Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

Bannasidhe

Mark Rippetoe wrote: »

The same train of thought was around during the SSM debates. Some hetero couples were feeling oppressed at the thought of extending the same right. Same sh1t, different issue.

The interesting thing is this weird perception that saying a minority group who have been denied xxxx will now be granted the exact same xxxx as the majority enjoy somehow means a)the minority now have an 'advantage', and b) the xxxx available to the majority is diminished.

When as SSM has shown us what actually happens is the minority get a watered down version of xxxx (ask any married LBGT+ parents if they are equal to married heterosexual parents) and a small majority ask them why they still need ... oh...a Pride March for example.... :rolleyes:

AllForIt

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How is looking for people who are part of a minority to be treated the same as a person who is part of a majority constitute "going after a certain type of person who isn't in a minority"?

Is equal treatment finite?
Does extending rights to a minority diminish the amount of those rights the majority has?

I'm dumbfounded how you managed to extrapolate from what I said to infer my point was about minority rights infringing on majority rights.

I could make a good case for it, let's say, diversity quota's, but that wasn't what I was getting at at all.

aloyisious

AllForIt wrote: »

I'm dumbfounded how you managed to extrapolate from what I said to infer my point was about minority rights infringing on majority rights.

I could make a good case for it, let's say, diversity quota's, but that wasn't what I was getting at at all.

So your point was more about presumed leftists going after certain majorities merely because they are majorities [maybe what is presumed to be right-ish because of the particular protest campaign they're involved in] and not because of the stated POV of those majorities or reasons or causes the majorities might be protesting about?

Hotblack Desiato

Abortion: New laws come into force in Northern Ireland

AllForIt

aloyisious wrote: »

So your point was more about presumed leftists going after certain majorities merely because they are majorities [maybe what is presumed to be right-ish because of the particular protest campaign they're involved in] and not because of the stated POV of those majorities or reasons or causes the majorities might be protesting about?

I was unable to parse the latter part of your point but to answer the former, yes.

Haven't you heard about the current times variant's of the Left, The radical leftist's, the radical feminist's, the WOKE and such forth. It was those variant's I was referring to and not the good ole standard Left.

I do feel sorry for the standard Leftist of old, who feel behoved to defend these new Left variants after a lifetime of being the Left, presumably because they were particularly involved in Left politics in the past.*

*edit: I forgot to say, as a result of this, there are some who I see as being extremely touchy for any kind of criticism of the Left whatsoever (not the first time I've seen that on this forum) and that explains for me how psychologically an intelligent person could misinterpret points and the character of the point maker, and use it as an opportunity to soapbox.


I joked on another thread that Left is the new Right. I wasn't talking about politics but from what I observe, it's a bit like that now in respect of politics as well.

smacl

AllForIt wrote: »

I was unable to parse the latter part of your point but to answer the former, yes.

Haven't you heard about the current times variant's of the Left, The radical leftist's, the radical feminist's, the WOKE and such forth. It was those variant's I was referring to and not the good ole standard Left.

I do feel sorry for the standard Leftist of old, who feel behoved to defend these new Left variants after a lifetime of being the Left, presumably because they were particularly involved in Left politics in the past.*

*edit: I forgot to say, as a result of this, there are some who I see as being extremely touchy for any kind of criticism of the Left whatsoever (not the first time I've seen that on this forum) and that explains for me how psychologically an intelligent person could misinterpret points and the character of the point maker, and use it as an opportunity to soapbox.


I joked on another thread that Left is the new Right. I wasn't talking about politics but from what I observe, it's a bit like that now in respect of politics as well.

All the above tells me is that, as indicated previously, your reason for getting involved in the abortion debate is solely to push a hard right wing agenda and has little to do with the care of babies or pregnant women. I don't think I'm alone in thinking that the two poster boys for right wing politics in the developed world look and act like they're auditioning for a remake of 'Dumb and Dumber'. As clearly shown in recent referendums, the people of this country clearly reject this greedy nonsense opting instead for kindness and egalitarianism. Regardless of your politics, the one thing the current crisis is showing us is the importance of a caring, inclusive and responsible society and the true value of those who work on the front lines of that society over those that reap the largest benefits. Going forward it seems apparent that we need to change our society such that we encourage many more of the next generation to work in caring professions and reward them for doing so. The right wing in the anti-abortion debate seems hell bent on punishing women as part of a broader agenda to maintain an anti-egalitarian status quo that protects the small minority of wealthy people who largely contribute nothing of value back to society.

