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

Abortion should be legalised in Ireland

Options
1234579

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    Aspro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 359 ✭✭Aspro


    OK so maybe it was a tar and brush situation but it's an emotive issue as we all know and one that cuts very close to the skin for me right now. I was referring specifically to the Youth Defence element - shove a poster in your face today, bomb a clinic tomorrow.

    Of course I understand people who come to a 'pro-life' position through genuine concern, but that's not how I view the YD types. They have a sinister and violent element within them that I have seen up front (too close) which I do not believe has anything to do with foetuses or babies. It's the sort of cornered animal, militia mentality that murders doctors in the USA.

    To me 'pro-life' means confusion. There cannot be an equal right to life of the 'unborn' and the life of the mother - the instances of medical danger to the mother has to encompass the psychological and physical danger to the mother, however rare, of suicide (the X-case) which was already decided upon by the Irish people, but which is sought to be negated by this referendum. One right has to outweigh the other in these circumstances and until you're faced with the situation yourself, no-one has the slightest idea what it's like. And no-one outside has the right to pass judgment, make decision for, or imprison that woman.

    As regards the Nigerian woman, I believe it is the very same reactionary core of the pro-life movement that has an anti-immigrant position - thus 'pro-Irish-life' as opposed to 'pro-life'.
    Call it conjecture if you like but when you've been in conflict with these people as long as I have you see the same faces and attitudes crawl out from under a stone.

    I didn't mean to offend you, Typedef or any other individuals arriving at your own position - but rather the ideological basis behind some of the extreme 'pro-life' elements.


  • Options
    #183
    JustHalf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,525 ✭✭✭JustHalf


    Originally posted by Aspro
    Because this is all about the X-case. The 'pro-life' movement come from a 1950's Ireland mentality where women should be confined to the home, be subservient to men and should have no control over their own bodies. After all they're only baby factories, aren't they?
    My argument has never claimed this. My argument is not based on this. My argument is based on the fact that, whatever way you cut it, the right to life is the most important right of all.
    Originally posted by Aspro
    They're not to be trusted - they'll fake suicidal tendencies, won't they?
    Well, they are human... unless you're deluding yourself with the idea that women would never lie.
    Originally posted by Aspro
    And as for bigots, I didn't hear a whisper from them when it was a pregnant Nigerian woman, as opposed to an Irish one. Surely if they're the main proponents of equating foetuses with the same rights as human life outside the womb then they should have been at the forefront in demanding the right of the woman to stay in Ireland? Returning to Nigeria may well mean death for the woman and the foetus. They're hypocrites.
    Off topic, out of context and irrelevant.


  • Options
    #184
    Aspro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 359 ✭✭Aspro


    Agree to disagree

    I'm voting no. As are most people my age that I know, who have grown up remembering the X and C cases.

    The pro-life people are irreparably split.

    The pro-choice people aren't.

    We'll just have to vote and see.


  • Options
    #185
    JustHalf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,525 ✭✭✭JustHalf


    Originally posted by Aspro
    OK so maybe it was a tar and brush situation but it's an emotive issue as we all know and one that cuts very close to the skin for me right now. I was referring specifically to the Youth Defence element - shove a poster in your face today, bomb a clinic tomorrow.
    When have these people bombed a clinic? Is there even a clinic for them to bomb? You're being unreasonable.
    Originally posted by Aspro
    Of course I understand people who come to a 'pro-life' position through genuine concern, but that's not how I view the YD types. They have a sinister and violent element within them that I have seen up front (too close) which I do not believe has anything to do with foetuses or babies. It's the sort of cornered animal, militia mentality that murders doctors in the USA.
    Perhaps you should talk to these people. You're being unreasonable.

    I might as well claim that all socialists want to blow up buildings.
    Originally posted by Aspro
    To me 'pro-life' means confusion. There cannot be an equal right to life of the 'unborn' and the life of the mother
    If the foetus is deserving of any human rights, it is deserving of all. And all people have an equal right to life.

    How is pro-life confusion? You are the one who seems to be confused (calling pro-lifers bigots, for example).
    Originally posted by Aspro
    One right has to outweigh the other in these circumstances and until you're faced with the situation yourself, no-one has the slightest idea what it's like. And no-one outside has the right to pass judgment, make decision for, or imprison that woman.
    If it's murder, then they do. All this prissy whining about "the emotional impact that abortion has on a woman is bad enough without punishing" is ridiculous. The argument is without merit. If it's murder, then this argument means if a murder feels bad about it then we shouldn't punish them. If it's not murder, then we shouldn't punish her.


