Repeal the 8th Bandwagoning

me_right_one

More "Repeal mindset" disgusting nonsense:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/feminist-dressed-as-virgin-mary-pretends-to-abort-jesus-in-front-of-cathedr


My bet is that these people would be anti-anything. If abortion was legal, they would be the current pro-euthanisers. Sick, sick people.

SpillingTheTea

I'm pro choice. Simply put, I just don't think it's right that anyone should have a say in what I do with my reproductive system. That being said, I do feel that the Repeal strike/march didn't help the pro-choice side. I think that it was too much being shoved down people's throats and that is doing nothing but harm.


I personally think abortion should only be available up to 12-16 weeks and then if something were to happen medically after that time for example sepsis which can develop within 6 weeks of delivery, then I think that decision to abort should be made by the mother at that point in order to save her life.

Pro-Lifers shouldn't disagree that life is important so when did the life of the mother become non existent? Look at what happened to Savita Halappanavar. Her life could have been saved at that point had an abortion been allowed to take place. She was already having a miscarriage at that point. The baby, unfortunately had already died.


But having said all that, I do respect that others have differing opinions, even if we don't agree.

LuckyLloyd

Lady Spangles wrote: »

We've tried "being nice" and being "polite". It gets you nowhere. You have to make your voice heard, you have to take a stand otherwise the campaign will be totally ignored. It's no good saying "Protest" and then adding, "but wait! Not like that!"

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Absolutely, and there's no 'voice' that needs to be heard more than that of the unfortunately voiceless........... the unborn developing child.

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.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

A fetus is NOT a "woman's body". They are a separate human being.

The parents of the following baby, born at 24 weeks, released the following photo specifically so people like you would stop speaking of them as if they were merely a part of a woman's body to be disposed of as they wish.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Sentience is a nonsense argument given that there is no scientific consensus on just what sentience is. Some scientists argue that certain plants are sentient and at the other other end of the scale some will argue that even new born babies are not yet sentient...... is it okay to kill them too??

How about people in comas who are no longer conscious. Should it be legal to kill them? Surely by the criteria set by people like you, they are no longer human beings who are alive and so if that's the case, how could it be murder if someone chose to still their heartbeat?

Lady Spangles wrote: »

People in a persistent vegetative state already have their machines switched off depending on the wishes of the family (I'm quoting UK law, not sure where RoI stands). But you're obfuscating the issue here as we're talking about embryos and foetuses. That's not quite the same thing as someone in a coma.

An embryo is just cells. Nothing more.

LexieOnRale wrote: »

If there is something in the woman's body taking nutrients from her body, causing her to be ill and restricting her from partaking in her usual activities and she does not wish to allow another human being rely on her body to become viable, putting pressure on her body physically or mentally then she trumps the rights of a potential human

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well, if you actually believed the above then you would support abortions at 8 months into a pregnancy?

Do you? If so, why, and if not, why not?

Also, you speak about unborn children as if they are parasites. They are not. They result primarily for consensual sex and the risks of such are known from we are children ourselves. A certain level of facing one's responsibilities would be nice.

I don't believe men should be able to run away from facing their responsibilities either and if they can't run, I don't see why women should be able to. Some might argue for the so called financial 'male abortion', not me though. Adults need to be responsible for their actions.

This is not sub saharan Africa. A woman gets pregnant in Ireland and she will be given financial assistance, medical care etc. If she does not wish to keep the child, there are other options available to her too, such as adoption. Barring risk to life and ffa, there is no morally justifiable reason for women to be having non medically necessary abortions in this day and age... in western society at least.

Exchanges like this are a window into the eventual referendum debate when it comes. As someone who is for the Repeal of the 8th on the basis that the constitution should not deal with the matter and it should instead be dealt with via legislative preference, I must say that the Pro Life side come across as far more polished and convincing. I have no doubt this will extend to the actual campaign itself, where the likes of the Iona Institute will be able to put forth eloquent and media savvy spokespeople who are far more battle hardened than their equivalent on the Repeal side of the coin.