Hotblack Desiato

Also more white baybees and keep the brown types out... NP stick out because they actually say this, but their fellow travellers while not expressing this sentiment directly, won't condemn it either.

aloyisious

AllForIt wrote: »

I was unable to parse the latter part of your point but to answer the former, yes.

Haven't you heard about the current times variant's of the Left, The radical leftist's, the radical feminist's, the WOKE and such forth. It was those variant's I was referring to and not the good ole standard Left.

I do feel sorry for the standard Leftist of old, who feel behoved to defend these new Left variants after a lifetime of being the Left, presumably because they were particularly involved in Left politics in the past.*

I joked on another thread that Left is the new Right. I wasn't talking about politics but from what I observe, it's a bit like that now in respect of politics as well.

My latter referred to the stated aims and intents of anti-abortion protestors, that of protecting the right to life of the unborn - as against those of the pregnant women and girls and that some of those gathered within said protests had other intents, simply using the protests as soapboxes.

As for the old left, well it might be that they feel obliged to show care for those other leftists referred to in your post, as to do otherwise would leave the right-ists to claim there was a split in the left. As for the label fascist, well that can apply to anyone. It's no longer the right who can enjoy the privilege and fame from the label.

Hotblack Desiato

Senator Catherine Noone, of the abortion Oireachtas committee, has lost her seat. Lots of pro-lifer gloating about, including on her previous twitter handle which has now been taken over by a parody account (well, parodies are supposed to be funny - this is just nasty.)

https://twitter.com/CatholicArena/status/1245706352724410368

I find it very strange, do they think that no mass attendee is allowed express an opinion on a sermon?

How can a catholic expressing an opinion on a priest's utterings be sectarian? Stupid.

The 'parody' account:

https://twitter.com/SenatorNoone

Although, she was an Enda Kenny appointee in 2016, Leo has stated that all appointees of the new Taoiseach should be female to address the appalling gender balance, so he might nominate her? Last laugh would be on the bitter pro-lifers then

Igotadose

interesting. US congress members petitioning HHS to allow fetal tissue in vaccine research for Covid-19.
Imagine, delaying vaccines due to dogma. Well, that's today's GOP

https://huffman.house.gov/imo/media/doc/fetal%20tissue%20research%20letter%204.6.20_updated.pdf

Igotadose

Igotadose wrote: »

interesting. US congress members petitioning HHS to allow fetal tissue in vaccine research for Covid-19.
Imagine, delaying vaccines due to dogma. Well, that's today's GOP

https://huffman.house.gov/imo/media/doc/fetal%20tissue%20research%20letter%204.6.20_updated.pdf

Always been the position for most of them to be against stem cell research. Some like Nancy Reagan only come out in support of it when personally affected.

You also however have the lieutenant governor of Texas stating that he and a lot of other grandparents would rather die than see the economy suffer due to the cost of public health measures against covid, so take from that what you will.

aloyisious

When Northern Irish women think they have got past the last hurdle where legalised abortion service in N/I is concerned, the local administration coincidentally screws up again... https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-nireland-abortion/northern-irish-women-told-to-sail-to-england-for-abortions-despite-pandemic-idUKKBN21P2S1

aloyisious

Following on from the Covid-19 outbreak here, it seems that there have been some application relaxations in the HSE regulations in respect to the law applying to abortion services here. These seem to be in respect to visits to the doctor [GP] and the actual taking/supervision of the medications by the women patients. I don't have any details or links but presume as the relaxations were discussed on his RTE show by Sean O'Rourke with a HSE official [a Dr] that the discussed changes will/would be available on a HSE website.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.abortionrightscampaign.ie/2020/04/08/press-release-abortion-rights-campaign-welcomes-remote-consultation-in-the-republic-but-says-urgent-action-is-needed-to-ensure-access-in-northern-ireland/

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0408/1129326-interim-model-sees-abortion-care-take-place-remotely/

The Health Service Executive's clinical lead for terminations of pregnancies has said the interim model of care in relation to early access to abortion allows for a woman "to have the entirety of her abortion care without having to visit her doctor".

Dr Aoife Mullally said that this "will not be the long-term model of care, because the legislation has not changed; this is just the interim model of care for the duration of the Covid-19 emergency".

The previous model of care allowed for two visits to a GP, but now these visits will be remote consultations.

This should have been allowed all along really - especially given the lack of GPs taking part in this service in some areas.

Two visits to a GP is totally unnecessary and that needs to go when the legislation is reviewed.

aloyisious

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0408/1129326-interim-model-sees-abortion-care-take-place-remotely/



This should have been allowed all along really - especially given the lack of GPs taking part in this service in some areas.

