The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

ohnonotgmail

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Out of genuine curiosity, how does that happen? You'd have to copy text, delete the text that's there and then put the text you copied into the quote boxes... from what I can see

it could happen to a bishop.

robarmstrong

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Out of genuine curiosity, how does that happen? You'd have to copy text, delete the text that's there and then put the text you copied into the quote boxes... from what I can see

Happens to me quite a bit when I'm posting across different threads! The Preview Post feature has dialed it down a good bit though.

captbarnacles

captbarnacles wrote: »

I made it two paragraphs. Cliff notes?

Gay marriage bad,
Media support bad,
Foreign support inc financial for Yes bad,
No mention of foreign financial support for No,
Next is abortion, abortion bad.

Water John

So for Joe McCarroll, Tom McGurk is the, go to expert!!!

Ave Sodalis

robarmstrong wrote: »

Happens to me quite a bit when I'm posting across different threads! The Preview Post feature has dialed it down a good bit though.

I can see how you'd quote the wrong thing that way, but for it to link you to the same poster but a completely different wording? I'm still confused!

seamus

pleas advice wrote: »

just to throw in a curveball that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere yet, would a diagnosis of a serious disability in the fetus, but not fatal, qualify as being capable of causing 'serious harm to the (mental) health of the pregnant woman' if the pregnancy was brought to term?

No.

Because when the child is born the woman is no longer pregnant. Therefore the abortion provisions do not apply.

The legislation will only allow for actual risk to the woman due to continuing the pregnancy.

Postpartum mental health problems are a risk for every pregnancy, but not a guaranteed outcome.

If you could even prove that having a disabled child would definitely cause issues, then abortion is not the only solution in that case; adoption is on the table.

In your scenario, it's the born child itself putting the mother at risk. The actual pregnancy does not.

Certainly someone may argue that the woman's mental health has deteriorated as a result of the diagnosis and the thought of the child growing within. But that's an actual risk that has already manisfested. You posited a potential risk.

pleas advice

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Did you just completely make up the post you pretended to quote?

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Out of genuine curiosity, how does that happen? You'd have to copy text, delete the text that's there and then put the text you copied into the quote boxes... from what I can see

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

it could happen to a bishop.

when you have a few posts tagged as multiquote, and then forget, quote a post to reply to a single line and delete what looks like superfluous text...
it can turn out like this...

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

it could happen to a bishop.

robarmstrong

robarmstrong wrote: »

Angry homophobic individual with a doctorate still mad that them meddlin' gays are allowed to marry!

He's also the co founder of the Pro Life Campain.

MkaylaK

Pro-life 18 year old here, I'm certainly in the minority!

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

jeez that took a long time to say absolutely nothing of substance.

And to be a little dismissave of JDD especially about her perhaps leaving the thread

ohnonotgmail

DubInMeath wrote: »

He's also the co founder of the Pro Life Campain.

appropriate

ohnonotgmail

pleas advice wrote: »

when you have a few posts tagged as multiquote, and then forget, quote a post to reply to a single line and delete what looks like superfluous text...
it can turn out like this...

not buying that for a minute.

robarmstrong

MkaylaK wrote: »

Pro-life 18 year old here, I'm certainly in the minority!

So share your thoughts!

This thread has been in dire need of a genuine and intelligent discussion from the pro-life side for ages now, pitch in

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

appropriate

Yep for a typo it didn't turn out so bad

gctest50

MkaylaK wrote: »

Pro-life 18 year old here, I'm certainly in the minority!

Yay - here, have 2 :

pleas advice

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

not buying that for a minute.

what would you buy, for a minute?
why would I lie, I was as confused as anyone when it happened, and when i figured out what went wrong i edited the post to correct it

Pedro K

pleas advice wrote: »

just to throw in a curveball that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere yet, would a diagnosis of a serious disability in the fetus, but not fatal, qualify as being capable of causing 'serious harm to the (mental) health of the pregnant woman' if the pregnancy was brought to term?

PLDPA 2013 already deals with potential suicide of the pregnant woman, and has done since 2013. Under that act a woman can have an abortion if deemed suicidal.

In 2014, 15, and 16, there were a total of 7 (3, 3, and 1, respectively) terminations carried out where suicide was identified as a risk.

So the option for a woman to claim suicidal tendencies is already there. But, It didn't open the floodgates in 2013, nor will it open the floodgates should the 8th be repealed. I think most women deserve a lot more respect than that.

Your curveball is a bit of a dud.

Annasopra

bertieinexile wrote: »

1 in 5 pregnancies in england end in abortion.

Indeed. Those figures also include Irish and Northern Irish abortions too by the way.

And because of the 8th we abandon and turn our back on Irish women so that they can travel to the UK; shamed, rejected by their own country. Many women from Ireland had to travel to end pregnancies because of health conditions, because of rape, because of fatal foetal abnormailities.

