The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

volchitsa

conorhal wrote: »

Well it doesn't result in a live one does it?

Any number of things don't result in a live baby, but if we thought a baby was being killed most of us would feel some responsibility to stop that happening.

If I said that as a principle I didn't think someone who killed a child should even be prosecuted most people would think I was crazy, or evil. But with abortion even the most anti-abortion spokespeople aren't prepared to say they would want to see women prosecuted for having an abortion. That says to me that they know that most people don't believe that abortion is anything like killing a baby.

They may even think it themselves.

gctest50

infogiver wrote: »

Looking at Planned Parenthoods own figures (I haven't the full thing to hand) for 2015. (They did 300000 abortions).
92% ticked "Inconvenience" from the list of reasons they wanted to have an abortion.
Rape/Incest was .065%
The rest was birth defects,maternal health concerns etc it's quite interesting.
I'll see if I can find it.

infogiver wrote: »

92% ticked "Inconvenience"

.

92% ticked what now ?


92% - here is probably where you are pulling all that from

http://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics

conorhal

volchitsa wrote: »

Any number of things don't result in a live baby, but if we thought a baby was being killed most of us would feel some responsibility to stop that happening.

If I said that as a principle I didn't think someone who killed a child should even be prosecuted most people would think I was crazy, or evil. But with abortion even the most anti-abortion spokespeople aren't prepared to say they would want to see women prosecuted for having an abortion. That says to me that they know that most people don't believe that abortion is anything like killing a baby.

They may even think it themselves.

Yes, very rightly, yes they would. REPEAL THE 8th! and the ....9th when you don't get too shake kids to death when they cry disagreeably.....because, kids eh? I feel like I'm having to explain empathy and humanity to HAL 9000.

Your argument is no different to the reason we don't prosecute people for taking their daughters abroad to undergo FGM, it would be inconvenient and require an uncomfortable conversation.

gctest50

AtomicHorror wrote: »

N=?

If you have it?

from here :


https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/article_files/3711005.pdf

jimmycrackcorm

volchitsa wrote:

If I said that as a principle I didn't think someone who killed a child should even be prosecuted most people would think I was crazy, or evil. But with abortion even the most anti-abortion spokespeople aren't prepared to say they would want to see women prosecuted for having an abortion. That says to me that they know that most people don't believe that abortion is anything like killing a baby.

It's common in hospitals that some patients are subject to non resuscitation where quality of life is severely affected. Mrs corm told me they have a specific pack also to use in certain circumstances so as not to prolong suffering. Nurses don't get prosecuted for using that.

But it might be crazy or evil to let a blind man walk off a ledge without warning him of the danger?

oneilla

erica74 wrote: »

Also, I wonder about if people actually pay attention to the doctor warning them about antibiotics and contraception interacting.

Actually, I encountered an interesting one recently - I had a tooth infection, I went to the dentist and he prescribed antibiotics and I didn't get the "take extra precautions" speech like I would at the doctor - although I don't want children so I don't need to be told. However, this made me wonder about people who do get pregnant when they're on some sort of medication - do they genuinely not know about the interaction? I know there's loads of info about it in the little booklet you get with your contraceptive pill but I'd say few people read that.

This is a topic for another day and another thread but fwiw even vomiting can cause the oral contraceptive pill to not work - instructions usually state things like that you've to take it same time everyday. You've also got the misguided belief perpetuated that the pill "regulates" periods which is untrue. But anyway, a focus on sex and contraceptives just confirms what women have been arguing for decades - that prohibiting access to abortion is controlling women's sexuality and their bodies.

The dentist probably should've asked what other medication you're on (I've been asked this but annecdotes so whatever...) and then advised appropriately but dentists are low on the medical totem pole imo.

oneilla

volchitsa wrote: »

Any number of things don't result in a live baby, but if we thought a baby was being killed most of us would feel some responsibility to stop that happening.

If I said that as a principle I didn't think someone who killed a child should even be prosecuted most people would think I was crazy, or evil. But with abortion even the most anti-abortion spokespeople aren't prepared to say they would want to see women prosecuted for having an abortion. That says to me that they know that most people don't believe that abortion is anything like killing a baby.

They may even think it themselves.

Nub of the issue right here: these virulent "abortion is baby murder" people aren't believed. You've got legit murderers murdering doctors in some places providing abortion but they're beyond reason.

