The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Ash.J.Williams

I'd have to agree you can't just say the 8th was great because it saved babies lives as there are 100's of knock on affects and 1000's of lives lost through this. Let's get real once the 8th has "saved" a baby the baby is then on it's own.
I'm only 41 and I remember the crap loan parents had to put up with if they became pregnant.

spookwoman

kylith wrote: »

Or to put themselves into debt travelling to the UK.

Also you hear about the horror stories of children in the irish care system. I wonder how many would be there if women could have had easy access to abortions.

.......

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack

spookwoman wrote: »

Also you hear about the horror stories of children in the irish care system. I wonder how many would be there if women could have had easy access to abortions.

Realistically speaking based upon evidence from countries where abortion is widely available, it's quite likely it would make no difference to the numbers of children in the Irish care system. It hasn't done in any other country.

I'm not going to suggest there would be any less when the fact of the matter is that there's simply no evidence to suggest the number of children who exist and have been placed in the Irish care system, suddenly wouldn't exist.

spookwoman

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I'd have to agree you can't just say the 8th was great because it saved babies lives as there are 100's of knock on affects and 1000's of lives lost through this. Let's get real once the 8th has "saved" a baby the baby is then on it's own.
I'm only 41 and I remember the crap loan parents had to put up with if they became pregnant.

Unfortunately I also remember young women deliberately getting pregnant so they could get a house. There will always be a few and maybe it's time Ireland now brings in a system where the father/s have to pay maintenance. Responsibility has to be taken by both especially if the woman decides to go ahead with the pregnancy.

mrkiscool2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Realistically speaking based upon evidence from countries where abortion is widely available, it's quite likely it would make no difference to the numbers of children in the Irish care system. It hasn't done in any other country.

I'm not going to suggest there would be any less when the fact of the matter is that there's simply no evidence to suggest the number of children who exist and have been placed in the Irish care system, suddenly wouldn't exist.

Wow, now you are just spouting utter lies. A study 10 years ago found that there is between a 34-37% drop in the amount of children up for adoption.

If you are going to make a claim, don't make it one that literally 10 seconds of google can find you out with.

.......

This post has been deleted.

eviltwin

....... wrote: »

I know people who were shunned by the local community for being single parents and who still say today that they would have had an abortion if the choice was available because they were never able to regain the lost career and are in much poorer circumstances as a result.

This "saving lives at all cost" is a nonsense, the entire picture is that life at any cost is not actually a favourable outcome at all.

My unplanned pregnancy at 19 didn't ruin my life but it's fair to say financially we never recovered. We were never able to reach our full career potential. That's why I think choice is so important.

One eyed Jack

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Wow, now you are just spouting utter lies. A study 10 years ago found that there is between a 34-37% drop in the amount of children up for adoption.

If you are going to make a claim, don't make it one that literally 10 seconds of google can find you out with.

That's children up for adoption, we were talking about children in care, and particularly in Ireland there are no children up for adoption because most adoptions are done inter-family, and that still has nothing to do with the numbers of children in care.

I'm not interested in reading an out-of-date 10 year old study btw that you literally spent 10 seconds on Google searching for something to confirm your bias so you could attempt to call me a liar over something I wasn't even referring to in the first place.

mrkiscool2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's children up for adoption, we were talking about children in care, and particularly in Ireland there are no children up for adoption because most adoptions are done inter-family, and that still has nothing to do with the numbers of children in care.

I'm not interested in reading an out-of-date 10 year old study btw that you literally spent 10 seconds on Google searching for something to confirm your bias so you could attempt to call me a liar over something I wasn't even referring to in the first place.

Oh my glob, it absolutely does! If there are less children up for adoption, it makes sense that there would be less children in care! If your bias can't make you see that simple logic, then there is absolutely no hope for you.

You've been proven wrong, GTF over it.

By the way, I searched "Does abortion affect the number of children in foster care?" and that was the first non-ad result to come up. So get out of here trying to say I am not doing due diligence. Such intellectual dishonesty and poisoning the well, typical of anti-choicers.

One eyed Jack

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Oh my glob, it absolutely does! If there are less children up for adoption, it makes sense that there would be less children in care! If your bias can't make you see that simple logic, then there is absolutely no hope for you.

