Strike For Repeal?

Arcade_Tryer · 08-03-2017 03:16PM

RobertKK wrote: »

We have less and less workers supporting an aging population in western society, abortion of healthy unborn lives makes this situation worse.
It contributed to the poor policy of letting refugees into Europe who were unknown, seen as a solution that stemmed from a replacement rate that is too low in Europe.

Ireland's birth rate has always been very high, highest in Europe in fact a few years ago I believe. Abortion isn't causing any problems in that regard. The problem is the low death rate as you point out.

So the ideal solution surely would be to increase immigration numbers or start killing off old people?

Richard Hillman · 08-03-2017 03:19PM

I reckon there will be seriously sharp elbows towards the front. Everybody trying to get the prime position for the Six-One News and the papers. A lot of people trying to launch political and media careers off this.

RobertKK · 08-03-2017 03:21PM

rainbow kirby wrote: »

It was dismissed because the anti-choicers saw the opportunity to parachute in some American paid shill. :rolleyes:

So Amnesty and most on the repeal side can be dismissed too?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/billionaire-soros-funding-groups-fighting-to-repeal-irish-abortion-ban-34980624.html

A leaked strategy document details how Soros's Open Society Foundation planned to fund Amnesty International Ireland, the Abortion Rights Campaign and the Irish Family Planning Association.

The move was said to be part of a strategy to force the repeal of the Eighth Amendment, potentially setting off a chain reaction in other strongly Catholic countries in Europe.
The three organisations confirmed to the Irish Independent they had received grants from the foundation.

RobertKK · 08-03-2017 03:22PM

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Ireland's birth rate has always been very high, highest in Europe in fact a few years ago I believe. Abortion isn't causing any problems in that regard. The problem is the low death rate as you point out.

So the ideal solution surely would be to increase immigration numbers or start killing off old people?

Ireland has a low abortion rate.

PopePalpatine · 08-03-2017 03:22PM

padd b1975 wrote: »

Rough guess I would say about 500 at most.

In a capital city of around 1.5 million its a pathetic turnout.

Edit. Actually make that guess 300, at that time of the day there's probably about 200 people going about their business that have nothing to do with the protests.

If it were a pro-life protest you (and the organisers) would be claiming there's "tens of thousands" marching. :rolleyes:

MightyMandarin · 08-03-2017 03:24PM

RobertKK wrote: »

So Amnesty and most on the repeal side can be dismissed too?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/billionaire-soros-funding-groups-fighting-to-repeal-irish-abortion-ban-34980624.html

padd b1975 wrote: »

Rough guess I would say about 500 at most.

In a capital city of around 1.5 million its a pathetic turnout.

Edit. Actually make that guess 300, at that time of the day there's probably about 200 people going about their business that have nothing to do with the protests.

Arguments involving crowd sizes and George Soros' influence...ffs how long before this thread becomes another Trump thread? :pac:

The_Valeyard · 08-03-2017 03:28PM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Arguments involving crowd sizes and George Soros' influence...ffs how long before this thread becomes another Trump thread? :pac:

No, but I do remember the same arguments about a recent pro life rally.

What's that episode if Brickleberry where everyone keeps changing placards and arguements?

RayM · 08-03-2017 03:33PM

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I reckon there will be seriously sharp elbows towards the front. Everybody trying to get the prime position for the Six-One News and the papers. A lot of people trying to launch political and media careers off this.

I'd say the vast majority of people there just want women to have autonomy over their own bodies, tbh

keano_afc · 08-03-2017 03:34PM

RayM wrote: »

I'd say the vast majority of people there just want women to have autonomy over their own bodies, tbh

They already do.

RayM · 08-03-2017 03:35PM

keano_afc wrote: »

They already do.

Not if they're pregnant, don't want to be, and are unable to afford a trip to the UK.

snowflaker · 08-03-2017 03:35PM

I wear black in solidarity with the women marching today.

