Abortion - Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution

Andyfitzer

Looking back over my points, below, it's obvious I'm pro life, but I try to be open to other opinions due to the importance of the referendum. Please give me feedback if you so wish on the points I make. It's also my first post, so if I've made a rookie error like put it in the wrong section, I'd appreciate a prompt.

I have read his report and it has made me so angry. 

There is absolutely no recognition of the human rights the unborn child has. None. Not even a recognition that they have any. They are in the current legislation, but will be entirely stripped away if this bill passes. The right to life being number one. 


There is some emotive language used when addressing the woman - compassionate, devastating diagnosis, mental distress - thereby acknowledging her humanity. There is only cold medical language used to describe the human in the womb- termination of pregnancy. The only time they are talked about in any kind of human way is in listing the categories where it should be legal to take their lives, sorry -"terminate". They are called the unborn child then. 

This report is as one sided as it is possible to be, persistently discussing the health care that the woman should be receiving, _totally_ ignoring the human they are carrying.


It is logically flawed. One of the main reasons given to allow abortion is the fact that women are going to England to have abortions and ordering online abortifacients. This means they are legalising something because women are doing it anyway. Are we going to have legal drugs and prostitution now, because people go to Holland anyway, or do it illegally here already? Legal fraud, because people do it already? That is ludicrous logic. I'm appalled that people in power cannot see that the law should be logical and moral, not "if you can't beat them, join 'em"!!!! If abortion is illegal, and they break the law, arrest them. Don't capitulate, enforce. If there are real reasons to legalise, fine, but for this?


Also, the main reason for allowing abortion on demand up to 12 weeks, is so that one of the smallest of "categories" by percentages - pregnancy from rape (don't get me wrong, an horrific thing all round) - don't have to report it. I have huge sympathy with women who have been raped, nevermind then finding they are pregnant. But to jump to abortion on demand for everyone from there is crazy.


The second biggest reason was that a lot of things, like diagnoses, were difficult (that word was used a lot). Shrug your shoulders and just kill all the unborn!!!!!!!!! Easy, hey!?


The committee has been accused of bias throughout this process. They started by voting to repeal before hearing any pro life contributors. That, I presume to be due to the UN ruling on FFA. No need to legislate for any other reason for abortion, so, but they recommended to anyway.  Ms Noone's tweet to wrap up the process (Been an absolute privilege & honour to chair a committee of such hard working and committed politicians. My hope is for a mature & calm debate in which all views are heard & above all that we continue to look at the facts & daily reality of women's healthcare), only mentioned women - as does her report. Interestingly, the list of contributors in the index doesn't include why they were invited, just a note to look for the transcripts. Appears to be an attempt to hide the fact so few pro life contributors were invited.

This debate is naturally extremely biased, as it is. Those born humans can tweet, ring radio stations, harass politicians etc. Those unborn humans rely on others. We are motivated by good will, whereas "pro choice" (pro abortion) are personally motivated and will scream and shout, as are entitled. The committee and media don't need to increase that chasm.


I do welcome the inclusion at the end of recommendations for increased spending on, and the provision of, things like contraception, education and mental health counselling. The reality is that if the report is ratified by the public, the government will agree, but not bring them in because the budget has all gone on the referendum and the abortions. In a few years we will only have the abortions and some other political football will distract the politicians. 


This report is _totally_ and _utterly_ skewed to the woman and pro choice. I am seething that we will have no recognition of the human rights of the unborn, and therefore thousands of lives taken just because we can - candy/life from a baby.


Where is the choice of the human in the womb? Where is the acknowledgement of the responsibilities of the man and woman - who exercised their right to consensual sex - toward the human they create? Where is the will to de-stigmatise reporting of rape? Where is the logic disappearing to? Where are the human rights of the unborn human?  Will they only have the right to remain silent?


Please, put me straight if I'm not seeing this right. It's too important to be closed to argument. Hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake.

Fighting Tao

I couldn’t make it past the third paragraph...sorry. From reading it you are unable to tell the difference from a living person and a fetues/clump of cells/sperm and egg and all other things that could be considered that can’t survive without a living person.

uptherebels

Andyfitzer wrote: »

This debate is naturally extremely biased, as it is. Those born humans can tweet, ring radio stations, harass politicians etc. Those unborn humans rely on others. We are motivated by good will, whereas "pro choice" (pro abortion) are personally motivated and will scream and shout, as are entitled. The committee and media don't need to increase that chasm.

Then you might want to ask those "pro life"(anti-choice) doctors who had a chance to stand up and speak for those that you consider not to have a voice and then chose not to.
But hey I guess it's easier to not go and then scream and shout bias than to be on record having their non existent arguements shredded in public.
And no your motivated by a misplaced belief that a fertilised egg is of more important than the health and well being of a living breathing person.

judeboy101

Fighting Tao wrote: »

I couldn’t make it past the third paragraph...sorry. From reading it you are unable to tell the difference from a living person and a fetues/clump of cells/sperm and egg and all other things that could be considered that can’t survive without a living person.