I can only hope that campaigners like Lady Spangles learn from having their arguments calmly dismantled in discussions like this and refine their positions ahead of the real debate. Even if you believe in full female bodily autonomy and a Canada style abortion regime, you need to win this debate first in the context of an Ireland that does not have a majority pro choice outlook and a well organised and funded Pro Life lobby. Narrow your focus, tighten your arguments. Win. Then start the long legislative battle once the 8th is repealed.

pumpkin4life

Lady Spangles wrote: »

No it's not. It's a clump of cells, a barely fertilised egg, being flushed out of a uterus. It's not a person, or a baby. It's not a sentient being, or a viable life. Just a ball of cells.

And, with all that in mind, what is wrong with giving women bodily autonomy? If you don't want an abortion, or you find it morally repugnant, that is fine. You don't have to have an abortion if you don't want one. But the choice we're offering to you is the same one you're denying to every other woman in Ireland. And that's what it's really all about: choice. the right to choose.

Check out this Bill Nye video about what abortion actually is. And, perhaps, stop dictating to other people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.

Always found this argument completely dodgy as fùck tbh.

One: Your body is not this thing that you can do whatever you want with. Same for men, same for women. If you abuse it, that has real consequences for the rest of us. It's this odd extension of the libertarian "muh freedom" bullshìt thats been cropping up more and more recently.

If you are fat, sick, a junkie, I have to pay for that in terms of taxes, increased societal disintegration and dysfunction and crime etc, be it among family and friends etc.

You have a moral obligation to treat your body well imo.

Two: Your freedom is not greater than a life, independent of you, who is now towed on for the (pun intended) ride. That's an incredibly selfish thing to think. It's part of this increased Western narcissism whereby everyone thinks that they're the center of their own little movie. But of course, you get your choice, right?

The only good thing lads: if some wan you know is feverishly banging the
I love abortion drum, going to protests and all that and you're dating her, you know that you should get the fùck out of there. What sort of psycho wan loves the idea of having the freedom to kill her own kid?

canonball5

Anyone wearing those REPEAL tops is a knob jockey.

SpillingTheTea

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Lady Spangles wrote: »

No it's not. It's a clump of cells, a barely fertilised egg, being flushed out of a uterus. It's not a person, or a baby. It's not a sentient being, or a viable life. Just a ball of cells.

And, with all that in mind, what is wrong with giving women bodily autonomy? If you don't want an abortion, or you find it morally repugnant, that is fine. You don't have to have an abortion if you don't want one. But the choice we're offering to you is the same one you're denying to every other woman in Ireland. And that's what it's really all about: choice. the right to choose.

Check out this Bill Nye video about what abortion actually is. And, perhaps, stop dictating to other people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.

Always found this argument completely dodgy as fùck tbh.

One: Your body is not this thing that you can do whatever you want with. Same for men, same for women. If you abuse it, that has real consequences for the rest of us. It's this odd extension of the libertarian "muh freedom" bullshìt.

If you are fat, sick, a junkie, I have to pay for that in terms of taxes, increased societal disintegration and dysfunction and crime etc, be it among family and friends etc.

You have a moral obligation to treat your body well imo.

Two: Your freedom is not greater than a life, independent of you, who is now towed on for the (pun intended) ride. That's an incredibly selfish thing to think. It's part of this increased Western narcissism whereby everyone thinks that they're the center of their own little movie. But of course, you get your choice, right?

The only good thing lads: if some wan you know is feverishly banging the
I love abortion drum, going to protests and all that and you're dating her, you know that you should get the fùck out of there.

Ok, but what if a woman was raped? God forbid what if a young girl was raped? Should they not get to choose what happens to their body then?

me_right_one

SpillingTheTea wrote: »

Ok, but what if a woman was raped? God forbid what if a young girl was raped? Should they not get to choose what happens to their body then?

I'd sooner kill the rapist than the kid. Its not the kids fault.

