The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

horseburger

SusieBlue wrote: »

Back to this I see. How do you propose we obtain said consent, if the lack of consent is the issue?

Also, what are your thoughts on the fact that women are denied the opportunity to consent (or withhold consent) while pregnant?
Do you think its acceptable for this to happen to living citizens?

Pointing out the obvious fact that what is being aborted has not consented to his or her life being ended, does not mean that I endorse a woman becoming pregnant against her will.

Arguing that because what is in the womb can't consent to someone else ending its life - because it can't express itself as a result of it being at an early stage of its human development, and has not yet developed and grown to the stage of being able to defend itself either physically or vocally - is a poor enough justification for ending its life.

horseburger

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

you said yourself earlier that you've only been looking into this the last few months, but it's not ok for someone in the public eye to read on something and perhaps alter their opinion on it?
I've heard plenty of people say they used to consider themselves pro life but after xyz they reevaluated their beliefs and now find them firmly in the pro choice camp

You seem to think that on this issue, that if someone changes their mind on circumstances where they consider abortion should be available, that they have to then completely dismiss every aspect of the opposing position on abortion.

The central issue on the opposing position on abortion, seems to me, to be about the fundamental issue of whether it is right or wrong to end an innocent human life.

For example in the case of rape, it is argued if a woman becomes pregnant through rape, that if the woman carries on with the pregnancy, that the child, is not responsible for the crime that was committed by the man that raped the woman. In this scenario, it is argued that what justifies the ending of the innocent life of the child that would otherwise come into being if the pregnancy is continued.

The Irish Times item is about a meeting that was due to be held last September which would have included women were victims of rape, who became pregnant.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/anti-abortion-and-pro-choice-groups-claim-venues-cancelling-events-1.3237141

There is a group named Unbroken, which highlights this issue.

Here is a piece written by Rebecca Kiessling, who was conceived in rape.

https://unbrokenireland.org/stories/Rebecca/

https://unbrokenireland.org/

Is it not possible to understand the perspective of both sides?

I said I started watching numerous different debates on youtube etc, on this issue, when it became clear over the last six months that there would be a referendum on the issue.

For example these debates that discuss the issue:

In this one at the 15 minute mark, the question of the terms used to describe the foetus/human foetus, depending on the perspective on abortion, is discussed.

In this video the interviewer poses the question to a supporter of Planned Parenthood, regarding abortion in cases of rape.

He suggests that the abortion and ending the life of the foetus/human foetus is just as much a violation on the foetus/human foetus, every bit as much as the rape and sexual assault is a violation on the woman.

The lady with whom he is discussing the issue, agrees with him on this point.

In this one, Ivan Bacik was asked on a number of occasions to address the central issue that was it being aborted is a human, a separate innocent human life, and each time she spoke in response, she spoke in such a way to avoid that central issue.

This is an example of what Donal Lynch is saying in his writings in the Sunday Independent and on the episode of Claire Byrne Live on 5th September 2016.

Here are a few more items.

Here is a video of an interview with a lady named Abby Johnson, who used to work at Planned Parenthood.

horseburger

Lia_lia wrote: »

I'm so sick of people (well, pro-lifers) going on about how women should just use contraception. Is it so hard to grasp that it doesn't always work.

It was Minister for Social Protection Deputy Regina Doherty who said that - not in the 1970s or 1980s, but in 2014.

I highlighted what she said because I thought what she said was ignorant.

She pretty much said that 'women who get themselves pregnant, should just ensure the use of condoms and contraceptives and stop whinging'.

I highlighted what she said because in February 2018 she said that her views on abortion that she expressed in 2014, were based on ignorance.

But she said in 2014, that she really believed what she said.

I cited her comments in relation to a point I was making regarding how public representatives vote on legislation, very often with regard to the survival of their political career, and not on the issue being voted. Regina Doherty in this case of the comments she made in 2014, made her comments and didn't mind if what she said insulted people, as long as what she thought that what she was saying was a justification for her position.

In this item in the Irish Times in 2014, Mary Minihan writes about comments made by Regina Doherty in an interview with Michael Reade on LMFM in 2014.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fine-gael-td-backs-colleague-s-call-for-abortion-referendum-1.1912286

"Speaking to radio station LMFM, Ms Doherty said she understood why political leaders were reluctant to act and said clear legislation would have to replace article 40.3.3 if it was removed. “I’m not sure that the current situation does satisfy anybody. It certainly doesn’t satisfy the pro-choice people, and that’s not a movement that I would be in sync with,” she said.

“Not everybody lives in the black or the white of pro-life or pro-choice ideologies, because there are lots of situations in the middle of the grey areas that when those situations visit people’s houses then they have to make very difficult decisions.”.

