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?

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

[Deleted User] 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.

Andyfitzer

Andyfitzer wrote: »

[Deleted User] 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

[Deleted User] 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.

AnGaelach

pitifulgod wrote: »

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.

"I don't support murdering any child. That's ultimately what you support"

You see how trying to frame another person's argument isn't very conducive to debate?

Consonata

AnGaelach wrote: »

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.

I mean you didn't exactly try and offer any evidence yourself to discredit the idea.

Typically people who are exceptionally pro-life, are also economically conservative, as I know you are yourself. That means low public spending in education, cut child benefit, cut health services. All of these things make it exceptionally difficult to raise a child in this country. This is added to funding really poor forms of sexual education which ultimately lead to more children being born who won't be looked after adequately.

"I don't support murdering any child. That's ultimately what you support"

You see how trying to frame another person's argument isn't very conducive to debate?

I mean it really comes down to what your values are. A bunch of cells barely larger than a few hairs, or a living person who has to go through the traumatic process of pregnancy?

I don't think that is a hard question.

end of the road

Consonata wrote: »

I mean you didn't exactly try and offer any evidence yourself to discredit the idea.

the idea is so ridiculous that it discredits itself.

Consonata wrote: »

Typically people who are exceptionally pro-life, are also economically conservative, as I know you are yourself. That means low public spending in education, cut child benefit, cut health services. All of these things make it exceptionally difficult to raise a child in this country. This is added to funding really poor forms of sexual education which ultimately lead to more children being born who won't be looked after adequately.

while some pro-life posters maybe economically conservative, many of us aren't and are against low spending on services and believe in good sex education and contraception.

AnGaelach

Consonata wrote: »

I mean you didn't exactly try and offer any evidence yourself to discredit the idea.

Yeah, because the onus is on the person making the claim, not the person disputing it. As far as I'm aware, there's little to no statistical data available for use to see if pro-life means you hate children after they're born, which is what the other person is asserting.

Consonata wrote: »

Typically people who are exceptionally pro-life, are also economically conservative, as I know you are yourself. That means low public spending in education, cut child benefit, cut health services. All of these things make it exceptionally difficult to raise a child in this country. This is added to funding really poor forms of sexual education which ultimately lead to more children being born who won't be looked after adequately.

I'm not economically conservative, I don't know why you would assert that I want to cut child benefit, health services and education when I've never said I think that they should. I think the State should be providing more funding for education and family-oriented supports, not less...

Obviously attacking someone's character that you've made up in your head is easier for you than realising we're not all black-and-white.

Consonata wrote: »

I mean it really comes down to what your values are. A bunch of cells barely larger than a few hairs, or a living person who has to go through the traumatic process of pregnancy?

I don't think that is a hard question.

Again, you're trying to frame this argument in a way to make your argument seem the only moral chocie.

"I mean it really comes down to what your values are. A few months of pregnancy, or the permanent eradication of a human life?

I don't think that is a hard question."

Consonata

AnGaelach wrote: »

Obviously attacking someone's character that you've made up in your head is easier for you than realising we're not all black-and-white.

Forgive me for thinking that a self described fascist is economically conservative. My mistake

AnGaelach wrote: »

Again, you're trying to frame this argument in a way to make your argument seem the only moral chocie.

"I mean it really comes down to what your values are. A few months of pregnancy, or the permanent eradication of a human life?

I don't think that is a hard question."

Then it comes down to the philosophical argument about whether that bundle of cells is a human. I do not believe so. You do, and I highly doubt I am going to convince you otherwise considering your history on this issue in other threads.

However I will pose you a paraphrase of the question that has been posed to other people in this thread. If a female Scientist is in a Laboratory with 100 frozen egg cells. If the Lab is on fire and you can only save 1, who do you save?

AnGaelach

Consonata wrote: »

Forgive me for thinking that a self described fascist is economically conservative. My mistake

Don't think I've ever described myself as fascist, and putting that aside, fascism isn't economically conservative... You must be economically and historically illiterate if you think so.

Consonata wrote: »

Then it comes down to the philosophical argument about whether that bundle of cells is a human. I do not believe so. You do, and I highly doubt I am going to convince you otherwise considering your history on this issue in other threads.

