The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

BarleySweets

Misael Echoing Horse wrote: »

I try and think the best of people and to think that the likes of John McGuirk and Youth Defence don't reflect people with pro-life views, that most of them are probably decent, reasonable people who think they're doing the right thing.

This thread makes that very difficult. Repeated efforts to derail it through megaposts, very obvious lying about being on the fence, and again, like 9 times out of 10, it boils down to "stop having sex ye floozies".

No matter the result, I'll need to rebuild my Faith in human decency and human intelligence a good bit after the result.

As if they deserve the power to alter your view of humanity. Don’t give them that power! You know that the ones on here are the very extreme, don’t let these extremists tarnish your view of the majority. Even if their views on abortion differ to ours, the vast majority are our ilk regardless!

Hammer Archer

What this campaign has opened my eyes to is the sheer ignorance of a lot of people to the realities of contraception i.e. that it's not perfect. It's genuinely frightening that grown adults know nothing about something people are taught in their early teens.

horseburger

robarmstrong wrote: »

That's funny, when did you even start considering the pros of repeal let alone stop considering?

Great observation.

I am now truly converted to your analysis on this issue.

If I wasn't considering the arguments for and against repeal, I wouldn't be asking the question about the issue of ethics, regarding how an abortion can be granted under a ground, that was not originally requested by the pregnant woman.

I ask about the ethics issue, because if the issue is, that an abortion is requested by the pregnant woman under a particular ground, that isn't covered in legislation, and if the staff at the abortion clinic suggest that, that abortion could be done under another ground, then it seems to me that the abortion clinic would be carrying out practices that contravene legislation.

Therefore, it suggests that when Ivana Bacik says, on the 18th January 2018 episode of Prime Time, that abortion in cases of Down's Syndrome, isn't approved in the recommendations of the Oireachtas Committee - if an abortion clinic staff member suggests another ground, for example of mental health, that was not considered by the pregnant woman - Ivana Bacik can't argue that the abortion of Down's Syndrome cases, won't occur.

Ivana Bacik said nothing, in response to Maria Steen, when this issue was raised by Maria Steen in that episode of Prime Time.

In this scenario, the abortion clinic would know that in reality - that because the original ground requested, was under a ground of disability which isn't approved - that because the alternative ground was suggested to the pregnant woman, by staff of the abortion clinic, that abortion is still being carried out for a reason, that isn't approved in that jurisdiction.

The question of ethics, is the issue that staff at the abortion hospital are suggesting ways that the abortion could be permitted, and this is under another ground, that was not originally requested by the pregnant woman.

Ave Sodalis

Hammer Archer wrote: »

What this campaign has opened my eyes to is the sheer ignorance of a lot of people to the realities of contraception i.e. that it's not perfect. It's genuinely frightening that grown adults know nothing about something people are taught in their early teens.

My sister (who's third in the family) is the first person being taught it in school. We had a very embarrassing chat in primary school from a teacher well past retirement age about the physical anatomy, but no contraception. The only chat we had in secondary school was from a celibacy group so not the most informative (think Mean Girls). Sex ed was shockingly bad. My brother never got any talks at all. It's not a small school, and it is meant to be multi-denominational.

horseburger

robarmstrong wrote: »

More regurgitating, not a single point of the pros of repeal but more so an issue with the "ethics" of abortion...

I am pointing out that it would be very difficult to know if legislation is being adhered to, judging by the practices of abortion clinics, as outlined by Patrica Lohr of BPAS where she said that an abortion on the ground of sex selection, could be done, under another ground that was not originally requested.

In this case, the clinic would know that the real reason for the abortion was on the ground of sex selection, but that the abortion occurs under another ground, that is suggested to the woman, by the staff at the clinic.

The abortion is occurring in reality because of sex selection, but it is approved under a different ground that was not the ground originally requested.

It raises a question of ethics.

It is a reason against repealing Article 40.3.3 of the Eighth amendment.

robarmstrong

horseburger wrote: »

Pointing out that it would be very difficult to know if legislation is being adhered to - by the practices of abortion clinics, as outlined by Patrica Lohr of BPAS - is a reason against repealing the 8th amendment.

.. and my point was that you have yet to even begin to mention the pros of repealing.

Your above paragraph was again, picking at the pro-choice side.

Kk333

I have no problem with abortion. Would anyone be in agreement that both the mother and potential father be heavily involved in the discussion process before hand with the mother obviously making the decision? Also I believe if women have this option of abortion, men should have the opportunity before 12 weeks of legally absolving themselves of all responsibility, financial or otherwise. If the mother decides to come full term with the pregnancy and the father doesn't want children.