I mean, Ireland did briefly have a disgusting situation of a legal travel ban and there was a prosecution in the north but

njs030

conorhal wrote: »

The typical contraception failure rate is less then 1% I don't think we should be legislating on the basis of those odds for society as a whole, otherwise we'd ban all risk and wrap ourselves in cotton wool.

What???? Oh dear.

Here is the actual statistics, you'll note out of the many options available, in actual use there is only 4 that stand up to your claimed "less than 1%" two of which are the coil and inserted vaginally, and the other two are sterilisation (male and female) even they aren't 100%.

https://www.optionsforsexualhealth.org/birth-control-pregnancy/birth-control-options/effectiveness

volchitsa

conorhal wrote: »

Yes, very rightly, yes they would. REPEAL THE 8th! and the ....9th when you don't get too shake kids to death when they cry disagreeably.....because, kids eh? I feel like I'm having to explain empathy and humanity to HAL 9000.

Your argument is no different to the reason we don't prosecute people for taking their daughters abroad to undergo FGM, it would be inconvenient and require an uncomfortable conversation.

Not true, we did have that conversation about abortion, we had several. We had several constitutional amendments and we chose to allow women to travel abroad for their abortions. Compare that to Gail O'Rorke who was prevented from travelling to Switzerland to accompany a friend to commit suicide. So no, your belief that we just don't care enough to discuss it is silly and, dare I say it, dishonest.

(The FGM argument is wrong too, for one thing any attempt to stop it would require forcible physical examination of the suspected victim. Legislating to do that risks causing mental trauma to children we supposedly want to help, many of whom may not even have been the victim of FGM. I suspect it's physical assault to do a gynaecological examination of someone against their will. It's a lot more complicated than you pretend.)

volchitsa

oneilla wrote: »

Nub of the issue right here: these virulent "abortion is baby murder" people aren't believed. You've got legit murderers murdering doctors in some places providing abortion but they're beyond reason.

I mean, Ireland did briefly have a disgusting situation of a legal travel ban and there was a prosecution in the north but

Yes. I'm from Northern Ireland, so I've been following the cases there closely.
It would make me laugh, if it weren't so depressing, that the religious extremists on both sides in Northern Ireland have always been so closely aligned over their right, nay their duty, to interfere in people's private lives.

Everyone else finds the idea of trying these women embarrassing. Even many anti choice people, though IMO their approach is deeply hypocritical. Having a law that you're too embarrassed to be seen using by the rest of the world shows it's a bad law. And that's the situation in both parts of the island at the moment.
Because of religion.

pilly

volchitsa wrote:

Yes. I'm from Northern Ireland, so I've been following the cases there closely. It would make me laugh, if it weren't so depressing, that the religious extremists on both sides in Northern Ireland have always been so closely aligned over their right, nay their duty, to interfere in people's private lives.

I've never understood why abortion is not allowed in the North actually?

Samaris

volchitsa wrote: »

Any number of things don't result in a live baby, but if we thought a baby was being killed most of us would feel some responsibility to stop that happening.

If I said that as a principle I didn't think someone who killed a child should even be prosecuted most people would think I was crazy, or evil. But with abortion even the most anti-abortion spokespeople aren't prepared to say they would want to see women prosecuted for having an abortion. That says to me that they know that most people don't believe that abortion is anything like killing a baby.

They may even think it themselves.

Yes, I've noticed that too. Also, the child should not be punished for the sins of the parents - unless they are a result of rape or incest, which ...by that logic is indeed punishing the proto-infant for the choice of at least one parent. In the case of incest, it is actually not a much higher chance of fetal abnormalities than if the parents were not related (it's when it becomes endemic to an area that it really gets problematic). This could also be tested for in considering whether the pregnancy should go ahead. But rape and incest are usually considered the obvious exceptions for all but the most hard-line, and I don't hear from them that much.

Not saying that the pro-choice crowd don't have their own rather arbitrary lines as well - if I had a euro for every time I've heard someone say "I believe it should be a choice - but I don't think I could do it myself..", I'd have...uh...probably somewhere between E10-E20. There is still a worry even for the pro-choice people that it's bad.

AtomicHorror

volchitsa wrote: »

Not true, we did have that conversation about abortion, we had several. We had several constitutional amendments and we chose to allow women to travel abroad for their abortions. Compare that to Gail O'Rorke who was prevented from travelling to Switzerland to accompany a friend to commit suicide. So no, your belief that we just don't care enough to discuss it is silly and, dare I say it, dishonest.

