Strike For Repeal?

PopePalpatine · 08-03-2017 04:05PM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

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

Well we've got alt-right re-regs popping up from time to time. :rolleyes:

MojoRisinnnn · 08-03-2017 04:08PM

Sad to see some of the posts on the last few pages, people delighted with what they see to be a poor turnout, or accusing people of having an agenda, seriously?

laserlad2010 · 08-03-2017 04:08PM

Jawgap wrote: »

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.

Oh absolutely. And if I'm in the minority I'll make my peace with it. I rarely engage in debate with people despite being far more qualified to comment on the subject from a scientific and factual viewpoint.

I'm merely pointing out that my own story is not clear cut.

MightyMandarin · 08-03-2017 04:12PM

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.

This is why I can't, in good conscience, vote to allow abortion, except in cases of fatal fetal abnormality, rape and where the mother's life is at risk.

I feel the arguments of weeks are just semantics; the real question is whether the right to life of an unborn child is any less than that of a child who's been born, and I just don't think it is.

The arguments on the contrary are compelling, but at the end of the day, nothing has convinced me to change my opinion on the central point of the debate thus far.

osarusan · 08-03-2017 04:14PM

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.

It's obvious that the lack of a right to terminate a separate body can only be achieved by limiting their bodily autonomy.

A woman's uterus is part of her body. If there is a foreign body growing inside it, and even though she wants to have it removed, she is forbidden from having it removed, her bodily autonomy is being limited. I don't see how anybody can really deny that.

The question is (or should be, at least in my opinion) where the balance is between a woman's bodily autonomy and a zygote's right to life.

20Cent · 08-03-2017 04:17PM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

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.

This is why I can't, in good conscience, vote to allow abortion, except in cases of fatal fetal abnormality, rape and where the mother's life is at risk.

I feel the arguments of weeks are just semantics; the real question is whether the right to life of an unborn child is any less than that of a child who's been born, and I just don't think it is.

The arguments on the contrary are compelling, but at the end of the day, nothing has convinced me to change my opinion on the central point of the debate thus far.

Both of you seem to agree that it should be allowed in the case of fatal fetal abnormalities. That would require a yes vote.

RayM · 08-03-2017 04:18PM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

This is why I can't, in good conscience, vote to allow abortion, except in cases of fatal fetal abnormality, rape and where the mother's life is at risk.

I feel the arguments of weeks are just semantics; the real question is whether the right to life of an unborn child is any less than that of a child who's been born, and I just don't think it is.

Why is the right to life of an unborn child, who happens to be the product of a rape, any less than that of one who was the product of a contraception failure or a failure to use contraception?

laserlad2010 · 08-03-2017 04:19PM

20Cent wrote: »

Both of you seem to agree that it should be allowed in the case of fatal fetal abnormalities. That would require a yes vote.

Indeed, but there is a push for an amendment allowing wider access to abortion.

Personally I want it enshrined in the Constitution so that it does not become a political football.

Virgil° · 08-03-2017 04:21PM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

This is why I can't, in good conscience, vote to allow abortion, except in cases of fatal fetal abnormality, rape and where the mother's life is at risk.

Why would the right to life of the unborn be lessened in the case of rape? Surely the child is not at fault?

MightyMandarin · 08-03-2017 04:23PM

RayM wrote: »

Why is the right to life of an unborn child, who happens to be the product of a rape, any less than that of one who was the product of a contraception failure or a failure to use contraception?

It's a difficult question to answer, but I feel this debate is about a balancing of interests and rights of both the mother and child. I feel that in a case where the mother has been raped, some compromise has to be made in her interest and the pregnancy aborted if she desires.

MightyMandarin · 08-03-2017 04:27PM

Virgil° wrote: »

Why would the right to life of the unborn be lessened in the case of rape? Surely the child is not at fault?

The child isn't at fault, but I feel in a particular case such as this, the circumstances of conception have changed enormously and to not allow an exception be made for a woman who was the victim of a rape would be immoral.´Like I said previously, it's about rights and interests, and in this case a compromise should be allowed to allow the mother abort the pregnancy if she so wished.

Malari · 08-03-2017 04:27PM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

It's a difficult question to answer, but I feel this debate is about a balancing of interests and rights of both the mother and child. I feel that in a case where the mother has been raped, some compromise has to be made in her interest and the pregnancy aborted if she desires.

So any woman who claims she's been raped then, whether she officially reports it or not? Because surely you can't wait for a rape case to come to trial and for the accused to be found guilty to determine if it was rape or not, and therefore grounds for abortion?

MightyMandarin · 08-03-2017 04:31PM

Malari wrote: »

So any woman who claims she's been raped then, whether she officially reports it or not? Because surely you can't wait for a rape case to come to trial and for the accused to be found guilty to determine if it was rape or not, and therefore grounds for abortion?

The problem with a debate on a constitutional matter such as this, is that arguments about technicalities of a debate are irrelevant. If the Dail wishes to allow an exception in a case such as this, then they will deal with those issues, as they did with the exceptions made in the 2013 bill.