RobertKK · 08-03-2017 03:42PM

So was the route to the airport blocked - along the quays, that is used by certain bus companies?

RobertKK · 08-03-2017 03:43PM

snowflaker wrote: »

If a man wants to chop off his hand it's not a crime

Self mutilation would have one locked away for their own safety.

One eyed Jack · 08-03-2017 03:44PM

RayM wrote: »

Not if they're pregnant, don't want to be, and are unable to afford a trip to the UK.

They still have autonomy over their own bodies. They just don't have an automatic right to an abortion. They're two completely separate arguments because the law recognises the right to life of the unborn, and balances this right with the rights of the woman who is pregnant. That's why whether she can or can't afford a trip to the UK is neither here nor there. I can't afford plenty of things I want, but the State is under no obligation to provide them for me.

Calhoun · 08-03-2017 03:48PM

Here is hoping any of the private sector strikers get the sack but i am guessing they took a holiday day.

Glad to see the really crappy numbers, looks like usual contrived publicity attempt from wannabe politicians has failed.

The_Kew_Tour · 08-03-2017 03:49PM

Thought they get least 5-6 times more of a turnout. Very surprised.

kylith · 08-03-2017 03:50PM

RobertKK wrote: »

So was the route to the airport blocked - along the quays, that is used by certain bus companies?

Isn't it terrible? Now imagine how inconvenient it is having to spend thousands of euro and travel toanother country to get bodily autonomy.

Zulu · 08-03-2017 03:50PM

RayM wrote: »

Not if they're pregnant, don't want to be, and are unable to afford a trip to the UK.

Should the state pay for abortions?
Should the tax of a person who is vehemently against abortion be used to pay for abortions?

RayM · 08-03-2017 03:51PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They still have autonomy over their own bodies. They just don't have an automatic right to an abortion. They're two completely separate arguments because the law recognises the right to life of the unborn, and balances this right with the rights of the woman who is pregnant. That's why whether she can or can't afford a trip to the UK is neither here nor there. I can't afford plenty of things I want, but the State is under no obligation to provide them for me.

If the state prevents the woman from terminating that pregnancy, it is denying her the right to bodily autonomy.

Jawgap · 08-03-2017 03:52PM

Zulu wrote: »

Should the state pay for abortions?
Should the tax of a person who is vehemently against abortion be used to pay for abortions?

Yes.

There are lots of things I don't agree with that the government spends my taxes on, it doesn't mean I get a veto just because I pay - nor does it mean I get to tell them where my hard earned money gets spent. It's the price of living in a republic with reasonable public services.

keano_afc · 08-03-2017 03:54PM

RayM wrote: »

Not if they're pregnant, don't want to be, and are unable to afford a trip to the UK.

None of which affects their body autonomy.

What you're trying to say is that they dont have the right to terminate a separate body, if thats what they want.

kylith · 08-03-2017 03:55PM

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Thought they get least 5-6 times more of a turnout. Very surprised.

There's another March at 1730 for anyone who couldn't make this one.

One eyed Jack · 08-03-2017 03:57PM

RayM wrote: »

If the state prevents the woman from terminating that pregnancy, it is denying her the right to bodily autonomy.

The State isn't preventing anyone from terminating their pregnancy, they're prevented from obtaining an illegal abortion in this country. You're still ignoring the fact that the State recognises the equal right to life of the unborn.

laserlad2010 · 08-03-2017 03:57PM

I thought I'd give my own experience as a man who works every day to care for and resuscitate babies as young as 23 weeks, and who has worked in a country where abortion was available (New Zealand).

I worked in New Zealand in 2013, and at that point I'd have considered myself totally pro-abortion under most circumstances. Then one of my roles was to confirm a fetus had died after a ToP (termination of pregnancy). I met women from various backgrounds who for various reasons had decided to undergo a ToP. The lines began to blur.