Two visits to a GP is totally unnecessary and that needs to go when the legislation is reviewed.

Ta. When I heard the name Mullally mentioned on RTE, I didn't use it in case it wasn't the person I supposed.

Hotblack Desiato

Would these people ever fúck off.

The article linked from my previous post has been updated and renamed.

"Pro-life group criticises temporary change to abortion services"

Pro Life Campaign spokesperson Eilís Mulroy has described the guidelines as "utterly reckless".
"In the blink of an eye, the minister has done a complete about turn in order to facilitate abortions taking place during the Covid-19 lockdown," she said.

So she wants to use this crisis to force people to remain pregnant against their will?

What part of 66.4% do these thickos not understand?

aloyisious

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Would these people ever fúck off.

The article linked from my previous post has been updated and renamed.

"Pro-life group criticises temporary change to abortion services"



So she wants to use this crisis to force people to remain pregnant against their will?

What part of 66.4% do these thickos not understand?

The percentage in it of women voting to improve their health rights.

end of the road

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Would these people ever fúck off.

The article linked from my previous post has been updated and renamed.

"Pro-life group criticises temporary change to abortion services"



So she wants to use this crisis to force people to remain pregnant against their will?

What part of 66.4% do these thickos not understand?

perhapse you could ask those who didn't simply go away when they were voted against in 1983, what part of the relevant percentage who voted against them do they not understand?
i think you are just going to have to get over it and accept that just like in 1983, a percentage of people voting one way does not stop those in opposition from continuing to have a voice and to use that voice to express their viewpoint and opinion.

uptherebels

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Would these people ever fúck off.

The article linked from my previous post has been updated and renamed.

"Pro-life group criticises temporary change to abortion services"



So she wants to use this crisis to force people to remain pregnant against their will?

What part of 66.4% do these thickos not understand?

Well I have been asking various "pro life" mouth pieces on various social media platforms that are moaning about this, (and also complaining about the pills being takien unsupervised, the hypocrisy of that complaint having gone way over their heads) if they would be looking for a temporary increase in the time limit for abortions to allow for examinations/supervision to take place, or other solutions to this issue.
To my absolute amazement the question was ignored and no alternative solutions given.

Cabaal

end of the road wrote: »

perhapse you could ask those who didn't simply go away when they were voted against in 1983, what part of the relevant percentage who voted against them do they not understand?[/qupte]

really?
:rolleyes:

At the end of the day the result from the repeal ref had a larger percentage voting to repeal it then voted to introduce it in the first place.

It was a landslide majority, larger then even the marriage equality ref.
To try compare them as similar referendums is misleading and you know it.

i think you are just going to have to get over it and accept that just like in 1983, a percentage of people voting one way does not stop those in opposition from continuing to have a voice and to use that voice to express their viewpoint and opinion.

If they had spent all that effort, money etc over the decaes since the 8th was introduced to support contraception and to improve sex education then we likely wouldn't have had a repeal the 8th ref in the first place.

The repeal was entirely of the making of the zealot any women's rights people.
They most certainly shouldn't be respected.

end of the road

Cabaal wrote: »

really?


At the end of the day the result from the repeal ref had a larger percentage voting to repeal it then voted to introduce it in the first place.

It was a landslide majority, larger then even the marriage equality ref.
To try compare them as similar referendums is misleading and you know it.

yes really.
he wants to know why pro-life people don't simply shut up and go away, i suggested perhapse he should ask pro-choice people who campaigned against the 8th in the first place, and who continued to campaign after it, as to why they didn't go away as that might give a clue to the answer to his question.
the difference between both results makes no difference to my point, you can't simply continue to campaign after you get the result you disagree with, and when you eventually get the result you agree with, expect the opposition to do what you didn't do yourself in the first place.
if it's okay for pro-choice people to continue to campaign after the 8th was brought in, it's okay for pro-life to campaign for more restrictive abortion legislation if that is what they wish to do.

Cabaal wrote: »

If they had spent all that effort, money etc over the decaes since the 8th was introduced to support contraception and to improve sex education then we likely wouldn't have had a repeal the 8th ref in the first place.

The repeal was entirely of the making of the zealot any women's rights people.
They most certainly shouldn't be respected.

of course there would have been a repeal as the 8th of it's own caused many other issues, it was a case of when and not if.

Cabaal

end of the road wrote: »

of course there would have been a repeal as the 8th of it's own caused many other issues, it was a case of when and not if.

so you agree it was seriously flawed?
Fantastic, so it had to go, least we can agree on that.

