Abortion in Ireland: 2 years on

Silentcorner

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

no need to put it to people. we gave the dail authority to make laws in the area of abortion. if you want it changed lobby your TD

Ya I understand that...jesus do you have to be spoonfed everything!!!

ohnonotgmail

Silentcorner wrote: »

Ya I understand that...jesus do you have to be spoonfed everything!!!

you are the one suggesting nonsensical and unnecessary public votes.

nozzferrahhtoo

oyvey wrote: »

I don't know why you're saying they've been shouting. What's shouting on a message board? And both sides have shown 'disgust' for the others position. Nobody is better than anyone else in that regard.

On a message board shouting is more about the tone of language used, and a users choice of words, than the volume of ones voice. Going around refusing to rebut the positions of others but merely to describe their position as stupid, disgusting, despicable, and so on is the style to which I refer.

As for no one being better than anyone else in this regard, speak for yourself. I for example do not go around pushing this sole "us against them" narrative where I just do nothing but call the positions of others disgusting.

I have for YEARS done the opposite. So much so that people who AGREE with me even got bored with it during the referendum debates. The mantra I push time and time and time again is to highlight repeatedly the shared common ground the pro choice and anti choice camps have. Which is that we share an ideal whereby no one ever has abortions.

And while others got divisive and emotive and insulting I clung to spreading that narrative. That we are all in this together and we should work together to attain that shared ideal.

And you want to tell me that that approach is not "better" in any "regard" than merely riding in an imaginary high horse and telling everyone how disgusting and despicable they are? I fear your measure of "better" and "worse" is badly calibrated.

oyvey wrote: »

I'm just saying there's a disagreement on where the responsibility is. I'm not taking you to task, merely stating that peoples perspectives on responsibility are different.

Exactly. That is why people are taking issue with one single user rolling in here asserting that people who make choice A are "responsible" while people who make choice B are disgusting and despicable and have no sense of responsibility.

So you are making the correct point above. Just making it at entirely the wrong person.

Because as you say, "taking responsibility" is contextual and personal. And it might involve them making a choice that is right in THEIR circumstances (in this case, to have an abortion) that might not be right in another person's. And this is a GOOD thing.

So save it for the user who thinks everyone should be making the SAME choice and they are disgusting and despicable if they fail to.

An abortion is not, despite the invective laden assertions of ONE person on the thread, a failure to take responsibility. It is the opposite. And banning their choice to have an abortion, which thankfully the large majority voted against, is to take that responsibility AWAY from them.

oyvey

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

On a message board shouting is more about the tone of language used, and a users choice of words, than the volume of ones voice. Going around refusing to rebut the positions of others but merely to describe their position as stupid, disgusting, despicable, and so on is the style to which I refer.

As for no one being better than anyone else in this regard, speak for yourself. I for example do not go around pushing this sole "us against them" narrative where I just do nothing but call the positions of others disgusting.

I have for YEARS done the opposite. So much so that people who AGREE with me even got bored with it during the referendum debates. The mantra I push time and time and time again is to highlight repeatedly the shared common ground the pro choice and anti choice camps have. Which is that we share an ideal whereby no one ever has abortions.

And while others got divisive and emotive and insulting I clung to spreading that narrative. That we are all in this together and we should work together to attain that shared ideal.

And you want to tell me that that approach is not "better" in any "regard" than merely riding in an imaginary high horse and telling everyone how disgusting and despicable they are? I fear your measure of "better" and "worse" is badly calibrated.



Exactly. That is why people are taking issue with one single user rolling in here asserting that people who make choice A are "responsible" while people who make choice B are disgusting and despicable and have no sense of responsibility.

So you are making the correct point above. Just making it at entirely the wrong person.

Because as you say, "taking responsibility" is contextual and personal. And it might involve them making a choice that is right in THEIR circumstances (in this case, to have an abortion) that might not be right in another person's. And this is a GOOD thing.

So save it for the user who thinks everyone should be making the SAME choice and they are disgusting and despicable if they fail to.

An abortion is not, despite the invective laden assertions of ONE person on the thread, a failure to take responsibility. It is the opposite. And banning their choice to have an abortion, which thankfully the large majority voted against, is to take that responsibility AWAY from them.

