Repeal the 8th Bandwagoning

retro:electro

RayM wrote: »

The idea that it's "unworkable" is a total cop-out. If it stops abortion from happening, then surely it makes sense to campaign to prevent pregnant women from leaving the country. What's more important to you - someone's right to a holiday, or 3,541 people's (2015 figures) right to be born? Otherwise, you're basically saying it's acceptable for a woman to have an abortion, as long as she doesn't have it here.

But sure people can only control what happens in their own country. We have no say in what goes on outside of Ireland. Your argument could be flipped and I could ask you why don't you march for abortion rights in the Vatican City or Malta? How are we meant to know who is leaving for abortion purposes? Will they be wearing a fanny hat at the airport?
I'm pro choice by the way (within certain limits) am just flipping your argument for the purposes of clarity.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think once the foetus is capable of surviving outside the womb then all should be done to try keepvthe baby (at that point) alive, so if the woman at 8 months decides to terminate her pregnancy I believe you're looking more at inducing/section (with the mothers permission of course) so that she has the right to her body and a viable foetus has a chance to live.

This is always wheeled out as a debate but I'm pretty sure it's rare enough a woman deciding at 35 weeks to have an abortion

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RayM

anna080 wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Mandatory pregnancy test for all women attempting to leave the country. If it's positive, sorry but we can't let you leave.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Exactly, but we can enact laws to prevent pregnant women from going there in the first place. We're talking about over 3000 babies here... would it not be a small price to pay?

Outlaw Pete

RayM wrote: »

The idea that it's "unworkable" is a total cop-out. If it stops abortion from happening, then surely it makes sense to campaign to prevent pregnant women from leaving the country. What's more important to you - someone's right to a holiday, or 3,541 people's (2015 figures) right to be born? Otherwise, you're basically saying it's acceptable for a woman to have an abortion, as long as she doesn't have it here.

Not even close to being a cop out....

The reason it is unworkable is because 1) you would have to target all pregnant women that wish to travel and 2) you would have to charge people with an intention of doing something - something which (while illegal here) will very much have been legal in the country they had the procedure carried out in.... like say, unworkable.

And so you can claim I am saying it's acceptable for women to have abortions as long as they don't have them here as much as you like... won't make it so.

retro:electro

RayM wrote: »

Mandatory pregnancy test for all women attempting to leave the country. If it's positive, sorry but we can't let you leave.



Exactly, but we can enact laws to prevent pregnant women from going there in the first place. We're talking about over 3000 babies here... would it not be a small price to pay?

Ya.. cos that's not oppressive/restricting/controlling/dominating/violating at all..

RayM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Not even close to being a cop out....

The reason it is unworkable is because 1) you would have to target all pregnant women that wish to travel and 2) you would have to charge people with an intention of doing something - something which (while illegal here) will very much have been legal in the country they had the procedure carried out in.... like say, unworkable.

And so you can claim I am saying it's acceptable for women to have abortions as long as they don't have them here as much as you like... won't make it so.

It's totally workable. Mandatory pregnancy tests for all women (of all ages, because you never know) at all ports. If it's negative, off you go. If it's pregative... no holiday for you. Anyone who genuinely cared about those 3000+ unborn babies that get aborted every year would support this in a heartbeat.

anna080 wrote: »

Ya.. cos that's not oppressive/restricting/controlling/dominating/violating at all..

I know, right?

retro:electro

RayM wrote: »

It's totally workable. Mandatory pregnancy tests for all women (of all ages, because you never know) at all ports. If it's negative, off you go. If it's pregative... no holiday for you. Anyone who genuinely cared about those 3000+ unborn babies that get aborted every year would support this in a heartbeat.



I know, right?

So what you're proporting is if people really were pro life and for the rights of the unborn they'd campaign for mandatory pregnancy testing at airports and prohibit any pregnant woman from flying anywhere incase she was intending to abort the baby. You're not pro life unless you're on board with doing this- restricting a pregnant woman from flying and violating her freedom outside of Ireland whether abortion was intended or not. Ya, good one. I'm sure then you'd lobby and march outside said airports for the rights of the woman as her basic human rights would be in violation. Ya?
Honestly you're reasoning is so bizarre I would love to probe you more but can't be arsed. I think you've confused yourself tbh

Honestly this is the kind of sh!te the militant Repeal crowd are coming out with that makes other pro-choice people like myself want to scream. It answers nothing and it's just complete deflection.

