The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

mohawk

mohawk wrote: »

In fairness many were against that too.

Actually this was "discussed" in the Christianity thread by one pro life member who said that the morning after pill was not the same as abortion, with support from posters who openly state their Christian, despite evidence being shown that from a religious hierarchy perspective it is abortion.

It wasn't even a case of mental gymnastics from the poster other than them constantly posting that the moring after pill was not abortion and everyone else was wrong.

horseburger

swampgas wrote: »

I can't see how anyone can support the 8th amendment, which prioritises a week-old embryo over an actual person.

Maybe I'm getting you wrong, but you seem to be saying that because an embryo or foetus is "human life" this means that it cannot be aborted, and to hell with the consequences for the pregnant woman.

What's proposed is to remove the 8th, and leglislate for abortions on request up to 12 weeks. That seems sensible to me. A woman should be able to decide for herself in the first 12 weeks of a pregnancy whether she wants to continue with it or not. After that the 8th should not be putting a woman's life at risk if the pregnancy goes wrong.

I haven't stated anything to disregard the consequences for a pregnant woman.

For example I have replied to a poster who asked me if I thought abortion should be available in the case of a particular medical diagnosis when the mother's life is at risk, and I have stated it should.

In response to the poster, I tried outlining an argument for making abortion available, in a circumstance where current law doesn't permit abortion for a particular medical circumstance, where there is a risk to a pregnant woman's life. I tried arguing this, with reference to the legal arguments outlined for permitting abortion in cases where there is a risk of a suicide.

I have said that I would be far more responsive to the perspectives outlined by Donal Lynch of the Sunday Independent, who writes openly about the issue, and advocates a pro choice view, than I would about the arguments made for abortion that have been outlined by public representatives like Ruth Coppinger and Bríd Smith. I thought Bríd Smith came across very poorly, in making her arguments, in that Tonight with Vincent Browne debate with Maria Steen and Caroline Simons, on 6th July 2017.

https://www.tv3.ie/3player/show/41/128607/0/Tonight-with-Vincent-Browne

Here are a few articles by Donal Lynch in the Sunday Independent discussing this issue of abortion:

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/prochoicers-should-see-abortion-as-a-necessary-social-evil-34222919.html

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/why-my-fellow-repealers-cant-face-the-facts-around-abortion-35039115.html

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/understanding-the-selective-compassion-of-abortion-vote-36691948.html

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/im-liberal-so-why-does-abortion-make-me-uneasy-34925783.html

pleas advice

Pedro K wrote: »

I replied to that earlier in the thread. The implication is the same. That women will flock to their doctors claiming mental health issues to procure abortions.

We heard that before when the PLDPA2013 was being debated. It didn't happen. We are hearing it again. Like many slippery slope fallacies before it.

You are being disingenuous at best to suggest that it will happen.

EDIT: here's my original reply.

I'm not suggesting anyone will 'flock' anywhere, or that anyone will lie to get an abortion.

I'm just asking, under what circumstances will abortions be allowed. Will mental distress caused by carrying a severely disabled pregnancy be grounds for an abortion, if the mother should choose?

swampgas

horseburger wrote: »

I haven't stated anything to disregard the consequences for a pregnant woman.

For example I have replied to a poster who asked me if I thought abortion should be available in the case of a particular medical diagnosis when the mother's life is at risk, and I have stated it should.

In response to the poster, I tried outlining an argument for making abortion available, in a circumstance where current law doesn't permit abortion for a particular medical circumstance, where there is a risk to a pregnant woman's life. I tried arguing this, with reference to the legal arguments outlined for permitting abortion in cases where there is a risk of a suicide.

