8th Amendment

Zubeneschamali

Black Menorca wrote: »

For now, Ireland is abortion free.

I'm sure you know some of these 158,000 women personally, but they are probably happy that you believe your own little story.

Zubeneschamali

c_man wrote: »

So what's the most likely outcome then

Labour will promise an amendment, and if they are in government, we'll get one, so maybe in 2020. Various other left wingers will be in favour. SF might be for it, or not, depending on which way the wind blows.

FG and FF will not campaign for it, and some TDs will campaign against. If MM has been ousted by the conservative wing, FF will be against.

Renua will be against, or Lucinda will have to leave her own party.

The campaign will make SSM look like a schools debate, with absolutely vile stuff from the No campaign.

Then the referendum will fail, 55-45.

fits

If its done, FG at least will have to allow a free vote among its members. Its very divisive.

No Voter And Proud

fits wrote: »

If its done, FG at least will have to allow a free vote among its members. Its very divisive.

SSM was also very divisive. Did they allow a free vote for that? (Genuine question, I dont know)

I can't see FG presiding over an abortion referendum anyway. Unless SF or Labour somehow become the majority part of a government this wont happen soon.

Not a NSA agent

Black Menorca wrote: »

No one is forced to have an abortion.

However Ireland has decided not to accommodate the killing of unborn babies. If then, the choice is made to go abroad, tragically there is nothing we can do.

But selling out to the abortion industry is not an option and hopefully never will be.

Ireland could control the "abortion industry" here, make abortion only available in hospitals. The way you prefer leads to women giving these industries money as they go abroad. Why do you want to support these industries?

ec18

Glenman wrote: »

Yes, Youth Defense for example do use very graphic images on some of their posters but these are just images from abortion procedures so if people don't like them then they shouldn't be pushing for abortion legislation.

Thats not exactly true, they are pictures from medical procedures. Having your appendix out (as will most invasive medical procedures) will produce some graphic images as but they are irrelevant to the debate on whether it should be allowed happen or not.

johnnyskeleton

Black Menorca wrote: »

Baloney and shameful to boot. Hijacking Savita's deaht to peddle your agenda for abortion.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95636302&postcount=157

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Mod: As a general rule, the more sensitive a subject the more temptation you might feel to use rhetoric, name calling etc.

Which is why in a thread like this I would ask everyone to be on their best behaviour

Don't make me tap the sign again

Not a NSA agent

Glenman wrote: »

Yes, Youth Defense for example do use very graphic images on some of their posters but these are just images from abortion procedures so if people don't like them then they shouldn't be pushing for abortion legislation.

Childbirth is also quite graphic. Have you ever seen surgery being done with an eye? Thats quite uncomfortable to watch. Will we not allow those? Good luck trying to stop childbirth!

PeteFalk78

I support abortions under certain conditions

-If the mothers life is in danger e.g. in the case of potential suicide (after stringent psychological analysis)
-If the childs life isnt viable
-In cases of rape

Probably 1 or 2 more I cannot think of.

I think abortion as a means of contraception is sickening.

am946745

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

Ireland could control the "abortion industry" here, make abortion only available in hospitals. The way you prefer leads to women giving these industries money as they go abroad. Why do you want to support these industries?

Many Many countries support unethical industries. Look at the arms trade.

We always hear the argument of the 0.001% of women who have terrible situations, that had lead to on demand abortion in the UK where you can have an abortion pretty much for whatever reason you like. Its become now the backup for birth control. Why would Marie Stopes pay its CEO 500K sterling?

mohawk

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

I think abortion as a means of contraception is sickening.

Honestly this type of rhetoric gets to me. Is this really what society thinks of women. We mustn't have abortion in this country because women will just keep getting themselves pregnant and then have an abortion.

Loafing Oaf

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

I can't see FG presiding over an abortion referendum anyway.

Wouldn't be so sure. Enda's right hand James Reilly has come out in favour of it, so perhaps they're choreographing a big announcement from the man himself in the autumn? Having said that, if they found themselves in govt with FF, I'm sure they'd come up with some with some way of long-fingering the issue...

oscarBravo

mohawk wrote: »

Is this really what society thinks of women.

It's certainly what a particular socially-conservative segment of society thinks of women.

It makes for depressing reading, how women have had to fight tooth and nail for every social change over the last century or so. More accurately, how the same form of self-styled morally-superior smugness is always ready to fight tooth and nail against those changes.

The only glimmer of light in the darkness is the knowledge that those who fight against women's rights always end up looking incredibly stupid a very, very short time later.

130Kph

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's certainly what a particular socially-conservative segment of society thinks of women.

It makes for depressing reading, how women have had to fight tooth and nail for every social change over the last century or so. More accurately, how the same form of self-styled morally-superior smugness is always ready to fight tooth and nail against those changes.

The only glimmer of light in the darkness is the knowledge that those who fight against women's rights always end up looking incredibly stupid a very, very short time later.

This is true.

I remember listening to an RTE radio documentary sometime within the last 15 years (can’t remember when exactly) about some Dublin mother who was stridently pro-life all her life – to the extreme i.e. at the pure ideological level. Then one day her teenage daughter came to her crying that she was pregnant.

To cut a long story short, within a day or two they went to Liverpool and the daughter had an abortion. This mother said having the abortion was a no-brainer!!! (due to daughters age, promising college plans, the guy was gone, life plans etc.).

She admitted on this programme that she was foolish to be formerly so extreme in her pro-life views and that in hind-sight once her daughter had the crisis pregnancy she realised that those views were inhumane, theoretical, aspirational, delusional & impractical (for her daughter). So some extremists can and do change their mind on such an issue when faced with a loved-ones reality.