RayM

anna080 wrote: »

So what you're proporting is if people really were pro life and for the rights of the unborn they'd campaign for mandatory pregnancy testing at airports and prohibit any pregnant woman from flying anywhere incase she was intending to abort the baby. You're not pro life unless you're on board with doing this- restricting a pregnant woman from flying and violating her freedom. Ya, good one. I'm sure then you'd lobby and march outside said airports for the rights of the woman as her basic human rights would be in violation. Ya?
Honestly you're reasoning is so bizarre I would love to probe you more but can't be arsed. I think you've confused yourself tbh

I'm just trying to see how far "pro-life" people would be prepared to go to protect the lives of the unborn. Not very, it would seem. It's almost like they're "bandwagoning".

retro:electro

RayM wrote: »

I'm just trying to see how far "pro-life" people would be prepared to go to protect the lives of the unborn. Not very, it would seem. It's almost like they're "bandwagoning".

What don't you get? People can't control what goes on in other countries, only here. So, like I asked you earlier, why don't you march in The Vatican or Malta for abortion rights, or is that too far for you to go to defend your cause?

Outlaw Pete

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I think once the foetus is capable of surviving outside the womb then all should be done to try keepvthe baby (at that point) alive so if the woman at 8 months decides to terminate her pregnancy I believe you're looking more at inducing/section (with the mothers permission of course) so that she has the right to her body and a viable foetus has a chance to live.

So babies with weak hearts which means they would not survive outside the womb at eight months (even with the help of an incubator) those babies are okay to kill?

This is always wheeled out as a debate but I'm pretty sure it's rare enough a woman deciding at 35 weeks to have an abortion

Well, given you are aware the argument is always made, then you should also be aware of the response to that 'well it rarely happens so why bring it up' argument, to which has always simply been 'Well, because it shows the hypocrisy in the 'it's a woman's body and so it should be her choice what she does' argument'.

You see, it's not about women have abortions at 35, 36 weeks etc, it's about pro-choicers saying babies are sucking nutrients from them etc and so they should have the right to kill them as a result of that, even though babies in the third trimester are also doing that very same thing and pro-choicers (mostly) don't believe ending pregnancies at those later stages is morally okay. Essentially what the point shows is that the 'Her body' Her choice' argument is paper thin and rarely if ever is genuinely believed, without that is, a bag full of backpedaling caveats.

Cupcake_Crisis

RayM wrote: »

Mandatory pregnancy test for all women attempting to leave the country. If it's positive, sorry but we can't let you leave.

Wait..... seriously?

Because I happen to have a womb I have to piddle on a stick before I can go on a weekend to London?

How about we stop letting men travel on the off chance that they might be fleeing the country to avoid becoming fathers too while we're at it?

RayM

anna080 wrote: »

What don't you get? People can't control what goes on in other countries, only here. So, like I asked you earlier, why don't you march in The Vatican or Malta, or is that too far for you to go to defend your cause?

You seem confused. I never said anything about controlling what goes on in other countries - my suggestion was about preventing pregnant women from going to other countries. There must be somebody on the pro-life side who thinks that the loss of the right to travel is the lesser of two evils.

RayM

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

Wait..... seriously?

Not seriously.

I'm just trying to see if people who call themselves "pro life" really care about "the unborn".

retro:electro

RayM wrote: »

You seem confused. I never said anything about controlling what goes on in other countries - my suggestion was about preventing pregnant women from going to other countries. There must be somebody on the pro-life side who thinks that the loss of the right to travel is the lesser of two evils.

It's in our constitution that a woman has the right to travel for abortions. Maybe familiarise yourself with legislation before you prematurely speak. This is the kind of horse sh!t that people like you are coming out with that in no way addresses anything and just deflects all considered conversation.

retro:electro

Spudgun wrote: »

Abortion is happening no amount of badly edit propaganda changes the fact that women from this country are been treated like second class citizens been forced to travel to another country for a simple medical procedure. If pro life campaigners care so much about human life why aren't they protesting at Tuam?

Actually sick that some people are using this as a prop for pro choice debate. Cop on to your fcuking selves.

RayM

anna080 wrote: »

It's in our constitution that a woman has the right to travel for abortions. Maybe familiarise yourself with legislation before you prematurely speak.

#repealthe13th

retro:electro

RayM wrote: »

#repealthe13th

Grow up. Come back when you're ready for actual debate, not convoluted wishy washy nonsense.

Cupcake_Crisis

This thread is actually a spot on example of what is wrong with the abortion debate at the moment.

What started as a discussion about a video is now becoming a slinging match of peoples opinions. This is always going to happen until the argument is stripped all the way back and the actual logistics of the debate are discussed by people who can have an iron clad input into it.
How many abortion threads are there now? We're all pretty well versed in each others opinions.

Even then, no matter what the outcome is not everyone will never be happy.

