Strike For Repeal?

frag420 · 09-03-2017 01:21PM

RobertKK wrote: »

There should be a referendum and TV coverage should show all the facts including an actual abortion/quote]

So you want to see a video of a woman taking a pill...

retro:electro · 09-03-2017 01:27PM

I'm pro-choice, but I'm finding the pro-life campaigners far less annoying than the Repeal crowd. I mean vagina hats? Really? Zero class and tact. This is a very sensitive and emotive issue for a lot of people. Would you wear a vagina hat going in to have your abortion? No you would not, because it's inappropriate and insensitive. It's ran by, from what I can see, a load of attention seeking idiots whom I do not identify with in the slightest.

Personally, I would like to know more about the (future, possible) legislation before I cast my vote, and I would not vote on something past 12 weeks. (I do not wish to be picked apart for that, why not 12 weeks+1 day, etc, it's just how I feel) Of course cases of FFA is an exception to that.

But if this isn't addressed before the chance to Repeal comes about, well that will leave people like myself stuck and in no man's land. I've always identified with being pro-choice, and I do not want to be in a position where I've no choice but to vote "no to Repeal", due to lack of knowledge where there has been nothing addressed.
From what I can see the Repeal crowd are just riling people up but not actually addressing anybody's concerns or questions.

mahamageehad · 09-03-2017 01:28PM

infogiver wrote: »

Well it will have to be available on the medical card as any medical procedure is.
It won't be just the preserve of those who have sufficient income to afford it.
If your unemployed or on disability and you become pregnant and don't want to be pregnant then you can't be expected to pay for an abortion out of your benefits any more then you can be expected to pay for heart surgery.

I'm split on that. On the one hand, I want to point out that not all medical procedures are covered by medical card. I did a quick search and couldn't find a list though but I know most elective surgeries aren't such as laser eye surgery. Therefore, when an abortion is an elective surgery, there should be a cost associated with it.

On the other hand, if someone is genuinely struggling and is on the medical card, there is a case that it should be made available free to them as it saves the tax payer a lot more in the long run once you include children's allowance and other benefits.

That's a tough one. In general it should be a paid procedure like everything in Ireland, but I'm split on how that would affect medical holders. Honestly, I'd like to see an economists view on the finances of it.

osarusan · 09-03-2017 01:37PM

anna080 wrote: »

Personally, I would like to know more about the legislation before I cast my vote,

What legislation though?

We already have legislation in place at the moment which means abortion on demand is illegal at any stage.

Regarding future legislation, nobody can promise any legislation that will somehow be set in stone.

09-03-2017 01:37PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Yes absolutely. I don't understand people who think everything should be handed to them for free, that's not how the world works.

Medical card holders are more often then not, lower income families.
Many of whom are unemployed.
Do you suggest that those women are less deserving of an abortion than more well off women?
Basically you would be left with the people less able financially to look after children, having the child and the more affluent women able to terminate their pregnancies.
I don't see how that could work

The_Kew_Tour · 09-03-2017 01:38PM

Pro Choice all the way myself, but I think the Pro side are only doing themselves harm with the marches like yesterday

nozzferrahhtoo · 09-03-2017 01:41PM

laserlad2010 wrote: »

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.

The other reality is that the VAST majority of abortions by choice occur long before any of those options you present. In or before week 12. Over 90% vast we are talking here.

What you are suffering from here is called the slippery slope fallacy, or no-true scotsman. It FEELS absurd to us to allow something on DAY X but not on DAY X + 1 or DAY X - 1.

After all is it not absurd that a person can drink on their 18th birthday and not the day before. What MAGICALLY happens at midnight for this?

Or if I were tomorrow to have sex with a girl of age 15.99999999999999 I could potentially end up on a sex offenders register, but if I cuddle her for 6 hours and wait until midnight it is a-ok??

But being absurd does not mean it is not REALITY. And that is the world we live in. We draw legal temporal lines in the sand all the time. We simply have to do our best while doing so.

And our best involves looking at what people actually want/need (as I said the vast majority want abortions in or before week 12) and the moral arguments as to when abortion morally becomes problematic or grey (our certainty can justifiably dwindle proportionally from week 22 onwards) and draw a good line in the sand when ALL factors are considered.

I personally would campaign for 16 weeks. A government implementing 12 weeks OR 20 weeks however would not cause me to lose a moments sleep.

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.

Unfortunately, while your sentence is likely well meaning........ it is not really workable or credible.

Why?

Well simply this: How would you establish rape? Let us consider some possibilities.

1) Based on a rape conviction? Unfortunately these often take so long to obtain that the child will be MUCH further along in the development process, if not actually already long born, than we would like. And what of women who WERE raped but the courts find the accused innocent. Or what if the woman was raped but in such a way as the attacker is not identifiable (passed out drunk women at parties come to mind).

2) Based on the woman filing for abortion AND a rape conviction at the same time? Would this not stimulate false rape claims?

3) Take the woman's word for it that she was raped? How would this be functionally different from abortion-on-demand? All a woman would have to do is tick the appropriate box on the application form under "Were you raped yes-no" whether she was or not.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

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.

I not only think that is not the "real question" but is entirely the wrong question.

The right/real question for me is to ask when an entity of ANY kind has rights at all in the first place. What are the pre-requisite attributes an entity must have in order for us to afford it moral or ethical concern.

When you identify a short list of those pre-requisites you find there are periods in the fetal development when it lacks everything on the list. You then realize there is no coherent basis for affording that fetus any moral or ethical concern, or rights, at all.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

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.

