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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

8th Amendment

1111214161765

Comments

  • Posts: 14,242 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    S.O wrote: »
    if a woman has been raped and is pregnant afterwards it should be her choice if she wants go through with the pregnancy or not.
    I agree but I'm having trouble understanding your opposition to what you call 'abortion on demand'.

    Presumably the reason you're opposed to liberal abortion is because you see the foetus as a human being, right?

    Well, is the foetus that was conceived through rape any less human than the foetus conceived through consensual sex? Aren't you talking about killing a 'human' for an act that human could not control?

    I'm not attacking the sincerity of your opposition to abortion, which I don't doubt. I just wonder how tenable it is.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,199 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    S.O wrote: »
    I think abortion should only be permitted in circumstances where a womans life is at risk, theres a miscarriage occurring, or in cases of rape, if a referendum wad held to amend the 8th to make a rape exception I would vote yes in favour, if a woman has been raped and is pregnant afterwards it should be her choice if she wants go through with the pregnancy or not.

    What proof of rape would it be reasonable to expect, in your view?
    Also, do you agree that the view that the fetus' right to life is contingent on the manner of its conception is as much about being entitled to punish women who are felt to have acted wrongly as about any right to life for the fetus?

    "If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 532 ✭✭✭doc11


    The difference in attitudes to abortion in case of rape/incest vs anything else is such a frustrating thing to see. It just lays it out so starkly that the real problem people have with abortion ain't blah blah blah babies lives!!!1!

    In cases of rape/incest the women has little choice to have sex in others you had consensual sex and don't want to deal with the consequences of your actions. The real problem is the different attitudes to sex as some don't see it as the "choice" but rather focus on the termination.

    I agree but I'm having trouble understanding your opposition to what you call 'abortion on demand'.

    Presumably the reason you're opposed to liberal abortion is because you see the foetus as a human being, right?

    Well, is the foetus that was conceived through rape any less human than the foetus conceived through consensual sex? Aren't you talking about killing a 'human' for an act that human could not control?

    I'm not attacking the sincerity of your opposition to abortion, which I don't doubt. I just wonder how tenable it is.

    I would agree with that. If you agree with terminating the child due to rape why not impose capital punishment for the rapist too?

    In my opinion the constitution should treat all life the same and if your going to discriminate based on rape or disability you have lost the battle and may well legislate for abortion on demand within the various parameters of other countries (12 weeks etc). I don't want this to be played as a political football for the next 50 years by the Labour party etc with a different abortion referendum every 10-15 years.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,859 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    doc11 wrote: »
    ...you had consensual sex and don't want to deal with the consequences of your actions.

    Jesus. Do you have any idea how ****ing Victorian it sounds when you preach at women that they should abstain from sex unless they're prepared to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term?

    FFS. It's the twenty-first century, and some people don't seem to have left the nineteenth.


  • Posts: 14,242 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    doc11 wrote: »
    I would agree with that. If you agree with terminating the child due to rape why not impose capital punishment for the rapist too?
    To be clear, I don't think we agree. I was questioning SO's stance, I personally favour a woman's right to abortion. I see the limitation of abortion to cases of rape as being inconsistent with the 'human life' claims. Logically, one should take an all-or-nothing position on abortion.

    Either a woman has charge of her own body or she does not.
    Either the foetus has human life, or it has not.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Why? Have you even read it?

    No, as I said, I never even heard of the case - it was non-news at the time.

    This case was unsuccessful, we are told, because the High Court and Supreme Court said they could not interfere with the referendum process.

    That is probably why it was not news.

    However, we are told that the courts decided

    "that the right to life of the unborn was already protected by Article 40.3 of the Constitution. [Judge Barrington] was of the view

    You have to be careful quoting from individual judges - Hederman thought it would be legal to lock suicidal women in a padded cell until they gave birth, but that was a minority view, not law.


