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

end of the road

robarmstrong wrote: »

Nope, you're doing that well of your own accord.

nope wrong, the government's proposals have forced me to vote no . i would vote yes if the proposals were exceptible. the government could have put forward exceptible proposals but chose not to, so forced my hand.

robarmstrong wrote: »

By the way up until 8 weeks it's considered an embryo. Do you want to give an embryo more rights than an actual person standing in front of you?

embryo is just the name for the stage of development the human being is at. it has equal rights "as much as is practical" to the mother. meaning that when it comes down to it, it doesn't quite have the same rights as a person standing in front of me, who would be saved, as their chances of survival are greater. this idea of giving more rights to the unborn then the mother is ultimately not true according to the constitution.

robarmstrong

end of the road wrote: »

nope wrong, the government's proposals have forced me to vote no . i would vote yes if the proposals were exceptible. the government could have put forward exceptible proposals but chose not to, so forced my hand.



embryo is just the name for the stage of development the human being is at. it has equal rights "as much as is practical" to the mother. meaning that when it comes down to it, it doesn't quite have the same rights as a person standing in front of me, who would be saved, as their chances of survival are greater. this idea of giving more rights to the unborn then the mother is ultimately not true according to the constitution.

Nope wrong, you've not been forced to vote no whatsoever, you are completely free to vote however you feel.

Embryo is the scientific term for that particular clump of cells.

The embryo has a right to live, the mother does not have a right to a choice, so not equal rights.

Also if you wouldn't mind -

robarmstrong wrote: »

Have you got any factual evidence of this abortion on demand phrase?

You were previously challenged on your view that abortion is a form of birth control. I've yet to see factual rebuttals from you regarding this.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control this will help you greatly in defining what is and what is not a form of birth control.

david75

‘Exceptible’ Also isnt a word. You probably mean acceptable.

end of the road

Nettle Soup wrote: »

If you could, would you strengthen the 8th to make it a criminal offence to travel for an abortion?

no, there would be no point.

robarmstrong wrote: »

Nope wrong, you've not been forced to vote no whatsoever, you are completely free to vote however you feel.

Embryo is the scientific term for that particular clump of cells.

The embryo has a right to live, the mother does not have a right to a choice, so not equal rights.

Also if you wouldn't mind -

the government's proposals have forced me to vote no . the unborn has a right to life unless extreme circumstances mean that should not be the case, in which abortion should be performed. this is not a choice issue as none of us have the choice to kill others unless it is in absolutely extreme circumstances. i have already dealt with my opinion that i would consider non-medical abortion to be a form of birth control, because it's ultimately controling a birth for non-medical and non-life or health threatening reasons. i even provided a couple of articles a bit up.

robarmstrong

end of the road wrote: »

no, there would be no point.



the government's proposals have forced me to vote no . the unborn has a right to life unless extreme circumstances mean that should not be the case, in which abortion should be performed. this is not a choice issue as none of us have the choice to kill others unless it is in absolutely extreme circumstances. i have already dealt with my opinion that i would consider non-medical abortion to be a form of birth control, because it's ultimately controling a birth for non-medical and non-life or health threatening reasons. i even provided a couple of articles a bit up.

So it's your opinion, not fact that it's a form of birth control, no? Is there any factual evidence to support your opinion or would it just be your interpretation of what birth control is?

You posted absolute drivel articles by some of the worst newspapers known to man, doesn't support anything.

So you label it killing, so essentially murder, correct? As in an unlawful killing of another human being right? Do embryos and fetus fall under the remit of "human being" or "human being under development"?

EDIT: Have you got any statistical evidence to back up your claim of introducing "abortion on demand" or is that what you're interpreting unrestricted abortion as?

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

i would consider non-medical abortion to be a form of birth control, because it's ultimately controling a birth for non-medical and non-life or health threatening reasons. i even provided a couple of articles a bit up.

do you understand the definition of birth control?
do you understand that contraceptives are used before contraception?
there is no way abortion can be used as birth control.

end of the road

robarmstrong wrote: »

So you label it killing, so essentially murder, correct? As in an unlawful killing of another human being right? Do embryos and fetus fall under the remit of "human being" or "human being under development"?

killing doesn't have to be murder. an embryo and a fetus would be at different stages of development in terms of being a human being.

robarmstrong wrote: »

Have you got any statistical evidence to back up your claim of introducing "abortion on demand" or is that what you're interpreting unrestricted abortion as?

unrestricted abortion without reason would be a form of abortion on demand in my view. i have saw no argument that i should believe otherwise.

robarmstrong

end of the road wrote: »

killing doesn't have to be murder. an embryo and a fetus would be at different stages of development in terms of being a human being.




unrestricted abortion without reason would be a form of abortion on demand in my view. i have saw no argument that i should believe otherwise.

