The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Edward M wrote: »

You see again with the misquoting or misinterpretation.
I said several times, this will be the last, twist it any way you want after this, I never said they "should" or even "get on with it" on its own.
My original statement said that most women just get on with it.
An example of no posting a sentence in full context is this from your post, tell me what someone would think of your post if I quoted only this bit?
"a woman who wants an abortion should have the baby".

Edward M wrote: »

What can I say, if a normal healthy woman, with a normal healthy pregnancy presents to a doctor and no good medical grounds can be found for abortion then she should have the baby IMO.
Its tough I know to accept that I can feel like I do, but that's the way I feel.
All I can say of men is i know some who have abdicated their responsibility as a parent both of babies and of older children also, scumbags if you want to refer to them as such.
I also know women who have exploited men with their children and rights after relationship breakdowns too.
Speaking for myself, I have never shirked a responsibility towards any of my children or their mothers, I love them all dearly and if they found themselves in a situation on either side of this debate I would do my utmost to support them in their decision also.
If my son shirked his responsibility I would gladly support the girl in any decision she would make, and my daughters in any they would make also.
Hopefully that will never arise, I have a grandchild on the way, looking forward to that in April.

:rolleyes:

joey1111

Edward M wrote: »

You know nothing of me joey, your ignorance of my situation is laughable in its presumption of how my children were reared.

Not really Edward, why you ask, because nobody in their senses would have your attitude to this discussion if they had the experience of single parenthood in an unsupported environment.

Annasopra

applehunter wrote: »

From my perspective the more Kate O'Connell speaks on the issue the better.

She is hitting close to 10 on my thundering-bitchometer.

That says more about you than Kate O Connell

applehunter

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

That says more about you than Kate O Connell

I'll take that as a compliment.

Akrasia

In fairness to Edward, he said he was going to abstain from the vote. I think this is a reasonable position for someone who is morally uncomfortable with doing any action to support 'abortion on demand' but doesn't feel that women should be forced to carry a pregnancy.

There is a moral difference between not stopping someone from having an abortion. And actively voting to make it legal.

Calina

Akrasia wrote: »

There is a moral difference between not stopping someone from having an abortion. And actively voting to make it legal.

You are right. In one case you are basically enabling it to be done in as safe a manner as possible. In the other, not necessarily. Being ambivalent about illegal abortion and not voting to make it legal is being ambivalent about the health and safety of women.

Akrasia

Calina wrote: »

You are right. In one case you are basically enabling it to be done in as safe a manner as possible. In the other, not necessarily. Being ambivalent about illegal abortion and not voting to make it legal is being ambivalent about the health and safety of women.

No its not ambivalence, its a genuine moral dilemma.

If you can't reconcile the conflict within you, where you care both for the unborn, and also for the welfare of women, then abstaining is a legitimate option.

thee glitz

Akrasia wrote: »

If you can't reconcile the conflict within you, where you care both for the unborn, and also for the welfare of women, then abstaining is a legitimate option.

That's a clear vote no position. I'd go against a straight repeal of the 8th with no guarantees, and force a more creative solution to be found.

Bannasidhe

thee glitz wrote: »

That's a clear vote no position. I'd go against a straight repeal of the 8th with no guarantees, and force a more creative solution to be found.

M'thinks that particular can has run out of road upon which to be kicked down.

The pro-life lobby managed to stall the implementation of the X Referendum for decades with the connivance of politicians in an outrageous example of anti-democracy- (now that was cynical politics).

As for 'creative solution' - what do you have in mind?
What would it take for you to vote Yes to repeal?

thee glitz

Bannasidhe wrote: »

M'thinks that particular can has run out of road upon which to be kicked down.

Not at all - I don't that it has even been discussed much.

As for 'creative solution' - what do you have in mind?
What would it take for you to vote Yes to repeal?

As saving women's live is of the utmost importance to yourself and seemingly many, I'm a little disappointed that others aren't putting forward any suggestions. This shows a lack of interest in or unwillingness to separate issues.

The constitution could protect the lives of the unborn to the extent that the continued pregnancy doesn't unduly harm the mother. There are several so called special circumstance cases and people will have different ideas on them. I'd vote to repeal the 8th if it was required to ensure women got necessary treatments, including abortion in the case of FFA, while unborn lives otherwise remained protected.