  • Posts: 14,242 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    No, as I said, I never even heard of the case - it was non-news at the time.
    The Irish Newspapers Archive say otherwise. It made headlines in all of the national papers.
    You have to be careful quoting from individual judges
    That's why I take the lead from people who are better educated on this topic than me, such as Dr Conor O'Mahony (link provided earlier) and Dr Ivana Bacik and her co-authors (also referenced earlier), whose claims you were previously "quite confident" did not exist.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,167 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    S.O wrote: »
    If there is a referendum to completely repeal the 8th I would vote against it and maybe campaign against it , I would be against liberal abortion laws that exist in the uk where an abortion can be requested on demand.

    I think abortion should only be permitted in circumstances where a womans life is at risk, theres a miscarriage occurring, or in cases of rape,

    As I said previously, the referendum will almost certainly be a straight repeal one, on the understanding that the government would then legislate for abortion on grounds of FFA and probably other 'hard cases'. I think you can be fairly confident that that government will not attempt further liberalisation of abortion law, given the cast-iron guarantees they will be required to provide beforehand. However, could you say for sure a future left-wing government (say led by SF) would not attempt to legislate for liberal abortion? No, but that's how issues are dealt with in democracies...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 532 ✭✭✭doc11


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Jesus. Do you have any idea how ****ing Victorian it sounds when you preach at women that they should abstain from sex unless they're prepared to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term?

    FFS. It's the twenty-first century, and some people don't seem to have left the nineteenth.

    So it's acceptable that if a man has sex and offers her an abortion that he should then have no financial or otherwise responsibility for the child? I don't think that's so Victorian defense would work out well in court. Or is it only men that should abstain and women can do whatever they want?

    The same with a brief marriage/cohabitation that entitles a women to half a mans assets plus maintenance sounds pretty outdated too while we're at it.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,859 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    doc11 wrote: »
    ...if a man has sex and offers her an abortion...

    What on earth makes you think it's his to offer?


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 1,654 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    It is only for (some) religious reasons that a three week old conceptus is regarded as anything special. The number of early conceptuses that disappear naturally is considerable, outnumbering those actually born.
    The abortion amendments were specifically designed to prevent discussion and conclusions on this aspect of when a conceptus becomes something worthy of protecting by the rigors of the law.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 397 ✭✭S.O


    I agree but I'm having trouble understanding your opposition to what you call 'abortion on demand'.

    Presumably the reason you're opposed to liberal abortion is because you see the foetus as a human being, right?

    Well, is the foetus that was conceived through rape any less human than the foetus conceived through consensual sex? Aren't you talking about killing a 'human' for an act that human could not control?

    I'm not attacking the sincerity of your opposition to abortion, which I don't doubt. I just wonder how tenable it is.

    When I say abortion on request, Im opposed to abortion being granted no questions asked, if someone wants to use abortion as form of contraception Im opposed or if someone wants to abortion on grounds of disability I would be opposed.

    When I argue for the rape exception for abortion to be granted I do so on a conscience basis, I look at it from a viewpoint how can I as a male insist to a woman who has being raped and is pregnant afterwards that she has to go full term with the pregnancy ? as someone of the opposite sex I could not even begin to understand what level of trauma/hurt and pain a woman who is pregnant resulting from a rape is going through, therefore from a conscience standpoint I couldn't tell her what to do- if she wants to choose to go through with the pregnancy or not should be her own choice in this instance.

    Lets look back at a gang rape in Limerick from years ago.

    A MAN who participated in a savage gang rape of a woman in a wood last year
    has been jailed for 20 years. The man, along with four teenagers, locked the
    woman's male companion in the boot of a car, before taking it in turns to rape
    the woman in a 45-minute ordeal.

    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/man-25-is-jailed-for-20-years-over-role-in-savage-gang-rape-25982498.html

    Lets say if she had of being pregnant afterwards following the 45 minute ordeal and didn't want to through with the pregnancy I couldn't argue not to give her a choice in the matter.