You've been proven wrong, GTF over it.

By the way, I searched "Does abortion affect the number of children in foster care?" and that was the first non-ad result to come up. So get out of here trying to say I am not doing due diligence. Such intellectual dishonesty and poisoning the well, typical of anti-choicers.

That wasn't the original claim at all though. The original claim had nothing to do with adoption, it related to the numbers of children in care if we had or hadn't abortion in Ireland, and I said there was simply no way of knowing whether it would make any difference, but the evidence from other countries suggests that it doesn't.

As for the rest of your post I think you really need to sit down or something. You've already called me a liar and you're still suggesting I'm an "anti-choicer" in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

Sure this thread is going nowhere at this stage, I should have known better than to have bothered getting involved again. I'll leave yiz to it.

Da Boss

A lot of people here seem to be of the opinion that abortion is a “right”. It’s not! Nobody has the right to end the life of another

Martina1991

Da Boss wrote:

A lot of people here seem to be of the opinion that abortion is a “rightâ€. It’s not! Nobody has the right to end the life of another

Are you of the opinion that the state should tell a women what to do with her body.

Nobody has the right to tell someone else what to do in their life.

NuMarvel

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Will you give over with the weasel wording. I don't believe for a minute you don't know that I was referring to the fact that I carried out my research without bias.

I never said otherwise. I just asked for the unbiased research that supported your claims. It seems by your next statement you've done no research, so that's one way to ensure it's unbiased.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The fact that the 8th amendment has saved lives is self-evident in that it places an obligation on the State to protect as far as is practicable the equal right to life of the unborn. Without the obligation placed on the State by the 8th amendment, well, the State simply doesn't have that obligation!

So the only thing you can provide to back up your assertion about the 8th, is to say that's what it's supposed to do even though you said earlier the 8th wasn't supposed to stop abortions. This is circular and contradictory nonsense.

The claim that the 8th stops abortions/save lives is counterfactual and can't be proven (hence the difficulty that you and EOTR have in providing anything to back it up). Anyone who says such claims are correct is allowing bias to influence their thinking because there is no way a rational and cogent analysis would come to that conclusion.

mrkiscool2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That wasn't the original claim at all though. The original claim had nothing to do with adoption, it related to the numbers of children in care if we had or hadn't abortion in Ireland, and I said there was simply no way of knowing whether it would make any difference, but the evidence from other countries suggests that it doesn't.

As for the rest of your post I think you really need to sit down or something. You've already called me a liar and you're still suggesting I'm an "anti-choicer" in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

Sure this thread is going nowhere at this stage, I should have known better than to have bothered getting involved again. I'll leave yiz to it.

The evidence from America, states where abortion laws were relaxed or removed entirely, in the study above, clearly states that there are less children in care. And I think I have every right to call someone out when they are lying and then refuse to admit they are wrong. Sure, liar seems harsh, but I gave you evidence contradicting what you said and you claimed that "I was confirming my own bias" and "It didn't relate to anything you were saying." So yes, that is intellectual dishonesty and lying.

January

Da Boss wrote: »

A lot of people here seem to be of the opinion that abortion is a “right”. It’s not! Nobody has the right to end the life of another

It's not a right but it should be a choice. What about the life of the mother, or her already born children?

spookwoman

Da Boss wrote: »

A lot of people here seem to be of the opinion that abortion is a “right”. It’s not! Nobody has the right to end the life of another

There goes bacon sambos, Sunday roasts, anti bacterial washes etc.....

end of the road

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Oh my glob, it absolutely does! If there are less children up for adoption, it makes sense that there would be less children in care!

no, it doesn't always work out like that. children can be adopted inter-family, less children could be put up for adoption in the first place. however, many children can end up in the care system for many reasons either temporarily or permanent, and not be availible for adoption.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

If your bias can't make you see that simple logic, then there is absolutely no hope for you.

You've been proven wrong, GTF over it.

he has not been proven wrong actually.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

By the way, I searched "Does abortion affect the number of children in foster care?" and that was the first non-ad result to come up. So get out of here trying to say I am not doing due diligence. Such intellectual dishonesty and poisoning the well, typical of anti-choicers.

you posted a studdy that did not back up your claim. you got caught out. no amount of calling people names and throwing the toys out of the pram will change that fact.