  • Options
    #186
    JustHalf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,525 ✭✭✭JustHalf


    Originally posted by Aspro
    The pro-life people are irreparably split.

    The pro-choice people aren't.
    Er, we ain't irreparably split. Way to have an argument - insult the other side!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    Aspro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 359 ✭✭Aspro


    Er, we ain't irreparably split. Way to have an argument - insult the other side!

    It seems you can't even acknowledge reality when it's staring you in the face (or from a poster):

    From today's Irish Times:

    Sir, - On posters around Dublin for the referendum one can see: "Pro Life Movement. To Protect Mothers and Children. Vote Yes." And: "Babies will die. Vote Pro- Life. Vote No."

    I am totally bewildered by all this propaganda. If I vote Yes I could be voting No. This type of confusion is just not on.

    An Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, as leader of this country, should get on the television and explain what is going on and tell us simply what all this means. This is too serious a subject to be mucking about with innuendo. - Yours, etc.,

    Ms TERRY HEALY,

    Hartwell Green,

    Kill,

    Co Kildare.

    Not irreparably split?

    As for the bombing of clinics I was referring to the American far right anti-abortionists.
    If legislation is passed, is this Youth Defence's next tactic?


  • Options
    #188
    Dustaz
    Registered Users Posts: 9,046 ✭✭✭Dustaz


    JustHalf, you cant seriously claim that there isnt a radical element in the Pro-life movement. Aspro was not saying that all pro-lifers are this radical, just that they exist. Most pro-lifers i know are embaressed by Youth Defence and thier ilk. I would suggest your being unreasonable by suggesting that if people would just talk to them, it would be allright for them to carry on such as they do.


  • Options
    #189
    JustHalf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,525 ✭✭✭JustHalf


    Originally posted by Dustaz
    JustHalf, you cant seriously claim that there isnt a radical element in the Pro-life movement. Aspro was not saying that all pro-lifers are this radical, just that they exist. Most pro-lifers i know are embaressed by Youth Defence and thier ilk. I would suggest your being unreasonable by suggesting that if people would just talk to them, it would be allright for them to carry on such as they do.
    He's actually claiming they'd blow up buildings. And it's not unreasonable to ask him to talk to them to get their opinions.

    I get you now though Aspro (with regards to confusion). I thought you meant over the whole "life" thing. This referendum is a wee bit confusing though.
    Originally posted by Aspro
    As for the bombing of clinics I was referring to the American far right anti-abortionists.
    Why didn't you mention them?
    Originally posted by Aspro
    If legislation is passed, is this Youth Defence's next tactic?
    I don't know. Here's the kicker... ASK THEM.


  • Options
    #190
    Mr Burns
    Closed Accounts Posts: 119 ✭✭Mr Burns


    Can this ammendment be challanged in the courts if it is passed?


  • Options
    #191
    Mr Burns
    Closed Accounts Posts: 119 ✭✭Mr Burns


    I am voting no, because I dont belive the state has any right to interfere with peoples civil rights. Its just the local taliban trying to get their way. See Divorce ammendment etc etc.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    TwoShedsJackson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,438 ✭✭✭TwoShedsJackson


    Originally posted by Osama


    Emm no, I think you'll find the reason theres several teenaged girls pushing prams around your area is because most of them are slappers who went out, got pi$$ed and $hagged the first bloke they met in the nightclub and were too drunk to think of protection. And if these girls are that stupid I don't see why the hell they should be entrusted to make such a serious decision as to wether or not to terminate the life of an unborn child.

    Yet they should be given the ongoing serious responsibility of bringing up the child for the next eighteen years? Having seen the way some people (mother & father) treat their children, I'd have to say no way.


  • Options
    #193
    smiles
    Registered Users Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭smiles


    Originally posted by Castor Troy
    Yet they should be given the ongoing serious responsibility of bringing up the child for the next eighteen years? Having seen the way some people (mother & father) treat their children, I'd have to say no way.

    here here.

    << Fio >>


  • Options
    #194
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    castor troy, they are the very ones he wouldnt ever consider an abortion, so you point is abite lost. abortion allways will be the middle class answer to there inability to except responsibility


  • Options
    #195
    DadaKopf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,731 ✭✭✭DadaKopf


    Note: I havent even read any of this thread but here are a few thoughts I've had surrounding this abortion thingy

    Basically, this referendum is a cowardly political non-issue. If it gets passed, little will change; if it gets rejected, little will change. What all the legal clap-trap is doing, however, is to effectively obscure the underlying issue: whether it is right to intentionally terminate a potential human life. All the arguments I've seen generally cluster around the legal and the political but where are the rational, level headed ethicalists?

