The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

dudara

applehunter wrote: »

It is 1 in 5 AFAIK.

It's a shocking statistic.

Let’s say it is true (we can argue that point another time)

It would tell you that a significant amount of women don’t want to be pregnant (for a whole multitude of reasons) and they take action accordingly. It tells you that women see the right to abortion as valid and needed. In other words, it’s a basic fact of life that women don’t always want to be pregnant or want to have a child.

Forcing a woman to stay pregnant against her will is wrong. For me, it doesn’t get any more basic than that.

Martina1991

Britain is not Ireland.

"Approximately 2.7% of the abortions that took place in England and Wales in 2015 were performed on non-residents. Of these 5,190 abortions, 66.5% were performed on residents of the Irish Republic (3,451)."
http://abort73.com/abortion_facts/uk_abortion_statistics/

3,451 Irish women who had abortions that the precious 8th amendment could not stop.

The 8th didn't "save" those babies and it won't stop abortions from happening.

The 8th is only a major obstruction to medical care for women. All it causes is pain and suffering.

Edward M

A 12 week limit is reasonable, it gives every woman with an unwanted pregnancy a chance to consider her options, not all of them will opt for abortion, though a percentage will.
A fetus/baby, whatever you think of it as, will have rights in law after that unless in extreme circumstances.
But mainly the right of the pregnant woman will take precedence in all cases be it medically, physically or mentally, and that should be the case.
Who has more of a right, when you look at the situation overall, to decide what should happen within the parameters of the law, than the pregnant woman.
Better to have children born in to loving, wanted and caring situations than forced upon anyone where they grow up through an early life of resentment perhaps.
Society as a whole throughout history have looked down their noses at what they even invented a term for, "bastards" and disregard for the women who had them, while actually forcing a great many of them to endure their situation.
Time for change I think.

January

Edward M wrote: »

A 12 week limit is reasonable, it gives every woman with an unwanted pregnancy a chance to consider her options, not all of them will opt for abortion, though a percentage will.
A fetus/baby, whatever you think of it as, will have rights in law after that unless in extreme circumstances.
But mainly the right of the pregnant woman will take precedence in all cases be it medically, physically or mentally, and that should be the case.
Who has more of a right, when you look at the situation overall, to decide what should happen within the parameters of the law, than the pregnant woman.
Better to have children born in to loving, wanted and caring situations than forced upon anyone where they grow up through an early life of resentment perhaps.
Society as a whole throughout history have looked down their noses at what they even invented a term for, "bastards" and disregard for the women who had them, while actually forcing a great many of them to endure their situation.
Time for change I think.

I love how you've changed your mind over the course of this thread Edward. It proves that reasonable people when presented with the actual facts can see that repeal is the only way forward.

NuMarvel

RobertKK wrote: »

After conception:
Heartbeat at 24 days
Regular vascular system at 30 days
Skeleton is complete at 42 days
Brainwaves at 43 days


Allow to be killed at up to 84 days without restrictions.

That is what we are voting to allow or not allow.

We already had a vote on allowing women to access abortion, in 1992. It passed by a comfortable margin.

The vote now is deciding if we allow them to do so here, where it will be safer and earlier for them.

Make no mistake a No vote isn't a vote against abortion, it's a vote in favour of later and unsafer abortions.

applehunter

NuMarvel wrote: »

We already had a vote on allowing women to access abortion, in 1992. It passed by a comfortable margin.

The vote now is deciding if we allow them to do so here, where it will be safer and earlier for them.

Make no mistake a No vote isn't a vote against abortion, it's a vote in favour of later and unsafer abortions.

The No vote is to retain the 8th Amendment as it stands.

Nettle Soup

NuMarvel wrote: »

Make no mistake a No vote isn't a vote against abortion, it's a vote in favour of later and unsafer abortions.

Spot on.

A No vote is burying our heads in the sand. It makes no sense, is the wrong thing to do and prolongs the inevitable.

NuMarvel

applehunter wrote: »

The No vote is to retain the 8th Amendment as it stands.

That's pretty much what I said.

The 8th Amendment as it stands doesn't prevent abortions, it just means later and unsafer ones. So voting to retain the 8th Amendment means that will continue. That is the consequence of a No vote.