    I turn peoples attention to a current case in Paraguay .

    Paraguay "failed to protect" a pregnant
    10-year-old rape victim who has been denied an abortion, a group of UN human rights experts has said.The girl allegedly became pregnant after being raped by her stepfather.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-32698371

    Now lets imagine a similar case takes place in Ireland a 10 year old girl is raped and pregnant afterwards, imagine if that girl was your own daughter or your own niece, hands up who would or who could honestly say your own daughter or your own niece should go through with a pregnancy at 10 years of age after being raped ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 397 ✭✭S.O


    volchitsa wrote: »
    What proof of rape would it be reasonable to expect, in your view?
    Also, do you agree that the view that the fetus' right to life is contingent on the manner of its conception is as much about being entitled to punish women who are felt to have acted wrongly as about any right to life for the fetus?

    It would be up to the medical professionals + the phycologists at a rape crisis centre to determine what level of proof is not me.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 397 ✭✭S.O


    To be clear, I don't think we agree. I was questioning SO's stance, I personally favour a woman's right to abortion. I see the limitation of abortion to cases of rape as being inconsistent with the 'human life' claims. Logically, one should take an all-or-nothing position on abortion.

    Either a woman has charge of her own body or she does not.
    Either the foetus has human life, or it has not.

    I find the all or nothing = either 100% anti abortion or 100% for access to abortion both too extreme.

    To be 100% pro choice can give a couple the right of choice to abort a pregnancy based on gender if they wanted a boy but it happens to be a girl and an abortion occurs afterwards as happens in some countries over in the far east.

    To be 100% pro life adheres to a view that life of the unborn must come first at the expense of the mothers life, I refer back to one case in Brazil a few years ago.

    Declaring that "life must always be protected", a senior Vatican cleric has
    defended the Catholic Church's decision to excommunicate the mother and doctors of a nine-year-old rape victim who had a life-saving abortion in Brazil.


    The doctors did what had to be done: save the life of a girl of nine years
    old. In this case, the medical profession was more right than the Church."

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/brazil-rocked-by-abortion-for-9yearold-rape-victim-1640165.html

    I would find the view of the church to be way too extreme in this instance to argue against an abortion to save the life of a 9 year old girl child, another point I will factor in on the 100% pro life side, there are some not all but some on the pro life side who are so pro life to the point that they are against contraception, I find this to be a extreme view to hold- as people on the pro life side are against abortion for unwanted/unplanned pregnancies following consential sex , but to be also against contraception to prevent unplanned pregnancies in the first place is way too extreme.

    I recall listening to the Niall Boylan radio show a few weeks ago where the topic of discussion was the current case of a 10 year old girl raped and pregnant in Paraguay, one guy phoned into the show making pro life arguments, he was asked by one person if he was against rape victims taking the morning after pill to prevent pregnancy from occurring, he went so far to even argue that he was against the morning after pill being used , as I said and I stand by it way too extreme point of view to hold.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    The Irish Newspapers Archive say otherwise. It made headlines in all of the national papers.

    That's why I take the lead from people who are better educated on this topic than me, such as Dr Conor O'Mahony (link provided earlier) and Dr Ivana Bacik and her co-authors (also referenced earlier), whose claims you were previously "quite confident" did not exist.

    I am still quite confident that the Constitution does not protect the "unborn" without the 8th.

    The bits you have quoted so far do not show that it does, only that one judge said it did in comments made in a case the courts declined to hear, and hence are not law.

    Your link to the constitution project below is broken, but googling it up, it's pretty thin stuff. Clearly the 13th and 14th would go with the 8th, O'Mahony's first question. O'Mahony then imagines that the Court, without guidance, might rule that the unborn have the same right to life the same as now - but explicitly removing that right by referendum is an extremely clear bit of guidance from the people which no court could ignore, so he's simply wrong there.

    And other opinions he cites would make contraception illegal - ridiculous today.

