Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

end of the road

aloyisious wrote: »

One of the arguments made by the Yes campaign through debate around Ireland in relation to the delete the 8th issue was that a lot of the people who voted in the 8th amendment in '82/83 actually hadn't a clue and didn't inform themselves on the outcome of putting the 8th into our constitution and may have decided it was time to make another change to it. This time the issue was strongly debated and argued on by both sides for months before a national decision was made by the voters on it whether to delete the 8th or let it stay. The fact that a large number of the Yes voters who decided delete the 8th issue were also involved in putting the 8th into the constitution showed [IMO] how the voters thought process had matured strongly when it came to the nitty-gritty of the referendum question and the future outcome of and vote, yea or nay.

On the issue of what occurred across the water, that's like what happened to us in '82 and most probably why
we've been getting our knickers in a twist here about the con-job pulled on the referendum voters there by their retired National and EU Parliamentarians, seeing as we learned a hard-won lesson from the '82
referendum.

i would say more the potential issues rather then the outcome as a whole.
i would think most people very much knew what the basic outcome would be and voted to put in the 8th accordingly. they did not want abortion for any reason being legal in their country,the problem for the 8th was that it didn't take into account genuine medical necessity. POLDPA sorted that out and is really what we should have continued with. certainly the 8th was of itself bad legislation, plenty of fellow pro-lifers seem to agree with that from what i can see.

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

i would say more the potential issues rather then the outcome as a whole.
i would think most people very much knew what the basic outcome would be and voted to put in the 8th accordingly. they did not want abortion for any reason being legal in their country,the problem for the 8th was that it didn't take into account genuine medical necessity. POLDPA sorted that out and is really what we should have continued with. certainly the 8th was of itself bad legislation, plenty of fellow pro-lifers seem to agree with that from what i can see.

And yet Irish prolifers all fought POLDP tooth and nail. And defended the 8th ditto, right up until a few weeks before the referendum when presumably their own numbers must have told them they were losing.
So it seems like you're rewriting history there.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

i would say more the potential issues rather then the outcome as a whole.
i would think most people very much knew what the basic outcome would be and voted to put in the 8th accordingly. they did not want abortion for any reason being legal in their country,the problem for the 8th was that it didn't take into account genuine medical necessity. POLDPA sorted that out and is really what we should have continued with. certainly the 8th was of itself bad legislation, plenty of fellow pro-lifers seem to agree with that from what i can see.

That's a very bold, unfounded claim. Any evidence to back it up?

I'm very interested to see your proof that the public "didn't want abortion to be legal in this country", seeing as that's exactly what the public voted overwhelmingly in favour of. I'm curious to see evidence of them actually NOT being in favour of this.
I'll wait to see your data.

PS. your opinion doesn't count as proof.

Odhinn

On TG4 tonight, 2130 hrs, for those interested

Twelve years ago, Amy Dunne was devastated to learn that her unborn baby had a fatal foetal abnormality. As 'Miss D', her fight to travel for an abortion became front page news. In a heartbreaking interview, she tells Tanya Sweeney why the wounds won't heal

https://www.independent.ie/life/health-wellbeing/i-didnt-even-know-what-an-abortion-was-but-i-was-all-over-the-paper-38599268.html

Salary Negotiator

SusieBlue wrote: »

That's a very bold, unfounded claim. Any evidence to back it up?

I'm very interested to see your proof that the public "didn't want abortion to be legal in this country", seeing as that's exactly what the public voted overwhelmingly in favour of. I'm curious to see evidence of them actually NOT being in favour of this.
I'll wait to see your data.

PS. your opinion doesn't count as proof.

I think he means back in ‘83 not the more recent referendum.

lazygal

end of the road wrote: »

i would say more the potential issues rather then the outcome as a whole.
i would think most people very much knew what the basic outcome would be and voted to put in the 8th accordingly. they did not want abortion for any reason being legal in their country,the problem for the 8th was that it didn't take into account genuine medical necessity. POLDPA sorted that out and is really what we should have continued with. certainly the 8th was of itself bad legislation, plenty of fellow pro-lifers seem to agree with that from what i can see.

