Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Options
1…3233353738…325

Comments

  • Options
    #1022
    ForestFire
    Registered Users Posts: 2,400 ✭✭✭ForestFire


    rainbow kirby wrote: »
    If they really cared they would be out campaigning for disability support, for free effective contraception, for subsidised childcare, for more social housing, for flexible working, for extra funding for the maternity services...

    All conspicuous by their absence. Funny that.

    It's all about control. There's no love for either there, let alone "love both".

    How do you know that are not?

    This is a complete fallacy. And designed to pre label anyone who wants to discuss the issue.


  • Options
    #1023
    ForestFire
    Registered Users Posts: 2,400 ✭✭✭ForestFire


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    More women bashing nonsense going on here I see.
    Any consequences for the man who gets her pregnant or is it all her fault?
    Should we just send her off to the laundry to boot, and be done with the whole situation?

    So if the man does not or cannot suffer then it's okay for the woman to do what she want, even if it is morally wrong?

    This is not an agurment for abortion,

    The argument should be is it morally wrong or not.

    If before 12 weeks do we consider the fetus a life or not.
    If after 12 weeks we allow abortion in certain cases that we seem moral acceptable.

    Again these types of statements are the pre judge any open discussion on the topic as any one that question repeal is labled a woman basher.


  • Options
    #1024
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    thee glitz wrote: »
    That's a No to democracy so. Thankfully, changing our laws is beyond the power of your suspicions.



    It's not that they can't be trusted - abortion on demand Will be a reality if the anti-anti-repealers get their way.



    Why? Of course there are people who recognise to varying degrees the merits in abortion availability in special circumstances, particularly in the case FFA, without embracing abortion just because (but only to 12 weeks).



    I'd be very tempted to vote to repeal, but would prefer to see any subsequent changes requiring a referendum (so, constitutional protection). Abortion on demand is a 1-way street - if it gets in, it's not going to go away. The next time FF/FG need some lefty loonies to form a government, this would be wide open to change.



    Not at all. Many pro-choicers talk about special cases, but few (though yourself in fairness) care to discuss it. It seems that the want for a liberal regime is greater than concern for these.



    To some extent, the problem is enforcement of the law. Lock a few pill suppliers up for 14 years and things might change. I recognise that people 'travel', availing of the non-enforcement of even feeble UK laws in particular. I believe that we should have laws that reflect our own people's wishes. At least for now, we're free to move to the UK and do things their way there as we wish. Short of conquering the UK and a few others, maintaining our own laws is the best we can do.

    You and pro-lifers keep mentioning abortion on demand.

    Have you any evidence or facts to support this claim or is it just a collective opinion/interpretation of lifting the restrictions of the 8th?

    Democracy? Voting no is denying women a choice of control over their own body by forcing them via law to continue pregnancies they don't want.


  • Options
    #1025
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    thee glitz wrote: »
    anti-anti-repealers

    LOL. The word you're looking for is repealers.
    thee glitz wrote: »
    I'd be very tempted to vote to repeal, but would prefer to see any subsequent changes requiring a referendum (so, constitutional protection).

    So in other words, I'm right in saying that anti-repealers would be making the same arguments that they're making now and it likely wouldn't affect your vote.
    thee glitz wrote: »
    To some extent, the problem is enforcement of the law. Lock a few pill suppliers up for 14 years and things might change. I recognise that people 'travel', availing of the non-enforcement of even feeble UK laws in particular. I believe that we should have laws that reflect our own people's wishes. At least for now, we're free to move to the UK and do things their way there as we wish. Short of conquering the UK and a few others, maintaining our own laws is the best we can do.

    Which is all a very long winded way of saying a No vote doesn't help the unborn. Because for all your talk of lack of enforcement, anti-repealers have never called for more enforcement.