Which is why you have to do it yourself and not have someone like me do it for you. DO the work I just mentioned above. IDENTIFY coherently and intellectually what it is rights are, why we apply them, and to what. Then ask yourself if the results of that endeavor has given you anything that you can honestly say the fetus in or before week 12 actually has.

Spoiler: I did it. The answer is no. It doesn't.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

The tone of your post is yet more confirmation to me why the repealthe8th campaign is losing vast amounts of support from the public.

I trust/hope you find the tone of ALL my posts above to be much more in line with the standards you would envision.

RobertKK wrote: »

So clumps of cells that can walk and talk are going on strike?

Or put another way, since you seem to like spin......... sentience beings are going on strike to promote the rights of other sentience beings in relation to making choices about entities that are in no way sentient beings.

They are going on strike to ensure the well being of sentient entities are not usurped by non-sentient entities.

Go figure.

Here we go · 09-03-2017 01:42PM

Just on ffa it's a terrible situation to be in and I can't say I know what it feels like and wouldn't wish it on anyone but I can't see how the pain is less from an abortion they lose there child and that is a huge loss but what's the dyignostic % 100%/99%/90 not that the small % that beat the odds if any are a comfort to the majority of cases just it's a huge loss either route taken but would 5 mins 5 hours 5 days with the child not give something positive from a terrible situation ? If they decided to donate knowing there child saved someone else's child I know it's not for everyone and it's a huge unimaginable loss but I'd hope what ever way any vote went resources to concilers and support staff for those who might chose this route as someone who's prolife I think we shouldn't just be no not here attitude but try offer different solutions they may not work for all but if we want to protect life we need to do it in a compassionate and understanding way as said before it's not a black and white issue but many shades of gray

nozzferrahhtoo · 09-03-2017 01:42PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The majority of images they use are aborted fetuses of 16 weeks +.

Do you have any stats or citations with which to back that up, because I have to admit my knowledge of it could very much be out of date.

I know, from my own knowledge of developmental biology, back when they used to put photos up outside central bank in Dublin that the photos they used were not just majority but ENTIRELY photos from much later in the process than 16 weeks.

But I have to admit I do not know what photos they CURRENTLY use, or what the statistics are in terms of when in the process they were taken.

But you seem sure of your facts, so I am going to assume you have a useful citation to offer, and you are not just working off guess work or personal narrative as you often do on this subject.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I find it quite bizarre how anyone could, with a straight face at least, show support for legislation which would make it legal to end the lives of developing fetuses at five and six months into pregnancies, and yet then out of the other side of their mouth call for compassion to be shown for dead fetuses on posters.

Perhaps the reason it seems bizarre to you is the majority of people with issues over the images are not harboring that compassion at all. They are harboring compassion for the actual living people, young children included, to whom the images are being displayed.

In fact your post is the first time I have heard the concept of it being in-compassionate to the fetus being espoused AT ALL. EVERYONE who has complained about such images has done so on the grounds of the emotional well being of whom the images are being displayed to.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I'm pretty sure, that if a soon to be aborted fetus could talk, it would ask for compassion to be shown to it then, not wait until it ends up on some pro life poster when it's of fcuk all use to them.

I am pretty sure that if a rocks or cows could talk it would ask the same. But we do not really mediate our moral concern for them on "ifs", do we? Our moral and ethical concern should be mediated, at foundation level, upon an entity having the pre-requisite characteristics upon which it is deserving of it.

Which the fetus at the point the VAST (over 90%) of abortions by choice actually occur at do not, in even the smallest way. Your "if" here is designed to imply characteristics to the fetus that it does not actually have, without explicitly claiming it does.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

This always makes me laugh, whenever the pro-choice side of the debate attempt to turn rape exception around as if it was the pro-life that dragged rape victims into the debate.

I trust despite your apparent dislike of me (and lets face it, my obvious low opinion of the demonstrably poor level of debate you bring to this topic) that you will afford ME at least the fact that I too disagree strongly with "raped women" being used as an argument by the pro-choice side.

Firstly because, as I said to MightyMandarin, it is unworkable anyway in that there is no useful way to establish rape occurred in order to decide when to offer, or refuse, abortion as an option.

But secondly also because I feel there are few (or any?) other cases where some X has their rights curtailed because some Y committed a crime on some Z. Where else does someone lose rights because a crime was not committed by them on someone who is not them?

It seems ludicrous to me that IF a 10 week fetus had rights, it should lose them because it did not commit a crime and did not have a crime committed on it.

Thankfully however it is not my issue to contend with as I do NOT think the fetus at those stages has rights because no one, least of all you, has offered any coherent arguments as to why it might.

I do not think we should afford moral and ethical concern to entities that do not deserve it. ESPECIALLY when it impinges on our moral and ethical concerns for entities that do.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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.

A choice we make all the time. The meat industry DAILY makes choices that decide what heart beats continue and which do not.

Which is why people, some of us at least, realize that there is a lot more in play when mediating moral and ethical concern for other entities than merely observing whether a heart beat is present or not.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I always find this peculiar thing to say and it gets said all.the.damn.time. What the hell does it even mean?

You really think people like me, who are largely against abortion, don't care about the welfare of children who are born??

Well a lot of women who seek abortions do so because they realize that the life they could offer the child is below the standards any child deserves. Such a woman might realize that the child will end up homeless, not educated, without one or both parents or any number of other horrible things she does not want to bring about the creation of a person to suffer.

So while I agree with you that describing this as "You do not care about born children" is needlessly divisive and hyperbolic........ I can understand the frustrations that cause it. Because to them it looks like you simply dismiss ALL those very relevant, very justified, concerns such a woman has and you say "I do not care, you are pregnant, you have to have the baby anyway" and as such you would therefore LOOK like you simply do not care what standard of life the child actually has post-birth.