Cabaal

Not enough roll eyes in thw world for this nonsense from Trump supporters protesting against restrictions during this pandemic.

Hotblack Desiato

Cabaal wrote: »

so you agree it was seriously flawed?
Fantastic, so it had to go, least we can agree on that.

That sound you hear is furious backpedalling.
EOTR supported a No vote, of course.

I wonder is there a person left alive who will admit that they voted against divorce in 1995? Something which seems incomprehensible today, but a whisker under 50% did.

Also it's totally disingenuous to claim that pro-lifers are campaigning for more restrictive legislation, they are not, because they know there isn't a snowball's chance of that happening. Instead they are carrying out nasty little protests to intimidate women and medical staff, like the vindictive anti-woman bullies they are.

end of the road

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That sound you hear is furious backpedalling.
EOTR supported a No vote, of course.

I wonder is there a person left alive who will admit that they voted against divorce in 1995? Something which seems incomprehensible today, but a whisker under 50% did.

Also it's totally disingenuous to claim that pro-lifers are campaigning for more restrictive legislation, they are not, because they know there isn't a snowball's chance of that happening. Instead they are carrying out nasty little protests to intimidate women and medical staff, like the vindictive anti-woman bullies they are.

no back peddling on my part, neither furious or non-furious.
i supported a no vote simply to vote against the now current legislation, nothing more, and i was very clear on this at the time.
divorce is no way comparable to abortion as you know, both are so far apart it's unreal.
yeah some pro-lifers may be protesting, good old democracy, you will just have to get over it. no doubt if the referendum went the other way there would have been some sort of protest.
if you have any evidence of intimidation of medical staff and women or just about anyone then you have an obligation to report it for further investigation by the relevant authorities.

Salary Negotiator

end of the road wrote: »

no back peddling on my part, neither furious or non-furious.
i supported a no vote simply to vote against the now current legislation, nothing more, and i was very clear on this at the time.

Does that mean you were open minded on the issue before the proposed legislation was announced?

Cabaal

end of the road wrote: »

no back peddling on my part, neither furious or non-furious.
i supported a no vote simply to vote against the now current legislation, nothing more, and i was very clear on this at the time.

I'm certainly hearing some backpeddling here,
You, me and everyone else knows the 8th HAD to be repealed for ANY legislation to come into place.
Claiming you voted no because you didn't like the specific proposed legislation at the time but in anyway trying to claim you didn't actually like the 8th is a cop out.

Like divorce history takes a dim view of those that supported the 8th.

divorce is no way comparable to abortion as you know, both are so far apart it's unreal.

It actually is comparable for a number of reasons and you know right well it is, these include:
- The constitution was no place to prevent or stop a person divorcing, any normal country legislates to do this (same for abortion)
- Restrictions on divorce were heavily influenced by catholic zealots (same for abortion)
- It was an issue that took society changes which result in the religious zealots loosing influence on government etc (same as abortion)
- People eventually saw the harm it did by forcing people into situations against their will (same as abortion being banned)
- Lack of divorce like lack of abortions harmed women the most.... physically, emotionally and financially

But sure...you keep on saying they can't be compared at all
:rolleyes:

yeah some pro-lifers may be protesting, good old democracy, you will just have to get over it. no doubt if the referendum went the other way there would have been some sort of protest.

Actually we don't have to "get over it"
Pro lifers intimidating people outside their homes and outside of medical practices so they can intimidate familys and women isn't acceptable. We most certainly don't have to put up with these bully tactics.

if you have any evidence of intimidation of medical staff and women or just about anyone then you have an obligation to report it for further investigation by the relevant authorities.

You are some peice of work,
You honestly think a women/couple coming out of a hospital who just has been given some very bad news needs to see a bunch of nutback religious fruitloops with white coffins standing at the entrance?

You don't think this would be intimidating or upsetting? You are one cold f*** if you can't see that.

If I was with my wife in this situation and we had to go extra near these f**kwits I'd go over kick over the coffin and punch the first nutbag that comes near me in the face, I'd gladly be arrested for it too so it could end up in the media and these nutbags can be banned for upsetting people by protesting in a location they have no place in being near, ever.

robindch

Cabaal wrote: »

Not enough roll eyes in thw world for this nonsense from Trump supporters protesting against restrictions during this pandemic.

