesn't suit his purposes as well. Look at the pictures he's posted followed by 'still the heartbeat'.

Madscientist30

sean635 wrote: »

Flying Fox wrote: »

It's not a baby though, it has potential to develop into a baby if the pregnancy continues. That is medical fact.

Whether we defined it as a baby or not is a matter of semantics, although I firmly believe it is. What is incontrovertible is that it is a human life and should not have it’s human rights stripped away on account of it’s lack of sentience or number of cells or any other arbitrary requirement

So suffering doesnt matter to you, just life is the important thing? If you dont mind me asking, where does this belief stem from for you? That any life is more important than the suffering of women? Do you have a wife or daughters?

neonsofa

RobertKK wrote: »

It was the state who decided she wanted an abortion when she didn't, it was the state who decided her parents were wrong when they said she didn't want an abortion. It was the state who left her more damaged than the rape, going by her words.
Then we are being asked to remove the 8th amendment from the constitution and trust politicians where one - Minister Regina Doherty implies people like the now woman at the centre of this case is ignorant when it comes to abortion despite her having had an abortion.

So you're annoyed about the state deciding what is best for a woman despite her being explicit about her own wishes? And annoyed at people suggesting a woman doesn't know her own body and know what is best for her? That she isn't being trusted to decide for herself?

That all sounds very familiar tbh.