(The FGM argument is wrong too, for one thing any attempt to stop it would require forcible physical examination of the suspected victim. Legislating to do that risks causing mental trauma to children we supposedly want to help, many of whom may not even have been the victim of FGM. I suspect it's physical assault to do a gynaecological examination of someone against their will. It's a lot more complicated than you pretend.)

It's already illegal in Ireland to traffic someone for FGM. As you say, enforcement is problematic. It's not illegal to travel for an abortion, so there's clearly a massive difference recognised by the state already.

AtomicHorror

pilly wrote: »

I've never understood why abortion is not allowed in the North actually?

Christianity, again. And devolution means they can legislate independently of Westminster.

But the unionists are so different to the heathens in the south, right?

jamesthepeach

I would be quite happy for any changes asked for to go to referendum.
Im a bit sick of this polar opposition on the subject, and thats not going to change.
I find myself making my opinion up when asked by most people on either side, just to save me listening to them going on and on at me for my opinion. I find out what their opinion is first and then I just agree with them.

Ask the people at the polls and let the majority decide.

tomwaits48

Thank God for the twitter mute function

AtomicHorror

The second ballot seemed to rule out repeal (triggering this thread) but the third ballot seems to indicate the CA will recommend something functionally the same as repeal.

The Repeal movement wanted deletion of 40.3.3, which would by default mean the Oireachtas has to legislate on the rights of the unborn and abortion.

The third ballot proposed replacing 40.3.3 with a statement that... the Oireachtas has to legislate on the rights of the unborn and abortion.

The CA voted in favour of this.

Am I missing something big here? Isn't this exactly what the Repeal movement wanted?

eviltwin

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The second ballot seemed to rule out repeal (triggering this thread) but the third ballot seems to indicate the CA will recommend something functionally the same as repeal.

The Repeal movement wanted deletion of 40.3.3, which would by default mean the Oireachtas has to legislate on the rights of the unborn and abortion.

The third ballot proposed replacing 40.3.3 with a statement that... the Oireachtas has to legislate on the rights of the unborn and abortion.

The CA voted in favour of this.

Am I missing something big here? Isn't this exactly what the Repeal movement wanted?

The repeal movement want the amendment removed. This is not just because of abortion but mainly because it impacts maternity care. The current development may pave the way for more access to abortion but won't address the maternity system which affects all women not just those in need of termination.

Ash.J.Williams

judeboy101 wrote: »

Including FGM, prostitution and womb renting?

They're usually forced by 3rd party.

AtomicHorror

eviltwin wrote: »

The repeal movement want the amendment removed.

Right, but the 8th amendment was the insertion of Article 40.3.3. The proposal is a replacement of 40.3.3 that removes the statement on the rights of the unborn and makes no reference whatsoever to abortion. The replacement essentially being "make the law and define the rights as you see fit at the time".

What will actually remain of the original 40.3.3? Sounds like only the rights to travel and information would be retained. Those weren't part of the 8th anyway.

eviltwin wrote: »

This is not just because of abortion but mainly because it impacts maternity care. The current development may pave the way for more access to abortion but won't address the maternity system which affects all women not just those in need of termination.

What parts of 40.3.3 underpinned maternity care?

eviltwin

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Right, but the 8th amendment was the insertion of Article 40.3.3. The proposal is a replacement of 40.3.3 that removes the statement on the rights of the unborn and makes no reference whatsoever to abortion. The replacement essentially being "make the law and define the rights as you see fit at the time".

What will actually remain of the original 40.3.3? Sounds like only the rights to travel and information would be retained. Those weren't part of the 8th anyway.



What parts of 40.3.3 underpinned maternity care?

You'll have to ask someone with more knowledge of constitutional law than me

vicwatson

tomwaits48 wrote: »

Thank God for the twitter mute function

Wait a minute, stop the press, "God" is to be thanked for the mute function on twitter now, ah herre:eek:

AtomicHorror

Seems to me like this potentially a great outcome for the Repeal coalition.

The 8th is repealed (inasmuch as you can repeal an amendment, the 8th inserted only the first para of 40.3.3), but the other parts of 40.3.3 are retained (right to travel for abortion, right to abortion information). Which means that if a future government tried to ban abortion again, they would not be able to ban travel or information without another referendum. Also enshrines the right of the Oireachtas to legislate on these matters.