Martina1991 wrote: »

Are you of the opinion that the state should tell a women what to do with her body.

the state isn't able to tell a woman what she should do with her body and nor should it be able to. however, it has the right to tell a woman that she cannot kill her baby and that is absolutely right.

Martina1991 wrote: »

Nobody has the right to tell someone else what to do in their life.

for the most part, absolutely. however when someone is going to infringe on the right for a being to live, then the state has a right to interfere and not allow the taking of that life.

end of the road

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

unfortunately there is always going to have to be some trade off in relation to some rights, and the right to life for the unborn verses the right to kill the unborn means the right to life of the unborn has to come first, as difficult for some as that may be.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

but sure it is their own fault for getting pregnant and being poor in the first place. Or so the thinking seems to be.

no, it's not the thinking for most pro-life.
as i'm sure you know it takes 2 to make a baby, therefore both are responsible for it's creation.

kylith wrote: »

Or to put themselves into debt travelling to the UK.

that's no different to anyone getting into debt for something that is unnecessary. as unfortunate as debt is, they are getting into it for what is an unnecessary medical procedure which they do not have a right to have caried out.

spookwoman wrote: »

Also you hear about the horror stories of children in the irish care system. I wonder how many would be there if women could have had easy access to abortions.

abortion is not the solution to the problems of the care system. improving the care system is the solution to the problems of the care system. the idea that because a child service has a problem therefore we should allow the killing of the unborn just does not work.

January wrote: »

It's not a right but it should be a choice. What about the life of the mother, or her already born children?

there are systems in place to help. a baby who is killed cannot be brought back to life

SusieBlue

Da Boss wrote: »

A lot of people here seem to be of the opinion that abortion is a “right”. It’s not! Nobody has the right to end the life of another

You have no right to dictate what I do with my womb.
My body, my life, my choice. It may not be legal here (yet) but it wouldn’t stop me doing what I want with MY body if I deemed it to be necessary.

spookwoman

end of the road wrote: »

unfortunately there is always going to have to be some trade off in relation to some rights, and the right to life for the unborn verses the right to kill the unborn means the right to life of the unborn has to come first, as difficult for some as that may be.

Not when its not wanted, especially if it was conceived through rape incest. I don't know about you but to have a child that is not wanted, loved, born into poverty is worse.

end of the road wrote: »

no, it's not the thinking for most pro-life.
as i'm sure you know it takes 2 to make a baby, therefore both are responsible for it's creation.

I agree but also if you don't want a child its responsible to end it. You cannot expect others to pay for your mistakes especially if it's going to be dumped on other people to mind, not cared about, expecting the state to subsidize you and then complain about it not being enough. Also if you cannot afford to house, feed and clothe a child then you're being responsible if you end it

end of the road wrote: »

that's no different to anyone getting into debt for something that is unnecessary. as unfortunate as debt is, they are getting into it for what is an unnecessary medical procedure which they do not have a right to have caried out.

Necessary if it could be detrimental to your health / mental health. Again is it not worse to have a child that is not wanted, cannot afford to feed and clothe it.

end of the road wrote: »

abortion is not the solution to the problems of the care system. improving the care system is the solution to the problems of the care system. the idea that because a child service has a problem therefore we should allow the killing of the unborn just does not work.

No its not I never said it was but the simple truth is the state does not have the resources. Again is being a responsible person to not put further pressure on a broken system.

end of the road wrote: »

there are systems in place to help. a baby who is killed cannot be brought back to life

The systems in place are broken and there are not enough resources to fix it. even if there was it would take years to sort out.

January

end of the road wrote: »

there are systems in place to help. a baby who is killed cannot be brought back to life

There aren't. An extra 30 euro per week social welfare and 140 per month child benefit isn't enough to raise another child.

Zerbini Blewitt

This is prompted from something on the politics forum thread (but isn’t appropriate to there)

I was just thinking today about one formerly powerful section of the community who might find it hard nowadays to make their voice heard in this national debate.

This would be the segment of people who think that women should be shamed and/or outcast and/or punished for engaging in recreational sex – i.e. the punishment being: to endure a pregnancy against her will.

A fine upstanding stance, no?

This cohort of ‘simple’, plain ‘decent’ people is not very audible at the moment. Why is that? For full disclosure - some of my close family members would be in this group, so I’m just thinking out loud!