A "bundle of cells" is all you or I am... Obviously you are trying to qualify this as self-awareness being the defining characteristic of "human-ness", in which case I'd ask whether you consider someone to be in a vegetative state to be human or not? At what point do they start being human, and what stage do we stop being human?

Consonata wrote: »

However I will pose you a paraphrase of the question that has been posed to other people in this thread. If a female Scientist is in a Laboratory with 100 frozen egg cells. If the Lab is on fire and you can only save 1, who do you save?

Obviously I will use my telekinetic powers to bend reality... Your "philosophical" question is obviously nonsensical, it doesn't deserve a reply of serious merit because it can quite as easily be displayed how ludicrous it is.

"If the human race is about to die off due to infertility and there's one single woman who is left pregnant whose child will definitely be fertile. Do you let her choose to have an abortion or do you save the human race?"

You see how infantile your argument is? While you might think it's witty in that you're trying to ensure everyone says "obviously I will save the woman" so you then argue that we're justifying abortion in that scenario so we need to justify is on demand, it's anything but. It's a stupid piece of rhetorical questioning designed to illicit a response.

Inquitus

I wholeheartedly agree with the outcome of the committee, a pregnancy is not a life in the early stages, and does not deserve those protections. I think 12 weeks is a good line to draw and I firmly believe women should have the right to termination without precondition up until this point. A woman should not be forced to have a baby she is not ready to have, be it due to age, financial circumstances or indeed any other reason she may have.

I think the key points are, in the early stages of pregnancy it is not a life, it does not have nor deserve any human rights as it is quite simply not a human at that point. I do hope this referendum is carried and we remove this amendment from our constitution as it is blot on our nation.

end of the road

Inquitus wrote: »

I wholeheartedly agree with the outcome of the committee, a pregnancy is not a life in the early stages, and does not deserve those protections. I think 12 weeks is a good line to draw and I firmly believe women should have the right to termination without precondition up until this point. A woman should not be forced to have a baby she is not ready to have, be it due to age, financial circumstances or indeed any other reason she may have.

I think the key points are, in the early stages of pregnancy it is not a life, it does not have nor deserve any human rights as it is quite simply not a human at that point. I do hope this referendum is carried and we remove this amendment from our constitution as it is blot on our nation.

it is a life ultimately. you may believe it to be a life deserving of nothing but that doesn't change the fact it is a life and a human being that will ultimately develop into a person. as so it has to have rights otherwise we ultimately allow the degradation of the right to life long term. + the cut off couldn't remain at 12 weeks, it would have to rise eventually.
there are plenty of stains on this country but abortion on demand not being availible isn't one of those. to suggest it is is in my view an insult to those who went through atrocities caried out in this country whether it be abuse and so on.
the unfortunate thing here is that the 8th does cause genuine problems and there are a number of us who would happily vote to repeal it if it wasn't for the threat of abortion on demand being availible in ireland.

RobertKK

The case for abortion and killing the unborn, can also be made for infanticide.

People who say it is not a life are arguing they exist because somehow when they were alive in the womb at the earliest, they in fact were not alive, ie a life.

What the committee argued for and signed off on is good for the retain the 8th side as it is abortion on demand up to 12 weeks.
The irony is the people arguing for this would say it is offensive if pictures of an unborn life at 12 weeks was displayed, and say stuff that it is emotive, when it should mean nothing, the fact is people arguing for abortion will be the people who will not want pictures of an aborted unborn at 12 weeks being shown, and one would have to wonder why, looks too human?

Itssoeasy

end of the road wrote: »

it is a life ultimately. you may believe it to be a life deserving of nothing but that doesn't change the fact it is a life and a human being that will ultimately develop into a person. as so it has to have rights otherwise we ultimately allow the degradation of the right to life long term. + the cut off couldn't remain at 12 weeks, it would have to rise eventually.
there are plenty of stains on this country but abortion on demand not being availible isn't one of those. to suggest it is is in my view an insult to those who went through atrocities caried out in this country whether it be abuse and so on.
the unfortunate thing here is that the 8th does cause genuine problems and there are a number of us who would happily vote to repeal it if it wasn't for the threat of abortion on demand being availible in ireland.