Someone I know was pregnant & for whatever reason the pregnancy became nonviable (I can't remember exactly why) and they had to abort. Thankfully they were in a country where this could be done in the hospital they went to, by extremely understanding and respectful and lovely medical staff. Someone else I know had more or less the same issues but because they lived in Ireland, they had to travel to the UK to get it done.

I'm not going to get into her "it's her body, her choice" blanket statement because there are so many other issues with that, but surely everyone can agree that making a woman make the choice between traveling abroad, as if they were doing something wrong, or going through a nonviable pregnancy is utterly ludicrous.

However I do feel there are a lot of people that do just jump on the bandwagon. However, if this gives more credence to their cause and more voices to be heard, then surely this isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Edit to add -

Something else that people should be pushing for, alongside the abortion debate, is adequate teaching for sexual education, adequate family planning facilities, adequate access to free contraception.

Abortions in America have dropped dramatically over the past few years and this can be attributed somewhat to the likes of Planned Parenthood. It is ludicrous to me that we still don't have a similar situation.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Outlaw Pete

ash23 wrote: »

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.

I feel, if it's not already, that tubal ligation should be available (at no charge) for women like yourself, as also should vasectomies for their long term partners.

farmchoice

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh.... no.

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.

the lack of finesse and understanding on show from the repeal campaigners at the moment is terrifying. its like they landed in Ireland from outer space they seem to have no understanding of the historical context of the issue, no understanding of the complexity of the issue and absolutely no understanding of the Irish electorate.

its understandable that a lot of the more senior, informed and intelligent pro choice campaigners have been quite to date as as of yet there is no campaign to fight but unless the come out and put a leash on these head bangers there could be serious damage done to the chances of a successful outcome for the pro choice side.

i think a lot of the present repeal campaigners cut their teeth during the marriage equality referendum and think this will be a re run of that. during that campaign the issues were simple enough by and large the electorate were on side and really it was just a question of the margin of victory. plus the opposition generally came from the extreme wing of the church.

this is nothing like that.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

retro:electro

SpillingTheTea wrote: »

I'm pro choice. Simply put, I just don't think it's right that anyone should have a say in what I do with my reproductive system. That being said, I do feel that the Repeal strike/march didn't help the pro-choice side. I think that it was too much being shoved down people's throats and that is doing nothing but harm.


I personally think abortion should only be available up to 12-16 weeks and then if something were to happen medically after that time for example sepsis which can develop within 6 weeks of delivery, then I think that decision to abort should be made by the mother at that point in order to save her life.

Pro-Lifers shouldn't disagree that life is important so when did the life of the mother become non existent? Look at what happened to Savita Halappanavar. Her life could have been saved at that point had an abortion been allowed to take place. She was already having a miscarriage at that point. The baby, unfortunately had already died.


But having said all that, I do respect that others have differing opinions, even if we don't agree.

The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act was put in place in 2013, which places the life of the mother above that of her child, and allows for abortion should her life be at risk.

Christy42

me_right_one wrote: »

I'd sooner kill the rapist than the kid. Its not the kids fault.

That hardly helps the poor rape victim now does it.


I do love that most of this thread just gives out about the repeal campaign. It gives me some hope as when they can't attack the argument they attack the people. The same happened in the marriage equality campaign. You campaign for something at all and you are accused of shoving it down people's throats. Near as I can see you are meant to campaign without anybody ever knowing.

Seriously though, if someone's only option for life was a blood transfusion with my blood I would not be forced to give blood if I did not choose to. Sure I would be killing the person but I would not be forced. Odds of anything bad happening to me: miniscule and I would not be forced to juggle a child and college or whatever.

Make that person a selection of cells and make it an active procedure to stop the cells relying on me and suddenly people are against me. Makes no sense really.

ash23

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Women with my condition can and do have babies. If i wanted to my doctor would support me. But I'd have to come off my medication and risk a relapse after the birth. It's not life threatening therefore the 8th amendment ensures i cannot do anything but travel.
My life is not at risk, just my mobility, vision and neural pathways. Not my life.
That is the problem with offering a foetus the same right as the woman who carries it. Her health is not enough of a reason to warrant an abortion. She has to be dying for it to be done and in some cases that means letting a situation become life threatening because a doctor is too afraid to act.

