Strike For Repeal?

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Hmm. I'm planning to masturbate soon. Should I stop and instead find a female to procreate with? After all, it will be the destruction of a potential life?

No it wouldn't. Sperm on it's own has no potential to develop into anything other than sperm. That's why the "is having a period abortion" nonsense doesn't work either.

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Poster today "No Uterus, No Opinion"

F*ck off.


Until you magic up a baby without doing the no pants dance, men get a say.

The whole 'men don't deserve an opinion on the matter' argument is shambolic at best.

First off, what about the hundreds of men at the march today, if they had no right to an opinion on the matter then why the **** did you invite them out?

Most importantly though, it's got nothing to do with women vs men (personally I think militant feminists are the only ones conjuring up this nonsense, but that's for another thread) it's simply the way biology works. If men could give birth aswell, my opinion wouldn't change the slightest bit on the matter.

Does me being a lad mean I have the same understanding of pregnancy and childbirth as a mother? Absolutely ****ing not, but to say I have no right to an opinion on the matter is the exact same as saying only homosexuals should've been allowed to have an opinion on the marriage referendum.

In short, like most of the things I saw on show from that march today, it's a load of bollocks.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No it wouldn't. Sperm on it's own has no potential to develop into anything other than sperm. That's why the "is having a period abortion" nonsense doesn't work either.

There is potential in the sense that rather than masturbating, one could engage in sexual intercourse. Hence the potential for life.

Edit: misread your post initially.

skipping from page 1 to 29 here, just came across this below article, before I came across this thread. Hits the nail on the head, these "its so black and white" "we know best". i know come a vote, pretty much everyone I know that is close to me, would vote against a repeal of the eight having spoken to them on the subject. This its cool to say yes to everything, to be "cool" has actually become a joke to be associated with in my opinion... Oh we are all late twenties and early thirties for what its worth!

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/why-the-repeal-the-eighth-march-will-backfire-1.3001535

Ill be damned if I will listen to people I wouldnt trust to ask the time of day, preaching from pulpit! Bring on this referendum! I reckon it will comfortably defeated... They can forget trying to rowback now. They have shown their colours...

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Abortion is fundamentally an argument of choice and control.

Absolutely, and that choice is of course the choice to be legally able to end another human being's life and the control you reference I suspect would be getting to decide (via exercising the aforementioned choice) if that human being's heartbeat gets to continue to beat or not. The ultimate form of control when you think about it (some might substitute the word 'bullying' for 'control' though - given the developing human being's state of defenselessness and all and that but a minor point best addressed at another stage perhaps).

Choice and control. It sure is all about that. Well said.

Calhoun wrote: »

I have decided at this point if this does go to a referendum vote even though i believe in pro-choice i will be voting no
.

Hahaha

Akin to the "I have decided at this point that due to the bullying tactics of the Yes campaign, I am going to vote No in the same-sex marriage referendum" posts two year's ago.

That kind of intellectual dishonesty adds about as much to the conversation as the liberal discourse you complain about! Come on!

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Hahaha

Akin to the "I have decided at this point that due to the bullying tactics of the Yes campaign, I am going to vote No in the same-sex marriage referendum" posts two year's ago.

That kind of intellectual dishonesty adds about as much to the conversation as the liberal discourse you complain about! Come on!

I don't see how its dishonest, since the same sex referendum the SJW's have been out in force believing that they right the book on everything in Ireland. I voted yes that time but will not be doing it this time.

Come off of it yourself do you defend that type of action should i shut up because i have male parts?

Please sir how should i vote, i am too dumb to know how.

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

A convincing argument too. I admit, I don't like the idea of abortions. And I believe most pro choice people feel the same way, which is why we'd hope for very few! But the idea of forcing a person to perform a pregnancy is something I cannot accept as pertaining to a humane society.

Smoke screen, trying to paint the picture that the pro-choice side dont see it as a push towards full abortion like in the UK.

That is what the loudest voices in the pro-choice side are shouting for.

Calhoun wrote: »

I don't see how its dishonest, since the same sex referendum the SJW's have been out in force believing that they right the book on everything in Ireland. I voted yes that time but will not be doing it this time.

Come off of it yourself do you defend that type of action should i shut up because i have male parts?

Please sir how should i vote, i am too dumb to know how.

Theirs a massive difference between the marriage referendum and repealing the eight amendment and I feel a lot of people involved in the repeal campaign can't see this!

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Theirs a massive difference between the marriage referendum and repealing the eight amendment and I feel a lot of people involved in the repeal campaign can't see this!

I believe so also, i think its quite stupid to have the 8th on the books of the constitution as it means that you cannot legislate on it. If it is removed you can basically legislate on the exact policy you want good or bad.

However saying that, this is a highly emotive offer, we have a number of complex items at play here and again the battle lines are being drawn and the labels are flying. Why would i want to vote with a group who identifies me as the enemy.

Calhoun wrote: »

That is what the loudest voices in the pro-choice side are shouting for.

And even the quiet ones when they think the other side aren't listening.

Abortion tapes sting: Labour duo reveal plan to liberalise law bit by bit

Fine Gael fears that Labour wants to usher in 'abortion on demand' confirmed by recordings



TWO Labour TDs, who were secretly recorded by a pro-life activist purporting to be pro-choice, have revealed their party's intention to further liberalise Ireland's abortion laws once legislation for the X Case has been passed.

Dublin North Central TD Aodhan O Riordain said the X Case legislation was only "a starting point" but added that he said he would not state this publicly, while Wicklow TD Anne Ferris said that attempts to widen the legislation would commence in the next Government, should Labour remain in office.

Ms Ferris said: "We will legislate certainly for what the European Court has told us to and then we can go further than that . . . we get the first part done and then we will go on to the next bit."