"Ms Doherty said she also disagreed with the pro-choice view that women in Ireland did not have determination over their own bodies".

"“I genuinely and firmly believe that women already have the determination over their own bodies and that’s called contraceptives, so make the decisions before you find yourself in a position where you’re using an abortion as a form of a contraceptive afterwards.”".

Two months ago she said her previous stance, outlined in 2014, on the issue of abortion and contraception, was based on ignorance.

She said this despite previously saying, in 2014, that she "genuinely and firmly" believed what she said.

One of the lines in the item below by Pat Leahy, reads:

"Regina Doherty says her previous opposition to legalisation of abortion ‘born out of ignorance’"

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/repeal-campaigners-will-not-accept-a-no-vote-says-minister-1.3430112

horseburger

pleas advice wrote: »

it seems to be more that 'Easier access to birth control drives down abortion rates', rather than the legalisation of abortion.

I was criticized yesterday for citing a report which had one perspective on the issue of abortion, even though I cited another report which had an opposing perspective on the issue, and I cited an item by the Guttmacher Insitute in a response I wrote to a poster who had included links to a number of items detailing statistics relating to abortion.

This particular report cites the Guttmacher Institute which advocates abortion, so I guess the findings in this report aren't exactly neutral.

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-worldwide

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/abortion-rates-go-down-when-countries-make-it-legal-report-n858476

On the issue of euphemisms,

Why is the phrase "good reproductive health" used when referencing abortion, considering abortion doesn't involve reproduction?

http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/Life-stages/sexual-and-reproductive-health/activities/abortion

The Washington Examiner item below discusses the use of euphemisms.

"A fetus isn't an unborn baby, its advocates claim; rather, it is the "product of conception." The killing of a fetus or unborn child isn't even called an abortion (a euphemism to begin with); instead, it is grouped in with notions of "the right to choose," "reproductive rights" "reproductive health" or just "women's health care." Killing a baby after she emerges from her mother's womb isn't infanticide, it's "snipping," as infamous (and now imprisoned) abortion practitioner Kermit Gosnell put it".

"Nowadays, the abortion-rights crowd isn't even comfortable using the word "abortion." Review any speech President Obama has given on the subject and you'll be hard-pressed to find him uttering the word, much less describing the procedure".

"Tellingly, more than a decade ago the National Abortion Rights Action League officially changed its name to NARAL Pro-Choice America. The acronym no longer stands for anything. One suspects it's because the group figured many Americans were uneasy about an organization whose title combines the words "abortion" and "action."".

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/planned-parenthood-and-the-euphemism-of-abortion

The Guttmacher Institute is described on its website as:

"The Guttmacher Institute is a leading research and policy organization committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights in the United States and globally".

https://www.guttmacher.org/about

https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh?issue=1%3A50&volume=50&language=en

https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2018/new-report-highlights-worldwide-variations-abortion-incidence-and-safety

horseburger

gctest50 wrote: »

Should make a list of some of the tactics seen and add to it :

eg:


Get thread-banned and claim it was only innocent questions and there is no justice


* Pick late at night when people are tired or maybe had a drink or two at home, try antagonise them and get them thread-banned


* Make slightly vague statement that is sure to be picked up on, then whine they're being attacked and it's not the main point of the thread and waaaaaa



etc

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106754251&postcount=5844

The interwebs doesn't shut down at 6pm every day.

Suggesting that people can't properly reply to posts that are posted at night, that are written on a message board that can be read and accessed 24 hours a day is nonsense.

gctest50

horseburger wrote: »

The interwebs doesn't shut down at 6pm every day.

Suggesting that people can't properly reply to posts that are posted at night, that are written on a message board that can be read 24 hours a day is nonsense.

What on earth are you ranting about ?

horseburger

blanch152 wrote: »

That is a complete red herring and something that can be fixed by electing better politicians.

You have made it clear that you favour abortions in certain very limited circumstances that are not permitted by the 8th.

The only honest and decent approach is therefore for you to vote to repeal the 8th and lobby politicians for the abortion regimes you favour and vote for politicians who share your views so that they can be enacted.

It is not a red herring.

I have already given the example where in 2013, Lucinda Creighton voted against the 2013 Protection of Life During Pregnancy legislation and lost her position in Fine Gael.

She held a ministerial post before 2013.

TDs very often vote on legislation with regard to the survival of their political career, rather than on the issue being discussed.

Michelle Mulherin of Fine Gael in Mayo did not agree with the 2013 Protection of Life During Pregnancy legislation, but in order not to be "booted out of the party, my party" she voted for it.

Here is her speech during the debate on the 2013 Protection of Life During Pregnancy legislation on 10th July 2013.