    These are the notes I scribbled down on the bus:

    1]
    The referendum is fundamentally about whether it is right or justified to intentionally terminate a potential human life. Any legal or political manoevering is superfluous.

    2]
    Since the issue is about human life, it's therefore an issue about the human person - what constitutes it, at what period does this occur. It then follows that what it at stake is the respect for the mother and the child as human persons.

    3]
    So the division in the debate breaks down into two camps: pro-choice and the pro-life. The question for the pro-choicer is whether the right to the life of the child and/or mother trumps the right to choice. The pro-lifer asserts that the right to the life of the child and/or mother does trump the right to choice.

    4]
    It is important to understand that since the 20th century, cultures with all-encapsulating worldviews have been increasingly opened up to the reality that other worldviews exist and now not on other sides of the world but within our own borders. Intimately connected with this reality is the relatively recent emergence of the liberal democracy. Ireland is a liberal democracy and aspires to its principles and, since this abortion referendum is to be restricted to the juristiction of this country, this specific context must be taken into account.

    5]
    In-keeping with liberal democracy, the notion of the human person is characterised by choice (rationality) - this characteristic has been a constant in Western thinking since the Greeks. Democracy's aim, therefore, is respectul of the human person because it (principally) aims at providing choice. It is therefore safe to infer that the right to human life (to be a person) is not trumped by choice, it is on a par with it.

    6]
    So, while the pro-lifers insinuate that abortion disrespects and violates the sanctity of the human person, it is, in fact, they who are disrespecting the human person - both the mother and the child. Allowing choice, to eshrine choice and to accept the reality of diversity within our liberal democracy, is fundamentally to respect the human person in its totality. It also accounts for social change in its broader, dialectical aspects.

    7]
    So, following through on these points, and to understand that context is vital in understanding the issue, is to show how liberal democracy actually compels its citizens to be responsible and to accept the right to choice. Only then can proper space and respect be given to abortion in its ethical aspect in its personal and culturally embedded capacity. The state's role is to preserve choice and to coerce to maximise choice and fairness and to provide welfare.

    So, vote no.


  • Options
    #196
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    DadaKopf, you first poitn is wrong, therefore all your following points are wrong, that is not what its about at all.


  • Options
    #197
    Dustaz
    Registered Users Posts: 9,046 ✭✭✭Dustaz


    Originally posted by Boston
    abortion allways will be the middle class answer to there inability to except responsibility

    Utter, Utter Rubbish.
    Post the stats to prove this please. From a country that allows abortion.


  • Options
    #198
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    Feic other counties, all you have to do is look at voting trends in abortion referendum, the working class constituencies are allways more anti abortion while the middle and upper class are more evenly spread


  • Options
    #199
    DadaKopf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,731 ✭✭✭DadaKopf


    In that case (fundamentally, it does involve the moral justification of it), people ought to vote no just to keep things the same because nobody knows what they're voting on. The legal clap-trap employed is used to deliberately fog the issue for all us voters.

    If it wasn't about the ethics of abortion, then why is it that it's the pressure of the pro-life lobby that has brought this referendum about? To be able to legislate for the X Case? To be able to legislate for this extreme case of the threat of suicide? This bill has come about because of moral impetus and has been employed by politicians to gain ground of some kind.

    The fact is that if this bill is made law, it excludes subsequent change in these laws other than through referendum which is exactly what the pro-lifers want and which is exactly what liberal democracy is about.

    The structure of the amendment may appear to be technical and legal but it remains, as always, deeply ethical. Of course it's not what we're voting on (and people should probably realise it) but the amendment is underlain by this issue. As members of a so called democratic society, we should be careful not to prevent any further change. It's an anathema to democracy.


  • Options
    #200
    JustHalf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,525 ✭✭✭JustHalf


    Originally posted by DadaKopf
    In-keeping with liberal democracy, the notion of the human person is characterised by choice (rationality) - this characteristic has been a constant in Western thinking since the Greeks. Democracy's aim, therefore, is respectul of the human person because it (principally) aims at providing choice. It is therefore safe to infer that the right to human life (to be a person) is not trumped by choice, it is on a par with it.
    You're confusing the ability to make rational decisions and the right to act on these decisions.

    I may choose to steal. It doesn't mean I have a right to do it. I'd argue I have no right, as it harms others. I do believe I should be perfectly entitled to reason to steal though - just not to do it. I believe we have a right to the freedom of thought, and this is next to the most important right - the right to life.