The hyperbole is poor, I agree, but when such hyperbole happens there is usually genuine concerns and genuine frustrations behind them that are worth looking for, if you care enough to try.

nozzferrahhtoo · 09-03-2017 01:43PM

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

From the rest of your post it does not sound like you are REMOTELY as "on the fence" about the issue as you pretended you were.

That said however what you write above is a truly TERRIBLE and intellectually bankrupt reason to vote one way or the other. I would recommend voting based solely on what YOU think is right, not on how you think people campaigning acted.

Especially, but not only, because the media contrives to focus on the people who act particularly badly or stridently, who are not actually representative of the whole in any way.

I heard similar language to yours during the marriage equality act. People saying "Well I was neutral" or "Well I was going to vote one way".......... and following it up with "But now I am voting X because the people who want Y were so childish/immature/annoying/unpleasant".

At best that is intellectually lazy. Screw how people act. Focus on the issue and why one vote seems intellectually and morally more correct to you than the other.

And before anyone asks, yes I would equally say that to someone who is voting the way I want, as to someone voting the way I do not. If someone votes the same way as me I want them to do it because they believe that vote to be right, not because some campaigner on the opposing side was an ass hat.

Dick phelan wrote: »

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?

Because the two are ENTIRELY separate things?

Many people need heart bypass surgery for example. I am entirely fine with them having it, and I see no problem morally with the procedure.

Does not mean I want gory and graphic open heart surgery pictures being shown to children on the street, now does it?

What having an abortion, or any medical procedure, actually LOOKS like is entirely independent from the morality involved in having the procedure in the first place.

The pictures are used because the anti-choice campaigners do not have arguments to make. They hope the pictures will do the work instead, appealing to peoples natural disgust at the sight of blood rather than consider the ACTUAL issues involved intellectually.

And look at some of the pictures they contrive to use. The VAST majority of abortions by choice happen in or before week 12. Ask yourself therefore why the pictures used by anti-choice campaigners of A) the Fetus much closer to week 24 and

as another user pointed out on the thread of fetuses that were not actually aborted but miscarried or died for other medical reasons.

When you answer THOSE questions you might find your emotionally influenced voting pushed in a different direction due to the poor behaviors involved.

jameorahiely wrote: »

One of the reasons why they don't like the pictures is the same reason the don't like a pregnant woman seeing an ultra sound before the abortion proceedure. It humanises the foetus.

Humanizing something actually worthy of it, or deserving of it, is not a problem. The purpose of the pictures is to humanize it before it's due. Which, as I said in the post to Dick, is why they contrive to use photos from fetal deaths that are significantly later in the process than the VAST majority of abortions actually occur.

The issue therefore is not with people wanting to dehumanize anything, but with people not wanting it humanized before it's due in order to manufacture appeal to emotion fallacies rather than actual moral arguments against abortion.

jameorahiely wrote: »

Phrases such as "abortion on demand" upsets them, they would prefer "abortion on request" according to Clare Daly.

I personally have no issue with EITHER of those terms, so I have no idea what Daly's issue is (if she actually has one). Personally I use both phrases often. AND "Abortion by choice" too.

keano_afc wrote: »

The campaign is a mess because depending on who you talk to the aims are different.

Indeed, and I wonder when someone will stand up and attempt to unite them in some effective way. A no-terms abortion option would be superfluous to all but the most statistically outlying individuals. When abortion by choice is available the VAST majority (over 90% consistently to our east and west) avail of it in or before week 12.

Any access to abortion for non-medical reasons up to the 12-16 week area would MORE than cater for the VAST majority of people who want it. If all the pro-choice camps united behind that, they would garner the most amount of support, and cater to the most amount of people.

And currently the ethical and moral arguments put forward in the attempt to indict abortion in that time frame are less than coherent and bordering on non-existent. I, at least, have not been made aware of a single coherent argument against the morality of it outside of shrill nonsense like "but it's tongue moves if you play music at it!"

But at this point I strongly expect any referendum to fail. Partially due to the inconsistent disparity between all the groups, and partly because I do not see an Irish Public voting for change when they have no idea what the eventual replacement will be and partly because of this men v women narrative that is going on.

Perhaps I am just needlessly pessimistic, but I do not feel good on this one right now. I feel as sure that the repeal movement will fail as I was sure Trump would be elected 5 minutes after I heard Clinton was the Democratic nominee. To the point of being baffled anyone actually expected otherwise.

zanador wrote: »

I am 100% pro-choice. The fact that so many women travel to Britain for abortions is a point.

I am also heavily pro-choice but the "Women have to go abroad" argument is not one I ever use myself. I personally feel it to be a TERRIBLE argument.

The abortion debate for me comes down to whether WE as a society feel morally that abortion is a service we should allow and provide. If we decide "no" then it is simply irrelevant that women can get the service elsewhere. The "no" simply means "Fine, if you want one, go have one, but WE are not providing it".

Further the same argument could be used AGAINST many pro-choice people. Why?

Well.......... The majority of people who are pro-choice are, like me, pro-choice up to a certain term limit (I would be happy with 20, I generally aim for 16, but I would not lose sleep over a 12 week limit and would be quite happy with it).

So whatever the cut off X is........ the same argument could be made for a woman who wants an abortion in X+1. We will say "no sorry, we simply do not offer that service" and someone like yourself could then say "Ah, but women are now being forced to go abroad for what they want and we should be supporting that here!".

There is also the issue of universal application of that argument. If it can be applied to abortion, why should it not be applied to anywhere else? If sex with children were legal somewhere, and my sexuality meant I could only be happy, content, psychologically well, and sexually satisfied by sex with children........... could I then say "My issue is that I am being forced to go abroad to get what I want, when I should be supported HERE"?

We can not make an argument and then cherry pick when the argument can be applied. If one makes an argument, one must be prepared to have that argument universally accepted and applied, and not just when it suits us.

anna080 wrote: »

I'm 100% pro choice but am starting to dispise the Repeal campaign. I don't identify with their approach and find them far too militant and not open to any genuine convsersation.

It is a strange feeling for me because on many topics on this forum I am accused of being combative and militant and strident.

But on the topic of abortion on this, and many other, forums I have had people thanks me publicly and privately for being calm, rational and reasoned in my discussion of it. Including people who strongly disagree with me, my position, and abortion.

I have wondered if that is because of me ACTUALLY being less combative and militant and strident on this issue and this issue alone....... or more likely......... is it that I am just RELATIVELY less so than OTHER people who campaign on the issue.

I suspect the latter strongly enough to be somewhat tempted to be MORE public and media savvy on the issue and try to actively BE the media guy who writes, talks or publicly appears to discuss or debate the issue. Would that I currently lived in Ireland to do so.

retro:electro · 09-03-2017 01:43PM

osarusan wrote: »

What legislation though?

We already have legislation in place at the moment which means abortion on demand is illegal at any stage.

Regarding future legislation, nobody can promise any legislation that will somehow be set in stone.

I know about the PLPA, 2013.
I'm not asking anyone to promise anything, just be simply open to have a conversation about it, and not one that goes "sure just Repeal it and the Government will sort that out".

09-03-2017 01:48PM

osarusan wrote: »

there are a number of people who mistakenly think that repealing the 8th would immediately result in abortion on demand being legal

This is the point. This is what the should be highlighting. The 8th amendment gives an embryo of a few weeks equal status in law to the mother. That IMO is wrong.
Taking it away does not mean that abortion clinics are going to spring up everywhere.
It's up to the government to legislate for abortion, which it already has.
It may change the legislation in time, but repealing the 8th is not going to suddenly open the doors to hundreds of Terminations taking place in Irish hospitals. It may however, mean that the poor women pregnant with FFA, might get treated at home, and not be forced to go through another awful ordeal.

Here we go · 09-03-2017 01:55PM

Nozzferahhtoo sorry if I picked it up wrong but are you describing an unborn child to cattle and abortion is better for a child then adoption

mahamageehad · 09-03-2017 01:56PM

anna080 wrote: »

I know about the PLPA, 2013.
I'm not asking anyone to promise anything, just be simply open to have a conversation about it, and not one that goes "sure just Repeal it and the Government will sort that out".

Sure aren't threads like this actually part of that conversation? No one (or at least no one credible) is saying let the government sort it out. It has already been sorted out. The fact is that PLPA 2013 would still stand and repealing the 8th does nothing to that. It will allow someone to bring a case to court though that might force the government to amend or add to the PLPA to allow for abortion when FFA is an issue. In time it might evolve to a less restrictive abortion policy for everyone, but change like that in Ireland will be glacial. I think arguing about how many weeks is acceptable is actually only one of many issues we'll have to worry about in future, and we need to be able to approach those with legislation. Medical and technological advancements are going to bring about cases we can't even dream of now. The likelihood is that if we amend the 8th to say something else, we'll probably have to amend it again in time. That's why I firmly believe it should be legislated for.

pilly · 09-03-2017 02:00PM

mahamageehad wrote: »

Sure aren't threads like this actually part of that conversation? No one (or at least no one credible) is saying let the government sort it out. It has already been sorted out. The fact is that PLPA 2013 would still stand and repealing the 8th does nothing to that. It will allow someone to bring a case to court though that might force the government to amend or add to the PLPA to allow for abortion when FFA is an issue. In time it might evolve to a less restrictive abortion policy for everyone, but change like that in Ireland will be glacial. I think arguing about how many weeks is acceptable is actually only one of many issues we'll have to worry about in future, and we need to be able to approach those with legislation. Medical and technological advancements are going to bring about cases we can't even dream of now. The likelihood is that if we amend the 8th to say something else, we'll probably have to amend it again in time. That's why I firmly believe it should be legislated for.

I totally agree, repealing the 8th is only the 1st step in a very long road and getting into the semantics of how many weeks at this stage will just drag it on for more years than a whole generation of us.

That is a discussion for much further down the road.

seamus · 09-03-2017 02:01PM

I see the old, "The actions of that group have made me want to vote against them" league of idiots is out in force.

How about you make up your own mind on matters that directly affect you and your family instead of voting on whether you like the people involved in campaigning?

"I'm not going to agree to a raise because I don't like the way they explained it to me". Very rational line of reasoning there.

Ultimately it's the same brigade anyway who claimed that they were going to vote "no" to SSM on the basis of the behaviour of campaigners. Stop lying. You were never going to vote to repeal the eighth amendment because you're far too entrenched in your position to even consider questioning yourself.

Claiming you dislike the campaigners is just a way to ease your conscience because you've realised you haven't given the matter much thought and aren't willing to, but don't like admitting that to yourself. So it's the campaigners. Yeah, they're nasty people, they're not being nice to the other side. So I refuse on principle to vote the same way that they do.