Certainly a rich irony in those conservatives who suddenly support the idea that the state should stay out of decisions regarding one's own body.

end of the road

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm certainly hearing some backpeddling here,
You, me and everyone else knows the 8th HAD to be repealed for ANY legislation to come into place.
Claiming you voted no because you didn't like the specific proposed legislation at the time but in anyway trying to claim you didn't actually like the 8th is a cop out.

Like divorce history takes a dim view of those that supported the 8th.




It actually is comparable for a number of reasons and you know right well it is, these include:
- The constitution was no place to prevent or stop a person divorcing, any normal country legislates to do this (same for abortion)
- Restrictions on divorce were heavily influenced by catholic zealots (same for abortion)
- It was an issue that took society changes which result in the religious zealots loosing influence on government etc (same as abortion)
- People eventually saw the harm it did by forcing people into situations against their will (same as abortion being banned)
- Lack of divorce like lack of abortions harmed women the most.... physically, emotionally and financially

But sure...you keep on saying they can't be compared at all





Actually we don't have to "get over it"
Pro lifers intimidating people outside their homes and outside of medical practices so they can intimidate familys and women isn't acceptable. We most certainly don't have to put up with these bully tactics.



You are some peice of work,
You honestly think a women/couple coming out of a hospital who just has been given some very bad news needs to see a bunch of nutback religious fruitloops with white coffins standing at the entrance?

You don't think this would be intimidating or upsetting? You are one cold f*** if you can't see that.

If I was with my wife in this situation and we had to go extra near these f**kwits I'd go over kick over the coffin and punch the first nutbag that comes near me in the face, I'd gladly be arrested for it too so it could end up in the media and these nutbags can be banned for upsetting people by protesting in a location they have no place in being near, ever.

again this is incorrect, you can recognise the 8th of it's own merrits was bad legislation as i have always done, but recognise that voting to repeal would have meant allowing for legislation which would remove the right to life from other human beings and therefore would be worse.
punching someone in the hopes of getting it in the media in the aim of getting a protest bann is going to fail, as even if you get your way, protests will i would imagine very much continue, small scale as they seem to be.

Cabaal

end of the road wrote: »

again this is incorrect, you can recognise the 8th of it's own merrits was bad legislation as i have always done, but recognise that voting to repeal would have meant allowing for legislation which would remove the right to life from other human beings and therefore would be worse.

You could never legislate properly while the 8th existed, this is basic stuff.
Given you have admitted that the 8th was flawed why would you want to keep something that you now openly admit is flawed.

It makes more sense to remove it and then properly legislate like any normal country. The 8th was beyond a doubt not suitable.

punching someone in the hopes of getting it in the media in the aim of getting a protest bann is going to fail, as even if you get your way, protests will i would imagine very much continue, small scale as they seem to be.

Oh nice dodge on my previous question.

Only a truely heartless, cold son of a b**** could play down the effects these zealot protesters have on women and couples. At least admit that you can see how it would indimtate and upset people, have the decency instead of dodging or playing it down.

As I said, if my wife was upset by this f**** after being given bad news in a hospital I would gladly inflict as much pain as i could on them and do everything I could to make sure they get banned from upsetting others in future.

I think almost every husband/partner would do the same too, the same goes for protecting family members. Perhaps youre level of caring towads a family member or partner is very different, thats most unfortunate.

end of the road

Cabaal wrote: »

You could never legislate properly while the 8th existed, this is basic stuff.
Given you have admitted that the 8th was flawed why would you want to keep something that you now openly admit is flawed.

It makes more sense to remove it and then properly legislate like any normal country. The 8th was beyond a doubt not suitable.




Oh nice dodge on my previous question.

Only a truely heartless, cold son of a b**** could play down the effects these zealot protesters have on women and couples. At least admit that you can see how it would indimtate and upset people, have the decency instead of dodging.

As I said, if my wife was upset by this f**** after being given bad news in a hospital I would gladly inflict as much pain as i could on them and do everything I could to make sure they get banned from upsetting others in future.

I think almost every husband/partner would do the same too, the same goes for protecting family members. Perhaps youre level of caring towads a family member or partner is very different, thats most unfortunate.

as i said, i only voted to keep it to vote against the now current legislation, that was the only method available to more or less state your disagreement with it.

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

as i said, i only voted to keep it to vote against the now current legislation, that was the only method available to more or less state your disagreement with it.

Reading what you've written above, would I be right in understanding that you did not like the 8th amendment but it was the only thing available to you to try prevent the ideas and proposals discussed in the Peoples Assembly in respect to the abortion issue from coming to fruition via permission of the Irish People - not withstanding that the 8th was the law standing in the way of Irish women and girls deciding the fate of their own pregnancies here via access to the necessary medical planning and procedures being made legal here for them in Ireland?