I think such views make certain types of pro-lifers feel good about themselves. In most cases (though not all) that’s the only purpose these attitudes serve.

Hotblack Desiato

Isn't it a shame how so many people have no insight at all into an issue so long as it only affects other people.

How many times did we hear 'when I found out my son or daughter was gay, my views changed' or 'my brother or friend told me he was gay and a Yes vote would mean a lot to him' etc. etc.

Sounds great.

But the flipside of that, is that a hell of a lot of people think it's perfectly OK to treat other people like dirt, provided they're not known to them personally.

Abortion is exactly the same. But it's still hidden behind a veil of secrecy and shame. If the truth could be told, how many people living in Ireland would NOT know a woman who had an abortion?

Gael23

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0525/703536-eight-amendment-constitution/

No Voter And Proud

seamus wrote: »

Well of course you can. Otherwise you're basically claiming that there is no difference throughout the whole of gestation.

By that logic the morning-after pill is morally wrong, which is of course nonsense, seeing as there's nothing in there except a potentially fertilised egg.

The morning after pill stops implantation. It's an egg then not a child.
To compare the two as the same is completely incorrect and potentially digressing from the actual issue of abortion. The morning after pill is not an abortifacient.

There is no difference as, once a fertilized egg is implanted from that point it's a potentially viable foetus. That's where I draw the line - in line with my impressions, morality and the wisdom imparted to show God's view for the world.

Zubeneschamali

Gael23 wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0525/703536-eight-amendment-constitution/

Just a note: please post a line telling people what your link is about. I am wary of clicking links in abortion threads in case I land on a site packed with gory images from a pathology lab somewhere.

For some reason, no-one ever posts links like that when talking about gall bladder surgery or whatever, but abortion seems to bring them out.

Zubeneschamali

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

It's an egg then not a child.

Hang on, what about the fact that life begins at conception, it's a separate human life with its own unique DNA?

You're saying it's perfectly fine to kill it at that stage, but not after it implants itself? What exactly is the difference inside the cell before and after implantation that makes it into a human life? If we reverse the implantation, does it stop being a human life?

inocybe

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Hang on, what about the fact that life begins at conception, it's a separate human life with its own unique DNA?

You're saying it's perfectly fine to kill it at that stage, but not after it implants itself? What exactly is the difference inside the cell before and after implantation that makes it into a human life? If we reverse the implantation, does it stop being a human life?

It has a stalk. Makes all the difference apparently.

inocybe

Btw, the morning after pill is not the answer to women needing abortions. It works mainly by delaying ovulation, if ovulation is already underway there is doubt whether it has any effect at all. People seem to think contraception and the MAP are 100%, which they absolutely are not. You can do everything by the book and still end up accidentally pregnant.

No Voter And Proud

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Hang on, what about the fact that life begins at conception, it's a separate human life with its own unique DNA?

You're saying it's perfectly fine to kill it at that stage, but not after it implants itself? What exactly is the difference inside the cell before and after implantation that makes it into a human life? If we reverse the implantation, does it stop being a human life?

Everyone has to reconcile their views and draw a line somewhere.
In line with the teachings of the Church, and my own viewpoint on where life begins that's where I draw the line for me.

After all, nothing further has to happen in order for a fertilized implanted egg to become a living child in 9 months. A non-implanted egg has to be implanted.

No Voter And Proud

inocybe wrote: »

It has a stalk. Makes all the difference apparently.

So, rather than laugh at my post, why not come back with an argument in favour of killing it?

inocybe wrote: »

Btw, the morning after pill is not the answer to women needing abortions. It works mainly by delaying ovulation, if ovulation is already underway there is doubt whether it has any effect at all. People seem to think contraception and the MAP are 100%, which they absolutely are not. You can do everything by the book and still end up accidentally pregnant.

It works by stopping implantation.

seamus

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

After all, nothing further has to happen in order for a fertilized implanted egg to become a living child in 9 months.

nothing further has to happen

nothing further has to happen

nothing further has to happen

Just no point in arguing with that level of ignorance.

Please go off and do some reading on the basics of human gestation to understand the insanely complex set of things that has to go absolutely right in order for a living child to emerge at the end of nine months.

inocybe

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

So, rather than laugh at my post, why not come back with an argument in favour of killing it?



It works by stopping implantation.

No, that is by no means certain. The main action is to delay ovulation. Read up on it.

Zubeneschamali

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Everyone has to reconcile their views and draw a line somewhere.

And then sling anyone who disagrees about where the line is in jail for 14 years, even if the line you chose makes not one ounce of sense.

No Voter And Proud

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And then sling anyone who disagrees about where the line is in jail for 14 years, even if the line you chose makes not one ounce of sense.

Regardless of if it makes sense to you, that's the current status in our constitution.

Zubeneschamali

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Regardless of if it makes sense to you, that's the current status in our constitution.

Well, no, "unborn" is not defined in the stupid 8th amendment, only in the stupid X case legislation.

And when we repeal the 8th amendment, the reason for the stupid x case legislation is gone, we can pass some sensible legislation based on actual medical opinion.

No Voter And Proud

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, no, "unborn" is not defined in the stupid 8th amendment, only in the stupid X case legislation.

And when we repeal the 8th amendment, the reason for the stupid x case legislation is gone, we can pass some sensible legislation based on actual medical opinion.

Stop posting your opinion as fact.
Unborn child is clear as day. Any child yet to be born. Hence my choosing of implantation as my line in the sand.

oscarBravo

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Unborn child is clear as day. Any child yet to be born.

That definition includes children who won't be born for decades. Whoops, not such a clear-cut definition after all, is it?