Both sides will engage in unsavoury tactics. The anti-choice side have lied and harrassed and assaulted people for years on this matter, yet the same "I don't like the pro-choice campaign" people don't seem to have any problem being on the same side as people who bomb abortion clinics in the US, mount pickets outside family planning clinics and shout slurs and make death threats against pro-choice campaigners.

If you claim to be voting no because you don't like the pro-choice campaign, then you just look like a fool.

osarusan · 09-03-2017 02:07PM

bubblypop wrote: »

It may change the legislation in time

This, I think, is what many people are concerned about - at least, those who know that repealing the 8th amendment doesn't make abortion on demand legal straight away.

They are concerned that even though the current legislation is quite restrictive, it would gradually become less and less so, and they worry about where it would end up.

And I'd say that to some extent, those concerns are legitimate. If the 8th was repealed, I'd imagine that the current legislation would be left alone for a while (with possible exceptions for FFA, say) but that it would, in time, become less restrictive.

The question is...where would it end up? We can see even on this thread that people are utterly against the idea of late-term abortion on demand - but how legitimate is that concern? I'd imagine that most pro-choice people are not in favour of late-term abortions either.

I actually think that if something could be hammered out - a guarantee that abortion on demand, if legalised, would never be allowed beyond 14/16 weeks (certain medical/emergency cases excepted), and not without counselling - we would find that a lot of people's concerns would be addressed.

But I don't know a) who is going to hammer out the details, as neither side seems to show any interest in doing so, and b) how those details could be guaranteed.

Wibbs · 09-03-2017 02:11PM

seamus wrote: »

"I'm not going to agree to a raise because I don't like the way they explained it to me". Very rational line of reasoning there.

That's an equally stupid line of reasoning and completely daft metaphor with it and could well be applied to both sides of this debate.

Whether it meets with your approval or not the fact remains a large proportion of people will get their information and ultimately how they will choose to vote through the campaigns from both sides. If one side's campaign goes full retard(like the no to SSM's side did too often), it is understandable that people might be put off and vote accordingly. As for entrenched positions, you must be having a laugh if you think that that is only the province of the No side in this. The Yes side can be just as rabid and entrenched. So far they're arguably more so.

And who do you think you are oh mighty one to claim some sort of supercilious high moral ground on the "correct way" to vote just because you are in favour of one side? People in glass houses Ted.

jaja321 · 09-03-2017 02:12PM

I went myself in the evening after work and was amazed at the turnout. Those protesting in large part are normal everyday people, who just want to have their voices heard and to have a chance to vote on this (given that’s the only way to change our constitution). I imagine that tactics will change once a referendum is called (if that is to happen); at the moment people are demanding for that to happen, so protest is valid.

I would recommend people have a look at the presentations and questions and answers sessions at the Citizen’s Assembly on YouTube, as a lot of people’s questions and concerns on here, have also been raised there. While I don’t necessarily agree with having an Assembly as the mechanism for recommendations to Government (unless we are going to use this more and more as a direct form of democracy for a wider range of issues), it’s been really interesting to watch, as the format doesn’t allow for the normal mudslinging that happens during this debate. It has been conducted very civilly, with space for questions and answers/clarifications, and that type of format has better allowed for constructive conversation and understanding of a variety of issues within the debate itself.

farmchoice · 09-03-2017 02:17PM

i haven't read all of this thread so perhaps my points have already been made but anyway.

i'm pro choice and very much in favor of repealing the 8th nd introducing more liberal abortion laws. however at 41 i'm old enough to remember all the previous referendums and cases and debates and i know how emotive an issue it is and how nasty the whole thing can get.

i get the impression that a lot of the present campaigners are young and weren't around for the previous campaigns so dont quite get how divisive this is going to become.
if they were perhaps they would temper their language and their actions and play a more clever game.
also because I'm of a certain age i understand the arguments of the no side very well and i understand how fundamentally they hold their beliefs and i understand that they are not bad people for it, they truly believe that abortion is a terrible thing and they will do anything to stop it.

they dont believe this because they are backwards or ignorant or loony Catholics and branding them like that wont help.

what will decide the outcome of this referendum when it happens is the middle ground, cultural Catholics who are pragmatic in their outlook, nearly all of whom, male and female are in principle opposed to abortion but who know that life isn't that simple, these are the people who could very easily be turned off by a campaign that fails to understand how complex an issue this is for them.

mahamageehad · 09-03-2017 02:20PM

It's a fair worry Osarusun but a little misguided. Neither side is working out the details, because neither side can affect change in that area.

Let's just say the 8th is gone tomorrow. Poof! Vanished! Now a fringe extremist tries to run for election with the campaign promise of unlimited abortions. Even if he somehow manages to get elected, it'd be a month of Sunday's before he ever manages to get anything passed. It just wouldn't happen. I honestly don't see late term abortions on demand ever being available here. Anyways, worst case scenario, this guy manages to somehow get that passed. Immediately next election he's out on his arśe and that's repealed. The scenario is an absolute stretch but it appears to be what people are most afraid of. (Dunno why it's a he above, I just imagine most tinfoil hat wearers as male!!)

Take the other side. What if we as a country enshrine 14 weeks (or whatever) into the constitution as a guarantee. That's all great now, but what if medical technology advances to the stage where a 14 week embryo is now viable. Another referendum? What about the right to life of fertilized (but not implanted) eggs? They're not covered, yet many people would feel they deserve special treatment. What about babies bred to be organ donors for siblings? So many possibilities. Can we really trust a one time public vote where a good chunk are misinformed to make the right call now for the future? Because, by amending and enshrining something like that into the constitution, that's what we're doing.

seamus · 09-03-2017 02:23PM

Wibbs wrote: »

As for entrenched positions, you must be having a laugh if you think that that is only the province of the No side in this. The Yes side can be just as rabid and entrenched. So far they're arguably more so.

No, I didn't say it was only the province of the "no" side. But I haven't heard of a single person who has said, "I'm voting yes because I don't like all those pro-life people, they're too nasty".

The "Yes" side by necessity are challenged to explain and justify their position far more often than the "No" side are. In the same way that most atheists have a far deeper understanding of religion than religious people do because they come under frequent interrogation about it, most pro-choice people have given the topic far more thought and discussion than pro-life people and are more open to challenge on it.

And who do you think you are oh mighty one to claim some sort of supercilious high moral ground on the "correct way" to vote just because you are in favour of one side? People in glass houses Ted.

I see I've triggered you. The correct way to vote is based on the facts of what's being voted for. To do otherwise is a waste of a vote and pure foolishness. I'd be just as irritated that someone voted "yes" because they hate Enda Kenny or some equally spurious reasoning.

MightyMandarin · 09-03-2017 02:25PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Unfortunately, while your sentence is likely well meaning........ it is not really workable or credible.

Why?

Well simply this: How would you establish rape? Let us consider some possibilities.

1) Based on a rape conviction? Unfortunately these often take so long to obtain that the child will be MUCH further along in the development process, if not actually already long born, than we would like. And what of women who WERE raped but the courts find the accused innocent. Or what if the woman was raped but in such a way as the attacker is not identifiable (passed out drunk women at parties come to mind).

2) Based on the woman filing for abortion AND a rape conviction at the same time? Would this not stimulate false rape claims?

3) Take the woman's word for it that she was raped? How would this be functionally different from abortion-on-demand? All a woman would have to do is tick the appropriate box on the application form under "Were you raped yes-no" whether she was or not.

Like I said before, this debate is not about technicalities, logistics or otherwise; it is purely on the 8th Amendment which doesn't make any reference to exceptions or implementing them in the real world. If a bill is brought forth allowing for the inclusion of rape as an exception, similar to what the 2013 Bill does, then actual discussion should be had.

It might not be the answer you're looking for, but it's not my job to provide every little detail as to how it might be implemented; I just think it should. However, I also said that it would -hopefully- involve similar procedures to the circumstances mentioned in the 2013 Bill, which may involve the Gardai, specialists and the woman's GP.

I not only think that is not the "real question" but is entirely the wrong question.

The right/real question for me is to ask when an entity of ANY kind has rights at all in the first place. What are the pre-requisite attributes an entity must have in order for us to afford it moral or ethical concern.

When you identify a short list of those pre-requisites you find there are periods in the fetal development when it lacks everything on the list. You then realize there is no coherent basis for affording that fetus any moral or ethical concern, or rights, at all.

It's not the wrong question at all. We already protect the right to life for people already born, and the people of this country decided in 1983 to extend that to person's not yet born, simple as.

You might not think a fetus is deserving of protection at any stage, or past a certain stage in its development, but I happen to think that when there is no evidence to show that an unborn person would not otherwise survive, then their right to life should not be denied. My reasoning for this is that it would be grossly immoral to not allow that protection imo.

I'm not going to discuss what weeks or trimesters should be covered because, again, this debate is not on that matter; it is a simple question of 'do we extend the rights to the unborn, which are already afforded to persons already born?'.

Which is why you have to do it yourself and not have someone like me do it for you. DO the work I just mentioned above. IDENTIFY coherently and intellectually what it is rights are, why we apply them, and to what. Then ask yourself if the results of that endeavor has given you anything that you can honestly say the fetus in or before week 12 actually has.

Spoiler: I did it. The answer is no. It doesn't.
[...]
I trust/hope you find the tone of ALL my posts above to be much more in line with the standards you would envision.

...yeah, you post with same condescending manner that other poster did, and while I'm not offended by it, it shows yet again that there are many people on the 'repeal side' who try to talk down to those on the opposing side of the debate.

I can assure you, I've not made my decision lightly, in fact it might even change before this referendum (hopefully) takes place. But from what I've read and discussed, I just cannot believe that a fetus has a qualitative value less than that of a person already born. You clearly disagree with me on that, but that's just your opinion.

On a matter such as this, there is no right or wrong answer, so I'd appreciate if you didn't go around telling people they were wrong for believing that.

nozzferrahhtoo · 09-03-2017 02:26PM

Here we go wrote: »

Nozzferahhtoo sorry if I picked it up wrong but are you describing an unborn child to cattle and abortion is better for a child then adoption

Not really either of those things no. But I do generally find that when you summarize 100s of words into just 10......... a lot of meaning, nuance, and depth can be very quickly lost.

Wibbs wrote: »

it is understandable that people might be put off and vote accordingly.

Understandable yes, but also tragic. I would prefer to LOSE a campaign because the opposing side thought out the issue and voted against me than WIN a campaign because my side voted on identity and decorum politics :-(

But, I suspect, that might just be me.

farmchoice wrote: »

i haven't read all of this thread

I just did, from start to finish, and it took about an hour (though I was writing replies AS I read) and it was not pleasant over all. I do not recommend it.

You are right it was unpleasant in the past. I expect it to be MUCH more so now. Mostly, but not solely, because ALL political debates seem to be much more unpleasant and personal and invective driven now. From the Marriage Equality referendum in Ireland, to the refugees here in Germany, to the Presidential race we just had in the US.

Public Discourse as an artform in recent times has taken a horrible turn in general and given discourse is the only thing in this world I could be said to "worship".......... I can but call it a tragedy.

farmchoice wrote: »

they dont believe this because they are backwards or ignorant or loony Catholics and branding them like that wont help.

