What would you like the next referendum to legalise abortion or euthanasia?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

thee glitz wrote: »

Legalise here, not an offence, but still wrong.



Both moral and legal. It's not right, I wouldn't facilitate abortion.
Not allowing females to travel would be a disproportionate move,
they're not doing anything illegal.

Do you not see how hypocritical that is though? I'm sorry I really don't mean to have a go at you, but this is an attitude a lot of Irish people have. They decided, under the influence of a very religious education system and society, that abortion is murder; and they haven't properly questioned that reading of the situation since.

How is it disproportionate to prevent people from travelling, if they have the express intent of committing murder at the other end of that journey? If you feel that that IS disproportionate, why do you feel that way?

The situation in Ireland now is that middle-class, older women can avail of safe abortion if they so choose, because they can afford it. Teenagers, travellers, asylum seekers, single mothers, the unemployed: they can't without serious difficulty, expense, and trauma. That situation is insane.

If you disagree with abortion, push for better sex education in schools, better and more affordable access to contraception, better healthcare for the poor and more affordable childcare. That's what will bring the numbers down.

FouxDaFaFa

mikemac1 wrote: »

Remember lads, you are not to have any views on abortion because you must know your place! You know nothing. Amanda says so

Way to shoe-horn a "poor men" argument into a thread where literally not one person has suggested men shouldn't be allowed to debate this.

Riverireland

thee glitz wrote: »

Legalise here, not an offence, but still wrong.



Both moral and legal. It's not right, I wouldn't facilitate abortion.
Not allowing females to travel would be a disproportionate move,
they're not doing anything illegal.



What would you do?

I would give the person the right to abortion on demand. Free of charge. There are already enough neglected children in this country, can't see any reson for someone to continue with a pregnancy if they don't want to. It not my place to control the moral decisions of another adult with regard to their own body!

Here's another thing I'd legalise drugs too! Provide safe legal substances for those addicted. Instead of labelling them junkies and throwing them in jail! I'd treat them more like alcoholics and send them to rehab.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Kells1 wrote: »

Try googling abortion techniques and u might be surprised by some of the other barbaric practices that are commonly used

Try googling the ways abortion is actually performed in the 2010s, not the 1960s. Before nine weeks, it's a medical abortion in the vast, vast, majority of cases. You know what makes a lot of abortions happen later than nine weeks? The eighth amendment.

thee glitz

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Why should a woman be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her will when doing so going to cause long term damage to her health?

What's this about health damage?

Calina

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Yes, actually. I would recommend Freakonomics' piece on abortion and crime rates. I would like to see both, but I feel abortion is the more important of the two.

I've read it and remain unconvinced of the causative effect particularly as most women who have abortions in the US go on to have children subsequently.

Kiwi in IE

RobertKK wrote: »

I believe if the unborn were not hidden away in a Uterus, there would be far less pro-choice people

Well unfortunately for pro lifers, we are talking about the lives, health, autonomy and bodily integrity of human women, not marsupials!

I also agree that if foetuses grew somewhere other than inside the body of another, there would be far less demand to terminate them. But that is not relevant to the abortion debate.

Kiwi in IE

RobertKK wrote: »

A baby cannot live outside the human body without a host to look after it, so you have justified the Oxford ethicists who say killing babies should be allowed.

Robert that is just silly and you know it.

volchitsa

Calina wrote: »

I've read it and remain unconvinced of the causative effect particularly as most women who have abortions in the US go on to have children subsequently.

Not sure how that disproves the Freaknomics hypothesis. A woman who has a child at 17 by a violent partner is likely to remain in poverty all her life (that's not Freaknomics, that's from various studies). If the same woman has an abortion, she gets a chance to leave the guy, finish her education, get a job etc before going on to have a child in her mid to late twenties. That child will have a totally different upbringing not only to the one she'd have had at 17, but also the subsequent ones she'd have had if she'd been forced to have the first one at 17.

inocybe

Sydney Chilly Magnate wrote: »

Try googling the ways abortion is actually performed in the 2010s, not the 1960s. Before nine weeks, it's a medical abortion in the vast, vast, majority of cases. You know what makes a lot of abortions happen later than nine weeks? The eighth amendment.

