RBG, abortion and Ireland

Antares35

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

My friend lives in the UK. Her husband would be conservative. They were back in Ireland for a funeral during the referendum campaign and her husband was shocked at the state of the NO campaign posters. Absolutely shocked. He could not believe they were even allowed. This is somebody who would not necessarily vote to legalise abortion. My father voted no but came close to abstaining, so disgusted was he with the antics of the NO campaign.

I personally the NO campaign shot themselves in the foot with the campaign they ran.

Why didn't he like the posters?

SusieBlue

Medvadev54 wrote: »

You are missing the point about trusting people. You can't just trust people to do the right or moral thing. Lots of people won't. "Trust women" is a stupid slogan. Laws need to exist for a reason. This is why we don't trust people not to rape or murder.

Do you think it should be illegal to abort a 36 week old foetus?

Yes I did vote to repeal the eight. I believe women should have the right to abort early in a pregnancy. After a certain point it should be illegal in my opinion. In my opinion the unborn deserve consideration.

You force people to comply with your personal moral standards if you believe assault should be illegal.

Your problem is you lack the perspective and empathy to see other viewpoints, you are unable to grasp that some people have different morals. They believe abortion is immoral.

I believe rape is immoral therefore I think it should be illegal. If I were to adopt your attitude I should not force my opinion on others and let people make their own decision if they want to rape. That's ridiculous, as is your flawed argument.

And yet it appears you’d trust yourself to such a high regard that you feel confident enough to make that decision for others on their behalf?
You are misunderstanding the slogan.
The slogan isn’t saying to trust women without question in all matters, at all costs.
It’s saying to give them a choice and trust them with that choice, should they experience a crisis pregnancy. Seeing as they are the ones who have to live with the consequences either way I don’t think that’s a particularly contrary position to take.
Trust women to make the right choice for their body and their future, and make it a private matter between her and her doctor and not something the court of public opinion gets to have a say in.

Not one person here has advocated or even raised the issue of late term abortion on this thread apart from yourself, so you’re arguing against a point that no one has even made.

You lack the perspective to to recognise how arrogant it is to expect to impose your morals on other people.
I don’t think abortion is immoral, so why should my options be limited if I had a crisis pregnancy just because you think it’s wrong?
Why should I respect your opinion when you won’t have to live with the consequences should I become unexpectedly pregnant?
Can you not see how blindingly ignorant that is?
Your perspective is completely irrelevant and meaningless when it comes to other people’s wombs. It’s unwanted and unreasonable to expect other people to oblige you in that regard.

Women are more than capable of making these choices for themselves and don’t need to be saved by do gooders.
If you can’t even trust them with a choice, I can’t understand why you’d trust them with the responsibility of caring for a child for 18+ years.

I also don’t believe for one minute that you voted to repeal, you’re fooling no one there.

nolivesmatter

dark crystal wrote: »

No, a healthy viable fetus should not be aborted in the 36th week. I doubt most people would disagree with that.

And that is why specifically the "It's the woman's body so it's her choice" argument is so flawed - its still the woman's body even when the fetus is in the 36th week.

KiKi III wrote: »

No, it indicates that people see an obvious distinction between a pregnancy that’s just off full-term where a healthy baby that can think and feel is likely to be born and an 8-12 week old foetus with a central nervous system not yet developed enough to feel pain.

What I wrote above should clarify what I meant by hypocrisy.

KiKi III

nolivesmatter wrote: »

And that is why specifically the "It's the woman's body so it's her choice" argument is so flawed - its still the woman's body even when the fetus is in the 36th week.

In the 36th week of pregnancy, there are two fully-formed bodies, and the smaller one can live independently of the adult one. At 36 weeks, the foetus can think and feel, and survive on its own outside the womb. That’s why it’s not legal to abort at this point anywhere in the world. And that’s why this point you’re making is nonsense.

nolivesmatter

KiKi III wrote: »

In the 36th week of pregnancy, there are two fully-formed bodies, and the smaller one can live independently of the adult one. At 36 weeks, the foetus can think and feel, and survive on its own outside the womb. That’s why it’s not legal to abort at this point anywhere in the world. And that’s why this point you’re making is nonsense.