Have you got any facts to back up your statement that unrestricted abortion would be a form of abortion on demand or is it just your opinion?

Have you got any facts to back up your statement that abortion is a form of birth-control or is it just your opinion?

end of the road

robarmstrong wrote: »

Have you got any facts to back up your statement that unrestricted abortion would be a form of abortion on demand or is it just your opinion?

Have you got any facts to back up your statement that abortion is a form of birth-control or is it just your opinion?

i answered these questions already. look through my previous posts today.

robarmstrong

end of the road wrote: »

i answered these questions already. look through my previous posts today.

If I wanted to go sifting through sh!te I'd go stick my hands in a toilet.

Have you got any facts to back up your statement that unrestricted abortion would be a form of abortion on demand or is it just your opinion?

Have you got any facts to back up your statement that abortion is a form of birth-control or is it just your opinion?

If the answer to both of these is that you don't have facts, rather just your opinion, your opinion is not factful.

end of the road

robarmstrong wrote: »

If I wanted to go sifting through sh!te I'd go stick my hands in a toilet.

Have you got any facts to back up your statement that unrestricted abortion would be a form of abortion on demand or is it just your opinion?

Have you got any facts to back up your statement that abortion is a form of birth-control or is it just your opinion?

If the answer to both of these is that you don't have facts, rather just your opinion, your opinion is not factful.

as i said, i already answered these questions in previous posts. post 770 for the first and post 818 for the second.

robarmstrong

end of the road wrote: »

as i said, i already answered these questions in previous posts. if you do not wish to read the thread that is your issue but the answers were provided.

So I'll take it they're your opinions, rather than fact.

Funny thing opinions, they can be so very, very wrong whereas facts can't.

david75

end of the road wrote: »

i answered these questions already. look through my previous posts today.

Answer them Again. You like copy and paste. Shouldn’t be hard for you.

robarmstrong

You didn't answer them at all in those posts.

I asked you for statistical evidence or factual statements consisting of proven facts (records) of your claims. You have been asked several times for facts to back up your statement and you provided newspaper articles by two of the worst papers known to mankind.

Have you, or have you not got any evidence to back up your claims? Have you got copies of research indicating that abortion is a form of birth control?
Have you got copies of factual scientific research linking "abortion on demand" as a byproduct of unrestricted abortion?

ancapailldorcha

end of the road wrote: »

as i said, i already answered these questions in previous posts. post 770 for the first and post 818 for the second.

Mod: I have looked at these posts and have found little more than soapboxing. Repeating the same opinion over and over again isn't good debate so please try and post more constructively.

oscarBravo

end of the road wrote: »

i'm happy with my view, i came to it via facts logic and general reality...

You expressed the belief that Ireland is the most modern, progressive country in the world, based solely on the fact that we deny women control over their reproductive health.

I'm afraid you don't get to claim that facts, logic or reality have anything whatsoever to do with your view.



Yes, I'm aware that you don't believe that we're denying women control over their reproductive health, but that's because you've conveniently decided what the term means. When you have to hand-craft your own definitions for language in order not to hopelessly lose an argument, you've already hopelessly lost it.

Edward M

I see a breakdown of the votes in the dail yesterday in the papers.
Over half of FF TDs voted against the bill for the referendum, a few others scattered around too.
Essentially a vote against even allowing the democratic process to take place at all.
If repeal passes though, with SF not yet declared as to how they stand on the 12 week limit, its hard to know for certain exactly what the legislation will be that follows.
That may put some voters off repeal, perhaps the dail should have passed some sort of agreement, even if not exact, but as a general guideline perhaps of what would follow.
With SF having to have a special add fheis after the vote and FF showing that there is no hunger for change in general within the party, there is still a great deal of uncertainty involved.
I think perhaps voters need clarity sometimes before committing to something, apart from repeal there isn't much clarity of how things will go afterwards.
FG it seems are the only party showing a bit of leadership here, as a whole.