I wouldn't be too confident on what legislation will actually emerge from all this, but that would have been a problem either way.

JupiterKid

LexieOnRale wrote: »

So let's say for example, a woman is 15 weeks pregnant. Something happens her, she's going through an incredibly stressful time and isn't looking after herself, or she's out running and falls, or she's speeding and crashes the car and ends up losing the pregnancy. Why isn't she charged with murder, or manslaughter? Why isn't there a death certificate provided for the unborn?

Actually as far as I'm aware in a couple of ultra-conservative Catholic countries like El Salvador the woman CAN technically be charged with murder of her "unborn child" if she loses it during pregnancy.

Incredible, isn't it?

Richard Bingham

I wouldn't get too excited about what was achieved yesterday. Convincing less than 100 people to vote a certain way, in a very controlled environment by exposing them to one side and refusing to grant proper access to the other side is no big feat.

The bias, the ignorance of the truth, and the lies being told by the Pro-Choice side is staggering.

For example, in the last few minutes on the Marian Finuncane Radio Show Marian was using the Savita Halappanavar case to justify abortion which is total rubbish as all three enquiries into that case found that it wasn't the absence of abortion that caused her death it was medical mismanagement.

This was pointed out by a male guest and immediately afterwards a female guest on the show stated that it was the absence of clarity which was the problem. That is also rubbish. It's well known that her death had absolutely nothing to do with any absence of clarity. The medical team failed to monitor and diagnose her condition. According to the HIQA report, there were 13 different occasions on which a potentially life-saving intervention could have been made but it didn't happen because they didn't know she was seriously ill.

The biggest indictment of abortion is that people who are in favour of it know it will never be legislated for unless they tell lies about it.

PopePalpatine

notjustsweet wrote: »

Infogiver can you provide a link to that claim about planned parenthood please?
You're supposed to back up claims and statistics.

I'm still waiting for an answer to this:

pjohnson wrote: »

Erm women and cattle are actually different spieces? You are aware of this right?

PopePalpatine

JupiterKid wrote: »

Actually as far as I'm aware in a couple of ultra-conservative Catholic countries like El Salvador the woman CAN technically be charged with murder of her "unborn child" if she loses it during pregnancy.

Incredible, isn't it?

Ah but there was this one pro-choice activist whose voice was too high-pitched, so it all balances out. :rolleyes:

B_Wayne

Richard Bingham wrote: »

I wouldn't get too excited about what was achieved yesterday. Convincing less than 100 people to vote a certain way, in a very controlled environment by exposing them to one side and refusing to grant proper access to the other side is no big feat.

They were spoken to by both sides. So it's dishonest to claim that only one side spoke. It's just indicative of one side not being very convincing.

AtomicHorror

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'm still waiting for an answer to this:

Yes me too. Remarkable technology.

A recap on the topic, which was strangely dropped without further comment:

AtomicHorror wrote:

me_right_one wrote: »

me_right_one wrote: »

Yea, but she doesnt have to kill it! Thats the point! Why are the only two options ever put forward either: A) full term pregnancy, or pull the live baby apart limb from limb while its screaming in pain?

You do know we have the technology to implant the baby into another mother or even a test tube, right?

No we don't. What are you talking about?

me_right_one wrote:

Yes we do! Since the seventies! They even do it with endangered animals FFS!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Brown

IVF.

How does IVF help a woman with an unwanted pregnancy?

me_right_one wrote: »

The technology exists to remove the baby ALIVE, and let the person develop outside the womb. But sure its cheaper to whisk it to liquid while its heart is still beating.

Seriously, that technology does not exist.

This whole exchange undermines your opinion hugely tbh.

me_right_one wrote: »

Well educate yourself then. Its not impossible, its done on farms with purebred cattle all the time. This is literally life-and-death we're talking about here, its pretty important to know these things.

IVF is used for animal breeding. An egg fertilised in a dish and then implanted. Never have I heard of an embryo or fetus being transferred out of one womb and into another, and if that technique existed it would be remarkably risky for mother and unborn both. Far more so than natural birth.

pilly

AtomicHorror wrote:

It's already illegal in Ireland to traffic someone for FGM. As you say, enforcement is problematic. It's not illegal to travel for an abortion, so there's clearly a massive difference recognised by the state already.

FGM has fcuk all to do with this discussion so I wish people would leave out such crap.