Absolutely right

thee glitz

Riverireland wrote: »

I would give the person the right to abortion on demand. Free of charge.

That's abhorrent to me. Mandatory pre-abortion counselling? also, free?

Riverireland wrote: »

There are already enough neglected children in this country, can't see any reson for someone to continue with a pregnancy if they don't want to. It not my place to control the moral decisions of another adult witjunkih regard to their own body!

Controlling would be wrong. Legislating against is the way, with advice and support.

Riverireland wrote: »

Here's another thing I'd legalise drugs too! Provide safe legal substances for those addicted. Instead of labelling them junkies and throwing them in jail! I'd treat them more like alcoholics and send them to rehab.

I think they brought that in in Portugal and it's working well.
We do provide methadone for junkies. Don't they end up in
jail for other things usually, not for taking drugs? Or end up
junkies in jail?

Kiwi in IE

Robert, I like you, despite that you infuriate me.
Has a mandatory gay groom come to marry you yet? No? Well abortion laws will be liberalised in the near future, but you won't be forced to have an abortion, and neither will your partner, so don't worry about it.

Riverireland

volchitsa wrote: »

Not sure how that disproves the Freaknomics hypothesis. A woman who has a child at 17 by a violent partner is likely to remain in poverty all her life (that's not Freaknomics, that's from various studies). If the same woman has an abortion, she gets a chance to leave the guy, finish her education, get a job etc before going on to have a child in her mid to late twenties. That child will have a totally different upbringing not only to the one she'd have had at 17, but also the subsequent ones she'd have had if she'd been forced to have the first one at 17.

Totally agree with this. Evidence of it everywhere. It is one of those unfortunate facts. If the pro lifers are willing to provide housing, free child care and access to free education to the mother I'd be much more inclined to have time for their opinions. Put your money where your mouth is and all that.

thee glitz

volchitsa wrote: »

That child will have a totally different upbringing not only to the one she'd have had at 17, but also the subsequent ones she'd have had if she'd been forced to have the first one at 17.

Yes, specifically, it won't be dead.

RobertKK

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Robert that is just silly and you know it.

No, read what the experts from Oxford said. They say infanticide should be allowed as the reasons used to justify abortion can be used to kill babies.

FouxDaFaFa

Sydney Chilly Magnate wrote: »

If you disagree with abortion, push for better sex education in schools, better and more affordable access to contraception, better healthcare for the poor and more affordable childcare. That's what will bring the numbers down.

This is so important and something, oddly, pro-life groups seem to be against. Often they will prefer abstinence-only and be against condoms and the pill.

It is so easy for pro-life groups to scare people by putting months-old babies wearing babygros on posters and essentially asking "why would you kill this baby? Listen to him laugh".

Then you'll get the propaganda films like "The Silent Scream" (probably the most famous) and bizarre stuff like what's happening in the US with pro-life organisations setting up fake abortion clinics very close to real clinics (they actually outnumber real clinics), in an attempt to trick women into coming to them instead of the real clinic.

There, they berate women and sometimes use their personal details to call the woman's family members and ask them if they know she's getting an abortion. I read a story from one woman who went to a clinic like this and received "happy birthday from your dead baby" cards in the post for months.

These organisations are not interested in lowering abortion rates. They are interested in shaming women.

RobertKK

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Robert, I like you, despite that you infuriate me.
Has a mandatory gay groom come to marry you yet? No? Well abortion laws will be liberalised in the near future, but you won't be forced to have an abortion, and neither will your partner, so don't worry about it.

I'm waiting for pre-nups to be legalised...

Your argument is like saying one shouldn't concern oneself with something that happens elsewhere, but people do care about what happens to life elsewhere.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

I can understand why people disagree with abortion. I don't agree with them, but I understand their position and respect their right to hold and to air their views.