A four month old baby can't survive without a living person

Andyfitzer

uptherebels wrote: »

Then you might want to ask those "pro life"(anti-choice) doctors who had a chance to stand up and speak for those that you consider not to have a voice and then chose not to.
But hey I guess it's easier to not go and then scream and shout bias than to be on record having their non existent arguements shredded in public.
And no your motivated by a misplaced belief that a fertilised egg is of more important than the health and well being of a living breathing person.

You have a point about the docs, but I see their point more. It very much appears biased from the outset.
You and I are (big) clumps of cells. Are we not deserving of rights? A foetus is alive and human, and will develop into a person (defined as a born human) if nature is let take its course. So of course one human's life is more important than another's health. As you didn't read all of my points, I'll repeat: Are you only giving the human in the womb the right to remain silent?

emmet02

An important tenant of your argument/stance is the idea that all in utero life can be called a human being and therefore be entitled to rights and considerations above what has been offered by the report.

If indeed that is your position, the rest of your arguments are indeed logical.

However, if that position is unfounded / arguable / not black & white, then there is ambiguity in what follows.

In essence, you are speaking past the actual topic which you are hoping to flesh out.

murphaph

OP...if you were forced to kill your 5 year old child or unborn baby @ 12 weeks gestation what would you choose? Maybe a harsh question but if you're honest with yourself you'll pick the unborn baby and you know why. There is a difference between a sentient human with feelings and emotions and an unborn human baby that has yet to develop those things.

In my experience most pro-lifers are actually pro-birthers. They typically don't give a monkeys what happens to children after they are born, regardless of the circumstances.

I'm sure the OP wouldn't be one of those.

Andyfitzer

emmet02 wrote: »

An important tenant of your argument/stance is the idea that all in utero life can be called a human being and therefore be entitled to rights and considerations above what has been offered by the report.

If indeed that is your position, the rest of your arguments are indeed logical.

However, if that position is unfounded / arguable / not black & white, then there is ambiguity in what follows.

In essence, you are speaking past the actual topic which you are hoping to flesh out.

I appreciate the thoughtful reply. I respect the point you make, but am strong in my position at the moment. I feel a foetus is human (DNA), is alive as it has all the scientific requirements except reproduction, which it will have if allowed to develop, as it will continue to do outside the womb.
I point out that it is the report that I am concerned with. It is incredibly biased, not acknowledging the human rights given to the foetus by the UN.

Consonata

Andyfitzer wrote:

I appreciate the thoughtful reply. I respect the point you make, but am strong in my position at the moment. I feel a foetus is human (DNA), is alive as it has all the scientific requirements except reproduction, which it will have if allowed to develop, as it will continue to do outside the womb. I point out that it is the report that I am concerned with. It is incredibly biased, not acknowledging the human rights given to the foetus by the UN.

If it can't sustain itself outside the womb can it be called "living"?

Its barely a ball of cells until like week 10

Andyfitzer

Consonata wrote: »

If it can't sustain itself outside the womb can it be called "living"?

Its barely a ball of cells until like week 10

Wrong definition of living. It respires (makes energy), grows, moves etc. A two year old child could not survive without help. By your definition whether it is alive or not depends on the medical attention present at the time, which is clearly nonsensical. The only way a foetus will not survive (other than natural miscarriage) is if we step in and take it's life.
Science still can't explain the miracle of life. We are spending trillions looking for life elsewhere in the universe due to its wonder, and we want to take that away from those who have just been given it

Nody

Andy answer this question:
There's a fire in a lab and there's an unconscious woman who's in her 20s fit and healthy lying on the floor next to a cryo tank of frozen fertilized human eggs. You only have time to save her or the eggs and no one else is there to help, who do you save?

pitifulgod

The committee had numerous experts testify before them, pro life speakers also spoke to them. People have claimed the experts were pro choice but their conclusions were simply reached by evidence.

In relation to destigmatising of rape reporting. You would effectively have to wait for a conviction if rape is one of the special grounds. So that's not exactly realistic. Secondly, being raped isn't not an easy thing to destigmatising reporting of. It puts immense psychological strain on a woman regardless. Adding further pressure to a woman who was in such a traumatic scenario is awful.

Finally, forcing a woman to come to term with an unwanted pregnancy is pretty insane. The women worst hit by such a policy are those who can't travel due to health or economic reasons. So you effectively hit the most vulnerable of women. I favour simply trusting women to their judgement.

With Brexit in the near future, we reach even more uncertainty on availability of abortion abroad. We need this referendum.

emmet02

Andyfitzer wrote: »

emmet02 wrote: »

An important tenant of your argument/stance is the idea that all in utero life can be called a human being and therefore be entitled to rights and considerations above what has been offered by the report.