Loafing Oaf

thee glitz wrote: »

That's a clear vote no position. I'd go against a straight repeal of the 8th with no guarantees, and force a more creative solution to be found.

Remember the Seanad referendum. I'm sure a lot of the yes voters wanted it significantly reformed. Do you think they're going to get another referendum offering that choice?

thee glitz

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Remember the Seanad referendum. I'm sure a lot of the yes voters wanted it significantly reformed. Do you think they're going to get another referendum offering that choice?

If they voted to abolish the Seanad, they clearly didn't care about reform. Michael McDowell campaigns for reform, and FG are supposedly committed to it, but it's slow coming about. There never was a Reform option to vote for. Similar could happen with the referendum on the 8th.

Bannasidhe

thee glitz wrote: »

Not at all - I don't that it has even been discussed much.



As saving women's live is of the utmost importance to yourself and seemingly many, I'm a little disappointed that others aren't putting forward any suggestions. This shows a lack of interest in or unwillingness to separate issues.

The constitution could protect the lives of the unborn to the extent that the continued pregnancy doesn't unduly harm the mother. There are several so called special circumstance cases and people will have different ideas on them. I'd vote to repeal the 8th if it was required to ensure women got necessary treatments, including abortion in the case of FFA, while unborn lives otherwise remained protected.

I'm not the one calling for 'creative thinking'. I have been clear that I am happy with the recommendation of the Citizen's Assemby.

You are the one who wants creativity. You are the one against repeal so how about you answer the question asked and not deflect.

Loafing Oaf

thee glitz wrote: »

If they voted to abolish the Seanad, they clearly didn't care about reform. Michael McDowell campaigns for reform, and FG are supposedly committed to it, but it's slow coming about. There never was a Reform option to vote for. Similar could happen with the referendum on the 8th.

The comparison I am drawing is with people who voted to retain the Seanad but still wanted it significantly reformed. You are saying that people who favour limited liberalisation of abortion will "force a more creative solution to be found" by voting down repeal. I am pointing out that nothing analogous happened when seanad abolition was defeated, nor was ever likely to. If this referendum is defeated, any change to abortion law is off the agenda for several years, I would say at least ten.

thee glitz

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

The comparison I am drawing is with people who voted to retain the Seanad but still wanted it significantly reformed. You are saying that people who favour limited liberalisation of abortion will "force a more creative solution to be found" by voting down repeal. I am pointing out that nothing analogous happened when seanad abolition was defeated, nor was ever likely to. If this referendum is defeated, any change to abortion law is off the agenda for several years, I would say at least ten.

Reforming the Seanad doesn't require a referendum, and could / should have happened anyway. Instead of doing this the government went for a power grab, which hilariously failed.

In the case of a straight repeal of 8th amendment failing, there would be pressure from those seeking limited change to still get that. Presumably, those in favour of a liberal regime would also be supporting this. The more democratic approach would be to gauge the support for limited change, and then for further change if that had been accepted.

Loafing Oaf

thee glitz wrote: »

In the case of a straight repeal of 8th amendment failing, there would be pressure from those seeking limited change to still get that.

I think the government will rule out limited reform as part of the campaign to secure complete repeal. The pitch will be "If you favour any liberalisation of abortion law, this will be your only chance for many years."

Bannasidhe

thee glitz wrote: »

Reforming the Seanad doesn't require a referendum, and could / should have happened anyway. Instead of doing this the government went for a power grab, which hilariously failed.

.

Yes it does -changes would need to be made to Articles 18 and 19.

I agree about the power grab.

thee glitz

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm not the one calling for 'creative thinking'. I have been clear that I am happy with the recommendation of the Citizen's Assemby.

That's fair enough - I guess my points could apply to them too.

You are the one who wants creativity. You are the one against repeal so how about you answer the question asked and not deflect.

You've just quoted my answers, both of them. This after twice supposedly not understanding my simple language. You are the one stressing the importance of women's health issues, going so far as to have a coniption over literally nothing.

