Hotel Cancels Pro life event due to Intimidation.

sunshine and showers

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The law in Ireland takes a compassionate view of these cases as it does with cases where mothers tragically kill or abandon causing death of a new born.

There have been no prosecutions under the 2013 Act, so this is pure speculation.

pitifulgod

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Do you accept that in recent years more women have been jailed in England, where abortion is legal, than in Ireland where abortion is illegal, for terminating their own pregnancies?

The law in Ireland takes a compassionate view of these cases as it does with cases where mothers tragically kill or abandon causing death of a new born.

So you want women to be forced into unsafe conditions and to initiate abortion on their own with no medical attention,that's all good? You're putting a foetus ahead of the health of women.

Women are going to have abortions no matter, by not repealing you make it more difficult to do so. Those who cannot travel for economic reasons or being a refugee for example are those you are ultimately forcing into underground abortions which you seem to be okay with.

Another issue with travel to England logic is abortions will occur at later stages of pregnancy. Surely you want them to occur earlier?

There's nothing compassionate about the 8th amendment. Mary Robinson at the time commented on how it would be challenged as it had so many issues. It was hence all the amendments. It's simply not fit for purpose. It was created for religious loons and women simply didn't matter.

gctest50

SafeSurfer wrote: »

..................

If I wish to have an assisted suicide and I can afford it I can travel to Dignitas in Switzerland where someone will help end my life.

If I cannot afford it I must live until I die naturally.

You could take your own life, off to the river or shed or whatever

- it may not work though and a failed suicide attempt can leave you with serious health problems on top of whatever you had already

SafeSurfer

gctest50 wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

..................

If I wish to have an assisted suicide and I can afford it I can travel to Dignitas in Switzerland where someone will help end my life.

If I cannot afford it I must live until I die naturally.

You could take your own life, off to the river or shed or whatever

Not everyone in the late stages of terminal illness is in a position to do so, as in the Marie Fleming case.

SafeSurfer

pitifulgod wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Do you accept that in recent years more women have been jailed in England, where abortion is legal, than in Ireland where abortion is illegal, for terminating their own pregnancies?

The law in Ireland takes a compassionate view of these cases as it does with cases where mothers tragically kill or abandon causing death of a new born.

So you want women to be forced into unsafe conditions and to initiate abortion on their own with no medical attention,that's all good? You're putting a foetus ahead of the health of women.

Women are going to have abortions no matter, by not repealing you make it more difficult to do so. Those who cannot travel for economic reasons or being a refugee for example are those you are ultimately forcing into underground abortions which you seem to be okay with.

Another issue with travel to England logic is abortions will occur at later stages of pregnancy. Surely you want them to occur earlier?

There's nothing compassionate about the 8th amendment. Mary Robinson at the time commented on how it would be challenged as it had so many issues. It was hence all the amendments. It's simply not fit for purpose. It was created for religious loons and women simply didn't matter.

Can you reference any recent case in the Republic of Ireland where a woman has been prosecuted for procuring an illegal abortion or has died as a result of an unsafe, illegal abortion being performed?

gctest50

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Not everyone in the late stages of terminal illness is in a position to do so, as in the Marie Fleming case.

True, sadly.

The way it is, you have to bail to Switzerland at a very early stage ( again sometimes not possible )

STB.

Catholic guilt is still alive and well I see.

We have enough nanny state legislation which is supposedly for our own good.

Current generations are not afraid to ask for choice. That scares the fúck out of looper groups.

sunshine and showers

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Can you reference any recent case in the Republic of Ireland where a woman has been prosecuted for procuring an illegal abortion or has died as a result of an unsafe, illegal abortion being performed?

Sorry, is your reasoning for the 8th being "compassionate" that nobody has recently gone to jail because of it?

kylith

kylith wrote: »

So the person who wrote that is comfortable prescribing what is a person, but uncomfortable with the idea that all people, not just pregnant women, are subject to law?

Fwiw, I'm pro choice. But I hate some of the more silly stuff trotted out. Many people do believe that life begins at conception, and our law agrees that a foetus has Constitutional rights. I respect their beliefs, it's just different from my personal opinion.

pitifulgod

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Sorry, is your reasoning for the 8th being "compassionate" that nobody has recently gone to jail because of it?

And if nobody dies from an underground abortion as a result, it's all good. That's ignoring that there are other medical complications that don't necessarily end in death.

sunshine and showers

pitifulgod wrote: »

And if nobody dies from an underground abortion as a result, it's all good. That's ignoring that there are other medical complications that don't necessarily end in death.