Jolly Red Giant

Psychologists4Choice
‏ @Psychs4Choice

Important thread: we’ve had to take a step back and breath before writing this. @MaryLouMcDonald and @sinnfeinireland, you’re going to want to read this.
3:18 PM - 21 Mar 2018

It’s been brought to our attention that during her Dail speech @carolno98273399 referred to “the latest research from the British Journal of Psychiatry” which she claimed demonstrated that “abortion increased the risk of mental health problems for women by 81%”.
1 reply 13 retweets 28 likes
Psychologists4Choice
‏ @Psychs4Choice
11h11 hours ago

Now, we’re pretty up to date with the literature. Naturally, we thought we’d missed something new, and panicked. So over we went to the @TheBJPsych website and looked. And looked. And looked. And we couldn’t find anything.
1 reply 6 retweets 29 likes
Psychologists4Choice
‏ @Psychs4Choice
11h11 hours ago

And then we realised which “latest” paper she was talking about. It’s far from the latest, it was actually published in 2011.
1 reply 9 retweets 26 likes
Psychologists4Choice
‏ @Psychs4Choice
11h11 hours ago

Now, there are two problems with this. First, Ms Nolan has deliberately misled people by referring to this paper as the latest research. Since the paper Ms Nolan refers to was published, 81 papers have been published in the peer reviewed literature on abortion and mental health.
1 reply 13 retweets 47 likes
Psychologists4Choice
‏ @Psychs4Choice
11h11 hours ago

But more importantly, the paper she refers to was published by Priscilla Coleman, a psychologist who has been censured multiple times for manufacturing and misrepresenting research findings to match her pro life views. Her research findings have never, ever been replicated.
1 reply 20 retweets 62 likes
Psychologists4Choice
‏ @Psychs4Choice
11h11 hours ago

The soecific paper Ms Nolan refers to was criticised heavily by the @TheBJPsych. Our friends in the @Guttmacher have a WHOLE web page dedicate to Priscilla, which you can find here: https://www.guttmacher.org/news-rele...mes-decisively …

We’ve included this screen shot for your entertainment:
1 reply 12 retweets 44 likes
Psychologists4Choice
‏ @Psychs4Choice
11h11 hours ago

To conclude, Ms Nolan’s speech included deliberately misleading information about a study that isn’t just out of date, but that ended being completely invalidated and exposed as fraudulant by every other research study both before and after it.
2 replies 23 retweets 77 likes
Psychologists4Choice
‏ @Psychs4Choice
11h11 hours ago

https://twitter.com/Psychs4Choice/status/976583961483841536

david75

Pro-life bots and trolls are gearing up to sway Ireland's abortion vote


As Ireland's abortion referendum approaches, the fake news battle is raging online

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/ireland-abortion-referendum-repeal-the-8th-fake-news

FreudianSlippers

end of the road wrote: »

i would have to disagree with both statements given that abortion involves the killing of a human being.
my opinion no more denigrates women who have abortions then my opinion on a woman who would kill a newborn denigrates women who do it. it's the act that is the problem.

No. Simply put... suggesting that abortion would be, could be or is used as a form of "birth control" shows a complete ignorance of the procedure and the mentality of a woman that obtains an abortion.

James Brown

On that point, does postpartum depression and anxiety mean women shouldn't be having children at all? After all it's 100% more likely to occur in women who have given birth...

Telling a human being they can't make their own decisions about their own body is whats denigrating.

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

On that point, does postpartum depression and anxiety mean women shouldn't be having children at all? After all it's 100% more likely to occur in women who have given birth...

Telling a human being they can't make their own decisions about their own body is whats denigrating.

I totally agree with you, but it's slightly beside the point.

Let's focus on what an abortion does both physically and mentally to a woman and THEN let's be the one who talks about it being used as "birth control"; until then, I will humour other arguments... but the "it being used as a form of birth control" argument is absolutely disgusting and disrespectful.

Abortion is a safe and healthy way to avoid foetal impregnation (pre 12 gestational weeks) but it has severe negative impact on the woman. To argue that women would be using it as a form of birth control shows a massive lack of abortion as a process and, frankly sex and women...