What I do not understand is supporting the continuing existence of the eighth amendment. It's a legal and ethical anomaly for the late twentieth century, never mind the twenty-first; and it has led to two absolute horror movies of situations in the past couple of years alone. Not to mention the dangerous self-administered and back-street abortions, people having to leave jobs or fail college courses to travel to get abortions, couples with unviable pregnancies being put through that hell...it does not and never did result in no Irish women having abortions, it's just making them infinitely more damaging to women than they have to be. It has to go.

Riverireland

thee glitz wrote: »

That's abhorrent to me. Mandatory pre-abortion counselling? also, free?

Yes, that would do no harm provided it wasn't forceful counselling.

Controlling would be wrong. Legislating against is the way, with advice and support.



I think they brought that in in Portugal and it's working well.
We do provide methadone for junkies. Don't they end up in
jail for other things usually, not for taking drugs? Or end up
junkies in jail?

Methadone is a major problem in itself and maybe something you would need to read up on yourself.

The Portugal way would be more what I would suggest. We criminalise addiction, which is basically an illness or compulsion if you consider smoking and over eating in a similar way.

thee glitz

Riverireland wrote: »

If the pro lifers are willing to provide housing, free child care and access to free education to the mother I'd be much more inclined to have time for their opinions. Put your money where your mouth is and all that.

That all sounds lovely, really does. Would voting Labour help?

sunshine and showers

If you disagree with abortion, by all means, don't have one.

thee glitz

Riverireland wrote: »

We criminalise addiction

I take it you me decriminalise. There's should be debate on that.

I see the junkies hanging round outside the clinics, on the boardwalk.
Methadone clinics should be taken out of the city centre. We should be
careful not to allow moral hazard to arise too.

SummerSummit

fiachr_a wrote: »

Constitutional claim over Northern Ireland again referendum should be the next one.

Hahaha that will never happen.

Stheno

Can we not just have a rest from referenda?

Calina

I'd apologise for the multiquote but I find it better than a load of posts at the same time so...

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

I don't see the need to allow abortion anyway.
We've got transport to the UK for the unmentionables that would do that to a child, and for the rest of us there's Ireland.

This is one of the most stupid comments I've seen anyone post on After Hours although to be fair, I pick the threads I read with some care.

If it's okay for people to have an abortion in the UK, then by definition, it is okay for them to have an abortion in Ireland. Regardless of what you think of the unmentionables as you so judgementally call them, the fact is, if you can justify abortion of their babies in the UK, you can justify it in Ireland.

In the meantime, people who dismiss other human beings as unmentionables can hardly honestly describe themselves as followers of Jesus Christ. He was all for inclusivity and not for dismissing the other shall we say.

You claim to be a practising Christian. Perhaps a little humility is called for as you understand that if you are a genuine practising Christian, you don't get to dismiss other human beings as unmentionables.

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Pregnancy not being viable and a danger to the mother are both provided for in our existing abortion laws. Not that I agree with them mind. As a practising christian I cannot see how killing any of Gods creations is within my remit.

If you have read the relevant piece of legislation which you are aware was contentious, you will be aware that the one thing that isn't mentioned in it is abortion. Effectively, it provides in all cases for trying to keep the foetus alive.

My personal view is that the legislation is inadequate to the needs of the X case given the many hoops required to jump through to prove you are suicidal. Anyone who knows anything at all about mental health has severe concerns about that.

You don't agree with the legislation because you think it enables abortion. You've clearly not read it.

folamh wrote: »

I agree, but it's not as urgent as abortion and euthanasia. How has this law affected people's civil liberties in a practical sense, anyway? I've never heard of anyone coming into legal trouble for blaspheming. I do it all the time!