    Don't confuse consciousness and action.


  • Options
    #201
    DadaKopf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,731 ✭✭✭DadaKopf


    Sorry to be frivolous about this, JustHalf but:

    If it was OK for everyone to steal, then stealing would no longer be stealing. Stealing depends on the convention of private property and if everyone was entitled to steal, there'd be no private property.

    Abortion is different, this involves a limit situation. This involves the finitude of someone's life. You can't equate that logically to theft or any other example similar in type.

    What you're kind of missing here, which I certainly didn't elaborate on, is that all these actions take place within a context - this context involves a culture, values etc. None of them are fixed but are within the sphere of 'certain' knowledge at the time, this is the evidence we have to go on and these are the grounds on which we make a decision. Nevertheless, there are differing matrices of knowledge and so no certainty can ever by fixed - and so the certainty surrounding abortion can't be fixed. I suppose I'm advocating a politically active state agnosticism on the issue. The choice is up to the individual or the community, depending on outlook.

    I'm not getting into the argument of 'consciousness' versus action at all in this regard - I'm leaving that up to the agents - the state is merely the facilitator of agency. Isn't that the point of liberal democracy? To give space to agency within society with regard to equal distribution of 'justice' - I'm skeptical to say the least of the state's right to morally legislate on issues such as abortion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    Biffa Bacon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 747 ✭✭✭Biffa Bacon


    I thought you were in favour of censorship? Society needs to be protected?
    Yes. But you have to decide what to censor on a case-by-case basis.
    The last thing traumatised women in a crisis pregnancy need is these mysogynistic sanctimonious bigots shoving guilt in their face.
    If abortion is the intentional destruction of human life then why shouldn't anyone try to persuade them that this is wrong? In what way is this sanctimonious bigotry?
    Also, are pro-life women "mysogynistic"?


  • Options
    #203
    Biffa Bacon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 747 ✭✭✭Biffa Bacon


    Basically, this referendum is a cowardly political non-issue. If it gets passed, little will change; if it gets rejected, little will change.
    If it gets passed, suicidal women will no longer have the right to an abortion in Ireland. The only thing preventing a liberal abortion regime in Ireland at the moment is the Medical Council, which would define such abortions as unethical. If this referendum is rejected and the Medical Council changes its position we could well see a liberal abortion regime introduced in Ireland. How is it a "cowardly political non-issue"?


  • Options
    #204
    Biffa Bacon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 747 ✭✭✭Biffa Bacon


    I'm skeptical to say the least of the state's right to morally legislate on issues such as abortion.
    It has the right to legislate if you believe that abortion is the intentional destruction of human life.


  • Options
    #205
    Bard
    Registered Users Posts: 12,309 ✭✭✭✭Bard


    Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

    It has the right to legislate if you believe that abortion is the intentional destruction of human life.

    According to the dictionary it is the "termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival".

    Draw your own conclusions. I have very mixed feelings on the matter.


  • Options
    #206
    DadaKopf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,731 ✭✭✭DadaKopf


    It has the right to legislate if you believe that abortion is the intentional destruction of human life.
    Yeah, you believe. The state should define the matter in as grounded terms as Bard's definition there. It's perfectly up to you to decide whether it's right or wrong, or rather, your girlfriend/wife/prostitute. The state should legislate for its citizenry - the reality today is pluralism. Live with it.


  • Options
    #207
    Biffa Bacon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 747 ✭✭✭Biffa Bacon


    Yeah, you believe.
    I take it you don't believe in inalienable human rights then?
    The state should define the matter in as grounded terms as Bard's definition there.
    Why?
    ...the reality today is pluralism.
    The reality of what? What do you mean by pluralism? And how do abortion rights fit in with this notion of pluralism?
    Live with it.
    Why should we accept something we believe to be wrong?


  • Options
    #208
    JustHalf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,525 ✭✭✭JustHalf


    Originally posted by DadaKopf
    Sorry to be frivolous about this, JustHalf but:
    I fail to see how this is in any way frivolous. If you're going to use big words, at least use them appropriately.
    Originally posted by DadaKopf
    If it was OK for everyone to steal, then stealing would no longer be stealing. Stealing depends on the convention of private property and if everyone was entitled to steal, there'd be no private property.
    Stealing would still be stealing, if it is was okay for everyone. It would just be socially acceptable. You're confusing the perception of stealing and stealing itself.
    Originally posted by DadaKopf
    Abortion is different, this involves a limit situation. This involves the finitude of someone's life. You can't equate that logically to theft or any other example similar in type.
    That wasn't my point, and you should have known that.