Full disclosure: I'm a man that has been there for a woman that has had an abortion. I was THERE. I was there after... I was there for the physical discomfort of the procedure. So, no... if you have one you're not using it like the same way as condoms! That's ****ing stupid.

{Edit: sorry, because I quoted you to agree with what you said seems like I'm arguing with you but I'm compounding on what you said!}

recedite

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Abortion is a safe and healthy way to avoid foetal impregnation

Your perception of human biology seems to be somewhat unusual

Red_Wake

FrancieBrady wrote: »

J C wrote: »

What about activists who are conflicted by their conscience on the issue?
Will they turn out to promote something they fundamentally disagree with?

The referendum should not be about abortion which happens and will continue to happen in this country.

The referendum is about choice. On that there should be no conflict in a modern democracy.

The choice to have......

FrancieBrady

J C wrote: »

The referendum is about removing the only protection in the constitution for the lives of unborn children in our country.

We do live in a country without legal abortion ...

Exactly. Abortion happens anyway and choice is removed, legally.

Repeal will allow women to choose (Which they are doing already) legally.

It is about 'choice' therefore

J C

Red_Wake wrote: »

The choice to have......

The 'choice' they are talking about is the 'choice' to kill unborn children in abortion.

The use of the word 'choice' in relation to abortion is distinctly inappropriate ... and has its roots in the consumerist ideology of consumer 'choice' always being good.

It relies on the presumption that if having a 'choice' of phone provider is good, then all 'choice' must be good ... even when the 'choice' is the killing of unborn children.
This consumerist attitude, to everything, including abortion ... is consumerism gone 'over the top'.

It is one of the reasons why people, in the mainstream, like Simon Coveney, are worried about how far things will go, if the 8th is removed ... and why they are searching for mechanisms to prevent legal excesses with abortion into the future - like his 'two thirds majority' idea.

However, the only certain legal limit on abortion, is a constitutional one ... and the 8th is the current limit.
If we are to repeal the 8th, then some other principle should replace/amend it ... and simply 'opening the legal floodgates' by just repealing it, is a 'bridge too far' for many people.

FrancieBrady

J C wrote: »

The 'choice' they are talking about is the 'choice' to kill unborn children in abortion.

The use of the word 'choice' in relation to abortion is distinctly inappropriate ... and has its roots in the consumerist ideology of consumer 'choice' always being good.

It relies on the presumption that if having a 'choice' of phone provider is good, then all 'choice' must be good ... even when the 'choice' is the killing of unborn children.
This consumerist attitude, to everything, including abortion ... is consumerism gone 'over the top'.

It is one of the reasons why people, in the mainstream, like Simon Coveney, are worried about how far things will go, if the 8th is removed ... and why they are searching for mechanisms to prevent legal excesses with abortion into the future - like his 'two thirds majority' idea.

However, the only certain legal limit on abortion, is a constitutional one ... and the 8th is the current limit.
If we are to repeal the 8th, then some other principle should replace/amend it ... and simply 'opening the legal floodgates' by just repealing it, is a 'bridge too far' for many people.

Don't base your campaign on trying to infer that anyone, enjoys or would willingly choose to have an abortion or thinks it is a 'good' choice.

J C

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Don't base your campaign on trying to infer that anyone, enjoys or would willingly choose to have an abortion or thinks it is a 'good' choice.

I am not running any campaign ... just giving my views.

Of course, I agree with you that abortion is never a 'good' thing ... it always results in the death of an unborn Human Being ... so it is something that should be very rarely done ... and then only in situations of extremis, when there is no practical alternative.

This precludes abortion on demand, irrespective of the gestational age of unborn child ... as well as many of the abortions sanctioned for reasons of the mother's health ... which has been used in other countries to facilitate abortions effectively on demand - because practically all pregnant women can be determined to have 'health issues' because of the physicality and physiology of pregnancy.

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

Of course, I agree with you that abortion is never a 'good' thing ... it always results in the death of an unborn Human Being ... so it is something that should be very rarely done ... and then only in situations of extremis, when there is no practical alternative.

Are there any other classes of human being that should only be killed rarely, when there is no practical alternative?

J C

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are there any other classes of human being that should only be killed rarely, when there is no practical alternative?

There are ... for example, people directly threatening the lives of other people ... whom law enforcement cannot neutralize by any other practical means, without killing them.