Every abortion in Ireland is for genuine medical necessity. Pregnancy is a serious medical undertaking. Abortion before 12 weeks is safer than staying pregnant. Certainly it is safer than the c sections I had.
All the main prolife campaign groups, including Love Both, The Life Institute/Youth Defence and the Iona Institute opposed the POLDP Act and, by extension, the will of the Irish people as expressed in a referendum in 1992. They also all opposed any change to the eighth amendment, even if it was amended solely to deal with what they coldly call the 'hard cases'.

end of the road

volchitsa wrote: »

And yet Irish prolifers all fought POLDP tooth and nail. And defended the 8th ditto, right up until a few weeks before the referendum when presumably their own numbers must have told them they were losing.
So it seems like you're rewriting history there.

it was defended in terms of it saving unborn lives yes . that continued to be the case to the end. but it was accepted that over all it was of itself bad legislation that had to go of it's own merrits. but the proposed legislation meant we could not vote to remove it at that time.

SusieBlue wrote: »

That's a very bold, unfounded claim. Any evidence to back it up?

I'm very interested to see your proof that the public "didn't want abortion to be legal in this country", seeing as that's exactly what the public voted overwhelmingly in favour of. I'm curious to see evidence of them actually NOT being in favour of this.
I'll wait to see your data.

PS. your opinion doesn't count as proof.

we were talking about 83. the fact people voted it in should be proof enough that at that time people didn't want abortion to be legal in ireland.

lazygal wrote: »

Every abortion in Ireland is for genuine medical necessity. Pregnancy is a serious medical undertaking. Abortion before 12 weeks is safer than staying pregnant. Certainly it is safer than the c sections I had. All the main prolife campaign groups, including Love Both, The Life Institute/Youth Defence and the Iona Institute opposed the POLDP Act and, by extension, the will of the Irish people as expressed in a referendum in 1992. They also all opposed any change to the eighth amendment, even if it was amended solely to deal with what they coldly call the 'hard cases'.

anyone can oppose what they like, and have no obligation to agree with the will of the irish people.
they were wrong to oppose POLDPA but i understand their reasons for doing so, as ultimately they were proven correct on their view that this was a pre-curser to unrestricted abortion.

lazygal

end of the road wrote: »

.
they were wrong to oppose POLDPA but i understand their reasons for doing so, as ultimately they were proven correct on their view that this was a pre-curser to unrestricted abortion.

Abortion is highly regulated in Ireland. One of the few medical procedures covered in the criminal code, in fact. No one would reasonably think there is unrestricted access to it. Especially given the fact that some counties have zero GPs providing the service and 11 out of 19 maternity units currently provide all necessary abortion services.

aloyisious

Odhinn wrote: »

On TG4 tonight, 2130 hrs, for those interested



https://www.independent.ie/life/health-wellbeing/i-didnt-even-know-what-an-abortion-was-but-i-was-all-over-the-paper-38599268.html

Heard her on RTE earlier telling how it was for her, the actual medical reasons behind her decision to opt for an abortion, the goings-on at the court case around it and the actual realities at the operation in England, that at the end it wasn't an abortion, rather an early induction.

end of the road

lazygal wrote: »

Abortion is highly regulated in Ireland. One of the few medical procedures covered in the criminal code, in fact. No one would reasonably think there is unrestricted access to it. Especially given the fact that some counties have zero GPs providing the service and 11 out of 19 maternity units currently provide all necessary abortion services.

unrestricted doesn't simply have to refer to accessability, it can also refer to little to no reason being required for procurement as is the case in ireland before 12 weeks.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

unrestricted doesn't simply have to refer to accessability, it can also refer to little to no reason being required for procurement as is the case in ireland before 12 weeks.

Her reasons are valid and more than adequate. She doesn’t have to prove her case to you or anyone else.

lazygal

end of the road wrote: »

unrestricted doesn't simply have to refer to accessability, it can also refer to little to no reason being required for procurement as is the case in ireland before 12 weeks.