  • Options
    #1026
    Edward M
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,837 ✭✭✭Edward M


    Sometimes the facts of what the eight entails as a stand alone act is lost in the argument.
    Abortion up to 12 weeks seems to be the stumbling block.
    But that aside the 8th is a torturous piece, forcing women, men and families to endure as a type of punishment, having to go through ordeals with regard to how the eventual result of bad pregnancies will pan out, either for the baby or the mother, and indeed as a consequence, any loved ones involved.
    Forcing every pregnancy that is bad to have to endure such pain so you can just say, we don't have abortion here, is just plain sadistic in nature IMO, regardless of whether you are pro life or not.
    The state and indeed the citizens in it have to take responsibility for that, forcing the bad so you can pontificate about the good is ridiculous IMO.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1027
    baylah17
    Closed Accounts Posts: 790 ✭✭✭baylah17


    ForestFire wrote: »
    So then it's okay for the woman to do what she want, even if it is morally wrong?

    The arrogance of you to decide what is "morally" right or wrong for anyone else!
    Who do you think you are to decide other peoples morality for them?


  • Options
    #1028
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    robarmstrong wrote: »
    You and pro-lifers keep mentioning abortion on demand.

    Have you any evidence or facts to support this claim or is it just a collective opinion/interpretation of lifting the restrictions of the 8th?

    Democracy? Voting no is denying women a choice of control over their own body by forcing them via law to continue pregnancies they don't want.

    At this point, I'm not sure what they mean when they keep throwing out the phrase "abortion on demand". It seems to have simply become a bogeyman for them with no actual meaning.


  • Options
    #1029
    BabysCoffee
    Registered Users Posts: 4,713 ✭✭✭BabysCoffee


    Edward M wrote: »
    Sometimes the facts of what the eight entails as a stand alone act is lost in the argument.
    Abortion up to 12 weeks seems to be the stumbling block.
    But that aside the 8th is a torturous piece, forcing women, men and families to endure as a type of punishment, having to go through ordeals with regard to how the eventual result of bad pregnancies will pan out, either for the baby or the mother, and indeed as a consequence, any loved ones involved.
    Forcing every pregnancy that is bad to have to endure such pain so you can just say, we don't have abortion here, is just plain sadistic in nature IMO, regardless of whether you are pro life or not.
    The state and indeed the citizens in it have to take responsibility for that, forcing the bad so you can pontificate about the good is ridiculous IMO.

    Appreciate the compassionate considered points you make


  • Options
    #1030
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #1031
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Edward M wrote: »
    Sometimes the facts of what the eight entails as a stand alone act is lost in the argument.
    Abortion up to 12 weeks seems to be the stumbling block.
    But that aside the 8th is a torturous piece, forcing women, men and families to endure as a type of punishment, having to go through ordeals with regard to how the eventual result of bad pregnancies will pan out, either for the baby or the mother, and indeed as a consequence, any loved ones involved.
    Forcing every pregnancy that is bad to have to endure such pain so you can just say, we don't have abortion here, is just plain sadistic in nature IMO, regardless of whether you are pro life or not.
    The state and indeed the citizens in it have to take responsibility for that, forcing the bad so you can pontificate about the good is ridiculous IMO.

    Interestingly enough the people who are really playing it up as an obstacle are those who would vote no in any case.

    I have no doubt some people have concerns about it, but the opinion polls and my own personal experiences of talking to people are saying people will vote for repeal anyway. Most of these people are like yourself and recognise that while the 12 weeks isn't their preferred option, it's better than the status quo for many of the reasons you've outlined here.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1032
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    ForestFire wrote: »
    So if the man does not or cannot suffer then it's okay for the woman to do what she want, even if it is morally wrong?

    This is not an agurment for abortion,

    The argument should be is it morally wrong or not.

    If before 12 weeks do we consider the fetus a life or not.
    If after 12 weeks we allow abortion in certain cases that we seem moral acceptable.

    Again these types of statements are the pre judge any open discussion on the topic as any one that question repeal is labled a woman basher.

    No, I'm making the point that a man can walk away.
    A man can say he doesn't want to know and the very worst that will happen to him is that he can be ordered to pay maintenance, which isn't even strictly enforced by the courts.

    The condom could have ripped (or he could refuse to use any contraception at all), but it doesn't matter, and there are no consequences at all for him.