    Now, he does have one sensible point, the Courts, here or anywhere, will not rule that a baby a day before birth is nothing. I do not think the courts would think massacring babies wholesale a day before birth was cool, but no-one wants to do that. There is nothing in the constitution that would rule out a sensible abortion law once we get rid of the 8th.


  • Posts: 1,654 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    There is nothing in the constitution that would rule out a sensible abortion law once we get rid of the 8th.


    Very true. And the issue of what is 'sensible' is not a suitable one for constitutional law.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    I am still quite confident that the Constitution does not protect the "unborn" without the 8th.

    The bits you have quoted so far do not show that it does, only that one judge said it did in comments made in a case the courts declined to hear, and hence are not law.
    That's just wrong. There is a substantial corpus of case law establishing the right to life of the unborn in Bunreacht prior to, and in addition to, the 8th amendment, beginning with the Supreme Court case of McGee v Attorney General [1974] I.R. 284 where the Supreme Court left nobody in any doubt as to the constitutional rights of the unborn, saying that although a couple were entitled to limit the number of children they conceived together, destroying human was an offence offence against the guaranteed personal rights of the human life in question.

    This re-emerged in the case law in G v. An Bórd Uchtála [1980] I.R. 32 where the Supreme Court, in an exceedingly humane judgment reaffirmed the equality between 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate' children, and held that the right to life applied before birth and after birth; and that the right to life "necessitates" the right to be born [ibid at 68]. It was three years later when the 8th amendment was put before the people, and the courts accepted in Finn, the case that has been cited by another poster, that the right to life of the unborn was already protected.

    The case law doesn't end there. There is post-amendment case law from both superior courts which clearly establishes the right to life of the unborn existed prior to the 1983 amendment: Attorney General (Society for the Protection of Unborn Children Ireland Limited) v Open Door Counselling Limited [1988] and, of course, in the 1992 X case, where the above case-law was cited with approval in the Supreme Court.

    Any kind of abortion-on-demand was undoubtedly repugnant to the constitution prior to 1983 in view of the constitutional guarantee of the right to life, and there is no reason to suspect this has changed.

    Repeal the 8th is nothing more than a vacuous hashtag. If the 8th amendment were repealed, any law which attempted to liberalize abortion to any extent would immediately come before the courts in a constitutional challenge from one of the many, well-funded pro-life groups, or indeed on foot of an Article 26 reference to the Supreme Court by any responsible and non-partisan President of ireland, acting in good faith.

    It is possible that counsel would successfully argue that the People, in choosing to extirpate Article 40.3.3. had further altered the meaning of the constitutional guarantee of the right to life, even if only implicitly. There is some merit in that argument, but there is no authority for this sort of argument in the case law, and the current Supreme Court is far too conservative to countenance it.

    If we are to have a referendum permitting abortion, the removal of the 1983 amendment is insufficient. To simply repeal the 8th would be reckless and would only add to the confusion surrounding abortion rights.


  • Posts: 1,654 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I think its telling that back in the 1980s we were told that a constitutional amendment was absolutely necessary to protect the lives of the 'unborn' (just as weird a concept as the 'undead'), but now that there seems to be support for the removal of the amendments, we find that they weren't needed at all.......


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,656 ✭✭✭C14N


    We probably will have one at some point in the next 10 years and unlike the marriage one, I'm really not looking forward to it. I hate being on the same side as the Iona institute on anything but unfortunately for me, we do align on this.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    C14N wrote: »
    We probably will have one at some point in the next 10 years and unlike the marriage one, I'm really not looking forward to it. I hate being on the same side as the Iona institute on anything but unfortunately for me, we do align on this.

    I think there will be many who voted for Gay Marriage yet will vote to keep the 8th intact.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,656 ✭✭✭C14N


    I think there will be many who voted for Gay Marriage yet will vote to keep the 8th intact.

