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

oscarBravo

Rezident wrote: »

Take 'pro-choice' - the fact that the pro-abortion movement cannot even use the word 'abortion' itself, is one indication that abortion might not be ok.

Or take "pro-life" - it's so much nicer-sounding than "pro-forced-birth", which is what it comes down to.

One of the things that keeps the debate relatively (!) civil is the willingness to use euphemisms for the two sides, but if you'd rather we said "pro-abortion" and "pro-forced-birth", I guess we could do that.

But I guess you probably don't. You probably want to keep the euphemism for one side while abandoning it for the other.

"Pro-choice" is an accurate term. I don't want people to have abortions; I just don't want them to be denied the choice to have them. As has been said in this thread and elsewhere: I don't want anyone to have an amputation, but I certainly wouldn't deny anyone the choice to have one if they needed it.

2wsxcde3

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Well when you weigh up the cost of maternity care, labour and birth, 18 years of childrens allowance and the cost of educating a child for 13 years versus the cost of one tablet, it kind of makes sense and speaks for itself that the tablet will be significantly cheaper and cost the tax payer less.

This is the kind of thinking the labor party employed when in government from 1948-1951 and 1954-1957. They decided it was "cheaper" to force women to give up their babies for adoption via the mother and baby home scheme then allow them to leave with the baby and pay them a single parent allowance. It wasn't until 1970 in this country that single mothers were finally given a weekly allowance at which stage there was a dramatic fall off in the use of mother and baby homes in Ireland.

Just think of the savings of 18 years of childrens allowance and the cost of educating a child for 13 years versus the cost of one tablet forcing the woman to give her baby up for adoption.

In any case, an abortion pill only seems cheaper until the birth rate of the country goes down as a result of abortion on demand (like in Germany and Sweden) and we have to import people from the same place Germany got theirs that led to the Cologne attacks. Hopefully it wont be your daughter or granddaughter that gets sexually assaulted or raped in 20 years time (like the women in Cologne) by someone that had to be brought into the country to fill the void left by all the babies killed here by the abortion pill.

end of the road

oscarBravo wrote: »

Or take "pro-life" - it's so much nicer-sounding than "pro-forced-birth", which is what it comes down to.

One of the things that keeps the debate relatively (!) civil is the willingness to use euphemisms for the two sides, but if you'd rather we said "pro-abortion" and "pro-forced-birth", I guess we could do that.

But I guess you probably don't. You probably want to keep the euphemism for one side while abandoning it for the other.

"Pro-choice" is an accurate term. I don't want people to have abortions; I just don't want them to be denied the choice to have them. As has been said in this thread and elsewhere: I don't want anyone to have an amputation, but I certainly wouldn't deny anyone the choice to have one if they needed it.

people are denied the choice to have an amputation outside medical grounds though. you can't have an amputation because your legs or arms are inconvenient or you don't want arms or legs. if people have their way, a woman can kill her unborn child because it is inconvenient.

SusieBlue

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

In any case, an abortion pill only seems cheaper until the birth rate of the country goes down as a result of abortion on demand (like in Germany and Sweden) and we have to import people from the same place Germany got theirs that led to the Cologne attacks. Hopefully it wont be your daughter or granddaughter that gets sexually assaulted or raped in 20 years time (like the women in Cologne) by someone that had to be brought into the country to fill the void left by all the babies killed here by the abortion pill.

What sort of nonsense hyperbole is this??
You really are overreaching with your overzealous dramatics fantasies about the future.
It’s shameful and deflects from the real debate.

ancapailldorcha

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

In any case, an abortion pill only seems cheaper until the birth rate of the country goes down as a result of abortion on demand (like in Germany and Sweden) and we have to import people from the same place Germany got theirs that led to the Cologne attacks. Hopefully it wont be your daughter or granddaughter that gets sexually assaulted or raped in 20 years time (like the women in Cologne) by someone that had to be brought into the country to fill the void left by all the babies killed here by the abortion pill.

