jameorahiely wrote: » mahamageehad wrote: » While the thought of a waiting list may be horrible, we're talking about a time sensitive procedure in most cases unfortunately. Clinics in the UK were turning Irish women away earlier this year because Jan and Feb are the busiest times for abortion. Source: https://www.her.ie/news/uk-abortion-clinics-will-begin-turn-away-irish-women-331776 The want/need issue is a more interesting topic to me. The pro-choice case argues that want and need are the same thing in the case of abortion, but most only support it until a certain time. Many pro-lifers would agree with abortion in a case where it's "needed" (usually when the mother's life is at risk) but would abhor the idea of someone "wanting" an abortion. Both sides have grey areas and in my experience, most people fall just left or right of the middle. Currently the possibility of an abortion comes down to two things, the 8th amendment and the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act. The 8th amendment puts the life of the foetus on par with the mother and therefore restricts what the legislation can allow for. The Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act defines in what circumstances a woman in Ireland can get an abortion - life-threatening physical illness, medical emergency and suicide-risk. Two doctors need to certify that it's necessary. Unfortunately it doesn't cover every case, and that, for me, is the issue. What about the 14 year old that was raped, but she's not "quite" suicidal enough? What about the couple that have been trying for a baby, only to fall pregnant with a child that won't be able to survive outside the womb? There was also that disgusting case a while ago where they kept a brain-dead woman alive as a macabre human incubator. That was a direct result of the 8th amendment. Really, doctors and lawmakers and other educated, diverse people (men and women) should be arguing this out on moral, ethical and legal grounds. There are plenty of case studies from other countries. Why should something like this come down to popular vote? It seems almost disrespectful of the complexity of the situation. As long as the 8th amendment is in the constitution, it'll always be treated as a bargaining chip. In my opinion, the 8th should be repealed. The Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act (which only allows for extremely limited abortion as above) would then become the legislation we rely on. It would allow us in time to open up the conversation to talk about rape victims, or fatal fetal abnormalities and more, without immediately phrasing it as allowing or banning abortion. Does the 8th cover Nebraska too, where abortion is legal? Another disgusting case where a woman was used as an incubator :rolleyes:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3063170/Doctors-moms-body-functioning-baby-survive.html
mahamageehad wrote: » While the thought of a waiting list may be horrible, we're talking about a time sensitive procedure in most cases unfortunately. Clinics in the UK were turning Irish women away earlier this year because Jan and Feb are the busiest times for abortion. Source: https://www.her.ie/news/uk-abortion-clinics-will-begin-turn-away-irish-women-331776 The want/need issue is a more interesting topic to me. The pro-choice case argues that want and need are the same thing in the case of abortion, but most only support it until a certain time. Many pro-lifers would agree with abortion in a case where it's "needed" (usually when the mother's life is at risk) but would abhor the idea of someone "wanting" an abortion. Both sides have grey areas and in my experience, most people fall just left or right of the middle. Currently the possibility of an abortion comes down to two things, the 8th amendment and the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act. The 8th amendment puts the life of the foetus on par with the mother and therefore restricts what the legislation can allow for. The Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act defines in what circumstances a woman in Ireland can get an abortion - life-threatening physical illness, medical emergency and suicide-risk. Two doctors need to certify that it's necessary. Unfortunately it doesn't cover every case, and that, for me, is the issue. What about the 14 year old that was raped, but she's not "quite" suicidal enough? What about the couple that have been trying for a baby, only to fall pregnant with a child that won't be able to survive outside the womb? There was also that disgusting case a while ago where they kept a brain-dead woman alive as a macabre human incubator. That was a direct result of the 8th amendment. Really, doctors and lawmakers and other educated, diverse people (men and women) should be arguing this out on moral, ethical and legal grounds. There are plenty of case studies from other countries. Why should something like this come down to popular vote? It seems almost disrespectful of the complexity of the situation. As long as the 8th amendment is in the constitution, it'll always be treated as a bargaining chip. In my opinion, the 8th should be repealed. The Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act (which only allows for extremely limited abortion as above) would then become the legislation we rely on. It would allow us in time to open up the conversation to talk about rape victims, or fatal fetal abnormalities and more, without immediately phrasing it as allowing or banning abortion.