    As someone who would be doing just that, I honestly really doubt it. I find very few people who are staunchly pro-life without also being just generally very socially conservative. Maybe legislation wouldn't pass with the flying colours that the marriage one did but I would definitely find that among my own peers that being against abortion is roughly as taboo as being against gay marriage.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    C14N wrote: »
    As someone who would be doing just that, I honestly really doubt it. I find very few people who are staunchly pro-life without also being just generally very socially conservative. Maybe legislation wouldn't pass with the flying colours that the marriage one did but I would definitely find that among my own peers that being against abortion is roughly as taboo as being against gay marriage.

    I disagree.

    There will be little or no imposed taboo in my view.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,656 ✭✭✭C14N


    I disagree.

    There will be little or no imposed taboo in my view.

    Just look at this thread right here. Based on comments made and thanks given, there are dozens of people who would vote yes against the handful who would vote no. It's at least as one-sided as the marriage threads were two weeks ago. To me, that reflects the general attitude of the under-50 voters. I personally tend to completely shy away from talking about this when it comes up because I know I'm in such a minority when it comes to twenty-something year old people.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,199 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    C14N wrote: »
    Just look at this thread right here. Based on comments made and thanks given, there are dozens of people who would vote yes against the handful who would vote no. It's at least as one-sided as the marriage threads were two weeks ago. To me, that reflects the general attitude of the under-50 voters. I personally tend to completely shy away from talking about this when it comes up because I know I'm in such a minority when it comes to twenty-something year old people.

    I'm interested in what your own reasons are then, given that you're clearly not particularly socially conservative (as it has also been my experience that strong pro-life views and anti-SSM views tend to go together in a strongly conservative mindset, which seems not to be your case.)

    "If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce



  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    volchitsa wrote: »
    I'm interested in what your own reasons are then, given that you're clearly not particularly socially conservative (as it has also been my experience that strong pro-life views and anti-SSM views tend to go together in a strongly conservative mindset, which seems not to be your case.)

    Here cometh the inquisition. :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 397 ✭✭S.O


    C14N wrote: »
    We probably will have one at some point in the next 10 years and unlike the marriage one, I'm really not looking forward to it. I hate being on the same side as the Iona institute on anything but unfortunately for me, we do align on this.

    Ionas position is one of the two extreme position on abortion, by that I mean to be against abortion no matter what even in cases of rape, one thing that undermines groups like Iona + others putting forward arguments about the rights of child etc, is how much or how often do they argue for the rights of the child after its born, for example can anyone link me an opinion article written by David Quinn condemning cuts to child benefit or cuts to single parents allowance ? + to factor in also is anyone aware of David Quinn coming out to express opposition to current plans to cut allowance of single parents by €86 ? what about the rights of the child when child payments get cut ?

    http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/politics/scandal-plans-cut-lone-parents-5186140

    Regarding a referendum on the 8th amendment its something I have given careful thought to- it all depends what options are presented to me to vote on- if its ( Option A ) to repeal the 8th amendment to bring in laws as liberal as the UK on abortion I will vote no, if its ( Option B ) a straight repeal the 8th amendment yes or no I will abstain from voting- I will only vote yes on the condition- that there is an option to vote to replace the 8th amendement with a new constitutional amendment to ensure that the right to have an abortion doesn't go no further then the grey areas such as pregnancy as a result of rape.

    On the grey area of abortion and rape.

    I only read a while ago about young girls who had being kidnapped and captured by Isis militants who then took turns to rape them with the intent of impregnating the young girl's; some of the girl's managed to escape their Isis captors and had abortions to terminate their pregnancies: I'm against abortion on demand which exists in the uk-- but regarding the girl's who escaped from Isis terminated their unwanted pregnancy by their rapists ; who am I to judge them ? I'm not female I can't even imagine what trauma they were put through being repeatedly raped by different men; so therefore I'm in no position to judge them in any way, in cases such as these I don't see abortion as a black and white issue but as a grey area.
    Doctors in Kurdistan are breaking the law by performing abortions on young
    Yazidi girls who have been released after being held as sex slaves by ISIS
    fighters.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3056111/Traumatised-Yazidi-girls-young-8-having-abortions-finally-return-communities-months-used-sex-slaves-Isis-fighters.html#ixzz3blb6y7mi