Don't post like this again. This is a thread about abortion so let's keep it that way.

oscarBravo

end of the road wrote: »

people are denied the choice to have an amputation outside medical grounds though. you can't have an amputation because your legs or arms are inconvenient or you don't want arms or legs.

That contrast only works because of your insistence that abortion isn't a medical issue. Civilised people in civilised countries recognise that women have the right to choose not to be pregnant. It's simply reproductive healthcare, like contraception.

The only thing that makes it not a simple medical issue is the insistence by some people that their religious superstitions overrule other people's right to bodily integrity.

if people have their way, a woman can kill her unborn child because it is inconvenient.

If others have their way, a woman can be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term because of someone else's bizarre belief that a fertilised egg is a human being.

.......

This post has been deleted.

2wsxcde3

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

We've established plenty. For instance, the 8th prohibits abortions in Ireland and so it helps block abusive boyfriends/husbands from pushing their girlfriend/wife into having an abortion she really doesn't want.

Abusive boyfriends/husbands can do that in the UK. But not here. The fact that to have an abortion in the UK (from Ireland) costs €1000+ and online abortion pills carry a potential 14 year prison sentence is acting as a deterrent from abusive boyfriends from pushing their girlfriend into having an abortion.

If the UK had no abortion like in Ireland, then it would make it even more difficult for abusive boyfriends to push their girlfriends into doing something they don't want to do. This is really quiet a dirty side to the abortion debate pro-choicers don't like talking about. Probably because they know its the abusive boyfriend that is getting the "choice" rather than the woman.
Lets face it. Abusive boyfriends are all pro-choice. Its THEIR choice that the abortion takes place. Not the womans.

In case you think these women don't exist you can read their stories here:

15 Whisper Confessions Of Women Forced Into Having An Abortion
https://www.babygaga.com/15-whisper-confessions-of-women-who-were-forced-to-have-an-abortion/

The so-called "backward" 8th amendment is protecting these women.

end of the road

oscarBravo wrote: »

That contrast only works because of your insistence that abortion isn't a medical issue. Civilised people in civilised countries recognise that women have the right to choose not to be pregnant. It's simply reproductive healthcare, like contraception.

well i'd go a bit further and say it is contraception. it's the ultimate fail safe for when the others don't work.
also, ireland is as civilised as those countries and people, we just have different faults to them.

oscarBravo wrote: »

The only thing that makes it not a simple medical issue is the insistence by some people that their religious superstitions overrule other people's right to bodily integrity.

what makes it not a simple issue is that it involves the killing of another human being, the unborn. many of us on the pro-life side are not religious so religions or superstitions are irrelevant to us. there are 2 bodies in the mix, mother and bab, and baby is also entitled to bodily integrityy

oscarBravo wrote: »

If others have their way, a woman can be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term because of someone else's bizarre belief that a fertilised egg is a human being.

no it's because the unborn are human and have a right to life, unless that right causes a threat to the mother's life.

oscarBravo

end of the road wrote: »

well i'd go a bit further and say it is contraception.

Would you, now.

it's the ultimate fail safe for when the others don't work.

Well, access to abortion is a logical extension of access to contraception: it's all reproductive healthcare.

And, just as women had to fight for access to contraception in the 20th century, they're having to fight for access to abortion in some countries in the 21st.

also, ireland is as civilised as those countries and people, we just have different faults to them.

Sure: one of our faults is that we are still reluctant to accept that access to reproductive healthcare is important. Hopefully we'll fix that this year.

what makes it not a simple issue is that it involves the killing of another human being, the unborn.

No, it doesn't. It's ridiculous to try to state this as an objective fact, because that would mean that civilised countries across the world are happy to allow human beings to be killed at will.

A fertilised egg is not a human being. Abortion is not murder. If you insist on believing the opposite, knock yourself out, but the days when your personal irrational beliefs get to dictate that women are jumped-up incubators are hopefully numbered.

many of us on the pro-life side are not religious so religions or superstitions are irrelevant to us.

