Repeal the 8th Bandwagoning

Christy42

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Some are, some are not. The eight amendment is very non specific. That is your definition of the word practicable. I see no reason it should allow abortion in the case of rape or nest for incest ad it is currently worded. Why would protecting the unborn not be practical in this situation? Even here you should support at least an amendment to the constitution.

Do not need to debunked? Errr. ... I see no reason for someone to be legally mandated to act as an incubator so you really need to debunk it.

goose2005

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Would be like trying to prevent people from going to Holland to smoke drugs.. unworkable.. should we stop pregnant women from going on holidays just in case they have an abortion?

We stop people going abroad if we think they may be joining a terrorist group or abusing children. The fact that we don't stop pregnant women going abroad is a sign that those who are 'pro-life' aren't really sincere about it, but want to make it look like they are. Rather like those "not in my name" anti-Iraq marches - people were OK with it happening so long as they could pretend they weren't responsible

retro:electro

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.

But see the intricacy of that argument is, how do you tell the woman was raped? Wait for it to go to trail? Where it's possibly to late? What if she decides not to report? Sure there are invasive tests, but, what about the women who were submissive during rape and have no injury? It's not as clear cut as "abortion should be allowed for cases where the woman was raped". In theory yes, it should be allowed for, but I don't see how this could be enacted.

neonsofa

goose2005 wrote: »

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

If he needs a new lung should the person be forced to give it?

One eyed Jack

punk_one82 wrote: »

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.

It's quite simple in the context of my post as a whole - rape should not IMO be argued for as one of the deciding criteria as to whether a woman should be permitted to avail of an abortion. It should be available and legislated for regardless of the circumstances of the pregnancy whether that be rape, FFA or the mothers life being at risk as part of the deciding criteria.

punk_one82

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's quite simple in the context of my post as a whole - rape should not IMO be argued for as one of the deciding criteria as to whether a woman should be permitted to avail of an abortion. It should be available and legislated for regardless of the circumstances of the pregnancy whether that be rape, FFA or the mothers life being at risk as part of the deciding criteria.

Your post definitely didn't come across like that to me but fair enough.

Will I Am Not

goose2005 wrote: »

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

Pay maintenance?

pumpkin4life

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

Pay maintenance?

One eyed Jack

punk_one82 wrote: »

Your post definitely didn't come across like that to me but fair enough.

That's probably because I don't consider myself either "pro-life" or "pro-choice", but rather I recognise that what we should be arguing about here is not abortion itself, but the repeal of the 8th amendment, and part of that discussion is recognising that the right to life of the unborn is one that has legal standing in and of itself, whether the 8th amendment exists or not. It simply cannot be so easily dismissed as people who are "pro-choice" (but only according to their terms and conditions) would like.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises this as fact in International law, as does the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Dravokivich

I think this thread needs some levity.

http://americanmilitarynews.com/2017/03/texas-lawmaker-files-spiteful-bill-fine-men-100-masturbating/?utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=alt&utm_source=asmdss

andekwarhola

Usually avoid these threads because of the contention.

I'd consider myself to be pro-choice with a small P, in that I do support the right of women to early-term abortion (and also the repealing of the ammendment) but I always find myself slightly appalled at the more shrill 'clump of cells' arguments that downplay the emotional 'potentiality' aspect and that it's certainly not a trivial or lifestyle decision to make (imo).

I suspect there's many that feel like me on the margins of the warring factions that also avoid these trainwreck threads.

AtomicHorror

anna080 wrote: »

But see the intricacy of that argument is, how do you tell the woman was raped? Wait for it to go to trail? Where it's possibly to late? What if she decides not to report? Sure there are invasive tests, but, what about the women who were submissive during rape and have no injury? It's not as clear cut as "abortion should be allowed for cases where the woman was raped". In theory yes, it should be allowed for, but I don't see how this could be enacted.

Let's also address the hypocrisy that many (not necessarily people here) who would insist on these kinds of conditions on abortion also seem very concerned about false rape claims, which of course these conditions would encourage.

Be it suicide risk, rape, risk (how much risk?) to life or health (how badly impacted?), the insistence on conditions always falls apart when we try to apply practical tests and always raises the probability of both false claims and, far worse, rejection based on false negative test outcomes.

jameorahiely

goose2005 wrote: »

We stop people going abroad if we think they may be joining a terrorist group or abusing children. The fact that we don't stop pregnant women going abroad is a sign that those who are 'pro-life' aren't really sincere about it, but want to make it look like they are. Rather like those "not in my name" anti-Iraq marches - people were OK with it happening so long as they could pretend they weren't responsible

Would you abort a foetus the day before it's born. If you wouldn't, you're not really sincere about the repeal cause.