The point is not nonsense, saying that shows you're missing the point.

The point I'm making is that clearly there are other more pertinent points at play that override the argument that "it's the woman's body". For example (while I may not agree) the point you just explained yourself highlights the fact that primarily it's not about the fact that it's the woman's body, its about whether or not you think the fetus is another body that needs to be considered. So such an argument about "it's the woman's body" is pointless.

end of the road

dark crystal wrote: »

Sure you did.

to be fair, if the poster says they voted repeal, then they did so until such time as it can actually be shown otherwise.
the reality is that there is no hive mind on either side, so yes voters will have different views to you on specific points of argument/debate, it doesn't mean they didn't vote the way they have stated they did.

dark crystal wrote: »

I do see the perspective of others. That's why I would never force anyone to comply with my personal moral standards. Choice is king in these situations - you don't agree with abortion? Don't have one!

the problem for your argument is that we force our moral beliefs on each other all of the time, via the laws of the land, social norms, etc.
saying to someone that if they don't agree with something then don't do it, isn't always valid, as sometimes the thing they don't agree with is something they don't agree with for a good and valid reason that is consistent with the values that society generally hold in other related situations.

Hotblack Desiato

nolivesmatter wrote: »

And that is why specifically the "It's the woman's body so it's her choice" argument is so flawed - its still the woman's body even when the fetus is in the 36th week.

:rolleyes: It has to come out one way or the other. For example when the foetus dies in late pregnancy, labour is induced. So the obvious thing, when the foetus is still alive and the woman is unable to bring it to full term for whatever reason, is to induce labour. It's a stupid argument to be frank.

Hotblack Desiato

Colton Odd Strife wrote: »

if the judge-made law of Roe v Wade was not in place, it is likely that Trump and Congress would make abortion a thing of the past.

Except they can't, without amending the US constitution which is almost impossible.

There was legalised abortion in several states before Roe v Wade. Overturning Roe v Wade would mean that states could introduce anti-abortion laws which would be unconstitutional at present, but many states would not be at all inclined to make abortion illegal or to even restrict it.

So your fantasy of 'making abortion a thing of the past' is never going to happen.

What the American people are fighting tooth and nail to free themselves from

Some American people are obsessed with Roe v Wade and taking away abortion rights, but this puts womens' lives at risk.

The majority of the US public are in favour of legal abortion.

Manach wrote: »

That this striped the right from the unborn and has led at last count to over six thousand less children

You do realise these abortions were happening anyway, either in the UK or here illegally with pills?

If we want this number to go down, and we should, we need to do a lot better with access to contraception (free), proper sex education (no religious nutters peddling abstinence in schools) and supports for disadvantaged mothers. But the catholic right crow endlessly about how much they oppose abortion, while also opposing everything which reduces the need for abortion. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Hotblack Desiato

Asdfgh2020 wrote: »

Was it explained that the recommendations were to come into law immediately....?

I would have thought the post appeal ‘legislation’ to be passed into law would have been debated and passed by both houses prior to becoming law....? Admittedly I’m no expert on dail procedures...but in this case it was like the ‘recommendations’’ that were talked about during the referendum campaign became law almost immediately once the yes won maybe this is normal protocol...but should the ‘recommendations’ not have gotten more debate..... who drafted the ‘recommendations’ the ‘citizens assembly’ group....?

It was debated at great length in the citizens' assembly and at the Oireachtas committee, and the draft Bill was published before the referendum. Afterwards the Bill was debated in the usual way by both houses of the Oireachtas same as any other legislation, and only started to come into effect over six months after the referendum vote.

If you weren't paying any attention that was entirely your problem.

Deleted User wrote: »

Pretending a cleaner was a nurse, images that served to distress rather than inform. Those are two I can think of offhand.