She added: "People aren't going to vote Fianna Fail back into power again, so I would say then next term it will happen."

In relation to the X Case legislation, Mr O Riordain said: "It is a starting point. Once you get that . . . then you can move . . . and of course if I'm on the radio and somebody says to me, 'It's a starting point for abortion on demand', I'm gonna say, 'No, of course it isn't – it is what it is.'"

Edited transcripts of the conversations, which were recorded at the TDs' constituency offices last June, are published in the Sunday Independent today.

Asked about her actions, which some would see as deception or entrapment, she replied: "They are public representatives. And I think if a public representative is saying one thing in public but reassuring a select group of activists who support them on (that) one issue in private . . . that is something that is of massive concern and that's something that the public needs to know about."

Yesterday, Mr O Riordain expressed his deep disappointment at being taped against his will.

He said: "This was a taped conversation and I wasn't willing to be taped and I am pretty disappointed that you are touching it – and that is pretty much all I have to say."

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

It costs a lot of money including flights etc. Many can't afford it. Why not simply let people have the procedure closer to where they live?

Whether it is restricted abortion or abortion on demand, the hope is still for as few abortions as possible.

That as they say is not my problem, if it costs so much maybe think about what your doing before you go at it. Or at least get the partner to cough up.

What would keep the abortion numbers down if we make it much easier to do it? Hope won't do it on its own. Id also love to see the goverment that brings it on demand, they are afraid to touch a referendum i doubt they will touch that one.

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

It's the same everywhere. And it's the same excuse everywhere.

Good night!

Not an excuse, did you miss the news bulletins happening all day? or did you happen to be in the crowd with them?

Why stand over this type of identity politics?

Anyway goodnight.

Calhoun wrote: »

Not an excuse, did you miss the news bulletins happening all day? or did you happen to be in the crowd with them?

Why stand over this type of identity politics?

Anyway goodnight.

As was pointed out gleefully here and elsewhere, there were only a few hundred of them. Hardly a reflection of the hundreds of thousands who will vote in a referendum? Just as it's wrong to say those who will vote on pro life lines are all a bunch of God fearing hard line Catholics!

Interesting discussion. I'm pro-choice. In the interests of full accountability, my personal preference would be for a Canadian-style regime where the decision is entirely a matter for the pregnant woman and her doctor. My primary concern will always be for the welfare and well-being of the pregnant woman, over and above that of the foetus. I have no objection to being called a pro-abort. My position is that it is simply a question of whether abortion is safe and legal or dangerous and illegal. We in Ireland have not had to face up the repercussions of that choice because of our geographical proximity to Britain.

However, I realise that my views do not align with the majority of my fellow Irish people. All the research and polling data show there is not support for the introduction of a liberal Canadian or British-type abortion regime in this State. I agree, too, that abortion is a morally complex and nuanced issue. There really is no comparison with the marriage equality referendum. When you stripped it all down, the core message of the "Yes" side in that campaign was a positive and life-affirming one - essentially, that there should be no obstacle to any couple who come together in love and seek the sanction and protection of the State in so doing. There is no similar happy message when it come to abortion. Depending on your view, we are dealing here with provisions for ending, by artificial means, a potential life or an actual life.

I agree the Repeal campaign has lost its way and is essentially talking in an echo chamber. Its militant approach has no chance of connecting with people who are conflicted on this issue, which is the majority of people in our society. A lot of Irish people see a tangible and moral difference between, for example, an eight-week embryo and a 20-week foetus. Some, therefore, might tolerate an abortion regime which permitted terminations on request up to ten or 12 weeks but not beyond that. Most Irish people feel enormous compassion for rape and incest victims, especially very young girls, who become pregnant, and for couples who face a diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormality. The Repeal campaign is simply not speaking to any of those people.

For these reasons, I am convinced a referendum to repeal the eighth referendum without any indication as to what will replace it will be lost. I'm in my 40s and I feel confident in saying that third trimester abortions will never be tolerated in this State in my lifetime. Indeed, I would even say with some certainty that second-trimester on-demand abortions are unlikely to be tolerated in this State in my lifetime. There simply is no majority support for such a regime.

What, then, can pro-choice campaigners hope to achieve? I really feel the only achievable changes at this time will be modest. There is a logical and reasoned argument to be made for the removal of the eighth amendment from the Constitution, which is to do with what has been described as its "chilling effect" on medical practitioners in their treatment of all pregnant women. That argument should and must be made in a reasoned and respectful way. Polls consistently show that a majority of people support the availability of abortion where there is a diagnosis of fatal (not non-fatal) abnormality. I think a proposal to repeal the eighth amendment and amend the 2013 Act to facilitate that small cohort of women and their families would have a good chance of passing. I hope it is done and that a constitutional amendment to that end is passed.

As I said, there simply is not the support for a liberal, abortion on request regime through the second trimester or beyond. People will simply not vote to repeal the eighth amendment if they feel there is any chance the Legislature could introduce something like that, now or in the foreseeable future. The Repeal campaign is refusing to accept that reality and stymying its own efforts in the process.

Looking to the longer term, what do other pro-choice people think is achievable? What do the somewhere-in-the-middle people feel they could tolerate? I have been thinking about this and am imagining something like the following. Would be interested to hear what other people think!

---

The eighth amendment and 2013 Act to be repealed, and:
Abortion to be permitted:
- In the first trimester, on demand;
- In the second trimester, where: there is a diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormality; the pregnant female is aged 16 or under; or there is a risk to the health or life of the pregnant female from continuing the pregnancy;
Termination of pregnancy via induction of labour in the third trimester, with the delivery of a live infant where possible, to be permitted where:
- There is a risk to the health or life of the pregnant female from continuing the pregnancy; or
- The pregnant female is aged 16 or under.

---