    Which is why it really angers me that we would force this on a woman when the man who dances the merry dance with her can sail off into the sunset.

    So if people are using such derogatory terms about how women are stupid and should know better than to get themselves unintentionally pregnant, I would like to know what these people think should happen to the father.

    If we are forcing a woman to go through 9 months of pregnancy, an excruciating birth, limiting her working ability, her earning possibilities, her personal freedoms and her free time for a minimum of 18 years, then at a very minimum the father should be limited in the same way.

    Its only fair.
    If we aren't giving these women a way out we must insist the man wholly support her for the child's whole life.

    Unfortunately looking at statistics of the amount of single mothers in this country (vs single fathers), you can tell quite a lot of women do not get this support.

    Which can only lead me to believe that pro-birthers such as yourself as only interested in punishing the women.
    Because if you truly had the child's best interests at heart you would be campaigning for these women to have full support from the fathers of their children.


  • Options
    #1033
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    That was my assumption too, but the way some anti-repealers talk as if it's going to be some unforeseen consequence of a repeal vote makes me wonder if they mean something else. Or, as I think they're doing, are they just sloganeering in the absence of a rational, cogent argument against repeal.


  • Options
    #1034
    ForestFire
    Registered Users Posts: 2,400 ✭✭✭ForestFire


    baylah17 wrote: »
    The arrogance of you to decide what is "morally" right or wrong for anyone else!
    Who do you think you are to decide other peoples morality for them?

    I never said it was for me to decide did I?

    That is what the referendume is for, and everyone will decide.


  • Options
    #1035
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    ForestFire wrote: »
    How do you know that are not?

    Because the likes of Cora Sherlock, David Quinn, et al are not quite shy retiring types and would be shouting from the rooftops if they were campaigning for any of these things.
    ForestFire wrote: »
    This is a complete fallacy. And designed to pre label anyone who wants to discuss the issue.

    There's an easy way to prove it's a fallacy; show us examples of campaigners for the No side campaigning for things like free effective contraception, subsidised childcare, more social housing, etc.


  • Options
    #1036
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    DubInMeath wrote: »
    Given that you've posted on another thread that the catholic church treats men and women differently because god created them differently and Muslims make their women wear bin bags, could we argue that your either a troll or a misogynist?

    THis is the same Sierra Eire that proclaimed earlier in this thread he was a Nazi and looking at his YouTube page seems he’s rather a fan of them and their thinking. Just an FYI


  • Options
    #1037
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,458 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    ForestFire wrote: »
    I never said it was for me to decide did I?

    That is what the referendume is for, and everyone will decide.

    the referendum is not to decide morality it is to decide legality. YOUR morality is YOUR business.


  • Options
    #1038
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    At this point, I'm not sure what they mean when they keep throwing out the phrase "abortion on demand". It seems to have simply become a bogeyman for them with no actual meaning.

    Bad abortions for bold dirty women who had sex on purpose and don't want a baby.

    As opposed to the ok abortions for nice sad girls who had something bad happen to them and really like babies.


  • Options
    #1039
    dudara
    Registered Users Posts: 33,518 ✭✭✭✭dudara


    rainbow kirby wrote: »
    If they really cared they would be out campaigning for disability support, for free effective contraception, for subsidised childcare, for more social housing, for flexible working, for extra funding for the maternity services...

    All conspicuous by their absence. Funny that.

    It's all about control. There's no love for either there, let alone "love both".

    To be fair, I think many pro-life people are not about control (though some appear to be). They have genuine belief that all life is sacred and should be protected. However, my opinion is that blinds them to all other realities and possibilities. And hence they fail to realise that absolute adherence to their beliefs results in control.

    I personally believe that once you consider this debate from the perspective of a woman who does not want to be pregnant, then you will see how discriminatory forced pregnancy is to women.

    Consider a woman who does not want the medical and mental impacts of pregnancy, who does not want the financial burden that will come with it, who does not want the impact on her education, career or salary, who does not want the impact and medical trauma of labour and childbirth, who does not want the subsequent 18 years. Men don't experience many of the above, and the ones that they can experience, some will choose to walk away from. That's not balanced or fair.


