8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1

Mr. CooL ICE

New thread. Old thread is here.

Here are the rules, following from the last thread:

• If you were threadbanned from previous threads, you are still threadbanned here
• There are far more pro-choice than pro-life posters. Everybody on the majority side needs to understand that those in the minority could have 20+ people expecting a reply to them. There is no sitewide or AH rule that specifies that people must reply to every post directed at them so don't go around badgering people. On the other hand, this doesn't give anybody the right to soapbox either
• No petty namecalling. It's a sitewide rule, but was rampant across the previous two incarnations of this thread. There will be a zero tolerance approach to this going forward
• Relating to above - do try to avoid antagonizing swaths of posters with sweeping, generalised statements. They rarely add anything to discussion
• No discussion of poster's being from the states or their timezones, etc. It's a cheap shot and derails discussion
• Please try to read the latest posts before replying. Replying to a post that is two days old when the discussion has moved on doesn't translate well in threads that move quickly
• No calling out trolls/suspected reregs. Report the post and move on
  

==========

If someone need help of any kind in a crisis pregnancy, the Crisis Pregnancy agency's website is http://positiveoptions.ie/.

And if you've had an abortion and need to talk to someone about it, the Irish Family Planning Association has 10 centres nationwide that offer free counselling.

==========

There is a detailed FAQ available called AboutThe8th. Disclaimer: it was written by two Pro-Repeal supporters, but is written to be as objective as possible and cites the word of law whenever possible. It is recommended you read this site if you have any questions. If you have a question to ask about the upcoming referendum that is not explained here, feel free to post.

Other than above, here is a FAQ compiled from commonly asked questions in previous threads.

Q: I don't trust politicians. Why should I trust the politicians to legislate?
A: Politicians have a huge amount of power as it stands, but any motion put forward in the Dáil is always put to a vote. Politicians are representative of, and answerable to the people. Technically, politicians could lower the age of consent down to 10 if they wanted, but doing so would be political suicide. They'd be just as likely to raise the cutoff date of abortion.

Q: Why can't people just use contraceptives?
A: No contraceptive is 100% effective. Accidents can, and will happen. Even if an accident happens, such as the condom bursting, the MAP might not work depending on where the woman is in her cycle.

Q: Women will just use abortion as a contraceptive!
A: That's not a question, but abortion is not a contraceptive. Contraceptives help prevent pregnancies from occurring, but do nothing if the woman is pregnant.

Q: This will just bring abortion to Ireland!
A: There is already abortion in Ireland. There have been around 60 legal abortions in total in the last couple of years that have been performed here.

Q: Why can't the women just give the babies up for adoption? Why do they have to abort?
A: Adoption rates in this country are really, really low. If the 3000+ women a year that travel abroad to the UK gave their baby/babies up it would be a minimum of 3000+ babies left up for adoption in a country where the rates simply are not up to where they need to be in order for this to be a viable option. Also, where a woman already has children, she would have to deem herself unfit to care for any of her children before adoption is considered, which is one of many reasons why adoption is not a feasible solution.

Q: Why can't we just focus on sex education and free contraceptives?
A: Regardless of education or contraceptives, pregnancies will happen, you cannot completely eradicate accidental pregnancies, there is always a chance that contraception will fail regardless of how educated each party is regarding intercourse.

Q: If it is repealed, can a doctor deny a woman an abortion?
A: Absolutely. The doctor will have the right to conscientiously object to the procedure; she will then have to be referred to other doctors.

Q: The health service is already under pressure! Will allowing abortion will create longer waiting list for everybody?
A: Women in Ireland, when they fall pregnant, already have the right to free consultations with a GP and a hospital professional. So the fact they will be visiting their GP anyway means their visit in relation to abortion would add zero extra pressure to our waiting lists.

Q: If repeal passes, will there be abortion clinics near me, like in the UK?
A: Under the proposals for abortion up to 12 weeks, we would be dealing with medical abortions. That is performed using a pill which essentially induces miscarriage. Therefore no clinics are required. Surgical abortion performed for medical necessity could be performed exactly as they already are now in Ireland.

baylah17

Listened to Decaln Ganley , he of Libertas fame on RTE this morning.
Apparently the message from the enforced Pregnacy side has changed, they are no longer talking about the "unborn" instead Ganley at every opportunity spoke of "The preborn little boys and girls".
Fcuking pathetic.

ELM327

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And when sentience is gone - brain death - we chop people up for parts.