I'll accept that a minority of pro-lifers may not be religious, but it's fundamentally a religious view. It's certainly not a view that's in any way informed by science.

there are 2 bodies in the mix, mother and bab, and baby is also entitled to bodily integrityy

A fertilised egg is not a baby.

no it's because the unborn are human and have a right to life, unless that right causes a threat to the mother's life.

A fertilised egg doesn't have a right to life; if it did, the morning-after pill would be illegal.

2wsxcde3

A baby that is aborted as a result of an abortion pill has hands, legs, a head and a beating heart. Where does the woman put this little baby after the abortion has taken place in her home?

SusieBlue

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

A baby that is aborted as a result of an abortion pill has hands, legs, a head and a beating heart. Where does the woman put this little baby after the abortion has taken place in her home?

It’s like having a miscarriage. Similar to having an extremely heavy period.

end of the road

oscarBravo wrote: »

Would you, now. Well, access to abortion is a logical extension of access to contraception: it's all reproductive healthcare.

i wouldn't class abortion on demand as health care, just simple contraception. the only form of contraception that has no place IMO.

oscarBravo wrote: »

And, just as women had to fight for access to contraception in the 20th century, they're having to fight for access to abortion in some countries in the 21st. Sure: one of our faults is that we are still reluctant to accept that access to reproductive healthcare is important. Hopefully we'll fix that this year.

women have access to reproductive health care, they just cannot kill the unborn unless medical necessity requires it. hopefully that will remain as the unborn are equal to the mother except where her life is under threat or she is under threat of permanent injury or disability.

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, it doesn't. It's ridiculous to try to state this as an objective fact, because that would mean that civilised countries across the world are happy to allow human beings to be killed at will.

A fertilised egg is not a human being. Abortion is not murder. If you insist on believing the opposite, knock yourself out, but the days when your personal irrational beliefs get to dictate that women are jumped-up incubators are hopefully numbered. I'll accept that a minority of pro-lifers may not be religious, but it's fundamentally a religious view. It's certainly not a view that's in any way informed by science. A fertilised egg is not a baby. A fertilised egg doesn't have a right to life; if it did, the morning-after pill would be illegal.

a fetus is a human being, it is developing into a person and has a right to life. so-called civilized countries are allowing the killing of human beings who are developing in to people. there are no personal irrational beliefs dictating that women are jumped-up incubators, as nobody believes women are incubators, just the logical realities dictating that there is no logic to allow the killing of the unborn outside medical necessity, yet prohibiting the killing of that child once born. we rightly believe it's wrong to kill a newborn, many of us believe it is wrong to kill the unborn. hopefully the days where this is the case in ireland continues for the greater good of society. hopefully it will be a no vote to repeal and we will get better proposals that will allow necessary medical abortions but not contraceptive or lifestyle abortions.

2wsxcde3

WhiteRoses wrote: »

It’s like having a miscarriage. Similar to having an extremely heavy period.

I know a woman who had a miscarriage. The baby was put in a box and buried in the family plot in the local graveyard. They are due to put the babys name on the headstone this year. Is that what is done with the baby who is aborted as a result of the abortion pill? At 10 weeks the baby has hands, legs, a head and a beating heart. They are not just a blob of blood like you suggested.

In fact to suggest that an unborn baby is not a human being is an insult to women up and down the country who have buried miscarried babies in the local graveyard and put their names on the headstone.

oscarBravo

end of the road wrote: »

i wouldn't class abortion on demand as health care, just simple contraception.

Fair enough, but then you consider a zygote to be a human being, so - with respect - what you consider to be the case isn't exactly objective fact.

women have access to reproductive health care, they just cannot kill the unborn unless medical necessity requires it.

Again, you're picking and choosing what you consider to be reproductive healthcare, and again - with respect - you haven't exactly demonstrated your medical credentials.

hopefully that will remain as the unborn are equal to the mother except where her life is under threat or she is under threat of permanent injury or disability.