And ignoring that the 8th affects all pregnant people, regardless of whether they want an abortion.

SafeSurfer

sunshine and showers wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Can you reference any recent case in the Republic of Ireland where a woman has been prosecuted for procuring an illegal abortion or has died as a result of an unsafe, illegal abortion being performed?

Sorry, is your reasoning for the 8th being "compassionate" that nobody has recently gone to jail because of it?

I didn't say that the eight was compassionate.
I said that in England where abortion law is liberal. More women are jailed for terminating their own pregnancies than in Ireland where abortion law is restrictive.

Is jailing women for having abortions more compassionate than not jailing them?

SafeSurfer

sunshine and showers wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The law in Ireland takes a compassionate view of these cases as it does with cases where mothers tragically kill or abandon causing death of a new born.

There have been no prosecutions under the 2013 Act, so this is pure speculation.

Speculation or evidence that the DPP recommends non prosecution in these cases?

volchitsa

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I didn't say that the eight was compassionate.
I said that in England where abortion law is liberal. More women are jailed for terminating their own pregnancies than in Ireland where abortion law is restrictive.

Is jailing women for having abortions more compassionate than not jailing them?

If abortion is banned "because it's murder" (or equivalent to), then why would anyone want to be compassionate with the women who are responsible?

That doesn't make sense.

Akrasia

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Speculation or evidence that the DPP recommends non prosecution in these cases?

Are you arguing that we don't need to repeal the 8th amendment because people aren't currently being prosecuted?

SafeSurfer

Akrasia wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Speculation or evidence that the DPP recommends non prosecution in these cases?

Are you arguing that we don't need to repeal the 8th amendment because people aren't currently being prosecuted?

I'm saying that arguments for repeal that say women can be jailed for 14 years, are being criminalised and are dying because of the 8th are not borne out by the facts.

kylith

Deleted User wrote: »

So the person who wrote that is comfortable prescribing what is a person, but uncomfortable with the idea that all people, not just pregnant women, are subject to law?

Fwiw, I'm pro choice. But I hate some of the more silly stuff trotted out. Many people do believe that life begins at conception, and our law agrees that a foetus has Constitutional rights. I respect their beliefs, it's just different from my personal opinion.

Is uncomfortable with the idea, I would imagine, that something 9mm long has more rights than a grown woman. Some people have the idea that sperm meets egg and *poof* it's a tiny human baby which has nothing to do but get bigger, but it's not; for quite a while it's indistinguishable from a turtle or a dolphin embryo.

People can believe life begins at conception, that's entirely ok. People can believe that every sperm is sacred, that's ok too. What's not ok is using a belief based on emotion to deny people who don't share that belief bodily autonomy.

thee glitz

pitifulgod wrote: »

So you want women to be forced into unsafe conditions and to initiate abortion on their own with no medical attention,that's all good? You're putting a foetus ahead of the health of women.

Who exactly has been forced into unsafe conditions to initiate abortion?

pitifulgod wrote: »

Women are going to have abortions no matter

So it's themselves...

by not repealing you make it more difficult to do so.

not repealing would just keep it the same as is, which seems not that difficult.

Those who cannot travel for economic reasons or being a refugee for example are those you are ultimately forcing into underground abortions which you seem to be okay with.

Well maybe they chose the wrong country to be a refugee in? The economic argument is a poor one - is money all that matters, should the state be subsidising abortions abroad?

Another issue with travel to England logic is abortions will occur at later stages of pregnancy. Surely you want them to occur earlier?

It's the same result - a dead baby. Earlier or later is relatively trivial.

sunshine and showers

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Speculation or evidence that the DPP recommends non prosecution in these cases?

Speculation unless you have evidence that the DPP has recommended non-prosecution in these cases.

Akrasia

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I'm saying that arguments for repeal that say women can be jailed for 14 years, are being criminalised and are dying because of the 8th are not borne out by the facts.

They are criminalised, if they procure an abortion in Ireland, they are committing a criminal offence and on the whim of a prosecutor, they could be jailed for up to 14 years.

Anyway, simply de-criminalising abortion is not what the repeal campaign is about, it's about providing safe and legal abortion for women who need one in Ireland.

Your position really is inconsistent. You're basically arguing that we shouldn't make abortion legal, so safe medically supervised abortions will not be available, but we also shouldn't prosecute people for getting abortions. So you are advocating for back street abortions being the solution to crisis pregnancy.