That sentence reads funnily, but it's true,
And if there was a referendum on organ transplant the same numpties (eg Iona) would be against it.

baylah17 wrote: »

Listened to Decaln Ganley , he of Libertas fame on RTE this morning.
Apparently the message from the enforced Pregnacy side has changed, they are no longer talking about the "unborn" instead Ganley at every opportunity spoke of "The preborn little boys and girls".
Fcuking pathetic.

That's disgusting tbh.
I hope people are not thick enough to be fooled by the manipulation. Then again, Declan's last dalliance with the Irish electorate didnt go down so well!

Zubeneschamali

baylah17 wrote: »

they are no longer talking about the "unborn" instead Ganley at every opportunity spoke of "The preborn little boys and girls".
Fcuking pathetic.

He can talk to me pre-hoop.

gmisk

baylah17 wrote: »

Listened to Decaln Ganley , he of Libertas fame on RTE this morning.
Apparently the message from the enforced Pregnacy side has changed, they are no longer talking about the "unborn" instead Ganley at every opportunity spoke of "The preborn little boys and girls".
Fcuking pathetic.

Who the hell can take this guy seriously!?!
That Libertas party he founded was a laughing stock! It hilariously imploded with their own John McGuirk calling one of his own candidates a "psychotic bitch".

Also he dresses like a yacht captain!

kylith

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And when sentience is gone - brain death - we chop people up for parts.

But not if they have said they don’t want to.

In this regard dead people have more say over what happens their bodies than pregnant women do.

nozzferrahhtoo

Mousewar wrote: »

This is a classic Nozz-ism.

Awww cool is that a thing now That's nice. Also nice that you have decided to talk about me rather than with me as the thread has gone on. Because that is always a mature and polite move to make isn't it?

Mousewar wrote: »

Medical facts didn't tell you that a foetus less than 12 weeks is not as valuable as the life of "an actual born person". You have decided it isn't and that's fine.

Medical facts give you the data required to make that decision though. Science and morality and ethics are not as separable as people make them out to be. After all morality and ethics is in the business of valuing the results of our actions. While science is in the business of telling us what the results of our actions are. Therefore one has to inform the other.

Mousewar wrote: »

You have decided that a lack of pain perception and sentience means it has less value. That may be true but I'm not sure what one's criteria can be exactly to determine the value of a life or indeed by what right we consider ourselves capable of making such a judgement.

What rights have we NOT to? The very concept of valuing anything lies in sentience. Without it the universe would not only have nothing to do the valuing, but no concept of what value even is. If it is not us deciding what to value, then what the hell can? Unless you want to go the route of inventing a god, without any substantiation as so many have done in the past, then the process of value and valuation starts and ends with us.

Mousewar wrote: »

Nozzferrahtoo has described the pre-16 week foetus as a "blueprint" which is manifestly false. A blueprint does not become the thing it describes - a blueprint is just a piece of paper.

I did not describe it as a blue print. I suggested an analogy between the two. The great thing about analogies, which you may not have noted, is that they do not have to map two things together 1:1 and many differences can exist between them and the analogy can still hold.

The point of the analogy was merely to make explicit the difference between a human being, and the process that produces that human being. And affording the latter the rights and concerns we afford the former is a judgement error.

Mousewar wrote: »

He then latterly described it as 'merely a self-building blueprint' which might be more accurate but a self-building blueprint would be such a uniquely remarkable thing that using it as an argument to lessen the value of something would be counter-productive.

Firstly I do not think that it is that unique or remarkable really. ALL life appears to do it pretty much. Which makes it far from unique. Yet somehow it only confers values in your mind in the case of humans? The common house fly does it too, yet somehow it is not conferring the house fly with the same level of relevance or value in the minds of the masses. I think we both know why.

Secondly however you are value projecting when you say I am using it as an argument to "lessen the value of something". What I mean by that is you are taking something which is valuable (I think the process by which life produces itself by such processes is very wonderful, valuable, precious and amazing) and placing that value on the wrong location. The value of that process is on life as a whole. I do not think it lends value to any one individual in that set however.

So I am not using the argument to lessen the value of any individual life, so much as I am pointing out it is an error to place the value at that locus in the first place.

Mousewar wrote: »

I'm not sure if he himself has ever described the early foetus as a "clump of cells" but it's a popular one.