BarleySweets

horseburger wrote: »

Great observation.

I am now truly converted to your analysis on this issue.

If I wasn't considering the arguments for and against repeal, I wouldn't be asking the question about the issue of ethics, regarding how an abortion can be granted under a ground, that was not originally requested by the pregnant woman.

I ask about the ethics issue, because if the issue is, that an abortion is requested by the pregnant woman under a particular ground, that isn't covered in legislation, and if the staff at the abortion clinic suggest that, that abortion could be done under another ground, then it seems to me that the abortion clinic would be carrying out practices that contravene legislation.

Therefore, it suggests that when Ivana Bacik says, on the 18th January 2018 episode of Prime Time, that abortion in cases of Down's Syndrome, isn't approved in the recommendations of the Oireachtas Committee - if an abortion clinic staff member suggests another ground, for example of mental health, that was not considered by the pregnant woman - Ivana Bacik can't argue that the abortion of Down's Syndrome cases, won't occur.

Ivana Bacik said nothing, in response to Maria Steen, when this issue was raised by Maria Steen in that episode of Prime Time.

In this scenario, the abortion clinic would know that in reality - that because the original ground requested, was under a ground of disability which isn't approved - that because the alternative ground was suggested to the pregnant woman, by staff of the abortion clinic, that abortion is still being carried out for a reason, that isn't approved in that jurisdiction.

The question of ethics, is the issue that staff at the abortion hospital are suggesting ways that the abortion could be permitted, and this is under another ground, that was not originally requested by the pregnant woman.

How is worrying about this affecting your vote? You’re arguing about the imaginary possibility that lies could be told by imaginary staff in a future Irish abortion clinic. Lunacy!

The case you’re referring to happened in Germany, what exactly do you expect Ivana Bacik to say about that? Do you feel that Irish elected officials should pass comments on every possible procedural breach that happens in other countries?

Future Irish legislation regarding how abortion clinics operate will contain checks and balances along with staff training requirements to ensure that procedures are followed ethically. To imagine otherwise in 2018 is ridiculous tinfoil hat wearing nonsense.

horseburger

horseburger wrote: »

I am pointing out that it would be very difficult to know if legislation is being adhered to, judging by the practices of abortion clinics, as outlined by Patrica Lohr of BPAS where she said that an abortion on the ground of sex selection, could be done, under another ground that was not originally requested.

In this case, the clinic would know that the real reason for the abortion was on the ground of sex selection, but that the abortion occurs under another ground, that is suggested to the woman, by the staff at the clinic.

The abortion is occurring in reality because of sex selection, but it is approved under a different ground that was not the ground originally requested.

It raises a question of ethics.

It is a reason against repealing Article 40.3.3 of the Eighth amendment.

Ok well least this shows what side of the fence your on, but that was fairly obvious from about your second post.

horseburger

horseburger wrote: »

I am pointing out that it would be very difficult to know if legislation is being adhered to, judging by the practices of abortion clinics, as outlined by Patrica Lohr of BPAS where she said that an abortion on the ground of sex selection, could be done, under another ground that was not originally requested.

In this case, the clinic would know that the real reason for the abortion was on the ground of sex selection, but that the abortion occurs under another ground, that is suggested to the woman, by the staff at the clinic.

The abortion is occurring in reality because of sex selection, but it is approved under a different ground that was not the ground originally requested.

It raises a question of ethics.

It is a reason against repealing Article 40.3.3 of the Eighth amendment.

Well it's not really an argument against repeal. Repeal is about taking out of the constitution a bad amendment that should never have been put in. Even if abortion was never legislated for afterwards, the 8th should still be repealed.

[quote="Kk333;106785077 men should have the opportunity before 12 weeks of legally absolving themselves of all responsibility, financial or otherwise. If the mother decides to come full term with the pregnancy and the father doesn't want children.[/quote]

This was brought up earlier in the thread earlier. Don't think many had an issue with it, would have to search back but flying in a while so someone might correct me if I'm remembering incorrectly. Happens anyway, my grandfather walked out on his family and my dad didn't see him until he was just about to get married himself, similarly my best friend hasn't seen his dad or received anything from him since he was five, he's dead as far as my friend is concerned, the man who has been with his mum since he was eleven is his dad.

kittensmittens

Hammer Archer wrote: »

What this campaign has opened my eyes to is the sheer ignorance of a lot of people to the realities of contraception i.e. that it's not perfect. It's genuinely frightening that grown adults know nothing about something people are taught in their early teens.