I got the impression that you were not totally against giving those women and girls the right to decide on that, or maybe - given how you wrote that you depended on the 8th in an all or nothing approach to block the women and girls from having that right via new Irish legislation of their choice - I read you wrong in that respect.

Maybe it'd be more correct to say you didn't like the idea of the Irish People deciding to remove the 8th from the constitution [in the same way they put it there] because you liked the effect the 8th had on restraining Irish women and girls from having any legal say on abortion where their own future was concerned and you are covering your anti-abortion position by claiming your own adherence to the 8th was based on the proposals and suggestions coming from the Peoples Assembly to the Dail on possible legislative moves there.

end of the road

aloyisious wrote: »

Reading what you've written above, would I be right in understanding that you did not like the 8th amendment but it was the only thing available to you to try prevent the ideas and proposals discussed in the Peoples Assembly in respect to the abortion issue from coming to fruition via permission of the Irish People - not withstanding that the 8th was the law standing in the way of Irish women and girls deciding the fate of their own pregnancies here via access to the necessary medical planning and procedures being made legal here for them in Ireland?

I got the impression that you were not totally against giving those women and girls the right to decide on that, or maybe - given how you wrote that you depended on the 8th in an all or nothing approach to block the women and girls from having that right via new Irish legislation of their choice - I read you wrong in that respect.

Maybe it'd be more correct to say you didn't like the idea of the Irish People deciding to remove the 8th from the constitution [in the same way they put it there] because you liked the effect the 8th had on restraining Irish women and girls from having any legal say on abortion where their own future was concerned and you are covering your anti-abortion position by claiming your own adherence to the 8th was based on the proposals and suggestions coming from the Peoples Assembly to the Dail on possible legislative moves there.

yes, voting no was a way of preventing the current legislation and thus the liberal abortion regime we have.

Salary Negotiator

end of the road wrote: »

yes, voting no was a way of preventing the current legislation and thus the liberal abortion regime we have.

I don’t believe you ever considered voting to repeal the 8th. You are just using your opposition to the current legislation to make you seem more reasonable than you are.

end of the road wrote:

it's not far to restrictive, it's just about right. one can have an abortion in ireland if carying the baby puts their life in danger. if not and they wish to have an abortion, they can head over to the uk, it's not that far away tbh. the only way i might be willing to move a bit is if those who's lives aren't in danger, and who still want an abortion, fund it themselves. i as a tax payer want nothing to do with it and don't want to be contributing to it unless it's an absolute emergency like the example above.

i don't agree with abortion, never will, however i also recognise that people can and do travel elsewhere to procure abortions and there is nothing i can do about that. however, i can vote to uphold the rights of the unborn in my country and hope enough people are willing to do the same.

end of the road

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

I don’t believe you ever considered voting to repeal the 8th. You are just using your opposition to the current legislation to make you seem more reasonable than you are.

you are incorrect on all counts.

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

yes, voting no was a way of preventing the current legislation and thus the liberal abortion regime we have.

Given that you think the present legal abortion regime is liberal and you foresaw it, you presumably must have had some middle-ground scheme which you believe would have satisfied the Irish women and girls calling for the removal of the 8th and access to modern abortion health law for them AND which at the same time would have given you enough to vote YES to remove the 8th.

Could you set out your stall and let us know what your scheme was as it would obviously have had to satisfy the women and you?

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

you are incorrect on all counts.

Well seeing as you have already said that rape victims shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion, how incorrect is it?

end of the road

uptherebels wrote: »

Well seeing as you have already said that rape victims shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion, how incorrect is it?

as incorrect as it always has been.

Cabaal

end of the road wrote: »

as incorrect as it always has been.

So you dislike the 8th but you also loved the 8th enough to force a rape victim to give birth to the rapist off spring. Aren't you just a classy cold person.

All I'm seeing is a failed attempt to backtrack from you in recent times with numerous dodges when it comes to questions asked, it's fairly embarrassing to watch it unfold.

Pop corn helps of course...

end of the road

Cabaal wrote: »

So you dislike the 8th but you also loved the 8th enough to force a rape victim to give birth to the rapist off spring. Aren't you just a classy cold person.

All I'm seeing is a failed attempt to backtrack from you in recent times with numerous dodges when it comes to questions asked, it's fairly embarrassing to watch it unfold.

Pop corn helps of course...

incorrect.
what is happening is that you want there to be a backtrack from me, so are seeing what you want to actually be the case.
however there is no backtrack.