It's mildly amusing how all but the most extreme die-hard pro-lifers have some point at which they're prepared to allow what they claim are human beings to be killed.

a fetus is a human being...

No, it's not.

...it is developing into a person and has a right to life.

Developing into a person doesn't make it a person. An infant is developing into an adult; that doesn't give it the right to vote.

so-called civilized countries are allowing the killing of human beings who are developing in to people.

No, they're not. This is just the "everyone is out of step except my Johnny" fallacy. If almost every liberal social democracy allows abortion, it means that the people of those liberal social democracies have accepted that an embryo isn't (yet) a human being.

Now, you're entitled to your belief that an embryo is a human being. What will hopefully change this year is your entitlement to force that belief on others.

there are no personal irrational beliefs dictating that women are jumped-up incubators, as nobody believes women are incubators, just the logical realities dictating that there is no logic to allow the killing of the unborn outside medical necessity, yet prohibiting the killing of that child once born.

If you believe it's OK to dictate to a woman that she has no choice but to remain pregnant whether or not she wants to, then you're treating her as an incubator.

Now, you can claim you're not treating her as an incubator, but - again - you're not the sole arbiter of the meaning of your words.

we rightly believe it's wrong to kill a newborn, many of us believe it is wrong to kill the unborn.

The good news is that you will never, ever be forced to kill an unborn if you don't want to. That's the beauty of choice: you can choose not to have an abortion.

hopefully the days where this is the case in ireland continues for the greater good of society.

Yeah, the X and Y and other alphabet soup cases have demonstrated what a fabulous society we have.

hopefully it will be a no vote to repeal and we will get better proposals that will allow necessary medical abortions but not contraceptive or lifestyle abortions.

"It's wrong to murder babies! Unless there's a reason that I personally have deemed acceptable, in which case murder away!!"

You just can't see how daft that position is, can you?

SusieBlue

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

I know a woman who had a miscarriage. The baby was put in a box and buried in the family plot in the local graveyard. They are due to put the babys name on the headstone this year. Is that what is done with the baby who is aborted as a result of the abortion pill? At 10 weeks the baby has hands, legs, a head and a beating heart. They are not just a blob of blood like you suggested.

In fact to suggest that an unborn baby is not a human being is an insult to women up and down the country who have buried miscarried babies in the local graveyard and put their names on the headstone.

You are confusing miscarriages with stillbirths.
And I know the reality of a stillbirth all too well so please spare me the holier than thou lecture about headstones and graves.

You are clearly extremely ignorant to any actual knowledge of what a miscarriage entails.
It doesn’t come out as a gush of blood, it comes out as large clots and blood.
Similar to a heavy period which can also involve clots. There is nothing to bury.
If you present at hospital with miscarriage symptoms, you are scanned to confirm same and then sent home to let nature take it’s course.

Stillbirths involve a labor and delivery in hospital and occur at a much later stage of pregnancy.
Pre 12 weeks is certainly not considered a stillbirth. It’s a miscarriage.

And I never said they weren’t human beings, not sure where you got that tidbit from.

2wsxcde3

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yeah, the X and Y and other alphabet soup cases have demonstrated what a fabulous society we have.

We're going to have plenty X and Y cases but the media will not report on them. Women are dying from taking the abortion pill all over the world after being prescribed it by a doctor but the media buries these X and Y cases.

Italian woman dies after taking abortion drug
RU486 was first introduced in France over two decades ago. An estimated 16 deaths have been linked to the drug, with the first reported case being in France in 1991, according to the US-based Life Issues Institute. Other known cases have occurred in the US, Australia, Sweden and Britain.