One eyed Jack

Legislating, or deciding against legislating to broaden our abortion laws in this country, has absolutely nothing to do with deciding what a woman as an individual citizen can, or cannot do with her own body. It's legislation that applies to every citizen of the State, including the unborn. The issue of whether or not to repeal the 8th amendment has fcukall to do with anything explained by Bill fcuking Nye "the science guy", or "clumps of cells", or quantifying sentience or term limits or any of the rest of that nonsense.

Instead of arguing what people who identify as pro-life should and shouldn't do, while arguing that they shouldn't be told what and what not to do, those campaigning to repeal the 8th should instead be focused on coming up with a coherent and convincing argument that doesn't make them sound like a non-sentient automaton, and gives people the impression and understanding that they're at least talking to a human being who is capable of understanding the issue is the law as it stands, not the law as they would like it to be that they think would "inevitably" follow a repeal, if the amendment were to be repealed.

infogiver

Lady Spangles wrote: »

That's completely different and I get the feeling you're being deliberately obtuse. The baby can survive beyond the womb. the embryo most certainly can't. It's just a clump of cells. Same for the foetus up to 24 weeks.

This clump of 24 week cells here?
https://www.google.ie/amp/www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/parents-release-photo-daughter-born-4208157.amp

ash23

I want the 8th amendment done away with.
I'm not linking it with abortion, to me it's separate. It paves the way for a proper discussion on abortion where time frames etc can be hammered out and voted on.

I want the 8th repealed because I do not believe that an embryo or foetus should have the same rights as the woman carrying it.
I do not believe that they are at all equal. A foetus or embryo is essentially a parasite up to a point. It cannot live without the woman who is carrying it. It cannot think or function without her. It is wholly dependent and those dependencies cannot be transferred to another person before a certain point.

Why should women be seen to be on an equal footing, to have the same rights, as something like that?

It has the potential to become a person but only if the woman carries it. Therefore it should be seen as lesser in the eyes of the law imo. Until such a time as that care can be handed over if the mother chooses then her rights and choices supercede that of the embryo/foetus imo.

And yes, i also believe she should have the choice as to whether she proceeds to do that or terminates but to me, that's a discussion for another day.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

So babies with weak hearts which means they would not survive outside the womb at eight months (even with the help of an incubator) those babies are okay to kill?



Well, given you are aware the argument is always made, then you should also be aware of the response to that 'well it rarely happens so why bring it up' argument, to which has always simply been 'Well, because it shows the hypocrisy in the 'it's a woman's body and so it should be her choice what she does' argument'.

You see, it's not about women have abortions at 35, 36 weeks etc, it's about pro-choicers saying babies are sucking nutrients from them etc and so they should have the right to kill them as a result of that, even though babies in the third trimester are also doing that very same thing and pro-choicers (mostly) don't believe ending pregnancies at those later stages is morally okay. Essentially what the point shows is that the 'Her body' Her choice' argument is paper thin and rarely if ever is genuinely believed, without that is, a bag full of backpedaling caveats.

Do you know how demanding a pregnancy is on a body? Nobody should be forced to go through with that if they aren't ready or don't want to and it's disturbing you care more about what will be than you do about women who are here, born and alive already.

Woodhenge

AtomicHorror wrote: »

A newborn's continued existence (usually) places nobody else at risk of serious health complications or death, whereas an embryo/foetus always does.

But I've not yet heard the argument 'we want abortion because we never want to have children', it is more to do with timing than fear of harm.

ash23

Woodhenge wrote: »

But I've not yet heard the argument 'we want abortion because we never want to have children', it is more to do with timing than fear of harm.

I had a baby at 20. I was pregnant at 19, in college and the father wanted no part of it. Obviously at that time I did not have an abortion but I did consider it.
I'm now mid 30s and in a good relationship. I've a good job and a house. None of which I had at 19.
If I fell pregnant now I would have an abortion for health reasons. A pregnancy has the potential to render me physically incapable. It's not always the case but possible and I have my existing child and myself to consider in that equation .
There are women like me, whose health could be seriously affected by a pregnancy and we do what we can to prevent a pregnancy but if it happened I'd like to be able to have an abortion at home instead of wasting thousands on travel not to mention the fact that I would be very upset about being in that position and having to travel etc.

It's not as rare as you'd think.

Woodhenge

ash23 wrote: »

I want the 8th amendment done away with.
I'm not linking it with abortion, to me it's separate. It paves the way for a proper discussion on abortion where time frames etc can be hammered out and voted on.

I want the 8th repealed because I do not believe that an embryo or foetus should have the same rights as the woman carrying it.
I do not believe that they are at all equal. A foetus or embryo is essentially a parasite up to a point. It cannot live without the woman who is carrying it. It cannot think or function without her. It is wholly dependent and those dependencies cannot be transferred to another person before a certain point.