Bannasidhe

end of the road wrote: »

incorrect.
what is happening is that you want there to be a backtrack from me, so are seeing what you want to actually be the case.
however there is no backtrack.

MOD
In the interests of preventing a repeat of fado fado backwards and forwards dragging this thread down yet another rabbit hole compounded by you making statements such as this while utterly failing to ever answer the many many inquiries as to your actual position re: a) The 8th Amendment and b)Abortion I am going to ask you to do so now.

Not make vague statements.
Not expect people to trawl through your post history.
No dancing around the topic.
Just once and for all state your position. In simple, clear, concise, terms.

Let that be your next post in this thread.

I ask all other posters to extend end of the road the courtesy of outlining his/her position without barracking, snide comments, or schoolyard braying. Whatever that position is she/he is entitled to hold it.

We are adults here - let's behave like it.

Thank you for your cooperation.

end of the road

my position on abortion is i am against unrestricted abortion and believe it should only be for serious medical issues such as for example a threat to the mother's life or a situation where the unborn baby will not survive to birth or long after it.
my position on the 8th as i recently stated is that i accept it was over all bad legislation and on it's own merrits did need to go, but voted against repealing it on the basis of stopping the now current legislation as i believe it was the only way to state my opposition to that legislation, with a hope that more restrictive legislation would be proposed and the vote put back to us again down the line.

Bannasidhe

end of the road wrote: »

my position on abortion is i am against unrestricted abortion and believe it should only be for serious medical issues such as for example a threat to the mother's life or a situation where the unborn baby will not survive to birth or long after it.
my position on the 8th as i recently stated is that i accept it was over all bad legislation and on it's own merrits did need to go, but voted against repealing it on the basis of stopping the now current legislation as i believe it was the only way to state my opposition to that legislation, with a hope that more restrictive legislation would be proposed and the vote put back to us again down the line.

Would saying the following be a fair summary of your position:

Although the 8th Amendment was flawed, you believe abortion should be severely restricted and the only possibility you could see of that happening was to vote to retain the 8th. However, you also believed that the 8th was so flawed it would be eventually repealed albeit with,hopefully, far stricter legislation around when abortions could be carried out.

end of the road

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Would saying the following be a fair summary of your position:

Although the 8th Amendment was flawed, you believe abortion should be severely restricted and the only possibility you could see of that happening was to vote to retain the 8th. However, you also believed that the 8th was so flawed it would be eventually repealed albeit with,hopefully, far stricter legislation around when abortions could be carried out.

yes that is a fair summery.

Bannasidhe

end of the road wrote: »

yes that is a fair summery.

Mod Bit:
Thank you for stating your position.
Obviously, it is up for discussion but I will ensure that it is a civil discussion.

Personal bit:

I can understand where you are coming from although I disagree.
There are aspects of abortion on demand that make me uncomfortable but my belief that every woman should have bodily autonomy trumps my discomfort.
Same goes for women getting pregnant when physically/financially it is a very unwise decision.

I don't get to decide what other people do or do not do with their own bodies.

That is my position on abortion.


As for the 8th - I think it was beyond flawed. It was dangerous and had to go. By the time the groundswell of public opinion gave the govt no choice but to act it was, I think, always going to be something similar to the UK in terms of how liberal the legislation would be. To many people had 'taken the boat' for it to be otherwise.

The opportunity for tighter legislation was, ironically, missed due to the success of the Pro-Life lobby making the 8th and abortion a political hot potato. Govts didn't want to touch it so they kicked the opportunity to bring in strict legislation down the road - the X Referendum gave them the opportunity, they fumbled it. Tried to ban the suicide clause - failed, tried again, and failed, and then did nothing for 7,799 days when they brought in legislation that could see women imprisoned for having abortion pills.

They might have gotten away with such a draconian measure in 1992, would have been pushing it in 2002 - trying that in 2013 played right into the hands of the Repeal lobby.

If after X they had suggested an ammendment to allow abortion only in those cases you feel merit it they would have probably gotten it through. They didn't do that - the tried to roll back on the one available 'clause'.

Due to a combination of Pro-Life tactics and Govt misreading of the public mood when the 8th fell it was always going to be to damn close to what women could already get by hopping on a cheap flight to GB.

The genii was out of the bottle.

Hotblack Desiato

Unfortunately there is still a large gap between our legal position and the UK, and quite a number of women still have to travel there
Also women and couples with pregnancies with fatal abnormalities are getting dicked around by some hospitals here and being told they have to delay to "see what happens" or "help them come to terms with it" or other such BS.