If indeed that is your position, the rest of your arguments are indeed logical.

However, if that position is unfounded / arguable / not black & white, then there is ambiguity in what follows.

In essence, you are speaking past the actual topic which you are hoping to flesh out.

I appreciate the thoughtful reply. I respect the point you make, but am strong in my position at the moment. I feel a foetus is human (DNA), is alive as it has all the scientific requirements except reproduction, which it will have if allowed to develop, as it will continue to do outside the womb.
I point out that it is the report that I am concerned with. It is incredibly biased, not acknowledging the human rights given to the foetus by the UN.

There are many many things with human dna that I would find it extraordinarily difficult to 'grant' entitlements to Universal Human Rights to.

The 'test' surely has to be more stringent than that?

murphaph

Nody wrote: »

Andy answer this question:
There's a fire in a lab and there's an unconscious woman who's in her 20s fit and healthy lying on the floor next to a cryo tank of frozen fertilized human eggs. You only have time to save her or the eggs and no one else is there to help, who do you save?

Can't see him answering this question any more than he'd answer mine.

Andyfitzer

pitifulgod wrote: »

The committee had numerous experts testify before them, pro life speakers also spoke to them. People have claimed the experts were pro choice but their conclusions were simply reached by evidence.

In relation to destigmatising of rape reporting. You would effectively have to wait for a conviction if rape is one of the special grounds. So that's not exactly realistic. Secondly, being raped isn't not an easy thing to destigmatising reporting of. It puts immense psychological strain on a woman regardless. Adding further pressure to a woman who was in such a traumatic scenario is awful.

Finally, forcing a woman to come to term with an unwanted pregnancy is pretty insane. The women worst hit by such a policy are those who can't travel due to health or economic reasons. So you effectively hit the most vulnerable of women. I favour simply trusting women to their judgement.

With Brexit in the near future, we reach even more uncertainty on availability of abortion abroad. We need this referendum.

OK. Thanks. I agree, rape is a minefield in this scenario. I think that introducing abortion on demand is insane to help such a minority of cases, though. I would have to disagree about forcing someone to not kill another human, especially as they were the one whose actions caused it in the first place. I would prefer to see free contraception like the marina to all who want it.

You haven't mentioned the human in the womb at all. How do you feel about the taking of that life? How do you reconcile your views with the loss of life?

Andyfitzer

emmet02 wrote: »

There are many many things with human dna that I would find it extraordinarily difficult to 'grant' entitlements to Universal Human Rights to.

The 'test' surely has to be more stringent than that?

I already stated it will develop into a born human if left alone, and it is alive. Did that not answer the question?

pitifulgod

Andyfitzer wrote: »

OK. Thanks. I agree, rape is a minefield in this scenario. I think that introducing abortion on demand is insane to help such a minority of cases, though. I would have to disagree about forcing someone to not kill another human, especially as they were the one whose actions caused it in the first place. I would prefer to see free contraception like the marina to all who want it.

You haven't mentioned the human in the womb at all. How do you feel about the taking of that life? How do you reconcile your views with the loss of life?

A 12 week old foetus? Not majorly concerned, it's far from viable.

murphaph

Andyfitzer wrote: »

I already stated it will develop into a born human if left alone, and it is alive. Did that not answer the question?

You only answer the questions you want your seems.

uptherebels

Andyfitzer wrote: »

You have a point about the docs, but I see their point more. It very much appears biased from the outset.
You and I are (big) clumps of cells. Are we not deserving of rights? A foetus is alive and human, and will develop into a person (defined as a born human) if nature is let take its course. So of course one human's life is more important than another's health. As you didn't read all of my points, I'll repeat: Are you only giving the human in the womb the right to remain silent?

But the point is that before a certain stage in development it is not a human. It is a bunch of cells that has the potential to develope into a human being.
Yes you and I are a. Bunch of cells but with the add on of being sentient and self aware.

Andyfitzer

Nody wrote: »

Andy answer this question:
There's a fire in a lab and there's an unconscious woman who's in her 20s fit and healthy lying on the floor next to a cryo tank of frozen fertilized human eggs. You only have time to save her or the eggs and no one else is there to help, who do you save?

This is a cousin to our debate, not a direct comparison. But short answer is the eggs. Much much longer answer in a few days. Have a happy and safe Christmas.

Andyfitzer

murphaph wrote: »

OP...if you were forced to kill your 5 year old child or unborn baby @ 12 weeks gestation what would you choose? Maybe a harsh question but if you're honest with yourself you'll pick the unborn baby and you know why. There is a difference between a sentient human with feelings and emotions and an unborn human baby that has yet to develop those things.

In my experience most pro-lifers are actually pro-birthers. They typically don't give a monkeys what happens to children after they are born, regardless of the circumstances.