(Source: https://www.thelocal.it/20140411/italian-woman-dies-after-taking-abortion-drug )

end of the road

oscarBravo wrote: »

Fair enough, but then you consider a zygote to be a human being, so - with respect - what you consider to be the case isn't exactly objective fact. Again, you're picking and choosing what you consider to be reproductive healthcare, and again - with respect - you haven't exactly demonstrated your medical credentials. It's mildly amusing how all but the most extreme die-hard pro-lifers have some point at which they're prepared to allow what they claim are human beings to be killed. No, it's not. Developing into a person doesn't make it a person. An infant is developing into an adult; that doesn't give it the right to vote. No, they're not. This is just the "everyone is out of step except my Johnny" fallacy. If almost every liberal social democracy allows abortion, it means that the people of those liberal social democracies have accepted that an embryo isn't (yet) a human being.

at 12 weeks it is no longer an embryo. it is a fetus, which is a human being. even an embryo is a human being, it's just not a person yet, but it will be. liberal social democracies who allow the killing of the unborn outside medical necessity are not true liberal social democracies and the people not excepting an embryo is a human being means they are wrong. human being is a life form that will develop into a person.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Now, you're entitled to your belief that an embryo is a human being. What will hopefully change this year is your entitlement to force that belief on others.
If you believe it's OK to dictate to a woman that she has no choice but to remain pregnant whether or not she wants to, then you're treating her as an incubator.

Now, you can claim you're not treating her as an incubator, but - again - you're not the sole arbiter of the meaning of your words.

beliefs are forced on us on a daily basis via the law, which dictates that we cannot kill someone, in our case we correctly extend that law to the unborn. i will never be able to agree that because i wish to prevent the killing of the unborn outside medical necessity, that i'm treating the woman as an incubator. that argument just cannot work for me i have to say.

oscarBravo wrote: »

The good news is that you will never, ever be forced to kill an unborn if you don't want to. That's the beauty of choice: you can choose not to have an abortion. Yeah, the X and Y and other alphabet soup cases have demonstrated what a fabulous society we have. "It's wrong to murder babies! Unless there's a reason that I personally have deemed acceptable, in which case murder away!!"

You just can't see how daft that position is, can you?

i will never be forced to kill a newborn either, but correctly i'm prohibited from doing it by law, dispite the fact i wouldn't do it anyway. sometimes our choices have to be removed or curtailed when those choices will cause undue harm to others, and correctly this is the case in ireland, where the unborn will be killed outside medical necessity. my position isn't daft, it's not that i think abortion is even okay in cases of medical necessity, i understand that simply it's necessary to prevent the death, permanent injury or disability, of the mother.

2wsxcde3

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You are confusing miscarriages with stillbirths.

No i'm not. Women bury miscarried babies (that miscarry in the first, second trimester etc) in their family plots and give them names.

Here is a case of a woman naming her unborn baby that was killed as a result of a tragic car accident:

She lost her son, Oisin (16 months) and her unborn baby girl, Elber Marie, in a head-on collision in Torquay, Devon
(Source: https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/irish-mother-who-lost-her-entire-family-in-horror-uk-crash-is-invited-to-westminster-36220448.html)

Notice how the newspaper doesn't call the unborn baby a "foetus". Any other time the media talk about an unborn baby however, especially when it comes to talking about abortion, the unborn baby magically transfers into a "foetus".

SusieBlue

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

No i'm not. Women bury miscarried babies (that miscarry in the first, second trimester etc) in their family plots and give them names.

Here is a case of a woman naming her unborn baby that was killed as a result of a tragic car accident: https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/irish-mother-who-lost-her-entire-family-in-horror-uk-crash-is-invited-to-westminster-36220448.html Notice how the newspaper doesn't call the unborn baby a "foetus". Any other time the media talk about an unborn baby however, especially when it comes to talking about abortion, an unborn baby magically transfers into a "foetus".

That woman was 24 weeks pregnant when she lost that child, almost into her 3rd trimester, so your point is untruthful and invalid.
Babies can be born prematurely at that gestation and live.

The state doesn’t even offer death certificates for pregnancies lost pre 24 weeks anyway.
As far as the state are currently concerned, if the baby is lost before that time, it’s like it never existed.

I’m sure some women do bury their miscarried babies. It most certainly is not the norm though.
I’ve certainly never heard of anyone doing it pre 12 weeks.