Bannasidhe

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Unfortunately there is still a large gap between our legal position and the UK, and quite a number of women still have to travel there
Also women and couples with pregnancies with fatal abnormalities are getting dicked around by some hospitals here and being told they have to delay to "see what happens" or "help them come to terms with it" or other such BS.

I agree. But am unsurprised. FG are, at their core, socially conservative but like to play pretend they are liberal (perhaps confused by actually being neo-liberal cos all these new fangled terms are like totes amazeingballs confounding).
They cheerlead socially progressive initiatives when they correctly see that's the way the zeitgiest is going. Cry triumphant when 'they win' a subsequent referendum. Promise such wonderfully considered legislation. Best legislation ever.
... and then.. limbo on the unacted Acts.
Ask any married LGB parents about FG's commitment to full equality. And that's not as controversial as 'unborn babies.'
No State funded health care facility should be allowed to dicky around, but they are.

Hotblack Desiato

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I agree. But am unsurprised. FG are, at their core, socially conservative but like to play pretend they are liberal (perhaps confused by actually being neo-liberal cos all these new fangled terms are like totes amazeingballs confounding).
They cheerlead socially progressive initiatives when they correctly see that's the way the zeitgiest is going. Cry triumphant when 'they win' a subsequent referendum. Promise such wonderfully considered legislation. Best legislation ever.
... and then.. limbo on the unacted Acts.
Ask any married LGB parents about FG's commitment to full equality. And that's not as controversial as 'unborn babies.'
No State funded health care facility should be allowed to dicky around, but they are.

FF are no different. Actually, SF are no different. They would have been mostly anti-choice a few years back until they saw which way the wind was blowing and the advantages of having a female leadership. They were campaigning for a Yes vote for repeal when their party policy was officially still "pro-life", it wasn't changed until after the referendum - more proof if it was needed that the members of that party don't call the shots, as it were.

In fairness to FG they had a pretty socially liberal by Irish standards policy in the late 60s (didn't get elected though, and when they did get in in '73 Liam Cosgrave was extremely conservative and voted against his own cabinet's contraception bill) and it's almost 40 years now since Garret Fitzgerald started his "constitutional crusade". Ireland wasn't ready for it though, we chose not to allow divorce and it's an indelible stain on his political career that he accepted the wording of the 8th amendment because he was afraid to stand up to FF on the issue, even though he knew and had advice from Peter Sutherland the attorney-general that it had serious flaws.

Bannasidhe

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

FF are no different. Actually, SF are no different. They would have been mostly anti-choice a few years back until they saw which way the wind was blowing and the advantages of having a female leadership. They were campaigning for a Yes vote for repeal when their party policy was officially still "pro-life", it wasn't changed until after the referendum - more proof if it was needed that the members of that party don't call the shots, as it were.

In fairness to FG they had a pretty socially liberal by Irish standards policy in the late 60s (didn't get elected though, and when they did get in in '73 Liam Cosgrave was extremely conservative and voted against his own cabinet's contraception bill) and it's almost 40 years now since Garret Fitzgerald started his "constitutional crusade". Ireland wasn't ready for it though, we chose not to allow divorce and it's an indelible stain on his political career that he accepted the wording of the 8th amendment because he was afraid to stand up to FF on the issue, even though he knew and had advice from Peter Sutherland the attorney-general that it had serious flaws.

I would say FF are actually worse, they have to be dragged whingeing towards anything socially liberal. I think SF are in a weird place caught between their image of themselves as 'left-wing' (which implies socially liberal) and their nationalist core which has, in an Irish context, a co-mingling with also being Catholic.

The Cosgrave family were always hyper conservative - W.T actually had a private chapel in his house which was a rare 'honour' allowed by the RCC only to the super duper turbo charged faithful. I have long thought he set the tone for what was to come in terms of RCC influence over Irish society.
Imagine if it had been Connolly and the LP who first took the reins. What a different country we would have had.

Fitzgerald, while the poster boy for the socially liberal side of FG, dropped the ball with the 8th. He choked when it mattered.

I have to say I look back on the days of the first abortion referendum with bemusement and a bit of shell shock. I was there. I was handing out pro-choice leaflets etc but even now I am shocked at the vileness displayed by the conservatives. Even as I was living it I couldn't quite believe what was going on.

I imagine many people in the U.S. feel the same way right now. Looking at the conservative right and just thinking "what the actual f*ck :eek:". Ya can't reason with zealots.