Akrasia

thee glitz wrote: »

Who exactly has been forced into unsafe conditions to initiate abortion?


So it's themselves...



not repealing would just keep it the same as is, which seems not that difficult.



Well maybe they chose the wrong country to be a refugee in? The economic argument is a poor one - is money all that matters, should the state be subsidising abortions abroad?



It's the same result - a dead baby. Earlier or later is relatively trivial.

No it's not trivial given that there is no essential difference between a fertilised embryo, and a fetus at 12 weeks.

They are both human cells, they are both non sentient and have not got any capacity for thought. They are both alive in the cellular level, there are human cells producing proteins.

When embryos are destroyed, this is not a dead baby.

seamus

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I'm saying that arguments for repeal that say women can be jailed for 14 years, are being criminalised and are dying because of the 8th are not borne out by the facts.

Abortion is a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in jail.

That is a fact.

Women have died because the 8th Amendment created uncertainty around how to treat them. Savita Hallapanavar is the most recent high profile example, but not the only one.

It seems clear from this posts and your previous lies that you have no interest in engaging honestly in this discussion and instead insistent on stating things which are demonstrably and blatantly untrue.

Why should anyone take anything you say seriously?

thee glitz

Akrasia wrote: »

They are both human cells, they are both non sentient and have not got any capacity for thought.

So it's ok once they don't know they're being destroyed?

sunshine and showers

thee glitz wrote: »

So it's ok once they don't know they're being destroyed?

The real question here is not whether you view abortion as morally right or wrong. It is: would you force a pregnant woman to stay pregnant against her will?

kylith

thee glitz wrote: »

Who exactly has been forced into unsafe conditions to initiate abortion?


So it's themselves...

So, you're ok with women who are desperate not to be pregnant dying because they cannot access safe abortion services?

seamus

thee glitz wrote: »

So it's ok once they don't know they're being destroyed?

You see, that's applying a level of morals to a scenario where they cannot apply.

It's a bit like saying, "Animals can't give consent, so is all sex between them rape?". Of course that's nonsense, since animals do not and cannot understand consent, so it's illogical to apply that moral value to the scenario.

Likewise the cells you refer to are incapable of thought. Of "knowing". Therefore it's illogical to apply moral values pertaining to knowledge or awareness, to the scenario.

Is it ok to destroy a teddy because the teddy doesn't know you're doing it? Or is it OK to destroy a teddy because it's just an unconscious object?

gctest50

thee glitz wrote: »

So it's ok once they don't know they're being destroyed?

They are human cells, much the same as these :

This is human heart muscle in a dish, beating spontaneously. It was made by Dr Lei Ye of the Stem Cell Institute from human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSC). These were made by our iPSC facility from human skin cells into which 4 specific genes were temporarily introduced.

Are you going to object when they clean out the petri dishes ?

Well ? are you ? they are human cells beating

SafeSurfer

seamus wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I'm saying that arguments for repeal that say women can be jailed for 14 years, are being criminalised and are dying because of the 8th are not borne out by the facts.

Abortion is a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in jail.

That is a fact.

Women have died because the 8th Amendment created uncertainty around how to treat them. Savita Hallapanavar is the most recent high profile example, but not the only one.

It seems clear from this posts and your previous lies that you have no interest in engaging honestly in this discussion and instead insistent on stating things which are demonstrably and blatantly untrue.

Why should anyone take anything you say seriously?

Don't take me seriously.
Savita Hallapanavar didn't die as a result of having an illegal termination.
Reference a case of a woman being jailed for 14 years, or at all, in the Republic of Ireland for procuring an abortion.

References to all the women committing suicide in Ireland because they have been denied an abortion, dying due to unsafe, illegal abortions and being jailed for procuring abortions are cynical hyperbole on behalf of the repeal campaign.

More women are jailed in England for terminating their own pregnancies than in the Republic of Ireland. You can't blame the 8th amendment for that.
But the repeal campaign will only address the points that suit them to address.

Will I Am Not

People will twist and jump through hoops to justify their stance, or the stance that they're expected to take in many cases.
On both sides.

thee glitz

sunshine and showers wrote: »

The real question here is not whether you view abortion as morally right or wrong. It is: would you force a pregnant woman to stay pregnant against her will?

How would I force a woman to stay pregnant? It's all the woman this, the woman that - it's presented as a women's rights issue but I view it from the perspective of right to life.