That is a problem .

ash23

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I feel, if it's not already, that tubal ligation should be available (at no charge) for women like yourself, as also should vasectomies for their long term partners.

My partner and i are both early 30s and neither of us feel that we would want a permanent fix. Just in case.
I had to pay for my the fitting of a coil which is the most effective form of contraception and that's with a medical card.

freshpopcorn

Christy42 wrote: »

I do love that most of this thread just gives out about the repeal campaign. It gives me some hope as when they can't attack the argument they attack the people. The same happened in the marriage equality campaign. You campaign for something at all and you are accused of shoving it down people's throats. Near as I can see you are meant to campaign without anybody ever knowing.

I know lots of people who want the 8th amendment repealed however one problem people have is with they people involved in the repeal campaign is their all on different pages regarding what circumstances they want abortion allowed.

punk_one82

me_right_one wrote: »

I'd sooner kill the rapist than the kid. Its not the kids fault.

It's also not the rape victims fault, yet she'd have to deal with the consequences while people like you don't think she has the right to make that choice for herself.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wibbs

Christy42 wrote: »

I do love that most of this thread just gives out about the repeal campaign. It gives me some hope as when they can't attack the argument they attack the people.

No. The vast majority are "attacking" the specious all too often crazily black and white "arguments" of some, too many, of the Repeal campaigners.

Seriously though, if someone's only option for life was a blood transfusion with my blood I would not be forced to give blood if I did not choose to. Sure I would be killing the person but I would not be forced. Odds of anything bad happening to me: miniscule and I would not be forced to juggle a child and college or whatever.

Make that person a selection of cells and make it an active procedure to stop the cells relying on me and suddenly people are against me. Makes no sense really.

Sesame Street used to have a feature entitled "one of these things is not like the other" and this would have a fair shot of making the grade.

One eyed Jack

SpillingTheTea wrote: »

Ok, but what if a woman was raped? God forbid what if a young girl was raped? Should they not get to choose what happens to their body then?

I wouldn't use the argument that a woman should be able to have an abortion in a case of rape, simply because there should be no automatic assumption that she would want to have an abortion following being raped. For many women an abortion is not an easy decision, because (you didn't say this but other posters have) there aren't too many women in my experience who see the unborn as 'a parasite', 'a clump of cells', 'an embryo' or any of the rest of that reductive nonsense. I also detest the "if you don't want abortion, don't have one" and the "my body, my choice, stay out of my uterus" crap.

If any of these Lena Dunham 'lites' turn uip on my doorstep during the campaign using language like that to describe the unborn, they'll be told in no uncertain terms to fcuk right off my doorstep. That's coming from someone who has argued for years for abortion without term limits to be legislated for because I believe that if a woman is determined enough, she will attempt to have an abortion regardless of what the law says. I believe it's best that she be allowed do so safely rather than put two lives at risk. I never understood people who say "We have to trust women" and then follow that up with "up to 12 weeks", or whatever theyre comfortable with for themselves.

Every human life should be treated with dignity and respect, and I really do hope that the discussion regarding the 8th amendment is taken more seriously than kids running about the college campus with fanny hats just because "they never got a say". If the 8th had never existed, there's every possibility they might never have had a say at all! I'm grateful for one thing at least that these idiots are only a tiny, tiny minority, and in no way representative of young people as a whole. I know far too many young people with far more intelligence than these mindless morons who think they speak for everyone in Irish society.

punk_one82

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wouldn't use the argument that a woman should be able to have an abortion in a case of rape, simply because there should be no automatic assumption that she would want to have an abortion following being raped.