    My point was that just because we can choose to do something does not mean we should have a right to do it.
    Originally posted by DadaKopf
    What you're kind of missing here, which I certainly didn't elaborate on, is that all these actions take place within a context - this context involves a culture, values etc. None of them are fixed but are within the sphere of 'certain' knowledge at the time, this is the evidence we have to go on and these are the grounds on which we make a decision. Nevertheless, there are differing matrices of knowledge and so no certainty can ever by fixed - and so the certainty surrounding abortion can't be fixed.
    Sigh. Are you big smarty man?

    You should be trying to communicate your point instead of hiding (obfuscating, if you want) it behind layers upon layers of words which go nowhere.
    Originally posted by DadaKopf
    I suppose I'm advocating a politically active state agnosticism on the issue. The choice is up to the individual or the community, depending on outlook.
    How you got to this point fromt the jumble of words above is beyond me.
    Originally posted by DadaKopf
    I'm not getting into the argument of 'consciousness' versus action at all in this regard - I'm leaving that up to the agents - the state is merely the facilitator of agency.
    Hiding your point yet again, DadaKopf. When will you learn?
    Originally posted by DadaKopf
    Isn't that the point of liberal democracy? To give space to agency within society with regard to equal distribution of 'justice' - I'm skeptical to say the least of the state's right to morally legislate on issues such as abortion.
    How's about murder? Do you believe they should have a right to "morally legislate" on this issue?

    Abortion isn't something that's terminating a foetus for one person and murdering a baby for another. This is not a relative issue. Either a baby is being killed or it's not. If you want me to use language you might use:

    The question is: is the existence of a human entity nullified by the procedure known as abortion? This has a binary truth value, 1 or 0, true or false. It is either the former or the latter, not the twain.


  • Options
    #209
    DadaKopf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,731 ✭✭✭DadaKopf


    Ok, my point is: you can't ever say abortion is wrong in itself.

    I'm saying: yes, the law has to legislated to agree on a modern definition of abortion and on the stage at which abortion is prohibited. It's very important to agree at what stage does abortion become infanticide. But that is a medical, empirical issue which can be legislated on.

    I'm saying: there's no universal moral grounding to the issue of abortion. The law should reflect that reality (the reality of ethical pluralism) and legislate according to liberal principles. It's a bad idea to essentially lock away the issue under this proposed legislation.

    I'm saying: since abortion is very much a psychological issue as anything else, any movement towards a 'one size fits all' policy should be treated suspiciously by the public. The issue always depends on the context and the people involved.

    I'm saying: the issues pertaining to whether abortion is right or wrong 'in itself' (that is, the act of aborting a foetus) are of a personal and/or cultural nature, what the law can do is offer the individual the benefit of the doubt in the moral stakes but can prosecute in accordance with law as laid down by empirical evidence. That's what the law tries to do. The problem with abortion is that it's always turned into a moral issue and when it comes down to it, that's what people are going to be thinking of when they vote.

    I'm saying: in the legal stakes, it makes for very bad legislation.


  • Options
    #210
    DadaKopf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,731 ✭✭✭DadaKopf


    Two other things:

    The constitution states that the Oireachteas is the only body which may pass laws; referenda only apply to amendments to the constitution. This referendum is unique because it effects a change in law and the constitution. This is probably unconstitutional.

    But just when you thought it's all OK because our Prez will be able to refer the law and amendment to the Supreme Court, there's another twist:

    If this referendum is passed, the President will not be permitted to refer the law to the Supreme Court to examine whether it's "repugnant to the Constutiton" or not.

    This referendum, if passed, will undercut these vital checks and balances and, bottom line, it's totally unconstitutional. It's bad legislation.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,369 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Originally posted by DadaKopf
    This referendum is unique because it effects a change in law and the constitution. It's bad legislation.

    Agreed, it's going about it the wrong way. What the should have done is legislated, had it veriefied by the President and Supreme Court and had an "ordinary" referendum or alternatively a constitutional referendum along the lines of "article 40.3._ The state may ratify the Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy Bill, 2001". While this would need to be done properly (ordinary referendums have special requirements), I think it could be done.
    Originally posted by DadaKopf
    If this referendum is passed, the President will not be permitted to refer the law to the Supreme Court to examine whether it's "repugnant to the Constutiton" or not.
    Seeing as the people would have voted on it, would this be a moot point?


Advertisement