Why should women be seen to be on an equal footing, to have the same rights, as something like that?

It has the potential to become a person but only if the woman carries it. Therefore it should be seen as lesser in the eyes of the law imo. Until such a time as that care can be handed over if the mother chooses then her rights and choices supercede that of the embryo/foetus imo.

And yes, i also believe she should have the choice as to whether she proceeds to do that or terminates but to me, that's a discussion for another day.

See, that is an opinion. One of the main reasons we have fundemental human rights is that no one's opinion on who deserves to live or die can be put into practice. It is a recognition that opinions change over time and often just to suit the best interests of whoever has power over the weak.


A fundamental human right is a declaration that the value of one life over another is not a decision we are equipped or empowered to make.


Almost everything you have said applies to a newborn as well as a foetus.

ash23

Woodhenge wrote: »

See, that is an opinion. One of the main reasons we have fundemental human rights is that no one's opinion on who deserves to live or die can be put into practice. It is a recognition that opinions change over time and often just to suit the best interests of whoever has power over the weak.


A fundamental human right is a declaration that the value of one life over another is not a decision we are equipped or empowered to make.


Almost everything you have said applies to a newborn as well as a foetus.

I dealt with the newborn Vs foetus thing in my post. A couple of times I mentioned that "up to a point".

Opinions change laws. If enough people are of the same opinion they can influence change. Divorce, gay marriage, equal pay, paternity leave....The list is endless.

Opinions are changing with each generation. These people then group together and push for change and if enough people agree with them, change happens.
It's my opinion but I'm not alone in it. That's obvious. It's open to debate as to whether I'm in the minority but a referendum would decide that. Which is all that's being asked for. For my generation and the current generation to be allowed to have our say.

Samaris

If it comes to a referendum being called, I'll be getting involved in the campaign to repeal the eighth (somehow, I'm not in a great place geographically to do so). But I was involved in the marriage equality referendum and I know already just how mean-spirited, cruel and untruthful people will be about it.

I really wish there was some sort of independent fact-checking place to look into what exactly is being suggested. Because I know from experience that all sorts of nonsense will be presented to confuse the Irish people into voting out of fear, and that was before the campaign of misinformation style of politics was perfected in 2016.

Whichever place you stand on it, this campaign is going to be deeply ugly.

Samaris

Samaris wrote: »

If it comes to a referendum being called, I'll be getting involved in the campaign to repeal the eighth (somehow, I'm not in a great place geographically to do so). But I was involved in the marriage equality referendum and I know already just how mean-spirited, cruel and untruthful people will be about it.

I really wish there was some sort of independent fact-checking place to look into what exactly is being suggested. Because I know from experience that all sorts of nonsense will be presented to confuse the Irish people into voting out of fear, and that was before the campaign of misinformation style of politics was perfected in 2016.

Whichever place you stand on it, this campaign is going to be deeply ugly.

Agreed, I canvassed for the marriage equality ref and had a mostly positive experience but I've no doubt the 8th ref is going to be a lot darker.

It was bad enough when people on the No side in the marriage ref were allowed to change the conversation to irrelevant issues such as surrogacy, and went largely unchallenged in the name of 'balance'. There's even more misinformation regarding abortion that seriously needs a good independent body to fact check and keep both sides in line.

And before I have to read it again in this thread, people who don't want to put strict time limits on abortion don't necessarily think a mother should just be able to abort a baby the week before it's due. Keep in mind that late term (surgical) abortions have to be performed by doctors and no doctor is going to terminate a healthy foetus where the foetus can survive outside the womb. The only time these sort of 'late term' abortions that everyone is so afraid of happen is in cases of fatal foetal abnormalities. Often these abnormalities are not possible to diagnose earlier in the pregnancy, or the woman originally decides to carry the baby to term anyway but gets too overwhelmed with people asking about her baby that she knows isn't going to live that she changes her mind.

Many pro-choice campaigners believe that the medical profession & pregnant women are more qualified to make a call on these situations and the needs and health of both women and fetuses better than the government can, so we should leave them to it without constraining them to strict cut off points.

Wibbs

TheChizler wrote: »

Human life began tens of thousands of years ago.

Eh.... no.

Lady Spangles wrote: »

They don't have a voice because they're non-sentient. What on earth do you value the non-sentient over living women, for? It's absurd.

That argument is absurd and has so many holes one could hire it out to fishermen. Your argument seems to boil down to "only women matter/Cos women". Men are nowhere in the picture, unless they agree 100% with this hardline position, wider society means nothing and a foetus is just a bunch of cells. No nuance involved.