Regardless, I fail to see what any of this has to do with the abortion referendum?
It’s like you’re throwing as much sh*t at the wall as possible and seeing what will stick.

First we couldn’t have abortions due to kids having to travel for medical care, then in case men forced their partners into it, now we can’t have it because it’s an insult to parents who lost children???????
What excuse will you come up with next??

2wsxcde3

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I’m sure some women do bury their miscarried babies. It most certainly is not the norm though.
I’ve certainly never heard of anyone doing it pre 12 weeks.

It happens all the time. But understandably its not something people like talking about.

SusieBlue

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

It happens all the time. But understandably its not something people like talking about.

I see you just completely ignored the majority of my post, and picked the 3 lines you replied to purposely to throw in an emotionally manipulative reply.

Whatever, not bothered. It’s clear what you’re doing, though.
And I don’t see why you should expect anyone to reply to your ridiculous claims when you can’t even be bothered to reply properly.

As I said, youre overreaching further and further with each ludicrous reason you come up with that makes abortion is wrong.
Everyone can see it. What you posted above has absolutely nothing to do with the referendum.

2wsxcde3

Women (and men) regretting an abortion is a very difficult thing. I just think as a country we are setting future young people up into thinking abortion is a good thing, that it is a "choice" ...and its only when the abortion has taken place and the dust has settled (months and even years later) that the regret sets in. Its only then the woman realizes there is a missing child in her life.

.......

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Women (and men) regretting an abortion is a very difficult thing. I just think as a country we are setting future young people up into thinking abortion is a good thing, that it is a "choice" ...and its only when the abortion has taken place and the dust has settled (months and even years later) that the regret sets in. Its only then the woman realizes there is a missing child in her life.

I think we need to let women take that risk and responsibility for themselves rather than deciding on their behalf what's best for them.

What makes you more qualified than me to tell me what's best for myself? How could you possibly know whats in my (or any womans) best interests?

Data shows the majority of women don't regret abortions anyway.

volchitsa

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Regardless, I fail to see what any of this has to do with the abortion referendum?
It’s like you’re throwing as much sh*t at the wall as possible and seeing what will stick.

First we couldn’t have abortions due to kids having to travel for medical care, then in case men forced their partners into it, now we can’t have it because it’s an insult to parents who lost children???????
What excuse will you come up with next??

The money spent (and still to spend, as there are other cases pending imuic) compensating women for having to travel to England to terminate pregnancies where the unborn baby had a fatal anomaly would have helped though.

As well as the momey paid to Savita Hallapanavar's husband (wasn't that a 6 figure sum?) when she could have had a termination several days earlier only for the law saying her life had to be at risk first.

And then there's the money for the different court cases and investigations all caused by the 8th. Including having the High Court sit over the Christmas/New Year period to decide about the young woman left on a life support machine.

I'd say there's a handy amount of money to be saved by removing the 8th, if freeing up funds is really the issue.

volchitsa

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Women (and men) regretting an abortion is a very difficult thing. I just think as a country we are setting future young people up into thinking abortion is a good thing, that it is a "choice" ...and its only when the abortion has taken place and the dust has settled (months and even years later) that the regret sets in. Its only then the woman realizes there is a missing child in her life.

So basically, women are stupid and it's lucky they have you to put them right, yeah?

As for men "regretting abortion" maybe the women just shouldn't tell them?
How would they regret a pregnancy they never knew existed?

Zubeneschamali

volchitsa wrote: »

As for men "regretting abortion" maybe the women just shouldn't tell them?

Mens rights! I'm being oppressed! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!

volchitsa

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Mens rights! I'm being oppressed! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!

It's protecting them for their own good, the poor dears.
Like prolifers apparently want to do to women : sedate and restrain them if necessary so they don't come to regret their abortions later, the sillies.

ancapailldorcha

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

In fact to suggest that an unborn baby is not a human being is an insult to women up and down the country who have buried miscarried babies in the local graveyard and put their names on the headstone.

Final Warning. Any more of this and I am banning you from this thread.