I would be in favour of removing blasphemy from the constitution. I especially do not want the risk of it being used by any religion at all to protect itself against justified criticism. CF debate on whether the Irish Times should be able to publish cartoons from Charlie Hebdo if you didn't miss it.

thee glitz wrote: »

Abortion is murder. It can only be morally defended on the grounds of saving a mother's life, and not on the basis of some spurious suicide risk.

I'm not a fan of euthanasia either but the reality is that there are people in great pain who seek it and those who assist shouldn't be criminalised.

There's a certain amount of hypocrisy in calling abortion murder but not calling assistant suicide murder.

Suicide, incidentally, is not a spurious risk to some people's lives.

volchitsa wrote: »

Removing article 40.3 from the constitution is not legalizing abortion. Abortion wasn't legal before that article was put in, was it?

Secondly, if abortion is murder, how on earth is euthanasia not murder?

Abortion was not legal per a provision in the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act. The provisions relating to abortion in that Act have been repealed as a result of the Protection of Life in Pregnancy Act.

Technically, abortion was legalised by the 8th Amendment when it referred to the equal right to life of the mother. Absent that and I wonder what the outcome of the X case might have been.

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Yes but he said it wasnt murder - which it clearly is. Especially in the second and third trimester. A viable child is being killed. Or "Aborted"

Abortion, in my view, should be a case by case basis. It's worth noting that the mere fact of reaching the second or third trimester does not guarantee viability. If you're labouring under the illusion that it is always a viable child, I think you're wrong. Check out the TMFE movement.

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

No woman I would socialise with would have an abortion so thats a moot point.

I'm afraid you don't know this. Based on your comments in this thread, I'm pretty sure that any woman of your acquaintance who has had an abortion or who has considered it during a personal crisis would not discuss the matter with you for the simple fact that you appear to be intransigent and judgemental. And not particularly caring.

fattymuatty wrote: »

And what about women? What about our right to equality?

We've a long way to go.

sunshine and showers wrote: »

I can't believe that after a referendum on equality, we continue to afford a foetus the same rights as the living, breathing woman carrying it, denying her of her right to bodily autonomy. Women are not vessels, here to carry foetuses about to ease your moral guilt over something that isn't even your business.

We didn't just have a referendum on equality. We had a referendum of a very specific matter relating to administrative equality with respect to marriage rights. I want to be very specific on this because the results of the last 2 referendums make it clear that people consider each matter on its own merits per their own value system.

frostyjacks wrote: »

1. It's my belief, grounded in science and religion.
2. The unborn have an equal right to life.

To my knowledge, science has not made definitive statements in this respect. And other religions are not as dogmatic on the matter as some of the Christian religions are.

With respect to 2, aspirationally they might have. But nature dictates otherwise on occasion.

Eutow wrote: »

[/B]


They don't, even in Ireland. It is also impossible to grant equal rights to both.

Technically, per the Constitution, they do. In practical terms, as we've found out, this is difficult to balance.

thee glitz wrote: »

I haven't seen that in the news yet, hope I don't. It's an outrageous thing to do.

I think your world would be better if you avoided matters that upset you.

thee glitz wrote: »

I thought asylum seekers loved having kids here. They should be allowed travel to England if they wish, off they go. Still sad though.

This is a profoundly ignorant assertion in the meaning of the word "not knowing what you are talking about". One of the key issues for asylum seekers in terms of going to the UK may relate to their ability to get a temporary visa to do so. Regardless of the CTA, if they are not carrying a nationality acceptable to enter the UK without a visa, they don't get to go there just to have an abortion.

However, I'd also add that if it's okay for people to have abortions in the UK, then it is profoundly hypocritical to deny them access to the same procedure in Ireland.

thee glitz wrote: »

I'm still very anti abortion, it's as selfish an action can be.
I said they should be allowed go to England if they please.
It's sad that anyone would though.

CF what I said above about hypocrisy. I would also add that you are fully entitled to be extremely anti-abortion. However, you should only make that decision for yourself, and not, inter alia, every other woman in Ireland.

fiachr_a wrote: »

Constitutional claim over Northern Ireland again referendum should be the next one.