  • Options
    #1040
    thee glitz
    Registered Users Posts: 2,294 ✭✭✭thee glitz


    robarmstrong wrote: »
    You and pro-lifers keep mentioning abortion on demand.

    Have you any evidence or facts to support this claim or is it just a collective opinion/interpretation of lifting the restrictions of the 8th?

    As far as I know, only a nominal time-limit is being proposed. If anyone knows any different, please tell.
    Democracy? Voting no is denying women a choice of control over their own body by forcing them via law to continue pregnancies they don't want.

    Yes, democracy. If there was the political will, we could have the exact laws we want. Tying abortion just because with special circumstances is needless / lazy. It's being presented as all or nothing, which leaves many undecided or having reservations about voting either way.

    No-one is forcing anyone to be pregnant (rape aside). This issue is the one clear case where someone's control over their body directly affects another (defenceless) individual's.

    Positing that a pro-life position is based on wanting to control or force women in some way is preposterous - in what other ways is this manifested?


  • Options
    #1041
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    Almost afraid to ask this but it’s an honest question.

    Where at the pro life campaign on IVF? I assume they’re ok with it as I never see it come up in their literature or any discussion?

    Reason I ask is some of the more ardent pro lifers seem to believe life begins at conception. And I can’t help wonder how they feel about that in terms of IVF?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1042
    baylah17
    Closed Accounts Posts: 790 ✭✭✭baylah17


    thee glitz wrote: »
    Positing that a pro-life position is based on wanting to control or force women in some way is preposterous - in what other ways is this manifested?
    very honest, it is an attempt to deny women the right to decide what is best for themselves in their situation.

    Edited your post so that it more accurately reflects the truth.


  • Options
    #1043
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,458 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    david75 wrote: »
    Almost afraid to ask this but it’s an honest question.

    Where at the pro life campaign on IVF? I assume they’re ok with it as I never see it come up in their literature or any discussion?

    Reason I ask is some of the more ardent pro lifers seem to believe life begins at conception. And I can’t help wonder how they feel about that in terms of IVF?

    If they are staunch catholic ala the IONA crowd then they cannot be ok with it. The catholic church is opposed to it.


  • Options
    #1044
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    thee glitz wrote: »
    As far as I know, only a nominal time-limit is being proposed. If anyone knows any different, please tell.

    I am happy to confirm that a "nominal" time limit isn't being proposed.
    thee glitz wrote: »
    No-one is forcing anyone to be pregnant (rape aside).

    If a pregnant woman doesn't want to be pregnant, but she doesn't have a legal option to stop being pregnant in her home country unless her life is at risk, then yes, she is being forced to be pregnant.


  • Options
    #1045
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    thee glitz wrote: »
    As far as I know, only a nominal time-limit is being proposed. If anyone knows any different, please tell.



    Yes, democracy. If there was the political will, we could have the exact laws we want. Tying abortion just because with special circumstances is needless / lazy. It's being presented as all or nothing, which leaves many undecided or having reservations about voting either way.

    No-one is forcing anyone to be pregnant (rape aside). This issue is the one clear case where someone's control over their body directly affects another (defenceless) individual's.

    Positing that a pro-life position is based on wanting to control or force women in some way is preposterous - in what other ways is this manifested?

    Does the nominal time limit back up your claims of "abortion on demand", yes or no? Is there any proof to your phrase "abortion on demand" ?

    The 8th isn't forcing women to be pregnant, that's not what I said, it's forcing women to carry a pregnancy they do not want or can't support for a wide variety of reasons. Do you understand this? Forcing someone to be pregnant is a vague statement.

    The 8th is nowhere near democratic. Everyone in the EU bar Malta allows for abortion, are all those nations undemocratic? Or are they democratic as they've provided women with the right to a choice over her own body?