I would agree with almost all of that except one...... the ignorance. I find quite often that many arguments made by the anti-choice campaigners can very often contain ignorance about a lot of things. Not least the developmental process of the fetus and what forms when in the process.

seamus · 09-03-2017 02:33PM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

it is a simple question of 'do we extend the rights to the unborn, which are already afforded to persons already born?'.

That's the point though; it's not a simple question.

When you start to scratch at that surface you have to start asking the questions which follow

- Why do we afford rights to born people?
- Why then should they be extended to the unborn?
- At what point of the cycle do the qualify?
- If they qualify at that point, why not earlier?
- Do other beings qualify at the same point, should they be afforded the same rights?

And so forth. Getting into weeks and trimesters is not a technicality or an attempt to confuse. It's dealing with the reality that at one point you have some cells, and ~42 weeks later you have a person. At some stage between those two points, something changes and a "person" with rights appears.

In order to afford rights, you have to identify that point. Because affording rights to some cells is too early, and only affording rights outside the womb is too late.

LuckyLloyd · 09-03-2017 02:35PM

Well, for me the entire matter should not be handled via the constitution (and certainly not as currently worded at a bare minimum) and I'm happy for the Government of the day to legislate the matter. As such, my mind on a vote to repeal the 8th amendment is made up and massively unlikely to change.

That said, I the point that is being made by the 'well I'm pro - choice but the Repeal campaigners put me off' is at core a robust one - even if that would be a nonsense reason upon which to vote. One of the choice signs I saw on social media from yesterday was 'I'm sick of chaps policing my flaps'. While I did chuckle, I thought at the same time that it was symptomatic of a campaign that has been hijacked by people with a broader and more fundamental agenda.

The issue of abortion is an incredibly complex and nuanced subject in of itself that affects both genders, though arguably to differing degrees. Our current constitutional and legislative directives on the manner cannot be waived away as a tool of male oppression. They have always held a cross sectional base of public support. It seems to me that the Repeal campaign is being driven by a section of feminism that view Ireland in an unequal light, and somehow believe that this issue is part of that fight.

People might go to the polls and repeal the 8th Amendment if they can be assured that the underlying 2013 Act will be the starting point and they'll have a say about how that legislation gets gradually expanded at the ballot box. They won't go to the polls and repeal the 8th Amendment if it becomes a referendum on unfettered female bodily autonomy at the expense of the embryo / feotus / baby in all scenarios wrapped up in a referendum on Ireland's history with the church and a question of how patriarchal our society is.

This campaign needs a refocus and it needs to be wrested away from its current owners before a referendum campaign starts in earnest. It needs a greater age / gender / professional / geographical diversity and a more focussed message. Because the other side are practiced and ready. They will not lack for funds or articulate people with media experience and savvy to argue their case. You can say its unfair to use pictures of 24 week abortions, or raise the spectre of late term abortions - but the way to beat such arguments is to focus on underpinning legislation that already prevents same and the fact that the legislative process will take into account all concerns after a repeal. If you actually try to argue 'well what's the difference between an 8 week or a 23 week abortion really - it's the same thing?' you're going to lose. And lose so conclusively that it will be another decade before the issue even pops up on the radar of a sitting government.

One eyed Jack · 09-03-2017 02:39PM

bubblypop wrote: »

Medical card holders are more often then not, lower income families.
Many of whom are unemployed.
Do you suggest that those women are less deserving of an abortion than more well off women?
Basically you would be left with the people less able financially to look after children, having the child and the more affluent women able to terminate their pregnancies.
I don't see how that could work

I don't think anyone is actually suggesting that anyone is "less deserving" of an abortion than anyone else. I can only speak for myself but I would be against the idea of abortion being provided for by the State. The State already provides many services and supports for low income families, and I wouldn't have any issue with the State providing even more supports for low income families, not just financial support but also social support so that their children wouldn't end up in second and third generation poverty. By providing for abortion at no cost, the State would be failing in it's duties as far as I could see towards the welfare of all of it's citizens. It would mean that the State would be able to avoid having to address the underlying issues that cause poverty in Irish society, and it wouldn't do anything to address social inequality.

If people are less well able to look after children, then they should be provided with support, and that doesn't always mean financial aid. I think you'll find too that lower income and less educated families in society are even more against the idea of even contemplating abortion, than more well off women, so I personally wouldn't be using them to make an argument in any discussion about legislating for abortion.

LuckyLloyd · 09-03-2017 02:42PM

farmchoice wrote: »

i haven't read all of this thread so perhaps my points have already been made but anyway.

i'm pro choice and very much in favor of repealing the 8th nd introducing more liberal abortion laws. however at 41 i'm old enough to remember all the previous referendums and cases and debates and i know how emotive an issue it is and how nasty the whole thing can get.

i get the impression that a lot of the present campaigners are young and weren't around for the previous campaigns so dont quite get how divisive this is going to become.
if they were perhaps they would temper their language and their actions and play a more clever game.
also because I'm of a certain age i understand the arguments of the no side very well and i understand how fundamentally they hold their beliefs and i understand that they are not bad people for it, they truly believe that abortion is a terrible thing and they will do anything to stop it.

they dont believe this because they are backwards or ignorant or loony Catholics and branding them like that wont help.

what will decide the outcome of this referendum when it happens is the middle ground, cultural Catholics who are pragmatic in their outlook, nearly all of whom, male and female are in principle opposed to abortion but who know that life isn't that simple, these are the people who could very easily be turned off by a campaign that fails to understand how complex an issue this is for them.