Keeping the 8th really is anything but care or compassion for these women.

Sofiztikated

the Irish MMR was 10.4 per 100,000 maternities and
the UK MMR was 9.02 per 100,000 maternities.
This does not represent a statistically significant difference in MMR between countries
https://www.ucc.ie/en/...fNo1December2015.pdf

I find it odd that Bertie didn't read the middle bit. Does NOT represent a statistically significant difference between countries.

pleas advice

Pedro K wrote: »

PLDPA 2013 already deals with potential suicide of the pregnant woman, and has done since 2013. Under that act a woman can have an abortion if deemed suicidal.

Your curveball is a bit of a dud.

just as there is a difference between 'threat to life' and 'serious harm to the health' of the woman, there is a difference between threat of suicide and serious harm to the mental health of the woman

horseburger

Madscientist30 wrote: »

But he is wrong to equate them then isnt he, in your eyes? You have said that you don't believe that abortion is murder, whereas the deliberate ending of a child's life would of course be murder. You are claiming that pro-choice people are using euphemisms for abortion and the fetus in order to shy away from or rationalise the reality of what is happening. But you have never labelled what that actually is, except getting offended when I suggested you think it is murder.

You are going on and on about the ending of human life. But you are also saying that you favour abortion in some cases. So what exactly is your point here? Abortion is ok in some circumstances, but we must all acknowledge the humanity of the foetus at all times, and that its life is being ended, but it's not murder? And if it is ended for reasons you believe it then that's fine? Does that sum up your position, or could you clarify? Maybe you could give us your own thoughts instead of asking the same question over and over, not taking on board any responses and posting endless links and propagada videos.

I said I do not think it is helpful to consider it murder, because if you call it murder, it is as if you are disregarding the very sad situation that many are in, when they receive diagnoses where the prognosis is not good, and they feel they cannot cope with continuing the pregnancy, or feel they do not have the support to continue with the pregnancy.

I don't advocate stopping people having abortions and have not said that they shouldn't have abortions, on the basis that one has to be in the situation to fully appreciate the circumstances.

I can also see the perspective that argues that the Eight Amendment doesn't rule out abortions entirely. My understanding of the Eight Amendment is that it allows for intervention and abortion in the case of risk to life of the mother and a follow on risk to life of the baby, while at the same time, by use of the phrase "as far as practicable" striving to ensure the safety of the lives of both the baby and the mother.

This letter in the Irish Times, by Dr Noreen O'Carroll, addresses the wording of the Eight Amendment.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/the-eighth-amendment-1.3434070

I am making the point that language is being used, in arguments for abortion, to avoid acknowledging that abortion means the ending of a life.

For example Labour posters stating "Compassion In a Crisis" and People Before Profit posters stating "Our Bodies Our Choice".

No reference made in either slogan to the ending of the life of the human foetus/baby.

A letter by Dr William Reville of UCC, in The Irish Times discusses euphemisms:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/referendum-on-the-eighth-amendment-1.3459943

This letter by Dr Mary Holohan discusses that intervention is currently permitted when there is a risk to the mother's life:


https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/referendum-on-the-eighth-amendment-1.3459943

Euphemisms are being used by those who advocate repeal. Donal Lynch, the journalist with The Sunday Independent, made this point on the debate on the Claire Byrne show on 5th September 2016.

He said that unless people - who advocate for a wider availability of abortion - acknowledge the humanity of the foetus, whose life is being ended, that the groups who oppose abortion, will continue to highlight the use of vague language that is being used to advocate for abortion.

He said that if those who advocate for abortion, acknowledged the humanity of the foetus/baby, that more people who see both points of view in the debate, might be more open to the arguments that advocate for abortion.

He made this point from the six minute mark on the show.

Interestingly, when Donal Lynch made this point on a recent episode of Tonight with Matt Cooper, which was co-presented by Gavan Reilly, Maria Steen - who was a panelist alongside Donal Lynch and Peadar Toibin - acknowledged him for his honesty.

Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be on the TV3 Player anymore. The archive on the player doesn't seem to go any further back than a few weeks. It used to go further back than a couple of weeks. The furthest back episode at the moment is Tuesday 20th March 2018.

URL]https://www.tv3.ie/3player/show/1294/0/0/[/URL]

You say that I have posted links to propaganda videos.

I posted links to videos with perspectives on both sides of the issue of abortion.

The majority of the posts in this thread advocate for repeal in the referendum.

I think it is reasonable to ask questions of people who argue for repeal.

I would have a concern about the issue that we are being asked to trust public representatives to legislate on this issue in the event of a majority vote to repeal, considering public representatives differ on the issue of what circumstances and limits that should be available for abortion.
Very often public representatives vote on issues with greater regard to the survival of their political careers, and their position and profile within their political parties, than the issue on which they are voting.