What you're saying is that you're not interested in women's health, or even so-called special cases, to any extent greater than allowing abortion on demand. So if this referendum fails because it turns out that there are actually quite a lot of pro-lifers and moderates among us, with no in-between option to vote for, will you be able to explain to mothers experiencing serious health problems and FFA pregnancies why they're not so special?

thee glitz

Bannasidhe wrote: »

thee glitz wrote: »

Reforming the Seanad doesn't require a referendum, and could / should have happened anyway. Instead of doing this the government went for a power grab, which hilariously failed.

.

Yes it does -changes would need to be made to Articles 18 and 19.

I agree about the power grab.

Thanks, hopefully it could become a bit more relevant without that, not that there's probably much (government) appetite for it.

thee glitz

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yes it does -changes would need to be made to Articles 18 and 19.

I agree about the power grab.

Thanks, hopefully it could become a bit more relevant without that, not that there's probably much (government) appetite for it.

Bannasidhe

thee glitz wrote: »

That's fair enough - I guess my points could apply to them too.



You've just quoted my answers, both of them. This after twice supposedly not understanding my simple language. You are the one stressing the importance of women's health issues, going so far as to have a coniption over literally nothing.

What you're saying is that you're not interested in women's health, or even so-called special cases, to any extent greater than allowing abortion on demand. So if this referendum fails because it turns out that there are actually quite a lot of pro-lifers and moderates among us, with no in-between option to vote for, will you be able to explain to mothers experiencing serious health problems and FFA pregnancies why they're not so special?

Oh do stop with the passive aggressive, Honestly, conniption indeed. Perhaps you could debate without the sniping. That would be ...adult.

Your answer wasn't a solution and it certainly wasn't creative. It was a series of qualifications and caveats. The pro-life version of hard Brexit with the EU trimmings we like. And a bit of buck passing.

How are medics meant to determine 'undue harm'? Who decides what 'special circumstances' apply? What is the criteria?

Why is it pregnant women are only protected from 'undue' harm? Is due harm ok then?

thee glitz

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Oh do stop with the passive aggressive, Honestly, conniption indeed. Perhaps you could debate without the sniping. That would be ...adult.

Ah it was a bit... and that's ok.

Your answer wasn't a solution and it certainly wasn't creative. It was a series of qualifications and caveats. The pro-life version of hard Brexit with the EU trimmings we like. And the a bit of buck passing.

Buck passing maybe, to legislators / lawyers, people who are specifically trained to do these things. I think that should be allowed. How's that hard Brexit going anyway..?

How are medics meant to determine 'undue harm'? Who decides what 'special circumstances' apply? What is the criteria?

With their years and years of training and experience, as guided by legislation.

The government, within the bounds of the constitution.

Why is it pregnant women are only protected from 'undue' harm? Is due harm ok then?

Undue, as in unwarranted, protecting the lives of the unborn where doing so doesn't pose a significant serious risk to the mother. Due harm isn't a thing, but the acceptability of risks are assessed the whole time.

Bannasidhe

thee glitz wrote: »

Ah it was a bit... and that's ok.



Buck passing maybe, to legislators / lawyers, people who are specifically trained to do these things. I think that should be allowed. How's that hard Brexit going anyway..?



With their years and years of training and experience, as guided by legislation.

The government, within the bounds of the constitution.



Undue, as in unwarranted, protecting the lives of the unborn where doing so doesn't pose a significant serious risk to the mother. Due harm isn't a thing, but the acceptability of risks are assessed the whole time.

You have an amazing faith in the abilities of legislators.

That they could frame legislation of both complexity and nuance that not only clearly defines what constitutes 'a serious significant risk' but also manages to clarify in such a way that there is no doubt what an 'extreme circumstance' is... well, it beggers belief that such a thing exists - who are these paragons of foresight and legislative rectitude?
They must be from a different gene pool than the legislators of 30 odd years ago who made a complete hames of it - and they cannot possibly be the same ones responsible for the Irish water debacle.

As for lawyers = find me two and I'll find you two different legal opinions.

Tell me - how are these paragons going to deal with that pesky little pill?
An awful lot of them seem to have taken a pragmatic approach and decided that they have no choice in the circumstances but to accept that there will be abortion on demand up to a set gestation time limit,
Still have faith in the politicians?

thee glitz

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I think the government will rule out limited reform as part of the campaign to secure complete repeal. The pitch will be "If you favour any liberalisation of abortion law, this will be your only chance for many years."