Appreciate what you’re saying, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on most of it.

godhimself

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Me neither as long as those views are consistently "pro-life" across all facets of life. In fact I admire them.

But mainly what I hear is no abortion except in cases of x,y, z , guff about personal responsibility with a very narrow definition of what that means, and blather about abstinence.
I rarely see the same posters call for action to save refugee children, get children out of direct provision, call for greater oversight of children in foster/at risk in Ireland, free access to contraception, greater supports for families - in particular lone parents.

Unless you believe in no exceptions and abortion at any point in until birth you've proven yourself to be a hypocrite. Keep owning yourself.

Bonniedog

Usual cr@p about pro abortionists being superior moral beings.

All of them of course spend their spare time helping the less fortunate.

SusieBlue

Bonniedog wrote: »

Usual cr@p about pro abortionists being superior moral beings.

All of them of course spend their spare time helping the less fortunate.

Better than people who tell blatant lies on message boards about the Dutch euthanising all newborn babies with disabilities in order to push their own narrative.
There’s nothing remotely moral about that.

Bonniedog

SusieBlue wrote: »

Better than people who tell blatant lies on message boards about the Dutch euthanising all newborn babies with disabilities in order to push their own narrative.
There’s nothing remotely moral about that.

The Dutch have legalised the euthanasia of infants.

nozzferrahhtoo

Bonniedog wrote: »

Usual cr@p about pro abortionists being superior moral beings.

I have yet to meet a single person who identifies as "pro abortion" but if I ever do I will ask them if they think like you claim they do

Bonniedog wrote: »

All of them of course spend their spare time helping the less fortunate.

I hope they do. I know do, but I am not someone who identifies as "pro abortion" so I guess I do not count

SusieBlue

Bonniedog wrote: »

The Dutch have legalised the euthanasia of infants.

That’s not what you said though. You implied they were trying to exterminate people with Down’s syndrome via optional euthanasia at birth, when most cases of Down’s syndrome won’t even meet the strict criteria to be eligible for neonatal euthanasia.

Out of circa 1.352 million live births during an 8 year period, there were 18 cases of severely ill children being put out of their misery.
Which doesn’t really live up to the alarmist picture you were trying to paint of newborns being killed off because they weren’t perfect enough for their parents, but it didn’t stop you from posting it none the less.

Pherekydes

Bonniedog wrote: »

Usual cr@p about pro abortionists being superior moral beings.

From earlier in the thread:

Bonniedog wrote: »

If you accept that it is a utilitarian option - as it is in abortion - then killing another is sometimes justifiable.

You're pro-abortion when it meets your criteria, so perhaps tone down the cries of hypocrisy and self-owning.

Quantum Erasure

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have yet to meet a single person who identifies as "pro abortion" ...

and I've never met anyone who identifies as anti-choice, funny that...

nozzferrahhtoo

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

and I've never met anyone who identifies as anti-choice, funny that...

Hilarious, but misses the point that one label is accurate and the other is not. When I call someone "anti choice" on the topic of abortion that is in fact what they are. They are against choice based abortion. With a select few being against ALL kinds. But almost predominantly they are against choice based. So the label is accurate. And it also helps that it is the opposite of the other label: Pro Choice.

However of all the "pro choice" people I have met, none of them are pro abortion in the same way I explained before that while I am happy that people can have heart by pass surgery, it would be a much better world if no one ever needed either. Everyone I have ever met who is pro choice...... which given how active I was during the referendum was quite a few........ would also prefer there to be no abortions actually ever happening. And I think the label "pro abortion" not only ignores that fact.... but wilfully contrives to.

And I think it is dangerous. The topic of abortion is more than divisive enough without eroding or outright napalming the only common ground we seem to have: The common wish to reduce, preferably to zero if that were at all possible, the number of abortions that happen in our world.

So yes, I have met people who are anti choice. I have yet to meet a single person who is pro abortion.

godhimself

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

and I've never met anyone who identifies as anti-choice, funny that...

Exactly.

Loafing Oaf

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Well Leo Varadkar did say abortion would be "safe, legal and rare" in the speech announcing the referendum. I think he realised immediately that 'rare' was a misstep and of at best dubious accuracy, and IIRC neither he nor any other government figure used the word again in this context.