In fatal feotal abnormalaties, sure it just a clump of cells inside what difference does it make if ot's removed or not. It's a bit like having spot, a few extra cells. If you don't agree with this you're not really sincere about it. They just want to look like they are.


:rolleyes:

Akrasia

andekwarhola wrote: »

Usually avoid these threads because of the contention.

I'd consider myself to be pro-choice with a small P, in that I do support the right of women to early-term abortion (and also the repealing of the ammendment) but I always find myself slightly appalled at the more shrill 'clump of cells' arguments that downplay the emotional 'potentiality' aspect and that it's certainly not a trivial or lifestyle decision to make (imo).

I suspect there's many that feel like me on the margins of the warring factions that also avoid these trainwreck threads.

I think there is absolutely no moral argument against early term abortions (there are religious ones, but not moral ones, there's a distinction)

The issue gets more nuanced as the pregnancy advances towards viability and beyond.

The most pragmatic and sensible policy should be to make early term abortions available no questions asked, this would sort out 90% of crisis pregnancies. Before 12 weeks there is no question that any higher brain function is present.

After 12 or so weeks, the majority of abortions are due to complications with the pregnancy, abnormalities have been detected with the foetus, or with the mother's capacity to carry the pregnancy to term. Here, there should be legislation that permits termination on medical grounds related to the quality of life of the mother and the ultimate quality of life of the child if it survives to birth.

We should still permit terminations right up to the term of the pregnancy if there are complications that make it safer to abort than to continue with the pregnancy (even including mental health issues) but 'discretionary' terminations should not be permitted on a whim in late term pregnancy (not that it's actually a problem, pro life campaigners love talking about late term abortions, but that happens so rarely to healthy pregnancies that it amounts to intellectual dishonesty to argue that all abortions should be illegal because some abortions might affect a fully developed healthy foetus)

If abortions were available in Ireland the vast majority of abortions would happen early in the term of the pregnancy when there is no 'person' in the uterus by any sensible definition. Philosophical arguments about potential persons belong in the pub. Laws should exist to protect actual persons.

If there are congenital deformities in the foetus, it should absolutely be the choice of the parents whether to carry that pregnancy to term. If they have a moral objection to abortion, nobody should ever dream of suggesting that they have to abort that pregnancy, but if someone has a moral objection to bringing a child into the world who may only survive due to constant 24 hour a day nursing care and will have no quality of life to speak of, then why should they be forced to carry that pregnancy and all the life changing consequences for everyone in their extended family.

Cupcake_Crisis

me_right_one wrote: »

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

It's not the womans fault either yet she'd be forced into surrendering her body to the changes of pregnancy for 9 months.

Sierra Oscar

What's really annoying is the lack of debate around what actually happens once the 8th Amendment is repealed.

The Oireachtas will have to legislate once the 8th Amendment is repealed. There isn't agreement among the repeal groups as to what legislation should be put in place to replace the 8th Amendment.

This needs to be addressed before there is any referendum. I support the repeal of the 8th but we have to face up to reality - those that oppose the move will seize on the fact that there isn't agreement on what should replace it. They will say it will lead to abortion on demand, the referendum will fail and we won't have another one for 15 years at least.

vetinari

I think focusing on the lack of agreement is a misnomer.
Fianna Fail or Fine Gael won't nail down a specific platform about what number of weeks is acceptable until the 8th is repealed.
The most logical outcome is 24 weeks like the UK has. It would make little sense to have different laws to them on this.
We already rely on them for abortions as it is.

This debate always seems so sanctimonious. Pro lifers have only been able to keep Ireland abortion free because England is nearby.
It's shows the hypocrisy of the pro life side that they don't have an issue with women travelling to England for an abortion but treat the idea of abortion in Ireland as this major major issue.

Just to add, few abortions take place after the first trimester. Most reports say that 90% of abortions are in the first trimester.

One eyed Jack

Akrasia wrote: »

I think there is absolutely no moral argument against early term abortions (there are religious ones, but not moral ones, there's a distinction)

There are numerous moral arguments against early term abortion, and there are numerous perspectives which inform those arguments regarding the morality of early term abortion. Religious beliefs are only one perspective. Humanitarian beliefs are another, political beliefs are another, scientific beliefs are another, tradition and cultural values are another... and there are many, many more perspectives which inform peoples perspectives about the morality of early term abortion.