  • Options
    #1046
    ForestFire
    Registered Users Posts: 2,400 ✭✭✭ForestFire


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    the referendum is not to decide morality it is to decide legality. YOUR morality is YOUR business.

    We already have a legal position.

    The referendum is to change this legal position.

    Do you think people will not use there moral judgment to decided if the law should be changed or not, for a law on the rights of fetus and women?

    And I am not saying there will be no other inputs such as scientific information, Case studies etc etc, but Morality will still reamain a big part of peoples decisions.


  • Options
    #1047
    erica74
    Registered Users Posts: 2,619 ✭✭✭erica74


    thee glitz wrote: »
    Not at all. Many pro-choicers talk about special cases, but few (though yourself in fairness) care to discuss it. It seems that the want for a liberal regime is greater than concern for these.

    Sorry but which pro-choicers don't care to discuss special cases? There has been plenty of discussion on this thread and the last about all of the various reasons why a woman might seek to have an abortion. When that discussion is going on, it's met with "well abortions for FFA, rape, incest don't make up the majority of abortions sought, the majority are sought by dirty women who should only have sex to procreate and otherwise keep their legs closed" so the discussion about special cases is shut down.

    I'd love to know what abortion on demand is? It conjures up thoughts of us women getting pregnant just so we can run out and demand an abortion at our local abortion shop.
    If you mean that women being able to avail of abortion services in Ireland should they wish to have an abortion up to 12 weeks is "abortion on demand" then yes, abortion on demand here we come!!
    thee glitz wrote: »
    As far as I know, only a nominal time-limit is being proposed. If anyone knows any different, please tell.



    Yes, democracy. If there was the political will, we could have the exact laws we want. Tying abortion just because with special circumstances is needless / lazy. It's being presented as all or nothing, which leaves many undecided or having reservations about voting either way.

    No-one is forcing anyone to be pregnant (rape aside). This issue is the one clear case where someone's control over their body directly affects another (defenceless) individual's.

    Positing that a pro-life position is based on wanting to control or force women in some way is preposterous - in what other ways is this manifested?

    My understanding for this is so that any reason a woman may have for seeking an abortion won't be questioned and a woman seeking an abortion won't have to make her "case" in order to have an abortion. After all, the reason isn't important, if a woman wants an abortion, she doesn't want to be pregnant, isn't prepared to be pregnant and shouldn't have to forcibly remain pregnant.

    If a woman becomes pregnant and has to remain pregnant against her own wishes or needs, then she is forced to be pregnant.


  • Options
    #1048
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    Or, as I think they're doing, are they just sloganeering in the absence of a rational, cogent argument against repeal.

    "Abortion on demand" has worked very well as a slogan for the past 30 years.

    Politicians have been afraid to touch the issue, even afraid to legislate for the X case for 20 years, lest someone say that are allowing "abortion on demand".

    The prolifers are a bit flummoxed now because the Citizens assembly recommended abortion without restriction up to 12 weeks, they yelled ".. but that is Abortion on Demand!", and the response has been "Yes, read the report, that's exactly what we are recommending".

    The slogan has lost its power.


  • Options
    #1049
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,458 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    ForestFire wrote: »
    We already have a legal position.

    The referendum is to change this legal position.

    Do you think people will not use there moral judgment to decided if the law should be changed or not, for a law on the rights of fetus and women?

    And I am not saying there will be no other inputs such as scientific information, Case studies etc etc, but Morality will still reamain a big part of peoples decisions.

    the referendum vote will not decide a moral position. why do you find that so difficult to understand?


  • Options
    #1050
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    Did anyone else see danny Healy raes comments during the debate in the dáil?

    Appalling. Again hard line pro lifers making such inflammatory statements will drive the middle ground far far away from them. They’re literally kicking the chair out from under themselves.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1051
    ForestFire
    Registered Users Posts: 2,400 ✭✭✭ForestFire


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    the referendum vote will not decide a moral position. why do you find that so difficult to understand?

    Again I never said that did I?

    I said the moral position of the people will be part of the inputs used to decide the referendum and the law.
    why do you find that so difficult to understand?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement