The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

nozzferrahhtoo

stockdam wrote: »

You've said that the child has no rights which is your belief.

I suspect the "That is your belief" mantra risks acting like all beliefs are equivalent and equal, one of the consequences of our post-truth generation. But some beliefs are based in argument, evidence, data and reasoning......... and some are simply arbitrarily or subjectively made up on the spot and then adhered to religiously. And we should not be treating them on the same plane as each other.

Regardless of when a fetus has or has not got rights in your mind or anyone else's, I am not interested in the belief or the opinion. I am interested in the substance it is based on. Because while you might suspect that there is no "right and wrong" when it comes to beliefs and opinions.... the basis behind them often is either right or wrong. You dig down on peoples opinions and eventually you hit things that are facts, or errors.

stockdam wrote: »

Are you ok with abortion right up to the point of birth or even immediately afterwards? If not then when is it ok and not ok??

For me rights, morality, ethics are all focused on one thing only. The rights, choices and well being of sentience creatures.

The fetus at 0-12 weeks, when the vast majority of terminations occur is not even remotely a sentient creature. I see no reason at this time to afford such a fetus rights, or moral and ethical concerns. Perhaps you have an idea why we might?

Approaching birth however the faculty of sentience has actually formed and is likely on line to some degree. This changes the landscape we are on. You ask when the fetus should attain rights and I believe that the moment we have any reason to suspect the fetus has transitioned from a biological life to a sentient agent is the only coherent mediation point for this transition.

What is your mediation point and what is it based on? What stage do YOU think a fetus should become the focus of our moral and ethical concern, and attain rights. And what is the argument, evidence, data and reasoning that is the foundation of your conclusions?

Allinall

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

It's like we're all kids,....

Never truer words spoken.

frag420

tunguska wrote: »

But if you were interested and genuinely open to hearing what people on the no side have to say, you'd go seek them out in the real world. Theres discussions all over the city, find one and just go. And go with an open attitude.

I have seeked them out and listened to them and their stories, some heartbreaking stories that turned out well thankfully and some not so happy stories that turned out very bad and upsetting for both the parents and their already born children as they had to watch their mother forced to give birth to a child they desire bit knew would not live more than a couple of hours in extreme pain and agony! And of course there is the newborn who supporters of the 8th want to offer dignity and life to by forcing it to live all of its short life in extreme pain and suffering!

Love both my bollix!!

You happy now!?

Ok your turn, tell us what YOU have learned!

pitifulgod

tunguska wrote: »

But if you were interested and genuinely open to hearing what people on the no side have to say, you'd go seek them out in the real world. Theres discussions all over the city, find one and just go. And go with an open attitude.

I'm well aware of what they say. Eg their pr manager has engaged in smear campaigns against midwives and obstetricians since the start of the campaign. The reason, exposing outright lies such as fake nurses or diminishing the impact of eighth. They've run an incredibly nasty campaign.

PhoenixParker

tunguska wrote: »

But if you were interested and genuinely open to hearing what people on the no side have to say, you'd go seek them out in the real world. Theres discussions all over the city, find one and just go. And go with an open attitude.

The pro life side have not only been listened to, they've had their way for 35 years in the 8th amendment.

The proof, evidence and openness I need is in what's happened since then. Watch what people do, not what they say. 35 years is a lot of evidence, real actions and consequences to review. Words are by comparison of little weight.

On that front.

We have abortion in Ireland, both via a constitutionally protected right to travel and the illegal importation of pills. The 8th hasn't stopped that.

What the 8th has done is make it dangerous for desperate women taking pills at home without medical support. It's also added hugely to the trauma of women in difficult situations like rape, FFA, abusive relationships, struggling to care for the family she already has.

It also undermines the care given to every pregnant woman in Ireland. I've said it before, I'll say it again, Savita didn't want an abortion, she wanted a baby. She had a miscarriage.

The 8th hasn't worked to prevent abortion.
The 8th endangers my life during pregnancy.

There is absolutely no reason to keep it.