I haven't bothered getting involved in this thread as it's a bit of a pointless debate as neither side will ever be swayed on their opinion on the matter as its an individual deep held belief no matter which side of the fence you are on.

What I have seen since this whole campaign has started though is we, as a nation can fool ourselves all we like as to how "modern and progressive" we are as a nation. Shure aren't we great?? Dont we welcome every nation colour and creed and live and work side by side( as it should be) and aren't we open minded and accepting as we were the first to allow same sex marriage (as it totally should be).
But when it comes to the "durty wimmens doing the divils bisnizz" ie, the "Old Guard" appear from the woodwork..
All the Pro -life side keep rattling out is "ITS MURDER HUSSIES.....KEEP YOUR KNEES TOGETHER". I mean ffs, all you have to do is have a read of the comments etc on any of the FB campaigns by the NO side.

And thats it. Thats the bare bones. The same old cronies and loons and bitter oul fellas spouting the same line over and over. No thought for the plight of women carrying a longed for child who will never grace the parents arms due to FFA. The young woman raped. The child of sexual abuse who should carry a double shame.

I'm delighted that the vast majority of us see the light and learned from the atrocities against women in this country and have compassion and empathy. I am lucky that I never had to make the awful decision as to whether or not I would have to have had an abortion but I would never dream of telling another woman what choices she must make with her body and her life.

crustybla

ELM327 wrote: »

Yes, you and your ilk. "pro life".
You have women's blood on your hands. Savita for one.
You are responsible for women's infertility - multiple accounts on the In Her Shoes page where women were forced to have parts of their reproductive system removed un-necessarily because Irish doctors were not allowed to give them a termination due to medical reasons.
You are responsible for introducing risk to the mother's life. The mother should be given priority because she's a real person. A foetus is just that, a foetus. A potential person. What if you save the baby but kill the mother because both are equal, and the mother has 3 other children at home now left without a mother.

That's what gets me. And this is a bit of a rant. You call yourselves pro life. But you're not. You are pro birth. Because someone truly pro life doesn't impose so much hurt and suffering and risk on those who are living.

I wish I could thank this more than once.

Zubeneschamali

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Most rational people are in favour of abortion in circumstances where there is a serious threat to the mothers life or health.

Good to have you on the Yes train.

Zubeneschamali

Hammer Archer wrote: »

It's genuinely frightening that grown adults know nothing about something people are taught in their early teens.

What makes you think these jackasses are adults?

Timberrrrrrrr

horseburger wrote: »

I am pointing out that it would be very difficult to know if legislation is being adhered to, judging by the practices of abortion clinics, as outlined by Patrica Lohr of BPAS where she said that an abortion on the ground of sex selection, could be done, under another ground that was not originally requested.

In this case, the clinic would know that the real reason for the abortion was on the ground of sex selection, but that the abortion occurs under another ground, that is suggested to the woman, by the staff at the clinic.

The abortion is occurring in reality because of sex selection, but it is approved under a different ground that was not the ground originally requested.

It raises a question of ethics.

It is a reason against repealing Article 40.3.3 of the Eighth amendment.

Blah Blah Blah BPAS Blah Blah Blah Marie Stopes Blah Blah Blah...

Can you do me a favour? Link us to evidence that either of these entities will be setting up in the republic of Ireland please.

blanch152

horseburger wrote: »

I am pointing out that it would be very difficult to know if legislation is being adhered to, judging by the practices of abortion clinics, as outlined by Patrica Lohr of BPAS where she said that an abortion on the ground of sex selection, could be done, under another ground that was not originally requested.

In this case, the clinic would know that the real reason for the abortion was on the ground of sex selection, but that the abortion occurs under another ground, that is suggested to the woman, by the staff at the clinic.

The abortion is occurring in reality because of sex selection, but it is approved under a different ground that was not the ground originally requested.

It raises a question of ethics.

It is a reason against repealing Article 40.3.3 of the Eighth amendment.

It is a huge stretch to say that is a reason against repealing Article 40.3.3 of the Eighth amendment.

It is a reason to reform the ethical governance of abortion clinics.

Simi

Misael Echoing Horse wrote: »

I try and think the best of people and to think that the likes of John McGuirk and Youth Defence don't reflect people with pro-life views, that most of them are probably decent, reasonable people who think they're doing the right thing.

This thread makes that very difficult. Repeated efforts to derail it through megaposts, very obvious lying about being on the fence, and again, like 9 times out of 10, it boils down to "stop having sex ye floozies".