    I would also point out that some on the American right such as Mitt Romney + Ann coulter have argued for the rape exception regarding abortion.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/romney-my-views-on-abortion-rights-are-clear/



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 397 ✭✭S.O


    Anti abortion protest march In Poland this recent weekend calling for the morning after pill to be banned.



    Now this what I find to be a huge hole in the hardline 100% pro life/anti abortion argument, if you really want to stop women from seeking abortions, your position should be to argue two consenting adults to use protection take measures/take precautions to prevent unwanted/unplanned pregnancies from happening in the first place- not argue to ban and stop consenting adults doing what they can to avoid unwanted pregnancies from taking place such as these protesters in Poland, the other hole in the ban contraception argument I don't think they really think about or realize is if contraception were to be banned, all it would actually do is increase the numbers of women travelling to other countries seeking an abortion not decrease it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,167 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    S.O wrote: »
    Ionas position is one of the two extreme position on abortion, by that I mean to be against abortion no matter what even in cases of rape,

    IMO it's the only coherent, defensible 'pro-life' position. Once you start allowing for exceptions for rape etc. you're completely undercutting your own argument...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,656 ✭✭✭C14N


    volchitsa wrote: »
    I'm interested in what your own reasons are then, given that you're clearly not particularly socially conservative (as it has also been my experience that strong pro-life views and anti-SSM views tend to go together in a strongly conservative mindset, which seems not to be your case.)

    It's simply down to the question of where life begins and I can't see that as any point besides conception. I'm not pretending to be a biologist but I pretty much formed this opinion myself when we learned about reproduction in JC science class. It's the only point at which there is a clear change from one state to the next. Some people say the definition should be based on viability outside the womb but I don't think morality should be beholden to the best available medical technology on the day. Some lifers also like to try and drum up sympathy by showing pictures of fetuses that look just like born babies and I don't like that either because it taps into the notion that something has to look like a person to be a person.

    It's also been my own experience that people who are very pro-life are very anti-SSM which puts me off publicly identifying as pro-life. To me, that's just bizarre. Gay people don't have abortions, if anything they create demand for adoption which is an alternative to it. That's not the only thing either. People who are still backward enough to oppose contraception are just shooting themselves in the foot if they want to reduce abortion rates. Not to mention the American conservatives who try to balance being against abortion with with low taxes so that struggling mothers and young children have a harder time getting support from the government which creates a greater demand for abortions again.

    Unfortunately for me, those kinds of hypocrites make up a large portion of the anti-abortion movement and they tend to appeal to people's shame rather than their compassion. There's a page on Facebook I follow called "Secular Pro-Life" and I like them a lot more, but it's only got about 7000 people on it which isn't much compared to the millions you see on some of the radical Christian pro-life pages.

    I see why people want them. I've put myself in the position where I wondered "what if that condom wasn't effective?" and I can see how something like that can be devastating to somebody's life and how getting an abortion can look like such a simple solution to the problem. I'm not going to pretend like it isn't very hard on people who have unwanted pregnancies because it is, and it's a struggle I'll never know, but I really don't believe that it justifies what you have to do to get out of that situation.

    For the record as well, I am in favour of legislating for the X case and allowing women to get one to save their own lives. Again, it's not to be taken lightly and there's no easy way out, but if somebody ever has to choose between their own life and the life of another person, I don't think it should be illegal to prioritise saving themselves. I'm sure this could get murky with grey hypotheticals in between but that's still broadly what I believe.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    C14N wrote: »
    It's simply down to the question of where life begins and I can't see that as any point besides conception.

    So sperm and eggs are not alive? :confused:


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement