The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

applehunter

seamus wrote: »

There are basically none. All of those who've been trotted out by the pro-life movement are either professionals with no expertise in the area (Breda O'Brien), or white-haired catholic men who haven't been licenced to practice medicine for an unknown amount of time.

I'm sure if you look really hard, you can find the odd GP here and there, or a fertility specialist with strong opinions. But as far as I can tell there isn't a single qualified, practicing Ob/Gyn doctor who opposes repeal.

I have 5 doctors in my family all voting against repeal.

amdublin

applehunter wrote: »

I have 5 doctors in my family all voting against repeal.

Medical doctors?

Practicing in what area?

Edit.
Care to share what are their reasons For votint against repeal?

swampgas

applehunter wrote: »

I have 5 doctors in my family all voting against repeal.

Doctors of divinity perhaps?

amdublin

Doctors for Choice is a good factual Twitter account to follow in my opinion

BabysCoffee

kylith wrote: »

And you don’t think that the pressure to save the money and book the clinic and the hotel and the clinic puts pressure in the woman to rush into a decision, and that having done all that she then may feel pressured into going ahead with it even if she’s unsure? Whereas having a few weeks to think it over and the procedure being less expensive and available from a local gp would actually give her more time to consider her options and decide what is right for her?

Yes it is a lot of money to throw down the drain i.e. lose the money paid for flights and hotel. It certainly could be a deciding factor in someone going ahead with an abortion that they have doubts about.

Much better that they can schedule the procedure in their home country and take the time to think about it without the extra pressure of external forces like losing money (or the knowing that you can't even postpone) causing them to rush in to things

applehunter

amdublin wrote: »

Medical doctors?

Practicing in what area?

Edit.
Care to share what are their reasons For votint against repeal?

2 GPs, 1 Public Health Doctor, Radiologist, Anaesthetist.

applehunter

applehunter wrote: »

2 GPs, 1 Public Health Doctor, Radiologist, Anaesthetist.

What reasons do they have for not repealing the 8th amendment?

amdublin

BabysCoffee wrote: »

Yes it is a lot of money to throw down the drain i.e. lose the money paid for flights and hotel. It certainly could be a deciding factor in someone going ahead with an abortion that they have doubts about.

Much better that they can schedule the procedure in their home country and take the time to think about it without the extra pressure of external forces like losing money (or the knowing that you can't even postpone) causing them to rush in to things

I firmly believe there will be less abortions for this reason if it was possible to access abortion in Ireland rather than England.

I think once you have booked those flights things are set in motion, and it's very hard to stop it.

I would much prefer our women not being under that pressure and allowing them the space and time to use to make sure they really want to go through or not go through with the pregnancy.

Without the flight being booked, the thought of losing the money etc... in some cases a woman may decide she doesn't want to terminate.

I support each woman in choosing what is best for themselves.

Stupify

Just want to ask people here, what would be your feeling about also allowing men to abort their child? Not in a physical sense, more of in a legal sense.

Would people here agree men should be allowed disassociate themselves from any child they have conceived if women are allowed to do the same, for fairness and all that.

PhoenixParker

Stupify wrote: »

Just want to ask people here, what would be your feeling about also allowing men to abort their child? Not in a physical sense, more of in a legal sense.

Would people here agree men should be allowed disassociate themselves from any child they have conceived if women are allowed to do the same, for fairness and all that.

I think what aboutism doesn’t belong in this thread.

Stupify

PhoenixParker wrote: »

I think what aboutism doesn’t belong in this thread.

I think it adds to the discussion. Anyway, just curious to hear peoples opinions on it as I am of the view if woman are allowed abort then men should also be allowed.

applehunter

bubblypop wrote: »

What reasons do they have for not repealing the 8th amendment?

They are not in favour of abortion.

I received a letter from my aunt recently and she ended it with a quotation by Martin Niemoller Germany WW2.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Stupify

Stupify wrote: »

Just want to ask people here, what would be your feeling about also allowing men to abort their child? Not in a physical sense, more of in a legal sense.

Would people here agree men should be allowed disassociate themselves from any child they have conceived if women are allowed to do the same, for fairness and all that.