It should never have been put into the constitution in the first place. I wasn't alive in 1983 but I can't understand why it was put into the constitution at all. I'll admit it might be hard for me looking at it through 2017 eyes but putting it in the constitution was madness.

end of the road

Itssoeasy wrote: »

It should never have been put into the constitution in the first place. I wasn't alive in 1983 but I can't understand why it was put into the constitution at all. I'll admit it might be hard for me looking at it through 2017 eyes but putting it in the constitution was madness.

essentially it was to insure ultimate protection for the life and rights of the unborn. however it wasn't quite thought through as it caused other unforseen issues. i agree whole heartedly with protections and rights for the unborn but i do think the legislation didn't think some things through in terms of circumstances where it just wouldn't have been viable to save the baby, FFA for example.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

essentially it was to insure ultimate protection for the life and rights of the unborn. however it wasn't quite thought through as it caused other unforseen issues. i agree whole heartedly with protections and rights for the unborn but i do think the legislation didn't think some things through in terms of circumstances where it just wouldn't have been viable to save the baby, FFA for example.

Unforeseen by whom?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLWnoQjTNiw

A former president of the country, and established constitutional lawyer who was prominent in the debate of the day raised many of the issues, decades before we saw the exact circumstances play out.

(04:56 onwards)

Binchy's quote at 08:30 is telling

Mary Robinson @ 10:24 wrote:

We have created a right to life of the unborn, that right is entitled to its remedy. It's entitled to be asserted. It can't be asserted by the foetus for obvious reasons. It can be asserted by a third party. This is all possible legal litigation that we are facing into.

Itssoeasy

end of the road wrote: »

Itssoeasy wrote: »

It should never have been put into the constitution in the first place. I wasn't alive in 1983 but I can't understand why it was put into the constitution at all. I'll admit it might be hard for me looking at it through 2017 eyes but putting it in the constitution was madness.

essentially it was to insure ultimate protection for the life and rights of the unborn. however it wasn't quite thought through as it caused other unforseen issues. i agree whole heartedly with protections and rights for the unborn but i do think the legislation didn't think some things through in terms of circumstances where it just wouldn't have been viable to save the baby, FFA for example.

Yes it did and I watched the contributions of the two people who came in to the committee to give their story on how a FFA of their unborn baby lead to a horrific experience because they said of the 8th amendment. I mean if anyone hasn't then they should go and read the transcript or watch the video of them telling their story. It's harrowing to read or watch.

Muahahaha

Andyfitzer wrote: »

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?

See for me the idea that abortion in Ireland does not exist is logically flawed. It does, it just happens in the UK. It is perhaps the main reason I will vote to repeal the 8th. IMO there is no point in us wishing that this world we live in is an ideal place because it isnt and nor will it ever be. It is better to deal with the world as we see it rather than as how we hope we would see it. Right now the law is all about the latter, it deals with idealism rather than realism and what we end up with is Ireland sweeping our problems under Englands carpet. We can pretend it isnt there but at the end of the day it most certainly is so I just dont see the point in sticking heads in the sand over this.

Your point above says that the law should be logical and moral. But for any law to work it also has to be enforceable. What should the govt. be doing, rounding up every woman who has an abortion and throwing them in jail for 14 years? At the moment Irish prison capacity is around 5,000 inmates. We would need around 200,000 new prison spaces for that to happen.

Itssoeasy

Also in relation to the make up of the committee and the pro choice and pro life members, were Ronan Mullen, Mattie McGrath, and Peter Fitzpatrick the best members the pro life side could muster to make the case ? The pro life position surely could have articulated better with other oireachtas members ?

Edit: there are 218 members of the oireachtas and these three were the best ? I doubt that seriously. I mean Mattie McGrath I wouldn't let mind my dog, and ronan Mullen has an arrogant streak to his questioning.

Consonata

AnGaelach wrote: »

Obviously I will use my telekinetic powers to bend reality... Your "philosophical" question is obviously nonsensical, it doesn't deserve a reply of serious merit because it can quite as easily be displayed how ludicrous it is.