No matter the result, I'll need to rebuild my Faith in human decency and human intelligence a good bit after the result.

I found the latest Irish times poll quite depressing. I wasn't expecting a reduction of the no vote, but I had hoped that the number of undecideds would shrink with a boost for yes.

The harm caused by the eight has been well highlighted over the last couple of years, you would literally need to have been living in a cave to have not read or heard about the damage it has wrought. Ignorance simply isn't an excuse.

I thought the marriage equality vote was a sea change moment in Irish society, but it seems that when it comes to women's rights a sizeable minority of Irish people are as cold, uncaring and viciously misogynistic as ever.

horseburger

BarleySweets wrote: »

How is worrying about this affecting your vote? You’re arguing about the imaginary possibility that lies could be told by imaginary staff in a future Irish abortion clinic. Lunacy!

The case you’re referring to happened in Germany, what exactly do you expect Ivana Bacik to say about that? Do you feel that Irish elected officials should pass comments on every possible procedural breach that happens in other countries?

Future Irish legislation regarding how abortion clinics operate will contain checks and balances along with staff training requirements to ensure that procedures are followed ethically. To imagine otherwise in 2018 is ridiculous tinfoil hat wearing nonsense.

You clearly have not watched the video of the dialogue between Peter Fitzpatrick and Patricia Lohr, where she clearly indicated that if someone requests an abortion based on "foetal sex", that if that ground for abortion is not available in the particular jurisdiction, that the abortion can be permitted on another ground, despite "foetal sex" being the real reason in reality, for the abortion occurring.

The alternative ground under which the abortion occurs, was not originally considered by the pregnant woman.

If the staff of the hospital facilitate an abortion under a ground that was not requested by the pregnant woman, that for me is an ethical issue, because if the ground, under which the abortion was originally sought, is not legal, then the staff are operating in such a way to get around the legislation.

Therefore, Ivana Bacik cannot be sure, when she suggests abortion in cases of Down's Syndrome, would not occur under legislation that will be enacted if there is a majority yes vote.

On Prime Time on RTE 1 on 18th January 2018, Maria Steen gave Germany as an example of a country that doesn't permit abortion in cases of disability, like Down's Syndrome, but permits abortion in cases of Down's Syndrome, under mental health grounds.

Ivana Bacik didn't contest what was stated by Maria Steen.

If Ivana Bacik could prove what Maria Steen stated was wrong, she would have.

If Ivana Bacik was certain that what Maria Steen said could happen here - in the event of a majority repeal vote - would not happen here, she would have responded to challenge Maria Steen.

Ivana Bacik said nothing in response.

https://www.rte.ie/news/player/prime-time/2018/0118/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7pYz8NLANI

The dialogue between Peter Fitzpatrick and Patricia Lohr begins at the 1 hour and 58 minute mark in the video on the Oireachtas website, in the coverage on the proceedings of the Oireachtas Committee meeting on 22nd November 2017.

Video:

https://media.heanet.ie/p/20171122+Joint+Committee+on+Eighth+Amendment+of+the+Constitution/HbnSmB

Main page:

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=37332&&CatID=127&StartDate=01 January 2017&OrderAscending=0

Transcript:

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/EAJ2017112200002#N240

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/zoomin?readform&chamber=committees&code=EAJ&memberid=2282&pid=PeterFitzpatrick&year=2017&month=11&day=22

AnneFrank

Maria Steen is an amazing woman

Annasopra

AnneFrank wrote: »

This is why i have consistently said in this thread that i find this decision so hard,
It's not a straight forward yes,in simply removing the 8th without some sort of replacement in relation to on demand abortion up to 12 weeks.But you have seen the harassment i have received for airing that view, and others. But all that will do will sway undecided voters imo.
To say i have blood on my hands for having a different view like someone said above is just outrageous.

Sigh

Noone is harassing. The amateur dramatics does nothing.

Bannasidhe

horseburger wrote: »

You clearly have not watched the video of the dialogue berween Peter Fitzpatrick and Patricia Lohr, where she clearly indicated that if someone requests an abortion based on "foetal sex", that if that ground for abortion is not available in the particular jurisdiction, that the abortion can be permitted on another ground, despite "foetal sex" being the real reason in reality, for the abortion occurring.

The alternative ground under which the abortion occurs, was not originally considered by the pregnant woman.