This was discussed in the previous thread. At length.
Men can & do walk away. There's nothing stopping them

applehunter

applehunter wrote: »

They are not in favour of abortion.

I received a letter from my aunt recently and she ended it with a quotation by Martin Niemoller Germany WW2.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Which doesn't in anyway answer the question I asked, which was 'what are their reasons for not repealing the 8th amendment'

Stupify

bubblypop wrote: »

This was discussed in the previous thread. At length.
Men can & do walk away. There's nothing stopping them

But they then have to pay child support right? Thats not the same as the choice women have.

swampgas

applehunter wrote: »

They are not in favour of abortion.

I received a letter from my aunt recently and she ended it with a quotation by Martin Niemoller Germany WW2.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

I'm afraid that isn't making any sense at all.

PhoenixParker

applehunter wrote: »

They are not in favour of abortion.

I received a letter from my aunt recently and she ended it with a quotation by Martin Niemoller Germany WW2.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

They’ve already come for us as women, we’re trying to speak out.

amdublin

applehunter wrote: »

They are not in favour of abortion.

I received a letter from my aunt recently and she ended it with a quotation by Martin Niemoller Germany WW2.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

One of my favourite quotes

I am speaking for women to allow them choose.

I cannot force a woman to go through a pregnancy and have a baby if that is not their free will. I simply can't.

I support each woman in their own choice. If you want to go through with the pregnancy that is wonderful. If you want to terminate the pregnancy, I don't want you having to travel to another country to do it.

Stupify

Stupify wrote: »

But they then have to pay child support right? Thats not the same as the choice women have.

No, there's plenty of fathers that don't pay a penny.

Stupify

bubblypop wrote: »

No, there's plenty of fathers that don't pay a penny.

Legally they have to pay, am I wrong? They can be brought to court and even jailed if they don't.

I'm saying shouldn't men have the law on their side so they can "abort" a child they don't want, so then they cannot be sought after for child support.

neonsofa

bubblypop wrote: »

This was discussed in the previous thread. At length.
Men can & do walk away. There's nothing stopping them

In fairness (and I'm saying this as a single parent receiving no support from the other parent, financial or otherwise) many fathers are pursued for maintenance even if they have/want no involvement in the child's life. So if the woman wants to raise the baby and the man doesn't, he can walk away but once the baby is born he is liable to contribute financially.

Having said that I just don't see how it can be legally regulated- these type of "legal abortions"- in theory I think I agree with them but in practice, a baby is born and that changes everything whereas a termination doesn't result in another human with rights and needs.

But it's another case of biology just being the way it is and sometimes it's fair and sometimes it's not.

Stupify

Stupify wrote: »

Legally they have to pay, am I wrong? They can be brought to court and even jailed if they don't.

If they are on the birth cert. If they stick around for that part.
If they stay in the country.
& then if they fight it & get a good accountant & lawyer then they may not be paying too much.
Also, they cannot be forced into the child's life.
I would advise going back & reading the last thread, pages & pages on this topic there.

BabysCoffee

applehunter wrote: »

They are not in favour of abortion.

I received a letter from my aunt recently and she ended it with a quotation by Martin Niemoller Germany WW2.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Huh?

Can't see how this relates to the 8th amendment

Stupify

neonsofa wrote: »

In fairness (and I'm saying this as a single parent receiving no support from the other parent, financial or otherwise) many fathers are pursued for maintenance even if they have/want no involvement in the child's life. So if the woman wants to raise the baby and the man doesn't, he can walk away but once the baby is born he is liable to contribute financially.

Having said that I just don't see how it can be legally regulated- these type of "legal abortions"- in theory I think I agree with them but in practice, a baby is born and that changes everything whereas a termination doesn't result in another human with rights and needs.

But it's another case of biology just being the way it is and sometimes it's fair and sometimes it's not.

I appreciate the input, I would love to see a method for men to be able to rid themselves of responsibility for a child they don't want, I also don't think it will happen anytime soon though.

It could be regulated I think, but the support to get it something like this legalized in the first place just isn't there.

volchitsa

Stupify wrote: »

But they then have to pay child support right? Thats not the same as the choice women have.

Married women can't walk away though, so it's not a male/female distinctuon.

There are issues around unmarried fathers' rights, true - but that, like the ban on abortion, is a hangover from times when women's reproductive capacities were seen as needing to be controlled by society. It was about not allowing people to have children outside marriage. It wasnt about giving women rights that men didnt have, it was punishing them by ensuring their children "born out of wedlock" didnt have the same claim on their father's earnings as if she'd been married.

The solution is to deal with that issue, not to confuse it with abortion by creating false equivalence.

Once the child is born, the father is responsible for it because it exists and needs to be fed and clothed. The alternative is to have children starving even though their fathers are well off, or else the state, ie the rest of society, takes the cost.

I cant see why legalizing abortion means the state should pay for the children of fathers who dont get on with the mother any more.

Stupify

bubblypop wrote: »

If they are on the birth cert. If they stick around for that part.
If they stay in the country.
& then if they fight it & get a good accountant & lawyer then they may not be paying too much.
Also, they cannot be forced into the child's life.
I would advise going back & reading the last thread, pages & pages on this topic there.

They can be put on the birth cert without their consent.

They can also be chased for child support all over the EU so would have to go far away to dodge it, seems unfair to force someone to do that just so they don't have to pay for a child they never wanted. Rings similar to forcing women to travel for an abortion no?

At the end of the day I feel they shouldn't be forced to pay for a child they don't want.

Just because something was discussed in another thread doesn't mean it should not be discussed here and now too.

Stupify

volchitsa wrote: »

Married women can't walk away though, so it's not a male/female distinctuon.

There are issues around unmarried fathers' rights, true - but that, like the ban on abortion, is a hangover from times when women's reproductive capacities were seen as needing to be controlled by society. It was about not allowing people to have children outside marriage. It wasnt about giving women rights that men didnt have, it was punishing them by ensuring their children "born out of wedlock" didnt have the same claim on their father's earnings as if she'd been married.

The solution is to deal with that issue, not to confuse it with abortion by creating false equivalence.

Once the child is born, the father is responsible for it because it exists and needs to be fed and clothed. The alternative is to have children starving even though their fathers are well off, or else the state, ie the rest of society, takes the cost.

I cant see why legalizing abortion means the state should pay for the children of fathers who dont get on with the mother any more.

What do you mean married women can't walk away? If the referendum passes any woman can get an abortion here for any reason up to 12 weeks.

The wealth of the father has nothing to do with this, just because a woman is wealthy doesn't mean she should be forced to have a child she doesn't want, it should work the same for a man in this situation.

I'm not saying the state should pay for the children of fathers who dont get on with the mother anymore, in these cases they wanted the child so should be forced to pay. It's in the cases where they dont want the child from birth that they should be off the hook.

Sofiztikated

Stupify wrote: »

They can be put on the birth cert without their consent.

They can also be chased for child support all over the EU so would have to go far away to dodge it, seems unfair to force someone to do that just so they don't have to pay for a child they never wanted. Rings similar to forcing women to travel for an abortion no?

At the end of the day I feel they shouldn't be forced to pay for a child they don't want.

Just because something was discussed in another thread doesn't mean it should not be discussed here and now too.

There's no real need for discussion on it HERE, as it doesn't have any bearing on the 8th, good, bad, or indifferent.

Stupify

Stupify wrote: »

They can be put on the birth cert without their consent.

They can also be chased for child support all over the EU so would have to go far away to dodge it, seems unfair to force someone to do that just so they don't have to pay for a child they never wanted. Rings similar to forcing women to travel for an abortion no?

At the end of the day I feel they shouldn't be forced to pay for a child they don't want.

Just because something was discussed in another thread doesn't mean it should not be discussed here and now too.

Since when can they be put on the birth cert without their consent?
Can be chased all over the eu for maintenance? Have you ever ever even heard of this being done?
Its hard enough to get a European arrest warrant & a person arrested for serious offence, do you really think anyone cares about some maintenance!

Annasopra

Mongfinder General wrote: »

Is anybody else concerned that the legalization of abortion could be used to target women in poorer demographics? Many of these women may be seen as a burden to the state, unemployed, living in state housing, not contributing from financially to the state? Could there be an ulterior motive behind this referendum?

Its mad that people suddenly claim to care about poor people.