I have said that I would be far more responsive to the perspectives outlined by Donal Lynch of the Sunday Independent, who writes openly about the issue, and advocates a pro choice view, than I would about the arguments made for abortion that have been outlined by public representatives like Ruth Coppinger and Bríd Smith. I thought Bríd Smith came across very poorly, in making her arguments, in that Tonight with Vincent Browne debate with Maria Steen and Caroline Simons, on 6th July 2017.

https://www.tv3.ie/3player/show/41/128607/0/Tonight-with-Vincent-Browne

Here are a few articles by Donal Lynch in the Sunday Independent discussing this issue of abortion:

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/prochoicers-should-see-abortion-as-a-necessary-social-evil-34222919.html

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/why-my-fellow-repealers-cant-face-the-facts-around-abortion-35039115.html

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/understanding-the-selective-compassion-of-abortion-vote-36691948.html

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/im-liberal-so-why-does-abortion-make-me-uneasy-34925783.html

So - you will be voting to repeal the 8th then?

horseburger

robarmstrong wrote: »

The interviewer didn't ask people, he asked one person, one person does not equal "people" unless there are more videos stemming from this particular clip?

Also, those questions? Ridiculous. Taking a fetus out of utero partially to perform an operation and place said fetus back in is nowhere close in comparison to being considered being "born", video clearly shows the intelligence (or lack of in this instance) of the interviewer.

There are a number of different interviews done, by that interviewer.

If you care to spend a few seconds on youtube, you'll find them.

He outlined that scenario, to challenge the idea that the foetus is not human until birth, which is what Bríd Smith claimed on the Vincent Browne show on 6th July 2017.

horseburger

swampgas wrote: »

So - you will be voting to repeal the 8th then?

I haven't decided yet, that's why I posted on this forum, to try and get different perspectives.

If my decision was based on the attitude of some of the posters, my decision would be a lot more definitive.

pleas advice

pleas advice wrote: »

I'm not suggesting anyone will 'flock' anywhere, or that anyone will lie to get an abortion.

I'm just asking, under what circumstances will abortions be allowed. Will mental distress caused by carrying a severely disabled pregnancy be grounds for an abortion, if the mother should choose?

I'm not sure what you mean by a severely disabled pregnancy, you might perhaps clarify that, but based on similar questions by others take a look at

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/government-will-seek-to-ban-late-term-abortions-1.3440056

Ave Sodalis

horseburger wrote: »

I haven't decided yet, that's why I posted on this forum, to try and get different perspectives.

If my decision was based on the attitude of some of the posters, my decision would be a lot more definitive.

Question; if you're not sure yet, why are you only arguing against repeal?

Also, if you want to know why posters are responding to you the way they are, it's to do with your posting style. The harping on about human life, despite mod warning. The stating things and pretending you didn't mean that even though you clearly did. The not answering questions (which I STILL have not had an answer for). The videos and links that have nothing to do with the discussion, particularly when the discussion isn't going the way you want it. And yet you wonder why posters have an "attitude" when replying to you.

AtomicHorror

MkaylaK wrote: »

"The legislation won't allow DS and cleft palette babies to be aborted." - Under proposed legislation any baby can be aborted up to 12 weeks without a specific reason and after this time limit, there will be no gestational limits in cases of a foetal condition or on grounds of risk to health. Down syndrome and Cleft palette fall into this category.

That's not true. After 12 weeks, the foetal condition has to be one which would cause death before birth or shortly after, as determined by at least 2 doctors.

Before 12 weeks those conditions can't be diagnosed.

MkaylaK wrote: »

"What if the baby/foetus will die anyway?"- No doctor can ever diagnose a 0% chance of survival. They have to use the term "life -limiting condition" because they simply do not know if a life will last 5 seconds or 5 years after birth. There are always miracle children. (Please watch a few videos from the YouTube channel "Special books for special kids")

That's a dodge. By that logic, no doctor can advise withdrawal of treatment for a terminally ill patient. They can't be 100% certain it'l be fatal, so they have to continue treating them no matter how poor the odds or how bad the suffering? Come on.

MkaylaK wrote: »

"Why the heart? Why not talk about the spleen or liver" - By all means, substitute whatever organ you wish instead of the heart. The same principle applies.