It is possible I have, but I think I more often use the phrase "Barely differentiated collection of cells" which is somewhat more accurate. A phrase which I think pre-empts some, or even all, of your "we're all just bunches of cells." concerns?

Mousewar wrote: »

Ultimately, I don't think we have a right to decide what parameters we place on human life as if the lack of x, y, or z determines that one human life is less valuable than another.

And as I said above I think the exact opposite. We have no right NOT to do this. Because it appears no one and nothing else is going to do it for us. And it is simply an error of moral and ethical philosophy NOT to be explicit about what we value and why we value it, and construct arguments to that effect.

We HAVE to know these things. More and more as technology advances. There are potential scientific discoveries that are going to force us to make explicit the value systems people only hint implications at in the abortion debate. Were we to meet an alien civilization some day, were we to transfer human consciousness onto silicon or some equivalent, were we to finally great a general artificial intelligence.......... than how we are going to treat these things, and the well being of individuals and collections within them.......... is a discourse we will have to have. And the foundation moves in that discourse can and should be made here and now. And very much in the context of debates on subjects like abortion.

Mousewar wrote: »

We don't say that an infant's life is less valuable than an adult's because the former's sentience is less than the latter's.

That is a false analogy however in all the ways my blue print analogy is not. Because here you are equivocating between the value of two instances of human sentience. Do not get me wrong that ALSO is a conversation worth having. And there are interesting intellectual and philosophical discussions that come from it. For example most people seemingly would save a young child of 8 from a burning building than a 25 year old. I likely would too. But if you sit down and have that discussion at a philosophical level it turns out the opposite is actually easier to defend morally.

But the reason the analogy fails HERE is when aborting a fetus at 16 weeks we are not equivocating between two sentient agents. But between agents that are sentient and agents that are not, never have been, and are a distinct period of time away from ever being.

So by all means equivocate between children and adults and which sentience is more valuable. It is a discussion we DO have despite you claiming we do not. But do not lose sight of the fact that abortion is generally a discussion with only ONE sentient agent involved, not two. So there is no analogy to be drawn between them.

Mousewar wrote: »

Anyway, all of this language (blueprints and bunches of cells) is merely designed to devalue the life of the unborn which I don't think is necessary

Except that is not what it is designed to do. What it IS designed to do is to call a spade a spade. There is a MASSIVE difference between devaluing X, and suggesting the value you are assigning to X was not warranted in the first place. I am doing the latter. Do no therefore presume to pretend I am doing the former.

Mousewar wrote: »

I don't need to lessen the life of the unborn to do that.

Great, cause nor do I. Nor have I. Nor will I.

seamus

ELM327 wrote: »

That sentence reads funnily, but it's true,
And if there was a referendum on organ transplant the same numpties (eg Iona) would be against it.

I went to check and see if they'd ever made a comment on it. David Quinn is famous for wittering on about the hippocratic oath and talking about the slippery slopes that can arise.

So they've said nothing on organ donation, but I did find an interesting article. It was claiming that someone in the NHS had suggested encouraging bringing babies with FFAs to term, so that their organs may be donated after death.

And the tone was critical. The Iona institute was criticising a suggestion that mothers be encouraged to bring FFAs to full term.

Think about how many knots that requires in order to justify it to yourself.

Aborting children with FFAs = wrong.
Bringing them to full term, if their organs could be used = wrong.

So not only would they prefer that babies be incubated so they may die shortly after birth, but it be wrong if other babies could be saved through their organs.

Pro-life my hole.

HonestKevin

Mousewar wrote: »

Ultimately, I don't think we have a right to decide what parameters we place on human life as if the lack of x, y, or z determines that one human life is less valuable than another.

That's what this whole campaign has been about. If a child was conceived as a result of rape or incest they are deemed by the pro-repeal campaign as less valuable. These babies are not "respectable". We are once again saying that in Ireland there are "respectable" unborn born babies and unborn babies that are not "respectable".

Whatever one wants to say about the no side, at least they are taking the position that ALL unborn babies are respectable. The 8th says that all unborn babies should be treated equally (given the right to life). The pro-repeal side are saying that some unborn babies are not "respectable" and need to be got rid of. Its like 1950's Ireland all over again. It would be nice as a country if we could stop judging unborn babies based on how they were conceived.

baylah17

HonestKevin wrote: »

Mousewar wrote: »

Ultimately, I don't think we have a right to decide what parameters we place on human life as if the lack of x, y, or z determines that one human life is less valuable than another.