I'm sure the OP wouldn't be one of those.

Ridiculous question, not worth a reply. Next question is almost as bad, but I'll answer that later.

Andyfitzer

pitifulgod wrote: »

A 12 week old foetus? Not majorly concerned, it's far from viable.

But viability is dependent on the medical attention available. Surely this is a nonsensical measure of worth. The foetus is alive and growing. It only dies if we step in to take its life. Where is your line in the sand that says the alive human has worth?

pitifulgod

Andyfitzer wrote: »

But viability is dependent on the medical attention available. Surely this is a nonsensical measure of worth. The foetus is alive and growing. It only dies if we step in to take its life. Where is your line in the sand that says the alive human has worth?

Viability is that it could survive outside of the mother's womb. Personally I have no problem with matching up with UK limit entirely. Late abortions occur in limited numbers and are not done at a whim as some believe. They are generally for entirely medical reasons or limited access to abortion, so that's what the eight ultimately supports.

The pregnant woman does ultimately know what's best. I don't support forcing any woman to be pregnant against her will. That's ultimately what you support.

murphaph

Andyfitzer wrote: »

Ridiculous question, not worth a reply. Next question is almost as bad, but I'll answer that later.

Like I said, you only answer the questions you want to.

That you value a bunch of egg cells over a living, breathing person with a family and real life speaks volumes about the kind of person you are.

dok_golf

Fighting Tao wrote: »

I couldn’t make it past the third paragraph...sorry. From reading it you are unable to tell the difference from a living person and a fetues/clump of cells/sperm and egg and all other things that could be considered that can’t survive without a living person.

A better way to phrase it may be that is is a denial of life. ( playing devil's advocate here)

dok_golf

murphaph wrote: »

Like I said, you only answer the questions you want to.

That you value a bunch of egg cells over a living, breathing person with a family and real life speaks volumes about the kind of person you are.

Uncalled for. The OP is as entitled to his opinion , which he clearly set out in the first post, as you are . I'm hoping this thread retains a civil tone.I, for one, am absolutely torn on this subject and would appreciate a rational debate ( your own thoughts included)

murphaph

dok_golf wrote: »

Uncalled for. The OP is as entitled to his opinion , which he clearly set out in the first post, as you are . I'm hoping this thread retains a civil tone.I, for one, am absolutely torn on this subject and would appreciate a rational debate ( your own thoughts included)

You wouldn't think it was uncalled for if you were the 20 year old this person would step over in a fire to save some egg cells or if the 20 year old was your mother, daughter or sister!!!

dok_golf

murphaph wrote: »

You wouldn't think it was uncalled for if you were the 20 year old this person would step over in a fire to save some egg cells or if the 20 year old was your mother, daughter or sister!!!

I would.

Nody

dok_golf wrote: »

I would.

Then Dok I'm assuming you're donating all your money every month to the various rescue organizations to prevent starvation in Somalia, to help the refugees drowning in the Mediterranean etc. Since life is so previous to you all after all, it would not be acceptable for you to expect others to preserve life but you could not be bothered to do the same after all. So Dok and OP, can you please confirm you donate your full salary every month and spend nothing on frivolous things such as cars, travel, entertainment etc. to ensure you maximize the number of lives you save? Or if you don't why are you such hypocrites about making such sacrifices yourselves but expect others to make them (between medical risks, health costs, raising a child etc. it's not exactly risk free)?

dok_golf

Wind your neck in and get down off your sanctimonious high horse.
I would just like this thread to be conducted in a civil manner, NOT being judge and executioner just because someone else has a different opinion than your own. My reply of "I would" was in relation to telling the previous poster that his/her comment was uncalled for in post #24. My reply of "I would" WAS NOT in relation to choosing between "egg cells" and a female relative.I haven't made any comment as to the morality or lack thereof on abortion. You should really read the thread first before coming over all high and feckin mighty. Jeez.

AnGaelach

murphaph wrote: »

OP...if you were forced to kill your 5 year old child or unborn baby @ 12 weeks gestation what would you choose? Maybe a harsh question but if you're honest with yourself you'll pick the unborn baby and you know why. There is a difference between a sentient human with feelings and emotions and an unborn human baby that has yet to develop those things.

In my experience most pro-lifers are actually pro-birthers. They typically don't give a monkeys what happens to children after they are born, regardless of the circumstances.

I'm sure the OP wouldn't be one of those.

Oh, it's that myth again - up there with the "woman leaving a buggy on the bus because DSP will give her a new one" ****e. That lie is constantly peddled about pro-life people, and is never qualified or backed up. You've probably never asked a pro-life person what they think about support for the family or child-raising, it is simply easier for you to attack this made up caricature in your head for not caring about people but merely loving the idea of forcing women to give birth. It's nonsense.