Why is it that, it seems that it is not the case that the recommendations of the Oireachtas Report will be implemented according to the report?

This Irish Times item states that "Members say they cannot compel the Government to accept their recommendations".

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas-committee-on-eighth-amendment-publishes-40-page-report-1.3333670

How will the issue that TDs and Senators like Ruth Coppinger, Clare Daly and Ivana Bacik, who want a wider availability of circumstances of abortion, compared to other public representatives, be resolved?

It has been argued, by David Alton, for example, that in Britain, that in 1967, it was intended that abortion would be in more limited circumstances than it is now.

https://davidalton.net/2017/10/04/a-poignant-anthem-for-the-unborn-child-50-years-and-8-million-lives-ended-who-can-sound-the-depths-of-sorrow/

The actress Sally Phillips, whose son Ollie, has Down's Syndrome, made a documentary discussing the issue of how countries like Denmark and Iceland, implement policies that advocate abortion in cases of a diagnosis of Down's Syndrome.

She spoke with sadness about this issue, in an interview with Frank Skinner:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5x1h5s

Here is the documentary made by Sally Phillips, titled A World Without Down's Syndrome?, and an interview she did on the issue of abortion in the case of Down's Syndrome.

A very interesting part of the documentary was when the person, who is involved in developing screening practices, asked Sally Phillips what she thinks the prospects are, for her son Ollie, after Sally Phillips dies.

Sally Phillips responded by reasoning that the solution is not abortion in the case of a diagnosis of Down's Syndrome. The solution, she said, is an improvement in the care and services available to people with disabilities.

I think this point that Sally Phillips made, could be made in response to the argument made by Brid Smith - the claim Bríd Smith made, that Maria Steen and others who oppose abortion do not highlight inequality in society. Bríd Smith claimed that she has never seen Maria Steen and others who oppose abortion, involved in campaigns to try and resolve negative issues in society, for example homelessness and inequality.

On the episode of the Tonight with Vincent Browne show on 6th July 2017, Bríd Smith seemed to be arguing that abortion should be available to women who experience financial constraints and situations of inequality, due to government policy, for example in areas of housing provision, health and child care services. Bríd Smith seemed to be making this argument, on the basis of not bringing a child into the world to experience the same situations of inequality, that are being experienced by the child's mother.

I think it could be argued in response to Bríd Smith, that the solution is not abortion in cases where a woman is faced with issues like financial problems, or lack of services in areas of child support, but instead an improvement in services, that would result in the supports being made available to help people - who are in the circumstance of an unexpected pregnancy or other problems relating to the pregnancy - to have a more positive outlook regarding a pregnancy, in that situation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07ycbj5

https://vimeo.com/203581458

https://www.tv3.ie/3player/show/41/128607/0/Tonight-with-Vincent-Browne

AnneFrank

Save the 8th

Edward M

^^^^^^^, that's nearly as long as the new testament.

pleas advice

robarmstrong wrote: »

Tell me exactly where in any Government proposals regarding the repealing of the 8th there is mentions of unrestricted abortion of up to 24 weeks,

to get back to this, is there any mentions of 'unrestricted' in the current UK legislation?

Sofiztikated

pleas advice wrote: »

to get back to this, is there any mentions of 'unrestricted' in the current UK legislation?

Don't know how that's relevant.

Sofiztikated

Edward M wrote: »

^^^^^^^, that's nearly as long as the new testament.

Looks like someone messed up the copy and paste.

Horse burger, you do realise that people actually read links posted by others if they are interested in the topic, posting the entire contents just makes your posts look like your trying to argue by word count, while not actually having an argument to make.

horseburger

DubInMeath wrote: »

Horse burger, you do realise that people actually read links posted by others if they are interested in the topic, posting the entire contents just makes your being trying to argue by word count.

Indeed I do, but I also realise that the Irish Times website limits us to 10 articles a week without subscription, and that very often, if we have reached our 10 article limit, it can be frustrating not being able to read an item that was published some time ago, an item that is part of the Irish Times website archive.

That is why I copied and pasted the text.

Another reason why I had included the text of the letters in my post, is because the particular letters I referenced are one of a number of letters on each of the pages and none of the letters I referenced, are the first letter on each page. As a result, when you open the link, the first letter is not the one I referenced. I have edited the post to include the links, and to omit the text of each letter. As a consequence, it will take a little longer for people to locate the letters I referenced.

pleas advice

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Don't know how that's relevant.

if you click on the little arrow in the quoted post, you can read the context of the post i was replying to

horseburger

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Looks like someone messed up the copy and paste.

Indeed, I'm not sure what happened but I edited the post and I think it is rectified now. Thanks for your sincere concern and invaluable contribution to the discussion.