Fair play - a concise summation of the issue with the Repeal campaign. The bolded is particularly perceptive.

MightyMandarin · 09-03-2017 02:45PM

seamus wrote: »

That's the point though; it's not a simple question.

When you start to scratch at that surface you have to start asking the questions which follow

- Why do we afford rights to born people?
- Why then should they be extended to the unborn?
- At what point of the cycle do the qualify?
- If they qualify at that point, why not earlier?
- Do other beings qualify at the same point, should they be afforded the same rights?

And so forth. Getting into weeks and trimesters is not a technicality or an attempt to confuse. It's dealing with the reality that at one point you have some cells, and ~42 weeks later you have a person. At some stage between those two points, something changes and a "person" with rights appears.

In order to afford rights, you have to identify that point. Because affording rights to some cells is too early, and only affording rights outside the womb is too late.

It's not a simple question to answer- I probably phrased it badly- but it's the question at the heart of the debate.

The reason we afford rights to people is because we, as a people, believe that people have an automatic right to certain things irrespective of everything we differentiate ourselves with. Put simply, I see no reason why a fetus, who would otherwise survive, should not be afforded the same right to life we already enjoy.

When that exactly happens, I have absolutely no idea. I don't know much at all about fetal development or anatomy, but I look at it purely from an ethical, moral and legal perspective, purely because it's the constitution we're dealing with, and imo, those are the best areas from which to answer these questions. It's probably because I'm a law student, but even though I'm guilty of not giving full value to scientific arguments, I simply can't ignore the serious ethical and moral concerns I have.

nozzferrahhtoo · 09-03-2017 02:46PM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

It might not be the answer you're looking for, but it's not my job to provide every little detail as to how it might be implemented; I just think it should.

I do not think, if we are going to be fair to me here, that I did ask for anything even remotely like "every little detail". But someone who thinks something SHOULD happen should at least be able to adumbrate the basics so people like myself can know what they are talking about, or at the very least know that YOU know what you are talking about.

And I fear your response does the opposite. Because you are saying something "should" be implemented that (to me, so far at least) shows ALL the hallmarks of being entirely unworkable and unrealistic. I simply can not see any way it could work AT ALL. Not "oh what are the specifics?" but how it could even REMOTELY work.

You mentioned the Gardai and GPs for example. By the time a woman discovers she is pregnant... would there even be any evidence for them left to work with to establish even the suspicion of rape? Even 5 minutes after a rape there is not always evidence that would make us suspect one occurred. Let alone 1 month later.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

It's not the wrong question at all. We already protect the right to life for people already born, and the people of this country decided in 1983 to extend that to person's not yet born, simple as.

Simplistic, not simple. I do not think the realities of what we did or implemented in the past negate us asking the right, and avoiding the wrong, questions in the here and now.

If there is no coherent basis to afford the entity moral and ethical concern, or rights, then any other question based on ASSUMING it should have them........ is the wrong question to ask.

Our world is REPLETE with examples of us not letting life survive that otherwise would if left alone. From bacteria and viruses all the way up to our meat industry.

So why the fetus, at the stages when it lacks any form of consciousness, sentience or subjective experience at all in ways that many living animals do not........... should somehow magically be treated differently and as an exception to everything else........ is entirely opaque to me.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I'm not going to discuss what weeks or trimesters should be covered because, again, this debate is not on that matter; it is a simple question of 'do we extend the rights to the unborn, which are already afforded to persons already born?'.

Then you are stacking the deck in the discussion because the majority of pro-choice people DO extend that right to the unborn....... but only to particular stages of development and not others.

If you contrive to SOLELY frame it in terms of "Do we extend these things to before birth" then you are simply going to get a "yes" from the majority of both sides and not have actually discussed, let alone answered, anything the entire abortion debate is actually about.

That would be about as useful as discussing the off side rule by saying "I refuse to discuss the positions of the players and only talk about whether the game itself should have a ball in it or not". It is not going to get you anywhere.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

yeah, you post with same condescending manner that other poster did

Nope. But one of the joys (horrors) of the internet is that when reading peoples posts you do not hear their tone. Which leaves the reader free to invent, and apply, one of their own choosing regardless of how inaccurate it is.

But what certainly is "condescending"........

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I just cannot believe that a fetus has a qualitative value less than that of a baby already born. You clearly disagree with me on that, but that's just your opinion.

........... is to take someones long thought out and described position on a matter and summarize it as being mere "opinion". But often people are hyper sensitive to detecting things they do themselves. The person prone to infidelity is more prone to jealously and finding patterns in their partner suggesting infidelity on their part. So perhaps being prone to condescension similarly makes you find it in others where it does not exist.

I hold my position not solely because of mere opinion, because I have AT LENGTH explored how humans mediate moral and ethical concern. What are the attributes actually in play GENERALLY when we apply it, or mediate our level of it?

And the results of that are a list of things that by fact, not opinion but fact, the fetus generally lacks. Especially in time frames most abortions happen during like 12 weeks.

Reality is not opinion, even if what we do with it later might be, and there very much are right and wrong answers in this domain regardless of what you would appreciate me doing, or not doing, in my own discourse.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

The reason we afford rights to people is because we, as a people, believe that people have an automatic right to certain things irrespective of everything we differentiate ourselves with.

Yet we believe PEOPLE have that right. So the real question goes back to where I already suggested it should be. What EXACTLY do we mean by "personhood" and on what basis would be apply it to a 12 week old fetus. It is my point exactly, only phrased a different way.

Strike For Repeal?

Comments