That's restricted abortion. If I am 12 weeks and one day pregnant I will have to have other grounds to access abortion, like a risk to health or life or a fatal foetal anomaly. Most people over 12 weeks pregnant who need abortions still travel.

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

unrestricted doesn't simply have to refer to accessability, it can also refer to little to no reason being required for procurement as is the case in ireland before 12 weeks.

So basically by changing the meaning of the word "unrestricted" to include a number of restrictions, you can say abortion is "unrestricted" when it's actually "restricted" - it's just not restricted enough for you. :rolleyes:

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

i would say more the potential issues rather then the outcome as a whole.
i would think most people very much knew what the basic outcome would be and voted to put in the 8th accordingly. they did not want abortion for any reason being legal in their country,the problem for the 8th was that it didn't take into account genuine medical necessity. POLDPA sorted that out and is really what we should have continued with. certainly the 8th was of itself bad legislation, plenty of fellow pro-lifers seem to agree with that from what i can see.

We'd be mostly rehashing what are now two dated arguments about what was and is needed by women here. Reference the fact that you acknowledge that the 8th was in itself bad legislation, reason for fighting against it's deletion and not making a case for having it removed and replaced by good legislation in a timely way is an extremely bad verdict to bring against the Pro-life campaign.

To then claim the reason for the fight to keep the 8th was because the proposed legislation meant we could not vote on it at the time is arcane: "the 8th is poor legislation but the proposed legislation meant we could not remove it at THAT time".

Who's the "WE"? What's the "at that time" mean, given we are talking about a time period of several decades between both referendums? What is the "proposed legislation" you mention as a given reason for keeping the 8th in place?

Why did the "WE" not put their backs behind the Irish people and come up with a solution to what you admit was the 8th's poor legislation?

You have written that "they were wrong to oppose POLDPA but i understand their reasons for doing so, as ultimately they were proven correct on their view that this was a pre-curser to unrestricted abortion". What does that mean? It seems to SUGGEST that you had a difference of opinion about POLDPA's merits with the Pro-life campaign as you wrote "I understand their reasons for doing so...….." as you seem to have approved of POLDPA as a legislative replacement for the protection of the rights of the unborn.

Maybe I'm wrong in believing you are in favour of the POLDPA legislation but you in fact have been against it throughout. Your using the words "WE" and "THEY" in your above to describe your position is [IMO] arcane.

end of the road

SusieBlue wrote: »

Her reasons are valid and more than adequate. She doesn’t have to prove her case to you or anyone else.

isn't relevant to what i said susie.
but seeing as you have made the point, i will remind us all that if the government should decide in the future that a woman must give a reason for procuring an abortion then that can happen, and perfectly legally given the government are allowed, via our constitution to legislate on the issue of abortion.

aloyisious wrote: »

We'd be mostly rehashing what are now two dated arguments about what was and is needed by women here. Reference the fact that you acknowledge that the 8th was in itself bad legislation, reason for fighting against it's deletion and not making a case for having it removed and replaced by good legislation in a timely way is an extremely bad verdict to bring against the Pro-life campaign.

To then claim the reason for the fight to keep the 8th was because the proposed legislation meant we could not vote on it at the time is arcane: "the 8th is poor legislation but the proposed legislation meant we could not remove it at THAT time".

Who's the "WE"? What's the "at that time" mean, given we are talking about a time period of several decades between both referendums? What is the "proposed legislation" you mention as a given reason for keeping the 8th in place?

Why did the "WE" not put their backs behind the Irish people and come up with a solution to what you admit was the 8th's poor legislation?

You have written that "they were wrong to oppose POLDPA but i understand their reasons for doing so, as ultimately they were proven correct on their view that this was a pre-curser to unrestricted abortion". What does that mean? It seems to SUGGEST that you had a difference of opinion about POLDPA's merits with the Pro-life campaign as you wrote "I understand their reasons for doing so...….." as you seem to have approved of POLDPA as a legislative replacement for the protection of the rights of the unborn.

Maybe I'm wrong in believing you are in favour of the POLDPA legislation but you in fact have been against it throughout. Your using the words "WE" and "THEY" in your above to describe your position is [IMO] arcane.

the we are pro-life people who accepted the 8th was of itself bad legislation.

at that time refers to the 2018 referendum, where we could not vote to remove the 8th because of the legislation the government had outlined to bring, and which they have brought in, which is the proposed legislation i refer to as the reason for keeping the 8th, as it was only proposed legislation at the time before the result was announced.
we supported a POLDPA style law as the solution to repealing the 8th and i believe that was put forward at the time, all be it by who i am unable to remember.
i disagreed with the opposition to POLDPA, but i understood the reason why such opposition existed, but i believed that said opposition was unnecessary as it was not legislation for abortion for any reason, and at the time of that legislation being installed, there was nothing to say that there would have been any proposal to install legislation to allow abortion for any reason.

LorelaiG

aloyisious wrote: »

Heard her on RTE earlier telling how it was for her, the actual medical reasons behind her decision to opt for an abortion, the goings-on at the court case around it and the actual realities at the operation in England, that at the end it wasn't an abortion, rather an early induction.

As is the case with a lot of abortions after around 16 weeks. It's still a termination of pregnancy at the end of the day.

nozzferrahhtoo

Drumpot wrote: »

The ramifications of a baby does effect others lives but the implication it does in a destructive manner is a disgusting comparison to make.

That is the thing about real life. Nothing in it is automatically a good or bad thing. It all depends how it affects the individuals life, in their individual circumstances. Even something you think wonderful and beautiful..... like a pregnancy..... can be massively destructive in the life of another.

Not just pregnancy. Some of things most people seek after, and dream about, can be massively destructive. Take winning the Lottery for example. Sounds like a good thing right? Here is a video detailing just how common it can be disastrous however.

So you think the comparison is "disgusting". What is disgusting to me is to automatically assume a narrative of good or bad on any event. Every individual will be different, and what is beautiful to you might be horrific to someone else.

Drumpot wrote: »

I really think a lot of people don’t understand or reflect on what you lose when you argue for something. The abolition of religion, abortions, these all affect our values and one value is replaced with another.

And I think that is a good thing. I think it is a good thing to question why we value something, instead of just valuing it "just because" or because "some religion said so". One of the things the abortion debate did for me many years ago when I first engaged with it was to force me to question deeply what it is I value, and why. What it is about humanity I value, and why. What it is it means to value anything in the first place. And what onus the existence of values places on us.

All this led not just to my position on abortion, but a very structured basis for many other things too. I understand now what rights, and morals, and ethics and value is for, what it does, how it works, and why. And understanding those things leads me to understand why there is absolutely nothing morally or ethically problematic with termination of a fetus.

And when people do little but shout "but it has a tongue that moves a bit!" it becomes quickly clear.... it is clear they do not have any idea what is actually the moral issue either.

Drumpot wrote: »

I’m not religious but see the benefits of it.

You might explain it to me sometime because I see little value in it. And what little value I see has become associated with religion, rather than being anything actually to do with religion..... are things that can be attained just as readily in many other ways. Few of which come with the same harms and costs and issues of religion.

Drumpot wrote: »

How is that relevant in a topic on abortion? Because there are better ways of bringing in abortion and free contraception that doesn’t involve breaking it down to financial criteria.

Agreed. And as I keep repeating any time I see a chance to.... no matter how divisive the issue of abortion is there is a common ground we ALL should strive to never forget exists. Which is that regardless of whether you are pro choice or anti choice on the abortion issue..... we all want less, ideally no, abortions to ever actually happen.

We might disagree on HOW to attain that goal, but it is generally a shared goal none the less. And when the debate gets heated even vicious, it is worth going back to that common ground and remembering we are brothers in arms in that larger battle.

Drumpot wrote: »

How does that change how we value life?

My hope is that it forces us to be clearer and specific about what it is we actually value and why we value it. Rather than just vaguely throwing words like "life" and "human" around like we often do as a species, we should be more explicit about what it is we ACTUALLY value.

I have reached very specific conclusions on what I think we should value, and why we should value it. And it is those conclusions specifically that inform my moral position that the termination of a 12 week old fetus is not at all morally or ethically problematic.

We as a species may discover alien life. We might create General Artificial Intelligence. And if either of those things happen then what we value and why will again be questioned. The conclusions I have, have already dealt with those issues too.

Drumpot wrote: »

it’s boiling the issue down to finance which is in my view a capitalist mindset.

If this was solely their position you might have a point. But I think most people espousing the concept of free contraception are doing so only as PART of a more holistic and general approach to the issue of crisis and unwanted pregnancies.

So I fear it is not so much THEM boiling it down to a purely capitalist mindset, so much as YOU doing so by only focusing on that small part of the bigger picture.

That said though, time and time again financial incentives have been shown to have an affect. Not always good, but an affect none the less. Incentives, including financial ones, do change behaviours and outcomes. It would be foolish not to include them therefore in an overall approach to the issue. Especially for no reason more lofty than a personal distaste for capitalism.

Drumpot wrote: »

It’s the same here, people don’t want to take the responsibility to educate children or people, the simple solution is to abort or throw contraception at the problem.

That is, pardon my language, complete bull though. The people who are pro-choice tend to be the ones who ALSO want comprehensive and EARLIER sexual education for our children for example. Who historically has been against abortion? The church for example? Who historically has also resisted sex education in schools? Why, the church. Who resisted contraception being legalised in our country? Why the church.

So the reality appears not to track with your picture of it. Those against abortion also often seem to be the same people against the very initiatives that would reduce the requirement for it. Why is that, I would ask? I have some of my own theories. Especially where the church is concerned.

Drumpot wrote: »

There’s little discussion from “pro abortionists”

I can not speak for or against that claim given I have yet, in all my years being politically and socially active on the topic of abortion.... ever once met a "pro abortionist". IF you find any, introduce me won't you?

Drumpot wrote: »

But make our society value pregnancy by giving options, not just one simple solution that a person will potentially pay physically/mentally for the rest of their lives.

Agreed. One of the best ways to reduce abortion, and one I advocate myself, is to give women in crisis pregnancies more options to take other than abortion. Banning abortion.... does not work. Giving them options they might take OTHER than abortion, but ALSO giving the choice of abortion..... might do much better.

But again who is against this sort of thing? I have never met anyone pro choice who is against such initiatives. Who have I met who is? Why those against abortion of course! Why on this very forum, I think on this very thread, one anti choice user posted the claim that we should not only ban working class women from having abortions.... but that they should not get social welfare or single parent allowances either.

Why? Because according to him..... a privileged middle class white male..... working class women will only seek to better themselves if you force them to go through with pregnancies and do not help them financially. If you let them choose abortion, or give them money to be single mothers.... they will never seek to better their lives.

Work that line of thinking out for yourself! Full disclosure, the user in question.... pretty much right up to the time the abortion referendum was announced..... was a "pro choice on abortion up to full term!" poster who suddenly flipped to "no abortions ever" as a position when the referendum came up. So.... maybe consider the source. The same user is also, of course no surprise, on threads about school sex education arguing for parents who opt their child out of getting it.

Drumpot wrote: »

This happens very often in these forums. Your post has absolutely no insight or hint that you have reflected on anything i said and yet people have thanked it simply because it brushes aside all my comments with a particularly unwitty response that’s not conductive for debate.

And I trust you will find my post does nothing of the sort, so let the discussion you were seeking commence. Whatever else you might accuse me of.... last of insight, lack of seeing both sides of the issue, lack of considering the consequences, and brushing aside your comments in a fashion not conducive to debate are likely not on the list. So.... your move I will not be calling you right wing. I will not be suggesting you are "imposing your values". So bring on the discussion.

Drumpot wrote: »

I’m admittedly unsure about abortion but more concerned of how it changes us mentally and how we can adapt it in an ethical and moral manner.

By, as I said twice above already in this post, going back to basics and questioning what it is we value, should value, and why.

Do that and you will likely find, as I did, the abortion issue sorts itself out in your head.