How does that make any sense? There's no automatic assumption that she'd want to, just the assumption that some rape victims would prefer to have the choice.

goose2005

Lady Spangles wrote: »

No it's not. It's a clump of cells, a barely fertilised egg, being flushed out of a uterus. It's not a person, or a baby. It's not a sentient being, or a viable life. Just a ball of cells.

In the early stages, yes, and few would argue against that. But there are those who push for abortion well into the third trimester or even partial-birth abortions, which isn't very distinct from infanticide

Will I Am Not

Christy42 wrote: »

That hardly helps the poor rape victim now does it.


I do love that most of this thread just gives out about the repeal campaign. It gives me some hope as when they can't attack the argument they attack the people. The same happened in the marriage equality campaign. You campaign for something at all and you are accused of shoving it down people's throats. Near as I can see you are meant to campaign without anybody ever knowing.

Seriously though, if someone's only option for life was a blood transfusion with my blood I would not be forced to give blood if I did not choose to. Sure I would be killing the person but I would not be forced. Odds of anything bad happening to me: miniscule and I would not be forced to juggle a child and college or whatever.

Make that person a selection of cells and make it an active procedure to stop the cells relying on me and suddenly people are against me. Makes no sense really.

Just because you say something doesn't make it true.

Christy42

Wibbs wrote: »

No. The vast majority are "attacking" the specious all too often crazily black and white "arguments" of some, too many, of the Repeal campaigners.

Sesame Street used to have a feature entitled "one of these things is not like the other" and this would have a fair shot of making the grade.

Plenty have. I saw a comment here about anyone wearing a repeal jumper.

Why are they not the same? Indeed giving blood would be far less of a burden on me than carrying a pregnancy to full term. If one of us should have the legal requirement it should be me.

retro:electro

This thread is just rehashing all the same arguments of the "strike for Repeal" thread last week, maybe they should be merged?

Woodhenge

Christy42 wrote: »

That hardly helps the poor rape victim now does it.


I do love that most of this thread just gives out about the repeal campaign. It gives me some hope as when they can't attack the argument they attack the people. The same happened in the marriage equality campaign. You campaign for something at all and you are accused of shoving it down people's throats. Near as I can see you are meant to campaign without anybody ever knowing.

Seriously though, if someone's only option for life was a blood transfusion with my blood I would not be forced to give blood if I did not choose to. Sure I would be killing the person but I would not be forced. Odds of anything bad happening to me: miniscule and I would not be forced to juggle a child and college or whatever.

Make that person a selection of cells and make it an active procedure to stop the cells relying on me and suddenly people are against me. Makes no sense really.

People need to be upfront then in saying they support abortion up to birth, that is the logical implication of that argument.

The problem with the 'clump of cells' argument is the fallout is wide ranging and we have little control over it once it becomes orthodoxy.

Say Jane used to be engaged to Bob, now Bob is married to Mary. Jane hears they are trying for a baby so every week when Mary buys a coffee in Jane's café, Jane, to spite them, slips in a pill that only has one single effect. It prevents development of a foetus.
Bob and Mary find out after a few years. The state says 'well it has not impacted your health and in fact only destroyed a small clump of cells in your body. Based on your current life assurance cover we value those cells at 0.00000000000000000000000000001 cent each. You will have to take a civil case to recoup the value of the lost cells, approximately €2.43'.

goose2005

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

We don't even know what sentience is. Is a severely brain-damaged/retarded person ever sentient? A comatose person? A chimpanzee? A baby only a few days old? These aren't questions to be dealt with flippantly.

goose2005

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

And if she just doesn't want to be a mother?

what does a man do if he doesn't want to be a father?

goose2005

LexieOnRale wrote: »

If there is something in the woman's body taking nutrients from her body, causing her to be ill and restricting her from partaking in her usual activities and she does not wish to allow another human being rely on her body to become viable, putting pressure on her body physically or mentally then she trumps the rights of a potential human

what if you find an injured person on a mountain and you're the only one who can save them; is it justified to say, well, I'm not obliged to carry anyone if I don't want to