The same principle doesn't apply. If I say that the spleen that forms under your diaphragm as a foetus is the same spleen you have as an adult, people will shrug and think "So...?". Someone told you the heart anecdote because it has special meaning to people for various romantic, cultural and sentimental reasons. It is an appeal to the emotions, but one that happens to have no meaningful foundation.

MkaylaK wrote: »

As I said, this has to be my final post for now as I have to study for the LC, but please remember, it's not too late to change your stance.

You really need to change your stance, or base it on something more substantial. This is history in the making and you will likely live long enough to deeply regret the side you took, or at the very least the reasons you took it.

blanch152

horseburger wrote: »

There are a number of different interviews done, by that interviewer.

If you care to spend a few seconds on youtube, you'll find them.

He outlined that scenario, to challenge the idea that the foetus is not human until birth, which is what Bríd Smith claimed on the Vincent Browne show on 6th July 2017.

They are all propaganda videos, not independently produced.

Defunkd

Shadowstrife wrote: »

Also, I can't stress this enough:

When contraception is free & abortion is Legal, the abortion rates fall dramatically.

Saving the 8th will not stop abortion. It will happen with the same regularity it always has, but swept under the rug in illegality.

I think you should review your sources. Statista.com and Johnston's Archive says very different to your claim about drastic rate drops. Their business is statistics so if you want to see numbers for yourself, visit either.

RobertKK

Some wouldn’t believe the Gardai are involved over the illegal removal of retain the 8th posters.

https://twitter.com/giftedtim/status/985981154024189953?s=21

pleas advice

DubInMeath wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by a severely disabled pregnancy, you might perhaps clarify that, but based on similar questions by others take a look at

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/government-will-seek-to-ban-late-term-abortions-1.3440056

I'm referring to pregnancies between 12 and 24 weeks, where there is a non-fatal fetal abnormality

Ave Sodalis

Martina1991 wrote: »

Save the 8th have posters of a fully formed baby painted on a woman's belly saying "If killing a baby at 6 months bothers you, vote no".

How can these blatant lies be allowed on these posters.

https://twitter.com/daimbarrs/status/983120601576591361/photo/1

Unbelievable... honestly, the No side are worried about posters that could have been taken down by the ESB, or by members of their own side to stir trouble (like has been down NUMEROUS times before), or not at all.... and then they expect us to ignore the dirty, dishonest, cheap things they do such as these posters?

pleas advice

pleas advice wrote: »

I'm referring to pregnancies between 12 and 24 weeks, where there is a non-fatal fetal abnormality

Ok then I'm going to have to ask what a severely disabled pregnancy is.

AtomicHorror

RobertKK wrote: »

Some wouldn’t believe the Gardai are involved over the illegal removal of retain the 8th posters.

https://twitter.com/giftedtim/status/985981154024189953?s=21

That reads like a boilerplate response to a reported crime, but I guess it means they're taking it seriously.

Hell they event tapped it into PULSE. The worlds ****tiest database.

So there'll be CSO stats on poster vandalism next year, which I guess is something.

AtomicHorror

LimeGreenBean wrote: »

I can't believe this is my first post, but I guess this is the crux of the pro-life movement and to be honest, it has just really started to bug me how often this statement has been glossed over in the last few months. Not to be disrespectful to anyone on this thread or the repeal movement in general, you have changed many people's views on abortion. Anyways, in response to this argument:

You justify destroying human life every single day. Have you ever donated blood, or bone marrow, or a lung? No, probably not. Are you a murderer because you haven't? Countless people die waiting on kidney transplants lists. And you could give them a kidney, you could keep them alive. Are you a terrible person because you don't? If you are involved in a car crash and you're brain dead will the doctors and nurses ravage your body for organs? No, they won't, they'll ask your family what you want and they will respect your wishes.

We don't force people to donate their bone marrow, even though it would save countless lives. We don't call people up to donate their kidney's like it's jury service. We don't label suicide victims as murders, even though their now useless organs could have saved many people's lives. If you somehow find a surgeon and ask him to remove a kidney so that you can keep it in a jar, you won't be charged with murder, even though that kidney could have saved someone's life. The surgeon also won't be charged with murder. We respect people's right to do what they want to their body regardless of whether someone else will suffer or die.

Except, in pregnancy. A woman's organs keep the baby/foetus/whatever-name-you-want alive, she sustains their life. Should she not get to decide how her organs are used? Should she not get to decide what happens to her body? We allow brain-dead people to decide what will happen to their body when they die. Think about it, we give fewer rights to pregnant women, than we do to brain-dead people, in this country.

When I was 18, (which was only 4 years ago) I felt the exact same way you did, honestly. I just want to give you a different slant on things. I hope you vote, this will probably be your first one.

That's a pretty epic debut. Welcome.

pleas advice

DubInMeath wrote: »

Ok then I'm going to have to ask what a severely disabled pregnancy is.

well, thats part of what I'm asking. At what point is a pregnancy judged to be a threat to the mental health of the woman.

Billy86

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That reads like a boilerplate response to a reported crime, but I guess it means they're taking it seriously.

Hell they event tapped it into PULSE. The worlds ****tiest database.

So there'll be CSO stats on poster vandalism next year, which I guess is something.

I'll be honest, this sprung to mind.

There was fiercely strong wind for a bit after 5pm in Rathfarnham today, I saw two posters get ripped right off street poles. I'm not on Twitter but would almost expect pictures of them on the ground have been doing the rounds already.

robarmstrong

pleas advice wrote: »

well, thats part of what I'm asking. At what point is a pregnancy judged to be a threat to the mental health of the woman.

I've suggested this to you already but you need to ask the medical professionals behind Doctors For Choice Twitter, they are best qualified to give you the answer to your question, I can't speak for us all obviously but I doubt there are a string of medical professionals following this thread - if there are by all means they can answer you but there's honestly no point continually asking a question that nobody here realistically is qualified to answer.

It would also be a tremendous learning experience to gather those opinions, by the way.

pleas advice

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That's a pretty epic debut. Welcome.

epic, but kinda misses the point completely.

there is a difference between active destruction of a human life, and passive indifference

horseburger

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Neither of which are diagnosable before 12 weeks



Unfortunately, this is not really true and entirely too subjective and is often left until the last possible moment. Reading the aforementioned In Her Shoes, you'll see that many women get diagnosed with an illness and go to England so they can come back for treatment instead of waiting until they are actively dying.


Why is that important? Genuine question.


How so?


Do you really believe it's the ending of a life? Would you give "abortionists" jail time if you had the choice? Would you prevent them from traveling? What about the fact that abortion is already happening?


So you disagree with IVF?


No. Just no. I'm sorry but I cannot be respectful of this. There are exceptions to everything. It does not excuse allowing women to suffer just because there is a tiny chance of live birth. What about the pain the birthed baby will be in until it dies? If they're lucky, they'll die within a minute or two. They can survive for hours or days though.



Again, why?



I'm afraid you'll have to come up with a more convincing argument than what you have to change my stance.

I realise you said you will not be posting again, but this is for the benefit of anyone reading over the thread.

With reference to the fact that numerous TDs and Senators would like no restriction on availability of abortion, and that there are a number of items which state that there is nothing certain that the legislation enacted in the event of a majority vote to repeal, will be limited to abortion for only up to 12 weeks, it should be noted that Down's Syndrome can be detected at 12 weeks.

Sally Phillips, in her documentary A World Without Down's Syndrome?, states that Down's Syndrome can be diagnosed at 12 weeks.

She says at the three minute mark in the video.

"I've come to Kings College Hospital in London to meet some women who are having their 12 week scan. Today's the day when mother's find out when their babies are due and whether they're growing normally. It's also the day when doctors first test your baby for Down's Syndrome".

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas-committee-on-eighth-amendment-publishes-40-page-report-1.3333670.

This Irish Times item by Sarah Bardon includes the following:

"Members of the Oireachtas Committee on the Eighth Amendment have insisted they cannot compel the Government to accept their recommendations".

pleas advice

robarmstrong wrote: »

there's honestly no point continually asking a question that nobody here realistically is qualified to answer..