Personally disagree with this but it's an interesting distraction from the morally difficult ones.

thee glitz wrote: »

It's unnecessarily taking someone's life.

You don't get to decide what's necessary. As I noted a million miles up in this post, abortion should be dealt with on a case by case basis.

volchitsa wrote: »

Not sure how that disproves the Freaknomics hypothesis. A woman who has a child at 17 by a violent partner is likely to remain in poverty all her life (that's not Freaknomics, that's from various studies). If the same woman has an abortion, she gets a chance to leave the guy, finish her education, get a job etc before going on to have a child in her mid to late twenties. That child will have a totally different upbringing not only to the one she'd have had at 17, but also the subsequent ones she'd have had if she'd been forced to have the first one at 17.

The issue is that iirc, the Freakonomics paper referred specifically to a particular demographic and many young women, whether they are 17 or 23 are not necessarily escaping the poverty they are in at the stage of 17. You should have a look at the figures for high school diplomas for some economic demographics in the US. They aren't great. For a lot of young women in the US, if they don't get their high school diploma, the net result is they won't be economically stable at any stage of their lives.

Pocoyo

How about fathers rights OP. The biggest scandal of the 21st century we just had a vote on equality what about the dads that commit suicide over the pain of being denied access to their kids and kids being denied the right to know their father.

Eugene Norman

The economist link, probably behind a firewall for most, gave three or four statistical reasons why the freakonomics paper was debunked.

That's a very dubious moral argument anyway.

Riverireland

thee glitz wrote: »

That all sounds lovely, really does. Would voting Labour help?

I doubt it, at this stage I have no faith in politicians, can't advise you there.

Riverireland

thee glitz wrote: »

I take it you me decriminalise. There's should be debate on that.

I see the junkies hanging round outside the clinics, on the boardwalk.
Methadone clinics should be taken out of the city centre. We should be
careful not to allow moral hazard to arise too.

Where would you suggest we put the clinics? This is a topic I would be a lot less familar with if I weren't forced to confront it every time I'm in Dublin City.

thee glitz

Calina wrote: »

If it's okay for people to have an abortion in the UK, then by definition, it is okay for them to have an abortion in Ireland.

If it's not okay for people to have an abortion in Ireland, it's not okay in the UK?

I would be in favour of removing blasphemy from the constitution.

Yes, it's ridiculous.

There's a certain amount of hypocrisy in calling abortion murder but not calling assistant suicide murder.

I disagree - those seeking euthanasia do so by choice. No other life is at stake.

Suicide, incidentally, is not a spurious risk to some people's lives

Legislating for abortion in the case of a suicidal mother could effectively result in a free for all.

I think your world would be better if you avoided matters that upset you.

I'm comfortable with my world view, trying to help create a better society any little way I can.

This is a profoundly ignorant assertion in the meaning of the word "not knowing what you are talking about". One of the key issues for asylum seekers in terms of going to the UK may relate to their ability to get a temporary visa to do so. Regardless of the CTA, if they are not carrying a nationality acceptable to enter the UK without a visa, they don't get to go there just to have an abortion.

This is Ireland I'm talking about. The UK are entitled to let in whoever they like, subject to their EU obligations.

However, I'd also add that if it's okay for people to have abortions in the UK, then it is profoundly hypocritical to deny them access to the same procedure in Ireland.

Ireland and the UK are independent nations, making their own laws.

CF what I said above about hypocrisy. I would also add that you are fully entitled to be extremely anti-abortion. However, you should only make that decision for yourself, and not, inter alia, every other woman in Ireland.

Some say you can judge a country on how it treats animals. For me, how they treat the unborn should be more important.

You don't get to decide what's necessary. As I noted a million miles up in this post, abortion should be dealt with on a case by case basis.

I get a say when I vote. Abortion laws don't just fall from the sky. It's tricky to legislate for a case by case basis but everyone's circumstances are different.