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/takes/dail2013071000041#N6

Here is a segment of her address in the Dáil:

"In view of this and the fact that the Taoiseach has stated that only Government amendments or amendments tabled through the Government will be accepted, I wrote to the Minister for Health setting out my concerns and suggestions for the draft legislation. I am very disappointed that there is very little accommodation of the legitimate concerns expressed by me and many others, not least within the Chamber, in the Government amendments, as published. I met the Minister, Deputy Reilly, for an hour last night, and the Taoiseach for nearly an hour and a half. I am now faced with either supporting the Bill or being booted out of the party, my party. I am not going to allow myself to be booted out so I am supporting this legislation".

That issue of public representatives voting on issues is central to the issue of questions relating to what the point is for voting for them at all, in relation to arguments that they give on local and national issues while they are elected public representatives.

It is central to the question of as to whether they represent the goals of the political party they are in, and whether or not they can defy the party whip.

It also relates to the question as to what each individual TD can actually achieve in their constituencies as public representatives, if when they defy the party whip, they just get thrown out of the party.

horseburger

gctest50 wrote: »

What on earth are you ranting about ?

You suggesting that people are unable to adequately reply to posts that are written on a 24 hour accessible message board, due to the consumption of alcohol and the time of day.

If you think alcohol impairs you ability to write, don't drink alcohol.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106754251&postcount=5844

gctest50 wrote: »

Should make a list of some of the tactics seen and add to it :

eg:

gctest50 wrote: »

Should make a list of some of the tactics seen and add to it :


eg:


Get thread-banned and claim it was only innocent questions and there is no justice


* Pick late at night when people are tired or maybe had a drink or two at home, try antagonise them and get them thread-banned


* Make slightly vague statement that is sure to be picked up on, then whine they're being attacked and it's not the main point of the thread and waaaaaa



etc




eg:

pleas advice

gctest50 wrote: »

What on earth are you ranting about ?

you on the beer aswell? contemplating having another one myself

gctest50

pleas advice wrote: »

you on the beer aswell? contemplating having another one myself

nah - just idly wondering if some are #paidbythewordcount

horseburger

gctest50 wrote: »

nah - just idly wondering if some are #paidbythewordcount

#tommytiernanddaraobriainandjasonbyrneandmaevehigginsandelanortiernananandjohncollearyanddavemcsavagearerunningscaredofyourcomedicabilities

I used to think that all the talk of bots etc was just some paranoid thinking.
But I realise now, it's all true!
It's the same drivel posted by someone who appears for a few days or weeks, later dissapears.
Nonsense arguments, tangents all over the place. It'd just getting ridiculous.

Zubeneschamali

thee glitz wrote: »

Do you not think it's interesting or relevant that the Minister for Children is proposing a measure to increase the birth rate in the face of a referendum that would likely lead to more abortions if passed?

Now there are some posters I'd like to see:

Your country needs you! To stay pregnant!

(or you could do 14 years in jail!)

NuMarvel

bubblypop wrote: »

hey guys,
just wondering when does campaining stop before a referendum?
I am due home on the 19th but I think I may be too late to be involved then?

Campaigning will happen right up to, and including, polling day. The largest canvasses in the marriage equality referendum were on the night before the referendum. And there was plenty of leafleting happening on the day itself. The only exception is that you can't do any kind of campaigning in or near a polling station on the day.

Edward M

NuMarvel wrote: »

Campaigning will happen right up to, and including, polling day. The largest canvasses in the marriage equality referendum were on the night before the referendum. And there was plenty of leafleting happening on the day itself. The only exception is that you can't do any kind of campaigning in or near a polling station on the day.

Does the normal rules, one day before polling, not apply for referenda?

Annasopra

Trasna1 wrote: »

Theoretical governments actually. Governments get elected on broad manifestos. I've voted for a candidate I dont see eye to eye with fully politically, because voting insists on compromising and ranking your priorities.

If Labour as a minority party in government has succeeded in changing the law to what they wanted to, it would be hard to argue that it was the will of the people when they were elected primarily in response to the economic crisis.

They Constitution is all about tying the hands of future governments, it insists they consult the people instead of making laws to suit their own agenda.

What a no vote actually does, apart from retaining the status quo, is insist the future governments directly consult the people on this issue.

And thats why I will be voting yes.
1 We elect legislators to legislate
2 Abortion referenda in this country bring out the nasty side of it
3 It shouldnt be in the constitution at all

Annasopra

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

horseburger, what's your opinion on the 8th amendment and how it impacts women, as opposed to your opinion on abortion?

Expect Newspaper articles as a response

January

January wrote: »

So, in the case where contraception fails, and the mother can't (or doesn't want to) have a child, what are the options there?

Since you're back online now horseburger, would you mind answering my question now please.