I only asked the question again to counter the claim:

Pedro K wrote: »

if you're going to mention to mental health angle, it's been done.

AtomicHorror

pleas advice wrote: »

epic, but kinda misses the point completely.

there is a difference between active destruction of a human life, and passive indifference

Pop goes the irony detector.

The point wasn't to do with legality, or even the morality of action versus inaction. It was to do with bodily autonomy and the fact that we respect it even for bodies of the dead, despite the stakes being the life of another living and innocent person.

robarmstrong

pleas advice wrote: »

I only asked the question again to counter the claim:

My bad, missed that point!

Ave Sodalis

horseburger wrote: »

With reference to the fact that numerous TDs and Senators would like no restriction on availability of abortion, and that there are a number of items which state that there is nothing certain that the legislation enacted in the event of a majority vote to repeal, will be limited to abortion for only up to 12 weeks, it should be noted that Down's Syndrome can be detected at 12 weeks.

Sally Phillips, in her documentary A World Without Down's Syndrome?, states that Down's Syndrome can be diagnosed at 12 weeks.

She says at the three minute mark in the video.

"I've come to Kings College Hospital in London to meet some women who are having their 12 week scan. Today's the day when mother's find out when their babies are due and whether they're growing normally. It's also the day when doctors first test your baby for Down's Syndrome".

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas-committee-on-eighth-amendment-publishes-40-page-report-1.3333670.

This Irish Times item by Sarah Bardon includes the following:

"Members of the Oireachtas Committee on the Eighth Amendment have insisted they cannot compel the Government to accept their recommendations".

We have gone over the whole "don't trust the government with legislation" thing many many times already.


The first test is at 12 weeks, it's not diagnosed until about 22 weeks...

AtomicHorror

horseburger wrote: »

With reference to the fact that numerous TDs and Senators would like no restriction on availability of abortion, and that there are a number of items which state that there is nothing certain that the legislation enacted in the event of a majority vote to repeal, will be limited to abortion for only up to 12 weeks, it should be noted that Down's Syndrome can be detected at 12 weeks.

And how long does it take for the labs to come back, the consultation to be made, the referral for a termination, the waiting time for the procedure?

What're the false positive and false negative rates for that test, out of interest?

horseburger

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Question; if you're not sure yet, why are you only arguing against repeal?

Also, if you want to know why posters are responding to you the way they are, it's to do with your posting style. The harping on about human life, despite mod warning. The stating things and pretending you didn't mean that even though you clearly did. The not answering questions (which I STILL have not had an answer for). The videos and links that have nothing to do with the discussion, particularly when the discussion isn't going the way you want it. And yet you wonder why posters have an "attitude" when replying to you.

The majority of the posters in this thread are advocating for repeal.

Is it not natural to ask questions to find out the arguments for changing the constitution, with respect to how new legislation might impact on services made available, and what services different people are saying they want available?


I think you might be thinking that it was you that I might be referencing when I said some posters have an attitude.

Well done. At least you now know that because of your arrogance, that you'd be useless canvassing on this issue.

Martina1991

horseburger wrote:

Sally Phillips, in her documentary A World Without Down's Syndrome?, states that Down's Syndrome can be diagnosed at 12 weeks.

But 12 weeks is over the unrestricted limit anyway. So no one can have an unrestricted abortion based on a down's syndrome diagnosis.

Ave Sodalis

horseburger wrote: »

The majority of the posters in this thread are advocating for repeal.

Is it not natural to ask questions to find out the arguments for changing the constitution, with respect to how new legislation might impact on services made available, and what services different people are saying they want available?


I think you might be thinking that it was you that I might be referencing when I said some posters have an attitude.

Well done. At least you now know that because of your arrogance, that you'd be useless canvassing on this issue.

It is natural to ask questions, but I think it's a bit pointless at this stage to pretend that's what you're doing...

Nice little personal dig in there too.