That said, it would probably have to involve the woman's GP, the Gardai and specialists in hospítals to decide whether an abortion should be allowed.

southstar · 08-03-2017 04:33PM

Widdershins wrote: »

but the photos are not representative of a clump of cells, they are pictures of fetuses from more advanced pregnancies, used to maximise peoples revulsion and discomfort.

That's either too inconvenient or nuanced an observation for some perhaps.

hatrickpatrick · 08-03-2017 04:39PM

Repealing the 8th is inadequate. I'm surprised that the campaign isn't asking for a constitutional right to abortion - allowing the Dáil to legislate for it would leave the issue at the hands of Ireland's dysfunctional and out of touch political system. The 8th should instead be amended to define "life" as beginning at X number of weeks (the specific number of weeks to be debated, I don't know enough about the science behind this to comment), before which time abortion would be unrestricted.

I feel that many pro-choice people will get a nasty surprise if the 8th is repealed when they discover that existing law still does not allow abortion on demand. A new constitutional amendment seems the safest way to go.

Whether Ireland's demographics are yet sufficient to allow such an amendment to pass is another matter of course. The result of the gay marriage referendum would make me optimistic but I personally know people who were vehemently pro gay marriage and are equally vehemently opposed to abortion so I doubt it's as clear cut as it might seem.

RobertKK · 08-03-2017 04:42PM

https://twitter.com/irishtimes/status/839493491797463040

Hundreds...

kylith · 08-03-2017 04:42PM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

The problem with a debate on a constitutional matter such as this, is that arguments about technicalities of a debate are irrelevant. If the Dail wishes to allow an exception in a case such as this, then they will deal with those issues, as they did with the exceptions made in the 2013 bill.

That said, it would probably have to involve the woman's GP, the Gardai and specialists in hospítals to decide whether an abortion should be allowed.

So if she's too traumatised to report it that's tough sht?

And women who choose to have sex whose contraception fails should be punished with children they don't want or can't look after?

hatrickpatrick · 08-03-2017 04:45PM

RobertKK wrote: »

https://twitter.com/irishtimes/status/839493491797463040

Hundreds...

There's another march this evening, it'll probably be a lot bigger given that it's happening after most peoples' work / college / school is over. Protests in the middle of the day during the week tend to be naturally subdued.

hatrickpatrick · 08-03-2017 04:46PM

kylith wrote: »

So if she's too traumatised to report it that's tough sht?

And women who choose to have sex whose contraception fails should be punished with children they don't want or can't look after?

A lot (certainly not all, but a lot) of anti-abortion people also believe that contraception is wrong and that people shouldn't be sexually active at all if they don't want to have kids. Arguing with those folks is completely pointless.

Zulu · 08-03-2017 04:47PM

Jawgap wrote: »

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.

This is very true. Another thing the citizen has to do is accept the voice of the majority. Which is why the sensible people in the Repeal crowd really need to get back behind the steering wheel. The middle ground is being lost, and where would a failed vote get us???

hytrogen · 08-03-2017 04:48PM

Zaph wrote:

Why exactly are these people striking? I would imagine that in nearly every case their employers have nothing to do with anything related to the Repeal campaign or its objectives, so why are they being forced to take a financial hit because some of their staff decide they want a day off? If I was an employer and I was made aware of any staff striking for a reason completely unrelated to their employment with the company I'd be instigating disciplinary proceedings immediately, and that's despite the fact that I support the Repeal campaign. It's complete and utter nonsense and if this is the best idea the Repeal campaign can come up with then they're going to have a lot of trouble achieving their objectives.

If you have the same kind of badass cramps and try listening to the moaning you'd want them to take a day away from the watercooler :P I say fair play, we're working too hard anyways these days, go off and enjoy any bit of sun between these rain showers and a walk around town.

hatrickpatrick · 08-03-2017 04:48PM

Zulu wrote: »

This is very true. Another thing the citizen has to do is accept the voice of the majority. Which is why the sensible people in the Repeal crowd really need to get back behind the steering wheel. The middle ground is being lost, and where would a failed vote get us???

What, in your view, is defined as the "sensible middle ground"?

MightyMandarin · 08-03-2017 04:49PM

kylith wrote: »

So if she's too traumatised to report it that's tough sht?

And women who choose to have sex whose contraception fails should be punished with children they don't want or can't look after?

That's a very strong word to use to describe the birth of a child, and I know of several friends who were born as "accidents" but I doubt their parents would ever refer to their birth as a 'punishment'.

That said, I already said such a case would, presumably, involve the Gardai and so the mother/victim of the rape would hopefully report it. I really don't see what the problem is with having them report the crime.

Zulu · 08-03-2017 04:53PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What, in your view, is defined as the "sensible middle ground"?

Well, "no-holds-barred" abortion and shouting down any other opinion is certainly not it.

I'd suggest either limited abortion in certain circumstances or limited abortion by term time I would suggest are a reasonable starting point. And recent survey results would appear to support that position.

kylith · 08-03-2017 04:54PM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

That said, I already said such a case would, presumably, involve the Gardai and so the mother/victim of the rape would hopefully report it. I really don't see what the problem is with having them report the crime.