I saw the need to legislate for fatal foetal abnormalities, but being involved in cases which were done for other reasons (the child would have survived healthy if born), felt... wrong. I began to wonder whether I could agree with looser abortion laws.

When I returned to Ireland, I began working in various neonatal units. The earliest child we have brought back to life, who without our team's help would certainly have died, was 23 weeks and 3 days. He had a right to our help. The mother has since given him up for adoption.

I ask myself would he have been better off not being born if his mother didn't want - or felt she couldn't raise - him? When he cried, a weak cry but one that took all of his effort, at birth? When is abortion acceptable??

22 weeks? Just wait til next Tuesday and we'll save his life if he was born.
20 weeks?
18 weeks?

The reality is that those who argue for Repeal have not presented me with an alternative which I can be happy with. I feel there is a silent majority who feels the same way.

RayM · 08-03-2017 03:57PM

keano_afc wrote: »

None of which affects their body autonomy.

What you're trying to say is that they dont have the right to terminate a separate body, if thats what they want.

What I'm trying to say is that they don't have the right (unless they're able to go elsewhere) to stop a separate body from growing inside their own body for nine months.

08-03-2017 04:00PM

Just seen a clip of the protest. A fella on a megaphone shouting "**** the state, repeal the 8th"

That's really going to get people on the fence on your side.

RobertKK · 08-03-2017 04:01PM

kylith wrote: »

Isn't it terrible? Now imagine how inconvenient it is having to spend thousands of euro and travel toanother country to get bodily autonomy.

Wouldn't it be ironic if blocking the route caused a woman to miss her flight...for what these protesters are looking for - no term limit abortion or something else, depending who is talking...

keano_afc · 08-03-2017 04:02PM

cisk wrote: »

Just seen a clip of the protest. A fella on a megaphone shouting "**** the state, repeal the 8th"

That's really giving to get people on the fence on your side.

And I presume he was told to f*ck off and come back when he has a uterus?

Widdershins · 08-03-2017 04:03PM

kylith wrote: »

I'm sorry, are you claiming that the Repeal protesters are hurling projectiles cos last I heard there was just a bit of a traffic jam on O'Connell St. Though, frankly, how that's any different from how O'Connell St usually is I don't know.

No, I was replying to a comment that suggested the French manner of protesting is better way to achieve an aim than the milquetoast Irish way of protesting. If you have seen French protests you know they could not be termed ''non violent''.

Jawgap · 08-03-2017 04:04PM

laserlad2010 wrote: »

I thought I'd give my own experience as a man who works every day to care for and resuscitate babies as young as 23 weeks, and who has worked in a country where abortion was available (New Zealand).

I worked in New Zealand in 2013, and at that point I'd have considered myself totally pro-abortion under most circumstances. Then one of my roles was to confirm a fetus had died after a ToP (termination of pregnancy). I met women from various backgrounds who for various reasons had decided to undergo a ToP. The lines began to blur.

I saw the need to legislate for fatal foetal abnormalities, but being involved in cases which were done for other reasons (the child would have survived healthy if born), felt... wrong. I began to wonder whether I could agree with looser abortion laws.

When I returned to Ireland, I began working in various neonatal units. The earliest child we have brought back to life, who without our team's help would certainly have died, was 23 weeks and 3 days. He had a right to our help. The mother has since given him up for adoption.

I ask myself would he have been better off not being born if his mother didn't want - or felt she couldn't raise - him? When he cried, a weak cry but one that took all of his effort, at birth? When is abortion acceptable??

22 weeks? Just wait til next Tuesday and we'll save his life if he was born.
20 weeks?
18 weeks?

The reality is that those who argue for Repeal have not presented me with an alternative which I can be happy with. I feel there is a silent majority who feels the same way.

Then you get to vote against any proposal to repeal, as does any other person eligible to vote regardless of whether they regard themeselves as part of silent majority or a vocal minority. And if enough people feel the same way the measure will remain in the Constitution.

Strike For Repeal?

Comments