That seems to be it, and it's not right - lazy, irresponsible and undemocratic at best.

thee glitz

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You have an amazing faith in the abilities of legislators.

That they could frame legislation of both complexity and nuance that not only clearly defines what constitutes 'a serious significant risk' but also manages to clarify in such a way that there is no doubt what an 'extreme circumstance' is... well, it beggers belief that such a thing exists - who are these paragons of foresight and legislative rectitude?
They must be from a different gene pool than the legislators of 30 odd years ago who made a complete hames of it - and they cannot possibly be the same ones responsible for the Irish water debacle.

As for lawyers = find me two and I'll find you two different legal opinions.

I'm not saying it would be easy (maybe it would?), but that I don't know. Before taking such a serious step as legalising abortion on demand, it should be discovered if people actually want it, and at at a level at least as possible tied to other situations.

Tell me - how are these paragons going to deal with that pesky little pill?

Not sure what you're referring to here

An awful lot of them seem to have taken a pragmatic approach and decided that they have no choice in the circumstances but to accept that there will be abortion on demand up to a set gestation time limit,
Still have faith in the politicians?

They're pre-empting the result of a referendum, one on a very contentious issue? Lazy, undemocratic and irresponsible. I've very little faith in politicians other than in their interest to be re-elected, certainly not by default but some earn it.

I presume that they too are able to tell women who need abortions / treatments when not allowable why they're not so special.

Bannasidhe

thee glitz wrote: »

I'm not saying it would be easy (maybe it would?), but that I don't know. Before taking such a serious step as legalising abortion on demand, it should be discovered if people actually want it, and at at a level at least as possible tied to other situations.




Not sure what you're referring to here



They're pre-empting the result of a referendum, one on a very contentious issue? Lazy, undemocratic and irresponsible. I've very little faith in politicians other than in their interest to be re-elected, certainly not by default but some earn it.

I presume that they too are able to tell women who need abortions / treatments when not allowable why they're not so special.

There was a whole committee that listened to an awful lot of diverse information. They debated that information. They carefully considered that information. Having done so that committee - with 3 abstentions -than made recommendations - . What else do you want?

It will be put to the electorate next.

As for the pill you claim to know nothing about stop being disingenuous. It really doesn't do your side any good. You know exactly what pill I am referring to. It;s the one that enables abortion on demand and can be bought on line. It is the reason the committee felt it hd no option but to accept what it cannot change and urge it be legalised and therefore regulated.

If you lot had your way no woman or girl would be able to get an abortion without first jumping through hoops -just what a person needs when in crises -so lay off the faux concern. It's not fooling anyone.

Zubeneschamali

thee glitz wrote: »

Before taking such a serious step as legalising abortion on demand, it should be discovered if people actually want it

There's going to be this thing called a "Referendum" on the subject soon.

Zubeneschamali

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If you lot had your way no woman or girl would be able to get an abortion without first jumping through hoops -just what a person needs when in crises -so lay off the faux concern. It's not fooling anyone.

Untrue! Untrue!

If they had their way, no-one would get an abortion, full stop.

Their beloved 8th made abortion legal in Ireland - but that was a complete accident, and only predicted by people who opposed it, who obviously had an agenda, which seems to be nearly as bad as having a vagina.

Bannasidhe

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Untrue! Untrue!

If they had their way, no-one would get an abortion, full stop.

Their beloved 8th made abortion legal in Ireland - but that was a complete accident, and only predicted by people who opposed it, who obviously had an agenda, which seems to be nearly as bad as having a vagina.

Did I mention the hoops were on fire?

I'm so used to trying to hide my vagina agenda (I have a locker in the Gay Lobby) that I may have downplayed the hoops.

Zubeneschamali

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm so used to trying to hide my vagina agenda (I have a locker in the Gay Lobby) that I may have downplayed the hoops.

To be fair, not everyone with an agenda necessarily has a vagina. There is also the infamous Gay Agenda, but it is too late to worry about that since they fooled everyone and destroyed traditional marriage already.

And divorce too, they have totally ruined traditional divorce. Now if I want a divorce, everyone will assume I want to marry my totally gay other person, and I can't say "No, I am just a traditional sleazebag" because that would be discrimination.