Have you ever been sexually assaulted? Have you seen the cases in this country with people shaking hands with rapists? Women disbelieved because they had previously been promiscuous, or were 'asking for it' because of the way they were dressed? In order to do what you suggest it would have to be proved that she was raped which could take months.

seamus · 08-03-2017 05:02PM

laserlad2010 wrote: »

Indeed, but there is a push for an amendment allowing wider access to abortion.

There's not actually. The only real push is for a repeal of the eighth amendment. This would not in any sense of the word allow wider access to abortion, not without a whole host of other things taking place too.

Personally I want it enshrined in the Constitution so that it does not become a political football.

I don't want any rules which restrict the rights of the individual to be enshrined in the constitution. The constitution should only describe the structure and functioning of the government, and the government's responsibility to its citizens.

Articles which aim to restrict the rights of the individual should be removed from the constitution, including bans on abortion and divorce. These are civil matters which can and do change over time and so should be written in law.

The only time the constitution should mention individual rights is when it is copper-fastening them to prevent them being manipulated in law - such as the right of everyone to marry.

Calhoun · 08-03-2017 05:03PM

kylith wrote: »

Have you ever been sexually assaulted? Have you seen the cases in this country with people shaking hands with rapists? Women disbelieved because they had previously been promiscuous, or were 'asking for it' because of the way they were dressed? In order to do what you suggest it would have to be proved that she was raped which could take months.

Have you also seen the recent trend where certain sections of society have been perpetuating a myth of rape culture. They are going as far as trying to redefine rape after the fact when they get a bought of buyers remorse.

If people are that flaky when it comes to rape, your damned sure i believe they should have to prove it.

Virgil° · 08-03-2017 05:03PM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

The child isn't at fault, but I feel in a particular case such as this, the circumstances of conception have changed enormously and to not allow an exception be made for a woman who was the victim of a rape would be immoral.´Like I said previously, it's about rights and interests, and in this case a compromise should be allowed to allow the mother abort the pregnancy if she so wished.

Well theres two things here to be addressed.

1. You haven't told me WHY a child conceived of rape is any less deserving of life than one that isn't. All you can say is that you feel it would be immoral and an exception should be made. I'm afraid that just doesn't cut it. If you're against repealing the 8th you either have to grant that the right to life of the unborn is greater than the right to bodily autonomy of the woman or it isn't(And thats just the starting point). You can't just go revoking that because you personally feel we should.

2. With regards to actually legislating. The 8th is an inherently stupid and unclear piece of our constitution. Which is why we've had Savita dying/ girls being force fed/ corpses being kept alive artificially and more i'm sure.

If we were to actually implement a loophole for rape how would it work logistically? Do we just take it on faith that the woman in question has been raped if she says so? Do we wait until a rape conviction has been secured(keeping in mind this can take years)? What happens in this case if the rapist appeals? If you really think it through this system simply couldn't and wouldn't work. Which is why we can't legislate based on what you or anyone else personally feel uncomfortable with.

mejulie805 · 08-03-2017 05:15PM

RobertKK wrote: »

https://twitter.com/irishtimes/status/839493491797463040

Hundreds...

Amended by IT

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/thousands-march-against-eighth-amendment-in-dublin-1.3002375

MightyMandarin · 08-03-2017 05:16PM

Virgil° wrote: »

Well theres two things here to be addressed.

1. You haven't told me WHY a child conceived of rape is any less deserving of life than one that isn't. All you can say is that you feel it would be immoral and an exception should be made. I'm afraid that just doesn't cut it. If you're against repealing the 8th you either have to grant that the right to life of the unborn is greater than the right to bodily autonomy of the woman or it isn't(And thats just the starting point). You can't just go revoking that because you personally feel we should.

2. With regards to actually legislating. The 8th is an inherently stupid and unclear piece of our constitution. Which is why we've had Savita dying/ girls being force fed/ corpses being kept alive artificially and more i'm sure.

The tone of your post is yet more confirmation to me why the repealthe8th campaign is losing vast amounts of support from the public. You may not tell me, or anyone else for that matter, what I can or can't believe in, and I will absolutely make exceptions on matters based entirely on my own personal convictions, and I hope others do the exact same. I don't give a **** if you think my reasoning just "doesn't cut it", you have no right to tell me that.

That said, the right of the unborn child is not any less in value than other children, in the case where the mother was raped; I just feel an exception must be allowed, because it is unconscionable to have a woman forced to give birth to a child conceived through unconsensual sex imo. You might not think that's not an adequate reason but in my books, it absolutely is.

The 8th Amendment is anything but stupid or unclear. The Constitution is not designed to deal with exceptions to certain rules or the logisitics involved in implenting them, that's what legislation is for, and that is what the 2013 bill does. If the repealthe8th camapaign wish to lobby for a bill which will provide exceptions to the 8th Amendment in the cases I mentioned, I will fully support them.

But I will not support any campaign to remove a constitutional amendment which protects the right to life for the unborn. It is far too important to be repealed.

Strike For Repeal?

Comments