SafeSurfer wrote: » Seems like a happy outcome in tragic circumstances. The baby survived as the family wished and the mothers organs were donated and helped 3 others to survive.
eviltwin wrote: » SafeSurfer wrote: » Seems like a happy outcome in tragic circumstances. The baby survived as the family wished and the mothers organs were donated and helped 3 others to survive. She's still dead though, happy doesn't really seem the appropriate word here.
SafeSurfer wrote: » Happy in the circumstances I think is appropriate. Happy for the baby who lived, happy for the family who wanted the baby to live, happy for the 3 people who received organs allowing them to live. I'm happy with happy.
SafeSurfer wrote: » I presume the fear that a lot of people have is once the eight amendment is removed from the constitution society will never have the opportunity to express their opinion on the matter again. It will be left to the whims of politicians with an eye to the latest opinion poll or hard case rather than medical experts or the will of the people.
jameorahiely wrote: » Does the 8th cover Nebraska too, where abortion is legal? Another disgusting case where a woman was used as an incubator :rolleyes:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3063170/Doctors-moms-body-functioning-baby-survive.html
Earthhorse wrote: » So you'd be okay with abortion if women had to pay to get one here?
Delirium wrote: » Women who wish to abort due to fatal foetal abnormality also have to travel.
thee glitz wrote: » No - I pointed oat the government wasn't forcing people to pay for abortions abroad.
dodderangler wrote: » Strikes don't do nothing for no one.
Dick phelan wrote: » Because of the nature of the Repeal Campaign i'v gone from being on the fence being about 80% sure i'd vote to keep the 8th, their childish publicity stunts, complete unwilling to argue their points without uttering some complete rubbish like "if you don't want an abortion don't have one" completely missing the entire argument their opponents are making. Also regarding the images used by the pro life side one could argue perhaps that if you think graphic images of abortion aren't appropriate how can you argue the procedure is? Perhaps a lot of people don't like being confronted with reality you notice it with the language used, words like "Choice" A medical procedure, clump of cells ect all serve to dehumanize the reality of abortion. If your getting upset over images of abortion perhaps you shouldn't be advocating it.
cisk wrote: » Excellent opinion piece in the IT, hits the nail on the head. "Here is what Repealers won’t listen to, and what sticks in the craws of those of us hectored by them: The abortion issue is not clear-cut. Lots of us are somewhere in the middle. So talk to us, engage with us.https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/why-the-repeal-the-eighth-march-will-backfire-1.3001535
I don’t believe in abortion as a knee-jerk reaction to a crisis situation. Equally, I do not judge anyone who has ever come to the decision that an abortion is the best choice for them at a given time. That is their own business, borne out of their own individual circumstance. However, urging women to view abortion as a “human right” or a “freedom” as opposed to what it should be – a viable last-resort option in a desperate situation – is a recipe for making the crisis even worse in the long-run.
CaoimheSquee wrote: » Abortion IS clear cut. Either you trust women to make a decision that is the best for their future or you don't.
Richard Hillman wrote: » Just look at their logo "Repeal the 8th" inside of a love heart.
fatknacker wrote: » "I don't like the people involved in the repeal campaign, so I'm against repealing the 8th amendment out of spite"
kylith wrote: » They asked them to take down the banners because they were too graphic. If they're anything like the pictures YD used to have up when they were on College Green I can see why. Photos of stillborn foetuses are not appropriate for public display. There is nothing to stop them from using other banners.
Zulu wrote: » Repeal campaign is a sad joke.
Ostrom wrote: » Anything more specific to add?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/8d35864a3237216e70f346edd3eb761f.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/57b8d4916f172b09117f20311640649e.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/282101dc2976956f9dfc87f7a2ef2413.svg)