The issue gets more nuanced as the pregnancy advances towards viability and beyond.

The most pragmatic and sensible policy should be to make early term abortions available no questions asked, this would sort out 90% of crisis pregnancies. Before 12 weeks there is no question that any higher brain function is present.

After 12 or so weeks, the majority of abortions are due to complications with the pregnancy, abnormalities have been detected with the foetus, or with the mother's capacity to carry the pregnancy to term. Here, there should be legislation that permits termination on medical grounds related to the quality of life of the mother and the ultimate quality of life of the child if it survives to birth.

We should still permit terminations right up to the term of the pregnancy if there are complications that make it safer to abort than to continue with the pregnancy (even including mental health issues) but 'discretionary' terminations should not be permitted on a whim in late term pregnancy (not that it's actually a problem, pro life campaigners love talking about late term abortions, but that happens so rarely to healthy pregnancies that it amounts to intellectual dishonesty to argue that all abortions should be illegal because some abortions might affect a fully developed healthy foetus)

There's not much point in saying that your suggestion is the most pragmatic and sensible policy when of course the only reason it's only the most pragmatic and sensible policy, is because you set the criteria for what qualifies as the most pragmatic and sensible policy! Other people will disagree with you on the most pragmatic and sensible policy because they may have different criteria for what's pragmatic and sensible, and that's even if they agree with you that pragmatic and sensible are the only criteria under which any legislation should be drafted.

If abortions were available in Ireland the vast majority of abortions would happen early in the term of the pregnancy when there is no 'person' in the uterus by any sensible definition. Philosophical arguments about potential persons belong in the pub. Laws should exist to protect actual persons.

You have no way of knowing that if abortion legislation were broadened in Ireland, that the vast majority of abortions would happen in the early term of the pregnancy. Sensible definitions of personhood don't just belong in the pub at all as they are the basis upon which we confer human rights, by both domestic and international law. That's where the term "the unborn" in the 8th amendment comes from, and why when drafting the POLDA 2013, legislators had to agree that the unborn is conferred with the right to life (which all people have) at implantation, to get around religious determinations that human life begins at conception. This definition also allowed for contraceptives to be made legally available to women previous to the POLDPA.

If there are congenital deformities in the foetus, it should absolutely be the choice of the parents whether to carry that pregnancy to term. If they have a moral objection to abortion, nobody should ever dream of suggesting that they have to abort that pregnancy, but if someone has a moral objection to bringing a child into the world who may only survive due to constant 24 hour a day nursing care and will have no quality of life to speak of, then why should they be forced to carry that pregnancy and all the life changing consequences for everyone in their extended family.

Legislation regarding abortion isn't just about the rights of the individual who is pregnant, it isn't just about the right to life of the unborn, it isn't just about father's rights. It is about recognising and balancing the legal rights of everyone in Irish society, including those who have not yet been born, because the Constitution is a guiding document which works within a legal framework to determine the type of society that is both fair and equitable to every member of that society both now, and in the future going forward. It determines what sort of a society we all want to live in, as opposed to determining the sort of society that very few of us would want to live in. I for one don't want to live in a society which disregards human life as 'just a bunch of cells' or 'a parasite', or rather than address social inequalities seeks to take a shortcut and disregard the welfare of it's citizens because now they can have an abortion so Government is under no pressure to address issues like poverty and social inequality.

LuckyLloyd

vetinari wrote: »

I think focusing on the lack of agreement is a misnomer.
Fianna Fail or Fine Gael won't nail down a specific platform what number of weeks is acceptable until the 8th is repealed.
The most logical outcome is 24 weeks like the UK has. It would make little sense to have different laws to them on this.
We already rely on them for abortions as it is.

This debate always seems so sanctimonious. Pro lifers have only been able to keep Ireland abortion free because England is nearby.
It's shows the hypocrisy of the pro life side that they don't have an issue with women travelling to England for an abortion but treat the idea of abortion in Ireland as this major major issue.

No ****ing way tbh. And it's pure fantasy to believe an Irish political party will push for something like that.

Again, as noted many times previously, we can only control as Irish citizens the laws of the land in Ireland. Moreover, the constitution as amended in 1992 confirms the right of Irish people to travel outside the state for such services and information about same to be distributed here. Both amendments were bitterly contested at the time so I don't think you can charge the other side of the debate with hypocrisy on the issue. No doubt, there would be a significant minority of the electorate that would vote for the repeal of both provisions if they got the chance (just as 39% of the population tried to extend the constitution to prohibit abortion when there is threat of suicide of the mother).