They claimed both that the legislation would allow abortion up to six months, and that it would allow abortion up until birth (couldn't get their lies straight between the two campaigns.)

Stuck a lovely poster right outside my kids' primary school, too :mad:

nozzferrahhtoo

bfa1509 wrote: »

Who's side are you arguing? This is an argument not to have an abortion

Only if you completely fail to understand the argument. The point of the text you quoted is to show that "organs" are not a useful, or sensible, methodology to mediate morality.

But rather than falsely and erroneously declare by fiat that what I said is an argument against abortion.... maybe actually explain HOW you think it is. Otherwise you might as well just quote me saying the word "apple" and declare that is an argument against my own position too for all the sense (read: none) that you are making here.

bfa1509 wrote: »

Do you think we should "abort" someone in a coma? They are essentially a bundle of cells.

That is a common misunderstanding/misrepresentation of my opinion. But no that is not what I think/say/suggest at all. You are misunderstanding (willfully? I dunno) the difference between consciousness and conscious. When you are asleep for example you are not conscious in that moment. But you do not have more or less rights than someone who is awake. You are still a consciousness agent. A sentient agent. So is a coma patient.

Throw away analogy: A broken down car is still a car. No car is however always going to be no car at all. A coma patient is a sentient agent. A 16 week old fetus is not and never has been.

bfa1509 wrote: »

The burning building analogy should be used for the exceptional circumstances, the times when only one can be saved. This is the typical example of using the hard cases to argue for full unrestricted abortion.

Except it is not as the burning building is only the context to present the point and the point itself is not reliant on it in any way. Ignoring the point and demeaning the backdrop is weak from you. For shame.

The point is that people treat different animals in different ways. People who would react to cruely to pets for example might have no qualms about swatting and killing 1000 flies.

The point is that when you derided someone as having some kind of "list" of importance..... you failed to address the fact that many if not most people actually do. And the attributes that mediate where people generally place things on that list are EXACTLY the attributes a fetus lacks.

bfa1509 wrote: »

What do you mean "foot in mouth often" you are acting like you have achieved some kind of victory here. Far from it. Patients don't get to choose their own chemo don't be ridiculous.

AGAIN yes they do. You not knowing what goes on in medical contexts does not mean these things do not happen. And it is not just with Cancer. With many medical conditions we do in fact give patients a range of options, including taking no option at all and letting the disease take it course and kill them. And we do it percisely because it is their body and their choice.

You seem to be a complete lay man to cancer but I repeat for you a third time now: Many cancer patients are given treatment options. They will be told the different options, the different chances for success, the different side effects. They will be then talked through the option to opting for no treatment at all.

And ultimately the choice of which, if any, treatment to take is THEIRS.

Perhaps get your facts straight before you shout "ridiculous" at things you know next to nothing about?

nozzferrahhtoo

bfa1509 wrote: »

Exactly. Abortions on healthy unborn children should never be allowed for as long as there is someone who will look after them

That someone somewhere might want to be a parent or have a child places NO onus on any other woman to be forced to incubate an unwanted one for them. The sheer sense of privilege that people who want to look after children should expect other women to produce for them is absolutely disgusting. For. Shame.

bfa1509 wrote: »

Who lost? The only ones who lost are the millions of those who have and will be aborted.

Those people do not, and never have, existed. You are imagining non existent people just to invent a non-narrative of them losing out. They no more lose out that children lose out when two people marry and decide never to reproduce. It makes as much sense to imagine children "losing out" because their parents decided never to be parents, than it does to imagine the same for a fetus at 12 weeks.

bfa1509 wrote: »

Public opinion changes with the wind. One day we will look back and realise the mistake we made and it will weigh on your conscience no matter how much you think it won't.

The only way I would ever look at our decision to allow abortion and have it weight on my conscience is if you people FINALLY come up with a single argument for why I should have moral or ethical concern for an entirely non-sentient agent.