Could you also answer it Tickers

January

Edward M wrote: »

Does the normal rules, one day before polling, not apply for referenda?

Its a media blackout not a canvassing blackout

Annasopra

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

My understanding was that that after Savita Halappanavar's inquest we have the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act which is suppose to st out the circumstances when a woman can have an abortion. Does this not mitigate the health risk argument that is being put forward especially when the risk is as a result of the abortion rather than the pregnancy? In summary, what will repeal achieve that the Act doesn't if the argument for repeal is a healthcare issue?

No.

Only when her life is at risk not her health.

Annasopra

robarmstrong wrote: »

... They're still illegal if they're placed on ESB/eir poles.

They still lack the publishers and printers name, all they do is list the campaigners names.

Yeah if they are illegal then let Councils/Gardai/ESB deal with them.

Annasopra

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

That's a but of a non sequitur as the debate isn't focused around women being forced to have c sections...

The debate generally doesnt look at the wider implication of the 8th but it should.

horseburger

January wrote: »

Since you're back online now horseburger, would you mind answering my question now please.

Could you also answer it Tickers

I already stated that I have a difficulty with the idea that a baby that is perfectly healthy, that would be born healthy would be aborted.

I replied to a poster who stated that there was a risk to her life if she became pregnant, that if there is any risk to her life, that if she requests an aborted it should be approved

I made this point with regard to abortion being granted on the grounds of a risk to suicide, that I wondered would doctors and psyciatrists might be inclined to err on the side of caution, and grant the abortion, so as there would not be any risk of the suicide occurring.

Why make reference to me being back online? I don't question anyone for not being logged in for any amount of time.

Annasopra

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

The debate is not taking place within the context of women being forced to have c sections. For example, if legislation was introduced which addressed your concerns around medical consent, would you still be in favour of repealing the 8th?

The debate is about the 8th. You asked why is it a healthcare issue!!

Annasopra

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

So if legislation was introduced that facilitated termination in cases where there is a risk to a woman's health would that not satisfy both sides of the debate? I think most rationale people would accept that the mothers health/life should be a priority. Would that type of legislation not mitigate the concerns of pro life advocates who believe that abortion is taking a human life. I think most people who would lean towards an anti abortion position would accept that in circumstances where a mothers health or life was in jeopardy.

Such legislation would be unconstitutional because of the 8th!!!!!!!!

Annasopra

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Surely the HSE didn't take out an injunction to to perform a c section just for the craic! I'm going out on a limb here but I would hazard a guess and say that the doctors and staff in the HSE who applied for that injunction were doing so based on their professional judgement. We rely on doctors to make these type of judgements all the time because we recognise that this is part of their job. There are many examples of when doctors carry out procedures in operating theatres or in after serious car accidents where medical consent is not given but we rely on them as professionals to use their professional judgement.

Are we really saying that we need to amend the 8th amendment because a woman may be forced to have a c section against her will, is that really the issue here?

It is part of the issue yes that womens healthcare and consent in healthcare is adversely affected by the 8th

Annasopra

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

But rather than having a referendum to repeal the 8th amendment, could a referendum not be held to amend the text and add an article to the constitution that allowed for terminations in cases where the mothers health was at risk?

Would you be willing to accept those circumstances?

That just makes the constitution a complete mess and leaves us open to more court cases.

Annasopra

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

I have but it seems that it's either all or nothing for both sides. If it were possible to amend the constitution rather than repealing the 8th but by amending the text or adding an article that gave precedence to the mothers health, would this not be amenable to both sides?

No. It would create as many legal nightmares athe 8th has

January

horseburger wrote: »

I already stated that I have a difficulty with the idea that a baby that is perfectly healthy, that would be born healthy would be aborted.

I replied to a poster who stated that there was a risk to her life if she became pregnant, that if there is any risk to her life, that if she requests an aborted it should be approved

I made this point with regard to abortion being granted on the grounds of a risk to suicide, that I wondered would doctors and psyciatrists might be inclined to err on the side of caution, and grant the abortion, so as there would not be any risk of the suicide occurring.

Why make reference to me being back online? I don't question anyone for not being logged in for any amount of time.

So what about my case where I was using contraception and have 4 children already. We can't afford another child, having another would mean my other already born children would have suffered because we wouldn't have had the means to feed and clothe or educate them all.

So I choose between my already born children and the potential life growing inside me.

What would you have done in my case

horseburger

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The debate is about the 8th. You asked why is it a healthcare issue!!

I think Tickers is referring to the use of the word healthcare as a euphemism to reference abortion.

It isn't exactly healthcare when healthcare is usually described as medical practices that ensure the life keeps living, or at least to ease suffering of a life with a terminal condition, rather than deliberately ending that life, such as palliative care in cases of terminal illness.