Drumpot wrote: »

I’m going to answer your question with a question. You see no downsides to abortion?

Plenty, just not the ones you are concerned with. But as I said, the one common ground we should strive to share is the ideal of reaching a society that has no abortions actually happening.

Drumpot wrote: »

My issue with all you people is you can’t discuss the values/morals/ethics because you haven’t considered it. You just thought “pro choice” and ran with whatever information backed up this option.

As above you will find, again, this is not an accusation you will be able to level against ME at all. I can not speak for others users. But you will entirely fail to find this issue with my positions on the matter.

aloyisious

LorelaiG wrote: »

As is the case with a lot of abortions after around 16 weeks. It's still a termination of pregnancy at the end of the day.

If you had a chance to listen to the Sean O'Rourke interview with Amy this morning, even by podcast, you may have heard her reveal one relevant fact in connection with her operation [which she did not become aware until afterwards] and it was that the foetus had no heartbeat on record before the operation. It seems that the hospital had concluded her foetus was dead inside her womb and took a clinical decision not to inform her of that fact due to the stress she was under.

I'm waiting to see/listen to the TG4 interview of her at 9.30 in a few minutes time to find out if she provides the public with facts relevant to the medical facts around her pregnancy and the post-mortem delivery of her foetus in the UK Hospital to which she had to go for the operation.

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

isn't relevant to what i said susie.
but seeing as you have made the point, i will remind us all that if the government should decide in the future that a woman must give a reason for procuring an abortion then that can happen, and perfectly legally given the government are allowed, via our constitution to legislate on the issue of abortion.





the we are pro-life people who accepted the 8th was of itself bad legislation.

at that time refers to the 2018 referendum, where we could not vote to remove the 8th because of the legislation the government had outlined to bring, and which they have brought in, which is the proposed legislation i refer to as the reason for keeping the 8th, as it was only proposed legislation at the time before the result was announced.
we supported a POLDPA style law as the solution to repealing the 8th and i believe that was put forward at the time, all be it by who i am unable to remember.
i disagreed with the opposition to POLDPA, but i understood the reason why such opposition existed, but i believed that said opposition was unnecessary as it was not legislation for abortion for any reason, and at the time of that legislation being installed, there was nothing to say that there would have been any proposal to install legislation to allow abortion for any reason.

Mindful of the wording of the legislation brought in, are you satisfied with it now seeing as how a future Govt, or even the present one, could bring in more changes which could prevent a abortion from proceeding here if it did not meet with the terms within the changes?

Would you have had any conversations with other Pro-life who felt the right to life of the foetus was being lost prior to the legislation being brought in and if its now known wording giving the Govt, any Govt, the right to make decisions and law changes in a case by case manner caused them to reconsider their opposition to it or if they had told you they still prefer to have all the female citizens of our country tied down by the bad law article in our constitution?

Cabaal

Seems DUP are looking to strike a deal to stop abortion rights happening in Norther Ireland

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/oct/16/brexit-boris-johnson-races-the-clock-as-deadline-for-deal-looms-politics-live?page=with:block-5da77d618f08b13ca7c7be9e#block-5da77d618f08b13ca7c7be9e

Labour MP Stella Creasy has raised suspicions that the DUP are striking a Brexit bargain with the government that will include an attempt to stop expected abortion rights in Northern Ireland.

https://twitter.com/stellacreasy/status/1184536238994407425

https://twitter.com/stellacreasy/status/1184531696269565953

DUP want NI to be inline with the rest of the union...except when it comes to woman's rights, then they'll throw women under the bus to get what they want.

end of the road

aloyisious wrote: »

Mindful of the wording of the legislation brought in, are you satisfied with it now seeing as how a future Govt, or even the present one, could bring in more changes which could prevent a abortion from proceeding here if it did not meet with the terms within the changes?

i'm not satisfied with it no . the government may be able to change it but really something more watertight that would only allow for abortion in certain circumstances only, which couldn't be changed by government, would be what i would support. something that upholds as much as is practical, the right to life of the unborn, with due consideration to the life of the mother.

aloyisious wrote: »

Would you have had any conversations with other Pro-life who felt the right to life of the foetus was being lost prior to the legislation being brought in and if its now known wording giving the Govt, any Govt, the right to make decisions and law changes in a case by case manner caused them to reconsider their opposition to it or if they had told you they still prefer to have all the female citizens of our country tied down by the bad law article in our constitution?

i have had such conversations and the concensus is that the 8th had to go but the current law is way to liberal, also the government being able to change it is far from ideal. but as bad as the 8th was, they could not vote to repeal due to said current law.