That's what this whole campaign has been about. If a child was conceived as a result of rape or incest they are deemed by the pro-repeal campaign as less valuable. These babies are not "respectable". We are once again saying that in Ireland there are "respectable" unborn born babies and unborn babies that are not "respectable".

Whatever one wants to say about the no side, at least they are taking the position that ALL unborn babies are respectable. The 8th says that all unborn babies should be treated equally (given the right to life). The pro-repeal side are saying that some unborn babies are not "respectable" and need to be got rid of. Its like 1950's Ireland all over again. It would be nice as a country if we could stop judging unborn babies based on how they were conceived.

So you are stating that rape victims should be legally forced to carry unwanted pregnancy
You disgust me

Mr. CooL ICE

HonestKevin wrote: »

If a child was conceived as a result of rape or incest they are deemed by the pro-repeal campaign as less valuable. These babies are not "respectable".

I don't remember anyone saying anything like that

AtomicHorror

HonestKevin wrote: »

That's what this whole campaign has been about. If a child was conceived as a result of rape or incest they are deemed by the pro-repeal campaign as less valuable. These babies are not "respectable". We are once again saying that in Ireland there are "respectable" unborn born babies and unborn babies that are not "respectable".

Whatever one wants to say about the no side, at least they are taking the position that ALL unborn babies are respectable. The 8th says that all unborn babies should be treated equally (given the right to life). The pro-repeal side are saying that some unborn babies are not "respectable" and need to be got rid of. Its like 1950's Ireland all over again. It would be nice as a country if we could stop judging unborn babies based on how they were conceived.

This is a total strawman and one you've been corrected on before. It is not about "respectability" when it comes to rape. It is about whether you force a woman to carry to term the child of someone who brutally traumatized them. It is about whether you force them to endure the automatic increase in risk to their life and health for a decision they never made, and a risk they never consented to take.

I know of nobody who takes the position you ascribe to the pro-choice side.

If you keep repeating this misrepresentation then you are, frankly, a liar.

.......

This post has been deleted.

HonestKevin

baylah17 wrote: »

So you are stating that rape victims should be legally forced to carry unwanted pregnancy
You disgust me

Most rape victims who get pregnant don't want an abortion. Even though the pro-repeal side will tell such a woman that their unborn baby is "different", its not "respectable", most rape victims thankfully take the position that their baby is respectable. And they are 100% right. Their baby is respectable even if pro-repeal people try to say it isn't.

SusieBlue

HonestKevin wrote: »

That's what this whole campaign has been about. If a child was conceived as a result of rape or incest they are deemed by the pro-repeal campaign as less valuable. These babies are not "respectable". We are once again saying that in Ireland there are "respectable" unborn born babies and unborn babies that are not "respectable".

Whatever one wants to say about the no side, at least they are taking the position that ALL unborn babies are respectable. The 8th says that all unborn babies should be treated equally (given the right to life). The pro-repeal side are saying that some unborn babies are not "respectable" and need to be got rid of. Its like 1950's Ireland all over again. It would be nice as a country if we could stop judging unborn babies based on how they were conceived.

You literally just made all that up. The whole lot. Not one bit of that is true.

The whole point of being pro-choice is that we are putting the woman before the baby, unless she chooses otherwise.
Regardless of how the baby was conceived, the woman should be prioritised.

We are not saying "some" unborn babies are respectable. We are saying ALL women should have a choice.

YOU are the one bringing in the word "respectable" along with all this nonsense about babies conceived from rape.

Unless you can quote exactly where someone on this thread specifically said that babies born through rape are not respectable and don't deserve to live, you are a lying liar who lies.

.......

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue

HonestKevin wrote: »

Most rape victims who get pregnant don't want an abortion. Even though the pro-repeal side will tell such a woman that their unborn baby is "different", its not "respectable", most rape victims thankfully take the position that their baby is respectable. And they are 100% right. Their baby is respectable even if pro-repeal people try to say it isn't.

Quote where this was said or you are telling lies.

zedhead

HonestKevin wrote: »

Most rape victims who get pregnant don't want an abortion. Even though the pro-repeal side will tell such a woman that their unborn baby is "different", its not "respectable", most rape victims thankfully take the position that their baby is respectable. And they are 100% right. Their baby is respectable even if pro-repeal people try to say it isn't.

The pro-repeal side advocate the free choice for the woman who finds themselves in this situation. If they choose to continue with pregnancy then they should be supported in this choice. If however they feel they cannot continue with it, then they should also be supported in this choice.

What has happened to them is horrific and they should at the very least have full bodily autonomy and allowed the decision of how to handle the pregnancy themselves with no judgement, barriers or fear.

HonestKevin

SusieBlue wrote: »

Quote where this was said or you are telling lies.

The very fact that "cases of rape or incest" have even been brought up (and they have in case you haven't turned on a TV or radio in the last 24 months) creates a distinction in our society of people based on how they were conceived.

It creates two classes of people in the country - those who are "respectable" and those who are not "respectable". Why else mention incest. There is a nod nod and a wink wink that "these" people are not as good as every one else. And so we must bring in abortion in order to get rid of "these" people.

zedhead

HonestKevin wrote: »

The very fact that "cases of rape or incest" have even been brought up (and they have in case you haven't turned on a TV or radio in the last 24 months) creates a distinction in our society of people based on how they were conceived.

It creates two classes of people in the country - those who are "respectable" and those who are not "respectable". Why else mention incest. There is a nod nod and a wink wink that "these" people are not as good as every one else. And so we must bring in abortion in order to get rid of "these" people.

Incest and rape are mentioned as they are situations where the women have not chosen the situation they are in. The prorepeal would advocate giving them what control they can have back of their bodies and pregnancies and give them the CHOICE as to if they would like to proceed with the pregnancy.

It has nothing to do with the perceived value of one foetus over another.

ELM327

HonestKevin wrote: »

The very fact that "cases of rape or incest" have even been brought up (and they have in case you haven't turned on a TV or radio in the last 24 months) creates a distinction in our society of people based on how they were conceived.

It creates two classes of people in the country - those who are "respectable" and those who are not "respectable". Why else mention incest. There is a nod nod and a wink wink that "these" people are not as good as every one else. And so we must bring in abortion in order to get rid of "these" people.

Complete and utter bollox. Unsubstantiated tripe.
I put it to you that you are introducing this idea to distract from the issue at hand.

Do you have any statistics or proof to confirm what you are saying?

SusieBlue

HonestKevin wrote: »

The very fact that "cases of rape or incest" have even been brought up (and they have in case you haven't turned on a TV or radio in the last 24 months) creates a distinction in our society of people based on how they were conceived.

It creates two classes of people in the country - those who are "respectable" and those who are not "respectable". Why else mention incest. There is a nod nod and a wink wink that "these" people are not as good as every one else. And so we must bring in abortion in order to get rid of "these" people.

This is nothing to do with these people. The very fact that they are here is evidence that their mothers wanted them.
It is to do with their mothers, and whether we want to traumtise them further by forcing them to carry a child they may not want, or give them the OPTION to terminate.
If they want to continue the pregnancy, that's fine. If they want a termination, that's fine. But they should have the right to choose.

This notion about two classes of people - seriously, cop yourself on. The only person who thinks that is you.

optogirl

HonestKevin wrote: »

The very fact that "cases of rape or incest" have even been brought up (and they have in case you haven't turned on a TV or radio in the last 24 months) creates a distinction in our society of people based on how they were conceived.

It creates two classes of people in the country - those who are "respectable" and those who are not "respectable". Why else mention incest. There is a nod nod and a wink wink that "these" people are not as good as every one else. And so we must bring in abortion in order to get rid of "these" people.

NO Kevin, the use of examples of rape & incest are because people who are pro-choice feel it is cruel & unnecessary to say, force a 12 year old girl, pregnant by her uncle, to carry that baby to term.

Nobody anywhere has said there is anything wrong with the baby or that the baby is to blame for the horrific circumstances of their conception.

HonestKevin

zedhead wrote: »

Incest and rape are mentioned as they are situations where the women have not chosen the situation they are in. The prorepeal would advocate giving them what control they can have back of their bodies and pregnancies and give them the CHOICE as to if they would like to proceed with the pregnancy.

It has nothing to do with the perceived value of one foetus over another.

Ammm a baby can be conceived through incest and not be a rape. That's why a distinction has been been between the two. When pro-repeal people bring these cases up they say "cases of rape AND incest". Otherwise they should just be saying cases of "rape". Its the pro-repeal side that makes the distinction between the two. They are saying incest babies are not "respectable" and we should have abortion in this country in order to get rid of them.