Hannibal_Smith

tunguska wrote: »

But if you were interested and genuinely open to hearing what people on the no side have to say, you'd go seek them out in the real world. Theres discussions all over the city, find one and just go. And go with an open attitude.

Why the mystery? You came here to vent about how closed minded the yes side is and how aggressive they are and if they opened their mind to discussion they would learn something. You've been asked what you learned and then you start calling the yes side cowards.

People in glass houses.

Ave Sodalis

Allinall wrote: »

Never truer words spoken.

?

NIMAN

Anyone hear Nell McCafferty on The Last Word yesterday?

She was the 1st person I heard on Irish media since this debate started to actually say what the actual abortion procedure entailed. It was powerful stuff, and a disturbing listen. And she is going to vote YES too.

I wonder will it have changed anyone's mind as to how they are going to vote?

ohnonotgmail

NIMAN wrote: »

Anyone hear Nell McCafferty on The Last Word yesterday?

She was the 1st person I heard on Irish media since this debate started to actually say what the actual abortion procedure entailed. It was powerful stuff, and a disturbing listen. And she is going to vote YES too.

I wonder will it have changed anyone's mind as to how they are going to vote?

what did she actually say? did she describe a surgical abortion or a medical abortion? She wrote an article where she described a foetus being sucked from the womb as if that represented the majority of abortions. I think she is misinformed/out of date.

Zubeneschamali

NIMAN wrote: »

She was the 1st person I heard on Irish media since this debate started to actually say what the actual abortion procedure entailed.

She was wrong, of course, abortions up to 12 weeks will be just "take these tablets and come back tomorrow", no dismembering or scraping involved.

Late term abortions may involve procedures like that, but those are tragic medical cases, not the "abortion on demand" that we keep hearing about. They are also legal right now when the life of the mother is threatened.

NuMarvel

Had a face to face conversation with a No voter this morning. I'm none the wiser for it, and certainly didn't learn anything new. It was pretty much like conversations here, except there was less opportunity for evasiveness. If Tunguska can tell us what we're missing out on, I'm all ears.

Zubeneschamali

I'm a bit baffled what exactly tunguska hopes to achieve. They must know that we have all spoken to pro-lifers face to face already - half the feckin country is pro-life.

It may simply be an attempt to get us to say no so that they can paint us as closed minded.

ohnonotgmail

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I'm a bit baffled what exactly tunguska hopes to achieve. They must know that we have all spoken to pro-lifers face to face already - half the feckin country is pro-life.

It may simply be an attempt to get us to say no so that they can paint us as closed minded.

that ship has already sailed.

PhoenixParker

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I'm a bit baffled what exactly tunguska hopes to achieve. They must know that we have all spoken to pro-lifers face to face already - half the feckin country is pro-life.

It may simply be an attempt to get us to say no so that they can paint us as closed minded.

Many of us also started as no voters, it was the cultural norm, not something that needed deep consideration, and there was much re-enforcement in school.

I certainly started from a pov that abortion is horrible and correctly banned. Then I though about it, read scientific literature with an open mind, discussed it, read about real life situations . . .

And as a result I opened my mind and became a yes voters.

I'd hazard that a significant majority of yes voters are yes voters because they opened their mind not because they're closed minded.

robarmstrong

I was a no voter myself until my partner was denied access to a legal abortion over and over again when we suffered miscarriage after miscarriage due to her medical issues.

Kinda lost my rag a bit that they wouldn't give her the dignity to end the pregnancy on her own terms and instead essentially forced her to suffer these miscarriages.

I did further reading and research into what exactly her medical issues meant and was infuriated even more to find out she did not qualify for the 8th's terms, been a yes voter ever since.

bruschi

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

You are on a discussion forum.

stockdam wrote: »

Gosh.....really.....I never knew that.

stockdam wrote: »

Just stop reading and asking questions.

hmmmm

lazygal

NuMarvel wrote: »

Had a face to face conversation with a No voter this morning. I'm none the wiser for it, and certainly didn't learn anything new. It was pretty much like conversations here, except there was less opportunity for evasiveness. If Tunguska can tell us what we're missing out on, I'm all ears.

I had a conversation with one last week, while on my way Holles Street for scans and prenatal care. I explained to her that I had had a complicated pregnancy so far, and the eighth amendment only added to the stress as my consultant was upfront from the start about what she could and could not do for a woman in my circumstances solely due to the constitution. I asked her how the eighth helped me, given that I had the means to travel if the worst was confirmed, but that it caused myself and my husband untold stress not knowing how we could organise this given work and childcare and the medical side of things too. She had no answers, she tried to give me a leaflet with a young woman on it who said because there wasn't a clinic nearby she decided to stay pregnant instead of have an abortion. I told her I'm married with children, they keep pushing this 'girl in trouble' narrative which is simply untrue, but there was no attempt to explain what benefits the eighth had for someone in my situation.
I would love anyone who is going to vote to keep the eighth to explain in detail how it's helped me over the past four months of my pregnancy.

lazygal

Also, I'm here all day so feel free to enlighten me at any stage.

Frank Bullitt

I am beginning to see the NO side struggle more now with any kind of counter arguments to the vast array of issues that the 8th brings up. It just shows that a blanket ban can't be sustained and just doesn't work with abortion, each day that goes by more stories are uncovered to really show and display that the 8th just inflicts stress, pain and discomfort for not only women, but married couples as well and their families.

There is also a very nasty undertone now with some of the posters going up, particularly by Save the 8th, where they imply that a healthy foetus will be aborted for up to 6 months. This is a roundabout way of saying that the women can't be trusted to make a decision and may be unstable with that pregnancy, so lets make sure she goes full-term and actually has the baby. Its planting the idea that abortion is the first plan of action for a pregnancy, and all those nasty, promiscuous can't be trusted to take a pregnancy to FT. But of course, Save the 8th know better than the women whose bodies are actually on the line here...

The 8th is just another way of control, before this it was with homosexuality, then divorce, and then marriage. It stems from the pulpit where it is preached that people can't be trust to make their own decisions because at heart, they want to make bad ones or ones that don't apply to a certain dogma. Thats why we see priests, bishops and Catholic pressure groups say "save the children", which is another way of saying "Don't trust women with their bodies, they got pregnant themselves so they should pay the price".

It sickens me to my core.

To anyone who doesn't know firsthand of anyone who has had an abortion, chances are that you actually do. But the shame that is inflicted on women for them to travel to access abortion, means there is a stigma around it that it just shouldn't be spoken of.

Since this campaign started I have found that 2 people close to me have had one. One was a friend in an abusive relationship who found she was pregnant after leaving him and fully wanted him out of her life. She was in Scotland and was able to access abortion pills and was done under medical supervision.

The second is a bit worse for me to comprehend for a few reasons. I had a bit of an idea of what had happened, but I was young at the time so I never fully understood the magnitude of it. It's a bit of a story that upsets me but it is the reality of life.

My aunt found she was pregnant in 1998, from what I have gathered from my mother who told me about this, she was overjoyed. One week later, she was diagnosed with breast cancer. She was told from the doctors that were looking after her, she could keep the pregnancy but the chances of survival would be slim due to the treatment that she was going to receive, her life was already on the line due to the diagnosis so adding a pregnancy into that would complicate issues more and more.

She was going to have a mastectomy followed by radio and aggressive chemo.

She and her husband decided to go to England for a termination, it was very early stage, but this was a planned pregnancy which she wanted. At the clinic she went to, the nurse came to get her and bring her upstairs for the procedure, at the bottom of the stairs she stopped in her tracks and couldn't move. She explained to the nurse there her situation (just imagine telling someone you are there for an abortion because you have cancer), she eventually went upstairs and had her procedure.

The next 18 months she went from worse to worse, the cancer spread, she lost her hair, ended up in a wheelchair. She died in 1999 at age 29.

The 8th didnt play a role in her death, but it did nothing to help her situation where she had to travel because she knew that the treatment would bring her to the edge of her life. Not only was she going to lose the pregnancy she wanted, she was also going to lose her life. Adding in a trip abroad to seek treatment before undertaking the battle to save her life, I can't think of a worse thing to do.

This sort of hit home a few years ago when I visited her grave and saw that I have now outlived her. I can't imagine going through something like that at any age, never mind when you are in your 20's.

This shows the uselessness of the 8th, its not designed or written to save children or babies, its deigned and written to stop women having control over their own bodies. Its as simple as that.

Add in the vast array of things that can go wrong with planned pregnancies and and how a woman or a couple would not get treatment here, it not only breaks your heart, it scrambles your brain how a country or system could do this.

For the life of me, I can not think of a good reason to keep the 8th. It doesn't stop or save anything. Even if you don't agree with abortion, keeping the 8th just keeps the status quo of shipping issues away and living blissfully with the idea that everything is ok. If you can live with that then I think your moral compass needs fixing. Abortion won't be mandatory, women won't go for abortions for fun or to pass the time, they will do it because they need to because of their own struggle or situation in their world.

Vote yes, ladies and gentlemen, don't let something like this happen to anyone.

ohnonotgmail

lazygal wrote: »

Also, I'm here all day so feel free to enlighten me at any stage.

From the No side i think you are just collateral damage.

lazygal

The day we got bad news on a screening test was the day the 'licence to kill' posters went up.
I'd like anyone involved in the campaign which put them up to explain why its ok to use the licence to kill that is the 13 th amendment, following their line of thinking. Why would they tell me I was looking for a licence to kill what could have been a foetus with a fatal abnormality? Nature is the killer there, not me or the people who assisted us in an abortion.

BabysCoffee

Gintonious wrote: »

My aunt found she was pregnant in 1998, from what I have gathered from my mother who told me about this, she was overjoyed. One week later, she was diagnosed with breast cancer. She was told from the doctors that were looking after her, she could keep the pregnancy but the chances of survival would be slim due to the treatment that she was going to receive, her life was already on the line due to the diagnosis so adding a pregnancy into that would complicate issues more and more.

She was going to have a mastectomy followed by radio and aggressive chemo.

She and her husband decided to go to England for a termination, it was very early stage, but this was a planned pregnancy which she wanted. At the clinic she went to, the nurse came to get her and bring her upstairs for the procedure, at the bottom of the stairs she stopped in her tracks and couldn't move. She explained to the nurse there her situation (just imagine telling someone you are there for an abortion because you have cancer), she eventually went upstairs and had her procedure.

The next 18 months she went from worse to worse, the cancer spread, she lost her hair, ended up in a wheelchair. She died in 1999 at age 29.

The 8th didnt play a role in her death, but it did nothing to help her situation where she had to travel because she knew that the treatment would bring her to the edge of her life. Not only was she going to lose the pregnancy she wanted, she was also going to lose her life. Adding in a trip abroad to seek treatment before undertaking the battle to save her life, I can't think of a worse thing to do.

This sort of hit home a few years ago when I visited her grave and saw that I have now outlived her. I can't imagine going through something like that at any age, never mind when you are in your 20's.

This shows the uselessness of the 8th, its not designed or written to save children or babies, its deigned and written to stop women having control over their own bodies. Its as simple as that.

Add in the vast array of things that can go wrong with planned pregnancies and and how a woman or a couple would not get treatment here, it not only breaks your heart, it scrambles your brain how a country or system could do this.

For the life of me, I can not think of a good reason to keep the 8th. It doesn't stop or save anything. Even if you don't agree with abortion, keeping the 8th just keeps the status quo of shipping issues away and living blissfully with the idea that everything is ok. If you can live with that then I think your moral compass needs fixing. Abortion won't be mandatory, women won't go for abortions for fun or to pass the time, they will do it because they need to because of their own struggle or situation in their world.

Vote yes, ladies and gentlemen, don't let something like this happen to anyone.

This is so so very sad.

I think I have something in my eye.

Frank Bullitt

lazygal wrote: »

The day we got bad news on a screening test was the day the 'licence to kill' posters went up.
I'd like anyone involved in the campaign which put them up to explain why its ok to use the licence to kill that is the 13 th amendment, following their line of thinking. Why would they tell me I was looking for a licence to kill what could have been a foetus with a fatal abnormality? Nature is the killer there, not me or the people who assisted us in an abortion.

Those posters have to be the most vile and repugnant ones they use.

It does show though, that these are the only tactic they can use, which I hope work in the reverse.

I am itching for a NO canvasser to knock on my door. I am locked and loaded.

Frank Bullitt

BabysCoffee wrote: »

This is so so very sad.

I think I have something in my eye.

Thank you.

I was only 12/13 when this was happening, I had no real appreciation for what was going on. I knew she was sick and I saw that with my own eyes first hand, it was really awful.

When I found out her story more recently, I really just got angry, that she had to go through that in what would be her final years.

This ref has brought her into my mind more these days, I have to vote yes.

Zubeneschamali

Gintonious wrote: »

I am itching for a NO canvasser to knock on my door. I am locked and loaded.

Although Athlone is plastered in NO posters, the only canvassers I've had at the door were two nice women from Together for Yes. Not so much as a No flyer in the door yet (unless the dog ate it).

BabysCoffee

Gintonious wrote: »

Thank you.

I was only 12/13 when this was happening, I had no real appreciation for what was going on. I knew she was sick and I saw that with my own eyes first hand, it was really awful.

When I found out her story more recently, I really just got angry, that she had to go through that in what would be her final years.

This ref has brought her into my mind more these days, I have to vote yes.

I am voting Yes.

My Yes is for your aunt and all women & their families who need care & compassion during their pregnancies.

iguana

Gintonious wrote: »

Those posters have to be the most vile and repugnant ones they use.

It does show though, that these are the only tactic they can use, which I hope work in the reverse.

I've talked to a lot of other parents about this and there is a large feeling that those posters are aimed at children. They were put up outside so many schools and playgrounds, often a much lower height than they should be. My 5 year old can read well enough ask if it's about killing babies and many parents with children his age and older have been forced into conversations with upset children. It's like they were hoping that the black and white view of morality that children have would shame us into voting no and if not at least they'd punished us by upsetting our children. I'd be giving them the benefit of the doubt about targeting children until they went to some lengths to ensure their leaflets were put inside Toymaster catalogues. That was such a disgusting, nasty, underhanded thing to do.

Frank Bullitt

iguana wrote: »

I've talked to a lot of other parents about this and there is a large feeling that those posters are aimed at children. They were put up outside so many schools and playgrounds, often a much lower height than they should be. My 5 year old can read well enough ask if it's about killing babies and many parents with children his age and older have been forced into conversations with upset children. It's like they were hoping that the black and white view of morality that children have would shame us into voting no and if not at least they'd punished us by upsetting our children. I'd be giving them the benefit of the doubt about targeting children until they went to some lengths to ensure their leaflets were put inside Toymaster catalogues. That was such a disgusting, nasty, underhanded thing to do.

Makes you wonder what kind of strategy this is then. The children can't vote, but the parents can.

PhoenixParker

I think that they think people with children are more likely to vote no. If you have a child, how can you believe in killing children (as they see it). Everybody has a visceral reaction against child cruelty, but it's stronger in parents. Where there are kids, there are parents, so they target kids.

Except that Irish mothers have been pregnant in Ireland and know how the 8th affects maternity care, and they know how tough pregnancy can be, and difficulty caring for more children is a common reason for abortion, and they have family ties and commitments that make travel difficult

Etc.

I became more pro-choice not less after experiencing pregnancy.

Almost 50% of abortions are to women who already have children.

They are miscalculating.

Sofiztikated

Gintonious wrote: »

Makes you wonder what kind of strategy this is then. The children can't vote, but the parents can.

Because they want to appeal to people that can't imagine life without their little Timmy, and sure isn't he wonderful.