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

i'm not satisfied with it no . the government may be able to change it but really something more watertight that would only allow for abortion in certain circumstances only, which couldn't be changed by government, would be what i would support. something that upholds as much as is practical, the right to life of the unborn, with due consideration to the life of the mother.



i have had such conversations and the concensus is that the 8th had to go but the current law is way to liberal, also the government being able to change it is far from ideal. but as bad as the 8th was, they could not vote to repeal due to said current law.

The kicker to that line of thought is that the Pro-life campaign believed that the 8th was bad in law, that the AG for the Govt that put the referendum for the 8th amendment to the people said on the steps of his office at the time that the wording of 8th was bad in law, and that the High Court who made the decision to let Amy proceed to the UK for her abortion operation sent a message to the Govt of the day in 2003 that the 8th was bad in law and it had to act to change the law in regard to abortion here. With such a consensus of opinion amongst such disparate people, one has to wonder at the inanity of the continued stonewalling against making the needed change ASAP. Instead of which the stonewalling continued from within the Pro-life campaign putting the fear of God into politicians about their futures in politics here if they made any move against the 8th.

More importantly it's absolutely worth keeping in mind that the position taken by the "Pro-Life" campaign had an extremely negative effect and disregard for the lives of the pregnant women who had medical needs and personal life-continuance needs when it came to endangerment to their lives.

Hotblack Desiato

Ridiculous, utterly ridiculous that we are expected to buy that nonsense EOTR.

All pro-life groups fought tooth and nail against change for 35 years.

They opposed information, the Irish people voted for it as long ago as 1992.

They opposed travel, wanting Ireland to be a womens' prison. The Irish people voted to affirm an explicit right to travel as long ago as 1992.

They wanted suicide to be removed as a grounds for abortion, in 92 the Irish people refused to ratify that amendment. A second attempt in 2002 failed also.

The POLDPA which only implemented the X case decision - 21 years after the supreme court ruling - was bitterly opposed by them. All sorts of threats and intimidation were employed against politicians to try to prevent it passing through the Oireachtas, it did. All of this despite the fact that POLDPA didn't widen the grounds on which an abortion could be obtained one bit. All it did was set out in law the effects of the court decision.

Then they fight the most vicious, hateful, hardline campaign possible last year against repeal of the 8th amendment.

Finally with a couple of days to go and their canvassing and polling telling them they will lose badly, John McGurk comes out with the line that if we don't repeal the 8th, then it can somehow be changed to allow for the "hard cases" that they've spent so many years opposing and denying.

As if. As if he or any of the rest of them could be trusted after they'd spent over 35 years doing all they could to oppose women's rights in every way.

And now you expect us to believe that there was a consensus in the pro-life movement to allow repeal of the 8th, if only the proposed legislation had been different!!!!!!!!

I mean, REALLY?!?!?!?!?!? The world's biggest :rolleyes: is needed here.

end of the road

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Ridiculous, utterly ridiculous that we are expected to buy that nonsense EOTR.

All pro-life groups fought tooth and nail against change for 35 years.

They opposed information, the Irish people voted for it as long ago as 1992.

They opposed travel, wanting Ireland to be a womens' prison. The Irish people voted to affirm an explicit right to travel as long ago as 1992.

They wanted suicide to be removed as a grounds for abortion, in 92 the Irish people refused to ratify that amendment. A second attempt in 2002 failed also.