ELM327

optogirl wrote: »

NO Kevin, the use of examples of rape & incest are because people who are pro-choice feel it is cruel & unnecessary to say, force a 12 year old girl, pregnant by her uncle, to carry that baby to term.

Nobody anywhere has said there is anything wrong with the baby or that the baby is to blame for the horrific circumstances of their conception.

Indeed the "baby" wouldn't exist, if the mother decided to terminate the pregnancy as per the 13th/14th amendments.

Should we have an attempt to remove those protections, HonestKevin?
Otherwise your position is invalid as if you support the "killing of the unborn" in that circumstance then you too are complicit.

SusieBlue

HonestKevin wrote: »

Ammm a baby can be conceived through incest and not be a rape. That's why a distinction has been been between the two. When pro-repeal people bring these cases up they say "cases of rape AND incest". Otherwise they should just be saying cases of "rape". Its the pro-repeal side that makes the distinction between the two. They are saying incest babies are not "respectable" and we should have abortion in this country in order to get rid of them.

Where? Where are they saying that? Link please.

optogirl

HonestKevin wrote: »

Ammm a baby can be conceived through incest and not be a rape. That's why a distinction has been been between the two. When pro-repeal people bring these cases up they say "cases of rape AND incest". Otherwise they should just be saying cases of "rape". Its the pro-repeal side that makes the distinction between the two. They are saying incest babies are not "respectable" and we should have abortion in this country in order to get rid of them.

Who is saying that Kevin? I have been devouring debate on this issue for the past year or more and have never once come across somebody, apart from you, talking in this way.

Zubeneschamali

HonestKevin wrote: »

Whatever one wants to say about the no side, at least they are taking the position that ALL unborn babies are respectable.

The option which is actually on the table says you can abort ALL unborn "babies" without restriction up to 12 weeks, and there is no special exception made for rape.

It's as if you are criticising a completely different change to the 8th, maybe the one the pro-life people were preparing to fight instead of the one which is actually on the table.

zedhead

HonestKevin wrote: »

Ammm a baby can be conceived through incest and not be a rape. That's why a distinction has been been between the two. When pro-repeal people bring these cases up they say "cases of rape AND incest". Otherwise they should just be saying cases of "rape". Its the pro-repeal side that makes the distinction between the two. They are saying incest babies are not "respectable" and we should have abortion in this country in order to get rid of them.

A large proportion conceptions from incest are as a result of rape and abuse.

And again, nobody is saying all pregnancies that resulted from rape and incest should be aborted or ended. All that is being said is the pregnant woman/girl should have the CHOICE as to whether she proceeds with the pregnancy or not.

Nobody should be forced to abort a foetus, but they should have that option.

ELM327

HonestKevin wrote: »

Ammm a baby can be conceived through incest and not be a rape. That's why a distinction has been been between the two. When pro-repeal people bring these cases up they say "cases of rape AND incest". Otherwise they should just be saying cases of "rape". Its the pro-repeal side that makes the distinction between the two.

Proof?

HonestKevin wrote: »

They are saying incest babies are not "respectable" and we should have abortion in this country in order to get rid of them.

Again, bollox.
You are the only one making any of these claims. Are you literate? Read the number of posts telling you this and not one making the claims you state.


The pro-choice side are in favour of abortion on demand without any reason until 12 weeks. You lot can make any attempt at making this a class/respectability issue (which in itself is laudable as you lot are the religious conservatives and are responsible for a lot of irrespectability issues in the past) but it is not, we want unrestricted abortion access up to 12 weeks without curtailment. And by the looks of the polls, it may pass.

Zubeneschamali

HonestKevin wrote: »

Most rape victims who get pregnant don't want an abortion.

Abortion will be an option, not compulsory, so if you are right, most rape victims won't opt for an abortion.

HonestKevin

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The option which is actually on the table says you can abort ALL unborn "babies" without restriction up to 12 weeks, and there is no special exception made for rape.

It's as if you are criticising a completely different change to the 8th, maybe the one the pro-life people were preparing to fight instead of the one which is actually on the table.

Thats diverting things. We have been specifically told over the last 24 months that we need to bring in abortion in order to deal with cases of rape or incest. What this is saying is that there are two classes of unborn children - "respectable" unborn babies and "unrespectable" unborn babies.

"These" babies were (and are) being used as an excuse to bring in abortion for everyone. People in this country who were conceived as a result of rape or incest have been made to feel like second class citizens over the last 24 months. The pro-repeal side have basically been saying there is something "wrong" with them. They are not "respectable".