If the staff of the hospital facilitate an abortion under a ground that was not requested by the pregnant woman, that for me is an ethical issue, because if the ground, under which the abortion was originally sought, is not legal, then the staff are operating in such a way to get around the legislation.

Therefore, Ivana Bacik cannot be sure, when she suggests abortion in cases of Down's Syndrome, would not occur under legislation that will be enacted if there is a majority yes vote.

Maria Steen gave Germany as an example of a country that doesn't permit abortion in cases of disability, like Down's Syndrome, but permits abortion in cases of Down's Syndrome, under mental health grounds.

Ivana Bacik didn't contest what was stated by Maria Steen.

If Ivana Bacik could prove what Maria Steen stated was wrong, she would have.

If Ivana Bacik was certain that what Maria Steen said could happen here - in the event of a majority repeal vote - would not happen here, she would have responded to challenge Maria Steen.

Ivana Bacik said nothing in response.

The dialogue between Peter Fitzpatrick and Patricia Lohr begins at the 1 hour and 58 minute mark in the video on the Oireachtas website, in the coverage on the proceedings of the Oireachtas Committee meeting on 22nd November 2017.

Video:

https://media.heanet.ie/p/20171122+Joint+Committee+on+Eighth+Amendment+of+the+Constitution/HbnSmB

Main page:

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=37332&&CatID=127&StartDate=01 January 2017&OrderAscending=0

Transcript:

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/EAJ2017112200002#N240

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/zoomin?readform&chamber=committees&code=EAJ&memberid=2282&pid=PeterFitzpatrick&year=2017&month=11&day=22

You clearly have nothing to say.

amdublin

AnneFrank wrote: »

Maria Steen is an amazing woman

She's quite dictatorial. She believes in something so no one else gets a choice about it.

And she's a bit deluded. Her defending of the 8th doesn't stop Irish abortions. They happen every day.
You would think she would stop and consider the women and have a little compassion and humanity.

It's scary how there are people out there who will not allow living women the dignity of not being equated with a foetus.

She'd need to take a good look at herself and her beliefs. But for a start it would be great if she'd keep them to herself and stop forcing them on other women.

horseburger

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You clearly have nothing to say.

You think detailing how an abortion clinic can flout legislation, is saying nothing?

AnneFrank

I think she's an incredibly brave, intelligent and successful woman.

Bannasidhe

horseburger wrote: »

You think detailing how an abortion clinic can flout legislation, is saying nothing?

I think regurgitating is saying nothing.

amdublin

AnneFrank wrote: »

I think she's an incredibly brave, intelligent and successful woman.

And dictatorial. You forgot she's like a little dictator.

We just want choice.

No wants an abortion.
Trust women.

Pro Choice

AnneFrank

amdublin wrote: »

And dictatorial. You forgot she's like a little dictator.

We just want choice.

No wants an abortion.
Trust women.

Pro Choice

I disagree, she speaks for many people and many women.She's Pro life and all about traditional families.

Pedro K

AnneFrank wrote: »

Maria Steen is an amazing woman

She's a God botherer whose religious views should have absolutely no bearing in creating our laws.

horseburger

BarleySweets wrote: »

Ian O’Doherty complaining about other people acting morally superior?

Is that the same Ian O’Doherty who said on record that Muslims are never going to fit into Irish culture and shouldn’t be welcomed? The same guy who said the gay marriage referendum was a litmus test for the future of Ireland as a nation to scare listeners into voting against it?

That's the same Ian O'Doherty that stated on the Newstalk programme, that:

"like a lot of people I am reluctantly pro choice"

He said:

"I have to say, in fairness to Peadar (Toibin), like a lot of voters, I want to know how my TDs would vote, in this situation. I don't want to know how their party is recommending them to vote. On a matter of, without getting too highfalutin about it, this is the most profound moral question this generation will face".

He stated:

"like a lot of people I am reluctantly pro choice".

Can you find a way to criticize him for that, since you are criticizing him for other things he has stated?

You don't seem to realise, that the people Ian O'Doherty was saying, were acting "morally superior", were certain pro life campaigners, in the tactics they employed in previous abortion related debates, that have been held, over the last 25 years.

He then compared the tactics of certain pro life campaigners, to the tactics employed by certain repeal campaigners in this referendum, and judged that the tactics employed by both, are reprehensible.

Your reply to my post, reads that you are in disagreement with Ian O'Doherty when he stated that certain pro life campaigners acted morally superior, in previous debates around abortion.

https://www.newstalk.com/listen_back/13240/44204/20th_April_2018_-_The_Pat_Kenny_Show_Part_3/