Here's a Gript article by a former repeal activist turned anti-abortion campaigner that lays great stress on the "safe, legal and rare" slogan:
https://gript.ie/i-assured-wary-voters-that-repeal-would-lower-the-abortion-rate-i-was-wrong/

Many people who voted yes on the basis that abortion would be legal, safe and rare are now left questioning their choice. If ‘legal, safe, rare’ was a lie, in what other ways was the electorate misled?

Do you guys think this was a real thing, that a lot of people voted yes because they genuinely believed legalising abortion would make it 'rare'?

ohnonotgmail

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Here's a Gript article by a former repeal activist turned anti-abortion campaigner that lays great stress on the "safe, legal and rare" slogan:
https://gript.ie/i-assured-wary-voters-that-repeal-would-lower-the-abortion-rate-i-was-wrong/



Do you guys think this was a real thing, that a lot of people voted yes because they genuinely believed legalising abortion would make it 'rare'?

maybe among those who didnt choose to inform themselves. of course it does depend on your definition of rare.

Mr. CooL ICE

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Here's a Gript article by a former repeal activist turned anti-abortion campaigner that lays great stress on the "safe, legal and rare" slogan:
https://gript.ie/i-assured-wary-voters-that-repeal-would-lower-the-abortion-rate-i-was-wrong/

Hmm, a site whose chief editor is John McGuirk...

Loafing Oaf

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

maybe among those who didnt choose to inform themselves. of course it does depend on your definition of rare.

Well yeah, I'm struggling to see how anyone engaged enough with the issue to be voting at all would have taken the 'rare' thing at face value.

My thinking is that the pro-lifers have seized on the slogan as justification for deploying their favourite narrative about the naive trusting Irish public being deceived by untrustworthy pro-abortion politicians.

ohnonotgmail

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Well yeah, I'm struggling to see how anyone engaged enough with the issue to be voting at all would have taken the 'rare' thing at face value.

My thinking is that the pro-lifers have seized on the slogan as justification for deploying their favourite narrative about the naive trusting Irish public being deceived by untrustworthy pro-abortion politicians.

best of luck to them. won't make a blind bit of difference

LorelaiG

How many live births happened last year? How many miscarriages? I'm sure if we had those numbers we could compare them against the rate of abortion and find out that 6,666 is in fact a small percentage and rare.

ohnonotgmail

LorelaiG wrote: »

How many live births happened last year? How many miscarriages? I'm sure if we had those numbers we could compare them against the rate of abortion and find out that 6,666 is in fact a small percentage and rare.

abortion rates are usually given per population of women of childbearing age. I did calculate it earlier on this thread and ours was quite low internationally.

Loafing Oaf

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

best of luck to them. won't make a blind bit of difference

Well yes, they seem to be in denial about the central reality that the vast majority of those who voted yes did so in the full knowledge that they were assenting to a 'liberal abortion regime', understandably because the task of 'reconverting' a majority to an anti-abortion position is clearly so daunting...

Hotblack Desiato

cournioni wrote: »

Ridiculous response. Babies outside of the womb and grown people can not communicate despite being outside of the womb.

It's nothing to do with that, but if you think babies can't communicate you must never have cared for one.

oyvey wrote: »

you should at least be able to acknowledge that if someone does believe that then they believe that abortion is essentially murder

Except they also say it's justified after rape. Figure that one out.

cournioni wrote: »

Is that not more of an issue of ineptness from the committee?

No. The 8th amendment required the woman to be at risk of imminent death to obtain an abortion

Even terminal cancer didn't cut it

The whole country was discussing all this two years ago, you can't credibly claim to not be aware of these issues.

Hotblack Desiato

oyvey wrote: »

But what I mean is that if someone believes that a life is being killed (like say a grown adult for example), it makes sense that they're approach could never be "Well, you have your opinion on it, and I have mine...".

They don't really believe that though.

I mean, if you had knowledge that a person was going to take a flight to Britain and murder a person, you'd report it to the Gardai wouldn't you?

Or if you believed a fertilised egg was really a person, how does that square with the holding of thousands of frozen fertilised eggs in storage which will never be implanted?

And why don't miscarriages get birth certs, death certs and funerals?

The truth is that it's all nonsense, and nobody regards it as anything other than nonsense EXCEPT when a woman seeks an abortion and then suddenly certain people are all over the idea that a blastocyst is really an actual person.