Imagining some future society agreeing with you in some distant future is not going to manufacture filler for the void of argument you have available now.

Present such an argument and I would reverse my position on this topic without reservation, apology, shame, or embarrassment. I would be proud to change my position in the light of new argument.

bfa1509 wrote: »

Why don't you answer his/her question as to whether or not a woman should be compelled to give birth to a 36 week old baby?

At 36 weeks we do not terminate the baby without extreme reason. We terminate the pregnancy. The woman should NOT be forced to "give birth". We can medically remove the baby from her and care for it without her.

Conflating termination of a fetus (abortion) with termination of a pregnancy is poor form. They are ENTIRELY different things.

The moment we have ANY reason to think the fetus has become a sentient agent in my view: No one should be allowed terminate it without just and extreme cause. It should have as many rights as you or I.

Igotadose

end of the road wrote: »

the problem for your argument is that we force our moral beliefs on each other all of the time, via the laws of the land, social norms, etc.
saying to someone that if they don't agree with something then don't do it, isn't always valid, as sometimes the thing they don't agree with is something they don't agree with for a good and valid reason that is consistent with the values that society generally hold in other related situations.

Is someone being *forced* to have an abortion? Your argument is in the weeds - you're forced to not speed down roads by the speed limit, enforced by the authorities. Even if you think you have a good and valid reason.

If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. But, don't be forced if you are to travel to another country to have one, or be forced into criminal behavior.

The problem is, anti-women activists like yourself want to FORCE women to commit crimes. How bad is that?

KiKi III

I’m so glad that even though it appears here every couple of months, this debate is actually over in public life.

Young and old, across the country, we voted to repeal the 8th. The youngest cohort was most in favour, so the likelihood that it will come up again in 30 years is slim.

Anti-abortion activists who want to make an impact should focus their energies and their significant funds on sex education, providing free contraception, and offering judgement-free bursaries and services to struggling women who do choose to have babies despite financial hardships or other issues.

Colton Odd Strife

Colton Odd Strife wrote: »

I struggle to understand it.

nolivesmatter

Deleted User wrote: »

While I think I understand what your intention is posting that picture it comes across a little disrespectful towards her to throw her picture into the middle of this. Particularly as no one here is arguing she shouldn't have been provided with an abortion.

nolivesmatter

nolivesmatter wrote: »

While I think I understand what your intention is posting that picture it comes across a little disrespectful towards her to throw her picture into the middle of this. Particularly as no one here is arguing she shouldn't have been provided with an abortion.

She was the catalyst for (finally) removing that horrid 8th, forcing women to risk death giving birth. I had a close family member forced to bring a (non viable) child to term, no matter the very high risk to her. So people can feck off if they think that people were not saying that she should not have access to an abortion. The mother had to be in the process of actually dying, for the doctors to be legally safe in performing one.


That image is from The Irish Times, on their publicly accessible website, and posted there specifically for that discussion

nolivesmatter

Deleted User wrote: »

She was the catalyst for (finally) removing that horrid 8th, forcing women to risk death giving birth. I had family a close family member forced to bring a (non viable) child to term, no matter the very high risk to her. So people can feck off if they think that people were not saying that she should not have access to an abortion. The mother had to be in the process of actually dying, for the doctors to be legally safe in performing one.


That image is from The Irish Times, on their publicly accessible website, and posted there specifically for that discussion

I get it. She was the catalyst for repelling the 8th but this discussion has not been about any situations similar to hers. Like I said most people agree she should have been provided access to an abortion.

ohnonotgmail

nolivesmatter wrote: »

I get it. She was the catalyst for repelling the 8th but this discussion has not been about any situations similar to hers. Like I said most people agree she should have been provided access to an abortion.

while you may claim to get it the OP doesn't. the pic was posted in reply to the OP. maybe they will get it now.

end of the road

Igotadose wrote: »

Is someone being *forced* to have an abortion? Your argument is in the weeds - you're forced to not speed down roads by the speed limit, enforced by the authorities. Even if you think you have a good and valid reason.

If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. But, don't be forced if you are to travel to another country to have one, or be forced into criminal behavior.

The problem is, anti-women activists like yourself want to FORCE women to commit crimes. How bad is that?

the fact you have to call me an anti-woman activist dispite being as far from such as is possible, and there being plenty of proof on this site to show i'm not an anti-woman anything, just shows to me, and i would expect others, that you have no confidence in the arguments you put forward, because if you were confident in what you put forward, then you wouldn't have to screach anti-woman simply because someone has a view you disagree with.

QUOTE=Igotadose;114761928]Absolutely. Unlike a "newbie" like yourself, many of us on this thread have been debating this issue in the Abortion thread for years. The same person clutching pearls today, would've voted for the 8th in 1983, and been happy with Magdalene laundries. Hence "anti-woman." Their position is basically, keep women down by forcing them into pregnancy and birth and childcare.

There is a moderated Abortion discussion under A&A where the morals of abortion position can be discussed. Not here though. As a "newbie" you should read some of the posts there then come up with questions, so far they've all been repeatedly answered.[/QUOTE]


the problem is your claims as to what posters believe or not don't corelate to reality across the board in relation to all of the posters you make the claim about, because just like within the yes side, the no side also have varying views in relation to specific points and arguments.
i'm sure there are a small few who may be happy with Magdalene laundries, but they are in such a minority that i think i have only ever heard of 1 person, maybe 2 throughout my whole lifetime who hold such a view and they were quite rightly debunked.
and no, i wouldn't have voted for the 8th, given i did agree with it's repeal, just not the follow up legislation.

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

the fact you have to call me an anti-woman activist dispite being as far from such as is possible, and there being plenty you either have no confidence in what you put forward, or have no actual argument in the first place, as of proof on this site to show i'm not an anti-woman anything, just shows to me, and i would expect others, that you have no confidence in the arguments you put forward, because if you were confident in what you put forward, then you wouldn't have to screach anti-woman simply because someone has a view you disagree with.

As is possible? That is a bit contradictory with your stance that rape victims should be denied an abortion.

Antares35

Why the constant hashing up of rape and incest victims when these only make up such a small percentage of abortion? I voted No, but would vote yes today for several reasons and I'm glad the repeal passed. But if you're going to support abortion then just say "I think all women should have access to abortion at any stage and under any circumstances" - why the need to constantly "justify" this using rape and incest victims to further the agenda. Can we not just have abortion, for whoever wants it, and for whatever reason (which is nobody else's business) and stop bleating on about hard cases all the time?

KiKi III

Antares35 wrote: »

Why the constant hashing up of rape and incest victims when these only make up such a small percentage of abortion? I voted No, but would vote yes today for several reasons and I'm glad the repeal passed. But if you're going to support abortion then just say "I think all women should have access to abortion at any stage and under any circumstances" - why the need to constantly "justify" this using rape and incest victims to further the agenda. Can we not just have abortion, for whoever wants it, and for whatever reason (which is nobody else's business) and stop bleating on about hard cases all the time?

That is what we have, and it’s what we campaigned for. Very little of the discourse was about rape and incest. The Yes side mostly talked about a woman’s right to bodily autonomy.

Antares35

KiKi III wrote: »

That is what we have, and it’s what we campaigned for. Very little of the discourse was about rape and incest. The Yes side mostly talked about a woman’s right to bodily autonomy.

I remember a lot of talk about rape and incest.

ArmaniJeanss

Antares35 wrote: »

Why the constant hashing up of rape and incest victims when these only make up such a small percentage of abortion? I voted No, but would vote yes today for several reasons and I'm glad the repeal passed. But if you're going to support abortion then just say "I think all women should have access to abortion at any stage and under any circumstances" - why the need to constantly "justify" this using rape and incest victims to further the agenda. Can we not just have abortion, for whoever wants it, and for whatever reason (which is nobody else's business) and stop bleating on about hard cases all the time?

It was always useful for teasing out peoples actual position.
When they had it explained to them what affect the 8th had on some women (victims of rape/incest, women seriously ill during pregnancy) it perhaps made some people pause. Obviously some were still hardcore opposed.

But I think it's unfair to say that these issues were always brought up. Many posters and campaigners were very consistently in the 'woman's right to choose regardless' camp.

Antares35

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

It was always useful for teasing out peoples actual position.
When they had it explained to them what affect the 8th had on some women (victims of rape/incest, women seriously ill during pregnancy) it perhaps made some people pause. Obviously some were still hardcore opposed.

But I think it's unfair to say that these issues were always brought up. Many posters and campaigners were very consistently in the 'woman's right to choose regardless' camp.

I'm sure they were. But I recall a lot of focus on these issues.

uptherebels

Antares35 wrote: »

Why the constant hashing up of rape and incest victims when these only make up such a small percentage of abortion? I voted No, but would vote yes today for several reasons and I'm glad the repeal passed. But if you're going to support abortion then just say "I think all women should have access to abortion at any stage and under any circumstances" - why the need to constantly "justify" this using rape and incest victims to further the agenda. Can we not just have abortion, for whoever wants it, and for whatever reason (which is nobody else's business) and stop bleating on about hard cases all the time?

Because those women, even in the minority are just as important as all the others that require an abortion. But they were conveniently ignored by "pro lifers" who couldn't actually provide any solutions to their situations. Rape and incest wasn't used to "justify" anything, it was highlighted as of the reasons that some people wanted for having unrestricted access to abortion up to 12 weeks.

It is also a handy point to highlight the hypocrisy of claimsof "compassion" etc from the "pro lifers"

end of the road

uptherebels wrote: »

As is possible? That is a bit contradictory with your stance that rape victims should be denied an abortion.

not at all, both positions can co-exist.

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

not at all, both positions can co-exist.

Keep telling yourself that, the rest of us see it for what it is.

nozzferrahhtoo

KiKi III wrote: »

That is what we have, and it’s what we campaigned for. Very little of the discourse was about rape and incest. The Yes side mostly talked about a woman’s right to bodily autonomy.

Agreed. In fact during the referendum debates I was constantly as a "yes" can "pro choice" campaigner explaining why the "rape/incest" argument was in fact a bad one, that we should abandon.

Either the fetus at 12 weeks should have rights, or it should not. I think it should not.

If it does not, then rape/incest is irrelevant. The woman should have access to abortion for ANY Reason.

If it does, then rape/incest is irrelevant because no entity should lose it's rights due to a crime committed on someone who is not it, by someone who is not it.

So regardless of a pro choice or anti choice position.... the rape/incest argument adds very little. And that is BEFORE you try to work out a system by which "rape/incest" would be established in order to allow abortion. No one had any good ideas how to do it, and those that did offer ideas offered some pretty horrific ones.

end of the road

uptherebels wrote: »

Keep telling yourself that, the rest of us see it for what it is.

no, you see it for what you want to see it as because it suits your point of view.
that's fine, but it's very, very different from seeing something as it is, dispite the fact it isn't.

Hotblack Desiato

nolivesmatter wrote: »

Particularly as no one here is arguing she shouldn't have been provided with an abortion.

Not explicitly on this thread (yet) but implicitly.

The reason she couldn't have an abortion was because of the 8th amedment.

So do you support the repeal of the 8th, or not - and if not, how many dead women is an acceptable level of collateral damage? Savita wasn't the first.


BTW her husband and parents approved the repeal of the 8th campaign and provided them with her image to use in the campaign, so your faux concern is entirely misplaced.

Hotblack Desiato

Antares35 wrote: »

I remember a lot of talk about rape and incest.

The 8th made no allowance for the woman's health, or cases of rape or incest, so even those who were only supportive of extremely limited abortion should have been supporting its repeal. But it was totally clear to everyone that what we were going to legislate for was abortion on request up to 12 weeks for any reason once the 8th was repealed. We overwhelmingly voted to repeal and implicitly to support the right to abortion on request up to 12 weeks. Case closed.

I'd be interested to know what your reasons were for voting No and why you've changed your mind though, do you feel the No campaign misled voters?

SusieBlue

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Agreed. In fact during the referendum debates I was constantly as a "yes" can "pro choice" campaigner explaining why the "rape/incest" argument was in fact a bad one, that we should abandon.

Either the fetus at 12 weeks should have rights, or it should not. I think it should not.

If it does not, then rape/incest is irrelevant. The woman should have access to abortion for ANY Reason.

If it does, then rape/incest is irrelevant because no entity should lose it's rights due to a crime committed on someone who is not it, by someone who is not it.

So regardless of a pro choice or anti choice position.... the rape/incest argument adds very little. [/b]And that is BEFORE you try to work out a system by which "rape/incest" would be established in order to allow abortion. No one had any good ideas how to do it, and those that did offer ideas offered some pretty horrific ones.[/b]

Ah yes, the rape committees and forced hysterectomies were some of the more colourful ideas offered up as reasonable solutions to the complex issue.
I believe some supporters of those ideas are still posting about the topic on this very thread.

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

no, you see it for what you want to see it as because it suits your point of view.
that's fine, but it's very, very different from seeing something as it is, dispite the fact it isn't.

My point of view? You can't claim the be as far from anti woman as possible, while simultaneously telling rape victims to effectively suck it up. There is only one way to "see" that. Your mental gymnastics doesn't change that.

Gervais08

SusieBlue wrote: »

Ah yes, the rape committees and forced hysterectomies were some of the more colourful ideas offered up as reasonable solutions to the complex issue.
I believe some supporters of those ideas are still posting about the topic on this very thread.

I recall reading a suggestion that women would have to report their rape to a panel including Gardai and a medical professional and they would “adjudicate” if the termination was allowed.

I’ve rarely read anything as chilling in my life. Thankful that our nation saw sense.

nolivesmatter

uptherebels wrote: »

My point of view? You can't claim the be as far from anti woman as possible, while simultaneously telling rape victims to effectively suck it up. There is only one way to "see" that. Your mental gymnastics doesn't change that.

end of the road is only "anti-women" in your view because you don't place the same value on the unborn. Placing value on the unborn is not anti-women.

What would any of us even have to gain from being "anti-women" anyway? It just comes off as an attempt to discredit a person rather than tackle their ideas. Why can't people here disagree without resorting to that?

ohnonotgmail

nolivesmatter wrote: »

end of the road is only "anti-women" in your view because you don't place the same value on the unborn. Placing value on the unborn is not anti-women.

What would any of us even have to gain from being "anti-women" anyway? It just comes off as an attempt to discredit a person rather than tackle their ideas. Why can't people here disagree without resorting that?

placing the same value on the unborn as you do on actual living women is anti-women.

nolivesmatter

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

placing the same value on the unborn as you do on actual living women is anti-women.

Prove it.

ohnonotgmail

nolivesmatter wrote: »

Prove it.

sure thing chief. Im sure you would respond to anything I posted in a mature manner. it would be a really useful way for me to spend my time.

nolivesmatter

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

sure thing chief. Im sure you would respond to anything I posted in a mature manner. it would be a really useful way for me to spend my time.

...as expected.

ohnonotgmail

nolivesmatter wrote: »

...as expected.

oh noes, you have bested me in debate. luckily it matters not a jot and the law recognises that a woman has more rights than a fetus.

nolivesmatter

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

oh noes, you have bested me in debate. luckily it matters not a jot and the law recognises that a woman has more rights than a fetus.

What can I do, I can't debate someone that refuses to engage. The threads been derailed long enough so we'll have leave it there. Good luck.

SusieBlue

nolivesmatter wrote: »

end of the road is only "anti-women" in your view because you don't place the same value on the unborn. Placing value on the unborn is not anti-women.

What would any of us even have to gain from being "anti-women" anyway? It just comes off as an attempt to discredit a person rather than tackle their ideas. Why can't people here disagree without resorting to that?

As per the 8th amendment, the fetus has an equal right to life as that of the pregnant woman. Imagine holding a woman’s right to life at the same standard as a 10 week gestated zygote?
Anyone who supports and wishes to uphold a law that holds a living breathing woman and a fetus at equal value and worth is anti women, in my opinion.
The well-being, needs and wants of a living breathing woman should come first unless she chooses to put her pregnancy first (which most women happily do anyway).

uptherebels

nolivesmatter wrote: »

end of the road is only "anti-women" in your view because you don't place the same value on the unborn. Placing value on the unborn is not anti-women.

What would any of us even have to gain from being "anti-women" anyway? It just comes off as an attempt to discredit a person rather than tackle their ideas. Why can't people here disagree without resorting to that?

When that value elevates a zygote/foetus above the woman carrying it, then yes it is.
Who is "us" do you hold the same opinion?
I have no idea what you would gain! But then I am unable to understand the mentality that would prefer to punish a rape victim over allowing an abortion.

nolivesmatter

SusieBlue wrote: »

As per the 8th amendment, the fetus has an equal right to life as that of the pregnant woman. Imagine holding a woman’s right to life at the same standard as a 10 week gestated zygote?
Anyone who supports and wishes to uphold a law that holds a living breathing woman and a fetus at equal value and worth is anti women, in my opinion.
The well-being, needs and wants of a living breathing woman should come first unless she chooses to put her pregnancy first (which most women happily do anyway).

end of the road said they agreed with repealing the 8th.

end of the road wrote:

i wouldn't have voted for the 8th, given i did agree with it's repeal, just not the follow up legislation.

Gervais08

nolivesmatter wrote: »

end of the road said they agreed with repealing the 8th.

Well that’s ok then .....

SusieBlue

nolivesmatter wrote: »

end of the road said they agreed with repealing the 8th.

End of the road must have a very short memory because anyone who frequented the abortion threads in 2018 will recall how entirely opposed he was to repealing the 8th. So opposed he did in fact vote No in the referendum, which is not the actions of someone in favour of repealing.

Gervais08

SusieBlue wrote: »

End of the road must have a very short memory because anyone who frequented the abortion threads in 2018 will recall how entirely opposed he was to repealing the 8th. So opposed he did in fact vote No in the referendum, which is not the actions of someone in favour of repealing.

I wasn’t around then - what was it like, debate wise ? I had some vile experiences with the No side but generally speaking most campaigners on both sides were reasonable - entrenched in their voting way yeah, but if you says you’d made up your mind - leaving you be.

I don’t see how anyone can proclaim to be in favour of Repeal and voting no ??? Makes no sense surely ??

nolivesmatter

Gervais08 wrote: »

Well that’s ok then .....

I'm sure you're implying something but I'm not sure what.

To be clear Susieblue said that the 8th equated a fetus life to a womans. Given that she feels that equating the two is anti-women if someone agrees with it's repeal it goes along way to discrediting any notion even by her standards that someone is anti-women.

Gervais08

nolivesmatter wrote: »

I'm sure you're implying something but I'm not sure what.

To be clear Susieblue said that the 8th equated a fetus life to a womans. Given that she feels that equating the two is anti-women if someone agrees with it's repeal it goes along way to discrediting any notion even by her standards that someone is anti-women.

The 8th specifically placed equal value on the foetus and women. Not just foetuses - possible foetuses.

Unfortunately I have some experience with cancer, there are times when a matter of days in starting treatment can have a different outcome. Women have been denied X-rays, MRIs etc just because they are women of reproductive years (which is half our life technically).

The 8th wasn’t just about termination of pregnancy - it was treating a living, breathing, independent, sentient, woman - as more than a potential life. As we always should have.