Sofiztikated

HonestKevin wrote: »

That's what this whole campaign has been about. If a child was conceived as a result of rape or incest they are deemed by the pro-repeal campaign as less valuable. These babies are not "respectable". We are once again saying that in Ireland there are "respectable" unborn born babies and unborn babies that are not "respectable".

Whatever one wants to say about the no side, at least they are taking the position that ALL unborn babies are respectable. The 8th says that all unborn babies should be treated equally (given the right to life). The pro-repeal side are saying that some unborn babies are not "respectable" and need to be got rid of. Its like 1950's Ireland all over again. It would be nice as a country if we could stop judging unborn babies based on how they were conceived.

You'll find that Pro Choice people don't particularly distinguish on how a child is conceived. We're not the ones demanding restrictions except in certain cases.

ELM327

HonestKevin wrote: »

Thats diverting things. We have been specifically told over the last 24 months that we need to bring in abortion in order to deal with cases of rape or incest. What this is saying is that there are two classes of unborn children - "respectable" unborn babies and "unrespectable" unborn babies.

"These" babies were (and are) being used as an excuse to bring in abortion for everyone. People in this country who were conceived as a result of rape or incest have been made to feel like second class citizens over the last 24 months. The pro-repeal side have basically been saying there is something "wrong" with them. They are not "respectable".

LMAO

Gives out about "diverting".
Spends rest of post diverting.

AtomicHorror

HonestKevin wrote: »

Ammm a baby can be conceived through incest and not be a rape. That's why a distinction has been been between the two. When pro-repeal people bring these cases up they say "cases of rape AND incest". Otherwise they should just be saying cases of "rape". Its the pro-repeal side that makes the distinction between the two. They are saying incest babies are not "respectable" and we should have abortion in this country in order to get rid of them.

You are a liar.

.......

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue

HonestKevin wrote: »

Thats diverting things. We have been specifically told over the last 24 months that we need to bring in abortion in order to deal with cases of rape or incest. What this is saying is that there are two classes of unborn children - "respectable" unborn babies and "unrespectable" unborn babies.

"These" babies were (and are) being used as an excuse to bring in abortion for everyone. People in this country who were conceived as a result of rape or incest have been made to feel like second class citizens over the last 24 months. The pro-repeal side have basically been saying there is something "wrong" with them. They are not "respectable".

No, no, no. We are saying that their mothers should have a CHOICE.
Not some "final solution" type scenario that you are implying.

I think you are deliberately misrepresenting the Yes side to muddy the waters.
Unless you can provide a link to PROVE that people are in fact saying and advocating these things, you have no evidence.

And please stop making assumptions about this notion of "respectable" or "not respectable". You are the one being offensive here.
No one else is making these claims but you. You are telling lies.

Zubeneschamali

HonestKevin wrote: »

We have been specifically told over the last 24 months that we need to bring in abortion in order to deal with cases of rape or incest.

You will be delighted to learn that neither the new text in the Constitution nor the new law will make any exceptions or even mention rape and incest.

You win!

optogirl

HonestKevin wrote: »

Thats diverting things. We have been specifically told over the last 24 months that we need to bring in abortion in order to deal with cases of rape or incest. What this is saying is that there are two classes of unborn children - "respectable" unborn babies and "unrespectable" unborn babies.

"These" babies were (and are) being used as an excuse to bring in abortion for everyone. People in this country who were conceived as a result of rape or incest have been made to feel like second class citizens over the last 24 months. The pro-repeal side have basically been saying there is something "wrong" with them. They are not "respectable".

go easy on the quotation marks will you please - they mean absolutely nothing in this context.

Your reading of rape & incest as examples of where the 8th is compounding the misery of victims is bizarre.

Once again Kevin, and I think I may be the 8th or 9th person to point this out to you - the pro-repeal side are concerned with the welfare of the pregnant person who is the victim of the rape or incest and are NOT labelling the foetus as respectable or unrespectable. Nor are they advocating abortion in these cases. They are advocating the right of the victim to make that decision themselves.

HonestKevin

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You are a liar.

Why else have cases of incest been brought up by the pro-repeal side for the last 24 months. If two consenting adults have incest, why is it ok to abort their unborn baby?

It's because this baby is not "respectable" in the eyes of pro-repeal people. This whole debate is regressive not progressive. We are once again judging unborn children based on how they were conceived.