These lines of argument are terrible, they get batted away so easily.

freshpopcorn

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

What's really annoying is the lack of debate around what actually happens once the 8th Amendment is repealed.

The Oireachtas will have to legislate once the 8th Amendment is repealed. There isn't agreement among the repeal groups as to what legislation should be put in place to replace the 8th Amendment.

This needs to be addressed before there is any referendum. I support the repeal of the 8th but we have to face up to reality - those that oppose the move will seize on the fact that there isn't agreement on what should replace it. They will say it will lead to abortion on demand, the referendum will fail and we won't have another one for 15 years at least.

This is the Repeal's biggest downfall!

Zubeneschamali

......... wrote: »

surely you know when human life begins

Ok, I'll bite - when does human life begin?

And before you answer, please consider identical twins.

Zubeneschamali

me_right_one wrote: »

If you're pro-choice, you really should be distancing yourself from these people.

I'm sure you have the best interests of the Repeal campaign at heart when you give us that advice.

Zubeneschamali

anna080 wrote: »

But sure people can only control what happens in their own country. We have no say in what goes on outside of Ireland.

You are wrong, and this is not a matter of opinion.

If you take a child out into international waters, shoot them, return and tell everyone, you will be arrested and tried. Our state claims international jurisdiction for murder.

The 8th originally provided the same protection for the unborn, but when the AG tried enforcing that, we passed a referendum to prevent him doing it again.

Essentially, a "just kidding" clause removing the equal right to life of the unborn as long as the abortion does not happen in holy catholic ireland.

Because everyone knows abortion is not murder. It was never classed as murder before, it isn't now. It never will be.

Zubeneschamali

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

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.

If the Iona Institute are the best they've got, they have lost already.

Glenster

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If the Iona Institute are the best they've got, they have lost already.

Every old person is the best they've got.

January

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

What's really annoying is the lack of debate around what actually happens once the 8th Amendment is repealed.

The Oireachtas will have to legislate once the 8th Amendment is repealed. There isn't agreement among the repeal groups as to what legislation should be put in place to replace the 8th Amendment.

This needs to be addressed before there is any referendum. I support the repeal of the 8th but we have to face up to reality - those that oppose the move will seize on the fact that there isn't agreement on what should replace it. They will say it will lead to abortion on demand, the referendum will fail and we won't have another one for 15 years at least.

As early as possible and as late as necessary. Reality is that 0.2% of abortions happen after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Of that 0.2% the vast majority are for threat to the pregnant person's life and fatal fetal abnormalities. You don't take a healthy pregnancy to 5/6 months gestation and then just decide to abort it. Abortion also doesn't need to mean that you abort the fetus, pregnancy abortion is what happens in the majority of cases where possible, either a cesarean is performed or the labor is induced and a live birth happens (in cases where the threat is to the mother's life.).

LuckyLloyd

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If the Iona Institute are the best they've got, they have lost already.

Well I'd love to share that view but I can't. It's a think tank that has a lot of media access and is well versed in how to argue their side of the coin. Arguing "No" in the Marriage Equality referendum is a completely different kettle of fish to taking the abortion debate into the mire.

Zubeneschamali

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Well I'd love to share that view but I can't. It's a think tank that has a lot of media access and is well versed in how to argue their side of the coin. Arguing "No" in the Marriage Equality referendum is a completely different kettle of fish to taking the abortion debate into the mire.

You are perhaps unaware that the Iona Institute argued against civil partnerships back in 2007, and after they lost, they then opposed SSM on the grounds that wonderful civil partnerships were available.

I have no doubt that Cóir, Youth Defence, Iona and the usual suspects will make an even more unpleasant noise over the 8th than they did for SSM, but society has changed - it will be their own reputations they sully this time.

freshpopcorn

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Well I'd love to share that view but I can't. It's a think tank that has a lot of media access and is well versed in how to argue their side of the coin. Arguing "No" in the Marriage Equality referendum is a completely different kettle of fish to taking the abortion debate into the mire.

Lots of rural areas were close enough to going no in the marriage referendum and I could see their being a big swing to keeping the 8th if the were asked to vote. It would really take a turnout in Dublin and commuter counties for it to pass!

Zubeneschamali

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Lots of rural areas were close enough to going no in the marriage referendum and I could see their being a big swing to keeping the 8th if the were asked to vote.

I am sure that Repealing the 8th will be closer than SSM. It could well be defeated, but there is no real downside to trying and failing - there is no prospect of abortion getting less available, and we can wait 10 years and try again, when the shadow of the Catholic Church has lifted a bit further.