The POLDPA which only implemented the X case decision - 21 years after the supreme court ruling - was bitterly opposed by them. All sorts of threats and intimidation were employed against politicians to try to prevent it passing through the Oireachtas, it did. All of this despite the fact that POLDPA didn't widen the grounds on which an abortion could be obtained one bit. All it did was set out in law the effects of the court decision.

Then they fight the most vicious, hateful, hardline campaign possible last year against repeal of the 8th amendment.

Finally with a couple of days to go and their canvassing and polling telling them they will lose badly, John McGurk comes out with the line that if we don't repeal the 8th, then it can somehow be changed to allow for the "hard cases" that they've spent so many years opposing and denying.

As if. As if he or any of the rest of them could be trusted after they'd spent over 35 years doing all they could to oppose women's rights in every way.

And now you expect us to believe that there was a consensus in the pro-life movement to allow repeal of the 8th, if only the proposed legislation had been different!!!!!!!!

I mean, REALLY?!?!?!?!?!? The world's biggest is needed here.

i have never saw such a statement from a pro-life or any group that they wanted ireland to be, or to keep it, or it to become, a women's prison. therefore your mention of women's prison is in my view hyperbole.
i am satisfied their campaign against repeal of the 8th was not vicious or hateful but fought with good intentions by plenty on the ground who simply accept the unborn human being has a right to life.
if any actual genuine women's rights were opposed over 35 years by these groups then what were those rights? bar your belief that abortion for any reason up to whatever time limit if any, is a human right, as i do not share the view that it is a human right.
and yes there was a concensus among my pro-life friends, and others i spoke to, that repeal of the 8th would be supported but for the very liberal legislation.

Hotblack Desiato

Legislation which could be changed by the Oireachtas at any time.

That does not have any credibility at all. They were never, ever going to willingly swap a constitutional guarantee for a piece of legislation no matter how strict.

Screw Attack

i am satisfied their campaign against repeal of the 8th was not vicious or hateful but fought with good intentions by plenty on the ground who simply accept the unborn human being has a right to life.

Shoving unscientific religious nonsense down people's throats is not good.

if any actual genuine women's rights were opposed over 35 years by these groups then what were those rights?

The right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is a right. Not that you would know.

yes there was a concensus among my pro-life friends, and others i spoke to, that repeal of the 8th would be supported but for the very liberal legislation.

Personal anecdotes as an argument? 100% fail.

end of the road

Screw Attack wrote: »

Shoving unscientific religious nonsense down people's throats is not good.

agreed, but that was only a very small part of the pro-life campaign and many of us ignored it ourselves. not vicious or hateful though.

Screw Attack wrote: »

The right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is a right. Not that you would know.

only in certain circumstances really. i would suggest that for others such as economic and social reasons, it's more a discretionary allowence/privilage.

end of the road

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Legislation which could be changed by the Oireachtas at any time.

That does not have any credibility at all. They were never, ever going to willingly swap a constitutional guarantee for a piece of legislation no matter how strict.

correct and for clarity, a constitutional guarantee was my preferred option as i suspect it was for some others. i think i even mentioned it around the time.

Screw Attack

end of the road wrote: »

agreed, but that was only a very small part of the pro-life campaign and many of us ignored it ourselves. not vicious or hateful though.



only in certain circumstances really. i would suggest that for others such as economic and social reasons, it's more a discretionary allowence/privilage.

Small part of the campaign? My ass. This law is still pretty hard on abortion (up to 12 weeks). It's a fertalised lump of cells. There's no brain, and it can be terminated without remorse. It's religious crap, and yet Pro life freaks are against it. Not surprising really.

Sure, fella, sure. You say you'd acquiesce on "certain circumstances" but you're pretty comfortable with it being completely banned in general. You give the game away when you believe a tiny spec of goo is a human being.

Cabaal

end of the road wrote: »

agreed, but that was only a very small part of the pro-life campaign and many of us ignored it ourselves. not vicious or hateful though.

Nonsense,
Religious dogma fueled the NO side, pretty much all the no groups had religious funding and/or religious foundations. In many cases, the same people involved previously opposed marriage equality too.

They tried to hide the religious aspect, but the reality is it drove their compaign.