AtomicHorror

HonestKevin wrote: »

Why else have cases of incest been brought up by the pro-repeal side for the last 24 months. If two consenting adults have incest, why is it ok to abort their unborn baby?

Asked, answered and ignored by you.

HonestKevin wrote: »

It's because this baby is not "respectable" in the eyes of pro-repeal people. This whole debate is regressive not progressive. We are once again judging unborn children based on how they were conceived.

Again, you are a liar.

optogirl

HonestKevin wrote: »

Why else have cases of incest been brought up by the pro-repeal side for the last 24 months. If two consenting adults have incest, why is it ok to abort their unborn baby?

It's because this baby is not "respectable" in the eyes of pro-repeal people. This whole debate is regressive not progressive. We are once again judging unborn children based on how they were conceived.

if the two consenting adults decide to abort it. That is the only scenario in which it is OK. Removing the 8th will not give anyone the right to force somebody to have an abortion.

also 'have incest' - what?

.......

This post has been deleted.

HonestKevin

optogirl wrote: »

Your reading of rape & incest as examples of where the 8th is compounding the misery of victims is bizarre.

So children who were conceived as a result of rape or incest are "victims".

There is something "different" about them in the eyes of pro-repealers. Need i say more?

Zubeneschamali

HonestKevin wrote: »

If two consenting adults have incest, why is it ok to abort their unborn baby?

Because it is OK to abort any unborn "baby" up to 12 weeks. No exceptions for rape or incest, just the way you want it.

Zubeneschamali

HonestKevin wrote: »

Need i say more?

No, definitely not.

optogirl

HonestKevin wrote: »

So children who were conceived as a result of rape or incest are "victims".

There is something "different" about them in the eyes of pro-repealers. Need i say more?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. The person pregnant as a result of rape is a victim. I had a more lucid conversation about this referendum with my 6 year old (thanks to the manky posters outside his school).

BabysCoffee

HonestKevin wrote: »

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You are a liar.

Why else have cases of incest been brought up by the pro-repeal side for the last 24 months. If two consenting adults have incest, why is it ok to abort their unborn baby?

It's because this baby is not "respectable" in the eyes of pro-repeal people. This whole debate is regressive not progressive. We are once again judging unborn children based on how they were conceived.

Are you arguing that babies conceived of rape should be carried to term?

Because as a Yes voter I would think the woman should be given the choice to have the baby or not, as is their wish.

aubz

david75 wrote: »

There is no cultural or statistical comparison or relevance between Ireland and China.

It’s so totally laughable that you’re using that as an argument.

Yes but if the fertility rate drops below replacement there will be a greater need for immigrants. It's likely that there could be some many that the Irish population is overtaken and your culture will no longer exist. There are entire minority-majority cities in Canada and Australia. When the population reaches 70% Chinese they will no longer assimilate.

BabysCoffee

HonestKevin wrote: »

zedhead wrote: »

Incest and rape are mentioned as they are situations where the women have not chosen the situation they are in. The prorepeal would advocate giving them what control they can have back of their bodies and pregnancies and give them the CHOICE as to if they would like to proceed with the pregnancy.

It has nothing to do with the perceived value of one foetus over another.

Ammm a baby can be conceived through incest and not be a rape. That's why a distinction has been been between the two. When pro-repeal people bring these cases up they say "cases of rape AND incest". Otherwise they should just be saying cases of "rape". Its the pro-repeal side that makes the distinction between the two. They are saying incest babies are not "respectable" and we should have abortion in this country in order to get rid of them.

The only person talking about babies conceived through incest being not respectable is you.

kylith

HonestKevin wrote: »

Thats diverting things. We have been specifically told over the last 24 months that we need to bring in abortion in order to deal with cases of rape or incest. What this is saying is that there are two classes of unborn children - "respectable" unborn babies and "unrespectable" unborn babies.

"These" babies were (and are) being used as an excuse to bring in abortion for everyone. People in this country who were conceived as a result of rape or incest have been made to feel like second class citizens over the last 24 months. The pro-repeal side have basically been saying there is something "wrong" with them. They are not "respectable".

Absolute nonsense, Kevin. What it is saying is that a woman who has been FORCED I told sex against her will should then not be FORCED to proceed with a pregnancy if she does not want to.

Do you want to force women who have been raped to have their rapist’s baby if they don’t want to do that? Do you think that that would add further trauma to an already horrific experience?