Madscientist30

applehunter wrote: »

It is 1 in 5 AFAIK.

It's a shocking statistic.

Why is it so shocking to you? Lets assume that the pattern in Ireland is similar, 1 in 5 pregnancies ends in abortion (excluding miscarraiges).

Now think of the converse if abortion was completely outlawed/unavailable as you seem to favour...12,000 forced pregnancies a year in Ireland, 12,000 unwanted children being born into often very difficult circumstances. That is much more shocking for me to contemplate, the effect that would have on us as a society. Do you really feel that forcing all these pregnancies to continue is the better option? What are your proposals for supporting these extra lives, financially, emotionally, practically?

bertieinexile

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Bertie is trying to argue that threat of serious harm (the proposed Irish legislation) is the same as risk of injury (that used in the English legislation).

He asserts that they are materially the same in law when this is clearly not the case.

Not quite.

If you read over again what I posted you'll see I said that the legal distinction between "injury" and ""serious harm" could be argued over by barristers for a long time.
But the practical difference will be none because it will be left up to Marie Stokes clinics to worry about that difference.
And in england this same organisation clearly doesn't give a toss what the law says.
(Because they think they are doing right by granting abortion on demand up to 24 weeks to any woman in england who shows up at their door.)

applehunter

applehunter wrote: »

The No vote is to retain the 8th Amendment as it stands.

I think this is the only factual post you've done in the entire thread.

Annasopra

bertieinexile wrote: »

Not quite.

If you read over again what I posted you'll see I said that the legal distinction between "injury" and ""serious harm" could be argued over by barristers for a long time.
But the practical difference will be none because it will be left up to Marie Stokes clinics to worry about that difference.
And in england this same organisation clearly doesn't give a toss what the law says.
(Because they think they are doing right by granting abortion on demand up to 24 weeks to any woman in england who shows up at their door.)

We dont have Marie Stopes clinics in Ireland (even the Belfast one is closed) so your argument is extremely irrelevant to be honest. As well as that there is also draft legislation going through on regulating pregnancy counselling.

The "injury" v "serious harm" thing is more scaremongering nonsense. An injury can be a tiny scrape. Serious harm is well... "serious" harm not merely something small and inconsequential.

Annasopra

applehunter wrote: »

The No vote is to retain the 8th Amendment as it stands.

And the 13th and 14th. So a no vote is "yes to abortion. Not on this island except if you are suicidal otherwise travel and thats perfectly fine"

bertieinexile

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Scaremongering.

But at least he’s dropped his ‘we’ll have unrestricted abortion up to birth’ line.
Maybe with a few more reads of the policy document he might properly understand it.

bertieinexile wrote:

The proposed Irish law provides an on request model up to 12 weeks.
As you say, the law in england, as written, doesn't provide an on request model at all.
But the law in england as interpreted and improperly used (the mental health exception) does amount to an on request model up to 24 weeks.
The proposed Irish law will provide the same opportunity for improper use without any time limit at all.
The only difficulty in comparing the proposed Irish regime with the regime in england is that under the Irish it will be even easier and more straightforward to request an abortion than it currently is in england. And, in practice, the law wouldn't provide any time limits.

It isn't easy going back over old posts and trying to remember what was going on at the time. Quite understandable. Luckily this one is easy to clear up.

I posted what's in your quote on Mar 24.
It reflected what the government had been saying would be in the proposed legislation
It wasn't until Mar 27 that the scheme was published and at that point the government changed what they had proposed to explicitly restrict late-term abortions beyond viability

Here's the point laid out in an Irish Times article

After the 12th week of pregnancy, abortions will only be permitted when there is a threat to the life or threat “of serious harm” to the health of the mother, and in the cases of fatal foetal abnormalities.

The policy paper outlined by Government last month stated no gestational limits would apply in these cases. This led to criticism from anti-abortion campaigners, who claimed this would allow terminations to be provided up to full term in many cases.

The general scheme of the Bill will explicitly restrict late-term abortions by stating terminations “would not be lawful beyond viability”.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/abortion-referendum/government-will-seek-to-ban-late-term-abortions-1.3440056

bertieinexile

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

.. My son asked me why people wanted to kill babies. I obviously explained this was not what the referendum was about. Funny enough I managed to explain it to him in such a way that explained both sides. When he told me he agreed with how I see it, I said that was probably because I was his mum and for now he believes I'm right, but whatever way he viewed it was okay by me. It's all about choice at the end of the day.

Well obviously I think your son is seriously misinformed! But I just wanted to post in order to say it sounds like you have a lovely relationship with him. It was nice to read that. Fair play.

Annasopra

bertieinexile wrote: »

It isn't easy going back over old posts and trying to remember what was going on at the time. Quite understandable. Luckily this one is easy to clear up.

I posted what's in your quote on Mar 24.
It reflected what the government had been saying would be in the proposed legislation
It wasn't until Mar 27 that the scheme was published and at that point the government changed what they had proposed to explicitly restrict late-term abortions beyond viability

Here's the point laid out in an Irish Times article

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/abortion-referendum/government-will-seek-to-ban-late-term-abortions-1.3440056

Exactly so there is no issue and this stuff you are making up about Abortion "on demand" is nonsense because it will only be available where there is a threat to health or serious harm to the mother.

ProfessorPlum

bertieinexile wrote: »

It isn't easy going back over old posts and trying to remember what was going on at the time. Quite understandable. Luckily this one is easy to clear up.

I posted what's in your quote on Mar 24.
It reflected what the government had been saying would be in the proposed legislation
It wasn't until Mar 27 that the scheme was published and at that point the government changed what they had proposed to explicitly restrict late-term abortions beyond viability

Here's the point laid out in an Irish Times article

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/abortion-referendum/government-will-seek-to-ban-late-term-abortions-1.3440056

Funny how it was only the extremist pro life scaremongering crowd ever thought it was the government’s intention to bring such legislation, even though the government had set out clearly what they intended to propose - no restriction up to 12 weeks.

Not to birth.

Not to 24 weeks.

nice_guy80

What is the NO side's obsession with the UK?

One week it's not our issue here...

The next week it's comparing us with the UK

They never mention the thousands of women already travelling to the UK. Head in the sand stuff.

Annasopra

nice_guy80 wrote: »

What is the NO side's obsession with the UK?

One week it's not our issue here...

The next week it's comparing us with the UK

They never mention the thousands of women already travelling to the UK. Head in the sand stuff.

Its mad because that "1 in 5" includes many Irish women!

A pillar of the no side has been to say that a victim of rape, incest, failed contraception etc, should be forced to carry to term to protect the unborn child and then they can put their child up for adoption and just forget about the whole thing. Because from the point the child is delivered that's when the PLC will forget about it.

Adoption is a difficult process in this country with the preference from a civil service perspective in relation to fostering.
While there are many dedicated foster parents in Ireland who do not get the recognition they deserve. Some unfortuately are not and the child moves from family to family or stays with one until their 18 and their out the door.

This leaves the child with zero to limited access to further education and real employment, and further supports, while some will flight through this others face increased chances of becoming another statistic in relation the addiction and homeless stain on the character of this supposed Christian country.

At this point they become one of the wasters and scrounges many vent about in relation to the use of the taxes that they have to pay and the hours that they have to work, given its their own fault that they ended up this way with all the help and support the state gives them from the day they are born.

I know the stock response from some will be that I think these people would be better off dead, in prison etc, that's a million miles from what I believe and the point of my post.
Even when repeal is successful there will still be women who decide to carry to term and give their child up. At this point the same situation and outcomes will lay in store for some of these children and the pro life side will still be invisible and silent in relation to this.

If you say any different I say bullsh1t as you have had 35 years and not once have I seen a pro life rally to end homelessness or treat addiction. If you pumped as much money into these causes as you do into preventing women from having choices, receiving required medical care and general religious zelotry, people might be more inclined to believe your statements and you wouldn't have to resort to lies and dirty tricks.

mohawk

Like many others have stated on this thread Irish women are having abortions...in our thousands. This is a fact.

The vast majority of Irish women that have abortions in the UK go down the surgical route as this can be done in one day and they can fly home again that evening. For the vast majority of women there are no complications, but after all it is a surgery and like all medical procedures things can go wrong. Other women are buying abortion pills online and then taking them without medical supervision. Again most women that take these have no major complications, but there is still a risk of complication. What happens if something goes wrong?

A vote no just maintains things as they are. Irish women are still going to have abortions.
A vote yes means that we are making the abortions safer for women.

From the Irish Family Planning Institute

Between January 1980 and December 2016, at least 170216 women and girls travelled from the Republic of Ireland to access abortion services in another country.

bertieinexile

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Funny how it was only the extremist pro life scaremongering crowd ever thought it was the government’s intention to bring such legislation, even though the government had set out clearly what they intended to propose - no restriction up to 12 weeks.

Not to birth.

Not to 24 weeks.

I don't know if we're at cross purposes here but to repeat the line from the Irish Times article
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/abortion-referendum/government-will-seek-to-ban-late-term-abortions-1.3440056

The policy paper outlined by Government last month stated no gestational limits would apply in these cases. This led to criticism from anti-abortion campaigners, who claimed this would allow terminations to be provided up to full term in many cases.

Annasopra

bertieinexile wrote: »

I don't know if we're at cross purposes here but to repeat the line from the Irish Times article
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/abortion-referendum/government-will-seek-to-ban-late-term-abortions-1.3440056

And? Ok. some pro life group said something. It still doesn't actually provide any evidence for your assertions.

ProfessorPlum

bertieinexile wrote: »

I don't know if we're at cross purposes here but to repeat the line from the Irish Times article
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/abortion-referendum/government-will-seek-to-ban-late-term-abortions-1.3440056

The governments policy document was published on March 9th btw.
The government had made it very clear from the outset their intention to legislate for abortion with no restriction up to 12 weeks, and thereafter allow termination of pregnancy due risk to health or life of the mother.
It is always the case that if a pregnancy must be ended due to risk to the mother that the child will be delivered where that is feasible.
However, just like when the government was enacting the POLDPA, the hysterical scaremongering from the prolife brigade that there would be mass killings of babies right up to their due dates began.
So no. The government didn’t ‘change’ their intentions. They just had to state the bleeding obvious to people like you, who rather than think things through rationally, like to scaremonger in some point scoring exercise.

Zubeneschamali

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

They just had to state the bleeding obvious to people like you, who rather than think things through rationally, like to scaremonger in some point scoring exercise.

Bertie is not doing this by mistake or because he knows no better - he knows exactly what he's doing and is doing it on purpose.

ProfessorPlum

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Bertie is not doing this by mistake or because he knows no better - he knows exactly what he's doing and is doing it on purpose.

Yeah. I get that. But he does it in such a lovely passive aggressive way:rolleyes:

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Bertie is not doing this by mistake or because he knows no better - he knows exactly what he's doing and is doing it on purpose.

Yep by actually posting a link to an article that debunks his entire argument throughout the thread other than "I'm pro life and I think abortion is wrong in all cases".

If there are going to be T.V. debates on the subject and the pro life candidate did this on a live debate would it not be a huge blunder?

bertieinexile

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

We dont have Marie Stopes clinics in Ireland (even the Belfast one is closed) so your argument is extremely irrelevant to be honest. As well as that there is also draft legislation going through on regulating pregnancy counselling.

The "injury" v "serious harm" thing is more scaremongering nonsense. An injury can be a tiny scrape. Serious harm is well... "serious" harm not merely something small and inconsequential.

So I'm sure at this stage my point is clear -
Any discussion we might have about the legal distinction between between "injury" and ""serious harm" is completely irrelevant from a practical point of view.
Why?
Because it will be left up to Marie Stopes clinics to worry about that difference.
And based on how they operate in england it is safe to say they don't care.

The only thing you seem ready to challenge about that reasoning is the idea that Marie Stopes clinics will set up here.
(The international experience with your pregnancy counselling legislation is that the only time it gets implemented is to force pro life counselling groups to make women aware of abortion options)

Any reasonable person can see that Marie Stopes clinics will of course be setting up here.

Firstly their official position is that they are awaiting the outcome of the referendum before declaring their intentions.
This is precisely because of how scary and offputting their behaviour is and how damaging the prospect of them setting up here is to the pro life side in this referendum.
But we still have this
https://www.thesun.ie/news/2142855/controversial-abortion-service-marie-stopes-signals-it-may-launch-in-ireland-if-eighth-amendment-is-repealed/

It is understood that the UK charity, which has recently been criticised by a UK watchdog, is also actively considering opening a clinic — most likely in Dublin — if the May referendum backs a change to the Constitution.

But a formal interest will only be expressed once the legislation paving the way for terminations passes through the Oireachtas.

A source told us: “This is on our radar but we wouldn’t look at providing services in Ireland until after we know the law is changing.

“There are no plans to provide services in the Republic yet, but we are watching the referendum closely.”

Pressed on its interest here, the charity’s managing director, Richard Bentley, said: “Each year, around 1,500 women travel from the Republic to our clinics.

“We don’t think it’s right that women have to cross a sea to receive safe, legal abortion care, and we hope the referendum will be the first step in addressing this.

“Women deserve better than the law as it stands.”

What does any reasonable person think that says about their intention to set up here?



But a way stronger and more convincing reason Marie Stopes, and all the other english clinics, would be operating here after a yes vote is that they are a driven, hugely profitable "not-for-profit" business, ( ~60,000 abortions a year in UK, private cost €600 - €2100 each ) and a brand new wealthy market would have opened up on their doorstep.
Come on seriously what's going to happen if there's a yes vote? Can you give any argument, any reason, to support what seems like your last ditch assertion that they wouldn't want to come here?

How much of a business are they?
How cut throat?
How industrial is the on demand/on laughable "health grounds", taking of life that takes place in these clinics up to 24 weeks?
Here's a consultant who worked in one
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4284290/Marie-Stopes-abortions-signed-just-phonecall.html

...staff at Marie Stopes simply weren’t given time to provide proper care.

The management took every opportunity to cut costs, cut corners and squeeze patients through as fast as possible with the least demanding protocol for treatment.
The HCA had just 20 minutes to explain the procedures to each patient, perform an ultrasound and take a medical history and a blood sample.

On top of that, the HCA had to complete the paperwork. It was a punishing schedule....

I should have walked out of the door right then and turned my back on the Marie Stopes organisation, where I believe the women who sought help were taken advantage of as well as the doctors and the staff. We worked in an atmosphere of bullying and pressure – it was nothing more than a conveyor belt service.

More than 190,000 abortions are carried out each year in the UK. Around 60,000 of these are undertaken at Marie Stopes centres. I worked there one Saturday every month from 2003 to 2010, and then once a week until 2012. During the week, I was a consultant at King’s College Hospital, London.

At that time, Marie Stopes was performing around 30-35 surgical terminations a day at the clinic I worked in alone. About a quarter of them were over 14 weeks. Some 95 per cent of patients were funded by the NHS.

Or try this
One of Britain's largest abortion providers 'paid its staff bonuses for encouraging women to go through with procedures' claims watchdog in damning report


You really want to claim Marie Stopes and all the other clinics are going to pass up a massive business opportunity right on their doorstep. Give me even a half decent reason why they wouldn't come here.

If you vote Yes this is what you are voting for.
On demand and up to 24 weeks.

mohawk

bertieinexile wrote: »

But a way stronger and more convincing reason Marie Stopes, and all the other english clinics, would be operating here after a yes vote is that they are a driven, hugely profitable "not-for-profit" business, ( ~60,000 abortions a year in UK, private cost €600 - €2100 each ) and a brand new wealthy market would have opened up on their doorstep.
Come on seriously what's going to happen if there's a yes vote? Can you give any argument, any reason, to support what seems like your last ditch assertion that they wouldn't want to come here?

You really want to claim Marie Stopes and all the other clinics are going to pass up a massive business opportunity right on their doorstep. Give me even a half decent reason why they wouldn't come here.

A brand new market?? Really?

They are already getting the 'business'. Irish women are already having abortions. The eighth does not prevent this.

swampgas

bertieinexile wrote: »

If you vote Yes this is what you are voting for.
On demand and up to 24 weeks.

So you keep saying. Despite all the evidence.

And despite the fact that Irish women who can travel will travel for abortions anyway.

So what's your problem with Irish women having abortions in their home country instead of in a foreign one?