"If the human race is about to die off due to infertility and there's one single woman who is left pregnant whose child will definitely be fertile. Do you let her choose to have an abortion or do you save the human race?"

You see how infantile your argument is? While you might think it's witty in that you're trying to ensure everyone says "obviously I will save the woman" so you then argue that we're justifying abortion in that scenario so we need to justify is on demand, it's anything but. It's a stupid piece of rhetorical questioning designed to illicit a response.

I mean, half of your response was spurning my intelligence. Please be more polite in future.

The point of the question is which is of greater value, the frozen eggs or the woman. I see nothing "witty" about it. This is quite a serious issue.

If you aren't going to attempt to argue in good faith, don't bother wasting my time whilst I am trying to have a civilised debate.

murphaph

I think the poster above who writes about the real world facts is right in that women in Ireland generally can't legally be prevented from obtaining an abortion because they are free to travel to GB for one. That's the reality. You just need money and an abortion is yours.

So the current legal restriction on abortion actually only prevents a poorer subset of women from obtaining such abortions. This is clearly quite discriminatory.

The women who can afford to travel for an abortion will do so. We as a society currently choose to make their situation more difficult by only allowing abortion in a foreign country with little emotional support.

I really don't like this. Ireland's women are for us in Ireland to care for and not something we should try to brush under England's carpet.

Debating the issue on the grounds of whether a foetus at 12 weeks is a human with all the rights of a born human just goes around in circles as the vast majority of people have a fixed idea of what is what. To me a clump of cells of a fertilised egg is not much more miraculous than the egg and sperm separately, and (almost) nobody believes human sperm is "life". Others believe the opposite, that a fertilised egg has as much right to life as their own mother, sisters or daughters. I'll never get my head around their position and they'll never get theirs around mine.

AnGaelach

Consonata wrote: »

I mean, half of your response was spurning my intelligence. Please be more polite in future.

The point of the question is which is of greater value, the frozen eggs or the woman. I see nothing "witty" about it. This is quite a serious issue.

If you aren't going to attempt to argue in good faith, don't bother wasting my time whilst I am trying to have a civilised debate.

The question posed is dishonest at best. Your scenario is comparing a threat to the life of the mother against a threat to the existence of an (unfertilied?) egg. Are we to take this as your argument in support for abortion where the mother's life is at risk? Of course not, you're going to change the meaning of the question to suit yourself - that acknowledging a direct threat to the mother's life means you hold the woman in higher regard, and so why can't we just see that abortion is letting her live her life!! Your question is spurious and ill structured if you actually intended to provoke the kind of response you wish. Nevermind the fact that a frozen egg doesn't have the capacity for life of its own accord, but a foetus does.

You aren't even arguing in good faith yourself, you tried to simply attack my character by saying I essentially hate poor children and families, asserted that I'm a fascist, a pro-birther and am "economically conservative". Don't get on your high horse, just because I'm refusing to answer your nonsensical, hypothetical question.

If you weren't using every dirty trick in the book, from smearing me to promoting falsehoods in the guise of philosophical questions, maybe I wouldn't be so combative.

Itssoeasy

So as it seems likely that there will be a referendum on the 8th amendment next year. Is it such a slam dunk as we are lead to believe by most quarters ?

I'm just saying is there a chance of this not being repealed ?

I say that because unlike the same sex marriage referendum where I personally know of people who didnt/do not agree with homosexuality, but who still voted yes to people being allowed to marry. I just think the issue of abortion may not be given the same pass.

recedite

Deleted User wrote: »

Unforeseen by whom?
A former president of the country, and established constitutional lawyer who was prominent in the debate of the day raised many of the issues, decades before we saw the exact circumstances play out.

Robinson saying there that a constitutional amendment to protect the life of the unborn could be used to protect the life of the unborn. What is "unforeseen" about that?

Maybe it was unforeseen that the SC would allow abortion if the mother's life was genuinely at risk. That interpretation of the constitution was decided at the time of the X-case, and eventually legislated for in 2013.

Maybe if an abortion was performed tomorrow in a case of genuine FFA (I mean a genuinely fatal abnormality) then the SC would rule that the existing 8th amendment also allows abortion in those circumstances. We won't know the answer to that unless somebody tries it.