Anyway regrettably, these people seem to either half-heartedly argue some other tangential point or stay silent in this debate!!

Could they be muted & cursed by the existence of a better educated electorate or maybe the age of enlightenment being hundreds of years ago!

I just don’t know the reason for the silence when they were a deafening cacophony in decades past?

If this is you, I for one want to hear your voice in this debate. Please Sir/Madam come thee out from the shadows, present yourself and tell us proudly - why punishing women for sex is still the right way to go about things.

Loafing Oaf

drkpower wrote: »

Has anyone got any insight as to why the majority of the articulate pro-life side are staying remarkably quiet at the moment. The likes of maria steen, david quinn, william binchy, the one from spirit radio, even cora sherlock etc. Have barely heard a word for them while the referendum and the surrounding talking points are being framed.

My instinct is/was that they are holding fire until the Gov confirms that it will be a straight repeal accompanied temporally with a bill allowing for unrestricted access to 12 weeks, at which point they will come out all guns blazing. But by staying relatively silent for now, they are in danger of allowing a narrative to develop amongst the middle ground that unrestricted aceess up to 12 weeks is a form of 'nothing to see here'. If that gains a foothold, it may be very difficult to reverse.

I think they may have been blindsided by the prospect of a referendum asking upfront whether 'abortion on demand' should be legalised. I reckon they had stockpiled the old arguments about how it's impossible to legislate for limited abortion and the government is looking to introduce unrestricted access through the back door, but it seems these will be beside the point. If the referendum is along the lines proposed by the committee, there won't actually be that much debating to be done. The people either agree with unrestricted abortion or not...

end of the road

spookwoman wrote: »

Not when its not wanted, especially if it was conceived through rape incest. I don't know about you but to have a child that is not wanted, loved, born into poverty is worse.

killing it is worse, as a child born into bad circumstances can be removed from those circumstances, if the parents are unable to bring the child up.

spookwoman wrote: »

I agree but also if you don't want a child its responsible to end it. You cannot expect others to pay for your mistakes especially if it's going to be dumped on other people to mind, not cared about, expecting the state to subsidize you and then complain about it not being enough. Also if you cannot afford to house, feed and clothe a child then you're being responsible if you end it

it is not responsible to kill it.

spookwoman wrote: »

Necessary if it could be detrimental to your health / mental health. Again is it not worse to have a child that is not wanted, cannot afford to feed and clothe it.

in the case of mental health we have systems in place, they need improving massively but they exist and are rife to be improved. in the case where a baby is a threat to the mother's life then there already is a facility to have an abortion.

spookwoman wrote: »

No its not I never said it was but the simple truth is the state does not have the resources. Again is being a responsible person to not put further pressure on a broken system.

agreed, however not by killing the unborn.

spookwoman wrote: »

The systems in place are broken and there are not enough resources to fix it. even if there was it would take years to sort out.

agreed but it's not a reason for abortion on demand, which would not solve those issues.

sondagefaux

end of the road wrote: »

spookwoman wrote: »

Not when its not wanted, especially if it was conceived through rape incest. I don't know about you but to have a child that is not wanted, loved, born into poverty is worse.

killing it is worse, as a child born into bad circumstances can be removed from those circumstances, if the parents are unable to bring the child up.

spookwoman wrote: »

I agree but also if you don't want a child its responsible to end it. You cannot expect others to pay for your mistakes especially if it's going to be dumped on other people to mind, not cared about, expecting the state to subsidize you and then complain about it not being enough. Also if you cannot afford to house, feed and clothe a child then you're being responsible if you end it

it is not responsible to kill it.

spookwoman wrote: »

Necessary if it could be detrimental to your health / mental health. Again is it not worse to have a child that is not wanted, cannot afford to feed and clothe it.

in the case of mental health we have systems in place, they need improving massively but they exist and are rife to be improved. in the case where a baby is a threat to the mother's life then there already is a facility to have an abortion.

spookwoman wrote: »

No its not I never said it was but the simple truth is the state does not have the resources. Again is being a responsible person to not put further pressure on a broken system.

agreed, however not by killing the unborn.

spookwoman wrote: »

The systems in place are broken and there are not enough resources to fix it. even if there was it would take years to sort out.

agreed but it's not a reason for abortion on demand, which would not solve those issues.

Do you support a ban on pregnant women travelling outside the state to obtain abortions?

If not, why not? It would be extremely weird if you genuinely thought that abortion was child murder but didn't support a travel ban.

spookwoman

end of the road wrote: »

killing it is worse, as a child born into bad circumstances can be removed from those circumstances, if the parents are unable to bring the child up.

So its ok to just move it from one bad situation to another. That's going to help the child a lot, there are children being abused in care and nothing is being done about it!

end of the road wrote: »

in the case of mental health we have systems in place, they need improving massively but they exist and are rife to be improved. in the case where a baby is a threat to the mother's life then there already is a facility to have an abortion.

Local hospital here hasn't enough beds in psychiatric wing for people to stay over night if they are having problems. Do you think it is acceptable to lock up a person for feeling suicidal because they don't want to be pregnant?

end of the road wrote: »

agreed but it's not a reason for abortion on demand, which would not solve those issues.

It wont solve the issues but it will take pressure off it and there would no chance of it being abused or neglected.

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You have no right to dictate what I do with my womb.
My body, my life, my choice. It may not be legal here (yet) but it wouldn’t stop me doing what I want with MY body if I deemed it to be necessary.

again nobody is disagreeing with this. it is not being disputed.
however, the state does have a right to tell us that we cannot take a life. that goes for both men and women.

sondagefaux wrote: »

Do you support a ban on pregnant women travelling outside the state to obtain abortions?

If not, why not? It would be extremely weird if you genuinely thought that abortion was child murder but didn't support a travel ban.

i don't support such a bann as i believe it isn't practical to enforce it, and people who aren't going abroad to procure an abortion would be effected.

spookwoman wrote: »

So its ok to just move it from one bad situation to another. That's going to help the child a lot, there are children being abused in care and nothing is being done about it!

of course it's not okay to move a child from 1 bad situation to another. and the refusal to deal with abuse in the care system is wrong and has no justification. however if we are going to simply allow the unborn to be killed rather then solving the problems then we have lost the fight and may as well give up tryinjg to improve any of the systems in relation to children, we can simply say "get rid of it" instead.
i'm sorry but that doesn't work.

spookwoman wrote: »

Local hospital here hasn't enough beds in psychiatric wing for people to stay over night if they are having problems. Do you think it is acceptable to lock up a person for feeling suicidal because they don't want to be pregnant?

people should not be sectioned under the mental health act unless it is absolutely necessary for their safety. lack of beds can be solved with funding, simply saying "we can kill the unborn instead" just doesn't cut it.

spookwoman wrote: »

It wont solve the issues but it will take pressure off it and there would no chance of it being abused or neglected.

or we can insure the system works so that a child isn't neglected.

mrkiscool2

I just absolutely love the "but what happens to the child when it gets born?" answers here. "Ah, the system is fecked, but like, it will magically get better without abortion. Trust us, we can fix it, even if I am offering absolutely no solutions myself on how to fix it."

sondagefaux

end of the road wrote: »

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You have no right to dictate what I do with my womb.
My body, my life, my choice. It may not be legal here (yet) but it wouldn’t stop me doing what I want with MY body if I deemed it to be necessary.

again nobody is disagreeing with this. it is not being disputed.
however, the state does have a right to tell us that we cannot take a life. that goes for both men and women.

sondagefaux wrote: »

Do you support a ban on pregnant women travelling outside the state to obtain abortions?

If not, why not? It would be extremely weird if you genuinely thought that abortion was child murder but didn't support a travel ban.

i don't support such a bann as i believe it isn't practical to enforce it, and people who aren't going abroad to procure an abortion would be effected.

Of course it would be practical to check every woman leaving the state to see if they were pregnant. Pregnant women would be banned from leaving the state. You can campaign to amend the Constitution to permit this if you're genuinely bothered.

If you characterise 'the unborn' as 'babies', regard abortion as killing babies but don't mind if women travel abroad to 'kill babies', that makes you weird.

Or else you don't mind 'babies' being killed as long as it's done outside the state. Which is also weird.

I get the feeling that you aren't really against abortion at all, just against abortions being carried out in Ireland. Very weird.